July 15, 2026 – The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a records request for Notice of Voting Eligibility (NVE) forms because a 5-2 majority interpreted the guardianship statutes as excepting the forms from a public records request in
Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA) v. Secord, 2026 WI 27.
“The legislature said, with limited exceptions, ‘court records pertinent to the finding of incompetency are closed,’” wrote Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz for the majority. “Thus, the [WVA] does not have a right to the forms under our public records law.”
Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler dissented, joined by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, interpreting “pertinent to the finding of incompetency” to exclude NVEs, which they would release because NVEs aren’t protected findings of guardianship.
“The majority’s conclusion fails to recognize this important distinction: A finding of incompetency is distinct from a finding that one has lost the right to vote.”
Records Request Litigation
The WVA requested the NVE forms from “registers in probate across the state” in order “to identify individuals who have been found incompetent to vote.”
Jay D. Jerde, Mitchell Hamline 2006, is a legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin, Madison. He can be reached by
email or by phone at (608) 250-6126.
Two requests came to Walworth County’s register in probate, Kristina Secord. She denied the public records request. The WVA sued.
A parallel lawsuit,
WVA v. Reynolds, 2023 WI App 66, affirmed the Juneau County Circuit Court’s decision that NVEs couldn’t be released.
When the court of appeals
initially decided Secord, it ruled contrary to
Reynolds. The
supreme court reversed and remanded because
Secord failed to follow precedent.
On remand, the
court of appeals affirmed the Walworth County Circuit Court’s decision not to release the records.
Simplified Public Records Mandamus Standard
The public records law presumes that the public may review any government record, subject to recognized exceptions and whether a public policy stronger than presumed openness prevents disclosure.
Mandamus, a writ “compel[ling] a public officer to perform a legal duty,” provided the common law recourse to obtain public records. The legislature codified the remedy in creating the public records law in 1981.
Secord “represents a ‘historical outlier’” in state public records law, the majority said, because the parties, circuit court, and court of appeals used the common law mandamus four-part test.
“Courts should consider only the right to the records because our statute does not require analyzing the last three mandamus elements, and analyzing them risks undermining public records law,” the majority explained.
Requests for public records under the statute do not require any showing of damages, a reason for the request, or that no other remedy exists, the majority clarified. The public records law is the remedy.
The traditional standard of review for mandamus, erroneous abuse of discretion, also doesn’t apply in reviewing a public records decision, the majority distinguished.
Whether a person has a right to records under the public records law is a question of law, the majority held.
Closed Findings and Records
A hearing on whether an individual is competent is closed to the public. As part of a guardianship proceeding, the circuit court may “‘declare that the individual has incapacity to exercise’” other rights, including the right to vote.
A circuit court uses an NVE form to communicate that decision to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) and local election officials “that are ‘responsib[le] for determining challenges to registration and voting.’”
When the circuit court restores the right to vote, it also communicates with an NVE.
The NVE contains information about the guardianship proceeding and identifies the individual by name, date of birth, and sometimes by address.
“All court records pertinent to the finding of incompetency are closed,”
Wis. Stat. section 54.75 requires, with exceptions that the majority said didn’t apply to the WVA’s records request.
From dictionary definitions for “pertinent” that the parties used, the majority summarized that “we must determine whether NVE forms ‘hav[e] some connection’ to, have ‘relevan[ce]’ to, or ‘relat[e] to’ the central incompetence finding in a guardianship proceeding.”
“The NVE forms document a finding of voter eligibility that is procedurally and substantively intertwined with the ‘finding of incompetency,’” the majority explained.
Finding an individual incompetent and ineligible to vote “are made in the same hearing,” “based on similar evidence,” and are both referred to in statute as “findings of incompetence,” the majority said.
Pertinent court records often come after a decision, just as a court may generate an NVE after finding incompetency, the majority said.
Other statutes relating to guardianship proceedings reinforce “the legislature’s desire to keep chapter 54 proceedings confidential,” the majority said.
“That provision would ring hollow if the fruits of those proceedings, like NVE forms, were available through public records requests,” the majority said.
“Under the [WVA’s] interpretation, there would be no public records statutory exception for NVE forms, despite the legislature’s efforts to ensure that guardianship proceedings, the identifying information of individuals found incompetent, and even the fact of their incompetency remain private,” the majority summarized.
Justice Ziegler’s Dissent: ‘No Bearing on an Individual’s Incompetency’
“[T]he legislature specifically provided for the release of NVEs into the public domain,” Justice Ziegler explained in her dissent. “In fact, it mandated their dissemination by obligating the circuit court to transmit information to the WEC.”
Critical to interpreting the statute, “pertinent” applies to “the rest of the phrase ‘to the finding of incompetency,’” Justice Ziegler specified.
The finding of incompetency and “a declaration that one has lost the right to vote” remain different things in statute, she said.
One may lose the right to vote “with or without an incompetency determination, and each has a unique legal standard which requires specific findings,” Justice Ziegler said. One may be incompetent and “not automatically lose the right to vote.”
The inability to vote must be proven “by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is incapable of understanding the objective of the elective process.”
The records a circuit court judge uses to establish guardianship for an incompetent person are closed, but “no such prohibition statutorily exists regarding the separate voting rights determination,” Justice Ziegler distinguished.
“The legislature could have chosen different, broader language to close every record related to a chapter 54 guardianship proceeding like it has in chapters 51 and 55,” Justice Ziegler clarified. Those statutes require closing files and records for “proceedings.”
The NVE’s are “after-the-fact communications” following a finding of incompetency, Justice Ziegler said. “[A]s the NVE does not exist at the time of the incompetency finding, it could not be a court record pertinent to the finding of incompetency.”
In addition, the legislature created the NVE for a specific purpose – “informing and implementing removal from voter rolls,” Justice Ziegler added.
Because the public records law makes “the public interest in disclosure … both explicit and substantial,” Justice Ziegler would release the NVEs.
The policy of openness “carries particular force here, where the records at issue bear directly on everyone’s voting rights and its administration” – a significant public interest in ensuring “the integrity of the electoral process,” Justice Ziegler wrote.
Any argued harm to individuals in guardianship by releasing NVEs to the public is “speculative,” Justice Ziegler concluded.
“The NVEs simply have no bearing on an individual’s incompetency and are in fact created without any indication of whether one was found incompetent and in need of a guardian, or not.”