Full Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION NOTICE DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. July 29, 2026 A party may file with the Supreme Court a Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and RULE 809.62. Appeal No. 2024AP2484 Cir. Ct. No. 2024CV730 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, V. HEATHER BOEHM CLERK OF THE CITY OF WHITEWATER, RESPONDENT, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, INTERVENOR-APPELLANT. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Walworth County: DAVID M. REDDY, Judge. Reversed. Before Neubauer, P.J., Gundrum, and Lazar, JJ. No. 2024AP2484 ¶1 GUNDRUM, J. The Republican National Committee (RNC) appeals from an order of the circuit court granting the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) motion to extend the November 5, 2024 election voting hours at the Whitewater—Armory (Armory) and University of Wisconsin Whitewater— University Center (University Center) polling places. For the following reasons, we conclude the court erred in granting the DNC’s motion, and we reverse. BACKGROUND ¶2 On November 5, 2024, near the end of a hotly contested election for United States President, control of the United States House of Representatives and Senate, and control of state houses around the country, including Wisconsin’s, the DNC filed an election-related action in Walworth County Circuit Court either shortly before or after Wisconsin’s 8:00 p.m. statewide statutory poll closing time. The motion requested “an order extending polling hours, an ex parte temporary restraining order and/or an order for preliminary injunction” to compel City of Whitewater Election Clerk Heather Boehm to extend voting hours at the University Center and Armory polling locations. (Formatting altered.) In support, the DNC submitted the “Declaration of Evelyn Schmidt,”1 in which Schmidt declared that (1) she had “been observing the polling place at the … University Center” “[s]ince around 6[:00 p.m.]”; (2) “[t]he polling place has experienced very long lines”; (3) “[t]hese voters need to update their voter registrations, which is the cause of the delay”; (4) “[b]ased on my observations and what I have been told by volunteers, voters who need to update their registrations have needed to wait in line for up to five hours”; (5) “[w]ithin the past few hours, based on my conversations with 1 The motion indicates Evelyn Schmidt is also a petitioner and joined in the motion. While Schmidt submitted a declaration in support of the motion, she is not a named petitioner in the circuit court case nor a named respondent in this appeal. 2 No. 2024AP2484 volunteers, there have been 400-500 voters in line waiting to update their registrations and cast their ballots”; and (6) she was “particularly concerned because the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater has many disabled students, and waiting in line for up to five hours is very difficult given the limited opportunities to sit down while waiting.” (Formatting altered.) Schmidt made no declarations related to the Armory polling location. ¶3 The RNC learned of the DNC’s action and intervened, and at 9:28 p.m., the circuit court held a hearing on the DNC’s motion. After comments by counsel for all parties, the court asked the DNC, “how do you intend to get the word out” if the court were to grant the DNC’s request to reopen the Armory and University Center polling places. Counsel for the DNC assured the court that the DNC “ha[s] a communication apparatus,” including “text messages to voters,” to quickly disseminate such information. ¶4 In determining it had “inherent jurisdiction and authority” to grant the DNC’s request, the circuit court referred to an “informational memorandum” of the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which memorandum neither party presented to the court and the parties apparently were not given an opportunity to review or comment on.2 The court also referred to WIS. STAT. § 6.96 (2023-24),3 which details procedures for the marking and preserving of a ballot if a federal court were to order that an elector be permitted to vote after the 8:00 p.m. statutory poll closing time. The circuit court ordered that voting be reopened at the University 2 The memorandum is available online. WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, Court Document Templates for Extension of Polling Hours, (Oct. 12, 2018), https://elections.wi.gov/memo/court-document-templates-extension-polling-hours (last visited July 20, 2026). 3 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version. 