Dennis Simmons didn’t expect that a regular visit to his probation officer would end in his arrest, and the prospect of being sent to prison. After a life spent in and out of the criminal justice system, Simmons was employed and trying to avoid trouble. “When I came in they arrested me and told me that I was being charged with robbery, battery, and carjacking,” the 28-year-old told Wisconsin Examiner, recalling that day in April 2025. “The detectives never came and questioned me to ask nothing, they just ended up charging me with it.”

Simmons learned that he was being accused of assaulting a man and stealing his car. But his attempts to explain that he had proof that the accusations were false fell on deaf ears, Simmons said. Instead, his probation agent planned on moving forward with revoking  Simmons’ release anyway. 

Had that happened, Simmons would have been among the over 8,100 people sent back to prison in 2025, according to Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) data. When you’re one of the over 64,000 Wisconsinites who are on probation or parole in Wisconsin, an unproven accusation is one of numerous things that can send you back to prison. Probation and parole agents wield immense power over their clients’ futures. 

Simmons told his agent, Laquisha Booker, that his accuser was the subject of a no-contact order with his mother due to a domestic violence case. The accusation against Simmons was false, he told her,   because there was video showing the man violating that no-contact order by arriving at his mother’s home in the very car Simmons’ had been accused of stealing, and attempting to break down the door. Simmons’ uncle, he said, fought the man off. 

“It don’t show me on the camera at all,” Simmons told the Wisconsin Examiner. Booker told the family to send her the footage, but then “acted like she never got the video,” said Simmons. “Well, she kept pushing forward with revocation the whole time. My uncle came in and gave her a statement, let her know what happened, that he was the one that got into the fight with him. And mom sent the video. Mom gave a statement and let them know what happened. My grandma gave a statement. And she still pushed forward with revocation.” 

Fighting against the stream of incarceration

Facing over five years imprisonment, Simmons was shocked and confused by Booker’s push to send him back. “How can you still go through with it?” He asked. “You got evidence showing that it ain’t true. And she, like, ‘Well, I’m pushing forward with revocation.” Simmons wanted to fight the revocation, but knew that it wouldn’t be easy to beat. For months he sat in the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, a facility which held 637 people while Simmons was there in April 2025 despite only being designed to hold 418.  

Simmons found the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility  to be in a dire state. “They be short staff a lot, you know, so we be pretty much in the room all day,” Simmons told the Examiner. He recalled that people were let out of their rooms twice a day for a little  over an hour. 

“It’s kind of rough in there,” said Simmons. “So we pretty much in the room all day. Come out for a little bit. When you come out, you work out, get in the shower, and then try to make your phone calls, try to get everything did that you got to get did. Then you go back in the room. So it’s pretty much a stressful environment just being in there. Because you be in the room all day thinking, especially if you in there for something that you didn’t do and then you nervous. Like, I was actually kind of scared even though I didn’t do anything, like, they have my back against the wall so I’m like ‘five years, nine months, I got to fight it.’ But they like, ‘If  you lose you could get the whole seven years. And 90% of the people lose here.’ So I’m like, should I take a deal for something that I didn’t do?”

The people Simmons was housed with thought that would be his only option. “Everybody that been there for a while said that’s how it works,” Simmons told the Examiner. “It was stressful.” 

Prior to his final revocation hearing in September 2025, attorney May Lee — of the Lee Law Firm — intervened on Simmons’ behalf. In emails Lee shared with the Examiner, Booker  claimed that the videos sent by Simmons’ mother couldn’t be opened. “I emailed her back and told her to forward the videos to my supervisor,” Booker emailed Lee. “She never did. I won’t be using the videos in the rev hearing.” 

Lee shot back that Dennis’ mother had sent the videos “to your agency a total of three times, including once to your supervisor. She was unaware that you or your supervisor were unable to open the files and she is now locked out of her iCloud account, requiring Apple’s assistance to access those videos again.” Lee continued preparing for the revocation hearing, asking Booker to share the videos with her so she could try to open them, and to provide a supervisor’s contact information.

During the revocation hearing, Simmons’ uncle testified that his nephew was innocent and it was  he who had engaged in the fight leading to the accusation of assault. The uncle also testified to having already given Booker a statement that exonerated Simmons. Booker admitted during the hearing that she had lost the uncle’s statement, something which Lee said contradicted what the probation agent had told her in the days leading up to the hearing. According to a DOC human resources bureau review of Booker’s conduct, Lee had been told by Booker that the uncle never came to give a statement. 

After the Sept. 10 hearing, Lee emailed Booker to demand that the allegations against Simmons be dismissed given what came out during the hearing. Lee also noted that Booker’s supervisor was able to access the videos which Booker claimed didn’t work.  “The information you know to be true does not support the allegations against Dennis,” Lee emailed Booker. “I am hopeful you will consider doing the right thing here. I look forward to hearing from you.” 

The next day Booker responded that after talking with her supervisor, “the department is not going to withdraw the allegations against Mr. Simmons and will continue with the revocation hearing.” Emails obtained by Wisconsin Examiner show Booker’s supervisor asked her about the conflict over the uncle’s statement. Booker said that Lee was misunderstanding what she said, “I told her I reached out to [the uncle], we spoke but he never came in to give a statement. So I can see how she’s thinking I said he never gave a statement at all.” 

Later that day, Lee again asked Booker for her supervisor’s contact information. Otherwise, she said, she’d have to go above their heads to a DOC regional chief “and outline the blatant misrepresentations” made about Simmons. “We are expected to uphold justice, and I provided an opportunity to rectify this situation,” Lee emailed Booker. “As you have chosen not to, I have no other option but to escalate this matter.” Lee then notified DOC Regional Chief Niel Thoreson about her concerns. 

 

 

By Sept. 15, Thoreson and Lee were emailing about finally releasing Simmons. Although another agent was supposed to be assigned to Simmons, when he was released it was Booker he met with to review the rules of his conditional release. “It is unacceptable that she was allowed to meet with him after she attempted to use her own lie to strip away another five years of his life to lock him up as if his human life holds no value,” Lee emailed Thoreson on Sept. 22. “This was egregious due to the already six months he spent in custody because of those allegations.” Lee added,  “what is going on over there??” 

The tables turned 

Simmons recalled his last interaction with Booker. “When I came to the office the day I was released, I was actually excited, at the very least I was happy, and then I seen her,” said Simmons, adding that Booker told him that this wouldn’t have happened if she’d received the videos and statement from his uncle, essentially reverting to her original claims. “I was like yeah, this is crazy,” said Simmons. 

Booker was later interviewed by the DOC human resources department. She was  new to her job,  having started in January 2025. During her HR  interview, Booker was asked whether she received a statement from Simmons’ uncle. “Yes sir,” she began. “Well let me rephrase that, I didn’t have to. [The uncle] reached out to me and said he wanted to make a statement.” Booker said that he came to the office and that she gave him paper to write the statement. “I did not sit there and take his statement personally, but I did get a statement from him that he turned in to the front desk.” 

