Case Title: Jefferson v. Dane County

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP000557-OA

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2020-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
2020 WI 90 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of 
Wisconsin, 
          Petitioners, 
     v. 
Dane County, Wisconsin and Scott McDonell in his 
official capacity as Dane County Clerk, 
          Respondents, 
Disability Rights Wisconsin, 
          Intervenor-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORIGINAL ACTION 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 14, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 29, 2020   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
ROGGENSACK, C.J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, 
in which ZIEGLER, REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, and HAGEDORN, JJ., 
joined, and in which DALLET and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined with 
respect to Parts II.C. and II.D.1.  ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed 
an opinion concurring in part, and dissenting in part.  DALLET, 
J., filed an opinion concurring in part, and dissenting in part, 
in which KAROFSKY, J., joined. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the petitioners briefs were filed by Eric M. McLeod, Lane 
E. Ruhland, Lisa M. Lawless and Husch Blackwell LLP, Madison and 
Milwaukee.  Oral argument presented by Eric M. McLeod. 
 
 
 
 
2 
For the respondents a brief was filed by David R. Gault, 
Office of the Dane County Corporation Counsel, Madison.  Oral 
argument presented by David R. Gault. 
 
For the intervenor-respondent, a brief was filed by Jeffrey 
A. Mandell, Douglas M. Poland, Kurt M. Simatic and Stafford 
Rosenbaum LLP, Madison.  Oral Argument was presented by Jeffrey A. 
Mandell. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of the Legislature 
by Misha Tseytlin, Kevin M. Leroy, and Troutman Sanders LLP.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 90 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2020AP557-OA 
 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of 
Wisconsin, 
 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Dane County, Wisconsin and Scott McDonell in 
his official capacity as Dane County Clerk, 
 
          Respondents, 
 
Disability Rights Wisconsin, 
 
          Intervenor-Respondent. 
FILED 
 
DEC 14, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ROGGENSACK, C.J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in 
which ZIEGLER, REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, and HAGEDORN, JJ., joined, 
and in which DALLET and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined with respect to Parts 
II.C. and II.D.1.  ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed an opinion 
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.  DALLET, J., filed an 
opinion concurring in part, and dissenting in part, in which 
KAROFSKY, J., joined.  
 
 
ORIGINAL ACTION.  Rights declared.   
 
¶1 
PATIENCE 
DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK, 
C.J.   We 
review 
Mark 
Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin's (collectively 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
2 
 
"Petitioners") Petition for Original Action that seeks a 
declaration that (1) Respondents lack the authority to issue an 
interpretation of Wisconsin's election law allowing all electors 
in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo 
identification and (2) Governor Evers' Emergency Order #12 
("Emergency Order #12") did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to 
obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification. 
¶2 
To answer these questions, we interpret Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a) (2017–18).1  In so doing, we conclude § 6.86(2)(a) 
requires that (1) each individual elector make his or her own 
determination as to whether the elector is indefinitely confined; 
(2) an elector's determination may be based only upon age, physical 
illness or infirmity; and (3) an elector is indefinitely confined 
for his or her own age, physical illness or infirmity, not those 
of another person. 
¶3 
Accordingly, 
we 
conclude 
that 
the 
Respondents' 
interpretation 
of 
Wisconsin 
election 
laws 
was 
erroneous.  
Additionally, we conclude that Emergency Order #12 did not render 
all Wisconsin electors "indefinitely confined," thereby obviating 
the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an 
absentee ballot.    
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶4 
On March 25, 2020, and in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic and Governor Evers' Emergency Order #12, the Dane County 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
3 
 
Clerk, Scott McDonell, issued the following statement on his 
personal Facebook page: 
I have informed Dane County Municipal Clerks that during 
this emergency and based on the Governors Stay at Home 
order I am declaring all Dane County voters may indicate 
as needed that they are indefinitely confined due to 
illness.  This declaration will make it easier for Dane 
County voters to participate in this election by mail in 
these difficult times.  I urge all voters who request a 
ballot and have trouble presenting a[] valid ID to 
indicate that they are indefinitely confined.  
People are reluctant to check the box that says they are 
indefinitely confined but this is a pandemic.  This 
feature in our law is here to help preserve everyone's 
right to vote. 
The process works like this: 
 A voter visit's [sic] myvote.wi.gov to request a 
ballot. 
 A voter can select a box that reads "I certify that I 
am indefinitely confined due to age [,] illness, 
infirmity or disability and request ballots be sent 
to me for every election until I am no longer confined 
or fail to return a ballot.["] 
 The voter is then able to skip the step of uploading 
an ID in order to receive a ballot for the April 7 
election. 
Voters are confined due to the COVID-19 illness.  When 
the Stay at Home order by the Governor is lifted, the 
voter can change their designation back by contacting 
their 
clerk 
or 
updating 
their 
information 
in 
myvote.wi.gov. 
Voters who are able to provide a copy of their ID should 
do so and not indicate that they are indefinitely 
confined.  
¶5 
The Milwaukee County Clerk issued a nearly identical 
declaration on Facebook later that same day.  The Milwaukee County 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
4 
 
