Good morning.

Tuesday in Whitewater will see evening showers with a high of 80. Sunrise is 5:49 and sunset is 8:11 for 14 hours 22 minutes of daylight. The moon is a waning gibbous with 67.6 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
The Whitewater Common Council meets at 6 PM.
Mention of a proposed reduction in Whitewater’s polling places during odd-numbered years came from a councilmember in April. The proposal would overturn a well-considered memorandum of understanding from 2024.
Whitewater’s politics are not subtle: the April mention did not find its way into Whitewater’s council agenda until August, a time when many residents are away. When late last week the possible discontinuation appeared on the August 4 agenda, there was, however, then reason enough to consider the proposed closure more fully.
Below is an initial assessment of an ill-considered, objectionable proposal to discontinue one of Whitewater’s two polling places in odd-numbered years. Full consideration would address five main topics: (1) whether the August 4 agenda item as published is adequate to permit lawful disposition of this issue tonight, (2) whether the staff memo to the Whitewater Common Council supports closing one of the polling places in odd-numbered years, (3) Wisconsin’s voting rights law, (4) federal voting rights law, and (5) replies to possible arguments in favor of closing the campus polling location.
My remarks today address the first two topics. These remarks are intentionally less formal than a memorandum of law, consistent with the general character of this site. They are also intentionally more formal than is typical of this site, as the topic involves not merely public policy choices but also scope of action under law.
Questions: (1) Is the August 4 Whitewater Common Council agenda item as published adequate to permit lawful disposition of this issue tonight? (2) Does the agenda packet’s staff memo to the Whitewater Common Council adequately support closing one of Whitewater’s polling places in odd-numbered years?
Brief Answers: (1) No. The August 4 Whitewater Common Council agenda item as published fails to satisfy Wisconsin’s statutory requirement for a properly-noticed public hearing — not merely an agenda item — for a proposed polling place closing. (2) No. The agenda packet’s staff memo to the Whitewater Common Council offers inadequate support for closing one of Whitewater’s two polling locations in odd-numbered years. Indeed, the memo’s own data suggests the very opposite: the importance of keeping both locations open in odd-numbered years.
Analysis: Overview. The City of Whitewater prudently recognized the importance of two polling as recently as 2024. On April 4, 2024, after the campus location was not used for the April 2 election, the Common Council heard from students and residents about transportation, disability access, safety, and fair access. The Clerk explained that the decision had been based on the smaller election, the first use of Badger Books, and the view that only one site was needed. Speakers described students without cars, disabled students, students who live year-round in Whitewater, and the practical value of a familiar polling place on campus. The Council then voted unanimously to work on an agreement with UW–Whitewater for a campus polling location and to determine the cost of offering campus voting. See Minutes, Whitewater Common Council 5–6 (Apr. 4, 2024).
The August 2026 Council packet states that, on August 20, 2024, the Council approved a memorandum of understanding “to have every election at both the Armory and UW Campus except August, since the students are not on Campus at that time.” City of Whitewater, Council Agenda Item 19, Potential of Consolidating Polling Locations for Low Turnout, in Common Council Meeting Packet 101–03 (Aug. 4, 2026) [hereafter Aug. 2026 Packet]. That description shows that the two-site arrangement was not an accidental practice or an informal experiment. It was an approved municipal policy in response to an identified access problem.
Before any change, the City should publish the executed memorandum of understanding, its duration, its annual-review terms, and any cancellation procedure. The controlling point is narrower: the City’s own current packet says an agreement was approved for every election except August. The Council should review the document it approved before reversing the very policy it so recently created.
Analysis: Requirement of a Public Hearing. While a municipality has authority to establish polling places, Wis. Stat. § 5.25, it does not have unbounded discretion to discontinue them. Polling places must ordinarily be established at least thirty days before an election. Id. § 5.25(3)(a). If a municipality attempts to close an established site within thirty days of an election, closure requires an emergency finding, approval by both a majority of the members-elect and the clerk, and specified notices and on-site directions. Id. § 5.25(3)(a)–(b). The present proposal concerns discontinuation in advance, so a different safeguard controls:
After an election and more than 30 days before the next election, the location of a polling place in a municipality may not be discontinued without the approval of the municipality’s governing body after a public hearing at which the public has an opportunity to present testimony on the proposed discontinuation.
Id. § 5.25(3)(c).
Approval must come after a public hearing. The hearing must afford the public an opportunity to present testimony. The testimony must concern the proposed discontinuation, not municipal business in general.
The August 4 packet labels Item 19 as a mere agenda item — the material provided does not identify it as the statutory public hearing. If the Council only discusses the proposal, then no closure has yet occurred.
If it intends to approve discontinuation, however, it should first ensure that the meeting was specifically noticed and conducted as the hearing § 5.25(3)(c) requires. A routine public-comment period—often time-limited and not tied to a noticed evidentiary subject—should not be treated as interchangeable with a hearing that the Legislature expressly mandated as a condition prior to a decision to close a polling place.
