The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday morning in a lawsuit over Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) Administrator Meagan Wolfe’s ability to remain in her post. 

Several times during the arguments, justices and attorneys described the situation as “absurd” and “bizarre” as the Court is being asked to deal with the ramifications of a divided state government that has frequently deadlocked over executive appointments to boards and commissions and the Republican-held Senate’s confirmation of those appointees. 

Two years ago, the Court, at the time controlled by a conservative majority, ruled that Frederick Prehn, a Republican appointee to the state’s Natural Resources Board, did not have to leave his post at the end of his term — even though Democratic Gov. Tony Evers had nominated his replacement. 

The Court found that until the Senate — whose GOP leaders were collaborating with Prehn to remain in the seat in an effort to influence policy decisions over wolf hunting and water quality — confirmed his replacement, state law allowed Prehn to remain on the board as a holdover. 

In the summer of 2023, Wolfe’s initial four-year term as WEC administrator expired and Senate Republicans, influenced by the three previous years of constant Republican attacks on the state’s election administration, said they would not confirm her to a second term. 

The three Democrats on the commission, in an effort to shield Wolfe from the Senate, abstained from a vote to reappoint her while the three Republicans on the commission voted to nominate her again. State law requires a majority of the six member body to vote in favor of an administrator’s nomination, however, meaning the nomination wasn’t officially advanced to the Senate for a vote. 

But the Senate acted anyway, voting against Wolfe’s appointment. Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul immediately filed a lawsuit arguing that under the precedent Republicans set in the Prehn decision, Wolfe is able to remain in her position as a holdover. 

At the circuit court level, Republicans admitted that the Senate vote to remove Wolfe was “symbolic.” But after a Dane County judge ruled in Wolfe’s favor, the GOP leaders appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 

While neither side in the Wolfe case argued for overturning the Prehn precedent, the arguments put Republicans in the position of arguing against principles they had themselves fought for in the earlier case — only this time in front of a Court held by a liberal majority. 

Misha Tseytlin, the attorney for the Senate, argued that the statute that guides the commission’s authority to appoint an administrator creates “an affirmative duty,” and that the commission must nominate a new administrator when the four year term expires. He said that if the law doesn’t require WEC to act, unelected officials can shield the administrator from the elected Senate indefinitely. 

“Whatever level of absurdity one wants to put on the Prehn situation, whether it’s zero or 100, this one’s orders of magnitude more,” Tseytlin said. “There you had a traditional constitutional standoff between the governor and the Senate. They didn’t agree with the appointment, that’s resolved in the holdover. Here we have three, essentially bureaucrats, who have no constitutional status, holding the chief election officer appointment hostage away from the people.” 

But Justice Jill Karofsky questioned if this outcome simply forced the Republicans in the Senate to deal with the consequences of a legal interpretation they previously asked for. 

“You are trying to thread a needle here that has no eye,” Karofsky said. “Six of the seven of us sat in this courtroom two years ago when your client insisted that Fred Prehn should be able to retain his position on the DNR board, even though his term had expired and your client won. This is a case of careful what you wish for, isn’t it? Now the Legislature is here two years later, demanding that Meagan Wolfe must vacate her position.” 

“It seems to me, this has little to do with what the law actually says, and far more to do with who is in these positions,” she continued. “If the Legislature favors someone, they stay. If they don’t, they must go. Does that sound like the rule of law to you?” 

Assistant Attorney General Charlotte Gibson, the Department of Justice lawyer arguing on behalf of Wolfe, said that the statute that gives the commission the authority to appoint administrators does not require it to act when the administrator’s term expires. The administrator, she said, becomes a holdover appointee and serves at the will of the commission, who can fire her at any time. 

“[Wolfe’s] role is not a part-time policymaking position like the [Natural Resources] board people,” Gibson said. “This is an intense, full-time job requiring expertise and experience, and it just doesn’t work if there are frequent changes in personnel and sudden vacancies … but if an administrator is underperforming, the Commission’s right there on the ground with her. They’re going to see that, and regardless of whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, they’re going to coalesce and bring in an administrator who can do the job.”