by U.S. Department of Justice
Today, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division sent a letter to the Wisconsin Elections Commission regarding its failure to provide a complaint process or hearing for Wisconsin voters, in violation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
The letter states that the Wisconsin Elections Commission failed to meet HAVA’s requirement of a state-based administrative complaint procedure. Compliance with all federal elections laws is mandatory, and the receipt of federal funds under HAVA is conditioned on compliance with the Act.
Election integrity and compliance with federal elections laws are essential to protect our constitutional republic. Wisconsin’s refusal to give complainants any recourse to report violations they may have observed or experienced while voting is a significant violation of federal law, and a betrayal of the confidence of the American people.
“Courts across the land, including our highest court, have repeatedly defended measures to ensure election integrity,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, “We have made it our highest priority to identify jurisdictions that fail to follow our elections laws and vigorously enforce the law by all means available.”
The letter issued today also notifies the U.S. Election Assistance Commission of Wisconsin’s unlawful actions and calls for the withholding of federal funds to Wisconsin for violating HAVA.
# # #
____________________________
BREAKING: US DOJ sends letter to Wisconsin Election Commission for failing to follow the law!!!
—> The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, issued a formal letter on June 4, 2025, to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
The letter notifies WEC that it is failing to comply with federal election law, specifically the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This notice also went to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
The central issue is that Wisconsin has not established the legally required process for handling HAVA complaints.
What the Law Requires
Under Section 21112 of HAVA (also referred to as Section 402), every state that accepts federal HAVA funds must create an administrative process that lets voters file complaints about violations of the law. The law lays out clear requirements:
The process must be fair and apply equally to everyone.
Anyone who believes a violation has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur must be allowed to file a complaint.
If the person filing the complaint asks for a hearing, the state must provide one and create a record of it.
If the state finds a violation, it must offer a proper remedy.
What Wisconsin Is Doing Wrong
The DOJ states Wisconsin is not meeting these federal requirements. The state has chosen not to provide hearings on HAVA complaints filed against the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Instead, it relies on a 2022 state court opinion that said the Commission cannot investigate itself. That position effectively shuts down any chance for voters to have their complaints heard or addressed.
As a result, people who believe the Commission violated federal election law are left with no process, no legal decision, and no interpretation of the law.
The DOJ points to a federal court case where a judge warned that refusing to offer a hearing leaves complainants stranded. The case cited is Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Millis, 720 F. Supp. 3d 703.
The DOJ is making it clear that this situation cannot continue. It warns that Wisconsin’s failure to comply may justify stopping the flow of federal HAVA funds to the state.
According to the letter, Wisconsin has already received more than 77 million dollars in federal money through HAVA. That funding is conditioned on the state following the law.
The letter also reminds the Elections Commission that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized protecting the integrity of elections as a matter of high importance.
That point is backed by a 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, where the Court said preserving election integrity is a compelling government interest.
This letter is more than a warning. It serves as a formal record that Wisconsin is not following federal law and is at risk of penalties, including losing federal funding.
The DOJ is also signaling that it expects WEC to correct its process immediately and begin providing the hearings and remedies required under HAVA.
The letter also leaves the door open for legal or administrative action. It sets the stage for future enforcement, including possible lawsuits, investigations, or formal action by the Election Assistance Commission.
The Department of Justice is putting Wisconsin on notice. The state is out of compliance with HAVA and must fix its administrative complaint process without delay.
If it does not, it could face serious consequences, including the loss of federal money and legal action. This letter can be used as evidence in future litigation and may also be a useful tool for pushing legislative or procedural reforms in Wisconsin.
US DOJ tells Wisconsin Election Commission they are breaking the law! See their letter in photos above.
This is bigger than you might think, every state in the nation falls under HAVA.
1. Example: A HAVA Complaint is Filed
A voter or other eligible individual files a written complaint alleging a violation of Title III of HAVA, which may include:
-Failure to provide provisional ballots
-Inaccessible voting machines for disabled voters
-Improper ID procedures
-Failure to ensure a secure, accurate, and error-free voting system
The complaint must meet the state’s procedural rules and request a hearing if the complainant wants one.
2. Acknowledgment and Preliminary Review
The state election authority (e.g., the Wisconsin Elections Commission) must acknowledge receipt.
The agency will perform a preliminary review to determine whether the complaint states a valid HAVA issue. If valid, the case proceeds to hearing if the complainant requested one.
3. Notice and Scheduling of the Hearing
-Both the complainant and the respondent (e.g., a local election official or the elections commission) are notified.
-A hearing is scheduled, usually with reasonable advance notice.
-A hearing officer or administrative law judge may be assigned, depending on the state’s system.
4. The Hearing Itself (Required to Be “On the Record”)
This is a formal administrative proceeding, often similar to a mini-trial. The components typically include:
A. Opening Statements
-Both parties briefly state their positions.
-The complainant explains the alleged HAVA violation and what remedy is being sought.
B. Presentation of Evidence
-Documents: Election records, communications, manuals, voter registration logs.
-Witnesses: Election officials, poll workers, voters.
-Sworn Testimony: All witnesses testify under oath.
-Cross-examination: Each side has the right to question the other side’s witnesses.
C. Legal Arguments
-The parties can present legal arguments in writing or orally.
-This may include citations to federal law, HAVA regulations, and prior administrative rulings.
D. Record Creation
-Everything is transcribed or recorded.
-The hearing record includes all exhibits, witness testimony, and procedural filings.
5. Post-Hearing Briefs (Optional)
-The parties may be allowed to file written briefs summarizing their arguments and applying the law to the facts.
6. Decision Issued
-A written determination is made by the hearing officer or commission.
-The decision must:
-Identify whether a HAVA violation occurred.
-Specify the legal basis for the decision.
-Include a remedy or resolution, if warranted.
Examples of remedies:
-Ordering corrective action (e.g., update voter registration processes)
-Requiring re-training of poll workers
-Issuing a directive to follow HAVA procedures in future elections
7. Publication and Appeal
-The decision is published or made available to the public (as HAVA requires transparency).
-The complainant or respondent may have a right to appeal under state law, though HAVA itself does not provide a federal appeal mechanism unless broader constitutional or federal civil rights issues are implicated.
8. Potential Federal Consequences
If the state fails to conduct such hearings or enforce compliance:
-The U.S. Election Assistance Commission may take action, including:
-Withholding or conditioning federal HAVA funding.
-The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division may intervene or file a lawsuit for noncompliance.
I already asked for a HAVA hearing on a complaint I filed against the Wis. Election Commission just days ago.
# # #
Continue Reading