The Wisconsin District IV Appeals Court on Thursday reversed the Ozaukee County Circuit Court’s ruling that ordered more than 200,000 names struck from the rolls because the individuals may have moved.

In 2015 the Wisconsin legislature directed the Wisconsin Elections Commission to enter into an agreement with the Electronic Registration Information Center, Inc. (ERIC), a non-profit corporation that shares data about voters to improve “the accuracies and efficiencies” of “voter registration systems.” By comparing data about registered voters with information from other sources, the corporation identifies people who are eligible to vote but are not registered, people who may have moved since their last registrations and deceased voters.

ERIC provided information every two years. After receiving data from ERIC in 2017, the commission learned that the data did not accurately indicate whether the elector had moved or intended to move.

After receiving data in 2019, the commission sent letters to the 230,000 individuals who had supposedly moved, asking them to affirm their address. The letter stated that, if the elector affirmed that he or she had not moved, then the elector’s voter registration would remain active at that address. These letters did not include notice that the elector’s voter registration would be deactivated. The commission decided that it would seek guidance from the legislature regarding further action.

Suit was initially brought against the commission in the Ozaukee County Circuit Court on allegations that the commission had, by not deactivating the electors’ registrations, failed to comply with Wisconsin Statute § 6.50(3). The circuit court agreed, granting a writ of mandamus that ordered the commission to comply with the statutory provisions and deactivate the registrations of thousands of electors. The circuit court later found the commission in contempt of court for failing to comply with the writ of mandamus.

The court on Thursday rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, holding that the plain language of § 6.50(3) did not refer to the commission. The statute also did not place any duties on the commission.

Because of this, the court remanded the case to the circuit court with orders to dismiss the complaint.