Americans’ views on crime often don’t match reality — and a new report suggests those perceptions are shaped as much by personal experiences and economic conditions as by crime itself.

The analysis, released by the nonprofit think tank Council on Criminal Justice, draws on decades of Gallup survey data to examine how people perceive crime and what drives those beliefs. The report’s authors found that, since the 1960s, public perceptions of crime have frequently diverged from actual crime trends.

Even during periods when crime declined, most Americans continued to believe it was rising. From 2005 to 2024, about 69% of survey respondents on average said crime was higher than the year before, despite overall crime rates falling in most of those years, according to the report.

Fear of crime has remained relatively stable over time. In 2024, 35% of Americans said they were afraid to walk alone at night — the same share as in 1968.

The researchers found that public concern tends to track major shifts in homicide rates more closely than broader crime trends. But overall, people’s views about crime and their fear of it have not matched shifts in crime rates for most years, according to the report.

Instead, the analysis points to other factors that shape how Americans think about public safety.

Household victimization — whether someone in the home has been a victim of a crime — was one of the strongest predictors of both fear and the belief that crime is increasing. 

Property crimes, such as theft, and people’s own experiences with crime were more closely tied to concerns about the issue than actual violent crime rates.

Economic sentiment also played a role. People who said it was a good time to find a job or expected to spend the same or more on holiday shopping were less likely to say crime was rising and less likely to report fear of walking alone at night, according to the report.

Political views showed a more limited effect. While people with more conservative ideologies were somewhat more likely to perceive crime as increasing, political party affiliation itself was not a significant factor after accounting for economic conditions and other variables.

Higher presidential and congressional approval ratings were associated with a greater likelihood that respondents said crime was staying the same or declining, according to the report.

Local conditions, meanwhile, were more closely linked to personal fears than to perceptions of crime overall. The researchers found that neighborhood factors, such as poverty and youth population, were associated with whether people said they were afraid, but did not generally influence whether they believed crime was rising locally or nationally.

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

The high-profile beer brand owner and political fundraiser Kirk Bangstad is entering the race for Wisconsin governor — a move he hinted at last year before putting it off.

Bangstad, who has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump and state Republican politicians, announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination over the weekend at a rally outside his Minocqua craft beer brewery.

In an email newsletter Sunday from a Substack account he operates, Bangstad told subscribers he was running “because I believe Wisconsin needs a battle-hardened fighter to join the rest of America to save our Democracy from Trump’s regime, and that person doesn’t exist in the crowded field of Democrats currently running in Wisconsin’s Gubernatorial primary.”

The newsletter included a screenshot from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s website showing an account registered for his campaign for governor. The account was not visible at the commission’s website Monday. Commission administrator Daniel Carlton Jr. said in an email message that campaign accounts do not become publicly visible until they have been reviewed by the commission’s staff.

Bangstad, who ran for Congress in 2016, has sold a variety of beers bearing politically themed names honoring Gov. Tony Evers, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and others. He’s also promoted a promise of free beer when Trump dies.

He operates a SuperPAC that has funded advertising promoting Democratic candidates and attacking Republicans, as well lawsuits against Wisconsin’s school choice program and accusing congressional Republicans of enabling the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack that delayed certification of the 2020 presidential election that Joe Biden won. He also sued unsuccessfully to keep Trump off of the Wisconsin ballot in 2024.

Bangstad said in his newsletter that Democrats already running didn’t take seriously his demand for “an election protection plan, because I believed deep in my heart that Trump’s regime would unleash an ‘October surprise’ that would try to steal elections across the country and keep his goons in control of Congress.”

The Saturday rally was initially billed as a free speech event in response to Bangstad’s interview by Secret Service and FBI agents Thursday.

The interview followed a  social media post Bangstad made on April 25, shortly after the shooting upstairs from the White House correspondents dinner that Trump attended. Cole Tomas Allen, accused of crashing a security checkpoint with a shotgun, is being held on charges that included attempting to assassinate Trump. On Facebook that night, Bangstad declared, “Well, we almost got #freebeerday. Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or he faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle.”

Republican campaigns jumped on the post, accusing Bangstad of calling for Trump’s assassination. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin issued a statement condemning the comment as well.

In a newsletter May 1 promoting his rally, Bangstad described the post as “satirical” and suggested federal authorities targeted him for “wondering publicly whether Trump’s assassination attempt was staged.”

In October, Bangstad floated the possibility of running for governor. He argued that “fascism is already here in America and must be stopped” in an Oct. 12 Substack post. “I’ve not heard a single candidate talk about what he or she will do to protect us.”

Bangstad wrote then that he was tempted to run on his history of battling conservative Republicans in court. “But that’s just narcissism rearing its ugly head,” he added. He vowed instead to compile a list of “most egregious votes” in Congress by U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the expected Republican nominee in the governor’s race, and spend money from his Super PAC on ads about “all the lies he’s told in service to Trump, and the harm he’s done to Wisconsinites.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

WASHINGTON — Americans saw prices at the pump sharply rise in recent days as the nationwide average cost for a gallon of regular gas shot up 38 cents over the past week, according to GasBuddy.

