Thread by @patrickdmarley

.@judgekarofsky comes out swinging in arguments over lawsuit Trump brought over the election in Wisconsin's two most populous counties.

"This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism," Karofsky tells Trump attorney Jim Troupis.

.@justicedallet notes Trump is challenging an election form that has been in use for more than a decade. That form was used when Trump won the state in 2016.

"What I’m hearing you say then is really the form was fine in 2016 when it helped the president to win," Dallet says.

You can stream the arguments here: jsonline.com/story/news/pol…

Dallet adds that Trump in 2016 also did not challenge the policy on allowing clerks to fill in witness address absentee ballot enevelopes.

The policy was the same in both years, but Trump challenged it only after losing the 2020 election.

So far, Dallet and Karofsky have been tag teaming tough questioning for Trump attorney Jim Troupis.

The conservatives have been mostly silent, though Justice Rebecca Bradley briefly spoke up to help Troupis.

Karofsky spells out the "application" to emphasize that the word appears on an absente ballot form that Trump's team maintains is not actually an absentee ballot application.

Troupis says @WI_Elections changes its forms and advice from time to time but has said ballot applications and ballot certifications are to be treated as separate documents (rather than as one form).

Troupis says at least some communities (he cites Oconomowoc) uses two forms for early in-person voting.

Most communities around the state use one form, according to election officials.

Troupis complains about the cost of the recount -- $3 million for Dane and Milwaukee counties -- or nearly $8 million statewide.

@judgekarofsky notes Trump has raised far more than that (she doesn't cite a number, but it's more than $170 million since Election Day).

Karofsky: "How much money has Donald Trump has raised because of the two-county recount in the state? This isn’t about how much money (he raised). This is about disenfranchising voters in two counties, and only two counties, in the state of Wisconsin."

The discussion turns briefly to indefinitely confinement. Voters who are confined because of age or disability do not have to show photo ID to vote absentee.

Troupis says Facebook posts show about 10 voters who called themselves confined showed up at rallies.

"If they could go to rally, they could probably get to the polls," Troupis says.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley notes Troupis is trying to throw out his own vote (because he voted early in person).

"It seems a little odd that you're standing before us trying to disenfranchise your vote," Bradley says.

Troupis says he indeed now believes his own vote was illegal (because he filled out one election form instead of two).

.@judgehagedorn asks what he calls an arcane question -- whether the Supreme Court has to accept the lower court's findings of facts.

Troupis says the two sides actually agree on most of the facts. What they disagree on is the interpretation of state laws.

Troupis says Madison's "Democracy in the Park" events were "an obvious attempt to get around the statute" on early voting.

At these events poll workers accepted absentee ballots at 200 locations around the city.

Now up is Colin Roth, an assistant attorney general representing @WI_Elections.

Roth says the form used for early in-person voting is all that is required. Trump's team says two forms are needed.

State law requires absentee voters to fill out a ballot application and to fill out a form certifying that they are the one who filled out the ballot.

Roth notes the law does not require separate forms, and most clerks give voters one document that fulfills both requirements.

.@JudgeBradleyWI says she is focused on whether state law allows clerks to fill in witness addresses on absentee ballot envelopes.

Trump says clerks can't do that. @WI_Elections says they can.

Roth says state law does not require witnesses to provide their entire addresses on ballot envelopes.

Sometimes witnesses don't provide an address at all and sometimes they provide only part of their address (such as only the street address but not the city, state and ZIP code).

Justice Annette Zielger notes Wisconsin laws says voting absentee is a privilege, not a right (like voting at the polls).

She goes on to note state law says absentee voters must provide a witness, including the witness' address.

Roth reiterates that the law simply says "address" without defining it -- leaving open the possibility that the city, state and ZIP code may not be needed.

Ziegler: "If the (@WI_Elections) gives advice that is contrary to the statute, which should control?"

Roth says the statute would control.

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack says she is concerned about "parties in the park" like "Democracy in the Park."

"That frankly troubles me. I don't see how that fits in the statute," she says.

Roggensack raises similar concerns about absentee ballot drop boxes.

