Yes, today's meeting was noticed in accordance with Wisconsin's open meeting loss.
Right.
We have four 5.06 complaints for commission review.
A circuit court has required that we meet as a commission to decide these. This is new and has not happened in the past.
Eight years of the commission, but this is what we're now ordered to do. So we are doing it.
The first one is Robert versus Rasmussen, and the materials are available on our website, elections.wi.gov.
There is a proposed decision letter, which is found at page seven.
There is also a recommended motion on page four at the top with regards to this complaint.
Does any commissioner wish to make that recommended motion.
So moved.
Mr. Miller's moves to Sarah second.
Mr. Thompson seconds. Is there discussion on this recommended decision?
This is only the one on appendix one, right? Correct. This is page seven.
Appendix one with regards only to Rasmussen versus city of Oak Creek.
So there's a discussion on this one.
Hearing none, I'll call the roll. Commissioner.
Hi, sorry.
That's okay. Commissioner Millis.
Commissioner Reebel.
Hi.
Commissioner Spindell.
Commissioner Thompson.
Hi.
Chair votes aye that recommended decision is adopted.
Next one is Kenneth Brown versus Tara McMahon.
This is found at page 15 of your materials.
There is a proposed decision letter at page 15.
And a recommended motion at page four of our materials about halfway down the page.
Does any commissioner wish to make that recommended motion.
Commissioner Thompson moves. Is there a second? Commissioner Reebel seconds.
Is there discussion on Brown versus Mcmenaman.
Hearing none, I will call the roll. Commissioner Millis.
Hi.
Commissioner Reebel.
Hi.
Mr. Spindell.
Hi.
Commissioner Thompson.
Hi.
Mr. Bostiment.
Hi.
Chair votes aye.
That decision letter is adopted six nothing.
Next on our agenda is Peters versus Gurgen.
Those materials are found at page 31.
There is a proposed decision letter at page 31 as well.
And a recommended.
Motion at.
Page five of our materials.
Does any commissioner wish to make the recommended motion on page at the top of page five of our materials with regards to Peters versus Gurgen.
Commissioner Thompson moves. Is there a second?
Commissioner Reebel seconds. Is there discussion?
Yes.
If I may be heard on motion.
If this had gone through the normal process.
I would have certainly asked the chair to hold a hearing on this.
Because I disagree in the strongest possible terms with the decision letter.
What I guess I disagree in two respects.
First of all, I don't, I do not see how one can read.
6.
874.
To allow a ballot to be returned to any place.
Other than the clerk's office, unless the clerk were to designate a different place.
We know it. We know it priorities USA said.
So we know that the clerk may designate additional places to return the absentee ballot.
And the, the, I think I'm a little concerned about a clerk that would.
Put a cut off point.
An arbitrary perhaps an arbitrary cut off point for returning a ballot to the clerk.
But the onus is on the elector. If I look, if I read sub six.
It says the ballot shall be returned. So it is delivered to the polling place.
And the clerk's office is, let's say four miles away from my polling place.
And I deliver that at 759 to the clerk's office.
That's unreasonable. That is.
And I do think that if a ballot is returned to the clerk's office.
The clerk should make whatever efforts he or she can to get it to the polling place.
But that's the statute says nothing in prior as USA changes that.
And we know that we look at that statute.
The last sentence is any ballot not mailed to deliver.
As provided in the sub section may not be counted.
And so I, I don't see how you can read that to say.
That any, any elector can return an absentee ballot on the day of the election.
But if you look at that,
it says that the clerk can,
it says that the clerk can,
it says that the clerk may not be counted.
And so I,
I don't see how you can read that to say.
That any,
any elector can return an absentee ballot on the day of the election.
To his or her polling place.
Unless that polling place is designated by the clerk.
As a place to receive absentee ballots.
Now that's what priorities USA says prior to USA says.
And if I look at.
And paragraph here.
It says that the clerk can designate any place.
I'm looking at paragraph 26.
Only that the ballot be delivered to a location in the municipal clerk within his or her discretion does mix.
That doesn't mean that.
