According to The Center Square, the Wisconsin Supreme Court conservatives find the ban on Racine County’s mobile voting van perplexing, especially since the Democrat-heavy polling locations in the city are still allowed to operate.
All members of the court, who are mostly liberal, have come to a unanimous decision that the practice of using vans to collect ballots by Racine and other cities in Wisconsin is not permissible.
In January, a judge from Racine County had made a similar statement. The judge had concluded that the mobile voting van stops selected by Racine County were located in areas of the city that were more favorable towards Democrats.
The idea was met with disagreement by the liberal-majority court, which subsequently issued a stay.
Most people expressed their disagreement with the Racine judge’s decision to significantly limit the number of locations where municipalities can assign as alternative absentee ballot sites.
The majority has concluded that the public interest strongly favors the circuit court’s ruling to designate alternate absentee ballot sites to be stayed. With the August primary and November general elections just months away, the circuit court’s ruling could potentially disrupt ongoing preparations for the elections by creating uncertainty about which locations are eligible to be designated as alternate absentee balloting sites. By granting a stay, the status quo since 2016 will remain intact, ensuring stability and certainty leading up to the upcoming elections.
In dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley, who identifies as conservative, expressed her disagreement with the majority’s reasoning and deemed it “nonsensical.”
She wrote that it is common knowledge among first-year law students that courts only stay orders and not reasoning.
“The majority’s order is unprecedented in the legal realm as it attempts to resolve cases in favor of their preferred political party. Although the majority correctly denied the motion to stay the circuit court’s order, it still ‘stays’ a portion of the circuit court’s legal analysis. This action goes against the law as it is not recognized as a valid legal practice. Despite lacking any explanation, it is evident that the majority disagrees with the circuit court’s analysis, even though there are no issues with the circuit court’s actual order. In doing so, the majority has disrupted the law governing motions to stay and has distorted the circuit court’s decision.” Bradley pointed out.
