members to sign the Jean petition for a second vote, and (3) violating the Union’s bylaws in the manner discussed above in Part II.A. In support of their contention, plaintiffs rely on Farkas v. Rumore, 881 F.Supp. 884 (S.D.N.Y.1995), and Members for a Better Union v. Bevona, 972 F.Supp. 240 (S.D.N.Y.1997). In both Farkas and Bevona, Southern District courts held that once a union has provided its members with the right to vote, the union must extend that right in a “meaningful” manner. See Farkas, 881 F.Supp. at 888-89 (finding summary judgment inappropriate where plaintiffs alleged that union officials violated Section 101(a)(1) by, inter alia, holding a vote two days after a tentative agreement was reached and lying about terms of the agreement); Bevona, 972 F.Supp. at 244-45 (<HOLDING>). These cases, however, which the district
holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under  101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding it is not the policy of the state of south dakota to disenfranchise its citizens of their constitutional right to vote holding that an infringement on the right to vote necessarily causes irreparable harm holding that a law that merely affects voting without actually denying the right to vote or depriving voters of equal representation is usually not subject to strict scrutiny