Every polling place is allowed. We don't know.
I don't believe in these cases that clerk in the record, unless I'm reading these incorrectly.
Actually designated a polling place as a place to return an absentee ballot.
The second problem I have with this decision letter.
Is that doesn't clarify who is allowed to return the ballot.
Other than the voter.
We know that the voting rights acts allows.
In the case of certain disabled voters using trying to use the terms of the.
The federal statute, certain people to return it.
And we know that in certain limited circumstances,
if someone's hospitalized, they may go through the process of having someone authorized to return it.
But those are pretty limited exceptions. And so if we're going to issue this decision letter.
Indicating that the collector or the.
The unauthorized person.
Can return the ballot to.
Whatever place the clerk designates.
I think that we have to specify which statutes.
The federal statute, state statute, which authorize.
Someone other than the electric. So I'm going to vote against the motion. I would prefer.
That we direct the staff to revise the letter.
And come back with something that's good.
More in line with my thinking, I realized I'm only one of six, but that's the way I would vote on this motion. Thank you.
Can you, can you clarify for me.
I have a few questions on that. First of all.
Are you troubled by the fact that this would mean a disabled voter has to turn in their ballot.
Or cause their ballot absentee ballot to be turned in sooner.
Then a voter who is able to physically go to the polls, because I can walk into my polling site. If I walk.
At 759 p.m.
But if I am a disabled voter and unable to do so for reasons of my disability.
I'm treated differently.
Well, the, you're only treated differently. Well, let's put it this way.
I guess I don't understand how you're treated differently.
Do you have, if you're disabled.
Consist in the under the terms of the federal law.
You can have someone delivered to the clerks office, right.
But you're saying that I guess I don't understand how.
I guess someone who's disabled is being treated differently in that circumstance.
Because I have to turn it in earlier than everyone else.
And everyone else can walk into their polling site at 759 and vote.
Or turn it into a central count location at 759 and have a count.
But only clerks who have decided to.
Demand that vote that ballots be turned in at some earlier time so they can run them to the polling sites.
Those folks are treated differently. And that concerns me.
Well, I mean, the law says what it says, the federal law provides certain protections for disabled voters.
There are, I mean, I guess I can't have perfect equity in every situation.
So I'm not as troubled by that as perhaps maybe you are.
I'm just following the statute.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Spindell.
I agree, basically with.
Don, you know, I think.
A very important part of this.
Is the part on elect ballots from people that are hospitalized being returned to the polling place.
By putting all these requirements in and it's not an easy process to go.
Taking the person from taking the ballot from somebody that's hospitalized to the polls.
And the legislative intent here is clearly not to allow absentee ballots to be returned to the polls under any other circumstances.
And I think the language is very clear here. Also, I think it ignores.
As John said, the subsection B one, which required delivery by mail.
Or to clerks offices.
And we get back to the same problem that we had a prior to some court decision and attention.
One, which allowed ballot harvesting.
Because there was possibly a comma that was missing.
And interpretations were that the voter must return either mail or.
Return the ballot to the clerk.
And in this situation.
The decision the tension decision did not allow.
This absentee or this.
In person type situation.
Or this ballot harvesting type situation.
And so I think that's another aspect of it. Another thing we have to remember is the absentee ballot is a process that the clerks have to go through.
And when the absentee ballot is received.
It's, it's processed.
And there, it's documented that it was received into, I believe, Wisconsin votes and so forth.
And that's a situation that does not take place as somebody just plain drops it off.
But also somebody just drops it off. There's no procedure there. Who's going to.
Who that person is that's dropping it off.
You know, and some of this is very unclear.
In terms of some things, but I think one thing it's not unclear of is that there's only two ways that you can do that. One is you mail.
Or two, you take it to the clerk's office.
And you raise a point. Well, if I'm a disabled person and I'm going to the.
To the polling place.
And, you know, I'm in a voting person because, you know, basically.
Once you step foot in a polling place, you're no longer an absentee voter.
And so I don't see how taking an absentee ballot to a polling place can.
Can make a difference like that. But don't forget that if you're there by 759.
It doesn't matter how long a line it is or how long it takes you to vote.
You're still there in time.
And so I think it's, it's very clear in this whole thing.
That the legislative and talent this and even what it says in the statutes does not allow anybody to walk in with their absentee ballot.
To do that, much less.
You know, if there's somebody that has accessible problems, you know, it doesn't allow that for somebody.
Some ballot assistant who was not disabled. So I agree with them.
But Don, that's very clear, in my opinion, in the statutes that the absentee ballots in this situation must not be returned to the point.
I want to point out, we approved this exact language on our uniform instructions.
We approve this exact language in our uniform instructions over a year ago.
And the idea that we are now taking once again a position.
That contradicts what we literally said and required all the clerks to comply with. We made it mandatory.
And we told them we told the voters were getting their ballots right now.
That they have to return it to their polling places.
I'm absolutely floored that what we're saying is that instead of reading these two clauses in harmony, which allows a ballot to be delivered to a polling place.
That we're reading one to the complete exclusion of the other, and intentionally choosing to disenfranchise voters and contradicting what we previously said.
So we need to be able to get their ballots in people with absentee ballots need to be able to get it in, and they shouldn't have to get it in at seven, instead of at 759 like everybody else who gets to vote.
And Bob, you're wrong absentee ballots that are turned into polling places are checked into the system. That's how it works. They're marked on the pull books the same way we mark as if voters come in to vote.
So that's just wrong. But I'm sort of floored that coincidentally in the political year, where there's attacks on absentee voting suddenly we're changing our minds on the rules.
I'm just flabbergasted by that we made those instructions mandatory.
And it tells every absentee voter in this state that they can take their absentee ballot to the poll site.
I remember that.
Look at commissioner people.
And it says the ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than eight p.m. It doesn't say who has to deliver it to the polling place, because the voter is delivering it to the polling place.
And it's written in the passive tense the ballot is what is being returned.
It is the ballot that has arrived.
That's that's part of the people.
I think you're right, which I think you're highlighting what staff had interpreted as that clause and attorney sharp can correct me if I'm wrong, but they interpreted that as the ballot is what has to get to the polling site.
Yes, that was my read of the statute as well. And looking at that statute.
6.7 subsection six that person does say ballot shall be returned so it is delivered to the polling place no later than eight p.m. Election Day.
And the very next sentence that except in municipalities of central couch.
If the clerk receives an absentee ballot on Election Day, the clerk self secure it and then cause it to be delivered to the polling place, serving the elected residents the 48 p.m. So my read of that statute was if that first sentence was intended to only apply to the municipal clerk.
The second sentence is also driven the clerk to deliver it by him felt like surplus.
It's a driver that has the voice of who that identified after is that first sentence to include the voter is someone who could return a ballot and cause that they would cause it to be delivered to the polling place.
Because otherwise that second sentence wouldn't be necessary.
Right. Okay.
I guess I totally disagree with that reading the first sentence is is an imposition on the voter. The second sentence is an imposition on the clerk.
So I read that and I was I was reading through this before I looked at the statute and I was curious about the staff's interpretation. I just simply think it's wrong.
And I disagree with that. And I'm back to the point you opposed to me. We can't be, we cannot make this world perfectly equitable for all. I mean, much of my chagrin, there are many polling places throughout the state that are not handicapped accessible.
And that's, and I know that the staff are working with that and we have a, we have committed citizen committee that we work with to try to make polling places more accessible.
But many of them are not as accessible as they should be. And I think that's, that's certainly something that we should work toward. But we're not going to make it as we're not going to make it.
We don't have the ability, the statutory ability to make it equitable for every voter to vote under the same circumstances all the time.
And then obligation under the law to enable our voters with disabilities to effectively access voting in the same way that persons without disabilities access it.
And under this theory of interpretation, which again, contrary to what we just sent out as mandatory to every voter voting absentee in the state of Wisconsin.
And I would say that we have the ability to make this decision and not treat them differently. And that's what the ADA does. It says to government agencies that you are required to do this.
