Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to take case challenging Elon Musk's $1 million payments

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By SCOTT BAUER
Updated 6:50 PM CDT, March 30, 2025

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court on Sunday refused to hear a last-minute attempt by the state’s Democratic attorney general to stop billionaire Elon Musk from handing over $1 million checks to two voters, a ruling that came just minutes before the planned start of the rally.

Two lower courts had already rejected the legal challenge by Democrat Josh Kaul, who argues that Musk’s offer violates a state law. “Wisconsin law prohibits offering anything of value to induce anyone to vote,” Kaul argued in his filing. “Yet, Elon Musk did just that.”

But the state Supreme Court, which is currently controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, declined to take the case as an original action. The court gave no rationale for its decision.

Kaul had no immediate comment on the court’s order.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-musk-million-dollar-giveaway-cdea66e0dcbaa53dd183e1d10bee2b35

[riversedge]

1. Seems Wisconsin is open to buying votes.

[SheltieLover]

2. Yup

[dweller]

3. Sounds like a fix is in

😐



✌🏻

[FloridaBlues]

4. The voters must reject this buying of the government from this man

[milestogo]

5. I am not an attorney but I think this is about recusal.

It does seem strange for the state supreme court to decide a case about the state supreme court. I wonder if that is what is meant by declining to take the case "as an original action".

There would be an issue of recusal for all the justices...

Wisconsin’s tightly contested Supreme Court election, where ideological control of the court is at stake, is on Tuesday. Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority.

The court's four liberal justices have endorsed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate.

Musk’s attorneys, about four hours before the rally was to begin, asked that two liberal justices who have campaigned for Crawford — Jill Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet — recuse themselves from the case. His attorneys argued their work for Crawford creates “the specter of inappropriate bias.” If they did recuse, that would leave the court with a 3-2 conservative majority.

Both justices rejected the request and said they would spell out their reasons why at a later date.

One of the court's conservative justices has endorsed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who also has the backing of Trump and Musk. Schimel wore a “Make America Great Again" hat while campaigning Sunday.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/wisconsin-supreme-court-refuses-case-elon-musks/3709632/

If the State Supreme Court cannot hear this, I hope Kaul will submit it to the US Supreme Court.

[dweller]

6. Can scotus

Take the case that quickly ?

✌🏻

[milestogo]

7. I have no idea.

Probably not. But if Musk proceeds with what he is doing and breaks the law- he should be charged with a felony, one way or another.

[Woodycall]

10. That's absolutely what it is about.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

8. I know we all feel like the concept of "the spirit of the law" still holds sway, but that has been eroded

by both liberal and conservative courts until it effectively doesn't exist anymore. Yes, what MuskRat did absolutely violates the spirit of the law, but apparently not the letter of the law according to Wisconsin courts. You can bet these days that anything a judge decides on their own will be some letter-by-letter parsing of the text of the law that leans in the direction they want to lean--while juries are a bit of a different story. And let's face it: FElon has the resources to know how to craft these efforts to skirt the law along a knife's edge. He didn't pay anyone directly for a vote. Paying people to sign petitions and be "spokespeople" for said petitions is certainly a clever way to skirt the law, but one can see how courts--and even juries--may decide it doesn't violate the actual law. The laws certainly need to be updated to address this kind of manipulation, but that really isn't Xitler's fault. If this was an effort by a Democratic-leaning billionaire I wonder if we would be nearly so critical of it?

[kelly1mm]

9. Elon was smart enough to make the criteria for eligibility that one voted, not how they voted. No violation. nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. Why did they go to court?

The law is plain, it is illegal to give anything of value, like money, in exchange for someone voting. Her should simply have been arrested and charged.

[bluestarone]

12. After he did it, he should have been charged and trial date set.

THEN go from there. The Wisconsin law looks to be pretty open and shut! Edit to add get this fucker in STATE court would be awesome.