Wisconsin’s rate for vaccinating 5- and 6-year-olds against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) has continued to slide since the COVID-19 pandemic began, with 74.1% of such children receiving two doses of the shot in 2024 — down from 79.3% in 2019.
Nearly every Wisconsin county last year vaccinated a lower share of kindergarten-aged children for MMR than before the pandemic. Menominee County, home to the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, was the lone exception, according to Wisconsin Department of Health Services data.
After dipping from nearly 80.7% in 2019 to as low as 74.7% during the height of the pandemic, Menominee County’s MMR vaccination rate for kindergartners grew to nearly 83.6% in 2024, the state’s highest rate.
That success was due to local health officials “being proactive” and conducting outreach that included “looking up kids that were behind, reaching out to parents and encouraging them to bring them in,” said Faye Dodge, director of community health nursing services at the Menominee Tribal Clinic.
Vaccination rates matter because measles is highly contagious and potentially dangerous.
Before the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Americans faced measles infections each year. The advent of vaccination eliminated the disease in the United States by 2000. But outbreaks have returned to some U.S. communities as trust in vaccines wanes in many communities.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control though June 19 confirmed more than 1,200 measles cases this year in 36 states, including every state bordering Wisconsin. About 12% of cases sent patients to the hospital. Three people have died.
Wisconsin’s risk of outbreaks will grow as families with children travel over the summer.
“They’re going to be traveling all over the country,” Hennessy said. “Realistically, it’s likely a matter of time for somebody who’s not vaccinated or doesn’t have immunity to get the disease.”
Wisconsin Watch analyzed statewide vaccination data for 5- and 6-year-olds in the state, conducted other research and spoke to public health officials.
Here are some takeaways:
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted local vaccination programs, leaving children behind in their vaccination schedules. Understaffed, under-resourced counties have struggled to catch up.
Creating relationships with trusted community members and reducing access barriers is the most effective way to inoculate more children against contagious diseases like measles, public health officials say.
No Wisconsin county comes close to reaching the vaccination rate of 95% that is considered the benchmark for herd immunity protection. That was true in 2024 and before the pandemic.
Just three counties — Manitowoc, Marathon and Kewaunee — fully vaccinated at least 80% of kindergarten-aged children in every year from 2019 to 2024.
While vaccination rates are lagging from pre-pandemic levels in most counties, 28 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties reported vaccination gains between 2023 and 2024 — four more than the previous year. Still, the majority of counties saw declines.
Vaccination rates are plunging in Clark County, which consistently ranks lowest statewide for vaccinating 5- and 6-year-olds against measles. Just 42.9% of those children received both MMR doses in 2024, down from 57.9% in 2019.
Brittany Mews, Clark County’s health officer and director, cites a range of challenges in her sprawling county. Those include distances between few clinics in communities with no public transportation, low levels of health insurance access and diverse populations who face language barriers — and may adhere to cultural norms that prioritize traditional remedies over Western medicine.
But the county has found some success in partners ranging from school districts and child care centers to faith communities, Mews said. The health department has asked schools to notify parents when their children need vaccines, for instance, and positive feedback prompted the scheduling of multiple vaccine clinics at the schools and community churches.
Community partnerships in familiar places make people feel more comfortable — particularly in the county’s diverse communities, including those with language and cultural differences.
Clark County is also working to increase vaccine access by partnering with neighboring health departments to offer vaccination clinics six times a year at a church food pantry, creating a “one-stop-shop” system, Mews said.
Forging personal connections can grow trust and spread accurate information at a time when disinformation is running rampant online, Hennessy said. Hearing about positive vaccination experiences from a parent, neighbor or other trusted source can hold more weight than information a physician shares.
“It’s unfortunate that we all can’t be everywhere all the time to fill that,” Hennessy said.
Heather Feest, a Manitowoc County public health nurse manager, said patience and understanding of concerns are also key to increased vaccinations.
“We’re not trying to persuade one way or another, it’s giving that information and answering questions — and allowing them to get factual information and have a conversation without judging,” Feest said. “It’s harder now than what it used to be.”
Last week, our newsroom was intrigued by data in this Economist article showing that Wisconsin stands out nationally when it comes to its low vaccination rates for measles. It prompted a discussion about the many reasons for vaccine hesitancy and the complex challenges of maintaining trust in public health.
One thing is clear: Measles is a very infectious disease, and it’s spreading nationwide.
Officials in 2025 have tracked almost as many measles outbreaks (defined as three or more related cases) as they did in all of 2024. Three deaths this year have been linked to measles. They included two unvaccinated school-aged children in Texas and an unvaccinated adult in New Mexico.
The outbreaks come as vaccination rates decline nationwide, particularly in Wisconsin. The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine rate for Wisconsin kindergartners has plunged since 2019. But even before the COVID-19 pandemic, no county in Wisconsin had more than a 90% vaccination rate, which is traditionally associated with “herd immunity.”
Wisconsin, The Economist article noted, “is among the most permissive states for vaccine exceptions in schools, allowing opt-out for personal-conviction reasons (along with medical and religious exemptions, which most states have); parents only have to submit a written note.”
