When someone is charged with a crime, law enforcement testimony can play a crucial role in court, even determining whether the defendant lands in prison. 

That’s why prosecutors nationwide must provide the defense with information that could call into question the credibility of officers or anyone else who might testify — whether that’s a history of criminal activity, dishonesty or some other integrity violation. 

But how do prosecutors determine what to disclose about whom? 

That’s where it gets complicated, and it’s the subject of an ongoing investigation by Wisconsin Watch, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and TMJ4 News called Duty to Disclose.  

Many district attorneys maintain lists of officers accused of acting in ways that erode their credibility. These are often called Brady or Giglio lists, named for two U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to disclosure. 

In investigating Milwaukee County’s Brady list of nearly 200 current or former officer names, reporters found inaccuracies and inconsistencies — raising questions about transparency in criminal proceedings. 

How do prosecutors across the rest of the state and country disclose such information and what best practices do experts recommend?

Here’s what to know.  

What are the standards for Brady lists in Wisconsin? 

No clear state or federal standards exist for when officers should be listed for disclosure.

It’s up to district attorney’s offices, which are responsible for prosecuting crimes, to maintain such records.

The district attorney should know when an officer is referred for potential criminal charges. But when officers face non-criminal internal violations, prosecutors rely on law enforcement to share that information for consideration. That’s the case in Milwaukee County, according to District Attorney Kent Lovern. If such sharing doesn’t happen, his office may be left unaware.   

The accuracy of a Brady list hinges on clear communication between law enforcement departments and prosecutors, said Rachel Moran, an associate law professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis who has researched Brady systems nationwide. 

“That is where a lot of the sloppiness happens is that prosecutors don’t set up a good system with the police for even learning about the information,” Moran said. 

In Duty to Disclose, reporters asked 23 law enforcement agencies in Milwaukee County for policies governing how to handle Brady material. 

Only seven provided a written policy. The Milwaukee Police Department and eight other agencies said they lacked a written policy, while the remaining seven did not respond.  

What do Brady lists look like in Wisconsin? 

A 2024 Wisconsin Watch investigation found some of Wisconsin’s counties keeping spotty Brady records. Records requests to 72 counties turned up more than 360 names of officers on Brady lists. The tally was incomplete since 17 counties either denied a records request or said they didn’t keep track.

Another 23 district attorneys said they had no names on file, although some said they would reach out to local agencies to update their list.

Milwaukee County disclosed incomplete information at the time. But after TMJ4 News made its own request and threatened to sue, the county released a full list of 192 officers listed for a wide range of conduct — from a recruit who cheated on a test to officers sentenced to federal prison for civil rights violations. Some officers were listed multiple times. 

Of more than 200 entries on the Milwaukee County list released in September, nearly half related to an integrity or misconduct issue, such as officers lying on or off duty. About 14% related to domestic or intimate partner violence, and nearly 10% related to sex crimes, including sexual assault or possessing child pornography. Another 14% involved alcohol-related offenses.

But the list omits some officers who have cost taxpayers millions in misconduct lawsuits and whose testimony judges have found not credible. That includes two detectives who, according to a civil jury, falsely reported a man’s confession to a crime. 

What can go wrong if Brady disclosure doesn’t happen?

The consequences for failing to disclose Brady material can be dire, even leading people to be incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit.

In one extreme case in 1990, an Arizona woman was convicted of kidnapping and murdering her 4-year-old son based largely on the testimony of a Phoenix police detective who had a history of lying under oath — details prosecutors did not disclose. As a result, Debra Milke sat on death row for 22 years before a judge vacated her conviction in 2014. 

Official misconduct has contributed to more than half of wrongful convictions dating back to 1989, according to a 2020 study from the National Registry of Exonerations.

What are other benefits of consistent Brady list disclosure? 

The lack of consistent disclosure has prompted some defense attorneys to maintain their own internal Brady systems based on information they learn, said Alissa Heydari, director of the Vanderbilt Project on Prosecution Policy and a former prosecutor. 

That extra scrutiny makes it even more important for prosecutors to be aware of witness credibility issues.

“From a strategic point, you want to know the weaknesses in your own case and in your own witnesses,” Heydari said.

Consistent, transparent tracking of Brady information could also improve trust in police, Moran said. 

“I don’t think this is an attack on police,” she said. “If anything, I think it could help the credibility of law enforcement to be more transparent about the officers with histories of misconduct.”

Some police unions have sought to influence how Brady lists are created or maintained — including in Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Philadelphia, according to Moran’s research.  

Little federal enforcement and a lack of political incentive to challenge police power often prevent state or local tightening of Brady standards.

“Police misconduct disproportionately impacts communities that are often not heard and not represented in media investigations and not represented as well in politics and in places of power,” Moran said.

Following publication of the first Duty to Disclose installments, the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police criticized Milwaukee County’s Brady list release, saying officers could face “significant career and reputational damage.”

“We appeal to the legislature to establish a standardized, transparent process that ensures the protection of officers’ due process rights, while maintaining the public’s trust in the integrity of our law enforcement agencies,” the police group said in a March 4 statement. 

A Milwaukee officer who appears on the county’s Brady list has called for inconsistencies on the list to be exposed. 

What are best practices for maintaining Brady lists? 

Brady list policies elsewhere range widely, with some jurisdictions more meticulous than others. Such policies should consider the rights of police and citizens, Heydari said.

Prosecutors are increasingly recognizing the importance of crafting such policies, but “my guess is that it’s a pretty small minority of offices that are doing it,” Heydari added.  

John Jay University’s Institute for Innovation in Prosecution in 2021 highlighted 11 jurisdictions nationwide —from San Francisco to Philadelphia — that clearly spell out their policies. 

The institute offers a variety of recommendations, including collecting as much information as possible from police departments about misconduct, providing staff with training, designating a group of people responsible for deciding when to list officers and crafting clear criteria for additions. 

“You don’t want to be frivolously adding police officers who, for instance, have unsubstantiated allegations against them,” Heydari said.

Moran cautions against making that criteria too narrow. 

The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office uses strict criteria, listing officers only when they have a pending criminal charge, a past conviction or an internal investigation “that brings into question the officer’s integrity.”

That has left off, for instance, some officers who a judge found to lack credibility.

That’s in contrast to Cook County State’s Attorney Office in Chicago, which tracks adverse credibility findings — as do prosecutors in New York. 

Last year, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis expanded the type of conduct

that may qualify as Brady material, announced specialized training for attorneys, created a new tracking system for judicial orders related to witness credibility and hired staff to exclusively focus on Brady compliance. 

Are there any statewide Brady disclosure systems? 

Arizona and Colorado have developed statewide disclosure systems, although government watchdogs have called them imperfect.

Colorado became the first state to mandate standards for tracking dishonesty in law enforcement in 2019. But a Denver Post investigation later found inconsistencies in the tracking system. 

A bipartisan bill in 2021 expanded disclosure requirements, making Brady list policies and mechanisms transparent to the public. The legislation requires minimum disclosure standards for counties, with options to disclose more than is required.  

Colorado maintains a searchable Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) database that includes decertifications and disciplinary files including untruthfulness. The 2021 law required dishonesty flags be made public. However, the POST website emphasizes that the database itself is not a Brady list.

Still, more recent watchdog reporting found lingering gaps in the data and inconsistencies in enforcement.

Arizona lacks state mandates for tracking and disclosing Brady lists. The Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council does, however, publish a statewide database of listed officers — an effort that followed a 2020 investigation by ABC15 that found some prosecutors failed to keep accurate Brady lists. The council also publishes best practices for such disclosure. 

Still, ABC15’s follow-up reporting has found continuing transparency gaps in the state. 

Are Wisconsin leaders interested in standards?

Milwaukee County Supervisor Justin Bielinski said a statewide Brady standard and database could help the county manage liability in hiring. As Milwaukee County police departments aggressively recruit officers from other jurisdictions, those with a history of questionable policing may slip under the radar, he said. The problem of “wandering officers” is well documented.  

“A state law change that would centralize this kind of record keeping or at least standardize the process for how the locals go about doing it could be helpful,” Bielinski said, adding that the county board lacks power to craft such standards for the sheriff’s department.

But Bielinski, who also serves as the communications director for state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, doubts legislation to create Brady list standards would advance in a Legislature controlled by Republicans who more often back police groups and “tough on crime” platforms. 

Larson has a different view, saying that legislation for consistency standards across law enforcement agencies and a statewide database housed at the Wisconsin Department of Justice could garner bipartisan support.

“Even Republicans would want to have consistency with their law enforcement so that they’re held to the highest standards,” Larson said. 

Asked if he supports statewide Brady standards, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said district attorneys should retain their discretion, which depends on a range of factors and the circumstances of the cases.

“It’s not as simple as whether somebody is on a list or not,” the Democrat told the Journal Sentinel. “There’s more analysis that needs to go into it.”

Still, Kaul said any Brady lists should be accessible and include “as much consistency as possible.”  

Ashley Luthern of the Journal Sentinel and Ben Jordan of TMJ4 News contributed reporting. 

This story is part of Duty to Disclose, an investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TMJ4 News and Wisconsin Watch. The Fund for Investigative Journalism provided financial support for this project.

How Wisconsin could better track police officer dishonesty is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was the most expensive U.S. court race in history, drawing more than $100 million in campaign spending. 