Clerk "urge[d] all voters who request a ballot and do not have the 
ability or equipment to upload a valid ID to indicate that they 
are indefinitely confined."  The county clerks circulated these 
statements to their municipal clerks.  
¶6 
Responding to the confusion that these two statements 
caused, the Wisconsin Elections Commission ("WEC") issued proposed 
guidance on when voters may declare themselves indefinitely 
confined.  The WEC's proposed guidance, issued on March 27, 2020, 
reads as follows: 
1.  Designation of indefinitely confined status is for 
each individual voter to make based upon their 
current circumstance.  It does not require permanent 
or total inability to travel outside of the 
residence.  The designation is appropriate for 
electors who are indefinitely confined because of 
age, physical illness or infirmity or are disabled 
for an indefinite period. 
2.  Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by 
electors simply as a means to avoid the photo ID 
requirement without regard to whether they are 
indefinitely confined because of age, physical 
illness, infirmity or disability. 
¶7 
McDonell went to Facebook again to express that he was 
"[g]rateful that the Wisconsin Election Commission voted to agree 
with me that the designation of indefinitely confined status is 
for each individual voter to make based upon their current 
circumstances. . . ."  Later that night, McDonell posted the 
following: 
More from me on this topic.  The Wisconsin Election 
Commission met on Friday and issued further guidance to 
clarify the purpose and proper use of the indefinitely 
confined status under Wis[.] Stat[]. [§] 6.86(2) as 
follows: 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
5 
 
1.  Designation of indefinitely confined status is for 
each individual voter to make based upon their current 
circumstances.  It does not require permanent or total 
inability to travel outside of the residence.  The 
designation is appropriate for electors who are 
indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness 
or infirmity or are disabled for an indefinite period of 
time.  
2.  Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by 
electors simply as a means to avoid the photo ID 
requirement 
without 
regard 
to 
whether 
they 
are 
indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness, 
infirmity, or disability. 
Voters should follow this guidance when determining 
whether they qualify to claim that they are indefinitely 
confined as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and 
declared public health emergency.  
¶8 
Petitioners filed this Original Action on March 27, 
2020, 
seeking 
declarations 
that 
(1) the 
Respondents' 
interpretation of Wisconsin's election laws was erroneous and 
(2) Emergency Order #12 did not render all Wisconsinites 
indefinitely confined such that they could obtain an absentee 
ballot without presenting a photo ID.  Petitioners also sought a 
preliminary injunction directing McDonell to remove his posts and 
to issue a statement correcting his erroneous interpretation.  
¶9 
On March 31, 2020, we granted the Petitioners' request 
for preliminary injunctive relief.  In that Order, we concluded 
"that clarification of the purpose and proper use of the 
indefinitely 
confined 
status 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)[a] . . . [is] warranted."  Additionally, we noted that 
"the WEC's guidance . . . provides the clarification on the 
purpose and proper use of the indefinitely confined status that is 
required at this time."  Further, we ordered "McDonell to refrain 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
6 
 
from posting advice as the County Clerk for Dane County 
[inconsistent with] the . . . WEC guidance."  We granted the 
Petition for Original Action and assumed jurisdiction over this 
case the following day.  
¶10 While this case was pending, the April 7, 2020 election 
occurred and Wisconsin saw an increase in absentee ballots cast by 
electors who had claimed to be indefinitely confined.  WEC records 
show that there were 194,544 such absentee ballots cast by voters 
in 
the 
2020 
Spring 
Election.2 
 
In 
contrast, 
the 
2016 Spring 
Election 
saw 55,334 voters who obtained absentee ballots by claiming to be 
indefinitely confined.   
¶11 After we accepted review, the Respondents filed a 
document that "stipulate[d] that the two propositions, as stated 
by the Petitioners are an accurate statement of the law."  
Disability Rights Wisconsin ("DRW") intervened later. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
¶12 We review this case under our original jurisdiction 
found in Article VII, Section 3(2) of the Wisconsin Constitution.  
Within our original jurisdiction, we have granted declaratory 
judgment when "a judgment by the court significantly affects the 
                                                 
