Plaintiffs in Federal Voting Rights Lawsuit Reply to Republican ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ Argument Less Early Voting Is Expanding Early Voting

‘Attempts to Rig the Rules on Voting and Suppress Legal Voters Were Unconstitutional in 2016 and They Remain Unconstitutional Today’

Share

MADISON, Wis. — Plaintiffs in the federal voting rights lawsuit One Wisconsin Institute, et. al. v. Thomsen, et. al. have filed a reply in support of their request for enforcement of a previous ruling striking down a number of restrictions on voting in Wisconsin, including early voting.

In the reply plaintiffs clearly establish the authority of the federal court to enforce its earlier ruling and that the actions of the Republican legislature and former Gov. Scott Walker constitute a reimposition of restriction on voting the court previously found unconstitutional

The following are the statements of One Wisconsin Institute Executive Director Scot Ross:

“The actions of Republicans in the lame duck session to try to rig the rules on voting are nearly identical to those previously found to be unconstitutional in federal court.

“Our filing exposes as ‘smoke and mirrors’ the Republican argument that limiting the days of early voting somehow counts as expanding early voting. Their argument defies logic and the truth.

“The fact is these attempts to rig the rules on voting and suppress participation were unconstitutional in 2016 and they remain unconstitutional today.”

— — —

The latest filing in support of the motion to enforce the 2016 federal court injunction can be found at onewi.org/2TGZes0.

# # #

One Wisconsin Institute is a non-partisan, progressive research and education organization dedicated to a Wisconsin with equal economic opportunity for all.