VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT OF WISCONSINMISCONDUCTlN PUBLICOFFICELAWVIOLATION
FROM: BECCARAVENUMINOWICZ
373 Willow Street Arena, Wisconsin 53503 (608) 753-3012 uminowiczbr@gmail.com
TO: ZACHARYP. LEIGH,District Attorney 222 N. Iowa St. Dodgeville, WI 53533 zachary.leigh@da.wi.gov
District Attorney Leigh;
Becca Raven Uminowicz (hereinafter "Complainant") submits the following and the attached to you as a verified complaint alleging violations of Wis. Stat. § 946.12 Misconduct in public office against Village of Arena Clerk/Treasurer DaNean Naeger in Iowa County, Wisconsin. In support of the Complaint , I state:
Summary
1. This Complaint concerns the improbable ballot order for the February 18, 2025 primary election and the April 1, 2025 spring election for village president and village trustees in the Village of Arena.
2. This Complaint also raises that there was no second drawing of lots for ballot order for the April 1, 2025 spring election ny Naeger, as required by law.
3. Complainant has submitted a verified complaint to the Wisconsin Elections Commission regarding the violations of Wis. Stat.§ 5.58(1b)(cm), Wis. Stat. § 5.60{1)(b), Wis. Stat. § 5.60(5)(ar), Wis. Stat. § 12.13(2)(b)7.and is submitting this complaint regarding the same issue to you regarding Wis. Stats. § 946.12(1),§ 946.12(2),§ 946.12(3),§ 946.12(4)~sconduct in public office.
\ Parties
4. Complainant is a resident of the Village of Arena. Complainant is also a trustee on the Village Board of Trustees. Complainant is not on the ballots in question and has no personal interest outside of the public good in the issues raised.
1
5. DaNean Naeger is the Village of Arena Clerk/Treasurer, with her office at 345 West Street, Arena, WI 53503 and her residence at 314 Commerce Street, Rewey,WI 53580.
6. Naeger is the official responsible under statute, acting as the village's election commission, for conducting the elections in the village and determining the ballot order, in accordance with the requirements under statute.
Events/Background
7. WEC Complaint. Complainant reincorporates and realleges the complaint and its attachments and documentation filed with the Wisconsin Election Commission regarding these issues. Those are attached to this complaint.
8. Background. This complaint raises serious concerns about the integrity of the ballot order determination process for the Village of Arena's April 1, 2025, spring election, alleging that Clerk DaNean Naeger failed to conduct a legally required second random drawing of lots for ballot order and instead administratively set the ballot order in a manner that disproportionately benefited candidates aligned with the current village administration. Under Wis. Stat. § 5.60(1)(b},when a primary election is held, a second random drawing is explicitly required to determine ballot order for the general election. However, instead of following this statutory requirement, Clerk Naeger simply renumbered the ballot from the primary election, omitting the lowest vote-getter and maintaining the same candidate order, rather than conducting a new, legally required random draw. The official record prepared by Clerk Naeger explicitly states, '1n the event of a Primary, omitted candidates shall be removed and order renumbered for the Spring Election," which strongly suggests that no second drawing occurred-an apparent direct violation of Wisconsin election law. When requested to provide documentation of a second drawing, Clerk Naeger failed to do so, reinforcing the conclusion that the mandated second drawing was never conducted.
