The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected an attempt by a conservative activist group to obtain guardianship records in a highly contentious case that pits election integrity concerns against privacy rights for some of the state’s most vulnerable populations.
By a 5-2 vote, the court declined to order the release of Notices of Voting Eligibility, court documents created when judges determine that someone lacks the mental capacity to vote. The decision rejected an effort by the Wisconsin Voter Alliance and its president, Ron Heuer, to access these confidential records from multiple Wisconsin counties.
However, the case may not be over. The court did not rule on the fundamental legal question at the heart of the dispute, instead deciding the matter on procedural grounds. The decision left open the possibility that the case could return to the high court after the appeals courts follow proper procedures for addressing conflicting rulings.
Heuer and his conservative group have long argued that ineligible voters remain improperly registered on Wisconsin’s voter rolls. They contend that access to the names of people deemed incompetent to vote would reveal inconsistencies that threaten election integrity. The group filed lawsuits in 13 counties seeking these records, beginning with a 2022 case against Walworth County.
The Wisconsin Voter Alliance emerged from a controversial 2020 election review directed by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. That investigation, authorized and funded by Republican lawmakers, found no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the election outcome but suggested that legislators consider decertifying President Joe Biden’s victory in the state. Gableman has since faced a three-year suspension of his law license for unprofessional conduct related to that probe.
The case exposed a fundamental conflict within Wisconsin’s appeals courts. In November 2023, the District IV Court of Appeals in Madison ruled that the voting eligibility records were confidential and not subject to public disclosure under the state’s public records law. But just weeks later, the District II Court of Appeals in Waukesha reached the opposite conclusion, overturning a lower court’s decision and ordering Walworth County to release the documents with some identifying information redacted.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s majority, led by Justice Janet Protasiewicz, focused on this procedural conflict. Writing for the majority, Protasiewicz emphasized that the court of appeals must function as a unified body. Because the District IV’s opinion came first and was published as precedent, the District II court was bound by that earlier ruling when it reached a contrary conclusion, she wrote. The court returned the case to the appeals courts with instructions to follow proper procedures for addressing conflicting opinions.
All four liberal justices on the seven-member court joined conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority. Hagedorn emphasized the need for consistency across the appeals courts, though he suggested alternative approaches might be worth considering in the future. Conservative Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley dissented, arguing the court should have decided the case on its merits rather than on technical procedural grounds.
The dispute reflects deeper tensions in Wisconsin over how to balance competing public interests. Privacy advocates, including disability rights organizations, argue that releasing the names and addresses of people deemed incompetent to vote could expose vulnerable populations to exploitation or scams. They contend that people under guardianship retain civil rights protections, including privacy rights.
“There is nothing in the statutes that allow private watchdogs to invade the system designed to protect privacy,” said Taylor Gilbertson, representing Disability Rights Wisconsin during oral arguments.
Heuer’s legal team countered that it is possible to balance privacy concerns with the public’s right to access government records by redacting sensitive information. They argue that the state law explicitly contemplates access to incompetency records when someone demonstrates a need for the information.
Sam Hall, the attorney for Walworth County, warned that releasing the unredacted forms would “blast open the door for the personal information of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to be broadcast, not only to those with noble and good intentions but to those who might do these folks harm.”
The underlying debate about ineligible voters remains substantive. A 2023 review conducted by the Dane County clerk at the request of Wisconsin Watch found 95 individuals who had cast ballots despite courts determining they lacked voting capacity. However, the review concluded that most of these cases resulted from administrative errors or people moving between municipalities rather than intentional fraud.
Election officials and disability advocates have sought legislative solutions. A Republican-proposed bill would have required circuit courts to notify the Wisconsin Elections Commission more promptly about incompetency determinations, allowing faster updates to voter rolls. That bill passed the Assembly but died in the Senate. Governor Tony Evers previously vetoed similar legislation over concerns that other provisions could cause ballots with minor errors to be discarded.
The case became a flashpoint in the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The District II appeals court opinion, written by conservative Judge Maria Lazar, supported the Wisconsin Voter Alliance’s position. Liberal Judge Chris Taylor attacked Lazar’s opinion during their election campaign, saying it improperly favored “a right-wing group that tried to overturn our election.” Taylor won the race by 20 percentage points.
The court did not rule on whether Biden actually lost 21,000 votes as claimed by Heuer and his allies. Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a margin that has withstood independent and partisan audits, reviews, multiple lawsuits and recounts. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by about 29,000 votes with no pending challenges to that result.
The case, Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Kristina Secord, represents only the second time the state’s highest court has weighed in on the dispute. Because the court did not address the underlying legal question, observers expect the procedural path forward remains unclear. If the appeals courts follow the required procedures, the case could ultimately return to the Supreme Court once again.