Liberal justices who control the Wisconsin Supreme Court voiced concerns Tuesday about the motives of a conservative activist who is seeking guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters while also appearing to cast doubt that the documents should be made public.

The lawsuit tests the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote. It is the latest attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state.

“What it sounds to me like what you are trying to do is to introduce the fear that there is some sort of illegitimacy going on in the election in the state of Wisconsin, and that concerns me deeply,” said liberal Justice Jill Karofsky during oral arguments Tuesday.

Former travel agent Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, allege that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. They want the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

“What we want is eligible people to vote and people who are adjudicated by a circuit court judge ineligible to vote not to vote,” said Erick Kaardal, attorney for Heuer and the WVA.

There are ways for the government, not a private watchdog group, to review the records confidentially and determine if someone is voting illegally, said attorney Sam Hall, who represented Walworth County in Tuesday’s case.

Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

A state appeals court in 2023 overturned a circuit court ruling dismissing the case and found that the records are public. It ordered Walworth County to release them with birthdates and case numbers redacted. The county appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Tuesday.

Its ruling is unlikely to come before the November election.

Hall said the appeals court ruling “blasts open the door for the personal information of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to be broadcast, not only to those with noble and good intentions but to those who might do these folks harm.”

He urged the court to issue a ruling directly addressing the merits of the case, not a technical legal issue.

“I don’t think this issue is going away,” Hall said.

He also argued that the law is clear about who has access to the guardianship records, and the WVA did not demonstrate a need.

Kaardal argued that the records should be made public to root out people who are still on the voter rolls after being found ineligible to vote.

Court also examines mobile voting lawsuit

Also Tuesday, the justices wrestled with whether a Republican had standing to bring a lawsuit that challenges the use of a mobile voting van in 2022 and seeks to ban their use in any future election in the presidential battleground state.

Such vans — a single van, actually — were used just once, in Racine in a primary election in 2022. It allowed voters to cast absentee ballots in the two weeks leading up to the election. Racine, the Democratic National Committee and others say nothing in state law prohibits the use of voting vans.

Whatever the court decides will not affect the November election, as a ruling isn’t expected until later and no towns or cities asked to use alternative voting locations for this election before the deadline to do so passed. But the ruling will determine whether mobile voting sites can be used in future elections.

Much of the oral argument Tuesday focused on whether the Racine County voter who brought the lawsuit was “aggrieved” under state law and allowed to sue. If the court rules that he didn’t have standing, it could make it more difficult to bring future lawsuits challenging election laws.

Liberal Justice Jill Karofsky said she had a hard time seeing how the voter who brought the lawsuit, Racine County Republican Party Chairman Ken Brown, had been injured by simply witnessing use of the mobile voting van.

The law allows Brown, as a voter, to file a complaint because he believed an election official was breaking the law, said Lucas Vebber, attorney for the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which represented Brown. Vebber argued that any voter can bring an election lawsuit in their local jurisdiction.

But Gabe Johnson-Karp, representing the Wisconsin Elections Commission, argued that the voter in this case wasn’t personally injured and therefore can’t bring a lawsuit. He can’t bring a lawsuit making a “generalized grievance about too many people voting or the election officials not following the law,” Johnson-Karp argued.