Skip to content

Wisconsin Municipal Election Protection Ordinance: Legal and Political Research Guide

Tier 2 — Proceed with Caution
7Target Cities
Home RuleHome Rule

Wisconsin cities can legally adopt ordinances directing local police not to assist armed federal personnel near polling places, but careful drafting is essential to survive preemption challenges. The state's modified home rule framework provides a workable path, though significant legal risks—particularly Wisconsin's firearms preemption statute—require strategic ordinance language that avoids triggering state law conflicts. With Madison's original ordinance as the model, Racine, Green Bay, and La Crosse emerge as the highest-priority targets for adoption, supported by a robust coalition infrastructure led by Voces de la Frontera and the ACLU of Wisconsin.

This comprehensive guide covers the legal battlefield, localization toolkit, target city analysis, and coalition partner network for a statewide municipal campaign.

Wisconsin's home rule provides narrow but workable authority

Article XI, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution establishes the foundation for municipal authority:

"Cities and villages organized pursuant to state law may determine their local affairs and government, subject only to this constitution and to such enactments of the legislature of statewide concern as with uniformity shall affect every city or every village."

Wisconsin operates under a modified home rule system—neither pure home rule nor strict Dillon's Rule. Constitutional home rule (Art. XI, § 3) provides narrow protection, while statutory home rule under Wis. Stat. Chapter 62 and §§ 66.0101-66.0103 grants broader powers subject to state preemption. The Wisconsin Legislative Council has acknowledged that "constitutional home rule power, as interpreted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is very limited."

The critical precedent is Black v. City of Milwaukee (2016 WI 47), which established a two-step test: First, determine if state law involves a "statewide concern"—if so, home rule provides no protection. Second, even for local matters, facially uniform state law prevails over local ordinances. The court held: "The Legislature has the power to legislate on matters of local affairs when its enactment uniformly affects every city or village."

Courts apply the four-part Anchor Savings preemption test (120 Wis. 2d 391): An ordinance is preempted if the Legislature has expressly withdrawn municipal power; if the ordinance logically conflicts with state legislation; if it defeats the purpose of state law; or if it violates the spirit of state legislation.

All Wisconsin city classifications—first through fourth class and villages—possess equal home rule authority. Milwaukee's status as the state's only first-class city provides no additional authority for police directives, though it operates under unique police commission provisions in Wis. Stat. § 62.50.

The firearms preemption trap demands careful drafting

Wis. Stat. § 66.0409 presents the most significant legal obstacle. This comprehensive firearms preemption statute prohibits political subdivisions from enacting ordinances that regulate "the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, or taxation of any knife or any firearm."

The landmark Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Madison (2017 WI 19) decision interpreted this preemption broadly, striking down Madison's rule banning weapons on public buses. The court held that municipalities lose "ALL authority" to legislate on covered topics and that the scope extends to "formal and informal enactments" addressing matters "both general and specific."

An ordinance directing police not to assist "armed federal personnel" could be challenged as regulating the "bearing" or "transportation" of firearms. This represents a high legal risk requiring mitigation through drafting strategy.

Recommended drafting approach: - Avoid firearms language entirely—reference "federal personnel conducting enforcement actions" rather than "armed" personnel - Frame as operational directive—characterize as internal police policy and resource allocation decision, not conduct regulation - Explicitly cite 18 U.S.C. § 592—position ordinance as supporting federal law - Focus on voter protection—invoke Wis. Stat. § 62.11(5)'s health, safety, and welfare grant

Federal law provides the constitutional foundation

18 U.S.C. § 592 (Troops at Polls) establishes the federal framework the ordinance reinforces:

"Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Related provisions include 18 U.S.C. § 593 (military election interference), 18 U.S.C. § 594 (general voter intimidation), and 52 U.S.C. § 10101(b) (voter intimidation prohibition).

The Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine further supports municipal authority. Federal courts have consistently upheld municipal discretion to decline federal enforcement cooperation (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898). Wisconsin's existing sanctuary policies in Madison and Milwaukee have faced no successful legal challenges under this framework.

Critical finding: Wisconsin has no express state preemption on local police cooperation with federal law enforcement, no comprehensive anti-sanctuary law (though bills have been introduced), and no statute withdrawing municipal authority over police operational directives.

Madison's 2017 "Open and Welcoming City" resolution established that police do not inquire about immigration status. The city's 2023 election official protection ordinance provides direct precedent for election-related municipal action. Neither has faced successful legal challenge.

Milwaukee County passed a 2017 ordinance limiting ICE cooperation. Both Milwaukee and Madison received "sanctuary jurisdiction" designations from DHS in May 2025. Dane County ended participation in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program in January 2025.

Madison's Police Civilian Oversight Board with subpoena power represents the strongest civilian oversight model in Wisconsin according to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement—demonstrating the city's capacity for innovative police accountability measures.

High-risk factors requiring attention

Firearms preemption (§ 66.0409) represents the greatest threat. If the ordinance references "armed" federal personnel, it invites challenge under Wisconsin Carry's broad interpretation. Mitigation: Omit all firearms-related language; focus on "federal enforcement personnel" and resource allocation.

Elections as statewide concern could trigger preemption under the Black v. Milwaukee framework. Courts may view election administration as inherently statewide. Mitigation: Frame ordinance as local police operational directive rather than election administration.

Facial uniformity doctrine means any future uniform state law would preempt local ordinances. Mitigation: Pass ordinances before state legislative action; build coalition to oppose preemption bills.

Lower-risk factors supporting municipal authority

No express preemption exists on local police cooperation with federal agencies, polling place security arrangements, or local police operational directives. Anti-commandeering doctrine is well-established. Sanctuary policy precedent in Madison and Milwaukee remains unchallenged. Supporting federal law (18 U.S.C. § 592) provides constitutional grounding.

Section 2: Wisconsin statutes provide voter protection and police authority hooks

Wisconsin's voter intimidation law creates enforcement hook

Wis. Stat. § 12.09 provides the state-law anchor for municipal election protection:

"No person may personally or through an agent make use of or threaten to make use of force, violence, or restraint in order to induce or compel any person to vote or refrain from voting at an election."

Violations constitute a Class I Felony under Wis. Stat. § 12.60(1)(a)—up to 3.5 years imprisonment and $10,000 fine. Additional protections include § 12.13(3)(x), which prohibits "disorderly behavior at or near a polling place."

Wisconsin law does not expressly prohibit firearms at polling places. The Wisconsin Elections Commission has confirmed that "any prohibition on the possession of weapons is a decision that needs to be made at the municipal level." This gap creates explicit space for local action. Some location-based restrictions apply: firearms are prohibited in K-12 schools (§ 948.605) and courthouses (§ 175.60), affecting many polling places.

Municipal police authority flows through the commission system

Wis. Stat. § 62.11(5) grants city councils broad authority:

"The council shall have the management and control of the city property, finances, highways, navigable waters, and the public service...The powers hereby conferred shall be in addition to all other grants, and shall be limited only by express language."

However, Wis. Stat. § 62.13 establishes the Police and Fire Commission system that governs most Wisconsin cities. Under § 62.13(4)(a), the police chief has authority over "efficient and economical direction of all the activities of the department." AG Opinion 81-1 (1992) established that mayors cannot directly order police chiefs on personnel matters in cities with commissions.

Effective approach for ordinance implementation: - Frame as city council resource allocation decision under § 62.11(5) - Direct that "city resources (vehicles, equipment, personnel time) shall not be used" rather than commanding police operations - Coordinate with Police and Fire Commission for operational implementation - Reference support for state voter protection law (§ 12.09)

Section 3: Target city rankings favor Racine, Green Bay, and La Crosse

Tier 1: Immediate outreach priority

Madison already serves as the ordinance template city. Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway (first openly LGBTQ mayor, re-elected 2023) leads a progressive 20-member Common Council. The city has passed "Open and Welcoming City" protections, a Police Civilian Oversight Board, and an election official protection ordinance. Use Madison as the advocacy hub and model.