She went on to say, “I am being completely honest. From the time that reception told me that the statement is ready to pick up, I don’t remember if I went to get the statement from him or not or if I grabbed it and misplaced it sometime after that.” Booker said that she couldn’t recall whether she actually read the statement, or even if she’d picked the statement up from the desk. The statement wasn’t included in the packet prepared for Simmons’ revocation hearing because according to Booker, she didn’t have it. 

Booker denied telling Lee that she never took a statement from the uncle, but said that she admitted in court to having lost his statement. Booker couldn’t remember at what point she first realized she’d lost it, however. When asked during the human resources interview whether she ever told attorney Lee about the uncle’s statement Booker said, “Yes…I can’t recall. I have had many conversations with her at that time.” Booker said that her supervisor had told her that “we are proceeding with rev no matter what.”  

She added that, “I realize I made a mistake and that I tried to correct that violation and I understand that I messed up. No matter what my [supervisor] was proceeding with rev and I am a new agent and I talked to her to get alternatives because I knew mom and grandma were testifying and I tried to do other things. That was my first revocation hearing and I don’t even know how revocations go and I don’t have any rapport with the client because he was arrested before I even knew him…I am a new agent and I don’t have any information on that process or how it went.” 

The DOC found that Booker had potentially violated rules regarding falsifying records, insubordination, and negligence. The report asserts that Booker was aware of the statement clearing Simmons of wrongdoing, but that she didn’t tell her supervisor, and declined Lee’s attempts to provide her with another written statement. The HR report adds that Booker “knowingly provided false information” to Lee regarding her ability to access video footage sent by Simmons’ mother, and the uncle’s statement. 

A DOC spokesperson said that Booker resigned in November during her disciplinary investigation. For the first seven weeks of her time at DOC, Booker would have participated in the DOC’s basic training for agents, which all agents must graduate before working with clients. The training is intended to provide agents with baseline and foundational skills to help agents navigate tasks, make decisions, and understand the DOC’s expectations. 

Crushed hopes and an uncertain future 

The entire ordeal was a major blow to Simmons’ ability to settle back into civilian life after serving a seven-year sentence. “You’re not even giving me a chance,” said Simmons, “and I’m showing you what’s going on.” 

Simmons told the Examiner that he’s tired of the revolving door to prison in his life. “I had a mindset of I’m tired of going to jail, I don’t want to be in prison no more,” Simmons told the Examiner. “I’ve been doing this my whole life, I’m going to try something different. Because the way I’ve been doing it keep getting me in trouble, it’s not working. So I want to try a way to stay up out. So when I get out and I decide that I’m not doing nothing that can put me back in prison, and try to stay away from it, and then I get locked up for something I didn’t do, it just make me feel like, ‘Man like, it’s hopeless. Should I just be back in the streets?” 

Simmons said the experience “crushed all the hope I had for even trying to do something the right way. Like…I ain’t understand it.” He told the Examiner that it’s important not to judge people solely based on what they did in the past. “That’s not who they are, that’s who they was,” said Simmons, recalling that he started getting into trouble when he was 13 years old. “I’ve been in and out since I was a kid,” he said. 

Growing up, Simmons said he didn’t have many positive role models around. “So basically if you grow up around people, if your whole family is involved in certain things and they teach you that the right thing to do is live the street life — be in the streets, sell drugs, do whatever in the streets — that’s what you’re going to grow up believing is the right thing to do,” he explained. “Now a lot of my family…They breaking the cycle of being in and out of prison. My dad started his own business. My auntie started her own business. Everybody is breaking the cycle from getting in trouble and going back to jail.” 

It took Simmons until his last prison sentence to decide he had to break the cycle. Before the experience with Booker, Simmons was working with his uncle and staying away from old friends and bad influences. But when he spoke to the Examiner, Simmons was being held at Milwaukee’s Community Reintegration Center, after being charged with firearms-related offenses in December for which he has yet to be convicted, and remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he beats this new case, Simmons hopes to transfer his probation to Texas where he has family, and leave Milwaukee behind. The DOC has recommended that his supervision be revoked. 

“I made some mistakes, I did some things in the past, made some bad decisions, and that made me who I am today,” said Simmons. “Everything I went through made me want to do better and be better.”

 

In Johnson County, Iowa, the number of tuberculosis cases has increased in recent years — and so has the cost of containing it.

The cost of contact tracing and surveillance, traveling each day to patients’ homes to ensure they take their meds or booking hotel rooms to quarantine patients, has surged from $17,000 in 2020 to $65,000 last year.

That doesn’t include $13,000 spent last year for language translation, as many of the cases were among the local immigrant communities, said Danielle Pettit-Majewski, director of the Johnson County public health department. She said the rise in spending is directly tied to the increase in diagnoses since 2020, with latent infections tripling, from 27 that year to 90 last year.

Last week, the state informed the county that the greater number of cases had made it too costly to help pay for the home visits, forcing the county to pay for them on its own.

“I was kind of dumbfounded,” Pettit-Majewski said. “It was surprising.”

Tuberculosis cases have been rising nationwide since 2021, and in 2024 — the most recent year for which data is available — they reached the highest level since 2011. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia reported increases in TB case counts and rates from 2023 to 2024, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 2024, there were 10,347 reported cases nationwide, up 8% from the 9,622 cases reported the year before.

The case numbers for 2025 won’t be released until the end of March. But the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown last year might have dissuaded some people from seeking care, perhaps leading to fewer recorded diagnoses, some TB experts say.

Some states, however, are reporting preliminary data to the National Tuberculosis Coalition of America that shows that the number of cases grew from 2024 and 2025 by between 10% and 20%, said Donna Hope Wegener, the coalition’s executive director.

“There are a number of [tuberculosis] program managers that are reporting double-digit increases,” Wegener said, adding that the cost of antibiotics to treat TB is rising. “These back-to-back increases that states are contending with are certainly alarming.”

In San Antonio, Texas, case numbers have been steady, but the local public health department is still struggling to cover treatment costs.

Tommy Camden, health program manager at the City of San Antonio’s tuberculosis clinic, said the city has proposed eliminating a full-time specialist position that assists with TB contact tracing, blood draws and home visits.

Whatever the 2025 numbers show, many public health agencies are struggling to keep up, especially as they also contend with a growing measles outbreak that so far has affected 26 states.

Tuberculosis is a bacterial infection with both active and latent stages. A person with active tuberculosis disease, which can be deadly, can spread the disease. A person with a latent infection can’t, but they can develop the disease at any point.

Consistent, daily antibiotic treatment for four to nine months, with no skipped doses, is crucial to knocking it out. Skipping doses can allow the germs to mutate into drug-resistant TB, which is one reason health agencies spend so much to ensure patients take their medication.

