#Justice Brian Hagedorn

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Wisconsin’s conservative-controlled Supreme Court ruled Friday that absentee ballot drop boxes may be placed only in election offices and that no one other than the voter can return a ballot in person, dealing a critical defeat to Democrats in the battleground state.

The court did not address the question of whether anyone other than the voter can return his or her own ballot by mail. Election officials and others had argued that drop boxes are a secure and convenient way for voters to return ballots.

The decision sets absentee ballot rules for the Aug. 9 primary and the fall election; Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers are seeking reelection in key races.

The court’s 4-3 ruling also has critical implications in the 2024 presidential race, in which Wisconsin will again be among a handful of battleground states. President Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in 2020 by just under 21,000 votes, four years after Trump narrowly won the state by a similar margin.

The popularity of absentee voting exploded during the pandemic in 2020, with more than 40% of all voters casting mail ballots, a record high. At least 500 drop boxes were set up in more than 430 communities for the election that year, including more than a dozen each in Madison and Milwaukee — the state’s two most heavily Democratic cities.

After Trump lost the state, he and Republicans alleged that drop boxes facilitated cheating, even though they offered no evidence. Democrats, elections officials and some Republicans argued the boxes are secure.

The conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty sued in 2021. The state Supreme Court in February barred the use of drop boxes outside election clerk offices in the April election for local offices, such as mayor, city council and school board seats. The court ruled Friday on the question of whether to allow secure ballot boxes in places such as libraries and grocery stores.

State law is silent on drop boxes. The court said the absence of a prohibition in state law does not mean that drop boxes are legal.

“Nothing in the statutory language detailing the procedures by which absentee ballots may be cast mentions drop boxes or anything like them,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority.

The court said absentee ballots can be returned only to the clerk’s office or a designated alternative site but that site cannot be an unstaffed drop box. The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission had told local election officials the boxes can be placed at multiple locations and that ballots can be returned by people other than the voter, but put that on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Rick Esenberg, president of the conservative law firm that brought the case, said the ruling “provides substantial clarity on the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes and ballot harvesting.” He said it also makes clear that state law, not guidance from the Elections Commission, is the final word on how elections are run.

Concerns about the safety of drop boxes expressed by the majority “is downright dangerous to our democracy” Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in dissent.

“But concerns about drop boxes alone don’t fuel the fires questioning election integrity,” she wrote. “Rather, the kindling is primarily provided by voter suppression efforts and the constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated rhetoric in opinions like this one, not actual voter fraud.”

Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature have also tried to enact laws limiting the use of absentee ballots, but Evers has vetoed them.

Republicans have made similar moves since Trump’s defeat to tighten access to ballots in other battleground states. The restrictions especially target voting methods that have been rising in popularity, erecting hurdles to mail balloting and early voting that saw explosive growth during the pandemic.

Bradley was joined in the majority by fellow conservative Justices Patience Roggensack, Brian Hagedorn and Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. In addition to Ann Walsh Bradley, Justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky dissented.

#us politics #news #wisconsin #state supreme court #voter disenfranchisement #voter suppression #absentee ballot #ballot drop boxes #Gov. Tony Evers #sen. ron johnson #2022 #Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty #Justice Rebecca Bradley #Rick Esenberg #Justice Ann Walsh Bradley #Justice Patience Roggensack #Justice Brian Hagedorn #Justice Annette Ziegler #chief Justice Annette Ziegler #Justice Rebecca Dallet #Justice Jill Karofsky

[coochiequeens]

A transgender sex offender who sexually assaulted a disabled teen boy has lost a bid to remove his male identity from the registry after claiming “deadnaming” was a form of cruel and unusual punishment that prevented him from exercising his “right to self-expression as being a female.”

The offender, who is currently 22 years old, has only been identified as “Ella” due to his crime having involved a minor. “Ella” has been fighting for a name change for over a year, with his previous attempt being denied by the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals in January 2021. 

According to court records, “Ella’s” criminal history is related to a sexual assault dating to May of 2016. Shawano Police department received a complaint from a 15-year-old boy who reported that “Ella,” also a teenager at the time of the offense, had held him down and forcibly performed oral sex on him. The victim, who has not been identified, is blind in one eye and has an Autism diagnosis. 

After the assault, “Ella” cyber-bullied the boy on social media, who then faced widespread victimization as his peers became aware of the assault. 

Wisconsin Department of Corrections records indicated “Ella” was 6-foot-5 and weighed 345 pounds, while the boy was 5-foot-10 and weighed 110 pounds.

At the time of his conviction, “Ella” was denied an attempt to not be required to register as a sex offender, with the court noting he was classified as a “high risk” offender. Within the period of his 6-to-10 month sentence, “Ella” began to self-identify as transgender. 

In February of this year, “Ella’s” name-change case was heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which attempted to weigh whether self-declared gender identity should take precedence over transparency and public safety in regards to sex offenders. Wisconsin does not allow sex offenders to change their legal names as a measure of transparency, but does not prevent them from using the aliases of their choosing in civil settings.