2 The WEC's statistics for the April 7, 2020 Election are 
available 
at 
https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/ 
files/2020-05/WEC%205-20-2020%20PowerPoint%20Presentation.pdf 
(hereinafter, WEC Statistics).  We may take judicial notice of 
these statistics because we determine the WEC's post-election 
report is a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.  
See Wis. Stat. § 902.01(2); see also Sisson v. Hansen Storage Co., 
2008 WI App 111, ¶¶10–11, 313 Wis. 2d 411, 756 N.W.2d 667 (stating 
that 
"appellate 
court[s] 
may 
take 
judicial 
notice 
when . . . appropriate").  
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
7 
 
community at large."  Wisconsin Pro. Police Ass'n, Inc. v. 
Lightbourn, 2001 WI 59, ¶4, 243 Wis. 2d 512, 627 N.W.2d 807. 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶13 The interpretation and the application of Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86 present questions of law that we review independently.  
Dawson v. Town of Jackson, 2011 WI 77, ¶17, 336 Wis. 2d 318, 801 
N.W.2d 316.  Although the WEC has issued official guidance, we 
interpret 
§ 6.86(2)(a) 
without 
deference 
to 
the 
agency's 
interpretation.  See Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Div. of Hearings 
& Appeals, 2019 WI 109, ¶9, 389 Wis. 2d 486, 936 N.W.2d 573 (citing 
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR, 2018 WI 75, ¶108, 382 Wis. 2d 496, 914 
N.W.2d 21). 
B.  Mootness 
¶14 Respondents contend that their stipulation on questions 
of law makes the issues presented herein moot.  However, we are 
not bound by stipulations on questions of law.  State v. Olson, 
127 Wis. 2d 412, 419, 380 N.W.2d 375 (Ct. App. 1985) (citing Swift 
& Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 281, 289 (1917)).  Rather, 
we decide the legal issue at the heart of this controversy, i.e., 
the interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) in 
the context presented.  
¶15 Respondents also contend that the issue presented is 
moot because the clerk corrected his erroneous advice, the election 
occurred and Executive Order #12 has expired.  However, even in 
cases where an issue is moot, we may nevertheless reach the merits 
of the dispute.  We may do so when "(1) the issue is of great 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
8 
 
public importance; (2) the situation occurs so frequently that a 
definitive decision is necessary to guide circuit courts; (3) the 
issue is likely to arise again and a decision of the court would 
alleviate uncertainty; or (4) the issue will likely be repeated, 
but evades appellate review because the appellate review process 
cannot be completed or even undertaken in time to have a practical 
effect on the parties."  In re John Doe Proceeding, 2003 WI 30, 
¶19, 260 Wis. 2d 653, 660 N.W.2d 260; see Fine v. Elections Bd., 
95 Wis. 2d 162, 166, 289 N.W.2d 823 (1980).  Also, challenges to 
the constitutionality of a statute may cause the court to reach 
the merits of the contention.  Portage Cnty. v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 
54, ¶29, 386 Wis. 2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509.  Without correction, the 
erroneous 
interpretation 
and 
application 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a), which affect matters of great public importance, are 
capable of repetition.  See Mueller v. Jensen, 63 Wis. 2d 362, 
366-67, 217 N.W.2d 277 (1974).  Accordingly, we choose to address 
the issues presented. 
C.  Election Statutes 
¶16 Before turning to the interpretation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a) we provide a brief overview of Wisconsin's absentee 
ballot laws.  Chapter 6 of the Wisconsin Statutes governs "the 
electors" and the processes by which Wisconsinites cast their 
ballots.  Voting is a constitutional right, the exercise of which 
is "strongly encouraged."  Wis. Stat. § 6.84(1).  However, "voting 
by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the 
traditional safeguards of the polling place."  Id.  As such, 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
9 
 
"matters relating to the absentee ballot process . . . shall 
be . . . mandatory."  Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2).  We have held that 
where an election statute is mandatory, its exercise requires 
strict compliance.  See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections 
Bd., 82 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978).  Consequently, 
"[b]allots counted in contravention of the procedures . . . may 
not be included in the certified result of any election."  
§ 6.84(2). 
¶17 Ordinarily, when an elector chooses to vote by absentee 
ballot, the elector must comply with the procedure set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1).  In most circumstances, the requirements to 
obtain an absentee ballot are twofold:  (1) apply3 with the 
elector's municipal clerk and (2) provide a photo proof of 
identification 
with 
the 
application. 
 
