BY VISITING PBS DOT-ORG.

>> WE ARE CONTINUING OUR LOOK AT PAST DECISIONS BY THE COURT, HOW THE CANDIDATES MIGHT HAVE RULED AND PERHAPS CHANGED THE OUTCOME.

HERE AND NOW SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, ZAC SCHULTZ, HAS THIS STORY.

>> IN MAY OF 2020, THE WORLD WAS IN LOCK-DOWN.

THE COVID PANDEMIC WAS ONLY MONTHS UNDERWAY WITH THE VACCINE STILL EIGHT MONTHS AWAY.

GOVERNOR TONY EVERS' EMERGENCY AUTHORITY ELAPSED AFTER 60 DAYS, AND WHEN ANDRE PALM, HIS SECRETARY DESIGNEE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TRIED TO REISSUE EMERGENCY SAFER-AT-HOME ORDERS, THE REPUBLICANS IN THE LEGISLATURE FILED A LAWSUIT SAYING THE ORDERS WERE A RULE AND SHOULD GO THROUGH THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO 8-GAME WINKILL THEORDERS.

>> AS YOU KNOW, THE OPINION OF THE COURT WAS THAT THE SAFER-AT-HOME ORDER DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES FOR PROMULGATING A NEW RULE AND, AS A RESULT, IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL ORDER.

>> DANIEL KELLY WAS ON THE COURT AT THE TIME.

HE HAD LOST HIS BID FOR RE-ELECTION A MONTH EARLIER BUT HIS TERM WENT THROUGH AUGUST AND HE CAST THE DECIDING VOTE IN A FRACTURED 4-3 DECISION.

JUSTICE REBECCA BRADLY AND I WROTE SEPARATELY TO ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY PROBLEM AND SO THE WAY WE LOOK TATT IS WE SAW AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY MAKING THE LAW AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR CONSTITUTION ONLY GIVES TO THE LEGISLATURE.

>> PROTASIEWICZ WAS MUCH LESS WILLING TO STAKE OUT A POSITION, EVEN THOUGH THE LIBERAL DISSENT SAID THE MAJORITY RULING WOULD LIKE RESULT IN ADDITIONAL DEATHS IN WISCONSIN.

>> I DON'T KNOW, AND I'LL TELL YOU THIS, OBVIOUSLY I'VE GOT A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND EXTENDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS, THOSE ARE INTERESTING, COMPLICATED, INTRICATE CASES.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT JUST GOING TO PULL A RABBIT OUT OF THE HAT AND SAY ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER BECAUSE I REALLY AM CONTEMPLATIVE AND I LIKE TO THINK ABOUT THE LAW AND THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE ISSUES.

>> SEVEN MONTHS LATER, ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CASE CAME TO THE COURT.

TRUMP V BIDEN, IN WHICH DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN SOUGHT TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN WISCONSIN BY TOSSING OUT THOUSANDS OF ANT ANT ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

WITH KELLY OFF THE COURT, IT WAS RULED 4-3 THEY WOULD NOT HEAR THE CASE, SEALING TRUMP'S LOSS.

KELLY WAS VAGUE ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CASE.

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT WERE EMBEDDED IN THOSE CASES, THINGS ABOUT BALLOT DROP BOXES, BALLOT HARVESTING.

THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ANSWERED IN FOLLOWING CASES, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY REASON THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN THOSE CASES.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE RESULT AT ALL, BUT HAS A QUESTIONABLE LAW, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THOSE QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET ANSWERED AT SOME POINT.

>> RECENT REPORTING HAS SHOWN DURING THAT TIME, KELLY WAS ACTUALLY ADVISING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF WISCONSIN ON THEIR SLATE OF FAKE ELECTORS THAT WOULD HAVE COME FOR TRUMP ON JANUARY 6th IF HIS LAWSUIT WAS SUCCESSFUL.

PROTASIEWICZ SAYS KELLY'S OBJECTIONS LEAVE LITTLE DOUBT ABOUT HOW HE WOULD HAVE VOTED.

>> HE WAS RECENTLY TOURING THE STATE WITH, OF ALL PEOPLE, OF ALL PEOPLE, MICHAEL GABLEMAN, AN ELECTION INTEGRITY TOUR.

WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO?

PEDDLE THE BIG LIE THAT THE 2020 ELECTION WAS STOLEN.

WE ALL KNOW THAT ELECTION WASN'T STOLEN.

>> REPORTING FROM