That eye-popping figure has drawn plenty of headlines — as did the millions spent by billionaire Elon Musk to support Republican-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who lost handily to Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, backed by Democrats.

But the race also set another record in Wisconsin for a spring election not featuring a presidential primary contest: in voter turnout. 

More than 2.3 million people cast ballots in the election, according to Associated Press tracking. That amounts to nearly 51% of the voting age population, shattering the previous record for such elections of 39% in 2023.

The high turnout is part of a trend in Wisconsin politics since President Donald Trump’s first election in 2016, Marquette University’s John Johnson wrote in an analysis last week.

“Wisconsin’s electorate is just plain extremely engaged,” he wrote. “Scour American history and you’ll struggle to find an example of (a) state as hyper-engaged with, and narrowly divided by, electoral politics as Wisconsin in the present moment.” 

Last week’s election offered good news for Democrats, aside from the top-line figures in Crawford’s 55%-45% win. (The Supreme Court is officially nonpartisan, but Democrats backed Crawford, while Republicans backed Schimel.) 

When comparing the high-turnout 2024 presidential election to the latest Supreme Court race, voting shifted toward the Democratic-backed candidate in all 72 counties.

The biggest difference in the latest election, according to Johnson: “A majority of the million voters who stayed home are probably Republicans, or at least Trump supporters.” 

More broadly, it’s clear that the high stakes of the Supreme Court race drove most to cast ballots in an election that also included an officially nonpartisan contest for state superintendent of public instruction and a successful ballot measure to enshrine voter ID requirements in the Wisconsin Constitution. 

Nearly 200,000 people who cast ballots did not choose a superintendent candidate. Democratic-backed incumbent Jill Underly prevailed over Republican-backed Brittany Kinser by a 53%-47% margin — closer than the Supreme Court race. 

Additionally, about 76,000 voters did not weigh in on the voter ID amendment.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

DataWatch: Record spending. Record turnout. We crunched some numbers from the Supreme Court contest 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.

A reader asked: “I’m wondering how the federal freeze and mass federal firings are affecting veterans’ employment and services through VA in Wisconsin. Thank you!”

Recent changes to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs have left some Wisconsin veterans uncertain about what the future means for their employment, health care and resources offered through the VA. 

On Feb. 11, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to implement the Department of Government Efficiency’s Workforce Optimization Initiative. In the order, Trump called for a DOGE team to collaborate with the highest-ranking officials of each government agency to reduce the federal workforce through hiring approvals, job cuts and reorganization plans. 

While the order stated the plans exclude military personnel, recent layoffs have proved troubling for veterans working for the federal government. 

Andrew McKinney, a veteran from Cottage Grove and cashier for the Veterans Health Administration who ran for state Assembly in 2022 as a Republican, was alerted of his layoff Feb. 24, before his supervisor learned about the decision. 

McKinney, a probationary employee, said the email came from the Office of Personnel Management, citing his “performance” as the reason he was let go. But later his supervisor was informed via email the dismissal was a result of Trump’s Feb. 11 executive order. 

McKinney’s layoff was part of a wave of VA dismissals, removing over 1,000 probationary employees from their positions. 

“Those dismissed today include non-bargaining unit probationary employees who have served less than a year in a competitive service appointment or who have served less than two years in an excepted service appointment,” according to a VA press release.

While McKinney was given his job back the week of March 23, he says the unexpected removal and uncertainty have made him rethink his current situation. 

“People have families, and they have to take care of their bills, and they have to take care of things, you know,” McKinney said. “I was kind of concerned a little bit, but I had faith that I was going to come back. But it also shows that, you know, I’m gonna have to start really saving and putting stuff aside for things that happen like this.”

The VA said the personnel reorganization would save the department over $98 million a year, funds that could be redirected toward health care, benefits and services, according to the Feb. 18 press release. 

But the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) — a union representing federal employees — said further dismissals could make the already understaffed organization worse. Specifically, removals could threaten mental health resources and health care services, leading to longer wait times and threatening benefits promised to veterans. 

For example, the PACT Act was passed to expand VA health care eligibility for veterans exposed to toxic substances, such as burn pits and Agent Orange. The union argues further cuts, such as the proposed 83,000 dismissals by the end of 2025, could harm the VA’s ability to provide those promised services. 

In the first year following the approval of the PACT Act, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin reported around 15,000 Wisconsin veterans filed PACT Act claims, with about 6,600 receiving approval in the first year.

The VA did not respond with comment on the federal layoffs’ impact on VA clinics or the PACT Act in Wisconsin.

Currently, there have been no reports or claims of longer wait times or delayed services at VA clinics in Wisconsin since the first round of layoffs, according to Veterans of Foreign Wars State Adjutant Adam Wallace and American Wisconsin Legion Adjutant Julie Muhle. But these advocacy groups are preparing for the potential consequences future changes could bring. 

“We’re kind of laying the groundwork now, getting the word out there to be vigilant about it,” Wallace said. “But we haven’t … gotten any specific complaints regarding interrupted services at the VA.”

A memo published by the VA chief of staff said its reorganization plan will be published June 25, with the reduction in workforce to be carried out by the end of the fiscal year. 

“We don’t suspect that we’ll see any sort of impact in health care, probably until it’s enacted, maybe in July or later,” Wallace said.

As of now, the biggest issue veterans face in Wisconsin is uncertainty. 

Because the cuts are coming from the White House, local advocacy organizations worry VA offices will not have the adequate time and resources to prepare for further reductions in the workforce. 

“The uncertainty is causing anxiety in the employees working there, that it’s distracting from their mission, which is a very important one, and that’s serving our veterans and their health care needs and their benefit needs,” Wallace said.

Wisconsin Watch readers have submitted questions to our statehouse team, and we’ll answer them in our series, Ask Wisconsin Watch. Have a question about state government? Ask it here.

How are federal firings affecting veterans in Wisconsin? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Spending on the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court race approached $100 million or more – in total – according to reports leading up to Election Day.

The WisPolitics news outlet tally was $107 million, including $2 million contributed by billionaire George Soros to the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

The party, in turn, funneled donations to the liberal candidate, Susan Crawford. 

The Brennan Center for Justice tally was $98.6 million, enough to make the nonpartisan Wisconsin contest the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

According to the center, a program at New York University Law School that tracks campaign spending:

The largest amount spent, $28.3 million, was by Crawford’s campaign.

Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel, whose campaign spent $15 million.

Schimel was backed by billionaire Elon Musk. The Musk-founded America PAC spent $12.3 million. That’s also a national record for outside spending in a judicial race.

Social media posts claimed that Soros spent $100 million supporting Crawford.

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

Sources

• WisPolitics: Crawford beats Schimel in nation's most expensive court race
• Brennan Center for Justice: Buying Time 2025 – Wisconsin
• Axios: Wisconsin's Supreme Court election is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history
• Wisconsin Watch: Has Elon Musk’s PAC in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for outside spending on state court elections?
• X: March 27, 2025, post
• X: April 2, 2025, post
• X: March 28, 2025, post
• X: April 1, 2025, post
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Who is George Soros, and how much did he donate to Susan Crawford's winning campaign?
• Forbes: Elon Musk Blamed Wisconsin Supreme Court Result On Billionaire Democratic Spending—But He And Republicans Outspent Them All

Did billionaire George Soros spend $100 million on the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race? 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.

Chewbacca, Yoda and Princess Leia watched over Joe Mannchen and colleagues as they worked on their Yahara House computers, some designing birthday cards for fellow clubhouse members. 

Taped above each desktop, the “Star Wars” cutouts distinguished the computers from others — a more lively equipment tracking method than four-digit codes, Mannchen explained.   

“We’re not numbers,” the 15-year clubhouse veteran joked. “Why should our computers just be numbers in the system?”

The cutouts accented colorful decor inside Yahara House, which overlooks Lake Mendota on Madison’s isthmus. A pride flag, bulletin boards and photos covered bright blue walls of a mansion built in 1902 and once occupied by Adolph Kayser, a former mayor. Hanging beside century-old stained glass: a “Pets of Yaharans” photo display of cats Pumpkin Boy, B.B. King Cat, Mookie, Spock and Purr. Photos of human Yaharans hung elsewhere.

Yahara House, part of the nonprofit Journey Mental Health Center, is a community mental health program focused on building relationships and job opportunities. The clubhouse model reduces hospitalizations and boosts employment in adults with serious mental illnesses, experts and advocates say. 

Mannchen, who once edited videos professionally, uses those skills to help create updates for members. He and others are considering starting a podcast to promote Yahara House to the community. 

“At the risk of being a little saccharine, it brings me joy,” he said.

Other members work in the Yahara House offices, reception desk or its kitchen, the Catfish Cafe. Still others fill temporary jobs at local shops, restaurants and the State Capitol. A bulletin board celebrates three dozen members with permanent jobs.

Wisconsin has few places like this. Yahara House is one of seven clubhouses in the state and just three with international accreditation, according to Clubhouse International’s latest count. Neighboring Michigan has 37 accredited clubhouses. Advocates want Wisconsin to learn from Michigan to expand clubhouses statewide. 

Medicaid cuts could jeopardize services

Reimbursement from Medicaid, the joint state and federal program to help low-income residents afford care, funds nearly all of the Yahara House budget, said director Brad Schlough.

