Law Forward filed an opposition in response to Elon Musk’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against him on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. The lawsuit alleges that he bribed voters ahead of the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, according to a Law Forward press release.

Musk filed the motion to dismiss the case after he was granted his request for a change of venue from Dane County Circuit Court to the Brown County Supreme Court, according to staff counsel member representing the case Scott Thompson.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Deborah Patel and Paul Gagliardi after Musk promoted a $100 reward for registered voters in Wisconsin who signed a petition opposing “activist judges” and awarded a pair of $1 million checks to two Wisconsin resident petition signers at an event in Green Bay, according to WPR.

“For over 100 years, it has been clear Wisconsin constitutional law that pecuniary influence over voters is really something that is forbidden,” Thompson said. “This is about free and fair elections and making sure that going forward those are the types of elections that we’re going to have in our state.”

The lawsuit against Musk has three major claims, according to Thompson.

One of the three major aspects of the lawsuit is a declaratory judgment claim, which asks the court to state that Musk’s conduct violated Wis. Stat. § 12.11(1m), which prohibits giving anything of value, or more than $1, to induce someone to vote, according to Thompson.

“There also are decisions of our Supreme Court that clearly forbid the injection of money in this sort of direct-to-voter sense,” Thompson said. “There certainly is clear law at stake. It’s not as if we’re trying to create that law through the lawsuit. Those pre-existing prohibitions are in place. That’s clear.”

A second claim brought forward by the lawsuit is a civil conspiracy statute alleging that Musk, America PAC and the United States of America Inc. worked together to violate criminal statutes that resulted in harm against the plaintiffs, according to Thompson.

America PAC, founded by Musk, spent $12.7 million on the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s preferred candidate for the race, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. 

“The relief that we seek is to get the court to confirm and, in essence, prohibit this type of scheme,” Thompson said. “Where we are procedurally in the lawsuit, we haven’t been able to do any discovery yet. In other words, we haven’t been able to review any documents [uncovering evidence of this scheme].”

The lawsuit’s final claim seeks to prohibit this type of conduct and declare it a public nuisance to Wisconsin democracy and its electoral infrastructure, according to Thompson.

The claim is based on Wis. Stat. § 823.02, which defines a nuisance as an “unreasonable activity or use of property that interferes substantially with the comfortable enjoyment of life, health or safety of others.”

“The defendants’ activities interfered with, really the activities of a statewide community, our democracy, our electoral infrastructure and it was interference that took place through the conduct that is alleged in the complaint,” Thompson said.

WDC alleges that Musk substantially and unduly interfered with Wisconsin’s democracy by conspiring to commit election bribery and run an illegal lottery, and they interfered with the state’s democratic process of electing a Justice, according to the complaint filed by Law Forward.

The complaint alleges that Musk’s conduct continues to interfere with Wisconsin’s democracy substantially by demonstrating his intent and ability to repeat his conduct, elevating the claim to a per se public nuisance.

“By making such a declaration, we believe that we can make sure that Wisconsin’s elections remain free and fair, and that no matter who they support, really well-financed interests are not able to just hold out millions of dollars to potential voters in ways similar to this case, to try and influence an election,” Thompson said.

In most cases, the defendant responds to service of a complaint by filing either an answer or a motion to dismiss, according to Thompson.

Filing an answer involves responding to every allegation made in the complaint, Thompson said, whereas filing a motion to dismiss means the defendant is arguing that even if everything alleged in the complaint is true, it does not warrant a lawsuit.

“In this situation, the defendants did a couple of things,” Thompson said. “They first actually moved to recuse the members of the Dane County judiciary. They then moved to change the venue to Brown County out of Dane County, and then they also filed separate motions to dismiss.”

It is not all that uncommon to move to change the venue, according to Thompson. Dane County decided on its own motion to grant Musk’s request for a change of venue, despite arguments from Law Forward against the transfer, and the court’s determination that it was a proper venue, according to Thompson.

Musk also moved to recuse, or remove from a case on the basis of a conflict of interest, not just the judge assigned to the case but also every Dane County Circuit Court Judge, according to Thompson.

“Obviously, this was their preferred venue. They wanted it to be held in Brown County,” Thompson said. “The principal focus of the argument for why had to do with the fact that the event where the millions of dollars were given away took place in Brown County rather than Dane County.”

Musk’s motion to dismiss the case will be decided on by the Brown County Circuit Court now, according to Thompson.

With the timeline largely dependent on the judge, it is difficult to predict when a decision on Musk’s motion to dismiss could be made, according to Thompson, but it will be the next big step in the case.

“The most important thing in this case is free and fair elections,” Thompson said. “That’s why we brought this lawsuit, and that’s what our clients are working to protect.”

America PAC did not respond to requests for comment.