A new letter asks the Milwaukee Election Commission to produce the remaining records or explain why they have not been released
Dairyland Sentinel is still waiting on part of a public records request filed more than five weeks ago seeking documents from Milwaukee’s Aug. 11 Central Count operation.
On Monday, the publication took another step in its effort to get them.
Dairyland Sentinel sent a formal follow-up letter to Milwaukee Election Commission Executive Director Paulina Gutiérrez asking the commission to produce the remaining records, explain the legal basis for withholding any responsive documents, or state clearly if the records do not exist.
Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke was copied on the letter.
The original request was submitted Aug. 14, three days after Milwaukee encountered problems reporting absentee ballot results from the partisan primary.
Dairyland Sentinel asked for every completed Inspectors’ Statement, known as Form EL-104, associated with Central Count. The request went further than the final forms. It specifically sought preliminary, interim and working versions of the documents, along with records involving ballot reconciliation, discrepancies, equipment problems, seal information and other matters documented during the count.
The full request was published here.
The Milwaukee Election Commission acknowledged the request Aug. 24, 10 days after it was submitted and shortly after Dairyland Sentinel sent a follow-up seeking a response.
The commission said its priority was administering elections and warned that public records requests could take “several weeks to months” to process.
That was not the end of the story.
Four days later, the commission told the Wisconsin Elections Commission that it planned to post several records from the primary, including audit logs, EL-104 forms and precinct-processing reports. Those documents were eventually made public.
But they did not fulfill the entire Aug. 14 request.
Dairyland Sentinel is still seeking the preliminary, interim and working reconciliation records specifically included in that request. The commission has not told the publication that those records do not exist, nor has it issued a written denial explaining why responsive records are being withheld.
Wisconsin law does not give public agencies a fixed number of days to complete every records request. It does say an authority must “as soon as practicable and without delay” either fill the request or notify the requester that it is being denied, in whole or in part, and explain why.
Monday marked 38 days since Dairyland Sentinel filed its request.
The letter asks the commission to resolve the outstanding portion by 5 p.m. Thursday, September 24. That is a deadline requested by Dairyland Sentinel, not one established by state law.
There is another issue still hanging out there.
When Milwaukee released its final EL-104 forms September 4, Dairyland Sentinel found hundreds that appeared to contain identical electronic signature blocks bearing the names of chief inspectors Maricha Harris and Stephanie Rushing.
On the same forms, other election workers signed their names by hand and often wrote in the hours they worked.
Dairyland Sentinel reported on the signatures September 4.
Wisconsin Administrative Code requires the chief election inspector to state on the EL-104 on Election Day that the inspector holds current certification. The form itself contains a certification section and a line for the chief inspector’s signature.
Daily news from our state.
The fact that a signature is electronic does not, by itself, make it invalid. What Dairyland Sentinel has been trying to determine is how Milwaukee’s signatures were created, when they were placed on the forms and whether they were executed or adopted by the named chief inspectors.
On September 4, the publication sent the commission four questions: Were the signatures digitally inserted and, if so, why? Were they inserted before the forms were filled out? Does the commission have evidence that the practice is used elsewhere in Wisconsin? And does the commission recognize why the practice could raise concerns about who reviewed and certified the forms?
Seventeen days later, Dairyland Sentinel has received no answers.
“We have received no response to those questions, and another election is looming,” Fraley wrote in Monday’s letter.
Milwaukee’s next election is the Nov. 3 general election. The city says it counts all absentee ballots at its Central Count facility, where ballots are processed through high-speed tabulators before results are downloaded and transported to the Milwaukee County Election Commission.
Monday’s letter draws a distinction between the outstanding records request and the unanswered questions.
“The commission’s failure to answer our press questions is separate from its statutory obligation to respond to the Aug. 14 records request and shows a pattern of nonresponsiveness to legitimate questions about Milwaukee’s Central Count operations,” we wrote.
The letter does not allege that the electronic signatures affected election results or conclude that their use violated Wisconsin law. Dairyland Sentinel is seeking the records and answers needed to determine what happened and how the certification process was handled.
If the public records request remains unresolved, the letter says Dairyland Sentinel will consider remedies available under Wis. Stat. § 19.37, including an action for mandamus seeking release of the records.