3 No. 2024AP2484 Center and Armory locations, allowing electors assigned to those polling locations to vote until 10:30 p.m., or later if they were in line at that time.4 The court said it was ruling this way to “err on the side of caution,” adding, “[W]hat’s the harm.” So that ballots cast under its order could be identified in the event of an appellate reversal, the court ordered ballot-marking and -preserving procedures similar to those in § 6.96. The court also said it was “err[ing] on the side of caution allowing voters to vote who wanted to vote but gave up as it were because of the long lines.” ¶5 The RNC appeals. DISCUSSION ¶6 The RNC asserts the circuit court erred in granting the DNC’s injunction request to allow voting at these two polling places past the 8:00 p.m. statutory poll closing time.5 The DNC counters that we should not consider the 4 Because the circuit court entered its order after the polls had closed, we at times use the word “reopen.” Whether an order extending voting time occurs before or after the statewide statutory poll closing time of 8:00 p.m. makes no difference in our analysis. For the reasons explained in this decision, the court did not have the authority to extend voting hours, whether the extension was ordered before or after the polls closed. 5 The RNC raises the specter of a “violat[ion] [of] the [E]qual [P]rotection clause of the 14th Amendment.” While the RNC may have been able to develop this claim into something meritorious, it failed to do so. Because this claim is insufficiently developed, particularly for a constitutional claim, we will not address it. See Clean Wis., Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, ¶180 n.40, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768 (stating that we need not address undeveloped arguments); see also Wisconsin Conf. Bd. of Trs. of United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Culver, 2001 WI 55, ¶38, 243 Wis. 2d 394, 627 N.W.2d 469 (“Constitutional claims are very complicated from an analytic perspective, both to brief and to decide…. [W]e cannot allow parties to simply raise the specter of a constitutional violation through insufficiently developed arguments in order to garner an interpretation of a statute in their favor.” (quoting Cemetery Servs., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Reg. & Licens., 221 Wis. 2d 817, 831, 586 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1998)). Further, because we reverse on other grounds, we need not address the RNC’s additional argument that because the DNC apparently waited until after the polls had closed to file its motion, the doctrine of laches should have barred relief. See Hegwood v. Town of Eagle Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2013 WI App 118, ¶1 n.1, 351 Wis. 2d 196, 839 N.W.2d 111 (recognizing that when the resolution of one issue is dispositive, we need not address other issues raised by the parties). 4 No. 2024AP2484 merits of the appeal because the matter is moot, or alternatively, barred by the doctrine of laches. It also argues that if we consider the merits, the circuit court had the authority to act as it did and appropriately exercised that authority. The RNC is correct; the DNC is not. I. Mootness ¶7 Before addressing the merits, we consider the DNC’s contention that this matter is moot and, thus, not appropriate for review. The DNC so contends because “[t]he results of the November [2024] election have been certified, all referenda have taken effect, and all winning candidates have taken office—this court’s decision will change none of that.” We agree this matter is moot for those reasons. However, we may decide the merits of a moot case, as we do here, when the matter is appropriate and worthy of review. Indeed, just a few years ago, our supreme court issued a decision on the merits in an election-related case despite its mootness. ¶8 In Jefferson v. Dane County, 2020 WI 90, ¶8, 394 Wis. 2d 602, 951 N.W.2d 556, the petitioners raised an election-related challenge approximately ten days prior to the spring general election involving a highly contested state supreme court race, a presidential primary race, and contests for other offices. Despite apparent mootness, the supreme court nonetheless issued a decision on the merits eight months after the election, stating, “[E]ven in cases where an issue is moot, we may nevertheless reach the merits of the dispute.” Id., ¶15. The court explained, as it had many times before, that it is appropriate to do so when (1) the issue is of great public importance; (2) the situation occurs so frequently that a definitive decision is necessary to guide circuit courts; (3) the issue is likely to arise again and a decision of the court would alleviate uncertainty; or (4) the issue will likely be repeated, but evades appellate review 5 No. 2024AP2484 because the appellate review process cannot be completed or even undertaken in time to have a practical effect on the parties. Id. (emphasis added) (quoting State ex rel. Unnamed Person No. 1 v. State, 2003 WI 30, ¶19, 260 Wis. 2d 653, 660 N.W.2d 260, and citing Fine v. Elections Bd. of Wis., 95 Wis. 2d 162, 166, 289 N.W.2d 823 (1980)); see, e.g., Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, ¶32, 366 Wis. 2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 109 (addressing merits despite mootness); Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶80, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607 (same); City of Milwaukee v. Washington, 2007 WI 104, ¶1 n.2, 304 Wis. 2d 98, 735 N.W.2d 111 (same); State v. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, ¶16, 287 Wis. 2d 44, 707 N.W.2d 495 (same); State ex rel. Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, ¶12, 278 Wis. 2d 24, 692 N.W.2d 219 (same); State v. Morford, 2004 WI 5, ¶8, 268 Wis. 2d 300, 674 N.W.2d 349 (same); State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶15, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341 (same); State ex rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 209 Wis. 2d 112, 120 n.6, 561 N.W.2d 729 (1997) (same). The Jefferson court chose to address the issues presented because “[w]ithout correction, the erroneous interpretation and application of WIS. STAT. § 6.86(2)(a)[6], which affect matters of great public importance, are capable of repetition.” Jefferson, 394 Wis. 2d 602, ¶15. In the case now before us, the first, third, and fourth considerations compel us to decide this appeal despite its mootness. A. The issue is of great public importance. ¶9 Whether a circuit court has the authority to reopen a polling place or otherwise extend voting past the 8:00 p.m. statutory poll closing time, and if so, under what circumstances it can exercise that authority, is of the utmost importance 6 WISCONSIN STAT. § 6.86(2)(a) relates to the automatic delivery of absentee ballots to electors who are “indefinitely confined” or “disabled for an indefinite period.” 6 No. 2024AP2484 to election integrity and public confidence in election results. The legislature and governor enacted into law a clear, uniform election-day closing time for polls across Wisconsin, treating electors from all areas of the state equally. A court’s order that disregards this clear, uniform law and affords select electors more time to cast ballots than other electors in the state directly undermines the integrity of the election and public confidence. As our supreme court has made clear, “protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process, as well as promoting the public’s confidence in elections … are always exceedingly important.” Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker, 2014 WI 98, ¶73, 357 Wis. 2d 469, 851 N.W.2d 262. ¶10 Here, the circuit court reopened these two polling locations and extended the voting hours after the polls throughout the state had closed, and in doing so, it permitted electors assigned to vote at these two locations more time to cast their ballots than electors anywhere else in the state. It acted not at the request of a neutral elections clerk or an affected elector unable to otherwise vote, but at the request of one of the nation’s two most highly partisan organizations (the DNC, with the RNC being the other). The court issued its injunction despite the absence of any evidence indicating voting concerns at the Armory and the thinnest of evidence supporting allegations related to the University Center. ¶11 Until recently, the front page of the website for the DNC stated, “Together, we will elect Democrats up and down the ballot.” Democratic National Committee, https://www.democrats.org [https://web.archive.org/web/2026031903 0904/https://democrats.org/]. The “Who we are” button of the website explained that the DNC “is committed to electing Democrats everywhere—from the school board to the Oval Office. We’re mobilizing voters across the country.” Id. The front page invited visitors to provide their email address, phone number, and zip code and informed them that “[b]y entering your phone number, you are consenting 7 No. 2024AP2484 to receive recurring automated text messages & calls from the DNC with news & info about our work,” apparently building its “communication apparatus” for “text messages to voters” like counsel for the DNC mentioned to the circuit court in this case. Id. Similarly, the front page of the RNC website proudly proclaimed that the RNC was “engaged in a national effort to fight for our proven agenda … and elect Republicans up and down the ballot.” Republican National Committee, https://www.rnc.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20260115080259/https://www.rnc.org/]. ¶12 It would be pollyannish indeed to believe the DNC and the RNC are expending time, money, and effort to neutrally encourage every elector to vote, regardless of political leanings. Such a belief would be directly contrary to these partisan organizations’ avowed missions of, respectively, “electing Democrats everywhere—from school board to the Oval Office” and “elect[ing] Republicans up and down the ballot.” See Democratic National Committee, https://democrats.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20260319030904/https://democrats.org/]; Republican National Committee, https://www.rnc.