Ballot Boxes Amicus Brief

Case 2024AP000164 Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae (Teigen, Thom, and ...
Filed 05-06-2024 Page 1 of 17

FILED
No. 24AP164 05-06-2024

CLERK OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT
In the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
PRIORITIES USA, WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS,

and WILLIAM FRANKS, JR., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS, INTERVENOR-APPELLANT,
v.
WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION,

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,
WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE, INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.
On Appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court,

The Honorable Ann M. Peacock, Presiding,
Case No. 23CV1900
NON-PARTY BRIEF OF RICHARD TEIGEN,

RICHARD THOM, AND THE ASSOCIATION OF
MATURE AMERICAN CITIZENS, INC.
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR

LAW & LIBERTY, INC.
RICHARD M. ESENBERG
LUKE N. BERG
NATHALIE E. BURMEISTER
330 E. Kilbourn Ave., Ste. 725
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 727-9455
Facsimile: (414) 727-6385
Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Richard Teigen, Richard Thom,
and the Association of Mature
American Citizens, Inc.
-1-
Case 2024AP000164 Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae (Teigen, Thom, and ... Filed 05-06-2024 Page 2 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 5
INTEREST OF AMICUS ....................................................................................... 6
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 6
I. Petitioner Parties’ statutory interpretation arguments are wrong
on the merits. ............................................................................................... 7
II. There are no standards governing the use of drop boxes, and no
one but the Legislature has authority to impose them.......................... 10
III. The absence of drop boxes does not create a constitutional
problem. ...................................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 15
CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................. 17
-2-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) ............................................................................... 13
Carey v. Wis. Elections Comm’n
624 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (W.D. Wis. 2022) ................................................... 14
Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm’n
2023 WI 79, 410 Wis. 2d 1, 998 N.W.2d 370 ............................................. 8
Cnty of Dane v. Labor and Industry Review Comm’n
2009 WI 9, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571 ........................................... 8
Columbus Housing Corp. v. City of Kenosha
2003 WI 143, 267 Wis. 2d 59, 671 N.W.2d 633 ......................................... 8
Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd.
553 U.S. 181 (2008) ................................................................................... 13
Dawson v. Town of Jackson
2011 WI 77, 336 Wis. 2d 318, 801 N.W.2d 316 ......................................... 8
Flynn v. Dep’t of Admin.
216 Wis. 2d 521, 576 N.W.2d 245 (1998) ................................................... 8
Hinrichs v. DOW Chemical Co.
2020 WI 2, 389 Wis. 2d 669, 937 N.W.2d 37 ............................................. 5
James v. Heinrich
2021 WI 58, 397 Wis. 2d 517, 960 N.W.2d 35 ......................................... 11
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Educ. Network, Inc. v. Walker
2014 WI 97, 357 Wis. 2d 360, 851 N.W.2d 302 ....................................... 13
Luft v. Evers
963 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 13
Myers v. Wis. Dep’t of Natural Resources
2019 WI 5, 385 Wis. 2d 176, 922 N.W.2d 47 ........................................... 11
State ex rel Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County
2004 WI 58, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 ..................................... 7, 9
Teigen v. Wis. Elections Comm’n
2022 WI 64, 403 Wis. 2d 607, 976 N.W.2d 519 .............................5, 7, 8, 9
Wis. Legislature v. Palm
2020 WI 42, 391 Wis. 2d 497, 942 N.W.2d 900 ....................................... 12
-3-
Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 6.20 .................................................................................................... 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.76 .................................................................................................... 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.78(1m) ............................................................................................ 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.78(4) ............................................................................................... 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.84(1) ......................................................................................... 11, 13
Wis. Stat. § 6.85 .................................................................................................... 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.855 .................................................................................................. 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.855(1) ............................................................................................... 9
Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(a) ........................................................................................... 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(a)(1)–(6) ................................................................................ 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. ..............................................................................7, 11, 14
Wis. Stat. § 6.87(5) ............................................................................................... 14
Other Authorities
Hope Karnopp, Early voting starts today in Wisconsin. Here’s how to
find locations, dates, and times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
(March 19, 2024). Available at
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/1
9/early-voting-in-milwaukee-and-wisconsin-locations-dates-
times/73026676007/................................................................................... 14
Kirsten Koschnick, Comment, Making “Explicit Authority” Explicit
Deciphering Wis. Act 21’s Prescriptions for Agency Rulemaking
Authority, 2019 Wis. L. Rev. 993 (2019) .................................................. 12
Constitutional Provisions
Wis. Const. art. III § 1 .......................................................................................... 13
Wis. Const. art. III § 2 .................................................................................... 13, 15
-4-
INTRODUCTION
There is no good reason to overturn this Court’s interpretation of

Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. in Teigen v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 2022 WI 64,
403 Wis. 2d 607, 976 N.W.2d 519. Teigen decided the drop box question
less than two years ago in a majority opinion that was—and still is—
correct on the merits.
Petitioner Parties1 provide no materially different reason to
change that result: instead, they reiterate the Teigen dissent and largely
repackage the arguments that failed in Teigen. In addition, multiple
elections have been held post-Teigen, and there is no indication that
municipal clerks have been unable to comply with Teigen in practice.
Indeed, only thing that has changed since the Teigen decision is
the membership of this Court into a new majority that Petitioner Parties
believe is sympathetic to their interests. But that is not a sufficient
reason to overturn Teigen’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. See
Hinrichs v. DOW Chemical Co., 2020 WI 2, ¶ 67, 389 Wis. 2d 669, 937
N.W.2d 37 (“When existing law is open to revision in every case, deciding
cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and
unpredictable results … Accordingly, any departure from stare decisis
requires ‘special justification.’”) (citations omitted).
The fact remains that drop boxes are not permitted under
Wisconsin law, and if this Court decides to authorize them anyway, that
decision will have a consequential impact on Wisconsin’s longstanding
1“Petitioner Parties” refers to the Petitioners (Priorities USA, Wisconsin Alliance

for Retired Americans, and William Franks, Jr.), Governor Evers, and WEC (because
WEC argues for overturning Teigen despite its Respondent designation).
-5-
principles of statutory interpretation, fundamental tenets of

administrative law, and uniform election administration. For these
reasons, Amici Curiae Richard Teigen, Richard Thom, and the
Association of Mature American Citizens, Inc. (“AMAC”), write in
support of upholding Teigen’s interpretation of § 6.87(4)(b)1.
INTEREST OF AMICUS
Amici curiae Richard Teigen and Richard Thom are the successful
plaintiffs in Teigen v. WEC and registered Wisconsin voters. Amicus
curiae Association of Mature American Citizens, Inc. (“AMAC”) is a
membership-based nonpartisan organization that represents nearly
50,000 members in the State of Wisconsin and over two million members
nationwide.
Amici are interested in this action as Wisconsin voters, and an
organization representing tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, who
believe that adherence to the statutory provisions for election
administration is crucial for efficient, uniform election administration,
and maintaining public trust in election results.
ARGUMENT
This case seeks to upend existing Wisconsin law in pursuit of a

desired policy outcome: this Court’s permission for Wisconsin election
clerks to use drop boxes as a method of absentee ballot return. This Court
should reject Petitioner Parties’ request to overturn Teigen. This Court
got it right last time: the existing statutes do not provide for drop boxes,
and there are no laws in place to ensure that if clerks use drop boxes,
they will be used in a safe and uniform manner.
-6-
I. Petitioner Parties’ statutory interpretation arguments are

wrong on the merits.
This case involves a single statutory interpretation question: are

drop boxes a permitted method of absentee ballot return under Wis. Stat.
§ 6.87(4)(b)1.? The answer, according to longstanding statutory
interpretation principles and a majority of the Justices in Teigen, is no.
As the Teigen court concluded, Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. does not
permit drop boxes. Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶¶ 55–63. A plain reading of the
statutory language reveals that Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. is not ambiguous
and that absentee ballots may only be returned through one of two
methods: by mail, or by delivery in person to the municipal clerk. See
State ex rel Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271
Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted); See also Wis. Stat. §
6.87(4)(b)1. And because drop boxes are inanimate objects that cannot
achieve a person-to-person exchange of the ballot at either the clerk’s
office or an appropriately designated alternate site as required by the
statutes, drop boxes are not “authorized representatives” of the
“municipal clerk” under Wis. Stat. § 5.02(10), and are not permitted
under Wisconsin law. See Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶ 55.
Moreover, the Teigen Court’s conclusions on this issue constitute a
binding, majority holding. Indeed, four members of the Teigen court
explicitly acknowledged that Wis. Stat. § 6.87 contemplates “return of
absentee ballots through two and only two means: mailing by the voter
to the municipal clerk, or personal delivery by the voter to the municipal
clerk” and that “personal delivery to the clerk contemplates a person-to-
person exchange between the voter and the clerk or clerk’s authorized
representative at either the clerk’s office or a designated alternate site.”
-7-
Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶ 148 (Hagedorn, J., concurring); id., ¶¶ 55–63

(majority op. with respect to these conclusions, which are reiterated in
those paragraphs). Petitioner Parties obviously disagree with this
holding, but their disagreement does not mean that Teigen was wrongly
decided.
This Court is not a super-legislature. Therefore, it “must apply the
statute as written, not interpret it as [it] think[s] it should have been
written.” Columbus Housing Corp. v. City of Kenosha, 2003 WI 143, ¶ 34,
267 Wis. 2d 59, 671 N.W.2d 633; see also Flynn v. Dep’t of Admin., 216
Wis. 2d 521, 528–29, 576 N.W.2d 245 (1998); Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶ 52 n.
25. Time and again, this Court has declined to read exceptions into
statutes that are not present in the text, and it should decline to do so
here. See e.g., Clarke v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 2023 WI 79, ¶ 19, 410
Wis. 2d 1, 998 N.W.2d 370 (“We decline to read a political contiguity
exception into Article IV’s contiguity requirements. The text contains no
such exception.”); Dawson v. Town of Jackson, 2011 WI 77, ¶ 42, 336 Wis.
2d 318, 801 N.W.2d 316 (“We decline to read into the statute words the
legislature did not see fit to write.”) (citing Cnty of Dane v. Labor and
Industry Review Comm’n, 2009 WI 9, ¶ 33, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d
571).
Petitioners erroneously argue that, from a statutory interpretation
perspective, the Teigen court took up the “legislative pen” when
concluding that absentee ballots must be returned by mail or by in
person delivery to the clerk at the clerk’s office or an alternate site. Petr’s
4/1/24 Br. at 13; see Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶ 62. WEC and the Governor
argue similarly. Governor’s 4/1/24 Br. at 13–15; WEC Br. at 25. But this
-8-
argument is demonstrably false and, instead, reflects exactly what the

Petitioner Parties have asked this Court to do.
A fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation is that statutes
must be read within the context of their statutory scheme which, as the
Teigen Court correctly concluded, contemplates the return of absentee
ballots through the mail or by in person delivery at either the clerk’s
office or designated alternate sites.2 See Kalal, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 46 (“…
statutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not
in isolation but as part of a whole;”); Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶¶ 56–63.
For example, Wis. Stat. § 6.855 unquestionably applies to the in-
person return of absentee ballots because it authorizes municipalities “to
designate a site other than the office of the municipal clerk” for both in
person absentee voting (where the elector requests, fills out, and returns
the ballot at the same time) and the in-person return of already-voted
ballots received by mail. Compare § 6.855(1) with Petr’s 4/1/24 Br. at 18–
19, Governor’s 4/1/24 Br. at 12–13, WEC Br. at 26. And when §
6.87(4)(b)1. is read in the context of § 6.855(1) (as statutory
interpretation principles require), the necessary implication is that “the
office of the municipal clerk” is the only place “to which absentee ballots
shall be returned” absent an appropriately designated alternate site.
2 This statutory interpretation principle also cautions against relying on

statutes and decisions from other states, as WEC and the Governor suggest.
WEC Br. at 28–29; Governor’s Br. at 13, n.4. In addition, WEC and the
Governor make no showing that the statutory context, principles of statutory
interpretation, or legislative policies underlying the statutes in those cases are
like those here.
-9-
If this Court decides to read the use of drop boxes into the text, it
will do precisely what the Petitioner Parties have accused the Teigen
court of doing—take up the “legislative pen”—and create an exception to
the two methods of absentee ballot return that § 6.87(4)(b)1. explicitly
establishes. Indeed, in holding that drop boxes are permitted, this Court
will act as a super-legislature and declare that absentee ballots may only
be returned by mail or by in person delivery at the clerk’s office or an
alternate site, unless a municipal clerk prefers to receive absentee ballots
at a drop box (or in any other manner they choose, for that matter). That
is not the role of this Court.
Petitioner Parties’ statutory interpretation arguments are wrong
on the merits and this Court should not be persuaded by them.
II. There are no standards governing the use of drop boxes,

and no one but the Legislature has authority to impose
them.
Petitioner Parties’ proposal that this Court take up the “legislative

pen” is even more problematic due to the fact that nothing in the
statutes, administrative code, or other proper source of law provides
rules and procedures to ensure that drop boxes would be used in a safe
and uniform way on a statewide basis. Indeed, there are no statutes in
place determining how many drop boxes a clerk can use or authorize,
where they may or may not be located, how they must be secured (locked,
lighted, video, etc.), whether they must be staffed or unstaffed, how the
ballots can be removed from the drop boxes and by whom, or how the
ballots put into a drop box are stored or delivered to the clerk’s office.
Under Petitioner Parties’ view, this is not a problem and municipal
clerks may simply accept absentee ballots wherever and in whatever
- 10 -
manner they see fit. See Petr’s 4/1/24 Br. at 14–15; Governor’s 4/1/24 Br.
at 17–19; WEC Br. at 17–19. This view is deeply concerning and
blatantly contradicts not only the mandatory construction of Section
6.87(4)(b)1. and the legislature’s policy that absentee voting be “carefully
regulated,” § 6.84(1)–(2), but also the very core of administrative law.
Contrary to Petitioner Parties’ claims, Wisconsin’s election laws do
not just leave it up to municipal clerks to figure out how to conduct an
election. Rather, there are very detailed and specific processes to protect
the integrity of the system. Those processes are contained in Chapters 5-
10 and 12 of the Wisconsin Statutes and in the “EL” section of the
Administrative Rules, and not one sentence in those statues or rules
governs drop boxes.
Furthermore, administrative agencies, like WEC, are “creatures of
the legislature” that have “only those powers expressly conferred or
necessarily implied by the statutory provisions under which it operates.”
Myers v. Wis. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 2019 WI 5, ¶ 21, 385 Wis. 2d
176, 922 N.W.2d 47. And according to the doctrine of “expression unius
est exclusion alterius,” “if ‘the legislature did not specifically confer a
power,’ the exercise of that power is not authorized.” James v. Heinrich,
2021 WI 58, ¶ 18, 397 Wis. 2d 517, 960 N.W.2d 35 (citations omitted).
Petitioners concede that drop boxes are not “expressly” permitted
under Wisconsin law. Petr’s 4/1/24 Br. at 26. Given § 6.84’s command
that absentee ballot procedures are to be “carefully regulated” and
strictly construed, that concession alone should resolve this case. Even
setting § 6.84 aside, administrative agencies (and their agents, such as
municipal clerks) are generally not allowed to take action that is not
- 11 -
explicitly authorized. Id; see also Wis. Legislature v. Palm, 2020 WI 42,
¶ 51, 391 Wis. 2d 497, 942 N.W.2d 900 (quoting Kirsten Koschnick,
Comment, Making “Explicit Authority” Explicit Deciphering Wis. Act 21’s
Prescriptions for Agency Rulemaking Authority, 2019 Wis. L. Rev. 993,
997 (2019) (“[U]nder 2011 Wis. Act 21, the Legislature significantly
altered [this Court’s] administrative law jurisprudence by imposing an
‘explicit authority requirement’ on [this Court’s] interpretations of
agency powers.”)). Petitioner Parties cannot overcome the fact that
statutory silence does not default to statutory authorization.
Because not one sentence in the statutes explicitly authorizes drop
boxes, they are not permitted, and neither WEC, nor this Court, has the
authority to act as a super-legislature by authorizing and implementing
them anyway. If drop boxes are to be permitted, it is up to the Legislature
to say so and to promulgate (or expressly authorize WEC to promulgate)
the rules and procedures governing their use. Anything else will
effectively redefine fundamental tenets of administrative law.
III. The absence of drop boxes does not create a constitutional

problem.
Petitioners and the Governor also suggest that this Court should
legalize drop boxes to avoid a constitutional problem, which they seem
to believe exists (or may develop) if the status quo is left unchanged. See
Petr’s 4/1/24 Br. at 27–29; Governor’s 4/1/24 Br. at 19 & n.10. More
specifically, the Governor claims that Teigen “relegated” absentee voters
to “second class status,” Governor’s 4/1/24 Br. at 19, n.10, while the
Petitioners argue that Teigen was wrongly decided because it caused
- 12 -
absentee voting to “fall[ ] outside of constitutional protection.” Petr’s

4/1/24 Br. at 28. There is no merit to these arguments whatsoever.
In Wisconsin, qualified electors have a constitutional right to vote
in person, at an appropriate polling place, on election day. Wis. Const.
art. III § 1; Wis. Stat. § 6.84(1). They do not have a constitutional right
to vote wherever and in whatever manner they see fit. Wis. Const. art.
III § 2; Wis. Stat. § 6.84(1). However, this does not mean that absentee
ballots appropriately cast through the absentee voting process are not
themselves valid and entitled to constitutional protection. Nor does it
mean that Wisconsinites who vote absentee have been “relegated” to
“second class status.” Governor’s 4/1/24 Br. at 19, n.10.
Both the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts have long upheld the
right of legislatures to dictate the terms of absentee voting, as well as
other voting requirements, consistent with their interest in preventing
election fraud—the risk of which can be greater with absentee voting.
See e.g., League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Educ. Network, Inc. v.
Walker, 2014 WI 97, ¶¶ 19–21, 24, 357 Wis. 2d 360, 851 N.W.2d 302
(citing cases); Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 141 S. Ct.
2321, 2346–48 (2021); Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S.
181, 191 (2008). And notwithstanding its right to carefully regulate
absentee voting, see Wis. Const. art. III § 2, the Wisconsin Legislature
has chosen to enact laws that make it incredibly easy to vote by absentee
ballot. See Luft v. Evers, 963 F.3d 665, 672 (7th Cir. 2020); See also Dkt.
60:3–6 (explaining the history of absentee voting in Wisconsin and
demonstrating that absentee voting is easier and more available than
ever before).
- 13 -
Indeed, Wisconsin is a “no-excuse” absentee voting state, which

means that any qualified Wisconsin elector may choose to vote by
absentee ballot, for any reason. Wis. Stat. §§ 6.20; 6.85; 6.86(1)(a). An
absentee voter can request their ballot in a variety of ways, §
6.86(1)(a)(1)–(6), and, again, may return a ballot they received through
the mail by simply mailing it back or by delivering it in person to their
municipal clerk at the clerk’s office or an appropriately designated
alternate site. See Wis. Stat. §§ 6.855, 6.87(4)(b)1. Those who need
assistance with marking, mailing or delivering their ballot (for reasons
specified under the Voting Rights Act (VRA)) may receive such
assistance from a person of their choice, subject to limited exceptions.
See Carey v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, 624 F. Supp. 3d 1020, 1032–33
(W.D. Wis. 2022); Wis. Stat. § 6.87(5).
Furthermore, if an absentee voter wishes to deliver their ballot to
the clerk’s office or an alternate site, there is ample time to do so. Many
jurisdictions offer extended early voting hours prior to election day. 3 And
on election day itself, all polling locations are open from 7am to 8pm.
Wis. Stat. § 6.78(1m). State law requires employers to provide employees
with up to three hours of time off work (while the polls are open) to vote
on election day. Id. § 6.76. And any voter who is still in line to vote when
the polls close has the right to vote in that election. Id. § 6.78(4).
3See, e.g.., Hope Karnopp, Early voting starts today in Wisconsin. Here’s how to
find locations, dates, and times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (March 19, 2024).
Available at https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/19/early-
voting-in-milwaukee-and-wisconsin-locations-dates-times/73026676007/
- 14 -
Given the ease and widespread availability of absentee voting,