Roth notes that Trump has not challenged drop boxes in this case (though it has been raised in other cases).

Roggensack is very skeptical of the "Democracy in the Park" events. Ziegler joins that line of questioning too.

Roggensack says state law requires absentee ballots to be mailed or delivered to clerks, which she says effectively means delivering them to clerks' offices.

Clerks can't have their agents "here, there and everywhere," she says.

Roggensack: "My concern is that this is early voting, OK? It happened way before Oct. 20, when early voting could start."

"It's very much the same thing if you do in-person voting."

Roth disputes that claim because the poll workers at "Democracy in the Park" did not issue ballots. The voters had to have the ballot sent to their home address and then bring it to the event.

At the 1-hour mark, here's where things stand:
-- The three liberals are clearly against Trump
-- Roggensack and Ziegler have major concerns about "Democracy in the Park"
-- Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley skeptical of clerks filling in witness addresses
-- Hagedorn is mostly quiet

Now up is John Devaney, the attorney for @JoeBiden.

He urges the justices to issue a ruling before the Electoral College meets at noon Monday.

Devaney notes state law emphasizes the importance of accepting the will of the voters.

.@JudgeBradleyWI notes, however, that Wisconsin state law is clear that absentee voters must follow certain rules to have their votes counted.

Meanwhile, in the middle of these Wisconsin Supreme Court arguments, U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig rules against Trump in his federal lawsuit seeking to throw out Wisconsin's election results.

Ludwig's decision is the seventh one against Trump and his allies in the last 10 days that had sought to overturn Wisconsin's results.

Back to the SCOWIS arguments ....

@JudgeBradleyWI says state law -- not guidance from @WI_Elections -- is what matters. Clerks were bound to follow the law, not advice that might have been faulty, she says.

But Biden attorney John Devaney says Trump should have brought a lawsuit well before the election, not after he lost. He's challenging policies that have long been in effect, Devaney notes.

Hagedorn asks a question about how the interaction of state laws that spell out what election rules must be followed and the doctrine of laches (that is, whether Trump waited too long to bring his suit).

Side note: I cannot believe I have tweeted the word "laches" twice in two days.

Please intervene if I use "estoppel."

Devaney says it would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution to treat ballots cast in the same manner differently depending on which county they came from.

(Trump is trying to throw out ballots in two counties, but not 70 others.)

.@judgekarofsky says Trump is bringing his suit only because he lost, even though it raises challenges to long-standing policies.

"Afterwards he wants to go back and complain about things that he could have complained about two weeks before the election," she says.

"This whole case is about fraud," Troupis says.

"The statutes are in place because they presume if you do not follow them there is fraud."

Troupis is effectively saying clerks, rather than voters, have perpetrated fraud.

Karofsky says she can't believe Troupis is alleging fraud, saying election officials should be thanked for conducting an election during a pandemic.

Karofsky said Troupis is making a "shameful" attempt to keep Trump as "king."

Troupis responds the country was founded on the rule of law.

"When we forget the rule of the law.... we have lost our country," Troupis says.

After a little over an hour and a half, the arguments end.

The court will meet in an hour in closed session to discuss the case. A decision is expected soon.

I'll have a full story soon.

Updated story is here: bit.ly/3oMiDax

Some of the toughest criticism of Trump came from @judgekarofsky, who won her seat this spring.

I asked her during the campaign about her votes for president. She said she voted for @HillaryClinton in 2016 and there was no way she would vote for @realDonaldTrump this year.

“I will not vote for Donald Trump,” @judgekarofsky said in January.

Asked why, she said, “So many reasons. I don't even know where to start.”

She made those comments here: jsonline.com/story/news/pol…

Meanwhile, during today's arguments before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a federal judge in Milwaukee ruled against Trump.

It was the seventh ruling against Trump and his allies in 10 days over Wisconsin's results.

jsonline.com/story/news/pol…

And to everyone wondering when the Wisconsin Supreme Court will rule: I don't know.

I would guess tonight, tomorrow or Monday morning. The Electoral College meets at noon Monday.