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20260115080259/https://www.rnc.org/]. The DNC advances its agenda by getting more voters to the polls who are likely to vote for the DNC’s preferred candidates—generally Democratic candidates—and the RNC advances its agenda by getting more voters to the polls who are likely to vote for the RNC’s preferred candidates—generally Republican candidates. It is that simple. It is axiomatic that the DNC sought the injunction here to extend the voting hours at the Armory and the University Center not for the neutral and noble goal of equally benefitting all electors in these voting areas, but for the partisan goal of allowing votes to still be cast by those electors it had pre-identified as favoring Democratic candidates. Unlike the circuit courts in other Wisconsin counties where the DNC 8 No. 2024AP2484 sought injunctions to extend voting hours on election night, see infra ¶¶20-23, the court here granted the DNC’s request, and in doing so, compromised the integrity of the election. ¶13 Contrary to the circuit court’s “what’s the harm” declaration in extending voting hours at these two polling places, the harm to election integrity is significant. As one court has explained, commendable zeal to protect voting rights must be tempered by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity of the voting process. Courts should not hesitate to vigorously enforce the election laws so that every properly registered voter has the opportunity to vote. But equal vigilance is required to ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot. Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are inevitably diluted. State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000 v. Baker, 34 S.W.3d 410, 413 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). In short, the “harm” includes illegally cast votes diluting legally cast votes and the loss of confidence of the public in the integrity of our elections. In addition, as we will address later, significant harm was done by the court’s decision to allow post- 8:00 p.m. ballots to even be cast in the first place, due to the potential legal-political circus that would have been created had the presidential-election results in Wisconsin and the nation been closer in the November 2024 election. ¶14 Whether a state court may extend voting hours at certain polling locations beyond 8:00 p.m., and if so, under what circumstances, is unquestionably a matter of great public importance demanding that we review the circuit court’s action in this case with the utmost care. Such care is best provided when legal review is removed from the heat and flames of election night, when the review can benefit from thoughtful briefing and dispassionate consideration of the facts and the law, as has now occurred during the months of this appeal. 9 No. 2024AP2484 ¶15 The uniform closing of polls across the state at 8:00 pm. on election night creates a unique opportunity for one party to position itself—with advanced preparation of arguments, statutory and case law support, polished briefing, affidavits and declarants—to file a twelfth-hour surprise action, such as this one, precluding any opportunity for an adverse party to present an equally well-prepared response. A respondent will not have advanced knowledge of what factual or legal bases the petitioner will present to the court—whether an assertion of “long lines,” “administrative delays,” “inefficiencies,” “hurdles,” or a vast possibility of other bases—or in what county such an action may be filed. The reflexive respondent will have to quickly try to cobble together some marginally adequate response, having virtually no time to gather evidence to counter whatever factual claims a declarant might present to convince a court to extend voting hours in the selected area(s). Here, the DNC was the only party prepared and poised to present its side of the factual and legal issues, and as it admitted to the circuit court, it also had its “communication apparatus” ready to churn out get-out-the-vote texts to select electors. To add to that, the DNC’s November 5, 2024 legal-political strategy highlighted how all the above concerns can be magnified by a coordinated strategy of filing lawsuits in multiple counties at the twelfth hour, making it even more difficult for a respondent, or intervenor, to prepare an adequate legal response to address a pre-planned, pre-coordinated offensive through the courts. ¶16 Both the DNC and RNC are sophisticated parties with highly aggressive and well-tuned get-out-the-vote operations that allow them to increase the turnout of those electors favorable to their candidates. Laura MacCleery, Goodbye Soft Money, Hello Grassroots: How Campaign Finance Reform Restructured Campaigns and the Political World, 58 CATH. U. L. REV. 965, 972, 994, 996 (2009) (discussing the RNC’s “sophisticated direct-mail network” and the 10 No. 2024AP2484 DNC’s “voter file” and “huge voter database for get-out-the-vote calls and other persuasion purposes”); David Paul Kuhn, DNC Blunts GOP Microtargeting Lead, POLITICO (May 24, 2008), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-blunts-gop- microtargeting-lead (last visited July 20, 2026) (“Each party compiles hundreds of … data points on one voter, mines the data for patterns and labels a voter on a 1 to 100 scale to measure likely support [and] cross-references phone numbers and addresses for each individual.”); Press Release, Democratic National Committee, DNC and ASDC Announces “Organize Everywhere, Win Anywhere” Strategy— Largest-Ever Monthly DNC Investment into Democratic State and Territory Parties (April 24, 2025) https://democrats.org/news/dnc-and-asdc-announces-organize- everywhere-win-anywhere-strategy-largest-ever-monthly-dnc-investment-into- democratic-state-and-territory-parties/ (last visited July 15, 2026) (discussing the DNC’s “national voter file with robust augmentations” and the “best-in-class tools for accessing and leveraging that data.”); Democratic National Committee, https://democrats.org/dnc-tech/ (last visited July 15, 2026) (“DNC Tech processes, standardizes, and enriches voter files for all 50 states and D.C. Additionally, the DNC acquires critical data like phone numbers and geocodes that campaigns up and down ballot leverage to effectively reach voters.”). With the presidency and control of the House and the Senate as incredibly significant prizes, the national parties pursue every avenue to harvest additional votes for their preferred candidates. Particularly as a perennial “swing” state, Wisconsin could, on its own, provide the deciding electoral votes that determine which of the two polar opposite and antagonistic parties’ candidates will assume the most powerful offices in the world for years, greatly affecting the direction of our nation’s policies, foreign and domestic. The stakes could not be higher. 11 No. 2024AP2484 ¶17 As it turned out, within hours after the polls closed on November 5, 2024, it became clear the presidential election in Wisconsin was not close enough to swing Wisconsin’s ten Electoral College votes from one presidential candidate (Donald Trump) to the other (Kamala Harris) by use of targeted legal action, as sometimes occurs in close political races. Robert Yoon, Why AP called Wisconsin and the White House for Donald Trump, ASSOCIATED PRESS, (Nov. 6, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-wisconsin-president-race-call-winner- explain-d07049f884d25ceae0d1376157d07c35 (last visited July 15, 2026) (“With nearly all of the vote counted early Wednesday, the AP declared Trump the winner of Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes at 5:34 a.m. ET ….”); Lawrence Andrea, Donald Trump wins Wisconsin, propelling his return to the White House, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL (Nov. 6, 2024), https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/06/donald-trump- wins-wisconsin-presidential-vote-in-2024-election/75708195007/ (last visited July 15, 2026). Historically, Wisconsin has had an often razor-thin swing nature. Like Florida immediately following the 2000 presidential election—where “hanging chads” became a household term because George W. Bush appeared on election night to have defeated Al Gore by just a few hundred votes in that state and the resulting electoral votes of Florida alone would determine the fate of the presidential election—2024 Wisconsin similarly could have turned into a highly contentious post-election political-legal battleground. Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder, Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 12, 2001), https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining- vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html (last visited July 15, 2026); Bush leads Gore by 327 votes in Florida recount, Associated Press reports, CNN (Nov. 10, 2000), https://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/10/election.president.02/ 12 No. 2024AP2484 (last visited July 15, 2026). Had the national presidential election (or even a Wisconsin United States Senate race) turned on dozens of Wisconsin votes, the citizens of this state would have seen very clearly “the harm” of the circuit court’s order allowing electors to cast tardy ballots at these two polling places. ¶18 Not addressing this issue at this time—after thoughtful briefing and removed from the high-stakes heat of election night—would be a gross dereliction of our duty to the citizens of this state. Now is precisely the time to address these important legal and electoral issues to provide greater clarity for future election- night actions. B. The issue is likely to arise again, and a decision of this court would alleviate uncertainty. ¶19 Great power to significantly affect many people’s lives is often at stake in an election. Because of this, there is no reason to believe high-stakes elections will lessen in intensity and combativeness any time soon. Nor is there any reason to believe Wisconsin’s status as a swing state will abate any time soon. Political and legal operatives will no doubt continue to use every available avenue to prevail in high-stakes election contests in this state. ¶20 As the DNC explains on appeal, it sought an extension in voting hours at the Armory and the University Center due to “administrative delays,” “long lines,” and “extensive wait times,” which it claimed “likely caus[ed] voters to be dissuaded” from voting. (Emphasis added.) Notably, as indicated, Walworth County was not the only area in Wisconsin that the DNC targeted for such legal action on election night. 