The liberal-led Wisconsin Supreme Court shredded long-held constitutional principles in one go while demonstrating to voters what communist power of the Badger State’s highest court may seem like for the foreseeable future.  ,
The state Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision on Tuesday, 4-3, that allowed Racine County resident Kenneth Brown to file a lawsuit alleging numerous election law violations involving the city’s use of a” Zuckbucks”-funded “mobile election system” in the 2022 primary election. Only six weeks before a pricey election to decide whether liberals or conservatives may win control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the decision was made, a troubling example of judicial activism with possible far-reaching effects.  ,
Failed to Demonstrate
Brown first complained to the Wisconsin Elections Commission ( WEC ), which rejected Brown’s allegations that the Racine City Clerk’s office were false. No reason for doubt existed for the state’s vote business to break state law, according to the WEC.
Brown subsequently sued the Racine County Circuit Court for the rejection of the selection. The court agreed with the plaintiff on two of five of its claims, finding that the election truck violated state legislation regarding alternative absentee ballot locations and that the city unlawfully advantaged the Democratic Party by installing the “voting kiosk on wheels” in 21 reliantly progressive areas of Racine for absentee ballot sessions.  ,
However, the majority of the Supreme Court’s decision did not address the case’s qualities. It just weighed in on position, insisting Brown, an official with the Racine County Republican Party, had no business challenging the Election Commission’s termination in jury because he was no “aggrieved” by the decision.  ,
Brown has failed to show that WEC’s choice caused him any such harm. As a result, Brown does not have position, and his problem may be dismissed”, the mind, written by communist Justice Jill Karofsky, asserts. The democratic majority ruling opines that the plaintiff has the right to bring his case to court simply because he did not receive a positive verdict from the Wisconsin Elections Commission.  ,
Oh, but it does, argues liberal Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley.
‘ Guts the Women’s Right ‘
Bradley blasts the lot in a scathing dissent for interpreting the meaning of “aggrieved” and for using cutting provisions from a different section of Wisconsin statutes to come up with a simple interpretation. The effect, Bradley argues, is to override the Legislature’s determination that any voter has standing in challenging an election official’s” action of inaction in the voter’s jurisdiction” . ,
The majority opinion, “guts the Women’s right of access to the authorities in election rules matters, elevating the WEC to a standing unintelligible under the Wisconsin Constitution: An unreviewable Supreme Court of Election Law”, the judge’s opposition claims.  ,
It’s a particularly spectacular stage given that WEC’s team of unaccountable bureaucrats, not the six-member fee, decided Brown’s complaint was not true. Lucas Vebber, assistant guidance for the Wisconsin Institute for Law &, Liberty, the Milwaukee-based public curiosity law firm representing Brown, called Tuesday a” terrible time” for the rule of law.  ,
According to Vebber, the judge effectively opened the courtroom doors to “many Wisconsinites” who want to keep government officials accountable, adding that the decision will have far-reaching effects beyond the Brown case.  ,
Bradley is more directed. The justice claims that a reliable legal dictionary might be useful for the democratic lot. She claimed that the decision makes error in interpretation because it states that” a voter’s right to ensure that election officials follow the law ends with WEC unless he proves that WEC’s decision caused him [ ] actual or threatened injury.” That’s not what the rules says, Bradley contends.
” If the majority’s conclusion sounds ridiculous, that’s because it”, she writes, asserting that the “majority unlawfully strips Brown of standing” . ,
Charlie Hoffman, an attorney at Cramer Multhauff LLP in Waukesha, Wisconsin, who clerked for Bradley during the 2023-24 name, said the court’s decision is one more instance of democratic policy goals influencing the criminal opinions of Wisconsin’s higher court.  ,
In an email to The Federalist, Hoffman wrote that” the liberal majority’s decision effectively denies the ability for citizens to file lawsuits when they believe election procedures are being followed.”  ,
Funded by Zuckbucks
As The Federalist has reported, the city of Racine purchased a mobile election union in 2021, tapping into more than$ 200, 000 of the nearly$ 1.7 million the Democrat enclave received in” Zuckbucks”. The funding was a portion of the roughly$ 10 million in state-sponsored’election administration grants’ that Mark Zuckerberg, a private billionaire, and Facebook founder, provided. To increase liberal voter turnout, five Democratic-led cities received the majority of those grants. Last year, Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment that forbids Zuckbucks and other private money in elections.  ,
Local elections officials in Racine claimed that the van was used to get as many voters as possible.
But critics says the “voting booth on wheels” is all about turnout: Specifically, turning out Democrat voters.
Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz of the Racine County Circuit Court determined that no statute in the state had made it possible to use the voting van, and added that Democrats had a partisan advantage from using it at several targeted locations throughout the city.
The Supreme Court’s liberal majority shrugged off those findings, insisting that Brown, who personally observed alleged election law violations occurring, was not injured by those violations. Criticism claims that activist justices who have the final say in interpreting Wisconsin law are more likely to pass laws from the bench.  ,
Such Monumental Importance
In Brown’s case, how much will be decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 1st, which will decide whether liberals or conservatives will win. Conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who previously served as Wisconsin’s attorney general, and liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford square off in the contest. On track to be the most expensive state judicial race in U. S. history, surpassing the record set in the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court contest, Crawford has taken in hefty donations from some of the most well-heeled liberal donors in the country — George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and other leftist billionaires. If Schimel wins, conservatives take back the slim majority they lost in the 2023 election. If Crawford wins, it could be several more years of left-wing control of the court. April’s election is a crucial political test just four months after Republicans reclaimed control of the Senate and the White House due to Wisconsin’s playing an outsized roll in presidential elections.  ,
The outcome of the Racine case could very well have an impact on progressing lawsuits challenging election law violations.  ,
” The majority’s denial of access to one voter extends far beyond Brown, it impacts all Wisconsin citizens”, Bradley wrote in her dissent. She quotes President Donald Trump, the man the left most loves to despise, or at least his campaign in its contest of the rigged 2020 election.  ,
The lawsuit Trump v. Biden urged that any threat to their validity be cited because” Elections are the foundation of American government and their integrity is of such monumental importance that we must immediately take action.”  ,
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.