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 6.86(1)(a), (ac); see also Wis. Stat. § 6.87(1), and Wis. Stat. 
§ 5.02(6m).  After an elector has completed this process once and 
has not changed his or her name or address since providing proof 
of identification, the elector need not continuously provide proof 
of identification for each election in which the elector votes 
absentee.  § 6.87(4)(b)3.  
                                                 
3 WEC's form, "Application for Absentee Ballot," provides 
electors with three options for receipt of an absentee ballot. 
Electors may receive ballots (1) for a specific election; (2) for 
all elections in a calendar year; or (3) automatically for all 
elections, as an indefinitely confined voter.  The application is 
clear that the third option is "[f]or indefinitely-confined voters 
only" and that making "false statements in order to obtain an 
absentee ballot" is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, 
not more than six-months imprisonment or both.  
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
10 
 
¶18 Wisconsin Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) has different criteria.  It 
provides:  
An elector who is indefinitely confined because of age, 
physical illness or infirmity or is disabled for an 
indefinite period may by signing a statement to that 
effect require that an absentee ballot be sent to the 
elector 
automatically 
for 
every 
election. 
 
The 
application form and instructions shall be prescribed by 
the commission, and furnished upon request to any 
elector by each municipality.  The envelope containing 
the absentee ballot shall be clearly marked as not 
forwardable.  If any elector is no longer indefinitely 
confined, the elector shall so notify the municipal 
clerk. 
As set out above, there are two classes of electors who can request 
an 
absentee 
ballot 
pursuant 
to 
the 
provisions 
of 
§ 6.86(2)(a):  (1) an elector who is indefinitely confined or 
(2) an elector who is disabled for an indefinite period.  
¶19 If an elector qualifies to receive an absentee ballot 
under either classification, the elector is not required to provide 
photo identification to obtain that ballot.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.87(4)(b)2.  Rather, the elector may "submit with his or her 
absentee ballot a statement signed by the same individual who 
witnesses voting of the ballot which contains the name and address 
of the elector and verifies that the name and address are correct."  
§ 6.87(4)(b)2. 
¶20 In addition, when an elector qualifies to receive an 
absentee ballot because he or she is indefinitely confined or 
disabled for an indefinite period, the elector automatically 
receives an absentee ballot for every election until the elector 
notifies the municipal clerk that he or she is no longer 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
11 
 
indefinitely confined, fails to cast and return a ballot, or the 
clerk receives reliable information that the "elector no longer 
qualifies for the service."  Wis. Stat. §§ 6.86(2)(a), (b).4     
D.  Indefinitely Confined 
¶21 The crux of the issue before us is when may an elector 
obtain a ballot as indefinitely confined pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a), rather than by way of the usual absentee ballot 
process set out in § 6.86(1).  The purpose of statutory 
interpretation and application is to apply the meaning of the words 
the legislature chose.  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for 
Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.  
"Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted 
meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or 
phrases are given their technical or special definitional 
meaning."  Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶45.  If the language chosen is 
clear and unambiguous, we stop the inquiry and apply the plain 
meaning of those words.  Id., ¶¶45, 46.  Important to the meaning 
of a statute is the context in which it occurs, and we interpret 
statutes to reasonably give effect to every word.  Id., ¶46.   
¶22 We conclude, as we explain below, that based on the plain 
language of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a):  (1) declaring oneself 
                                                 
4 Because an elector who qualifies to receive an initial 
absentee ballot as indefinitely confined receives an absentee 
ballot without providing photo identification, and because such an 
elector continues to receive absentee ballots for each subsequent 
election until the clerk changes the elector's status, such an 
elector may vote in many elections without ever providing photo 
identification. 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
12 
 
indefinitely confined or disabled for an indefinite period is an 
individual determination that only an individual elector can make; 
(2) an 
elector 
is 
indefinitely 
confined 
for 
purposes 
of 
§ 6.86(2)(a) for only the enumerated reasons therein; and (3) an 
elector is indefinitely confined due to his or her own age, 
physical illness, or infirmity, not the age, physical illness, or 
infirmity of another person.  
1.  Individual Determination 
¶23 The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) requires 
that each elector make an individual assessment to determine 
whether he or she qualifies as indefinitely confined or disabled 
for an indefinite period.  A county clerk may not "declare" that 
any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic.  This 
conclusion is supported by two distinct, but equally important, 
reasons.   
¶24 First, as a fundamental matter, county clerks are not to 
interpret Wisconsin's election laws and make declarations based on 
those interpretations.  It is the WEC that is responsible for 
guidance in the administration and enforcement of Wisconsin's 
election laws, not the county clerks.  See generally Wis. Stat. 
§ 5.05.  County clerks have different responsibilities such as 
(1) providing 
election 
supplies 
and 
ballots, 
(2) preparing 
ballots, (3) adhering to the election time schedule, (4) resolving 
doubts that relate to election notices, (5) certifying candidates 
for municipal judges, (6) assisting the WEC in conducting the WEC's 
voter education, (7) maintaining toll-free telephone lines to 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
13 
 
