941 N.W.2d 284
Wis. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: three Wisconsin taxpayers and registered voters sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) alleging it failed to deactivate voter registrations pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) after ERIC‑generated "mover" notices.
- ERIC provided mover lists in 2017 and 2019; WEC mailed notices to flagged electors. After the 2017 mailing many registrations were deactivated and some later reactivated when errors surfaced; WEC modified its 2019 mailing and did not state nonresponse would cause deactivation.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory/injunctive relief or mandamus to force WEC to comply with § 6.50(3); circuit court granted mandamus and later found WEC and three commissioners in contempt for noncompliance.
- WEC appealed and this court stayed the mandamus and contempt orders pending appeal; the central legal question became whether § 6.50(3) imposes duties on the state WEC or instead on municipal clerks/municipal boards of election commissioners.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the mandamus and contempt orders, holding § 6.50(3) does not refer to or impose a "positive and plain" duty on the WEC and that determinations of "reliable information" are discretionary and not proper subjects for mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) imposes a duty on the Wisconsin Elections Commission to change voter registrations to ineligible based on ERIC mover data | § 6.50(3) should be read to require WEC to deactivate non‑responding electors; WEC performed similar deactivations in 2017 | § 6.50(3) refers to the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners, not the state "commission"; WEC is a distinct independent agency defined elsewhere in the statutes | Reversed: § 6.50(3) does not refer to or impose duties on WEC; statute’s plain language, definitions and statutory structure distinguish WEC from municipal boards |
| Standing to bring suit | Plaintiffs asserted taxpayer injury and administrative complaint but did not develop standing arguments on appeal | WEC argued plaintiffs lacked injury‑in‑fact and failed to exhaust administrative remedies under § 5.06 | Court assumed standing without deciding the issue because it reversed on statutory interpretation grounds |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel action on ERIC data (including whether information is "reliable") | Plaintiffs argued mandamus was proper because statute required deactivation after 30 days of nonresponse | WEC argued the term "reliable information" requires discretionary, case‑by‑case judgments and thus is unsuitable for mandamus; also § 6.50(3) does not speak to WEC | Court held mandamus inappropriate: no positive, plain duty on WEC; even if § 6.50(3) applied, "reliable" is discretionary and not subject to mandamus |
| Validity of contempt order and short‑period monetary sanctions (Jan 13–14, 2020) | Plaintiffs sought to preserve contempt sanctions for the period prior to the appellate stay | WEC argued stay motions were pending and that full compliance with the writ, as framed, was not practicable (and parts of the writ were overbroad) | Court vacated contempt order as moot given reversal of mandamus and rejected Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for the brief period before the appellate stay |
Key Cases Cited
- McConkey v. Van Hollen, 326 Wis. 2d 1, 783 N.W.2d 855 (2010) (standing in Wisconsin is construed liberally)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Ct. for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory interpretation starts with plain text and context)
- Lake Bluff Housing Partners v. City of S. Milwaukee, 197 Wis. 2d 157, 540 N.W.2d 189 (1995) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy to compel clear, present duties)
- Law Enforcement Standards Bd. v. Village of Lyndon Station, 101 Wis. 2d 472, 305 N.W.2d 89 (1981) (mandamus improper where duty requires discretion)
- Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 252 Wis. 2d 1, 643 N.W.2d 72 (2002) (appellate review of statutory interpretation is independent)
- Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes and Doves v. DNR, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612 (2004) (agency powers are limited to those conferred by statute)