The motor club AAA clocked the average price of regular gas at $4.46 per gallon and diesel at $5.64, as Iran and the U.S. remain at a stalemate over opening the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed through prior to the war.

“Gasoline prices rose in every state over the last week, with some of the most significant and fastest increases concentrated in the Great Lakes, where states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois saw sharp spikes, while Wisconsin experienced more modest gains,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement Monday. 

“At the same time, diesel prices surged to new records in parts of the region, with some areas touching the $6-per-gallon mark,” he added.

De Haan said refinery outages drove prices up, but other factors like Middle East oil output and President Donald Trump’s plan to free oil tankers stuck in the Persian Gulf could help.

“However, with so many moving pieces, the outlook remains highly fluid, and while some localized relief may emerge, broader price volatility is likely to persist in the near term,” he said.

Trump’s approval ratings, particularly on everyday costs, are sinking. About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, and 66% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war, according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll published Sunday. 

Trump’s overall disapproval of 62% was the highest the survey recorded since he first took office in 2017.

The nationwide average for a gallon of regular gas was $4.10 one month ago. Last year at this time, it was $3.16, according to AAA.

Brent crude oil, the international standard, jumped to $114.90 a barrel Monday, the second-highest price jump since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.

During a small business summit at the White House on Monday, Trump said the war “is working out very nicely.”

“They thought that energy would be at $300 right, $300 a barrel. And it’s like at 100 and I think going down,” Trump said, incorrectly describing the current trend in prices. “And I see it going down very substantially when this is over.”

Navy escorts through strait

Trump on Sunday announced “Project Freedom,” an operation to guide cargo ships and oil tankers through the strait with the guidance of the U.S. Navy.

The “humanitarian gesture,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, is “merely meant to free up people, companies, and Countries that have done absolutely nothing wrong — They are victims of circumstance.”

Some 20,000 merchant ship crew members have been stranded in the Persian Gulf during the ongoing war, according to United Nations estimates at the end of March.

Trump threatened that Iran would “be dealt with forcefully” if they interfered with the operation.

As of Monday, U.S. Central Command said two U.S.-flagged merchant ships had been escorted through the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps disputed the claim as “baseless and completely false,” according to a statement reported by Iranian state media.

“Any other maritime movements that contradict the stated principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks, and any violating vessels will be forcefully stopped,” the statement read.

War continues

The IRGC also claimed to have hit two U.S. military vessels in the strait Monday, a claim categorically denied by U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Central Command’s Admiral Brad Cooper told reporters on a press call Monday that the IRGC launched multiple cruise missiles and drones at merchant ships that “we are protecting.” 

“We have defeated each and every one of those threats through the clinical application of defensive munitions,” he told reporters. 

U.S. Apache and Seahawk helicopters sank six small Iranian boats Monday, according to Cooper.

The United Arab Emirates defense ministry reported Monday it was intercepting Iranian missiles and drones over various parts of the country. Iran’s air strikes on its U.S. ally neighbors have largely quieted in recent weeks.

U.K. Maritime Trade Organization, which reports on security conditions, has kept the strait’s regional threat level as “critical.”

Trump said Saturday he was reviewing a new deal from Iran to end the war. Talks have failed since the U.S. and Iran announced a tenuous ceasefire on April 7.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on an appeals court ruling from Friday that was blocking remote access to an abortion drug, restoring access until at least May 11.

The administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, pauses Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling blocked a 2023 rule adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowing mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be prescribed without an in-person visit with a health care provider and also allowed it to be mailed to recipients in states with abortion bans.

“The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and law will win in the end,” said Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. 

Thirteen states have near-total abortion bans, including Louisiana. Murrill sued the FDA in October, saying the rule undermines the state’s laws and causes financial harm because the state paid $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications related to mifepristone. 

In the years since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate abortion access, telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication have become increasingly popular, with more than 27% of all abortions provided that way in 2025, according to data from the Society of Family Planning.

“While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.”

The case could follow a similar pattern to one that played out in 2023, after U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling that would have revoked access to the abortion drug mifepristone altogether. 

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened shortly after that ruling and kept mifepristone available while the case proceeded in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which eventually decided that more restrictions were warranted, but not pulling the drug’s approval. The Supreme Court officially took the case several months later, and unanimously ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs suing the FDA did not have standing, keeping access to mifepristone intact.

Responses from the attorneys in the latest case are expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by Thursday, according to Alito’s order.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — The State Department must spend the $600 million Congress approved for an international vaccine program, according to a letter sent Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators.

