BY VISITING PBS DOT-ORG.
>> WE ARE CONTINUING OUR LOOK AT
PAST DECISIONS BY THE COURT, HOW
THE CANDIDATES MIGHT HAVE RULED
AND PERHAPS CHANGED THE OUTCOME.
HERE AND NOW SENIOR POLITICAL
REPORTER, ZAC SCHULTZ, HAS THIS
STORY.
>> IN MAY OF 2020, THE WORLD WAS
IN LOCK-DOWN.
THE COVID PANDEMIC WAS ONLY
MONTHS UNDERWAY WITH THE VACCINE
STILL EIGHT MONTHS AWAY.
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS' EMERGENCY
AUTHORITY ELAPSED AFTER 60 DAYS,
AND WHEN ANDRE PALM, HIS
SECRETARY DESIGNEE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TRIED TO
REISSUE EMERGENCY SAFER-AT-HOME
ORDERS, THE REPUBLICANS IN THE
LEGISLATURE FILED A LAWSUIT
SAYING THE ORDERS WERE A RULE
AND SHOULD GO THROUGH THE
RULE-MAKING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD
ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO 8-GAME
WINKILL THEORDERS.
>> AS YOU KNOW, THE OPINION OF
THE COURT WAS THAT THE
SAFER-AT-HOME ORDER DID NOT
FOLLOW THE RULES FOR
PROMULGATING A NEW RULE AND, AS
A RESULT, IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL
ORDER.
>> DANIEL KELLY WAS ON THE COURT
AT THE TIME.
HE HAD LOST HIS BID FOR
RE-ELECTION A MONTH EARLIER BUT
HIS TERM WENT THROUGH AUGUST AND
HE CAST THE DECIDING VOTE IN A
FRACTURED 4-3 DECISION.
JUSTICE REBECCA BRADLY AND I
WROTE SEPARATELY TO ADDRESS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY PROBLEM AND SO
THE WAY WE LOOK TATT IS WE SAW
AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY
MAKING THE LAW AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT OUR CONSTITUTION
ONLY GIVES TO THE LEGISLATURE.
>> PROTASIEWICZ WAS MUCH LESS
WILLING TO STAKE OUT A POSITION,
EVEN THOUGH THE LIBERAL DISSENT
SAID THE MAJORITY RULING WOULD
LIKE RESULT IN ADDITIONAL DEATHS
IN WISCONSIN.
>> I DON'T KNOW, AND I'LL TELL
YOU THIS, OBVIOUSLY I'VE GOT A
LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC
SAFETY, BUT EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND
EXTENDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS,
THOSE ARE INTERESTING,
COMPLICATED, INTRICATE CASES.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT JUST GOING
TO PULL A RABBIT OUT OF THE HAT
AND SAY ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER
BECAUSE I REALLY AM
CONTEMPLATIVE AND I LIKE TO
THINK ABOUT THE LAW AND THINK
ABOUT ALL OF THE ISSUES.
>> SEVEN MONTHS LATER, ANOTHER
SIGNIFICANT CASE CAME TO THE
COURT.
TRUMP V BIDEN, IN WHICH DONALD
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN SOUGHT TO
OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN
WISCONSIN BY TOSSING OUT
THOUSANDS OF ANT ANT ABSENTEE
BALLOTS.
WITH KELLY OFF THE COURT, IT WAS
RULED 4-3 THEY WOULD NOT HEAR
THE CASE, SEALING TRUMP'S LOSS.
KELLY WAS VAGUE ABOUT WHETHER HE
WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CASE.
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WERE
A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
THAT WERE EMBEDDED IN THOSE
CASES, THINGS ABOUT BALLOT DROP
BOXES, BALLOT HARVESTING.
THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ANSWERED
IN FOLLOWING CASES, BUT I DON'T
THINK THERE WAS ANY REASON THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN
THOSE CASES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE
CHANGED THE RESULT AT ALL, BUT
HAS A QUESTIONABLE LAW, YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THOSE QUESTIONS
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET
ANSWERED AT SOME POINT.
>> RECENT REPORTING HAS SHOWN
DURING THAT TIME, KELLY WAS
ACTUALLY ADVISING THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OF WISCONSIN ON THEIR
SLATE OF FAKE ELECTORS THAT
WOULD HAVE COME FOR TRUMP ON
JANUARY 6th IF HIS LAWSUIT WAS
SUCCESSFUL.
PROTASIEWICZ SAYS KELLY'S
OBJECTIONS LEAVE LITTLE DOUBT
ABOUT HOW HE WOULD HAVE VOTED.
>> HE WAS RECENTLY TOURING THE
STATE WITH, OF ALL PEOPLE, OF
ALL PEOPLE, MICHAEL GABLEMAN, AN
ELECTION INTEGRITY TOUR.
WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO?
PEDDLE THE BIG LIE THAT THE 2020
ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
WE ALL KNOW THAT ELECTION WASN'T
STOLEN.
>> REPORTING FROM