Democrats unseat Conservative Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin

Democrats picked up a major local victory in last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race, unseating a conservative judge and effectively positioning the court to block the Republican effort to kick more than 200,000 voters off the rolls.

The Democratic victory, despite the Supreme Court forcing people to go the polls rather than waiting for absentee ballots has implications both for how Wisconsin will vote in the Presidential election and for efforts to address gerrymandering in the State.

That gerrymandering is so extreme that in the 2018 election, after Democrats got 1,747,742 votes for State House seats and Republicans got 1,638,684, the Republicans claimed 63 seats and the Democrats got 36.

The Headline about Biden winning the Primary is not interesting. That was a foregone conclusion, the court race was the one that mattered.

While I would accept anyone discounting the validity of polls taken seven months before the Presidential election, these are votes and they send a message.

Trump pushed hard for Daniel Kelly and the voters told Kelly and Trump to go pound sand.

Toxic Donnie at his finest.


Trump has never had much in the way of coattails and his stumping in 2018 largely did not work.

I’d be curious if Kelly being a deciding factor for GOP kicking 200000 voters off voter rolls gave folks enough ammo to vote against Kelly.

The main issue deciding 2020 is going to be turnout… there aren’t that many truly undecided people left.

While Trump does not help down ballot Republicans, he has a substantial impact on turnout. The problem for the Republicans is that while Trump appears to drive Republican turnout up, he has an even greater positive impact on Democratic turnout. That’s why Democrats keep winning in WI and many other places.

I hope it continues and brings out more Dems

You and Joe Biden both.

Okay HOW is a judge going to find the removal vilates the law or state or federal constitution.

Question 1. Is removal of names from voter roles unconstitional. The answer is no. But there must be a law outlining the steps.
Question 2. Is the law being followed. Yes or no.

The answer is yes. Way I read the law back in October, if the voter hasn’t voted in a set number of elections, then a letter is sent to the address on the voter role. That individual then had 30 days to repond that they got the letter and wanted to remain as a registered voter. No reply, the name is removed as inactive.

That’s the LAW. The election commission wants to VIOLATE that law and not remove for over a year.

For the love of GOD tell me how it’s unconstitutional to remove under the process, and how the commission should be allowed to re-write state law?


Womp womp, Donald.


The impact is the make-up of the court, not the one judge. This shifts the make-up of the court.

Just to amplify, the conservative candidate who lost was the incumbent, having been appointed to the seat by then governor Scoot Walker.

So voters not only did not elect Dan Kelly, they said “You’re Fired!”



Again, how does the law violate the constition?

That’s essentially what it will come down to.

So again, I ask. How does it violate the constitution. Will Dem judges rule that either they can’t remove names from voter roles . . . or that the 30 day window for reply was too short?

Because it blatantly targets locations with a larger number of Democratic voters and a larger number of minority voters. It hides blatant partisanship behind the pretense of a Constitutional veneer while clearly violating the notion of equal protection under the law.

If Wisconsin wants to clean up its voter rolls, why isn’t it running this procedure on ALL registered voters instead of focusing only on communities that tend to support Democrats?

Don’t forget. Days before the 2018 election, Trump came to Trump Country Wisconsin and held a rally for Scoot Walker, the Republican challenging Democrat US Senator Tammy Baldwin, and the Republican running for state Attorney General.

They all lost.

2016 was a long long long time ago.

1 Like

Please point out how it tartgets certain area’s if it’s ALL voters across the state that are being evaluated. How is it violating equal protection under the law if it effect ALL voters. Every voter who hasn’t voted in x number elections is given the oportunity to say “hey I’m still here, leave me on.” So please tell me how it is not equal protection.

Proof that the law is only targeting certain communities please and thank you.

1 Like

The Supreme Court has ruled that if those “certain” communities display a bias on the basis of race that is unconstitutional in matters of gerrymandering. We are on shakily similar grounds here, especially given how absurdly gerrymandered Wisconsin has been for the past decade.

I am not stating for certainly that the Supreme Court would rule this way – given that the majority basically is using the court to advance Republican and big business interests, but you cannot pretend to be certain of your Constitutional case either. Every once in a while Roberts goes the other way in his effort to polish his reputation as a real Chief Justice and not a partisan hack.

Gerrymandering has NOTHING to do with it. Does the law examine ALL voters or just those in certain cities? Yes or no.

And there have been a few rulings lately from the US Supreme court that were unanimous, or the so called liberal wing members have joind the majority.

No, it doesn’t. Conservatives still dominate. Now it will be 4-3 instead of 5-2.

1 Like

The notion that gerrymandering does not enter into it seems incredibly simplistic… since the point of the effort is to assist in Donald Trump’s re-election. The challenges to voters are concentrated in Democratic areas. I have offered a simple solution – challenge all voters equally… but of course that would not achieve the Republican’s goal so instead of doing what would be obviously equal treatment of all…

The State Supreme Court in Wisconsin will now block this effort. That’s why the election last week was important.

And, course, after Roberts and Friends ruled that Wisconsin voters had to vote face-to-face, they are holding all their hearings at distance. Right to do the latter of course, but it makes such a farce of the Supreme Court decision last week.

I think it was passed to clean up the voter rolls. If they found 300k people that havn’t voted and didn’t respond to a letter – WHY should they be left on the voter rolls?

Still waiting for proof that they only sent letters to selected voters who met the threashold of the law, or the law didn’t apply to voters state wide.

Hopefully they won’t go political and look at the law in relation to the state and federal constitutions.

Supreme court had no right to overturn a law that says it is held on x day. The supreme court made the right choice. Sorry you disagree.