Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2026)
Elector intent
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
7.50(1)(a)(a) Except as provided in s. 7.15 (6), only ballots provided by the person authorized to have them printed shall be cast and counted in any election.
7.50(1)(b)(b) When an elector casts more votes for any office or measure than he or she is entitled to cast at an election, all the elector’s votes for that office or measure are invalid and the elector is deemed to have voted for none of them, except as provided in par. (c) and sub. (2) (d). If an elector casts less votes for any office or measure than he or she is entitled to cast at an election, all votes cast by the elector shall be counted but no vote shall be counted more than once.
7.50(1)(c)(c) If an elector casts more than one vote for the same candidate for the same office, the first vote is valid and the remaining votes are invalid.
7.50(1)(d)(d) Whenever an electronic voting system is used at a polling place in a partisan primary, and the same ballot is utilized to cast votes for candidates of more than one recognized political party or candidates of a party and independent candidates, if an elector designates a preference for a party or for independent candidates, only votes cast within that preference category may be counted. If an elector does not designate a preference and makes a mark opposite candidates of more than one recognized political party or opposite a candidate in the independent candidates’ column and a candidate of a recognized political party, no votes cast by the elector for any candidate for partisan office are valid. Votes for other candidates and votes on ballot questions, if any, shall be counted if otherwise valid.
7.50(2)(2) Ascertainment of intent. All ballots cast at an election which bear the initials of 2 inspectors shall be counted for the person or referendum question for whom or for which they were intended, so far as the electors’ intent can be ascertained from the ballots notwithstanding informality or failure to fully comply with other provisions of chs. 5 to 12. To determine intent:
7.50(2)(b)(b) A ballot cast without any marks may not be counted. A ballot without a mark at the top of a party column may be counted only for persons for whom marks are applicable.
7.50(2)(c)(c) If an elector marks a ballot with a cross (7), or any other marks, as |, A, V, O, /, ✓, +, within the square to the right of a candidate’s name, or any place within the space in which the name appears, indicating an intent to vote for that candidate, it is a vote for the candidate whose name it is opposite.
7.50(2)(cm)(cm) Any apparent erasure of a mark next to the name of a candidate may not be counted as a vote for that candidate if the elector makes another mark next to the name of one or more different candidates for the same office and counting of the mark would result in an excess number of votes cast for the office.
7.50(2)(d)(d) If an elector writes a person’s name in the proper space for write-in candidates for an office, it is a vote for the person written in for the office indicated, regardless of whether the elector strikes the names appearing in the same column for the same office, or places a mark by the same or any other name for the same office, or omits placing a mark to the right of the name written in. If an elector is permitted to vote for more than one candidate for the same office in an election and casts one or more write-in votes which, when added to the votes cast for candidates whose names appear on the ballot, exceed the number of votes authorized to be cast for the office, the write-in votes shall be counted and the votes for candidates whose names appear on the ballot may not be counted, unless there are more write-in votes than votes authorized to be cast, in which case no votes may be counted for the office.
7.50(2)(em)(em) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, write-in votes shall only be counted if no candidates have been certified to appear on the ballot. If a candidate has been certified to appear on the ballot, write-in votes may only be counted for a candidate that files a registration statement under s. 11.0202 (1) (a) no later than noon on the Friday immediately preceding the election. If a candidate certified to appear on the ballot dies or withdraws before the election, all write-in votes shall be counted. When write-in votes are counted, every vote shall be counted for the candidate for whom it was intended, if the elector’s intent can be ascertained from the ballot itself.
7.50(2)(g)(g) In partisan primaries, if an elector writes in the name of an individual on a ballot other than the one on which that individual’s name is shown as a candidate, the write-in vote may not be counted.
7.50(2)(h)(h) In the general election or a partisan special election, a write-in vote may not be counted for any candidate if the candidate’s name appears on the official ballot, except a write-in vote cast for the same office under which the candidate’s name appears if no other similar name appears on the ballot for any office.
7.50(2)(hm)(hm) In a nonpartisan primary or election using voting machines if an elector is permitted to vote for more than one candidate for the same office, a write-in vote may not be counted if the vote is cast for a candidate whose name appears on the ballot for that office.
7.50(2)(i)(i) The failure by an elector to write in the name of a candidate for the office of vice president of the United States on the general election ballot does not invalidate the elector’s vote for any candidate whose name is written in for the office of president of the United States. The failure of an elector to write in the name of a candidate for the office of president of the United States on the general election ballot invalidates the elector’s vote for any candidate whose name is written in for the office of vice president of the United States. The failure of an elector to write in the name of a candidate for the office of governor or lieutenant governor on the general election ballot does not invalidate the elector’s vote for any candidate whose name is written in for the office of governor or lieutenant governor alone.
7.50(2)(im)(im) If an elector votes for an independent candidate for the office of governor or lieutenant governor but does not vote for any candidate as a running mate of that candidate for the office of lieutenant governor or governor, the vote cast by the elector shall be recorded as a vote cast for both offices and shall not be cumulated with a vote cast by any other elector for the same candidate for the same office jointly with any vote cast for a running mate of that candidate. If an elector votes for independent candidates for the offices of governor and lieutenant governor, the vote cast by the elector shall not be cumulated with a vote cast by any other elector for one but not both of the candidates for whom the elector casts his or her vote.
7.50(2)(j)(j) If an elector writes in an individual for an office, it is a vote for that office, even if the elector writes in the name of a different office.
7.50 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 107, 272, 427; 1979 c. 89, 311, 328; 1981 c. 377 ss. 20, 22; 1981 c. 391; 1983 a. 183; 1983 a. 484 ss. 75, 172 (3); 1985 a. 304; 1987 a. 391; 1989 a. 192, 359; 1991 a. 316; 1999 a. 6; 2001 a. 16; 2011 a. 23; 2013 a. 178; 2015 a. 37, 117.