Still, Wisconsin has yet to see a measles outbreak this year. As we consider how to report on this issue, let us know what you think.
Do you have questions about measles, its vaccine or how to keep your family safe? Or do you have perspectives to share about prevention efforts in your community?
If so, fill out this brief form. Your submissions will shape the direction of our reporting and will not be shared publicly.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Uncertainty about what’s next — and how U.S. companies will absorb new costs — has stirred anxiety among investors, business owners and consumers.
“That whipsawing back and forth, that creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty,” said Steven Deller, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who researches the state’s agricultural and manufacturing economy. “And one thing that the economy hates is uncertainty.”
What does it all mean for Wisconsin? Fast-shifting policies make that difficult to definitely say. But Wisconsin Watch spoke with experts and examined economic numbers to provide some context.
First, what are tariffs and why is Trump issuing them?
The U.S. previously forged free trade agreements with 20 countries that limited tariffs in trade. Trump’s tariffs have blown up the status quo and prompted retaliation that has harmed some domestic producers and further rattled the global economy.
The Trump administration has cited several justifications for his policies, some of them conflicting. It says tariffs will boost manufacturing by encouraging Americans to buy domestic goods, reduce U.S. trade deficits and pressure countries to cut deals on other issues — like curbing the fentanyl trade and illegal immigration.
As it stands, most Chinese imports face tariffs of 145%, while Canada and Mexico face 25% tariffs, along with 10% for most everyone else.
Trump has exempted some goods from reciprocal tariffs, including copper, pharmaceuticals, lumber and electronics such as smartphones and laptops. However, Trump administration investigations of the national security and economic effects of importing items he exempted could result in additional tariffs. The White House has placed a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports.
How is this playing in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin’s large manufacturing and agricultural sectors make its economy strong, said Missy Hughes, secretary and CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. But business leaders she works with are increasingly hesitating to make big investments.
“It’s frustrating because our businesses were doing really well, and the Wisconsin economy is strong and has been strong for the last two years,” she said.
How much does Wisconsin import?
Wisconsin imported more than $38 billion in goods last year, about half from countries facing the highest Trump tariffs: China, Canada and Mexico.
Machinery and electronic products made up about one-third of Wisconsin’s total import value last year. Pharmaceutical products, some of which Trump has since spared from tariffs, made up 12%.
Who bears the cost of tariffs?
Importers pay tariffs to Customs and Border Protection when goods enter the country. The companies may absorb those costs or pass them to consumers by hiking prices — a common scenario.
Deller calls tariffs a regressive tax because they most affect people with lower income.
“They tend to spend their money more on goods than services,” he said. “They’re more likely to shop at a Walmart or a Dollar General-type store, and a lot of the goods that are sold in those kinds of stores come from international markets.”
How might tariffs affect Wisconsin manufacturers?
“U.S tariffs might benefit domestic manufacturers if they serve as a negotiating tool to encourage other countries to lower their own tariffs or other barriers to trade,” according to a recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report. “They might also insulate Wisconsin manufacturers from international competition at home.”
But they can harm Wisconsin producers by raising prices on raw materials or components that they import, such as steel or aluminum, the report added. Additionally, Trump’s tariffs have prompted retaliation that makes U.S. exports more expensive — at the risk of prompting foreign companies to drop Wisconsin suppliers.
Wisconsin’s top exports are particularly vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs: industrial and electrical machinery, accounting for $10.9 billion or nearly 40% of state exports in 2024, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum.
A New York Times analysis shows that Wisconsin workers may be among those hit hardest by retaliatory tariffs because affected industries support so many jobs in the state.
“Economists don’t agree on anything except for tariffs. You put a hundred economists in the room, and you ask them are tariffs a good policy — and 99 of them are going to tell you, no,” Deller said. “This is bad policy. At least the way that Trump is doing it. Everybody loses.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Reading Time: 7minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Prosecutors nationwide must provide the defense with information that could call into question the credibility of police officers or anyone else who might testify — whether that’s a history of criminal activity, dishonesty or some other integrity violation.
In many cases, prosecutors track such information through what’s called a “Brady list” of officers. No clear Wisconsin or federal standards exist for when officers should be listed for disclosure.
The consequences for failing to disclose Brady material can be dire, even leading people to be incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit.
Brady list policies elsewhere range widely, with some jurisdictions more meticulous than others. Such policies should consider the rights of police and citizens, experts say.
Arizona and Colorado have developed statewide disclosure systems.
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.
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.
Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern makes decisions about which officers to put on — or take off — his Brady list. He is shown being interviewed by reporters for Wisconsin Watch, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and TMJ4 News in January 2025. (TMJ4 News)
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.
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.
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.
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.
The lack of consistent disclosure by prosecutors has prompted some defense attorneys to maintain their own internal Brady systems based on information they learn about law enforcement officers’ histories. (Andrew Mulhearn for Wisconsin Watch)
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Wisconsin state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, is photographed during a state Senate session on June 7, 2023, in the Wisconsin State Capitol building in Madison, Wis. (Drake White-Bergey / Wisconsin Watch)
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.
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.
“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.
Login
