Wisconsin Supreme Court conservatives find the ban on Racine County’s mobile voting van while allowing the Democrat-heavy polling locations in the city to be illogical.
In a unanimous decision, the liberal-majority court has ruled that collecting ballots via vans in Racine, as well as other cities in Wisconsin, is not permissible.
Back in January, a judge from Racine County had made a similar statement. According to the judge’s ruling, the mobile voting van stops chosen by Racine County were primarily located in areas of the city that were more inclined towards the Democratic party.
The idea was met with disagreement by the liberal-majority court, which subsequently issued a stay.
Most people expressed their disapproval of the Racine judge’s decision to limit the number of alternate absentee ballot sites that municipalities can designate, as it would have a significant impact.
The majority in the case has come to the conclusion that it is in the public’s best interest to put a hold on the circuit court’s decision to assign alternate absentee ballot locations. With the primary election only a few months away, and the general election not far behind, the court believes that the circuit court’s ruling could cause confusion and disrupt the preparations for the elections. By granting a stay, the court can ensure that things remain as they have been since 2016.
In opposition to the majority’s reasoning, Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley has deemed it “nonsensical.”
She wrote that courts stay orders, not reasoning, which even a first-year law student can comprehend.
Bradley criticized the majority’s order, which seems to prioritize its political party’s interests over a fair resolution of cases. While the majority rightfully denies the motion to stay the circuit court’s order, it bizarrely “stays” a part of the circuit court’s legal analysis, an action that has no basis in the law. Bradley pointed out that the majority does not provide any explanation for its decision, but it is clear that it disagrees with the circuit court’s analysis, even though it cannot find fault with the court’s order. The majority’s decision goes against the established legal procedures for motions to stay and misrepresents the circuit court’s ruling.