​On July 20, Anna Hodges and George Christenson, the Democrat candidates running for Milwaukee County Clerk of Court, joined us to talk about their resumes and answer questions from attendees. Topics ranged from general matters such as the candidates' plans for the office if elected to specifics on divorce judgments, e-filing, and traffic cases.

Voters will choose between Hodges and Christenson in the primary election on August 9. Because no Republican is running, the winner of the primary is expected to win in November as well.

If you missed the Salon, or if you want to watch or listen again, click on the image below to view the recording.

​Recordings of this and several past Salons are also available on WJI's YouTube channel here.

On Tues., Aug. 2, at noon, WJI will hold a virtual candidate forum with the three Democrat candidates for Milwaukee County Sheriff. You can register for that event here.

Green Bay Press Gazette: Legislators propose changes to law on strip searching students.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Racine sheriff won't investigate Trump supporter's admitted voting fraud.

Harry Wait, the leader of the Racine-based government transparency group H.O.T. Government (Honest, Open and Transparent), told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he requested Vos' and Racine Mayor Cory Mason's absentee ballot on Tuesday through the state Election Commission's myvote.com website. . . .

"Basically, I committed a crime when I ordered them," Wait said. "I emailed Sheriff Schmaling, asked if he was going to arrest me and he said 'hell no.'''

Associated Press: Conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty calls for legislation strengthening open records laws after recent SCOW opinion.

Reuters: Justice Samuel Alito joked about foreign leaders' criticism of Dobbs decision in his first remarks since the final opinion issued.

"One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price," Alito joked, referring to Johnson's plans to step down following criticism of his leadership from within Britain's ruling Conservative Party.
"But what really wounded me - what really wounded me - was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine," Alito added in a sarcastic tone, referring to his ruling overturning the Roe decision that had legalized abortion nationwide in the United States and recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy.
Alito's references to the abortion ruling, which came during a speech about the importance of religious liberty (hosted by Notre Dame Law School and held in Rome), were met with laughter from the audience.
Politico: Justice department investigating second breach of federal courts' document-filing system.

The Daily Record (Maryland): Court order barring communication between attorney and criminal defendant didn't violate Sixth Amendment.

“We hold that, although an order to the defendant not to discuss his or her testimony with anyone during an overnight recess is improper, it does not, by itself, constitute a deprivation of the right to counsel,” Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff wrote for the majority.

The Capital Times: Dane County judge orders Wisconsin Assembly to pay legal fees incurred by American Oversight in records case.

At the hearing, the judge criticized Gableman’s work.

“Here, I guess what we found out from this long and tortuous road is that, at least for the first part of this investigation, there was no actual work being done,” (Judge Valerie) Bailey-Rihn said. “The taxpayers were paying $11,000 for somebody to sit at the New Berlin Library to learn about election law because they had no experience in election law,” she added about Gableman.

Bailey-Rihn also said Gableman’s work uncovered “absolutely” no substantial election fraud.

The Hill: House Jan. 6 committee to share evidence with federal justice department.

The New York Times: Understanding the severe impact of Alabama's reliance on fines and fees.

In states like Alabama, almost every interaction a person has with the criminal justice system comes with a financial cost. If you’re assigned to a pretrial program to reduce your sentence, each class attended incurs a fee. If you’re on probation, you’ll pay a fee to take your mandatory urine test. If you appear in drug court, you will face more fees, sometimes dozens of times a year. Often, you don’t even have to break the law; you’ll pay fees to pull a public record or apply for a permit. For poor people, this system is a trap, sucking them into a cycle of sometimes unpayable debt that constrains their lives and almost guarantees financial hardship.

While almost every state in the country, both red and blue, levies fines and fees that fall disproportionately on the bottom rung of the income ladder, the situation in Alabama is far more dramatic, thanks to the peculiarities of its Constitution. Over a century ago, wealthy landowners and businessmen rewrote the Constitution to cap taxes permanently. As a result, today, Alabama has one of the cruelest tax systems in the country.

Courthouse News Service: Federal judge says female high-school football player can sue for discrimination under Title IX by religious school that refused to play against her.

First Baptist sent a letter to her school saying she wasn’t welcome to participate in games at Valley Christian (the church's school) and that the school was changing its football schedule to avoid having to play against her. . . .

Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney for the student, said in a statement that the judge had set a precedent for private and independent schools in California that receipt of PPP funding constitutes federal financial assistance and thus, mandates their compliance with anti-discrimination laws such as Title IX. 
“There is a scarcity of law in this area and we are pleased that a California court has addressed this matter as it gives clarity and future guidance for other jurisdictions to follow,” Miltenberg said. “In the year 2022, it is unacceptable for any educational institution, public or private, to blatantly discriminate against women in this country.”
Worth Rises: Comparing the price of prison and jail calls nationwide.

Associated Press: Protest at Pope Francis' mass in Montreal about papal decrees that backed the taking of indigenous land. 

The brief protest underscored one of the lingering issues facing the Holy See following Francis’ historic apology for the Catholic Church’s involvement in Canada’s notorious residential schools, where generations of Indigenous peoples were forcibly removed from their families and cultures to assimilate them into Christian, Canadian society. Francis has spent the week in Canada seeking to atone for the trauma and suffering of First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.

Beyond the apology, Indigenous peoples have called on Francis to formally rescind the 15th century papal decrees, or bulls, that provided European kingdoms the religious backing to expand their territories for the sake of spreading Christianity. Those decrees have been seen as underpinning the Doctrine of Discovery, a legal concept coined in a 1823 U.S. Supreme Court decision that has come to be understood as meaning that ownership and sovereignty over land passed to Europeans because they “discovered” it.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trial set for Shorewood woman charged with spitting on teen after she rejects plea deal.

Associated Press: Bureau of Prisons director faces bipartisan pressure during testimony before Senate subcommittee.

(Director Michael) Carvajal said several times that the Bureau of Prisons, the Justice Department’s largest component with a budget of more than $8 billion — was a “very large and complex organization” and that there was “no possible way” for him to know everything that was going on.

Carvajal’s attempts to deflect responsibility for his leadership failings didn’t sit well with the subcommittee’s chairman, Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., nor its ranking member, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., whose scrutiny of the Bureau of Prisons was spurred in part by Associated Press reporting that has exposed myriad crises at the agency.

Reuters: In testimony before House committee, gunmaker execs blame criminals, not their products, for mass shootings.

Marty Daniel, the chief executive of Daniel Defense defended his company and the firearms industry, saying that the semi-automatic assault-style weapons sold today are "substantially the same as those manufactured 100 years ago."

"Our nation's response needs to focus not on the type of gun but on the type of person likely to commit mass shootings," he said in his opening statement.

The New York Times: Hawaii keeps schizophrenic man in custody for more than two years, ignoring his accurate claims of mistaken identity.

(Joshua) Spriestersbach was caught in a new nightmare: The more he said his name was Joshua — which the records show him insisting on Sept. 8, Sept. 13, Oct. 9, Oct. 16 and Nov. 6 — the more delusional he risked coming off. . . .

From the moment he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, he was set on a path largely beyond his control. Whenever he left a psychiatric setting, he would go off his prescriptions. Without the meds to muffle the symptoms, he would break down and eventually cut himself off from his family. Because he was alone enough to withdraw unhindered, he became homeless. Because he slept outside, he got arrested. Because he had a mental illness, he was confined longer than others. Because he was not dangerous and yet noncompliant, he couldn’t be treated and couldn’t be released. And because those hospitals primarily exist to restore competency, his own doctors were unable to discover that he’d been wrongly arrested, wrongly charged and wrongly incarcerated.

Associated Press: Subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway settles racial discrimination case.

Trident Mortgage Co., a division of Berkshire’s HomeServices of America, deliberately avoided writing mortgages in minority-majority neighborhoods in West Philadelphia like Malcolm X Park; Camden, New Jersey; and in Wilmington, Delaware; the DOJ and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in their settlement with Trident. As part of the agreement with the DOJ and the CFPB, Trident will have to set aside $20 million to make loans in underserved neighborhoods.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: City of Milwaukee files lawsuit against alleged reckless driver, claiming nuisance.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Program held at UW Law School trains nonlawyers to advocate in tribal court.

Unlike state and federal courts, most tribal courts do not require law degrees or state bar membership to represent clients. That opens up opportunities for people like (Louise) Padron to handle cases on tribal lands, where nonexistent or inadequate legal assistance remains typical.

Padron and 27 others just graduated with certificates in tribal court legal advocacy from the National Tribal Trial College. They’re now scattered across the country to litigate cases ranging from divorce to domestic violence to child support.

Slate: Understanding the proposed federal Respect for Marriage Act.

In short, this bill goes as far as today’s Supreme Court could conceivably allow. If it passes and Obergefell falls, states can resume denying marriage licensing to same-sex couples. They might even be able to nullify the same-sex marriage licenses it provided under Obergefell. But couples who face such discrimination can travel to another state, obtain a new license, and compel their home state to recognize it, along with the rights and privileges it provides. And their marriage will receive full protection under federal law. As far as backstops go, it doesn’t get much better than the RFMA.

Associated Press: Russian court in Brittney Griner trial hears testimony on medicinal use of cannabis.

During Tuesday’s court session, a Russian neuropsychologist testified about worldwide use of medicinal cannabis.

“The Russian public has to know, and the Russian court in the first place has to know, that it was not used for recreational purposes in the United States. It was prescribed by a doctor,” (defense) lawyer (Alexander) Boykov said.

Associated Press: Testimony begins in trial to determine damages Alex Jones owes Sandy Hook families.

Jones arrived at the courthouse wearing a piece of silver tape over his mouth with the message “Save the 1st” printed on it — a reference to the First Amendment right to free speech. He removed it before entering the courtroom.

To take his seat at the defense table, Jones walked directly behind Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, who was one of the 20 first graders and six educators who were killed at Sandy Hook. Heslin and Lewis were escorted by plainclothes security to the courthouse and to the courtroom.

Note: We are breaking our own rules again. WJI's "SCOW docket" pieces generally include decisions, dissents and concurrences all in one post. This time, with this case, we are doing it in four: First the lead decision, then the dissent, and then, in two separate posts due to length, the three concurrences. Why? Because this package of writings is significant and gives insight into how SCOW's seven justices think. 

And instead of allowing each writing justice 10 paragraphs, we are allowing up to 20. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases and laws cited or information about them. ​Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. 

The case: Richard Teigen and Richard Thom v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Concurrence: Justice Brian Hagedorn (35 pages)

Dissent: Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (18 pages), joined by Justices Rebecca F. Dallet and Jill J. Karofsky

Majority/Lead Opinion: Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (52 pages),  joined by Justice Patience D. Roggensack and Chief Justice Annette K. Ziegler; joined in part by Hagedorn

Concurrence: Roggensack (14 pages)

Concurrence: Grassl Bradley (17 pages), joined by Roggensack and Ziegler

​Intervenor defendant-appellants included the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Disability Rights Wisconsin, Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice, and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.

Concurrence

​The principal issue in this case involves the lawfulness of ballot drop boxes. This case is not about the risk of fraudulent votes being cast or inspiring confidence in elections. This is not about ensuring everyone who wants to vote can, nor should we be concerned with making absentee voting more convenient and secure. Those are policy concerns, and where the law does not speak, they are the business of the other branches, not the judicial branch. This case is about applying the law as written; that's it. To find out what the law is, we read it and give the words of the statutes the meaning they had when they were written. 

                                                                                   ***

A careful study of the text, including its history, along with the supporting statutory context, reveals that unstaffed drop boxes for absentee ballot return are not permitted. Rather, this statute specifies return of absentee ballots through two and only two means: mailing by the voter to the municipal clerk, or personal delivery by the voter to the municipal clerk. And personal delivery to the clerk contemplates a person-to-person exchange between the voter and the clerk or the clerk's authorized representative at either the clerk's office or a designated alternate site. The two (Wisconsin Elections Commission) memos advising otherwise therefore conflict with the law and are properly void. 

                                                                                   ***

Before diving into the law, I offer two observations. First, the election law statutes we are asked to consider are by no means a model of clarity. Many of the controlling provisions were originally enacted over 100 years ago and have been layered over with numerous amendments since. Reasonable minds might read them differently. Significant questions remain despite our decision in this case, especially as absentee voting has become increasingly common. Although our adjudication of this case will provide some assistance, the public is better served by clear statutes than by clear judicial opinions interpreting unclear statutes. The legislature and governor may wish to consider resolving some of the open questions these statutes present. 

