Title: Hawkins v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2020AP001488-OA
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 2020

2020 WI 75
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
 
 
Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker, 
 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Wisconsin Elections Commission, Ann S. Jacobs, 
in her official capacity as Chair of the 
Wisconsin Elections Commission, Mark L. 
Thomsen, in his official capacity as  
Vice-Chair of the Wisconsin Elections 
Commission, Marge Bostelmann, in her  
official capacity as Secretary of the  
Wisconsin Elections Commission, Julie M. 
Glancey, in her official capacity as 
Commissioner of the Wisconsin Elections 
Commission, Dean Knudson, in his official 
capacity as Commissioner of the Wisconsin 
Elections Commission, Robert F. Spindell, Jr., 
in his official capacity as Commissioner of  
the Wisconsin Elections Commission and  
Allen Arntsen, 
 
          Respondents. 
FILED 
 
SEP 14, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
 
 
 
¶1 
Petitioners, Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker, the Green 
Party’s candidates for President and Vice President of the United 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
2 
States, have filed a petition for leave to commence an original 
action pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.70 and a motion for 
temporary injunctive relief.  They ask this court to order that 
their names be placed on Wisconsin’s 2020 fall general election 
ballot.  Responses have been received from respondent Allen Arntsen 
and from respondents Wisconsin Elections Commission (Commission), 
Ann Jacobs, Mark Thomsen, Marge Bostelmann, Julie Glancey, Dean 
Knudson, and Robert Spindell.  Petitioners filed a letter replying 
to the responses, accompanied by a supplemental affidavit.  The 
respondents filed a motion to strike the letter reply and 
supplemental affidavit.  On September 10, 2020, this court issued 
an order directing the Commission to obtain certain information 
from the county clerks and municipal clerks of this state, 
including how many absentee ballots had already been mailed to 
electors.  The September 10, 2020 order also directed the 
Commission to advise all municipal clerks in this state not to 
mail any additional absentee ballots pending further order of this 
court.  The Commission filed a response to the order indicating 
that hundreds, if not thousands, of absentee ballots have already 
been mailed to electors. 
¶2 
The underlying facts of the case are as follows. On 
August 4, 2020, the petitioners filed nomination papers with the 
Commission to be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 
general election.  On August 7, 2020, respondent Arntsen filed a 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
3 
verified complaint with the Commission alleging that 2046 of the 
signatures appearing on the petitioners’ nomination papers did not 
list a correct address for Walker.  On August 20, 2020, the 
Commission voted 6-0 to sustain Arntsen’s challenge to 57 
signatures, and the Commission also voted 6-0 to reject Arntsen’s 
challenge to 48 signatures.  The Commission then deadlocked 3-3 on 
Arntsen’s challenge to the validity of 1834 signatures.  On August 
21, 2020, the Administrator for the Commission sent the petitioners 
a letter stating that since the Commission had only certified a 
total of 1789 valid signatures, less than the 2000 required for 
ballot access under Wis. Stat. § 8.20(4) and (8), the petitioners’ 
names would not appear on Wisconsin’s 2020 general election ballot.  
¶3 
On August 26, 2020, the Commission certified the list of 
independent candidates for President and Vice President who would 
appear on Wisconsin’s 2020 fall general election ballot.  The 
petitioners had opted to proceed as independent candidates, but 
their names did not appear on this certified list.  On September 
1, 2020, the Commission certified the remainder of the list of 
candidates for President and Vice President that would appear on 
that ballot.  The petitioners’ names also did not appear on this 
certified list.  
¶4 
The petitioners filed their petition for leave to 
commence an original action and motion for temporary injunctive 
relief on September 3, 2020.  In addition to urging this court to 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
4 
reject the petitioners’ arguments on the merits, both Arntsen and 
the Commission point out that the petitioners waited two weeks 
after the Commission’s failure to certify at least 2000 valid 
signatures at its August 20, 2020 meeting before asking this court 
for relief.  The respondents argue, among other things, that the 
petitioners unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and that this 
court should decline to assume jurisdiction due to laches.  
¶5 
Although we do not render any decision on whether the 
respondents have proven that the doctrine of laches applies under 
these circumstances, having considered all of the parties’ 
filings, we conclude that the petitioners delayed in seeking relief 
in a situation with very short deadlines and that under the 
circumstances, including the fact that the 2020 fall general 
election has essentially begun, it is too late to grant petitioners 
any form of relief that would be feasible and that would not cause 
confusion and undue damage to both the Wisconsin electors who want 
to vote and the other candidates in all of the various races on 
the general election ballot.1   Accordingly, we exercise our 
                                                 
1 Although we agree that the petitioners unduly delayed in 
seeking redress from the result of the Commission’s August 20, 
2020 hearing and that there is insufficient time for this court to 
grant petitioners any relief that would not also be likely to cause 
enormous chaos in the election process, we observe that, under the 
current statutory scheme, the time between the date the Commission 
makes its rulings on ballot access and the date that ballots must 
be sent to voters is extremely short. Even if a party launched an 
immediate challenge to an action or inaction by the Commission, a 
court would be required to decide the matter on an extremely 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
5 
discretion to deny the petition for leave to commence an original 
action. 
¶6 
As both the petitioners and the respondents note, each 
county clerk is required by statute to deliver ballots for the 
2020 general election to all of the municipal clerks in his or her 
county 48 days before the general election, i.e. by September 16, 
2020.  See Wis. Stat. § 7.10(3).  Municipal clerks are statutorily 
required to deliver absentee ballots to electors who have 
previously requested them no later than 47 days before the general 
election, i.e. by September 17, 2020.  See Wis. Stat. § 7.15(1). 
Under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
Act (UOCAVA), 52 U.S.C. §§ 20301-20311, municipalities must send 
ballots to all military and overseas voters who previously 
requested them no later than 45 days prior to the election, i.e. 
by September 19, 2020.  
¶7 
Because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, municipalities 
have more absentee ballot requests on file than ever before. 
Unofficial tallies for the August 2020 primary election indicate 
that over 80% of voters participated by mail, and both the 
Commission and local election officials are preparing for a volume 
of absentee voting for the general election at around the 80% 
                                                 
expedited basis. We urge the legislature to consider broadening 
the statutory timelines to afford a more reasonable amount of time 
for a party to file an action raising a ballot access issue.  
 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
6 
level.  There are already over 968,000 absentee ballot requests on 
file for the general election, and those ballots must be sent to 
voters by September 17, 2020.  Creating and printing ballots is a 
lengthy and laborious process.  Almost all Wisconsin counties use 
specialized private vendors to print their ballots, and only a 
small number of those vendors are available.  In order to meet the 
September 17, 2020 deadline, counties have been working to 
distribute ballots to municipalities earlier than usual, and 
municipalities may begin sending ballots to voters as soon as they 
receive them from their counties.  
¶8 
Many ballots that do not contain the petitioners’ names 
have already been printed.  Given the Commission’s response to 
this court’s September 10, 2020 order, the most likely state of 
current affairs is that municipal clerks have already sent out 
hundreds, and more likely thousands, of those absentee ballots.2  
Ordering new ballots to be printed would be an expensive and time-
consuming process that would not allow counties and municipalities 
                                                 
