A new state grant program will hand out $10 million for violence prevention work across Wisconsin.
The post New state grant program to hand out $10M for violence prevention work across Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin’s state crime labs received fewer total cases in 2024 than in 2023, but took longer on average to turn around DNA casework and toxicology, according to a new report from the state Department of Justice.
The post State crime labs saw fewer cases in 2024, longer turnarounds for DNA and toxicology appeared first on WPR.
Over the past year, President Trump's administration has radically changed the immigration landscape in the United States. Meanwhile, Wisconsin's immigration attorneys are feeling strained as they try to keep up.
The post Wisconsin immigration attorneys struggle to keep up with Trump policy changes appeared first on WPR.
A police officer in Superior was shot early Sunday near Superior Middle School.
The post Superior police officer shot, suspect in custody appeared first on WPR.
Getty Images
As a practicing OB-GYN in Wisconsin, I see firsthand how many of my patients rely on contraception to protect their health, manage painful conditions, and plan their futures. When a woman sits across from me in the exam room, she’s not thinking about politics. She’s thinking about how to survive her work day without severe cramps, how to manage her bleeding so she can attend class without mishap, or how to avoid threatening her life with another high-risk pregnancy.
These situations are only a few of the reasons why the news about abandoned U.S.–funded contraceptives overseas is so alarming. This action blatantly reflects the same disregard for women’s health that now shapes national policy. And that disregard lands directly on women’s bodies.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. government ordered the destruction of nearly $10 million worth of U.S.–funded contraceptives, based on the false claim that birth control is an “abortifacient.” This claim is absolutely nonsensical. Contraception doesn’t end a pregnancy — it prevents one. Unfortunately, ideology, and not medicine, guided that decision, leaving lifesaving, taxpayer‑funded medicine stalled in warehouses instead of reaching women who need it.
The full picture is even more disturbing. Several days ago, a new report found that the Trump administration left 20 of 24 U.S.–funded contraceptive shipments to waste away in Belgian warehouses. These were fully paid-for, taxpayer-funded supplies — IUDs, implants, pills, and other reproductive health essentials — intended for women in 13 countries. This is simply appalling.
And if you think that kind of extremism stops at the water’s edge, think again.
Back home, I see the fallout of the same ideology driving national attacks on contraception and women.
Already, there are over 300,000 women of reproductive age in Wisconsin in need of contraception, and attacks are making this gap even worse.
And these gaps carry real health risks, because contraception does more than prevent pregnancy — it treats endometriosis, PCOS, severe bleeding and anemia, and it reduces the risk of reproductive cancers.
Rural clinics that once offered contraception and family-planning visits have declined in number, a trend worsened by federal policy shifts that weaken the reproductive-health safety net and leave too many women without reliable nearby options for care.
And now, with health-insurance costs already skyrocketing for many families — and monthly bills set to jump even higher if those tax credits expire — the ACA’s no-cost contraception guarantee slips further out of reach. Road block after road block after road block.
Fortunately, Wisconsin has leaders who understand the stakes.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s leadership on the “Right to Contraception Act” reflects a truth every OB‑GYN knows: contraception saves lives. Contraception reduces maternal deaths, prevents unintended pregnancies, treats reproductive-health conditions, and empowers women to build stable lives. Baldwin fights to protect contraception — what Wisconsin women rely on every day — not because it’s politically convenient, but because she understands it’s a medical necessity.
U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan co-sponsored the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” — legislation designed to stop exactly what we’re seeing in Belgium. The bill requires that U.S.–funded food and medical supplies – like the contraception sitting in Brussels at this moment – reach the people they were purchased for, instead of being left to rot or destroyed for ideological reasons. In Washington, where too many have decided contraception is a cultural wedge rather than essential health care, Pocan’s voice matters.
The women I see in my exam room aren’t looking for a political fight. They’re looking for care that lets them stay healthy, stay safe, and stay in control of their lives — something contraception makes possible every day.
Jeopardizing contraception — whether through wasteful negligence abroad or political interference here at home — is harmful, cruel and simply unjust.
We in Wisconsin cannot afford to look the other way. We need leaders who will defend the right to contraception, not undermine it.
The stakes are simple: either we protect access to basic health care, or we allow ideology to decide who gets care — and who doesn’t.
For the women in my clinic — and for women everywhere — contraception is essential care that strengthens their health and safeguards their freedom.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Arizona, speaks to the media during a primary election-night party at El Casino Ballroom in South Tucson on July 15, 2025. Grijalva claims she was pepper-sprayed during an ICE raid in Tucson on Dec. 5, 2025, but the Department of Homeland Security denies it. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)
Arizona’s U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva was involved in a clash with federal agents during a protest of immigration raids in west Tucson Friday, during which she claims she was hit with pepper spray.
According to a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency partnered with the Internal Revenue Service to carry out as many as 16 warrants in southern Arizona in a “years-long investigation into immigration and tax violations.” In videos posted to social media by community advocates, several masked federal agents in tactical gear can be seen near the westside location of popular Mexican seafood and grill restaurant Taco Giro.
The raids prompted a protest and federal agents deployed tear gas and pepper spray against the crowd. The Arizona Daily Star reported that multiple employees who live near the west Tucson restaurant were detained. At least one protester was among those taken into custody by federal agents. AZ Family reported that Taco Giro locations in north Tucson, Casa Grande and Vail were also targeted. ICE spokesman Fernando Burgos-Ortiz confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that multiple people were arrested, but didn’t clarify how many or confirm claims that agents had pepper-sprayed a sitting U.S. Congresswoman.
Tricia McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed Grijalva’s account. McLaughlin accused Grijalva of hindering the work of federal agents and appeared to question Grijalva’s claim that she was pepper-sprayed by highlighting her lack of visible physical reaction in the video.
