MADISON, Wis. — On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a request from a right activist to access guardianship records to search for ineligible voters. However, the case may come back in the future.
The court did not make a decision about the case itself. Instead, in a 5-2 vote, it said that a lower appeals court didn’t follow the correct process when it decided that the records should be made public.
Here’s what you need to know:
A conservative campaigner filed the case.
The case examined the balance between keeping personal information safe and making sure that people who shouldn’t vote can’t do so.
Ron Heuer, a former travel executive, and his group, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, claim that there are more ineligible voters than what is shown on Wisconsin’s voter register list. Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to decide that counties must share records from when a judge decides a person is not able to vote. This way, those names can be checked against the voter registration list.
Judges used a technical reason to dismiss the case.
The judges said that the District II appeals court in Waukesha made a mistake by reversing a decision from the Walworth County Circuit Court that denied access to the records. In a nearly similar lawsuit, the District IV appeals court, based in Madison, had denied access to the records saying they were not subject to disclosure under the state public records law.
Justice Janet Protasiewicz, speaking for the main group, said that the District II appeals court could have taken the case to the Supreme Court to explain why the other appeals court’s decision was wrong.
If the correct steps are taken, the case might go back to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court to take more steps.
All four liberal judges were part of the majority, along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn. He said that the different parts of the appeals court should work together.
Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley, who are both conservatives, disagreed, stating that the court has left important questions unanswered for voters, election workers, and people who have lost their voting rights due to being deemed incompetent.
Sam Hall, the lawyer for Walworth County, welcomed the decision.
“We all agree that it’s important to keep elections fair, and people need to trust the election process. We also need to respect the dignity of those under guardianship,” he said.
A court can take away a person’s right to vote if they are under care and are found to not understand what an election is for.
Heuer’s lawyer did not respond right away to an email asking for a comment.
This case was one of many related to the 2020 election.
The case was an effort by people who doubted the results of the 2020 presidential election to raise concerns about the honesty of polls in a key state. In 2022, Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 counties in Wisconsin to obtain guardianship information.
In 2023, the District II appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision that had dismissed the case and ruled that the records are public. It told Walworth County to release them with birthdates and case numbers removed.
Heuer and the WVA have promoted conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in an unsuccessful effort to change President Joe Biden’s victory in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman that found no proof of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.
The WVA also tried to challenge Biden’s victory in Wisconsin by filing two cases, but both were unsuccessful.
Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after he lost it in 2020.
In 2020, Biden won against Donald Trump in Wisconsin by almost 21,000 votes. This result has been confirmed by independent and party-related checks, as well as cases and recounts that Trump asked for. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by around 29,000 votes.
There are no ongoing cases questioning the results of the 2024 election, nor are there any requests to look into the outcome.
Leave a Comment