1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 166 Wis.2d
  5. 166 Wis.2d 481 (1992)
 

MCCARTHY v. ELECTIONS BOARD

No. 92-0348-OA.

166 Wis.2d 481 (1992)

480 N.W.2d 241

Eugene McCARTHY, Larry Agran, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., David E. Duke, David Wirtz, Michael Johnson, William Spransy, Ruth E. Brown, Stephen Hauser and Emmanuel L. Branch, Petitioners, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. ELECTIONS BOARD, State of Wisconsin, 1992 Presidential Preference Selection Committee, State of Wisconsin, Gordon Baldwin, in his official capacities as Chair of the Elections Board and as Chair of the 1992 Presidential Preference Selection Committee; David Opitz, Helen Bie, Michael Grebe, Jeffrey Neubauer, Paula Dorsey, Larry Longley, Fred A. Risser, Michael Ellis, Walter J. Kunicki and David Prosser in their official capacities as members of the 1992 Presidential Preference Selection Committee, Respondents, REPUBLICAN PARTY OF WISCONSIN, Respondent-Intervenor.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided March 2, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the petitioners there were briefs by Cheryl R. Weston and Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach, Madison and oral argument by Cheryl R. Weston.

For the respondents there were briefs and oral argument by Alan Lee, assistant attorney general with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.

For the Republican party of Wisconsin and David Opitz there were briefs by Thomas L. Shriner, Michael B. Brennan and Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee and oral argument by John R. Dawson.

For the Democratic Party of Wisconsin there were briefs by Robert H. Friebert and Freibert, Finerty & St. John, Milwaukee and oral argument by Robert H. Friebert.

For Emmanuel L. Branch there were briefs and oral argument by Emmanuel L. Branch, Dodgeville.

PER CURIAM.

[1]

The court is again asked to exercise its original jurisdiction to review the decision of the presidential preference selection committee and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Elections Board to place names on the ballots of political parties in the presidential preference election. We conclude, as we did in Labor & Farm Party v. Elections Board,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases