Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 12.07 (2026)
Election restrictions on employers
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
12.07(1)(1) No person may refuse an employee the privilege of time off for voting under s. 6.76 or subject an employee to a penalty therefor.
12.07(2)(2) No employer may refuse to allow an employee to serve as an election official under s. 7.30 or make any threats or offer any inducements of any kind to the employee for the purpose of preventing the employee from so serving.
12.07(3)(3) No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter containing any threat, notice or information that if a particular ticket of a political party or organization or candidate is elected or any referendum question is adopted or rejected, work in the employer’s place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, or the place or establishment will be closed, or the salaries or wages of the employees will be reduced, or other threats intended to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees.
12.07(4)(4) No person may, directly or indirectly, cause any person to make a contribution or provide any service or other thing of value to or for the benefit of a committee registered under ch. 11, with the purpose of influencing the election or nomination of a candidate to national, state or local office or the passage or defeat of a referendum by means of the denial or the threat of denial of any employment, position, work or promotion, or any compensation or other benefit of such employment, position or work, or by means of discharge, demotion or disciplinary action or the threat to impose a discharge, demotion or disciplinary action. This subsection does not apply to employment by a committee registered under ch. 11 in connection with a campaign or political party activities. This subsection also does not apply to information provided by any person that expresses that person’s opinion on any candidate or committee, any referendum or the possible effects of any referendum, or the policies advocated by any candidate or committee.
12.07 HistoryHistory: 1973 c. 334; 1983 a. 484; 1991 a. 316; 2005 a. 451; 2015 a. 117; 2017 a. 365 s. 111.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1995–2004 · leading case: Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 472 (Wis. 1997).
Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 472 (Wis. 1997). “Smolla, Law of Defamation, § 12.07[3][a](ll/96) at p. 12-38.7 (declaring that "the actual malice standard is sufficiently difficult to meet to make summary judgment in favor of the defendants relatively common in public figure cases simply as a matter of substantive law").”
State v. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 12.07(3) expressly prohibits employers and others from requiring anyone to do cam *726 paign work as a condition of employment.”
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “" SCO § 12.07(3). Masel contends this penalty is so severe that it is a criminal penalty, not a civil penalty, and therefore unconstitutional because the ordinance does not confer the procedural protections to which criminal defendants are entitled under the Fifth and Sixth…”
Mil-Mar Shoe Co., Inc. v. Shonac Corp., 906 F. Supp. 476 (E.D. Wis. 1995). “2 McCarthy, supra, § 12.07[7][b]; Gimix, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc.”
— Wis. Stat. § 12.07(3) — 2 cases
State v. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 12.07(3) expressly prohibits employers and others from requiring anyone to do cam *726 paign work as a condition of employment.”
Sauk Cnty. v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “" SCO § 12.07(3). Masel contends this penalty is so severe that it is a criminal penalty, not a civil penalty, and therefore unconstitutional because the ordinance does not confer the procedural protections to which criminal defendants are entitled under the Fifth and Sixth…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.