A federal judge criticized a top Democratic law firm, the Elias Law Group, for attempting to challenge an absentee ballot witness requirement in Wisconsin. The firm, founded by Democratic super lawyer Marc Elias, argued that the witness requirement in Wisconsin violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, U.S. District Judge James Peterson disagreed with the firm’s interpretation, stating that it simply did not make sense. The Wisconsin law requires voters to certify that they meet the requirements to vote and have followed the correct process for filling out an absentee ballot, including a section that requires a witness certification.
Judge Peterson pointed out that under the plaintiffs’ interpretation, every witness would have to verify extensive information about the voter, including age, residence, citizenship, criminal history, voting intentions, understanding of the voting process, and guardianship status. He argued that many witnesses would be unable to independently verify such information, making compliance virtually impossible. Peterson, an Obama appointee, emphasized that the statute allows any adult U.S. citizen to serve as a witness, and interpreting it in a way that makes compliance difficult does not make sense.
The decision against the Elias Law Group came after the firm’s failure in another Wisconsin case where they attempted to force the state to redraw its congressional maps. The Wisconsin Supreme Court opted not to hear the case, marking a victory for Republicans in the state. Jonathan Turley, a Fox News Media contributor and law professor, noted that Elias has been involved in several controversies and courtroom losses in recent memory. Despite his checkered past and past sanctions in litigation, Elias continues to be hired by Democrats. Turley highlighted the criticism Elias faced after a controversial tweet that some have called inherently racist.
The Elias Law Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. The firm’s earlier failure in challenging the Wisconsin absentee ballot witness requirement adds to a string of unsuccessful cases and controversies involving Marc Elias. Despite these setbacks, Elias remains a prominent figure in Democratic legal circles and continues to be hired for high-profile cases. The recent ruling against the firm in Wisconsin reflects a pattern of legal challenges that have not been successful, raising questions about the firm’s strategies and interpretations of voting laws.
The dispute over the absentee ballot witness requirement in Wisconsin highlights broader debates about voting rights and election laws in the United States. While Democrats argue that such requirements could disenfranchise voters, Republicans maintain that they are necessary to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of the election process. The court’s decision in this case adds to the ongoing legal battles over voting laws and regulations in various states, with implications for future elections and efforts to protect voting rights for all citizens. As the country continues to grapple with these issues, the role of legal firms like the Elias Law Group and their interpretations of voting laws will remain a topic of controversy and scrutiny.
