WI. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR H.O.T.'s PETION ON RUSD BILLION DOLLAR REFERUNDUM! H.O.T Watchdog Group Fights Billion Dollar School Referendum! The Supreme Court will review Case in a matter of Fair Elections. Here’s our Story….. When is a right not a right? When the judge in your case is “authorized” but not “required” to respect that right. If you’re wondering how a right given to the people absolutely by the legislature can be taken away at the whim of a judge, then you probably aren’t one of the judges on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. In a case that has garnered little attention so far in the mainstream press, a handful of citizens in Racine, Wisconsin H.O.T. Government challenged the results of a local referendum. Big government advocates wanted to force the people of Racine to shell out over a billion dollars to the Racine Unified School District over the next 30 years. The measure supposedly “passed” by just five votes out of over 30,000 counted. Except it may actually have lost. See when the election was called, some individuals demanded a recount and then even monitored the six-day recount process where their fears had been vindicated: some 60 votes had been adjusted for between the recount results and election day results; this is 12 times as many as are needed to change the result. And yet, according to the canvassers, the margin was yet again 5 votes in favor of the referendum. So, these citizens simply appealed to the circuit court. They thought some of the particular batches of ballots may have been miscounted. Thus, naturally, they asked the court to have the ballots opened,
citing section 7.54 of the Wisconsin State Statutes, which reads:
“In all contested election cases, the contesting parties have the right to have the ballots opened and to have all errors of the inspectors, either in counting or refusing to count any ballot, corrected by the board of canvassers or court deciding the contest. . . .” The judge denied them. So, these citizens appealed. Now the big guns really came out. The Board of Canvassers, who hired the same lawyers that Joe Biden has been using to support his presidential election claims in the courts, argued that the law didn’t apply. But their arguments were so weak, the Court of Appeals couldn’t accept them. Instead, the court of appeals said that although the law did apply it is there to give the judge an option: the Court opined that, “Although the statute authorizes the opening of ballots in court, it does not require that a court do so.” Incredible. In other words, when the law states that “contesting parties have the right” it actually means no “right” at all because the judge gets to decide? If you want to know just how embarrassingly bad this decision is, just note that none of the judges authorizing it had the guts to actually sign it. They made it a “summary disposition”, per curiam decision, a fancy way of saying they didn’t think very hard and the decision creates no precedent. The Case is Appeal No. 20-AP-1271-AC, Sewell v. RUSD. There is still the possibility the Supreme Court of setting this right.