Democratic attorneys general this week filed their 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration, part of a coordinated legal strategy. 

And the attorneys general say they are winning most of their court cases against the administration. Of the 67 cases with court rulings, the Democratic Attorneys General Association says its members have won 55 of those challenges. 

A legal challenge over environmental regulations filed this week is the AGs’ latest effort to oppose the ever-widening power of the executive branch. Since the president’s second term began last January, Democratic-led states have sued the administration on a variety of issues — ranging from the withholding of congressionally approved funds to immigration enforcement to the administration’s tariffs on foreign goods. 

Marking its 100th lawsuit, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said its members were the only group of elected leaders successfully opposing the Trump administration’s “harmful and reckless actions.”

“For too long, Trump has trampled the rule of law,” Sean Rankin, the association president, said in a news release. “And Democratic AGs have held him accountable for the harms he has done to our economy and our democracy.”

On Tuesday, a group of state and local governments sued over the administration’s repeal of limits on emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The coalition argued the rollback was unlawful, saying the federal government has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it or consider the new technologies. The Trump administration has said the move was made “to ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families.” 

While it’s not unusual for states to sue the federal government, it’s one of the few paths Democrats have available to oppose President Donald Trump’s actions, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield has been among the most prolific, suing the administration more than 50 times. Rayfield has said the suits are not political theater — they’re a vital means to checking the president’s overreach.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” he told Stateline earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

State lawsuits represent a slice of the more than 700 lawsuits the Trump administration has faced since last January, according to a New York Times tracker. In more than 400 cases, the courts have let the administration’s policies stay in effect even as they remain in active litigation. But in more than 150 cases, the tracker shows the courts have at least partially halted administration policies. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Democrats sued over President Donald Trump’s executive order clamping down on mail ballots on Wednesday, signaling the start of another fight with the White House over elections.

The order, which would create a national list of voting-age American citizens and directs the U.S. Postal Service to place limits on mail-in ballots, constitutes an extraordinary and illegal attempt by Trump to intervene in the voting process, election experts said.

An array of Democratic groups, including the Democratic National Committee, filed a federal lawsuit against the order in the District of Columbia late Wednesday. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York are also plaintiffs. They are represented by Marc Elias, a prominent progressive voting rights litigator.

The Democrats allege in a 61-page complaint that Trump has tried “again and again” to rewrite election rules for his own advantage. It accuses the president of acting beyond the scope of his authority and unlawfully intruding on the authority of Congress and the states, as well as violating the authority of the U.S. Postal Service.

“The Executive Order’s provisions are convoluted and confusing,” the complaint reads. “What is clear is that it dramatically restricts the ability of Americans to vote by mail, impinging on traditional state authority.”

Several Democratic election officials have also promised to challenge the order. 

“The executive order is unconstitutional and I think it is very likely that it will be struck down,” Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview. She said her state would join litigation against the order.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said he would meet the federal government in court, while Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said “we look forward to our day in court challenging this illegal action.” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said her state was “not going to obey in advance” because the states, not Trump, are in charge of elections.

Advocacy groups also promised lawsuits. The Campaign Legal Center said it would challenge the order with its partners, the Democracy Defenders Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other organizations.

White House calls for passage of SAVE America Act

Ahead of the Democrats’ lawsuit, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that election integrity has always been a top priority for Trump. She also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship to register to vote.

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” Jackson said.

In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen downplayed the possibility of immediate changes to his state’s elections, while praising Trump for prioritizing election integrity. Nebraska will hold a primary on May 12.

“Over the coming months, we will continue to monitor and participate in how the implementation of the executive order might impact the November 3rd general election,” Evnen told the Nebraska Examiner.

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail in federal elections, underscoring the stakes of any major restrictions on voting by mail. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Another elections challenge

Opponents of Trump’s election-related moves have a good track record in court.

Trump’s first order on elections, issued just over a year ago, attempted to require voters to prove their citizenship. While Congress is debating the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar requirements, federal courts found that the president had overstepped his authority when he attempted to impose changes unilaterally.

Nearly 30 states are also fighting U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits seeking to force them to turn over copies of voters containing sensitive personal information on voters. Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Trump administration.

State administration of elections is a fundamental feature of American democracy, spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. States run and regulate elections, but Congress — not the president alone — can override states and set national standards.

