Established Fact
CTCL’s grant conditions were enforceable contractual obligations with claw-back provisions. Cities were required to: (a) use funds exclusively per the WSVP; (b) maintain existing municipal budgets; (c) obtain CTCL’s approval before deviating from the WSVP’s planned expenditures; and (d) submit full compliance reports to CTCL by January 31, 2021. Kenosha, for example, was required to seek and obtained CTCL permission before substituting ballot tabulators. The OSC concluded this arrangement facially violates Wis. Stat. § 12.11 — which prohibits offering or giving anything of value in order to induce an elector to vote or go to the polls — because the grant payment was conditioned on election officials facilitating voting according to CTCL’s private program design.
Citations
TCL WSVP Grant Acceptance Letters (OSC Second Interim Report, App. 588-601) (Milwaukee, Madison, Kenosha, Green Bay, Racine). Each acceptance letter provided: “The City of _____ shall not reduce or otherwise modify planned municipal spending on 2020 elections, including the budget of the City Clerk… Any amount reduced or not provided in contravention of this paragraph shall be repaid to CTCL up to the total amount of this grant.” See also OSC Second Interim Report, Ch. 1, p. 28, legis.wi.gov.
CTCL WSVP Grant Acceptance Letters, App. 588-601. On exclusivity: “The grant funds must be used exclusively for the public purpose of planning and operationalizing safe and secure election administration in the City of _____ in accordance with the Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020.” On budget maintenance: “The City of _____ shall not reduce or otherwise modify planned municipal spending on 2020 elections, including the budget of the City Clerk of _____ (‘the Clerk’) or fail to appropriate or provide previously budgeted funds to the Clerk for the term of this grant.” OSC Second Interim Report, Ch. 1, p. 28, legis.wi.gov.
Because grant funds were required to be used “exclusively… in accordance with the Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020,” any expenditure departing from the WSVP required CTCL’s approval. App. 588-601. The acceptance letters also expressly required advance written CTCL approval before any sub-grants to third organizations. In practice, cities sought approval even for equipment changes: on August 31, 2020, Kenosha “sought and obtained CTCL permission for purchasing 3 DS450 high speed ballot tabulators for use at absentee central count locations at an amended cost of $180,000 instead of $172,000.” OSC Second Interim Report, Ch. 4, p. 72, citing App. 378-380, legis.wi.gov.
CTCL WSVP Grant Acceptance Letters, App. 588-601: each letter required “each city or county receiving the funds to report back to CTCL by January 31, 2021 regarding the moneys used to conduct federal elections.” OSC Second Interim Report, Ch. 1, p. 26, legis.wi.gov. Accord Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence, Application for Injunction, No. 20A75 (U.S. Oct. 26, 2020), Ex. D (Carlson Report) (“The claw back and reporting provisions in CTCL contracts with local counties and municipalities, if exercised, will result in skewed recordkeeping”), supremecourt.gov.
OSC Second Interim Report, Ch. 4, p. 72: “On August 31, 2020, Kenosha sought and obtained CTCL permission for purchasing 3 DS450 high speed ballot tabulators for use at absentee central count locations at an amended cost of $180,000 instead of $172,000. App. 378-380.” legis.wi.gov. The original WSVP had budgeted $172,000 for “high-speed scanner tabulators.” Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020, p. 20, techandciviclife.org.
OSC Second Interim Report, Ch. 1, p. 29: “The CTCL agreement facially violates the election bribery prohibition of Wis. Stat. § 12.11 because the participating cities and public officials received private money to facilitate in-person or absentee voting within such a city.” Wis. Stat. § 12.11(1m)(1)(a) prohibits offering or giving “anything of value… in order to induce any elector to: 1. Go to… the polls. 2. Vote…” legis.wi.gov. See also Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, Complaint at 13 (Sept. 10, 2020) (invoking § 12.11 against CTCL grant to all five cities), prnewswire.com.
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Finger on the Scale: How Outside Groups Are Manipulating Wisconsin Elections 5 (June 2021): “In CTCL’s responses to the cities awarding the grants, CTCL stipulates, among other things, that the municipalities must hold to the ‘Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan’ or ‘CTCL may discontinue, modify, withhold part of, or ask for the return of all or part of the grant funds.'” will-law.org. Accord Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence, No. 20A75, Ex. D (Carlson Report) (confirming claw-back and reporting provisions), supremecourt.gov.