The Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a decision that could change the course of the presidential election.

When the court leaned conservative in 2020 it banned the use of drop boxes in future elections, deciding that there were not allowed per the state’s Constitution.

But now that the court leans liberal, after an election in which Democrats spent millions of dollars to promote their candidate, the investment has paid dividends as the court has decided to allow drop boxes again.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said in the majority opinion that the state Constitution does allow voters to leave their ballots with the County Clerk, and therefore, the County Clerk may choose to use drop boxes, Just The News reported.

“By mandating that an absentee ballot be returned not to the ‘municipal clerk’s office,’ but ‘to the municipal clerk,’ the Legislature disclaimed the idea that the ballot must be delivered to a specific location and instead embraced delivery of an absentee ballot to a person,” she said. “Given this, the question then becomes whether delivery to a drop box constitutes delivery ‘to the municipal clerk.”

“A drop box is set up, maintained, secured, and emptied by the municipal clerk. This is the case even if the drop box is in a location other than the municipal clerk’s office. As analyzed, the statute does not specify a location to which a ballot must be returned and requires only that the ballot be delivered to a location the municipal clerk, within his or her discretion, designates,” she said.

Justice Rebecca Bradley argued against the opinion in her dissent..

“The majority again forsakes the rule of law in an attempt to advance its political agenda,” she said. “The majority began this term by tossing the legislative maps adopted by this court … for the sole purpose of facilitating ‘the redistribution of political power in the Wisconsin Legislature.’ The majority ends the term by loosening the Legislature’s regulations governing the privilege of absentee voting in the hopes of tipping the scales in future elections.”

“To reach this conclusion, the majority misrepresents the court’s decision in Teigen, replaces the only reasonable interpretation of the law with a highly implausible one, and tramples the doctrine of stare decisis,” she said.