Liberal justices who control the Wisconsin Supreme Court voiced concerns Tuesday about the motives of a conservative activist who is seeking guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters while also appearing to cast doubt that the documents should be made public.

The lawsuit tests the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote. It is the latest attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state.

“What it sounds to me like what you are trying to do is to introduce the fear that there is some sort of illegitimacy going on in the election in the state of Wisconsin, and that concerns me deeply,” said liberal Justice Jill Karofsky during oral arguments Tuesday.

Former travel agent Ron Heuer and a group he leads, Wisconsin Voter Alliance, allege that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. They want the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

“What we want is eligible people to vote and people who are adjudicated by a circuit court judge ineligible to vote not to vote,” said Erick Kaardal, attorney for Heuer and the WVA.

There are ways for the government, not a private watchdog group, to review the records confidentially and determine if someone is voting illegally, said attorney Sam Hall, who represented Walworth County in Tuesday’s case.

Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

A state appeals court in 2023 overturned a circuit court ruling dismissing the case and found that the records are public. It ordered Walworth County to release them with birthdates and case numbers redacted. The ruling from the conservative 2nd District Court of Appeals contradicted a prior binding decision from the liberal 4th District Court of Appeals, which had dismissed the case.

The county appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Tuesday. Its ruling is unlikely to come before the November election.

Hall said the appeals court ruling “blasts open the door for the personal information of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to be broadcast, not only to those with noble and good intentions but to those who might do these folks harm.”

He urged the court to issue a ruling directly addressing the merits of the case, not a technical legal issue.

“I don’t think this issue is going away,” Hall said.

He also argued that the law is clear about who has access to the guardianship records, and the WVA did not demonstrate a need.

Kaardal argued that the records should be made public to root out people who are still on the voter rolls after being found ineligible to vote.

But the liberal justices questioned whether the law allows for the records to be made public. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley asked if there was a way to perform an audit and ensure that government officials are removing people from the voting rolls when a court has determined they lost that right.

Liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet stressed that there was no proof in the court record that a person ruled incompetent had voted illegally or been sent a ballot illegally or that the state elections commission had done anything wrong. Wisconsin Watch reported last year based on records provided by the Dane County clerk that adjudicated incompetent people have voted in past elections, though not in numbers that would affect the outcome of any election.

Heuer and the WVA have pushed inflated estimates about the 2020 election in an attempt to cast doubt on President Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman that found no evidence of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.

The WVA also filed two unsuccessful lawsuits that sought to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin.

Biden defeated Donald Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a result that has withstood independent and partisan audits and reviews, as well as lawsuits and the recounts Trump requested.

Court weighs Racine mobile voting van case

The Wisconsin Supreme Court also wrestled Tuesday with whether a Republican had standing to bring a lawsuit that challenges the use of a mobile voting van in 2022 and seeks to ban its use in any future election in the presidential battleground state.

Such vans — a single van, actually — were used just once, in Racine in a primary election in 2022. It allowed voters to cast absentee ballots in the two weeks leading up to the election. Racine, the Democratic National Committee and others say nothing in state law prohibits the use of voting vans.

Whatever the court decides will not affect the November election, as a ruling isn’t expected until later and no towns or cities asked to use alternative voting locations for this election before the deadline to do so passed. But the ruling will determine whether mobile voting sites can be used in future elections.

Much of the oral argument Tuesday focused on whether the Racine County voter who brought the lawsuit was “aggrieved” under state law and allowed to sue. If the court rules that he didn’t have standing, it could make it more difficult to bring future lawsuits challenging election laws.

Karofsky said she had a hard time seeing how the voter who brought the lawsuit, Racine County Republican Party Chairman Ken Brown, had been injured by simply witnessing use of the mobile voting van.

The law allows Brown, as a voter, to file a complaint because he believed an election official was breaking the law, said Lucas Vebber, attorney for the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which represented Brown. Vebber argued that voters can bring an election lawsuit in their local jurisdiction.

But Gabe Johnson-Karp, representing the Wisconsin Elections Commission, argued that the voter in this case wasn’t personally injured and therefore can’t bring a lawsuit. He can’t bring a lawsuit making a “generalized grievance about too many people voting or the election officials not following the law,” Johnson-Karp argued.

Liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asked if the court would have to consider other issues in the case if it determines Brown did not have standing.

Vebber said he didn’t know if the court could, but if it did, “I think it would be beneficial to the voters of Wisconsin and to the government entities to resolve these issues.”

Republicans argue it is against state law to operate mobile voting sites, that their repeated use would increase the chances of voter fraud, and that the one in Racine was used to bolster Democratic turnout.

Wisconsin law prohibits locating any early voting site in a place that gives an advantage to any political party. There are other limitations on early voting sites, including a requirement that they be “as near as practicable” to the clerk’s office.

For the 2022 election, Racine city Clerk Tara McMenamin and the city had a goal of making voting as accessible to as many voters as possible.

Racine purchased its van with grant money from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. Republicans have been critical of the grants, calling the money “Zuckerbucks” that they say was used to tilt turnout in Democratic areas.

Wisconsin voters in April approved a constitutional amendment banning the use of private money to help run elections.

The van was used only to facilitate early in-person voting during the two weeks prior to an election, McMenamin said. It traveled for two weeks across the city, allowing voters to cast in-person absentee ballots in 21 locations.

Brown filed a complaint the day after the August 2022 primary with the Wisconsin Elections Commission, arguing that the van was against state law. He argued that it was only sent to Democratic areas in the city in an illegal move to bolster turnout.

McMenamin disputed those accusations, saying that it shows a misunderstanding of the city’s voting wards, which traditionally lean Democratic.

Liberal justices appeared wary of accepting the argument that the van improperly favored Democrats.

The elections commission dismissed the complaint four days before the 2022 election, saying there was no probable cause shown to believe the law had been broken. Brown sued.

Brown sued, and in January, a Racine County Circuit Court judge sided with Republicans, ruling that state election laws do not allow for the use of mobile voting sites.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in June kept that ruling in place pending its consideration of the case, which effectively meant the use of mobile voting sites would not be allowed in the upcoming presidential election. The court also kept in place the same rules that have been in place since 2016 for determining the location of early voting sites. The deadline for selecting those sites for use in the November election was in June.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Supreme Court justices question merits of case brought by election activist is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.