Will Republican Legislature Risk Contempt With Scheme to Enact New Limits on Early Voting?
GOP Anti-Voter Plot Would Directly Contradict Court Decision Protecting Early Voting Rights
MADISON, Wis. — A 2016 federal court ruling in the voting rights case One Wisconsin Institute, et. al. v. Thomsen, et. al. struck down racially-motivated restrictions on the hours and days of early voting imposed by Wisconsin Republicans. Attorney Bruce Spiva, a partner with the law firm Perkins Coie, who was on the legal team that argued the case, noted the legislature and its Republican leaders could find themselves in contempt of the court ruling if they follow through with a new effort to limit early voting after historic losses in the November midterm elections.
“Republicans aren’t just showing contempt and disrespect for Wisconsin voters by attacking early voting, again,” said One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross. “This time they’re doing it with the full knowledge that they are thumbing their noses at a court order.”
Legislators pondering the voting restrictions are doing so with the knowledge they are running afoul of the federal judiciary. An analysis provided to the legislature by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau about the provision noted the decision of federal Judge James Peterson in One Wisconsin Institute et. al. v. Thomsen et. al. held the previous GOP imposed limits imposed on days and times of early voting were unconstitutional.
In addition, a drafting attorney who prepared the language of the bill at the direction of Assembly Republican leader Robin Vos noted that the previously imposed state limits on the days and hours of in-person early voting were found to be unconstitutional.
In his 2016 decision striking down those limits, federal Judge James Peterson found, “… Wisconsin’s restrictions on the hours for in-person absentee voting have had a disparate effect on African Americans and Latinos. The court also finds that the legislature’s justification for these restrictions was meager, and that the intent was to secure partisan advantage.”
One Wisconsin Now is a statewide communications network specializing in effective earned media and online organizing to advance progressive leadership and values.
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
More about the Lame Duck Laws
- Four Years Later, State’s Lame Duck Law Still Faces Court Challenge - Shawn Johnson - Jan 17th, 2023
- Judge Rules Against Law Giving Legislators Power Over Attorney General Settlements - Shawn Johnson - May 11th, 2022
- State Supreme Court Dismisses AG’s Lame-Duck Lawsuit - Ruth Conniff - Mar 25th, 2021
- Kaul Sues Legislature Over Lame Duck Laws - Melanie Conklin - Nov 24th, 2020
- AG Kaul Announces Legal Action to Allow DOJ to Again Enforce Wisconsin Laws Without Unconstitutional Legislative Interference - Josh Kaul - Nov 23rd, 2020
- Vos Thinks Lame-Duck Session Didn’t Go Far Enough - Melanie Conklin - Jul 31st, 2020
- The State of Politics: Court Rulings Against Evers Sow Confusion - Steven Walters - Jul 20th, 2020
- Court Tosses Dems’ Lame-Duck Suit - Laurel White - Jul 16th, 2020
- Op Ed: State High Court Nullifies 2018 Election - James Rowen - Jul 12th, 2020
- WI Supreme Court Upholds GOP Lame-Duck Laws - Laurel White - Jul 9th, 2020
Read more about Lame Duck Laws here
Mentioned in This Press Release
Recent Press Releases by One Wisconsin Now
Dan Kelly’s Opinion: It’s OK to Lie in Judicial Campaigns
Jan 30th, 2020 by One Wisconsin NowState Supreme Court Candidate Co-Authored Column Opposing Efforts to Clean Up Court Campaigns
Campaign Cash Keeps Flowing to WILL’s Shill Dan Kelly
Jan 16th, 2020 by One Wisconsin NowOver $14,000 from Board Members of Right-Wing Legal Group to State Court Justice’s Campaign
Right-Wing Group That Wants to Criminalize Abortion Backs Dan Kelly State Supreme Court Campaign
Jan 15th, 2020 by One Wisconsin NowDan Kelly Supporters Want Court Action to Allow Enforcement of Abortion Ban Dating to 19th Century
