In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 20-3414 

DONALD J. TRUMP, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

No. 2:20-cv-1785 — Brett H. Ludwig, Judge. 

____________________ 

SUBMITTED DECEMBER 21, 2020* — DECIDED DECEMBER 24, 2020 

____________________ 

Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. 

SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Two days after Wisconsin certified 

the results of its 2020 election, President Donald J. Trump invoked the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution and sued 

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because 

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, 

and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C). 
2 No. 20-3414 

the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Governor, Secretary of 

State, and several local officials in federal court. The district 

court concluded that the President’s challenges lacked merit, 

as he objected only to the administration of the election, yet 

the Electors Clause, by its terms, addresses the authority of 

the State’s Legislature to prescribe the manner of appointing 

its presidential electors. So, too, did the district court conclude 

that the President’s claims would fail even under a broader, 

alternative reading of the Electors Clause that extended to a 

state’s conduct of the presidential election. We agree that Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed 

by its Legislature and add that the President’s claim also fails 

because of the unreasonable delay that accompanied the challenges the President now wishes to advance against Wisconsin’s election procedures. 

I

A 

On November 3, the United States held its 2020 presidential election. The final tally in Wisconsin showed that Joseph 

R. Biden, Jr. won the State by 20,682 votes. On November 30, 

the Wisconsin Elections Commission certified the results, the 

Governor signed an accompanying certification, and Wisconsin notified the National Archives that it had selected Biden’s 

ten electors to represent the State in the Electoral College. 

Two days later, the President brought this lawsuit challenging certain procedures Wisconsin had used in conducting 

the election. The President alleged that the procedures violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal 
No. 20-3414 3 

to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives 

to which the State may be entitled in the Congress .... 

U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. 

To implement the obligation imposed by the Electors 

Clause, Wisconsin’s Legislature has directed that the State’s 

electors be appointed “[b]y general ballot at the general election for choosing the president and vice president of the 

United States.” WIS. STAT. § 8.25(1). It has further assigned “responsibility for the administration of ... laws relating to elections and election campaigns” to the Commission. Id. 

§ 5.05(1). Municipalities run the election, and each municipality’s own clerk “has charge and supervision of elections and 

registration in the municipality.” Id. § 7.15(1). 

The President alleges that the Commission and municipal 

officials so misused the power granted to them by the Legislature that they had unconstitutionally altered the “Manner” 

by which Wisconsin appointed its electors. His allegations 

challenge three pieces of guidance issued by the Commission 

well in advance of the 2020 election. (Each guidance document is available on the Commission’s website, https://elections.wi.gov.) 

First, in March 2020, the Commission clarified the standards and procedures for voters to qualify as “indefinitely confined” and therefore be entitled to vote absentee without presenting a photo identification. See WIS. STAT. §§ 6.86(2)(a),

6.87(4)(b)2. The Commission explained that many voters 

would qualify based on their personal circumstances and the 

COVID-19 pandemic, adding that Wisconsin law established

no method for a clerk to demand proof of a voter’s individual

situation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court endorsed the 
4 No. 20-3414 

Commission’s interpretation when it enjoined the Dane 

County Clerk from offering any contrary view of the law. See

Jefferson v. Dane County, 2020 WI 90 ¶¶ 8–9 (Dec. 14, 2020). 

Second, the Commission issued guidance in August 2020 

endorsing the use of drop boxes for the return of absentee ballots. The Commission explained that drop boxes could be 

“staffed or unstaffed, temporary or permanent,” and offered 

advice on how to make them both secure and available to voters during the pandemic.

Third, four years ago, before the 2016 election, the Commission instructed municipal clerks on best practices for correcting a witness’s address on an absentee ballot certificate. 

See WIS. STAT. § 6.87(2), (6d), (9). Clerks were able, the Commission explained, to contact the voter or witness or use another source of reliable information to correct or complete address information on an absentee ballot. 

The President’s complaint alleges that the Commission, in 

issuing this guidance, expanded the standards for “indefinitely confined” voters, invited voter fraud by authorizing the 

use of unstaffed drop boxes, and misled municipal clerks 

about their powers to complete or correct address information 

on absentee ballots, all contrary to Wisconsin statutory law. 

The President sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the 

view that these alleged misinterpretations of state law “infringed and invaded upon the Wisconsin Legislature’s prerogative and directions under [the Electors Clause of] Article 

II of the U.S. Constitution.” 

B 

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected the 

President’s claims on the merits and entered judgment for the 
No. 20-3414 5 

Commission and other defendants. The Electors Clause, the 

court determined, addressed the “Manner”—the “approach, 

form, method, or mode”—by which Wisconsin appointed its

electors. For Wisconsin, that meant only by “general ballot at 

the general election,” WIS. STAT. § 8.25(1), with the court further observing that any mistakes in administering the election 

did not change that the electors were appointed by general

election.

