AR18,16,105
Despite being aware of the RV's lack of handicap accessibility and the complaint
6filed on March 24, 2022, Administrator Wolfe did not take any action. Administrator
7Wolfe's failure to address this issue allowed Racine to employ its converted
8RV/mobile polling place in two elections for partisan purposes. The RV became a tool
9for partisan politics, favoring certain voters over others and making it easier for the
10preferred voters to cast their ballots.
AR18,16,12
11Article 11. Administrator Wolfe's Maladministration of CTCL Grants
12from the September 2020 Election Preparedness Report
AR18,16,1713
On September 1, 2020, Administrator Wolfe released a 125-page report titled
14“How Wisconsin is Prepared for the November 3, 2020 Election." She compiled this
15report in response to inquiries from legislators and WEC commissioners. While
16preparing this report, Wolfe requested election preparation plans specifically from
17the cities of Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee.
AR18,17,518
It is important to note that these three cities, Green Bay, Madison, and
19Milwaukee, held particular significance because they were among the five Wisconsin
20cities that received approximately 86 percent of the substantial funding provided by
21Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to support the
22administration of Wisconsin's elections. The publicly stated purpose of this funding
23was to safeguard Wisconsin voters from the spread of COVID-19. However, the
24actual allocation of funds, such as Green Bay's use of less than 1 percent for personal
25protective equipment (PPE), raised questions about the true intent behind these
1expenditures. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in the financial reporting of the
2other “Zuckerberg Five" cities has contributed to suspicions that these funds were
3used to promote voter turnout among specific demographic groups favored by
4partisan actors like Mark Zuckerberg, David Plouffe, David Becker, the mayors of
5the “Zuckerberg Five" cities, and the Biden campaign.
AR18,17,116
The central issue with Administrator Wolfe's maladministration of the “How
7Wisconsin is Prepared for the November 3, 2020 Election" report does not revolve
8around its contents but rather its omissions. Rather than disclosing the CTCL
9grants to the legislature, Administrator Wolfe conspicuously removed any references
10to Zuckerberg, CTCL, CTCL grants, CTCL partners, and their employees from her
11report on election preparedness.
AR18,17,1712
During a subsequent Assembly committee hearing, Administrator Wolfe
13claimed that she became aware of the CTCL funding only when a city (though
14unnamed in her statements, it is clearly Green Bay based on her email exchanges)
15submitted an addendum to a report on August 30, 2020. However, this claim does
16not align with the facts, as she had received emails from CTCL and its partners at
17least six weeks before publishing her report on September 1, 2020.
AR18,17,2518
Furthermore, it is highly improbable that Administrator Wolfe remained
19unaware of CTCL's grants until late August, as news of the $6.3 million in CTCL
20grants awarded to the “Zuckerberg Five" cities was widely covered by radio,
21television, and print news sources in early July. For Wolfe to assert that she first
22learned of CTCL's grants after compiling her “How Wisconsin is Prepared for the
23November 3, 2020 Election" report strains credibility. Additionally, she could have
24easily added an addendum regarding CTCL grants to her report after its initial
25submission, following the example set by the City of Green Bay.
AR18,18,3
1Article 12. Administrator Wolfe's Maladministration of Reporting
2CTCL and the “Zuckerberg Five" Clerks for Unauthorized Creation of
3Absentee Voter Instructions
AR18,18,114
Wisconsin Statute § 6.869 clearly stipulates that the WEC is responsible for
5prescribing uniform instructions to be provided by municipalities to absentee
6electors. This statute underscores the importance of standardized absentee voting
7instructions across the state. However, a substantial number of
8emails—approximately 80—reveal communications between CTCL, the Center for
9Civic Design (CCD), the clerks of the “Zuckerberg Five" cities, and Milwaukee
10Election Commission Executive Director Woodall-Vogg regarding the development
11and printing of absentee ballot instructions in both English and Spanish.