2 The Commission’s response indicates that it was able to 
obtain information about absentee ballots that had been mailed 
from only 25 of the approximately 1850 municipal clerks in this 
state (slightly more than one percent of the total number of 
municipal clerks).  Those 25 municipal clerks indicated that they 
had already mailed absentee ballots to over 100 electors.  If one 
extrapolates this to all of the municipal clerks across the state, 
the most likely estimate would be that absentee ballots have 
already been mailed to several thousand electors.  Even if this 
court exercised its original jurisdiction and granted relief to 
the petitioners now, all of those electors would need to receive 
a second, revised ballot. 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
7 
to meet the statutory deadlines for delivering and sending ballots. 
In addition, for this court to order the printing and mailing of 
replacement ballots containing the petitioners’ names would create 
a substantial possibility of confusion among voters who had already 
received, and possibly returned, the original ballots.  For these 
reasons, we decline to grant the petition for leave to commence an 
original action or the motion for temporary injunctive relief, and 
we do not reach the merits of the issues raised in the petition.  
¶9 
This is not the first occasion on which we have declined 
to exercise our original jurisdiction due to the lack of sufficient 
time to complete our review and award any effective relief.  In 
Jensen v. Wisconsin Elections Bd., 2002 WI 13, ¶¶17, 21, 249 Wis. 
2d 706, 639 N.W.2d 537, we noted, "There is no question but that 
this matter warrants this court’s original jurisdiction . . . .  
Had our jurisdiction been invoked earlier, the public interest 
might well have been served by our hearing and deciding this case.  
As it stands, it is not."  We also noted in Jensen that this 
court’s involvement would take time, "and there is precious little 
of that left."  While the statutes acknowledge that a court could 
order the correction of a ballot error, see Wis. Stat. 
§ 7.10(3)(a), in this case the court realistically does not have 
even a "precious little" amount of time to reach a decision and 
potentially grant any form of relief that would be feasible.  See 
also De La Fuente v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
8 
No. 2016AP330, unpublished order (Wis. Feb. 22, 2016) (denying 
petition for review and petition for leave to commence an original 
action.)   
¶10 Even if we would ultimately determine that the 
petitioners’ claims are meritorious, given their delay in 
asserting their rights, we would be unable to provide meaningful 
relief without completely upsetting the election.  We agree with 
the Commission that requiring municipalities to print and send a 
second round of ballots to voters who already received, and 
potentially already returned, their first ballot would result in 
confusion and disarray and would undermine confidence in the 
general election results.  Under the circumstances presented here, 
it would be unfair both to Wisconsin voters and to the other 
candidates on the general election ballot to interfere in an 
election that, for all intents and purposes, has already begun.  
For these reasons, we determine that the best exercise of our 
discretion is to deny the petitioners’ petition for leave to 
commence an original action and motion for temporary injunctive 
relief.   
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the respondents’ motion to strike 
petitioners’ letter reply brief and supplemental affidavit is 
denied; and  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the directive in this court’s 
September 10, 2020 order that "the Wisconsin Elections Commission 
No.  2020AP1488-OA 
9 
shall advise all municipal clerks in this state that they should 
not mail any absentee ballots until this court has issued a further 
order stating that absentee ballots may be mailed out or granting 
relief regarding the contents of the ballots for the November 3, 
2020 general election" is hereby vacated; and  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for leave to 
commence an original action and the motion for temporary injunctive 
relief are denied. No costs.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
10 
 
¶14 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J.   (dissenting).  I write 
separately because the people of Wisconsin have the right to know 
the acts of the Commission that took the right of ballot access 
away from candidates of a small independent party, the Green Party 
of Wisconsin.  Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker, Green Party 
candidates for President and Vice President, followed all the 
requirements of Wisconsin law necessary for ballot access, yet the 
Commission denied them and the people of Wisconsin the right to 
have Hawkins' and Walker's names on the ballot for the November 3, 
2020 general election.   
¶15 In so doing, the Commission suppressed the people's 
right to choose to vote for Green Party candidates who have 
maintained positions that are important to them. 
¶16 The Order of the court gives some underlying facts, but 
it omits other undisputed facts that are important for the public 
to know.  In so doing, the Order fails to disclose unlawful 
Commission actions to the public, which should be told what 
actually occurred here.    
¶17 In her Declaration of Candidacy, Angela Walker declared 
that she was a "candidate for the office of Vice President of the 
United States representing The Green Party of the United States."1  
On August 4, 2020, the Green Party candidates filed nomination 
papers containing 3,966 signatures with the Commission.  At least 
                                                 
1 See attached Declaration of Candidacy, signed by Angela 
Walker. 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
11 
 
2,000 signatures, but not more than 4,000 signatures must be filed 
to gain ballot access.  Wis. Stat. §§  8.20(4) and (8).  
¶18 On August 7, 2020, Allen Arntsen filed a document 
entitled "Verified Complaint" wherein he alleged "upon information 
and belief," not upon personal knowledge, that 2,046 of the 
signatures the Green Party candidates submitted appear on 
nomination papers that did not contain a correct address for 
Walker.  The Commission's attorney, Nathan Judnic, sent an email 
to the Hawkins-Walker campaign manager, Andrea Mérida, telling her 
of Arntsen's challenge.  Judnic told Mérida that she had the 
options of filing a sworn written response or appearing at the 
August 20, 2020 Commission meeting to present evidence contesting 
Arntsen's challenge or doing both.   
¶19 It is important for the public to know that there are 
election laws that bear on Arntsen's challenge, which the 
Commission refused to follow.  First, the Commission was required 
to presume that the addresses listed on the nomination papers were 
the correct addresses for the dates listed because Wis. Admin. 
Code § EL 2.05(4) requires that "[a]ny information which appears 
on a nomination paper is entitled to a presumption of validity."  
Section EL 2.07(1) confirms that the Commission "shall apply the 
standards in § EL 2.05 to determine the sufficiency of nomination 
papers."  Second, § EL 2.07(3)(a) requires that "[t]he burden is 
on the challenger to establish any insufficiency."   
¶20 Here, Arntsen's challenge was based on "information and 
belief."  He had no personal knowledge of where Walker lived on 
what date; therefore his allegation is insufficient to overturn 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
12 
 
the presumption that the addresses listed on the nomination papers 
are correct.  Since Crane v. Wiley, 14 Wis. 658 (1861), we have 
held that allegations based upon information and belief in a 
complaint make a verification insufficient for material facts.  
However, the Commission's votes showed it did not honor the 
presumption of the nomination papers' facts as Wis. Admin. Code 
§ EL 2.05(4) requires; it did not require Arntsen to prove that 
the addresses on the nomination papers were incorrect as § EL 
2.07(3)(a) requires; and it treated Arntsen's allegations made on 
information and belief as if they proved that Walker's address was 
incorrect on more than 1,800 nomination papers.    
¶21 Mérida appeared on behalf of the Green Party candidates 
at the August 20, 2020 Commission meeting to present evidence about 
the dates that Walker lived at each address, as legal counsel for 
the Commission told her she could do.2   However, Ann Jacobs, who 
served as chair of the Commission, prevented the presentation of 
evidence about the dates of Walker's move.  The Commission then 
voted 6-0 to sustain Arntsen's challenge to 57 signatures and 
rejected it for 48 signatures.  The Commission also voted on 
whether to sustain Arntsen's challenge to 1,834 signatures on 
nomination papers that contained Walker's earlier address.  The 
Commission deadlocked, with 3 Democratic appointees voting to 
sustain Arntsen's challenge and 3 Republican appointees voting to 
deny it.  Therefore, Arntsen failed to meet his burden to prove 
                                                 
2 The 
meeting 
can 
be 
viewed 
in 
its 
entirety 
at 
https://wiseye.org/2020/08/20/wisconsin-elections-commission-
special-teleconferencemeeting-10/.    
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
13 
 
any insufficiency of the addresses for Walker listed on the 
nomination papers.  Wis. Admin. Code § EL 2.07(3)(a).  At that 
point, the Green Party candidates had 3,909 presumptively valid 
signatures pursuant to § EL 2.05(4) (3,966 filed less 57 signatures 
rejected by the Commission).   
¶22 However, notwithstanding the Commission's vote on August 
20, 2020, on August 21, 2020, the Commission Administrator sent 
Hawkins and Walker a letter stating that since the Commission had 
certified a total of only 1,789 signatures, less than the 2,000 
required for ballot access, Hawkins' and Walker's names would not 
be on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 general election.  There 
is no explanation in that communication about how the Commission 
disallowed an additional 2,177 signatures that were presumptively 
valid after the Commission voted to invalidate only 57 of the 3,966 
signatures submitted.  The Commission Administrator must have 
treated Arntsen's challenge to 1,834 signatures as having been 
proved, even though the Commission had voted not to sustain his 
challenge.   
¶23 On August 26, 2020, the Commission certified the 
independent candidates for President and Vice President.  On 
September 1, 2020, the Commission certified the party candidates 
for President and Vice President to the county clerks.  The 
September 1, 2020 communication notified the county clerks of the 
legal challenge to ballot access that had been filed by Kanye West 
and Michelle Tidball and that there were media statements from the 
Green Party candidates that they intended to file a court action 
to gain ballot access.  Therefore, at least by September 1, 2020, 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
14 
 
the county clerks knew that the Commission's certification may not 
be the final ballot for the November 3, 2020 general election.   
¶24 The Green Party filed suit seeking ballot access on 
September 3, 2020.  Perhaps, the Green Party could have filed suit 
on August 26, 2020, when the Commission certified the independent 
candidates.  However, lawsuits take time to gather relevant 
documents and affidavits needed to proceed.  In addition, the 
county clerks were on notice from September 1, 2020, when the 
Commission certified the final ballot for the November 3, 2020 
election, that the Green Party would likely file suit and that 
Kanye West already had filed suit for ballot access.   
¶25 This lawsuit is not about the Green Party sleeping on 
its rights.  It is about the treatment that independent candidates 
from a small political party received from the Commission, who 
repeatedly refused to follow the law relative to nomination papers.  
¶26 It has been said that transparency is the best medicine 
for curbing governmental practices that abuse the rights of those 
who must interact with government.  The Commission ignored its 
legal obligations under Wis. Admin. Code §§ EL 2.05(4) and EL 
2.07(3)(a), and in so doing it suppressed the rights of voters to 
choose Green Party candidates for President and Vice President.  
The court's Order is silent on the Commission's unlawful conduct 
and imposes no consequences for what it has done.  The court's 
silence not only affirms lawless conduct by the Commission, but 
also provides no directive for the required treatment of nomination 
papers in the future.   
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
15 
 
