November 3, 2020 Election Data Report

NOTICE OF OPEN AND CLOSED MEETING
Wisconsin Elections Commission

Regular Meeting
Wednesday, February 3, 2021
9:00 A.M.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting is being held via video teleconference only.
Members of the public and media may attend online or by telephone. Please visit
https://elections.wi.gov/node/7305 for login/call-in information. All public participants’
phones/microphones will be muted during the meeting. Members of the public wishing to
communicate to the Commissioners should email [email protected] with “Message to
Commissioners” in the subject line.
__________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Administrator’s Report of Appropriate Meeting Notice
C. Personal Appearances (Time reserved for personal appearances may be

limited by the Chair)
D. Report on November 2020 Election Data 2
E. Report on ERIC Movers List Status 32
F. Report on WEC September 2020 Informational Mailer 38
G. Final Report on 2020 Voting Equipment Audit 44
H. 2021/2022 Commission Meeting Schedule 74
I. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meetings 76
J. Closed Session
1. Election Complaints – Wis. Stat. § 5.05

2. Litigation Update
§19.851 - The Commission’s discussions concerning violations of election law shall

be in closed session.
§19.85(1)(g) – The Commission may confer with legal counsel concerning litigation
strategy.
K. Adjourn
November 3, 2020
Election Data Report
February 3, 2021
Wisconsin Elections Commissioners

Ann S. Jacobs, chair | Marge Bostelmann | Julie M. Glancey | Dean Knudson | Robert Spindell | Mark L. Thomsen
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe 2
November 3, 2020 Election Data Report
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
ELECTION DATA
General Information 4
Election Preparation 5
Absentee Voting 11
Special Voting Deputies 14
Indefinitely Confined Voters 15
E.R.I.C. Movers List Voters 18
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA 21
Page 2 3
Page 3
I. Executive Summary
In the 2020 General Election, Wisconsin clerks and their staffs demonstrated nearly limitless dedication
to successfully serve a record number of voters during a global pandemic. These local election officials,
in 1,850 municipalities and 72 counties, have the statutory responsibility to perform the hard work of
running elections in Wisconsin. Thousands of election officials across the state worked countless nights
and weekends to deliver a well-administered election despite the challenges of an ongoing pandemic, a
battle against election misinformation, and a heightened level of scrutiny which often unfairly
villainized them for simply doing their jobs. Local election officials received support from the small
staff of just 31 full-time employees at the Wisconsin Elections Commission who provided around-the-
clock training and technical support. In the lead up to the General Election, some election officials
worked more than 50 consecutive days without pause. They deserve our gratitude.
The data contained in this report represents the labor of tens of thousands of volunteer poll workers and
officials in every town, village, city, and county in Wisconsin. The figures are exceptional:
• Nearly 3.3 million Wisconsin residents voted in the General Election – representing more than
72% of the state’s Voting Age Population of 4,536,417.
• An entirely new absentee ballot tracking system on MyVote Wisconsin was used more than 1.5
million times by Wisconsin voters.
• Wisconsin Elections Commission staff responded to over 300 calls and emails per hour on
Election Day.
• Clerks in nearly every town, village, and city in Wisconsin processed more absentee ballot
requests than ever before – nearly 2 million statewide.
• In-person voting on Election Day more than tripled between April and November, which
required election officials to manage both the increase in absentee voting and prepare for high
voter turnout on November 3.
Despite these superlatives, this report does not conclude that the 2020 General Election was without
difficulties or room for improvement. The massive increase in by-mail absentee voting this year
revealed public confusion about the process and differing opinions about previously obscure statutory
provisions. More than a quarter-million Wisconsin voters chose to certify they were indefinitely
confined under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a), generating controversy over their right to do so. Likewise, long-
term care facilities accustomed to the assistance of Special Voting Deputies had to make do without
hands-on support. The concerns expressed by many residents after the election – founded or not –
suggest election officials should continue to seek greater transparency, simplicity, and clarity in election
processes. Sharing data openly, as with this report, is one step toward that goal.
Page 3 4
Page 4
II. Election Data
A. General Information
The 2020 General Election saw record voter turnout despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Having
experienced the April 7 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Primary, both voters and election
officials modified their behavior for the General Election. As compared with April, a greater percentage
of voters chose to vote in person at their local polling place. Voters who chose to vote absentee
submitted their requests well in advance of the deadline as compared with the many last-minute requests
received near April 7. Finally, the General Election saw a smaller percentage of voters claiming
indefinitely confined status than did in April. Election officials were likewise better prepared for
November, with ample time to prepare for increased mail volume and refined plans to establish safe
polling places in a pandemic.
This report summarizes data regarding voter behavior in the 2020 General Election. Most of the data
contained in this report was recorded by town, village, city, or county clerks in the statewide voter
registration and election administration system. Although this report aggregates the information at a
high level, nearly all the information contained within can be broken down by county, municipality, and
reporting unit, down to individual voters.
Nearly 3.3 million Wisconsin citizens voted in the 2020 General Election – nearly a 10% increase over
the 2016 Presidential race.
Table 1.
General Election Total Ballots Cast

3,500,000 3,297,524
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
11/5/2012 11/3/2014 11/8/2016 11/6/2018 11/3/2020
Page 4 5
Page 5
B. Election Preparation
In preparation for the General Election, the WEC implemented many improvements based on lessons
learned in April. Between April and November, the WEC expanded the Clerk Advisory Committee
program, implemented biweekly meetings with County Clerks, and introduced open Q&A sessions for
all election officials. In response to clerk and voter requests, the WEC developed voter education and
poll worker training materials, implemented USPS mail tracking tools, and reinforced monitoring of
election systems. Local clerks across the state contributed to these initiatives while simultaneously
managing absentee ballot requests, establishing safe polling places, recruiting, and training poll workers,
and continuous maintenance of the voter registration list.
Maintenance of the voter registration list is a never-ending process conducted almost entirely by clerks
at the local level. The statewide voter registration system is a living, dynamic system where data is
entered daily and each of the 1,850 municipal clerks are responsible for examining voter records to
ensure the accuracy of the registration lists, poll books, and absentee ballot logs. WEC provides the
technological framework for this process and monitors compliance to make sure appropriate action is
taken.
When a voter record requires attention, the clerk responsible for maintaining that record receives an
electronic alert in the voter registration database through a process called “registration list alerts.” In the
months before a major election there are many registration list alerts, as voters are re-registering at new
addresses to prepare for election day. The number of alerts reaches almost zero on the days that poll
books are printed. This data, along with all election data, is also available for parties, candidates, media,
and the public to purchase and analyze through the WEC’s data request system. Registration list alerts
fall in three categories as follows:
a) New Voter Registrations. On 10/15/2020 these alerts represented 98.8% of the total registration
list alerts. For any voter who moves or changes their name, the clerk must merge their new record
with their former record. There are thousands of these coming in every day, especially during open
registration, because as voters submit a new registration either through MyVote, or by mail, that new
registration creates a registration list alert. There were fewer new registration list alerts after the
close of online/by-mail voter registration on October 14, 2020.
b) Deceased. On 10/15/2020, 0.9% of the total registration list alerts were due to possible death
matches in the system. This data comes from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services
monthly. In addition to the data about deceased voters provided to clerks through the registration list
alert process, they may also independently receive this information from obituaries and other
sources.
c) Felon. On 10/15/2020 this represented 0.2% of the total registration list alerts. This data comes
from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections nightly and identifies all Wisconsin residents whose
voting rights have been restricted due to a felony conviction.
Page 5 6
Page 6
This data changes constantly and was tracked closely ahead of the election to ensure clerks are
maintaining their registration records. Prior to printing poll books WEC staff conducted daily follow-up
with clerks to ensure they are addressing any registration list alerts. Pre-election data indicates clerks
processed a considerable number of alerts prior to Election Day. Because new alerts are constantly
created it is impossible to achieve a zero statewide total. Registration list alert data received after the
printing of poll books appears in the supplemental poll books and ineligible lists that are required at each
polling place. Thus, Wisconsin clerks actually processed far more than 40,000 alerts to achieve the
reduction shown below.
Table 2.
Voter registration activity in all forms – online, by-mail, in-person, and election day – was high
throughout the last six months of 2020, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Age Wisconsin Active Voter Registrations Jul-Dec

Group 7/1/2020 8/1/2020 9/1/2020 10/1/2020 11/1/2020 12/1/2020 Increase
18-24 278,940 280,709 291,145 318,394 346,498 378,054 35.5%
25-34 489,225 492,731 507,006 535,314 556,117 589,016 20.4%
35-49 760,814 763,289 776,456 801,114 822,349 854,227 12.3%
50-64 954,185 955,669 964,614 981,433 1,000,526 1,020,885 7.0%
65+ 917,692 922,085 931,113 941,617 953,968 963,887 5.0%
NO DOB 1 6,096 6,104 6,013 5,932 5,268 5,124 N/A
TOTAL 3,406,952 3,420,587 3,476,347 3,583,804 3,684,726 3,811,193 11.9%
This 2020 increase in active registrations appears consistent with peaks seen in other presidential
election years, as shown in Table 4 on the following page.
1
Some voter records predating 2005 do not have a date of birth recorded in the voter registration system.
Page 6 7
Page 7
Table 4.
Wisconsin Registered Voters 2008-2020

4,000,000
3,800,000
3,600,000
3,400,000
3,200,000
3,000,000
2,800,000
2,600,000
2,400,000
2,200,000
2,000,000
Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, WEC staff also worked closely with the USPS, meeting
weekly to improve service and investigate concerns over by-mail absentee ballots. With the assistance
of the USPS Lakeland and Northland Districts, the WEC implemented absentee ballot tracking from
USPS via their Intelligent Barcode and Informed Visibility mail tracking system. These systems
provided Wisconsin voters one-way visibility for outgoing ballots coming from their municipal clerk,
but future iterations will provide more detail and an option for two-way tracking. In the weeks ahead of
Election Day, ballot tracking turned out to be one of the most popular tools on the MyVote Wisconsin
website.
Table 5.
Top Ten Visited Pages (myvote.wi.gov)
Number of Unique Sessions 10/11/2020-11/5/2020
1. My Voter Info 2,507,692
2. Track My Ballot 1,520,268
3. Where is my Polling Place 1,201,563
4. Register to Vote 1,070,632
5. Request an Absentee 642,456
6. Find My Municipal Clerk 274,444
7. What is on My Ballot 428,550
8. Update Name/Address 355,192
9. Absentee Options 67,163
10. Be a Poll Worker 46,690
Page 7 8
Page 8
Finally, the WEC implemented additional tracking tools to enable early detection of technical issues and
improve redundancy of elections systems. These changes provided technical staff greater insight into
the internal processes of the voter registration database and offered near-real-time data on system
performance. Fortunately, the 2020 General Election was uneventful from a technical standpoint, with
no service interruptions or other problems. Approaching Election Day, the MyVote Wisconsin website
averaged nearly 100,000 unique sessions per day, with more than 400,000 sessions on November 3,
2020. 2
Table 6.
Public interest in the MyVote Wisconsin website has steadily increased since its inception, however the
addition of ballot tracking seems to have generated significantly more traffic for the site.
Table 7.
MyVote Wisconsin Election Day Traffic
(Unique Sessions)
500000
445,415
400000
300000
200000 170,546
108,294
100000
0
Nov-2016 Nov-2018 Nov-2020
2
A session is the entire time a single device spends on a website, which can include multiple pageviews or transactions. A
user who disconnects and reconnects, or who remains inactive for 30 minutes, creates a new session.
Page 8 9
Page 9
Telephone call and email volume for WEC staff also hit record heights in 2020, peaking at over 300
contacts per hour on Election Day.
Table 8.
Wisconsin Elections Commission Public Contacts

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Email Telephone Calls Call Center Calls
As compared with the rest of 2020, public engagements peaked just prior to and after the General
Election. As captured in these tables, the WEC employed a call center to answer basic voter questions
and assist as many customers as possible ahead of Election Day.
Table 9.
Wisconsin Elections Commission 2020 Public Contacts

30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Email Telephone Calls Call Center Calls
Page 9 10
Page 10
Because of the continuous nature of the election cycle in 2020, WEC staff experienced call spikes
throughout the year. Notably, in September of 2020 call and email volume reached a peak as political
interest groups launched call and email campaigns to WEC offices. WEC was also providing support to
voters who received the WEC informational mailer at this time. The volume of contacts in 2020
represented a dramatic increase from previous years. Because of the call campaigns, WEC staff worked
through most evenings and weekends to sort through the scripted calls, emails and voicemails to identify
voters calling with questions or substantive concerns in order to respond to them timely. It was
challenging to discern clerk contacts during these times as well, as some call campaigns would use
social media to encourage followers to saturate WEC call lines, including the dedicated clerk phone
number. This happened during a critical point in the election calendar where WEC was also assisting
clerks with closing out the August election, sending ballots for the November election, and assisting
voters with absentee requests and online registration because of the WEC’s statewide informational
mailer. This new phenomenon has led the WEC staff to explore other software or solutions to manage
and respond to surges in public advocacy contacts without missing real-time clerk and voter service
request contacts.
Compared to previous general elections, public contacts with the WEC more than doubled in 2020.
Table 10.
General Election Month Public Contacts

30000
25000
20000
11070
15000
10000
6360
6962 12741
5000
5093
2745
0
Nov-2016 Nov-2018 Nov-2020
Email Telephone Calls
A call center, temporary staff, and a state employee interchange were used to help increase WEC
capacity to answer inquiries. This was useful in assisting with basic voter questions such as “where is
my polling place?” However, most inquiries involve complex election questions from either clerks or
voters that require either detailed election knowledge or technical expertise. These inquiries are all
routed to WECs small staff of 31 full time state employees. WEC staff is continuing to examine the
customer support model, considering the dramatic increase in contacts in 2020 to implement sustainable
customer support models for the future.
Page 10 11
Page 11
B. Absentee Voting
Absentee voting remained exceptionally popular for the 2020 General Election but to a lesser degree
than in April. Instead, voting at the polls on Election Day increased from 25% of ballots cast on April 7
to just over 40% on November 3. This figure, however, remains well below Wisconsin’s historical
average of 70%-80% election day voting.
Table 11.
Voting Methods 2016-2020

100.0%
90.0% 25.4%
80.0% 40.3%
70.0%
72.7%
60.0% 78.3%
88.8% 89.1% 87.9%
50.0%
62.0%
40.0% 40.8%
30.0%
4.8%
20.0% 6.2%
10.0% 22.5% 5.4% 18.9%
6.9% 5.3% 15.5% 12.6%
4.3% 5.6% 6.7%
0.0%
11/8/2016 4/4/2017 4/3/2018 11/6/2018 4/2/2019 4/7/2020 11/3/2020
In Person Absentee By Mail Absentee Election Day
Table 12. Table 13.
Absentee Ballots Cast Election Day Ballots Cast

2,500,000 2,500,000
2,000,000 2,000,000
1,500,000 1,500,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
500,000 500,000
0 0
Page 11 12
Page 12
Table 14.
2020 General Election Absentee Voting Method
In Person
653,236
By Mail
1,346,731
More than 2 million absentee ballots were delivered to voters for the April election, either by mail or in
person at local clerks’ offices. More than 95% percent of ballots were returned and counted. A by-
county breakdown of absentee by-mail voting may be found in Supplemental Table 2 at the end of this
report.
Table 15.
Absentee
Type 2020 General Election Absentee Ballot Status % of Ballots
Ballot Count
Ballots Returned and Counted 1,969,274 95.64%
Ballots Returned and Rejected – All Reasons 4,270 0.20%
Rejected - Certification Insufficient 1,434
Returned Rejected - Not Returned before Polls Close 1,045
Ballots Rejected - Superseding Ballot Returned 275
Rejected - Certificate Envelope Compromised 41
Rejected - Voter Deceased Before Election Day 240
Rejected - Voter Ineligible 1,151
Rejected – Other 84
Unreturned
Ballot Not Returned 85,586 4.16%
Ballots
Request Cancelled by Clerk 19,727 n/a
Request Cancelled by Voter 52,148 n/a
Admin
Ballot Returned Undeliverable 9,330 n/a
Action
Voter Refused Ballot from SVD 0 n/a
Voter Ineligible to Receive Ballot 15 n/a
See Supplemental Table 4 for ballot status definitions. 3
3
The technical structure of the voter registration database is far more detailed than the categories applied in this chart and
includes three variables with over 60 different combinations to define the status of an absentee ballot. Clerks have the option
to choose the appropriate ballot status explanation and sometimes apply different ballot status definitions to describe the
same situation. Supplemental Table 4 displays the full range of ballot status combinations and how they were defined in this
report.
Page 12 13
Page 13
News reports and social media rumors of postal service problems may have contributed to a shift away
from voting by mail. Some clerks reported that voters were cancelling their by-mail absentee ballot
requests in favor of voting in-person absentee or in-person on Election Day. While these reports are
anecdotal, more than 52,000 cancelled absentee ballot requests seem to support this claim.
The figures in Table 15 above are largely consistent with the percentage of ballots rejected or not
returned in recent November elections. The number of rejected ballots was exceptionally low but
similar to the rejection rate seen in recent elections. As shown below, both the rejection rate and the
unreturned rate tend to be lower in November than in April.
Table 16. Table 17.
Percent Absentee Ballots Rejected Absentee Ballots Not Returned

20.0% 20.0%
15.0% 15.0%
11.4%
9.3%
10.0% 10.0%
5.4%
4.2%
5.0% 2.5% 2.3% 1.8% 5.0% 1.7% 2.6%
1.4%
0.2% 0.2%
0.0% 0.0%
Separately, voters who did not return a ballot or cancel their ballot request were less likely to participate
by another voting method. An examination of unreturned ballots found that most of those voters simply
did not vote in the General Election. Just under a quarter of them voted at the polls on Election Day.
Table 18.
2020 General Election

Voters Who Did Not Return Their Absentee
Ballots
Voted at Polls
23%
Did Not Vote

77%
Page 13 14
Page 14
C. Special Voting Deputies
In 2020 the absentee voting population included people who previously would have voted with the in-
person assistance of a Special Voting Deputy (SVD). The Wisconsin Legislature created the SVD
program in order to assist individuals residing in residential care facilities such as nursing homes,
community-based residential facilities, qualified retirement homes, residential care complexes, and adult
family homes. Wis Stat. § 6.875. SVDs are appointed by the municipal clerk and must meet specific
eligibility criteria. 4
Beginning in March 2020, municipal and county clerks began asking WEC staff how to handle SVD
voting in light of the heightened COVID-19 threat to older people. Care facilities likewise began
closing their doors to visitors, including SVDs. In both 2020 and early 2021, most care facilities
prohibited access to all except essential medical personnel. There is no legal exception that allows
SVDs access, even with protective equipment or other preventative measures. Ordinarily, SVDs must
make at least two separate attempts to visit a covered facility before the clerk may send an absentee
ballot to the voter. Wis. Stat. § 6.875(6)(e). If the SVDs are unable to make the two scheduled visits, or
a resident is unable to attend one of the visits, the law directs clerks to send voters their ballot. After
reviewing the statutory guidance, the Wisconsin Elections Commission directed that clerks should not
delay ballot delivery by making two failed attempts to visit each facility. The Commission stated that
local election officials may advance to mailing an absentee ballot to those registered voters who reside
in care facilities that are typically served by SVDs if they request an absentee ballot or have an active
request on file.
This decision was made by the Commission in acknowledgement that SVDs would not be granted
access to qualified care facilities. The Commission determined that it was unnecessary and wasteful to
send SVDs in person only so that they could be rejected on two separate occasions. Instead, delivering
ballots immediately would give voters who reside in care facilities adequate time to receive, vote, and
return their ballot, just like any other voter. If a clerk were to wait until they had scheduled two facility
visits, and were ultimately denied access to those facilities, the voter would be left with significantly less
time to participate. The acknowledgement by the Commission that SVDs would not be granted access
to qualified facilities allowed staff to provide clear and uniform guidance to clerks. The WEC continues
to partner with state government agencies and aging and disability advocacy organizations to provide
uniform guidance and training about the absentee voting process for care facility residents.
At the time of the General Election, the population of Wisconsin voters normally serviced by SVDs was
22,303 voters residing in 503 municipalities. This figure is a slight increase over the 2016 population
size. A breakdown of these voters by county is available in Supplemental Table 5 at the end of this
4
Special Voting Deputies must: (1) be a qualified elector of the county; (2) attend training; (3) take the Oath of Special
Voting Deputy (Form EL-155); (4) not currently be employed by the facility; (5) not have been employed by the facility
within two years of the appointment; (6) not be an immediate family member of anyone currently employed by the facility or
employed by the facility with two years of the appointment. Wis. Stat. § 6.875.
Page 14 15
Page 15
report. The data below shows the population that was scheduled to be served by SVDs, plus those active
registered voters who previously were served by SVD but this year requested a by-mail absentee ballot.
Table 19.
Special Voting Deputy Population Size
November 2016: 21,703
November 2020: 22,303
Table 20.
Regular
3807
Presidential
Only Indefinitely
3 Confined
18489
D. Indefinitely Confined Voters
Another group generating considerable interest in 2020 was the subset of voters who certified they were
indefinitely confined. The Wisconsin statutes state that an elector who is indefinitely confined because
of age, physical illness or infirmity or is disabled for an indefinite period may by signing a statement to
that effect require that an absentee ballot be sent to the elector automatically for every election. Wis.
Stat. § 6.86(2)(a). 2011 Wisconsin Act 23, the voter photo ID law, exempted voters who certify that
they are indefinitely confined from providing their clerk with a copy of their acceptable photo ID in
order to receive an absentee ballot; instead, state law allows their witness to verify their identity.
As the pandemic worsened in March 2020 and Wisconsin went into a lockdown, many voters looked at
their options for absentee voting in light of technological challenges to providing their municipal clerk
with a copy of their photo ID. This was especially true for voters without ready access to a smartphone,
digital camera, scanner, or photocopying machine. There was a great deal of public discussion about
whether the pandemic and stay-at-home order meant all, or most, voters were indefinitely confined. At
its meeting of March 27, 2020, the Wisconsin Elections Commission adopted the following guidance
related to the use of indefinitely confined status to assist local election officials working with absentee
voters:
Page 15 16
Page 16
1. Designation of indefinitely confined status is for each individual voter to make based upon
their current circumstance. It does not require permanent or total inability to travel outside of the
residence. The designation is appropriate for electors who are indefinitely confined because of
age, physical illness or infirmity or are disabled for an indefinite period.
2. Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by electors simply as a means to avoid the photo
ID requirement without regard to whether they are indefinitely confined because of age, physical
illness, infirmity or disability.
This guidance was and is consistent with and supplements previous statements of the WEC related to
absentee voters who may qualify as indefinitely confined or “permanent” absentee voters.
Due to the heightened interest in this subset of ballots, WEC staff examined the available data regarding
indefinitely confined voting in the General Election. It is important to note that Wisconsin election
systems do not associate “indefinitely confined” status with a voter record. The status is associated only
with an active absentee application and does not exist independently of the absentee ballot process.
As with absentee voting, the COVID-19 pandemic clearly affected indefinitely confined voting.
Significantly more people claimed the status in 2020 than did in the two prior November elections.
Table 21.
Voters Certifying Indefinitely Confined Status

(Absentee Applications)
300000
265,979
250000
200000
150000
100000 70,218
66,611
50000
0
Nov-2016 Nov-2018 Nov-2020
As with voting by mail, voter interest in the indefinitely confined process declined between April and
November, with a smaller percentage of absentee ballots coming from indefinitely confined voters.
Eleven percent of General Election absentee ballots came from indefinitely confined voters versus 14%
of April ballots. A breakdown by county is available in Supplemental Table 3 at the end of this report.
Page 16 17
Page 17
Table 22.
Returned Absentee Ballots

2000000
1750000
1500000
1250000
1000000
750000
500000
250000 216,490
6.9% 14.1% 11.0%
0
Nov-2016 Apr-2020 Nov-2020
Indefinitely Confined All Others
Indefinitely confined voters have come under scrutiny in part because the law permits them to obtain a
ballot without providing a copy of their photo ID. As a result, legislators, media and members of the
public asked WEC staff to evaluate how many General Election indefinitely confined voters have a
photo ID on file or have otherwise previously presented photo ID to vote in a recent election. A review
of election records found that approximately four fifths of the voters meet these criteria.
Table 23.
2020 Indefinitely Confined Voters
Have not provided

Photo ID
20.4%
Have provided
Photo ID
79.6%
Page 17 18
Page 18
Finally, staff obtained a breakdown of indefinitely confined absentee ballot applications by age group.
The results show that approximately two-thirds of indefinitely confined applications come from voters
over age 65.
Table 24.
2020 General Election

Indefinitely Confined Applicatons by Voter Age
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
E. ERIC Movers List Voters
Another subset of voters garnering considerable attention are those individuals on the ERIC Active
Movers list. ERIC is the Electronic Registration Information Center in Washington, D.C. The group
consists of thirty member states plus the District of Columbia. Wisconsin is a member of ERIC and
WEC Administrator Meagan Wolfe is a member of its 2020-2021 Board of Directors.
As part of Wisconsin’s membership in ERIC, WEC staff are required to reach out to voters who ERIC
has flagged as having potentially moved. ERIC obtains data from a variety of sources, such as
Wisconsin motor vehicle records, voter registration and motor vehicle records from participating states,
and the National Change of Address database from the U.S. Postal Service. These individuals are
considered the “Mover’s List” and assigned the status of “Active-Mover” in the statewide voter
registration database. This status indicates their voter registration is active but additional follow-up is
required to evaluate if the person has moved. Voters in this category have not voted since 2019, have
not affirmed their registration address, and have not updated their registration address.
Active-Movers appear on the poll book with a watermark on their name. The watermark signals to poll
workers that the voter must affirm his or her address before being issuing a ballot. If the voter has
moved, he or she must re-register before a ballot is issued. If the voter has not moved, they must sign,
affirming that their address is still current, before receiving a ballot. In the most recent mover’s list
review, 232,579 voters were identified by ERIC as potentially having moved.
Page 18 19
Page 19
There was extensive litigation in 2019 and 2020 regarding the ERIC Active Movers list and whether the
WEC was required to deactivate those voters under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3). While the Ozaukee County
Circuit Court initially ordered the WEC to deactivate the voters, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District
4 unanimously reversed that order and found that WEC does not have that statutory authority to
deactivate those voters. The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the case on appeal and in September of
2020 heard oral arguments but has not yet issued a decision. The WEC is currently bound by the Court
of Appeals decision, meaning it may not take action on 2019 Mover records or on future Movers data
until the Wisconsin Supreme Court renders their decision.
As a result of this litigation, there was also a great deal of public misunderstanding about the purpose of
the list and who was on the list. It was not uncommon to see false claims that there were more than
200,000 deceased or ineligible voters on Wisconsin’s registration list.
The number of people in “Active-Mover” status continually declines as voters either verify their status
or their registration is inactivated. As of this report, the original Active-Mover group of 232,579 voters
has declined to fewer than 72,000, none of whom voted in 2020. Table 25 depicts the size of the Active-
Movers group over time. The current breakdown of the original group is shown below in Table 26. A
detailed analysis of this data is provided as a separate memo for the Commission’s February 3, 2021
meeting.
Table 25.
ERIC Active-Mover's Group Size

250,000
200,000
150,000
232,579
100,000
129,163
50,000 90,665
71,579
0
Original Report May 2020 November 2020 January 2021
Page 19 20
Page 20
Table 26.
Original ERIC Movers List - Current Status
Inactivated
3.6%
Registered: New
Address
58.4%
Remain in Active
Movers Status
30.8%
Registered: Same
Address
7.2%
As noted above, most voters originally on the Movers List have confirmed a new Wisconsin address and
updated their registration. A much smaller subset – of nearly 17,000 Wisconsin voters – has affirmed
that their original address is correct. Finally, the smallest group has had their registrations inactivated by
local clerks for the variety of reasons depicted in Table 27 below.
Table 27.
ERIC Movers List – Reasons for Inactivation
Inactive – Moved 3,845
Inactive – Deceased 2,538
Inactive – Undeliverable Mailing 1,308
Inactive – Felon 357
Inactive – Incomplete EDR 225
Inactive – Administrative Action 123
Inactive – Voter Request 67
Inactive – Incompetent 11
Inactive – 4-Year Maintenance 1
Inactive – Presidential Only – Expired 1
Of the original 232,579 voters on the Movers List, 30.3% voted in the 2020 General Election. Of the
group that voted, 19,086 of them had not updated their registrations or affirmed their address in 2020.
Page 20 21
Page 21
Table 28.
Percentage of
Original ERIC Movers List – General Election Voting Voter Count
Mailing
1. Voted: Registered Status 5 51,460 22.1%
2. Voted at Same Address: Active-Mover Status 5,329 2.3%
3. Voted at New Address: Active-Mover Status 13,757 5.9%
4. Did Not Vote: Registered Status 81,980 35.2%
5. Did Not Vote: Active-Mover Status 71,578 30.8%
6. Did Not Vote: Inactivated Status 8,476 3.6%
7. Total 232,579 100%
III. Supplemental Data
Wisconsin is the most decentralized election administration system in the country. This means 1,850
municipal clerks in each city, town, and village administer elections. Municipal clerks are required to
enter, and maintain, their election data in the statewide voter registration database. It is their data, and
municipal clerks frequently make changes to it as needed to correct issues, add detail, or otherwise
update the information about their voting population. Therefore, the data available in this report and
through the statewide voter registration database is tracked, entered, and certified at the local level. The
tables that follow have summarized data at the county level but remain a simplified version of the actual
data.
5
Registered status in this table indicates the voter’s status on Election Day. It indicates that these voters either re-registered
at a new address or affirmed their existing registration at the original address prior to November 3, 2020.
Page 21 22
Page 22
Supplemental Table 1 (List of Graphics and Charts)
Table 1 General Election Total Ballots Cast

Table 2 Active Registration List Alerts 10/7/2020 to 10/28/2020
Table 3 Wisconsin Voter Registration Jul-Dec 2020
Table 4 Wisconsin Voter Registration 2008-2020
Table 5 Top Ten Visited Pages (myvote.wi.gov) 10/11/2020 to 11/5/2020
Table 6 MyVote Wisconsin Unique Sessions 10/11/2020 to 11/5/2020
Table 7 MyVote Wisconsin Unique Sessions 2016, 2018, 2020
Table 8 Wisconsin Elections Commission Public Contacts 10/11/2020 to 11/5/2020
Table 9 Wisconsin Elections Commission 2020 Public Contacts
Table 10 General Election Monthly Public Contacts 2016, 2018, 2020
Table 11 Voting Method by Election 2016-2020
Table 12 Absentee Ballots Cast 2016-2020
Table 13 Election Day Ballots Cast 2016-2020
Table 14 2020 General Election Absentee Voting Method
Table 15 2020 General Election Absentee Ballot Status
Table 16 Percent Absentee Ballots Rejected 2016-2020
Table 17 Absentee Ballots Not Returned 2016-2020
Table 18 2020 General Election Voters Who Did Not Return Their Absentee Ballots
Table 19 SVD Voting Population November 2016 and November 2020
Table 20 2020 General Election SVD Voting Population
Table 21 Voters Certifying Indefinitely Confined Status General Elections 2016-2020
Table 22 Returned Absentee Ballots 2016-2020
Table 23 2020 Indefinitely Confined Voters
Table 24 2020 General Election Indefinitely Confined Applications by Voter Age
Table 25 Active-Mover’s Group Size
Table 26 Original ERIC Movers List - Current Status
Table 27 ERIC Movers List Reasons for Inactivation
Table 28 Original ERIC Movers List - General Election Voting
Supplemental Table 1 List of Graphs and Charts

Supplemental Table 2 Absentee Voting by Mail by County
Supplemental Table 3 Indefinitely Confined Absentee Ballot Requests by County
Supplemental Table 4 Absentee Ballot Status Definitions
Supplemental Table 5 2020 General Election SVD Voters by County
Page 22 23
Page 23
Supplemental Table 2 (Absentee Voting by Mail)
2020 GENERAL ELECTION PERCENT OF VOTES NUMBER OF VOTES

COUNTY CAST BY MAIL CAST BY MAIL
DANE COUNTY 57.7% 199054
BROWN COUNTY 49.0% 70617
MILWAUKEE COUNTY 47.4% 217424
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY 43.8% 47294
WAUKESHA COUNTY 42.8% 114636
IRON COUNTY 42.7% 1713
WINNEBAGO COUNTY 42.5% 39981
ONEIDA COUNTY 42.4% 10235
DOOR COUNTY 42.2% 8484
LA CROSSE COUNTY 42.1% 28603
OZAUKEE COUNTY 41.7% 25627
CALUMET COUNTY 41.6% 12807
STATEWIDE 40.8% 1346731
ROCK COUNTY 40.1% 34214
BAYFIELD COUNTY 39.5% 4300
KENOSHA COUNTY 39.5% 35055
PORTAGE COUNTY 38.9% 15799
VILAS COUNTY 38.9% 5972
SAUK COUNTY 38.5% 13936
ST. CROIX COUNTY 37.9% 21464
RACINE COUNTY 37.3% 39662
IOWA COUNTY 37.0% 5180
EAU CLAIRE COUNTY 36.6% 21323
MARATHON COUNTY 36.6% 28059
DOUGLAS COUNTY 36.5% 9000
ASHLAND COUNTY 35.8% 3137
COLUMBIA COUNTY 35.6% 12041
WASHINGTON COUNTY 35.4% 31150
JEFFERSON COUNTY 35.0% 16785
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY 34.9% 23045
SAWYER COUNTY 34.8% 3659
FOND DU LAC COUNTY 34.2% 19569
WALWORTH COUNTY 34.1% 19667
GREEN COUNTY 34.1% 7296
PIERCE COUNTY 33.8% 7890
MANITOWOC COUNTY 33.6% 15058
FLORENCE COUNTY 33.4% 983
KEWAUNEE COUNTY 32.9% 3984
Page 23 24
Page 24
2020 GENERAL ELECTION PERCENT OF VOTES NUMBER OF VOTES

COUNTY CAST BY MAIL (CONTINUED) CAST BY MAIL (CONTINUED)
VERNON COUNTY 32.9% 5241
OCONTO COUNTY 32.8% 7605
WOOD COUNTY 32.7% 13497
GRANT COUNTY 32.4% 8290
CHIPPEWA COUNTY 32.1% 11522
FOREST COUNTY 31.9% 1614
CRAWFORD COUNTY 31.9% 2776
MARINETTE COUNTY 31.3% 7203
DUNN COUNTY 31.2% 7350
WASHBURN COUNTY 31.1% 3224
WAUPACA COUNTY 30.7% 8957
POLK COUNTY 30.7% 8084
LINCOLN COUNTY 30.1% 4970
ADAMS COUNTY 30.1% 3556
BARRON COUNTY 29.9% 7578
RICHLAND COUNTY 29.3% 2645
PRICE COUNTY 28.9% 2474
SHAWANO COUNTY 28.8% 6514
LANGLADE COUNTY 28.7% 3203
LAFAYETTE COUNTY 28.5% 2436
MARQUETTE COUNTY 28.4% 2577
PEPIN COUNTY 28.4% 1177
DODGE COUNTY 28.4% 13753
WAUSHARA COUNTY 28.0% 3794
BURNETT COUNTY 27.9% 2832
GREEN LAKE COUNTY 27.2% 2905
MENOMINEE COUNTY 27.2% 432
JUNEAU COUNTY 26.9% 3695
MONROE COUNTY 26.6% 6016
TAYLOR COUNTY 25.6% 2736
RUSK COUNTY 24.9% 1968
TREMPEALEAU COUNTY 24.4% 3752
CLARK COUNTY 23.4% 3492
BUFFALO COUNTY 23.3% 1823
JACKSON COUNTY 22.9% 2337
Page 24 25
Page 25
Supplemental Table 3 (Indefinitely Confined Ballot Requests)
2020 GENERAL ELECTION PERCENTAGE OF ABSENTEE NUMBER OF ABSENTEE

BALLOT REQUESTS THAT BALLOT REQUESTS THAT
COUNTY CERTIFIED INDEFINITELY CERTIFIED INDEFINITELY
CONFINED STATUS CONFINED STATUS
IRON 23.4% 487
DOUGLAS 22.2% 2726
LAFAYETTE 19.8% 622
LINCOLN 17.1% 1245
RUSK 16.6% 425
MILWAUKEE 16.3% 57498
RICHLAND 16.3% 641
ONEIDA 15.8% 2003
ASHLAND 15.6% 626
CLARK 15.4% 694
MARQUETTE 15.4% 526
FOREST 15.2% 293
WAUPACA 15.1% 1998
KEWAUNEE 15.0% 791
PRICE 14.9% 514
JUNEAU 14.8% 798
WAUSHARA 14.7% 758
MARINETTE 14.7% 1683
SHAWANO 14.6% 1430
GRANT 14.4% 1682
GREEN LAKE 14.0% 675
WOOD 13.9% 2993
BURNETT 13.8% 522
FOND DU LAC 13.7% 4148
DODGE 13.7% 3294
RACINE 13.5% 10188
SAWYER 13.5% 754
CRAWFORD 13.4% 495
MARATHON 13.4% 5532
SHEBOYGAN 13.3% 5192
SAUK 13.3% 2793
DUNN 13.2% 1333
BROWN 13.1% 13731
IOWA 13.0% 1022
JACKSON 12.9% 458
TREMPEALEAU 12.8% 700
FLORENCE 12.8% 167
MANITOWOC 12.8% 3109
ROCK 12.8% 6858
Page 25 26
Page 26
PERCENTAGE OF ABSENTEE NUMBER OF ABSENTEE

2020 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT REQUESTS THAT BALLOT REQUESTS THAT
COUNTY CERTIFIED INDEFINITELY CERTIFIED INDEFINITELY
CONFINED STATUS CONFINED STATUS
CHIPPEWA 12.8% 2275
STATEWIDE 12.6% 265979
COLUMBIA 12.5% 2360
MONROE 12.4% 1223
WINNEBAGO 12.4% 7442
ADAMS 12.3% 626
KENOSHA 12.3% 7591
WASHBURN 12.2% 524
BUFFALO 12.1% 313
POLK 11.8% 1307
PEPIN 11.7% 172
WALWORTH 11.6% 4237
DOOR 11.6% 1417
BARRON 11.6% 1346
BAYFIELD 11.5% 617
VILAS 11.5% 998
LANGLADE 11.4% 493
JEFFERSON 11.3% 3238
GREEN 11.3% 1231
VERNON 11.2% 766
LA CROSSE 11.2% 5081
OUTAGAMIE 11.0% 7767
MENOMINEE 10.9% 70
PIERCE 10.9% 1217
WASHINGTON 10.8% 6431
WAUKESHA 10.8% 21464
OCONTO 10.7% 1155
EAU CLAIRE 10.6% 3805
OZAUKEE 10.5% 4723
CALUMET 10.3% 1912
PORTAGE 10.1% 2531
ST. CROIX 9.9% 3210
DANE 9.8% 26674
TAYLOR 9.7% 359
Page 26 27
Page 27
Supplemental Table 4 (Absentee Ballot Status Definitions) – See footnote 3 on page 12
Report Definitions Statewide Database Classification Fields (Defined by Municipal Clerks)

Absentee Ballot Status Reason BALLOT STATUS REASON REASON TYPE BALLOT STATUS
Returned & Counted Returned Null Active
Rejected Certification Insufficient Returned, to be Rejected Certification insufficient Active

Cancelled Administrative Action Certification insufficient Inactive
Ineligible Certification insufficient Inactive
Rejected at Polls/MBOC Certification insufficient Inactive

Rejected at Polls/MBOC No POI enclosed and no certification Inactive
from care facility representative when
voter resides in an SVD-eligible
facility not visited by SVDs
Rejected Not Returned Before Polls Ballot Returned After Deadline Null Inactive
Close Ballot Returned After Deadline Certification insufficient Inactive
Ballot Returned After Deadline Voter not qualified Inactive
Ballot Not Returned by Deadline Certification insufficient Inactive
Rejected Superseding Ballot Returned, to be Rejected Superseding Ballot Returned Active

Returned Cancelled Administrative Action Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive
Ineligible Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive

Rejected at Polls/MBOC Superseding Ballot Accepted Inactive
Rejected at Polls/MBOC Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive
Rejected at Polls/MBOC Vote already recorded for this voter Inactive
Rejected Certificate Envelope Returned, to be Rejected Certificate envelope compromised or Active

Compromised resealed
Cancelled Administrative Action Certificate envelope compromised or Inactive
resealed
Rejected at Polls/MBOC Certificate envelope compromised or Inactive
resealed
Rejected Voter Deceased Before Returned, to be Rejected Voter Deceased Active
Election Day Cancelled Administrative Action Voter Deceased Inactive
Ineligible Voter Deceased Inactive

Rejected at Polls/MBOC Voter Deceased Inactive
Voter Spoiled Voter Deceased Inactive
Rejected Voter Ineligible Returned, to be Rejected Voter not qualified Active

Cancelled Administrative Action Voter not qualified Inactive
Ineligible Null Inactive
Ineligible Voter not qualified Inactive

Rejected at Polls/MBOC Voter not qualified Inactive
Rejected Other Returned, to be Rejected Null Active

Rejected at Polls/MBOC Null Inactive
Rejected at Polls/MBOC More than one of the same type of Inactive
ballot enclosed
Page 27 28
Page 28
Report Definitions Statewide Database Classification Fields (Defined by Municipal Clerks)

Absentee Ballot Status Reason BALLOT STATUS REASON REASON TYPE BALLOT STATUS
Ballot Not Returned Not Returned Null Active
Not Returned Voter not qualified Active
Not Returned, sent to voter for Null Active

resolution
Not Returned, sent to voter for Certification insufficient Active
resolution
Ballot Not Received Null Inactive
Ballot Not Received Certification insufficient Inactive
Ballot Not Returned By Deadline Null Inactive
Admin: Clerk Cancelled Cancelled Administrative Action Null Inactive

Voter Moved Null Inactive
Admin: Voter Cancelled Voter Refused Null Active

Voter Request Null Inactive
Voter Request Certification insufficient Inactive
Voter Request Superseding Ballot Accepted Inactive

Voter Request Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive
Voter Request Voter not qualified Inactive
Voter Spoiled Null Inactive

Voter Spoiled Certificate envelope compromised or Inactive
resealed
Voter Spoiled Certification insufficient Inactive
Voter Spoiled Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive
Admin: Undeliverable Undeliverable Null Inactive

Undeliverable Certification insufficient Inactive
Undeliverable Superseding Ballot Accepted Inactive
Undeliverable Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive

Undeliverable Voter deceased Inactive
Undeliverable Voter not qualified Inactive
Admin: Voter Ineligible Voter Moved Voter not qualified Inactive

Voter Spoiled Voter not qualified Inactive
Page 28 29
Page 29
Supplemental Table 5 (2020 General Election SVD Voters by County)
COUNTY SVD VOTER COUNT

ADAMS 52
ASHLAND 141
BARRON 76
BAYFIELD 46
BROWN 976
BUFFALO 35
BURNETT 42
CALUMET 614
CHIPPEWA 228
CLARK 165
COLUMBIA 179
CRAWFORD 30
DANE 2032
DODGE 254
DOOR 147
DOUGLAS 125
DUNN 139
EAU CLAIRE 440
FLORENCE 14
FOND DU LAC 378
FOREST 39
GRANT 345
GREEN 167
GREEN LAKE 80
IOWA 74
IRON 14
JACKSON 18
JEFFERSON 156
JUNEAU 754
KENOSHA 346
KEWAUNEE 889
LA CROSSE 873
LAFAYETTE 26
LANGLADE 5
LINCOLN 55
MANITOWOC 315
MARATHON 301
MARINETTE 76
MARQUETTE 28
Page 29 30
Page 30
SVD VOTER COUNT

COUNTY
(CONT.)
MENOMINEE 0
MILWAUKEE 2523
MONROE 181
OCONTO 47
ONEIDA 124
OUTAGAMIE 450
OZAUKEE 771
PEPIN 10
PIERCE 113
POLK 136
PORTAGE 149
PRICE 80
RACINE 464
RICHLAND 54
ROCK 488
RUSK 64
SAUK 300
SAWYER 33
SHAWANO 122
SHEBOYGAN 334
ST. CROIX 298
TAYLOR 47
TREMPEALEAU 123
VERNON 44
VILAS 89
WALWORTH 469
WASHBURN 48
WASHINGTON 618
WAUKESHA 2315
WAUPACA 408
WAUSHARA 49
WINNEBAGO 390
WOOD 284
Page 30 31
212 East Washington Avenue | Third Floor | P.O. Box 7984 | Madison, WI 53707-7984
(608) 266-8005 | [email protected] | elections.wi.gov
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
DATE: For the February 3, 2021 Commission Meeting
TO: Wisconsin Elections Commission
FROM: Meagan Wolfe, Administrator
Prepared by:
Dawn Soletski, WisVote Specialist
Connie Shehan, WisVote Specialist
Jodi Kitts, Senior WisVote Specialist
SUBJECT: Election Registration Information Center (ERIC) Movers List Update
This memo provides updates on the most current status for the 2019 Movers List maintenance
process and discussion of future requirements.
2019 Movers Mailing Background
The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a non-profit organization with the mission of:
(1) assisting states to improve the accuracy of America’s voter rolls and (2) increasing access to voter
registration for all eligible citizens. ERIC obtains data from a variety of sources, such as Wisconsin
motor vehicle records, voter registration and motor vehicle records from participating states, and the
National Change of Address database from the U.S. Postal Service.
As part of Wisconsin’s membership in ERIC, the WEC is required to contact voters who ERIC has
flagged as having potentially moved. These individuals are considered the “Movers List” and assigned
the status of “Active-Mover” in the statewide voter registration database. This status indicates their
voter registration is active but additional follow-up is required to evaluate if the person has moved. In
the most recent Movers List review 232,579 voters were identified by ERIC as potentially having
moved.
At the June 11, 2019 meeting, the Commission adopted a process for the 2019 Movers List maintenance.
Among other things, this process flagged voters who did not respond to Movers mailings within 30 days
with a pollbook watermark. It also allowed those voters to affirm their active registrations during the
2020 election cycle. Any voters that did not affirm their active registrations would be inactivated
following the Spring 2021 election.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe
32
Election Registration Information Center (ERIC) Update
February 3, 2021
Page 2
The 2019 ERIC Movers Mailing process was challenged and has been in litigation since 2019. The
Ozaukee County Circuit Court granted a writ of mandamus and ordered the Commission to comply with
the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) and deactivate voter registrations of individuals present on the
ERIC Movers List and later found three members of the Commission in contempt of court for failure to
comply with that order. After the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a motion to bypass the Court of
Appeals, that Circuit Court’s decisions (mandamus and contempt) were stayed. In February 2020, the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court decision on the writ of mandamus and vacated
the contempt order. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded “that the phrase “board of election
commissioners” in WIS. STAT. § 6.50(3) does not refer to the Commission, and the Commission has no
duties pursuant to § 6.50(3).” State Ex Rel Zignego, et al. v. WEC, et al., 2020 WI App 17, ¶71.
Additionally, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded that under the statutory scheme set forth by the
Legislature, the Commission did not have the authority to deactivate voter registrations based on the
2019 ERIC mailer. Id. at ¶91. That decision was then appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The
case was fully briefed, and oral argument took place on September 29, 2020. The Commission is
currently waiting for the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine what authority the
Commission has under current statutes regarding the voter registration status of individuals on the 2019
ERIC Movers List. Ultimately, this means that until the Wisconsin Supreme Court renders a decision,
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling remains in place, and WEC may not take action on deactivating
2019 Movers or Movers identified in future lists provided by ERIC.
2019 Movers Mailing Status
After each election since August 2019, WEC staff has analyzed the voter participation of those
records that were flagged as part of the Movers process. The analysis helps us to understand how
many of these voters either re-register, affirm that they have not moved, have taken no action, or
have been deactivated by local election officials for other reasons. The data presented in the charts
below is divided into two main categories:
• Inactive voters do not appear on the poll book and need to register to vote before they can
participate. Voters can be inactive because they became ineligible to vote or because they
were inactivated for required list maintenance or other reasons as permitted by statute.
• Active voters appear on the poll book and are actively registered.
Further, there are two types of Active voter records as they relate to the ERIC movers mailing:
• Active-Movers records are voters who were sent the 2019 Movers mailing, but have not
requested continuation of their address, have not re-registered at a new address, and have not
voted in an election since October 2019. Put simply, they have not taken any action in
response to the mailing. A “Movers” watermark appears on the poll book next to these
voter’s records and they must affirm they live at that address or re-register at a new one
before they can receive a ballot.
33
February 3, 2021
Page 3
• Active-Updated Registrations records are voters who have either requested continuation of
their registration, have re-registered to vote, or who have affirmed their registration by
signing the poll book and voting since October 2019. No watermark appears in the poll book
next to these records.
The number of voters in Active-Movers status has declined as voters have affirmed their active
registrations, as shown in Table 1. The number of Active-Movers who remain on the list are voters who
have taken no action on their voter record.
Table 1: Active - Movers Status Timeline
Voter Status Voter Count