13 No. 2024AP2484 ¶21 The DNC filed two other similar actions in Wisconsin alone, one in Dunn County and the other in Winnebago County, in the waning moments of the November 5, 2024 election, both also seeking a judicial order affording extra voting time in targeted areas. According to CCAP, the motion the DNC filed in each case apparently was titled: “Petitioners’ Motion for an Order Extending Polling Hours, an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and/or an Order for Preliminary Injunction”—essentially the word-for-word identical title of the motion filed in this case.7 (Formatting altered.) ¶22 In the Dunn County case, the circuit court held a hearing at 9:24 p.m., just four minutes before the hearing began in the instant case. The clerk’s notes from that hearing state as follows: Attorney Wachs [second counsel for the DNC] informs the court that throughout the day the lines were very long. Asks the court to enter injunctive relief to allow individuals to vote. They asked the city clerk to add an additional voting machine at the location and/or to allow individuals to vote at a less bus[y] ward. Attorney Ludeman [counsel for city clerk-respondent Kate Martin] believes that Ms. Martin had adequate staff at the locations today. Attorney Scott [counsel for RNC] does not believe there has been extraordinary circumstances for individuals to vote today. Individuals who are in line to vote are able to vote. The request is to re-open the voting polls since the polls have closed, he does not believe the court has the ability to re- open the voting hours. The court has the ability to extend the hours, but the hours [sic] are closed. Attorney Wachs informs the court that individuals were discouraged to vote due to the long lines today. … WIS[CONSIN] STAT. [§ ]6.78 sets the polling hours, which are from 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. The court has not seen 7 In the Dunn County case, however, the final word was “hearing” instead of “injunction.” Since “hearing,” as used in that title, makes little sense, it may have been a simple scrivener’s error. 14 No. 2024AP2484 any extraordinary circumstances to permit the polling location additional voting hours. WIS[CONSIN] STAT. [§ ]6.78(4) states that any elector waiting to vote in line prior to 8:00 p.m. shall be permitted to vote regardless if the voting location is closed. The [c]ourt finds that the [c]ity is doing what they are supposed to do, those in line prior to 8:00 p.m. are permitted to vote as outlined in WIS. STAT. [§ ]6.78. The court is not going to issue an order. Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Martin, Dunn County Case No. 24CV245 (Nov. 5, 2024) (emphases added). The hearing concluded at 9:32 p.m., and the Dunn County circuit court dismissed the DNC’s petition. Id. ¶23 In the Winnebago County case, the DNC also sought an order extending the voting hours at select polling places. According to the clerk’s notes for the hearing held about one hour after the polls closed across the state, “Petitioner [DNC] is requesting for polls to be reopened ….” Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Bartlett, Winnebago County Case No. 24CV1040 (Nov. 5, 2024). As in Dunn County, the circuit court in Winnebago County denied the DNC’s request. Id. ¶24 Twelfth-hour election night challenges are not just limited to Wisconsin, as several cases cited by the RNC make plain. On November 5, 2002, for example, a day of national and state elections, the Democratic Party of Arkansas filed a petition alleging that numerous voters in the county had been unable to exercise their right to vote due to administrative missteps. Republican Party of Ark. v. Kilgore, 98 S.W.3d 798, 798-99 (Ark. 2002). The petition requested immediate action to protect the right to vote, and shortly before the statutorily designated time for poll closure, a circuit court judge ordered that the polling places be kept open for one and one-half hours beyond the designated closing time. Id. at 798, 800. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas determined the circuit court 15 No. 2024AP2484 judge had “clearly abused his discretion and exceeded his authority in extending the voting hours”: Our election law is clear that the polls open at 7:30 a.m. on the day of the election and close at 7:30 p.m. See Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-304 (Repl. 2000). Persons who have presented themselves for voting and who are in line at the polling place to do so when the polls close are permitted to vote. See Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-314(c) (Repl. 2000). The legislative branch of our state government has spoken on this issue, and there is no provision in our Election Code authorizing an extension of voting times by the judiciary. Id. at 800-01. ¶25 On November 7, 2000, the day of the 2000 national election that pitted George W. Bush against Al Gore for the office of president, the Missouri State Democratic Committee, the Gore and Lieberman 2000 Committee, the William L. Clay, Jr. Campaign Committee, and a citizen filed a lawsuit seeking an order to extend voting three hours past the 7:00 p.m. statutory poll closing