If we have polling sites that are not accessible for disabled persons, we actually have a responsibility to address it and correct it. We don't just shrug and say, well, you know, some folks are going to make it in sucks to be done.
I mean, we actually have an affirmative duty to do this. So we can't just say, well, sorry, disabled people, you got to vote and make sure that even though you can't bring in your own ballot.
You just got to get make sure that the person is bringing it in gets there a little earlier than everybody else who gets to vote.
We get to do as the persons who are determining applicable law. Our job is to actually say, we have to make it equitable. And if it's not enforced in an equitable manner to take those actions.
And I would be disappointed if the attitude is just, well, you know, some places aren't accessible. That's bad. If places aren't acceptable, they should be notifying us.
We know certain places are not acceptable. We have an audit every after every election cycle, but we don't, we don't determine the law.
We have enforced it. I'm just reading the laws. I see it.
And what do you tell the story already have the instructions in their hand.
What are you proposing we do with them?
I guess I'm looking for that instruction, but, you know, I, I guess I, I personally missed that. So I get to sign me.
Well, so what are you going to do about it? Maybe we should look at that. Well, we're going to see how this vote comes out of the law comes out in, in the motions passed.
Then I guess there's nothing to be done with motion doesn't pass.
We have to make it. I mean, maybe we have to do a clerk communication. I don't know.
A clerk communication. Sure.
To a million voters. How do you, how does that work? We said they had to send it out.
Mark, I saw your hand.
The.
I think it's really unfortunate.
That the commission is backing off of instructions that we previously adopted in the interest.
Of recognizing.
That human beings with disabilities who are otherwise eligible to vote as a citizen.
As we all know, you got to be a citizen to be a registered voter are treated equally.
You know, there's been a lot of discussions over the years.
And both the Bob and Don, you've been like, you know, we are in favor.
Of letting those with disabilities vote.
Now, I mean, Carrie was decided.
We.
It is the federal law.
We previously voted to follow these instructions.
This should just be.
You know, starry to sizes. We follow what we've decided.
And to fulfill the obligations to let.
Those with disabilities that are otherwise eligible to vote and vote freely.
And get on with it. And I really hope we could just have six zero on this motion.
Because it's not tough. You know, this is not the time to reverse courts.
And make it harder for people with disabilities to vote. And, you know.
Shame on you if you don't vote. Yes.
Madam chair, if I can just interject for one second.
Or go ahead.
I'd also like to add.
This memo is not as much a staff recommendation as it is, keeping in line with what the commission.
Has been saying as long as I've been here. And I think longer than most of us.
Angie's memo back and I believe it was September laid out.
All of this analysis when considering the uniform instruction. So.
I think it's not quite accurate to say that this was a miss or that this is a staff recommendation.
I think it's just a staff with this decision draft.
Incredibly heavily in light of the fact of how the commission has long been interpreting this.
We're actually looking to see if the election administration or election day manuals say the same thing right now as we speak.
Because I think this might be in more locations than we even realize because this, this has been.
As I understood it and I hope I'm not wrong, something that was waived long before our time here.
And this conclusion was arrived at. I believe.
You know, that was how Richard right. He had landed out many years ago.
And when the commissioner it's predecessor weighed this out.
I can tell you that when I used to do pole observing.
And I believe I started that in either 2004 or 2006.
The process of people bringing, they brought their individual balance to their polling place.
And any that were misdelivered or delivered to the clerk's office were delivered by the police.
And they arrived at the polling site and then they were processed individually at the polling site and that is absolutely what was going on. So that's.
18, 20 years ago.
That's certainly been how it was interpreted back then.
And there is a reality that I do feel it's important to mention that is some municipal attorneys.
Have advised their clients otherwise and so.
You know, we've certainly heard instances where people are not being allowed to return them to the polling place. They must go to the clerk's office and their local municipality.
But I know there have been concerns in the past that the clerk may be in the polling place and whether they are open during the hours in which they would have to otherwise return.
Those types of things in addition to, you know, kind of the two ways the statute could be read is why I think in large part, we kind of landed where we were.
I'm Commissioner Boston and then.
