Democratic National Committee v. Heather Boehm

2

(the Democratic Party) in election cases.¹See Bothfeld v. WEC, 2025 WI 53, 418 Wis. 2d 545,

27 N.W.3d 508 (Ziegler, J., dissenting) ("Our court has undermined its own constitutional authority in furtherance of affording the Democratic Party even more partisan political advantage . . . ."). The DNC seeks a decision from this court before Election Day, which is not even three months away, notwithstanding the fact that this statute has been in effect for decades and has governed numerous elections. One is left to wonder how the majority justifies taking extraordinary action, giving preferential treatment to this case, over all the others, even though the other cases were timely filed and have pressing issues. Those, other than the DNC's, will sit and wait.

If the majority is expediting this petition for review, because it is considering hearing and deciding this case before November, that would be extraordinary. To be clear, granting a petition for review begins the processing of the case, but in the ordinary course, it is many months later that a decision is rendered. For those who are not the DNC, as is the case with most petitions for review, it can take many more than three months between the date of filing and the date on which this court grants review.² Granting review is not issuing a decision. In the ordinary course of business, the court's calendar in the fall is comprised of the cases granted later in the previous term.³And,

3

even though a case might be granted in the prior term, it may take the entirety of the next court term before the court's decision is released.⁴I would afford this petition the opportunity to be heard, in the ordinary course, as is usually the case. Without question, the majority has prioritized the DNC's "ask" by ordering that any response to the petition for review, along with any proposed amicus briefs, be filed in less than a week. In so doing, it is kneecapping the depth and breadth of the legal issues that we should be analyzing when choosing whether to grant a petition for review. Acting outside of the standard court term (which begins after Labor Day and is complete by the end of June), the majority hand picks this cause over all others, many of which were timely filed and pose pressing, constitutional questions. Those matters will receive no special treatment; in fact, they will take a back seat to the majority's leapfrogging the DNC's political cause. We know not why this matter races to the front of the line. One would think further explanation would be forthcoming. One would think the majority would be more cautious to not appear to favor the political party that spent seemingly endless amounts of money to get them elected.⁵Instead, the power of the majority is wielded without explanation.

By rushing this order from origin to release in less than 24 hours, the majority also abandons any pretense of collegiality. It ignores longstanding court norms that would require further discussion. The majority's rush to proceed likewise prevents me from meaningfully responding further. Power allows this to occur, but power does not justify it.

Specifically, the DNC claims that we must expedite its appeal to provide "clarity"

in light of "very likely . . . high turnout in unexpected places [on Election Day], creating circumstances that could threaten Wisconsinites' ability—and right—to vote." But, to reach a decision, not just on the petition for review, but also on the merits, in less than three months, would require an absurdly compressed briefing and oral argument schedule. The majority appears poised to tolerate this unworkable timeline, seemingly in on August 21, 2025, review was granted on May 20, 2026, and oral argument will be held October

6, 2026.

4

pursuit of partisan goals. The majority pushes this case to the front of the line, without explanation or consideration of pressing issues. The polling hours dispute stems from the 2024 presidential election. Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Boehm, No. 2024AP2484, ¶¶52, 58, 69, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.3d __ (rec. for publication).

To be clear, the provision at issue in the DNC's appeal, WIS. STAT. § 6.78(1m), states, "The polls at every election shall be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m." This statute has been in effect for two decades (and many elections), see 2005 Wis. Act 333, § 1r, but has seemed to produce few disputes. I would take the time to meaningfully consider all the arguments made for accepting this petition and not "fast track" it ahead of other cases. What might merit the majority's preference for the DNC's request, given that elections are held regularly in Wisconsin and the statute has been in place for decades, remains unexplained.

Yet, the majority accedes to the DNC's request, disregards the court's ordinary timelines, and instead expedites the DNC's cause. I express no views on the legal merits of the DNC's arguments, but I cannot allow my vote to appear in agreement with an order that flagrantly gives a political party preferential treatment, ahead of all others. Accordingly, I dissent.

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Supreme Court

Distribution List:

Hon. David M. Reddy (Electronic Notice)

Michele Jacobs, Clerk of Circuit Court (Electronic Notice)

Eduardo E. Castro (Electronic Notice)

Samantha R. Foran (Electronic Notice)

Kurt A. Goehre (Electronic Notice)

Jonathan Knoll McDonell (Electronic Notice)

Diane M. Welsh (Electronic Notice)

Michael Adame (U.S. Mail)

Graham Provost (U.S. Mail)

Stacie H. Rosenzweig (U.S. Mail)