By Joseph L. Bast
On June 1, Dane County (Madison) Circuit Court Judge Stephen E. Ehlke ruled on Yiping Liu et al v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al. The case involved alleged violations of election laws in November 2020, when the City of Madison used private funds provided by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and directed by the Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) to influence the outcome of the presidential election. The case was closely watched by advocates for election integrity.
Judge Ehlke ruled that private funding of public election offices is legal under Wisconsin law and the plaintiffs failed to make their case that the terms and conditions imposed on election officials by CTCL showed an intention to favor Democrat Joe Biden over Republican Donald Trump. Regrettably, Judge Ehlke was wrong on both points. He was hostile toward Erick Kaardal, the attorney for the plaintiffs provided by the Thomas More Society, from the beginning of the trial. During oral arguments on May 17, he was often dismissive of Kaardal’s arguments and called Kaardal’s central argument “ridiculous” on several occasions.
Early on in that hearing, Judge Ehlke sought to distinguish “facilitate” versus “inducement,” claiming that what the defendants did merely facilitated the voting of citizens during an exceptionally challenging time (the pandemic), and did not constitute “inducement” as the term is used in law making. Statutory law, Judge Ehlke said, gives county election clerks lots of power and latitude on how to run their elections. Allowing drop boxes and encouraging mail-in voting, he said, were “reasonable accommodations.” Kaardal pointed out that the prohibition of “inducement” isn’t limited to attempts to get people to vote for a particular candidate, but includes get-out-the-vote efforts (GOTV) benefitting the candidates of one political party over another. He stressed that the lion’s share of “Zuckerbucks” went to five Democrat strongholds in the state and those funds were used almost entirely on GOTV efforts, not public health measures.
Pointing out how close the CTCL, clerks, and mayors came to illegal inducement served to demonstrate the seriousness of the transgressions the plaintiffs believe occurred, Kaardal said. The idea seemed to be lost on Judge Ehlke, who throughout the hearing expressed disbelief that what CTCL et al. did constituted “inducement.”
Judge Ehlke made vague references several times to how other courts have dismissed issues being raised in this litigation and how a Supreme Court decision on the legality of drop boxes was expected by the end of June. But those other cases were often dismissed due to “lack of standing,” which was not the case in this suit. This case could be judged on its merits, and the plaintiffs had submitted over 1,000 pages of evidence that election fraud had occurred. Kaardal argued Dane County case raised issues specific to how decisions by the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) could be appealed. Moreover, while Wisconsin does not have a law banning private money in elections (a bill vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers) it does have very explicit laws banning drop boxes and inducements to vote.
Judge Ehlke seemed not to hear or care, and implied more than once that he had already decided to follow the path he perceived to be taken by other courts. Before the defense even had its chance to present, Judge Ehlke asserted the county election clerks were acting in good faith by following the guidance they received from WEC, so it is “ridiculous” to claim that what they did was wrong because it was only later established (by a Supreme Court ruling) that the guidance was incorrect. At the time of their actions, he said, they thought they were making the right decisions.
Kaardal said, more than once, that the “acting in good faith” argument has some merit, but the case is not about that, or about reversing the results of the 2020 election, but instead about providing legal clarity for future elections. The judge once again seemed unable to grasp the distinction. And so the rest of the hearing went. Judge Ehlke repeated silly and meritless arguments he had heard made in previous cases, making the defense’s case before they even presented it. For my longer description of the hearing, you may visit www.wipatriotstoolbox.com and find the article on the “Blog” page. The decision was a defeat for voter integrity in Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin Voter Alliance was prepared for the setback. They launched a new round of litigation on May 25, 2022, on behalf of voters in the cities of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine. Visit www. wisconsinvoteralliance.com for more information on that effort.