Racine ranks highest for new adoption. Mayor Cory Mason, a former Democratic Assembly member re-elected in 2023 with 57.4%, leads a 15-member Common Council receptive to equity initiatives. The DHS designated Racine as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" in May 2025. Mason's legislative background ensures policy sophistication.

Green Bay offers unique strategic value. Mayor Eric Genrich, also a former Democratic Assembly member re-elected in 2023 with 52.8%, was personally targeted by the GOP's Gableman election investigation—dismissed in court. This direct experience with election-related harassment creates natural alignment with election protection measures. The 12-member Common Council has generally supported progressive direction.

Tier 2: Strong candidates requiring groundwork

La Crosse elected progressive organizer Shaundel Washington-Spivey as mayor in April 2025. The university town (UW-La Crosse) hosts western Wisconsin progressive infrastructure including Grassroots Organizing Western Wisconsin (GROWW). The timing is favorable for early engagement with new leadership.

Milwaukee as Wisconsin's only first-class city would provide maximum impact. Mayor Cavalier Johnson (re-elected 2024) leads a 15-member majority-Democratic Common Council. The city has sanctuary jurisdiction status, but complex politics and ongoing state conflicts (Act 12 disputes) create complications. Milwaukee operates under unique § 62.50 provisions for its Fire and Police Commission.

Eau Claire is a progressive university town with UW-Eau Claire. Its council-manager system with 11 members may streamline adoption. Western Wisconsin organizing momentum from GROWW extends into Eau Claire.

Tier 3: Moderate potential requiring organizing

Appleton (Mayor Jake Woodford since 2020) and the Fox Valley show growing political competition. Kenosha elected new Mayor David Bogdala in 2024; his orientation remains unclear. Oshkosh saw progressive Gordon Hintz elected County Executive in 2025, signaling potential receptivity.

Waukesha is strongly Republican; GOP State Rep. Scott Allen has announced a 2026 mayoral candidacy. Janesville and West Allis lack progressive infrastructure.

City Classification Governing Body Political Climate Priority
Madison Second Common Council (20) Highly favorable Template
Racine Second Common Council (15) Favorable Tier 1
Green Bay Second Common Council (12) Favorable Tier 1
La Crosse Third Common Council Favorable (new) Tier 2
Milwaukee First Common Council (15) Mixed Tier 2
Eau Claire Third City Council (11) Favorable Tier 2
Appleton Third Common Council (15) Moderate Tier 3

Section 4: Coalition infrastructure centers on Voces and ACLU partnership

Tier 1: Essential partners

Voces de la Frontera brings the highest partnership value. This membership-based organization has chapters in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, Green Bay, Sheboygan, Kenosha, and Waukesha—aligning with target cities. Their current "No 287(g) Campaign" directly opposes ICE-local law enforcement collaboration. Voces has demonstrated mass mobilization capacity, with 40,000-100,000 attendees at "Day Without Latinxs" protests. The organization's "Voceros por el Voto" initiative has registered 48,000 voters. Contact through vdlf.org.

ACLU of Wisconsin operates the state's Election Protection Hotline (1-866-OUR-VOTE) and has litigation capacity. Critically, ACLU is currently representing Voces in a Wisconsin Supreme Court case challenging county sheriff cooperation with ICE detainers—demonstrating an effective partnership model. The organization's 2024 Democracy Campaign invested $1.75 million in voter education. Contact via aclu-wi.org.

League of Women Voters of Wisconsin maintains 250+ trained election observers statewide and local chapters in Dane County, Milwaukee County, and other target areas. LWV formally opposed anti-sanctuary legislation (AB 450) in 2016, demonstrating issue alignment. The organization's "Rise and Unite" campaign (2025-2026) focuses on democracy defense. Contact through my.lwv.org/wisconsin.

