The Doctrine of Laches: A Brief Explanation

The judge, a Trump appointee, held a daylong hearing. “This court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case,” the judge wrote, “and he has lost on the merits.” https://t.co/1m6IgKLufp

— Patrick LaForge (@palafo) December 12, 2020

In his ruling, Judge Ludwig wrote that Wisconsin’s election officials had followed state law, which clearly says that the state’s electors should be chosen by a popular vote. Even though they instituted changes like allowing drop boxes for absentee ballots and loosening restrictions for certifying ballots, the moves were not illegal, Judge Ludwig wrote, and officials used acceptable ways to implement the law.

Judge Ludwig also noted that the Trump campaign was aware of these changes months before they were put in place and should have sought to challenge them before the election, not after Mr. Trump lost.

“This is an extraordinary case,” Judge Ludwig wrote. “A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for re-election has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed election administration issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.”

The ruling concluded: “In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”

The judge also slammed the door.  The case was dismissed with prejudice.