The six senior members of the Appropriations Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to fulfill the government’s “pledge” to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

“GAVI plays a critical role in averting the spread of preventable diseases around the globe and helps protect public health in our country by stopping outbreaks before they reach our borders,” the senators wrote. “Congressional support for GAVI endures because of its proven success as a public-private partnership, immunizing more than 1.1 billion children – and in turn preventing 20.6 million deaths – since its inception in 2000.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine; ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.; State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., all signed the letter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, didn’t sign the letter. 

A State Department spokesperson wrote in an email the department doesn’t “comment on congressional correspondence.” 

Senators wrote in the letter that GAVI “supports U.S. industry and jobs, purchasing more than $12.5 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods and vaccines.”

“It is the world’s leading purchaser of U.S.-produced vaccines and hosts the U.S.-founded global vaccine stockpile,” the senators wrote. “Additionally, vaccines funded through GAVI are approved through the same standards as used by the Food and Drug Administration.”

In the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor, “affordability” might be the most frequently used campaign watchword. Side-by-side with it is another word: Healthcare.

Healthcare “is one of the most broken systems in the whole of government,” says former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. It’s “working as it was designed to,” says state Rep. Francesca Hong — in what is decidedly not a compliment to the system.

Among voters, it is “a top issue if not the top issue,” says Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes calls healthcare one of the “foundational pieces of our economy” — but one that is under strain and not working well.

For Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, it’s “a complicated system” in which she made a career as an  emergency room nurse, a CDC infectious disease officer and finally a health system executive — “which means that I know the levers that we can pull to try to reduce costs across the state of Wisconsin.”

Former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan considers healthcare a leading Wisconsin asset, innovator and employer, but one that’s been hobbled by “the healthcare management that we are allowing to go on in this county — and it’s not helping.”

State Sen. Kelda Roys describes the healthcare system  as imbued with “the worst aspects of capitalism in that we’ve injected profits before patients at every step, but none of the benefits of capitalism — there’s no free market, there’s no real competition.”

Those remarks come from three forums in April at which the seven leading Democratic hopefuls fielded questions about their healthcare policies and priorities.

Four of them — Rodriguez, Barnes, Roys and Hong — took part in a forum hosted by HealthWatch Wisconsin that focused entirely on healthcare issues. (All seven were invited, according to HealthWatch, which is affiliated with the nonprofit public interest law firm ABC for Health).

All seven joined a Wisconsin Health News event focused entirely on healthcare as well as a Wisconsin Citizen Action online forum, where healthcare led off a discussion that covered a cross-section of other issues as well.

Many of the Democratic Party rivals’ policies and priorities overlap. They all agree that healthcare costs and access are among the most important priorities for the state.

All of them say they favor a public option for health insurance — a plan that would be available for people to purchase health coverage on the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace if they don’t have coverage through work and their incomes are too high to qualify them for Medicaid.

All but one of the seven propose to expand Medicaid, referred to as BadgerCare in Wisconsin, under the Affordable Care Act. Expansion would open the health insurance plan for low-income Wisconsinites with incomes above the current limit (100% of the federal poverty guideline) up to 138% of the guideline.

Roys is the exception, arguing that Medicaid expansion is no longer feasible in Wisconsin because of federal changes enacted after President Donald Trump took office.

Instead, Roys proposes a public option that would allow the public to buy into the state health insurance plan for public employees. Brennan also proposes using the public employees’ plan as a public option, but he favors Medicaid expansion as well.

The other five Democrats would tie the public option to Medicaid expansion, making it possible for people whose incomes don’t qualify them for BadgerCare to pay a monthly health insurance premium for BadgerCare coverage.

Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a national right to abortion, all seven Democrats have vowed to protect reproductive healthcare and to firmly back abortion rights in Wisconsin.

All of them speak of the importance of ensuring that mental health is treated on a par with physical health. And all of them at least nod to the need to improve healthcare access in rural Wisconsin.

At the same time, each candidate’s proposals differ, sometimes in fine details, sometimes in broad priorities, and sometimes mostly rhetorically.

Federal relations

Another point of general agreement is on the need for stronger support for public health measures. All of the Democratic candidates have criticized the Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for undermining longstanding support for vaccination against communicable diseases.

But they take different directions in their expectations for federal-state relations in healthcare. Roys, for example, writes off federal assistance during the current administration, which is why she considers expanding Medicaid a dead issue for now. Crowley’s Medicaid expansion proposal explicitly refers to federal matching funds to cover some of the costs.

None have laid out the level of detail that will be required for turning their ideas into legislation or incorporating them into the next state budget.

In the gallery below, click on the caption of each candidate’s picture to read a summary of what that candidate has said and published about their approach to healthcare policy and links to relevant pages on the candidate’s campaign website. 

Early voting for the May 16 election began Saturday with confusion over whether all the races listed on the ballot are still taking place. 

Even motivated voters who showed up within the first few hours said they weren’t quite sure whether the U.S. House elections were still happening. 

“I went ahead and voted for who I wanted to vote for. If they don’t count it, that’s their problem,” said Betty Powers, who has participated in every election since 1968, outside an East Baton Rouge Parish polling location. 