Tier 2: Strong partners with political capacity

Citizen Action of Wisconsin provides statewide organizing infrastructure through regional "organizing cooperatives." The organization has history advocating for sanctuary state policies and made 183,848 voter contacts in 2022. Contact via citizenactionwi.org.

Wisconsin State AFL-CIO (President: Stephanie Bloomingdale) offers political capacity and municipal worker connections. AFSCME Council 32/40 represents municipal employees directly affected by any ordinance governing city resources—their buy-in ensures smoother implementation. Madison office: 608-826-1932.

Progressive Dane (prodane.org) has demonstrated extraordinary municipal electoral success in Dane County, electing the Madison mayor, multiple Common Council members, and county supervisors. For Madison-specific campaigns, Progressive Dane is essential.

Tier 3: Supporting partners

Wisconsin Working Families Party (Marina Dimitrijevic leadership) provides electoral capacity. Common Cause Wisconsin (Executive Director Jay Heck) offers good-government credibility from successful fair maps litigation. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign provides research on home rule and campaign finance monitoring. The Voter ID Coalition in Dane County includes NAACP, LWV, ACLU, and Urban League—an existing coalition model for that region.

Section 5: Election Security Infrastructure

Wisconsin's election security posture combines significant strengths — $5.6 million in available HAVA funds, a 400+ member Cyber Response Team, a bipartisan Elections Commission that voted to deny DOJ voter data requests, and strong observer/removal authority for chief inspectors — with notable challenges, including a highly decentralized system of 1,850+ municipal clerks, a 2017 anti-sanctuary law constraining local immigration cooperation, and the absence of an express state prohibition on firearms at polling places. The April 2024 constitutional amendments strengthening election administration, combined with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's July 2024 decision upholding drop boxes, demonstrate ongoing institutional commitment to election integrity. Wisconsin's constraints require more creative policy approaches than Minnesota — focusing on data protection, community trust policies, and election worker training rather than direct non-cooperation ordinances — but meaningful protections remain achievable.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) administers elections, with Administrator Meagan Wolfe serving as chief election officer (position unanimously affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in February 2025). The WEC has certification and guidance authority and can issue formal advisory opinions under Wis. Stat. § 5.05(6a) with binding legal effect if supported by statute or case law.

Key statutes: Wis. Stat. Chapter 5-12 (election code); § 5.37-5.40 (voting equipment approval); § 7.41 (observer rules); § 7.37(2) (chief inspector law enforcement authority); § 12.09 (voter intimidation — Class I felony); § 12.13(3)(x) (disorderly behavior near polling places).

Constitutional framework: Wisconsin Constitution Article III was strengthened in April 2024 when voters approved amendments stating "No individual other than an election official designated by law may perform any task in the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum" and prohibiting non-governmental funding of election administration.

Decentralized structure: Wisconsin's 1,850+ municipal clerks hold primary operational responsibility for elections. While this decentralized structure presents coordination challenges, it also provides resilience against centralized attacks.

Emergency rulemaking: WEC emergency rulemaking under Wis. Stat. § 227.24 is available when preservation of public peace, health, safety, or welfare necessitates — but requires Governor approval before filing. Rules can be implemented relatively quickly with proper emergency justification and last 150 days (extendable by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules).

Training mandates: Completion of the "Securing WisVote" cybersecurity training series is required before receiving system credentials. This award-winning online curriculum can be expanded administratively.

Cybersecurity Infrastructure & Capabilities

State cybersecurity apparatus: The Wisconsin Division of Enterprise Technology (DET) hosts WisVote infrastructure and handles approximately 9 million scanning attempts annually. Staff hold Secret Security Clearances and provide mandatory cybersecurity training for all state system users.