At a basic level, critics of Trump’s executive order argue it tramples on state authority and bypasses Congress. 

“Once again, the President is attempting to act beyond his powers and seize control of our elections. Now he is attempting to weaponize the United States Postal Service against the voters. We will not stand for it,” U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

‘This will help a lot’

Trump cast the executive order as a necessary step in support of election integrity when he signed it during an Oval Office event on Tuesday. He acknowledged it would likely face legal challenges but called it “foolproof.”

Trump, who has long called the 2020 election stolen, falsely asserted that elections have been marked by significant fraud, saying the order was aimed at “stopping the massive cheating that’s gone on.” In fact, instances of noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The Trump administration has been encouraging states to run their voter rolls through SAVE to identify potential noncitizens, but some election officials say it wrongly flags Americans as noncitizens. Several voting rights and civic groups have sued over Texas’ use of SAVE.

The Justice Department confirmed last week that it will share voter data it obtains with Homeland Security. At the same time, DOJ lawyers have been adamant in court that the Trump administration isn’t creating a national voter registration list.

“And yet here is an executive order that very overtly and expressly directs DHS to create that national voter database,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Wednesday.

Postal Service involvement questioned

The order directs Postmaster General David Steiner, who was named to the role by USPS’s Board of Governors last year, to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“What the president is doing today is he’s going to make sure mail-in ballots are safe, secure and accurate,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Tuesday.

Trump’s effort to enlist USPS in election administration goes against the agency’s own policies. When the Postal Service updated its rules last year, it noted that it does not establish rules or deadlines for elections, or determine how the mail is utilized for elections.

USPS spokesperson Cathy Purcell said the agency was reviewing the executive order.

The order is a “structural inversion” of how mail voting works, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections. USPS delivers mail and isn’t involved in distributing ballots, she said.

“It is not up to the Postal Service to have this gatekeeping role over ballot delivery,” Smith said.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

States receive minimal federal election security grant funding each year from the Election Assistance Commission. During the 2025 fiscal year, the EAC distributed $15 million total, which can be used for upgrades to voting systems, cybersecurity, training and other needs.

“Even if it were to come to pass,” Smith said, “I don’t think it would carry much weight as a stick.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday seemed poised to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and instead uphold the country’s long understanding of citizenship by birth on American soil. 

If a majority of Supreme Court justices strikes down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status or temporary immigration statuses like visas, it will be the second recent major blow to the president via the high court. Earlier this year, a majority of justices struck down his use of sweeping tariffs. 

Trump, who signed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship as one of his first acts after his inauguration in 2025, came to the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, a first for a sitting president. 

‘Quirky’ administration argument

A majority of the justices during Wednesday’s oral arguments were skeptical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s arguments that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of newly freed African American slaves, not immigrants. 

Chief Justice John Roberts called one of Sauer’s key arguments “quirky,” and questioned how it could be applied to an entire class of immigrants without legal status. 

Sauer argued that the children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. He cited carve outs in birthright citizenship, such as the children born to foreign diplomats.

“You expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Along with Roberts, the liberal wing of the court and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also did not seem swayed by Sauer’s argument. 

Gorsuch asked Sauer if, under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens “under your test.” 

“Uh, I think so,” Sauer said.

Indigenous people were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1924, but were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because those children were born to parents who were citizens of tribal governments. 

Sauer also contended the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld citizenship based on birth on American soil, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, was wrongly decided. 

He argued that the Wong Kim Ark case did not take into consideration “sojourn travelers,” who are temporary visitors in the U.S. and give birth.   

Sauer also said the Trump administration was not looking for the justices to overturn that case. 

ACLU arguments

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that Sauer’s argument to the court was an effort to create a “revisionist history” of the Wong Kim Ark case. 

“Everyone took Wong Kim Ark to say that, as a result of that, birthright citizenship was the rule,” she said. “And I think everybody has believed that for a long, long time.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang said during oral arguments that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court rejected those efforts.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” said Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. 

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Experts have warned that if the constitutional right to birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people, leaving them without a country to call home.

If the high court determines that Trump violated the Constitution with his executive order, it would be a major block to the president’s goal in defining who is American, as Trump has aimed to reshape the country’s racial and ethnic makeup through limits to migration and an aggressive immigration campaign of mass deportations. 

