Wisconsin court reverses absentee voting case ruling

The Court of Appeals District IV overturned a Dane County Circuit Court ruling that the Legislature can intervene in a lawsuit filed by Disability Rights Wisconsin, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and several state residents related to the state’s absentee voting process.

The plaintiffs originally filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its members stating the state’s current absentee voting process violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions. Once the lawsuit was filed in Dane County, the Legislature made a motion to intervene in the case.

The Legislature argued it had a right to intervene under Wisconsin Statute 803.09(2m) because the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s absentee-voting laws. The Legislature argued it has a substantial interest in the case, the lawsuit may impede its interests and no other party in the case represented its interests.

At that point, the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office contended the Legislature’s intervention under Statute 803.09(1) and (2m) violated the separation of powers doctrine so its intervention should be denied.

On June 24, 2024, the trial court heard oral argument on the Legislature’s intervention motion and a motion filed by the plaintiffs seeking an injunction that would have allowed voters to request an emailed ballot from their municipal clerk if they certified they were unable to independently read and/or mark a paper absentee ballot due to a print disability. (The Court of Appeals District II overturned that ruling on March 12, 2025.)  The court did not issue an oral ruling that day but released a written order the next day granting the injunction and a separate ruling in favor of the Legislature. The attorney general’s office filed an appeal.

According to court documents, the attorney general said the circuit court granted the Legislature’s request but did not explain its reasoning in a short one-page ruling. The appeals court agreed with the attorney general’s argument.

“While Wisconsin does not have a specific rule requiring a trial court to state its reasons for granting or denying a motion to intervene, the absence of any legal reasoning or factual findings deprives the parties and the public of knowledge of the grounds for the trial court’s decision,” the appeals court wrote in its July 1 ruling. “Additionally, the absence of any legal reasoning or factual findings creates a difficult situation for a reviewing court.”

The appeals court reversed the ruling and asked the circuit court to “set forth legal reasoning and factual findings (which) would assist us in fully and fairly deciding the complex issues presented in this case.”