Original 2019 Active – Movers Designations 232,579
May 2020 Active – Movers Designations 129,151
January 2021 Active – Movers Designations 71,579
The tables below include data generated on January 25, 2021 regarding voters marked as ‘Movers’.
The total letters mailed to potential Movers in October 2019 was 232,579. These are in-state voters
who had a transaction with the Department of Motor Vehicles or United States Postal Service listing
a residential address that was different from their voter record.
Of the 2019 Movers mailing recipients, 30.8% have not updated their voter records and remain on
Active-Movers status. Almost 66% of voters who were sent the mailing have now either registered
to vote at a new address or have requested continuation at their original address. Another 3.6% are
inactive for reasons such as: moving out of state, being deemed incompetent, being listed as
deceased, a felony conviction, the voter having requested deactivation, or because the clerk has other
reliable information that the voter moved or is ineligible.
Table 2: Current Status of All 232,579 ERIC Voters Sent a Movers Mailing in 2019
Voter Percentage
All ERIC Movers Status as of January 25, 2021
Count of Mailing
1. Active - Movers Designations 71,579 30.8%
2. Active – Updated Registrations (includes Inactive-
152,524 65.6%
Merged records replaced by new registrations)
3. Inactive Records 8,476 3.6%
4. Total Records 232,579 100%
Of the 232,579 voters who were sent the Movers mailing, 152,524 of them either sent back the
continuation postcard, continued their registration on MyVote, have re-registered at their original
address, or have signed the affirmation in the poll book that they have not moved. Approximately
34
February 3, 2021
Page 4
7.2% of the original group have taken an action to affirm they have not moved and are now actively
registered at their original address and the watermark has been removed from their poll book record.
Another 58.4% of these voters have re-registered at a new address either online, by mail, or at the
polls on election day. They are now actively registered to vote at their new address and the
watermark has been removed from their poll book record.
Table 3: Movers List Recipients Who Updated Their Registration
Percentage of
Movers List Registrations as of January 25, 2021 Voter Count
Mailing
1. Voters who updated or affirmed their
16,698 7.2%
registration at same address
2. Voters who updated their registration at new address 135,826 58.4%
3. Total Voters with Updated Address Records 152,524 65.6%
In the 2020 General Election, 30% of the original Active-Movers list cast a ballot. While most
updated their registration data prior to Election Day, a small number remained on Active-Movers
status and were required to affirm their address when signing the pollbook.
Table 4: General Election Participation
Percentage of
Original ERIC Movers List - General Election Voting Voter Count
Mailing
1. Voted: Registered Status [1] 51,460 22.1%
2. Voted at Same Address: Active-Mover Status 5,329 2.3%
3. Voted at New Address: Active-Mover Status 13,757 5.9%
4. Did Not Vote: Registered Status 81,979 35.2%
5. Did Not Vote: Active-Mover Status 71,578 30.8%
6. Did Not Vote: Inactivated Status 8,476 3.6%
7. Total 232,579 100%
[1]
Registered status in this table indicates the voter’s status on Election Day. It indicates that these voters either re-registered
at a new address or affirmed their existing registration at the original address prior to November 3, 2020.
35
February 3, 2021
Page 5
2021 Movers Mailing Process
Since joining ERIC in 2016, Wisconsin has performed just two iterations of the Movers process.
These processes helped staff and clerks to refine procedures, but also revealed several noteworthy
opportunities for improvement. The considerable time between mailings meant that an effective
backlog of routine registration updates accumulated over months. Previous iterations of Movers List
maintenance involved hundreds of thousands of records and represented an enormous amount of
additional work for clerks and WEC staff. The large volume also created a large one-time expense
for the WEC and presented printing, storage, and mailing challenges for the Department of
Administration Publishing and Distribution office. Finally, the large number of potentially out-of-
date records generate public concerns about the accuracy and integrity of voter rolls.
The ERIC Membership Agreement recommends that member states obtain the Movers list annually
but does not require states to make a request. (ERIC Membership Agreement Sec 5.) Upon receipt
of the list, Wisconsin has until October 1 of the next even numbered year to initiate contact with at
least 95% of the eligible or potentially eligible citizens on the list. (ERIC Membership Agreement
Sec 5(a)). Although the agreement recommends an annual review, it does not prohibit procurement
of the Movers List at more frequent intervals. In fact, ERIC staff report that some states obtain the
list multiple times each year.
A more frequent Movers List maintenance process may address the drawbacks listed above and
simplify the process for both voters and clerks. Clerks would have a smaller number of files to
process at more frequent intervals and voters would receive more timely reminders to update their
registration. WEC staff are currently exploring how to implement the Movers process on a bi-
monthly interval, and will bring a plan to the Commission for review at a future meeting. Subject to
that guidance, and any future court decisions, staff will research alternative approaches more fully.
Regardless of the process that is ultimately applied, the next iteration of the Movers List will be
available to Wisconsin no later than early summer 2021. A Court decision in this matter is necessary
before WEC will know how to instruct voters in future mailing and what action to take on records of
voters who do not respond. However, WEC staff continue to build the technical framework for more
regular intervals to prepare for the specifics that will be determined by the Court.
Other ERIC Processes

Other processes performed in conjunction with ERIC, and pursuant to the Member Agreement, are a
review of cross-state voter participation and a review of citizens who are eligible to vote but
unregistered.
The Voter Participation comparison between states will be provided by ERIC by summer of 2021. This
process is performed in order to identify people who may have voted in different states for the same
election. Staff will contact other states, research with clerks to make sure there were no data entry
errors, and use the matching criteria set by the commission to finalize a referral list for the commission
to review, no later than September 2021. Once approved by the commission, the referral list is provided
to district attorneys for further investigation and possible criminal prosecution.
36
February 3, 2021
Page 6
The ERIC agreement specifies that list maintenance reports, such as the Movers, duplicates, and
deceased list must be requested every 425 days. Wisconsin is currently in compliance with this
requirement by accepting duplicate record and deceased reports which are implemented into our
statewide system for local election officials to examine as part of the registration list alert process.
The review of eligible but unregistered (EBU) voters is performed to identify people who are eligible to
vote and to encourage them to participate. The next Eligible but Unregistered (EBU) mailing will not be
done until the summer of 2022 in accordance with the ERIC agreement.
37
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Wisconsin Elections Commission
Prepared by:
Sara Linski, IT Project Manager
SUBJECT: Analysis of WEC September 2020 Informational Voter Mailer
1. Background
On May 27, the Commission directed staff to develop an informational mailing that described the
voting options available for the November 3, 2020 General Election. The mailing also encouraged
voters to verify that their registration was up to date, discussed the requirement for proper photo ID,
and directed voters where to find public health information related to elections and COVID-19. The
mailing included a blank absentee application designed specifically for use with the mailer and a
pre-addressed, business reply return envelope to the WEC (no postage required by voter). The three-
piece package was approved by the Commission at its June 10 Commission Meeting. The
Commission approved the exact language of and process for sending the mailer to 2.6 million
registered Wisconsin voters who did not already have an absentee application on file for the 2020
General Election. Voters in “Active-Movers” status were not included in the mailing. On June 25
the final mailer was sent to the printer, where it was printed, folded, stuffed, sorted, and metered
over the next two months and mailed on September 1.
2. Mailing Reception and Impact
On September 1, 2020, the informational mailing hit the mail streams across the state. WEC staff
immediately felt the impact with an increase in calls from voters and an increase in traffic to the
MyVote Wisconsin website, where voters can verify their registration status, register to vote at their
current address, and request an absentee ballot. The mailer also encouraged voters to call WEC with
any questions or for assistance. WEC subsequently hired a call center and dozens of temporary staff
to assist with the increased number of contacts. During the first week that the mailer reached voters,
25,198 voters registered online, and 47,377 voters requested their absentee ballot for the 2020
General Election through MyVote. For context, the table below outlines the number of online voter

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe 38
Analysis of WEC September 2020 Informational Voter Mailer
For the February 3, 2021 Commission Meeting
Page 2
registrations and absentee applications submitted through MyVote in the three months ahead of
Election Day.
It should be noted that some voters questioned the mailing or complained that they had already
submitted their request for an absentee ballot. This was to be expected due to the printing timelines
and volume of mail, voters who requested an absentee between May and September 1 were not able
to be removed from the final mail shipment. The mailer was purely informational, receiving the
mailer was of no consequence to the voter, even if they had already updated their registration or
requested a ballot. If a voter already had a request on file and a subsequent, duplicate request was
made this would be identified in the statewide system and does not result in multiple ballots being
issued to the voter.
Week start Voter Registration Activity

Absentee Request Activity (MyVote)
date (MyVote)
16-Aug 27,548 41,225
23-Aug 18,001 22,951
30-Aug 25,198 47,377
6-Sep 22,088 39,660
13-Sep 27,687 40,890
20-Sep 60,513 64,518
27-Sep 45,925 61,707
4-Oct 42,408 50,359
11-Oct 53,118 49,006
18-Oct 330 21,883
25-Oct 224 8,985
a. Process
During the second week of September, absentee application mailer forms began to return to the
WEC office for data entry. WEC staff was directed to take on the data entry of these applications on
the behalf of municipal clerks. Manual opening and scanning of the paper absentee applications was
handled with the generous assistance and expertise of the Department of Revenue (DOR) through a
state interchange. DOR staff are experienced in handling large volumes of mail from tax season and
assisted in opening the envelopes and using high-speed scanners to digitize their contents, mailer
absentee application forms and copies of photo IDs. The scans were then reviewed and entered into
WisVote by WEC staff and staff from other state agencies assigned to work on this project through
an interagency agreement.
39
Page 3
Once applications were opened and scanned, the absentee applications were entered into WisVote in
a “pending” status until reviewed by municipal clerks, who have the responsibility of verifying that a
voter meets all qualifications for voting, including approval of the voter’s photo ID if not already on
file. Clerks without direct access to WisVote were sent an email with the absentee mailer form and
photo ID attached when the application was entered into WisVote. Before entering an application,
data entry staff verified a voter did not already have an application on file and only entered
applications that were not duplicates. Municipal clerks received scanned copies of each application
and photo ID with the data entry, which were used to approve or deny applications. Original paper
applications also had to be looked up and sorted into 1,850 parcels to be sent to each of the
respective municipal clerks.
These tasks, in addition to the additional customer service demands, were laborious and led to WEC
staff, temporary staff, and interchange employees to work overtime, nights, weekends, and holidays
for the months leading up to and after the election. WEC staff was also judicious in using resources
and innovative in leveraging technology and expertise available that allowed the project to stay
within the timeline and the budget directed by the Commission. WEC staff wishes to thank DOR
and the many other state employees who worked with WEC through the interchange for their help
and support with this important task, which allowed us to scan, process, and data enter applications
in a timely manner. This was the WEC’s first mailer project of this type and scale, and the team’s
efforts to successfully implement it should be commended.
b. Registration and Absentee Request Numbers
In total, 49,783 absentee mailer applications were received and entered for municipal clerk review.
Upon review, 6,131 of these applications were declined by municipal clerks. Applications were
most commonly declined due to a lack of photo ID (42.2%). The next most common reason was that
in the time between entry of the pending application and the clerk’s review, the voter had submitted
an acceptable application through other means (29.5%). Other reasons for an application being
declined include photo IDs with invalid expiration dates, invalid forms of photo IDs, and that the
photo provided was illegible. Indefinitely confined applications were received from 1,916 voters, of
which 19 failed to sign the attestation that they are indefinitely confined and had their applications
declined. WEC staff also created a process for clerks to indicate a reason for rejecting an
application. Based on the clerk’s review, WEC was then able to issue a letter, on the behalf of the
clerk alerting the voter of the error and asking them to resubmit required information to their clerk.
WEC also developed this functionality into the MyVote website, so that if a voter submitted an
incomplete or unacceptable application they were alerted to their error.
An additional 2,953 mailer absentee applications are still listed as Pending Review, meaning the
clerk never updated the final disposition of the pending absentee application record. Many of these
applications are from communities where the clerk does not have direct access to WisVote. Those
40
Page 4
clerks, known as reliers, were emailed scanned copies of the absentee mailer form and photo ID (if
provided by the voter). Reliers also receive applications submitted through MyVote in this way.
Reliers keep a record of each request, including its source, in their Absentee Ballot Log that is
shared regularly with the clerk who provides them with data entry services for WisVote. Some
clerks may have listed the source for these emailed absentee mailer form scans as “email” or “mail”.
There are 1,928 voters who have an application in Pending Review status who also have an absentee
application on file where the source is “email” or “mail” that can likely be attributed to the absentee
mailer form emails generated from the entry of the pending application. An additional 475 of these
voters submitted an absentee application request through another method such as fax or through
MyVote.
The remaining 40,686 applications were approved by the clerk’s office, which then issued an
absentee ballot, resulting in 37,481 returned and counted absentee ballots. An additional 13
applications were approved, but a ballot was not issued. The figures in the table below are
consistent with absentee voter behavior observed statewide.
It should be noted that it is estimated another 50,000 return envelopes were received which
contained either duplicate applications or notes/comments not related to the absentee application.
While duplicate and erroneous applications were not entered into the system, this means that nearly
100,000 envelopes had to be opened, scanned, and looked up in the statewide database. When
conceptualizing this project, WEC staff had estimated, based on available postal data on return rates,
that 10,000 voters would utilize a paper application return option. The actual usage represented a
100% increase. This was the first mailer of its type which made estimating difficult. WEC staff and
partner agencies were able to quickly scale the operation and adjust the project in order to meet
commission, statutory, and voter facing deadlines.
41
Page 5
Ballot Absentee
Absentee Ballot Status Reason
Disposition Ballot Count
Returned and Counted 37,481 91.66%
Ballots Returned and Rejected 137 0.335%
Rejected - Not Returned by Polls Close 22
Returned Rejected - Voter Ineligible 9
Ballots Rejected - Certification Insufficient 95
Rejected - Certificate Envelope Compromised 4
Rejected - Superseding Ballot Returned 5
Rejected - Voter deceased before Election Day 2
Unreturned 4.08%
Ballot Not Returned 1,667
Ballots
Request Cancelled by Voter 1,214 2.97%
Admin Action Request Cancelled by Clerk 285 0.70%
Ballot Returned Undeliverable 108 0.26%
Total 40,892*
*206 applications required a second or third ballot to be issued to the voter. This most commonly occurs when a voter
requests an absentee ballot to be mailed and instead votes in-person absentee at the clerk’s office.
3. Undeliverable Mailings
The address list for the September 2020 mailer was generated in May 2020. This means that there
were four months, a special election, and the August statewide election between pulling the
addresses and sending the mailer. It was anticipated that in those four months, some voters would
move or re-register to vote. When the Commission directed the process for the mailer, they also
directed the mailer not be forwarded. This ultimately meant that there are no attempts made by the
post office to standardize or fix an address, or to send to another address if the voter has moved or is
away. If the address and recipient names are not exact matches, the mail is returned undeliverable.
According to USPS, there are several reasons a mail piece is not delivered including an illegible or
incorrect address, addressee not known at that address (deceased, moved, or unknown), mail is
refused by addressee, addressee is temporarily away and is having mail forwarded to a P.O. box or
elsewhere, or mail has been unclaimed for 30 or more days. Illegible addresses could mean there is
an extra character, space or other small error in the standardization of the address. There were
231,533 informational mailings returned to the WEC office as undeliverable. These envelopes were
sorted and the information on undeliverable mailers was sent to each of the respective 1,850
municipal clerks.
42
Page 6
Of the 231,533 undeliverable mailings, 94,955 (41%) of these voters did not participate in the
November 3, 2020 election, nor did they reregister to vote at another Wisconsin address. There were
4,285 (1.8%) voters who re-registered at a new address but did not vote in the 2020 General
Election. Of the 231,533 there were 132,293 voters (57.1%) who did vote in the 2020 General
Election. Of the 132,293 voters who voted in the election, 100,060 voters re-registered at a new
address before voting. There were 32,233 of the 132,293 voters who remained registered at their
original address and participated in the November 2020 General and Presidential Election.
Conclusion
While voters were inundated with voting information from political parties, candidates, nonprofit
groups, social media promotions, and other information sources, the WEC mailer was unique for
several reasons. It presented official information about voters’ options for participating, it was not
targeted at specific demographic groups or geographic areas, and was mailed consistently to voters
in all corners of the state. It is difficult to determine the exact impact of the WEC’s voter
information mailer. In that context, we can conclusively say that at least 37,481 returned absentee
ballots, issued based on WEC mailer applications, are directly linked to the WEC mailer. The
project represented an enormous undertaking, requiring the hiring of up to 150 temporary staff to
assist with phone support, application data entry, and undeliverable mailer data entry. As the mailer
hit the mail stream, WEC staff received many calls from voters. While some did not agree with
WEC providing information to voters on how to vote absentee by mail, many of the calls were from
voters who appreciated receiving the mailing. For many, the mailing provided a source of trusted
information about election procedures in an overwhelming and changing environment.
43
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Wisconsin Elections Commission
FROM: Meagan Wolfe