A decision from the high court on the case, Trump v. Barbara, is likely not going to come until the end of the court term, in late June or early July. If the court decides to uphold the executive order, it would go into effect 30 days after the ruling. 

New world, old Constitution

Sauer argued that birthright citizenship should not be applied to children of temporary visitors, such as foreigners who partake in what opponents call “birth tourism.”

Roberts asked Sauer how much of an issue birth tourism is – the idea that foreign visitors specifically travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their soon-to-be born children.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer said, citing media reports that many Chinese tourists travel to the U.S. and give birth. 

However, China does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship. 

Roberts seemed skeptical that birth tourism should be considered in Sauer’s legal arguments for the purpose of restricting birthright citizenship. He told Sauer that birth tourism “wasn’t an issue in the 19th century.” 

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. “Where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.” 

But Roberts shot back, “Well, it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Other countries

Sauer also argued that the U.S. should fall in line with the citizenship laws of other countries.

“Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations,” he said. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Kavanaugh questioned why the U.S. should worry about the citizenship requirements of other countries. 

“Obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Kavanaugh said. “I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point.”

Shortly after oral arguments ended, Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, where he falsely said the U.S. is the only country to have birthright citizenship. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico are among several countries that have birthright citizenship.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote. 

Trump left Wednesday’s oral arguments after Sauer was finished presenting his argument to the justices, and about a few minutes into arguments from the ACLU’s Wang, according to White House pool reports. Oral arguments lasted for about two-and-a-half hours.

Earlier decision

This is the second time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the justices. 

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court. 

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the ACLU filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said. 

For the first time in years, there are early signs that police killings in the United States may be declining — after deaths reached a record high in 2024 and amid intensified scrutiny of law enforcement tactics nationwide.

The findings come as photos and videos of aggressive law enforcement — particularly involving federal immigration agents — have dominated headlines and social media. The new numbers don’t include deaths during immigration enforcement, and federal agents operate under different authorities and standards than state and local police. Nevertheless, some experts say the heightened visibility has sharpened public attention on the use of force.

New data from Campaign Zero, a research group that advocates for the end of police violence, shows a slight drop in police killings in 2025 compared with 2024.

At least 1,314 people were killed by police in 2025 — the first annual decrease since 2019, according to the group’s report. By comparison, at least 1,383 people were killed by law enforcement in 2024, the highest number recorded since the group began tracking the data.

Some policing experts caution that it’s too early to say whether the drop is the beginning of a longer-term decline.

“You want to have a couple of good years, and you want to begin to gather why we think these things are happening,” said Tracie Keesee, co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity and an associate professor of public safety and justice at the University of Virginia School of Continuing and Professional Studies. Keesee has 25 years of law enforcement experience.

“What do we not know?” she said. “What’s the data not telling us? I think that’s also important.”

Experts point to a range of possible explanations for the decrease in police-related deaths, including ongoing staffing shortages that have resulted in fewer officers on patrol, expanded use of de-escalation training and stricter use-of-force policies, and the uneven rollout of changes adopted by police departments in the years following the 2020 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Lower crime rates nationwide — including a decline in homicides — is another possible factor, some experts say, as it may have reduced the number of high-risk encounters between police and civilians.

The uncertainty reflects long-standing gaps in national policing data. There is no comprehensive federal government database tracking police use of force, leaving the public to rely on independent efforts such as Campaign Zero’s Mapping Police Violence database, which compiles incidents from public records, media reports and other verifiable sources.

Last year, the Trump administration shut down the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, a system that tracked misconduct by federal law enforcement officers.

The available data that is maintained by the federal government is collected by the FBI through its Uniform Crime Reporting system, which began tracking use-of-force incidents in 2019. The data relies on voluntary, self-reported submissions from police departments.

Another widely cited effort, The Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, tracked fatal police shootings between 2015 and 2024, but stopped updating the numbers in 2025.

While the Fatal Force database focused solely on police shootings, the Mapping Police Violence database takes a broader approach, including deaths involving other types of force as well as some accidental deaths — differences that can shape overall counts and complicate comparisons.