“If her claims were true, this would be a medical marvel,” McLaughlin wrote. “But they’re not true. She wasn’t pepper sprayed. She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement. In fact, 2 law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that (Grijalva) joined. Presenting one’s self as a ‘Member of Congress’ doesn’t give you the right to obstruct law enforcement.”
Tucson Sentinel reporter Paul Ingram, who was on-the-ground covering the ICE raid and protest, reported that federal agents shot pepper spray into his face and eye, even though he was clearly identified as a member of the press.
A video from Univision reporter Óscar Gómez shows federal agents shooting pepper spray directly into the faces of protesters, with Grijalva in close proximity. An agent is then seen coming after Gómez directly, covering his camera with pepper spray, even as Gómez appeared to be backing away.
The large-scale raid of several Taco Giros in Southern Arizona is the second time this year a restaurant chain was the subject of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, a division within ICE, that ensnared multiple employees who lack legal immigration status.
In July, federal agents raided Colt Grill BBQ and Spirits locations in Northern Arizona. The operation was the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a money laundering and labor exploitation scheme. Along with the husband-and-wife owners of the Northern Arizona restaurants, and two undocumented immigrants who were involved in recruiting and exploiting other immigrant workers, several more undocumented employees were also arrested.
In a video posted to her X account, Grijalva described as many as 40 agents gathered at the westside location she visited with her staff for lunch, and said that she was treated with hostility even after identifying herself as a member of Congress.
“I was here, this is like the restaurant I come to literally once a week, and was sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive,” she said. “I was asking for clarification which is my right as a member of Congress.”
A video of the incident posted to Grijalva’s social media accounts shows a federal agent spraying several bursts of pepper spray directly at demonstrators in the street, close to where Grijalva is standing. Grijalva’s staffer jumps in front of her. Coughing can be heard offscreen. Later in the video, a pepper ball appears to explode inches from Grijalva’s feet as she walks away.
Grijalva, Arizona’s first Latina congresswoman, has been a fierce critic of immigration enforcement activity in her district. Earlier this week, she publicly condemned a Border Patrol raid of a humanitarian group’s migrant aid station in the desert on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, criticizing it as an example of President Donald Trump’s “cruel (and) unconstitutional” mass deportation agenda.
In a statement issued shortly after she said she was pepper-sprayed, Grijalva said her office was working to get more information on Friday’s immigration arrests.
“Our residents deserve to know whether these raids are targeting genuine public safety threats – or law-abiding neighbors who have called our communities home for decades,” she wrote. “ICE has become a lawless agency under this Administration – operating with no transparency, no accountability, and open disregard for basic due process.”
While Trump administration officials have time and again emphasized their intent to detain the “worst of the worst”, many of the immigrants that ICE has arrested during Trump’s second term have no criminal record. A June survey of people in immigration detainment facilities at the time found that nearly half, 47%, lacked any criminal history and fewer than 30% of them had been convicted of crimes.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state’s top legal officer, denounced the incident on social media. In a post on X, the Democrat, who has long criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics, called the incident “unacceptable and outrageous.”
“Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions,” Mayes wrote. “Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”
Grijalva voiced concern for how federal officials interact with people who don’t have her authority, in light of how she was mistreated on Friday.
“While I am fine, if that is the way they treat me, how are they treating other community members who do not have the same privileges and protections that I do?” she questioned, in her written statement.
***UPDATE: This story has been updated with eyewitness reporting from the Tucson Sentinel and Univision.
This story was originally produced by Arizona Mirror, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Meet the Wisconsin native who is foraging 100% of his food.
What was the last thing you foraged? Maybe some ramps, or morels? But what about your salt, oil, even toothpaste? On this episode, meet the Wisconsin native who is setting out to prove that he can not only survive for an entire year eating only food he has foraged, but he can also help show the true connection to nature most of us have been missing.
Host: Amy Barrilleaux
Guest: Robin Greenfield, Sustainability Advocate, Ashland Wis. native
Resources for You:
Food Freedom: A Year of Growing and Foraging 100% of My Food
Robin Greenfield YouTube Channel
Defender Episode 57: Wisconsin's Forbidden Fruit
A Wisconsin plant that President Donald Trump and Republicans championed during his first administration as the “8th Wonder of the World” is set to venture into building data centers with a new $569 million investment.
But members of Congress said the state should first address serious concerns from constituents about manufacturers’ energy and water use, which could strain existing infrastructure and leave consumers footing the bill.
“The average Wisconsinite should not have to subsidize the power or water for a commercial entity,” Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden said.
Foxconn, a Taiwanese company and one of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers, says it will create nearly 1,400 jobs in Racine County over the next four years, in exchange for up to $96 million in total performance-based tax credits. It’s the second amendment to the company’s contract with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. after Foxconn dramatically rolled back its initial plan, proposed in 2017, to invest $10 billion and create as many as 13,000 jobs.
Foxconn had invested nearly $717 million by the end of last year, according to WEDC.
The company’s original multibillion-dollar deal with Wisconsin was heralded as an “America first” achievement, complete with a White House rollout attended by former Speaker Paul Ryan and former Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
“The construction of this facility represents the return of LCD electronics and electronics manufacturing to the United States,” Trump said at the announcement in 2017.
However, Foxconn’s new investment will take Wisconsin — where Meta and Microsoft in the last several months have announced deals to build data centers — further into the AI economy.
Five days before Foxconn pledged new investments in Wisconsin in November, OpenAI announced it would “share insight into emerging hardware needs across the AI industry to help inform Foxconn’s design and development efforts for hardware to be manufactured at Foxconn’s U.S. facilities.”
Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, whose district includes 11 Madison-based data centers, said the state’s growing data sector should be a wake-up call to the Republican-led Congress.
