{"id":10724,"date":"2020-12-24T22:15:14","date_gmt":"2020-12-25T03:15:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=10724"},"modified":"2021-01-04T15:21:47","modified_gmt":"2021-01-04T20:21:47","slug":"7th-circuit-affirms-judge-ludwig-in-trump-v-wec","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/7th-circuit-affirms-judge-ludwig-in-trump-v-wec\/","title":{"rendered":"7th Circuit Affirms Judge Ludwig in Trump v. WEC"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\"><br \/>\n    window._mNHandle = window._mNHandle || {};<br \/>\n    window._mNHandle.queue = window._mNHandle.queue || [];<br \/>\n    medianet_versionId = \"3121199\";<br \/>\n<\/script><br><script src=\"https:\/\/contextual.media.net\/dmedianet.js?cid=8CUQT4FRX\" async=\"async\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong data-rich-text-format-boundary=\"true\">Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal affirms Judge Ludwig&#8217;s in <em>Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>A <span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong><a style=\"color: #000000;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/judge-ludwigs-decision-in-trump-v-wec\/\">prior post<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>discussed the important federal district court decision in <em>Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission<\/em> by Judge Ludwig. The following post is intended to provide a quick update that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed Judge Ludwig&#8217;s decision on the merits. Click here for a link to the <span style=\"color: #000000;\"><a style=\"color: #000000;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-admin\/post.php?post=10605&amp;action=edit\"><strong>7th Circuit&#8217;s decision, <\/strong><\/a><\/span>released on Christmas Eve, which is discussed below.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-9.33.58-PM.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"aligncenter  wp-image-10720\" src=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-9.33.58-PM-300x178.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"557\" height=\"331\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-9.33.58-PM-300x178.png 300w, https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-9.33.58-PM-768x456.png 768w, https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-9.33.58-PM.png 1020w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 557px) 100vw, 557px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Normally it is irrelevant who appointed a particular judge. Nonetheless, in 2020 it is not inappropriate to point out that today&#8217;s 7th Circuit decision was reached by a three judge panel who were all appointed by Republican presidents. The opinion was written by Senior Circuit Judge Flaum, a Reagan appointee, joined by Judge Rovner (a George H. W. Bush appointee) and Judge Scudder (a Trump appointee). While it is also irrelevant, some would note that the 7th Circuit is the former home of recently appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-10.17.25-PM.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-10733\" src=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-10.17.25-PM-300x278.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"278\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-10.17.25-PM-300x278.png 300w, https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-10.17.25-PM.png 584w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\"><br \/>\nwindow._mNHandle = window._mNHandle || {};<br \/>\nwindow._mNHandle.queue = window._mNHandle.queue || [];<br \/>\nmedianet_versionId = \"3121199\";<br \/>\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p>According to the 7th Circuit:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">We agree that Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature and add that the President\u2019s claim also fails because of the unreasonable delay that accompanied the challenges the President now wishes to advance against Wisconsin\u2019s election procedures.<\/p>\n<p>As discussed in the prior post, President Trump&#8217;s lawyers argued that the procedures adopted by the Wisconsin Elections Commission were not authorized by the Wisconsin Legislature and were a violation of the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s Electors Clause.<\/p>\n<p>The Court disagreed:<\/p>\n<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 3\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">To implement the obligation imposed by the Electors Clause, Wisconsin\u2019s Legislature has directed that the State\u2019s electors be appointed \u201c[b]y general ballot at the general election for choosing the president and vice president of the United States.\u201d WIS. STAT. \u00a7 8.25(1). It has further assigned \u201cresponsibility for the administration of &#8230; laws relating to elections and election campaigns\u201d to the Commission. Id. \u00a7 5.05(1). . . .<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">The President alleges that the Commission and municipal officials so misused the power granted to them by the Legislature that they had unconstitutionally altered the \u201cManner\u201d by which Wisconsin appointed its electors. His allegations challenge three pieces of guidance issued by the Commission well in advance of the 2020 election.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 4\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<p>The 7th Circuit noted that after an evidentiary hearing, the district court below rejected the President\u2019s arguments on the merits.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Even if the Electors Clause was read more broadly to address the \u201cManner\u201d in which Wisconsin conducted the election, the district court determined that the Legislature had authorized the Commission to issue the guidance now challenged by the President. None of that guidance, the district court reasoned, reflected such a deviation from the Wisconsin Legislature\u2019s directives as to violate the Electors Clause.<\/p>\n<p>Agreeing with the district court, the 7th Circuit held that the doctrine of laches applied based on the late filing of the case which should have been brought prior to the election:<\/p>\n<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The President had a full opportunity before the election to press the very challenges to Wisconsin law underlying his present claims. Having foregone that opportunity, he cannot now\u2014after the election results have been certified as final\u2014 seek to bring those challenges. All of this is especially so given that the Commission announced well in advance of the <span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">election the guidance he now challenges. Indeed, the witness address guidance came four years ago, before the 2016 election. The Commission issued its guidance on indefinitely confined voters in March 2020 and endorsed the use of drop boxes in August.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">Allowing the President to raise his arguments, at this late date, after Wisconsin has tallied the votes and certified the election outcome, would impose unquestionable harm on the defendants, and the State\u2019s voters, many of whom cast ballots in reliance on the guidance, procedures, and practices that the President challenges here. The President\u2019s delay alone is enough to warrant affirming the district court\u2019s judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"page\" title=\"Page 9\">\n<div class=\"layoutArea\">\n<div class=\"column\">\n<p>Addressing the merits, the Court rejected the President&#8217;s argument that the Wisconsin election procedures violated the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s Electors Clause:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">Defining the precise contours of the Electors Clause is a difficult endeavor. The text seems to point to at least two constructions, and the case law interpreting or applying the Clause is sparse. This case does not require us to answer the question, as the Commission\u2019s guidance did not amount to a violation under the two most likely interpretations. . . . .<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">The Wisconsin Legislature expressly assigned to the Commission \u201cthe responsibility for the administration of &#8230; laws relating to elections,\u201d WIS. STAT. \u00a7 5.05(1), just as Florida\u2019s Legislature had delegated a similar responsibility to its Secretary of State. See Bush, 531 U.S. at 116 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Florida\u2019s legislative scheme included this \u201cstatutorily <\/span><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">provided apportionment of responsibility,\u201d and three Justices found a departure from that scheme when the Florida Supreme Court rejected the Secretary\u2019s interpretation of state law. And it was the Minnesota Secretary of State\u2019s lack of a similar responsibility that prompted two judges of the Eighth Circuit to conclude that he likely violated the Electors Clause by adding a week to the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. By contrast, whatever actions the Commission took here, it took under color of authority expressly granted to it by the Legislature. And that authority is not diminished by allegations that the Commission erred in its exercise. (internal citations omitted)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">Summarizing its conclusions, the Court indicated that it is not the job of federal courts to rewrite state election law:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">We are not the ultimate authority on Wisconsin law. That responsibility rests with the State\u2019s Supreme Court. Put another way, the errors that the President alleges occurred in the Commission\u2019s exercise of its authority are in the main matters of state law. They belong, then, in the state courts, where the President had an opportunity to raise his concerns. Indeed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected his claims regarding the guidance on indefinitely confined voters, see Trump v. Biden, 2020 WI 91 \u00b6 8 (Dec. 14, 2020), and declined to reach the rest of his arguments on grounds of laches.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><span style=\"font-size: inherit;\">For our part, all we need to say is that, even on a broad reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<p>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal affirms Judge Ludwig&#8217;s in Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission A prior post discussed the important&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10724"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10724"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10724\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10957,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10724\/revisions\/10957"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}