Case Title: Sewell v. Racine Unified School District Board of Canvassers

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP001271-AC

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2022-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
2022 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP1271-AC 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
James Sewell and George Meyers, 
          Petitioners-Appellants-Petitioners, 
Dennis Montey, 
          Petitioner-Appellant, 
     v. 
Racine Unified School District Board of 
Canvassers, YES for Our Children , A Referendum 
Committee, Chelsea Powell and The Racine Unified 
School District, 
          Respondents-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A SUMMARY OPINION OF THE COURT OF 
APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 12, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
November 22, 2021   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Racine   
 
JUDGE: 
Michael J. Piontek   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous 
Court. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For 
the 
petitioners-appellants-petitioners, 
there 
were 
briefs filed by M. Samir Siddique, Gary E. Grass, Vincent J. 
Bobot and Siddique Law, LLC, Milwaukee. There was an oral 
argument by M. Samir Siddique. 
 
For the respondents-respondents YES for Our Children and 
Chelsea Powell, there was a brief filed by Christopher M. Meuler 
and Meuler Law, LLC, Wauwatosa and Rebecca K. Mason and Rebecca 
 
 
2 
Mason Law, LLC, Racine.  There was oral argument by Christopher 
M. Meuler. 
 
For 
the 
respondents-respondents 
Racine 
Unified 
School 
District Board of Canvassers and the Racine Unified School 
District, a brief was filed by Matthew W. O’Neill and Fox, 
O’Neill & Shannon, S.C., Milwaukee.  There was oral argument by 
Matthew W. O’Neill. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Law Forward, 
Inc. by Jeffrey A. Mandell, Douglas M. Poland, Rachel E. Snyder 
and Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison and Mel Barnes and Law 
Forward, Inc., Madison. 
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 18 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2020AP1271-AC 
(L.C. No. 
2020CV1023) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
James Sewell and George Meyers, 
 
          Petitioners-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
Dennis Montey, 
 
          Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Racine Unified School District Board of 
Canvassers, YES for Our Children,  
A Referendum Committee, Chelsea Powell  
and The Racine Unified School District, 
 
          Respondents-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 12, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ROGGENSACK, J., delivered the majority opinion for a unanimous 
Court. 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   We review the decision 
of the court of appeals,1 which summarily affirmed the decision 
                                                 
1 James Sewell v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of 
Canvassers, No. 2020AP1271-AC, unpublished order (Wis. Ct. App. 
Mar. 17, 2021).  
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
2 
 
of the circuit court2 affirming the results of the referendum 
recount conducted pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 9.01 (2019-2020).3  On 
our review, the petitioners, James Sewell and George Myers 
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sewell"), ask us to 
reverse the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court.  
They urge us to conclude that the Racine Unified School District 
Board 
of 
Canvassers 
("Board 
of 
Canvassers") 
incorrectly 
calculated the recount's vote totals and that Sewell has an 
absolute right pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 7.54 to have the ballots 
opened and reviewed in open circuit court, which has not yet 
occurred.  
¶2 
In the matter before us, the circuit court acted as an 
appellate decision-maker on the correctness of the recount.  
Wis. Stat. § 9.01(8).  Sewell then appealed the circuit court's 
decision affirming the Board of Canvassers' recount, which the 
court of appeals reviewed and affirmed.  We conclude that the 
circuit court competently and comprehensively reviewed each of 
Sewell's factual and legal challenges to the recount conducted 
by the Board of Canvassers.  The circuit court noted the issue 
of Wis. Stat. § 7.54 as "Petitioner's Repeated Demand to Examine 
and Recount Ballots," but, it did not address § 7.54.  The court 
                                                 
2 The Honorable Michael J. Piontek of Racine County Circuit 
Court presided.  
3 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-
2020 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
3 
 
of appeals summarily addressed § 7.54 contrary to Sewell's 
contention.4   
¶3 
Although we agree that Wis. Stat. § 7.54 appears to 
provide an occasion to utilize its provisions in regard to a 
contested election, we do not identify that here.  Rather, we 
simply note that § 7.54 does not apply when an appeal of the 
result of a recount by the board of canvassers is before an 
appellate court.  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the 
court of appeals.  
I.  BACKGROUND 
A.  Factual Background5 
¶4 
On April 7, 2020, the voters within the Racine Unified 
School District ("School District") participated in a referendum 
to determine whether the School District would be permitted to 
exceed the revenue limits detailed in Wis. Stat. § 121.91.  In 
total, the spending plan permitted the School District to exceed 
the revenue limits in excess of one billion dollars over the 
next thirty years.   
¶5 
The April 13, 2020 vote canvass reported that "Yes" 
votes exceeded "No" votes by five votes.  The Board of 
Canvassers certified the election results as 16,748 "Yes" votes 
and 16,743 "No" votes.  On April 15, 2020, Sewell petitioned for 
                                                 
