On Friday, August 23, 2024, the New York Post reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority was being accused of overstepping its neutral role in an election case. A conservative justice issued a dissenting opinion, claiming the majority was effectively acting as a lawyer for the Democratic Party.
The case in question was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seeking to block Green Party candidate Jill Stein from appearing on the ballot in Wisconsin. The DNC is challenging the legitimacy of Stein’s electors and their ability to nominate her as the Green Party candidate.
The state Supreme Court voted to take up the case, prompting Justice Rebecca Bradley and Justice Annette Ziegler to issue a strong dissent. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Bradley argued that the majority went beyond impartiality by aiding the DNC’s argument without due cause.
The legal battle began when David Strang, the DNC’s deputy director of operations in Wisconsin, filed a complaint challenging Stein’s ballot eligibility. Strang claimed the Green Party does not have qualified electors in accordance with state law. When the state’s elections officials dismissed the complaint, Strang appealed directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Despite the challenge, Stein and the Green Party point to recent precedent allowing their ballot inclusion. The Green Party nominee received over 1% of the state’s vote in 2020, satisfying ballot access rules. Jill Stein herself secured 30,000 votes in Wisconsin during the 2016 election. With presidential races recently decided by less than 1% of votes in Wisconsin, third party inclusion can make a meaningful difference.
Rick Esenberg, president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said removing Stein from the ballot would “disenfranchise” tens of thousands of voters and severely damage faith in the election system. He warned against a last-minute decision not grounded in legal merit. WILL also noted that the Supreme Court rejected the Green Party’s 2020 ballot petition using a similar expedited timeline argument.
Stein’s campaign manager, Jason Call, vowed to obtain counsel and challenge the DNC’s complaint. He argued the timeline was “politically motivated” and accused Democrats of using litigation, as the Republicans have been accused of in the past. Call said the Greens would retaliate by fielding candidates in competitive districts and aim to “punish” Democrats for “lawfare” tactics suppressing third party participation.
Source: New York Post