I'm listening to all of this discussion and.
I would like as.
Commissioner Thompson said to see this go six zero. I don't think it would happen today.
I think that.
Commissioner Millis has brought up some points that I think maybe should be looked at and reviewed. We have a meeting next week again to be able to look at this. And I would.
I would like to see this looked at a little bit more in depth.
To find where we have it.
I know Commissioner Mills is looking for where it is in the advising clerks and their manuals.
I would just like to see that research a little bit more and that we not vote on this today or we vote on this today and whatever is going to happen.
But I think we could use a little bit more information before we were to pass this.
Yeah, I think we can do that. But, but again, I think it's, you know, very clear what it says. This is not only orientated towards disabled people. This is saying anybody can drop off their ballot.
It's also saying anybody can bring anybody else's ballot.
To drop off to if that isn't called ballot harvesting. I don't know what's called ballot harvest. And that was specifically put aside by that tangent decision.
And that was not revisited in the latest Supreme Court decision. The only thing that they brought about was the, the drop box.
Theoretically, the drop box. I think it's pretty clear is the clerk's office. So I suppose if, if the clerks wish to put a drop box by each of the polling locations that that could be a way of doing it.
And from what I could see in terms of the legislative intent, based on the hospitalization requirements along that line also where it's very specific says that an absentee voter is one who for any reason is unable or unwilling to appear at polling place in his or her ward.
That's pretty clear that that once an absentee voter comes in with his or her absentee ballot that they are no longer an absentee voter. And then they have the ability right then and there to go ahead and do it.
One other thing regarding the timeframe aims in terms of when the ballots must be dropped off.
The situation, for example, in Madison as I understand, they close their ballot box. There are drop boxes at six o'clock on Monday.
And that's the purpose of that is to collect all the various absentee ballots process them and then deliver them to the appropriate polling places for accounting when they have a situation like that.
The law is very clear to that the clerk gets to set the rules in terms of, and we basically said that too when the, when the drop boxes came back into effect to be able to do that there, they're made to get the, they have to get the ballots back to the polling places by, by eight p.m.
And the voters just have to try and plan and do it. So, I mean, we're not, we're not just talking about about disabled voters there we're talking about everybody.
They close the drop boxes before eight o'clock on Tuesday, whatever time they close them, and they tell the voters to take their balance to the polling sites if they need to drop off their ballots after that.
And you're leaving that part out.
You're leaving that part out and that disturbs me, because that's an important part of that. That's what those signs say.
We've closed this drop box, you must take your ballot to your poll site.
Please take it. That's what happens. It's not that they don't.
They say that they take it to the clerk's office, like a Milwaukee, they say take it to a simple count.
That's because there's a central count and that's different and we're not talking about that.
Donna said take it into a point to the municipal clerk.
If you missed that time and that's what it's very specific. I don't know how there's any interpretation other than.
We seem like we like to add words to it when it's very specific.
All of a sudden we want to say all, you know, in this thing.
We've been wrong apparently for 20 plus years because you know, as somebody.
I think you're the poll sites that this has been going on for 20 years that people have been able to drop their ballots off at poll sites. You know that.
And I know that you're going on for many years and you're right on that.
The ballot harvest team has been going out.
If the voter brings their own ballot to a poll site.
It's not hard.
We're also talking about if you if you read it, that the so-called assistant can bring it.
And can bring it nearly as many as they want to bring it doesn't say it has to be.
The voters disabled and unable for reasons of their disability to bring the ballot themselves. That's not harvesting, which is a term I think is a terrible one.
It is assisting a disabled voter who's otherwise unable to vote.
Yeah, that's not.
It's not clear and also allows the so-called assistant for anybody.
The assistant is whoever that is is clarified.
What that means that that means that that's only a predictable voter that doesn't.
It's unclear. It doesn't say that.
And allowing again or saying, well, we want to get ballot harvesting going again.
And this is exactly what it is.
And so maybe maybe merges right that we need to have the staff look at it.
Pay attention to what the statues say and come back with something, something else. And again, if the clerks office needs to be the place that you return it to.
