Summary#
SB 1180, “Circulating or signing nomination papers and certain petitions,” would have amended Wisconsin election statutes; it did not become law because it failed. Its main changes would have allowed a person to sign or circulate nomination papers for multiple candidates for the same office in one election, and changed some circulator certification rules. Its stated goal is not provided in the supplied material.
- A person could sign nomination papers for more than one candidate for the same office in the same election.
- A person could circulate nomination papers for more than one such candidate. The bill would remove the requirement that a circulator intend to support the candidate.
- Circulators of nomination papers and certain petitions would certify, to the best of their knowledge, that signers are eligible electors in the relevant area and that the listed residences are actual residences.
- Circulators would still have to certify other matters, including that they personally obtained the signatures and know the signers signed with full knowledge of the paper or petition’s content. Falsifying a certification would remain punishable under existing law.
What it means for you#
- Voters signing nomination papers: If the bill had passed, you could have signed papers for more than one candidate for the same office in the same election. The bill’s text still appears to include a form statement saying the signer has not signed for another candidate for the same office. That conflicts with the change and needs clarification.
- Nomination-paper circulators: You would not have had to intend to support the candidate whose papers you circulated. You would still have had to make the required certifications.
- People signing certain petitions: The bill would have changed what circulators certify about signers’ eligibility and residences. The supplied material identifies recall and referendum petitions as examples.
- Everyone: Because the bill failed, these proposed changes did not take effect.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill text provided does not set out an appropriation, new fee, or new fine. No fiscal estimate is supplied.
- Any administrative costs of applying the changes are unknown.
What is unclear#
- The nomination-paper form appears to keep the statement that a signer has not signed for another candidate for the same office, despite the bill’s stated change allowing multiple signatures.
- The supplied material does not include the full current statutes. The comparison with current law here relies on the bill’s Legislative Reference Bureau analysis, so other effects on existing rules could not be checked.
- The bill does not provide a cost estimate or explain how election officials would handle the apparent conflict in the form.
- The supplied material does not identify every kind of petition covered by the changes to petition circulator certifications.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to let people participate in more than one candidate’s nomination effort for the same office.
- A possible argument for removing the support requirement is that a person can circulate a candidate’s papers without personally backing that candidate.
- Using a “to the best of the circulator’s knowledge” standard for elector status and residence could avoid requiring a circulator to claim certainty about facts they may not be able to verify directly.
Case against#
- One concern is that changing the certification standard for electors and residences could make circulators less directly accountable for those details.
- The apparent mismatch between the proposed right to sign for multiple candidates and the form’s statement that a signer has not done so could confuse signers or affect whether their signatures count.
- The bill does not explain how officials would address that mismatch or what procedures they would use to apply the changed certification rules.