Researchers say these gaps are not just a data problem but also a barrier to understanding use of force itself. The gaps make it difficult to study when and why force is used and to evaluate which policies — whether legislative or within police departments — are the most effective in reducing it.

“There really is a significant misconception about what use of force looks like, and it’s largely because of the fact that we just don’t know what leads to use-of-force incidents,” said Logan Kennedy, an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at East Carolina University. “There’s not data out there.”

Variation across states

State-level data from Campaign Zero shows wide variation not only in how often police kill civilians, but also in the types of encounters that turn fatal.

Some states consistently had far lower rates of police killings than others. Rhode Island was the only state that had no police killings in 2025, according to the report.

New Jersey had the second-lowest rate in the country in 2025, with 0.08 police killings per 100,000 people. That’s a 48% decrease from the state’s average of the previous 12 years, according to the report.

By contrast, New Mexico had the highest rate of police killings per capita, with 1.36 police killings per 100,000 people, according to the report.

The types of incidents that lead to deadly force also vary. In some places, fatal encounters are more likely to stem from reported violent crimes, while in others they more often begin with routine traffic stops or calls related to mental health crises or welfare checks, according to Stateline’s analysis of the data.

Some researchers and policing experts say those differences may reflect a mix of factors, including training standards, department policies and whether states have invested in alternatives to traditional policing — such as crisis response teams that handle mental health calls.

Since 2021, every officer in New Jersey has been required to undergo de-escalation training known as ICAT, or Integrating Communication, Assessment and Tactics.

ICAT training teaches patrol officers how to handle tense situations — especially those involving people in crisis — by slowing encounters down, communicating clearly and using safer alternatives to force. The program was developed by the Police Executive Research Forum, a national nonprofit focused on policing standards, about a decade ago.

“In the last 10 years, we have seen the evolution of police training, especially as it relates to de-escalation,” said Chuck Wexler, the group’s executive director.

ICAT has been implemented in roughly 1,500 law enforcement agencies nationwide, Wexler said. He added that it may have contributed to New Jersey’s significant decline in use-of-force deaths in 2025, though he acknowledged it would not have been the sole factor.

At least 12 cities with populations over 250,000 had zero police killings in 2025, according to the report. Departments in two of those cities, Long Beach, California, and Minneapolis, have received ICAT training, Wexler said. Police in Roanoke, Virginia, and Spokane, Washington, reported no officer-involved shootings in 2025, and were also trained under ICAT.

“If you don’t change your training and your tactics and how you communicate with people, you’re not going to see the change in the areas that you can,” Wexler said.

Some states, including California and Washington, have adopted stricter use-of-force laws in recent years, allowing officers to use deadly force only as a last resort. Others have expanded certain programs aimed at reducing police involvement in nonviolent situations, such as when someone is in the midst of a mental health crisis and might be better helped by a specially trained social worker than a responding law enforcement officer.

The report’s authors found no single policy directly linked to lower rates of police killings.

The variation, some policing experts say, highlights how uneven changes to policing standards and procedures have been implemented since Floyd’s death.

Some states and localities have pursued sweeping changes, while others have taken a more limited approach. Some experts say it can take years for a policy or training change to be implemented, take hold and begin to shift broader trends.

It’s also unclear whether the momentum behind policing policy changes has been sustained across much of the country — and to what extent states and localities have maintained those changes or rolled them back, experts say.

“Years later, we don’t really know. Did those reforms actually go into effect?” said Kennedy, of East Carolina University. “Asking questions about whether or not they’re persisting or eroding –– it makes a significant difference.”

Disparities persist

The impact of police violence also remains deeply uneven — both nationally and within states.

Black Americans continue to be killed by police at disproportionately high rates compared with white Americans, a disparity that holds across nearly every state analyzed, according to the report. Nationwide, Black people are killed at more than twice the rate of white people, the report found, with even wider gaps in some states.

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Hispanic people were also more likely than white people to be killed by police in 2025, according to the report.

Even if 2025 does mark the start of a new downward trend in police-involved killings, some experts say national figures can obscure what’s happening on the ground.

The decline does not mean all communities are experiencing the same level of change, according to Keesee, of the Center for Policing Equity.

“The question I always ask (is), ‘Police killings are down for who?’” Keesee said. “When you still have racial disparities, that means it might not be perceived that killings are down, especially if you’re in communities where a lot of these things seem to take place.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

In her campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez announced a child care plan Tuesday that includes capping families’ child care costs, raising wages for child care workers and investing to support child care services where they’re hard to come by.

“I’ve been to all 72 counties almost four times now, and everywhere I go, parents tell me the same thing: Child care costs more than their rent, more than their mortgage, more than groceries and utilities combined,” Rodriguez said at a news conference in her Madison campaign headquarters. “I’ve met parents paying $2,000 a month for child care, for one child. They’re being forced to make an impossible choice — Do I keep working or does it make more financial sense to stay at home?”

Her proposal includes establishing “reliable, long-term funding for child care,” Rodriguez said, with possible tax changes as well as partnerships with private businesses. “Investing in affordable, accessible child care is one of the smartest economic development strategies we can pursue,” Rodriguez said.

Every Democrat vying for the party’s nomination has included child care as a policy priority, and they all mention the subject on their campaign websites. Several have toured child care centers to emphasize their commitment to addressing child care access and affordability.

Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., was the first of the seven Democratic hopefuls to spell out details of her campaign’s child care proposal.

Hughes’ plan, released Feb. 26, frames child care affordability as part of a broader policy theme focusing on the Wisconsin economy. It includes provisions to expand child care subsidies to more families and raise child care wages as well.

“Making childcare affordable will not only help families, but it will unlock parts of the economy that are stalled because of workforce shortages,” Hughes said in announcing her proposal.

The Hughes plan includes expanding the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy program so that all families up to Wisconsin’s median household income would be eligible in the first year, and to include households with up to twice the median income in the second year. (Wisconsin’s median household income in 2024 was $82,560, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)

The plan outlines a series of child care workforce proposals including raising wages and instituting training programs, as well as ideas to lower providers’ overhead costs.

Support widespread; details to come

Others in the race have painted in broader brushstrokes, with details yet to come. At a forum in January convened by Main Street Alliance, a small business organizing group that backs stronger government support for child care, all seven Democrats participating endorsed the concept.

In his December visit to a Waunakee child care center, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said child care and preschool should be universally available, likening them to public school for children age 6 and older. Barnes hasn’t yet fully rolled out his policy, according to his campaign.

On March 26 Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley announced his agenda for his first 30 days if he’s elected governor, which includes passing “universal Pre-K and childcare utilizing the existing providers already serving Wisconsin families.” Neither the agenda nor the campaign website laid out the details or the game plan for reaching that objective.

A feature in The Guardian published in January led off with a short anecdote about Rep. Francesca Hong, who has embraced universal child care as part of her platform. Hong’s campaign website cites plans in New Mexico and Vermont — both of which have enacted universal child care programs. She says her plan is for families “to access affordable, high-quality childcare with either no out-of-pocket costs, subsidies, or strictly capped prices.”

At a meeting with voters in Madison March 24, Joel Brennan listed child care costs, as well as housing costs and health care costs, as among top concerns for voters and his campaign, but didn’t go into details. State Sen. Kelda Roys has also endorsed child care support and headlined legislative proposals to boost Wisconsin’s investment in child care.

None of the Democratic hopefuls have outlined specifics of how their versions of state support for child care would be funded.

Rodriguez’s plan

Rodriguez said her plan calls for holding child care costs to 7% of a family’s income for all families with incomes up to $500,000 a year. The state would cover the rest through “child care affordability grants,” Rodriguez said.

According to calculations from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, fewer than 5% of Wisconsin households have incomes of more than $500,000.

In outlining her proposal for reporters Tuesday, Rodriguez enumerated its features but declined to offer an overall price tag.

“Right now we know that if we invest $1 in child care, we will get $7 to $13 back in economic return,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said her plan calls for letting families choose the child care setting of their preference — center, home-based providers and private and faith-based providers would all be eligible.

The plan also calls for child care providers that receive state support to pay their workers at least $18 an hour, “with clear pathways to higher wages and professional development,” she said. “When we treat early educators like the professionals that they are, we retain workers, stabilize programs, and open more slots for families.”

To bring child care services to areas of the state where they aren’t available, especially in rural communities, the plan includes a low-interest loan and grant program to expand, renovate and build new child care facilities.

