Why Election Objections Exist — and Why Civic Participation Shouldn’t Invite Personal Attacks
Editorial - Why Election Objections Exist — and Why Civic Participation Shouldn’t Invite Personal Attacks
Last week, I exercised a right provided under Wisconsin election law by filing objections to nomination papers submitted in several local races. The Milwaukee County Election Commission reviewed those objections, applied the standards set out in statute and administrative code, and voted to deny them. I accept that outcome.
That is how the system is supposed to work.
Nomination-paper objections are not accusations of fraud, nor are they personal attacks on candidates. They are an administrative process designed to ensure that statutory requirements governing ballot access are applied consistently and transparently. Wisconsin law places the burden on the objector to identify specific defects line by line, and the Commission concluded that my objections did not meet that threshold. That conclusion ends the matter.
It is also important to understand the scope of the objections. They were not directed at a single candidate in isolation. Similar document-level characteristics appeared across nomination papers submitted in three separate contests — those of John R. Nelson, Steve Taylor, and Maqsood Khan. By contrast, other nomination papers reviewed during the same period did not exhibit those same features and instead reflected the expected variation across individual signers. The overlap across these three submissions is what prompted consistent review under the same statutory framework, not any allegation of intent or coordination. Ultimately, the Commission applied the governing standard and reached its decision, which I accept.
In responding to the objections, one candidate’s written submission included personal commentary about the objector rather than analysis of the nomination papers themselves. Such arguments are not relevant to the Commission’s statutory review. Under Wisconsin election law, objections are resolved based on the face of the papers and applicable legal standards, not on personal attacks against the citizen who invoked the process.
What concerns me is not the ruling itself, but what followed.
In the aftermath of the meeting, some commentary suggested that filing an objection reflects ignorance of election law or an attempt to abuse the legal system. That framing is incorrect. Wisconsin’s election statutes expressly allow any elector to file a nomination-paper objection, and they impose defined standards on how such objections are reviewed. Invoking that process — even unsuccessfully — is not evidence of incompetence or bad faith. It is evidence of civic participation in a system designed to permit scrutiny, apply clear legal thresholds, and then reach a final decision.
Increasingly, however, the filing of a lawful objection has been met not with substantive discussion of the process, but with personal attacks directed at the citizen who invoked it. That trend is troubling, particularly by a County Supervisor whose nomination papers were challenged. Civic participation should not require a resident to accept public ridicule or character attacks simply for using a procedure the law explicitly allows.
I want to address one claim directly, because it has been repeated publicly by this County Supervisor and a Franklin Alderperson. I have not engaged in stalking, nor have I engaged in threats, harm, or unwanted personal contact. The objection I filed involved only publicly available documents and a lawful administrative process. Labeling protected civic participation as “stalking” misrepresents what that term means under the law and risks discouraging ordinary residents from engaging in election-law processes they are expressly entitled to use.
The broader issue here is not about any one candidate or any one objection. It is about whether citizens feel free to participate in election-law processes without fear that doing so will result in personal attacks rather than reasoned disagreement. A healthy democracy depends on participation, transparency, and restraint — especially from those seeking public office.
For readers interested in reviewing the public record for themselves, the Milwaukee County Election Commission hearing — including my testimony and the Commissioners’ questions — is publicly available.
In the interest of transparency, I am also providing links to the publicly filed nomination papers and the objections reviewed by election officials. These materials are shared for context and public access, not to relitigate the Commission’s decision.
Public Record Documents
-
Milwaukee County Election Commission Hearing (Public Record Video)
John Nelson – Mayor, City of Franklin:
Steve Taylor – Milwaukee County Supervisor, District 17:
Maqsood Khan – Milwaukee County Supervisor, District 9:
The Commission has ruled, and I am moving on. My purpose in writing is not to revisit that decision, but to explain why election-law processes exist and why citizens should be able to use them without becoming targets of personal attacks. I hope we can return our focus to substantive debates about leadership, policy, and the future of our community.
This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment