Earlier this week, Wisconsin’s attorney general said Josh Kaul unveiled felony charges against three people involved in his state’s “fake voter” scheme following Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss: attorney Kenneth Chesebro; former judge and local Republican luminary James Troupis; and Mike Roman, Trump’s director of Election Day operations.
Wisconsin has become the fifth state to have criminal charges filed against or against the fake voters. And prosecutors say it was a memo from Chesebro to Troupis that ultimately brought out the bogus voter schemes in seven states — so while Kaul may be coming to the table too late, he may still be serving justice where it all started.
But even as Kaul has publicly assured that his investigation is still ongoing, you may be wondering why none of Wisconsin’s ten fake voters have been charged. Last week on MSNBC, I posited one possible answer: Could it be because they have—uniquely among their counterparts—shown a level of contrition that has thus far eluded so many others involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election ?
After all, during the settlement of civil lawsuits last December, the ten false voters made a joint public statement in which they said, among other things, the following:
Kaul might believe voters are now genuinely remorseful. But I no longer think that their remorse is the primary reason for his exclusion of them from the existing criminal complaint.
Instead, according to a source familiar with Wisconsin prosecutions, the blame more likely lies with state statute 971.19(12), which provides that in criminal cases involving elections “a defendant who is a resident of this state shall be tried in circuit court of the province where the suspect lives.” In other words, a Wisconsin resident accused of an election crime cannot be forced to stand trial where the crime occurred; all that matters is where that person lives now.
That could mean filing multiple criminal cases – with the real possibility of inconsistent results. But it’s even more complicated than that.
My source also tells me that, as is the case in New York State, the Wisconsin AG has limited criminal powers and must instead rely on cooperation – if not outright consent – from local prosecutors. For example, Kaul was only able to bring the case he has because the district attorney in Dane County, where Troupis lives, gave the AG permission to do so. (The other two defendants, Chesebro and Roman, live outside of Wisconsin and are therefore not covered by the law.)
And it’s not exactly clear whether a Republican elected DA would let the state AG play a role in any investigation or prosecution of a fake voter living in their county.
So what should Josh Kaul do?
Prosecutors are usually the first to tell you that treating like cases equally is a factor in their charging decisions. But no matter how solid his evidence, Kaul cannot guarantee at this point that the ten fake voters will actually receive equal treatment under the law. And that uniformity and fairness in all matters may be the greatest reason, at least in Wisconsin, for wanting it United States Attorney General Merrick Garland had thoroughly investigated the behavior of the fake voters and filed federal charges against them – whether they lived in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada or, last but not least, Wisconsin.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
