3. Access to Election Documents and Materials
¶ 49. Third, you ask to what extent any applicable openness requirements compel election officials to permit members of the public to inspect election documents or materials during a meeting of a local, municipal, school district, or county canvassing board. In order to respond to this question, it is necessary to consider the pertinent requirements of both the open meetings law and the Election Code, as well as general principles governing the proceedings of governmental bodies.
¶ 50. The open meetings law requires that all open session meetings of a governmental body must be “reasonably accessible to members of the public” and “open to all citizens at all times.” Wis. Stat. § 19.82(3). Absolute or total access is not required, as long as there are no systematic or arbitrary exclusions or restrictions. See State ex rel. Badke v. Village Board of the Village of Greendale, 173 Wis. 2d 553, 580, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993). Parallel provisions of the Election Code require that the various levels of canvassing meetings must be conducted publicly. See Wis. Stat. §§ 7.51(1), 7.53(1)(a) and (2)(d), and 7.60(3). The Election Code does not further specify the meaning of “publicly.” In my opinion, courts would likely construe these open meetings and Election Code provisions together as providing that canvassing board meetings are both “reasonably accessible” and conducted “publicly” if members of the public are given a reasonable opportunity to meaningfully observe the proceedings. ¶ 51. Reasonable limits on public access to government meetings, however, are both necessary and permissible. The express legislative policy of the open meetings law is that “the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1) (emphasis added). The Election Code provides that, at a polling place, the election inspectors have “full authority to maintain order and to enforce obedience to their lawful commands during the election and the canvass of the votes. Wis. Stat. § 7.37(2). More generally, governmental bodies are held to have the inherent power to regulate their proceedings in any way that is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of their authorized functions, to preserve necessary order and decorum, and to restrain any individual to the extent necessary to enable them to perform their public duties. See Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure §§ 2.1, 2.6, 19.1, 37.2, 575, and 805-07 (2000); Robert’s Rules of Order § 61 (10th ed. 2000); Alice Sturgis, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure 222-23 (4th ed. 2001). Considering all these provisions and principles together, I conclude that, while canvassing boards must provide the public a reasonable opportunity to meaningfully observe their meetings, they may impose reasonable limits on public access to the extent necessary to protect the effective and orderly conduct of the canvass.
¶ 52. The same principles of reasonableness govern the public’s opportunity to inspect election documents and materials at canvassing board meetings. In general, members of the public should be permitted to inspect election documents or materials to the extent that such inspection is reasonably necessary to afford the public an opportunity to meaningfully observe the proceedings and does not interfere with the orderly conduct of the canvass. Thus, canvassers must exercise reasonable discretion to determine the manner of public access to election documents and materials that is consistent with the orderly conduct of the canvass. This discretion is not unlimited, however. The Election Code specifically provides that members of the public are never permitted to inspect the confidential portion of a poll list and are prohibited from touching any election materials or equipment during the counting of votes at a polling place or at any central counting location. See Wis. Stat. §§ 5.87(1), 6.47, and 7.41(4). Such provisions specifically addressing access to particular documents and objects supersede any conflicting general standard under the open meetings law. See Jones v. State, 226 Wis. 2d 565, 576, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999). ¶ 53. Similar principles also govern the public’s opportunity to record, film, or photograph a canvassing board meeting. The open meetings law requires that a governmental body must make a reasonable effort to accommodate anyone who wants to record, film, or photograph an open session meeting, as long as the activity does not interfere with the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.90. It is my understanding that the GAB similarly advises election officials that video and still photography is permitted during canvassing board meetings, as long as it does not disrupt or interfere with the official business of the meeting. I agree that members of the public should be allowed to record, film, or photograph a canvassing meeting, as long as such activities are conducted in a reasonable fashion and do not interfere with the canvass.
4. Enforcement
¶ 54. Finally, you ask what are the permissible and appropriate enforcement procedures for a violation of any open meetings requirement that applies to a meeting of a canvassing board and that overlaps with a requirement of the Election Code.
¶ 55. With regard to the Election Code, as noted in your letter of inquiry, election officials are prohibited from intentionally violating any provision of Wis. Stat. chs. 5 to 12 or from willfully neglecting or refusing to perform any of the duties prescribed for them under those statutory chapters. Wis. Stat. § 12.13(2)(a) and (b)7. Violations of these Election Code requirements are enforced by the local district attorney. Wis. Stat. §§ 11.61(2) and 12.60(4). Penalties for violators range from civil forfeitures to felony incarceration. See Wis. Stat. §§ 11.61(1) and 12.60(1). In addition, under Wis. Stat. § 5.06, the GAB has the authority—upon its own motion or upon the sworn complaint of an elector—to review the actions of election officials for compliance with the law and to order an election official to conform his or her conduct to law. Finally, the Attorney General or a local district attorney may sue for injunctive relief or seek a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition whenever a violation of laws regulating the conduct of elections occurs or is proposed to occur. Wis. Stat. § 5.07. ¶ 56. With regard to the open meetings law, any member of a governmental body who knowingly attends a meeting of such body held in violation of that law or who otherwise violates a requirement of the law through some act or omission is subject to civil forfeitures. Wis. Stat. § 19.96. A court may also award such other legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. See Wis. Stat. § 19.97(2). An action to enforce the open meetings law may be brought by the local district attorney upon the verified complaint of any person. Wis. Stat. § 19.97(1). If the district attorney refuses or otherwise fails to commence an enforcement action within twenty days after receiving a verified complaint, then the person making the complaint may bring an enforcement action on his or her relation in the name and on behalf of the State. Wis. Stat. § 19.97(4).
¶ 57. There may be circumstances in which particular conduct by an election official will violate requirements under both the Election Code and the open meetings law. For example, a member of a canvassing board who knowingly attends an unauthorized closed session meeting of that board could also thereby be intentionally or willfully violating the Election Code requirement that the canvass be conducted publicly. In these kinds of circumstances, the question arises whether enforcement action is available under both the open meetings law and the Election Code, or whether one should prevail over the other.
¶ 58. “It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where two conflicting statutes apply to the same subject, the more specific controls.” Jones v. State, 226 Wis. 2d at 576. But the above rule only applies where there is truly a conflict between the statutes. Pritchard v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 2001 WI App. 62, ¶ 15, 242 Wis. 2d 301, 625 N.W.2d 613. Conflicts between statutes are not favored and courts are required to harmonize statutes to avoid conflict when a reasonable interpretation permits. Id. That two statutes regulate the same event does not create a conflict. Id. Instead, a conflict occurs when there is no reasonable interpretation making it possible to comply with both statutes. See id. ¶ 59. It is not possible to predict all potential factual circumstances where the open meetings law and the Election Code could be violated. Suffice it to say, there are circumstances where the enforcement of the requirements of the open meetings law and of the Election Code would likely overlap without actually being in conflict. In such situations, it would be proper for enforcement action to proceed under either body of law or even under both. Whether to proceed and under what statutes is a matter left to the discretion of the official seeking to enforce the law.
Sincerely,
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
Attorney General
JBVH:TCB:jrs