The state Supreme Court announced the decision on July 7, upholding the previous denials — but the court had been heavily divided, with the decision coming from a narrow 4-3 majority.

“Consistent with well established precedent, we hold Ella’s placement on the sex offender registry is not a ‘punishment’ under the Eighth Amendment,” Justice Rebecca Bradley said in her majority decision. Justice Brian Hagedorn, who agreed with the decision, chose to write a separate concurrence rather than signing on to Bradley’s because he disagreed with the Court using ‘she/her’ pronouns for the offender, and obscuring his real name’s initials of “C.G.” 

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote the dissent, saying that the name change denial would expose “Ella” to undue gender identity-based problems.

“… requiring Ella to maintain a name that is inconsistent with her gender identity and forcing her to out herself every time she presents official documents exposes her to discrimination and abuse,” Bradley noted, using feminine pronouns for “Ella.”

Elsewhere in the dissent, Bradley states that the majority decision was not taking into account the “evolution” of the law in line with issues of social justice, and stated it “discounts the burdens Ella faces.” Bradley also compares “Ella’s” need for a name change to that of religious converts, writing: “Both a religious name and a name that conforms to one’s gender identity involve fundamental aspects of a person’s identity that are conveyed through the medium of a name.”

“Ella” is ordered to be on the sex offender registry for a total of 15 years.

#Wisconsin #trans sex offender #the victim was a handicapped minor but it’s more important to remember how “oppressed” men in dresses are

[beardedmrbean]

A 15-year-old who shot eight people at Mayfair Mall in 2020 should be tried as an adult, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The majority in the 4-3 decision declared Children's Court Judge Brittany Grayson erroneously exercised her discretion when she denied prosecutors' request that the boy be waived to adult court.

The Court of Appeals called for a new hearing on the issue, but the Supreme Court said that was unnecessary.

"There exists no reasonable basis for denying the State's waiver petition," Chief Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. She was joined in the majority opinion by justices Patience Roggensack, Rebecca Bradley and Jill Karofsky.

Justice Brian Hagedorn dissented, joined by justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet.

"Although another judge might have reasonably reached a different conclusion on the same set of facts, this decision was within the discretion the law affords to circuit court judges," Hagedorn wrote.

"The majority, however, displaces the circuit court's discretion with its own, even as it pays lip service to the deferential standard of review we are duty-bound to apply."

The case began in juvenile court, so the defendant has only been identified by a pseudonym, Xander. The boy, 15 at the time of the shootings, is charged with eight counts of first-degree reckless injury — punishable by up to 15 years in prison for adults — and being a minor with a gun, a misdemeanor. Prosecutors say he opened fire in the mall on Nov. 20, 2020, injuring three people in a group he was confronting, a friend who was with him, and four random shoppers.

Dozens of police responded and the mall was closed until the next day.

Prosecutors sought waiver to adult court. Grayson, after hearing from a social worker and a psychologist, determined Xander should remain in juvenile court. Xander had already been adjudicated delinquent in another case and hadn't complied entirely with his treatment.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered a new hearing before a different judge. Xander's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to weigh in first.

#nunyas news

[healthstyle101]

Wisconsin Supreme Court reduces how long eviction records can remain on state website from 20 to 2 years

Wisconsin Supreme Court Shortens Eviction Record-Keeping In a significant decision on Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to reduce the duration of record-keeping regarding a resident's eviction history. Previously, these records were maintained for a daunting two decades, but the new ruling has shortened this period to a more manageable two years. Tenant Rights Advocates Champion Change This move was initiated in response to the advocacy of tenant rights groups, who argued that prolonged record-keeping posed a disadvantage to low-income residents searching for housing. Their contention was that having extensive eviction records on public display made it harder for people with limited means to secure suitable accommodation. Court Votes in Favor of Shortening Records The court's decision saw a 4-3 vote, with the liberal justices supporting the change and conservative justices opposing it. The alteration specifically applies to records on the state court website, commonly referred to as CCAP. A Shift for a Fairer Housing Landscape The change primarily targets cases where there's no monetary judgment against a tenant. Advocates asserted that this amendment would be beneficial for renters with eviction histories, as many landlords heavily rely on the state court website when deciding whether to rent to someone. Justice Hagedorn Dissents However, not all members of the court agreed. Justice Brian Hagedorn dissented, raising concerns about restricting public access to these records. He also suggested that this decision might create additional administrative challenges for court officials. Justice Hagedorn proposed alternative solutions to address the concerns voiced by tenant advocates. Impact on Landlords and Renters This decision, supported by tenant rights advocates, will reduce eviction record-keeping from two decades to two years. Yet, numerous landlord groups, including the Wisconsin Realtors Association, opposed this change. They argued that altering the rule might lead landlords to demand higher rental deposits as a safeguard, potentially affecting all renters negatively. Numbers and a Shift in Procedure Notably, in Wisconsin last year, there were 25,819 eviction filings, resulting in 1,621 judgments for eviction, according to Wisconsin’s Department of Administration. The court's vote to make this change occurred during an open conference, a practice not seen since 2012. The court's new liberal majority reinstated open meetings, a reversal of the previous conservative majority's closed meeting policy from 2012. In Conclusion This decision marks a significant shift in housing regulations in Wisconsin, aimed at creating a fairer housing landscape for residents with eviction histories. While it has the backing of tenant rights advocates, it has faced opposition from landlord groups concerned about potential repercussions on rental deposits. The court's verdict is expected to have a notable impact on housing practices in the state. Read the full article

