Three Wisconsin legal organizations are advising the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s office to take steps to avoid intimidating voters after the sheriff posted it was dispatching deputies to polling locations on primary Election Day last week.
The issue arose against a backdrop of increasing worries over potential election interference in a key swing state during President Donald Trump’s second term including voter intimidation and threats to election workers.
Just seven minutes after polls opened in Wisconsin last week, the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Office posted on Facebook that it planned to send deputies to polling locations “periodically throughout the day to meet with the public, provide a visible law enforcement presence, and help ensure a safe, secure and orderly election.”
The office presented it as an opportunity for members of the community to connect with officers.
“If you see an Officer at one of the sites and have the time, please feel free to stop and chat with them for a bit!” the post stated. “We appreciate the important work of our election clerks and staff, and we encourage everyone to exercise their right to vote and have a safe Election Day.”
The post immediately got pushback from members of the public, who questioned why law enforcement needed to be at polls.
The Wisconsin Democracy Defense Coalition, an umbrella organization consisting of pro-democracy groups, wrote in a statement posted online that it was “unclear exactly who or what prompted the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department announcement…” but it was “apparent that the decision was made without clear communication with, or consent from officials across the county.”
“We do know that what happened was inconsistent with our values in Wisconsin and dangerous to our civil rights at a time when we must be fiercely protective of them,” the coalition stated.
All In Wisconsin, a member of the coalition, submitted open records requests seeking additional information. Executive Director Cass Bowers told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview that the coalition wanted to support the community members who opposed the presence of law enforcement.
“It’s not a normal thing for a sheriff’s department to do that in Wisconsin. It’s not something that we see,” Cass Bowers, executive director of All In Wisconsin, told the Examiner in an interview. “In Wisconsin at least, we don’t need to have a police presence at the polling locations because we have other safeguards in place. There are people there to ensure that things are going the way they should be on both sides.”
The ACLU of Wisconsin, Campaign Legal Center and Law Forward sent a letter to Sheriff Matthew Spence on Wednesday saying that they wanted to raise awareness about the concerns and “to provide you with information and resources to help ensure that all eligible voters feel safe and secure when participating in our elections.”
The Sheboygan County Democratic Party said in a post Tuesday that the law enforcement presence was a waste of resources and also raises ethical concerns, since the sheriff was on the ballot in the primary. Spence is running for reelection this year. While his name appeared on ballots, he faced no opponent in the primary. He was first appointed to the position by Gov. Tony Evers in 2024 due to the retirement of the previous sheriff.
“Municipal clerks, chief election inspectors and poll workers throughout the county have experience in conducting safe and secure elections. They are fully competent to contact law enforcement, if necessary. The integrity of our elections in Sheboygan County is not in question,” the county party said in a statement. “Law enforcement presence is a waste of resources, and it creates an atmosphere of intimidation, distrust and erodes public trust in our election process.”
Spence said in a statement last week that the practice of sending deputies to polls is not new for the county. He noted in the statement that he did not personally visit any polling sites, though he has in the past.
“Deputies have been stopping at polling locations for many years, and we have historically received positive feedback from municipal clerks and election workers regarding their presence,” Spence said. “Our deputies understand that they are not permitted to engage in political activity while on duty.” He added in the statement that deputies are expected to follow office policies and applicable laws and regulations.
Election workers in the U.S. have expressed concerns about safety in recent years, including in Wisconsin.
In an April 2026 poll conducted by the Brennan Center 32% of election officials said they had been threatened, harassed, or abused, nearly 25% said they were concerned about being assaulted at home or at work and over 50% said they worried that threats, harassment and intimidation would make it more difficult to retain or recruit election workers in the future.
Spence said that deputies were stopping by polls if they had time available during their regular patrol duties and visits were brief, lasting between five and ten minutes. He said the stops were “intended simply to provide an opportunity for a deputy to check in with the clerk and election workers, ensure there are no public safety concerns” and were not “assigned specifically for the purpose of influencing or monitoring voters.”
