## Facts

- Joseph R. Biden, Jr. won Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential election by about 20,682 votes; the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) certified results on November 30, 2020, and the Governor finalized the certification.
- Donald J. Trump sued in federal court on December 2, 2020, seeking to set aside the certification and obtain relief that could allow the Wisconsin Legislature to select electors.
- The suit challenged WEC guidance and related election administration practices in three areas:
  - Absentee voting without photo ID for voters claiming “indefinitely confined” status, including pandemic-era guidance issued in March 2020.
  - Use of absentee ballot drop boxes under guidance issued in August 2020.
  - Clerks’ handling of defects in witness-address information on absentee ballot envelopes, based on guidance dating to 2016.
- Trump alleged these practices violated Wisconsin election statutes and, because they were not enacted by the legislature, unconstitutionally changed the “manner” of appointing presidential electors under the Electors Clause.
- The district court rejected the claims on the merits and as untimely; Trump appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether WEC guidance on indefinitely confined absentee voting, drop boxes, and witness-address corrections violated the Electors Clause by altering the legislature-prescribed manner of appointing presidential electors.
2. Whether the claims were barred by laches because the challenged practices were long known and suit was filed only after the election and certification.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the defendants.
- The court held Wisconsin appointed electors in the manner directed by its legislature: selection by general ballot at the general election.
- The court concluded the challenged WEC guidance fit within the statutory framework and delegated administrative authority, and therefore did not change the legislatively prescribed manner of appointment.
- Independently, the court held the suit was barred by laches due to unreasonable delay in challenging publicly known procedures only after the election, counting, and certification.
- The requested remedy—invalidating large numbers of ballots and unsettling the certified result—strengthened equitable reasons to deny relief.

## Legal Principles

- The Electors Clause concerns the state legislature’s authority to set the manner of appointing presidential electors; administrative implementation under legislatively delegated authority generally does not constitute an unconstitutional change to that manner.
- A legislature may constitutionally delegate election administration responsibilities to an election commission, including issuing guidance to administer election statutes.
- Laches can bar post-election challenges to election procedures when the plaintiff knew (or could have known) of the rules in advance yet waited until after the election to sue, especially when relief would disenfranchise voters who relied on existing procedures.
- Strong equitable interests in finality of election results weigh against granting extraordinary, outcome-altering relief sought after certification.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Wisconsin’s election commission acted within the legislature’s election framework and delegated authority, so the challenged guidance did not violate the Electors Clause, and it further denied relief because the challenge was brought too late under laches given the post-election timing and disruptive remedy sought.


Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2020)