Jeff Mandell

This is a big win. The petitioners sought new rules that would short-circuit the judicial process, only for redistricting cases. There was substantial opposition, led by @lawfwd. Today, the WI Supreme Court declined to change the rules.https://twitter.com/douglaspoland/status/1393265916398514184 …

This promises to be an amazing event with @CecileRichards and @RepGwenMoore about building progressive state-focused infrastructure in Wisconsin. I hope you'll join @lawfwd for this one; either way, please help spread the word.https://twitter.com/lawfwd/status/1389605752592023554 …

A step forward for the rule of law in Wisconsin.https://twitter.com/lawfwd/status/1387800802463518724 …

Proud to see @nytimes coverage of @lawfwd’s work with @protctdemocracy & @statesunited. Thanks, @rickhasen.https://twitter.com/theMelBarnes/status/1385604373502365696 …

All of this is to say that the Zignego decision was a big win, and those in the voting rights community are rightly celebrating. But we need to be clear-eyed about exactly what questions it answered and attentive to the additional questions it left open and even created. /end

And if the criticism is just a way to balance the opinion—a nod to those who favored the purge—what does it teach officials, lawyers, and courts for the next dispute? Is an ill-considered, emergency order issued by any one trial judge now de facto permanent and unappealable? /36

If there’s criticism here, it should reach the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court itself for not handling the WEC’s stay application with alacrity. How does the Court fault the WEC for standing up in defense of voters and the correct statutory interpretation? /35

Here from the cheap seats, this criticism of the WEC feels unwarranted. Yes, court orders matter. Because the rule of law matters. But appeals are part of the rule of law. /34

Yet, here, on a question of utmost importance—people’s right to vote—the Court insists the WEC should have immediately taken action, likely irreversible and irremediable, even before there was an opportunity for appellate review. /33

In other words, the Supreme Court provides time for its final decisions to be studied before they are complied with. And the Supreme Court exists to review difficult questions of state law and ensure lower courts do not mess them up. /32

Even the Court’s own rules recognize this. When the Supreme Court issues a decision, it waits 31 days to send a case back to the lower court for further action. See WI Sup. Ct. IOP III.K. This gives time for correction of errors and/or motions for reconsideration. /31

We also expect that appellate courts sometimes err. The Supreme Court’s rulings are not final because it is always right about state law; it is always right about state law because its rulings are final and there’s no further recourse to be had. /30