‌‌‌‌‌Wisconsin Supreme Court Limits Voting Options

📬 Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to receive The Franchise in your inbox every week.

Hello readers!

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that the use of ballot drop boxes was illegal, providing new fodder for the Big Lie movement nearly two years after Donald Trump’s election loss. 
 

Got a voting rights story you think our readers should hear? Respond to this email and tell me about it.

Alright, let’s dig in.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Against Drop Boxes And Gives Trump New Ammo

The WISCONSIN Supreme Court on Friday declared that the use of ballot drop boxes was illegal in the state, because, as Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the 4-3 conservative majority, “Ballot drop boxes appear nowhere in the detailed statutory system for absentee voting.” 
 

But the opinion did much more than just make participating in elections more difficult. Bradley’s opinion invoked rigged elections in North Korea, Cuba and Syria, then implied that Wisconsin’s own elections had been rigged — without explicitly saying so.

“The right to vote presupposes the rule of law governs elections. If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government,” Bradley wrote. “Such elections are unlawful and their results are illegitimate.” She added later: “The illegality of these drop boxes weakens the people’s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will.”

It was no surprise, then, when Donald Trump and other high-profile Big Lie evangelists used the ruling as evidence not only that the 2020 election had been rigged by the use of drop boxes, but also that Wisconsin Republicans should seize the moment and “de-certify” — a legal impossibility — the last presidential election. 

The Threat Of ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory

At TPM, we’d done a lot of reporting on the so-called “Independent State Legislature” theory before the Supreme Court announced that it would take up the idea next term in Moore v. Harper. The basic idea of the theory is that state legislatures have unchecked power when it comes to setting federal election rules, that state courts and election officials are basically excluded from the process, and that federal courts would be the venue for disputes over federal elections. 
 

It’s a complicated idea, but imagine the ramifications if the court blesses the theory: Future election disputes would depend on empowered (and largely gerrymandered in Republicans’ favor) state legislatures. Citizen-run redistricting commissions could be found to be unconstitutional usurpations of legislatures’ power. And so on. 
 

This past week saw plenty of great coverage and opinion on this story. Here are some highlights: The Washington Post editorial board wrote that “The Supreme Court agreed last week to hear a case that could fundamentally change this country’s democracy — by making it less of one.”
 

Two Brennan Center writers argued in The Atlantic, “The theory would create a vacuum of lawlessness in the most dangerous of places: elections.” (This piece also does a great job showing the dearth of precedent for this theory.)
 

And in a column, the New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie examined the historical view of state legislatures as enemies of small-d democracy. “As Americans recognized then, and as they should recognize now, the Constitution is not a charter for states or state legislatures, it is a charter for people, for our rights and for our right to self-government,” Bouie argued.

Around The States

The Department of Justice sued ARIZONA over a new GOP law requiring proof of citizenship for all voters, even though a near identical bill lost at the U.S. Supreme Court just a few years ago. 
 

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke called the law in question, HB 2492, “a textbook violation of the National Voter Registration Act” and “in direct conflict with the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision.”

COLORADO’s new back-end automatic voter registration system has made a significant positive difference in voter registration numbers, The Atlantic reports. 
 

A federal judge denied NORTH DAKOTA’s request to throw out a gerrymandering lawsuit brought by two Native American tribes.

The Latest In Election Sabotage

The new leader of FLORIDA’s Office of Election Crimes and Security, Pete Antonacci, was previously then-Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) pick to replace Broward County’s supervisor of elections — among a string of other odd political jobs.

As Frank Cerabino wrote in the Palm Beach Post, “At this point, the frequently appointed, always-qualified-for-any-post Antonacci should have a business card that simply says ‘Henchman’ to keep the reproduction costs down.” 
 

A COLORADO man was arrested after allegedly making a threat in a phone call to Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s office. 
 

WISCONSIN judges simply cannot stop ordering 2020 election “investigator” Michael Gableman to stop destroying public records. They’ve ordered him to stop again and again, and now, once more. Gableman argued unsuccessfully in a state court that he could follow rules for state legislators allowing them to delete emails unless they are subject to a pending records request. (He’s not a legislator.)

The Bulwark: Doug Mastriano’s Election-Takeover Plan
 

LA Times: She won a local election in a landslide. A conservative activist launched a recount anyway

💥 Franchise subscriber but not yet a TPM member? New members can now get a 7-day all-access pass to try TPM Prime for FREE! Sign up here.

📬 Was this email forwarded to you? If you liked what you read, you can sign up here to get The Franchise in your inbox every week.

Advertise // Site // Contact