Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, X , Youtube  

Wisconsin independent journalist and election fraud investigator, who works closely with CDM contributor Chris Gleason, posted the following on his Telegram channel.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, issued a formal letter on June 4, 2025, to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. 

The letter notifies WEC that it is failing to comply with federal election law, specifically the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This notice also went to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

The central issue is that Wisconsin has not established the legally required process for handling HAVA complaints.

What the Law Requires

Under Section 21112 of HAVA (also referred to as Section 402), every state that accepts federal HAVA funds must create an administrative process that lets voters file complaints about violations of the law. The law lays out clear requirements:

The process must be fair and apply equally to everyone.

Anyone who believes a violation has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur must be allowed to file a complaint.

If the person filing the complaint asks for a hearing, the state must provide one and create a record of it.

If the state finds a violation, it must offer a proper remedy.

What Wisconsin Is Doing Wrong

The DOJ states Wisconsin is not meeting these federal requirements. The state has chosen not to provide hearings on HAVA complaints filed against the Wisconsin Elections Commission. 

Instead, it relies on a 2022 state court opinion that said the Commission cannot investigate itself. That position effectively shuts down any chance for voters to have their complaints heard or addressed.

As a result, people who believe the Commission violated federal election law are left with no process, no legal decision, and no interpretation of the law. 

The DOJ points to a federal court case where a judge warned that refusing to offer a hearing leaves complainants stranded. The case cited is Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Millis, 720 F. Supp. 3d 703.

The DOJ is making it clear that this situation cannot continue. It warns that Wisconsin’s failure to comply may justify stopping the flow of federal HAVA funds to the state. 

According to the letter, Wisconsin has already received more than 77 million dollars in federal money through HAVA. That funding is conditioned on the state following the law.

The letter also reminds the Elections Commission that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized protecting the integrity of elections as a matter of high importance. 

That point is backed by a 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, where the Court said preserving election integrity is a compelling government interest.

This letter is more than a warning. It serves as a formal record that Wisconsin is not following federal law and is at risk of penalties, including losing federal funding. 

The DOJ is also signaling that it expects WEC to correct its process immediately and begin providing the hearings and remedies required under HAVA.

The letter also leaves the door open for legal or administrative action. It sets the stage for future enforcement, including possible lawsuits, investigations, or formal action by the Election Assistance Commission.

The Department of Justice is putting Wisconsin on notice. The state is out of compliance with HAVA and must fix its administrative complaint process without delay. 

If it does not, it could face serious consequences, including the loss of federal money and legal action. This letter can be used as evidence in future litigation and may also be a useful tool for pushing legislative or procedural reforms in Wisconsin.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!  

This is bigger than you might think, every state in the nation falls under HAVA.

1. Example: A HAVA Complaint is Filed

A voter or other eligible individual files a written complaint alleging a violation of Title III of HAVA, which may include:

-Failure to provide provisional ballots

-Inaccessible voting machines for disabled voters

-Improper ID procedures

-Failure to ensure a secure, accurate, and error-free voting system

The complaint must meet the state’s procedural rules and request a hearing if the complainant wants one.

2. Acknowledgment and Preliminary Review

The state election authority (e.g., the Wisconsin Elections Commission) must acknowledge receipt.

The agency will perform a preliminary review to determine whether the complaint states a valid HAVA issue. If valid, the case proceeds to hearing if the complainant requested one.

3. Notice and Scheduling of the Hearing

-Both the complainant and the respondent (e.g., a local election official or the elections commission) are notified.

-A hearing is scheduled, usually with reasonable advance notice.

-A hearing officer or administrative law judge may be assigned, depending on the state's system.

4. The Hearing Itself (Required to Be “On the Record”)

This is a formal administrative proceeding, often similar to a mini-trial. The components typically include:

A. Opening Statements

-Both parties briefly state their positions.

-The complainant explains the alleged HAVA violation and what remedy is being sought.

B. Presentation of Evidence

-Documents: Election records, communications, manuals, voter registration logs.

-Witnesses: Election officials, poll workers, voters.

-Sworn Testimony: All witnesses testify under oath.

-Cross-examination: Each side has the right to question the other side’s witnesses.

C. Legal Arguments

-The parties can present legal arguments in writing or orally.

-This may include citations to federal law, HAVA regulations, and prior administrative rulings.

D. Record Creation

-Everything is transcribed or recorded.

-The hearing record includes all exhibits, witness testimony, and procedural filings.

5. Post-Hearing Briefs (Optional)

-The parties may be allowed to file written briefs summarizing their arguments and applying the law to the facts.

6. Decision Issued

-A written determination is made by the hearing officer or commission.

-The decision must:

-Identify whether a HAVA violation occurred.

-Specify the legal basis for the decision.

-Include a remedy or resolution, if warranted.

Examples of remedies:

-Ordering corrective action (e.g., update voter registration processes)

-Requiring re-training of poll workers

-Issuing a directive to follow HAVA procedures in future elections

7. Publication and Appeal

-The decision is published or made available to the public (as HAVA requires transparency).

-The complainant or respondent may have a right to appeal under state law, though HAVA itself does not provide a federal appeal mechanism unless broader constitutional or federal civil rights issues are implicated.

8. Potential Federal Consequences

If the state fails to conduct such hearings or enforce compliance:

-The U.S. Election Assistance Commission may take action, including:

-Withholding or conditioning federal HAVA funding.

-The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division may intervene or file a lawsuit for noncompliance.

I already asked for a HAVA hearing on a complaint I filed against the Wis. Election Commission just days ago.

This will be the end of Meagan Wolfe. She will not survive the coming HAVA hearings. 

I call for her to resign. 

This will also expose the horrible abomination of the Wisconsin Election Commission that "republican" Assembly Rep Robin Vos created. He made this Frankensteinian back in late 2015.

Each attorney at WEC, there are three staff attorneys and then Commissioners who are attorneys - Ann Jacobs, Mark Thomsen, Don Millis - must have their law licenses suspended for denying the civil rights of citizens who filed valid HAVA complaints to them for years...yet were denied to be heard, denied to have a hearing, as mandated by law.