Administrator, Wisconsin Elections Commission
Prepared and Presented by:

Robert Williams Cody Davies
Elections Specialist Elections Specialist
SUBJECT: 2020 Post-Election Voting Equipment Audit Final Report
2020 Post-Election Voting Equipment Audit Results Summary
Over 6 days in November, county and municipal clerks directed the hand tally auditing of more than
145,000 ballots from the November 2020 General Election. The findings of the 2020 Post-Election
Voting Equipment Audit showed that there was no evidence that any voting equipment subject to audit
and used in the 2020 General Election in Wisconsin changed votes from one candidate to another,
incorrectly tabulated votes, or altered vote totals in any way. The concerns identified in this report do
not represent programming errors, unauthorized alterations or “hacking” of voting equipment software
or malfunctions of voting equipment that altered the outcome of any races on the ballot. They do,
however, highlight the limitations of electronic voting equipment and underscore the necessity of
comprehensive administrative procedures required to ensure the effectiveness of voting equipment used
in Wisconsin elections.
Post-Election Voting Equipment Audit Introduction
Wis. Stat. § 7.08(6) is the state embodiment of § 301(a)(5) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA) (52 USC §21081) and requires the Wisconsin Elections Commission (“WEC” or
“Commission”) to audit each voting system that is used in this state following each General Election:
Enforcement of federal voting system standards. Following each general

election audit the performance of each voting system used in this state to
determine the error rate of the system in counting ballots that are validly cast by
electors. If the error rate exceeds the rate permitted under standards of the federal
election commission in effect on October 29, 2002, the commission shall take
remedial action and order remedial action to be taken by affected counties and

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe
44
2020 Post-Election Voting Equipment Audit
Page 2
municipalities to ensure compliance with the standards. Each county and

municipality shall comply with any order received under this subsection.
The WEC approves the sample size, procedures and timeline for conducting the audit. Each selected
municipality is required to conduct the audit, and some local election officials receive assistance from
their county clerk’s office. Wisconsin has conducted a post-election voting equipment audit after each
General Election since 2006. Audits are required to ensure that tabulation equipment is performing at
the standards set forth in the certification for each piece of equipment. Equipment is audited to the
testing standards set forth in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires all voting tabulation
equipment accurately tabulate ballots and not exceed a pre-determined error rate. Sec. 301(a)(5) of
HAVA states that the error rate is determined by the standards set forth under section 3.2.1 of the
federal Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) voting system standards. The current federal
standard maximum acceptable error rate for testing purposes is 1 in 500,000 ballot positions.
Accordingly, auditing teams conducting the post-election voting equipment audit must reconcile the
ballots and votes recorded by equipment and eliminate any potential non-tabulation related sources of
error including printer malfunctions, voter generated ballot marking errors, poll worker errors, or chief
inspector errors.
The audit process is designed to ensure that the equipment is performing up to certification standards
and to identify any issues that impact vote tabulation. The acceptable error rate established in HAVA is
intended for equipment certification testing scenarios which are conducted in lab settings under
optimized conditions using test deck ballots that are marked in accordance with ballot instructions and
do not include the same imperfections as an average absentee ballot that is required to be handled
multiple times prior to processing. Auditing the machines to this certification standard as part of a
performance audit can complicate the review of the results as it considers how the equipment performs
during live elections where voter behavior and ballot marking is not scripted. When testing for
certification purposes, the results set is pre-determined so that if there is an error in tabulation it will be
noticed and investigated. In a performance audit, however, the teams of auditors are sometimes left to
make their own determinations on how the equipment may have counted a ballot, especially if there are
ambiguous marks. The benefit of using the certification standard for this audit is that it identifies
performance areas where certification standards and required administrative procedures need adjusting
or reconsideration. While the equipment met certification standards during the election, it is important
to note that things like auditor error and election day ballot jams impact the data collected during a
performance audit.
Reporting Unit Selection Process
Wisconsin Elections Commission staff randomly selected a pre-determined number of reporting units
across Wisconsin for participation in the post-election voting equipment audit. The selection took place
as part of a public meeting on November 4, 2020 in accordance with the guidelines approved at the
September 16, 2020 meeting of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
45
Page 3
For the 2020 post-election audit, the Commission approved a continuation of the 5% sample size of all
reporting units statewide that was used during the 2018 audit. The application of this sample size
established a minimum standard of184 reporting units selected for the 2020 audit. The Commission also
determined that at least one reporting unit from each county be included in the sample selected for audit.
In summary, the Commission approved the following selection criteria for the 2020 audit:
1. Establish the audit sample as 5% of all reporting units statewide for a minimum of 184 total
audits.
2. Ensure that at least one (1) piece of voting equipment is selected for audit in each of the 72
Wisconsin counties.
3. Ensure that a minimum of five (5) reporting units are selected for each piece of equipment
certified for use in Wisconsin that records and tabulates votes.
Reporting Unit and Contest Selection Outcome and Clerk Notification
Staff randomly selected 190 total reporting units that were ultimately subject to audit, with 7 additional
reporting units excused due to zero voters residing within those reporting units. With 3,698 total
reporting units across the state, the final selection represented 5% of all statewide reporting units. Every
county was represented by at least one reporting unit and 166 different municipalities participated in the
audit including 18 municipalities required to conduct audits of more than one reporting unit. Staff
developed a tiered selection algorithm that was intended to provide a more representative sample of
ballots cast in the 2020 General Election by allowing larger municipalities to have more reporting units
selected for audit. These criteria established a maximum of four reporting units to be selected from
Wisconsin’s two largest municipalities (Cities of Milwaukee and Madison), up to three reporting units
from the top twenty other municipalities in terms of voter population, and one reporting unit maximum
for the remainder of all reporting units across the state. A complete list of all selected reporting units is
included with this memorandum as Appendix A.
The total ballots cast for the 2020 General Election in selected reporting units represents approximately
4.2% of all ballots cast statewide, with over 145,000 ballots hand-counted during the audit process. The
random selection process also resulted in reporting units from 9 of the 10 most populous Wisconsin
municipalities being audited.
In addition to the reporting units selected, staff also selected the contests for audit during the public
meeting on November 4, 2020. All statewide contests were included as possible selections, including
the office of State Senate. As this contest is not on all ballots statewide, it had never been included as
part of the audit prior to 2018. Staff included this contest in the list of possible selections, with the
caveat that if State Senate was selected an alternate contest would be selected for reporting units whose
State Senator was not up for election this cycle. The result of the contest selection is as follows:
1. President/Vice President (required)

2. Representative to Congress
3. Representative to the Assembly
46
Page 4
4. State Senate or County Clerk: Selected municipalities with a State Senate race on the ballot
audited that contest. If that contest was not on the ballot in that reporting unit, the County Clerk
contest was audited instead.
Staff reviewed the initial sample selected for audit to ensure that all voting equipment that records and
tabulates votes were represented by at least 5 reporting units. The only exceptions to the 5-reporting unit
rule were the ES&S DS850 and DS450, high-speed scanners and tabulators, which were used by only a
small number of municipalities to tabulate absentee ballots at their central count facilities.
All selected municipalities were notified of their selection by email on November 4, 2020. Included in
the email was a link to a page on the agency website where audit materials were posted, including a
training webinar, instructions, tally sheets, reporting forms and municipal reimbursement information.
Notification of selection for audit was sent to both municipal and county clerks for impacted
jurisdictions.
Audit Completion Timeline
For the 2020 post-election voting equipment audit, the Commission determined that all post-election
audits should be conducted prior to the state deadline to certify election results on December 1, 2020.
The Commission specifically established November 27, 2020 as the deadline to complete and report the
results to the WEC. Staff also recommended that any selected municipality may request an extension
waiver if it shows cause that it will not be able to meet this deadline and the Commission set a
submission deadline of November 10 for those requests, but no extensions were requested or granted by
the deadline. As previously reported to the Commission, all audits were completed by December 1.
2020 Voting Equipment Summary
Audit results reported by local election officials, and reviewed by WEC staff, did not identify any issues
with the tabulation functionality of the voting equipment in the majority of reporting units in which
audits were conducted. The audit did, however, identify an issue with how one type of equipment, the
ImageCast Evolution, identified write-in votes in one contest. The issue was identified in 2 of the 28
reporting units selected for audit using the equipment and had no material effect on the outcome of any
contest. A detailed summary of this issue can be found in the Election Administration Errors section of
this report.
47
Page 5
Accessible Voting Equipment Summary
Accessible Voting Equipment that Records Tallies Votes Audits Conducted

Sequoia Edge 60
Ballot Marking Devices that Assist Voters with Marking Ballots Audited as Part of
Processed by Optical Scan Equipment Optical Scan Ballots
ES&S AutoMark 31
ES&S ExpressVote 57
Clear Ballot Group ClearAccess 7
Dominion ImageCast Evolution (ICE) 28
There is now only one approved accessible voting system that records and tabulates votes in use in
Wisconsin. This type of equipment is often referred to as Direct Recording Electronic machines, or
DREs, and the one system still in use in Wisconsin is the Sequoia Edge. In addition to DREs, there are
four different ballot marking devices approved for use in Wisconsin. Voters use a touchscreen interface
or tactile keypad on these devices to make their ballot choices. When the voter is finished, the machine
provides them with a paper ballot marked with their choices and those ballots are then inserted into and
tabulated by the optical scan equipment or hand tallied.
All voting equipment audits of DREs were completed by municipal or county clerks. The audit reports
indicate the machine tallying function on all audited devices tabulated correctly, with no identifiable
bugs, errors, or failures occurring between the individual cast vote record and the total tabulated vote
record. The only noted issue arose with auditors not being able to verify several ballots cast on the
Sequoia Edge due to paper jams of the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) on Election Day.
Until cleared, the paper jams may not allow for the recording of votes by the VVPAT.
Ballots marked by the four different ballot marking devices were audited along with the rest of the
ballots processed by the optical scan tabulator. These ballots are not segregated from other optical scan
ballots, so it is difficult to determine how many ballots marked by these devices were audited. Auditors
did not report any discrepancies that could be attributed to ballot marking devices.
48
Page 6
Tabulation Voting Equipment (Optical Scan) Summary
Optical Scan Equipment Audits Conducted

Sequoia Insight 17
ES&S M100 7
ES&S DS200 72
ES&S DS450 5
ES&S DS850 4
Dominion ImageCast Evolution (ICE) 28
Clear Ballot Group ClearCast 7
Hand-Count Paper Ballots – DRE Equipment Only 43
Audit Results
In total, 145,100 ballots were counted by hand during this audit. Each municipality was required to
provide a summary of each of the four audited contests showing the allocation of votes between
candidates, write-in votes, undervotes, etc. The post-election voting equipment audit showed, with the
limited exceptions listed below regarding the City of Oshkosh and Town of Lac du Flambeau, that the
voting equipment utilized in the 2020 November General Election performed up to certification
standards, tabulating and counting votes accurately.
There were several instances of auditor and election administration error that led to discrepancies
between equipment result tapes and the total number of ballots audited in specific contests. Issues
experienced by staff can generally be divided into two classifications: auditor errors and election
administration errors. A representative summary of those issues is itemized later in this report.
As was expected, the total number of votes cast on voting equipment and the total number of ballots
audited do not perfectly match in all audits that were conducted. There were multiple occurrences in
which auditors included the hand-count paper ballots that were cast in their reporting units in their final
ballot totals when only the votes cast on the accessible voting equipment should have been tallied. In
other cases, jams or misfeeds of the paper tape used to record ballots on the Sequoia Edge DRE led to
discrepancies between the total votes as recorded by the voting equipment and the total number of
ballots available to be audited. The ballot tape produced by the Edge serves as the VVPAT which shows
the ballot choices for each voter using that machine. If there is a jam of the paper roll, or a misfeed
when a new roll is inserted, the ballot choices for the impacted voters may not have a paper artifact. The
votes are still accurately tabulated even if there is a jam. In addition to the votes being tabulated by the
machine, there are cast vote records that can be accessed and analyzed if the paper artifact is
irretrievable, but these records need to be recreated by the vendor who programs and services these
machines.
49
Page 7
Certain participating municipalities experienced issues unique to optical scanning equipment. For
example, a number of auditors reported discrepancies arising from poorly marked ballots, refeeding of
ballots that were already tabulated by the voting equipment after ballot jams were cleared, and the issue
of voter intent. In all cases, the incidents that led to minor discrepancies of 1 or 2 votes between the
final audit tallies and the equipment result tapes were documented, either by Election Inspectors on
Election Day or by auditors throughout the course of conducting the audit.
Number of Ballots Audited by Equipment Type
DRE Equipment Total Ballots Audited

Sequoia Edge 15,314
Optical Scan Equipment Total Ballots Audited

Sequoia Insight 13,752
ES&S M100 6,394
ES&S DS200 69,458
Dominion ICE 24,226
ES&S DS450 3,465
ES&S DS850 1,851
Clear Ballot Group ClearCast 10,640
50
Page 8
Audits Conducted by Type of Optical Scan Equipment
Sequioa Insight, 17
ES&S M100, 7
ClearBallot ClearCast, 7
ES&S DS200, 72
Dominion ICE, 28
ES&S DS850, 4
ES&S DS450, 5
General Election Administration and Auditor Errors
All voting equipment audits of tabulation equipment were completed by municipal or county clerks.
The individual audits indicate the tabulation voting equipment performed up to certification standards in
all but two reporting units selected for audit. Minor discrepancies were reconciled between the audit
hand count totals and the election results produced by the voting equipment from Election Day. Staff
contacted municipalities for clarification if any discrepancies were reported to WEC.
• The vast majority of reconciliation issues identified were due to human error on election day or
during the audit and only impacted one or two votes in a contest and were not indicative of
equipment malfunction or failure.
• Several discrepancies were due to ballots in the machine count that were double counted when
ballot jams were not cleared properly on election day and ballots were reinserted in the
equipment and processed again. In most of these instances only one ballot is in question in these
reporting units.
• Other discrepancies were identified due to auditors using a voter intent threshold when reviewing
and counting ballots during the audit rather than counting those ballots the same as how the
equipment would have treated those ballots. For example, if a voter circled a candidate name
rather than filling in the oval next to that name no vote should have been counted during the
audit as the equipment could not find an oval filled in to count. During the audit, votes are
sometimes incorrectly attributed to candidates where voter intent can be identified even though
51
Page 9
there is no expectation that the equipment can make that same determination due to the voter not
following the proper instructions.
• Several reporting units subject to recount had ballots removed from the ballot pool during the
recount in Dane and Milwaukee counties and lead to audits being off by the same number of
ballots/votes that were removed from the pool.
• Other discrepancies have been identified where auditors are unsure of how the machine treated
an ambiguous mark or an oval that was not completely filled in. It is sometimes difficult for an
auditor to determine how the machine would have treated these marks and how much of an oval
must be filled in for the machine to interpret it as a good mark.
Many of the initial reported discrepancies occurred because voter intent was considered when hand
counting ballots. The instructions provided to local election officials clearly state that the purpose of
this process is to verify the performance of the voting equipment, not to determine the voter’s intent as
to votes which the equipment cannot read.
Specific Election Administration Errors
City of Oshkosh
The City of Oshkosh was selected to audit Ward 23A

where the Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast Evolution
(ICE) optical scan tabulator is used to record and tabulate
votes. Their audit identified a discrepancy of 21 votes in
the State Senate District 18 contest between the machine
totals from election night and the audit totals. The hand
tally during the audit indicated an increase of 12 votes for
candidate Aaron Wojciechowski and an increase of 9
votes for candidate Dan Feyen. Those increases
corresponded to the decrease in the overvote totals for that
same contest in the machine totals. A review of the ballot
images and associated ballot manifests, which list how
votes were counted for each contest and each ballot, by the
municipal clerk and WEC staff indicate that the voting
equipment identified this contest as overvoted due to a crease in these ballots that was present in the
target area for the write-in option (the crease appears as a black line in the example provided). The
voting system in question was programmed to accommodate Wis. Stat. §7.50(2)(d) which states that “If
an elector writes a person's name in the proper space for write-in candidates for an office, it is a vote for
the person written in for the office indicated, regardless of whether the elector strikes the names
appearing in the same column for the same office, or places a mark by the same or any other name for
the same office, or omits placing a mark to the right of the name written in.” In this case the equipment
perceived the crease as handwriting and believe that a voter had written in a candidate name in addition
to marking the oval for a ballot candidate.
52
Page 10
The ballot manifest clearly indicates in