time. See Baker, 34 S.W.3d at 411-12. The basis for the suit was the citizen’s claim that he “has not been able to vote and fears he will not be able to vote because of the long lines at the polling places/machine breakdowns in St. Louis, Missouri, that have lasted for several hours.” Id. at 411. The suit further alleged that “numerous” other voters had been unable to vote due to administrative missteps and that, because of large voter turnout and an insufficient number of polling places, “many otherwise eligible voters will de facto be denied their right to vote.” Id. ¶26 Despite the relevant Missouri statute providing that electors in line at the 7:00 p.m. poll closing time would be permitted to vote, a circuit court judge ordered the voting hours extended in St. Louis until 10:00 p.m. Id. at 412. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals “issued … peremptory writs of prohibition because [the circuit court judge] lack[ed] jurisdiction to extend the hours of voting 16 No. 2024AP2484 established by state statute.” Id. at 412. The appellate court added, “moreover, extension of the hours of voting would only permit voting by persons not entitled to participate and would do nothing to remedy the alleged problems identified in the petition.” Id. at 412. It further explained that “the courts of this state are obligated to follow and apply the law as written by the legislature” and “[i]t is obviously within the legislature’s power to specify the hours in which voters are to cast their ballots.” Id. ¶27 The Baker court also observed that pursuant to the second sentence of the statute, anyone in line when the polls close must be permitted to vote. Although the lines may be long and the number of working machines less than desirable, anyone in line at seven o’clock will eventually be permitted to vote no matter how late the hour and their vote will count. If any voters in line at seven o’clock are unwilling or unable to stay and vote, their inconvenience will not be lessened by extending the hours in which new voters can join the line. Extending the hours of voting simply permits voting by persons not entitled to vote due to their failure to come to the polls on time. [The circuit court judge] has no authority to authorize voters who did not come to the polls during the hours established by the legislature to participate in the election. Id. The court added that “allegations that voters stood in long lines for a great length of time and that some voters went home without voting … are plainly insufficient to support an order extending the hours of voting beyond those established by the legislature.” Id. at 412 n.4. ¶28 On November 5, 1996, the date of the national and state elections that year, the Democratic State Central Committee of Michigan moved for an emergency temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to keep the polls open in certain precincts in the city of Westland, Michigan for three hours past the statutory closing time of 8:00 p.m. Southerland v. Fritz, 955 F. Supp. 760, 760-61 (E.D. 17 No. 2024AP2484 Michigan 1996). The Democratic Party asserted that there were lengthy delays in those precincts “apparently caused by the malfunctioning of new polling machines and the fact that the ballot for the election was longer than usual.” Id. at 761. It argued, as the federal district court phrased it, that “‘excessive’ lines and delays at the polls had the effect of disenfranchising voters” and “voters’ schedules did not allow them the opportunity to wait in line for an extended period of time, nor … afford them the opportunity to return to the polls numerous times throughout the day before the 8:00 [p.m.] closing.” Id. The city clerk countered that even if it could lawfully extend the hours, an extension was not necessary because Michigan statutory law already provided the remedy to ensure no voter would be denied his or her right to vote, as it provided that “[e]very qualified elector present and in line at the polls at the hour prescribed for the closing thereof shall be allowed to vote.” Id. (alteration in original; citation omitted). The court agreed with the clerk “that this remedy prevents any voter from being denied the right to vote due to lines or delays at the precinct, and that this remedy is exclusive.” Id. at 762. The court further noted that even if there was an emergency, “another statutory provision sets forth a procedure for creating and administering emergency ballots should any of the polling machines break down and no reserve machines are available.” Id. ¶29 We reference the in- and out-of-state cases above to show that the twelfth-hour challenge in this case is hardly a unique, “one-off” situation. Especially with Wisconsin being a key, targeted swing state in high-stakes elections, it is easy to conclude that challenges such as the three the DNC brought in Wisconsin on election night November 5, 2024, are “likely to arise again,” see Jefferson, 394 Wis. 2d 602, ¶15, and would be much more likely if this court were to abandon its duty to provide clarity on this issue now. Indeed, “without correction,” see id.,