But budget cuts in Washington may threaten that funding. Seeking to pay for tax cuts and some mandatory spending increases, the Republican-led U.S. House has proposed cutting up to $880 billion in spending over the next decade from the committee that oversees programs including Medicare and Medicaid. For a variety of reasons, including the large size of the program, Medicaid is a likely target for significant cuts. 

“I’m not sleeping well at night worrying about the human costs the proposed funding cuts will inevitably bring,” Schlough said. 

The Trump administration has already made cuts to COVID-era mental health funding and eliminated an office focused on helping older adults and people with disabilities live independently.

More than one in three U.S. adult Medicaid enrollees have a mental illness. Most in Yahara House rely on Medicaid for services within and outside of the clubhouse.

The clubhouse already struggles financially to serve members waiting to enroll or ineligible for Medicaid support services.

“Clubhouses are intended to be open to anyone in the community with a mental illness. The problem is that the funding doesn’t always follow that,” Schlough said.

When members do join the right Medicaid programs, Wisconsin requires hours of recordkeeping for clubhouses to get paid. That contrasts with Michigan, which streamlines payments for clubhouses. 

Yahara House members pride themselves on finding solutions. The community is celebrating 25 years of international accreditation this year and has served adults with mental illness for much longer.

Its longest-tenured member is Michael Larscheid at 47 years. His photo hangs on a bulletin celebrating continuing education. He recently started swimming classes.

While many of his friends have moved or lost touch over the years, Yahara House remains a constant. 

“This is my family here,” he said.

An ‘antidote for loneliness’ 

Larscheid works weekdays in the Catfish Cafe, calling out lunch orders that cost around $1 each.

Mark Benson, a 40-year clubhouse member, joins him, preparing food for about 30 people. Benson researches recipes for twice-weekly desserts that cost 50 cents. In February, he debuted a diabetic-friendly pecan pie. 

Benson is retired from outside work. But when he first joined, Yahara House connected him with a job at an upscale furniture store.

“I was vacuuming around these like three $30,000 consoles and glass tables,” he recalled. “I had to be very careful where I went. It was a good job.”

People with mental illness can often find jobs on their own, but some struggle in workplaces that lack flexibility for mental health days, Schlough said. They might also face transportation barriers. Yahara House keeps a list of more flexible Madison-area employers. The clubhouse trains staff for each job, allowing them to fill in when a club member can’t make a shift. 

Yahara House also provides safe spaces during the day and on holidays and fosters community through weekly events like karaoke. 

Schlough calls clubhouses an “antidote for loneliness.”

Few Wisconsin clubhouses

Despite the advantages, Wisconsin has seen limited clubhouse expansion.

That surprised Sita Diehl, public policy and advocacy director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin chapter. She sees the model as underutilized.

Wisconsin prioritizes other types of services. 

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ latest budget proposal does not include specific funding for clubhouses, state Department of Health Services spokesperson Jennifer Miller confirmed in an email to WPR and Wisconsin Watch.

Still, Evers’ budget would expand the state’s behavioral health system, fund suicide prevention and improve crisis response, Miller wrote, adding: “Supporting people with mental health concerns is a top priority” and that the administration worries that federal Medicaid cuts would harm Wisconsin residents. 

Substantial funding changes for clubhouses would require legislative and state health department approval. There are no current plans to seek a new clubhouse waiver, Miller said but added that expanding Medicaid like other states would boost resources for many services. 

Yahara House’s Medicaid reimbursements flow through the state’s Comprehensive Community Services waiver for people with mental health or substance use issues that could lead to hospitalization. That program best accommodates easier-to-document treatments like psychotherapy, which unfold in hourlong blocks of time, Schlough said.

Yahara House serves members more sporadically throughout the day, leaving staff to spend as many as six hours daily logging time spent serving members — necessary for reimbursement, Schlough said. The exercise conflicts with a clubhouse spirit that encourages staff to treat members more as peers than patients.  

The clubhouse doesn’t pepper new members with questions about diagnoses and limitations. 

“We say, ‘We’re glad to see you,’” Schlough said. “What do you like to do? What are your interests?’” 

‘We want to be a right door’

As a lifelong Madisonian, Rick Petzke probably drove past Yahara House thousands of times. He didn’t know it could help him until his tour almost five years ago.

He joined and received a temporary job at Hy-Vee.

“They liked me so well, they hired me permanently,” Petzke said.

He regrets not learning earlier about a clubhouse members call “Madison’s best kept secret” — like a fancy restaurant on a hidden street. 

Joining requires little more than having a mental illness and not being a harm to yourself or others. But it can take members up to four months to properly enroll with the county in the right  Medicaid program, and a few don’t qualify, Schlough said. 

When members aren’t enrolled? Yahara House eats the cost.

“There are too many wrong doors in this system, and we want to be a right door,” Schlough said.

The clubhouse has few funds for non-reimbursed services, particularly after Dane County cut part of that budget this year, Schlough said. Proposals for the state to allocate a $50,000 matching grant to each Wisconsin clubhouse failed in consecutive legislative sessions. 

The Wisconsin Mental Health Action Partnership wants state lawmakers to appropriate those funds, streamline Medicaid reporting requirements and adopt a clubhouse-specific Medicaid waiver.

The possibility of federal Medicaid cuts could only harm that cause, leaving Wisconsin with fewer dollars to spread around, Diehl said.

Investing in clubhouses could save governments money over time, experts say. Compared to others living with severe mental illness, clubhouse members are less likely to be incarcerated, more likely to pay taxes and less likely to take costly trips to the emergency room.

‘I need to go back to my house’

Jennifer Wunrow left Yahara House for a decade following more than 10 years as a member. During her years away she felt herself “going down” and slipping toward a crisis. 

“I need to go back to my house,” Wunrow recalled thinking.

Members greeted Wunrow upon her return, asking where she’d been. 

When she secured her own two-bedroom apartment with Yahara House help, members and staff helped her move. 

A year later, Wunrow calls herself “the biggest mouth in the house” and helps situate new members. 

“I take a lot of pride in this house,” she said. “I love it here.”

‘Madison’s best kept secret’: People living with mental illness find work, care and community at a clubhouse built for 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.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Official proof of three things — identity, age and citizenship or qualifying immigration status — is required to obtain a Social Security number.

For U.S.-born adults, required documents include a U.S. birth certificate or a U.S. passport, though most U.S.-born citizens are issued a Social Security number at birth.

Noncitizens can apply if they have U.S. permission to work in the U.S. or permanent resident status (U.S.-issued green card). Less common are nonworking immigrants, such as those issued a student visa, who need a Social Security number.

“Merely showing a bill or a school ID is not sufficient,” Kathleen Romig, a former senior adviser at the Social Security Administration, told Wisconsin Watch.

Elon Musk claimed March 30 in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that “basically, you can show … a medical bill and a school ID and get a Social Security number.”

Trump administration officials did not reply to emails seeking comment.

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

Sources

• Social Security Administration: Original Card for a U.S. Born Adult and Noncitizen
• Paul Van de Water, Social Security expert retired from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Email
• Kathleen Romig, former senior adviser at the Social Security Administration: Email
• Forbes: Breaking News: Elon Musk Takes Question After Question At Town Hall Event In Green Bay, Wisconsin
• Washington Post: Musk floats falsehoods about Social Security, immigrants as DOGE seeks changes

Are a medical bill and school identification legally enough to be issued a Social Security number? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

In September, California adopted a law that prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification to vote.

The law states that voter ID laws “have historically been used to disenfranchise” certain voters, including those of color or low-income.

The law says California ensures election integrity by requiring a driver’s license number or Social Security number at registration and verifying the voter’s signature with the voter’s registration form.

Voter ID supporters say requiring a photo ID helps prevent voter fraud and increases public confidence in elections.

California is among 14 states that don’t use voter ID. They verify voter identity in other ways, usually signature verification, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Wisconsin has required photo ID since 2016. On April 1, voters approved a referendum adding that requirement to the state constitution.

Elon Musk alluded to the California law during remarks March 30 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

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

Sources

• Statenet.com: 2023 CA S 1174
• Cal Matters: New California voter ID ban puts conservative cities at odds with state
• Cal Matters: SB 77: Voting: signature verification: notice.
• National Conference of State Legislatures: Voter ID Laws
• Wisconsin Watch: Has Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford opposed Wisconsin’s voter ID law?
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin voters approve referendum question, voter ID law now part of state constitution
• Wisconsin Watch: Wisconsin’s voter ID ballot question: Here’s what you need to know
• Forbes: Breaking News: Elon Musk Takes Question After Question At Town Hall Event In Green Bay, Wisconsin

Is it illegal in California to require identification to vote? 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.

Susan Crawford’s win in Tuesday’s record-smashing Wisconsin Supreme Court election paves the way for the court’s liberal majority to continue to flex its influence over state politics.

The Dane County Circuit Court judge’s victory guarantees that liberals will control the court until at least 2028. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is at the center of state politics. It has been since 2020, when it denied Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and has continued to make headlines — especially since flipping to liberal control in August 2023. 

For the past two years, Justices Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, Janet Protasiewicz and Ann Walsh Bradley — who collectively make up the court’s liberal majority — have flexed their authority and remade Wisconsin’s political landscape. Crawford, who will be sworn in on Aug. 1, will replace the retiring Walsh Bradley, who has served on the high court for 30 years.

