Conservative justice Brian Hagedorn joined the court's liberal minority to reject the petition for original action on the basis that lawsuits over recounts are required by state law to be filed in circuit court, where fact-finding can occur.

"We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even — and maybe especially — in high-profile cases. Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law," Hagedorn wrote.

In a dissent, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote the court has "subject matter jurisdiction that enables us to grant the petition for original action pending before us."

"Our jurisdiction arises from the Wisconsin Constitution and cannot be impeded by statute," Roggensack wrote.

Roggensack suggested a circuit court should do fact finding and report back to the Supreme Court.

"By denying this petition, and requiring both the factual questions and legal questions be resolved first ... four justices of this court are ignoring that there are significant time constraints that may preclude our deciding significant legal issues that cry out for resolution."

Hagedorn: "Following this law is not disregarding our duty, as some of my colleagues suggest. It is following the law."

"I understand the impulse to immediately address the legal questions presented by this petition to ensure the recently completed election was conducted in accordance with the law. But challenges to election results are also governed by law," Hagedorn wrote.

Justice Rebecca Bradley also dissents: "While some will either celebrate or decry the court's inaction based upon the impact on their preferred candidate, the importance of this case transcends the results of this particular election."

"The majority takes a pass on resolving the important questions presented by the petitioners in this case, thereby undermining the public's confidence in the integrity of Wisconsin's electoral processes not only during this election, but in every future election," she wrote.

"The majority's recent pattern of deferring or altogether dodging decisions on election law controversies cannot be reconciled with its lengthy history of promptly hearing cases involving voting rights and election processes under the court's original jurisdiction," she wrote.

Story here:

Trump campaign attorney Jim Troupis says the campaign is now filing lawsuits in Dane and Milwaukee counties.

"It was clear from their writings that the court recognizes the seriousness of these issues, and we look forward to taking the next step. We fully expect to be back in front of the Supreme Court very soon," Troupis says in a statement.

@MollyBeck HOW did Trump get 3 votes? It's time for Biden to state that his DOJ will indict Trump & co-conspirators for sedition, obstruction & voter suppression! We must prosecute lawbreakers, not compromise with them, to deter criminal #ReThuglicanism !

@MollyBeck who voted Yes?

@MollyBeck How the fuck did he get 3 votes?????

@MollyBeck That close, eh. Wow, we're an eyelash from a "complete" banana republic.