In the U.S., the disease disproportionately affects people born in countries where it’s more common, as well as Hispanic, Black, Asian American, Pacific Islander and Indigenous communities, according to the CDC.

Immigrant communities tend to be disproportionately affected, in part because the disease can spread more easily in multigenerational households and other crowded home and work settings. Poverty, a lack of access to health care because of language, transportation and cultural barriers, and the stigma around the disease also can make those communities more vulnerable, Pettit-Majewski explained.

The California Department of Public Health says the cost of drugs to prevent a latent tuberculosis infection from turning into full-blown disease can be about $857 for what is usually three to four months of treatment. In contrast, diagnosing and treating one infected person who develops active tuberculosis disease can cost about $43,900.

While there is a vaccine for tuberculosis, it isn’t recommended for use in the U.S. because it can cause false positives in TB tests taken by skin sample. The vaccine also isn’t consistently effective against adult pulmonary tuberculosis.

Research has been underway for developing a new vaccine. But the Trump administration’s antipathy toward vaccines of all kinds is dampening investment in new products.

Immigration crackdown

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, tuberculosis was the world’s deadliest infectious disease, killing about 1.5 million people each year, according to the World Health Organization. It remains a leading infectious disease killer globally. Immigrants coming to the U.S. are screened for active TB and connected with treatment, and U.S. residents may be asked about travel abroad during routine checkups.

Many immigrants might be reluctant to seek care amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, said Dr. Michael Lauzardo, a University of Florida associate professor at the division of infectious diseases and global medicine and director of the Florida TB Physicians Network.

“I think the numbers will be lower because people are afraid,” Lauzardo said of the soon-to-be-released 2025 data. “A lot of the people at risk for TB are not seeking care, I suspect.”

Munira Maalimisaq, a family nurse practitioner in Minneapolis, said such fear has been rampant across immigrant communities in her area. After President Donald Trump was elected, a health care center where she worked had to drop a routine question on patient intake forms that asked where a patient is from, because people were scared to answer it. The question was meant to assess exposure to TB in countries where it’s more common.

“That was a big barrier, because people would just not answer that question, or would not even want to engage and say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” said Maalimisaq, CEO of a nonprofit health care center in Minneapolis, Inspire Change Clinic.

She said such fear could cause more active cases later on, as people with latent TB may not get diagnosed or get care — increasing the risk that they’ll develop the disease and become contagious.

“The whole thing delays seeking care,” she said. “If I don’t get screened for it, there’s no way that my provider is going to diagnose me.”

In Iowa, Pettit-Majewski said she hopes that Johnson County residents won’t be scared to seek care.

“If you are a Johnson County resident, you are our neighbor, and it is our responsibility to keep you safe and healthy — and we take that very seriously,” said Pettit-Majewski. “We want to make sure that folks are able to get the best care, regardless of immigration status, regardless of where you came from.”

People in detention or correctional facilities also are disproportionately at risk of infection. In recent weeks, two tuberculosis cases cropped up at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in El Paso, Texas. Last year, California, Alaska and Arizona also saw cases at ICE detention facilities.

ICE didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions about the recent two cases at the El Paso facility. On a recent visit to the detention center, Democratic U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, who represents El Paso, said she saw agents go into a community pod, which can hold between 30 to 70 detainees, without protective attire.

“I was about to walk into a pod with the ICE agents, and the security guard said, ‘No, no, ma’am, you don’t want to walk in there. They’ve not been tested for TB yet,’” Escobar told Stateline.

“But I did see contractor staff coming in and out of the pod, and so I asked, ‘Why are they not wearing [personal protective equipment]? Why aren’t they wearing a mask?’ And my concerns were pretty much dismissed, and I was told it’s their choice and they don’t have to if they don’t want to.”

Cuts to public health funding 

Earlier this month, the Trump administration told Congress it intends to rescind $600 million in public health funds to four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota. Many of the grants targeted HIV, and some also targeted tuberculosis.

The four states have sued to stop the cuts, arguing that the administration is targeting them with “devastating funding cuts to basic public health infrastructure based on political animus and disagreements about unrelated topics such as federal immigration enforcement.”

A federal judge has temporarily halted the cuts, saying the administration’s statements suggest “hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’” An agency action, U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah said, can’t be honored “if it is arbitrary or capricious.”

One of the California grants affected is a grant to the Tuberculosis Elimination Alliance, a partnership of community-based organizations that conduct outreach and education about tuberculosis.

The group received notice Feb. 11 that its grants were ending — putting in jeopardy $100,000 the alliance distributes to groups serving high-risk communities across California, Illinois, Washington state, the District of Columbia and U.S. island territories.

One of the largest tuberculosis outbreaks in recent weeks occurred at a San Francisco Bay Area high school, where latent TB was detected in more than 200 students and staff.

“It’s just such a scary and confusing time for our communities,” said Chibo Shinagawa, associate director of infectious diseases at the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, which leads the Tuberculosis Elimination Alliance.

“The instability, the uncertainty right now — it’s such a disruption to public health, to the trust we’ve built in our communities.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Some Republican lawmakers have routinely proposed criminally prosecuting women for getting abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, despite bipartisan condemnation and criticism from national anti-abortion organizations. 

These bills never made it to the finish line, but they keep circulating in legislatures across the country. So-called “abortion abolitionists” who believe that abortion should be classified as homicide, and that fetuses, embryos and zygotes should have the same legal protections as people are often behind these measures, States Newsroom reported. 

This year, the Foundation to Abolish Abortion praised Republican lawmakers in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee who introduced bills that would punish people who get abortions. 

In Illinois, Republican Sen. Neil Anderson filed a bill that would have banned abortion from the moment of fertilization and classified abortion as homicide in the Democratic-led state. Anderson’s bill did not move past introduction, and he lost a leadership position in the chamber this month, Capitol News Illinois reported. 

In Tennessee, legislation concerning an anti-abortion monument was amended to criminalize abortion, potentially allowing women who seek abortion to be charged with murder. Sen. Mark Pody, the bill’s GOP sponsor, said he doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to pass the bill with the criminalization amendment, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

Elsewhere, proposals to crackdown on the availability of abortion medication — the most common way to terminate a pregnancy — are advancing in several Republican-led legislatures, while Democratic lawmakers are moving to fortify shield laws. 

Our reproductive rights reporting team will be tracking related bills through biweekly roundups as sessions continue this winter and into the spring. Depending on the partisan makeup of a state’s legislature and other state government officials, some bills have a better chance of passing and becoming law than others.

GOP legislators still introducing bills classifying abortion as homicide

Kentucky   

House Bill 714: Abortion is already illegal in Kentucky with no exceptions for victims of rape and incest. This bill, called the “Prenatal Equal Protection Act,” would go further by classifying abortion as homicide unless it’s needed to treat miscarriages or save a pregnant woman’s life. The penalties would be the same as those for killing a person, so violators could face anywhere from one year to life in prison. 

