What you need to know about the #JusticeForJill case
On July 2, 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Jill Stein could not be prosecuted for the 2016 presidential election.
In the decision, Justice David Prosser stated that the statute at issue does not allow for criminal prosecution of a candidate.
Jill Stein’s attorney filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 8, which the Wisconsin Court of Appeals heard on Aug 9.
Jill has since filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Wisconsin Statute does not authorize criminal prosecution for a candidate and that the case should be dismissed.
Wisconsin has a strong record on election integrity and the court’s decision to dismiss Jill’s case would not necessarily change the outcome of the case.
However, Jill’s attorneys argued that the ruling was a setback for election integrity.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Stein’s lawyers asked the Supreme of the United States to review the Wisconsin Elections Code to determine whether the Wisconsin Election Code is constitutional.
In a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug 4, Stein asked the justices to declare the Wisconsin election code unconstitutional and invalidate it as unconstitutional.
The Wisconsin Supreme court agreed to hear Jill’s petition on Aug 5.
On Aug 5, the court ruled that the constitutionality of the Wisconsin Code is not in question.
The court also ruled that a person’s right to free speech does not apply when the speaker has a financial stake in the outcome or the outcome is based on a partisan political point of view.
The justices also held that Jill’s right was not limited to the 2016 election.
The decision also held, however, that Jill was not a candidate, nor was the Wisconsin State Board of Elections, the body responsible for certifying the ballot count for the presidential election in Wisconsin.
The Court of Appeal’s decision also found that the state’s statute was unconstitutional and should be invalidated.
The case now moves to the Wisconsin state supreme court.
Jill’s team has asked for an emergency stay of the state court’s ruling to preserve the state election system and to prevent the state from imposing any new election laws in the future.