Because of his refusal to decertify President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Wisconsin or impeach the state’s top elections official, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos—the top Republican in the state—is the focus of the recall. In a request to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the nonpartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission sought their opinion on the matter of which maps should be utilized in any pre-November recall or special election.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission found that the recall petitions that were submitted last week did not contain sufficient valid signatures from the district that Vos was elected to represent in 2022. A number of individuals have also reported having their signatures falsified, prompting the district attorney of Racine County to launch an investigation.
A small number of “unverified petitions slipped through due to a volunteer oversight,” according to Monday’s recall organizers, who claimed the error was accidental. Vos must contest signatures no later than Thursday. Further confusion surrounds the proper usage of parliamentary district boundary lines in establishing the validity of signatures, the required number of signatures, and the location of any recall election.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is liberally controlled, threw down the legislative maps from 2022 and banned their use in future elections in December. Democratic Governor Tony Evers signed updated maps into law last month, but they won’t be effective until November. In a 5-2 decision on Tuesday, the court extended the deadline for the redistricting case’s parties to respond to the Elections Commission’s request for clarification until Thursday.
Among the conservative justices who voiced their disapproval were Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley. They argued that the court should not act at this stage since the matter was improperly presented. Notably, no recall election has been called as of yet, they added.
If the commission decides to hold a recall election, it must do so no later than April 11. Its decision can be challenged in court by either party. “The court should not even pretend to be poised to issue a decision in a nonexistent case presenting a hypothetical question,” the authors Ziegler and Bradley stated.
“A thorny and complicated matter not easily answered, even if we were the law firm for WEC,” they said, referring to the topic of district borders that the justices are being asked to settle. They held the liberal majority on the court responsible for ordering new district boundaries after overturning the legislative ones.
