A complex legal dispute over Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe's continued service heads to the state's highest court for resolution.
According to Wisconsin Watch, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case focusing on whether appointees can legally remain in their positions after their terms expire, potentially determining if Wolfe can keep her role as the state's top election official.
The case emerged after Wolfe's term expired in the summer of 2023, leading to a deadlocked commission vote on her reappointment and subsequent attempts by Republican senators to remove her. The Wisconsin Elections Commission and Wolfe filed a lawsuit against Republican legislative leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, Senate President Chris Kapenga, and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.
Republicans began targeting Wolfe, who serves in a nonpartisan capacity, following Donald Trump's loss in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. She faced intense scrutiny over various election commission decisions and guidance provided to local election officials.
The controversy intensified when the commission's vote on Wolfe's reappointment ended in a deadlock. Democratic commissioners abstained from voting, citing a 2022 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that allows appointees to remain in their positions after term expiration.
Despite opposition and pressure from the right, Wolfe has maintained her position for 16 months as a holdover appointment. She recently expressed commitment to overseeing the 2024 presidential election, though she hasn't clarified her long-term intentions.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission operates with an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners. As administrator, Wolfe can make recommendations but holds no voting power in the commission's decision-making process.
Jeff Mandell, founder of the liberal legal group Law Forward, shared his perspective on the case:
This case is fascinating because the shoes are all on the wrong feet. And maybe what that shows is that there's less — maybe on all sides — there's less of a matter of principle and Constitution than of political convenience.
The situation has highlighted broader issues in Wisconsin's appointment processes. Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School's State Democracy Research Initiative, noted:
Whether or not you think that [Wolfe] should continue in her role, I think it is important for appointment processes and confirmation processes to happen in the way that they're supposed to happen.
State law requires the election commission administrator to serve a four-year term, with commissioners responsible for appointing a new administrator when the position becomes vacant. If no appointment occurs within 45 days of a vacancy, a legislative committee gains the power to appoint an interim administrator.
Republican legislators argue that the current situation allows a partisan minority to indefinitely maintain a holdover administrator without Senate confirmation. However, Democratic supporters of Wolfe maintain they're following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling on holdovers.
The administrative future of Wisconsin's election oversight hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments. The case's resolution will determine Wolfe's position and set a precedent for how similar situations involving holdover appointments are handled in the future.
The ultimate decision will impact Wisconsin's election administration structure as the state continues to navigate political tensions surrounding election oversight and management. The Supreme Court's ruling could provide clarity on the complex intersection of administrative law and political appointments in the state government system.
