Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu
Headline: Wisconsin Supreme Court: Elections Commission Exceeded Authority on Ballot Curing
Citation: 2025 WI 4
Brief at a Glance
State elections commission rule allowing clerks to fix absentee ballot defects beyond statutory limits was invalid as an overreach of authority.
- Voters must ensure absentee ballots meet all statutory requirements to avoid defects.
- Election clerks must strictly follow Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8) for curing absentee ballot defects.
- Administrative agencies cannot create rules that exceed their statutory authority.
Case Summary
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu, decided by Wisconsin Supreme Court on February 7, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns the Wisconsin Elections Commission's (WEC) attempt to enforce a rule requiring clerks to cure absentee ballot defects. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the WEC exceeded its statutory authority by creating a rule that effectively allowed voters to cure defects not explicitly permitted by statute. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding the WEC's rule invalid. The court held: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule that allowed for the curing of absentee ballot defects beyond those specifically enumerated in Wisconsin Statutes section 6.86(1)(a).. The Court found that the WEC's rule impermissibly expanded the statutory definition of 'cure' for absentee ballots, thereby creating a new substantive right not granted by the legislature.. The plain language of the statute limits the permissible cures to specific, enumerated defects, and the WEC cannot unilaterally expand these categories through administrative rulemaking.. The doctrine of legislative supremacy dictates that administrative agencies can only exercise powers granted to them by the legislature, and they cannot create law through their own regulations.. The Court rejected the WEC's argument that the rule was a permissible interpretation of existing law, finding it to be an unlawful expansion of statutory authority.. This decision reinforces the principle that administrative agencies cannot expand their statutory authority through rulemaking. It clarifies the limits of the Wisconsin Elections Commission's power regarding absentee ballot procedures and emphasizes the legislature's role in defining election processes. Future election rules from the WEC must strictly adhere to legislative grants of authority.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A state elections commission tried to create a new rule allowing election workers to fix certain mistakes on absentee ballots that weren't covered by existing state law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court said the commission went too far and couldn't make this rule because it wasn't specifically allowed by the law passed by the legislature. The rule is now invalid.
For Legal Practitioners
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) exceeded its statutory authority under Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a) by promulgating an emergency rule allowing clerks to cure absentee ballot defects not explicitly enumerated in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8). The Court reversed the lower court, finding the WEC's rule invalid as an impermissible expansion of legislative power.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the principle of limited government authority. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the WEC's rule allowing clerks to cure absentee ballot defects beyond those specified in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8) was invalid because it exceeded the agency's statutory grant of power under Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a).
Newsroom Summary
The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a rule by the state's elections commission that would have allowed election clerks to fix more types of errors on absentee ballots. The court ruled the commission overstepped its legal authority, as the rule went beyond what state law permits.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule that allowed for the curing of absentee ballot defects beyond those specifically enumerated in Wisconsin Statutes section 6.86(1)(a).
- The Court found that the WEC's rule impermissibly expanded the statutory definition of 'cure' for absentee ballots, thereby creating a new substantive right not granted by the legislature.
- The plain language of the statute limits the permissible cures to specific, enumerated defects, and the WEC cannot unilaterally expand these categories through administrative rulemaking.
- The doctrine of legislative supremacy dictates that administrative agencies can only exercise powers granted to them by the legislature, and they cannot create law through their own regulations.
- The Court rejected the WEC's argument that the rule was a permissible interpretation of existing law, finding it to be an unlawful expansion of statutory authority.
Key Takeaways
- Voters must ensure absentee ballots meet all statutory requirements to avoid defects.
- Election clerks must strictly follow Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8) for curing absentee ballot defects.
- Administrative agencies cannot create rules that exceed their statutory authority.
- Challenges to agency rules can be based on exceeding legislative grants of power.
- Clarity in statutes regarding absentee ballot procedures is crucial for election administration.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation and administrative rule validity independently, without deference to the lower court's findings.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court on appeal from the Dane County Circuit Court, which had affirmed the Wisconsin Elections Commission's (WEC) emergency rule.
Burden of Proof
The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) bore the burden of proving that its rule was a valid exercise of its statutory authority. The standard of review is de novo.