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the U.S. House races Thursday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana’s House district map unconstitutional. 

Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry, who is not related to the governor, has said votes cast in Louisiana’s U.S. House races won’t be counted. But that didn’t deter several early voters from picking a House candidate on their ballot anyway. 

“Something is delayed … but I don’t know if it affects East Baton Rouge Parish or not,” said Valerie Amato, who wore a shirt with the picture of President Donald Trump and the slogan ‘I’m still here’ to her polling location. She said she voted for a U.S. House candidate out of habit. 

Mail-in ballots with U.S. House races listed had already been sent out by the time the governor declared the election was off. Nancy Landry’s office also didn’t have enough notice to remove the affected candidates’ names from the ballots before in-person voting started. 

“[The House race] was still on there, so we voted for it,” said Evan Delahaye, a Baton Rouge resident who voted early with his brother.

“I am worried we’re going to have to vote twice,” he added. 

Pressure from the president

Gov. Landry’s move to postpone an election for a reason other than a natural disaster or health crisis is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, in Louisiana. 

The state has proceeded with U.S. House races after federal courts declared the voting districts unconstitutional in the past, most recently in 2022. Previously, officials agreed it was too close to the elections to change the map, and that new districts could wait until the following cycle two years later. 

But Landry and other Republican officials insist the Supreme Court decision from Wednesday is so sweeping in nature that it demands the aggressive action of calling off an election, even when absentee voting was already underway.

Trump is also putting pressure on GOP elected officials across the country to create as many Republican-leaning districts in Congress as possible before the end of the year to ensure the party maintains its advantage in the House.

The Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s current House map unconstitutional because it said state officials relied too heavily on the race of voters to draw its district boundaries. As a result, Landry and Republican legislators are expected to create a new map that would eliminate one, or both, of the state’s majority-Black districts. 

Calling off the current elections allows the governor and Republican state lawmakers to draw up new, more conservative U.S. House districts sooner.

A flurry of lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court attempting to stop the governor’s actions and keep Louisiana’s House races moving forward. So far, none have been successful, but more court decisions could be handed down in the next few days. 

In light of that uncertainty, U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican whose contentious reelection campaign is on the same ballot, was among those who chose to still pick a candidate in a House race when he went to early vote this week. 

Cassidy said he wasn’t convinced a court would uphold Landry’s decision to call off the election and wanted to vote just in case.

The senator said he agreed with the Supreme Court ruling on the U.S. House districts, but he was uncomfortable with the decision to cancel those races less than 48 hours before early voting began.

“The way that the election has transpired, that has almost treated the voter with disrespect,” Cassidy said in an interview with reporters. “That’s confusing to voters … We should be serving the voter, not politicians.”

 

Just a few months ago, Dreame was a virtual unknown in the West, having primarily cut its teeth in China’s consumer electronics industry, making a name for itself with vacuum cleaners. The company has since pivoted hard into the automotive space, spinning up three separate car brands called Nebula Next, Kosmera, and Star Motors, each with its own stream of concepts. This is its latest creation.

The car appears to wear the badge of Star Motor, one of Dreame’s three new automotive sub-brands. It was introduced back in February with the T08 and T08L, a pair of boxy off-roaders that looked like carbon copies of Dongfeng’s M817 and M917. The brand also showed the D09, a luxury SUV that lifted heavily from the Rolls-Royce Cullinan playbook.

Read: The Chinese Vacuum Brand That Built A 1,973-HP Sedan Just Showed Up At Berkeley With It

As for this latest concept, it was present at the recent Beijing Auto Show and may make a return appearance at the Chengdu Auto Show in September in more production-ready form. Dreame has shown a penchant for taking inspiration from other brands’ designs, and this sedan appears no different. If the Bugatti Chiron and Ferrari Purosangue had a baby, it would look a lot like this.

TychodeFeijter/X

The front of the crossover-style sedan features a massive grille that recalls the Kosmera concept Dreame trotted out at CES back in January, only scaled up and turned more aggressive. It also sports wide, gaping air intakes and a set of sharp LED headlights.

The standout feature in profile is the set of Rolls-Royce-style rear suicide doors, though Star Motor has pushed the idea further than Goodwood does. Where the Phantom retains a structural B-pillar between the front and rear doors, this Dreame concept deletes it entirely, leaving one uninterrupted opening when both doors swing wide. Recent spy shots show the upcoming Genesis GV90 adopting the same pillarless layout.

Photos of the rear haven’t surfaced yet, but the C-shaped element wrapping the rear side windows and rear doors definitely looks reminiscent of the signature C-line used by Bugatti.

No details have emerged on the powertrain, assuming there’s even a working one under the sheetmetal, but in all likelihood, it will follow the lead of Dreame’s other concepts and run on pure electric power.

Whether any of these showcars will actually reach production remains anyone’s guess. Dreame has so far traded entirely in show cars and renderings.

Dreame Nebula Next Jet Concept

Through the first four months of the year, Kia EV6 sales have tumbled 37.4% to 2,751 units. That’s a steep decline and it can likely be attributed to the elimination of the federal electric vehicle tax credit.

Kia is now trying to shore up sales by announcing a steep price cut for 2026. Kicking things off is the EV6 Light Standard Range, which begins at $37,900 before a $1,545 destination fee. That’s a savings of $5,000 compared to the 2025 model.

Review: The Kia EV6 GT-Line Still Feels Great, Yet Something’s Missing

The EV6 Light Long Range also sees a $5,000 price cut, while the all-wheel drive variant gets marked down $5,100. The Wind trim benefits from a $5,500 reduction across the board as pricing now begins at $44,800.

Last but not least, the GT-Line will set you back $48,700. That’s $5,500 less than last year’s model, while the AWD variant offers a savings of $5,900.

Kia didn’t mention the EV6 GT, but the automaker stopped importing the high-performance variant earlier this year “due to changing market conditions.”

Minor Model Year Updates

Besides lower prices, the 2026 EV6 now comes with a standard dual level charging cable. Buyers in ZEV states also get a free DC fast-charger adapter. Speaking of charging, the model now sports a plug and charge capability, which allows for automatic billing at compatible chargers via Kia Charge Pass.

Additional changes are limited, but the EV6 Light Long Range drops the Tech Package to “reduce complexity.” Buyers will also find an updated color palette inside and out.   

As a refresher, the EV6 offers 63 and 84 kWh battery packs as well as ranges of between 237 miles (381 km) and 319 miles (513 km). Buyers will also find outputs of 167 hp (125 kW / 169 PS), 225 hp (168 kW / 228 PS), and 320 hp (239 kW / 324 PS).

2026 Kia EV6 Pricing

Prices exclude a $1,545 destination fee

Skoda has teased the interior of the all-new Epiq and revealed the crossover will be unveiled on May 19. Billed as the “first series-production model to fully implement all aspects of the Modern Solid design language,” the cabin embraces a horizontal architecture as well as a minimalistic aesthetic. While few details were shared, we can see a tiered dashboard with an upholstered lower section as well as rectangular air vents.

More: Skoda’s Smallest EV Has One Big-Car Surprise

Drivers sit behind a two-spoke steering wheel and find themselves looking at a hexagonal 5.3-inch digital instrument cluster. It’s joined by a freestanding infotainment system that spans 13 inches.

Beneath the large screen is slender air vents and a row of “haptic shortcuts,” which resemble buttons. The model also sports an open storage compartment, which has a wireless smartphone charger in the center.

Rounding out the highlights are a slender center console and an ambient lighting system, which creates a “welcoming, cozy atmosphere.” Skoda also noted the model will incorporate sustainable materials including “100% recycled PES for the seat textiles.”

The cargo compartment holds 16.8 cubic feet (475 liters) of luggage, but that can be expanded to 47.5 cubic feet (1,344 liters) by folding the rear seats down.

Three Powertrains And Up To 267 Miles Of Range

Like the Cupra Raval and Volkswagen ID. Polo, the model rides on the MEB+ platform. The entry-level Epiq 35 has a 38.5 kWh battery pack that feeds a front-mounted motor developing 114 hp (85 kW / 116 PS) and 197 lb-ft (267 Nm) of torque. It enables the crossover to accelerate from 0-62 mph (0-100 km/h) in a leisurely 11 seconds and have a range of 196 miles (315 km).

The mid-level Epiq 40 has the same LFP battery and range as the 35, but sports a more powerful motor developing 133 hp (99 kW / 135 PS) and 197 lb-ft (267 Nm) of torque. Thanks to the extra oomph, the dash to 62 mph (100 km/h) falls to 9.8 seconds.

The range-topping Epiq 55 is notable for featuring a larger 55 kWh NMC battery pack as well as a beefier motor producing 208 hp (155 kW / 211 PS) and 214 lb-ft (290 Nm) of torque. 62 mph (100 km/h) comes in 7.4 seconds, while the top speed of 99 mph (160 km/h) is 6 mph (10 km/h) faster than the other variants. Drivers can also expect to travel up to 267 miles (430 km) between charges.

Production will be handled in Spain, and Skoda has previously indicated pricing will open around €26,000 ($30,400), or about the same as its Kamiq gasoline equivalent.

Rivian broke the mold by bringing the R1T, an electric pickup truck, to market before anyone else. Now, it’s trying to gain a far more stable foothold in the industry with its all-new R2. A new report sheds light on how Rivian cut costs but evidently not quality in this new SUV. According to the brand, it costs around half as much to build as the R1S despite keeping the performance and utility that fans love.

At the core of the R2’s cost-cutting approach is ruthless simplification. Rivian says its new zonal electrical architecture slashes wiring complexity, trimming 2.3 miles of harness length and reducing connectors by 60%. High-voltage cabling is down 70% thanks to consolidating multiple power modules into a single unit.