GOP Rep. Richard White introduced a similar bill last year that didn’t go anywhere. The Foundation to Abolish Abortion praised the new measure in a Tuesday news release. The organization criticized a Kentucky prosecutor’s decision last month to drop a fetal homicide charge against a woman who was accused of taking abortion medication.  

Status: Introduced in the House on Tuesday, Feb. 24, and sent to the Committee on Committees 

Sponsors: Republican Reps. Josh Calloway and Richard White  

South Carolina 

House Bill 3537: Legislation introduced by GOP Rep. Rob Harris would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization. Harris’ bill would also allow the prosecution of people who get abortions unless it’s necessary to manage miscarriages or save a pregnant person’s life. 

Harris filed this bill in previous legislative sessions, but it hasn’t gained traction, SC Daily Gazette reported. “Bills like these do nothing but terrify women out of wanting to get pregnant,” Tori Nardone, a woman who had to leave South Carolina to get an abortion for a fatal fetal anomaly, told lawmakers last month. “Please don’t make it worse than it already is.”

Status: Stalled in the House Judiciary Committee 

Sponsor: Republican Rep. Rob Harris 

South Dakota   

House Bill 1212: South Dakota bans abortion in most cases, but this bill would have codified abortion as fetal homicide in state law and defined abortion as a Class B felony, which carries punishment of up to life in prison and a fine of up to $50,000. The proposal included exceptions for miscarriage treatment or when a pregnant patient’s life is in danger.

The bill was deferred to the last day of the legislation session by the House Health and Human Services Committee, essentially preventing it from advancing.  

Status: Sidelined 

Sponsors: Rep. Tony Randolph and Sen. John Carley, Republicans 

Republican-led states push bills to crack down on abortion pills

Mississippi   

House Bill 1613: This legislation would make it illegal to sell, manufacture, distribute or dispense abortion-inducing drugs in the state, which bans all abortions unless the mother’s life or health is at risk, and if rape or incest is reported to law enforcement. 

Violators could face between one and 10 years in prison, and the state attorney general could enforce civil penalties against the person, too, Mississippi Free Press reported. The House passed the bill on Wednesday, Feb. 11. If the bill becomes law, it would take effect in July. 

Status: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee last week 

Sponsors: Republican Reps. Kevin Horan and William Tracy Arnold 

South Dakota  

House Bill 1274: The state House passed a bill this week that would make dispensing, distributing, selling or advertising abortion pills and any other abortion-related “instrument” or “article” illegal, South Dakota Searchlight reported. 

Under the measure, the attorney general could seek penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation, and the money would go in a fund used to pursue anti-abortion litigation, according to Searchlight. South Dakota’s AG is already involved in a legal battle with a New York-based nonprofit over abortion medication ads it ran at gas stations across the state last year. 

Status: Approved in the House on Tuesday, Feb 24; in the Senate State Affairs committee 

Sponsors: Republican Reps. John Hughes and Greg Blanc 

Democratic lawmakers move to strengthen abortion-rights protections 

New Hampshire   

Senate Bill 551: New Hampshire, which has a Republican trifecta in government, is the only state in New England without a law that protects abortion providers and patients from out-of-state investigations into reproductive health care. Legislation introduced by Democratic Sen. Debra Altschiller in February would secure the right to reproductive health care and prohibit law enforcement from cooperating with investigations into related health care, New Hampshire Bulletin reported. 

The bill would make it illegal for the governor to comply with extradition requests for abortion providers and patients. It would also ban insurers from penalizing reproductive health care providers and let residents sue people or agencies that attempt to interfere with their reproductive rights, the Bulletin reported. 

Status: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 on Tuesday, Feb. 17, that the bill was “inexpedient to legislate.” 

Sponsor: Democratic Sen. Debra Altschiller

Oregon   

House Bill 4088: An Oregon law approved in July 2023 protects providers who offer reproductive health care from losing their licenses, and shields patients and providers from related out-of-state investigations. Legislation introduced this year would beef up those safeguards. 

This bill would bar the governor from accepting extradition requests from other states against providers who offer legally protected reproductive health care and prohibit law enforcement from cooperating with interstate investigations into related care, Oregon Capital Chronicle reported. It would also block state officials from revoking midwifery licenses for people who face prosecution for reproductive health care in other states. 

Status: Approved by the House on Monday, Feb. 16; approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Feb. 25

Sponsors: Rep. Lisa Fragala and Sen. Lisa Reynolds, Democrats 

There is a content warning on page 7 of a friend-of-the-court brief recently submitted in a high-stakes abortion medication case by women who say they were injured or traumatized from taking the pills. 

“Warning: these accounts are raw, graphic and real.”

About 30 mostly anonymous people recount their medication abortions, saying they were uninformed about what they would experience mentally and physically. The graphic accounts and bloody portraits are meant to bolster the argument that the practice is a barbaric and gruesome one that states have the authority to ban. The brief argues the problem is perpetuated by telehealth abortion. 

“We call it a particularly gruesome and barbaric procedure, the pill, because Dobbs allowed particularly gruesome and barbaric procedures to be prohibited by the states,” said attorney Allan Parker of the Justice Foundation.

It’s one of many arguments made in the main complaint, though not the focus of Tuesday’s oral arguments over a preliminary injunction that could, if granted, halt access to telehealth abortion throughout the country. But it’s one with a winning history for the anti-abortion movement, whose leaders are frustrated with rising abortion rates and the Trump administration’s failure to restrict the pills. 

But reproductive legal experts who support abortion rights say the gruesome or barbaric argument mischaracterizes the realities of medication abortion, which is approved to induce a miscarriage within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. 

Abortion opponents are focused on disrupting national access built largely on shield laws and a Biden-era policy that has allowed women to have first-trimester abortions via medication at home with a remote physician consultation, even in states with bans. 

The Justice Foundation, which co-authored the brief alongside the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, recruits women who regret their abortions to testify in court and before legislatures and has collected nearly 5,000 legally admissible affidavits, according to the brief. 

The lawsuit was originally filed last year by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and co-plaintiff Rosalie Markezich, who said her partner ordered pills without her consent and then coerced her to take them.

The complaint cited the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart that upheld a federal ban on an abortion procedure called intact dilation and extraction, which at the time some doctors said was a preferable method for ending certain pregnancies, typically in the second trimester, without damaging the woman’s cervix. The anti-abortion movement effectively rebranded the method “partial-birth abortion.” In upholding the ban on this method, the Supreme Court opinion, which was referenced in the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning federal abortion protections, included a reference to it as “gruesome and inhumane.” 

While the intact dilation and extraction method was used later in pregnancy and in a minority of terminations, telehealth abortions early in pregnancy made up 27% of abortions in the U.S. in the first half of December, according to the Society of Family Planning.  

