Supreme Court Brushes Off Trump Election Challenge

In recent weeks, several lawsuits aimed at changing the results of the 2020 presidential election have withered against the standards for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The latest is one was brought directly by former President Donald Trump against the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), the Wisconsin Secretary of State, Governor Tony Evers, and more than a dozen local officials including Mayor Tom Barrett, Claire Woodall-Vogg and Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson.

The suit, like many others filed by the Trump campaign, Trump allies and supporters, was aimed at challenging the use of absentee ballots so as to change the results of the election.

The suit was filed in November, and was dismissed by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Ludwig of the Seventh Circuit the following month. 

After that, Trump, represented by attorneys from the Indianapolis law firm Kroger, Gardis & Regis, LLP, appealed to the Supreme Court and filed a motion for expedited review, so as to have the case heard before President Joe Biden was sworn in. That, too, failed and the high court didn’t decide on whether to grant review until this week.

Like all the suits launched by Trump and Republicans in the wake of the 2020 election, it was intended to change the results in a battleground state in order to tip the balance of the electoral college in Trump’s favor.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied a request for a writ of certiorari, which is an order from the court to review the case.

The suit goes after absentee balloting guidance, arguing that the direction given by the WEC and local clerks went against state law.

This guidance, among other things, was related to election officials filling in missing address information of witnesses to absentee ballots, the definition of who can identify as “indefinitely confined” in order to vote absentee and the use of ballot drop boxes.

The suit rests on an interpretation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution relating to the appointment of electors. That is, that the guidance from the WEC and local clerks infringed upon the state Legislature’s constitutional authority to determine the manner for picking the state’s electors.

In his decision, Ludwig said the arguments put forward in the suit “would fail even under a broader, alternative reading” of Article II of the constitution. That is, even if the guidance had changed the administration of the election so as to actually change the manner for selecting electors, it was not in violation of state law because the Legislature had granted the WEC the authorization to issue such guidance.

Like many other suits brought against absentee ballot procedures in the state, the court found this suit lacked standing in part because of how long it took Trump to challenge the rules. That’s because these same practices were in use during the 2016 election when Trump won, and he didn’t challenge them then.

Now the Supreme Court has closed the door on any further advance of the arguments made by Trump in this suit, denying his request to even hear the case.