7.50 AnnotationA board of canvassers may use its discretion and make findings only when the standards of a statute do not apply. Sub. (2) (c) minimizes a board’s discretion. When there is a qualifying mark in a qualifying place on the ballot, the vote should be counted. Roth v. LaFarge School District Board of Canvassers, 2004 WI 6, 268 Wis. 2d 335, 677 N.W.2d 599, 02-0542.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2004 WI 6 (Wis. 2004).
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2004 WI 6 (Wis. 2004). “Because we conclude that, on the ballot in question consistent with Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000), [1] there is a qualifying mark in a qualifying place, we hold that the court of appeals' decision should be affirmed and that, using § 7.”
Sturgis v. Town of Neenah Bd. of Canvassers, 450 N.W.2d 481 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “However, the history of "sticker" write-in voting is documented in Wisconsin case law and earlier statutes.”
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2001 WI App 221 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Instead, she refers us to Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2), enacted after Ollmann , which states: All ballots cast at an election which bear the initials of 2 inspectors shall be counted for the person or referendum question for whom or for which they were intended, so far as the electors'…”
One Wisconsin Inst., Inc. v. Thomsen, 198 F. Supp. 3d 896 (W.D. Wis. 2016). “Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (1)(b). Defendants did not introduce evidence that these types of problems were prevalent, although they seem no more or less likely than the confusion that some voters might experience after not seeing a straight-ticket option that they are used to.”
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2002 WI App 309 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000) 1 defines an intent to vote whenever there is a mark in the space opposite the name of a candidate.”
McNally v. Tollander, 302 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. 1981). “60, Stats; (6) The ballots provided by the county board committee were cast and counted in the election contrary to sec. 7.50(1), Stats.” McNally v. Tollander, 97 Wis.”
Hackbarth v. Erickson, 433 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “” Sec. 7.50(2)(c), Stats. Rules of construction used as an aid in determining the intent of parties to a contract may be useful in interpreting a ballot.”
McNally v. Tollander, 294 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “; (6) The ballots provided by the county board committee were cast and counted in the election contrary to sec. 7.50(1), Stats. Of the above statutes violated only sec.”
Trump v. The Wisconsin Elections Comm'n (E.D. Wis. 2020). “” Wis. Stat. §7.50 (2). Once all the votes have been counted, the WEC chairperson “shall publicly canvass the returns and make his or her certifications and determinations on or before … the first day of December following a general election.”
In Re Appeal of Bd. of Canvassers, 433 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “" Sec. 7.50(2)(c), Stats. Rules of construction used as an aid in determining the intent of parties to a contract may be useful in interpreting a ballot.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(1): 2 cases
McNally v. Tollander, 302 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. 1981). “60, Stats; (6) The ballots provided by the county board committee were cast and counted in the election contrary to sec. 7.50(1), Stats.” McNally v. Tollander, 97 Wis.”
McNally v. Tollander, 294 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “; (6) The ballots provided by the county board committee were cast and counted in the election contrary to sec. 7.50(1), Stats. Of the above statutes violated only sec.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(2): 3 cases
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2004 WI 6 (Wis. 2004). “Because we conclude that, on the ballot in question consistent with Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000), [1] there is a qualifying mark in a qualifying place, we hold that the court of appeals' decision should be affirmed and that, using § 7.”
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2001 WI App 221 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Instead, she refers us to Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2), enacted after Ollmann , which states: All ballots cast at an election which bear the initials of 2 inspectors shall be counted for the person or referendum question for whom or for which they were intended, so far as the electors'…”
Sturgis v. Town of Neenah Bd. of Canvassers, 450 N.W.2d 481 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “However, the history of "sticker" write-in voting is documented in Wisconsin case law and earlier statutes.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(2)(c): 4 cases
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2004 WI 6 (Wis. 2004). “Because we conclude that, on the ballot in question consistent with Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000), [1] there is a qualifying mark in a qualifying place, we hold that the court of appeals' decision should be affirmed and that, using § 7.”
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2002 WI App 309 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000) 1 defines an intent to vote whenever there is a mark in the space opposite the name of a candidate.”
Hackbarth v. Erickson, 433 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “” Sec. 7.50(2)(c), Stats. Rules of construction used as an aid in determining the intent of parties to a contract may be useful in interpreting a ballot.”
In Re Appeal of Bd. of Canvassers, 433 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “" Sec. 7.50(2)(c), Stats. Rules of construction used as an aid in determining the intent of parties to a contract may be useful in interpreting a ballot.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(2)(cm): 2 cases
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2004 WI 6 (Wis. 2004). “Because we conclude that, on the ballot in question consistent with Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000), [1] there is a qualifying mark in a qualifying place, we hold that the court of appeals' decision should be affirmed and that, using § 7.”
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2002 WI App 309 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000) 1 defines an intent to vote whenever there is a mark in the space opposite the name of a candidate.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(2)(d): 1 case
Sturgis v. Town of Neenah Bd. of Canvassers, 450 N.W.2d 481 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “However, the history of "sticker" write-in voting is documented in Wisconsin case law and earlier statutes.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(2)(e): 1 case
Roth v. LaFarge Sch. Dist. Bd. of Canvassers, 2002 WI App 309 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 7.50 (2)(c) (1999-2000) 1 defines an intent to vote whenever there is a mark in the space opposite the name of a candidate.”
Wis. Stat. § 7.50(2)(f): 1 case
Sturgis v. Town of Neenah Bd. of Canvassers, 450 N.W.2d 481 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989). “However, the history of "sticker" write-in voting is documented in Wisconsin case law and earlier statutes.”
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.