“What it feels like is happening with some of these briefs is that they’re going back to the last argument that worked in shaping popular opinion,” historian and law professor Mary Ziegler said. “Because while they managed to overturn Roe, that was not a success from a popular opinion standpoint.”

The argument that abortion is barbaric and gruesome is not likely to touch public opinion the same way it did two decades ago, she said, because unlike with intact dilation and extraction abortion, most women have experienced a medication abortion or a miscarriage and know what it’s like.  

“It would be hard, I think, to convince people that a procedure that’s happening in week seven, is equally barbaric,” Ziegler said. “The whole success of partial-birth abortion as a strategy is in the name, right? The argument was, This is happening late enough in pregnancy and close enough to birth that it resembles infanticide. And with abortion pills, for many people, it’s going to much more closely resemble a very early miscarriage.”

The potential to unleash chaos

Attorneys on either side of the abortion rights divide agree that the stakes are high in the Louisiana case, because a ruling would likely apply nationally and once again shake up the abortion access landscape in the U.S. If the court grants Louisiana’s request to force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reinstate old restrictions while litigation continues, the action could effectively ban telehealth abortion appointments, medication dispensation at retail pharmacies, and the mailing of abortion pills even in states where abortion remains legal.

Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University, said a ruling in plaintiffs’ favor could “unleash chaos and confusion in the market.”

“What would happen to medication that’s already on the shelves?” she asked. “And how quickly could folks move from telehealth to in-person dispensing again? And what guidance would FDA give? And how quickly would all this get appealed?” 

It would be extremely disruptive in a year when abortion providers have already seen a lot of chaos, she said. 

Dr. Angel Foster is the co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which provides telehealth abortion to all 50 states. She said plaintiffs’ claims do not match up with national and international data on medication and telehealth abortion or with her experience as a provider. 

“Louisiana has taken things that are exceptional and presented them as common, has tried to put the ugliest face on the abortion process as possible, and has mischaracterized the kind of care that telemedicine medication abortion providers are offering,” Foster said. 

Her organization has served more than 40,000 patients seeking abortion care since 2023, she said, 95% in states with abortion bans. Patients are counseled on what to expect in terms of pain and what they might see, and are screened for potential coercion and other issues. 

For example, if a patient lists her husband’s email address, Foster said she would call the patient directly to confirm the abortion is her choice. She said a bad actor could try to bypass their screening and force someone to take abortion pills without consent, which is already a criminal offense under existing law. 

“I don’t think that the remedy is to say that nobody should be able to get abortion pills by mail,” Foster said.  

National domestic violence awareness groups have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Louisiana case asking the court to deny plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. They note that reproductive coercion is not limited to abortion pressure but can also include a partner barring access to birth control or other health care. 

Beyond the federal courts, states continue to try to pass laws to ban or further restrict medication abortion. Attorneys general in Louisiana and Texas have led the charge in suing shield law providers in states without abortion bans. Texas’ attorney general filed a new lawsuit on Tuesday against California physician Rémy Coeytaux, telehealth abortion nonprofit Aid Access and its founder Dr. Rebecca Gomperts. 

Foster said she has not yet been sued but that her attorneys have been in close communication with Massachusetts’ attorney general over whether the state’s shield law would protect their practice depending on how the judge rules. 

“Our intent is to continue to provide medication abortion care with mifepristone and misoprostol for as long as we can legally do so,” she said. 

Will a federal judge let the Trump administration delay?

For now, Louisiana v. FDA is in limbo. After Louisiana filed its preliminary injunction request, the Trump administration asked the court to delay while it continues to review abortion pill safety — a review that was prompted by pressure and controversial research from the anti-abortion movement. 

Trump-appointed district Judge David Joseph on Tuesday did not indicate when he might rule on Louisiana’s request for an injunction but gave the federal government’s attorneys seven days to file a brief explaining how the FDA would take emergency action if the agency discovered mifepristone presents a public health risk during its review.

Anti-abortion activists have been frustrated with the administration’s efforts to delay the Louisiana case. 

“We are disappointed that the Trump administration is asking the court to pause our case and deny our clients immediate relief while the FDA takes another year to study the known harms of abortion drugs,” said Erik Baptist, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Markezich, in a written statement.

With the approaching midterm elections, Ziegler said she’s curious what the administration will finally say about its position on abortion pills. 

“It’s our first look at what the Trump administration will do if the court doesn’t respond by just giving them more time,” Ziegler said. “Because so far, they’ve been essentially just avoiding it, by saying they’re thinking about it, and they need more time, and they’re studying the matter, and, you know, not really taking a side.” 

What makes the food you eat healthy? Turns out it's a pretty complicated question that goes way beyond the four food groups. In this episode, Amy visits Starry Nights Farm in Burlington to learn about some groundbreaking research—involving beef raised right here in Wisconsin—that's changing the way we look at food and nutrition.

Host: Amy Barrilleaux

Guests: Paul Maggio and Marisa Wiewall, Starry Nights Farm

Resources for You:

Nutritional Comparisons Between Grass-Fed Beef and Conventional Grain-Fed Beef

Defining Nutrient Density in Beef

Starry Nights Farm

Defender Episode 57: Wisconsin's Forbidden Fruit

Defender Episode 45: Cows, Tall Grass and Wind Turbines

💾

Farm aid promised last December is still months away from being paid out to fruit and vegetable growers. But industry groups say it won't be enough to get them through tough market conditions.

The post Bailout for specialty crops has yet to arrive. Growers warn they need more than $1B promised appeared first on WPR.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris' appearance in Wisconsin came a day after the U.S. and Israel starting launching strikes against Iran. Harris visited deep-blue Madison to plug her book "107 Days."

The post Harris on Iran: ‘Trump has dragged America into a war that we don’t want’ appeared first on WPR.

Nearly a quarter of pregnant women aren’t getting prenatal care in the early stages of pregnancy, according to a new analysis from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The share of pregnant women getting prenatal care had been improving: It rose between 2016 and 2021 to a high of more than 78%, but then declined to 75.5% by 2024, wiping out previous gains.

The trend is worrying because getting care early in pregnancy can improve the likelihood of a healthy pregnancy and baby.

The decrease in early prenatal care held true for nearly all race and ethnic groups, but the drops were sharpest for Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders, Black women and American Indian and Alaska Native women.

By 2024, less than half of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander mothers received prenatal care in their first trimester — the first three months of pregnancy.

Anne Markus, a professor at George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health, said that because the statistically significant decline began around 2021, two events could explain some of the decrease: the COVID pandemic, with its associated stay-at-home orders, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022 that dismantled the constitutional right to abortion.

“Both disproportionately affected, and continue to affect, communities of color, and the decline in early entry into prenatal care has been disproportionately bigger for racial and ethnic minorities since 2021,” said Markus, whose work focuses on public policy and access to health care. She was not involved in the analysis.

