Good morning.
Monday in Whitewater will be variably cloudy with a high of 71. Sunrise is 6:33 and sunset is 7:06 for 12 hours 33 minutes of daylight. The moon is a waxing crescent with 12.7 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
Whitewater’s Plan and Architectural Review Commission meets at 6 PM.
On this day in 1994, the remainder of the Major League Baseball season is canceled because of a strike.
A plain proposition: Government, whether of elected or appointed officials, is made legitimate through free, fair, and accessible elections. Whitewater should not — indeed must not — reduce the number of its polling places.
This September post follows earlier remarks about a city staff recommendation on the August 4 council agenda that in “[o]dd years, when there are no Presidential or Gubernatorial elections, I do not think we should have polling locations on campus.” Nothing nebulous about that. See City of Whitewater, Council Agenda Item 19, Potential of Consolidating Polling Locations for Low Turnout, in Common Council Meeting Packet 101–03 (Aug. 4, 2026) [hereafter Aug. 2026 Packet]. For remarks on that August memo see Preliminary Remarks Against the Proposed Discontinuation of the UW–Whitewater Polling Place in Odd-Numbered Years and, for a discussion of the community response, see Council Discussion of the Proposed Discontinuation of the UW–Whitewater Polling Place in Odd-Numbered Years.
The municipal administration now offers this month a wholly different proposal, one that I will address below. The proposal before the Whitewater Common Council for its September 15 meeting states, by contrast, that “[o]nly the August election location is being considered in this memo.” See City of Whitewater, Memorandum to Common Council, Feasibility of a Centralized Polling Location for August Primary Elections (Sept. 9, 2026), in Common Council Meeting Packet 192-201 (Sept. 15, 2026) [hereafter Sept. 2026 Polling Location Memo].
(For a moment, one might be forgiven for wondering about the change between months: Is what the community believed it heard and read in August really what the community heard and read in August? The answer is yes. The inversion of goals from August to September works momentarily like an expression derived from the title of a 1944 MGM film.)
The September change, at least, is a notable improvement over the August memo (as the September memo does not propose to reduce any polling places through so-called ‘consolidation’). The August memo’s proposal was, in fact, a reduction in the total number of polling places, however disingenuously it may have been described. Consolidation meant closure.
As this libertarian blogger wrote in August, full consideration of an election proposal would encompass both the municipal administration’s practical proposal and its legal implications (including state and federal law). Upon reading the city’s August election memo — a proposal provocative, objectionable, and utterly needless — it was prudent to outline and draft (but not publish) a full assessment on these topics. Now, too, only a part of that consideration is yet necessary (and somewhat less today than even in August as the proposal is narrower).
The Changed Staff Recommendation. The August staff recommendation would have closed the campus polling location for spring primaries and spring general elections in odd-numbered years. That proposal would have abrogated the well-considered Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Whitewater and the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. The September proposal acknowledges that the campus elections required by the MOU are not being changed. This is not a modification of the August proposal. It is, instead, a wholly different proposal. It’s far better than last month’s.
The proper practice would be for this city’s council to state on the record that the proposed closures in odd-numbered years have been formally and effectively withdrawn. No resident should have to guess an implicit or implied municipal change of course. Without that clear statement, the August 4 proposal remains formally unresolved while the September memorandum changes the question.
A Concise Legal Assessment. The September staff memo acknowledges what the August staff memo did not: that a location change for a city polling place will require a public hearing before the Whitewater Common Council. See Sept. 2026 Polling Location Memo 2 (“polling-place location may not be discontinued without governing-body approval after a public hearing at which the public may provide testimony”). See also FREE WHITEWATER, Preliminary Remarks Against the Proposed Discontinuation of the UW–Whitewater Polling Place in Odd-Numbered Years, August 4, 2026 (“Approval must come after a public hearing. The hearing must afford the public an opportunity to present testimony. The testimony must concern the proposed discontinuation, not municipal business in general. The August 4 packet labels Item 19 as a mere agenda item — the material provided does not identify it as the statutory public hearing”).
There’s a portion of the September memo that points toward a sound practice for the city going forward: “The timing and form of any Council action should therefore be coordinated with the City Attorney and the election calendar.” See Sept. 2026 Polling Location Memo 2. Yes, and yes again — doing so will help vet proposals.
Threshold Practical Considerations. What matters most? Voter access — not municipal convenience — matters most. Government serves its electorate; the electorate does not serve the government.
Whitewater already uses one polling place for August elections (as there is no campus polling place at that time under the governing MOU). The issue for Whitewater in the selection of a polling place is not, therefore, ‘centralization.’ Whitewater’s August polling place is already centralized at the Armory. The issue is whether to keep that polling place centralized at the Armory or centralized elsewhere through relocation.
As the August polling place is now at the Armory, that location should reasonably be treated as the default against which other options (the Starin Community Building or the Whitewater Public Library) are judged. Do those other locations offer a comparative advantage? There are many residents who should have a chance to offer their insights. This should be a decision made only after community input. There’s no compelling reason to rush this decision. None.
Assorted Oddities of the City’s New September Memorandum. There are assorted oddities in the September memorandum.
The table in the memo lists an August 16, 2022 Partisan Primary. Our state’s August Partisan Primary in 2022 was on August 9, 2022.
The turnout figures for August 11, 2026 do not add up in the memo. See Sept. 2026 Polling Location Memo 1. The ‘known in-person turnout’ is listed as 975, and the absentee vote as 579, for a total of 1,558. The sum of 975 and 579 should be 1,554. The turnout figures for ‘August 16, 2022’ (actually August 9) also do not add up in the memo. See Sept. 2026 Polling Location Memo 1. The ‘known in-person turnout’ is listed as 945, and the absentee vote as 583, for a total of 1,524. The sum of 945 and 583 should be 1,528. (By contrast, the numbers for August 13, 2024 add correctly: ‘known in-person turnout’ is listed as 1,196, and the absentee vote as 634, for a total of 1,830.)
I’m sure there is a reason, but there is no explanation in the memo’s main text or in a footnote.
The September memorandum is not a justification for the August proposal. It is a retreat from that proposal and poses a different question. The Whitewater Common Council itself (not simply a staff memo) should acknowledge that change, ensure that there will be no reduction in spring polling places through directions given to staff, and build a full public record before replacing the August polling place now serving the city.
_____
Forthcoming topics (in no particular order): A New Ethics Ordinance, Development in Downtown Whitewater (Follow-Up), and Steps for a Public Interest Campaign.
New Class of X-Ray Objects discovered using Chandra Observatory: