ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW to the Supreme Court RUSD

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN SUPREME COURT *****************

No. 2020-AP-1271-AC JAMES SEWELL, DENNIS MONTEY, and GEORGE MEYERS, Petitioners-Appellants-Petitioners, v. RACINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF CANVASSERS, YES FOR OUR CHILDREN, A REFERENDUM COMMITTEE, CHELSEA POWELL, and THE RACINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents-Respondents-Respondents. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II AND APPENDIX

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Electors in Racine County brought an action in circuit court to contest the outcome of a referendum that the Racine Unified School District Board of Canvassers decided had passed by a margin of 5 out of 33,415 votes following a statutory recount pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 9.01, et seq. The “Contested election” statute, Wis. Stat. § 7.54 states that, “In all contested election cases, the contesting

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW to the Supreme Court RUSD

Published on Jun 6, 2021

Communicator News

The challenging parties ask the right to review in open court ballots they assert were miscounted such that an incorrect election outcome will be sustained unless the errors alleged by the challengers are corrected by the circuit? The circuit court dismissed the matter without addressing this question. At each level petitioners have argued that Wis. Stat. § 7.54 creates a right in parties contesting an election to view the ballots being challenged in open court. This issue constitutes the exclusive subject of the parties’ briefs to the appellate court. The Court of Appeals explained that Wis. Stat. § 7.54 “authorizes” a court to open the ballots being disputed but does not require it do so. The court of appeals never explicitly answers the question in this case. The Court of Appeals answered incorrectly. The correct answer is yes, Wis. Stat. § 7.54 vested in the Petitioners an absolute right to review the ballots they contend were erroneously counted and which, if corrected, would reverse the referen

Articles inside

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW to the Supreme Court RUSD

Articles inside

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

CONCLUSION

II. REVIEW IS PROPER UNDER WIS. STAT., § 809.62(1r)(d

D. Question of Law Likely to Recur

C. Statewide Impact