exchange voting information, (8) training election officials, and 
(9) reporting information to the WEC.  Wis. Stat. §§ 7.10(1)–(10).  
Nowhere in these duties did the legislature include disseminating 
information based on the clerk's interpretation of absentee voting 
laws.5   
¶25 Next, as we stated above, whether to declare oneself 
indefinitely confined is an individual determination.  The plain 
language of the statute does not permit persons other than the 
elector to make that decision.  We will not add words into a 
statute that the legislature did not see fit to employ.  See 
Dawson, 336 Wis. 2d 318, ¶42 (citing County of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 
WI 9, ¶33, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571).  Therefore, neither 
county clerks nor an order of the Governor may declare persons 
indefinitely confined.  
¶26 The remainder of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) supports this 
interpretation.  For example, para. (2)(a) requires the elector to 
inform the municipal clerk if the elector is no longer indefinitely 
confined.  If county clerks were permitted to declare all electors 
within their county indefinitely confined due to COVID-19 and 
Emergency Order #12, they would confuse when individual electors 
are to follow § 6.86(2)(a)'s mandate that the elector notify the 
                                                 
5 This structure is part of Wisconsin's decentralized election 
system.  The legislature has delegated to the WEC the 
responsibilities of, among others, administering, enforcing and 
promulgating rules relating to the election laws.  At the local 
level, the legislature gave county clerks the responsibility of 
ensuring that municipal clerks have the supplies and information 
necessary to operate elections.   
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
14 
 
clerk that he or she is no longer indefinitely confined.  
Furthermore, if individual electors did not follow the statutory 
mandate and continued to vote as indefinitely confined, despite no 
longer meeting the statutory requirements, they would cast their 
votes contrary to the statute.  In turn, because compliance with 
the absentee ballot process is mandatory, their ballots would not 
count.  Wis. Stat. §§ 6.84(1), (2). 
¶27 Accordingly, we conclude that whether an elector 
qualifies as indefinitely confined is a determination that 
individual electors make, not third parties. 
2.  Indefinite Confinement 
¶28 Having concluded that it is the individual elector who 
decides whether that elector is indefinitely confined or disabled 
for an indefinite period, we now turn to the statutory criteria 
that may result in indefinite confinement pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a).   
¶29 An elector is eligible to obtain an absentee ballot under 
Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) if that elector is "indefinitely confined 
because of age, physical illness or infirmity."  The statute 
enumerates three reasons sufficient to constitute indefinite 
confinement.  When the legislature explicitly includes certain 
conditions in meeting a statutory standard, we may presume that 
the legislature purposefully excluded others.  FAS, LLC v. Town of 
Bass Lake, 2007 WI 73, ¶27, 301 Wis. 2d 321, 733 N.W.2d 287 ("Under 
the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 'the express 
mention of one matter excludes other similar matters [that are] 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
15 
 
not included.'") (quoting Perra v. Menomonee Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 
WI App 215, ¶12, 239 Wis. 2d 26, 619 N.W.2d 123) (alteration in 
original).   
¶30 It is not necessary to define each enumerated category 
of 
indefinite 
confinement 
in 
the 
context 
of 
this 
case.  
Nonetheless, we conclude that both the contention that electors 
qualify as indefinitely confined solely as the result of the COVID-
19 pandemic and the declared public health emergency and the 
contention that Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) could be used for those 
who "have trouble presenting a valid ID" are erroneous because 
those reasons do not come within the statutory criteria.  
¶31 First, the presence of a communicable disease such as 
COVID-19, in and of itself, does not entitle all electors in 
Wisconsin to obtain an absentee ballot under Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a).  Similarly, an emergency order that required all 
Wisconsinites to remain in their homes except for limited 
circumstances, standing alone, was not a condition based on age, 
a physical illness, or an infirmity.  Finally, having trouble 
uploading or providing proof of a photo identification does not 
permit electors to avoid both the absentee voting laws and the 
voter identification laws.   
¶32 For these reasons, we conclude that in order to take 
advantage of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a)'s photo identification bypass 
and secure repetitive absentee ballot receipts, an elector must 
strictly comply with § 6.86(2)(a)'s requirements.  
3.  Age, Physical Illness, or Infirmity 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
16 
 