AR18,18,1412
The actions taken by municipal election officials to create their own absentee
13ballot instructions stand in violation of Wis. Stat. § 6.869, as the statute exclusively
14grants the authority to WEC to establish uniform absentee voting instructions.
AR18,18,2115
In one email from CTCL's Whitney May, the “Zuckerberg Five" city clerks were
16solicited for their feedback on ballot instructions and envelopes. On August 18, 2020,
17Administrator Wolfe updated Uniform Instructions for Absentee Voters. In this
18communication, Wolfe made it explicitly clear that these instructions would be
19utilized for all absentee voters, commencing with the absentee ballots that clerks
20would send out for the November 3rd General Election, following WEC's directive,
21which is evident maladministration.
AR18,19,622
On the very same day that Wolfe disseminated her uniform instructions for
23absentee voters, CTCL's Whitney May corresponded with the clerks of the
24“Zuckerberg Five" cities. May's email indicated CTCL's intention to halt an
25operation due to WEC's desire for statewide conformity in format and their plans to
1embark on new envelope design work in the following year. This communication
2raises questions regarding how May was privy to WEC's intentions and the fact that
3they were supplying uniform absentee ballot instructions. Notably, May's email did
4not mention that the creation of their own absentee ballot instructions by CTCL,
5CCD, and the clerks of the “Zuckerberg Five" cities potentially violated Wis. Stat. §
66.869.
AR18,19,157
In an additional incident, Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl sent an email
8on September 17, 2020, to Whitney May and the other clerks of the “Zuckerberg
9Five," including an attachment containing Spanish-language absentee ballot
10instructions. It's imperative to note that Wis. Stat. § 6.869 does not differentiate
11between English and Spanish absentee ballot instructions; it unequivocally states
12that the commission shall prescribe uniform instructions for municipalities to
13provide to absentee electors. Wolfe's memo from August 18, 2020, left no room for
14ambiguity—it mandated the use of uniform absentee ballot instructions for absentee
15voters, which should be applied regardless of language.
AR18,19,1916
The discrepancy between Wolfe's memo and Witzel-Behl's actions, sending
17Spanish absentee ballot instructions, necessitates an investigation into whether any
18of the “Zuckerberg Five" cities distributed their versions of absentee ballot
19instructions in Spanish, potentially contravening Wis. Stat. § 6.869.
AR18,20,220
This situation exemplifies how CTCL and its partners influenced Wisconsin
21election officials leading up to the 2020 election. Even though the “Zuckerberg Five"
22clerks ultimately did not send out their versions of absentee ballot instructions, the
23act of creating them likely violated state law. What is certain is that Administrator
24Wolfe did not hold CTCL, CCD, the “Zuckerberg Five" clerks, or Milwaukee Election
1Commission's Claire Woodall-Vogg accountable for producing their own absentee
2ballot instructions in apparent violation of Wis. Stat. § 6.869.
AR18,20,5
3Article 13. Administrator Wolfe's Maladministration in Establishing a
4Systematic Program for the Removal of Incompetent Individuals from the
5Voter Roll
AR18,20,136
Wisconsin law dictates that individuals whose voting rights have been legally
7terminated by a court due to incompetence are ineligible to vote. However, this legal
8provision is not self-executing. To ensure the proper functioning of this process, it
9is incumbent upon the Administrator of the WEC to institute a system that enables
10municipal clerks to promptly identify cases of adjudication for incompetence,
11allowing for the removal of the affected individuals from the voter roll. Establishing
12and maintaining such a system is a legal obligation that falls within the purview of
13the Administrator's role.
AR18,20,1914
In the maladministration of the Administrator's fulfillment of this duty, there
15exists a substantial risk that the legislative intent to exclude from the voter roll those
16individuals who have been declared incompetent to vote will remain unfulfilled.
17Administrator Wolfe's failure to initiate and sustain such a system represents a
18significant deficiency in her execution of one of the fundamental responsibilities
19inherent in her position.
