Leftist-Led WI Supreme Court ‘Guts’ Election Integrity Lawsuits

In one fell swoop, the liberal-led Wisconsin Supreme Court shredded long-established principles of legal standing while showing voters what leftist control of the Badger State’s highest court would look like for the foreseeable future. 

In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday, the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that found Racine County resident Kenneth Brown could bring a lawsuit alleging multiple violations of state election law involving the city’s use of a “Zuckbucks”-funded “mobile election unit” in the 2022 primary election. The decision, a troubling exhibit of judicial activism with potentially far-reaching consequences, was issued just six weeks before a costly election to determine whether liberals or conservatives will control the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

‘Failed to Demonstrate’

Brown first brought his complaint to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which dismissed Brown’s allegations against the Racine City Clerk’s office. WEC found no probable cause that the city’s election office violated state law.

Brown then filed a lawsuit in Racine County Circuit Court challenging WEC’s decision. The court sided with the complainant on two of five claims, finding the election van violated state law on alternate absentee ballot sites and that the city illegally gave an advantage to the Democratic Party by sending the “voting booth on wheels” into 21 dependably liberal portions of Racine for absentee voting sessions. 

But the Supreme Court majority decision didn’t get into the merits of the case. It only weighed in on standing, insisting Brown, an official with the Racine County Republican Party, had no business challenging the Election Commission’s dismissal in court because he was not “aggrieved” by the decision. 

“Brown has failed to demonstrate that WEC’s decision caused him any such injury. As a result, Brown does not have standing, and his complaint must be dismissed,” the opinion, written by leftist Justice Jill Karofsky, asserts. Just because the complainant did not receive a favorable verdict from the Wisconsin Elections Commission doesn’t give him the right to take his case to court, the liberal majority ruling opines. 

Oh, but it does, argues conservative Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley.

‘Guts the People’s Right’

In a scathing dissent, Bradley excoriates the majority for parsing the meaning of “aggrieved,” for grafting provisions from a different chapter of Wisconsin statutes to come up with a convenient interpretation. The effect, Bradley argues, is to override the Legislature’s determination that any voter has standing in challenging an election official’s “action of inaction in the voter’s jurisdiction.” 

The majority opinion, “guts the People’s right of access to the courts in election law matters, elevating the WEC to a status unrecognizable under the Wisconsin Constitution: An unreviewable Supreme Court of Election Law,” the justice’s dissent charges. 

It’s a particularly resounding point given that WEC’s staff of unelected bureaucrats, not the six-member commission, decided Brown’s complaint was not valid. Lucas Vebber, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, the Milwaukee-based public interest law firm representing Brown, called Tuesday a “sad day” for the rule of law. 

“The court effectively closed the courthouse doors to many Wisconsinites who are seeking to hold government officials accountable,” Vebber said, adding that the ruling will have significant ramifications beyond the Brown case. 

Bradley is more pointed. The justice asserts the liberal majority could use a good legal dictionary. She said the ruling misinterprets election law to insist that “a voter’s right to ensure that election officials follow the law ends with WEC unless he shows ‘that WEC’s decision caused him [] actual or threatened injury.’” That’s not what the law says, Bradley contends.

“If the majority’s conclusion sounds ridiculous, that’s because it,” she writes, asserting that the “majority unlawfully strips Brown of standing.” 

Charlie Hoffman, an attorney at Cramer Multhauff LLP in Waukesha, Wisconsin, who clerked for Bradley during the 2023-24 term, said the majority’s ruling is one more example of progressive policy goals influencing the judicial opinions of Wisconsin’s high court. 

“This ruling gives carte blanche to municipal clerks to ignore the law when establishing voting procedures as the liberal majority’s ruling effectively denies the ability for citizens to sue when they believe election procedures are not being followed,” Hoffman said in an email to The Federalist. 

Funded by Zuckbucks

As The Federalist has reported, the city of Racine purchased a mobile election union in 2021, tapping into more than $200,000 of the nearly $1.7 million the Democrat enclave received in “Zuckbucks.” The funding was part of some $10 million handed out statewide in so-called election administration grants funded by private billionaire and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The brunt of those grants went to five Democrat-led cities to bolster liberal voter turnout. Wisconsin voters last year approved a constitutional amendment banning Zuckbucks and other private money in elections. 

Racine elections officials used the van to reach as many voters as possible, local elections officials claimed.

But critics says the “voting booth on wheels” is all about turnout: Specifically, turning out Democrat voters.

Racine County Circuit Court Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz declared that nothing in state law allowed for the use of the voting van, and further found that its use at multiple, targeted sites around the city gave Democrats a partisan advantage.

The Supreme Court’s liberal majority shrugged off those findings, insisting that Brown, who personally observed alleged election law violations occurring, was not injured by those violations. Critics say it’s more legislating from the bench by activist justices who have the final say on interpreting Wisconsin law. 

‘Such Monumental Importance’

Brown’s case illustrates how much is at stake in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which will determine whether liberals maintain control or conservatives take it back. The contest pits conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who previously served as Wisconsin attorney general, against liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford. On track to be the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, surpassing the record set in the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court contest, Crawford has taken in hefty donations from some of the most well-heeled liberal donors in the country — George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and other leftist billionaires. If Schimel wins, conservatives take back the slim majority they lost in the 2023 election. If Crawford wins, it could be several more years of left-wing control of the court. With Wisconsin playing an outsized roll in presidential elections, April’s election is a critical political test just four months after November’s sea change election in which Republicans took back control of the Senate and the White House. 

The ruling in the Racine case could very well have a hindering effect on lawsuits challenging election law violations moving forward.  

“The majority’s denial of access to one voter extends far beyond Brown; it impacts all Wisconsin citizens,” Bradley wrote in her dissent. She quotes the man the left most loves to hate, President Donald Trump, or at least his campaign in its challenge of the rigged 2020 election. 

“Elections are the foundation of American government and their integrity is of such monumental importance that any threat to their validity should trigger not only our concern but our prompt action,” the lawsuit Trump v. Biden urged. 

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.