including the option to return a mail-in ballot to the clerk at her office or
an alternate site until the polls close on election day, it can hardly be
said that the absence of drop boxes is an unconstitutional burden on the
right to vote. Inconveniences that might be incurred if an absentee voter
chooses to personally deliver a mail-in ballot (or needs to do so because
the election is too close in time to guarantee delivery by mail) do not
amount to a constitutional violation.
Again, whether drop boxes are a permissible method of returning
absentee ballots is a policy choice for the Legislature, not this Court. Wis.
Const. art. III § 2. And there is no basis for reinterpreting § 6.87(4)(b)1.
under the guise of avoiding a constitutional issue that does not exist.
Absentee voting is easy in Wisconsin, and conducting that process
without drop boxes does not create a constitutional problem.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfully request that this

Court uphold Teigen’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1.
Dated: May 6, 2024.
[Signature Block on Following Page]
- 15 -
Respectfully submitted,
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR

LAW & LIBERTY, INC.
Electronically signed by Nathalie E.
Burmeister
Richard M. Esenberg (WI Bar No. 1005622)
Luke N. Berg (WI Bar No. 1095644)
Nathalie E. Burmeister (WI Bar No.
1126820)
330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 725
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 727-9455
Facsimile: (414) 727-6385
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Richard Teigen,

Richard Thom, and the Association of
Mature American Citizens, Inc.
- 16 -
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in

Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(8)(b), (bm) and (c). The length of this brief is
2,984 words as calculated by Microsoft Word.
Dated: May 6, 2024.
Electronically signed by Nathalie E.

Burmeister
NATHALIE E. BURMEISTER
WI Bar No. 1126820
330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 725

Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 727-9455
Facsimile: (414) 727-6385
[email protected]
- 17 -

Ballot Boxes Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ballot Boxes Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ballot Boxes Amicus Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2024AP000164 Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae (Teigen, Thom, and ...

Filed 05-06-2024 Page 1 of 17

No. 24AP164 05-06-2024

In the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

PRIORITIES USA, WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS,

GOVERNOR TONY EVERS, INTERVENOR-APPELLANT,

WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION,

On Appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court,

NON-PARTY BRIEF OF RICHARD TEIGEN,

WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

There is no good reason to overturn this Court’s interpretation of

1“Petitioner Parties” refers to the Petitioners (Priorities USA, Wisconsin Alliance

principles of statutory interpretation, fundamental tenets of

This case seeks to upend existing Wisconsin law in pursuit of a

I. Petitioner Parties’ statutory interpretation arguments are

This case involves a single statutory interpretation question: are

Teigen, 2022 WI 64, ¶ 148 (Hagedorn, J., concurring); id., ¶¶ 55–63

argument is demonstrably false and, instead, reflects exactly what the

2 This statutory interpretation principle also cautions against relying on

II. There are no standards governing the use of drop boxes,

Petitioner Parties’ proposal that this Court take up the “legislative

III. The absence of drop boxes does not create a constitutional

absentee voting to “fall[ ] outside of constitutional protection.” Petr’s

Indeed, Wisconsin is a “no-excuse” absentee voting state, which

Given the ease and widespread availability of absentee voting,

For the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfully request that this

Dated: May 6, 2024.

[Signature Block on Following Page]

WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR

Attorneys for Amici Curiae Richard Teigen,

I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in

Dated: May 6, 2024.

Electronically signed by Nathalie E.

330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 725

You might also like