each of these 21 instances that the
machine considered the presence of
this crease as a vote for a write-in
candidate in addition to a vote for a
ballot candidate (example provided).
These 21 ballots were all absentee
ballots where the fold was not made
on the scored or perforated line
present to encourage uniform folding
of absentee ballots. A visual inspection of these ballots would have revealed that the contest in question
was not overvoted.
All voting equipment used in Wisconsin elections must be programmed to reject all votes in excess of
the number which a voter is allowed to cast for a particular contest. When a contest has been overvoted,
the voting equipment is required to display a notification to the voter or election inspector that an
overvote is present on the ballot and identify which contest was overvoted. In these instances when the
voter is not present and the election inspector is processing absentee ballots, the Commission-approved
administrative procedures require that the ballot be returned to the inspector so that the contest, or
contests, in question can be reviewed to determine possible voter intent. Those procedures also state
that if voter intent can be determined, the ballot should be remade to correct the error (Election Day
Manual, p. 106-107). If the ballot is not returned for review and is, instead, processed on the equipment
using the override function, no votes in contests it perceives as overvoted will be counted.
The City of Oshkosh indicated they received a call from the polling place where residents of Ward 23A
were voting a little before 10:00 a.m. on election day reporting that overvote warnings were appearing
when absentee ballots were being processed on the optical scan tabulator. The clerk stated she affirmed
that the inspectors should have those ballots returned to them so the visual review could be completed
and ballots without overvotes should be remade. The clerk was unsure of when the override function
was used at this location without the required review of the ballot being done, but it is clear from the
ballot manifests that 21 of these ballots were not processed properly. The voting equipment should not
have identified these creases as good marks, but the administrative procedures established to account for
such anomalies should have caught the error if they were followed uniformly throughout the day at this
location.
WEC staff conclude this is an issue that can be partially addressed with additional training of election
inspectors and a more comprehensive understanding of how this voting equipment treats marks it
believes are handwriting in the write-in target area. Election inspectors are instructed to have the
equipment return the ballot to them before examining the ballot for voter intent and remaking any ballots
determined to be overvoted. If the step of returning the ballot is not taken, the risk is that contests with
valid votes will be perceived as overvoted by the equipment and no votes for those contests will be
counted. WEC staff find that continuing to emphasize this in training is essential with the increased of
popularity of absentee ballots that are processed without the voter present to correct any mistakes
53
Page 11
identified by the voting equipment. Additional steps have been recommended to municipalities for their
pre-election voting equipment tests to account for folded ballots and the treatment of overvotes. Staff
have also outlined potential changes to the certification of this system later in this report that would also
alleviate this problem.
Town of Lac du Flambeau
An issue similar to that which occurred in the City of Oshkosh was identified during the audit in the
Town of Lac du Flambeau and was not reconciled during subsequent attempts. The audit identified 5
ballots in the Representative to the Assembly contest that could not be reconciled. The three other
contests audited in this municipality reconciled during the initial attempt to complete the audit. Staff
requested that the town send their audit materials to WEC so that a review of votes cast in the
Representative to Assembly contest could be completed to determine the source of the discrepancy.
This review was completed as part of a public meeting in the WEC offices on November 30, 2020.
After a review of the ballots staff determined the source of the discrepancy was overvotes perceived by
the equipment due to creases in the write in target area for that contest on 5 ballots.
Error Rate Calculation
The issue discovered related to the Dominion ImageCast Evolution, further detailed previously in this
report, saw heavy creases created by folds on absentee ballots that ran through the write-in field for
specific contests read by the tabulator as overvotes in those contests. In the two cases detailed elsewhere
in the report, the City of Oshkosh and the Town of Lac du Flambeau, this issue was present on 21 out of
2,173 ballots audited in the City of Oshkosh and 5 out of 1,630 ballots audited in Town of Lac du
Flambeau. In total, 24,226 ImageCast Evolution ballots were audited throughout
Wisconsin. Additionally, staff identified a separate contest, which was not subject to audit, in the Town
of Lac du Flambeau where a crease in the write-in field likely contributed to overvotes being recorded
erroneously.
There was a single ballot in both the Town of Salem and Town of Dekorra where auditors determined
that a ballot crease had likely triggered an overvote and noted this in their audit documentation. The
Towns of Salem and Dekorra utilize the ES&S DS200 and audited 276 and 1,698 ballots
respectively. In total, 69,458 DS200 ballots were audited. Instead of the crease running through the
write-in field triggering an overvote, as with the ImageCast Evolution, auditors stated that the crease ran
through the oval that would be marked by voters. The possibility of a crease that runs through an oval
creating a false positive overvote is an item addressed in state certification testing and noted in
subsequent certification reports presented to the Commission.
Administrative procedures are in place to prevent ballots with false overvotes from being overridden and
processed without those ballots being remade. Had these procedures been followed, these overridden
ballots would have been correctly remade preventing any anomalies from materializing and ensuring all
votes in the contests on the affected ballots would have been counted appropriately.
54
Page 12
Post-Audit Municipal Reimbursement
At its September 1, 2020 meeting, the Wisconsin Elections Commission approved an updated procedure
by which municipalities would be reimbursed for the costs incurred for conducting the voting equipment
audit in their selected reporting units. In contrast to the reimbursement process used in past audits,
which was structured to reimburse municipalities for actual costs incurred with an upper limit of $300
per each reporting unit selected, the process for the 2020 audit instituted a flat selection fee of $50 for
each reporting unit and additional reimbursement at a rate of $0.35 per ballot audited.
In addition to this per-ballot formula, the $300 upper limit for each reporting unit was also removed
from consideration. Overall, the new reimbursement process was more intuitive for clerks and reduced
the paperwork burden. WEC staff were able to process the requests quickly and efficiently.
Currently, staff have received 170 reporting unit reimbursement requests from 152 municipalities,
totaling $55,359.10. There are a further 14 reporting units in 9 municipalities from which no
reimbursement request has been received. The total allowable reimbursement amount for these 14
reporting units is an additional $4,574.85. Based on the formula approved by the Commission for
municipal reimbursement, the maximum cost of the audit will be $60,185. This figure reflects total
reimbursements if received from all municipalities selected for audit. By comparison, the
reimbursement requests for the 2018 voting equipment audit totaled $40,914.02. Reimbursement
information for each reporting unit selected for the 2020 voting equipment audit is further detailed in
Appendix A.
Proposed Amendment to Dominion Voting Systems Certification
Due to the issue identified in the City of Oshkosh and the Town of Lac du Flambeau staff recommends
revisiting the original certification for the voting system in question. Amending the certification will
address the problem and ensure that creases in the write in area on absentee ballots will not be read as
votes by the ImageCast Evolution tabulator. Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suit 4.14 was
certified by the former Government Accountability Board in June 2014. As part of that certification, the
target area on the ballot, the area in which the tabulator checks for marks, was approved to include both
the oval and the write-in field. A standardized ambiguous mark threshold was instituted for both the
oval and the write-in field so that any municipality in the state using the ImageCast Evolution would be
processing ballots with ambiguous marks in a uniform manner. The ambiguous mark threshold for the
oval was set at 15%-35% and 12%-35% for the write-in field. This means that a mark must occupy at
least that amount of the oval or write-in field to be read by the tabulator. While this standard was set as
part of the Democracy Suite certification, the Board, and likewise the Commission, retained the option
of altering these ranges. As part of the voting equipment audit, pursuant to state law, the Commission is
also allowed to take remedial action regarding the certification of voting equipment in the event that an
issue is discovered. A full copy of the certification letter for Democracy Suite 4.14 can be found in
Appendix B and at the link below: Democracy Suite 4.14 Wisconsin Certification Approval Letter
55
Page 13
As mentioned previously in this report, as part of the voting equipment audit, it was discovered that
several ballots in the City of Oshkosh and the Town of Lac du Flambeau had heavy creases in the write-
in field which caused the ICE optical scan tabulator to identify these as false-positive overvotes. While
an increase in training on administrative procedures will help to mitigate this situation in the future,
further measures taken in the programming of the tabulator can help to resolve the issue much more
effectively. To remedy the issue identified related to the ImageCast Evolution in the voting equipment
audit, staff is recommending amending the certification of Democracy Suite 4.14 and eliminating the
ability for the equipment to look for good marks in the write-in target area. The ImageCast Evolution
has the flexibility to be programmed in such a way that the only target area on the ballot which is
checked for marks is the oval filled in by the voter. Staff believe that the best solution would be to
implement a requirement that the only allowable target area on the ballot be the oval that is filled in by
voters. Removing the write-in field as a part of the ImageCast Evolution target area that is scanned
when checking for marks would eliminate the specific problem identified during the audit. This
approach, along with increased training on administrative procedures related to overvotes and the
override function, is an easily implementable fix to the issue which allows for the continued use of the
ImageCast Evolution in municipalities which rely on this tabulator to conduct elections. By taking
prompt action, this change can be implemented in time for the April 2021 Spring Election.
Conclusion
The 2020 post-election voting equipment audit was the largest audit of its kind undertaken in the State
of Wisconsin. During the course of this audit, more than 145,000 ballots were hand counted by local
election officials. Staff would be remiss in not commending the efforts of all those who were
instrumental in ensuring the audit was conducted properly, safely, and securely. Certain constraints
imposed on those conducting the audit were significant. Despite the truncated timeline to complete the
process, a recount taking place in several selected municipalities, and the omnipresent issue of an
ongoing pandemic, auditors at the municipal and county levels were able to successfully conduct audits
and report their findings to WEC. While there were several instances of auditor error that needed to be
investigated, identifying and reporting problems in the audit process is a means by which to ensure the
procedures are being followed and that the equipment is performing as certified and is in no way an
attempt to minimize the efforts of the individuals who accomplished this task.
With very limited exceptions, tabulation and accessible voting equipment used in the 2020 General
Election recorded and tabulated votes in a manner that satisfied certification standards and Wis. Stat. §
7.08(6). The audit results indicated that improvements can be made in both administrative procedures
training and equipment programming requirements. The few discrepancies identified during the audit
were primarily the result of human error that occurred as part of the process of conducting the audit.
Additionally, the results of the audit did identify a single issue which impacted equipment in two
selected reporting units. With prompt implementation of recommended programming changes to the
ImageCast Evolution, this issue can be addressed and remedied prior to the time programming begins
for the April 2020 Spring Election.
56
Page 14
Recommended Motions
1. Staff recommends that the Commission accept this final report of the 2020 Post-Election Voting
Equipment Audit.
2. Staff recommends that the Commission amend the certification of Democracy Suite 4.14 to
establish the target area of the ballot as only the oval filled in by voters, thereby removing the
write-in field as part of the area scanned for marks.
57
Page 15
Appendix A
Municipalities with Approved Reimbursement Amounts and Total Number of Ballots Audited
County Municipality Equipment Type Ballots Reimbursement

Audited
Adams Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 99 $ 84.65
Colburn VeriVote Printer DRE system
Ashland City of ES&S M100 (central count muni) 909 $ 368.15
Ashland
Barron City of Rice Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 4341 $ 1,569.35
Lake Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Barron Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 428 $ 199.80
Lakeland VeriVote Printer DRE system
Bayfield Town of ES&S M100 701 $ 295.35
Russell
Bayfield Town of ES&S M100 371 $ 179.85
Bayview
Brown City of De ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 211 *
Pere
Brown Village of ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 478 $ 217.30
Allouez
Brown City of Green ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 255 $ 139.25
Bay
Brown City of Green ES&S DS450 (central count muni) 1421 $ 547.35
Bay
Buffalo Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 62 $ 71.70
Lincoln VeriVote Printer DRE system
Buffalo Town of Alma Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 126 $ 94.10
VeriVote Printer DRE system
Buffalo Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 155 $ 104.25
Dover VeriVote Printer DRE system
Burnett Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 452 $ 208.20
Meenon VeriVote Printer DRE system
Burnett Town of Sand Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 177 $ 111.95
Lake VeriVote Printer DRE system
Union VeriVote Printer DRE system
Dewey VeriVote Printer DRE system
Calumet Village of ES&S DS200 *
Hilbert
58
Page 16
Calumet Village of ES&S DS200 158 $ 105.30

Potter
Chippewa City of ClearCast 938 $ 378.30
Chippewa
Chippewa Town of ClearCast 1697 $ 643.95
Wheaton
Chippewa Town of ClearCast 4 $ 51.40
Anson
Clark Town of ES&S DS200 214 $ 124.90
Hendren
Clark Town of ES&S DS200 378 $ 182.30
Mayville
Clark Village of ES&S DS200 244 $ 135.40
Withee
Columbia Town of ES&S DS200 599 $ 259.65
Marcellon
Columbia Village of ES&S DS200 1134 $ 446.90
Pardeeville
Columbia Village of Rio ES&S DS200 627 $ 269.45
Columbia City of ES&S DS200 1247 $ 486.45

Wisconsin
Columbia Town of ES&S DS200 1698 $ 644.30
Dekorra
Crawford Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 159 $ 105.65
Wauzeka VeriVote Printer DRE system
Dane City of ES&S DS200 3177 $ 1,161.95
Middleton
Dane City of ES&S DS200 2266 **
Madison
Madison
Dane City of ES&S DS200 *
Madison
Madison
Dane Village of ES&S DS200 1098 $ 434.30
Maple Bluff
Dane Village of ES&S DS200 1094 **
Mazomanie
59
Page 17
Dane Village of ES&S DS200 453 $ 208.55

Windsor
Dane City of ES&S DS200 2457 $ 909.95
Verona
Dodge Town of ES&S DS200 1483 $ 569.05
Rubicon
Door Town of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 624 $ 268.40
Jacksonport Evolution (ICE)
Douglas Village of ES&S DS200 444 $ 205.40
Superior
Dunn City of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 620 $ 267.00
Menomonie Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Dunn Town of Dunn Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 897 $ 363.95
Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Dunn Town of Rock Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 597 $ 258.95
Creek Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Eau Claire City of Eau ES&S DS200 560 $ 246.00
Claire
Claire
Claire
Florence Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 458 $ 210.30
Florence VeriVote Printer DRE system
Fond Du Lac City of Fond Dominion Voting - ImageCast *
Du Lac Evolution (ICE)
Fond Du Lac City of Fond Dominion Voting - ImageCast 801 $ 330.35
Fond Du Lac City of Fond Dominion Voting - ImageCast 765 $ 317.75
Fond Du Lac Town of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 728 $ 304.80
Marshfield Evolution (ICE)
Fond Du Lac Village of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 184 $ 114.40
Fairwater Evolution (ICE)
Forest Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 129 $ 95.15
Nashville VeriVote Printer DRE system
Forest Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 263 $ 142.05
Wabeno VeriVote Printer DRE system
Grant Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 306 $ 157.10
North VeriVote Printer DRE system
60
Page 18

Clifton VeriVote Printer DRE system
Fennimore VeriVote Printer DRE system
Grant Village of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 580 $ 253.00
Muscoda Evolution (ICE)
Green Village of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 130 $ 95.50
Browntown Evolution (ICE)
Monticello Evolution (ICE)
New Glarus Evolution (ICE)
Green Lake Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 323 $ 163.05
Marquette VeriVote Printer DRE system
Iowa Town of ES&S DS200 437 $ 202.95
Linden
Iron City of Hurley Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 70 $ 74.50
Jackson Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 466 $ 213.10
Brockway VeriVote Printer DRE system
Jackson Village of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 165 $ 107.75
Alma Center VeriVote Printer DRE system
Jefferson City of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 205 $ 121.75
Whitewater Evolution (ICE)
Jefferson Town of ES&S DS200 732 $ 306.20
Milford
Juneau Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 57 $ 69.95
Finley VeriVote Printer DRE system
Juneau Town of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 515 $ 230.25
Lisbon Evolution (ICE)
Kenosha City of ES&S DS200 *
Kenosha
Kenosha Town of Paris ES&S DS200 1035 $ 412.25
Kenosha Town of ES&S DS200 2056 $ 769.60

Randall
Kenosha City of ES&S DS200 / DS450 (central 491 $ 221.85
Kenosha count muni)
Kenosha City of ES&S DS200 / DS450 (central 966 $ 388.10
Kenosha count muni)
61
Page 19
Kewaunee Town of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 527 $ 234.45

Ahnapee Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Carlton Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Montpelier Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
La Crosse City of ES&S DS200 4009 $ 1,453.15
Onalaska
La Crosse City of La ES&S DS200 409 $ 193.15
Crosse
La Crosse City of La ES&S DS200 2104 $ 786.40
Crosse
Lafayette Village of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 310 $ 158.50
Belmont VeriVote Printer DRE system
Langlade City of Antigo Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 519 $ 231.65
Langlade Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 378 $ 182.30
Antigo VeriVote Printer DRE system
Lincoln Town of ES&S DS200 264 $ 142.40
Harding
Manitowoc City of Two ES&S M100 1258 $ 490.30
Rivers
Manitowoc Town of Cato ES&S M100 1016 $ 405.60
Manitowoc Town of ES&S M100 1271 $ 494.85