Second, some citizens will cheer this result; others will lament. But the people of Wisconsin must remember that judicial decision-making and politics are different under our constitutional order. Our obligation is to follow the law, which may mean the policy result is undesirable or unpopular. Even so, we must follow the law anyway. To the extent the citizens of Wisconsin wish the law were different, the main remedy is to vote and persuade elected officials to enact different laws. This is the hard work of democracy.

                                                                                   ***
Standing

​Standing is the foundational principle that those who seek to invoke the court's power to remedy a wrong must face a harm which can be remedied by the exercise of judicial power. Some of my colleagues have begun to describe standing in far looser terms. It is a really nice thing to have in a case, they seem to say, but not important at the end of the day. I disagree. We have said standing is not jurisdictional in the same sense as in federal courts and that its parameters are a matter of sound judicial policy. But as Justice Prosser put it, "Judicial policy is not, and has not been, carte blanche for the courts of Wisconsin to weigh in on issues whenever the respective members of the bench find it desirable."

                                                                                   ***

Teigen argues that Wis. Stat. § 5.06 gives voters like him a statutory right to have local election officials in the area where he lives comply with election laws. ...

Teigen has a legal right protected by Wis. Stat. § 5.06 to have local election officials in his area comply with the law. The only question, then, is whether the memos at least threaten to interfere with or impair Teigen's right to have local election officials comply with the law. I conclude they do. 

The two memos challenged in this case provide local election officials advice on absentee ballot return – advice Teigen contends is unlawful. Regardless of whether the memos are themselves binding on local election officials (a question explored further below), they no doubt carry persuasive force with those administering elections. Many local election officials will follow advice offered by WEC, even when that advice is not legally binding. Indeed, the record in this case reveals that many local election officials employed drop boxes consistent with WEC's advice after the memos issued. If that advice is contrary to law, it stands to reason that many local election officials, including those in Teigen's area, are likely to rely on and implement erroneous advice. Applying the plain terms of Wis. Stat. § 227.40(1), the memos Teigen challenges at the very least threaten to interfere with or impair his right to have local election officials comply with the law. ... In this case, the question is whether WEC issued an allegedly unlawful rule or guidance document that makes it likely local election officials will not follow election laws. And on that question, Teigen has sufficiently alleged standing. ...

                                                                                   ***

Yet the majority/lead opinion suggests it creates broad voter standing against any election official or WEC by any elector for nearly any purported violation of any election law. Without tethering the analysis to an on-point text, this analysis is unpersuasive and does not garner the support of four members of this court.

Hagedorn writes that Teigen did not have to file a complaint with WEC before going to court.  

In addition, Wis. Stat. § 227.40(1) expressly opens the courthouse doors to those challenging administrative rules or guidance documents: "A declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or not the plaintiff has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule or guidance document in question." This seems to carve out a particular kind of legal claim – a challenge to rules and guidance documents – and relieves the petitioner of pleading one's case with the agency first. Applying this as written, and in the absence of other contrary arguments, I conclude Teigen was not required to take his case to WEC before seeking judicial relief. ... 

Drop boxes and ballots

In the two memos at issue here, WEC advised clerks that absentee voters could cast their ballots via staffed or unstaffed drop boxes, that drop boxes may be placed at (the) clerk's office or elsewhere, and that individuals other than the voter may deliver the voter's absentee ballot to the clerk. These three positions are inconsistent with Wisconsin's election statutes. The law requires that to return an absentee ballot in person, voters must personally deliver their ballot to the clerk or the clerk's authorized representative at either the clerk's office or a designated alternate site. Because WEC's memos conflict with these statutory directives, they are invalid.

                                                                                   ***

Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1 was originally enacted as part of Wisconsin's earliest comprehensive absentee voting law in 1915. Regarding return of a ballot, the law provided: "Said envelope shall be mailed by such voter, by registered mail, postage prepaid, to the officer issuing the ballot, or if more convenient it may be delivered in ​person." This wording, plainly read, suggests both the mailing and the delivery must be done by the voter, and directed to the ballot-issuing officer. 

