A Dane County Circuit Court judge said Thursday state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen does not have the power to enforce federal election law and dismissed his lawsuit against the state's election board.
In the lawsuit, Van Hollen asked the court to enforce the Help America Vote Act. HAVA is a federal law that requires states to verify voter registration information against other state databases starting Jan. 1, 2006. The Government Accountability Board did not begin HAVA checks until Aug. 6, 2006.
Judge Maryann Sumi said in her decision that Wisconsin has always strongly protected citizens' right to vote. She said mistakes by election officials should not prevent people from voting.
Sumi said one requirement of HAVA was that states set up a complaint procedure. In Wisconsin, all complaints about voting procedures go to the GAB, which then holds a hearing. According to Sumi, Van Hollen should have gone directly to the GAB with his complaint before filing a lawsuit.
This is exactly the kind of discretionary decision-making the GAB was created to do,"" she said.
Attorney Lester Pines, who represented the GAB, called Van Hollen's lawsuit ""a breathtaking assertion of power."" He praised Sumi for having a ""scholarly"" and ""well-reasoned"" opinion.
""This is an absolute vindication of the position of the board, and it should stand up very well in any court,"" he said.
Gov. Jim Doyle agreed with the decision and said Sumi made it clear the attorney general and the Republican Party of Wisconsin had no authority to sue the GAB.
""The Government Accountability Board, not the Republican Attorney General, has the responsibility to supervise elections,"" he said.
Doyle said he is confident the rest of the election process will go well and called the decision an ""important step forward.""
""With today's decision, we can all move forward with a smooth, successful election,"" he said. ""On Nov. 4, each qualified voter will be able to go to the polls and exercise this right.""
Van Hollen said in a statement he was disappointed with the court's decision.
""I believe today's decision was an erroneous interpretation of the law,"" he said. ""When a lower court gets the law wrong, parties appeal to a higher court, and that's what I will do.