Kossuth
Manitowoc Village of ES&S M100 868 $ 353.80
Cleveland
Marathon Town of Rib ES&S DS200 4763 $ 1,717.05
Mountain
Marathon City of ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 712 $ 299.20
Wausau
Wausau
Wausau
Marinette Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 327 $ 164.45
Niagara VeriVote Printer DRE system
Marinette Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 357 $ 174.95
Pembine VeriVote Printer DRE system
62
Page 20
Marquette Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 343 $ 170.05

Westfield VeriVote Printer DRE system
Menominee Town of ES&S DS200 229 $ 130.15
Menominee
Milwaukee City of ES&S DS200 975 $ 391.25
Greenfield
Milwaukee City of Oak ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 1026 $ 409.10
Creek
Milwaukee City of ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 1565 143.80 polls;
Wauwatosa 453.95 central;
Milwaukee Village of ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 1768 $ 668.80
Greendale
Milwaukee Village of ES&S DS200 1678 $ 637.30
Whitefish Bay
Milwaukee City of ES&S DS850 (central count muni) 991 $ 396.85
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Monroe City of Sparta Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 1161 $ 456.35
Monroe Town of Little Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 806 $ 332.10
Falls Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Monroe Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 159 **
Lafayette VeriVote Printer DRE system
Monroe Town of Leon Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 454 $ 208.90
Oconto Town of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 673 $ 285.55
Morgan Evolution (ICE)
Oneida Town of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 1254 $ 488.90
Sugar Camp Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Outagamie City of ES&S DS200 1937 $ 727.95
Seymour
Outagamie Town of ES&S DS200 247 $ 136.45
Greenville
Outagamie City of ES&S DS200 715 **
Appleton
63
Page 21

Appleton
Appleton
Outagamie Village of ES&S DS200 1745 $ 660.75
Hortonville
Outagamie Village of ES&S DS200 202 $ 120.70
Wrightstown
Ozaukee City of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 1623 $ 618.05
Mequon Evolution (ICE)
Ozaukee Town of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 1287 $ 500.45
Cedarburg Evolution (ICE)
Ozaukee Village of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 1128 **
Grafton Evolution (ICE)
Pepin Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 95 $ 83.25
Stockholm VeriVote Printer DRE system
Pierce Town of Rock ES&S DS200 265 $ 142.75
Elm
Pierce Town of ES&S DS200 276 $ 146.60
Salem
Pierce Village of ES&S DS200 1649 $ 627.15
Ellsworth
Polk City of Saint Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 533 $ 236.20
Croix Falls VeriVote Printer DRE system
Polk Town of Bone Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 265 $ 142.75
Lake VeriVote Printer DRE system
Polk Town of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 1225 $ 478.75
Farmington Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Polk Village of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 616 $ 265.60
Luck Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Portage City of ES&S DS200 744 $ 310.40
Stevens Point
Price Town of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 398 $ 189.30
Fifield Evolution (ICE)
Racine City of Racine Dominion Voting - ImageCast 868 $ 353.80
Evolution (ICE)
Evolution (ICE)
Evolution (ICE)
64
Page 22
Richland Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 109 $ 88.15

Marshall VeriVote Printer DRE system
Rock City of Beloit ES&S DS200 (central count muni) 536 $ 237.60
Rock Town of ES&S DS200 704 $ 296.40

Center
Rock City of ES&S DS200 (central count muni) *
Janesville
Rock City of ES&S DS200 (central count muni) *
Janesville
Harmony
Janesville
Porter
Rock Town of Rock ES&S DS200 *
Rusk Town of Big Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 195 $ 117.90
Bend VeriVote Printer DRE system
Sauk Town of ES&S DS200 667 $ 283.45
Greenfield
Sauk Town of ES&S DS200 844 $ 345.40
Merrimac
Sawyer Town of Bass Dominion Voting - ImageCast 1485 $ 569.75
Lake Evolution (ICE)
Sawyer Town of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 2094 $ 782.90
Hayward Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Shawano Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 234 $ 131.90
Almon VeriVote Printer DRE system
Shawano Town of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 592 $ 257.20
Waukechon Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Sheboygan City of ClearCast 5158 $ 1,855.30
Plymouth
Sheboygan Town of ClearCast 843 $ 345.05
Mitchell
Sheboygan City of ClearCast 1048 $ 416.80
Sheboygan
Sheboygan City of ClearCast 952 $ 383.20
Sheboygan
65
Page 23
St. Croix Village of ES&S DS200 1117 $ 440.95

Roberts
Taylor Town of Deer ES&S DS200 309 $ 158.15
Creek
Taylor Town of ES&S DS200 449 $ 207.15
Chelsea
Taylor Town of Little ES&S DS200 609 $ 263.15
Black
Medford
Molitor
Roosevelt
Trempealeau City of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 883 *
Galesville Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Trempealeau Village of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 233 $ 131.55
Ettrick VeriVote Printer DRE system
Trempealeau Village of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 294 $ 152.90
Strum VeriVote Printer DRE system
Vernon Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 218 $ 126.30
Forest VeriVote Printer DRE system
Greenwood VeriVote Printer DRE system
Kickapoo VeriVote Printer DRE system
Vernon Village of De Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 105 $ 86.75
Soto VeriVote Printer DRE system
Vilas City of Eagle Dominion Voting - ImageCast 930 $ 375.50
River Evolution (ICE) (ImageCast PCOS-
Vilas Town of Lac Dominion Voting - ImageCast 1630 *
Du Flambeau Evolution (ICE)
Walworth Village of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 756 $ 314.60
Darien Evolution (ICE)
Washburn City of Sequoia Voting - Optech Insight/ 1237 $ 482.95
Spooner Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with
Washington City of West Dominion Voting - ImageCast 839 $ 343.65
Bend Evolution (ICE) (central count
Washington Village of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 1040 $ 414.00
Richfield Evolution (ICE)
66
Page 24
Waukesha City of New ES&S DS200 / DS450 (central 477 **

Berlin count muni)
Waukesha City of New ES&S DS200 / DS450 (central 110 **
Berlin count muni)
Waupaca Village of Iola Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 280 $ 148.00
Waushara Town of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 411 $ 193.85
Aurora VeriVote Printer DRE system
Waushara Village of Sequoia Voting - AVC Edge with 205 $ 121.75
Coloma VeriVote Printer DRE system
Winnebago City of Dominion Voting - ImageCast 864 $ 352.40
Neenah Evolution (ICE) (central count
Oshkosh Evolution (ICE)
Oshkosh Evolution (ICE)
Wood City of ES&S DS200 886 $ 360.10
Marshfield
Wood Town of ES&S DS200 3094 $ 1,132.90
Saratoga
Wood Village of ES&S DS200 528 $ 234.80
Hewitt
Wood Village of ES&S DS200 304 $ 156.40
Vesper
* denotes zero-population reporting unit

** denotes reporting units for which no reimbursement request has been received
67
Page 25
Appendix B: Democracy Suite 4.14 Approval Letter
Via Email
June 29, 2015
Mr. Ian S. Piper

Director of Federal Certification
Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.
1201 18th Street, Suite 210
Denver, CO 80202
Mr. Piper:
On June 18, 2015, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (Board) granted
approval of the Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-D and 4.14-DS voting systems.
Board Staff tested and the Board approved the following hardware for the 4.14-D and
4.14-DS:
Equipment Hardware Firmware Version Type

Version(s)/Make and
Model
ImageCast Precinct 320A, 320C 4.14.17- Polling place
(ICP) US** scanner and
tabulator
Ballot Marking Device HP Office Jet
(ICP-BMD Audio) 7110* Accessibility add-on
ImageCast Central Canon Scanner DR- 4.14.17** Central count
(ICC) X10C/G1130* scanner and
tabulator
OptiPlex 9020/9030
Desktop*
ImageCast Evolution 410A 4.14.21** Polling place
(ICE) scanner and
External Monitor AOC tabulator w/
156LM00003* accessibility
functionality
Compact Flash Cards* SanDisk Ultra***: Memory device for
SDCFHS-004G ICP and ICE
SDCFHS-008G tabulators.
68
Page 26
RiData:
CFC-14A
RDF8G-233XMCB2-1
RDF16G-233XMCB2-1
RDF32G-233XMCB2-1
SanDisk Extreme:
SDCFX-016G
SDCFX-032G
SanDisk:
SDFAA-008G
Modems (4.14-DS Verizon USB Modem Analog and wireless
only)* Pantech UML295 modems for
transmitting
USB Modem MultiTech unofficial election
MT9234MU night results.
CellGo Cellular Modem

E-Device 3GPUSUS
AT&T USB Modem

MultiTech GSM MTD-
H5
Fax Modem US
Robotics 56K V.92.
* COTS devices used by the Democracy Suite Voting System.

** Board staff visually inspected firmware versions on each piece of voting equipment.
*** Dominion recommended flash cards.
69
Page 27
Board staff tested and the Board approved the following software for the 4.14-D and
4.14-DS:
Software Version
Democracy Suite Election Management System (EMS)* 4.14.37
1. Election Event Designer

2. Results Tally and Reporting
3. Audio Studio
4. Data Center Manager
5. Election Data Translator
6. Application Server
7. Network Attached Storage Server
8. EMS File System Service
9. Database Server Application
ImageCast Listener (4.14-DS only) 2.1.1.5301
*The EMS version presented for approval excluded any Adjudication or AIMS
software components (which received approval by the EAC) due to scheduling of
testing and limited practical uses of the Adjudication software in Wisconsin.
In order to maintain approval for use of the 4.14-D and 4.14-DS in Wisconsin,
Dominion must comply with the requirements of Chapter 7 of the Government
Accountability Board Administrative Code. A copy of this chapter has been enclosed
for your review. Specifically, Dominion must:
1. Timely pay the Board’s costs for testing and approving these voting systems. An
invoice will arrive separately.
2. Immediately notify the Board of any changes to these voting systems. The Board will
determine the procedures for approving any changes for use in Wisconsin on a case-by-
case basis.
3. Furnish a copy of the programs, documentation, and source code for these systems to
be placed in escrow with EscrowTech International, Inc within 90 days from the date of
this letter, in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 5.905(2).
4. Ensure that the election results from these systems can be exported on election night
into the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) in a format specified by the
Board.
70
Page 28
5. Inform the Board regarding any municipalities in Wisconsin which agree to use these
voting systems, as well as any states or other jurisdictions which approve this voting
system for use.
6. In the instance of voluntary withdrawal, involuntary decertification by the US EAC (or

other Federal agency responsible for voting systems certification), or revocation of
approval by the Board of the Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-D or 4.14-DS (including
any component), Dominion shall provide affected customers with substitute tabulation
equipment so that any impacted election may be properly tabulated pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 5.40.
7. Submit an Application for Modification for de minimis or non-de minimis changes;

however, any non-de minimis changes may require a full or limited application and
testing process.
8. Complete the attached Certificate of Performance Compliance: Delivery of Voting

System for each municipality when the 4.14-D or 4.14-DS is purchased. One certified
copy must be provided to the municipality upon delivery of the voting system and one
certified copy must be provided to the Board.
Furthermore, the Board enacted additional requirements for the Dominion Democracy
Suite 4.14-D and 4.14-DS voting systems. The Board determined that the following
continuing conditions shall remain ongoing for Dominion and purchasing localities.
1. Dominion may not impose customer deadlines contrary to requirements provided in

Wisconsin Statutes, as determined by the Board. In order to enforce this provision,
local jurisdictions purchasing Dominion equipment shall also include such a
provision in their respective purchase contract or amend their contract if such a
provision does not currently exist.
2. The 4.14-D or 4.14-DS must always be configured to include the following options:
a. Automatically reject all overvoted ballots, without the option to override.

b. Store election set-up, results, and ballot images on both compact memory cards.
Each memory card must be retained, with the data intact, for the required
retention period. If a jurisdiction transfers the data from the memory cards to a
digital storage device after the recount period they must transfer all files from
both memory cards into two separate files.
c. Prohibit the use of the Write-In Preference feature, which causes write-in votes to
always count over a ballot candidate.
d. Provide an audible warning tone and visual warning message when a crossover,
overvote, blank, or ambiguous ballot is fed into the voting equipment.
71
Page 29
e. Return a marked ballot to the voter for review prior to casting the ballot when
ballots are marked using the ICE on-board marking device system.
f. The ambiguous mark threshold ranges must be set per Dominion’s
recommendation, which are 15%-35% for the oval and 12%-35% for the write-in
box. The Board retains the discretion to alter these ranges.
g. Capture digital ballot images of all ballots cast by the system.
3. Election inspectors shall continue to check the main bin and review all ballots for
validly cast write-ins at the close of the polls at every election.
4. Election inspectors shall remake all absentee ballots automatically rejected by the
voting equipment so that the ballot count is consistent with total voter numbers.
5. Clerks and election inspectors shall ensure that external modems are secured prior
to, during, and after every election.
6. Election inspectors shall enable an on-screen review of the ballot on the ICE for
every ballot marked using the on-board ballot marking device.
7. As part of US EAC certificate: DVS-DemSuite4.14-D, only equipment included in

this certificate are allowed to be used together to conduct an election in Wisconsin.
Previous systems that were approved for use by the former Elections Board and the
G.A.B. are not compatible with the new Dominion voting system, and are not to be
used together with the equipment seeking approval by the Board, as this would void
the US EAC certificate. If a jurisdiction upgrades to 4.14-D, they need to upgrade
each and every component of the voting system to the requirements of what is
approved herein. Likewise, if a jurisdiction upgrades to 4.14-DS, they need to
upgrade each and every component of the voting system to the requirements of
what is approved herein. The 4.14-D and 4.14-DS voting systems require a
hardened computer terminal to program elections. Municipalities may not use an
AutoMARK as a ballot marking device for ballots that will be fed into a 4.14-D or
4.14-DS piece of equipment.
8. Dominion shall abide by applicable Wisconsin public records laws. If, pursuant to
a proper public records request, the customer receives a request for matters that
might be proprietary or confidential, customer will notify Dominion, providing the
same with the opportunity to either provide customer with the record that is
requested for release to the requestor, or shall advise Customer that Dominion
objects to the release of the information, and provide the legal and factual basis of
the objection. If for any reason, the customer concludes that customer is obligated
to provide such records, Dominion shall provide such records immediately upon
customer’s request. Dominion shall negotiate and specify retention and public
records production costs in writing with customers prior to charging said fees. In
72
Page 30
absence of meeting such conditions of approval, Dominion shall not charge

customer for work performed pursuant to a proper public records request, except for
the “actual, necessary, and direct” charge of responding to the records request, as
that is defined and interpreted in Wisconsin law, plus shipping, handling, and chain
of custody.
Please note that noncompliance with these, or any other requirements contained in
Wisconsin Statutes or the Government Accountability Board Administrative Code, may
result in the suspension or withdrawal of the Board’s approval of these voting systems.
We require written acceptance of the terms specified in this letter within 20 business
days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact either myself or Matthew Kitzman of the Wisconsin Government
Accountability Board.
Sincerely,
Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
Kevin J. Kennedy
Director and General Counsel
cc:
Dana LaTour
Regional Sales Manager
Dominion Voting Systems
Chad Trice
President
Command Central
Michael Haas
Elections Administrator
Ross Hein
Elections Supervisor
Matthew Kitzman
Electronic Voting Equipment Election Specialist
73
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Wisconsin Elections Commission
SUBJECT: Commission 2021 Meeting Schedule
Wisconsin State Statutes require that the Commission meet at least quarterly. In 2020 the Commission
met on nearly 40 occasions, but had originally set a quarterly meeting schedule to ensure the meeting
requirement was met and to give the public advanced notice for these quarterly meetings.
In anticipation of the February 3, 2021 meeting, I ask that the Commission please consider the following
dates in each quarter and establish, by a majority vote, the regularly scheduled meeting dates for 2021
and a Spring Election ballot access meeting for 2022. Other special meetings can also be scheduled by
the Commission Chair as requested. It is suggested that the meetings begin at 9:00 a.m., but the
Commission may decide to adjust start times as part of the motion. It is recommended that the
Commission also consider scheduling the required ballot access meeting for January 2022. This
meeting date is fixed by statute and it is typically confirmed by the Commission well in advance so that
Commissioners may adjust their schedules accordingly.
Please find suggested dates for consideration in each quarter that were developed in consultation with
the Commission Chair:
Quarter 1
Available Meeting Dates:
Monday, March 1 @ 9:00 a.m.
Tuesday, March 2 @ 9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, March 3 @ 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, March 4 @ 9:00 a.m.
Friday, March 5 @ 9:00 a.m.
Quarter 2
Tuesday, June 1 @ 9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, June 2 @ 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, June 3 @ 9:00 a.m.
Monday, June 7 @ 9:00 a.m.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe
74
WEC 2021 Meeting Schedule
February 3, 2021
Page 2
Thursday, June 10 @ 9:00 a.m.