For now, the records pursuit continues. Dairyland Sentinel will report the commission’s response and review any additional records it produces.
Here is our full letter to the Elections Commission:
September 21, 2026
Paulina Gutiérrez
Executive Director
Milwaukee Election Commission
City Hall, Room 501
200 E. Wells St.
Milwaukee, WI 53202VIA EMAIL
RE: DEMAND FOR COMPLIANCE: Outstanding Public Records Request (and a related, unanswered, press inquiry)
Ms. Gutiérrez:
It has been 38 days since Dairyland Sentinel submitted a public records request seeking records from Milwaukee’s Aug. 11 Central Count operation, and 17 days since we submitted a formal press inquiry regarding identical electronic signature blocks appearing on hundreds of official EL-104 forms.
Your office acknowledged our records request on Aug. 24 and advised that processing could take “several weeks to months.” Thirty-eight days after the request was submitted, however, the commission has not produced all of the requested records or provided a written denial explaining why the remaining records have not been produced.
On Aug. 14, we requested electronic copies of all completed Form EL-104s as well as preliminary, interim and working reconciliation documents created or maintained in connection with the Aug. 11 partisan primary Central Count operation.
The commission subsequently posted final EL-104 forms and other materials to its website. That release did not resolve our request. The commission has not produced the preliminary, interim or working reconciliation records we requested, nor has it informed us that no such responsive records exist.
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a) requires an authority to either fill or deny a public records request “as soon as practicable and without delay.” We are asking the commission to fulfill the remaining portion of our request or provide a written response explaining the legal basis for withholding any responsive records.
The records that were released also raised a separate issue requiring explanation.
As Dairyland Sentinel reported Sept. 4 in “Did Milwaukee Chief Election Inspectors Actually Review Election Night Activity at Central Count?,” hundreds of EL-104 cover sheets appear to contain identical electronic signature blocks bearing the names “Maricha Harris” and “Stephanie Rushing.” On those same forms, other election workers hand-signed their names and, in many cases, entered their shift times.
Wisconsin Admin. Code § EL 11.04(1) provides that, on Election Day, the chief election inspector shall state on Form EL-104 that the chief inspector holds a current certification. Wisconsin Elections Commission training materials further instruct that the chief inspector signs the certification regarding completion of required training.
An electronic signature is not inherently invalid. The unanswered issue is how these signatures were created, whether they were executed or adopted by the named chief inspectors, when they were placed on the forms and what procedure Milwaukee used to verify the certification.
On Sept. 4, we asked four direct questions:
- Were these electronic signatures digitally inserted and, if so, why?
- Were these signatures inserted before the EL-104 forms were filled out?
- Does the commission have evidence that this practice is used elsewhere in Wisconsin?
- Does the commission recognize why this practice could raise concerns about who actually reviewed and certified the forms?
We have received no response to those questions, and another election is looming.
The commission’s failure to answer our press questions is separate from its statutory obligation to respond to the Aug. 14 records request and shows a pattern of nonresponsiveness to legitimate questions about Milwaukee’s Central Count operations.
None of this is partisan. Republicans, Democrats, business owners, environmental groups, media organizations and everyday citizens all use Wisconsin’s public records law. Sooner or later, everyone has reason to ask what government is doing and how decisions are being made.
Wisconsin’s public records law reflects a strong state policy favoring government transparency. The Milwaukee Election Commission is subject to those requirements like every other public authority.
Dairyland Sentinel requests that the Milwaukee Election Commission take the following actions by 5 p.m. CDT Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026:
- Produce all remaining responsive records from our Aug. 14 request, including any preliminary, interim or working reconciliation documents responsive to that request, or provide a written response identifying the legal basis for withholding responsive records. If no responsive records of a requested type exist, please state that clearly.
- Separately, provide written answers to our four Sept. 4 questions concerning the electronic chief inspector signatures appearing on the EL-104 forms.
If the commission does not resolve the outstanding public records request, Dairyland Sentinel will consider pursuing the remedies available under Wis. Stat. § 19.37, including an action for mandamus seeking release of the records.
Sincerely,
Brian Fraley
Publisher, Dairyland Sentinel
(262) 2×4-7059cc: Evan Goyke, Milwaukee City Attorney
Previously on Dairyland Sentinel
