The Wisconsin Supreme Court has given the state Green Party and the Wisconsin Elections Commission until 5 p.m. Friday to respond to a petition filed by the state Democratic Party.

The motion, originally filed Monday, seeks to disqualify Green Party candidate Jill Stein from this year’s presidential election, and Friday’s deadline brings the motion one step closer to the possibility of a ruling by the state Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin State Elections Commission granted the Green Party access to the ballot in February after the party received more than one percent of the vote in the 2022 statewide election, as required by state law.

Democrats argue that another state law prevents Stein from legally appearing on the ballot because the Green Party has neither state officials nor legislative candidates with the power to nominate electors for president.

They want the court to overturn the election commission’s decision before it meets next Tuesday to approve the candidates.

Timing of the court decision disputed

In her dissenting opinion on the court’s order, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that, to her knowledge, “the Court has never before issued such orders before the parties had appeared in court or retained their attorneys.” Chief Justice Annette Ziegler joined Bradley’s dissent.

According to Michael J. White, co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party, his party did not have legal representation in Wisconsin at the time it was notified of the court order.

“It just seems a little unreasonable to me,” he told WPR on Thursday afternoon.

Pete Karas, the state Green Party’s election director, said they found a lawyer “around midnight” after “tens of millions of phone calls.” The lawyer is Milwaukee attorney Michael Dean.

The next morning, the party sent a mass email to its supporters asking for donations.

“Lawyers are expensive and we need your help today to ensure we can pay these much-needed legal fees,” the mailing said.

Adrienne Watson, a senior adviser to the Democratic National Committee, wrote in a statement to WPR: “The Green Party has already had an attorney review the case and has issued a statement on it. Statements that they did not have sufficient time to hire an attorney therefore ring hollow.”

Watson did not disclose which attorney she was referring to or when the review took place.

The request for responses does not necessarily mean the case will go to court before Tuesday, but Karas believes it is a sign of the court’s plans.

“They gave us 28 hours to file briefs, and I don’t think the judges would have done that if they didn’t want to hear the case,” Karas said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission declined to comment on the petition.

Conservative groups get involved

The state Supreme Court’s order also included a request to file amicus curiae briefs, which are documents used by non-parties to provide additional information or arguments for the case. That opportunity was seized by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), a conservative legal center known for its work on school voucher issues. A WILL attorney is also representing two Green Party voters in the case.

In a press release, WILL President Rick Esenberg wrote that “a last-minute, non-statutory decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in favor of the DNC would severely damage the trust that Wisconsin residents place in their elections every day.”

On Friday afternoon, the Republican Party of Wisconsin filed a motion to intervene as a party in the case. In their memorandum supporting the motion, the party’s lawyers said the Republicans planned to oppose the Democrats’ motion. They also asked the court for permission to file an amicus curiae brief if their motion to intervene is denied.

In the memorandum, the party’s lawyers argued that Democrats’ interpretation of Wisconsin’s Act 8.18 would render that law unconstitutional. They said it burdened the constitutional rights of political parties when added to Wisconsin’s 1 percent voter turnout requirement.

Green Party Rep. Pete Karas agreed, citing the Supreme Court case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton.

“They use a definition in the law that we disagree with, and we also believe the law itself is unconstitutional,” Karas said.

“With this approach, the Democratic Party appears to want to silence all dissenting voices in the swing states and suppress all votes that are not in their favor,” said White, the state Green Party co-chair.

Third parties can make the difference in Wisconsin elections

In 2016, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin by about 24,000 votes. Four years later, Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by less than 21,000 votes.

The last time Green Party candidate Jill Stein appeared on the presidential ballot in Wisconsin was in 2016. She received over 31,000 votes, raising fears that third parties could act as “spoilers” in future elections by stealing votes from the major parties.

Karas, who served as a Green Party city councilor in Racine in the 2000s, believes third parties are essential to progress in American politics.

He cited the example of former Wisconsin Governor Robert La Follette. Known as “Fightin’ Bob,” La Follette founded the Progressive Party in 1924 and was a major proponent of workers’ compensation and child labor laws in the 1920s.

“It’s really important that people can vote according to their conscience and that we can make change even if we don’t win the presidential election,” Karas said.

Late Friday afternoon, Governor Tony Evers also requested the filing of an amicus curiae brief in the case.

The court released responses from the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the Wisconsin Green Party on Friday evening.

The commission agreed that the issues raised in the Democrats’ petition merit a trial, but stated that it “takes no position on the merits of the petition.”

In their response, the Greens argued that Democrats’ interpretation of Wisconsin’s law violates election law precedent and that the DNC misinterpreted a non-binding law as binding. They said the Greens properly nominated Stein and asked the court to dismiss the petition.