Friday, June 11@ 9:00 a.m.
Quarter 3
Thursday, September 9 @ 9:00 a.m.
Monday, September 13 @ 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, September 16 @ 9:00 a.m.
Quarter 4
Monday, November 29 @ 9:00 a.m.
Tuesday, November 30 @ 9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, December 1 @ 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, December 2 @ 9:00 a.m.
Friday, December 3 @ 9:00 a.m.
Monday, December 6 @ 9:00 a.m.
Tuesday, December 7@ 9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, December 8 @ 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, December 9 @ 9:00 a.m.
Friday, December 10 @ 9:00 a.m.
2022 Mandatory Hold for Nomination Challenge and Ballot Access Meeting
January 20, 2022 @ 9:00 a.m.
Recommended Motion
The Commission approves the meeting schedule of [Date] in Quarter 1, [Date] in Quarter 2, [Date] in
Quarter 3, [Date] in Quarter 4. The Commission further confirms the statutorily required meeting to
consider challenges and ballot access of January 20, 2022.
75
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Special Teleconference Meeting
212 E. Washington Avenue, Third Floor
Madison, Wisconsin
4:00 p.m. January 12, 2021
Open Session Minutes
Present: Commissioner Ann Jacobs, Commissioner Marge Bostelmann, Commissioner Julie

Glancey, Commissioner Dean Knudson, Commissioner Robert Spindell Jr., and
Commissioner Mark Thomsen, all by teleconference.
Staff present: Meagan Wolfe, Richard Rydecki, Sharrie Hauge, Robert Kehoe, James Witecha, and
Reid Magney
A. Call to Order
Commission Chair Ann Jacobs called the meeting to order at 4:14 p.m. and called the roll. All
Commissioners were present.

Administrator Meagan Wolfe informed the Commissioners that proper notice was given for the
meeting.
C. Ballot Access Challenges and Issues

Chair Jacobs outlined the procedures for hearing ballot access challenges.
Deborah Lynn Kerr Complaint against Shandowlyon Lyzette Hendricks-Williams
Case No. EL 21-04
Staff Counsel James Witecha gave a presentation based on a memorandum prepared for the
January 12, 2021, Commission meeting. The challenge alleges that Shandowlyon Lyzette
Hendricks-Williams improperly used the title “Dr.” on her nomination papers and other ballot
access document and asks that she not be granted ballot access. The complaint also alleges that
the residential address on her campaign finance registration statement filed with the Wisconsin
Ethics Commission is different than the address on her ballot access paperwork filed with the
Wisconsin Elections Commission. Staff recommends sustaining the challenge regarding title

Dean Knudson, chair | Marge Bostelmann | Julie M. Glancey | Ann S. Jacobs | Robert Spindell | Mark L. Thomsen
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe 76
January 12, 2021
Wisconsin Elections Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 2
“Dr.” and striking all signatures submitted by Candidate Hendricks-Williams. Staff recommends
rejecting the address challenge.
Attorney Michael Maistelman appeared on behalf of the complainant and made a brief
presentation. He said his client withdrew the second challenge based on the address.
Attorney Stacie Rosenzweig appeared on behalf of the respondent and made a brief presentation.
Commissioners discussed the case. Commissioner Knudson made the following recommended
motions:
1) The Commission sustains the first challenge to Candidate Hendricks-Williams as the

header of her nomination papers included the title of “Dr.” which is not allowed under
Wis. Stat. § 8.10(2)(b), and strikes all signatures contained on the candidate’s
nomination papers.
2) The Commission rejects the second challenge to Candidate Hendrick-Williams as the

campaign registration statement was filed prior to the deadline and substantially
complied with the applicable requirements.
3) Candidate Hendricks-Williams is denied ballot access for the 2021 Spring Election for
failure to submit the minimum number of valid nomination paper signatures.
Commissioner Bostelmann seconded the motions.
Discussion
Roll call vote: Bostelmann: Aye Glancey: Aye

Jacobs: No Knudson: Aye
Spindell: No Thomsen: No
Motions failed 3-3 and the challenge is not sustained.
D. Ballot Access Report and Certification of Candidates for the 2021 Spring
Election
Elections Specialist Riley Willman presented the ballot access memorandum prepared for the
January 12, 2021, Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Commission certify ballot
access for 92 candidates for the offices of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Court of
Appeals Judge in Districts I, II and III and Circuit Court Judge in various counties. The
candidates are listed as “approved” in Attachment B, Candidate Tracking by Office report. Staff
also recommends that the Commission grant ballot access to candidate Ann Knox-Bauer, a
77
January 12, 2021
Page 3
candidate for Taylor County Circuit Court Judge, as a result of the affidavit submitted by the
candidate and the technical issues that resulted in the candidate falsely believing that their ballot
access filings were complete and in compliance.
Discussion
Commissioner Bostelmann made the following recommended motions:
MOTION: Accept the evidence presented in Ann Knox-Bauer’s affidavit and certify ballot
status for the candidate.
MOTION: Certify ballot access for the 92 candidates listed as “approved” in Attachment B,
Candidate Tracking by Office report, notwithstanding any candidate who was denied ballot
status because of a challenge be approved for ballot access.

Jacobs: Aye Knudson: Aye
Spindell: Aye Thomsen: Aye
Motions carried unanimously.
E. Ballot Access Report and Certification of Candidates for the 2021 Special
Election for Assembly District 89
Assistant Administrator Richard Rydecki presented the ballot access memorandum prepared
for the January 12, 2021, Commission meeting. The table below lists all of the candidates who
filed nomination paperwork, their party, and the number of signatures identified by staff:
Name of Candidate Party Number of Signatures

Debbie Jacques Republican 213
Elijah Behnke Republican 234
David J. Kamps Republican 238
Michael T. Kunesh Republican 400
Michael Schneider Republican 265
Karl Jaeger Democratic 344
MOTION: Certify ballot access for the six candidates listed in the table above. Moved by
Commissioner Glancey, seconded by Commissioner Bostelmann.

78
January 12, 2021
Page 4
Motion carried unanimously.
F. Closed Session
MOTION: Adjourn to closed session pursuant to Wis. Stat. §19.85(1)(d), to consider
strategy for crime prevention or detection. Moved by Commissioner Bostelmann, seconded
by Commissioner Glancey.

The Commission adjourned to closed session at 6:02 p.m.
G. Adjourn
The Commission adjourned in closed session at 6:34 p.m.
####
The next regular meeting of the Wisconsin Elections Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, February
3, 2021, by teleconference, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
January 12, 2021 Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting minutes prepared by:
_________________________________
Reid Magney, Public Information Officer January 19, 2021
January 12, 2021 Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting minutes certified by:
____________________________________
Marge Bostelmann, Commission Secretary February 3, 2021
79
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Special Teleconference Meeting
212 E. Washington Avenue, Third Floor
Madison, Wisconsin
12:00 p.m. January 15, 2021
Open Session Minutes
Present: Commissioner Ann Jacobs, Commissioner Marge Bostelmann, Commissioner Julie

Glancey, Commissioner Dean Knudson, Commissioner Robert Spindell Jr., and
Commissioner Mark Thomsen, all by teleconference.
Staff present: Meagan Wolfe, Richard Rydecki, Sharrie Hauge, Robert Kehoe, James Witecha, and
Reid Magney
A. Call to Order
Commission Chair Ann Jacobs called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m. and called the roll. All
Commissioners were present.

Administrator Meagan Wolfe informed the Commissioners that proper notice was given for the
meeting.
C. Ballot Access Challenges and Issues

Steven Hepp Complaint against Donald Pridemore
Case No. EL 21-05
Staff Counsel James Witecha made a presentation based on a memorandum, “Ballot Access
Challenges – Candidates for Partisan Office – Spring 2021,” prepared for the January 15, 2021
commission meeting. This complaint alleges that various required filings submitted by Candidate
Donald Pridemore, a candidate for the special election in State Senate District 13, were deficient
because the residential address listed are not his actual residential address, thus rendering the
documents falsely filed and legally insufficient (Declaration of Candidacy, Statement of
Economic Interest, Nomination Papers).
Staff recommends the commission reject the challenge because Mr. Pridemore provided a valid
lease as proof of his residence at the address listed on his ballot access paperwork.

Dean Knudson, chair | Marge Bostelmann | Julie M. Glancey | Ann S. Jacobs | Robert Spindell | Mark L. Thomsen
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe 80
January 15, 2021
Page 2
Challenger Steven Hepp was not present.
Candidate Don Pridemore was present. His attorney, Joe Voiland, offered no comment.
Commissioner Thomsen asked Attorney Voiland questions regarding statements Mr. Pridemore
made about the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Discussion.
MOTION: Reject the challenge to Donald Pridemore’s ballot access, as all necessary
nomination and candidacy paperwork contains an accurate residential address. Moved by
Commissioner Spindell, seconded by Commissioner Knudson.
Discussion.

D. Ballot Access Report and Certification of Candidates for the 2021 Special
Election for Senate District 13
Administrator Wolfe presented the ballot access memorandum for the January 15, 2021,
Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Commission certify ballot access for six
candidates:
Name of Candidate Party or Statement of Principle Number of Signatures

Melissa Winker Democratic 752
Todd Menzel Republican 453
Don Pridemore Republican 641
John Jagler Republican 648
Spencer Zimmerman Independent, Trump Conservative 427
Ben Schmitz Independent, American Solidarity Party 480
81
January 15, 2021
Page 3
MOTION: Certify ballot access for the six candidates listed in the table above. Moved by
Commissioner Bostelmann, seconded by Commissioner Spindell.

E. Discussion of Special Voting Deputies for the February 16 Spring Primaries
Administrator Wolfe made a presentation based on a memorandum, “Nursing Home and Care
Facility Voting Program for the February 16, Non-Partisan Primary and Special Elections,”
prepared for the January 15, 2021 commission meeting. Given that the public health advice
related to visitors and SVDs in care facilities is unchanged from the November 2020 election,
staff recommends that the Commission continue this approach for the February 16, 2021 Spring
Primary elections. A continuation of this approach will allow voters in care facilities to receive
their ballots without delay. She stated that public health advice may change before the April 6,
2021 Spring Election, and staff will bring further recommendations to the commission prior to
the Spring Election.
Commissioner Knudson discussed his concerns that the wording of the recommended motion
tells clerks that they shall not follow state statutes regarding attempting to send SVDs to nursing
homes and care facilities before mailing absentee ballots to residents.
Commissioners discussed the issue and Administrator Wolfe offered alternative language for the
recommended motion.
Commissioner Spindell stated his opposition to the motion because he believes there are
currently safe ways for SVDs to assist nursing home and care facility residents using personal
protective equipment and social distancing, or in the alternative, video technology.
MOTION: WEC directs local election officials to forgo attempting in-person SVD visits for the
February 16, 2021 elections and proceed directly to mailing ballots to voters in care facilities
who make a valid request. WEC further directs staff to continue working with public health
officials to prepare a recommendation regarding SVD voting for the April 6, 2021 election for
the Commission’s review at a future meeting. Moved by Commissioner Thomsen, seconded by
Commissioner Glancey.
82
January 15, 2021
Page 4
Commissioner Knudson stated his opposition to the language of the motion and offered
Administrator Wolfe’s alternative language as a friendly amendment. Commissioners Thomsen
and Glancey accepted the friendly amendment, which reads:
MOTION: Because of the prohibition on visitors in care facilities, including Special Voting
Deputies (SVD), clerks will be unable to accomplish the two in-person SVD visits and should
therefore proceed directly to mailing ballots to voters who request them who reside in a care
facility that would be otherwise served by SVD’s for the February 16, 2021 primary.

Spindell: No Thomsen: Aye
Motion carried 5-1.
MOTION: The commission directs staff to proceed with researching alternative ways to operate
the SVD program should prohibitions on visiting nursing homes and care centers continue due to
COVID-19. Moved by Commissioner Spindell, seconded by Commissioner Bostelmann on the
condition that the motion not be limited to COVID-19 but any kind of pandemic or other
infection.
Commissioner Spindell accepted the amendment.
Discussion. Commissioner Jacobs summarized the discussion and said the motion would direct
staff to create a plan and timetable for studying ways for SVDs to assist voters living in nursing
homes or care facilities when SVDs are not able to enter a facility for reasons of health or other
emergencies. Staff will present a plan at a meeting before the April election or let the
Commission know if that is not possible.
Commissioner Thomsen stated he opposed the motion because staff will study the issue without
the need of a formal motion.

Spindell: Aye Thomsen: No
Motion carried 5-1.
83
January 15, 2021
Page 5
F. Adjourn
Commissioner Knudson asked for an agenda item at a future meeting to report on
numbers of indefinitely confined voters and how many people on the ERIC Movers list
voted. Administrator Wolfe said that is planned for the February 3, 2021 meeting.
Commissioner Knudson also asked for an agenda item at a future meeting regarding the
next voter list maintenance mailing using ERIC data.
MOTION: Adjourn. Moved by Commissioner Bostelman, seconded by Commissioner

Knudson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 1:31 p.m.
####
The next regular meeting of the Wisconsin Elections Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, February
3, 2021, by teleconference, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
January 15, 2021 Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting minutes prepared by:
_________________________________
Reid Magney, Public Information Officer January 15, 2021
January 15, 2021 Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting minutes certified by:
___________________________________
Marge Bostelmann, Commission Secretary February 3, 2021
84

November 3, 2020 Election Data Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

November 3, 2020 Election Data Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

November 3, 2020 Election Data Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTICE OF OPEN AND CLOSED MEETING

Wisconsin Elections Commission

B. Administrator’s Report of Appropriate Meeting Notice

C. Personal Appearances (Time reserved for personal appearances may be

D. Report on November 2020 Election Data 2

E. Report on ERIC Movers List Status 32

F. Report on WEC September 2020 Informational Mailer 38

G. Final Report on 2020 Voting Equipment Audit 44

H. 2021/2022 Commission Meeting Schedule 74

I. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meetings 76

1. Election Complaints – Wis. Stat. § 5.05

§19.851 - The Commission’s discussions concerning violations of election law shall

Wisconsin Elections Commissioners

II. Election Data

General Election Total Ballots Cast

Age Wisconsin Active Voter Registrations Jul-Dec

Wisconsin Registered Voters 2008-2020

Wisconsin Elections Commission Public Contacts

Email Telephone Calls Call Center Calls

Wisconsin Elections Commission 2020 Public Contacts

General Election Month Public Contacts

Email Telephone Calls

Voting Methods 2016-2020

Table 12. Table 13.

Absentee Ballots Cast Election Day Ballots Cast

2020 General Election Absentee Voting Method

Table 16. Table 17.

Percent Absentee Ballots Rejected Absentee Ballots Not Returned

2020 General Election

Did Not Vote

C. Special Voting Deputies

D. Indefinitely Confined Voters

Voters Certifying Indefinitely Confined Status

Returned Absentee Ballots

2020 Indefinitely Confined Voters

Have not provided

2020 General Election

E. ERIC Movers List Voters

ERIC Active-Mover's Group Size

Original ERIC Movers List - Current Status

III. Supplemental Data

Supplemental Table 1 (List of Graphics and Charts)

Table 1 General Election Total Ballots Cast

Supplemental Table 1 List of Graphs and Charts

Supplemental Table 2 (Absentee Voting by Mail)

2020 GENERAL ELECTION PERCENT OF VOTES NUMBER OF VOTES

2020 GENERAL ELECTION PERCENT OF VOTES NUMBER OF VOTES

Supplemental Table 3 (Indefinitely Confined Ballot Requests)

2020 GENERAL ELECTION PERCENTAGE OF ABSENTEE NUMBER OF ABSENTEE

PERCENTAGE OF ABSENTEE NUMBER OF ABSENTEE

Supplemental Table 4 (Absentee Ballot Status Definitions) – See footnote 3 on page 12

Report Definitions Statewide Database Classification Fields (Defined by Municipal Clerks)

Rejected Certification Insufficient Returned, to be Rejected Certification insufficient Active

Rejected at Polls/MBOC Certification insufficient Inactive

Rejected Superseding Ballot Returned, to be Rejected Superseding Ballot Returned Active

Ineligible Superseding Ballot Returned Inactive

Rejected at Polls/MBOC Vote already recorded for this voter Inactive

Rejected Certificate Envelope Returned, to be Rejected Certificate envelope compromised or Active

Ineligible Voter Deceased Inactive

Rejected Voter Ineligible Returned, to be Rejected Voter not qualified Active