Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 6.96 (2026)
Voting procedure for electors voting pursuant to federal court order
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
6.966.96 Voting procedure for electors voting pursuant to federal court order. Whenever any elector is allowed to vote at a polling place pursuant to a federal court order after the closing time provided under s. 6.78, the inspectors shall, before giving the elector a ballot, write on the back of the ballot the notation “s. 6.96”. If voting machines are used in the municipality where the elector is voting, the elector’s vote may be received only upon an absentee ballot furnished by the municipal clerk which shall have the notation “s. 6.96” written on the back of the ballot by the inspectors before the ballot is given to the elector. When receiving the elector’s ballot, the inspectors shall provide the elector with the written voting information prescribed by the commission under s. 7.08 (8). The inspectors shall indicate on the list the fact that the elector is voting pursuant to a federal court order. The inspectors shall then deposit the ballot. The ballot shall be counted under s. 5.85 or 7.51 unless the order is vacated. If the order is vacated after the ballot is counted, the appropriate board or boards of canvassers or the chairperson of the commission or his or her designee shall reopen the canvass to discount any ballots that were counted pursuant to the vacated order and adjust the statements, certifications, and determinations accordingly.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: Kelley v. Dahle-Fenske (In re Dahle-Fenske), 525 B.R. 912 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2015).
Kelley v. Dahle-Fenske (In re Dahle-Fenske), 525 B.R. 912 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2015). “Marital Property Law in Wisconsin, supra, at § 6.96. Under the applicable presumptions, and given the lack of any evidence to the contrary, the Court rejects the Debtor’s argument that the debt to Kelley was not incurred in the interest of the marriage or family.”
Liebert, Susan v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n (W.D. Wis. 2024). “See Wis. Stat. § 6.96 (ar). As already discussed, the witness would not be in a better position than the clerk to make that determination.”
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.