The Chippewa Herald: Four disabled voters file federal lawsuit challenging requirement for in-person delivery and mailing of absentee ballots.

Four people in Wisconsin with disabilities have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to ensure that they'll be able to get help turning in their ballots, even though the conservative-controlled state Supreme Court said no one other than the voter can return absentee ballots in person. . . .

One of them, Timothy Carey, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and is unable to move his body and is on a ventilator. The lawsuit said he has always voted absentee with the help of a third party. Another plaintiff, Martha Chambers, is paralyzed from the neck down and always received help returning her absentee ballot since she can't use her arms or legs to place a ballot in the mailbox or return it to the clerk's office.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: A new Office of Lawyer Regulation complaint filed against Michael Gableman.

Among the allegations, (Kevin) Kelsay alleged Gableman broke a rule that forbids attorneys from knowingly making false statements about judges, public officials or candidates when Gableman alleged Wisconsin judges had held up his election review, accused state elections commissioners of helping steal the presidential election, and accused a Dane County judge of being a partisan. 

The Hill: Georgia, district attorney disqualified from investigating a fake elector due to conflict of interest.

The ruling was a stunning rebuke to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and came after a judge found that a conflict of interest barred Willis and her office from investigating state Sen. Burt Jones, one of the sham electors. . . .

The order Monday rejected similar disqualification requests from 11 other phony electors who were subpoenaed by Willis’s office, meaning the Fulton County District Attorney’s probe of those targets may continue, and the investigation of Jones is expected to be handed off to another prosecutor’s office.

Associated Press: July poll shows 67% approve of term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Slate: First-person account of the effects on abortion clinics in Illinois after the fall of Roe.

Just this morning, someone reached out and said, “I’m afraid. Am I going to get arrested if I come to Illinois? I know that it’s legal there, but it’s not legal in my state. So will I get arrested when I come back? Will I …”
The New York Times: California governor signs law providing $10,000 reward to citizens who successfully sue gunmakers.

No piece of legislation better encapsulates Mr. (Gavin) Newsom’s fight-fire-with-fire attitude than the bill co-opting a Texas anti-abortion tactic to enforce California bans on assault weapons and ghost guns.

Senate Bill 1327 aims to bury those who deal in banned guns in litigation. Awards of at least $10,000 per weapon, and legal fees, will be offered to plaintiffs who successfully sue anyone who imports, distributes, manufactures or sells assault-style weapons, .50-caliber rifles, guns without serial numbers or parts that can be used to build firearms that are banned in California.

“No one is saying you can’t have a gun,” said State Senator Bob Hertzberg, a veteran San Fernando Valley Democrat who was tapped by the governor to craft and shepherd the complex legislation. “We’re just saying there’s no constitutional right to an AR-15, a .50-caliber machine gun or a ghost gun with the serial number filed off.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee police announce plans to address reckless driving and auto thefts.

CNN: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to block order barring Biden administration immigration policies.

The court's 5-4 order is a loss for the Biden administration, which is trying to return to Obama-era policies that limit immigration arrests in order to focus on security risks instead of the more aggressive approach taken under the Trump administration.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has argued that a priority-driven approach to immigration enforcement is a better use of the department's limited resources because it focuses attention on security risks.

CNN: Department of Homeland Security now investigating missing Secret Service texts.

The Department of Homeland Security inspector general has informed the Secret Service it is investigating what happened to January 6-related text messages that may have been deleted, describing it as an "ongoing criminal investigation" and directing the agency to stop its internal investigations into the matter, according to a letter reviewed by CNN.

Reuters: U.S. Sentencing Commission nominees advance to full Senate consideration.

A U.S. Senate panel on Thursday advanced a slate of seven nominees to the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission, which has been unable to implement a major 2018 criminal justice reform law after losing its quorum shortly after its enactment.

The Hill: U.S. Senate Democrats announce bill to legalize marijuana at federal level.

(Senate Majority Leader Charles) Schumer worked alongside Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to craft the legislation after the three released a draft plan last year for public feedback. Schumer said the senators have received more than 1,800 public comments and worked with “numerous Senate committees to improve the bill.”

Schumer said the bill would legalize cannabis by removing the drug from the Controlled Substances Act and “empowering states to create their own cannabis laws instead.”