Here’s what Crawford’s victory could mean for some key issues.

1. Abortion rights

The Wisconsin Supreme Court seems poised to, in some form or the other, strike down the state’s 1849 abortion law — which bans almost all abortions in the state.

The court’s current justices in November 2024 heard oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging the statute. It was filed by Attorney General Josh Kaul in the days after Roe vs. Wade was overturned. The lawsuit asks the court to determine whether the 1849 law applies to consensual abortions. It also asks whether the 1849 ban was “impliedly repealed” when the Legislature passed additional laws — while Roe was in effect — regulating abortion after fetal viability.

A Dane County judge ruled in late 2023 that the 1849 statute applied to feticide, not consensual abortions. Abortion services, which were halted in the state after Roe was overturned, have since resumed.

Crawford’s opponent, conservative Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, argued during the campaign that the liberal majority was delaying its ruling in the case “to keep the 1849 law a live issue” in the race.

While working in private practice, Crawford represented Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in litigation related to abortion access.

Crawford’s victory on Tuesday ensures the court’s upcoming ruling is likely to remain intact — at least for now — meaning abortion will remain legal in Wisconsin.

2. Congressional redistricting

The liberal majority’s decision to throw out the state’s Republican-gerrymandered legislative maps, breaking a GOP lock on the state Legislature, has been its most influential ruling since taking power. As a result, Democrats picked up 14 seats in the Assembly and state Senate in 2024 in a good Republican year nationwide.

However, during the same time period, the high court denied a request to reconsider the state’s congressional maps without stating a reason. The maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, but under a “least change” directive from a previous conservative court, so they remained GOP-friendly. But in the liberal court’s legislative redistricting decision, it overturned the “least change” precedent. Crawford’s victory opens a window for Democrats and their allies to once again challenge the maps, potentially using the argument that the current lines were drawn under rules that have since been rejected.

The future of the congressional districts were a key issue in this year’s state Supreme Court race. 

Elon Musk, who spent some $20 million to boost Schimel’s candidacy, said at a rally in Green Bay last weekend that a potential redrawing of the maps is what made the race so important.

He called Tuesday’s election “a vote for which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Democrats have pushed a similar idea.

The Democratic leader in the U.S. House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, last week called Wisconsin’s congressional lines “broken.”

“As soon as possible we need to be able to revisit that and have fairer lines,” he said during an event with DNC Chair Ken Martin. “The only way for that to be even a significant possibility is if you have an enlightened Supreme Court.”

Crawford’s win makes the court friendlier to a potential congressional redistricting lawsuit.

3. Labor rights

A Dane County judge ruled late last year that provisions of Act 10, a Scott Walker-era law that kneecapped public sector labor unions, violated the state constitution. Under the ruling, all public sector workers would have their collective bargaining restored to what it was before the law took effect in 2011.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in February declined to fast-track an appeal in the case, meaning it must first be decided by a conservative branch of the state Court of Appeals, likely ensuring it won’t come before the high court before the end of the current term.

That means Crawford, who challenged aspects of Act 10 while working as a private attorney, will be on the court when it comes before the justices. 

She didn’t answer directly when asked during the race’s only debate if she would recuse herself from the case. But she did note that the provision currently being challenged is different from the one she brought a lawsuit over.

“If the same provision that I was involved in litigating back in those early days was challenged again, I most likely would recuse,” she said.

But with conservative-leaning Justice Brian Hagedorn having already recused from the case, Crawford could step aside and liberals would still have the votes needed to overturn the law.

4. Environmental issues

The high court is currently also considering a case about enforcement of the state’s “Spills Law.” 

Enacted in 1978, the law requires people or companies discharging a hazardous substance “to restore the environment to the extent practicable and minimize the harmful effects from the discharge to the air, lands or waters of this state.”

The lawsuit was filed by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s powerful business lobby, in 2021. It argued that the DNR could not require people to test for so-called “forever chemicals” contamination — and require remediation if they’re present — because the agency hadn’t gone through the formal process of designating the chemicals, known as PFAS, as “hazardous substances.” The court’s liberal justices seemed skeptical of WMC’s position during oral arguments in January.

WMC has been a perennial spender in state Supreme Court races. It spent some $2 million targeting Crawford during this year’s race.

Any forthcoming ruling in favor of the DNR is likely safe with Crawford on the court. She was endorsed during the campaign by Wisconsin Conservation Voters.

Here’s what Susan Crawford’s state Supreme Court win means for Wisconsin is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

City of Milwaukee election officials process absentee ballots at one location on Election Day, which sometimes means ballots are still being fed into tabulators late that night or early the next morning. Results are reported once processing finishes.

Conservative Brad Schimel, who faces liberal Susan Crawford in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, suggested the late counting was malfeasance, a long-debunked claim.

Schimel on March 18 urged supporters to vote early “so we don’t have to worry that at 11:30 in Milwaukee, they’re going to find bags of ballots that they forgot to put into the machines, like they did in 2018, or in 2024.”

Schimel lost his attorney general re-election bid in 2018. Republican Eric Hovde lost to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., in the Nov. 5, 2024, election.

State law prohibits municipalities from preparing absentee ballots before Election Day. A bill that would allow an earlier start has stalled.

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

Sources

• Wisconsin Watch: Did a late night ‘ballot dump’ in Milwaukee cost Eric Hovde the US Senate election?
• Reuters: Fact Check: Late-night Wisconsin election update for senator is not proof of fraud
• Votebeat: https://wisconsinwatch.org/2025/01/wisconsin-election-vote-ballot-absentee-clerks-milwaukee-republican-democrat/
• Associated Press: Schimel resurfaces debunked concerns about ballot counting in Milwaukee
• PolitiFact: No, an early morning influx of Milwaukee votes doesn't prove the Wisconsin Senate race was stolen
• WISN radio: Jay Weber Show – 3-18-25 Brad Schimel joins Jay and Past comments from Demo
• Milwaukee County Clerk: Milwaukee County 2024 General Election – Unofficial Results
• Wisconsin Watch: Does Wisconsin state law prohibit counting absentee ballots before Election Day?

Did Milwaukee election officials at the end of ballot counting ‘find bags of ballots that they forgot’? 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.

A reader asked: Was Elon Musk’s endorsement of Brad Schimel a violation of lobbying laws because of Musk’s status as a federal employee?

We’ll get to that question in a second, but we also wondered about the answer to a related question: Are the cash giveaways from Musk’s America PAC ahead of the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election legal?

Musk, the centibillionaire tech CEO turned efficiency czar for President Donald Trump, has dominated the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in recent weeks. Musk and affiliated groups have poured cash into the race between liberal candidate Susan Crawford and conservative candidate Brad Schimel, which will determine ideological control of the high court and could have national ramifications.

America PAC and Building America’s Future, two groups that are funded by Musk, have spent more than $16.7 million on advertising and voter mobilization efforts meant to aid Schimel’s candidacy. Musk has also donated $3 million to the Republican Party of Wisconsin, which can transfer the money to Schimel’s campaign.

Musk’s super PAC, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing “activist judges.”

“Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas,” the petition reads. “By signing below, I’m rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role — interpreting, not legislating.”

Participants can also get $100 for referring another petition signer.

Late on Wednesday the super PAC announced that “Scott A.” from Green Bay had been selected to win $1 million after filling out the petition. That mirrors a move America PAC deployed in last year’s presidential race. 

It’s less clear whether America PAC’s “special offer” violates Wisconsin’s election bribery statute, according to Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.

Here’s what the statute says:

The $100 reward for signing the petition “definitely falls into a gray area because (America PAC) is paying people to sign the petition,” Godar said. “The question is whether the payment is being given in order to induce anyone to vote or refrain from voting.”

“These payments kind of walk an uncertain line on whether they are amounting to that or not,” Godar added. 

Godar also noted that you have to be a registered Wisconsin voter to receive the payment, “so it does seem like it is inducing people to register to vote.” That violates federal law for federal elections, she said, but “federal law doesn’t apply to this election because there aren’t any federal offices on the ballot.” 

“Under the state law, that’s not specifically one of the listed prohibitions,” Godar said. “It’s definitely in a gray area and sort of walks the line.”

Late on Thursday, Musk announced he would “give a talk in Wisconsin” in a social media post that has since been taken down. 

“Entrance is limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election,” he wrote. “I will also personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.”

An AI chatbot on Musk’s own social media site flagged the activity in the post as potentially illegal. “Though aimed at boosting participation, this could be seen as election bribery,” the AI profile @grok replied to someone asking if the post was legal.

In a follow-up email, Godar said giving “the payment for voting instead of for signing the petition much more clearly violates Wisconsin law.”

On Friday afternoon, Musk posted again: “To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges.”

“I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition,” he wrote.

UPDATE (March 31, 2025, 9:00 a.m.): On Friday afternoon, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit to bar Musk and America PAC from promoting the “million-dollar gifts.” The suit also sought to prohibit Musk and America PAC “from making any payments to Wisconsin electors to vote.” The case was randomly assigned to Crawford, who immediately recused, and then reassigned to Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voigt. Voigt declined to hear the petition prior to Sunday’s event, so Kaul went to the Court of Appeals and subsequently the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Both turned down his request to stop Musk from giving away two $1 million checks, which he did on Sunday evening.

Violating the statute is a Class I felony, which can carry a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to three-and-a-half years, or both. 

A county district attorney or the Wisconsin attorney general would be responsible for filing criminal charges for violations of the statute, Godar said. It’s also possible someone could try to bring a civil claim to have a judge halt the payments. So far that hasn’t happened.

Now back to our reader question about Musk’s political activities as a federal employee.

Musk, in his role as a “special government employee” leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is bound by the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting “political activity while you’re on duty, while you’re in the workplace, and the use of your official position to influence the outcome of an election,” said Delaney Marsco, the director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center.

But special government employees like Musk are only bound by the Hatch Act while they’re on duty representing the federal government, Marsco said, so the world’s wealthiest man “is allowed to engage in political activity that might otherwise be prohibited as long as he’s not on duty when he’s doing it.”

The Hatch Act is intended to “maintain a federal workforce that is free from partisan political influence or coercion,” according to a memo from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Wisconsin Watch readers have submitted questions to our statehouse team, and we’ll answer them in our series, Ask Wisconsin Watch. Have a question about state government? Ask it here.

Are the cash giveaways from Elon Musk’s America PAC ahead of the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election legal? 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.

Tell us about your career dreams.

Are you a young person, or a parent of a young person, trying to figure out what to do after high school? 

Are you an adult who’d like to change careers but you’re not sure how, or you think the obstacles are too big to overcome? Or do you love the work you do but wish it paid enough to support your family? 

Are you an employer with big plans for your company, if you could just find workers with the right skills and training?

We want to hear from you as Wisconsin Watch launches a new beat. We’re calling it pathways to success, and it explores how schools and institutions are preparing people to find quality, family-sustaining jobs in Wisconsin’s current and future economy and how they could do better. In short, we’ll focus on the jobs people want and need, and what’s getting in their way.  

I’m Natalie Yahr, Wisconsin Watch’s first pathways to success reporter, and I’ve thought about this issue for more than a decade. Before this job, I spent about six years at the Cap Times, where I reported on the important jobs Wisconsin will most struggle to fill in the future, efforts of workers to organize and the obstacles they sometimes encounter when they do. For several years before that, I was a teacher and success coach for adult students seeking to get their high school equivalency diplomas, start new careers or just learn basic skills they’d missed. 

With this new beat, we aim to answer questions like why it’s often tricky for foreign-trained professionals to restart their careers in Wisconsin, what it would take to make some of the state’s fast-growing-but-low-paying jobs more sustainable and how are state and local governments investing in programs that prepare workers for changes in the economy. These are some initial questions we have, but to make this beat work, we need to hear yours.

Your suggestions and experiences will shape what we cover and how. Call or email me at ‪608-616-0752‬ or nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org, in English or Spanish.

I won’t be the only one covering this important beat for Wisconsin Watch.  We’re looking to hire an additional pathways reporter to specifically serve people in northeast Wisconsin, while I’ll explore issues that resonate statewide. I expect we’ll collaborate plenty. 

We’ll know we’re doing this reporting well if it helps people discover new opportunities or make informed choices about their careers. As we start publishing these stories, please let us know what you think.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

What’s your dream job? Share your questions and perspectives about working in Wisconsin is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

The Elon Musk–founded America PAC has spent at least $11.5 million on the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, WisPolitics reported March 24.

That doesn’t count another $3 million the PAC gave to the Wisconsin Republican Party, which can funnel unlimited funds to candidates.

Both support conservative candidate Brad Schimel over liberal Susan Crawford.

The nonprofit campaign finance tracker OpenSecrets tracks cumulative independent group spending in state supreme court and appellate court races through 2024.

Its figures indicate the biggest spender nationally is the Citizens for Judicial Fairness, which spent a total of $11.4 million in the 2020 and 2022 Illinois court races.

OpenSecrets’ data cover about two-thirds of the states; not all states report independent expenditures.

The progressive A Better Wisconsin Together has spent $9.2 million on ads backing Crawford, according to ad tracker AdImpact.

Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler said March 18 he believed Musk’s spending might be a national record.

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

Sources

• WisPolitics: Monday AM Update — 24 March 2025
• America PAC: Website home page
• New York Times: Musk Seeks to Put $100 Million Directly Into Trump Political Operation
• Wall Street Journal: Elon Musk Gave Tens of Millions to Republican Causes Far Earlier Than Previously Known
• New York Times: Republican Operatives Function as Hidden Hand Behind Pro-Trump Efforts
• A Better Wisconsin Together: Website home page
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Here are the groups behind the heavy spending in Wisconsin's Supreme Court race
• IllinoisSunshine.org: Citizens for Judicial Fairness
• OpenSecrets: Email, March 24, 2025
• WisPolitics: Monday PM Update — 24 March 2025
• Brian Taylor Cohen: Elon Musk caught pulling bombshell stunt to meddle in key election
• WisPolitics: Tuesday AM Update — 25 March 2025
• AdImpact: Email, March 24, 2025

Has Elon Musk’s PAC in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for outside spending on state court elections? 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.

Milwaukee retiree Larry Jones, 85, came to a legislative hearing supporting a ban. He changed his mind after hearing from transgender youth.

The post ‘Just plain old Larry’: A Wisconsin man’s testimony about gender-affirming care went viral. Here’s his story. appeared first on WPR.

When Larry Jones arrived at the Wisconsin State Capitol on March 12, he didn’t know what he was getting into — let alone that he would be a viral internet sensation the next day. 

The 85-year-old self-described conservative had been invited by his grandson to a public hearing on a Republican-authored bill that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth in the state. He decided to make the short drive from his home in Milwaukee. 

“I thought, ‘OK, I’ll go up there and listen to a couple people moaning about some kind of problems and be there for a couple hours and be long gone,’” Jones told Wisconsin Watch. “I got into something that I really didn’t know a heck of a lot about.” 

The hearing was packed with speakers there to testify either for or against the bill. Most people were limited to two minutes, but the hearing lasted more than eight hours. Jones was there in support of the bill, but wasn’t intending to get up and speak. But after listening to nearly seven hours of testimony, he put his name down. 

“I have very little knowledge of gay people and things like that there, so when I came here, my eyes were opened,” he told the state Assembly’s Health, Aging and Long-Term Care Committee just after 9 p.m. “I was one of the critics that sat on the side and made the decision there was only two genders, so I got an education that was unbelievable. And I don’t know just exactly how to say this, but my perspective for people has changed. … I’d like to apologize for being here, and I learned a very lot about this group of people.”

After he spoke, several attendees applauded.

Shortly after, his grandkids told him about a video of his testimony going viral online — as of Sunday the video had nearly 1 million views on YouTube. They called him a hero.

“Thank you for the compliment, but what the heck are you talking about?” he recalled responding. 

Jones told Wisconsin Watch he doesn’t think he did anything out of the ordinary and spoke because he felt like he owed it to the people there protesting the bill. He never thought a few sentences would garner such attention. 

“After a day or two, my 15 minutes of fame were long gone, and I went back to who I am, just plain old Larry,” Jones told Wisconsin Watch. 

Others saw an act of courage.

“Listening to his testimony was incredible,” one user commented under the viral video of Jones on Instagram. “It is powerful and brave to admit that you were wrong and have learned. I wish many of our legislators had that same strength.”

The bill

Republican politicians in recent years have frequently targeted transgender rights. One of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders the day he took office disregarded biological nuance in declaring there are only two sexes, male and female, which can’t be changed, and that gender identity “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.” A later order declared the country wouldn’t fund transition of youth from one sex to another or medical institutions that provide such health care.

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 104 would ban gender-affirming health care, including puberty-blocking drugs, hormone replacement therapy or surgery, for those under the age of 18. Under the bill, medical providers found to be providing this care could have their licenses revoked. The legislation faces a certain veto by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who has vetoed a similar bill before. 

The authors of the bill — Sen. Cory Tomczyk, R-Mosinee, and Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha — say it would “protect minors from making life-altering, irreversible decisions that cause mental and bodily harm.”

“They’re not voting on this bill as a person, they’re voting Republican party lines,” Jones told Wisconsin Watch. “That shouldn’t be that way. … Party line is a bunch of garbage.” 

It was just one of four bills raised in the Legislature in recent weeks targeting transgender youth in Wisconsin. Two others are aimed at banning transgender girls and women from participating in high school and collegiate women’s sports. Another would prohibit school employees from using a student’s preferred name and pronouns without parental consent. 

For hours, Jones listened to the stories of kids who wanted to transition and said it seemed like “their brain was tearing them apart.” He now believes the decision to receive gender-affirming care should involve a child, a qualified doctor and a parent — not lawmakers. He likened the issue to lawmakers banning doctors from providing abortions.

Just the introduction of such bills can have negative effects on LGBTQ+ kids, research shows. The Trevor Project, a nonprofit that works to end LGBTQ+ youth suicide, found in a 2024 national survey that 90% of LGBTQ+ young people said their well-being was negatively impacted due to recent politics. Research also shows that transgender youth who are called by their preferred names and pronouns are happier and healthier.