The same philosophy carries over to the powertrain. Rivian’s new “Maximus” drive unit uses 41% fewer parts than the Enduro units found in the R1 lineup. By integrating the inverter directly into the drive unit and even using its housing as a mounting structure, Rivian cuts both material cost and assembly time.

Read: Rivian Lost $416 Million Last Quarter And Just Bet Bigger On Georgia

According to InsideEVs, even the sensors got a rethink. Swapping ultrasonic sensors for corner radars yields a claimed 50% cost reduction, a move that reflects a broader trend toward fewer, more capable components. In theory, that could help Rivian reduce repair costs, a known concern for the brand.

The front suspension ditches the more complex double-wishbone setup used in the R1 for a simpler MacPherson strut design, cutting costs by 70%. Large die-cast sections reduce underbody part count by 90%, while rear doors shed 65% of their complexity.

There’s also a less glamorous but equally important factor: scale. When Rivian launched the R1T and R1S, it was a newcomer building expensive, low-volume vehicles. Now, with higher production targets in sight, it can negotiate better supplier pricing.

Something as basic as a windshield reportedly costs half as much on the R2 compared to the R1. Add in the fact that the R2 is simply smaller, and therefore uses fewer raw materials, and the math starts to make sense. At this point, all that’s left is to see how Rivian executes on production and sales.

BMW is about to do something unusual with its most famous sports sedan. When the next-generation M3 arrives, buyers will get two very different machines wearing essentially the same badge and, crucially, roughly the same price.

According to a new report, BMW intends to sell the electric and combustion M3 side by side in the same price bracket. That might sound straightforward, but it gets interesting once you look at what each version actually delivers.

Related: BMW’s Electric M3 Tries To Simulate Everything It Just Replaced

The electric M3 could deliver close to 1,000 hp (1,014 PS) from its quad-motor setup, though base models are likely to deliver 700-800 hp (710-811 PS) at launch. Meanwhile, the combustion model will stick with an evolved twin-turbo straight-six boosted by mild hybrid tech to somewhere around 552 hp (560 PS).

Visually, the two cars won’t stray far from each other either. BMW wants them to feel like siblings, not alternatives from different worlds. Expect shared design cues inspired by the Neue Klasse look, even though they’re based on entirely different platforms, the combustion car sticking with an updated version of today’s M3’s CLAR platform.

Panoramic iDrive

Inside, both should follow the same minimalist, screen-heavy direction. That means fewer physical buttons and a more digital-first cabin, incorporating BMW’s Panoramic iDrive tech, which may divide opinion just as much as the powertrain choices.

Combustion M3

Sylvia Neubauer, BMW M’s sales boss, is adamant that both cars will deliver what buyers expect. “It’s not only about acceleration and power, it’s about drivability, manoeuvrability and that level of trust and connection between the driver, car and road,” she told Autocar.

She also made it clear BMW knows not everyone will jump ship to electric overnight. “Obviously we will not convince 100 percent out of the petrolhead target group to buy an all electric BMW M3,” she admitted. “But out of 100 people that try it, we will be able to convince some.”

That explains why the combustion version isn’t going anywhere just yet, though some elements of it might be. Reports suggest the manual gearbox option, currently only available on the non-Competition version of the M3, might be retired. If that happens, even the petrol M3 edges further away from its analog roots.

Electric M3

Lead image BMW

Around the world carmakers are u-turning on their plans to go big – or even all-in – on EVs, and Lotus is no different. The Geely-owned brand is developing hybrid versions of its Emeya sedan and Eletre SUV, but until they arrive, dealers have to focus on finding homes for the electric versions. And they’re offering huge discounts.

The UK’s Autotrader website currently has 15 brand new, unregistered examples of Lotus’s Porsche Taycan rival up for sale at prices that’ll bring tears to the eyes of anyone who paid full price for one of the EVs when they first became available in 2024.

Related: The Rarest Emira Coming To America Has A Name From The Dark Side

Most of the really crazy deals are on the flagship Emeya R, whose 905 hp (918 PS / 675 kW) bi-motor setup gets the emissions-free sedan to 62 mph (100 km/h) in less than 2.8 seconds. The biggest saving we could find was on a Kaimi Grey car at Endeavour Lotus West London. Originally priced at £140,105 ($189,330), it’s now up for £89,950 ($121,550). That’s a 40 percent (£50,155 /$67,900) haircut.

Not far away in Hatfield, another dealer has two new Rs price well below list, one of them promising a £43,755 ($59,130) saving. And a couple of hours away to the north east of the capital, Endeavour Lotus Colchester has a cut the price of another four Emeya Rs by similar amounts.

New Car, But An Old Badge

Technically, the R is an obsolete model, Lotus having now switched up its base, S, R grade structure for 600 and 900 names that reference the power outputs. But the powertrains themselves are carried over unchanged, so these heavily discounted Rs we’ve found look great value next to a new £129,990 ($175,660) 900 Sport or £139,990 ($189,180) 900 Carbon.

