The Wisconsin Supreme Court has declined to release voter competency records to the Wisconsin Voter Alliance. This decision, stemming from the Alliance's involvement in a 2020 election review, leaves open the potential for future legal challenges.
Wisconsin Public Radio reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Friday against the Wisconsin Voter Alliance's request to access guardianship records concerning voter eligibility in 2020. The Alliance, a group engaged in scrutinizing the 2020 election process, has attracted attention and controversy over its efforts.
Led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, the review challenged the integrity of the 2020 election, winning support from Wisconsin Assembly Republicans. Gableman even suggested the possibility of overturning President Joe Biden's victory, creating a backdrop of political tension.
In 2022, the Alliance intensified its activities by filing a lawsuit against Walworth County, seeking access to certain records associated with claims of voting incompetence. This action marked just one of 13 lawsuits initiated by the group across Wisconsin in various counties.
What makes this case complex are the conflicting decisions from different courts within the state. The District IV Court of Appeals in Madison sided with the county, rejecting the Alliance's lawsuit. Conversely, District II in Waukesha rendered a decision favoring the group's request.
The Supreme Court's decision on this matter was influenced by a combination of votes from four liberal justices and conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, focusing on past appeals court decisions rather than the case's particulars. Justice Janet Protasiewicz, known for her liberal stance, penned the majority opinion.
Protasiewicz emphasized the significance of adhering to precedents established by earlier appeals court rulings.
In her examination of the case, she stated, "When the court of appeals disagrees with a prior published court of appeals opinion, it has two and only two options."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision made by the District II Court of Appeals in Waukesha. This effectively sent the case back for further review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, leaving unresolved elements in the legal proceedings.
Not all justices agreed with the majority's direction in this decision. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, alongside Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, expressed dissent, arguing for the necessity of addressing vital issues within the case.
Bradley contended that crucial considerations involving privacy, access to public information, and integrity of elections were overlooked. Her dissenting view highlights the complexities involved in balancing transparency with individual privacy rights.
These differing opinions within the court underscore the divided perspectives on such legal matters. They represent the broader debates occurring at both state and national levels regarding elections and voter eligibility.
The context for this ruling traces back to the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Following Biden's victory, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance sought judicial intervention to nullify the election results, a move dismissed by Justice Brian Hagedorn in strong terms.
Hagedorn criticized the extraordinary extent of judicial intervention proposed by the group, describing it as "the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen."
Efforts by the Wisconsin Voter Alliance to challenge or overturn election results have been consistently met with resistance from the judiciary.
These legal battles reflect ongoing tensions and divisions related to the integrity of electoral processes.
The recent Supreme Court ruling does not definitively put an end to the Alliance's pursuits. By not ruling on the merits of the case, the court left the door open for potential future legal challenges that could further explore the interplay between voter eligibility and privacy.
Attorneys representing both Walworth County and the Alliance refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court's decision. The lack of public statements from these legal representatives adds to the uncertainty surrounding the next steps.