A lack of early prenatal care has also been disproportionately seen in “very young women who are more likely to have a pregnancy that they do not want,” Markus said. “The Dobbs decision and the fear and uncertainty it generated could be particularly relevant in explaining this disproportionate effect observed in the data.”

The share of women getting late care — beginning in the seventh month of pregnancy or later — or no care at all increased in more than half of states from 2021-2024. Utah saw the biggest rise in late or no care, followed by Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The number of Utah women getting late or no prenatal care jumped 54%, up to nearly 6% of women.

More than 1 in 10 women had late or no prenatal care by 2024 in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas.

“Geographic and financial barriers to accessing care are often behind late entry to recommended care, including prenatal care,” Markus said.

Late or no prenatal care decreased in six states: Arkansas, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The CDC compiled the report based on information from birth certificates, and includes information for all births that occurred in the United States.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Wisconsin's congressional delegation split along party lines with a combination of support and outrage after Saturday's U.S. - Israeli attack in Iran that reportedly killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Here's what they had to say.

The post Wisconsin congressional delegation reacts to attack on Iran appeared first on WPR.

Demonstrators took to the streets in cities around the world after the United States and Israel launched a major strike on Iran. Many rallies voiced strong support for the military action, […]

The post Photos show global reaction to US and Israeli strikes appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump promoted his second-term record in a wide-ranging speech at the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas on Friday, building on themes from his State of the Union address earlier in the week.

But he did not issue a highly anticipated endorsement just days before a heated U.S. Senate primary that’s pitted incumbent John Cornyn against two challengers, state Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt.

Before the event, Trump told reporters he had “pretty much” decided on who he would endorse in the midterm election contest, but wouldn’t do so Friday, according to a White House pool report.

While leaving the White House en route to Texas earlier in the day, Trump also suggested he might direct a “friendly takeover” of Cuba, saying the Cuban American community would appreciate such action.

“We could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba after many, many years,” he told reporters. “They’re in big trouble, and we could very well (do) something good, I think, very positive for the people that were expelled or worse, from Cuba that live here.”

Tensions are high between the United States and Cuba. The Cuban government said Thursday its border patrol killed four Cuban expatriates living in the United States who sought to infiltrate the country in a speedboat.

Little discussion of energy policy

The Texas speech was advertised as an address on energy, and Trump spoke in front of signs reading “American Energy Dominance” and against a backdrop of oil tankers. 

But he hardly mentioned the issue apart from short sections at the start and end of his remarks in which he claimed credit for lowering gas prices. 

Instead, the president jumped from topic to topic, defending his administration’s controversial record on immigration enforcement and a military operation in Venezuela while attacking Democrats as out of touch and ramping up calls for election administration changes he said would keep the party from winning future elections. 

Among them are the House-passed SAVE America Act, which would require the public to produce a passport or birth certificate in most cases to register to vote. While it has little chance of Senate passage, Trump has continued to advocate for it.

He claimed, without evidence, that Democrats can only win elections by cheating. If Congress makes changes to national elections laws, the party would be shut out, he said.

“They will never win because their policy is no good,” he said. “They want men playing in women’s sports. They want transgender for everyone. They want open borders so that the world’s criminals can pour into our country, which we’ve done a good job. I’ll tell you what: ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has done such a great job.”

Midterm stakes

Trump joked early in the appearance that he was advised to not make political statements.

But several of his digressions were focused on elections this year and beyond.

After exulting, in sometimes exaggerated language, his record through one year of unified GOP control, he said it was crucial for Republicans to maintain their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. 

Noting that Democratic members did not stand and applaud at several points of his State of the Union address, a point that Republicans have seized upon repeatedly as a campaign issue in the days since the speech, Trump said the Democrats were “crazy.”

“They’re crazy,” he said. “We got to win midterms. We brought this country back. We don’t want to lose the midterms. We got to win the midterms.”

Election forecasters project the most likely outcome of November’s midterms is for Democrats to gain control of the House while Republicans keep the Senate. Very few seats are seen as toss-ups.

Trump also teased a potential third presidential term, which would violate the Constitution’s prohibition of more than two terms. He said he was entitled to another term because an election was “stolen” from him, a reference to the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden and ever since has claimed, without evidence, wrongly decided.

“Maybe we do one more term. Should we do one more?” he asked the crowd. “Well, we’re entitled to it because they cheated like hell in the second.”

Texas Senate GOP battle

In the Senate contest, Trump shouted out Cornyn, Paxton and Hunt, without indicating which he might favor.

Election Day is Tuesday, though with three major candidates, it is likely headed for a May runoff between Cornyn and Paxton.

Trump wore a version of his signature red hat with the phrase “Gulf of America” across the front instead of the usual “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan.

Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico early in his second term. Corpus Christi’s port is on the gulf.

Venezuela 

At the open and close of the roughly hourlong speech, Trump promoted his energy policy and criticized Biden for regulations that Trump said slowed energy production. 

By boosting production and bringing in oil from Venezuela after deposing leftist President Nicolás Maduro in January, Trump said he has brought down the price of gas and consumer products across the board.

Biden and congressional Democrats “waged a radical-left war on American oil and natural gas like you’ve never seen before,” he said. “They were killing our country…. All of that changed my first day back in office.”

The latest government statistics, though, show that energy costs in January were about the same as they were when Trump took office, dropping only .1%, while inflation in the economy as a whole stubbornly continues at about 2.4%.

U.S. involvement in Venezuela, following Maduro’s capture, would also help spur the energy sector, Trump said. 

The new government, led by Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, has been receptive to selling crude oil to the United States, where it will be refined, Trump said Friday. The arrangement would benefit both countries, he said.

WASHINGTON — American colleges and universities received gifts and contracts worth more than $5.2 billion from foreign entities in 2025, according to the U.S. Department of Education, which also recently published summaries of foreign investment in U.S. higher education dating back to 1986. 

Qatar, the United Kingdom, China, Switzerland, Japan, Germany and Saudi Arabia marked the largest sources of reportable gifts and contracts to U.S. institutions in 2025, according to the agency, which released the latest funding disclosures this month. 

The department also made public roughly 40 years of data on a transparency dashboard that offers a snapshot of the foreign funding disclosures submitted by colleges and universities. The administration described the move as a transparency effort, but critics say it lacks key context. 

The dashboard shows cumulative data since 1986, when Congress amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to mandate colleges and universities receiving federal financial assistance disclose any foreign gifts or contracts valued at or above $250,000 annually.

The provision, known as Section 117, “came about due to concerns about malign actors trying to either use educational platforms to promote agendas that were not in the national interest or about getting access to American youth or about exerting influence on institutions,” said Rick Hess, senior fellow and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

And while the Education Department this month heralded the dashboard as a major step toward transparency in foreign influence in U.S. education, the tool does not separate gifts and contracts by year, limiting its use to help the public spot trends or identify major gifts.

Details about the gifts and contracts, such as what was given or what work was contracted, are not displayed on the dashboard.