Cyber Response Team: The Wisconsin Cyber Response Team under Emergency Management offers particularly valuable capabilities: over 400 volunteer members, approximately 140 incident responders deployable across five regional teams (including a National Guard team), and quarterly training exercises. This resource is available to election officials for risk assessments, penetration testing, and incident response.

Election-specific resources: WisVote system protections include multi-factor authentication, network segmentation, and role-based access controls. Pre-election Logic and Accuracy (L&A) testing remains mandatory with public observation permitted. Election Management Systems are air-gapped from internet-connected networks, with data transferred only via dedicated USB drives under strict chain of custody.

HAVA and state funding: $5.6 million in available HAVA funds lasting through approximately May 2028, plus approximately $5.1M GPR annual base funding. The state offers .gov domain subgrant reimbursement for local election offices.

DDoS mitigation: Free DDoS mitigation available through Cloudflare Project Galileo and Google Project Shield.

Wisconsin CRT Emergency Hotline: (800) 943-0003, option 2 / CRT@widma.gov

Physical Security & Polling Place Protections

Observer rules: Under Wis. Stat. § 7.41 and EL Chapter 4, observers must remain 3-8 feet from voter check-in tables, sign logs, present photo ID, and wear identifying badges. They cannot initiate contact with voters, handle election documents, or use cameras during voting hours.

Chief inspector removal authority: Chief inspectors hold authority to remove observers who disrupt operations, engage in electioneering, or fail to comply with instructions. Removal requires a written order stating the reason — election officials should prepare template orders in advance.

Firearms: Wisconsin law does not expressly prohibit firearms at polling places. The Wisconsin Elections Commission has confirmed that "any prohibition on the possession of weapons is a decision that needs to be made at the municipal level." Some location-based restrictions apply: firearms are prohibited in K-12 schools (§ 948.605) and courthouses (§ 175.60), affecting many polling places. This gap creates explicit space for local action, though the firearms preemption statute (§ 66.0409) requires very careful drafting.

Voter intimidation: Wis. Stat. § 12.09 prohibits use of force, violence, or restraint to induce or compel voting behavior. Violations constitute a Class I felony (up to 3.5 years imprisonment, $10,000 fine). Critically, any elector may sue for injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 5.07 — enabling citizen enforcement. District attorneys hold exclusive prosecution authority for election crimes.

Ballot chain of custody: Drop boxes were upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Priorities USA v. WEC (July 2024), overruling Teigen v. WEC. Use is discretionary for municipal clerks. Milwaukee's model implementation includes heavy-duty steel construction, permanent ground bolting, 24-hour video surveillance, city property locations with staffed security, and specially trained officials for chain of custody tracking. Multi-partisan custody is required throughout ballot handling, with two-person accountability, tamper-evident seals with recorded serial numbers, and detailed documentation at each transfer point.

Law enforcement coordination: Wisconsin's chief inspectors may call law enforcement under Wis. Stat. § 7.37(2) to aid in enforcing law, preserving order, and stopping voter intimidation. Best practice protocols include pre-election meetings between law enforcement and election officials, contingency planning, added patrol staff during voting hours, intelligence monitoring, and clear communication about buffer zone requirements.

EO 14248 lawsuit: Wisconsin is among the 19 states that sued the Trump Administration in April 2025 over Executive Order 14248. A preliminary injunction was granted in May 2025. AG Josh Kaul continues coordinating legal responses through this coalition.

Federal prohibition at polling places: 18 U.S.C. § 592 bars any armed federal agent from election sites. ICE agents, as armed federal law enforcement, fall squarely within this prohibition. Additional federal protections include 18 U.S.C. §§ 593-595 and 52 U.S.C. § 10307(a).

AG enforcement authority: The Attorney General can seek injunctive relief, mandamus, or other legal remedy under Wis. Stat. § 5.07.

Citizen enforcement: Any elector may sue for injunctive relief under Wis. Stat. § 5.07 — this enables citizen enforcement of election protections and is a powerful tool unavailable in many states.

