Ballot-access battle: 1 order, 3 dissents in Green Party request to Supreme Court (INFOGRAPHIC)

Listen to this article

In considering the Green Party presidential candidate’s request to be added to the ballot before the November election, the Wisconsin Supreme Court engaged in a written battle.

The court’s 4-3 ruling on Monday rejected requiring election officials to add Howie Hawkins to the ballot. Doing so would have forced clerks to reprint and mail ballots less than two months before election day.

Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the liberal justices Rebecca Dallet, Ann Walsh Bradley and Jill Karofsky in the majority. Their order said by waiting two weeks before asking the state Supreme Court for relief, the petitioners had delayed seeking relief in a situation with short deadlines.

“… it is too late to grant petitioners any form of relief that would be feasible and that would not cause confusion and undue damage to both the Wisconsin electors who want to vote and the other candidates in all of the various races on the general election ballot,” the order said.

In her 30-page dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler criticized the majority for setting “an unknown and unstated” deadline and failing to explain its conclusions with a full legal opinion.

“In essence, the court allows its hands to be tied,” Ziegler wrote. “This abdication of responsibility undermines ballot access and voter choice. Today our court overrides the will of voters of Wisconsin in determining who the candidates will be — violating the sacred system of democracy that is the bedrock of the United States of America.”

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justice Rebecca Bradley joined Ziegler’s dissent. Both wrote their own dissents as well.

Roggensack said she wrote separately because “the people of Wisconsin have the right to know the acts of the Commission that took the right of ballot access away from candidates of a small independent party, the Green Party of Wisconsin.” She was joined by Rebecca Bradley and Ziegler.

Rebecca Bradley wrote separately as well, saying the court was providing a reward for an “unlawful maneuver” in a situation similar to when to Alabama state officials left a Black candidate off the ballot in 1968.

“Ironically, the majority in this case adopts the mantra of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, caving to its fearmongering invocation of ‘chaos’ should the court dare to right this wrong,” Bradley wrote.

The infographic below illustrates some of the notable quotes from the majority’s order and the three dissents. Read the full text here.

Click images below for full resolution