Trump priority

President Donald Trump and his administration have sought to increase transparency requirements when it comes to foreign funds entering U.S. colleges and universities.

Part of the administration’s effort includes an April 2025 executive order that sought to “end the secrecy surrounding foreign funds in American educational institutions” and to “safeguard America’s students and research from foreign exploitation.” 

The public transparency dashboard is housed on a portal, launched in January, where colleges and universities are responsible for disclosing foreign gifts and contracts. 

The Education Department announced Feb. 23 that it would partner with the State Department on foreign gift and contract reporting under Section 117.

The move — one of several interagency agreements announced so far by the administration — is part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the 46-year-old agency. 

State will help the Education Department manage its foreign funding reporting portal and “use its national security and foreign national academic admissions expertise to review and assess the industry’s compliance with the law, share data with the public and federal stakeholders, and identify potential threats,” the Education Department said. 

Nearly $70 billion disclosed 

At least 555 institutions have disclosed $67.6 billion in foreign gifts and contracts between 1986 and mid-December 2025, according to the dashboard.

The institutions that have received the most funding in foreign gifts and contracts since Section 117 was enacted are Harvard University in Massachusetts, at $4.2 billion; Carnegie Mellon University, in Pennsylvania, at $3.9 billion; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at $3.5 billion; Cornell University in New York, at $3.1 billion and the University of Pennsylvania, at $2.8 billion. 

The dashboard also includes a separate section on the total value of transactions in foreign gifts and contracts with “counterparties located in countries of concern,” such as China, Russia and Venezuela. 

The universities that received the most money from counterparties in these “countries of concern” are Harvard, at $610.8 million; MIT, at $490.1 million; New York University, at $462.5 million; Stanford University in California, at $418.5 million; and Yale University in Connecticut, at $400.2 million.  

Concerns from higher ed groups 

Some higher education groups expressed concerns over the dashboard, including limitations they see with how the data is portrayed. 

The cumulative nature of the dashboard does not allow the public to see how the amount of money in foreign gifts and contracts received by schools fluctuated throughout the years. 

“There’s no way to kind of break out what the funding is by the year, or perhaps by the funding cycle, so you can’t really see any funding trends,” Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, told States Newsroom. 

The association serves as the major coordinating body for the country’s colleges and universities, representing roughly 1,600 institutions. 

Spreitzer emphasized a lack of context throughout the dashboard, including on the list of foreign entities of concern and whether such funding is active or reflects past funding. 

For instance, the U.S. Department of Commerce designated the Chinese tech company Huawei as an entity of concern in 2019.

Huawei has provided roughly $22.7 million in funding to American universities, overall, according to the dashboard. But the dashboard doesn’t show the gifts and contracts all came prior to the entity-of-concern designation, Spreitzer said.

“None of our institutions have taken funding from Huawei since 2019, if not earlier, when we were informed of the concerns around Huawei,” Spreitzer said. “However, the way that the information is presented, it seems to imply that our institutions are still taking funding from Huawei.” 

Spreitzer said that the dashboard “demonstrates that our schools are complying with Section 117 and they are meeting their reporting obligations.”

“I hope that people are not making broad assumptions based on how the data is presented right now,” added Spreitzer, who hopes the administration will continue making improvements to the dashboard, such as separating the disclosures by year and adding additional context.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday demanding the administration refund businesses that paid tariffs to import goods into the United States under authority the Supreme Court has ruled the president never held. 

“The American people — small business owners, importers, manufacturers, and the consumers who ultimately bore the cost of these illegal taxes — deserve better than this stonewalling,” the group wrote. “This money does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to the businesses and individuals you illegally taxed.”

The Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that President Donald Trump wrongly instituted tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, writing “that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

Trump held a press conference later that day declaring he would institute tariffs under other authorities that he and members of his administration believe Congress has granted the president. But he didn’t give a clear answer about whether the federal government would refund the businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs.

“They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump said at the time. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Senate Democrats’ letter says the Trump administration “collected over $130 billion in illegal taxes and then refused — with a smile and a shrug — to give it back.”

Democrats wrote in the letter the administration must tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection “to begin processing automatic refunds for all tariffs and customs duties unlawfully collected under IEEPA since January 20, 2025.”

The Trump administration, they wrote, should release a timeline within 90 days for when it would begin those refunds. 

The letter was signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Whip Dick Durbin, Maryland Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Delaware Sens. Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester, Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, Virginia Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján, Oregon Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, Rhode Island Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock.

The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The U.S. and Israel launched a major attack on Iran on Saturday, with President Donald Trump calling on the Iranian public to “seize control of your destiny” and rise up against the Islamic leadership that has ruled the nation since 1979.

The post Trump says Iran’s supreme leader is dead appeared first on WPR.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin taxpayers are growing in their concern over property taxes, as witnessed by a recent Marquette poll showing that 60% of voters are more concerned about reducing property taxes than increasing spending on public schools.

(The Center Square) – There is a warning about pros and cons of public funding for child care in Wisconsin.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The city of Madison on Monday appealed a ruling that allows it to be sued for monetary damages for disenfranchising nearly 200 voters in the 2024 election, arguing the decision would unrealistically require “error-free elections” and expose municipalities across the state to liability for mistakes. 

The appeal comes after Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway’s Feb. 9 ruling that Madison could face potential financial liability for disenfranchising 193 voters whose absentee ballots were unintentionally left uncounted. Notably, the city did not specifically contest the judge’s rejection in that ruling of its earlier argument that absentee voting is merely a “privilege” under state law — a claim that would have shielded it from damages.

Instead, the appeal centers on who has the authority to enforce election laws and whether voters can sue for negligence. The city argues that such complaints must go first to the Wisconsin Elections Commission and asks higher courts to revisit a landmark 1866 case that allowed damages against election officials who deprive citizens of the right to vote.

“It is not difficult to imagine how the circuit court’s ruling may be perceived as an opportunity by partisan actors to influence the election,” attorneys for the city, former Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick wrote in the filing. 

A permanent path to sue for damages over accidental election errors without going first through the commission could “chill the willingness of individuals to volunteer to assist with elections, and the willingness of voters to participate in the political process,” they wrote.

Madison asks court to revisit landmark voting case

Much of Madison’s appeal asks the court to revisit a key finding in the landmark 1866 case that secured the extension of the franchise to Black Wisconsinites, Gillespie v. Palmer. In that case, the court held that state law allows plaintiffs to sue election officials for damages if they “negligently deprive citizens of the right to vote.” 

The case arose after Ezekiel Gillespie, a Black man, was turned away from the polls in 1865. While voters had ratified a measure extending the franchise to Black residents 16 years earlier, it went largely unenforced, as state officials still disputed whether the change was valid. Gillespie sued, and courts ultimately ruled in his favor, concluding in 1866 that Black Wisconsinites had been wrongfully disenfranchised for 17 years.