4 Sewell, No. 2020AP1271-AC, unpublished order, at *3. 
5 Although Sewell focused his attention on an independent 
right he concludes that Wis. Stat. § 7.54 provides, Respondents 
discuss the Board of Canvassers recount under Wis. Stat. § 9.01 
as necessary foundation for better evaluating Sewell's § 7.54 
claim.  Accordingly, we do to some degree as well. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
4 
 
a recount of the referendum vote totals under Wis. Stat. 
§ 9.01(1). 
¶6 
Between April 18th and 24th, in the midst of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of Canvassers conducted the 
recount.  It consisted of reviewing 96 wards and more than 
34,000 ballots.  All of the ballots were reviewed and recounted 
by 
hand 
in 
open 
sessions 
of 
the 
Board 
of 
Canvassers.  
Accommodations, including the use of large projection screens 
and 
moveable 
carts 
to 
transport 
ballots 
so 
that 
closer 
inspections could be made of requested ballots, were provided to 
participants in the recount.  When individual ward's recounts 
were contested and a prior decision regarding procedure used in 
an earlier ward's recount had been made and then changed in a 
later ward recount, the Board of Canvassers re-tallied the 
earlier ward's recount as requested by representatives observing 
the recount.  As part of the recount procedure in some wards, 
the Board of Canvassers utilized "drawdowns."6  At the end of the 
six-day hand recount, the ballot totals were 16,715 "Yes" votes 
and 16,710 "No" votes, a margin of victory of five votes.    
                                                 
6 In instances where the number of ballots exceed the number 
of voters listed on the poll list, a "drawdown" is the procedure 
by which the board of canvassers reduces the number of absentee 
ballots in order to match the number of voters listed in the 
poll list.  See Wis. Stat. § 9.01(1)(b)4.  
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
5 
 
B.  Procedural History 
¶7 
On May 1, 2020, Sewell appealed the results of the 
Board of Canvassers' recount to the Racine County Circuit Court 
"pursuant to Wis. Stats. §§ 9.01(6) and 9.01(7)."  On May 14, 
2020, the circuit court held a scheduling conference, wherein it 
ordered that on or before May 28, 2020, Sewell was to file a 
complaint 
"enumerating 
with 
specificity 
every 
alleged 
irregularity, defect, mistake or fraud" alleged in the recount 
as well as a supporting brief.  Respondents were directed to 
file an answer and a supporting brief on or before June 8, 2020.  
Sewell was directed to file a "short reply brief responding to 
the briefs filed by respondents" on or before June 15, 2020.  
The parties complied with the court's orders.  On May 19, 2020, 
the circuit court entered an order securing all election 
materials.   
¶8 
On June 26, 2020, Sewell filed a "Repeated Demand to 
Examine and Recount Ballots."  In it, Sewell alleged a right to 
have the ballots opened in circuit court.  Sewell contended that 
Wis. Stat. § 7.54 "creates an absolute right" to do so.  This 
was the first time § 7.54 was raised in the appeal of the 
recount proceedings, which had commenced under the provisions of 
Wis. Stat. § 9.01 at Sewell's request.   
¶9 
The circuit court concluded that "the procedure 
utilized by the [Board of Canvassers] did not deny the right of 
anyone to view, request or challenge any action taken during the 
recount."  The court further characterized Sewell's complaint as 
a "misunderstand[ing of] the basic nature of a recount" and 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
6 
 