And the clerk wants to put a drop box at various locations, including at the polling places seems to me that would be okay to do.
I think Marge has a good point.
I didn't see now, I may have missed it when I read through the memo about how the recommendation in the recommended letter was consistent with past guidance.
And so I'd like to know more about that.
I'd also like, I mean, I think the other issue that we talked about.
That what we haven't talked about much is about defining or providing more specificity with respect to who can return.
The ballot. And so I think it would be a good idea for this and the other next letter.
To be revisited at the October fourth meeting.
This complaint was filed in August of 2023.
The last filing appears to be October 3rd of 2023.
And so this is already again, I'm not suggesting any laziness by the staff, but it's already been pending.
For close to a year anyway, and that's the way that's just given the state of affairs. That's what we have with many of our complaints just given the staff and all the other obligations they have. And I'm.
But so I don't think it's it would be the worst of all worlds to revisit this at our October fourth meeting.
Commissioner people then commissioner.
I don't think that we should be changing procedures for voters and clerks at this point right now. So in many community.
They have thousands of ballots that have gone out to voters with instructions that they can return it to the polling site by eight PM on election day.
If they show up at the poll site with their ballot on election day at 759.
They will not be able to return it to the clerk before eight PM and have their votes counted.
Mr. Thompson.
The.
I don't think.
This vote will be six zero even if we wait until October.
October fourth, but.
To allow Mr. Millis to review it.
If it's.
Donna, if you're saying this is consistent with our prior instructions.
You can live with this.
I don't want.
I certainly agree.
That we don't want to confuse voters.
And so I would like to take a look at that.
So if that's the issue, I would be.
Not against putting these next to over until the fourth.
I am extremely against even the consideration of us undoing our uniform instructions prior to November fourth when we have.
What is it as of this morning 450,000 ballots out with our uniform instructions.
I don't think.
Would not unless there's four votes to put it on the fourth.
I have zero interest of us putting anything on this agenda short of a court order.
That's going to tell us that we have to change.
Our operating practice that's been in place for as long as this commission's existed. Nobody. Nobody's suggesting that. I don't.
Well, that's then we're not going to wait until our November meeting is my position.
Because otherwise it can wait unless there's four votes telling me I got to put it on next week.
But otherwise it's on for today. We hear it today. We vote today.
And that if it needs to come up again in the future for some reason.
But otherwise this is this is this is the day we're deciding this issue.
And I cannot for the life of me understand why we're so eager to sabotage.
Hundreds of thousands of voters.
A month before.
It's eliminating.
Ballot harvesting. Tigeon did that.
And that's.
Nothing to do with ballot harvesting. I don't know why you keep saying that.
This is literally about bringing a ballot to a poll site,
whether it's the voters or the voter assisting a hand to get rid of nothing to do with harvesting.
That's the harvesting has nothing to do with this.
I would I would move that we postpone consideration of item C three and C four to a later meeting to be decided by the chair.
I second.
We have to withdraw the first motion to consider the second one.
So who moved the first one I think Mark did carry seconded.
Commissioners Thompson and rebuild you withdraw your previous motion.
I'm thinking about it here.
I mean, I'm not listening. I'm not going to hear the, the only reason I.
Yeah, I don't want to withdraw the motion. Okay, because.
I was, I was looking for that.
We're going to move the motion over and get to it.
Because it's consistent. We didn't want to shake up.
The order right now.
We should not be changing the instructions.
In the middle of election with ballots out and we should certainly not be disenfranchising any person eligible eligible to vote.
Who was disabled.
And to the extent that I read Bob is trying to do that. I don't think we should go there. Now.
I guess what I'm leery of Don is that you said that you.
You weren't going to commit that if it was consistent with their prior instructions, you weren't going to stay there. So I guess.
If it's not going to change anything, then why would I change the.
But I, I.
Again, I want to know again, I didn't see anything in the, I didn't read the instructions on the.
On the, the, we've sent out to.
Abstee voters.
I don't think it was mentioned in the memo.
Jim and Angie, can you pull them up or done? I'm, I'm not going to take five minutes.
You look at it. Look at him.
This has been pending for a year.
I'm not going to make that. I'm like that call now. I'm also still concerned about the, the description about.
In the letter talks about, and I'm, I'm probably paraphrasing it, but.
Identifying with more specificity, who can assist with the delivery of return of a ballot. And I think that would be more important.
I'm, I'm not going to, I'm not going to go out and say that we should change our, the instructions before an election.
I'm perfectly fine. If Ann wants to, I mean, I know Ann wants to deal with it now, but if we don't deal with it now.
We could deal with that after the election. I want to get this right.
And I don't know how everyone's going to vote, but I think it would be, I really don't, but I think it would be better to.
Have a motion to postpone this, then they have a possibility of a three, three vote on this to me. That's all I'm saying.
Would it be helpful if we were to.
Essentially, you know, the motion was to approve with changes that represent the commission's position on tagging and carry, which essentially said, only the voter may return in that.
Those that are able to go around the graveyard then.
I think we need to see you in this case.
We're not committing to anything until we see what you come up with.
Well, you've already approved guidance or discuss this.
I'm sorry for getting flustered, but this is a misrepresentation of the case law that's out there as well as how the commission has interpreted and messaged it.
This decision has nothing to do with ballot harvesting the court. The case law is there. The case law says that the voter must return their ballot.
And the only instance that's been interpreted otherwise by a court.
Was the US district court's decision and carry that said a disabled voter is entitled to assistance.
Right. And I would feel much better if the letter actually said that.
Specifically.
So I'm going to defer to the chair. Do you want this heard after the election?
Is there a way of what he just said where he wants to see those specific.
References in the letter. If there was a motion to include those.
Would that get this past today? That's my question.
Well, that's a question for Don.
I mean, I would listen, I would still like to. I'd like to take a look at this. I apologize. I didn't look at the instructions that go out to absentee voters.
Because again, it wasn't, I don't think it was referenced in the memo or the letter.
And so it would be, I just looked at statutes and I just took it looked out of the fresh. And so I don't have the same history that everyone else asked because I've only gone.
Since 2017, I've only been back on the commission for a couple of years. And so again, I, this is, we're not talking about setting guidance for this election.
These are decision letters for two clerks.
That have been at least this one has been pending for almost a year.
And so I don't know why we have to deal with it today.
And I think that would be better not to do it today.
But.
I don't want to, I don't want to change us on the fly.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Mr. Spindell on the topic of.
What we're discussing, which is.
I just want to say that.
I think Donna's right. And also I think we need to take a look at what the law really is.
Versus what are what are guidances.
And we know obviously from these two complaints that that's these various clerks are doing it different ways. These two clerks are saying you cannot drop it off.
At a polling place and you have other clerks to say that you can. So it's the best thing is, let's, let's have some, let's look at a little bit more.
And I thought it was a good one.
So can I make a motion that we.
Postpone approval of these two letters until a later date is approved by the.
Chair.
Okay.
We have to turn again to.
We can call a vote on your motion.
Or you can withdraw it and it's entirely up to you on which you prefer to do. I will tell you.
It is not the chairs inclination to schedule anything on this before.
Election date for fear of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of absentee voters.
You know, I think it's.
And let me clarify that the original motion was to approve.
The letter as as written.
So I'm just making sure the circle backs everyone knows what we're talking about.
So the.
This is my sense.
I have no idea where we're going to end up.
Right now the instructions are out.
Folks in.
That feel these clerks are violating federal law.
I have an option to file separately.
I'll withdraw the motion and let the chair schedule this when the chair believes it's appropriate to schedule.
I'll second marches motion.
Okay.
Mr. Boston has moved that we address these. I believe it's the two remaining letters.
Peters and younger because they deal with the same.
General topic.
To a date later set by the chair.
And that's been moved by commissioner Boston men.
And seconded by commissioner millis.
Is there further discussion on that motion.
Okay.
I will call the roll commissioner repo.
Hi.
Mr. Spindell.
Hi.
Commissioner Thompson.
Hi.
Mr. Boston man.
Hi.
Commissioner millis.
Chair votes aye.
Those two decision letters will be addressed at a future date.
Okay.
The next item on our agenda is a discussion regarding the order in rise versus WEC.
Attorney with tech will be addressing the commission. Those materials are found at page 172.
Yes, thank you very much.
So as noted in the introductory memo we've attached as attachment a.
A to the memorandum.
A September 17th.
2024 amended declaratory judgment and permanent injunction issued by the day in court.
Excuse me, the Dane County circuit court in the rise matter.
You may recall this had been appealed to the court of appeals and the trial court's original decision.
Was upheld except to the extent the extent that the trial court had relied on a reasonable person in the community standard.
Essentially saying that if a reasonable person in the community could interpret from the information for the witnesses address that was provided where the location is that that person may be contacted.
That that was sufficient enough in the court of appeals said that reasonable people within the community is just too varied.
And so they relied more on a municipal clerk interpretation standard.
And so essentially the court issued a new order to kind of codify that change and direct that we rescind or change any guidance that may relate to that content.
So also attached to the memo as attachment B is a draft clarification that would reiterate that and point to several locations where there is guidance currently on the agency's website that might need some clarification.
I don't know that anything within that list requires kind of a full rescind, if you will, because, for example, the first document addresses both rise and legal women voters, a decision which remains intact in its entirety.
And then some of the older guidance that talks about correction, you know, which has obviously been addressed by the courts in other contexts as well.
Does have some information there, for instance, talked about some of the prior trial court decisions when they looked at absentee ballot correction as not addressing what the definition of an address is so what we were proposing to the commission as indicated in the memo and as described to the clerks in the
court communication draft would be that we would put a color coded flag at the top of the website that indicates, for those of you that are used to legal research websites, it would be very similar to that kind of a yellow flag red flag system that indicates some
negative treatment or subsequent guidance that may expand upon that or negate some of that, or, you know, in the future, we might have guidance that would need to be rescinded completely and we might put a watermark or kind of a more glaring flag on the document.
That says that the guidance would need to be completely rescinded in that instance.
And then additionally what staff are recommending doing would be not only putting that communication at the top that says there is some potential negative treatment there or need for clarification, but also linking to the current website where they can find that updated guidance.
And, in part, this is because we've had a couple of orders in the past several years that have required guidance to be rescinded or amended.
And we've pulled those guidance documents from the website.
And we thought from an optics perspective and a historical perspective, it might be better not to retain those records offline but maintain the records in their form as they were approved or online posting.
And then just indicating that they need to go elsewhere to find the current guidance but maintaining the historical and presidential value.
Or again, you know, there could be elements of some of these that still have truths in them.
And we have any questions for Jim on what the plan is for the rise.
Memo clear communication and marking stuff on our website.
And this was also a circuit court decision right, Jim.
Yes. Yep. And the again this was appealed to the Court of Appeals and it was just the one element that the court disagreed with and then affirmed the trial courts decision and its totality otherwise.
Okay.
All right. Are there any other questions. Yes, Commissioner Thompson.
I have a question. I'll make the recommended motion on page 172 and 173.
Okay.
There is the recommended motion and 172 and 173 is there a second.
Mr. Rippel seconds is there a discussion on this.
Hearing none, I'll call the roll.
Mr. Spindell.
Hi.
Commissioner Thompson.
Hi.
Hi.
Commissioner Millis.
All right.
Commissioner Rippel.
I care about that. The motion is adopted six nothing and staff is directed to do that.
They do so well and fixing all that up.
And the good news is that's it for this meeting. There is no closed session.
I'll entertain the motion to adjourn.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
Mr. Bostleman moves. Is there a second?
Mr. Spindell seconds.
I'll call the roll. Commissioner Bostleman.
Hi.
Mr. Millis.
Hi.
Commissioner people.
Hi.
Mr. Spindell.
Hi.
Commissioner Thompson.
Hi.
Chair votes aye.
We are adjourned.
Remember everyone, we are back live and in person in the capital on October 4th.
See you all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.