Associated Press: Lawsuit alleges Chicago police misused ShotSpotter in arrests and charges.

The lawsuit filed by the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University’s law school seeks damages from the city for mental anguish, loss of income and legal bills for the 65-year-old (Michael) Williams, who said he still suffers from a tremor in his hand that developed while he was locked up. It also details the case of a second plaintiff Daniel Ortiz, a 36-year-old father who the lawsuit alleges was arbitrarily arrested and jailed by police who were responding to a ShotSpotter alert.

The Guardian: Study shows the racial-based gap in length of sentences is widening.

“People of color are getting harsher sentences for the same crime,” says Amy Fettig, a task force member and executive director of the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocating for the reduction of bias in the criminal justice system.

She said that even as crime overall has declined for decades, disparities in extended prison sentences have gone up, not just within the state prison system but also in the juvenile justice system.

Note: We are breaking our own rules again. WJI's "SCOW docket" pieces generally include decisions, dissents and concurrences all in one post. This time, with this case, we are doing it in four: First the lead decision, then the dissent, and then, in two separate posts due to length, the three concurrences. Here's the first one. Why? Because this package of writings is significant and gives insight into how SCOW's seven justices think. 

And instead of allowing each writing justice 10 paragraphs, we are allowing up to 20. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases and laws cited or information about them. ​Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. 

The case: Richard Teigen and Richard Thom v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

Dissent: Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (18 pages), joined by Justices Rebecca F. Dallet and Jill J. Karofsky

Majority/Lead Opinion: Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley (52 pages),  joined by Justice Patience D. Roggensack and Chief Justice Annette K. Ziegler; joined in part by Justice Brian Hagedorn

Concurrence: Roggensack (14 pages)

Concurrence: Grassl Bradley (17 pages), joined by Roggensack and Ziegler

Concurrence: Hagedorn (35 pages)

Intervenor defendant-appellants included the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Disability Rights Wisconsin, Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice, and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin.​

Dissent
​
While Grassl Bradley, in her lead opinion, refers to Teigen and Thom as "Wisconsin voters," Walsh Bradley refers to them together simply as "Teigen." Walsh Bradley explains in a footnote: "The majority/lead opinion refers to Teigen and Thom as the "Wisconsin voters" throughout its opinion. This could be misleading to the reader. True enough, Teigen and Thom are voters who live in Wisconsin. But the use of the term could lead the reader to believe that the plaintiffs here represent a wider swath of people than they actually do. Thus, I refer to the two plaintiffs collectively as 'Teigen. ' "

Although it pays lip service to the import of the right to vote, the majority/lead opinion has the practical effect of making it more difficult to exercise it. Such a result, although lamentable, is not a surprise from this court. It has seemingly taken the opportunity to make it harder to vote or to inject confusion into the process whenever it has been presented with the opportunity.

A ballot drop box is a simple and perfectly legal solution to make voting easier, especially in the midst of a global pandemic.

But it is apparently a bridge too far for a majority of this court, which once again rejects a practice that would expand voter participation.

The majority/lead opinion's analysis is flawed in three main ways. It expands the doctrine of standing beyond recognition, is premised on a faulty statutory interpretation, and without justification fans the flames of electoral doubt that threaten our democracy. 

                                                                               ***
Standing

Teigen has suffered an "injury in fact" to his constitutional right to vote, the majority/lead opinion says, merely because he alleges that election law was not followed. In accepting Teigen's standing to bring this suit, it further states: "the failure to follow election laws is a fact which forces everyone . . . to question the legitimacy of election results."

The majority/lead opinion says that Teigen's "rights and privileges as [a] registered voter[]" give him standing to bring this action challenging the statewide administration of elections. Taken to its logical conclusion, the majority/lead opinion indicates that any registered voter would seemingly have standing to challenge any election law. The impact of such a broad conception of voter standing is breathtaking and especially acute at a time of increasing, unfounded challenges to election results and election administrators.

                                                                               ***
Statutory interpretation

The majority/lead opinion's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. ignores an important distinction. Section 6.87(4)(b)1. uses the phrase "municipal clerk." It does not say "municipal clerk's office." 