Although Gillespie was intentionally barred from voting, the court’s ruling established negligence — not just intentional misconduct — as a basis for disenfranchised voters to seek damages. The Dane County Circuit Court relied on that broader standard in allowing the Madison lawsuit to proceed. 

Madison officials in their latest appeal argue the lower court misapplied the precedent. In their view, Gillespie was about protecting the right to cast a ballot  — a right that they say isn’t disputed in this case. No election official in Madison denied that the 193 Madison voters had a right to vote, they wrote. Rather, they contend, the voters’ ballots were unintentionally left uncounted after being cast.

If Gillespie is extended under these circumstances, the defendants argue, Wisconsin would be the first state to allow “any voter whose ballot is accidentally uncounted a right to sue for monetary damages,” a premise that they say requires immediate review by higher courts given the impending 2026 midterms.

They also contend the 1866 ruling predates Wisconsin’s modern election system, and relying on “such an archaic interpretation of Constitutional rights in Wisconsin is grossly in error and requires intervention before the case proceeds further.”

Madison’s filing “seeks to erode the protections” guaranteed in Gillespie, said Scott Thompson, staff attorney for Law Forward, which filed the case. “This argument follows the city’s failed attempt to throw out this case by arguing that the right to vote does not protect absentee voters from disenfranchisement. The right to vote has value, and the voters the city of Madison disenfranchised look forward to having their day in court.”

Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, clarified that a court wouldn’t need to overturn the historic Black voting rights case entirely to rule that it doesn’t apply in the lawsuit against Madison.

“You could potentially read that case in a more narrow way, as applying only to intentional deprivation of the right to vote, as opposed to negligence and deprivation,” she said, adding that it’s likely that only a higher court could reinterpret Gillespie in such a way.

Law Forward’s response to Madison’s appeal is due on March 9. Then the Madison-based District 4 Court of Appeals is expected to determine whether the appeal may move forward. 

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Madison appeals ruling allowing lawsuits in 2024 ballot-counting case is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

In Wisconsin, unlike in nearly every other state, first-offense drunken driving is not a crime.

Wisconsin treats a standard first-offense operating while intoxicated as a civil violation. 

Punishment includes a fine of $150-$300 and driver’s license revocation for six to nine months.

Subsequent OWI offenses generally are crimes, but there is an exception.

If a second offense occurs more than 10 years after the first, first-offense penalties apply.

Otherwise, second and third offenses are misdemeanors. Jail time is five days to six months for a second offense and 45 days to one year for a third offense. 

Fourth and subsequent offenses are felonies punishable by jail or prison time.

New Jersey treats first-offense OWI as a traffic violation, but up to 30 days in jail can be imposed.

In New Hampshire, first-offense is a misdemeanor, but no jail time can be imposed.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin State Legislature: 346.63: Operating under influence of intoxicant or other drug
• Wisconsin Department of Transportation: OWI and Related Alcohol and Drug Offense Penalties
• Wisconsin Department of Transportation: Drunk driving law
• Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau: Wisconsin's OWI Laws
• National Conference of State Legislatures: Criminal Status of State Drunken Driving Laws
• Justia.com: 2025 New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 39 – Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation Section 39:4-50 – Driving while intoxicated
• New Hampshire General Court: Driving or Operating Under the Influence of Drugs or Liquor

Is first-offense drunken driving a crime in Wisconsin? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A federal lawsuit filed Feb. 23 by the legal nonprofit group Protect Democracy alleges the Department of Homeland Security used facial recognition technology unlawfully to track legal observers and label them domestic terrorists. 

In Milwaukee County, law enforcement representatives are addressing facial recognition technology-related fears from residents. They’re concerned about a potential collaboration with a company called Biometrica, which provides access to facial recognition search results.  

In August, Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball signed an “agreement of intent” to enter into a contract with Biometrica, said James Burnett, director of public affairs and community engagement and acting chief of staff at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office. 

“But the contract is still considered to be in draft form – not fully signed, executed or valid – and has to proceed, like any other proposed contract, through the county’s statutory signing process,” Burnett said. 

There currently are no services or technology being provided by Biometrica, and Biometrica does not have access to any sheriff’s office data, Burnett said.

County Supervisor Sky Capriolo, member of the county’s Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services Committee, said she and residents have serious concerns.  

“It warrants more consideration, education and discussion,” Capriolo said. “I certainly am not ready to green-light a contract.”

Capriolo said she’s waiting to hear whether the contract will go to her committee again. 

Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman took a different step and banned the use of facial technology by his department in early February. 

On Feb. 24, Norman announced the suspension of MPD officer Josue Ayala for the improper use of a different tracking tool, the Flock camera system, to track a dating partner and a former partner. 

“I am extremely disappointed to learn about the incident and expect all members, sworn and civilian, to demonstrate the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties,” said Norman in a statement.

Ayala was charged by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office with one count of attempted misconduct in public office. Norman said he immediately directed MPD to create additional auditing mechanisms.

Concerns remain high

Social justice and civil rights advocates have expressed grave concerns about the use of the technology by both agencies, citing evidence of inaccuracies, racial bias and privacy violations. 

Facial recognition technology uses artificial intelligence to identify someone by comparing a photo of an unknown face to some database of images of known faces, said Katie Kinsey at the Feb. 5 Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting during a presentation by the NYU Policing Project. 

The image databases can include mug shot collections, driver’s license records or images found on the internet, Kinsey said.

Facial recognition technology and local law enforcement

In spring, MPD acknowledged it used outside agencies’ licenses for facial recognition search results for two to three years without a written department policy.

The department also announced it was considering an agreement with Biometrica – an agreement that would have provided access to facial recognition technology to the department in exchange for approximately 2.5 million Milwaukee County Jail booking photos.

This proposal prompted months of public pushback before the announcement by Norman in February that the department would no longer pursue the technology.

ACLU preaches vigilance

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin welcomed Norman’s announcement but also expressed concerns about MPD’s past decision making.  

It is “extremely concerning that MPD secretly used FRT (facial recognition technology) searches for years without any standard operating procedure – or any written guidelines – in place,” an ACLU spokesperson said in an email to NNS.

The organization is urging Milwaukee residents to remain vigilant.

“Countless Milwaukee residents and community leaders have engaged in thoughtful community education, spent hours upon hours in public meetings and contacted their local elected officials to voice their unequivocal opposition to the use of (facial recognition technology), and they will still be watching,” the spokesperson said. 

The MPD spokesperson told NNS the department could revisit the issue in the future when a policy is in place that aligns with both public safety benefit and public concerns.

---

Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.

Milwaukee law enforcement faces growing scrutiny around facial recognition technology use is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The PSC required Alliant file a revised version of its application by 4 p.m. Friday. The agency is now reviewing the new version to analyze the redactions and justifications from the utility before moving forward. 

The post PSC requires Alliant Energy file new application with fewer redactions for data center rates appeared first on WPR.