ultimately concluded that "[a] review of the records, procedure 
and facts, herein, cause[d it] to find that the procedure 
utilized by the [Board of Canvassers] in this recount was proper 
and provided an accurate result."  Accordingly, the circuit 
court affirmed the results of the recount.  Sewell appealed that 
decision to the court of appeals. 
¶10 In addressing Sewell's argument that Wis. Stat. § 7.54 
gave him an absolute right to have the ballots opened in open 
court, the court of appeals was not persuaded that the statute 
aided his argument.7  It noted that, although the statute 
authorized the ballots to be opened in court, it did not require 
that a court do so.  In Sewell's case in particular, the court 
of appeals reasoned that opening the ballots was unwarranted 
because "(1) the ballots had already been opened by the [Board 
of Canvassers] during its recount; and (2) the circuit court 
found that 'the procedure utilized by the [Board of Canvassers] 
in this recount was proper and provided an accurate result.'"8  
Because Sewell did not demonstrate that the court's factual 
findings were not supported by substantial evidence, the court 
of appeals summarily affirmed the circuit court's decision.   
¶11 We granted Sewell's petition for review.  We are 
tasked with determining whether Wis. Stat. § 7.54 provides 
Sewell an avenue for requiring the circuit court to open the 
referendum ballots during his appeal of the recount.  
                                                 
7 Sewell, No. 2020AP1271-AC, unpublished order, at *3. 
8 Id. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
7 
 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Standard of Review 
¶12 In this case, the procedure for review of an appeal of 
a recount is set out by statute.  Under Wis. Stat. § 9.01(8)(d), 
the circuit court shall set aside or modify the determination of 
the board of canvassers if "it finds that the board of 
canvassers . . . has erroneously interpreted a provision of law 
and a correct interpretation compels a particular action."  
Moreover, if the determination "depends on any fact found by the 
board of canvassers . . . the court may not substitute its 
judgment for that of the board of canvassers . . . as to the 
weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact."  
§ 9.01(8)(d).  See also Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of 
Canvassers, 2001 WI App 221, ¶36, 247 Wis. 2d 708, 634 N.W.2d 
882 (instructing that because "the board is the trier of fact, 
its findings must be upheld if they are supported by substantial 
evidence.").  
¶13 The circuit court is required to treat disputed issues 
of 
law 
and 
findings 
of 
fact 
separately. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 9.01(8)(b).  It is well established that "[i]ssues of 
statutory interpretation and application present questions of 
law" that we review independently.  James v. Heinrich, 2021 WI 
58, ¶15, 397 Wis. 2d 516, 960 N.W.2d 350 (citing Police Ass'n v. 
City of Milwaukee, 2018 WI 86, ¶17, 383 Wis. 2d 247, 914 N.W.2d 
597).  
B.  Recount 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
8 
 
¶14 Under Wisconsin election statutes, "chs. 5 to 12 shall 
be construed to give effect to the will of the electors, if that 
can be ascertained from the proceedings."  Wis. Stat. § 5.01(1).  
Chapter 9, entitled "Post-Election Actions," and Wis. Stat. 
§ 9.01(1)(b), 
in 
particular, 
set 
forth 
the 
step-by-step 
procedures to be followed when a party petitions for a recount, 
as Sewell did here.  Although Sewell does not identify in his 
petition for review or brief precisely how the Board of 
Canvassers failed to follow its statutory duty in conducting the 
recount, he nevertheless claims error that he has a right to 
correct under Wis. Stat. § 7.54.   
¶15 In its decision on Sewell's appeal of the recount, the 
circuit court concluded that, from the entirety of the record, 
the procedures utilized by the Board of Canvassers were "open 
and fair and did not deny any observer the meaningful, statutory 
or 
constitutional 
right 
to 
observe, 
object 
or 
otherwise 
participate in the recount."  As the circuit court correctly 
explained, the amended complaint shows that Sewell misunderstood 
what a recount actually is.9  In addition, Sewell has identified 
no specific errors by the Board of Canvassers, for which he has 
sought our review.     
C.  Wisconsin Stat. § 7.54 
                                                 
9 Because the recount procedure constitutes an audit of the 
entire election process, the recount may change the original 
vote total.  Stated otherwise, the total number of votes after a 
recount is conducted may be different than the total number of 
votes tallied on election day.  See, e.g., Wis. Stat. 
§ 9.01(1)(b)4.b. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
9 
 
