The following is the majority opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case of Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Commission written by Justice Brian Hagedorn. The Supreme Court, as it did with President Donald Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the November 3 presidential election, declined on Friday to consider the case as an original action. Justice Hagedorn raises important questions on the limits of judicial power for conservatives to consider and so we are posting his opinion in its entirety.

The Wisconsin Voters Alliance and a group of Wisconsin voters bring a petition for an original action raising a variety of questions about the operation of the November 3, 2020 presidential election. Some of these legal issues may, under other circumstances, be subject to further judicial consideration. But the real stunner here is the sought-after remedy. We are invited to invalidate the entire presidential election in Wisconsin by declaring it “null”—yes, the whole thing. And there’s more. We should, we are told, enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from certifying the election so that Wisconsin’s presidential electors can be chosen by the legislature instead, and then compel the Governor to certify those electors. At least no one can accuse the petitioners of timidity.

Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history. One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes. Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report1 of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.

This petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter. The petition does not even justify the exercise of our original jurisdiction.

As an initial matter, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is not a fact-finding tribunal. Yet the petition depends upon disputed factual claims. In other words, we couldn’t just accept one side’s description of the facts or one side’s expert report even if we were inclined to believe them.2 That alone means this case is not well-suited for an original action. The petition’s legal support is no less wanting. For example, it does not explain why its challenge to various election processes

comes after the election, and not before. Nor does it grapple with how voiding the presidential election results would impact every other race on the ballot, or consider the import of election statutes that may provide the “exclusive remedy.”3 These are just a few of the glaring flaws that render the petition woefully deficient. I therefore join the court’s order denying the original action.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share a further observation. Something far more fundamental than the winner of Wisconsin’s electoral votes is implicated in this case. At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic. It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering. The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.

I do not mean to suggest this court should look the other way no matter what. But if there is a sufficient basis to invalidate an election, it must be established with evidence and arguments commensurate with the scale of the claims and the relief sought. These petitioners have come nowhere close. While the rough and tumble world of electoral politics may be the prism through which many view this litigation, it cannot be so for us. In these hallowed halls, the law must rule.

Our disposal of this case should not be understood as a determination or comment on the merits of the underlying legal issues; judicial review of certain Wisconsin election practices may be appropriate. But this petition does not merit further consideration by this court, much less grant us a license to invalidate every single vote cast in Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential election.

I am authorized to state that Justices ANN WALSH BRADLEY, REBECCA FRANK DALLET, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this concurrence.

1 After filing their petition for original action, the Petitioners submitted a second expert report. But the second report only provides additional computations based on the assumptions and calculations in the initial expert report.

2 The Attorney General and Governor offer legitimate arguments that this report would not even be admissible evidence under Wis. Stat. § 907.02 (2017-18).

3 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version.