Wisconsin's constrained sanctuary landscape: In 2017, the state legislature passed a law requiring local law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainer requests and prohibiting municipalities from adopting policies that prevent cooperation with federal authorities. However, the law's scope is narrower than it appears — it focuses on law enforcement detention cooperation, not broader welcoming policies or election protections. Cities like Madison and Milwaukee have maintained community trust policies that work within legal limits. The WEC's December 2025 vote to deny DOJ voter data requests demonstrates state-level resistance that cities can build upon.

Opportunities within constraints: Wisconsin cities can adopt policies protecting voter information, designating election workers as non-cooperating with ICE inquiries, restricting use of city election facilities, and creating community trust policies that don't directly contradict the 2017 law. Actionable approaches include: - Strengthen community trust policies within limits of state law, focusing on election workers and facilities rather than law enforcement detention - Adopt data protection ordinances (Colorado's SB 25-276 provides a comprehensive model) - Work with WEC to maintain unified resistance to federal data demands - Create buffer zone policies for city-owned or -operated early voting sites and election facilities - Train election workers on privacy protections and proper response protocols

Voter data protection: Wis. Stat. § 6.36 protects dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers as confidential. The bipartisan WEC voted 5-1 on December 11, 2025 to deny DOJ's demand, directing federal officials to purchase only public data through the state's Badger Voters portal. Wisconsin was sued December 18, 2025.

The sensitive locations gap: Federal policy provides no protection for polling places. The Trump administration rescinded all "sensitive location" protections on January 20, 2025, and polling places were never federally designated as sensitive locations under any prior policy. ICE has stated it is "not planning operations targeting polling locations" but explicitly reserves discretion. Election-specific protections must be built at the state and local level.

Key contacts: - WEC Help Desk: (608) 261-2028, elections@wi.gov - Wisconsin Cyber Response Team: (800) 943-0003 option 2, CRT@widma.gov - County Clerks Association: wisconsincountyclerks.org - Attorney General: doj.state.wi.us - EAC Grants: grants@eac.gov - EI-ISAC Registration: learn.cisecurity.org/ei-isac-terms - CEIR Legal Defense Network: legaldefense@electioninnovation.org

Conclusion: A viable but narrow path requires careful drafting

Wisconsin's legal framework creates a viable—if narrow—path for municipal election protection ordinances. The key is avoiding the firearms preemption trap through careful drafting that focuses on resource allocation rather than armed/unarmed distinctions. Cities should frame ordinances as operational directives supporting federal voter protection law under their § 62.11(5) authority over city property, finances, and public services.

The Voces de la Frontera–ACLU partnership model demonstrated in current ICE detainer litigation provides the template for coalition advocacy: grassroots mobilization capacity paired with legal expertise. With Madison as the template, campaigns should prioritize Racine and Green Bay for immediate outreach given favorable mayors with personal experience in election-related conflicts, followed by La Crosse's new progressive leadership and Milwaukee's scale.

The May 2025 DHS sanctuary designations and ongoing state budget debates create political momentum. The window for municipal action should be leveraged before potential state preemption legislation, making 2026 the critical year for expansion across Wisconsin's progressive cities.

Printable Flyer

Download the Wisconsin Election Protection Flyer

A printable 5.5" × 8.5" flyer with Wisconsin-specific legal analysis, target cities, and coalition partners.

View & Download Flyer

Open the flyer in your browser, then use File → Print or Ctrl+P to print or save as PDF. The flyer is optimized for half-letter (5.5" × 8.5") printing.

City-Specific Flyers

Printable flyers for individual cities with local council details, meeting schedules, and action steps.

Eau Claire — ~74,000 Green Bay — ~105,000 La Crosse — ~52,000 Madison — ~270,000 Milwaukee — ~570,000 Racine — ~78,000 Waukesha — ~71,000