The left-wing Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ban on smart voting units as a victory for election integrity, at least for the time being. However, the exact 4- 3 decision grants Democrats a victory in upholding the loop prosecutor’s decision to block alternative absentee ballot set sites “in locations that confer a’partisan advantage ‘” to one party, as state law requires.  ,
The high court of Wisconsin is anticipated to make a decision on the case’s qualities sometime in the fall.
The progressive majority’s frequently argued that changing” the status quo that has governed every vote since 2016″ would confuse both the operation and the vote in its decision to stay in place of the purchase on different sites.
There is a chance that the loop court’s decision will interfere with continuous preparations for those elections by creating doubt about which locations may be designated as additional absentee elections locations, the decision states. ” Granting a stay will, as mentioned previously, simply ensure that the status quo since 2016 continues to govern through the next election” . ,
However, at least for the moment, the use of the cellular voting booths, which are referred to as “voting hall on tires,” appeared to be a step too far for even this far-left court. As the ruling states,” there are counterarguments” diminishing the Democrats ‘ “likelihood of success on appeal on this issue” . ,
The law, which evidently prohibits voting booths on axles in Wisconsin votes, is the main rebuttal.  ,
As The Federalist href=”https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/17/judge-racine-wisconsins-voting-van-unfairly-benefited-democrats-and-was-contrary-to-law/”>reported, the city of Racine href=”https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Racine_PB_Formatted8.8.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>purchased a” Mobile Election Unit” in 2021, tapping into more than$ 200, 000 of the nearly$ 1.7 million the Democrat enclave received in” Zuckbucks”. The money was a part of a total of$ 10 million that was distributed statewide in so-called election administration grants funded by private businessman and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Local elections officials claimed that the southern Wisconsin town with its almost 80 000 residents along Lake Michigan used the smart voting system to get as many voters as feasible.
But as one election integrity guardian told me, Racine’s mobile election vehicle— the only one of its kind in the Badger State — is n’t about access, it’s all about participation: Precisely, turning out Democrat citizens.
” Obtained by unlawful techniques”
Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz of the Racine County Circuit Court in January stated that no statute in the state had permitted the use of the election vehicle, and added that its use at various, specific locations throughout the city gave Democrats a political benefit.
The judge ruled in his January ruling that “none defendant or intervenor can point to any act that authorizes the use of wireless (van ) absentee ballot sites; rather, the plaintiffs argue that no act formally forbids them.” ” The absence of an express prohibition, however, does not mean mobile absentee ballot sites comport to procedures specified in the election laws” . ,
Wisconsin’s feckless regulator, the state’s feckless regulator, was found to have advised local elections officials on numerous occasions to break state elections law. Racine County GOP chairman Ken Brown first filed the complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission ( WEC ). Brown argued that WEC should instruct Racine’s city clerk to state that alternative ballot sites must be set up in areas that” confer no partisan advantage” and not “be permitted at a mobile location.” Brown had not provided probable cause to believe that the city had broken the law, the commission decided to dismiss the complaint.  ,
Brown appealed to the circuit court, where he won on both counts. WEC was joined by the Democratic National Committee, Racine’s clerk, and the leftist voting activist group Black Leaders Organizing for Communities ( BLOC ) in seeking a stay while they appealed the judge’s ruling. The judge rebuffed.  ,
In his original ruling, Gasiorkiewicz cited Clark v. Quick as saying that “election outcomes obtained by unlawful procedures corrupt the institution of voting, degrading the very foundation of free government.” According to the saying,” Unlawful votes do not dilute lawful votes so much as they pollute them, which pollutes the integrity of the results.”
As the complaint notes, in late 2021, the Racine Common Council approved 158 “alternative absentee voting locations” to be used in the 2022 elections. City Clerk Tara McMenamin selected 22 of the approved sites for Wisconsin’s 2022 primary election including” community centers, schools, a museum, a park, a beach, a mall, ]and ] a coffee shop” available for absentee voting in three- hour increments. Absentee voting “also took place at City Hall”, where the clerk’s office was located.  ,
But elections officials did n’t use the actual sites. Instead, they href=”https://will-law.org/will-wins-election-integrity-lawsuit/#:~:text=The%20Racine%20County%20Circuit%20Court,was%20illegal%20under%20state%20law.” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>drove their” Mobile Election Unit” to the locations and parked nearby. In the van, voting took place.
Again, the mobile voting unit was courtesy of the Zuckbucks largesse.  ,
As has been well documented, the leftist leaders of Wisconsin’s five largest cities — Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha, and Racine, known as the” Wisconsin Five” — got a huge assist from the Zuckerberg donations, funneled through the left- wing Center for Tech &, Civic Life. Before the 2020 election, Zuckerberg and his wife contributed hundreds of millions of dollars, the majority of which was ultimately used to target liberal voters in swing states like Wisconsin.  ,
‘ Courts Stay Orders, Not Interpretations’
Nothing in Wisconsin’s constitution specifically forbids the use of Big Tech billionaire grants administered by former Democratic Party operatives in the administration of elections during the 2020 election. This changed earlier this year when Badger State voters overwhelmingly endorsed a ballot issue that forbids private funding in elections.  ,
Even a leftist-led state Supreme Court charged with bench activism has n’t yet been able to massage a ruling to circumvent the law’s so clear that the law on polling sites is. According to state law, all polling places” shall be public buildings, unless the use of a public building… is impracticable or the use of a nonpublic building better serves the needs of the electorate.” Nothing in the statute gives a “voting booth on wheels” the power to turn over the ballot collection keys.
The lower court judge is criticized by the ruling, but it also provides political cover to the mobile unit’s supporters.  ,
” Unlike the circuit court’s conclusion about alternate absentee ballot sites, this part of the circuit court’s ruling does not restrict the ability of Racine ( or any other municipality ) to designate multiple alternate absentee ballot locations”, the order states. Additionally, as the circuit court pointed out in its ruling denying a stay, Racine appears to be the only state in the state to have used a mobile election unit. For these reasons, there is little chance that denying a stay will cause a lot of confusion or otherwise stymie upcoming elections preparations.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brian Hagedorn, a swing member of the court, claimed that the majority “misrepresents the circuit court’s decision and then manipulates the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant a stay while the appeal is pending.”
Hagedorn notes there’s a whole lot of assuming going on in the majority opinion, effectively staying the lower court’s analysis on a point in law— not the court’s order.  ,
” This makes no sense. Courts stay orders, not interpretations”, the justice wrote. ” Undeterred by this basic rule, the majority stays the circuit court’s interpretation]of statute ] language on’ partisan advantage,’ not the order itself, and simply assumes the circuit court adopted a view of the statute it never proffered ——either woefully misreading, or intentionally misrepresenting, the circuit court’s written ruling”.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law &, Liberty ( WILL), a Milwaukee- based, public- interest law firm, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Brown. Rick Esenberg, WILL’s president and general counsel, said the ruling is a victory for election integrity.  ,
” It leaves the order in place. He said in an interview on Thursday that there wo n’t be any mobile voting vans until someone leaves the order. For the reasons we argued, the vans were incompatible with the statutes, and the order forbids their use.
Matt Kittle covers The Federalist’s senior elections coverage. An award- winning investigative reporter and 30- year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