“All the more reason Congress should get its act together because we need to do the proper regulation that’s good on all fronts related to AI, and I feel like we’re not even crawling at this point,” Pocan said.
The House reconciliation bill included a provision to halt AI regulation by states for 10 years, but the Senate cut the language.
The question of who will pay for the new data centers’ anticipated energy and water consumption is becoming a major concern for lawmakers and constituents alike.
“I think if you’re going to have this data center, you are either going to — business is not going to like this — you’re either going to help pay for those utility rates (that) are rising, or you’re going to self-power,” Van Orden said.
Some Wisconsin residents have spoken out against data centers’ environmental impacts, including at small protests in seven cities across the state in the first week of December.
Just two major data centers slated for development alone, including the Microsoft project, would require the energy of 4.3 million homes, according to Clean Wisconsin, an advocacy organization that has criticized rising resource demands from the state’s data centers.
“The issue is we only have 2.8 million homes in Wisconsin,” said Amy Barrilleaux, a spokesperson for the organization.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said that although the energy and water demands of data centers are ultimately a local permitting issue, constituents’ concerns are very real.
“I’d be concerned about that, as well,” Johnson said.
A petition to pause approvals of AI data centers until these issues are resolved got nearly 3,000 signatures since last week, Barrilleaux said, calling it a sign of the growing “frustration” from Wisconsinites over the state’s lack of transparency about how the centers will affect the energy system.
“If you’re in Wisconsin right now and probably a lot of states, you hear about a new AI data center development every couple of weeks. So it feels overwhelming,” Barrilleaux said. “It’s not just what’s happening on that Foxconn site.”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., pointed to public input processes taking place in local government.
“I want my constituents to get their questions answered before these projects move ahead,” Baldwin told NOTUS.
Reps. Glenn Grothman and Tony Wied declined to comment on the Foxconn plant. A spokesperson for Rep. Bryan Steil, whose district includes Racine County, did not immediately return a request for comment Thursday.
This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.
Foxconn, Trump’s ‘America first’ factory, is moving to AI. It’s giving lawmakers some pause. 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.
SUPREME COSTS: This is the third in a series of articles about how Wisconsin chooses its judges.
Wisconsin is one of the only places on Earth that thrusts top judges into big-time politics.
Here Supreme Court candidates compete in officially nonpartisan statewide elections that have grown increasingly polarized and expensive, with campaigns now costing far more than those in any other state. This spring’s $144.5 million high court contest marked the first time that campaign spending approached that of recent races for governor and U.S. senator.
By contrast, the federal government and the majority of other states and countries appoint their judges. Some of those appointed judges eventually must face voters, but only in yes-or-no retention elections intended to avoid the political heat of head-to-head campaigns.
Not all of those other systems succeed in taking the politics out of choosing judges. The process of appointing federal judges is widely viewed as partisan, particularly for the U.S. Supreme Court. And even some retention elections have become multimillion-dollar contests, as activists try to change the ideological balance of state high courts.
However, 11 states have set up independent nonpartisan or bipartisan nominating commissions to ensure that Supreme Court justices are chosen by merit. Many other countries select judges through civil service systems. And 12 states use independent performance reviews of judges to help voters or appointing authorities decide whether judges should keep their jobs.
Although 57% of all Wisconsin Supreme Court justices were first appointed by governors to fill vacancies, past efforts to switch to appointing every justice faced strong political headwinds. No other state has dropped judicial elections in four decades.
Some Republicans are even pushing in the opposite direction, calling for Wisconsin to join the eight states that pick Supreme Court justices in fully partisan elections.
When Wisconsin became a state in 1848, electing judges was a new and controversial idea. Most judges had been appointed since their federal or state courts were created. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued for lifetime appointments to preserve federal judges’ independence against political pressures.
But some states started to embrace judicial elections in the populist wave that followed President Andrew Jackson’s 1828 election. That was partly a reaction to judicial appointments that were seen as political rewards, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said in 2009. Mississippi was the first to switch in 1832, followed by New York in 1846 — just before Wisconsin’s first constitutional convention.
Walworth County delegate Charles Baker argued during the convention that electing judges was consistent with democratic principles, according to the State Law Library. That view was met with thunderous opposition from Racine County delegate Edward Ryan, a future chief justice, who asked of the judiciary, “Must its judgments represent the will of the people? No sir! No sir! God forever forbid it! … It represents the eternal principles of truth and justice.”
As a compromise, the new constitution banned electing judges at the same time as other state officials, in an attempt to discourage political parties from nominating judicial candidates. After parties didn’t take the hint, the Legislature outlawed party labels on judicial ballots in 1891.
Meanwhile, every state admitted between the Civil War and the 1950s decided to elect at least some of its judges. Those races were initially partisan, until 1873, when Chicago-centered Cook County, Illinois, pioneered nonpartisan judicial elections, a concept that spread during the Progressive Era. Of the 22 states that now elect high court justices, 13 (including Wisconsin) have fully nonpartisan elections, eight have fully partisan elections, and Michigan nominates justices at party conventions but doesn’t list partisan affiliations on general election ballots.
Yet nonpartisan elections haven’t kept big money and ideological divisions out of state Supreme Court races. As documented by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, many states’ high court campaigns have ballooned past $1 million in spending over the past 25 years, driven by special interests trying to influence rulings on social, political and economic issues that include hot-button topics like abortion and same-sex marriage.
Since 2000, nine of the 13 states with fully nonpartisan elections — including Wisconsin — have seen at least one $1 million-plus high court race. But every state with fully partisan elections has had million-dollar court contests, along with partly partisan Michigan.
Political parties have helped push up the price tag for Wisconsin’s formally nonpartisan elections, aided by a state law allowing unlimited donations to candidates. The last three Supreme Court races drew $34.1 million in party cash, with Democrats outspending Republicans more than 2-to-1.
