The Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump’s final bid to overturn his election loss in Wisconsin on Monday.
In an unsigned order, the justices refused to take up a Wisconsin lawsuit that alleged Wisconsin election officials violated the Constitution when they expanded absentee voting during the pandemic.
The lawsuit alleged that election officials violated state law by using “unauthorized, illegal absentee voting drop boxes” and by permitting poll workers to fix absentee ballot witness certificates. Trump also alleged that there was “widespread voter misuse of ‘indefinitely confined’ status to avoid voter ID laws.”
Trump filed a brief in February claiming the lawsuit was important. (RELATED: Supreme Court Hears First Case Regarding Voting Laws Since Election)
“The narrow window in which legal disputes may be resolved following a presidential election weighs heavily in favor of applying the ‘capable of repetition’ doctrine to resolve issues capable of reoccurring,” the brief stated. “Otherwise, non-legislative state actors may be emboldened in future presidential elections to make even more last-minute changes to state election laws contrary to the Electors Clause than occurred in this year’s election.”
Trump originally sued in state court but his bid was shot down. Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking them to fast-track a review of the case before electoral votes were certified Jan. 6. The high court did not fast-track the request.
The court struck down a handful of cases related to the election in February, including one regarding a Pennsylvania dispute. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the court should have heard the Pennsylvania case because a similar situation could happen in the future — something Trump argued could happen in his Wisconsin brief.
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election,” Thomas dissented in February. “But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.”