Ex-Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Overseeing Election Review Says Integrity Concerns Warrant Thorough Examination
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is leading a new review of the 2020 election in the state, and his public statements suggest he believes concerns about election integrity warrant investigation. This is months after the election was certified, after dozens of lawsuits failed, after multiple audits found no significant irregularities. But here we are, doing another review because some people still refuse to accept the results.
Wisconsin was one of the closest states in 2020 – Biden won by about 20,000 votes out of over 3 million cast. Close elections invite scrutiny and thats not inherently unreasonable. But the scrutiny has already happened. The state did a recount. Local officials reviewed procedures. Courts examined challenges. The conclusion every time was that the election was conducted properly and Biden legitimately won. Another review isnt going to find the massive fraud that didnt exist the first several times people looked.
What This Review Is Actually About
Lets be honest about the political context here. Republican state legislators authorized this review after sustained pressure from the Trump-aligned wing of the party that refuses to accept 2020 results. Gableman was appointed by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos who is himself under pressure from Republicans who think he hasnt done enough to investigate imaginary fraud. Election audit efforts spreading across GOP states share a common pattern – theyre responding to political demands rather than evidence of actual problems.
Gableman has made statements suggesting hes already concluded something went wrong, which is an interesting approach for someone supposedly conducting an objective investigation. You usually want investigators who dont announce their conclusions before examining evidence. But again, this isnt really about finding truth – its about satisfying a political constituency that needs perpetual validation of their beliefs regardless of facts.
The Damage These Reviews Do
Beyond wasting taxpayer money, these ongoing reviews undermine confidence in elections for no good reason. When authority figures keep saying elections need investigation, people assume something must be wrong even if every investigation comes up empty. Its a self-perpetuating cycle – claim fraud, investigate, find nothing, claim the investigation was inadequate, investigate more, repeat forever.
Wisconsin election officials are exhausted. Theyve answered the same questions dozens of times. Theyve provided the same documents repeatedly. Theyve explained the same procedures to people who either cant or wont understand them. And now they get to do it all again while their competence and integrity are questioned publicly by people who wouldnt accept any answer that didnt confirm their predetermined conclusions.
At some point you have to ask what evidence would actually change anyones mind. If multiple audits, court cases, and certifications arent enough, what would be? The answer for some people is nothing – theyve decided what happened and no amount of contrary evidence matters. Reviews like this one feed that dynamic rather than resolving it.
The cost isnt just financial though the money being spent on this review could certainly be used better. The real cost is to public trust in elections. Every headline about investigations and reviews reinforces the idea that something must be wrong even when investigations consistently find nothing. Perception becomes reality for people who want to believe the system is broken. And once that belief takes hold its very hard to dislodge.
Meanwhile election officials who are mostly just normal people trying to do their jobs face harassment and threats. Some have quit rather than endure another cycle of abuse. The talent pool for running elections is shrinking precisely when we need competent administration most. Gablemans review and others like it create hostile environments for public servants while accomplishing nothing constructive. Thats the legacy of refusing to accept legitimate election results.
