Wisconsin Court Weighs Absentee Ballot Replacements

What Happened

A Wisconsin judge is considering whether absentee voters who already returned a complete ballot may cancel it and receive a replacement before the August 11 primary.

Three Dane County voters filed the lawsuit on July 23, 2026, with support from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. They sued after several candidates changed their plans in the Democratic primary for governor. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley left the race on July 8 and returned on July 17. Lieutenant Governor Sara Rodriguez left on July 16. Former state economic development director Missy Hughes also ended her campaign, but the names remain on ballots that were already printed.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 4-2 on July 9 to tell local clerks that a voter may not replace a complete, undamaged absentee ballot after returning it simply because the voter changed a choice. The plaintiffs want the court to block that instruction. As of publication, sources reviewed for this article had not reported a final ruling.

Background

Wisconsin uses the term ballot spoiling for canceling a ballot so a voter can mark another one. This case concerns a ballot that was completed and returned. It is different from ballot curing, which means fixing a missing signature, witness address, or another defect. It is also different from a separate lawsuit about absentee ballots that arrive late.

The question has a complicated court history. In 2022, a Waukesha County judge ruled that Wisconsin law did not allow returned absentee ballots to be spoiled. In February 2026, a state appeals court reversed that judgment because the earlier lawsuit had not been properly served on a legislative committee. The appeals court did not decide whether ballot spoiling itself was legal or illegal.

After that reversal, the Elections Commission debated what guidance to give clerks. Three Republican commissioners and one Democratic commissioner supported the July 9 restriction. Two Democratic commissioners opposed it.

In-person absentee voting began July 28 and continues through August 9 in many communities. Completed absentee ballots must reach the proper election officials by 8 p.m. on August 11. The Associated Press reported that nearly 108,000 ballots had already been returned when the court heard arguments.

The Legal Question

The plaintiffs say Wisconsin statutes allow a voter who makes a mistake on an absentee ballot to receive another ballot. They also argue that the state constitution protects a meaningful right to vote and equal treatment. A voter at a polling place can usually receive up to three ballots after making mistakes, they note, while the commission’s rule gives fewer options to someone who voted early.

The commission’s defenders answer that the statutes do not clearly authorize clerks to retrieve and cancel a complete ballot after it has been returned. They say election officials need a clear stopping point and should not have to search sealed ballot containers whenever a candidate leaves a race or a voter changes a preference.

The judge must decide whether existing law permits replacement in this situation and whether the commission’s guidance conflicts with state constitutional protections. The case does not ask the court to count two ballots for one voter. Under the plaintiffs’ proposed process, the original ballot would be canceled before a replacement was counted.

What Different Sides Are Saying

The voters challenging the rule

The plaintiffs say early voters should not lose the chance to make a meaningful choice when a candidate withdraws after they return a ballot. They argue that election officials can cancel the first ballot in the voter system and issue a replacement without allowing a second vote.

Fact check: Wisconsin systems can record that an absentee ballot was returned, and ballot spoiling has existed as an election procedure. The lawsuit does not propose counting both ballots. However, the legal authority to retrieve and replace a complete returned ballot is the disputed question, not a settled fact.

Supporters also say the commission changed course after the 2022 judgment was reversed and after some ballots had already been mailed.

Fact check: The February appeals decision did erase the 2022 judgment, but it did so for a service error and did not approve ballot spoiling on the merits. The commission then adopted its July instruction by a bipartisan 4-2 vote.

The commission’s rule and its supporters

Commission Chair Don Millis has argued that state law does not authorize changing a vote after a complete ballot has been returned. Supporters warn that a new rule close to the primary could confuse clerks and voters and create practical problems with ballots stored in sealed containers.

Fact check: Wisconsin law does not contain a sentence that expressly says a voter may retrieve a returned ballot because a candidate withdrew. It does contain provisions about replacement ballots and voter mistakes, and the parties disagree about how those provisions fit together. A court has not yet provided a final answer in this new case.

Republican intervenors describe the request as a partisan attempt to give Democratic voters a do-over in a changing primary.

Fact check: The suit is supported by the state Democratic Party and arose from the Democratic governor primary. Still, any rule announced by the court would be interpreted as election law, not as permission to count an extra Democratic ballot. Its exact reach would depend on the court’s order.

Fact Check

Claim: A vote for a candidate who withdrew is automatically invalid. False. If the candidate’s name remains on the printed ballot, election officials can count the marked vote for that person even if the campaign ended.
Claim: The plaintiffs want voters to cast two counted ballots. False. They want the first ballot canceled before a replacement is accepted.
Claim: The February appeals court ruled that ballot spoiling is legal. False. It reversed the earlier judgment for a procedural service problem and did not reach the merits.
Claim: This case is about fixing a missing signature or witness address. False. That process is ballot curing. This case concerns replacing a complete returned ballot after a voter changes a choice.
Claim: Wisconsin has no deadline for absentee ballots. False. They must reach election officials by 8 p.m. on primary day.

What Happens Next?

A quick ruling is important because voting is already underway. The losing side could appeal, which could create more uncertainty for clerks. Voters should follow current instructions from their own municipal clerk or the Wisconsin Elections Commission and should not assume that a returned ballot can be replaced unless officials announce a change.

Discussion Questions

What is the difference between ballot spoiling and ballot curing?
Should an early voter be able to change a vote when a candidate withdraws?
Which part of Wisconsin law seems most unclear?
How should courts compare early voters with Election Day voters?
What practical problems could replacement ballots create for clerks?
Which fact-check most changed your understanding?
Does party support for a lawsuit affect how you evaluate its legal argument?
How close to an election should a court change voting procedures?
What information should clerks give voters while the case is pending?
If you were the judge, what rule would you adopt and why?

Wisconsin Judge Weighs Whether Voters Can Replace Returned Absentee Ballots