Conservatives on the Wisconsin Supreme Court say an order banning mobile voting vans in Racine County while leaving other polling places in the city, which are heavily Democratic, open is meaningless.
The liberal-majority court unanimously ruled that Racine and other Wisconsin cities cannot use vans to collect ballots.
A Racine County judge said the same thing in January.
The judge also ruled that Racine County chose the polling van stops in Democratic-leaning areas of the city.
The liberal-majority court disagreed and issued an injunction blocking the idea.
“We do not hope that Judge Racine’s ruling will significantly curtail the number of locations that local governments may designate as alternative absentee ballot locations,” the majority wrote in their opinion.
“We conclude that the public interest weighs heavily in enjoining the circuit court’s decision regarding the designation of alternative absentee ballot locations,” the majority added.
“At this stage, just months before the August primary and November general elections, the Circuit Court’s decision threatens to disrupt ongoing preparations for these elections by creating uncertainty about which locations will be designated as alternative absentee voting locations. As noted above, granting a stay would simply maintain the status quo that has existed since 2016.”
Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley said the majority’s reasoning was “nonsensical.”
“First-year law students understand that it is reasons, not logic, that cause a court to issue a stay of execution,” she wrote.
“In its continuing effort to resolve the case in a way that favors one party, the majority issued a perplexing order never before heard in the legal world. While the majority (correctly) denied a motion to stay the circuit court’s order, it ‘stayed’ portions of the circuit court’s legal analysis, which is ‘unacceptable’ under the law,” Bradley added.
“While the majority did not explain, they clearly wanted everyone to know that they did not like the Circuit Court’s analysis, even if they found no error in the Circuit Court’s actual order. The majority confuses the law governing injunctions and grossly misrepresents the Circuit Court’s decision.”
