You need to understand the doctrine of laches which you can do by reading some more excerpts of the dissenting opinions of the three justices
https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Trump-v-Biden-WI-SC-Opinions.pdf
[article]This case presents not just a "desire" for clarity in the law, our constitutional duty requires us to declare what the law is. Quite obviously, defaulting to laches and claiming that it is "just not possible," is directly contradicted by the majority author's own undertaking. If it is important enough to address in his concurrence, then it should also satisfy the discretionary standard which overcomes the application of laches. Instead of undertaking the duty to decide novel legal issues presented, this court shirks its institutional responsibility to the public and instead falls back on a self-prescribed, previously unknown standard it calls laches.
Stated differently, the majority claims the petitioners were too late, should have acted earlier and therefore, the court is neutered from being able to declare what the law is. The majority basically reiterates respondents' soundbites. In so doing, the majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier. That has never been the law, and it should not be today. It is a game of "gotcha." I respectfully dissent, because I would decide the issues presented and declare what the law is.
To be clear, I am not interested in a particular outcome. I am interested in the court fulfilling its constitutional responsibility. While sometimes it may be difficult to undertake analysis of hot-button legal issues——as a good number of people will be upset no matter what this court does——it is our constitutional duty. We cannot hide from our obligation under the guise of laches. I conclude that the rule of law and the equities demand that we answer these questions for not only this election, but for elections to come. I have concern over this court's pattern of indecision because that leaves no court declaring what Wisconsin election law is.
In other words, contrary to the majority's characterizations, this case is not about general election procedure: it is about challenging specific ballots. In Wisconsin, while voting is a right, absentee voting is a privilege, not a right. Wis. Stat. § 6.84(1). The Wisconsin Legislature has created a set of mandatory rules to which the voters must adhere for their absentee ballots to count. Consistent with express mandatory rules, the petitioners allege that certain ballots were cast that did not adhere to the law and, therefore, should not be counted. It is a specific question: Were the ballots cast according to the law as stated in the statutes and if not, what, if any, remedy, exists? With this proper framing of the issue, it is clear that the petitioners did not unreasonably delay in challenging the ballots. To somehow require that challenges must be made and legal relief given before an election, before the ballots are cast and before a recount is absurd. No recount would ever amount to relief if that is the lodestar.
The majority summarily accepts, without any analysis, that "[t]he respondents all . . . were unaware that the Campaign would challenge various election procedures after the election . . . .". Virtually nothing is in the record to support this assertion other than the parties' statements. In other words, the majority accepts one side's statements as fact in order to disallow the other side its day in court. As explained above, this is a challenge to the ballots cast in this election. The President tweeted numerous times shortly after Wisconsin announced the election results that he would challenge the results and prove certain ballots were impermissibly cast. The majority chose to accept the respondents' assertion that they did not see this lawsuit coming despite the record to the contrary.
It is unusual to conclude that overwhelming prejudice exists such that the court is paralyzed from considering whether the law was followed. In other words, the majority seems to be saying that they do not wish to grant relief and therefore they will not analyze the law. This remedy-focused analysis is not typical to laches.
Under the majority's new rule, a candidate will have to monitor all election-related guidance, actions, and decisions of not only the Wisconsin Elections Commission, but of the 1,850 municipal clerks who administer the election at the local level. And that is just in one state! Instead of persuading the people of Wisconsin through campaigning, the candidate must expend precious resources monitoring, challenging, and litigating any potential election-related issue hoping that a court might act on an issue that may very well not be ripe. Moreover, it would be nonsensical for a candidate, or worse, a disenfranchised voter, to challenge an election law. Thus, the majority's new rule does not prevent "needless litigation"; it spawns it in the form of preventative lawsuits to address any possible infraction of our election laws. We have the opportunity to answer important legal questions now and should do so.
Similarly, the majority claims by not analyzing the law it is bolstering public confidence. I disagree. As explained, the American public has serious questions about the previous election. Instead of addressing these serious questions, the majority balks and says some other party can bring a suit at a later date. Lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming and require that the person bringing one has a claim. These issues are presented here before us today. If they are important enough to answer at a later date, they are important to answer in this pending lawsuit today.
[/article]
Or you can not bother and continue arguing with me. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
