Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 5 — ELECTIONS — GENERAL PROVISIONS; BALLOTS AND VOTING SYSTEMS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 5.06 (2026)

Compliance review; appeal

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
5.065.06 Compliance review; appeal.
5.06(1)(1) Whenever any elector of a jurisdiction or district served by an election official believes that a decision or action of the official or the failure of the official to act with respect to any matter concerning nominations, qualifications of candidates, voting qualifications, including residence, ward division and numbering, recall, ballot preparation, election administration or conduct of elections is contrary to law, or the official has abused the discretion vested in him or her by law with respect to any such matter, the elector may file a written sworn complaint with the commission requesting that the official be required to conform his or her conduct to the law, be restrained from taking any action inconsistent with the law or be required to correct any action or decision inconsistent with the law or any abuse of the discretion vested in him or her by law. The complaint shall set forth such facts as are within the knowledge of the complainant to show probable cause to believe that a violation of law or abuse of discretion has occurred or will occur. The complaint may be accompanied by relevant supporting documents. The commission may conduct a hearing on the matter in the manner prescribed for treatment of contested cases under ch. 227 if it believes such action to be appropriate.
Down
Up
5.06(2)(2) No person who is authorized to file a complaint under sub. (1), other than the attorney general or a district attorney, may commence an action or proceeding to test the validity of any decision, action or failure to act on the part of any election official with respect to any matter specified in sub. (1) without first filing a complaint under sub. (1), nor prior to disposition of the complaint by the commission. A complaint is deemed disposed of if the commission fails to transmit an acknowledgment of receipt of the complaint within 5 business days from the date of its receipt or if the commission concludes its investigation without a formal decision.
5.06(3)(3) A complaint under this section shall be filed promptly so as not to prejudice the rights of any other party. In no case may a complaint relating to nominations, qualifications of candidates or ballot preparation be filed later than 10 days after the complainant knew or should have known that a violation of law or abuse of discretion occurred or was proposed to occur.
5.06(4)(4) The commission may, on its own motion, investigate and determine whether any election official, with respect to any matter concerning nominations, qualifications of candidates, voting qualifications, including residence, ward division and numbering, recall, ballot preparation, election administration or conduct of elections, has failed to comply with the law or abused the discretion vested in him or her by law or proposes to do so.
5.06(5)(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under sub. (1), or upon its own motion, the commission may order any election official to immediately transfer to its possession any original documents in the custody of the official which the commission finds to be necessary and relevant to permit review of compliance with the laws concerning nominations, qualifications of candidates, ward division and numbering, recall or ballot preparation or the proper administration of such laws.
5.06(6)(6) The commission may, after such investigation as it deems appropriate, summarily decide the matter before it and, by order, require any election official to conform his or her conduct to the law, restrain an official from taking any action inconsistent with the law or require an official to correct any action or decision inconsistent with the law. The commission shall immediately transmit a copy of the order to the official. An order issued under this subsection is effective immediately or at such later time as may be specified in the order.
5.06(7)(7) The commission may withdraw, modify or correct an order issued under sub. (6) within a timely period if it finds such action to be appropriate.
5.06(8)(8) Any election official or complainant who is aggrieved by an order issued under sub. (6) may appeal the decision of the commission to circuit court for the county where the official conducts business or the complainant resides no later than 30 days after issuance of the order. Pendency of an appeal does not stay the effect of an order unless the court so orders.
5.06(9)(9) The court may not conduct a de novo proceeding with respect to any findings of fact or factual matters upon which the commission has made a determination, or could have made a determination if the parties had properly presented the disputed matters to the commission for its consideration. The court shall summarily hear and determine all contested issues of law and shall affirm, reverse or modify the determination of the commission, according due weight to the experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge of the commission, pursuant to the applicable standards for review of agency decisions under s. 227.57.
5.06(10)(10) This section does not apply to matters arising in connection with a recount under s. 9.01.
5.06 HistoryHistory: 1983 a. 484; 1985 a. 182 s. 57; 1985 a. 304; 1989 a. 192; 2015 a. 118 s. 266 (10).
5.06 AnnotationThe plaintiff’s failure to comply with the method of review prescribed by this section deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s original action regarding election irregularities. Kuechmann v. School District, 170 Wis. 2d 218, 487 N.W.2d 639 (Ct. App. 1992).
5.06 AnnotationWhen appealing a decision of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, there is nothing in this section that restricts standing to another candidate in the election. Hess v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2024 WI App 46, 413 Wis. 2d 285, 11 N.W.3d 201, 23-1350.
5.06 AnnotationTo have standing to appeal to the circuit court under sub. (8), a complainant must be aggrieved by an order issued under sub. (6). “Aggrieved” is a term of art that, when used in a statute governing appeals, requires an injury to a legally recognized interest. Sub. (8) does not mean that a complainant who receives an adverse decision from the Wisconsin Elections Commission is necessarily “aggrieved by an order.” In this case, because the complainant did not show that the commission’s decision caused the complainant any actual or threatened injury, the complainant did not meet the low threshold required to demonstrate that the complainant was aggrieved. Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2025 WI 5, 414 Wis. 2d 601, 16 N.W.3d 619, 24-0232.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). · cites it 94× “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 71× “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). · cites it 94× “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 71× “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Solowicz v. Forward Geneva Nat'l, LLC, 2010 WI 20 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 4× “¶ 103 Section 5.06, entitled "Financial Affairs of the Trust," provides in part that "[a]ll costs and expenses incurred by the Trust shall be paid by the Community Association.”
