The re-election campaign of President Donald Trump has filed another lawsuit to try to throw out the November election results in Wisconsin.

Trump’s campaign is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision against the president’s challenge to the election results. In a statement from Trump’s lead attorney in Wisconsin, Jim Troupis, the president’s campaign is alleging the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the case.

“Regrettably, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in their 4-3 decision, refused to address the merits of our claim.  This ‘Cert Petition’ asks them to address our claims, which, if allowed, would change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin.” Troupis noted, “Three members of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, agreed with many of the President’s claims in written dissents from that court’s December 14 order.” 

The lawsuit, like the Trump campaign’s other lawsuits, does not list specific instances of voter fraud. Instead, the lawsuit revisits issues that have already been raised by the Trump campaign in state and federal courts: indefinitely confined voters, absentee ballots with addresses corrected by clerks, and ballots collected in Madison at “Democracy in the Park events.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision written by Justice Brian Hagedorn, rejected the Trump lawsuit by saying that the voters should not be harmed by the failure of the campaign to challenge these practices prior to the election.

“The Campaign waited until after the election to raise selective challenges that could have been raised long before the election,” Hagedorn wrote. “We conclude the challenge to indefinitely confined voter ballots is without merit, and that laches bars relief on the remaining three categories of challenged ballots.”

In addition to the issue of the lateness of the complaint from the Trump campaign, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court members were unanimous in rejecting the Trump campaign’s challenge to votes from “indefinitely confined voters,” pointing to a previous decision that it was up to the voters to determine if they met the qualifications of “indefinitely confined” status.

The elimination of that issue alone puts the number of ballots in question below the margin of victory for former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign.

Also, in a separate opinion concurring with his own majority opinion, Hagedorn also addressed the issues of the corrected absentee ballots and the Democracy in the Park events. In the matter of the corrected absentee ballots, Hagedorn wrote the Trump campaign did not show that the amount of address information supplied by the voters was insufficient to allow the ballots to be counted. In the matter of the Democracy in the Park events, Hagedorn wrote that the people collecting the ballots were acting as agents of the municipal clerks and therefore the events were legal.

Hagedorn’s opinion was similar to the decision by federal Judge Brett Ludwig, a Trump appointment, throwing out Trump’s federal lawsuit to overturn Wisconsin’s election results.

“A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred,” Ludwig wrote. “This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”