¶27 Silently affirming lawless conduct that has been brought 
to the court's attention is an abdication of the court's obligation 
to stand with the law, even when doing so is uncomfortable.  
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Order and join the 
opinion of Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler that follows.   
¶28 I am authorized to state that Justices ANNETTE KINGSLAND 
ZIEGLER and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY join this dissent. 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.pdr 
 
16 
 
 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
17 
 
¶29 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.   (dissenting).  In the 
United States of America, and in the State of Wisconsin, the people 
deserve better.  Courts can and should do better.  Today this court 
abdicates its responsibility to correct ballot error and does so 
without explaining its reasoning in a full legal opinion.  Instead, 
the court issues a perfunctory order in perhaps one of the most 
important cases in a judicial lifetime.  
¶30 It is ultimate voter suppression when a candidate who 
presumptively belongs on the ballot is denied ballot access. Under 
the law, the Green Party is presumed to have submitted the 
requisite information necessary to be on the ballot, yet the 
court's order says nothing about the merits of the injustice 
committed by the Wisconsin Elections Commission ("Commission") and 
instead claims it cannot act because it is too late.  Meanwhile, 
other state courts have acted with dispatch to decide and correct 
ballot issues.1  My colleagues instead fault the candidate for not 
acting with more haste.  In so doing, it leaves us all to guess 
what, when, and how the Green Party fell short.  
¶31 At the time the Green Party filed this action, the record 
reflects that only one ballot had been sent out to a voter after 
                                                 
1 See, e.g., Lohr v. Bolick, No. CV-20-0129-AP/EL, 2020 
WL 5362196 (Ariz. Sept. 8, 2020) (ordering the name of candidate 
on ballot despite signature challenge); Warren City Council v. 
Buffa, No. 354663, 2020 WL 5246664 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2020) 
(reversing a lower court and ordering an official to certify ballot 
language for upcoming election); State ex rel. West v. LaRose, No. 
2020-1044, 2020 WL 5417552 (Ohio Sept. 10, 2020) (denying ballot 
access based on the merits); Oversen v. Jaeger, No. 20200234, 2020 
WL 5269223 (N.D. Sept. 4, 2020) (denying ballot access based on 
the merits).  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
18 
 
the Commission certified all the candidates.  Instead of acting 
swiftly, the court ducks behind its self-created "it is too late" 
timeline to preclude a party from ballot access and to prevent 
voters from choosing the candidate they believe is best qualified.  
Because the court has invented an unknown and unstated timeline 
entirely on its own, it should better explain its conclusions, 
address the law, and provide clarity for those who might be 
similarly situated in the future.  In failing to do so, the 
majority does nothing more than exercise its will and not its 
judgment. Because the majority unilaterally imposes its self-
determined and otherwise unknowable deadlines on the Green Party 
candidates to exclude them from the ballot——despite the law 
requiring otherwise——I dissent.  
¶32 The majority abdicates its duty to right this wrong 
before the election.  Giving no moment to the fact that the 
Commission illegally omitted the Green Party from the ballot,2 its 
"too late" reasoning allows the tail to wag the dog.  The court 
concludes that nearly two months before an election and well before 
the deadline for sending ballots to the counties, with relatively 
few ballots having been sent out at the time of the Green Party 
filing, without exploring how those ballots could be corrected, 
and without even considering governing law on the issue, it cannot 
do anything.  In other words, the majority rationale goes something 
                                                 
2 The court denies ballot access to candidates who complied 
with Wisconsin law, but whose nomination papers were nonetheless 
rejected by unknown and unaccountable Wisconsin Elections 
Commission staff, not by a majority vote of the Commission itself. 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
19 
 
like this:  The Green Party should have taken some other unknowable 
action, at some earlier unexplained and unknowable time and here, 
because this court did not act earlier and more ballots have gone 
to voters and a number of ballots were printed (even before 
certification of the candidates), it is now too late to correct 
the Commission's blatant illegal action.  In essence, the court 
allows its hands to be tied.  This abdication of responsibility 
undermines ballot access and voter choice.  Today our court 
overrides the will of voters of Wisconsin in determining who the 
candidates will be——violating the sacred system of democracy that 
is the bedrock of the United States of America.  
¶33 Moreover, the court claims that the Green Party acted 
untimely so the court cannot act; but, the law does not prohibit 
our court from requiring a corrected ballot to be printed and sent.  
If the court were applying the legal principle known as "laches," 
it would presumably say so, and address the elements that must be 
met.  Instead, the majority undertakes virtually no analysis to 
support its determinations that too much time has passed and that 
the Green Party's filing should have occurred at some unknown 
earlier time.  Would this logic equally apply to preclude ballot 
access to any other candidate, even if that candidate had timely 
filed in court——merely because some ballots have been printed by 
some counties and mailed?  The majority arbitrarily self-imposes 
an unknown and unilaterally-determined deadline on the presumptive 
candidates, because some of the counties printed and mailed 
ballots, in some instances even before all the candidates were 
certified.  Using the majority's parameters, no candidate could 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
20 
 
ever file a timely challenge.  Based upon the timeline of events, 
the facts, and the law, the decision of my colleagues falls far 
short.  The record here shows that the Green Party candidates did 
not unreasonably delay in bringing their claim and that the 
Commission knew the Green Party would challenge its decision well 
in advance of this action being filed on September 3.  At the 
challenge hearing, where the Commission deadlocked on the Green 
Party candidates' ballot access, over half of the commissioners 
commented that their decision would, and should, be challenged in 
court.  Later, in two communications to county clerks prior to 
this action being filed, the Commission noted possible challenges 
to its decision on independent candidates for President and Vice 
President——including specifically referencing a possible challenge 
by the Green Party candidates.  Two days after the Commission 
certified the list of all candidates for President and Vice 
President, the Green Party candidates filed this action contending 
that denying both Hawkins and Walker ballot access was unlawful.  
¶34 Finally, the recent submission by the officials 
responsible for ballot production and dissemination demonstrates 
that this error can timely be corrected.  Both state and federal 
law allow for corrections to be made and dates to be adjusted when 
ballots are improper or the law is not followed.  Better to correct 
it now instead of making matters worse.  While some counties rushed 
too quickly to print the ballots despite the ballot action disputes 
that have arisen, other counties have not.  The record before the 
court demonstrates that the errors can be corrected, yet our court 
stands silent.  The grievous error that a majority of the court 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
21 
 
makes today may create much more chaos in the days to come——even 
post-election.  See Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358 (1969) (ordering 
a new election entirely after improperly denying black candidates 
access to the ballot). 
¶35 In short, the constitution is not on the side of this 
court's order.  It is the people who are empowered to decide which 
candidates appear on the ballot.  Thousands of Wisconsinites 
nominated Howie Hawkins ("Hawkins") and Angela Walker ("Walker") 
to appear on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 election.  This 
court should honor that choice as the law undisputedly supports 
it.   
¶36 After a brief background of the relevant facts, I engage 
in an analysis of the law concerning whether the Green Party 
candidates should properly be on the ballot for the November 3, 
2020 election.  The answer is yes.  A challenge was made to the 
Green Party candidates' nomination paperwork.  The challenge 
proceeded before a deadlocked Commission.  The law in Wisconsin 
presumes that, unless proven by clear and convincing evidence, the 
challenge to nomination papers will not be sustained.  A 3-3 
decision makes clear that the presumption of validity was not 
overcome.  Accordingly, the Commission erred when it denied ballot 
access to the Green Party candidates.  
 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶37 On August 4, 2020, petitioners Hawkins and Walker 
(collectively the "Green Party" candidates), filed nomination 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
22 
 
