Read it an weep:
Wisconsin Supreme Court rules against Trump in 4-3 decision…
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/breaking-wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-against-trump-in-4-3-decision/Two separate rulings by the Wisconsin Supreme Court this morning.
Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses Trump election lawsuit
MADISON, Wis. — A narrowly divided Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.
In the 4-3 ruling, the court’s three liberal justices were joined by conservative swing Justice Brian Hagedorn who said three of Trump’s four claims were filed too late and the other was without merit.
The president sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic counties. Those were the only counties where Trump sought a recount, even though he lost statewide by just short of 21,000 votes, a margin of about 0.6%. Hagedorn said the Trump campaign was “not entitled to the relief it seeks.”
Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he should not have waited until his election loss was announced to raise his complaints.
“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,” Hagedorn wrote. “The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”
Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.
The three dissenting conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, said the court should have decided whether votes should have counted in each of the four categories Trump challenged and also clarified the law for future elections.
“A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted,” Roggensack wrote. “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.”In a separate ruling, the Justices sided with Republicans…
Wisconsin Supreme Court says election officials were wrong; ballots may not be countedMADISON — The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin. But the court noted that a determination must be make in every case before tossing a ballot, as President Trump has sought in a separate lawsuit.
Under Wisconsin law, a voter may receive a ballot by mail and bypass Wisconsin’s voter ID law, if the voter, by his own determination, concludes he “confined” based on age, physical illness, or infirmity. This fall, roughly 215,000 voters in Wisconsin said they were indefinitely confined, nearly a four-fold increase from the 2016 election.
The court said the government’s interpretation of Wisconsin’s indefinitely confined was erroneous. “A county clerk may not “declare” that any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic,” the court said. The court further stated that, “…the presence of a communicable disease such as COVID-19, in and of itself, does not entitle all electors [voters] in Wisconsin to obtain an absentee ballot…”
Moreover, the court stated that lockdown orders do not meet the requirements under Wisconsin law to allow a voter to claim the status of “indefinitely confined” either. In its final decision, the justices concluded that it’s up to each voter — not the county clerks or anyone else — to decide if and when they qualify as indefinitely confined.
Read the Court ruling:
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283