Wisconsin Supreme Court Gives GOP Lawmakers a Win

[Melensdad]

So who says all politics are 'political'? Wisconsin shows us that there is still some integrity, at least some in the judicial system.

Long backstory made short is the Wisconsin legislature redrew the maps for their legislative districts, it was declared biased, and sent back. During the process the make up of the elected State Supreme Court changed from Conservative to Liberal bias. The newest liberal justice recused herself from the ruling because she was not on the court when it heard earlier arguments.

The court sided against a Democratic lawsuit and in favor of the Republicans, giving the GOP map approval for the new congressional district maps.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/01/wisconsin-supreme-court-rejects-democrats-congressional-redistricting-challenge-00144529

Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects Democrats’ congressional redistricting challenge​

The decision not to hear the congressional challenge comes after the court in December ordered new legislative maps, saying the Republican-drawn ones were unconstitutional.​

​

The Elias Law Group, which filed the congressional challenge on behalf of Democratic voters, said the court’s decision on the legislative maps opened the door to them revisiting the other maps.​

​

But the court declined to take up the case. It did not give a reason in the unsigned order.​

​

Justice Janet Protasiewicz did not participate. There was a request for her to recuse, but Protasiewicz said she didn’t participate because she wasn’t on the court when the case was originally brought.​

​

Two of the court’s conservative members, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley, wrote that although the case was rightfully rejected, “it likely won’t be long until the new majority flexes its political power again to advance a partisan agenda despite the damage inflicted on the independence and integrity of the court.”​

. . . ​

In the legislative maps ruling, the state Supreme Court said the earlier conservative-controlled court was wrong in 2021 to say that maps drawn that year should have as little change as possible from the maps that were in place at the time. The lawsuit argued that decision warranted replacing the congressional district maps that were drawn under the “least change” requirement.​

 

[Melensdad]

Just another follow up on Wisconsin.

Democrats are fighting in the courts to allow ballot harvesting.
Democrats are fighting in the courts to change the district boundaries.
Democrats are fighting in the courts to eliminate voter ID and other initiatives.

The Wisconsin courts, which are actually leaning liberal all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, seem to have no desire to allow for the Democratic party to run lawless elections. Another victory for common sense has been settled, again, by the courts.

Judge Rejects Democrat Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin Absentee Voting Requirements

Challengers’ position ‘simply does not make sense,’ judge finds.

www.theepochtimes.com

Judge Rejects Democrat Lawsuit Challenging Wisconsin Absentee Voting Requirements​

Challengers’ position ‘simply does not make sense,’ judge finds.​

Poll workers sort out early and absentee ballots at the Kenosha Municipal building on Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020, in Kenosha, Wis. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)​

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit claiming that Wisconsin’s requirement for witnesses to sign for absentee voters clashes with federal law.​

​

The claims by plaintiffs, four voters represented by Democrat firm Elias Law Group, are based on faulty interpretations of the law, according to U.S. District Judge James Peterson.​

​

The challengers said the Voting Rights Act unilaterally bars requiring absentee voters to prove their qualifications, making the Wisconsin requirement illegal. The act states in part that “no citizen shall be denied, because of his failure to comply with any test or device, the right to vote in any federal, state, or local election conducted in any state or political subdivision of a state.” It defines “test or device,” in part, as any requirement that makes a person “prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.”​

However, that interpretation of the federal law is not correct, Judge Peterson said in his May 9 ruling.​

“Plaintiffs say that Wisconsin law requires the witness to do more than ensure that the voter followed the proper procedure in preparing the ballot; rather, the witness must also certify that the voter is eligible to vote,” he said. “But that interpretation is inconsistent with the text and purpose of the statute, and it is inconsistent with how the law has been interpreted since it was enacted. Even the plaintiffs themselves do not say in their declarations that they believe they need to find a witness who can certify their qualifications to vote.”​

​

In Wisconsin, any qualified voter who is “unable or unwilling” to vote in person is eligible for an absentee ballot. The law states that among requirements to vote by mail, another adult must observe the voter filling out the ballot and signing a statement that reads, in part, that “the above statements are true and the voting procedure was executed as there stated.”​

As the “above statements” include the attestation from the voter that he or she is a resident of Wisconsin and entitled to vote in the state, plaintiffs said the requirement is illegal under federal law.​

​

However, government officials argued that the witnesses only confirm the second part of the statements, which states that the voter certifies that he or she showed the enclosed ballot to the witness and that he or she marked the ballot and placed it in the envelope without assistance.​

​

“If defendants are correct, there would be no violation of the Voting Rights Act. As other courts have held, a witness does not vouch for a voter’s qualifications by simply confirming with a signature what he or she observed,” said Judge Peterson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.​

​

He said that the phrase “the above statements” is ambiguous but that the plaintiffs’ interpretation “simply does not make any sense.”​

​

If they were correct, “every witness would have to determine the voter’s age, residence, citizenship, criminal history, whether the voter is unable or unwilling to vote in person, whether the voter has voted at another location or is planning to do so, whether the voter is capable of understanding the objective of the voting process, whether the voter is under a guardianship, and, if so, whether a court has determined that the voter is competent,” according to Judge Peterson.​

​

“If plaintiffs’ interpretation were correct, it would mean that countless absentee ballots over decades were invalid because the witness certified that the voter was qualified to vote and met the other requirements in the first voter certification, even though the witness had no basis for such a certification,” he said.​

​

The challengers never provided evidence of any witnesses being penalized for not confirming a voter’s qualifications, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s guidance does not mention witnesses taking any steps to confirm voters are eligible to vote, the ruling noted.​

​

The lawsuit also stated that the witness requirement violates the Civil Rights Act, which bars people from “[denying] the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote in such election.”​

​

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, the defendant, declined to comment. . . STORY CONTINUES AT THE LINK ABOVE​

 

[FrancSevin]

Republicans got a voter fraud win in Texas also.

MSN

 

[Doc]

There is hope.