Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-0160 Roth v. LaFarge School District Board of Canvassers

By: dmc-admin//August 20, 2001//

01-0160 Roth v. LaFarge School District Board of Canvassers

By: dmc-admin//August 20, 2001//

Listen to this article

“There is no indication in the record, nor do either of the respondents allege, that the number of ballots in this . Wisconsin Stat. secs. 5.54, 6.80(2)(d), and 7.50(2) do not suggest otherwise. Sections referendum exceeded the number of voters at any stage of the initial tallying or the recount. Therefore, under Wis. Stat. sec. 9.01(1)(b)4, the board improperly excluded the ‘yes’ vote for failing to bear the initials of two inspectors 5.54 and 6.80(2)(d) properly warn voters that there are circumstances (not present here) under which their vote could be excluded if their ballots are not properly initialed, while sec. 7.50(2) simply guarantees voters who do use properly initialed ballots that their votes will be counted. Although Muller insists that strictly requiring the initials of two inspectors is essential to protect against fraud, the legislature appears to disagree. Sections 7.51(2)(c) and 9.01(1)(b)4 create a mechanism by which fraud will be assumed only when the number of ballots and electors are unequal. Because no fraud has been alleged in this case, there is no reason to invalidate the will of one elector because of a technical defect.”

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Vernon County, Rosborough, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: George C. Wilbur, La Farge

For Respondent: Christopher J. Blythe, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests