Wisconsin Town Triumphs in Legal Dispute Over Use of Paper Ballots Amid Federal Challenge

What's happening

The small town of Thornapple, Wisconsin, recently won a significant legal battle over its decision to use hand-marked paper ballots in elections, despite facing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). This dispute arose after Thornapple chose to abandon electronic voting machines, a move that sparked controversy and legal scrutiny. A Dane County Circuit Court judge dismissed an appeal from local activist Erin Webster, who argued that the switch impaired her voting rights. The ruling affirmed the town’s authority to determine its voting methods under state law, marking a notable moment in the ongoing debate over election procedures.

Thornapple, a community of roughly 711 residents, made the switch to paper ballots in 2023, citing concerns about the reliability and security of electronic voting systems. The town’s officials expressed a preference for the transparency and simplicity of hand-marked paper ballots, which they believe enhance election integrity. This decision came amid a broader national conversation about the security and trustworthiness of electronic voting machines, with some communities pushing for more traditional methods. Thornapple’s choice reflects a growing trend among small towns seeking to ensure voter confidence through visible and verifiable voting processes.

The legal conflict began when the DOJ raised concerns about accessibility, particularly for voters with disabilities. The department claimed that during the primary election, some voters with disabilities reported difficulties using electronic voting machines. As a result, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against Thornapple, leading to a preliminary injunction requiring the town to provide electronic voting systems for the November presidential election. This federal intervention highlighted the tension between ensuring accessible voting options and respecting local decisions about election administration.

Local activist Erin Webster challenged Thornapple’s switch to paper ballots, arguing that it disenfranchised voters who rely on accessible electronic machines. However, the Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled that Webster lacked standing to bring the appeal, noting she did not demonstrate how her own rights were affected by the change. The court emphasized that Wisconsin state law permits towns like Thornapple to choose their voting methods, and the town’s decision to use paper ballots was lawful. This ruling effectively upheld Thornapple’s autonomy in managing its elections despite federal objections.

What's at stake

Thornapple officials defended their approach, pointing out that the town has not had any registered voters with disabilities for several years, which influenced their decision to discontinue electronic machines. Suzanne Pinnow, the town’s treasurer and chief election inspector, described the federal lawsuit as an overreach and expressed frustration with the legal scrutiny. The town later agreed to a settlement requiring it to provide at least one accessible voting machine for future elections, balancing compliance with federal accessibility mandates and the community’s preference for paper ballots.

The DOJ’s involvement in Thornapple’s election practices has drawn mixed reactions. Some local officials and advocates support federal efforts to ensure accessible voting for all, emphasizing the importance of compliance with laws like the Help America Vote Act. Others view the federal intervention as unnecessary and burdensome, especially in small communities with limited resources and unique circumstances. Thornapple’s case exemplifies the broader national debate over election integrity, accessibility, and the balance of power between federal oversight and local control.

This legal dispute also reflects wider concerns about election security and public trust. Proponents of paper ballots argue that hand-marked ballots provide a clear, auditable record of voter intent, which can increase confidence in election outcomes. Critics, however, stress the importance of accessible voting technologies to ensure that all eligible voters can participate without barriers. Thornapple’s experience highlights the challenges faced by communities trying to navigate these competing priorities amid evolving legal and political landscapes.

Looking ahead, Thornapple’s case may influence other small towns considering similar changes to their voting systems. The settlement requiring accessible machines suggests a potential path for reconciling local preferences with federal accessibility requirements. Observers will be watching how Thornapple implements these changes and whether further legal challenges arise. The outcome will also contribute to ongoing discussions about how best to protect voter rights, maintain election security, and accommodate diverse voter needs across the country.

Why it matters

Thornapple’s legal victory affirms local control over election methods despite federal challenges. The case highlights tensions between election integrity concerns and accessibility requirements. Small communities like Thornapple face unique challenges balancing transparency and voter access.

Federal involvement underscores the importance of compliance with voting rights laws for disabled voters. The dispute reflects broader national debates over electronic versus paper voting systems.

Key facts & context

Thornapple, Wisconsin, has about 711 residents and switched to hand-marked paper ballots in 2023. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit claiming accessibility issues with electronic voting machines. A Dane County Circuit Court judge dismissed an appeal from activist Erin Webster challenging the ballot switch.

The court ruled that Wisconsin law allows towns to choose their voting methods, supporting Thornapple’s decision. The DOJ’s lawsuit led to a preliminary injunction requiring electronic voting machines for the 2024 presidential election. Thornapple officials noted no registered disabled voters in recent years, influencing their voting system choice.

The town agreed to a settlement to provide at least one accessible voting machine for future elections. The case illustrates ongoing national debates about election security, accessibility, and federal versus local authority. The Help America Vote Act mandates accessible voting options for disabled voters, central to the DOJ’s concerns.

Thornapple’s experience may serve as a model or cautionary tale for other small communities considering election system changes.

Timeline & key developments

2026-01-30: Wisconsin Town Wins Legal Battle Over Paper Ballots Amid Federal Scrutiny. Additional reporting on this topic is available in our broader archive and will continue to shape this timeline as new developments emerge.

Primary sources

• fec.gov document

Further reading & references

• (Additional background links will appear here as we cover this topic.)