This is the correct ruling. The law is clear. It’s a shame that it wasn’t unanimous. It is also a shame that the court took so dang long to rule. The people deserve a court that acts with some urgency when the ruling will impact ongoing elections.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin’s conservative-controlled Supreme Court ruled Friday that absentee ballot drop boxes may be placed only in election offices and that no one other than the voter can return a ballot in person, dealing a defeat to Democrats who said the decision would make it harder to vote in the battleground state.
However, the court didn’t address whether anyone other than the voter can return his or her own ballot by mail. That means that anyone could still collect multiple ballots for voters and, instead of using a drop box, put them in the mail.
Republicans have argued that practice, known as ballot harvesting, is rife with fraud although there has been no evidence of that happening in Wisconsin. Democrats and others argue that many voters, particularly the elderly and disabled, have difficulty returning their ballots without the assistance of others.
Supporters argue drop boxes are a better option than mailing ballots because they go directly to the clerks and can’t be lost or delayed in transit.
The news story explains the issue poorly. The case wasn’t about whether drop boxes are a good idea or not. The case was about whether the law allows for drop boxes even though state elections officials allowed them. The law does not allow drop boxes. It’s a clear legal determination.
Furthermore, the news story fails to mention that Wisconsin did not use drop boxes at all until the pandemic. Their absence will not make it “harder to vote” in Wisconsin. It may make it harder to cheat, but it will exactly as easy or difficult to vote as it was before drop boxes began illegally appearing all over the state. If the state wants to have drop boxes in the future, it is a matter for the duly elected leaders of the state to pass a law saying so.
The integrity of absentee ballot use still ultimately rests with the elections clerks themselves.
This ruling provides only a slight additional inconvenience to ballot box stuffers. All they need do now is find a post office drop box. My local post office has a fancy stainless drop box right in the lobby that would take dozens of ballots at a time. Thirty seconds tops, sidewalk to sidewalk. No cameras inside or out. Clerks don’t even look up unless you say hello. Using the four drive-up mail drop boxes outside would be even easier. Drop a hundred in one of those boxes and the postal workers wouldn’t think twice about their legitimacy. Not their job… other than to provided customary chain of custody of regular mail. I suppose you could make a case for it being mail fraud, but I don’t look for the Post Office to want any part of ensuring vote integrity.
Note that the author of that propaganda piece is Scott Bauer.
His purpose is NOT to deliver ‘the news.’ His purpose is to lie like Hell. And he does it very well!
Unmentioned. the WSC also authorized non-elected bureaucrats to dictate new law, determine fine$, and jail people.
Like the Wizard of Oz, Justice Hagedorn says, “[p]ay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” – ¶73 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. (dissenting).
Did the Court really rule that a city with a population of over 500,000 people can have no more locations to drop off ballots than a town of 5,000 or even 500? Or am I reading that wrong?
’cause if so, that’s even worse than the ol’ “3/5th of a person” rule….
>Did the Court really rule that a city with a population of over 500,000 people can have no more locations to drop off ballots than a town of 5,000 or even 500?
>Or am I reading that wrong?
>cause if so, that’s even worse than the ol’ “3/5th of a person” rule….
See above. *eyeroll*