Plea Hearing Delayed for Ex-Green Bay School Board Member Accused of Election Fraud

Kou Lee, who resigned from the Green Bay school board last May amid allegations he lived outside the district when elected, had his plea hearing postponed Thursday. Lee faces charges of election fraud, specifically nomination certification and false swearing in a government setting, after a Green Bay Press-Gazette investigation raised serious questions about his residency.

State law is clear: candidates must reside in the school district for at least 28 consecutive days before filing to run for the board. But evidence suggests Lee may have violated this rule. A key piece of proof is Lee’s property tax bill showing a lottery tax credit tied to a Hobart residence—an indication that Hobart, not Green Bay, was his primary home. This is significant because the lottery tax credit applies only to primary residences.

Further complicating Lee’s claims, his four children were enrolled in the Pulaski school district, using the Hobart address. In a March group text to school board members, Lee admitted to living in Green Bay for several months before starting his 2022 campaign but also mentioned ongoing personal issues and uncertainty about the Hobart home. When contacted by FOX 11 in March 2025, Lee stated, “It is accurate that I reside in Green Bay and own a property in Hobart,” a vague assertion that leaves residency questions unresolved.

The defense is still reviewing the evidence, prompting a delay in the plea hearing and a new status conference set for June 29. If no plea deal emerges, a trial will likely follow. Meanwhile, the school board has appointed a replacement to serve out Lee’s term through April 2026.

This case underscores a broader problem: elected officials bending or breaking rules meant to ensure local representation truly reflects the community. Residency requirements exist to prevent candidates from gaming the system, yet enforcement often relies on investigative journalism and legal action after the fact. Kou Lee’s case is a stark reminder that election fraud is not just about ballot tampering but also about misrepresenting eligibility to hold office. We will continue tracking this story as it unfolds.