957 N.W.2d 208
Wis.2021Background
- In 2019 the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) received an ERIC "movers" report identifying registrants who may have moved; WEC vetted the data and mailed ~230,000 notices asking recipients to confirm their addresses.
- Petitioners (Zignego et al.) sued, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling WEC to change registration status of nonresponsive electors under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3); the circuit court granted the writ and later found WEC and several commissioners in contempt when WEC did not comply.
- The court of appeals stayed and then reversed the circuit court's mandamus and contempt orders.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether § 6.50(3) imposes a positive, plain duty on WEC (or whether that duty rests with municipal clerks/boards of election commissioners).
- The majority held § 6.50(3) assigns the mover-related duties to municipal clerks or local boards of election commissioners, not to WEC, and reversed the mandamus and contempt orders; a dissent argued WEC nonetheless has a statewide maintenance/administering duty (and HAVA obligations) creating a positive duty to act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WEC is a "board of election commissioners" under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) and thus must change registration status of movers | Zignego: § 6.50(3) duties apply to WEC (it can act as a board) | WEC: § 6.50(3) refers to local municipal clerks or local boards, not the statewide Commission | Held: § 6.50(3) unambiguously addresses municipal clerks/local boards; "board of election commissioners" does not include WEC. |
| Whether a writ of mandamus could compel WEC to perform the § 6.50(3) tasks | Zignego: WEC has a statutory duty and mandamus is appropriate to compel performance | WEC: No positive and plain duty under § 6.50(3); mandamus improper | Held: Mandamus was erroneously granted because § 6.50(3) does not impose a positive, plain duty on WEC. |
| Validity of contempt sanctions for failing to obey the mandamus order | Zignego: Contempt sanctions were proper to compel compliance | WEC: Contempt improper because it was appealing and sought stays | Held: Contempt order reversed because remedial sanctions were based on an unlawful writ; court reaffirms duty to obey orders absent a stay. |
| Whether WEC has an independent, statewide duty (via §§ 5.05(15), 6.36, ERIC agreement, or HAVA) to maintain and deactivate ineligible registrants | Zignego/dissent: WEC's statutory maintenance/administration duties plus HAVA/ERIC obligations create a positive, plain duty to ensure list accuracy and inactivate movers | WEC/majority: Those duties do not convert § 6.50(3) local obligations into a positive, plain duty on WEC; ERIC/HAVA obligations to contact do not equate to § 6.50(3) deactivation duty | Held: Majority did not find an independent positive and plain duty under § 6.50(3) on WEC; it declined to resolve broader questions about other statutory provisions and HAVA obligations (dissent would have found such duties). |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake Bluff Hous. Partners v. City of South Milwaukee, 197 Wis. 2d 157, 540 N.W.2d 189 (1995) (describing mandamus standard and requirement of a positive, plain duty)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory-interpretation principles; text and whole-context canons)
- Tensfeldt v. Haberman, 319 Wis. 2d 329, 768 N.W.2d 641 (2009) (party must comply with court order pending appeal absent a stay)
- Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., 324 Wis. 2d 703, 783 N.W.2d 294 (2010) (contempt and definitions of disobedience)
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018) (context on federal election law and list-maintenance concerns)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (articulation of States' interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process)