Voters seem to have mixed feelings about the partisan involvement. On one hand, 61% of Marquette University Law School Poll respondents in February said they believe party contributions cut into judicial independence, while only 38% said partisan support gives voters useful information about candidates.
Yet the partisan passions ratcheted up by big spending and polarizing issues have dramatically transformed how closely Supreme Court results reflect the most recent presidential vote.
In 1978, county-level results showed almost no relationship between the two, according to calculations by Marquette Poll Director Charles Franklin. But the correlation has trended sharply upward, particularly after the start of multimillion-dollar races in 2007, Franklin found. Last spring, his calculations showed a 98.5% correlation between support for liberal now-Justice Susan Crawford and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and between backing for conservative Brad Schimel and GOP President Donald Trump.
“It’s a stunning change, but not a new change,” considering how the partisanship evolved over time, Franklin said.
Judicial votes increasingly mirror political divide
Voting results by counties for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections and presidential elections, 1980 – 2024.
Presidential election
Supreme Court election
Democratic lead
Republican lead
Liberal lead
Conservative lead
0
+20
+10
+10
+20
0
+20
+10
+10
+20
1980
2007*
2025**
* Presidential election data from 2004.
** Presidential election data from 2024.
Source: Marquette University Law School
Graphic by Hongyu Liu/Wisconsin Watch
Judicial votes increasingly mirror political divide
Voting results by counties for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections and presidential elections, 1980 – 2024.
Supreme Court election
Presidential election
Democratic lead
Republican lead
Liberal lead
Conservative lead
0
0
+20
+10
+10
+20
+20
+10
+10
+20
1980
2007*
2025**
* Presidential election data from 2004.
** Presidential election data from 2024.
Source: Marquette University Law School
Graphic by Hongyu Liu/Wisconsin Watch
Nationwide, however, nonpartisan elections may still affect how voters react to candidates, said Douglas Keith, deputy director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center. In nonpartisan races in Montana, Arkansas and Kentucky, “voters chose the candidate who ran the less overtly partisan campaign,” Keith said.
By contrast, Keith said, voters seem more likely to treat partisan high court campaigns like other partisan races — including in Ohio, where the Republican-controlled Legislature switched from a variation on the Michigan method to fully partisan elections, starting in 2022.
Franklin, Keith and other experts also believe that Wisconsin’s spring elections, originally designed to deter partisanship, could have had the opposite effect, by taking high court races out of competition with other major contests where candidates are seeking donations and attention. Most other states hold judicial elections in the fall, regardless of whether they’re partisan or nonpartisan, with only Georgia and West Virginia joining Wisconsin in the spring.
In October, the Marquette poll found 56% of state voters thought high court races have become so partisan that candidates should run with party labels. That idea was backed by nearly two-thirds of Republicans, with Democrats and independents almost evenly split.
However, politicians’ support for switching to partisan judicial elections seems to depend on whether they think it will help their own side. Ohio Republicans figured they would benefit from fully partisan high court elections, and they have won every race since the 2022 change, said Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Similarly, Louisiana Republicans are changing Supreme Court justice nominations to regular partisan primaries, starting in 2026, instead of the state’s unique all-party primaries.
In 2009, after the conservative candidate won a brutal, record-spending Wisconsin high court race the previous year, Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, and other Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish nonpartisan spring elections and elect all public officials in the fall. The measure died in committee in a Democratic-controlled Legislature.
That was when conservatives were more likely to vote in low-turnout contests, said Franklin and UW-Milwaukee Professor Emeritus Mordecai Lee, a former Democratic lawmaker. Now liberals have the edge in those races, Franklin and Lee said, and support for partisan elections has flipped.
After liberals won four of the last five Supreme Court races, Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden called for moving all spring elections to the fall of even-numbered years. GOP state Rep. Dave Maxey, chair of the Assembly Campaigns and Elections Committee, and Van Orden’s Republican House colleague Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, are open to discussing that idea, their spokespeople said.
Such a major change would cause numerous complications for thousands of currently nonpartisan local officials and lower court judges, as well as presidential primaries, said Wood County Clerk Trent Miner, president of the Wisconsin County Clerks Association.
Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann, another GOP gubernatorial candidate, is calling for a more modest change: shifting only the statewide contests for Supreme Court and superintendent of public instruction to fall and moving primaries for fall races from August to April.
In an interview, Schoemann said he didn’t have a strong feeling about whether high court elections should remain nonpartisan, but he added, “Everybody acknowledges that they’re largely partisan races anyway. … Let’s be honest about what they are.”
Both Schoemann and a Tiffany spokesperson said maximizing voter participation would be the main reason to reschedule elections.
Because constitutional amendments must be approved in two consecutive legislative sessions and then in a statewide referendum, any change would be at least a few years away.
By the 1920s, some states were growing disillusioned with judges’ involvement in electoral politics. Nowhere was this concern greater than in Missouri, where Democratic Party boss Tom Pendergast’s Kansas City machine regularly defeated state Supreme Court justices who ruled against its wishes, according to a 2014 report by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver.
In 1940, Missouri voters approved a new method of appointing judges. Under that system, now called the Missouri Plan, a nominating commission screens judicial applicants based on merit. The governor then chooses a judge from a list of potential nominees presented by the commission. Newly appointed judges typically serve a relatively short first term before facing voters in a yes-or-no retention election to keep their jobs for a longer second term.
Kansas was next to adopt the Missouri Plan in 1958, after its governor resigned a few days before his term ended — and was promptly appointed to the state Supreme Court by the lieutenant governor who succeeded him. Some form of commission-based gubernatorial appointment is now in place in 22 states, including Iowa.
Merit selection is supposed to guard against the appearance of “cronyism, patronage and self-dealing” that can arise if a governor or president has no limits on nominating judges, according to a 2018 Brennan Center report.
