Okay it doesn't say that exactly. Here's the relevant quote:
However, "voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place." As such, "matters relating to the absentee ballot process . . . shall be . . . mandatory." Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2). We have held that where an election statute is mandatory, its exercise requires strict compliance. See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Bd., 82 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978). Consequently, "[b]allots counted in contravention of the procedures . . . may not be included in the certified result of any election."
'Strict compliance' and 'privilege' are the key operative words IMHO. This ruling itself does not provide remedy, but by citing Ahlgrimm v. State Elections, they reinforce the notion that ballots can be thrown out when the electors (voters) don't follow the rules with strict compliance.
Basically this means that lawsuits in the federal circuit courts can cite this SC ruling now, and that should make throwing out fraudulent votes easier.
The thing that makes this so confusing is that on one hand, they say the voter has discretion to determine if they are indefinitely confined, and then says 'strict compliance' is needed.
Here's the simplest solution to the apparant paradox: 'Discretion' means you get to choose. It doesn't imply unlimited discretion. I can choose between Rice Krispies or Froot Loops for breakfast. I have discretion. I cannot choose Raisin Bran because I don't have Raisin Bran. It's not a viable option. Violating the law is beyond the limits of discretion. That would render any election laws moot.
Okay it doesn't say that exactly. Here's the relevant quote:
However, "voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place." As such, "matters relating to the absentee ballot process . . . shall be . . . mandatory." Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2). We have held that where an election statute is mandatory, its exercise requires strict compliance. See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Bd., 82 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978). Consequently, "[b]allots counted in contravention of the procedures . . . may not be included in the certified result of any election."
'Strict compliance' and 'privilege' are the key operative words IMHO. This ruling itself does not provide remedy, but by citing Ahlgrimm v. State Elections, they reinforce the notion that ballots can be thrown out when the electors (voters) don't follow the rules with strict compliance.
Basically this means that lawsuits in the federal circuit courts can cite this SC ruling now, and that should make throwing out fraudulent votes easier.
The thing that makes this so confusing is that on one hand, they say the voter has discretion to determine if they are indefinitely confined, and then says 'strict compliance' is needed.
Here's the simplest solution to the apparant paradox: 'Discretion' means you get to choose. It doesn't imply unlimited discretion. I can choose between Rice Krispies or Froot Loops for breakfast. I have discretion. I cannot choose Raisin Bran because I don't have Raisin Bran. It's not a viable option.
Okay it doesn't say that exactly. Here's the relevant quote:
However, "voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place." As such, "matters relating to the absentee ballot process . . . shall be . . . mandatory." Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2). We have held that where an election statute is mandatory, its exercise requires strict compliance. See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Bd., 82 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978). Consequently, "[b]allots counted in contravention of the procedures . . . may not be included in the certified result of any election."
'Strict compliance' and 'privilege' are the key operative words IMHO. This ruling itself does not provide remedy, but by citing Ahlgrimm v. State Elections, they reinforce the notion that ballots can be thrown out when the electors (voters) don't follow the rules with strict compliance.
Basically this means that lawsuits in the federal circuit courts can cite this SC ruling now, and that should make throwing out fraudulent votes easier.
Okay it doesn't say that exactly. Here's the relevant quote:
However, "voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place." As such, "matters relating to the absentee ballot process . . . shall be . . . mandatory." Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2). We have held that where an election statute is mandatory, its exercise requires strict compliance. See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Bd., 82 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978). Consequently, "[b]allots counted in contravention of the procedures . . . may not be included in the certified result of any election."
'Strict compliance' and 'privilege' are the key operative words IMHO. This ruling itself does not provide remedy, but by citing Ahlgrimm v. State Elections, they reinforce the notion that ballots can be thrown out when the electors (voters) don't follow the rules with strict compliance.
Basically this means that lawsuits in the federal circuit courts can cite this SC ruling now, and that should make throwing out votes easier.
Okay it doesn't say that exactly. Here's the relevant quote:
However, "voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place." As such, "matters relating to the absentee ballot process . . . shall be . . . mandatory." Wis. Stat. § 6.84(2). We have held that where an election statute is mandatory, its exercise requires strict compliance. See State ex rel. Ahlgrimm v. State Elections Bd., 82 Wis. 2d 585, 597, 263 N.W.2d 152 (1978). Consequently, "[b]allots counted in contravention of the procedures . . . may not be included in the certified result of any election."