¶16 As a final means of challenging the vote totals in the 
referendum recount, Sewell asserts an independent right to have 
the ballots opened and re-examined in open circuit court as part 
of his appeal of the recount.  This right, Sewell reasons, 
originates in Wis. Stat. § 7.54 which states:  
In all contested election cases, the contesting 
parties have the right to have the ballots opened and 
to have all errors of the inspectors, either in 
counting or refusing to count any ballot, corrected by 
the board of canvassers or court deciding the contest.  
The ballots and related materials may be opened only 
in open session of the board of canvassers or in open 
court and in the presence of the official having 
custody of them. 
Sewell argues that because this is a contested election, he has 
an absolute right to have the ballots opened in open court and 
to have any errors corrected.  However, rather than mandating 
another complete recount, Sewell argues that § 7.54 contains 
within it two limitations that aid him in this case.  First, he 
argues that not all ballots will be recounted, only those that 
may contain errors.10  Second, Sewell argues that the errors to 
be corrected are strictly limited to objective errors, not any 
error that would override the intent of the voters.11  In support 
of this argument, Sewell relies on a 1933 case:  State ex rel. 
Graves v. Wiegand, 212 Wis. 286, 249 N.W. 537 (1933).  
¶17 In Wiegand, a candidate challenged the results of a 
recount under a predecessor statute of Wis. Stat. § 7.5412 by 
                                                 
10 See Pet. Br., 18 n.9.  
11 See Pet. Br., 19 n.10 (citing Wis. Stat. § 5.01(1)). 
12 The statute interpreted in State ex rel. Graves v. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
10 
 
arguing that the ballots were improperly preserved.  Id. at 288.  
The 
circuit 
court, 
rather 
than 
opening 
the 
ballots 
and 
recounting them, upheld the result of the recount by finding 
that no ballot tampering had occurred.  Id. at 290.  As we 
affirmed 
the 
circuit 
court's 
finding, 
we 
explained 
that 
"[b]allots remaining in the form in which they were cast contain 
the expression of the will of the voters and should be consulted 
as the best evidence of the fact in issue."  Id. at 293.  
Sewell, seizing upon this declaration, argues that the "best 
evidence" to correct the counting errors at issue is the ballots 
themselves.  Under his statutory reading of § 7.54 and Wiegand, 
he contends that the circuit court should honor his right to 
have the ballots re-opened and examined for mathematical errors.  
¶18 We note that Wiegand did not arise in the course of an 
appeal of a recount done by a board of canvassers, which is the 
proceeding that we have before us.  It arose under a claim that 
the evidence (ballots cast) was not sufficient to support the 
results reported for the election because the rules governing 
ballot preservation and security are mandatory and were not 
followed.  Id. at 290.  It was argued that this failure in 
                                                                                                                                                             
Wiegand, 212 Wis. 286, 291, 249 N.W. 537 (1933) provided:  
In all cases of contested elections the parties 
contesting the same shall have the right to have said 
ballots opened, and to have all errors of the 
inspectors in counting or refusing to count any 
ballot, corrected by the court or body trying such 
contest, but such ballots shall be opened only in open 
court or in open session of such body and in the 
presence of the officer having the custody thereof. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
11 
 
ballot security caused ballots to be insufficient evidence "to 
impeach the result declared by the board of canvassers," and 
therefore, those election results must stand.  Id. at 290-91.  
Further, although a recount had been requested, a full recount 
was not done by the circuit court.  Rather, the circuit court 
determined that election officials made some errors, "but under 
the proof presented the irregularities d[id] not amount to a 
destruction of the integrity of the ballots."  Id. at 293.  
Therefore, there was no basis for the court to mistrust the 
ballots and recount the ballots or set aside the vote.  Id. at 
296.    
¶19 Although Wiegand does not support Sewell's contention 
that the circuit court must open all the ballots in open court, 
his contention does cause us to interpret the words employed in 
Wis. Stat. § 7.54 to determine whether § 7.54 applies to the 
process that is to be used in an appeal of a recount.  As we 
have noted many times previously, statutory interpretation 
begins with the language of the statute.  State ex rel. Kalal v. 
Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 
N.W.2d 110.  If the meaning of the words are plain and 
unambiguous, a court's inquiry generally ends and there is no 
need to consult extrinsic sources of interpretation, such as 
legislative history.  Id., ¶¶45, 46.  In addition to the plain 
words of the text, "[c]ontext is important to meaning.  So, too, 
is the structure of the statute in which the operative language 
appears."  Id., ¶46.   
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
12 
 