[truck-fump]

<b>Trump</b> endorsed Tim Michels after ranting about Kleefisch's tweets

New Post has been published on https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/daniel-bice/2022/07/23/donald-trump-endorsed-tim-michels-after-rant-about-tweets-of-rebecca-kleefisch-brian-hagedorn-teens/10121697002/&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjUzM2UwMTY5ZmFhZTIwMGQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AOvVaw3VOhvtrU2GeaL7qKaDYgmD

Trump endorsed Tim Michels after ranting about Kleefisch's tweets

Ex-President Donald Trump objected to an old tweet showing former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch’s daughter with son of Justice Brian Hagedorn.

#Uncategorized

[wausaupilot]

Hagedorn swearing-in illustrates power of appointments

Hagedorn will be sworn in Thursday to replace 83-year-old Justice Shirley Abrahamson, the state's longest-serving and first female justice.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Brian Hagedorn’s inauguration as a state Supreme Court justice this week will mark the end of a legal era and starkly underscore governors’ power to reshape Wisconsin courtrooms with like-minded appointees.

Hagedorn will be sworn in Thursday to replace 83-year-old Justice Shirley Abrahamson, the state’s longest-serving and first female justice. A staunch liberal, Abrahamson…

View On WordPress

#Judge Brian Hagedorn #Justice Dan Kelly #Justice Shirley Abrahamson #Wisconsin Supreme Court #Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates 2020 election

[feelingbluepolitics]

*** Highest recommendation. ***

"Dane County Judge Jill Karofsky has toppled incumbent Justice Daniel Kelly to win a full 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

..."[L]iberals come August will have a 3-4 minority on Wisconsin’s highest court, chipping away at conservatives’ current 5-2 edge following the election of Justice Brian Hagedorn last April.

"'Although we were successful in this race, the circumstances under which this election was conducted were simply unacceptable, and raise serious concerns for the future of our democracy,' she said in a statement. 'Nobody in this state or in this country should have been forced to choose between their safety and participating in an election.'"

[political-fluffle]

BREAKING: In 4-3 decision, Wisconsin Supreme Court keeps the Green Party ticket off of Wisconsin's ballot.

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn joins the court's three liberals to form a majority.

This means clerks do not have to reprint ballots and can now mail them.

Wisconsin Supreme Court rules to keep Green Party off the ballot

[kp777]

#wisconsin #judiciary #wisconsin supreme court #brian hagedorn

[innocentamit]

Democrats Get A Huge Win In Wisconsin As Supreme Court Tosses Gerrymandered Map

Democrats Get A Huge Win In Wisconsin As Supreme Court Tosses Gerrymandered Map

Republicans in Wisconsin lost a 4-3 decision in the state Supreme Court that rejected their heavily gerrymandered map. Madison.com reported: The state’s high court issued a 4-3 ruling in favor of maps proposed last year by Evers, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, a regular swing vote on the court, siding with fellow liberal justices Rebecca Dallet, Ann Walsh Bradley, and Jill Karofsky in…

View On WordPress

[mihaitaresister]

[agreenroad]

Wisconsin Supreme Court Knocks Down Evers' Covid Emergency Power Grab - RightWisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court Knocks Down Evers’ Covid Emergency Power Grab – RightWisconsin

In a 4-3 decision released Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Governor Tony Evers’ cannot use successive emergency orders to tackle the same Covid-19 crisis. “The plain language of the statute explains that the governor may, for 60 days, act with expanded powers to address a particular emergency,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority. “Beyond 60 days, however, the…

View On WordPress

[wausaupilot]

Dane County Judge Karofsky running for Supreme Court

Judge Karofsky won election to an open seat on the Dane County court in 2017. She was endorsed by former Democratic Govs. Jim Doyle and Tony Earl in that race.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky said Tuesday she is planning to run next year for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat currently held by one of the court’s conservative members.

Karofksy said in an email that she is organizing a team for the planned run and will have an announcement “in the coming weeks.”

The election next year will be for the seat currently held by Justice…

View On WordPress

#Ed Fallone #Judge Brian Hagedorn #Judge Jill Karofsky #Justice Dan Kelly #Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates 2020 election