Jones said a 14-year-old transgender teen — one of the youngest speakers who advocated for their right to go on hormones — helped to change his perspective at the hearing. In their testimony, they shared that they had recently contemplated suicide.

“I started to listen to this kid, and it wasn’t some kind of whim or something like that. This kid was actually suffering,” Jones said. “And I thought to myself, nobody has to do that. You’re only a kid.”

The GOP-controlled committee voted to advance the bill. Republican lawmakers in the Assembly passed it last week. 

“Children are not allowed to get tattoos, sign contracts, get married, or smoke — so why would we allow them to physically change their gender?” Rep. Tyler August, R-Walworth, said in a statement. 

Jones had a different take. 

“All of these kids, they deserve a chance to see where they belong,” he said. 

Who is Larry?

Jones grew up in a small, rural unincorporated town in northern Michigan before moving to Milwaukee when he was 19 years old. 

“When I moved to the city, it was like I was a kid in a candy store. I discovered books, and once I discovered books, I discovered the world,” he said. 

For most of his life, he worked in the maintenance department at the Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center  — a prison formerly known as the House of Corrections. There, he encountered gay men and women, but said he had never met someone who was transgender. 

“If there’s something you don’t understand or don’t know anything about, it kind of frightens you a little bit,” Jones said. 

When he was younger, he said LGBTQ+ people were “hidden.” 

“In the area where I grew up … men were men,” Jones said. “I was taught by men who had their own visions of what gay people were like. They were called ‘queers’ and ‘fairies’ and off-the-wall, ungodly names back in the day. As I grew older … the whole world changed.” 

Jones calls himself conservative, but said he’s willing to look at both sides of an issue. He mostly tunes into Fox News and local TV stations. He said he still has a lot to learn about the transgender community, and he’s made that his mission for the next six months or so. 

Prior to the hearing, he said he believed that someone who was transgender was “play acting” and simply changed their name and clothes along with a few other cosmetic things. 

“It’s through no fault of their own. I don’t think there’s a medical problem. I think these kids were born this way,” Jones said. “I looked at it through a different perspective, from a different set of eyes, and I promised myself that I would look into this with a clearer sense of understanding.”

After his testimony, a young woman handed him a note that read, “Thank you for being open to hearing all this and being open to changing your mind. That’s brave.” Jones kept it. 

His advice to others? “Don’t wear a pair of blinders and walk down the road. Keep an open mind.”

Wisconsin Watch reporter Jack Kelly contributed to this report.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

‘Just plain old Larry’: A Wisconsin man’s testimony about gender-affirming care went viral. Here’s his story. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

About 60% of federal spending is mandatory — appropriations are automatic.

About 27% is discretionary spending, and about 13% pays federal debt interest.

On mandatory spending, more than half is for Medicare and Social Security. 

About 69 million people receive monthly Social Security retirement or disability payments. About 68 million get Medicare, which is health insurance for people 65 and older, and some people under 65 with certain conditions.

Discretionary spending requires annual approvals by Congress and the president. About half is for defense. The rest goes to programs such as transportation, education and housing.

Projected total federal spending in fiscal 2025 is $7 trillion, up about 58% from $4.45 trillion in fiscal 2019.

President Donald Trump pledged March 4 to balance the budget “in the near future.” But the federal debt is projected to grow about $2 trillion annually through 2035.

On March 12, U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., said most federal government spending is mandatory.

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

Sources

• U.S. Treasury Department: How much has the U.S. government spent this year? (March 17, 2025)
• USA Facts: How much of the federal budget is mandatory spending?
• Axios: Behind the Curtain: Hard truths about Trump budget cuts
• Congressional Budget Office: Mandatory Spending in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic
• Social Security Administration: Fact Sheet
• Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services: Medicare Monthly Enrollment
• Medicare.gov: Parts of Medicare
• U.S. Treasury Department: How much has the U.S. government spent this year?
• Congressional Budget Office: Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic
• U.S. Treasury Department: Treasury Bulletin December 2024
• Vicki McKenna Show: Glenn Grothman interview, March 12, 2025
• Congressional Budget Office: The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035
• Axios: U.S. federal deficit soars to record $3.1 trillion in 2020
• New York Times: Full Transcript of President Trump’s Speech to Congress
• Reason: Trump Promised a Balanced Budget. Don't Believe It.

Is the majority of federal government spending mandatory? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The TV ads are dark and ominous. The faces of people convicted of serious crimes are flashed across the screen. A grim-sounding voice-over accuses one candidate of letting “a sex predator loose on our kids.” Another spot accuses the other of “putting pedophiles back on the street.”

These messages have for weeks blanketed TV broadcasts across Wisconsin and permeated digital media spaces like YouTube. Funded by candidates or third-party groups pushing a political agenda, they have largely focused on the same subject: crime and public safety. Another wave of ads is expected over the next two weeks.

The ads are meant to define Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel for voters ahead of the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

The race has become “probably the most intense Supreme Court race the state has ever experienced,” said Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “For the second time in a row, (the election is) going to determine the ideological direction of the Supreme Court. And, in part, the ideological direction of state government.”

High-profile cases concerning abortion rights, voting rights, legislative and congressional maps, labor rights, environmental issues, tax policy and power disputes between the state’s Democratic governor and Republican Legislature have all come before the court in recent years or are expected to arrive there in the coming months.

The candidates have mostly shied away from sharing their thoughts about those issues with voters, though it’s widely believed Crawford would side with the Democratic position and Schimel would side with Republicans.

Instead, the ads — which represent most of the candidates’ direct communication with voters — have focused on criminal prosecutions and sentencing practices.

But those two things have little to do with the work Crawford or Schimel will be doing when the winner is sworn in as a state Supreme Court justice in August, four political and legal experts told Wisconsin Watch.

A means to an end

The TV ads are a means to an end for both the campaigns and third-party groups, the experts told Wisconsin Watch.

“What the ads are about is not what the court is about,” Burden said. “When those justices get together in the state Capitol and hear cases, they’re about facts and precedent and legal theories and their understandings of the law, at least that’s the idea. But what the discourse is about — especially from the groups that are not the campaigns themselves but are these outside groups running ads somewhat independently — they can be about whatever the groups think would be effective to get their side a victory.”

The campaigns have zeroed in on issues that don’t often concern the work of the justices because “some campaign consultants somewhere concluded that they work,” said Marquette University Law School professor Chad Oldfather. Focusing on crime and public safety is a common playbook for judicial candidates across the country, Oldfather said. 

“The role of a state supreme court justice does not involve much day-to-day interaction with the workings of the criminal justice system,” Oldfather said, adding that tough-on-crime or soft-on-crime ads are a way for interest groups to motivate voters. 

A group like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby and a heavy financial backer of conservative judicial candidates, including Schimel, is more focused on having a court that is friendly to business interests than it is concerned about the sentences Crawford has handed out, said Douglas Keith, a senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program.

“The people who are spending money to run those ads, those are not actually the cases they care about,” he said in an interview. “This is just a visceral idea that they can use to get voters’ attention in an ad.”

But while the spending behind these ads has exploded, the approach itself is not new. In the 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, conservative candidate Michael Gableman successfully ousted liberal Justice Louis Butler with the help of similar-sounding ads funded by WMC for $1.8 million — a quaint figure compared to the amounts groups have spent on the race so far this year.

An ad from Gableman’s campaign also sparked controversy. It pictured Butler side-by-side with the mugshot of a convicted rapist and made misleading assertions that Butler was responsible for getting the man out of prison. After the man was paroled in 1992, he committed another rape and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The ad was unusually vicious for the time, but would fit among the ads in this year’s race.

Switching playbooks

At the start of the campaign, Crawford and Schimel both talked about wanting to bring “common sense” and “objectivity” to the court, but more recently they have tried to rally voters around more political issues.

Crawford initially backed away from Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s 2023 approach, in which the liberal then-candidate spoke openly about her “values” on abortion rights and gerrymandering — though in recent weeks the Dane County judge has been more forthcoming about her support for things like abortion rights. Crawford wants her work as an attorney to speak for itself, she said, pointing to her private practice work advocating for abortion rights, labor rights and voting rights.

“I think that tells a lot about my values and what I have worked for throughout my entire career,” Crawford told Wisconsin Watch in an interview earlier this month.

The race is about the “future of the court, and it’s about the fundamental rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites,” she said. “For me, it’s about how we interpret the laws and constitution in the state of Wisconsin. I believe they should be interpreted to protect the rights of every Wisconsinite. That’s really why I’m running.”

A Schimel victory, Crawford said, could result in the restriction of Wisconsin residents’ individual rights and liberties. “I’m running to be a common sense justice who wants to use our laws and constitution to protect every Wisconsinite,” she said. “(Schimel is) an extreme politician who has an agenda that he’s bringing to the Supreme Court.”

“That’s garbage,” Schimel fired back when Crawford made a similar assertion at the candidates’ sole debate. Schimel’s campaign did not respond to multiple interview requests for this story. 

Schimel seems to be embracing the Protasiewicz campaign approach, said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at UW-La Crosse. Giving stronger partisan cues to voters, like Schimel is doing, “was massively rewarding for (Protasiewicz),” he said. Pairing those cues with election-defining issues like abortion rights and gerrymandering helped carry her to a blowout victory, Chergosky added.

Accordingly, Schimel has tried to tap into President Donald Trump’s political movement to bolster his campaign.

“The stakes could not be higher here in Wisconsin,” he told conservative commentator Charlie Kirk during an interview late last month. “Leftists took over the majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court two years ago in 2023 and they’re going through a political agenda. They are working to wipe out every conservative reform that’s been passed in Wisconsin to make us strong, prosperous, safe. All those things are on the chopping block now.”

The court’s decisions to throw out the state’s gerrymandered legislative districts and take up a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Act 10, the Scott Walker-era law that crippled public employee unions, are two examples, he said.

Schimel said Trump’s election victory in November represented “a movement to save our nation.” Backing him on April 1 is a way to continue to be part of that movement, he said.

While speaking at an event the next day, Schimel continued to push that idea.

Prior to Nov. 5, he said, “America had walked up to the edge of the abyss and we could hear the wind howling. You could look down but you can’t see the bottom.” Trump’s victory let the country take “a couple steps back from that abyss,” he added.

“The job’s not done,” Schimel said. “And this is the message we have to get out to people: The job’s not done.”

Schimel is also appealing to Trump to visit Wisconsin to bolster his campaign, the New York Times reported last week.

Billionaires bloat spending

The stakes of the election — with the assistance of billionaires and outside groups — have already propelled the race to record spending. A recent WisPolitics.com tally found almost $59 million had been spent on the race with several weeks left to go, surpassing the record $56 million spent in the 2023 race between Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly. Prior to 2023, the record for spending in a judicial election was $15 million in a 2004 Illinois contest.

Crawford’s campaign has been the biggest spender so far, dropping almost $23 million on just TV ads. The Madison judge’s fundraising has been boosted by the state Democratic Party, which has accepted sizable donations from liberal mega-donors like LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — all billionaires. 

While the maximum contribution individuals can make to candidate campaigns is capped in Wisconsin, there is no limit on how much one person can donate to a state political party. Those parties can then, in turn, make unlimited transfers to candidate campaigns, a loophole used to bolster candidate fundraising.

Billionaire support for Schimel has largely come through third-party groups, though Schimel’s campaign has spent some $8.8 million on ad buys. The Waukesha judge’s largest benefactor, by far, has been Elon Musk, the centibillionaire tech CEO serving as Trump’s efficiency czar.

Musk’s super PAC has spent more than $6.5 million on the race so far, the bulk of which has been on canvassing and voter outreach efforts to bolster Schimel. A second Musk-affiliated group, Building America’s Future, has spent $6 million on TV ads, according to a WisPolitics.com tally.

Chatter about the race’s spending dominated the contest’s only debate. Crawford called Musk “dangerous” and tied him to the firing of air traffic controllers and the increased price of eggs. 

“(Musk) has basically taken over Brad Schimel’s campaign,” Crawford continued, arguing that Musk is trying to buy himself a justice on the high court as Tesla filed a lawsuit seeking to open dealerships in Wisconsin. Crawford at one point called Musk “Elon Schimel.” The play comes as Democrats seek to make the election an early referendum on Musk and Trump. 

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Democratic Party launched “a seven-figure grassroots effort to turn Elon Musk’s attempt to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court race into a political disaster for Brad Schimel.” It includes a digital ad campaign, town hall events and billboards. Less than two weeks before Election Day, Crawford for the first time released an ad tying Schimel to Musk.

Schimel hit back, pointing to Soros’ financial support for Crawford, arguing the billionaire financier “funded DAs and judges who have let dangerous criminals out on the street.”

Another outside group funded by billionaire Richard Uihlein, Fair Courts America, has spent over $2.5 million on TV ads targeting Crawford. Americans for Prosperity, a group with close ties to billionaire Charles Koch, has spent over $1.2 million to boost Schimel.

Such heavy spending underscores how groups see the race as a means to advance their political agendas — despite being officially nonpartisan. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, for example, recently added the race to its target list for the 2025-26 cycle. 

“Our mandate (at the DLCC) is obviously building Democratic power and securing and maintaining majorities in state legislatures,” said Jeremy Jansen, the group’s vice president of political. He added that the DLCC has been focused on state supreme court races in recent years that could affect that power, with a focus on redistricting.

“Investing in this race is a way to protect or preserve some of the work that the DLCC did in the most recent cycle and in previous cycles,” Jansen said, noting how Protasiewicz’s 2023 victory led to new legislative maps and 14 additional Democratic seats in the Legislature.

Republicans are eager for conservatives to retake a majority on the high court and protect the authority of the Legislature.

“For all the people who are concerned about concentration of power in the executive branch at the federal level, I think that we would have that happen here in Wisconsin,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, told reporters last month in response to a question about the stakes of the race. “We’re already seeing that the liberal court is taking power away from the Legislature simply because they don’t agree with us. I don’t think that’s right.”

A new normal

The final days of the campaign will be critical for both candidates. A Marquette Law School Poll from earlier this month found large portions of voters are unfamiliar with both candidates.

The survey of registered voters found that 38% of respondents lacked an opinion of Schimel and 58% lacked an opinion of Crawford. That’s “a very perilous position for a candidate to be in because it means that they need to define themselves quickly before the other side does it for them,” Chergosky said.

The Marquette poll did not feature a head-to-head question. But a poll commissioned by WMC earlier this month found the race tied 47% to 47%. The survey was conducted by OnMessage Inc., which receives an “A” rating from polling guru Nate Silver.

The same poll found that “fighting to uphold the rule of law,” “reducing crime and keeping violent criminals off the streets” and “ensuring that abortion is available and accessible in Wisconsin” are the top issues in the race. Those issues continue to be prominent among the ads being rolled out by the candidates and outside groups.

And while crime has long been an issue in these races, Oldfather said, “(before 2008) judicial campaigns just did not use to look like this.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Vicious ads, record spending, Elon Musk: Wisconsin Supreme Court race reflects nasty, new normal 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.

On April 1, voters will cast their ballots in a nationally watched election to select Wisconsin’s next state Supreme Court justice.

The election, which pits liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford against conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, has already smashed the prior record for spending in a judicial race. In turn, TV stations across the state have been blanketed with ads from both campaigns and third-party groups. The ads reek of politics and often focus on issues that have almost nothing to do with what justices actually do.

So, what does the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually do?

What is the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest court in Wisconsin’s judicial system. 

It has seven justices, each elected to a 10-year term in an April general election. If a vacancy occurs on the court, the governor appoints a replacement. That justice serves until an election can be held, which occurs in the first April without an already-scheduled state Supreme Court election.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has the final authority on determining whether lower courts in state criminal or civil cases followed the law and also whether a Wisconsin law adhered to the state constitution.

In some rare instances, decisions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. But those appeals typically claim the state Supreme Court’s ruling in some way infringes on federal law or rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

How do cases reach the Supreme Court?

Cases arrive at the state Supreme Court in a number of ways:

• A party who lost a case in the Court of Appeals, the state’s intermediate court, can ask the court to review the decision.
• Any party involved in litigation decided by a county circuit court may ask the high court to bypass the Court of Appeals and take a case. There are 71 county circuit courts in the state, each staffed by a varying number of judges. Circuit courts are sometimes referred to as “district courts” or “trial courts.”
• The Court of Appeals can ask the high court to take a case.
• The state Supreme Court, on its own motion, can decide to review a case appealed in the Court of Appeals directly.
• A party can petition the state Supreme Court to take a case directly, known as an original action.

Who are the current justices on the court?

Today’s court is generally believed to have four liberal justices and three conservative justices. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz make up the court’s four-member liberal majority.

The court’s three conservative members are Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justices Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn. Of those, Hagedorn has most frequently voted with the liberal majority, giving him the reputation of a swing vote.

The April 1 election is to replace Walsh Bradley, who is retiring after serving for 30 years on the high court.

Who is running on April 1?

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel are jostling to be the state’s next justice.

Supreme Court elections are supposed to be nonpartisan. However, justices tend to adhere to liberal and conservative judicial and political philosophies, and partisan interests have spent heavily on candidates aligned with their interests.

Crawford is considered the liberal candidate. She has served as a Dane County judge since 2018. Prior to taking the bench, she worked for the state Department of Justice and served as chief legal counsel for Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle. She has also worked in private practice, where she represented Planned Parenthood in litigation relating to abortion access. Crawford also worked on behalf of clients challenging the state’s voter ID law and Act 10, the Scott Walker-era law that hamstrung public sector labor unions. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin and liberal donors are heavily funding her campaign.

Schimel is considered the conservative candidate. He has served as a judge in Waukesha County since 2018. Prior to becoming a judge, he served one term as Wisconsin attorney general and spent eight years serving as the Waukesha County district attorney. He won both jobs campaigning as a Republican. As attorney general he led an unsuccessful national effort to invalidate the Affordable Care Act and appealed a federal court ruling that struck down a law restricting abortion access. Wealthy state and national Republican donors are backing his candidacy.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

What does the Wisconsin Supreme Court do? 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.

• On Wednesday, March 26, at 4 p.m. Central time, Wisconsin Watch will host a free, live Zoom discussion about the upcoming state Supreme Court election. 
• The event will feature a conversation between Wisconsin Watch statehouse reporter Jack Kelly and state bureau chief Matthew DeFour. 
• The link to RSVP is here, and full background details are below. 

