Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

No collusion by clerks over voter list

- Eric Litke Milwaukee Journal Sentinel USA TODAY NETWORK-WISCONSIN

A number of old election controvers­ies are roaring back to life amid the Wisconsin recount, including the question of votes cast by indefinitely confined voters.

Voters who declare themselves in that category — and under state law it’s up to the voter — are able to cast an absentee ballot without having to provide a copy of a photo ID, which is otherwise required for voters.

After President Donald Trump lost Wisconsin by 20,600 votes, his campaign requested a recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties — Democratic stronghold­s and the state’s two largest counties. On Friday, Trump attorneys sought to discard any ballot from a voter who declared themselves indefinitely confined in Dane County.

The county’s Board of Canvassers denied that request, but it was expected to also resurface in the Milwaukee County recount and later in court.

State Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin, raised a similar objection in a Nov. 9 statement, with an additional accusation.

His release talked about the need for confidence in election outcomes and asserted “a great number of irregulari­ties have taken place leading up to and including this past Election Day that have breached the trust of the electorate.”

(For the record, election officials have reported no such irregulari­ties, and a canvass has since confirmed the size of Trump’s loss to Democrat Joe Biden.)

Sanfelippo then said this: “Clerks in Milwaukee and Dane Counties colluded to (add) nearly 250,000 individual­s to the ‘Indefinitely Confined’ voter list.”

Sanfelippo is effectively making two claims: That clerks added 250,000 people to this list and that they colluded in doing so. We’ll examine both elements.

Who is indefinitely confined?

The crux of the controvers­y is who exactly can claim to be indefinitely confined as we sit in the middle of an ongoing pandemic.

The issue surfaced when Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell sent an email March 25 to the municipal clerks in his county saying this:

“During this emergency and based on the Governors Stay at Home order I am declaring all Dane County voters may

‘Indefinitely confined’ list

Joe Sanfelippo

State representa­tive, R-New Berlin

The statement

“Clerks in Milwaukee and Dane Counties colluded to (add) nearly 250,000 individual­s to the ‘Indefinitely Confined’ voter list.”

The verdict

Voters decide whether to go on the list, not clerks

indicate as needed that they are indefinitely confined due to illness. This declaratio­n will make it easier for Dane County voters to participat­e in this election by mail in these difficult times.”

McDonell then shared that email with every county clerk in the state. Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenso­n released a statement the same day saying voters there could do likewise.

On March 27, the Wisconsin Elections Commission met and provided more detailed guidance on indefinitely confined status. The two key points:

1. Designatio­n of indefinitely confined 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 indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or infirmity or are disabled for an indefinite period.

2. Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by electors simply as a means to avoid the photo ID requiremen­t without regard to whether they are indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness, infirmity or disability.

Christenso­n then issued revised advice, saying, “It is very important to note that ‘indefinite confinement’ based only upon the Governor’s Safer at Home Emergency Order cannot be used to legally avoid the photo ID requiremen­t.”

Also on March 27, the Republican Party went to court to block the Dane County advice that the stay-at-home order allowed anyone to claim they were indefinitely confined. Four days later the Wisconsin Supreme Court sided

PolitiFact on WTMJ-TV

You can watch PolitiFact Wisconsin segments on Wednesday and Friday evenings during the 4 p.m. newscast on WTMJ-TV Milwaukee.

with the GOP.

In a statement responding to that ruling, McDonell said, “My intent at all times was to protect the safety of seniors afraid to leave their homes due to this pandemic.” He said he simply attempted to follow guidelines from the commission.

McDonell noted that letters were also sent to all voters who claimed that status in May, confirming whether they remained indefinitely confined.

The list

The indefinitely confined voter concept originates in a section of state statute that says this:

“An elector who is indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or infirmity or is disabled for an indefinite period may by signing a statement to that effect require that an absentee ballot be sent to the elector automatica­lly for every election. The applicatio­n form and instructio­ns shall be prescribed by the commission, and furnished upon request to any elector by each municipali­ty. The envelope containing the absentee ballot shall be clearly marked as not forwardabl­e. If any elector is no longer indefinitely confined, the elector shall so notify the municipal clerk.”

In others words, it’s up to the voter. The elections commission makes this explicitly clear in a May 13 memo, saying “all changes to status must be made in writing and by the voter’s request.” It noted clerks don’t have the power to remove anyone from the indefinite­ly confined list either, unless the voter requests it.

So Sanfelippo’s claim about clerks adding voters to the list is misleading at best in that it implies decision-making power lies with clerks. Local clerks simply record the decisions made by voters.

Sanfelippo and his staff did not return a phone call or emails seeking evidence for his claim, or informatio­n on where the 250,000 number came from.

That figure may have been drawn from a MacIver Institute report that said about 250,000 people were listed as indefinitely confined in the days before the Nov. 3 election, including many who registered as such after the April election. Reid Magney, spokesman for the elections commission, said about 215,000 ballots were returned in the Nov. 3 election from voters listed as indefinitely confined.

No proof of “collusion”

Since Sanfelippo didn’t respond to our requests for comment, we also don’t know exactly what he was referring to as collusion.

McDonell said he was confused by the allegation.

“I guess I am not sure what is meant by collusion. I let all the county clerks in the state know what I was telling my municipal clerks, including Milwaukee,” he said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin.

Merriam-Webster defines collusion as a “secret agreement or cooperatio­n especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.”

That’s a high bar to clear for Sanfelippo.

There’s a big difference between a secret agreement for deceitful purposes and the communicat­ion we know of — an email that included not just two clerks but every clerk in the state.

A March 26 memo from the nonpartisa­n Legislativ­e Reference Bureau said it would be appropriat­e, consistent with elections commission guidance and “simply a matter of public outreach” for clerks to encourage people who are legitimate­ly unable to vote in person to claim that indefinitely confined status, “assuming the clerks make a good faith effort to determine if the voter understand­s his or her declaratio­n.”

Our ruling

Sanfelippo said, “Clerks in Milwaukee and Dane Counties colluded to (add) nearly 250,000 individual­s to the ‘Indefinitely Confined’ voter list.”

Each element of this claim runs into issues.

Clerks don’t determine who is on the list as this implies, they simply record which voters list themselves this way. They don’t even have the authority to remove someone from it.

And we’ve seen no evidence of the boldest element of this claim, that some kind of collusion was involved. The two clerks did communicat­e, but as part of a larger group email. For our fact checks, the burden of proof is on the speaker, who refused to provide any evidence.

We rate this claim False.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States