As if having his case to overturn the 2020 election rejected by the United States Supreme Court on Friday were not poetically humiliating enough, President Donald Trump was dealt yet another blow on Saturday when the 4-3 majority conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court said that Trump’s lawsuit to toss out hundreds of thousands of ballots was too racist to consider.
Trump hoped that the court would grant his petition to invalidate 221,000 votes in heavily Democratic Dane and Milwaukee Counties. He did not raise any objections to ballots cast for himself.
The liberal justices said – while Trump’s lawyer Jim Troupos was making his argument – that the suit “smacks of racism,” the Associated Press reported.
“This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism,” Justice Jill Karofsky said. “I do not know how you can come before this court and possibly ask for a remedy that is unheard of in U.S. history. … It is not normal.”
There was virtually no dissent among the court’s justices, AP noted:
Justice Rebecca Dallet, like Karofsky another liberal justice, questioned why Trump didn’t raise his same concerns about the absentee ballot process in the 2016 election that he won in Wisconsin. Troupis said Trump was not an aggrieved party that year.
Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley questioned how the court could reject more than 28,000 ballots of people who said they were indefinitely confined given that it would include people who properly claimed that status.
In a related case on Thursday, United States District Judge Brett Ludwig, whom Trump appointed to the bench in September, said that the president’s request to have the court order the Republican-controlled state legislature to name himself the winner, thus denying Democratic President-Elect Joe Biden Wisconsin’s 10 Electoral College votes, “fail as a matter of law and fact.”
Ludwig’s opinion was brutal.
“It’s not lost on me that this is a political case, obviously, and that the relief that’s been requested, if that relief were granted, this would be a most remarkable proceeding and probably the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary,” he said.
“I don’t think I heard a very good explanation today as to why the plaintiff didn’t raise these issues in advance of the election, before — when the guidance was issued,” the judge continued. “The plaintiff, fully on notice of all that guidance, some of it dating back years, took no effort to get it corrected.”
The Electoral College’s electors will convene on Monday to cast their ballots. Then, on Thursday, January 6, Congress meets to tally those votes and certify that Biden will be sworn in as the next president of the United States.
Thirty-nine days until the inauguration.
What's Your Reaction?
Brandon is a political writer for the Hill Reporter specializing in current events, breaking news, and scientific discovery. Brandon holds a Bachelor of Music degree from Indiana University. He lives in New York City.