Legal Tests Applied
Statutory Authority of Administrative Agencies
Elements: An administrative agency may only exercise powers granted to it by the legislature. · An agency cannot create rules that expand or contradict statutory provisions. · Rules must be consistent with and in furtherance of the legislative intent expressed in the statute.
The Court found that the WEC exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule allowing clerks to cure absentee ballot defects that were not explicitly permitted by Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8). The Court determined that the WEC's rule effectively created a new method for curing defects, which was not authorized by the legislature, and therefore conflicted with the existing statutory scheme.
Statutory References
| Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a) | Rulemaking authority — This statute grants agencies the power to promulgate rules necessary to implement and enforce statutes. The Court interpreted this statute to mean that agency rules must be consistent with and in furtherance of the legislative intent of the underlying statute, and cannot expand upon statutory authority. |
| Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8) | Absentee ballot defects — This statute outlines the specific circumstances under which an absentee ballot may be 'cured' (corrected). The WEC's rule attempted to expand these curing provisions beyond what was enumerated in this statute, which the Court found to be an overreach of authority. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"An administrative agency may only exercise those powers that the legislature has granted to it."
"An agency may not create rules that expand or contradict statutory provisions."
"The legislature has not granted the WEC the authority to create a rule that allows clerks to cure absentee ballot defects that are not enumerated in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8)."
Remedies
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Dane County Circuit Court's decision.The Court declared the Wisconsin Elections Commission's emergency rule invalid.
Entities and Participants
Judges
Key Takeaways
- Voters must ensure absentee ballots meet all statutory requirements to avoid defects.
- Election clerks must strictly follow Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8) for curing absentee ballot defects.
- Administrative agencies cannot create rules that exceed their statutory authority.
- Challenges to agency rules can be based on exceeding legislative grants of power.
- Clarity in statutes regarding absentee ballot procedures is crucial for election administration.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are a voter who submitted an absentee ballot, and you receive a notice that there's a minor defect (e.g., a missing signature) that wasn't explicitly listed as curable by state law.
Your Rights: Under this ruling, election officials cannot create new rules to 'cure' defects that are not specifically authorized by statute. Your right to have your ballot counted depends on whether the defect falls within the specific curing provisions of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8).
What To Do: If notified of a defect, carefully review Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8) or consult with election officials about whether the specific defect is curable under current law. If it is not, your ballot may not be counted.
Scenario: You are an election clerk tasked with processing absentee ballots and are unsure if you can accept a ballot with a defect not explicitly mentioned in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8).
Your Rights: Your authority to 'cure' absentee ballot defects is strictly limited by Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8). You cannot unilaterally create new procedures or accept ballots with defects that fall outside the scope of this statute, even if you believe it would be more practical.
What To Do: Adhere strictly to the curing provisions outlined in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8). Do not attempt to cure defects not specifically permitted by this statute, as doing so would violate the WEC's (now invalidated) rule and potentially lead to legal challenges.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for election officials to fix minor errors on my absentee ballot if the law doesn't explicitly say they can?
No. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that election officials cannot create rules allowing them to fix absentee ballot defects that are not specifically permitted by state statute (Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8)).
This applies to Wisconsin elections.
Practical Implications
For Wisconsin Voters
Voters submitting absentee ballots must be extra careful to ensure their ballots comply with all statutory requirements, as election officials have limited ability to correct defects not explicitly allowed by law.
For Wisconsin Election Officials (Clerks)
Officials must strictly adhere to the statutory provisions for curing absentee ballot defects (Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8)) and cannot rely on broader interpretations or newly created rules to cure ballots.
For Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC)
The WEC's rulemaking authority is constrained by the statutes it is tasked with implementing. It cannot create rules that expand upon or contradict legislative intent, as demonstrated by the invalidation of its emergency rule.
Related Legal Concepts
Frequently Asked Questions (32)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (6)
Q: What is Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu about?
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu is a case decided by Wisconsin Supreme Court on February 7, 2025.
Q: What court decided Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu was decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is part of the WI state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu decided?
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu was decided on February 7, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
The citation for Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu is 2025 WI 4. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was the main issue in Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
The case concerned whether the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) had the legal authority to create a rule allowing election clerks to fix certain defects on absentee ballots that were not explicitly permitted by state law (Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8)).
Q: What did the Wisconsin Supreme Court decide?