“With merit selection, candidates move forward in the process based on their qualifications and
experience,” the 2014 IAALS report said. “In other systems, the amount of money spent in an election campaign, name recognition, and political or party connections can be the determinative factors.”
For example, Indiana law requires that state’s Judicial Nominating Commission to “consider each candidate’s legal education, legal writings, reputation in the practice of law, physical ability to do the job, financial interests (for conflict-of-interest purposes), public service activities, and any other pertinent information the commission feels is important to select the most qualified candidates.”
A 2021 paper in the Journal of Public Economics found that justices chosen in merit selection processes or nonpartisan elections produced better work — as measured by how often their rulings were favorably cited in other judges’ decisions — than justices chosen in partisan elections.
Missouri was the first state to create an independent commission and require the governor to choose from its list. In most of the 11 states with that approach, no single official or institution dominates commission appointments, and members may be appointed by various elected leaders, the state high court or the state bar association. Some states also call for geographic or demographic diversity among commissioners.
However, not all commissions are equally independent. In 11 of the 22 states where such commissions advise governors, the governor can either appoint a majority of commission members or choose a candidate who’s not on the commission’s list. In South Carolina, legislative leaders appoint a commission to screen candidates for election by lawmakers.
Four other states allow governors to nominate high court justices without consulting a commission, although some of those governors may create their own advisory panels and all of those appointees must be confirmed by lawmakers or other officials.
Confirmation is also required in seven states with governor-controlled commissions and three states with independent commissions.
Virginia’s legislature elects justices without nominations from either the governor or a commission.
In 1999, after Wisconsin’s first million-dollar Supreme Court race, then-state Rep. Mary Hubler, D-Rice Lake, introduced a constitutional amendment to let the governor appoint high court justices with Senate confirmation, but without a nominating commission. The measure drew bipartisan support but died in committee in a Republican-controlled Assembly. After three even more expensive races, then-state Rep. Mark Gottlieb, R-Port Washington, introduced a 2009 amendment calling for appointment with confirmation and retention elections. It died in committee in a Democratic-controlled Assembly.
Abrahamson, the state’s first female justice and the only one to win four contested elections, opposed a switch to appointment. “Elected judges are more apt to go and speak with the people about the judicial system and listen to their concerns,” the late justice said in 2009.
Former Justice Janine Geske said that she had long supported elections for the same reason: “It made justices more human and someone who people can identify with,” in contrast to more isolated federal judges. But Geske added, “I liked the elected judiciary until all this happened (with big-spending television-centered campaigns). People are so sick of these terrible ads that relate to issues that the court doesn’t decide,” mainly criminal cases in lower courts.
Now the moderate Geske said she leans toward appointment, but only if nominees are screened by a bipartisan commission and only if the governor must choose from the commission’s list.
Former Justice Dan Kelly, a conservative who lost back-to-back multimillion-dollar races in 2020 and 2023, said he also supports appointment, with Senate confirmation. Citing the Federalist Papers, Kelly said judges “must reject politics entirely” in their rulings, and appointment offers “much more protection against politics” than elections in which “campaigns have become explicitly political.”
However, Kelly — who was appointed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker to fill a vacancy — disagrees on one key point with Geske, an appointee of GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson. Kelly said the governor should be free to name someone outside a nominating commission’s list as a check on a panel that may have been “politically captured” by special interests.
Kelly’s comments echo a frequent conservative critique of the Missouri Plan — that nominating commissions may be controlled by liberal-leaning lawyers. Although some states specifically require non-lawyer representation on nominating panels, a 2019 study by the Brennan Center’s Keith found attorneys dominated most commissions, with corporate and plaintiff’s attorneys outnumbering prosecutors and public defenders.
In Kansas — the only state where the bar association names a majority of the commission — the Republican-controlled legislature has endorsed a constitutional amendment to abolish the merit selection process and return to electing justices. If voters approve the amendment in August, lawmakers would decide whether the elections should be partisan or nonpartisan.
Although 13 states switched from elections to merit selection in the 1960s and 1970s, Utah was the last state to do so in 1985, while Rhode Island was the last state to convert its appointment process to merit selection in 1994, according to IAALS. Voters rejected merit selection of high court justices in Ohio in 1987 and in Nevada in 1972, 1988 and 2010.
Geske and Burden said it would be challenging to convince Wisconsin legislators and voters to drop judicial elections for merit selection. February’s Marquette poll found 90% support for continuing to elect justices, with relatively minor differences by party. And in 2018, voters resoundingly defeated a GOP-backed constitutional amendment to end elections for state treasurer.
“On the other hand, Republicans are having their heads handed to them in Supreme Court races, so there may be some interest” among GOP lawmakers in appointment, Burden said. Liberals have won four of the last five high court races by double-digit margins and now hold a 4-3 majority on the seven-member court. Conservatives are defending seats in 2026 and 2027 and won’t have a shot at regaining control until 2028 — or later if liberals boost their majority in April.
Governors have appointed 46 of the 81 justices who have served since statehood. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who is not seeking re-election in 2026, is the only current member of the court who was originally appointed.
Wisconsin is one of 10 states that don’t require their governors to consult a nominating commission or seek confirmation for a high court appointee. By contrast, 29 states require governors to use nominating commissions in filling vacancies, and 17 states require confirmation of justices appointed to fill vacancies. Lawmakers fill vacancies in South Carolina and Virginia, and sitting justices fill vacancies in Illinois and Louisiana.
In 2000, a Wisconsin state task force on judicial diversity endorsed the governor’s use of an advisory committee to screen candidates, but opposed writing the practice into the state constitution. It didn’t recommend creating a more independent commission or requiring the governor to choose only applicants recommended by the committee.
Most states with independent commissions skip the confirmation process and wait for voters to decide the justices’ future in retention elections.
Altogether, 20 states use retention elections for at least some high court races. California, Maryland and Tennessee combine confirmation and retention elections. In Illinois and Pennsylvania, justices initially chosen in partisan head-to-head elections must run in retention elections for subsequent terms. And in Montana and New Mexico, regular elections become retention elections if nobody files to challenge an elected incumbent.
“Because judges do not face opponents in retention elections, they usually do not need to raise money and conduct campaigns,” IAALS says on its website. “At the same time, special interest groups are not as active in retention elections as they are in contested elections, because a good judge’s performance speaks for itself” and even if they try to oust an incumbent, “they cannot select a replacement who fits their particular agenda.”
Nonetheless, special interests have targeted some retention elections, driving them into the multimillion-dollar range. According to the Brennan Center, that trend was accelerated by a $1 million race in 2010, when conservatives waged a successful campaign to defeat three Iowa Supreme Court justices after the seven-member court unanimously overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Retention election spending peaked at $9.9 million in 2020, when conservatives ousted a Democratic justice from the Illinois Supreme Court.
As an alternative to incumbent justices facing voters in either head-to-head contests or retention elections, the Brennan Center advocates for a single term of 14 to 18 years, and the State Bar of Wisconsin has called for a single 16-year term, compared with Wisconsin’s current 10-year terms.
“Extensive evidence suggests that election pressures impact judicial decision-making in a wide array of cases, and that retiring justices rule differently than those seeking to keep their jobs,” the Brennan Center wrote in its 2018 report.
Among the 46 states where justices stay in office through elections or reappointment by elected officials, New York’s 14-year terms are the longest, followed by five states with 12-year terms.
Conversely, “15 years is a long time to go without any accountability to the public,” said Danielle Kalil, IAALS director of civil justice and the judiciary.
Although no state restricts justices to a single long term, the Brennan Center cited four states that found other ways to insulate them from political pressure:
Working with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, IAALS came up with a system for adding judicial performance reviews to the Missouri Plan, to help inform voters before retention elections. The institute now advocates for that modified plan, which it named after the late justice.
“Most Americans undergo job evaluations, and there is no reason why judges should not do the same,” IAALS says on its website. Such evaluations focus on “holding judges accountable to high quality job performance while maintaining judicial independence, by focusing on politically neutral qualities like impartiality, case administration, and clarity of communication rather than specific case outcomes.”
Alaska was the first state to use judicial performance reviews, starting in 1976. Now seven states release evaluations to voters before retention elections, five others use evaluations in reappointment decisions, and four share them only with judges. Hawaii and New Hampshire also release summaries that don’t identify specific judges. Republican-led legislatures ended evaluations in Kansas in 2011 and Tennessee in 2014.
IAALS recommends that evaluations be conducted by independent commissions, separate from nominating commissions. Kalil said evaluating commissions should survey attorneys and possibly others involved in the justice system and observe judges in courtrooms.
Even if states elect high court justices, multimillion-dollar campaigns aren’t inevitable. Brennan Center data show four states with head-to-head judicial elections have escaped the national trend of high-spending races: Minnesota, Oregon, Idaho and North Dakota.
In Minnesota, candidates and their supporters spent just $637,011 to elect 10 justices in five contested and five uncontested races from 2013 through 2022 — a period when Wisconsin candidates and their allies spent almost $33 million to elect seven justices in six contested campaigns and one uncontested election, according to the Brennan Center and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
Both states share a history of nonpartisan elections, but unlike Wisconsin, Minnesota elects justices in the fall for six-year terms, with no restrictions on how many seats can be on the ballot in the same election, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities research fellow Eric Ostermeier said.
Minnesota’s elections also have been far less competitive than Wisconsin’s, said Ostermeier, the author of the Smart Politics blog. Since 2000, the average margin of victory in Minnesota has been 23 percentage points across 20 contested elections, almost twice the 11-point average in 14 contested Wisconsin elections. Only one Minnesota race was decided by a single-digit margin, compared with five in Wisconsin.
Perhaps most telling, Minnesota’s incumbent justices never lost an election and the state never had a wide-open race for any seat in that time, while Wisconsin voters ousted two appointed incumbents and six elections lacked incumbents.
Regardless of whether states elect or appoint justices, “no system is perfect,” Kalil said.
Yet public sentiment could be shifting toward change, said Nick Ramos, executive director of the election watchdog Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
“People are becoming fed up and tired,” with the flood of attack ads, Ramos said. “People are becoming more receptive to doing something.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Sick of those state Supreme Court campaign ads, Wisconsin? Here’s how other states avoid them 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.
Some of America’s best railway adventures, from the Rocky Mountaineer to the Skyrail, these stories offer a glimpse into our nation’s railroad history and explore how railroads defined the spirit […]
The post Great Scenic Railway Journeys 30th Anniversary Special appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin health leaders worry changes to a federal recommendation to vaccinate newborns against hepatitis B will create unnecessary confusion for families and providers.
The post State health leaders condemn change in hepatitis B vaccine recommendation appeared first on WPR.
Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a host of Republican bills Friday, including legislation barring undocumented immigrants from getting federal health care funding.
The post Evers vetoes bill to block Medicaid funds from undocumented residents appeared first on WPR.
Graham Russell and Russell Hitchcock celebrate Air Supply’s 50th anniversary with a concert packed with romantic hits including “Lost in Love,” “All Out of Love” and “Every Woman in the […]
The post Air Supply: 50th Anniversary Concert appeared first on WPR.
Some tree farms in the central U.S. are selling more potted Christmas trees as people seek out an eco-friendly option or look to get more than one use out of their evergreens.
The post ‘Living’ Christmas trees? Some people are choosing evergreens they can replant after the holidays. appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
Gov. Tony Evers vetoed nine bills Friday including a Republican bill that would have barred local and state funds from being used for immigrants without legal status.
Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal status to access BadgerCare, which Evers noted in his veto message. Republicans lawmakers acknowledged that fact as they advocated for AB 308, saying the bill was intended to block future use of health care benefits by immigrants. The bill would have prohibited state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the U.S.
“As this bill’s Republican co-author in the Wisconsin State Assembly plainly stated in the public hearing on this proposal, ‘Wisconsin currently doesn’t allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in BadgerCare,’” Evers wrote in his veto message.
“I object to Republican lawmakers passing legislation they acknowledge is unnecessary to prevent problems they admit do not exist, all for the sake of trying to push polarizing political rhetoric,” Evers added.
Evers said the bill was “more about being inflammatory, stoking fear, and sowing division than it was about accomplishing any significant policy outcome or being prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars.”
U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, one of two Republican candidates for governor, criticized the veto in a statement, saying Evers was putting the interests of “illegal aliens” ahead of Wisconsin taxpayers and sought to tie Evers’ action to next year’s high-profile gubernatorial election. Evers is not running for reelection, and there is a crowded Democratic field that is still taking shape.
“If Democrats take the governor’s office in 2026, you can count on them to hand out driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and taxpayer-funded health care to illegal aliens. I will not let that happen,” Tiffany said.
Evers also vetoed a bill that would have allowed for more tobacco bars in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin first enacted its smoke-free air law in 2010 — prohibiting smoking cigars, cigarettes, pipes and other products in public spaces. The law included an exclusion for cigar bars that were in existence before June 4, 2009.
AB 211 would have allowed for more exemptions for tobacco bars if they came into existence on or after June 4, 2009 provided that they allowed only the smoking of cigars and pipes and were not part of a retail food establishment.
Evers, a former smoker and an esophageal cancer survivor, said he objected due to the harm that the bill could have on Wisconsinites public health.
“Secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, causes serious health problems and is responsible for thousands of deaths on an annual basis,” Evers stated. He said the state’s smoke-free air law was “a critically important step forward for keeping kids, families, and communities healthier and safer, improving public health and, most importantly, saving thousands of lives… I cannot in good conscience reverse course on that important step for public health, safety, and well-being by restoring indoor smoking in certain public spaces.”
Evers also vetoed AB 165, which would have banned local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement.
Evers wrote in his veto message that he objects to lawmakers’ “continued efforts to arbitrarily restrict and preempt local governments across our state.” He said they should instead focus on finding ways to support local communities and ensure they have the resources they need to “meet basic and unique needs alike.”
Evers vetoed AB 450, which would have put off the effective date of Wisconsin’s updated commercial building code until April 1, 2026, saying he objected to “further unnecessary delay in implementing new building standards that will benefit Wisconsin communities.”
The new building codes were originally blocked by lawmakers on the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules for years, but they were reinstated this year by the the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) after a state Supreme Court decision. Justices ruled in July that state laws allowing the Legislature to block executive branch administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional.
The current effective date for the building codes is Nov. 1, 2025.
Republican lawmakers claimed the delay to next year was needed to provide clarity to builders who had been planning projects under the previous code.
Evers wrote in his veto message that the bill would do the opposite.
“This bill would not only create confusion for developers with current building projects under review but would also further delay the implementation of new safety and energy efficiency standards that have been already widely adopted,” Evers said. “The department has and will continue to work with building professionals throughout the state to ensure proper understanding and compliance with the new building commercial code.”
A handful of Republican education-related bills were rejected by Evers.
Currently, teacher preparation programs are required to have a full semester of student teaching during the school year. SB 424 would have allowed for programs to use student teaching during a summer session as an alternative to a full school-year semester.
Lawmakers had said the bill would help with recruitment by allowing for more flexibility to students seeking to become teachers. However, Evers said that the bill would potentially reduce the rigor of the current training that students are required to have, especially given that summer sessions can be shorter than a typical school term and may not allow students to experience the same opportunities available during the school year such as parent-teacher conferences.
“Reducing training, qualifications, experience, and work ages are not real solutions for solving Wisconsin’s generational workforce shortages,” Evers said in his veto message. “Wisconsin’s challenges recruiting, training, and retaining exceptional educators will not be aided by making education professionals less trained, less qualified, and less experienced — nor will our kids.”
Evers also vetoed AB 166, which would have required UW system institutions, technical colleges and private nonprofit colleges to report cost and student outcome data and required the information be provided to high school juniors and seniors in academic and career planning services.
Evers said in his veto message that he didn’t want to burden the state’s higher education institutions with more administrative requirements, especially without “necessary resources.” He noted that the UW system says that the requirements in the bill “overlap substantially” with existing information that is already available.
The University of Wisconsin system keeps a public dashboard with some of the information that the bill would have required, including for financial aid, retention and graduation, and time and credits to degree.
Evers also vetoed SB 10, which would have mandated that Wisconsin public school districts provide military recruiters with access to common areas in high schools and access during the school day and during school-sanctioned events. He said that while he supports the troops, he doesn’t support lawmakers’ attempts to “usurp” local control of decisions on when and where military recruiters are given access to schools.
Voters currently can file a complaint to the Wisconsin Election Commission if they allege an election official serving the voter’s jurisdiction has failed to comply with certain election laws or has abused his or her discretion with respect to the administration of such election laws. A voter who doesn’t agree with a WEC decision can appeal to a court, though currently courts are only allowed to take up an appeal if voters have suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result. That requirement was established in a 2025 state Supreme Court decision.
SB 270 would have eliminated that requirement, and Evers said he objected because it “would open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that not only burden our courts, but our election systems as well.”
AB 366, which would have allowed housing providers to require documentation for service animals and created penalties for misrepresentation of an animal. Evers said he objects to “the creation of unnecessary barriers for individuals with legitimate disability-related needs.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday justices will hear a case to decide if President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.
The court agreed to hear a case, before it is decided in a lower court, that deals with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been used to give citizenship to the children of immigrants in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis.
While a schedule for arguments has not yet been released by the court, it’s likely the case would be heard sometime in early 2026.
The Trump administration argued in its petition to the court that the amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was meant to apply to newly freed slaves. It was not meant to provide citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in the September petition.
The petition also sought Supreme Court review of a related challenge to the order by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. Friday’s court order did not grant a hearing on that case.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause to exclude the children of immigrants in the country without legal authority or only temporarily. Democratic-led states and advocacy groups swiftly sued.
Courts have largely blocked enforcement of the order, although the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect in the states that had not sued to preserve the right.
In a Friday afternoon statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading civil rights group, noted that several federal judges had blocked enforcement and predicted the Supreme Court would preserve birthright citizenship.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, said. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Members of a key CDC advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met in Atlanta on Dec. 4. Maya Homan/Georgia Recorder
ATLANTA — A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee voted to eliminate a recommendation that all newborn babies receive a vaccine against hepatitis B, ending a policy that has been in place since 1991 to protect Americans against an incurable liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis, cancer and liver failure.
The current three-dose series for hepatitis B includes one vaccine administered to infants within 24 hours of birth, and subsequent booster shots given one month and six months after the initial dose. The universal vaccination policy is credited with a 99% drop in serious infections among American children between 1990 and 2019.
In its updated guidelines, the agency will continue to recommend that babies born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis B receive a vaccine at birth. However, in all other cases, the decision will be left to “individual-based decision-making,” a change that experts say will lead to an increase in chronic hepatitis B infections. The new recommendation also suggests that parents delay the first dose of the vaccine until at least two months after birth.
Friday’s decision comes after an 8-3 vote from a key CDC advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is charged with setting national guidelines around which people should be vaccinated against a wide range of preventable diseases and when those vaccines should be administered. The recommendations play a key role in determining which vaccines insurance companies are willing to cover and how accessible those immunizations are to the public.
The two-day meeting included several presentations from prominent anti-vaccine activists, including Aaron Siri, a vaccine injury lawyer who has previously represented U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and reportedly helped him vet health officials for President Donald Trump’s administration. At least two of them — Cynthia Nevison, a climate researcher who has ties to anti-vaccine groups, and Mark Blaxill, a former consultant and author — were recently hired by the CDC.
Retsef Levi, an ACIP member and professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called the updated recommendation a “very positive change in policy,” arguing that blanket vaccine recommendations force newborns to serve as “a safety net for adults’ mistakes.”
But Dr. Cody Meissner, another member of the committee who also serves as a professor of pediatrics and medicine at Dartmouth College, argued that the vaccines play a crucial role in protecting infants from the disease, and said there was no valid scientific evidence to support the changes implemented by the panel.
“Thoughtful inquiry is always commendable,” he told the committee. “But that inquiry should not be confused with baseless skepticism, which is what I think we’re encountering here.”
Sandra Fryhofer, a doctor and liaison for the American Medical Association, also criticized the move, arguing that implementing guidelines based on the mother’s hepatitis status will leave babies vulnerable to developing the disease from other sources, such as infected relatives. According to CDC data, roughly half of people with hepatitis B do not know they are infected.
“Are we going to test every patient that has access to or touches that baby?” she asked the committee Thursday. “I mean, that’s not something that’s really doable.”
The updated recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine mirrors COVID-19 vaccine guidelines passed by the same panel in September, which place new emphasis on the risks of immunizations, though the CDC’s own data shows that the vaccines are safe and effective for most people.
A second vote, which passed 6-4, encourages parents to discuss using serology testing, a type of blood test that measures antibodies to gauge how well a patient’s immune system has responded to a disease, before allowing their children to receive additional doses of the hepatitis B vaccine.
The changed recommendations will not prevent doctors from administering hepatitis B vaccines to newborns, but critics say they could create additional hurdles for families and healthcare providers.
“Adding excessive or ambiguous language around shared decision-making for routine vaccines muddies the waters, creates a false sense of scientific uncertainty and places unnecessary burden on clinicians and families,” said Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, who was representing the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
Children enrolled in Medicaid or the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free immunizations to children who are uninsured or underinsured, will continue to be eligible for hepatitis B vaccines at birth under the new recommendations, according to program liaisons.
As with the new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the updated hepatitis B guidelines will not take effect until being officially signed off by the acting CDC Director, Jim O’Neill.
But amid shifting federal guidance on public health policies, a growing number of state and federal officials are developing their own policies rather than relying on the agency’s guidelines. In a Dec. 3 letter sent ahead of ACIP’s meeting, more than 30 members of Congress urged O’Neill to maintain the existing recommendations, regardless of what the advisory committee decided.
“There is no data to support delaying the first immunization to one-month, four years, or 12 years of age,” the letter states.
U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who heads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also called for O’Neill to forgo signing the updated recommendations.
“As a liver doctor who has treated patients with hepatitis B for decades, this change to the vaccine schedule is a mistake,” he wrote in a social media post after the vote. “The hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective. The birth dose is a recommendation, NOT a mandate.”
Cassidy, a doctor, cast the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy as health secretary on the condition that Kennedy “maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes.” Kennedy later backtracked on that promise, firing all 17 previous members of the committee and replacing them with a slate of hand-picked appointees, many of whom are seen as vaccine skeptics.
In a Thursday social media post, Cassidy criticized the committee for its plans to hear testimony from Siri, the vaccine injury lawyer.
“The ACIP is totally discredited,” he added. “They are not protecting children.”
This story was originally produced by Georgia Recorder, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Login