II. REVIEW IS PROPER UNDER WIS. STAT., § 809.62(1r)(d

constitute an issue of first impression. Either way, the Court of Appeals misreads Wiegand. The interplay between Wis. Stat. § 7.54 and Wis. Stat. § 9.01, et seq, is a significant issue for consideration. Petitioners recognize that, in general, the Wiegand decision is no longer in full effect. 1983 Wis. Act 183 made several changes to the “Post-election Actions” in Chapter 9 of the statutes by creating the present version of Wis. Stat. § 9.01(8), which for the first time gave significant and binding deference to the findings of the board of canvassers, consequently limiting the scope of judicial decision-making and authority. (But see also, Carlson v. Oconto County Board of Canvassers, 2000 WI APP 20, ¶8, 240 Wis.2d 438, 443, 623 N.W.2d 195, 197 (“Interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 9.01 is based on public policy articulated in early legal decisions that predated § 9.01.”) Prior to 1983 Wis Act. 183, there was apparently confusion in the courts as to the deference to be accorded

the board of canvassers. For example, take the unpublished case of Soderbloom v. Manske, 107 Wis.2d 744, 321 N.W.2d 367 (1982).1 There, at footnote 3 and

1 Petitioners cite this case solely as a historical illustration, not as support for its holding or anything else stated in the decision. Because it is not cited as authority or precedent, this use does not violate section 809.23(3)(a).

18

throughout, the court highlights the existing legal ambiguity on the issue of deferring to the canvassers by explaining that the parties and circuit down to the three individual judges on the Court of Appeals panel all disagreed on how much deference must be accorded to the canvassers and what was the role of a court. Id. (“The Dane County court noted that there is little law defining the role of a court in a recount appeal.”) At the time of Wiegand, no such limitation existed. Since the enactment of 1983 Wis. Act 183, challenges to the determination of a canvassers made during recount have ended in the canvassers’ determinations being upheld in every published decision reviewed by Petitioners. See Logerquist v. Board of Canvassers for Town of Nasewaupee, 150 Wis. 2d 907, 912, 442 N.W.2d 551, 553-54 (Ct.App.1989) (“[T]he statutory scheme for a recount ‘places a premium’ on the Board’s judgment to give effect to the will of the electorate [and so we] are satisfied that the Board’s actions complied with the statutory mandates for a recount, and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision to recount only the uncompromised ballots.”); Carlson, 2000 WI APP at ¶5. However, those challenges have tended to depend upon a consideration 0f whether the canvassers

19