Fish v. Amsted Indus., Inc., 376 N.W.2d 820 (Wis. 1985). · cites it 2× “Friedman, Products Liability, § 5.06[2] (1982); D. Hill, Products Liability of a Successor Corporation-Acquisition of "Bad Will" With Good Will, 32 Def.”
Timothy Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2020 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “10 Plaintiffs make no argument in their briefing before us to rebut the Commission’s contention that Plaintiffs do not have standing under the provisions of § 5.06. Rather, Plaintiffs only reference the administrative complaint filed with the Commission in their briefing in this…”
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow-Madison v. Regents of Universtity of Wisconsin Sys., 820 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Wis. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 5.06. If after exhausting its appeal rights within the ASM the student organization still believes that it has been subject to viewpoint discrimination, it may appeal to the chancellor.”
Morgan Hess v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2024 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “§ 5.06 (2021-22).1 In the complaint, she challenged several of the signatures submitted by Melotik, and she contended that defects in the resolution of the header, the signatory/elector certification, and the circulator certification of the nomination papers caused words on the…”
Wisconsin Legislature v. Andrea Palm, 2020 WI 42 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 3× “03 (6) excludes from chapter 227's reach "[o]rders of the election commission" issued under Wis. Stat. § 5.06 (6). That section references the election commission's power to decide "by order" certain election-related complaints against election officials.”
Kuechmann v. Sch. Dist. of La Crosse, 487 N.W.2d 639 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 17× “We conclude that because the plaintiffs in the action below, Robert Kuechmann and Roger Winter, both members of the school board against whom the recall petitions were filed, failed to comply with sec. 5.06, Stats., pertaining to review of acts by election officials, and have…”
Wisconsin Legislature v. Andrea Palm, 2020 WI 42 (Wis. 2020). · cites it 3× “03 (6) excludes from chapter 227's reach "[o]rders of the election commission" issued under Wis. Stat. § 5.06 (6). That section references the election commission's power to decide "by order" certain election-related complaints against election officials.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(1) — 9 cases
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Timothy Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2020 WI App 17 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “10 Plaintiffs make no argument in their briefing before us to rebut the Commission’s contention that Plaintiffs do not have standing under the provisions of § 5.06. Rather, Plaintiffs only reference the administrative complaint filed with the Commission in their briefing in this…”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(2) — 5 cases
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Kuechmann v. Sch. Dist. of La Crosse, 487 N.W.2d 639 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We conclude that because the plaintiffs in the action below, Robert Kuechmann and Roger Winter, both members of the school board against whom the recall petitions were filed, failed to comply with sec. 5.06, Stats., pertaining to review of acts by election officials, and have…”
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(3)(e) — 1 case
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow-Madison v. Regents of Universtity of Wisconsin Sys., 820 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Wis. 2011). “§ 5.06. If after exhausting its appeal rights within the ASM the student organization still believes that it has been subject to viewpoint discrimination, it may appeal to the chancellor.”
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(4) — 2 cases
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(6) — 7 cases
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Wisconsin Legislature v. Andrea Palm, 2020 WI 42 (Wis. 2020). “03 (6) excludes from chapter 227's reach "[o]rders of the election commission" issued under Wis. Stat. § 5.06 (6). That section references the election commission's power to decide "by order" certain election-related complaints against election officials.”
Richard Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2022 WI 64 (Wis. 2022). “2022AP91 ¶11 Second, DRW argues Wisconsin law bars this suit because the Wisconsin voters did not first file their complaint with WEC, which DRW claims Wis. Stat. § 5.06 requires. DRW offers two independent bases for this argument: (1) sovereign immunity and (2) competence.”
Wisconsin Legislature v. Andrea Palm, 2020 WI 42 (Wis. 2020). “03 (6) excludes from chapter 227's reach "[o]rders of the election commission" issued under Wis. Stat. § 5.06 (6). That section references the election commission's power to decide "by order" certain election-related complaints against election officials.”
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(8) — 6 cases
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Morgan Hess v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2024 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 5.06 (2021-22).1 In the complaint, she challenged several of the signatures submitted by Melotik, and she contended that defects in the resolution of the header, the signatory/elector certification, and the circulator certification of the nomination papers caused words on the…”
Kuechmann v. Sch. Dist. of La Crosse, 487 N.W.2d 639 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We conclude that because the plaintiffs in the action below, Robert Kuechmann and Roger Winter, both members of the school board against whom the recall petitions were filed, failed to comply with sec. 5.06, Stats., pertaining to review of acts by election officials, and have…”
Wisconsin Voter All. v. Millis (E.D. Wis. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(9) — 5 cases
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Kuechmann v. Sch. Dist. of La Crosse, 487 N.W.2d 639 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “We conclude that because the plaintiffs in the action below, Robert Kuechmann and Roger Winter, both members of the school board against whom the recall petitions were filed, failed to comply with sec. 5.06, Stats., pertaining to review of acts by election officials, and have…”
Morgan Hess v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2024 WI App 46 (Wis. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 5.06 (2021-22).1 In the complaint, she challenged several of the signatures submitted by Melotik, and she contended that defects in the resolution of the header, the signatory/elector certification, and the circulator certification of the nomination papers caused words on the…”
Kenneth Brown v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n, 2025 WI 5 (Wis. 2025). “06(8), as it sets forth which § 5.06 complainants may seek judicial review of WEC’s decisions.”
Jay Stone v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 5.06(c) — 1 case
HARLEY-DAVIDSON v. Columbia Tristar Home Video, 851 F. Supp. 1265 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
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.