Wisconsin Law Does Not Permit SAVE System Citizenship Verification 

September 30, 2026

Administrator Meagan Wolfe
Wisconsin Elections Commission
Meagan.Wolfe@wisconsin.gov

Re: Advisory Opinion Request – Clerk use of federal SAVE System

Dear Administrator Wolfe,

We write on behalf of Reverend Greg Lewis, Executive Director of Souls to the Polls (STTP), a non-profit, non-partisan voter education and advocacy organization. STTP believes that voting is a collective tool that Wisconsinites can use to build stronger, safer, and more supportive communities. For over a decade, STTP has united Milwaukee faith leaders and their congregations to strengthen the voting power of the African American community. To that end, STTP guards against threats to the right to vote and works to help return Wisconsin to its pro-democracy roots. Among the efforts that STTP has taken in this regard is filing an amicus curiae brief to support WEC’s position in ongoing litigation in Cerny v. WEC, No. 24CV1353 (Wis. Cir. Ct. for Waukesha Cnty., brief filed Feb. 18, 2026).

The Cerny case seeks a writ of mandamus against WEC and its Commissioners on the theory that the agency and members of the Commission have a duty under Wisconsin law to verify the accuracy of citizenship information for each voter registration application. Ms. Cerny’s court papers indicate that one means of verifying citizenship information is the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a federal district court order enjoining use of a modified and expanded version of the SAVE system. See Dep’t of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308, slip op. (U.S. Sept. 25, 2026) (per curiam).¹ It is this decision that causes me to write today in request of an advisory opinion from the Commission under the authority granted it in Wis. Stat. § 5.05(6a).

Background

Modified SAVE System

The modified version of the SAVE system “allow[s] state and local authorities to conduct bulk searches of multiple individuals at once.” Dep’t of Homeland Security, 1 slip op. at 1. The Supreme Court explained the modified system’s functionality as follows:

Under the modified SAVE program, a state or local agency seeking to determine an individual’s citizenship status first uploads the individual’s first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial SSN to the SAVE portal. The SAVE program automatically discloses that information to SSA, which runs it through its databases to find a match. SSA then discloses its search results to DHS, including the individual’s full name, date of birth, full SSN, and citizenship status. Finally, the SAVE portal returns a response to the agency, either confirming that the individual is a citizen or requesting that the agency resubmit its query with additional information. If the modified SAVE program is unable to confirm that an individual is a citizen, the agency is required to contact the individual and request that he provide proof of citizenship to register or remain registered to vote.

Id. at 1–2. The Supreme Court’s order staying the lower court injunction does not mandate that any state or local official utilize the modified SAVE system; it merely puts on hold the federal district court order prohibiting such officials from choosing to use that system consistent with governing law.

The modified SAVE system’s operation is inconsistent with Wisconsin law in several respects. Indeed, as detailed below, WEC’s positions in both the Cerny case and United States v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 833 F. Supp. 3d 949 (W.D. Wis. 2026), appeal pending (7th Cir.), underscores this inconsistency and highlights the dangers that would arise if one or more election officials in Wisconsin were to utilize the modified SAVE system.

Cerny v. WEC

To counter the Cerny petitioners’ argument that state law must be interpreted to require WEC to proactively verify voter citizenship status, WEC’s arguments in court rely on plain-language statutory analysis. Notably, state law requires that WEC and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) match Wisconsin’s voter registration list with DOT records “to verify the accuracy of the information provided for the purpose of voter registration.” Wis. Stat. § 85.61. Wisconsin’s voter list includes specifically enumerated, personally identifiable information (e.g., voter name, address, date of birth, last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number), but it does not include citizenship status. Likewise, state law specifies several circumstances requiring that a registered voter’s status be changed to ineligible, see, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 6.50, but a mismatch between DOT and WEC records is not one of them. And requiring that DOT share citizenship information with WEC violates Wisconsin privacy law. Specifically, DOT is generally prohibited from disclosing the personally identifiable information it maintains except in limited circumstances. Wis. Stat. § 343.50(8)(b)–(c). None of the exceptions give DOT the authority to share citizenship data with WEC for voter-eligibility-verification purposes. Respondents’ Br. in Supp. of Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 9–10, 15–20, Cerny v. WEC, No. 24CV1353 (Wis. Cir. Ct. for Waukesha Cnty., br. filed Nov. 26, 2025).

United States v. WEC

At the same time, in federal court, WEC has argued that Wisconsin’s election law protects certain voter personally identifiable information from disclosure. Unless a specific exception applies. WEC may not disclose a voter’s date of birth, driver’s license number, Social Security number, address if the voter has obtained confidentiality protection, or any indication that the voter needs voting accommodations. Wis. Stat. § 6.36(1)(b)1.a. Absent an applicable exception, WEC must redact such information before fulfilling requests for Wisconsin’s official voter registration list. No exception exists to permit blanket disclosure of the unredacted list to the federal government for voter citizenship verification. Defs.’ Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 34-36, United States v. WEC, 833 F. Supp. 3d 949 (W.D. Wis. 2026), appeal pending (7th Cir.) (brief filed Feb. 2, 2026).

Request

Considering the clear language of Wisconsin law and the Commission’s characterizations of that law in multiple ongoing cases, Rev. Lewis respectfully requests the Commission issue an informal advisory opinion, under the authority defined in Wis. Stat § 5.05(6a)(a) and the procedure outlined in Wis. Stat. § 5.05(6a)(b)1., clarifying that no election official in Wisconsin may, consistent with Wisconsin law, utilize the modified SAVE system. Such efforts would violate Wisconsin law in at least five distinct ways:

1. Wisconsin law relies on a voter registration applicant’s sworn attestation of citizenship, Wis. Stat. § 6.33(1); Wis. Admin. Code § EL 3.02(6), (10). No provision of state law authorizes election officials, absent extenuating circumstances, to seek verification of an applicant’s citizenship. Wis. Stat. § 6.32(4) (clerk “shall” enter elector’s name on registration list if registration form is sufficient and clerk has no reliable information to indicate proposed elector is not qualified). These facets of Wisconsin law cannot be squared with use of the modified SAVE system’s operation when “a state or local agency seek[s] to determine an individual’s citizenship status.” Dep’t of Homeland Security, slip op. at 1.
2. Wisconsin law protects the privacy of personally identifying information belonging to Wisconsin voters and voter registration applicants. Wis. Stat. § 6.36(1)(b)1.a. Those protections under Wisconsin law are incompatible with both the modified SAVE system’s functionality, which requires “upload[ing]” for each person whose citizenship is being checked “the individual’s first name, last name, date of birth, or full or partial SSN to the SAVE portal. The SAVE program automatically discloses that information to SSA, which runs it through its databases to find a match. SSA then discloses its search results to DHS, including the individual’s full name, date of birth, full SSN, and citizenship status.” Dep’t of Homeland Security, slip op. at 2 (emphases added).
3. Wisconsin law limits the bases upon which election officials can question or further investigate a registered voter’s information on the voter rolls or the information provided by a voter registration applicant on a properly completed voter registration form. Such questions are appropriate only when triggered by the election official’s receipt of reliable information. Wis. Stat. § 6.32(2), (4). That is inconsistent with the design of the modified SAVE system, which is built upon a variety of information that is not sufficiently reliable for these particular purposes to meet the threshold standard Wisconsin law requires to challenge a voter registration.²

    

4. Wisconsin law sets out procedures, consistent with due process, for investigations triggered by an election official’s receipt of reliable information calling an individual voter or registrant’s status into question. Wis. Stat. §§ 6.48, 6.92, 6.925; Wis. Admin. Code ch. EL 9. Under those procedures, investigations are undertaken on an individualized basis. Wis. Stat. §§ 6.48(1), 6.92, 6.925; Wis. Admin. Code §§ EL 9.01, 9.02. That is inconsistent with the modified SAVE system, which anticipates “state and local authorities [choosing] to conduct bulk searches of multiple individuals at once,” Dep’t of Homeland Security, slip op. at 1, without first receiving individualized inquiries.
5. Wisconsin law requires that, when an election official has received reliable information calling into question the information provided by a voter registration applicant on a properly completed voter registration form or a registered voter’s information on the voter rolls, the municipal clerk is to provide that individual notice of the challenge and an opportunity to be heard. Wis. Stat. §§ 6.48(1)(a), 6.92, 6.925; Wis. Admin. Code §§ El 9.01(1),(2), 9.02(1), (2). An elector may not be disqualified unless the fact that the elector does not qualify or is not properly registered is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Wis. Stat. § 6.325. By contrast, “[i]f the modified SAVE program is unable to confirm that an individual is a citizen, the [local or state] agency [that uploaded the individual’s information] is required to contact the individual and request that he provide proof of citizenship to register or remain registered to vote.” Dep’t of Homeland Security, slip op. at 2 (emphases added). In other words, the modified SAVE system inverts the burden of proof set forth in Wisconsin law. Our statutes require reliable information and confirmation of that information before notifying an individual that, if they fail to respond to an inquiry within a reasonable time, they will be removed from the voter rolls. By contrast, the modified SAVE system calls for immediately denying a voter registration application or removing a registered voter from the rolls, based solely on the modified SAVE system’s inability to confirm citizenship, shifting the burden of proof to the individual.

Each of these ways in which the modified SAVE system conflicts with Wisconsin law is independently a sufficient basis for concluding that any election official who uploads voter information into the modified SAVE system is acting inconsistently with Wisconsin law. Any one of these conflicts alone justifies WEC issuing an advisory opinion making clear that use of the modified SAVE system is incompatible with current Wisconsin law. Taken in aggregate, these conflicts necessitate such an advisory opinion.

Conclusion

Given the imminence of the 2026 general election, we respectfully request that WEC act promptly, to provide Wisconsin’s local clerks, and election officials across the state, with necessary guidance and to prevent any conduct that interferes with the rights of Wisconsin voters.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if we can provide you or your staff any additional information.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Mandell (SBN 1100406)
Rachel E. Snyder (SBN 1090427)
TR Edwards (SBN 1119447)
LAW FORWARD, INC.
222 West Washington Avenue
Suite 680
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
jmandell@lawforward.org
rsnyder@lawforward.org
tedwards@lawforward.org
608.283.9822

cc: Angela O’Brien Sharpe, angela.sharpe@wisconsin.gov

¹ Available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a308_pok0.pdf.

² See Letter from Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel to Jon Sherman, Litigation Director & Senior Counsel, Fair Elections Center, 2 (July 13, 2023).