Two child care providers, Heather Murray of Waunakee and Brooke Legler of New Glarus, joined Rodriguez’s press conference Tuesday and offered their endorsement of the plan.

“When I think about being able to pay my teachers what they actually deserve, enough that they can build careers here, not just work until something better comes along, that changes everything,” Murray said. “When I think about families being able to afford care without sacrificing everything else, that’s transformative.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) – The Republican sponsors of a bill to enhance penalties for drug dealers near homeless shelters say that Gov. Tony Evers’ veto of the bill continues what they called failed policies against addiction and recovery.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin ranks 35th on a list of states with affordable electricity with an average price of 12.72 cents per kilowatt hour.

(The Center Square) – A new survey says Wisconsin businesses are thinking about artificial intelligence, but they’re not yet thinking it is a major problem.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law gives requesters the right to request records from their government. After all, as the law states, “a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate.” 

But how to get started? Under the law, “any person” can make a request for records from any Wisconsin state or local government agency or official, verbally or in writing. You don’t have to start from square one: There are many tools available to help you make requests and ensure you get the records you want with minimal fuss. 

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Counsel has long posted a records request template on its website, wisfoic.org. It cites Wisconsin law and uses language to target your request and help you avoid surprise fees.

Many national groups also post letter generators online that can be used to make requests to state and local governments.  

For example, the Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to assisting student journalists, posts a heavily used letter generator, which is available for free and can be used to make requests.

An organization called MuckRock not only has a letter generator, but also allows users to post responsive records they receive on its website at muckrock.com. Here you can search through records others have received from all over the country.

Other groups post records they have received through their own open records and U.S. Freedom of Information Act requests.  

For example, a group called Reclaim the Records posts genealogical and historical records on its website, reclaimtherecords.org. The website governmentattic.org provides a searchable collection of oddball federal government records and reports.

Of course, this is in addition to records the government proactively publishes or posts online itself. A wealth of information is already available on Wisconsin agency and local government websites, or in local libraries. 

Federal agencies are even required to follow the “Rule of 3,” or make electronically available records that have been requested three or more times. The website data.gov contains more than 400,000 datasets, from what it describes as the home of the U.S. government’s open data.

In some cases, it may be easiest just to start with a phone call to the state or local agency that has the records you want. It may be able to send you the record on the spot, or help you understand available records to target your request.  

If you’re looking to better understand the law, the Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Open Government posts numerous resources online, including its Public Records Compliance Guide, which is helpful for requesters and records custodians alike.  

A well-drafted records request is useful for everyone: It can help requesters get the records they want, in less time, and at a lower cost. It can also help custodians find records more easily, freeing them up to respond to others’ requests and carry out other duties.

But the most important tip is to not be intimidated by the process: There are no magic words required to trigger your right to get records, and the law must be interpreted broadly in favor of access.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law, by design, makes it easy to get records, to fulfill its important objective of informing the electorate. Don’t hesitate to exercise your right to use it.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the group’s vice president and a partner at the law firm Pines Bach LLP.

Your Right to Know: How to jump-start your records requests 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

A Wisconsin court has dismissed Democrats’ efforts to get the state to redraw its congressional maps.

The three-judge circuit court panel said it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the state’s congressional districts have been gerrymandered along partisan lines, leaving the matter to the state’s Supreme Court.

“This Panel is not endorsing the current congressional map. Rather, we, as circuit court judges, do not have the authority to read into a Wisconsin Supreme Court case an analysis that it does not contain,” the judges wrote.

Wisconsin’s current district lines trace back to the 2011 congressional maps, which attorneys for the Democrats said were gerrymandered by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican-drawn 2021 maps, which then prompted the state Supreme Court to order new maps drawn that made the “least change” to the existing district lines from 2011.

This lawsuit was part of a wave of redistricting suits filed by Democratic-aligned groups across the country, but it’s unlikely to yield new maps before the midterm elections.

Republicans represent six of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts, though statewide partisan elections are often competitive and only won by a slim margin. Sens. Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin — a Republican and a Democrat, respectively — won their most recent elections by a percentage point or less. Evers won reelection by more than 3 percentage points in 2022.