¶20 Wisconsin Stat. § 7.54 is addressed to "errors of the 
inspectors, either in counting or refusing to count any ballot."  
It provides that these "errors" should be "corrected by the 
board of canvassers or [the] court deciding the contest."  In 
the appeal now before us, Sewell does not claim errors of 
"inspectors."  Rather, in the complaint that Sewell filed in the 
Racine County Circuit Court, he focuses solely on alleged errors 
of the Board of Canvassers during their recount.  Therefore, 
Sewell's categorical error renders his challenge improperly 
raised in this instance.   
¶21 However, if it were properly raised, Wis. Stat. § 7.54 
appears to allow ballots to be opened and errors corrected 
either by the board of canvassers or the circuit court.13  
Sewell, recognizing that the Board of Canvassers has already 
opened all the ballots in its recount, cites to the Wisconsin 
Bill Drafting Manual for the proposition that the "or" in § 7.54 
is conjunctive rather than disjunctive.  Sewell quotes the 
Manual's explanation, which provides:  "'And' is conjunctive, 
and 'or' is disjunctive.  If you wish to allow one or both of 
two alternatives and the disjunctive is not clearly apparent 
from the context, phrase your statement like a penalty provision 
( ... or ... or both)."  Perhaps in recognition that this 
provision of the manual undercuts his argument because § 7.54 
                                                 
13 We do not attempt to identify how Wis. Stat. § 7.54 might 
be used in some other type of proceedings because our review is 
limited to a Wis. Stat. § 9.01 appeal from the recount of the 
Board of Canvassers.   
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
13 
 
does not contain the "or both" language, Sewell contends that 
the "[statute] here is the same, except that the coordinate 
antecedent phrase is omitted."  Rather, Sewell reasons, the 
conjunctive nature of the "or" is "implied."  
¶22 We conclude that the "or" in Wis. Stat. § 7.54 may be 
read either as inclusive or exclusive without affecting our 
determination of the matter pending before us.  Under an 
inclusive interpretation, the statute is satisfied if both the 
board of canvassers and the circuit court open the ballots, and 
it is satisfied if only one entity opens the ballots.  Here, the 
Board of Canvassers opened the ballots.14   
¶23 While Wis. Stat. § 7.54 refers to "contested election 
cases," it gives no indication that it is to be employed during 
an appeal challenging a board of canvassers' counting of ballots 
during a Wis. Stat. § 9.01 recount.  However, although nothing 
in § 7.54 mentions an appeal of a recount, for the sake of 
meeting Sewell's argument, we assumed, without deciding, that it 
could have applied.  And, it is the Board of Canvassers' recount 
that Sewell appealed to the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§§ 9.01(6) and (7) and to which the circuit court applied 
§ 9.01(8).  Accordingly, we have reviewed the § 9.01 recount by 
the Board of Canvassers, where all ballots were opened.  
                                                 
14 Furthermore, because the Board of Canvassers opened the 
ballots in this case, under an "exclusive" interpretation of 
"or" as used in Wis. Stat. § 7.54, the statute is satisfied here 
too. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
14 
 
¶24 The circuit court already conducted a thorough factual 
review of the procedures utilized by the Board of Canvassers in 
granting or denying access to certain election materials and 
determined that the Board of Canvassers reasonably exercised its 
authority.   
¶25 What is before us is not an action based on claimed 
errors of "inspectors."  Accordingly, while Wis. Stat. § 7.54 
applies to contested elections, it does not apply to this appeal 
that challenges the results of a recount based on alleged errors 
by the Board of Canvassers.  Therefore, we affirm the decision 
of the court of appeals.  
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶26 We conclude that the circuit court competently and 
comprehensively reviewed each of Sewell's factual and legal 
challenges to the vote recount conducted by the Board of 
Canvassers.  The circuit court noted the issue of Wis. Stat. 
§ 7.54 as "Petitioner's Repeated Demand to Examine and Recount 
Ballots," but, it did not address § 7.54.  The court of appeals 
summarily addressed § 7.54 contrary to Sewell's contention. 
¶27 Although we agree that Wis. Stat. § 7.54 appears to 
provide an occasion to utilize its provisions in regard to a 
contested election, we do not identify that here.  Rather, we 
simply note that § 7.54 does not apply when an appeal of the 
result of a recount of the board of canvassers is before an 
appellate court.  Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the 
court of appeals. 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
15 
 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
No. 
2020AP1271-AC   
 
 
 
1