9. Moreover, a statistical analysis of the ballot order suggests that even if a random draw had occurred as claimed; the results are highly improbable, raising concerns about the fairness of the process. In the February 18, 2025, primary election, the first four candidates on the ball~t-Tara Hill, Kevin Reimann, Brittany Carney, and Kathy Stoltz-are all perceived •as supporters of the current village \. administration, while the bottom three candidates-Steve Wilkinson, Joseph Hipsky, and Don Helt-are associated with the opposition. The probability of this outcome occurring by random chance is approximately 2.86% (1 in 35}.After the primary election, Kevin Reimann, the lowest vote-getter, was eliminated, and for the April 1, 2025, spring election, the remaining six candidates appeared in the exact same order, minus Reimann. The probability of this happening by chance alone and without manipulation is even lower, and the failure to conduct a second
drawing-an obligation under Wis. Stat. § 5.60(1)(b)-only exacerbates the concerns. Additionally, the Village President's race for the April election was also determined by lot on January 9, 2025, at the same time as the initial drawing for • the primary, with the administration-supported candidate, Kathy Stoltz, being selected first. The probability of both the trustee ballot favoring administration-backed candidates and the administration-backed village president candidate being randomly drawn first by chance alone is 1-43%(or precisely 1 in 70). If Clerk Naeger claims that she did, in fact, hold a second drawing and coincidentally received the identical ballot order, the probability of such an outcome occurring purely by random chance decreases to an astronomical 1 in 50,400 (or 0.00198%). These statistically improbable results, combined with the clear failure to conduct a second drawing, strongly suggest that the ballot order was improperly determined, either intentionally or negligently, in violation of Wisconsin election law.
10. Beyond the proced1µ1alviolations, Clerk Naeger has a clear financial and professional interest in ensuring that administration-supported candidates remain in power. As a municipal employee, her continued employment is subject to the control of the village board, which is currently dominated by the same administration-backed candidates who benefited from the ballot placement. Members of the opposition have publicly criticized Clerk Naeger's performance,and any shift in power within the village board could impact her job security. The well-documented "ballot order effect" demonstrates that candidates listed at the top of the ballot gain a measurable electoral advantage, often between 1-3 percentage points, which could be decisive in a local, nonpartisan election like this one. By failing to conduct a legally required second drawing and securing a favorable ballot order for administration-backed candidates in both the primary and general election, Clerk Naeger effectively provided them with an unlawful electoral advantage, potentially constituting electiop. fraud and misconduct in public office. These actions appear to violate not only Wis. Stat. § 5.60(1)(b) but also Wis. Stat. §§ 5.58(1b)(cm), 5.60(5)(ar), 12.13(2)(b)7.,and 946.12(1)-(4), all of which are statutes designed to prevent election tampering and ensure fair election administration or prevent misconduct in public office.
11. Even if the improbable ballot order cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of a second dra~g is still a significant violation of Wisconsin statutes. \
Applicable Statutes Violated
12. Wis. Stat.§ 5.60(1)(b) -Failure to conduct a second drawing of lots for ballot order after a primary, as required by law.
13. Wis. Stat.§ 5.58(1b)(cm) -Improper administration of ballot preparation in a local election.
14. Wis. Stat.§ 5.60(5)(ar) -Failure to arrange names on the ballot in compliance with statutory requirements.
15. Wis. Stat.§ 12.13(2)(b)7. -Electionfraud: An election official may not "refuse or neglect to perform any of the duties required of that official under the election laws ... or willfully violate any provision of law."
16. Wis. Stat. § 946.12(1) - Misconduct in public office: Failure to perform a required, nondiscretionary duty.
17. Wis. Stat. § 946.12(2) - Misconduct in public office: Acting in excess of lawful authority by administratively determining ballot order instead of following a legally required random drawing.
18. Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) - Misconduct in public office: Using official position to provide a dishonest advantage (ballot order preference) to certain candidates.
19. Wis. Stat. § 946.12(4) - Misconduct in public office: Falsifying or misrepresenting an official election record by failing to document a second drawing that never took place.
Witnesses and Evidence
20. This complaint reincorporates the witnesses and evidence stated in the WEC complaint.
Verification
STATEOF WISCONSIN ) ) ss.
COUNTYOF <3e.u.\L )
Becca Raven Uminowicz, having being first duly sworn on oath deposes and attests that she has read the foregoing complaint and that, based on her lmowledge, the contents of the complaint are true.
By: '/ BECCARAVEUMINOWIZ \
Subscribed a.IJ.dsworn to before me this l~day of March 2025