Breaking news out of Wisconsin where we’re seeing reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is refusing to hear the Trump campaign’s election lawsuit, “likely dooming” his state court case seeking to overturn Joe Biden’s victory:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Supreme Court won’t hear Trump election lawsuit, likely dooming state court case seeking to overturn loss.
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) December 3, 2020
It was reportedly a 4-3 decision:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, says it will not hear a lawsuit from the Trump campaign which hoped to disqualify more than 220,000 ballots in two counties. Both Dane and Milwaukee counties lean heavily Democratic.
— WBZ NewsRadio (@wbznewsradio) December 3, 2020
This was the lawsuit we told you about that questioned 220,000 ballots in the state:
BREAKING: President Donald J. Trump had asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to disqualify more than 221,000 ballots in Milwaukee and Dane Counties, alleging irregularities in the way absentee ballots were administered. https://t.co/HCMzTxT5Df
— FOX6 News (@fox6now) December 3, 2020
Our post from a few days ago:
Jim Hanson breaks down what's going on with President Trump's new lawsuit in Wisconsin https://t.co/viWpDNmhsE
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 2, 2020
The president did file a second lawsuit last night but that one, too, has some procedural issues:
The new Trump lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's election results was filed against the Secretary of State, even though he does not oversee elections. The suit also failed to name one member of the Elections Commission as a defendant without giving a reason. https://t.co/m6o2wE8KzN
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) December 3, 2020
Recommended
Update. Here’s more on the 4-3 decision:
Swing Justice Brian Hagedorn joined the three liberal justices in denying the petition
Three conservative justices dissented
— Scott Bauer (@sbauerAP) December 3, 2020
Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, writing for the minority, says the court should have taken the case and ordered a circuit court to determine the facts and report back so the Supreme Court could quickly issue a ruling
— Scott Bauer (@sbauerAP) December 3, 2020
Hagedorn disagreed:
“We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even — and maybe especially — in high profile cases."
— Scott Bauer (@sbauerAP) December 3, 2020
Roggensack noted that by not taking the case now, “there are significant time constraints that may preclude our deciding significant legal issues that cry out for resolution by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”
The Electoral College votes on Dec. 14
— Scott Bauer (@sbauerAP) December 3, 2020
Editor’s note: This post has been updated.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member