On April 1, voters will decide what direction the Wisconsin Supreme Court will shift, and there are only two possible outcomes: a guaranteed liberal majority until 2028 or a 3-3 split with Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative-leaning swing vote, again wielding outsized influence.

The two candidates are Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge endorsed by the court’s four current liberal members, and former Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican who now serves as a Waukesha County judge. 

The actions of the state Supreme Court are a major focus for our team — in the final days before Wisconsin voters decide on the future shape of the court, we wanted to create a space for questions and thoughtful discussion. 

Following the success of previous events, we’ll have that discussion as a live Zoom event hosted by state bureau chief Matthew DeFour and statehouse reporter Jack Kelly, who first wrote about the race back in January and again this month and has kept subscribers to our Monday morning newsletter, Forward, up to speed with the latest developments in the contest. 

We want this discussion to be shaped by your questions, concerns and thoughts about the role of the state Supreme Court and the issues that may be determined by its members in the coming months. 

You can submit yours when you RSVP using the form here or by emailing events@wisconsinwatch.org. If you are interested in the event but aren’t sure if you’ll be able to attend, register anyway — it’s free, and we will send everyone who registers a link to the full video after the event is over. 

Finally, while the event is free to attend, it isn’t free to produce. If you can afford to make a donation to offset our costs, you’ll join a growing group of ordinary people funding local news.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Live event: What’s at stake in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch, a nonprofit newsroom that uses journalism to make the communities of Wisconsin strong, informed and connected, seeks a pathways to success reporter to expand our coverage of issues surrounding postsecondary education and workforce training in northeast Wisconsin. The right candidate will be a curious, collaborative, deep listener who can understand bureaucracies and economic trends that affect people’s lives.

Description

Wisconsin Watch provides trustworthy reporting that investigates problems, explores solutions and serves the public. We aim to strengthen the quality of community life and self-government in Wisconsin by providing people with the knowledge they need to navigate their lives, drive forward solutions and hold those with power accountable. We pursue the truth through accurate, fair, independent, rigorous, nonpartisan reporting. We share our stories freely and collaborate with other news organizations that share our independent, nonpartisan, truth-seeking values. 

Why pathways to success? 

Funding cuts and other financial pressures have forced higher education institutions to rely more heavily on tuition — increasing affordability challenges for students and affecting the quality of education. Meanwhile, Wisconsin faces a shortage of skilled workers, including in manufacturing, construction, health care, agriculture and information technology. This shortage is exacerbated by an aging workforce, particularly in rural areas, and a gap between the skills employers need and those job seekers have. 

Reporting on this beat will help policymakers and civic leaders understand how to expand pathways to jobs. It will also help Wisconsin residents learn the skills needed to build thriving careers. We’re taking a different approach to higher education coverage than news outlets have historically taken. Rather than prioritizing breaking news or scandals at major universities, we’re centering the experiences of learners, families and employers to better understand how the state’s broader postsecondary landscape meets their needs. That includes paying close attention to technical colleges and trades programs. 

Why northeast Wisconsin? 

In our broader efforts to strengthen the local news ecosystem, Wisconsin Watch is launching a bureau that will serve key information and accountability needs of northeast Wisconsin residents. The bureau will build upon the success of the NEW News Lab, a collaborative launched in 2021 that provides technology support, capacity building and funding to boost local journalism and newsrooms in the region. The collaboration’s five other partners include: WPR, FoxValley365, The Post-Crescent, Green Bay Press-Gazette and The Press Times. The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay’s Journalism Department is an educational partner.

Job duties

The reporter will: 

• Work with the northeast Wisconsin editor and other colleagues to frame, report and write news stories that serve northeast Wisconsin. These stories will appear on Wisconsin Watch platforms and be distributed to news outlets across Wisconsin and the country.
• Listen to those struggling to find family-supporting jobs and to those unable to fill positions to find disconnects among workforce recruitment, development and training and those who are underemployed. Find evidence-based best practices to address this challenge.
• Follow up on tips from community members and leaders and develop locally focused stories based on information needs identified in community listening sessions.
• Develop sources in secondary and postsecondary education, industries struggling to fill jobs, workforce development, labor and the general public to identify breakdowns in systems, information gaps and success stories that could inform pathways to success.
• Research the jobs that will be in high demand for years to come to inform reporting on effective programs for gaining the necessary skills to perform these jobs, from jobs in nursing and health care, where demographics show increasing demand, to developing technologies, such as those in artificial intelligence and robotics.
• Work with the northeast Wisconsin editor, community ambassadors and audience team to identify key target audiences for this beat and develop strategies for “meeting those audiences where they are” in terms of information levels, preferred formats and distribution channels.
• Cultivate collegial and productive relationships with collaborating news organizations to gather and analyze data, research best practices and maximize impact on stories with national scope. This includes Open Campus, a national news network aiming to improve higher education coverage, and NEW News Lab partners. 

Required qualifications: The ideal candidate will bring a public service mindset and a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisan journalism ethics, including a commitment to abide by Wisconsin Watch’s ethics policies. More specifically, we’re looking for a reporter who: 

• Has researched, reported and written original published news stories and/or features on deadline.
• Has demonstrated the ability to formulate compelling story pitches to editors. 
• Aches to report stories that explore solutions to challenges residents face. 
• Has experience with or ideas about the many ways newsrooms can inform the public — from narrative investigations and features to Q&As and “how-to” explainers or visual stories.
• Has experience working with others. Wisconsin Watch is a deeply collaborative organization. Our journalists frequently team up with each other or with colleagues at other news outlets to maximize the potential impact of our reporting. 

Bonus skills:

• Be able to analyze and visually present data. 
• Familiarity with Wisconsin, its history and its politics. 
• Multimedia skills including photography, audio and video.
• Ability to communicate multiple languages, particularly Spanish.

Location: The pathways to success reporter will be located in northeast Wisconsin. 

Salary and benefits: The salary range is $45,500-$64,500. Final offer amounts will carefully consider multiple factors, and higher compensation may be available for someone with advanced skills and/or experience. Wisconsin Watch offers competitive benefits, including generous vacation (five weeks), a retirement fund contribution, paid sick days, paid family and caregiver leave, subsidized medical and dental premiums, vision coverage, and more.

Deadline: Applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

To apply: Please submit:

1. PDF of your resume.
2. Send PDFs or links of four writing samples to Managing Editor Jim Malewitz at jmalewitz@wisconsinwatch.org.
3. Answer some brief questions in this application form.

If you’d like to chat about the job before applying, contact Managing Editor Jim Malewitz at jmalewitz@wisconsinwatch.org.

Wisconsin Watch is dedicated to improving our newsroom by better reflecting the people we cover. We are committed to diversity and building an inclusive environment for people of all backgrounds and ages. We are an equal-opportunity employer and prohibit discrimination and harassment of any kind. All employment decisions are made without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or any other status protected under applicable law.

Wisconsin Watch seeks pathways to success reporter for northeast Wisconsin is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

In just two weeks, Wisconsin residents will head to the polls for another pivotal and closely watched election. 

Wisconsin Watch is a nonpartisan, nonprofit newsroom with a statewide focus, and one of our goals is to ensure that Wisconsin residents have access to reliable information before they head to the polls on April 1. 

We also know that most of you are busy people, which is why we’ve pulled together a short list of resources from our newsroom and other reliable sources. 

Here are the key statewide races: 

State Supreme Court

Candidates Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge backed by the court’s current liberal members, and former Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican judge from Waukesha County, are vying to replace longtime liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who is retiring.

• What you need to know: This election will determine whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court maintains a guaranteed liberal majority until 2028 or shifts to a 3-3 split, with conservative-leaning swing vote Justice Brian Hagedorn holding the deciding vote. Read our coverage here.
  
• Helpful resources: In addition to our reporting on why this race matters, we recently fact-checked the candidates’ campaign ads.
  
• Want more? Wisconsin Watch is hosting a free, live Zoom discussion about the Supreme Court election with statehouse reporter Jack Kelly on March 26 at 4 p.m. Central time. Submit your questions when you RSVP here or by emailing events@wisconsinwatch.org — your input will shape the conversation. 

State superintendent of public instruction

Incumbent Jill Underly, backed by the Democratic Party, faces education consultant Brittany Kinser, who is supported by conservative groups advocating for private school voucher programs.

• What you need to know: Underly has faced criticism from Republicans for adjusting the state’s proficiency benchmarks for standardized tests. She argues the changes better reflect what students are learning. Kinser’s platform focuses on expanding school choice statewide.
  
• Helpful resources: For a closer look, read our coverage from the primary and this deeper dive into the candidates’ platforms. Or, if you prefer video, we’ve got that on our YouTube channel. 

Constitutional amendment

Voters will also decide on a proposed constitutional amendment that would require individuals to present valid photographic identification to vote, with exceptions allowed by law.

• What you need to know: Proponents argue it safeguards election integrity, while critics warn it could disenfranchise groups less likely to possess valid photo IDs, particularly marginalized communities. The outcome could have lasting implications for future elections in Wisconsin.
  
• Helpful resources: Our partner Votebeat has written about the ballot measure. 

To find your polling location and see what local positions are on the ballot, visit MyVote Wisconsin. All you need to know is your address — the site will guide you through the rest.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

What you need to know before voting in April 1 election 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.