Wisconsin indefinitely confined ballots require audit, Supreme court belatedly clarifies, 2 opinions filed Dec 14, Why did WI court wait until day of Trump ruling?
“We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden”…Attorney Sidney Powell
“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems
“Administrative changes in Wisconsin election put tens of thousands of votes in question. From allowing clerks to fix spoiled ballots to permitting voters to escape ID rules, Wisconsin election officials took actions that were not authorized by legislature.”...Just The News Nov 8
On March 31, 2020 the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed the following ruling in Jefferson v Dane County:
“The temporary injunction the petitioners seek would order respondent, Scott McDonell, the Dane County Clerk, to remove a March 25, 2020 Facebook post in which he indicated, inter alia, that all Dane County voters could declare themselves to be “indefinitely confined” under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2) due to illness solely because of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services Emergency
Order #12 (the Safer at Home Order) and difficulties in presenting or uploading a valid proof of identification, thereby avoiding the legal requirement to present or upload a copy of the voter’s proof of identification when requesting an absentee ballot. 1 The petitioners further ask this court
to order respondent McDonell and respondent Dane County to issue new statements setting forth the statutory interpretation proposed by the petitioners.”
In regard to clarification, the WEC has met and has issued guidance on the proper use of indefinitely confined status under Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2) in its March 29, 2020 publication, “Guidance for Indefinitely Confined Electors COVID-19.” The WEC guidance states as follows:
1. Designation of indefinitely confined status is for each individual voter to make
based upon their current circumstances. It does not require permanent or total
inability to travel outside of the residence. The designation is appropriate for
electors who are indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or
infirmity or are disabled for an indefinite period.
2. Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by electors simply as a means to
avoid the photo ID requirement without regard to whether they are indefinitely
confined because of age, physical illness or infirmity, or disability.
We conclude that the WEC’s guidance quoted above provides the clarification on the purpose and proper use of the indefinitely confined status that is required at this time.”
On December 14, 2020, the day of the Electoral College vote, the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed 2 opinions.
|Release date||Case number||Caption||Select/view|
|Dec 14, 2020||2020AP002038||Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden|
|Dec 14, 2020||2020AP000557-OA||Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin|
Trump, et al v Biden, et al
ON PETITION TO BYPASS COURT OF APPEALS, REVIEW
OF DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
Filed December 14, 2020.
“The Campaign focuses its objections on four different
categories of ballots——each applying only to voters in Dane County
and Milwaukee County. First, it seeks to strike all ballots cast
by voters who claimed indefinitely confined status since March 25,
“The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots
is meritless on its face, and the other three categories of ballots
challenged fail under the doctrine of laches.”
“The Campaign does not challenge the ballots of
individual voters. Rather, the Campaign argues that all voters
claiming indefinitely confined status since the date of the
erroneous Facebook advice should have their votes invalidated,
whether they are actually indefinitely confined or not. Although
the number of individuals claiming indefinitely confined status
has increased throughout the state, the Campaign asks us to apply
this blanket invalidation of indefinitely confined voters only to
ballots cast in Dane and Milwaukee Counties, a total exceeding 28,000 votes. The Campaign’s request to strike indefinitely
confined voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as a class without
regard to whether any individual voter was in fact indefinitely
confined has no basis in reason or law; it is wholly without merit.”
¶10 All three of these challenges fail under the
longstanding and well-settled doctrine of laches. “Laches is
founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant, and not those
who sleep on their rights to the detriment of the opposing party.”
State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶14, 389
Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587. Application of laches is within the
court’s discretion upon a showing by the party raising the claim
of unreasonable delay, lack of knowledge the claim would be raised,
and prejudice. Id., ¶15.
¶11 For obvious reasons, laches has particular import in the
election context. As one noted treatise explains:
Extreme diligence and promptness are required in
election-related matters, particularly where actionable election practices are discovered prior to the election.
Therefore, laches is available in election challenges.
In fact, in election contests, a court especially
considers the application of laches. Such doctrine is
applied because the efficient use of public resources
demands that a court not allow persons to gamble on the
outcome of an election contest and then challenge it
when dissatisfied with the results, especially when the
same challenge could have been made before the public is
put through the time and expense of the entire election
process. Thus if a party seeking extraordinary relief
in an election-related matter fails to exercise the
requisite diligence, laches will bar the action.”
The denial of tossing out all indefinitely confined ballots seems reasonable so as not to disenfranchise valid voters.
Not sure what this means:
The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots
is meritless on its face”
And accusing the Trump challenge of violating the laches principle when viewed in light of the following, is interesting.
Filed also on December 14, 2020, when the oral argument was held September 29, 2020.
Jefferson, et al v Dane County, et al.
“(1) Respondents lack the authority to issue an
interpretation of Wisconsin’s election law allowing all electors
in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo
identification and (2) Governor Evers’ Emergency Order #12
(“Emergency Order #12″) did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to
obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification.”
“we conclude that Emergency Order #12 did not render
all Wisconsin electors “indefinitely confined,” thereby obviating
the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an
“¶23 The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a) requires
that each elector make an individual assessment to determine
whether he or she qualifies as indefinitely confined or disabled
for an indefinite period. A county clerk may not “declare” that
any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic. This
conclusion is supported by two distinct, but equally important,
Why was the above filed on December 14, 2020:
- When oral arguments were on September 29, 2020.
- Not before the election.
- Long after the election.
- On December 14, the day of the Electoral College vote.
- And the same day as the Trump lawsuit denial.
This was after the Trump lawsuit was filed and heard and likely would have been quoted.
Anybody else reporting this?