And if you’re determined to have your Emeya in the current trim, dealers are offering some healthy savings on those too, including £15,000 ($20,300) off a brand new 603 hp (612 PS / 450 kW) Emeya 600 GT, which should cost £95,000 ($128,400) with options.

Hybrids This Year

Lotus is working on a hybrid Emeya, which is expected to match the spec of the bizarrely-named Lotus For Me, the new Chinese-market petrol-electric version of Lotus’s new Eletre SUV. Combining a 2.0-liter combustion engine, twin-motor 900-volt electrical system and a 70 kWh battery, the Eletre hybrid makes 939 hp (952 PS / 700 kW), and should arrive in Western markets – minus the silly name – this year. the Emeya hybrid shouldn’t ber far behind.

Would these big savings tempt you into an Emeya, would you rather wait for the hybrid, or skip the Anglo-Chinese Taycan rival altogether?

Endeavour Lotus/Autotrader UK

The volume of coal delivered in the United States for uses other than power generation—primarily, for manufacturing—decreased by about half in the last 15 years. Coal delivered for these purposes in the South decreased the most in percentage terms between 2010 and 2025, falling 75%, or 14.7 million short tons (MMst), according to our Annual Coal Distribution Report and Quarterly Coal Distribution Report. In 2010, the South received more than double the amount of coal received in the Northeast; by 2025 the two regions received about the same amount. Manufacturers' increasing use of natural gas instead of coal and the closure of manufacturing plants using coal were major factors in this decline.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin saw a 44.8-cent increase in the average price per gallon over the past week and diesel prices hit a record high Monday with an average price of $5.62 per gallon, topping the previous record set…

(The Center Square) – WisconsinEye wants $1 million in the form of $50,000 per month through December 2027 from the state’s Joint Committee on Legislative Oversight as it works to keep operating in the state.

(The Center Square) – There is another call to end Wisconsin’s April elections.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The two most common complaints I hear from people seeking public records are “Why is it taking so long?” and “Why does it cost so much?” Unfortunately, it’s often difficult to mount a successful legal challenge to delays or fees because of the way the state’s laws are worded.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law imposes no deadline on producing records. All it says is they must be produced “as soon as practicable and without delay.” What does that actually mean? While the state Department of Justice recommends that simple requests receive a response within 10 business days, the DOJ itself doesn’t heed its own advice, often taking months — even years — to fulfill requests.

Courts haven’t given much guidance. They’ve essentially said it’s a reasonableness test that takes into account the size and complexity of the request, the resources of the government agency, and whether they are making a good faith effort to comply. But how long is too long? 

Ideally, we’d have a deadline in our law, as some other states do. This may require prioritizing resources properly, which should already be happening. Fulfilling record requests, the law says, is “an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties” of public officials.” And yet I’ve seen agencies with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars who have one person doing this work.

The other common problem with the records law is it allows custodians to charge fees for complying with records requests. Here, I am especially concerned about “location” fees. The government can charge for the “actual, necessary and direct cost” of finding records, typically at the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee capable of searching. But sometimes this is still a considerable amount, and some custodians even want to charge for employees’ benefits.

This amounts to, essentially, the government getting paid twice for the same work. Our taxes already pay the salary or wage of the employee searching for records. The requester pays them again.

Permitting location fees also incentivizes government agencies to be sloppy in their recordkeeping. The more disorganized their records are, the longer it will take them to find records, so the more money they can collect from requesters. Those high costs also discourage requesters from following through with requests.  

For example, I’ve run into police departments that still store their personnel records in paper boxes, so if somebody wants, say, disciplinary records, the department can quote an often prohibitively high price to search each box for disciplinary files. Even if records are stored electronically, they can be hard to retrieve if they are not sensibly organized.

How can we fix these twin problems? If I were in charge (and I’m not), I’d put a strict deadline in the law and eliminate location fees altogether. But realistically, we are unlikely to see either reform. 

Perhaps a more practical solution would be to tie the two problems together. Change the law so that custodians can charge location costs only if the records are produced within a strict deadline — perhaps 10 business days.  

That compromise would incentivize better, more organized record keeping. Government agencies would now want to keep their records — especially those people frequently request — arranged in ways easy to search and easy to find. It would also incentivize them to devote enough resources to fulfill record requests promptly.  

The result? Requesters will get records faster and cheaper, and government agencies might also see a net increase in revenue, as more requesters opt to pay for prompt service rather than walk away.

Pairing these two issues is an idea worth pursuing.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tom Kamenick, a council member, is the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.

Your Right to Know: How to solve high record costs and long delays 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: 5 minutes

In a late-night press conference during the final days of the Assembly session in February, eight Republican lawmakers in some of the chamber’s most closely contested districts made a dramatic announcement. 

They told reporters they had persuaded longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, to allow essential votes on bills to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage for new Wisconsin mothers and to require insurance companies to cover additional screenings for women at increased risk of breast cancer. Vos had opposed the bills, which stalled in the Assembly for months. 

