I stand corrected. There were two decisions (both with dissents). But the decision about absentee ballots is only a declaration for future elections; it does not affect the 2020 election.
In my earlier post (#79) I wrote that there were no “full dissents” in this case. The only other opinions released in this particular case were “concurring in part, dissenting in part” opinions, in which three justices agreed with the main findings of the Court while disagreeing about all the specifics. These were not general dissents from the majority opinion, which is good because it strengthens its use as precedent. The main findings that the (Dem) officials didn’t have a right to change the rules against state law just because of COVID is an important precedent for the future. If they had taken the anything goes attitude of judges in NV and PA, it would have been much harder for us to fight voter fraud in the future in WI.
Of course, I agree that taken with their second (more important) opinion today (which was mostly decided on technicalities), this isn’t relevant for this election, but really in a cascade of bad news I’m happy we at least got something positive in our favor. And who knows, this decision could be the difference over whether we stand a chance winning WI again in the future or not. At least we now have legal precedent to fight this sort of fraud there.