papers with the Commission containing 3,966 signatures.3  On August 
7, 2020, Allen Arntsen ("Arntsen") filed a verified (which means 
notarized) complaint, based solely on his "information and 
belief," with the Commission under Wis. Admin. Code § EL 2.07 and 
Wis. Stat. §§ 5.05-.06, alleging that 2,0464 of the signatures 
appearing on the nomination papers did not list a correct address 
for Walker.  When Walker was notified of Arntsen's challenge, her 
campaign contacted the Commission's attorney and asked what the 
Commission's position was on the challenge.  Walker's campaign had 
already disclosed the change in address to the Commission, before 
actually filing the nomination papers, to ask how to handle her 
change of address.  In response to the change-in-address inquiry, 
a Commission staff member, listed as an "Elections Administration 
Specialist," gave the following advice: 
Most importantly, any petitions circulated this week 
should have the updated address on them.  Prior to 
gathering any signatures, campaign staff can amend the 
form with the correct address for Ms. Walker.  Any 
nomination 
paper 
pages 
already 
containing 
voter 
signatures should be submitted to WEC without alteration 
to the candidate information.  Once a voter has signed 
                                                 
3 The Green Party candidates assert that they submitted 3,966 
total signatures.  Allen Arntsen asserts, upon his information and 
belief, that the Green Party candidates submitted 3,880 total 
signatures.  The Commission's staff stated that it initially found 
3,737 of the signatures submitted valid. The actual number of total 
signatures does not change the result in this case. Under any of 
these three numbers, the Green Party candidates submitted more 
than the necessary 2,000 signatures to appear on the ballot.  
4 At the challenge hearing before the Commission, Arntsen's 
lawyer noted that he was wrong when he used the number 2,046; the 
correct number was 2,019.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
23 
 
the petition, no candidate information on that page may 
be changed. 
If Ms. Walker has previously filed a declaration of 
candidacy 
(EL-162) 
with 
the 
Wisconsin 
Elections 
Commission, it can be amended to reflect the address 
change. 
Technically 
speaking, 
however, 
federal 
candidates are not required to list an address on their 
declaration of candidacy.  So, if Ms. Walker chooses to 
list her address on her declaration of candidacy, she 
can include the most current one. 
(Emphasis added).  Upon receiving that advice, the Green Party saw 
no issue with submitting nomination papers reflecting Walker's 
initial address (where she lived when she first started the 
process) and her new address. 
¶38 Hence, 
upon 
hearing 
the 
nomination 
papers 
were 
challenged on that basis, the Green Party campaign manager wanted 
to 
know 
the 
Commission's 
position. 
 
The 
Commission's 
representative told Walker's campaign manager that she could 
attend the Commission's meeting on August 20, 2020, to provide 
evidence regarding when she moved, and in addition to appearing, 
she had the option of submitting a written response prior to the 
meeting.  When Walker's campaign manager tried to clarify whether 
she should file a written response or simply appear, she was told 
she had the option to do both:  "you can choose to do both, one or 
the other, or none."  On August 7, 2020, the Commission then e-
mailed Walker's campaign manager a letter advising:  "if you wish 
to contest the challenge to your nomination papers, it is highly 
recommended that you appear before the WEC at the meeting either 
in person or by representation, or both.  You may also file a 
written response to the challenge."  The Commission's memorandum 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
24 
 
also noted that candidates' nomination forms only require a finding 
of "substantial compliance" and that the information on the forms 
carry a "presumption of validity." 
¶39 At the August 20, 2020 Commission hearing, Walker's 
representative appeared and was prepared to testify and counter 
Arntsen's claims.  The Commission's chairperson unilaterally 
refused to afford Walker's representative the opportunity to 
introduce any evidence and arbitrarily limited her time to speak 
to only ten minutes.  During the hearing, Walker's campaign 
manager, Andrea Mérida, repeatedly asked for permission to speak 
on a point, but was denied permission by the Commission's 
chairperson.  After the presentation, several motions were 
considered.  The Commission sustained, on a 6-0 vote, Arntsen's 
challenge made solely upon his "information and belief" to 57 
signatures.  It rejected, on a 6-0 vote, Arntsen's challenge to 48 
signatures.  With respect to Artnsten's challenge based solely on 
his "information and belief" as to the validity of the 1,834 
signatures, the Commission deadlocked 3-3.   
¶40 The Commission voted on the following motion:  "The 
Commission sustains the challenge to the 1,834 signatures 
identified in [Arntsen's] Exhibit B with a code of 3024 which 
represent nomination papers that were printed and circulated with 
an address of 3204 TV Road, Room 231, Florence SC address."  In 
other words, the Commission had to vote on whether to accept or 
reject 1,834 Wisconsinites who signed a paper requesting that the 
Green Party candidates appear on the November ballot.  The 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
25 
 
Commission deadlocked 3-3 on this motion.5  When a motion deadlocks 
3-3, it fails.  See Wis. Stat. § 5.05(1e).  The tie vote did not 
invalidate signatures on the Green Party candidates' nomination 
papers.  "Any action by the commission . . . requires the 
affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members."  Id.  No 
decision was made by a two-thirds vote to invalidate these 1,834 
signatures.  No two-thirds vote sustained Arntsen's challenge to 
the 1,834 signatures.  The Commission's inability to decide the 
challenge means the signatures remain valid, entitling the Green 
Party candidates to be placed on the ballot.    
¶41 Despite the law, after these deadlocked votes, the 
Commission voted on the following motion:  
Certify 1,789 signatures for the Green Party candidates 
and that the Commission is deadlocked as to the validity 
of another 1,834 signatures based on insufficient 
evidence as to where the candidate lived at the time of 
circulation of the nomination papers.  
A candidate needs to submit 2,000 valid signatures, and the Green 
Party submitted nearly double that number.  In fact, Walker submits 
the Green Party collected almost 6,000 signatures.  During the 
debate on the motion to certify 1,789 signatures, several 
commissioners noted that they were voting for this motion to narrow 
the issue when the Green Party inevitably would challenge their 
ruling in court.  This motion passed 6-0, but because the previous 
deadlocked votes were incorrectly deemed to be motions that were 
                                                 
5 Technically, there were three successive deadlocked 3-3 
votes on three separate motions.  But the bottom line is that in 
each instance the motion involved precluding the Green Party 
candidates from the ballot.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
26 
 
granted, the Green Party candidates were precluded from being on 
the ballot.  The three members of this kangaroo commission who 
voted to deny ballot access to the Green Party, did so because 
they concluded Walker did not present evidence to support her 
claim——despite the fact that it was the Commission's chairperson 
herself who denied Walker the opportunity to do so.6    
¶42 The next day, August 21, the Commission's administrator 
sent the Green Party candidates a letter summarizing the 
proceedings on August 20.  The letter reiterated the final 
unanimous motion that the Commission passed, certifying 1,789 
signatures and deadlocking on 1,834 signatures.  The letter 
informed the Green Party candidates that they would be denied 
access to the ballot because the Commission did not certify the 
necessary 2,000 signatures for ballot access.    
¶43 On August 26, the Commission sent a notice to the county 
clerks with the names of the independent candidates approved to be 
                                                 
6 Mérida told the Commission part of the reason no written 
response was submitted had to do with timing.  Mérida received the 
e-mail about the challenge on Friday evening, August 7, 2020, and 
was told if she opted to file a written response, it was due 
Monday, August 10, 2020, by 4:30 p.m.  Mérida explained that 
because she was physically located in Colorado, Hawkins was in New 
York, and Walker was in South Carolina, giving her Saturday and 
Sunday to produce a written, verified response was just not 
possible.  Mérida relied on the Commission's representations that 
she did not need to file a written response, but could refute the 
challenge to the address at the hearing.  If the Commission had 
given Mérida more than a Saturday and Sunday in the midst of COVID-
19, she would have filed a written response.  The Commission's 
chairperson told Mérida that Wisconsin Statutes count Saturdays 
and Sundays when a deadline is less than 10 days and exclude the 
weekend days from the count when the deadline is more than 14 days.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
27 
 
on the November ballot.  The Green Party is notably absent from 
that list.  Following the list of independent candidates, 
Commission staff stated they would let the clerks know "if any 
court challenges are filed against the Commission's decisions for 
the independent presidential candidates."  
¶44 On September 1, 2020, the Commission voted to confirm 
the presidential and vice presidential candidates for three 
parties, granting them ballot access.  That same day, pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 7.08(2), the Commission transmitted the certified 
list of all presidential and vice presidential candidates that 
were to appear on the ballot.  In that transmission, the Commission 
also noted that media reports said the Green Party intended to 
file in court to gain ballot access.  Instead of waiting for a 
resolution of any potential challenges, the Commission denied the 
Green Party candidates ballot access and denied the people of the 
State of Wisconsin the freedom to choose candidates who should 
rightly be on the ballot in the upcoming election (and who almost 
6,000 Wisconsin citizens nominated to be on the ballot).  
¶45 On September 3, 2020, the Green Party candidates filed 
this action——a mere two days after the Commission certified the 
list of all candidates to the county clerks.  This court sat on 
its decision until September 14, 2020, after requesting voluminous 
information from the Commission on September 10. 
 
II.  MERITS OF THE GREEN PARTY CANDIDATES' CLAIMS 
¶46 The Commission deadlocked, 3 to 3, on the validity of 
1,834 signatures based on Arntsen's allegation of "insufficient 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
28 
 
evidence of where the candidate lived."  However, the evidence was 
not insufficient.  The nomination papers said where Walker lived, 
and that assertion is presumed to be correct.  Wis. Admin. Code 
§ EL 2.05(4).  When information on a nomination paper is 
challenged, the challenger bears the burden of proof.  Wis. Admin. 
Code § EL 2.07(3)(a).  Here, the allegations underlying the 
challenge were made by Arntsen "upon information and belief," not 
on personal knowledge.  They prove nothing about where Walker lived 
at the time the nomination papers were circulated.7   In fact, both 
the Commission's staff attorney and Arntsen's counsel noted that 
the burden did not flip unless the Commission made a finding that 
Arntsen had proven his claim by clear and convincing evidence.  
The Commission never made that finding.  Instead of allowing 
Walker's representative to straighten out why these nomination 
papers contained the change in address and when it occurred, the 
Commission chairperson prevented her from doing so.8  The 
chairperson repeatedly insisted that the challenger needed to be 
treated fairly and that introducing any facts about Walker's moving 
date or prior address would be prejudicial to the challenger.  Yet, 
the chairperson repeatedly refused to afford the same fairness and 
courtesy to the Green Party's representative.  The commissioners 
                                                 
7 Similarly, in the Commission's objection to the Green 
Party's filing dated September 9, 2020, the Commission asserts 
that the affidavit of the Jefferson County clerk means nothing 
because it was made upon "information and belief." 
8 The 
meeting 
can 
be 
viewed 
in 
its 
entirety 
at 
https://wiseye.org/2020/08/20/wisconsin-elections-commission-
special-teleconferencemeeting-10/.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
29 
 
who voted against allowing the Green Party candidates access to 
the ballot seemed to believe that if a challenger raises a question 
as to nomination papers, he has proven by clear and convincing 
evidence that signatures should be invalidated.  That is incorrect, 
particularly given Wisconsin law that nomination papers will be 
accepted if they substantially comply with the statutes and that 
the information contained therein is entitled to a presumption of 
validity.  The chairperson mistakenly believed that because 
Walker's declaration of candidacy form swore to her present 
address, this rendered her previous address incorrect.  The three 
commissioners who voted to deny ballot access ignored both the 
required burden of proof and the presumption of validity.  
¶47 When the Commission deadlocked, the signatures on the 
nomination papers still possessed the presumption of validity.  
Instead 
of 
honoring 
this 
presumption, 
the 
Commission's 
administrator inexplicably concluded that Green Party candidates 
failed to obtain the necessary 2,000 signatures, ignoring that 
Arntsen, not the Green Party candidates, had the burden of proof.  
Under the applicable administrative rules on elections, the 
candidate wins in contests when the challenger does not meet his 
burden of proof.  Arntsen presented no evidence that Walker did 
not live where the nominating papers said she lived when they were 
circulated.  Thus, Arntsen failed to carry his burden of proof and 
the presumption of validity accorded the Green Party candidates 
stood unrebutted.  Accordingly, the Green Party candidates 
presented at a minimum 3,623 valid signatures.  This number far 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
30 
 
exceeds the 2,000 signatures necessary for ballot access.  Hawkins 
and Walker should have been certified to appear on the ballot.   
¶48 Not only did the Green Party candidates have a right to 
appear on the ballot, but the Commission had a statutory obligation 
to place them on the ballot, which the Commission violated.  
Pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 5.64(1)(b) and (em), candidates for 
President and Vice President who filed under Wis. Stat. § 8.20, as 
the Green Party candidates did, "shall appear on the ballot."  The 
Commission did not just fail the Green Party candidates.  It failed 
the people of Wisconsin.  
 
III.  TIMING——MERE EXERCISE OF WILL 
¶49 If the majority were relying upon that which was argued, 
laches, then it would have undertaken the legal analysis necessary 
to support its determination.  Instead, the majority has invented 
its own form of laches that has no criteria other than the 
majority's undefined and previously unknown "smell test."  We know 
that the majority does not rely upon the legal principle of laches, 
not only because it fails to vet the criteria necessary to rely 
upon laches, but also because those criteria cannot be met in the 
case at issue.  The fact that the majority imposes its own unique 
and undefined standard further demonstrates that it exercises its 
will rather than its judgment. 
¶50 Because the Commission clearly violated the law by not 
adding the Green Party candidates to the ballot for the November 3 
general election, the majority is forced to rely on its made-up 
standard of "it is too late" in order to deny ballot access and 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
31 
 
limit voter choice.  Majority order, ¶5.  The court claims it is 
too late to "upset[] the election" because ballots have already 
been sent out to voters.  Id., ¶10.  The timing here does not bar 
this court from addressing such an important issue. 
¶51 In 2004, in another ballot access challenge, State ex 
rel. Nader v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., No. 2004AP2559-W, 
unpublished order (Wis. Sept. 30, 2004), this court, "mindful of 
the importance of ballot access and voting" directed the State of 
Wisconsin Elections Board (a predecessor of the Wisconsin 
Elections Commission) to "certify the names of Ralph Nader and 
Peter Camejo" as candidates on the ballot for the November 2, 2004 
general election.  That order was issued on September 30, 2004——
notably weeks later than what the court here considers too late.  
The Nader matter involved a similar challenge to nomination papers 
found to be sufficient by the Elections Board based on its "staff 
report" but found insufficient by a Dane County circuit court.  In 
an original action, this court ruled contrary to the circuit court, 
pointing out that Wisconsin Statutes require only "substantial 
compliance" with respect to nomination papers.   
¶52 Of course ballot access challenges always will come 
close to elections; that is the nature of the process and it is 
unavoidable given statutory deadlines.  It is this court's duty to 
act quickly so that candidates wronged by a prior decision have 
legal recourse.  The majority refuses to act because some ballots 
have been printed and a small number of ballots have already been 
sent to voters.  Excluding candidates on that basis is unlawful.  
Ballots can be reprinted and resent.  Although reprinting ballots 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
32 
 
would generate additional costs, doing so is the legally correct 
thing to do and would certainly cost less than having to hold an 
entirely new election should the United States Supreme Court 
reverse this court's order and order Wisconsin to hold a new 
election.  And, although the Commission represents that about 120 
ballots have already been sent to voters, most of those ballots 
were sent by e-mail.  It would be very easy to send another e-mail 
advising the recipient of the ballot error and directing the 
recipient to destroy the ballot received and wait for the new 
ballot.  Instead of following the law, a majority of this court 
ignores it, lets the blatant error by the Commission and its staff 
go uncorrected, and denies Hawkins and Walker their rightful place 
on Wisconsin's November 3, 2020 ballot.  
¶53 Two other Wisconsin cases show that this court has 
previously chosen to act despite timing issues when candidates 
were unlawfully excluded from Wisconsin's ballots.  In Labor & 
Farm Party v. Wis. Elections Bd., 117 Wis. 2d 351, 358, 344 
N.W.2d 177 (1984), this court ordered the Labor & Farm Party's 
presidential candidate to be placed on the ballot.  The candidates 
for the April 3, 1984, election were certified on February 2, 1984, 
and the Labor & Farm Party filed a petition with this court 11 
days later.  Id. at 352-53.  This court issued a per curiam decision 
on February 28, 1984, ordering the Labor & Farm Party's candidate's 
name to appear on the ballot, which decision was issued 34 days 
before the April 3, 1984 election.  Id. at 358.   
¶54 In McCarthy v. Wis. Elections Bd., 166 Wis. 2d  481, 
492, 
480 
N.W.2d 241 
(1992), 
this 
court 
ordered 
multiple 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
33 
 
candidates' names be placed on the April 7, 1992 ballot.  The 
court's decision was issued by per curiam decision on March 2, 
1992, which was 36 days before that election.  Id.  Had this court 
acted swiftly in the current case, a similar per curiam decision 
could have been issued 60 days before the election.  Even using 
today's date, there are still 50 days before the election. 
¶55 Perhaps the majority avoided directly addressing the 
Commission's laches defense because it would have had to conclude 
laches did not bar the Green Party's petition.  As this court 
explained last term, "[l]aches is an affirmative, equitable 
defense designed to bar relief when a claimant's failure to 
promptly bring a claim causes prejudice to the party having to 
defend against that claim."  Wisconsin Small Bus. United, Inc. v. 
Brennan, 2020 WI 69, ¶11, 393 Wis. 2d 308, 946 N.W.2d 101.  In 
Wisconsin, a defendant must prove three elements for laches to bar 
a claim: "(1) a party unreasonably delays in bringing a claim; (2) 
a second party lacks knowledge that the first party would raise 
that claim; and (3) the second party is prejudiced by the delay." 
Id., ¶12.  Even if respondents carry their burden of proving all 
three elements of laches, "application of laches is left to the 
sound discretion of the court to apply this equitable bar."  Id.  
The majority must be basing its "too late" doctrine on something 
other than laches because it avoids any attempt to address the law 
and the required elements of laches before applying its discretion.  
A.  The First Element:  Unreasonable Delay 
¶56 The first element of a laches defense requires the 
respondents to prove the Green Party candidates unreasonably 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
34 
 
delayed in bringing the suit.  "What constitutes a reasonable time 
will vary and depends on the facts of a particular case."  
Wisconsin Small Bus. United, 393 Wis. 2d 308, ¶14.  To be clear, 
there is no specific statutory or administrative requirement that 
a suit be filed within an abbreviated time period.  
¶57 The majority concludes that the Green Party candidates 
are at fault for not immediately filing suit.  Nothing in the law 
requires such timing.  In fact, filing before September 1 would 
have been premature because all candidates were not finally 
certified until then.  See State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, 
Ltd. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections, 49 N.E.3d 273, ¶20 (holding 
that a party challenging an uncertified decision of an election 
official would be premature).    
¶58 The Green Party candidates filed this action only two 
days after the certification of all candidates and the date the 
Commission allowed county clerks to begin printing ballots.  The 
majority does not consider whether a claim asserting ballot access 
violation is clearly actionable until the Commission's official 
certification.  This court has never addressed how quickly or 
promptly a petitioner must raise a claim regarding ballot access.  
In fact, the majority order implicitly acknowledges that the timing 
to assert this challenge was reasonable and urges the legislature 
to "broad[en] the statutory timelines to afford a more reasonable 
amount of time for a party to file an action raising a ballot 
access issue."  Majority order, ¶5, n.1.  Yet, at the same time, 
the majority refuses to grant relief, concluding the Green Party 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
35 
 
challenge came too late, although it neglects to address any 
factors necessary to apply laches. 
¶59 It is clear from a review of the case law that when a 
court applies laches to an election case, it typically applies 
laches in delays for months, not days.  See, e.g., Clark v. 
Reddick, 791 N.W.2d 292, 294-96 (Minn. 2010) (holding that a two-
month delay in challenging a ballot was an unreasonable delay); 
Knox v. Milwaukee Cty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 581 F. Supp. 399, 
404 (E.D. Wis. 1984) (a challenge "made some 31 months after the 
approval of the tentative proposal and 22 months after the adoption 
of the final plan, is inexcusably delayed"); State ex rel. Ascani 
v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 700 N.E.2d 1234, 1236-37 (Ohio 
1998) (holding a ten-week delay was unreasonable); Kay v. Austin, 
621 F.2d 809, 811, 813 (6th Cir. 1980) (holding a three-week delay 
was unreasonable). 
¶60 Here, a two-day delay is not unreasonable.  The Green 
Party candidates did not sleep on their rights.  The majority 
cannot point to a single case in which a party was not permitted 
to challenge an election ballot only two days after final 
certification.  The majority cannot do so because no such case 
exists.  The majority relies on Jensen v. Wisconsin Elections Bd., 
2002 WI 13, 249 Wis. 2d 706, 639 N.W.2d 537 (per curiam), and De 
La Fuente v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, No. 
2016AP330, unpublished order (Wis. Feb. 22, 2016).  However, even 
these cases do not support the majority's conclusion.  
¶61 In Jensen, this court was asked to review a redistricting 
dispute.  249 Wis. 2d 706, ¶1.  The court declined to exercise 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
36 
 
original jurisdiction because there was "precious little" time 
left.  Id., ¶21.  However, what the majority of this court today 
ignores is that the Jensen court was concerned with time due to 
the subsequent proceedings that would be required as a result of 
the court granting the petition for original action.  Id.  The 
court noted that two complex and consequential cases would have to 
run in both state and federal court.  Id.  Accordingly, the court 
declined to exercise its original jurisdiction over the case 
because of the complexity of the matter.  Id., ¶22.  That is not 
the case here. 
¶62 In De La Fuente v. Wisconsin Gov't Accountability Bd., 
No. 2016AP330, unpublished order (Wis. Feb. 22, 2016), the court 
issued an order denying De La Fuente access to the Democratic 
primary ballot.  The court denied access to the ballot because 
De La Fuente filed his petition after the county clerks' statutory 
deadline to deliver ballots to the municipal clerks.  The court 
determined that this was far too late.  De La Fuente is also 
distinguishable from the case at issue.  
¶63 This court can act promptly when it chooses to do so. In 
fact, this court conducted a similar inquiry into statutory 
interpretation, in an even tighter timeframe, earlier this year.  
See Wisconsin Legislature v. Evers, No. 2020AP608-OA, unpublished 
order (Wis. Apr. 6, 2020) (conducting statutory interpretation in 
a matter of hours).  The Green Party candidates filed this action 
on September 3.  They asked for injunctive relief.  The action was 
filed well before the statutory deadline for county clerks, unlike 
De La Fuente.  In fact, according to the data provided to this 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
37 
 
court by the Commission, only one ballot had been sent out between 
September 1 and September 3.  
¶64 Thus, the Green Party candidates did not unreasonably 
delay in filing this original action, and this element of laches 
has not been proven.  The timing of the Green Party's filing is an 
improper reason for this court to deny relief.  
B.  The Second Element:  Knowledge 
¶65 The Commission cannot credibly claim it lacked knowledge 
that the Green Party candidates would challenge the Commission's 
unlawful decision to deny them ballot access.  The Commission 
acknowledged as early as August 20 that the Green Party would file 
suit to challenge their action.  In the debate over the final 
motion, three separate commissioners noted that the motion would 
narrow the issues for a court when the Green Party filed suit.  
That same day, a different commissioner noted that the Green 
Party's claim was one that needed to go to court.  In total, four 
of the six commissioners made reference to a future lawsuit by the 
Green Party's candidates, all while Arntsen's attorney was 
present.  
¶66 Beyond the Commission's initial acknowledgement of an 
anticipated Green Party challenge, it noted such a possible 
challenge twice in communications to county clerks.  On August 26, 
the Commission informed the county clerks that it would update the 
clerks "if any court challenges [were] filed against the 
Commission's 
decisions 
for 
the 
independent 
presidential 
candidates."  On September 1, the Commission told the clerks that 
the Green Party candidates were making it known that that they 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
38 
 
would challenge the Commission's decision to deny them ballot 
access.  
¶67 The Commission had knowledge that the Green Party 
candidates would seek ballot access in a lawsuit.  In fact, the 
commissioners encouraged such a lawsuit, even confidently stating 
their opinion that the Commission would be overturned by a court, 
and sought to assist in hastening judicial review.  Accordingly, 
this element of laches cannot be proven. 
C.  The Third Element:  Prejudice 
¶68 Even if there had been an unreasonable delay and the 
Commission did not have knowledge that the Green Party would sue 
for ballot access, neither the Commission nor Arntsen are 
prejudiced by this delay.  "What amounts to prejudice [] depends 
upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but it is generally 
held to be anything that places the party in a less favorable 
position."  Wisconsin Small Bus. United, 393 Wis. 2d 308, ¶19.  
The third element of laches requires a party to "prove that the 
unreasonable delay prejudiced" the party.  See State ex rel. Wren 
v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶32, 389 Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587.  
When interpreting prejudice, this court has recognized two 
different types:  evidentiary and economic.  Id., ¶33.  The 
respondents claim economic prejudice. Economic prejudice occurs 
when "the costs to the defendant have significantly increased due 
to the delay."  Id., ¶33 n.26.  
¶69 Prejudice, in the context of laches, must be against the 
parties themselves, not third parties.  Id. (referring to the costs 
to the defendant for economic prejudice).  The respondents cannot 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
39 
 
point to any significant increase in costs to Arntsen or to the 
Commission as a result of the Green Party candidates filing on 
September 3.  In fact, the only claimed "prejudice" to either 
respondent is potential stress to the Commission from rectifying 
its own mistake.9  Instead, the Commission improperly points to 
the increased costs to county and municipal clerks.  If a party 
were able to do so, some entity will always be economically 
prejudiced by any type of unreasonable delay.  Allowing a named 
party to rely on an unnamed party's alleged prejudice would, in 
effect, render the prejudice prong unnecessary.  Accordingly, the 
Commission and Arntsen have failed to show, in any way, either 
economic or evidentiary prejudice.  Accordingly, this element of 
laches cannot be shown either.  
                                                 
9 There may be an argument that the Commission's unclean hands 
forbid it from bringing a laches defense.  The Seventh Circuit has 
stated:  
A party's unclean hands may stand as an obstacle to 
the application of the doctrine of laches in certain 
circumstances.  The notion of unclean hands working as 
a bar to the application of laches stems from the belief 
that an equitable defense, such as laches, cannot be 
used to reward a party's inequities or to defeat justice.  
Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813, 825 (7th Cir. 
1999).  Courts further instruct that, in order to use the unclean 
hands doctrine to push back on a laches defense, "a plaintiff is 
required to show that the defendant has 'engaged in particularly 
egregious conduct which would change the equities significantly in 
plaintiff's favor.'"  Serdarevic v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc., 
532 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  And the Commission's 
indiscretions likely rise to this standard.  But given that the 
respondents——and 
the 
majority 
for 
that 
matter——fail 
to 
substantively or persuasively show how laches applies at all, we 
need not further discuss how the unclean hands doctrine forecloses 
this defense. 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
40 
 
D.  Equitable Discretion 
¶70 At most, the costs and effects on the counties are an 
equitable consideration.  Even if the respondents could show that 
they satisfy all three elements of laches, this court must still 
weigh the equities to determine if it will apply laches.  See Wren, 
389 Wis. 2d 516, ¶15.  In so doing, this court weighs not only 
what is at stake for the candidate and the electors, but also for 
the Commission, counties, and others.  See Wisconsin Small Bus. 
United, 393 Wis. 2d 308, ¶27 (weighing the prejudicial effect 
against the respondents and other entities not part of the suit).  
In this case, the court must balance the important interests of 
ballot access and voter choice against other considerations.  The 
balance of the equities weighs in favor of ballot access and voter 
choice and against applying laches.  For example, we should have 
an interest in the Commission following the election laws.  We 
also should have interest in having the proper people on the 
ballot.  We should attempt to do that early in the election process 
rather than deal with post-election issues after votes have been 
cast.  If need be, the statutes appear to allow the extension of 
mailing deadlines.  
¶71 From the information before us, when the Green Party 
filed its original action in this court on September 3, 2020, it 
appears that only eight ballots had been sent to voters.  However, 
of those eight ballots, only one was sent after September 1——the 
date on which the Commission certified the list of all presidential 
and vice presidential candidates.  This begs the question:  why 
are these municipalities sending a ballot to a voter prior to 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
41 
 
September 1, before the Commission certified the final list of 
candidates?  If, as requested by the Green Party on September 3, 
this court had issued the same order we issued on September 10, 
2020, ordering local municipalities to delay in mailing ballots to 
absentee voters until this court could decide the important ballot 
access issue, we would be dealing with at most eight ballots.  If 
this court had issued an order delaying the mailing of ballots 
pending a resolution in this case, then it may have resolved its 
own concern——few to no voters would have been mailed ballots.  
Might it be inequitable to hold the court's own delay against the 
petitioning party?  
¶72 Moreover, the fixed deadlines are not necessarily fixed 
when there has been an error of law as is the case here. The 
respondents raise much concern about the Green Party's delay in 
filing this action.  They complain that such a delay means that 
local clerks will be unable to meet statutory deadlines for mailing 
ballots to absentee voters.  However, this concern is without 
consideration to the statutes that may remedy a ballot error.  
First, the state statutory deadline cannot be rigid when there is 
an error of law.  The statutes allow the Commission, or a court, 
to order county clerks to reprint ballots to correct a ballot 
error.  Wis. Stat. § 7.10(3)(a).  
¶73 Under Wis. Stat. § 7.10(3)(a), "[i]f the commission 
transmits an amended certification under s. 7.08(2)(a) or if the 
commission or a court orders a ballot error to be corrected under 
s. 5.06(6) or 5.72(3) after ballots have been distributed, the 
county clerk shall distribute corrected ballots to the municipal 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
42 
 
clerks as soon as possible."  This provision clearly indicates 
that the Commission, or a court, possesses the power to compel a 
redistribution of ballots, as is requested here.  
¶74 Specifically looking at Wis. Stat. § 5.06(6), the 
Commission could compel individual commissioners to correct their 
votes and submit a new certified list to the county clerks.   
The commission may, after such investigation as it deems 
appropriate, summarily decide the matter before it and, 
by order, require any election official to conform his 
or her conduct to the law, restrain an official from 
taking any action inconsistent with the law or require 
an 
official 
to 
correct 
any 
action 
or 
decision 
inconsistent with the law.   
Wis. Stat. § 5.06(6) (emphasis added).  If the Commission were to 
conduct an investigation and determine that it was in error based 
on the analysis outlined above, it could order that the Green Party 
candidates be added to the ballots.  
¶75 Thus, the deadline has more flexibility than the 
majority determination appears to recognize.  
¶76 Additionally, there are two reasons why the respondent's 
UOCAVA10 assertions fail.  First, uniformed service members and 
citizens living abroad who wish to vote (collectively referred to 
as "UOCAVA voters") need to receive ballots only 45 days prior to 
an election if they have requested ballots that far in advance.  
Under subsection (a)(8) of the UOCAVA, if UOCAVA voters request a 
                                                 
10 The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 
requires states to provide citizens residing overseas and 
uniformed service members a federal right to absentee voting for 
federal offices.  52 U.S.C. §§ 20301-20311; cf. Pub. L. 107–107, 
div. A, title XVI, §1601, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1274.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
43 
 
ballot less than 45 days before an election, the state must issue 
them a ballot "in accordance with State law" and, if applicable, 
"in a manner that expedites the transmission of such absentee 
ballot."  52 U.S.C. § 20302(a)(8)(B).  Thus, contrary to the 
respondent's argument, there is no requirement to send UOCAVA 
voters ballots 45 days prior to an election.  
¶77 And second, for UOCAVA voters that do request a ballot 
prior to 45 days before an election, the "hardship exemption" can 
allow the state to justifiably delay sending ballots.  Under 
subsection (g)(1), "undue hardship" can afford an exemption so 
long as the "chief State election official . . . request[s] that 
the Presidential designee grant a waiver to the State of the 
application of such subsection."  52 U.S.C. § 20302(g)(1).  An 
"undue hardship" occurs when either "[t]he State's primary 
election date prohibits the State from complying with subsection 
(a)(8)(A)," "[t]he State has suffered a delay in generating ballots 
due to a legal contest," or "[t]he State Constitution prohibits 
the State from complying with" such subsection. § 20302(g)(2)(B).  
The second item is particularly apt:  there is quite literally a 
legal contest that has created a delay in generating ballots, and 
this is more than adequate grounds for finding an "undue hardship" 
in sending UOCAVA voters their ballots.  The guidance from the 
Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) reinforces this point.  
In particular, FVAP provides four factors that inform whether an 
undue hardship exists.  Two of the factors specifically consider 
"[t]he type of election for which the waiver is requested" and 
"[o]ther emergent circumstances, such as a ballot legality 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
44 
 