The Court decided that the WEC exceeded its statutory authority by creating the rule. The Court held that agencies cannot make rules that expand upon or contradict existing statutes, thus invalidating the WEC's rule.
Legal Analysis (12)
Q: Is Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu published?
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu. Key holdings: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule that allowed for the curing of absentee ballot defects beyond those specifically enumerated in Wisconsin Statutes section 6.86(1)(a).; The Court found that the WEC's rule impermissibly expanded the statutory definition of 'cure' for absentee ballots, thereby creating a new substantive right not granted by the legislature.; The plain language of the statute limits the permissible cures to specific, enumerated defects, and the WEC cannot unilaterally expand these categories through administrative rulemaking.; The doctrine of legislative supremacy dictates that administrative agencies can only exercise powers granted to them by the legislature, and they cannot create law through their own regulations.; The Court rejected the WEC's argument that the rule was a permissible interpretation of existing law, finding it to be an unlawful expansion of statutory authority..
Q: Why is Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu important?
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu has an impact score of 75/100, indicating significant legal impact. This decision reinforces the principle that administrative agencies cannot expand their statutory authority through rulemaking. It clarifies the limits of the Wisconsin Elections Commission's power regarding absentee ballot procedures and emphasizes the legislature's role in defining election processes. Future election rules from the WEC must strictly adhere to legislative grants of authority.
Q: What precedent does Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu set?
Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu established the following key holdings: (1) The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule that allowed for the curing of absentee ballot defects beyond those specifically enumerated in Wisconsin Statutes section 6.86(1)(a). (2) The Court found that the WEC's rule impermissibly expanded the statutory definition of 'cure' for absentee ballots, thereby creating a new substantive right not granted by the legislature. (3) The plain language of the statute limits the permissible cures to specific, enumerated defects, and the WEC cannot unilaterally expand these categories through administrative rulemaking. (4) The doctrine of legislative supremacy dictates that administrative agencies can only exercise powers granted to them by the legislature, and they cannot create law through their own regulations. (5) The Court rejected the WEC's argument that the rule was a permissible interpretation of existing law, finding it to be an unlawful expansion of statutory authority.
Q: What are the key holdings in Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
1. The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating a rule that allowed for the curing of absentee ballot defects beyond those specifically enumerated in Wisconsin Statutes section 6.86(1)(a). 2. The Court found that the WEC's rule impermissibly expanded the statutory definition of 'cure' for absentee ballots, thereby creating a new substantive right not granted by the legislature. 3. The plain language of the statute limits the permissible cures to specific, enumerated defects, and the WEC cannot unilaterally expand these categories through administrative rulemaking. 4. The doctrine of legislative supremacy dictates that administrative agencies can only exercise powers granted to them by the legislature, and they cannot create law through their own regulations. 5. The Court rejected the WEC's argument that the rule was a permissible interpretation of existing law, finding it to be an unlawful expansion of statutory authority.
Q: What cases are related to Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
Precedent cases cited or related to Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu: State ex rel. Wisconsin State Journal Pub. Co. v. State Election Bd., 118 Wis. 2d 446, 347 N.W.2d 596 (1984); State v. D.B., 124 Wis. 2d 352, 369 N.W.2d 705 (1985).
Q: What statute was central to the Court's decision?
Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8), which outlines the specific circumstances under which absentee ballot defects can be cured, was central. The Court also referenced Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a) regarding agency rulemaking authority.
Q: What is 'statutory authority' in this context?
Statutory authority refers to the powers that the legislature explicitly grants to an administrative agency through statutes. Agencies can only act within these granted powers.
Q: Can election officials create their own rules for fixing ballot errors?
No, not if those rules go beyond what is explicitly allowed by state statute. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the WEC's rule was invalid because it attempted to expand the statutory provisions for curing absentee ballot defects.
Q: What does it mean for a rule to be 'ultra vires'?
An 'ultra vires' act is one that is beyond the legal power or authority of the entity performing it. The Court found the WEC's rule to be ultra vires because it exceeded the legislature's grant of authority.
Q: What is the standard of review used by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in this case?
The Court used a 'de novo' standard of review, meaning it reviewed the legal questions, such as statutory interpretation and the validity of the rule, independently without giving deference to the lower court's decision.
