Green Bay says VanderLeest election complaint is 'frivolous,' 'improper' and requests a fine

GREEN BAY — At 9 a.m. April 12, the recount requested by former City Council member Steve Campbell began.

Campbell had lost his reelection bid for the District 6 seat to Joey Prestley 355-340, unofficial results showed, and requested a recount.

David VanderLeest, there as one of three representatives for Campbell, asked to stop the recount three minutes in because "the clerk is not prepared." Green Bay clerk Celestine Jeffreys said she was and continued.

VanderLeest interjected three minutes later. He requested a hand count of the ballots, which would require a court order. The city's election board did not entertain the request.

A third time, six minutes later, VanderLeest interrupted; again, he asked for a hand count.

Thirty-one exclamations by VanderLeest over the course of 16 hours were documented in a 73-page addendum that Green Bay dropped in with its response to VanderLeest's allegation that the city clerk and election board committed "fraud" and "tampering" of ballots during the 2024 spring election cycle. The city's responded Wednesday afternoon with what it thinks of VanderLeest's actions and argument and submitted it to the Wisconsin Elections Commission: "improper," "frivolous," "baseless," and "untimely" were among the adjectives present in the document.

The Press-Gazette analyzed the city's 73-page addendum and 19-page formal response to synthesize how the city picked at VanderLeest's complaint premise by premise.

What is the city's argument against the election complaint?

The city previously told the Press-Gazette that it believed the recount was done lawfully. It stood by that assertion in its response to VanderLeest and directed its argument at him personally, stating that the infractions VanderLeest committed during the recount were:

• Attempts to disenfranchise residents of their right to vote.
• Attempts to derail the recount.

It then took aim at VanderLeest's argument — that three ballot bags whose serial numbers did not match the election inspector's ballot anomaly recording sheet (called an EL-104 sheet) constitutes fraud and ballot tampering.

The city said the four main points VanderLeest gets at in his complaint are based on false premises, each of which are "independently sufficient to require dismissal":

• That the recount followed all Wisconsin laws; it would have been illegal for the election officials not to have counted the ballots in the three bags, as VanderLeest requested.
• That VanderLeest didn't cite what statutes city election officials actually broke.
• That Campbell, not VanderLeest, is the right person to make such a complaint. Campbell's election outcome was already settled in court months ago , making this a complaint filed past the point it could have been submitted.
• That the Wisconsin Elections Commission can't actually carry out the outcomes VanderLeest wants the commission to take, including nullifying the City Council District 6 election.

What's most foundational, however, is the first counterargument — that the recount was legal and ballot tampering didn't happen — as it's the crux of VanderLeest's Sept. 20 complaint.

Is it ballot tampering if serial numbers don't match?

The city addressed VanderLeest's main argument and said, "Missing serial numbers do not indicate tampering."

To make its counterargument, the city started with the Wisconsin Elections Commission's Recount Manual , which does not say that if serial numbers are missing (as the city admits were in the case of the three ballot bags) that the election officials should assume the ballots are spoiled and should be thrown out.

The election commission has no power to execute laws and tells election officials to "investigate any irregularities and note its findings in its minutes." Based on the commission's limited executive power, the manual itself is "not law and cannot form the basis of a complaint."

The city continued with what it said election officials are obligated to do by Wisconsin law: count the ballots. The election officials checked the seals and confirmed that dates and signatures matched. What the city says amounts to human error does not immediately mean ballots were messed with, the city argued.

The city concluded this six-page portion of its counterargument that serial numbers, though a "helpful tool" in ensuring ballot integrity, are just that — a tool that isn't conclusive evidence of fraud or tampering.

"Finally, there appears to be no dispute that the ballot bags at issue were sealed," the city said in the second paragraph of its next counterargument.

As such, it asks that VanderLeest pay $500 for what it calls a "frivolous complaint."

What happens to the complaint now?

VanderLeest can respond within 13 business days.

If and when the election commission receives that response, it will review all the documents and "draft a decision for the commission's consideration and decision at an upcoming meeting."

Jesse Lin is a reporter covering the community of Green Bay and its surroundings, as well as politics in northeast Wisconsin. Contact him at 920-834-4250 or jlin@gannett.com.

This article originally appeared on Green Bay Press-Gazette: Green Bay says VanderLeest election complaint is 'frivolous,' 'improper' and requests a fine