AR18,20,21
20Article 14. Administrator Wolfe's Unlawful Failure to Remove Names
21from the Wisconsin Voter Roll
AR18,21,222
In Wisconsin, the law distinguishes between two categories of voters: “eligible"
23and “ineligible." “Eligible" voters are those who meet the qualifications to register
24and have their names placed on the voter roll, while “ineligible" voters are not
25permitted to be listed on this roll. These designations are consistent with the
1statutes' language and align with the legislative intent and the reasonable
2expectations of Wisconsin's citizens.
AR18,21,113
Regrettably, Administrator Wolfe has initiated maladministration with a
4systematic replacement of “eligible” and “ineligible” with “active" and “inactive."
5These non-statutory designations, although seemingly harmless, have resulted in
6consequences that have compromised both the integrity and the public trust in our
7voter roll. Under Administrator Wolfe's leadership, names are never removed from
8the voter roll, even in cases of individuals who have passed away. Rather than
9designating these deceased individuals as “ineligible" voters, as the statute would
10dictate, Administrator Wolfe categorizes them as “inactive" voters, allowing their
11names to persist on the voter roll.
AR18,21,1612
One of Administrator Wolfe's past justifications for this practice was a reference
13to HAVA (Help America Vote Act), which requires states to maintain historical
14records of all those who have voted. However, her explanation lacks completeness,
15as there is no requirement to retain the names of deceased “historical" voters on the
16voter roll.
AR18,21,2417
At best, this practice of retaining deceased individuals on the voter roll
18needlessly complicates the list, making it more challenging for auditors and others
19interested in assessing its accuracy. At worst, it provides a reservoir of names that
20can be “activated" two weeks before an election and “deactivated" two weeks after,
21by anyone with access to the WisVote system. This process operates in a manner that
22conceals the identities of both the “activator" and the “deactivator." Consequently,
23it fosters suspicions of potential fraud or, at the very least, creates a fertile ground
24for such suspicions.
AR18,22,3
1In sum, Administrator Wolfe's oversight of this problematic system is
2unacceptable to the people of Wisconsin and raises serious concerns about the
3integrity of our voter roll.
AR18,22,5
4Article 15. Administrator Wolfe's Promotion of an Unlawful Voter
5Registration Form
AR18,22,166
On September 5, 2023, the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, presided over
7by the Honorable Michael P. Maxwell, issued a summary judgment in favor of a
8concerned citizen who contested the use of the WEC's voter registration form. The
9court's decision was based on two primary grounds: firstly, that the form did not
10conform to state law requirements, and secondly, that WEC had never engaged in the
11statutory rule-making process of the additional information requested on the form,
12which was not mandated by Wisconsin law. Throughout this relevant period, it
13remains undisputed that Administrator Wolfe actively promoted this
14maladministration and encouraged clerks to accept it. Administrator Wolfe was
15likely aware and should have certainly been aware, that the disputed form solicited
16more information from citizens than what was authorized by Wisconsin law.
AR18,22,2217
As emphasized by the Circuit Court, “WEC was granted authority by the State
18Legislature to administer Wisconsin's election laws and was subsequently tasked
19with using that authority to prescribe the voter registration forms permissible for
20use in our state. WEC, however, has failed in this fundamental duty by permitting
21the use of the National Form in Wisconsin, despite never officially prescribing its
22use."
AR18,23,323
Administrator Wolfe, in her capacity as Wisconsin's “chief elections official,"
24has exhibited reluctance or incapacity to fulfill this fundamental responsibility,
25much like several others detailed herein. Her mismanagement of WEC has
1transformed the agency into one requiring substantial reform or, possibly,
2dissolution, as was the case with its predecessor, GAB. The crucial initial step
3toward achieving either goal is the impeachment of Administrator Wolfe.
AR18,23,7
4Resolved by the
assembly, That per Article VII, section 1, of the Wisconsin
5Constitution and Wis. Stat. § 17.06 (1), the Assembly hereby initiates proceedings
6for the impeachment of Meagan Wolfe, the Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections
7Commission, based on allegations of maladministration in office.