Q: What is the significance of Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a)?
This statute governs the rulemaking authority of administrative agencies. The Court interpreted it to mean that agency rules must be consistent with and further the legislative intent of the underlying statute, not expand upon it.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu affect me?
This decision reinforces the principle that administrative agencies cannot expand their statutory authority through rulemaking. It clarifies the limits of the Wisconsin Elections Commission's power regarding absentee ballot procedures and emphasizes the legislature's role in defining election processes. Future election rules from the WEC must strictly adhere to legislative grants of authority. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What happens if my absentee ballot has a defect not listed in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8)?
Under this ruling, election officials cannot create new procedures to fix such defects. Your ballot may not be counted if the defect is not one specifically permitted to be cured by the statute.
Q: What should an election clerk do if they encounter an absentee ballot defect?
Clerks must strictly adhere to the curing procedures outlined in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8). They cannot cure defects that fall outside the scope of this statute, as the WEC's broader rule was invalidated.
Q: How does this ruling affect election administration in Wisconsin?
It reinforces that administrative agencies must operate strictly within the bounds of legislative authority. It means absentee ballot curing procedures remain limited to those explicitly defined by statute.
Q: What is the practical takeaway for voters?
Voters should be diligent in completing their absentee ballots correctly according to all instructions and statutory requirements to avoid any defects that could lead to their ballot not being counted.
Historical Context (2)
Q: When was this rule created by the WEC?
The WEC promulgated the rule as an 'emergency rule.' While the opinion doesn't specify the exact date of promulgation, it was in response to issues arising in recent election cycles.
Q: What is the history of absentee ballot curing rules in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin law has specific provisions for curing absentee ballot defects, primarily found in Wis. Stat. § 6.87(8). The WEC attempted to expand these provisions through rulemaking, which led to this legal challenge.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu?
The docket number for Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu is 2024AP000351. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is an 'emergency rule' in Wisconsin?
An emergency rule is a regulation adopted by an agency to address an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or to implement a new law that takes effect immediately. Such rules can be temporary and are subject to legislative review and judicial challenge.
Q: What was the procedural posture of this case?
The case began in the Dane County Circuit Court, which affirmed the WEC's rule. The Wisconsin Supreme Court then reviewed the circuit court's decision on appeal.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- State ex rel. Wisconsin State Journal Pub. Co. v. State Election Bd., 118 Wis. 2d 446, 347 N.W.2d 596 (1984)
- State v. D.B., 124 Wis. 2d 352, 369 N.W.2d 705 (1985)
Case Details
| Case Name | Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu |
| Citation | 2025 WI 4 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-02-07 |
| Docket Number | 2024AP000351 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | reversed |
| Impact Score | 75 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the principle that administrative agencies cannot expand their statutory authority through rulemaking. It clarifies the limits of the Wisconsin Elections Commission's power regarding absentee ballot procedures and emphasizes the legislature's role in defining election processes. Future election rules from the WEC must strictly adhere to legislative grants of authority. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Administrative Law, Statutory Interpretation, Election Law, Absentee Voting, Agency Rulemaking Authority, Separation of Powers |
| Judge(s) | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Jurisdiction | wi |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Wisconsin Elections Commission v. Devin LeMahieu was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Administrative Law or from the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
-
Estate of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Company
Sale of Alcohol to Minor Not Proximate Cause of Minor's Death in Car CrashWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-04-15
-
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Osman A. Mirza
Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends lawyer's license for 60 days due to misconductWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-04-15
-
Savannah Wren v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Milwaukee, Inc.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Malpractice Case for Deficient Expert AffidavitWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-04-10
-
State v. K. R. C.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Minors Can Be Prosecuted for Possessing Child PornographyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-03-26
-
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Guy K. Fish
Attorney Guy K. Fish's Law License Suspended for 60 Days Due to Professional MisconductWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-03-20
-
Heather Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.
Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Against Debt Collector for Misleading Letters on Time-Barred DebtWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-03-04
-
State v. J. D. B.
Juvenile delinquency adjudication for felony does not count as felony conviction for firearm possession charge.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-02-25
-
State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak
Wisconsin Supreme Court finds "no-knock" warrant unjustified, suppresses evidenceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-02-24