Wisconsin cities and rivers (from Outline of Wisconsin – Wikipedia)

Here we come to Part 6.

What is Part 6 about?

What are the specific Constitutional issues with the Electors from the State of Wisconsin?

What did the Texas filing with the Supreme Court (see AG Paxton Sues Battleground States for Unconstitutional Changes to 2020 Election Laws | Office of the Attorney General ( have to say about Wisconsin? State and local officials did not obey the laws as set forth by the Wisconsin legislature.

With respect to Wisconsin, it is enough to quote Texas filing with the Supreme Court. What state and local officials did was absurdly illegal. Would you play checkers with someone who violates the rules any way they please? What is the point of having an election when one side votes as many times and in way they wish? Here are some of the major points.

  • “In direct contravention of Wisconsin law, leading up to the 2020 general election, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (“WEC”) and other local officials unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws—each time taking steps that weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”
  • “For example, the WEC undertook a campaign to position hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots—including the use of unmanned drop boxes.”
  • “The mayors of Wisconsin’s five largest cities—Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, which all have Democrat majorities—joined in this effort, and together, developed a plan use purportedly “secure drop-boxes to facilitate return of absentee ballots.” Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan 2020, at 4 (June 15, 2020).”
  • “The fact that other methods of delivering absentee ballots, such as through unmanned drop boxes, are not permitted is underscored by Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6) which mandates that, “[a]ny ballot not mailed or delivered as provided in this subsection may not be counted.” Likewise, Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2) underscores this point, providing that Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6) “shall be construed as mandatory.” The provision continues—“Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted. Ballots counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.” Wis.v Stat. § 6.84(2) (emphasis added).”
  • “These were not the only Wisconsin election laws that the WEC violated in the 2020 general election. The WEC and local election officials also took it upon themselves to encourage voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined”—which under Wisconsin law allows the voter to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements.”
  • “Specifically, registering to vote by absentee ballot requires photo identification, except for those who register as “indefinitely confined” or “hospitalized.” WISC. STAT. § 6.86(2)(a), (3)(a). Registering for indefinite confinement requires certifying confinement “because of age, physical illness or infirmity or [because the voter] is disabled for an indefinite period.” Id. § 6.86(2)(a). Should indefinite confinement cease, the voter must notify the county clerk, id., who must remove the voter from indefinite-confinement status. Id. § 6.86(2)(b).”
  • “Wisconsin election procedures for voting absentee based on indefinite confinement enable the voter to avoid the photo ID requirement and signature requirement. Id. § 6.86(1)(ag)/(3)(a)(2).”
  • “On March 25, 2020, in clear violation of Wisconsin law, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonnell and Milwaukee County Clerk George Christensen both issued guidance indicating that all voters should mark themselves as “indefinitely confined” because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Believing this to be an attempt to circumvent Wisconsin’s strict voter ID laws, the Republican Party of Wisconsin petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene. On March 31, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that the clerks’ “advice was legally incorrect” and potentially dangerous because “voters may be misled to exercise their right to vote in ways that are inconsistent with WISC. STAT. § 6.86(2).””

The last point listed above is telling. The court essentially said officials violated the law. Then the court did nothing about it.

  • Is there any question whether or not state and local officials broke the law in Wisconsin? No.
  • Is there any question whether or not that the officials who deliberately broke the law made it vastly more difficult to detect and punish election fraud? No.

Why didn’t the courts do anything? When that was the only practical remedy available, why didn’t the courts disqualify illegally cast ballots? Answer: they did not want to because it would have changed the outcome of the election.

Think about it. If the courts wanted to reassure people that the outcome of the election was fair, then they would have reviewed the evidence and pointed to the number disqualified, illegally cast ballots. If the number of disqualified, illegally cast ballots was not large enough to change the outcome of the election, then the argument that there is insufficient evidence of fraud would have been validated.

What is the only practical reason why the courts would not disqualify illegally cast ballots? Those ballots have been mixed with legally cast ballots. Whose fault is that. It would be the fault of the same officials who arbitrarily and illegally changed the rules.

It is foolish to trust election returns from people who knowingly broke the rules. So, why are we trusting lawbreakers instead of people who are complaining about being cheated?

Additional References

What is yet to come?

  • Part 7: If the Electors from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are rejected, what is the Constitutional remedy?

This entry was posted in 2020 Election, Constitutional Government and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. I always have a knee-jerk answer to the questions you often offer as the titles to your posts…
    today, the answer is NO.

  2. Tom,

    The only ones who can claim fraud in any State are people who live in that State or which is why the Supreme Court turned down the Texas and eighteen other States suit.
    States in a Nation holding a National election for the President have “no dog in the fight” or legal standing to bring up lawsuits from other States.
    So, what are the chances that the Democrat Governor of Wisconsin will order a recount of a Republican allegation of fraud t in his State?
    Sad, like a said before, in my opinion, the Supreme Court ruling of no legal standing was a decision to choose Trump to be burnt on the altar as a “sacrificial goat” because the fear what till happen if they get involved and hope that Biden is a sure bet to appease the oligarchy swamp controlling Washington.
    Or in other words, SCOTUS decided it is better to appease and to burn Trump than to prevent the wrath of anarchy from the Democrats who will become angry and start rioting while chanting in the streets “you got to cheat us to beat us.”
    WhatIsStanding.pdf (
    Regards and goodwill blogging.

  3. boudicaus says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    H/T Citizen Tom

Comments are closed.