Attorneys in the redistricting case may appeal the panel judgment to the state Supreme Court. Another redistricting lawsuit, which argues that Wisconsin’s congressional maps favor incumbents, is pending before its own three-judge circuit court panel.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Wisconsin court dismisses Democrats’ attempt to redraw congressional map 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

For many families across the Midwest, discussing end-of-life planning is about as comfortable as a January blizzard on Highway 175. However, proactive planning is a final act of care that prevents legal headaches and ensures a legacy stays within the family. In Wisconsin, specific statutes — ranging from marital property laws to unique transfer-on-death rules — make it essential to use the right tools. Whether you are a young parent or assisting aging parents, these are the legal and financial cornerstones for a solid plan.

Write a will and consider a living trust

A last will and testament is the traditional bedrock of any plan. In Wisconsin, a will allows you to name an executor (the person who will manage your estate) and a guardian for minor children. Without a will, a state judge — not your family — decides who raises your kids and how your assets are split.

For many Wisconsin families, a revocable living trust is a powerful alternative or supplement.

Benefit: Unlike a will, which must go through the public, often costly probate court process, a trust allows assets to pass privately and immediately to heirs.

Midwest reality: If you own property in multiple states (like a cabin in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula or a farm in Iowa), a trust can prevent your family from having to open probate cases in every state where you own land.

Assign power of attorney: health care and finances

Control is often lost not at death, but during a period of incapacity. Wisconsin law recognizes two distinct roles:

• Financial power of attorney: This grants a “trusted agent” the authority to pay your mortgage, manage your taxes and handle your bank accounts. Under Wisconsin Chapter 244, these are “durable” by default, meaning they remain valid even if you lose mental capacity.
• Health care power of attorney: This allows someone to make medical decisions if you cannot. In Wisconsin, your spouse is not automatically authorized to make all medical decisions for you without this document. It requires two witnesses who are not related to you or responsible for your health care costs.

Create an advance directive (living will)

While a health care power of attorney names who makes decisions, an advance directive (often called a “declaration to physicians” in Wisconsin) tells them what those decisions should be. This document outlines your wishes regarding life-sustaining treatments, such as ventilators or feeding tubes, specifically if you are in a terminal condition or a persistent vegetative state.

For Wisconsin residents, the Department of Health Services provides standard forms that are legally recognized across all state health systems.

Name beneficiaries for accounts and insurance

One of the most common mistakes is assuming a will covers everything. In reality, beneficiary designations on life insurance policies, 401(k)s and IRAs “trump” what is written in a will. If your will says your estate goes to your children, but your 20-year-old life insurance policy still lists an ex-spouse, that money will likely go to the ex-spouse.

To keep things simple, many Wisconsin banks offer payable-on-death (POD) options for checking and savings accounts, which keeps that cash out of the probate court’s hands.

Transfer-on-death deeds

Wisconsin is one of the states that allow a transfer-on-death (TOD) deed for real estate. This is a game changer for the “family home.”

How it works: You file a TOD deed with your local register of deeds (such as the one in Juneau for Dodge County). It names who inherits your home, but it has no effect while you are alive. You can still sell the house or change your mind at any time.

The catch: Because Wisconsin is a marital property state, if you are married, your spouse generally must sign the TOD deed even if the spouse’s name isn’t on the original title.

Note: For small estates, Wisconsin offers a “transfer by affidavit” process for estates valued under $50,000. This allows heirs to collect assets without a full court proceeding, provided they follow strict notification rules for the state’s Medicaid Estate Recovery Program.

This story is published in collaboration with Multi-Media Channels. It originally appeared in Multi-Media Channels’ print “Dignity in Care” publication.

Don’t leave a mess: What Wisconsin families should know about wills, trusts and end-of-life planning 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: 2 minutes

Hi, Wisconsin! Health reporter Addie Costello here. 

I spent last Saturday with around 80 attendees of a senior breakfast in Merrill, and it was one of my best-spent weekends so far in 2026. 

Northwoods residents packed a banquet hall to eat, talk with neighbors and list the biggest issues they face as older adults. 

The Senior Empowerment Project, an organizing group focused on issues impacting older people in rural areas and small towns, organized the event and asked me to give a short presentation about my reporting on long-term care issues. The most exciting part? Once I finished talking, a microphone was passed from table to table as older adults shared the questions and issues they think about the most. 

Where can they get transportation on the weekends? How can older adults afford to stay in their homes as property taxes increase? Where can they get nutritious food? 

I left the event with a long list of questions I plan to answer in a new project. We’re calling it Q&Aging, a series of short stories where I interview experts to answer your questions about getting older in Wisconsin — whether about health care, housing or what comes next.

If you’re a diligent reader of Wisconsin Watch newsletters, you may remember us asking people last year to share their experiences with hospice. Or last month, when I asked for questions about long-term care. 

We’re now getting back to you with answers. Here’s a look at our first installments of Q&Aging: 

Can you tour long-term care facilities without an appointment? 

A reader’s email inspired this story. The short answer is yes. Read on for more specific tips from experts.  

What to know about hospice and palliative care in Wisconsin

I reported this as part of our collaboration with several Multi-Media Channels, which cover swaths of northeast and central Wisconsin. Find the full Dignity in Care project here.

Don’t leave a mess: What Wisconsin families should know about wills, trusts and end-of-life planning

Here, Multi-Media Channels Editor Taylor Hale reports on the important paperwork we all need to stop avoiding — for the benefit of our loved ones.

If you have a question or a suggestion for the series, fill out this form or contact me directly at acostello@wisconsinwatch.org or 608-616-5239.

Q&Aging tackles your questions about aging 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: 2 minutes

Choosing a long-term care provider is an important, expensive decision. Like test-driving a car, unannounced visits can provide helpful insight. 

So what should someone do before a “walk-in” visit?

Wisconsin Watch asked two experts to weigh in:

• Devon Christianson, director of the Aging and Disability Resource Center of Brown County. 
• Mike Pochowski, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Assisted Living Association. 

Here’s what they recommend: 

Start with a scheduled tour. The person giving tours likely has important information about a facility’s care and costs. The state health department provides a guide for comparing assisted living providers, and the federal government has a similar guide for nursing homes. ADRCs can also help people prepare for tours. 

Ask about “walk-in” visits. Facility staff might list certain times that are not ideal or explain security concerns, especially in a facility that offers memory care. But if the answer is an absolute no, that is something to consider when comparing providers.

Be transparent. The goal of drop-in visits is not to catch a provider doing something bad. Prospective residents or their family members should tell staff who they are and go through the normal guest registration process. 

Be respectful. Nursing and assisted living facilities are people’s homes. Visit at a reasonable time and stay in common areas. 

Ask residents and their families if they would be open to talking, Christianson said. Don’t base your decision around one resident’s experience. Use these conversations as a tool to help inform your decision. 

This article was inspired by a reader sharing an experience touring facilities for a loved one. Do you have something to share? Please reach out.

Can you tour long-term care facilities without an appointment? 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.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers says President Donald Trump's order to restrict absentee ballots from going to people not vetted by his administration is "bulls---," and he looks forward to seeing the president in court.

The post Evers calls Trump’s order restricting mail-in voting ‘bulls–––’ appeared first on WPR.

Just like regular gas prices, the price of diesel has skyrocketed over the past month in response to the war in Iran.

The post Higher diesel prices in Wisconsin will likely trickle down to consumers appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin is part of a coalition of 21 states and local governments suing the Environmental Protection Agency for weakening standards on coal-fired power plants tied to emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants.

The post Wisconsin and groups sue Trump EPA for rollback of mercury standards appeared first on WPR.

Traditional diets can be ineffective. But as a UW-Madison researcher recently told Larry Meiller that an eco-friendly diet can bring about long-lasting benefits for both individual and planetary health.

The post How to sustain an eco-friendly diet appeared first on WPR.

A free 5K along the shore of Lake Mendota is part of a global community running movement.

The post A global movement, a local morning: A community run that brings the world together  appeared first on WPR.

Thanks to developments in genetic selection and feeding, the amount of fat in milk has spiked in recent years after decades of consistency.

The post Butterfat in milk is at historic levels. For some Wisconsin cheesemakers, that’s a problem. appeared first on WPR.

An American journalist was kidnapped Tuesday in Baghdad and Iraqi security forces are pursuing her captors, Iraqi officials said. The journalist was identified as freelancer Shelly Kittleson by one of the outlets she worked for.

The post Wisconsin-born journalist kidnapped in Baghdad, search is underway appeared first on WPR.