challenge."  "Guidance on Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee  
Voting Act (UOCAVA) Ballot Delivery Waivers, "Bob Carey, Director, 
Federal 
Voting 
Assistance 
Program, 
Memo 
to 
Chief  
State 
Election 
Officials 
(Feb. 
7, 
2012), 
https://www.fvap.gov/uplaods/FVAP/EO/2012_waiver_guidance.pdf.  
And, it is hard to imagine how these factors would not apply here.  
There is a legal challenge to the validity of the ballots, and the 
type of election at stake could not be more critical:  this is a 
presidential election that occurs only once every four years.  It 
is absolutely imperative that this state accurately includes all 
candidates on the ballot who have a lawful right to participate.  
The Green Party candidates have this right.  As such, any minor 
delays in sending the UOCAVA voters their ballots is warranted.   
¶78 Further, the majority order's extrapolation from the 
Commission ballot data is inherently flawed and speculative.  How 
can we assume all counties function the same when we know they 
have not?  How do we know that the counties counted are 
representative of all counties in the State?  We do not.  Many 
counties have not sent their ballots yet.  According to the data 
the Commission provided in response to this court's September 10, 
2020 order, very few counties appear to have printed their ballots 
(21 counties).  Some have only partially printed (16 counties).  
And nearly half of all counties did not report that they have 
printed ballots (35 of 72 counties).11  
                                                 
11 Some of those counties reported not printing, some did not 
know the status of the printing, and some did not respond.  
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
45 
 
¶79 According to the data from the Commission, very few 
ballots have actually been sent.  Only 24 out of 1,850 
municipalities 
responded 
to 
the 
Commission's 
request 
for 
information and about 120 ballots have been sent, mostly to UOCAVA 
voters using e-mail.  Because nearly all list either e-mails or 
overseas addresses as the mailing address, it is a reasonable 
assumption that these voters are UOCAVA voters, and most of them 
are specifically identified as such.  Of the physical addresses 
listed within the United States, there are a maximum of eight 
addresses, but likely even less due to the anomalies in the data.  
Ballots already sent by e-mail could be quickly and easily 
retrieved by sending another e-mail directing the voter to ignore 
or destroy the first ballot as the court has ordered ballots 
reprinted and instructing that as soon as the new ballot is 
available, it will be e-mailed. 
¶80 Moreover, 
when 
looking 
closely 
at 
the 
data, 
extrapolation is highly suspect.  For example, the City of Ashland 
sent ballots prior to September 1, 2020——the date the Commission 
finalized the list of candidates for President and Vice President.  
Dane County submitted its order for printing its ballots on August 
28, prior to receiving the final certification on September 1.  
The Commission's statewide data it provided to this court does not 
include some of the towns, such as Town of Lake Holcomb, which are 
reported to have sent ballots out in its specific ballot list of 
data.  Certain large cities with clerks that work full-time, in 
counties that have completed ballot printing, did not respond to 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
46 
 
the Commission's repeated requests for data in response to this 
court's September 10, 2020 order.  
 
IV.  CONCLUSION 
¶81 The majority failed this state's and this country's 
election process.  The majority's decision does more than just 
misread the law and misapply the facts.  It deprives the Wisconsin 
people of a voice and strips them of one of the most fundamental 
tenets of this republic:  the right to express one's will at the 
ballot box.  But come November, important swaths of this state's 
electorate will go unheard.  And for what purpose?  To reward the 
Commission for its missteps and to deny the State of Wisconsin 
political choice?  For the majority, apparently so.  When Wisconsin 
electors signed the Green Party's nomination papers for President 
and Vice President of this country, what were they signing?  
Perhaps, as the majority seemingly endorses, they were signing 
their approval of Angela Walker's address in South Carolina.  Or 
perhaps it was something more.  Perhaps they were signing on behalf 
of their right to vote for a candidate of their choice, and to 
exercise one of their most important liberties that a democratic 
country can offer.   
¶82 Troublingly, the majority loses sight of this right——an 
error, no less, entirely divorced from the law of this state.  
Under Wisconsin law, there was no unreasonable delay in the Green 
Party raising this action.  And under the facts of this case, it 
is not too late to correct this grievous error on the ballot, 
contrary to the majority's mere guess as to the number of ballots 
No.  2020AP1488-OA.akz 
47 
 
that have been sent.  There is no room for speculation when it 
comes to the integrity of America's election process.  The law 
does not think so, and neither do I.  I dissent. 
¶83 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice PATIENCE 
DRAKE ROGGENSACK and Justice REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY join this 
dissent. 
 
 
 
No.  2020AP1488.rgb 
 
48 
 
¶84 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  The majority 
upholds the Wisconsin Elections Commission's violation of 
Wisconsin law, which irrefutably entitles Howie Hawkins and Angela 
Walker to appear on Wisconsin's November 2020 general election 
ballot as candidates for President and Vice President of the United 
States, as the dissents of Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack 
and Justice Annette Ziegler make clear.  Mr. Hawkins and Ms. Walker 
satisfied all requirements necessary to secure their spot on the 
ballot as candidates of the Green Party, but the Wisconsin 
Elections Commission, with the outrageous acquiescence of the 
majority, denies them their rightful place.  Excluding them 
irreparably harms the citizens of Wisconsin, along with the 
integrity of Wisconsin's entire election process.   
¶85 America has witnessed such tactics in the past.  History 
repeats itself, as Wisconsin's highest court rewards rather than 
rebuffs such unlawful maneuvers.  In 1968, Alabama state officials 
left black candidates off the November general election ballot, in 
response to some comparably concocted but meritless challenge.1  
The United States Supreme Court ordered Alabama to hold a new 
election, with the excluded candidates appearing on the ballot.2  
Ironically, the majority in this case adopts the mantra of the 
Wisconsin Elections Commission, caving to its fearmongering 
invocation of "chaos" should the court dare to right this wrong.  
The majority ignores the pandemonium that would ensue following 
                                                 
1 Hadnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358, 360 (1969). 
2 Id. at 367. 
No.  2020AP1488.rgb 
 
49 
 
its refusal to right this wrong, should the United States Supreme 
Court order Wisconsin to repeat the November election—next time in 
accordance with the law.   
¶86 The majority pretends the court lacks "sufficient time 
to complete our review and award any effective relief."  What 
nonsense.  Wisconsin law unquestionably requires that Mr. Hawkins 
and Ms. Walker appear on the ballot.  The court could have ordered 
their certification as candidates before any ballots were mailed 
to voters.  Instead, the court refuses to perform its duty to 
faithfully apply the law and allows the Wisconsin Elections 
Commission to flout it, thereby signaling to the WEC that it may 
disregard the law at whim, with no accountability to the people 
for its transgressions.  In dodging its responsibility to uphold 
the rule of law,3 the majority ratifies a grave threat to our 
republic, suppresses the votes of Wisconsin citizens, irreparably 
                                                 
3 A majority of this court has repeatedly neglected its 
institutional responsibility to promptly hear and decide cases 
involving Wisconsin's 2020 elections.  See SXR Zignego v. Wis. 
Elec. Comm'n, 2020AP123-W (S. Ct. Order issued January 13, 2020 
(Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting)) ("In declining to hear 
a case presenting issues of first impression immediately impacting 
the voting rights of Wisconsin citizens and the integrity of 
impending 
elections, 
the 
court 
shirks 
its 
institutional 
responsibilities to the people who elected us to make important 
decisions, thereby signaling the issues are not worthy of our 
prompt attention.");  SXR Zignego v. Wis. Elec. Comm'n, 2020AP123-
W (S. Ct. Order issued June 1, 2020 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., 
dissenting)) ("It is the duty of Wisconsin's highest court to 
decide cases presenting novel issues of statewide significance."; 
recognizing this court's failure to do so is an abdication of its 
responsibility). 
 
No.  2020AP1488.rgb 
 
50 
 
impairs the integrity of Wisconsin's elections, and undermines the 
confidence of American citizens in the outcome of a presidential 
election.  I dissent.