The Wisconsin Supreme Court has refused to hear an attempt to reverse the damage done to Biden by going to the battlefield, furthering the decision on the merits of Donald Trump’s claims, and instead ruled that the case should go through lower courts first.
The 4-3 defeat on Thursday was the latest in a series of losses for Trump’s post-election lawsuit. State judges of multiple wars have rejected their claims of fraud or irregularities. The dissenting judges said the decision would “stain” the election result forever.
Trump has asked a tight-knit court to disqualify more than 221,000 ballots in the state’s two largest Democratic counties, alleging irregularities in the conduct of absentee ballots. His lawsuit echoed claims that had previously been rejected by election officials in these counties, which barely affected Biden’s winning margin of nearly 20,700 votes.
Trump wanted the court to take the case directly, so there’s not enough time to start a legal battle by starting a lower court, given the December 14 date when the president’s elected voters cast their ballots. But advocates for the Democratic governor, Tony Evers, and the state Department of Justice argued that the case would have to start in the lower courts.
Swing Justice Brian Heddorn joined the three liberal judges in rejecting the petition regardless of Trump’s allegations.
Heddorn said the law is clear that Trump must initiate his statements in lower courts where factual disputes can arise.
“We act as a judicial body to adhere to time-tested judicial standards, but – and especially – in high-profile cases,” Heddorn wrote. “As some of my colleagues suggest, it is not our duty to abide by this law. He obeys the law. “
It was not immediately clear whether Trump would still pursue the case through lower courts. A spokesman for his campaign did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump filed a similar lawsuit in federal court Wednesday.
Chief Justice Dhairya Rogansek, in his dissent, said she would have taken the case and referred it to the lower courts for factual findings, which could then be reported to the Supreme Court for a verdict.
Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that the court “leaves its duty” to determine whether election officials abide by the law and whether inaction will undermine public confidence in the election.
“While some will either celebrate or reject the court’s inaction based on its impact on the chosen candidate, the significance of this case outweighs the outcome of this special election,” he wrote in a disagreement with Rosensk and Justice Annette Ziegler. “The failure to act by a majority leaves an indelible mark on our recent elections.”
Trump’s lawsuit challenged the fact that the proceedings have been going on for years and have never been found to be illegal.
He claimed that there were thousands of absentee ballots without a written application on file. He argued that the electronic log created when voters request a created online ballot – the way most people are requested – does not fulfill the letter of the law.
He also challenged the ballots that the address information on the certificate envelope where the ballot was filed was missing election clerk – a practice that has long been accepted and the state election commission said the clerk is fine.
Rognesek said the Supreme Court declares that it decides whether the advice is appropriate, especially for future elections.
“However, doing so does not necessarily lead to illegal absentee ballots that were cast following the WEC’s erroneous advice.” “The remedy that applicants take may be out of reach for a variety of reasons.”
Trump also challenged absentee ballots where voters declared themselves “closed indefinitely,” a status that exempts them from showing photo identities to vote, and was used heavily this year due to the epidemic. The court ruled in March that it was up to the individual voters to determine their status.
The other two lawsuits filed by the money changers still seek to disqualify the ballots in court. In addition to Trump’s federal lawsuit, there is another in federal court with a similar claim from Sidney Powell, a wealthy attorney who was removed from Trump’s legal team.
Wisconsin certified Biden’s victory this week, launching a Democratic slate of previously elected voters to vote for the state’s 10 electorate.