¶33 Finally, we determine to whom the statutory conditions 
apply.  The Petitioners assert that the conditions apply only to 
individual electors.  Conversely, DRW contends that when an elector 
is caring for someone who is indefinitely confined because of age, 
physical illness or infirmity, the caretaker is indefinitely 
confined for those reasons as well.  We conclude that the plain 
reading of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) requires that the elector is 
the person who must be indefinitely confined because of the 
elector's own age, physical illness or infirmity.  
¶34 As discussed above, we agree with DRW that it is for 
each elector individually to decide whether to employ Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a).  However, we do not agree that electors may make 
that decision based on someone else's age, physical illness or 
infirmity.  DRW accuses the Petitioners of violating a basic canon 
of statutory interpretation by reading into the statute language 
that the legislature did not employ.6   
¶35 DRW's interpretation would have us read the statute 
as:  "An elector who is indefinitely confined because of [the 
elector's 
or 
another's] 
age, 
physical 
illness 
or 
infirmity . . . ."  The underlined portion in the previous 
sentence does not exist, and as we already explained, we will not 
add words the legislature did not employ.  Dawson, 336 Wis. 2d 
                                                 
6 Specifically, DRW contends that the Petitioners are 
impermissibly reading "his or her own" into the statute.  DRW 
argues that this is a limitation that the legislature did not 
intend.  As we discuss below, we do not see this as a limitation 
but rather the reasonable reading of the statute based on its plain 
language.  
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
17 
 
318, ¶42.  Just as one cannot declare another indefinitely 
confined, one cannot be indefinitely confined because of the 
conditions of another.  
¶36 To support its argument, DRW asserts that by adding 
"because of age, physical illness or infirmity" to the statute, 
the legislature expanded "indefinitely confined" beyond conditions 
that affect an individual elector.  However, in the same breath, 
DRW argues that "or is disabled for an indefinite period" is 
limited to the elector as it does not contain a "because of" 
modifier.  This construction of the statute is untenable and leads 
to a disjointed result; we decline to read the statute in such a 
way.  Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46.  
¶37 Rather, we see these prerequisites as two sides of the 
same coin.  Wisconsin Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) applies to "[a]n elector 
who is indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or 
infirmity, or is disabled for an indefinite period . . . ."  Each 
applies to conditions that an elector may experience but under 
different circumstances.  An elector may be indefinitely confined 
because of age, physical illness or infirmity and not necessarily 
be disabled for an indefinite period of time.  The converse is 
also true:  an elector may be temporarily disabled for an 
indefinite period of time and need not be elderly, physically ill, 
or infirm.  Either way, the conditions apply to the individual 
elector himself or herself, not to a third party caregiver.  
¶38 Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the plain 
meaning of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) applies both indefinite 
No. 
2020AP557-OA 
 
 
18 
 
confinement and disability for an indefinite period to the elector 
who seeks to obtain an absentee ballot under § 6.86(2)(a).  
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶39 We conclude Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) requires that 
(1) each individual elector make his or her own determination as 
to whether the elector is indefinitely confined; (2) an elector's 
determination may be based only upon age, physical illness or 
infirmity; and (3) an elector is indefinitely confined for his or 
her own age, physical illness or infirmity, not those of another 
person. 
¶40 Accordingly, 
we 
conclude 
that 
the 
Respondents' 
interpretation of Wisconsin's election laws is erroneous.  
Additionally, we conclude that Emergency Order #12 did not render 
all Wisconsin electors "indefinitely confined," thereby obviating 
the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an 
absentee ballot.  
By the Court.—Rights declared.   
 
 
No.  2020AP557-OA.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶41 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (concurring in part, dissenting 
in part).  I agree with the majority that the determination of 
whether electors are indefinitely confined is to be made by the 
electors themselves.  See majority op., ¶2.  I further agree that 
Emergency Order #12,1 the "safer at home" order, did not render 
all Wisconsin electors indefinitely confined for purposes of Wis. 
Stat. § 6.86(2)(a).2  Id., ¶3.  However, I likewise agree with 
Justice Dallet's separate writing that the majority should have 
stopped there. 
¶42 The majority, instead, ventures farther.  It alters Wis. 
Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) by inserting its own words into the statutory 
text chosen by the legislature.  Such a technique allows the 
majority to arrive at an unnecessary and erroneous blanket 
determination that "an elector is indefinitely confined for his or 
her own age, physical illness or infirmity, not those of another 
person."  Id., ¶2.   
¶43 Such a determination is not supported by the plain 
language of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a).  Further, for some, it may 
imperil their fundamental right to vote. 
                                                 