Even if the Electors Clause was read more broadly to address the “Manner” in which Wisconsin conducted the election, the district court determined that the Legislature had authorized the Commission to issue the guidance now challenged by the President. None of that guidance, the district 

court reasoned, reflected such a deviation from the Wisconsin 

Legislature’s directives as to violate the Electors Clause.

The President promptly appealed, and we expedited the

case for decision.

II

We begin, as we must, by assessing whether the President 

has presented a Case or Controversy over which we have jurisdiction. The inquiry turns on the doctrine of standing and, 

more specifically, whether the President has alleged an injury 

traceable to the actions of the defendants and capable of being 

redressed by a favorable judicial ruling. See Lujan v. Defs. of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The district court answered the question in the President’s favor. We do too. 

On the injury prong of standing, the President has alleged 

“concrete and particularized” harm stemming from the allegedly unlawful manner by which Wisconsin appointed its electors. Id. at 560. As a candidate for elected office, the President’s 
6 No. 20-3414 

alleged injury is one that “affect[s] [him] in a personal and individual way.” Id. at 560 n.1; see also Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 

1051, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (“An inaccurate vote tally is a concrete and particularized injury to candidates.”). The alleged 

injury-in-fact is likewise “fairly traceable” to the challenged 

action of the defendants, see Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 

(1984), all of whom played some role in administering the 

election.

The final requirement for Article III standing—that the alleged injury “likely” would be redressed by a favorable decision—presents a closer question. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. The 

difficulty is attributable to the gap between what the President ultimately desires (to be declared the victor of Wisconsin) on one hand, and what a court can award him on the 

other. But the President’s complaint can be read as more modestly requesting a declaration that the defendants’ actions violated the Electors Clause and that those violations tainted 

enough ballots to “void” the election. Were we to grant the 

President the relief he requests and declare the election results 

void, the alleged injury—the unlawful appointment of electors—would be redressed. True, our declaration would not 

result in a new slate of electors. But the fact that a judicial order cannot provide the full extent or exact type of relief a 

plaintiff might desire does not render the entire case nonjusticiable. See Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 

12–13 (1992). A favorable ruling would provide the opportunity for the appointment of a new slate of electors. From 

there, it would be for the Wisconsin Legislature to decide the 

next steps in advance of Congress’s count of the Electoral College’s votes on January 6, 2021. See 3 U.S.C. § 15. All of this is 

enough to demonstrate Article III standing.
No. 20-3414 7 

We also conclude that the President’s complaint presents 

a federal question, despite its anchoring in alleged violations 

of state law. The Eleventh Amendment and principles of federalism bar federal courts from directing state officials to follow state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 

465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984). But we can decide whether their interpretation of state law violated a provision of the federal Constitution, here the Electors Clause. This distinction alleviates 

any federalism concerns that might otherwise preclude our 

consideration of the President’s claims. 

III

On the merits, the district court was right to enter judgment for the defendants. We reach this conclusion in no small 

part because of the President’s delay in bringing the challenges to Wisconsin law that provide the foundation for the 

alleged constitutional violation. Even apart from the delay, 

the claims fail under the Electors Clause.

A 

The timing of election litigation matters. “[A]ny claim 

against a state electoral procedure must be expressed expeditiously.” Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1031 (7th Cir. 1990) 

(citing Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 34–35 (1968)). The Supreme Court underscored this precise point in this very election cycle, and with respect to this very State. See Republican 

Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 

(2020). The Court’s direction was clear: federal courts should 

avoid announcing or requiring changes in election law and 

procedures close in time to voting. Doing so risks offending 

principles of federalism and reflects an improper exercise of 

the federal judicial power. Even more, belated election 
8 No. 20-3414 

litigation risks giving voters “incentive to remain away from 

the polls.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 5 (2006); see also

Crookston v. Johnson, 841 F.3d 396, 398 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Call it 

what you will—laches, the Purcell principle, or common 

sense—the idea is that courts will not disrupt imminent elections absent a powerful reason for doing so.”). On this reasoning, we have rejected as late claims brought too close in time 

before an election occurs. See Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Bostelmann, 977 F.3d 639, 642 (7th Cir. 2020); Jones v. MarkiewiczQualkinbush, 842 F.3d 1053, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2016); Navarro v. 

Neal, 716 F.3d 425, 429 (7th Cir. 2013). 

The same imperative of timing and the exercise of judicial 

review applies with much more force on the back end of elections. Before a court can contemplate entering a judgment that 

would void election results, it “must consider whether the 

plaintiffs filed a timely pre-election request for relief.” Gjersten v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 791 F.2d 472, 479 (7th Cir. 1986) 

(emphasis added) (footnote omitted). 

These very considerations underpin the doctrine of laches. 

At its core, laches is about timing. “Laches cuts off the right to 

sue when the plaintiff has delayed ‘too long’ in suing. ‘Too 

long’ for this purpose means that the plaintiff delayed inexcusably and the defendant was harmed by the delay.” Teamsters & Emps. Welfare Tr. of Ill. v. Gorman Bros. Ready Mix, 283 

F.3d 877, 880 (7th Cir. 2002). 

The President had a full opportunity before the election to 

press the very challenges to Wisconsin law underlying his 

present claims. Having foregone that opportunity, he cannot 

now—after the election results have been certified as final—

seek to bring those challenges. All of this is especially so given 

that the Commission announced well in advance of the 
No. 20-3414 9 

election the guidance he now challenges. Indeed, the witnessaddress guidance came four years ago, before the 2016 election. The Commission issued its guidance on indefinitely confined voters in March 2020 and endorsed the use of drop 

boxes in August. 

Allowing the President to raise his arguments, at this late 

date, after Wisconsin has tallied the votes and certified the 

election outcome, would impose unquestionable harm on the 

defendants, and the State’s voters, many of whom cast ballots 

in reliance on the guidance, procedures, and practices that the 

President challenges here. The President’s delay alone is 

enough to warrant affirming the district court’s judgment. 

B 

The President would fare no better even if we went further 

and reached the merits of his claims under the Electors 

Clause. 

Defining the precise contours of the Electors Clause is a 

difficult endeavor. The text seems to point to at least two constructions, and the case law interpreting or applying the 

Clause is sparse. This case does not require us to answer the 

question, as the Commission’s guidance did not amount to a 

violation under the two most likely interpretations. 

Recall that the Electors Clause requires each State to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” 

presidential electors. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. By its terms, 

the Clause could be read as addressing only the manner of 

appointing electors and thus nothing about the law that governs the administration of an election (polling place operations, voting procedures, vote tallying, and the like). The 

word “appoint” is capacious, “conveying the broadest power 
10 No. 20-3414 

of determination,” including but not limited to the “mode” of 

popular election. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892). 

Historically, the states used a variety of manners for appointing electors, such as direct legislative appointment. See id. at 

29–33. For its part, the Wisconsin Legislature has consistently 

chosen a general election to appoint its electors. See WIS. STAT. 

§ 8.25(1) (2020); WIS. STAT. §§ 6.3, 7.3 (1849). The complaint 

does not allege that the Commission’s guidance documents

shifted Wisconsin from a general election to some other manner of appointing electors, like those used in other states in 

the past. On this reading of the Electors Clause, the President 

has failed to state a claim. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

But perhaps the better construction is to read the term 

“Manner” in the Electors Clause as also encompassing acts 

necessarily antecedent and subsidiary to the method for appointing electors—in short, Wisconsin’s conduct of its general 

election. Even on this broader reading, the President’s claims

still would fall short. In his concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore, 

Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that the proper inquiry under the Electors Clause is to ask whether a state conducted the 

election in a manner substantially consistent with the “legislative scheme” for appointing electors. 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) 

(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). We would not go further and 

ask, for example, whether Wisconsin’s officials interpreted 

perfectly “[i]solated sections” of the elections code. Id. at 114. 

The Wisconsin Legislature expressly assigned to the Commission “the responsibility for the administration of ... laws 

relating to elections,” WIS. STAT. § 5.05(1), just as Florida’s 

Legislature had delegated a similar responsibility to its Secretary of State. See Bush, 531 U.S. at 116 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Florida’s legislative scheme included this “statutorily 
No. 20-3414 11 

provided apportionment of responsibility,” id. at 114, and 

three Justices found a departure from that scheme when the 

Florida Supreme Court rejected the Secretary’s interpretation 

of state law. See id. at 119, 123. And it was the Minnesota Secretary of State’s lack of a similar responsibility that prompted 

two judges of the Eighth Circuit to conclude that he likely violated the Electors Clause by adding a week to the deadline 

for receipt of absentee ballots. See Carson, 978 F.3d at 1060. By 

contrast, whatever actions the Commission took here, it took

under color of authority expressly granted to it by the Legislature. And that authority is not diminished by allegations 

that the Commission erred in its exercise. 

We confine our conclusions to applications of the Electors 

Clause. We are not the ultimate authority on Wisconsin law. 

That responsibility rests with the State’s Supreme Court. Put 

another way, the errors that the President alleges occurred in 

the Commission’s exercise of its authority are in the main

matters of state law. They belong, then, in the state courts, 

where the President had an opportunity to raise his concerns.

Indeed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected his claims regarding the guidance on indefinitely confined voters, see 

Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 91 ¶ 8 (Dec. 14, 2020), and declined to 

reach the rest of his arguments on grounds of laches.

For our part, all we need to say is that, even on a broad 

reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed 

its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature. 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM.