This amuses me! How dare they ask landlords to help tenants participate in democracy! The horror!
From Eileen Bruskewitz eileenbz@gmail.com
Alders,
There are three reasons that Madison landlords will not comply with the recently proposed ordinance requiring landlords to provide voter registration applications to their tenants.
First, Ch 12.093 of the Wisconsin statutes states: 3 No person may personally or through an agent, by any act compel, induce, or prevail upon an elector either to vote or refrain from voting at any election for or against a particular candidate or referendum.
Would a tenant getting a registration form from their landlord be an act to induce an elector to vote in violation of the law? The only people or entities that are mandated to give voter registration applications are municipal clerks. It should stay that way.Second, this ordinance unduly interferes with our business for political purposes. We enter a contract with a tenant for the rental of an apartment. We provide significant numbers of mandated disclosures related to tenancy.
We will not do your job for you. If you want your constituents to vote, you can give them the information they need to vote. Nor will we provide information for absentee ballots when tenants go on vacation.We are mandated to give more information to a tenant to rent an apartment than is required to purchase real property. That information IS important for living in their apartments. We will not provide a form that has no relevancy to tenancy.
Third, this is a violation of our free speech rights.
In short, this is a bad ordinance. Don’t pass it. We will not comply with it.
Sincerely,
Eileen Bruskewitz, Ron Fedler, Rose LeTourneau, and Art Luetke on behalf of the Madison Landlord CouncilContact Art Luetke luetkerlty@aol.com
These landlords are so full of it. I don’t think giving somebody election materials constitutes an “election threat” which is what 12.093 falls under.
12.09 Election threats.
(1) No person may personally or through an agent make use of or threaten to make use of force, violence, or restraint in order to induce or compel any person to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
(2) No person may personally or through an agent, by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise at an election.
(3) No person may personally or through an agent, by any act compel, induce, or prevail upon an elector either to vote or refrain from voting at any election for or against a particular candidate or referendum.
History: 1973 c. 334; 1991 a. 316; 2005 a. 451.
I have a better Idea. Let’s make ever one responsible for making
sure that their neighbor, has a voter registration application. It would work
like this. Each household on a street is responsible for the house next to them
in ascending order, excluding apartment buildings.
Ex. 2102 Rusk St. is responsible
for 2013 Rusk St. etc. until you get to
the highest number, they would in turn be responsible for the lowest number.
Apartments would also start at the lowest number and go to the
highest number, within the building.
Duplexes would each be responsible for the other unit.
This way, it makes everyone responsible, instead of making a
select few responsible for making sure people have the voter registration forms.
Of course, we could just make everyone responsible for themselves,
but maybe that is too easy.
Only if you apply creative reading techniques.
Lets start with Bruskewitz’s first point :
“No person may personally or through an agent, by any act compel, induce, or prevail upon an elector either to vote or refrain from voting at any election for or against a particular candidate or referendum.”
And I would note that the statue in question is in the section entitled: “Election threats. ” 12.09(3):
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/12/09
The conclusion Bruskewitz implies is that getting a registration form from their landlord would be an act to induce an elector to vote, which she implies would be a violation of the law. However, it is clear from the language she cites that encouraging voter registration is not sufficient to be in violation of the law. For the law to be violated, there must be a particular candidate or referendum that is part of the discussion. In the case of the proposed ordinance, there is no candidate or referendum being promoted – only the act of registering to vote. The one problem I could see is that if a landlord refused to register voters with the intention of discouraging their tenants from voting for a candidate or referendum, then they would be in violation of both the ordinance and state statute, and that hazard would not exist if there was no ordinance compelling landlords to hand out registration forms.