This is important because elsewhere the Wisconsin Statutes are replete with references to the "office of the municipal clerk," the "office of the clerk," or the "clerk's office." Not only is such an "office" referenced, but it is specified as a place where a delivery or an action takes place. ... 

We also know that a "municipal clerk" under the statutes is distinct from the "office of the municipal clerk," because "municipal clerk" is specifically defined as "the city clerk, town clerk, village clerk and the executive director of the city election commission and their authorized representatives." In other words, the "municipal clerk" is a person, and the "office of the municipal clerk" is a location. ...

If the legislature wanted to require return of a ballot to the clerk's office, it certainly could have done so, as it did in the litany of provisions using such language. ...

Can delivery to a drop box constitute delivery "to the municipal clerk?" Absolutely. A drop box is set up by the municipal clerk, maintained by the municipal clerk, and emptied by the municipal clerk. This is true even if the drop box is located somewhere other than within the municipal clerk's office. As stated, the "municipal clerk" in the statutes is a person, and the "office of the municipal clerk" is a location. Applying this principle, there is nothing in the statute that even hints that unstaffed drop boxes are impermissible. Rather, a drop box, which the clerk or the clerk's designee sets up, maintains, and empties, is simply another way to deliver a ballot "to the municipal clerk." The majority/lead opinion's attempt to avoid the statute's plain language fails.

                                                                               ***

On its face, Wis. Stat. § 6.855 (governing alternate absentee ballot sites) sets forth that alternate voting sites "must be a location not only where voters may return absentee ballots, but also a location where voters 'may request and vote absentee ballots.'" Thus, as the majority/lead opinion acknowledges, "[b]allot drop boxes are not alternate absentee ballot sites under (the statute) because a voter can only return the voter's absentee ballot to a drop box, while an alternate site must also allow voters to request and vote absentee at the site." 

The majority/lead opinion reads into (the law) an implication beyond the statute's language. Although the majority/lead opinion correctly acknowledges that (the statute) does not describe drop boxes, it seeks support for its result in the assertion that "[t]he legislature enacted a detailed statutory construct for alternate sites" while at the same time "the details of the drop box scheme are found nowhere in the statutes." This argument falls flat for the same reason the majority/lead opinion's statutory analysis of Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1 fails: the legislature did not include a detailed scheme for drop boxes in the statutes because it did not need to do so. As analyzed above, (state law) already authorizes them. 

                                                                               ***

State law allows local election officials some discretion on how elections in their communities should be run, Walsh Bradley writes.

Marquette University Law School: Latest MU Law Poll shows sharp decline in approval of U.S. Supreme Court.

Slate: This Supreme Court's "originalism" conflicts with the country's founders' views.

Last month, the Supreme Court relied on its view of the Constitution’s original meaning in its landmark decisions involving abortion rights, gun rights, and religious freedom. None of these decisions, however, was actually consistent with originalism. They each failed to recognize a critical element of how the founders understood the Constitution: the founders believed courts should defer to precedent.

FiveThirtyEight: Past dissents from Justices Alito and Thomas may show where the court is headed next.

These findings underscore just how far-reaching the conservative bloc’s priorities might be. Both justices, for example, seem eager to cut back significantly on criminal defendants’ rights established by earlier precedents. But that’s not all. Legal experts told us that if Alito and Thomas are helping to set the agenda, an even wider range of rights and precedents could be threatened — including on issues like civil rights, due process and privacy.

CBS: Secret Service may have deleted texts from Jan. 5 and 6, 2021.

Staff for the House panel said they only received one text resulting from a July 15 subpoena to the agency requesting Secret Service text messages from Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, 2021. The Secret Service said the messages were erased due to an agency-wide migration, despite preservation requests from investigators and Congress. 

Axios: Bipartisan group of senators introduces electoral count reform.

Reuters: Expansion of states allowing nonlawyers to provide legal help.

Oregon is the latest state to embrace regulatory changes allowing so-called legal paraprofessionals — non-lawyers who are specially trained to provide legal services in limited areas of the law.

The Oregon Supreme Court on Wednesday gave final approval to a licensed paralegal program that the Oregon State Bar has been developing since 2017. Oregon joins Washington, Utah, Arizona and Minnesota in allowing non-lawyers to provide some legal services, though Washington’s high court decided last year to stop offering new paraprofessional licenses.