Jon Dolson, the Sheboygan County clerk, has not responded to requests for comment from the Examiner.
“The purpose of these brief visits is straightforward: to ensure election workers feel safe, to address any public safety concerns that may arise, and to maintain the positive relationship between our Sheriff’s Office and the communities we serve,” Spence said. “We have no interest in interfering with the electoral process, and our deputies’ role at polling locations is not to influence voters or the outcome of an election.”
However, the legal groups and Bowers said the mere presence of officers could be intimidating to voters.
“We understand that law enforcement agencies like the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Office play a critical role in keeping both voters and election officials and workers safe by responding to genuine emergencies,” the legal groups stated. “However, the visible presence of armed law enforcement at or near polling places (or other locations like drop boxes or in-person absentee voting locations) is likely to intimidate voters, thereby preventing them from casting their ballots. Voter intimidation is prohibited under both Wisconsin and Federal law.”
Wisconsin state law requires that in cities of more than 500,000, the chief of police stations a police officer at any polling place designated by the municipal board of election commissioners. That currently only includes Milwaukee.
The ACLU’s letter noted that voter intimidation laws apply to law enforcement officers and that patrolling in militarized gear with weapons near a ballot drop box has previously been found intimidating to voters.
The groups noted in the letter that the Wisconsin Elections Commission advises that polling locations near or in police stations or other public buildings could lead to the perception of electioneering or make voters uncomfortable and that should be considered when designating polling places.
“While the presence of law enforcement may be necessary if voting is occurring at or near a public safety building or in the event of an emergency to preserve the voting process, steps can and should be taken to mitigate the intimidating effects of such presence. For instance, officers stationed at voting,” the letter states citing state statutes.
The groups provide some recommendations for how law enforcement should navigate the issue, citing information from the National Policing Institute, 21st Century Policing Solutions and States United Democracy Center.
“For instance, officers stationed at voting locations at public safety buildings should be dressed in plain clothes, uniformed personnel should remain out of sight of voters whenever possible, and law enforcement should refrain from parking police vehicles in front of polling locations or alternatively, should use unmarked cars. Finally, if a police officer must be stationed within an electioneering perimeter, they should take directions from and follow the lead of the chief inspector, limit their interactions with voters, and respond only to emergency incidents.”
Stationing federal officers at polls is prohibited by law but concerns about federal officials including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) patrolling polling locations ignited across the country after Trump said in May in response to a question that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections; we have to have honest elections.” The Sheboygan County sheriff’s office is one of several law enforcement units across Wisconsin that maintain an active 287(g) agreement with ICE.
Trump administration officials have recently said that law federal agents will not be deployed to the polls for the midterm elections.
“Because of this administration and how they stoke fear in folks…[people] see police presence, they’re not going to go,” Bowers said. “You see a police officer at a polling location… It just gives people a fear that they don’t need to have when they’re going to vote.”
Bowers said that while elections officials should be trusted to carry out elections, transparency is part of the issue that needs to be addressed.
“Having a Facebook post saying that you’re going to do this on Election Day is kind of what was jarring to the public,” Bowers said. “I think having a plan previously would have helped to say, ‘OK, these folks may feel like they need added protection, how do we do that in a way that doesn’t feel like voter intimidation?’… I think that’s like the biggest thing on Election Day is access to voting, and so I feel like if they were to have those concerns addressed prior to the election, that would have helped in this situation.”
This message was echoed in the letter from the ACLU and other legal groups.
“We recognize that the security of our elections and election officials is of paramount importance and believe a balance can be struck to accomplish these security objectives without unintentionally impeding voters,” the groups stated. “Thus, we suggest that your office issue guidance to your officers reflecting these recommendations and to coordinate directly with local election officials regarding ways to simultaneously protect the security of our elections and respond to emergency incidents without deterring voters.”

(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.