1 Emergency Order #12, issued on March 24, 2020, by Department 
of Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm, ordered among 
other things, "'[a]ll individuals present within the State of 
Wisconsin . . . to stay at home or at their place of residence' 
with certain delineated exceptions."  Wisconsin Legislature v. 
Palm, 2020 WI 42, ¶6, 391 Wis. 2d 497, 942 N.W.2d 900. 
2 Dane County acknowledges that Emergency Order #12 did not 
render all Wisconsin electors indefinitely confined. 
No.  2020AP557-OA.awb 
 
2 
 
¶44 Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent 
in part. 
¶45 Wisconsin Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) provides in relevant part:  
"An elector who is indefinitely confined because of age, physical 
illness or infirmity or is disabled for an indefinite period may 
by signing a statement to that effect require that an absentee 
ballot be sent to the elector automatically for every election."3   
¶46 In the majority's view, an elector may not claim 
indefinitely confined status "based on someone else's age, 
physical illness or infirmity."  Majority op., ¶34.  The majority 
opinion criticizes the proffered contrary interpretation of 
Disability Rights Wisconsin (DRW) because it "would have us read 
the statute as:  'An elector who is indefinitely confined because 
of [the elector's or another's] age, physical illness or 
infirmity . . . ."  Id., ¶35. 
¶47 But an examination of the statute in question leads to 
the conclusion that it is the majority, and not DRW, that 
impermissibly inserts words into the statute.  To explain, the 
statute by its own terms applies to "[a]n elector who is 
indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or 
infirmity . . . ."  Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a).  It does not say whose 
age, physical illness, or infirmity is the trigger.  Indeed, there 
                                                 
3 An elector who receives an absentee ballot in this manner, 
and who has not previously provided proof of identification with 
an absentee ballot request, "may, in lieu of providing proof of 
identification, submit with his or her absentee ballot a statement 
signed by the same individual who witnesses voting of the ballot 
which contains the name and address of the elector and verifies 
that the name and address are correct."  Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)2. 
& 3. 
No.  2020AP557-OA.awb 
 
3 
 
is no modifier to "age, physical illness or infirmity" in the 
statute.   
¶48 In the absence of such a modifier, the majority reads in 
"his or her own age, physical illness or infirmity."  This 
interpretation violates our precedent that indicates this court 
"will not read into the statute a limitation the plain language 
does not evidence."  State v. Kozel, 2017 WI 3, ¶39, 373 Wis. 2d 1, 
889 N.W.2d 423; see State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 
2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. 
¶49 Accordingly, the text of the statute does not preclude 
a person from designating "indefinitely confined" under the 
circumstances due to the "age, physical illness or infirmity" of 
another in their household.  In addition to being consistent with 
the plain statutory language, which provides no limitation, such 
a conclusion is consistent with common sense and responsible public 
health practices in the midst of a global pandemic. 
¶50 As an example, consider an elderly couple who live in a 
rural 
area 
where internet 
service is 
sparse,4 
and 
who 
do 
not 
possess 
the necessary technology to make a copy of their photo 
identification to apply for an absentee ballot.  Both may be self-
quarantining due to the particular vulnerability of one with a 
                                                 
4 As of earlier this year, around 486,000 Wisconsin residents, 
or "roughly 28 percent of the state's rural population," lacked 
broadband access.  Shamane Mills, "Demand For Broadband Internet 
Remains High In Rural Wisconsin," Wisconsin Public Radio (Feb. 12, 
2020), 
https://www.wpr.org/demand-broadband-internet-remains-
high-rural-wisconsin; see Lori S. Kornblum & Daniel Pollack, Out 
of Luck:  Need a Rural Family Law Attorney?, 92 Wis. Law. 34, 40 
(Sept. 2019) ("Wisconsin and many other states have areas where 
internet service is not easily available."). 
No.  2020AP557-OA.awb 
 