This is the clearest legal issue on the present record. It rests on the statute’s text and the procedure the City uses.
Analysis: The City of Whitewater’s Staff Memo Does Not Adequately Support Its Proposal. The staff recommendation reads in full: “Odd years, when there are no Presidential or Gubernatorial elections, I do not think we should have polling locations on campus. It is a lot of work to set up both locations and find the workers to fill both locations.” Aug. 2026 Packet, supra, at 101.
This does not establish that discontinuation is necessary, that the relevant elections are actually low-demand in Whitewater, or that consolidation would safely absorb the displaced workload. “Odd year” is a political-calendar category. It is not a turnout forecast. Odd-year Wisconsin ballots can include state Supreme Court, state superintendent, circuit court, municipal, school-board, and referendum contests of immediate consequence to students and other campus-area residents.
The packet also recounts that the Clerk was invited to a university orientation program to conduct registration and then told not to attend because the event was limited to university-provided services. This is, needless to say, not evidence about Election Day demand, the availability of the Hamilton Center, the legal rights of campus-area electors, or the City’s obligation to administer elections. A university employee’s decision about one orientation program cannot carry the City’s constitutional and statutory analysis. (This should be obvious.)
Analysis: The City of Whitewater’s Staff Memo Undermines Its Own Recommendation for Closure. The City’s figures show concentrated campus demand.
From tonight’s agenda packet:
| Election | Campus in-person voters | Campus share of City in-person voters | Campus EDRs | Campus share of City EDRs |
| Feb. 2025 spring primary | 78 | 18.3% | 27 | 79.4% |
| Apr. 2025 spring election | 903 | 34.6% | 359 | 76.1% |
| Apr. 2026 spring election | 529 | 30.9% | 445 | 80.8% |
Source: Aug. 2026 Packet, supra, at 103. Percentages and combined figures are calculated from the packet’s reported numbers. “EDR” means Election Day registration.
Two conclusions are clear.
First, the campus site has served roughly one-third of the City’s in-person voters in the two spring general elections shown. A one-third share is significant; these data undermine the staff recommendation for closure.
Second, the campus site has handled between three-quarters and four-fifths of the City’s Election Day registrations in every campus election reported after 2024. That pattern is, in fact, to be expected in a population of younger and more mobile residents whose addresses and housing arrangements change frequently. Registration requires time, documentation review, proof-of-residence questions, and trained workers. Closing the campus site would not make that work disappear. It would move it to the Armory, concentrate it in one room, and require the City to equip and staff the Armory for the added registration load.
Analysis: The City’s cost table does not measure savings. The packet’s financial section says “See Spreadsheet.” The spreadsheet lists poll-worker pay and food at each site. It does not present a budget, a cost per successfully served voter, or a net-savings calculation.
The gross campus line cannot simply be called “savings.” After consolidation, the City would still have to serve the campus voters. A proper fiscal comparison would include at least:
- the number and shifts of additional Armory inspectors necessary for the combined wards;
- additional Badger Books, printers, network capacity, registration stations, ballot-issuing stations, accessible equipment, booths, and greeters;
- setup, transport, storage, testing, overtime, and food for the larger consolidated operation;
- voter-notice, signage, translation, and redirection costs;
- any transportation plan for electors without vehicles;
- queue and contingency capacity, including the risk of emergency extensions or prolonged canvassing; and
- the value of university-provided space, parking, equipment support, and worker recruitment under the operative agreement.
Closure would not eliminate every cost. It would transfer some costs to the Armory and some to voters in the form of travel time, transportation expense, uncertainty, and queues. Public budgeting should — both as good public policy and to justify closure under the law — consider those external costs even when they do not appear on a City ledger or in a thin staff memo.
The present recommendation asks the Council to treat an established campus polling place as an optional expense in odd-numbered years. The City’s own record shows as much.
The campus site served roughly one-third of Whitewater’s in-person voters in the last two spring elections reported. It handled more than three-quarters of the City’s Election Day registrations in every reported post-2024 election. The City previously restored the site after hearing access concerns, approved an agreement for both locations at every election except August.
Against that record, the new packet offers no net-savings calculation, no capacity model, no transportation study, no accessibility comparison, and no neutral standard for closing a site. It offers only the general propositions that odd years lack presidential or gubernatorial contests and that two locations take work.
What the City of Whitewater should not do is confuse a gross line item with net savings, a university orientation dispute with an election-administration record, or an odd-numbered year with an election attracting only a small electorate. Students who live in Whitewater are Whitewater voters. Their right to vote does not arrive only with a presidential campaign, and it does not leave when the calendar turns odd.
Conclusion. This post addresses two obvious problems with the City of Whitewater’s staff proposal: the agenda item is improperly noticed for final disposition, and the staff memo and attached spreadsheet are inadequate to support— and indeed contradict — the case for the proposed polling-place closure. Whitewater should continue the sensible practice of multiple polling locations adopted in 2024.
_____
Upcoming posts (in no decided order): A New Ethics Ordinance, and a Whitewater Comparative Analysis.

