Wisconsin Supreme Court refutes Trump’s campaign attempt to bypass lower court during election challenge

The Wisconsin Supreme Court refuted the Trump campaign’s attempt to bypass the state’s lower courts and appeal directly to the higher court with an election challenge. On Thursday, the court rejected the original request for action by a 4-3 majority of three liberal judges in the court and conservative judge Brian Hagedorn.

The Trump campaign argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court should hear its case directly because presidential voters will soon cast their votes on Dec. 14. He wants to throw out more than 220,000 missing votes from Dane and Milwaukee counties, Wisconsin’s two largest democracies. According to the campaign, these votes were cast illegally, despite the fact that many voters and election officials followed instructions that had been in place for years. During the recount, the election officials of these counties rejected the ballot papers. The state supreme court says the Trump campaign could present its challenge in a district court.

“I understand the motive for answering the legal questions raised by the petition without delay to ensure that the recently completed elections are conducted in accordance with the law. But the challenges to the election results are also regulated by law,” Hagedorn wrote in his unanimous opinion. He noted that according to the statute, “these measures must be submitted to the district court” and said that the law “lays down detailed procedures to ensure their orderly and prompt disposal”.

“As a judicial body, we are doing well in the tried-and-tested judicial norms of the times, and perhaps especially in high-profile cases,” Hagedorn wrote. “Following the law governing the challenges of the election results does not pose a threat to the rule of law.”

Chief Justice Roggensack Patience wrote one dissent. He said he would have granted the original application for action, but referred the fact-finding to a district court. In such circumstances, the district court would have reported its findings to the Supreme Court, and the judges would then have ruled on those facts.

“I have come to the conclusion that we have jurisdiction that allows us to file the original lawsuit pending before us. Our jurisdiction derives from the Wisconsin Constitution and cannot be prevented by law,” Roggensack wrote. “Besides, time is of the essence.”

But he also suggested that he might not have agreed to the Trump campaign’s request to throw out absentees where clerks submitted missing witness address information or data in an early, personally absent vote. The clerks ’advice may not have been legal, he said, but that doesn’t mean the ballot papers should be discarded.

“If the WEC (Wisconsin Electoral Commission) has given advice that is against the law, then these acts do not legitimize the advice. The WEC must follow the law,” Roggensack said. “We, as the court that promulgated the law, owe it to the public to state whether the WEC’s councils are incorrect. However, this does not necessarily lead to striking missing ballot papers issued following the incorrect WEC councils. Petitioners may seek available. “

He said the court could have examined the procedures in the complaint and explained where and where the WEC was wrong.

Judge Rebecca Bradley, another Conservative, wrote in a dissenting opinion that “the inability of the majority to leave an indelible stain on our last election”. He also said confidence in future elections was adequate.

“While some either celebrate or reject the inaction of the court based on the impact on their preferred candidate, the importance of this case goes beyond the outcome of that particular election,” Bradley wrote. “The majority will pass on the resolution of the important issues raised by the petitioners in this matter, thereby undermining public confidence in the integrity of Wisconsin’s electoral processes, not only during these elections, but in all future elections.”

The Trump campaign filed appeals in Dane and Milwaukee counties Thursday night and asked Chief Justice Roggensack to appoint a district judge to hear the case. A scheduling conference is requested to be held either on Friday or Saturday.

“We expect to return to the Supreme Court soon,” said Jim Troupis, the campaign’s Wisconsin attorney, in response to the ruling.

On Thursday night, Chief Justice Roggensack merged Danish and Milwaukee County affairs. Stephen Simanek appointed a retired county judge Racine to preside over the case.

In another Thursday case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 ruling against the original application for action against a Wisconsin resident who is challenging the election results. Part of the challenge focused on the legitimacy of the missing urns. According to the plaintiff, if the court finds the ballot boxes illegal, new elections must be held before Dec. 14, or the legislature of the State of Wisconsin must appoint its own 10 constituents to the president.

Like the Trump campaign, Hagedorn was the majority of three liberal and vigorous judiciaries. The three other Conservative judges disagreed, “This court can no longer continue its institutional responsibility to the people of Wisconsin.”

In April, Liberal Jill Karofsky defeated Trump-approved conservative Dan Kelly for the state’s highest court seat. Karofsky’s victory narrowed the conservative majority from 5-2 to 4-3.

Mr. Trump also has a case pending in federal court challenging the Wisconsin election results. And there is another lawsuit filed by a conservative group that has not yet been considered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Another federal lawsuit was also filed by attorney Sidney Powell. On Thursday, this lawsuit removed former Republican congressional candidate Derrick Van Orden from the list of plaintiffs. Earlier this week, he said he never gave Powell permission to use his name in the lawsuit.