Two months after the bills passed the Assembly, the Jobs First Coalition, a political advocacy organization that has backed Republican candidates, released ads lauding the efforts of some of those GOP lawmakers to get the two women’s health bills signed into law. Michelle Litjens Vos, the speaker’s wife and a former state lawmaker, works on fundraising and event planning for the Jobs First Coalition, according to recent tax documents. 

The group specifically shared video ads focused on Greenfield state Rep. Bob Donovan, De Pere state Rep. Benjamin Franklin, Dodgeville state Rep. Todd Novak and Weston state Rep. Patrick Snyder. The ads featured clips of their remarks from the February press conference. Those four lawmakers won their districts in 2024 by 1 to 6 percentage points and hold seats the campaign arm of the Assembly Democrats is targeting this fall. 

Google’s Ad Transparency Center shows the ads began running April 16 and that the Jobs First Coalition has spent less than $5,000 to run the videos as of May 1. 

“Todd never stops fighting for Wisconsin women, standing up to his own party’s leadership to pass the bill expanding postpartum coverage,” a voiceover says on an ad supporting Novak, which encourages viewers to call his office and thank him for “delivering a win for women’s health care.” The ad flashes a headline from the conservative news outlet Wisconsin Right Now calling the eight a “courageous band of Republican legislators.”

An ad centered on Donovan focuses on his support of the breast cancer screening bill and shows photos of him and his wife. At the February press conference, Donovan explained his wife was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. 

“Detecting cancer early saves lives, that’s why Rep. Bob Donovan never stopped fighting to expand cancer screening for women,” a voiceover says. “And Bob delivered, ensuring women get the additional screening they need.” 

The ads, which have been shared as candidates are circulating nomination papers to get on the November ballot, point to an Assembly Republican strategy cognizant of a national mood that has turned on President Donald Trump and the Republican establishment. The bills also highlight a political issue that appeals to female voters, a voting group that Republicans have often struggled with at the national level. 

“It makes sense that these candidates would want to differentiate themselves from the Republican Party more broadly, from Trump, from Vos, from really anyone in leadership who might be a drag on their campaigns,” said Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center and political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “If they can establish a kind of independent identity as a common sense legislator who’s doing things to help real people in real places, that might be enough to carry the day.” 

After new legislative maps were signed into law in 2024, Assembly Democrats flipped 10 seats previously held by Republicans during an election year when Trump won the state. Two years later, the Marquette University Law School Poll shows Trump’s job approval among registered voters at 42% and at least eight Assembly Republicans as of May 1 have announced they won’t seek reelection. That includes Rep. Dean Kaufert, R-Neenah, who won his seat in 2024 by less than 400 votes. 

While there are challenges for Republicans in 2026, getting the two women’s health bills across the finish line could help candidates in some of these close Assembly districts and fend off potential attacks from Democrats, said Snyder, who authored the postpartum Medicaid extension bill.  

“I’m worried that so many people think that we are somehow like Trump and the federal government and they just lump us in with all of that. I think a bill like this, to me, would help,” Snyder said in an interview with Wisconsin Watch. “It could actually show, hey, Republicans do care. They do care about health. They do care about the health of women and children.” 

In a statement provided to Wisconsin Watch, Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, said the bills extending postpartum Medicaid and covering breast cancer screenings were only passed after Democrats “effectively stopped legislative business” in the final days of the Assembly session in February. Lawmakers proposed amendments related to the women’s health legislation on every bill before the Assembly in an effort to force a vote from Republicans. 

“These ads are incredibly disingenuous and frankly insulting to the women of Wisconsin, who know better than to trust Republican legislators on women’s health issues,” Neubauer said. 

The Jobs First Coalition did not respond to phone calls or emails from Wisconsin Watch with questions about the ads for Donovan, Franklin, Novak and Snyder and if they’ve released any for the other lawmakers who supported the postpartum Medicaid and breast cancer screening bills. In addition to Kaufert, Reps. Jessie Rodriguez, Clint Moses and Shannon Zimmerman were among the eight who advocated for Vos to allow a vote on the bills. 

Wisconsin Watch viewed video ads for each of the four candidates on Google’s Ad Transparency Center, but the video about Franklin was later removed. The page where the video was located indicates it was shown in the Green Bay area, which Franklin represents.  

Both Snyder and Novak told Wisconsin Watch they heard about the group’s ads supporting them, but had not seen the videos. Novak said he has heard a wave of stories from constituents about their experiences with breast cancer and postpartum health issues after the bills were passed. 

“I think that this is a real personal issue to a lot of people, so that’s, I think, what gives me faith in what we did, and I’m glad we finally got it done,” Novak said. “I still would have rather had it done when it was first introduced, but sometimes in that building, it takes a while to move things.”

Conservative group’s ad campaign pits vulnerable Wisconsin Republicans against their own party leadership 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.