4 
 
health condition that poses a distinct risk for dire consequences 
should a partner contract COVID-19.  Under the majority's 
formulation, the healthy partner must make what for some amounts 
to an impossible choice——leave the house to vote in person or make 
a copy of a photo identification, thereby risking exposure to 
COVID-19, or forgo participation in our democracy.  The fear of 
contracting COVID-19 is real and the risk, for some, of contracting 
the virus is simply too daunting. 
¶51 To force such a Hobson's choice5 is inconsistent with 
our understanding of the right to vote as a "sacred right of the 
highest character."  League of Women Voters of Wis. Educ. Network, 
Inc. v. Walker, 2014 WI 97, ¶72, 357 Wis. 2d 360, 851 N.W.2d 302 
(Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting) (citing State v. Phelps, 144 Wis. 
1, 15, 128 N.W. 1041 (1910)).   
¶52 Even if the majority's interpretation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2)(a) is reasonable, and the statute is susceptible to two 
reasonable interpretations, I adopt the interpretation more 
respectful of the sacred character and fundamental nature of the 
right to vote.  See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964) 
(citing Yick v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)) (referring to 
voting as a "fundamental political right . . . preservative of all 
rights").  The ability to exercise the fundamental right to vote 
should not be imperiled by a loved one's frail health, and it 
                                                 
5 "A 'Hobson's choice' is 'an apparent freedom of choice when 
there is no real alternative,' such as being put in the position 
of having to accept 'one of two or more equally objectionable 
things.'"  McNally v. Capital Cartage, Inc., 2018 WI 46, ¶70 n.3, 
381 Wis. 2d 349, 912 N.W.2d 35 (Ziegler, J., dissenting) (citation 
omitted). 
No.  2020AP557-OA.awb 
 
2 
 
should not be contingent on one's access to the necessary 
technology to make a photocopy of a photo identification. 
¶53 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur in part 
and dissent in part. 
 
No.  2020AP557-OA.rfd 
 
1 
 
 
 
¶54 REBECCA 
FRANK 
DALLET, 
J.   (concurring 
in 
part, 
dissenting in part).  I join the majority opinion to the extent 
that it confirms our March 31, 2020 unpublished order, in which we 
explained that electors were not automatically confined or 
disabled under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2) solely because of Emergency 
Order #12 or the mere presence of COVID-19.  The majority 
reiterates that position, correctly stating that each elector must 
make her own determination as to whether she is indefinitely 
confined or disabled.  Majority op., ¶¶25-27.  If the majority 
opinion stopped there, I would join it in its entirety.  Since it 
goes further, I join it only in part.1 
¶55 We decide cases on the "facts in front of us," not 
hypothetical ones.  State v. Steffes, 2013 WI 53, ¶27, 347 
Wis. 2d 683, 832 N.W.2d 101.  Deciding cases on hypothetical facts 
leads to impermissible advisory opinions, about which our position 
has been steadfast:  "[w]e will not do that."  E.g., O'Bright v. 
Lynch, No. 2020AP1761-OA, unpublished order (Wis. Oct. 29, 2020) 
(Roggensack, C.J., concurring); Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. City of 
Milwaukee, 2018 WI 86, ¶128, 383 Wis. 2d 247, 914 N.W.2d 597 
(Abrahamson, 
J., 
dissenting); 
Smith 
v. 
Pershing, 
10 
Wis. 2d 352, 357, 102 N.W.2d 765 (1960). 
¶56 Yet the majority's speculation as to what conditions 
might render future voters indefinitely confined or disabled 
results in just such an advisory opinion.  We have before us no 
                                                 
1 I join Parts II.C. and II.D.1. of the majority opinion. 
No.  2020AP557-OA.rfd 
 
2 
 
facts regarding any elector's determination under Wis. Stat. 
§ 6.86(2).  Indeed, Jefferson does not allege that even one elector 
actually requested or obtained an absentee ballot based on 
McDonell's erroneous advice.  That factual deficiency is not cured 
by the majority's reaching outside the record to note an increase 
in the number of electors who requested an absentee ballot because 
they determined they were indefinitely confined or disabled.  To 
begin with, the increase in absentee-ballot requests is provided 
without any context, such as the fact that electors in the 2020 
Spring Election faced the once-in-a-generation challenge of voting 
in the midst of a deadly pandemic.  But more to the point, the 
number of absentee-ballot requests based on indefinite confinement 
or disability tells us nothing about how we should interpret 
§ 6.86(2) because that number does not tell us why any voter 
determined she was indefinitely confined.   
¶57 Without 
those 
facts, 
the 
majority 
opinion's 
interpretation of § 6.86(2) rests on hypothetical voters who are 
indefinitely confined for hypothetical reasons.  That is not how 
we decide cases.  See Tammi v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 2009 
WI 83, ¶3, 320 Wis. 2d 45, 768 N.W.2d 783 (refusing to address a 
"hypothetical situation").  I therefore concur in part, joining 
the majority in its conclusion that individual electors must make 
their own determination as to whether they are indefinitely 
confined or disabled under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2).  I would go no 
further. 
 
No.  2020AP557-OA.rfd 
 
 
 
1