Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Today — 14 April 2026Main stream

Child Strangulation Charge for Arrested Virginia School Bus Driver

13 April 2026 at 20:50

A Lynchburg school bus driver has been arrested for alleged child strangulation during an incident on a bus parked at an elementary school, reported WDBJ 7.

Police responded to an incident at Linkhorne Elementary School March 30, after receiving a report of a disorderly individual. An investigation later determined that a school bus driver allegedly assaulted a student while the bus was parked in the schools lot.

Authorities said via the article that the investigation, conducted in coordination with Lynchburg City Schools, revealed the student had been strangled during the encounter. The child did not suffer life-threatening injuries from the alleged strangulation and is considered safe.

Effie Wynn, 73, of Lynchburg, was arrested April 4, and charged with child strangulation and neglect. She is being held without bond at the Blue Ridge Regional Jail.

Police did not release additional details about what led to the incident or the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. Officials also did not say whether other students were present on the bus at the time.

The case remains under active investigation, and additional charges could be possible as the investigation continues. Lynchburg City Schools has not publicly commented on the arrest but has reportedly been cooperating with law enforcement.

Authorities are asking anyone with information about the incident to come forward.


Related: Child Sexual Assault Charge for Colorado School Bus Driver
Related: Florida School Bus Aide Arrested on Child Abuse Charge
Related: South Carolina School Bus Driver Arrested, Charged with Solicitation of a Minor
Related: Florida School Bus Aide Accused of Child Abuse in Ongoing Beating

The post Child Strangulation Charge for Arrested Virginia School Bus Driver appeared first on School Transportation News.

Turkel to Uncover Secrets of Communicating Relevance at STN EXPO West

13 April 2026 at 20:16

This year’s STN EXPO West keynote speaker plans to provide attendees the tools they need to cut through the noise and express their relevance in a way that stands out in the crowd.

National Speakers Association’s Speaker Hall of Fame member Bruce Turkel takes the stage in Reno, Nevada this summer at the STN EXPO West conference for student transportation professionals.

Turkel will first address transportation leaders at the Transportation Director Summit, an exclusive training at The Chateau at Incline Village at Lake Tahoe. The directors attending the exclusive training and networking leadership summit will gain insights from Turkel that they can use to instill trust throughout their organizations and how the values of honesty and integrity impact operations.

Clear Communication

Turkel’s July 13 keynote presentation “All About Them: The Power of Relentless Relevance” will bring a message to all conference attendees on how to position oneself in today’s society of instant informational access. In his high-energy presentation, Turkel plans to show attendees that just credentials may not be enough, but that connecting with stakeholders means showing them what you can do for them. Whether its customers or team members, this keynote will give attendees practical strategies to communicate clearly, relevantly and bring positive results.

Turkel’s unique musical talent will also be featured in an interactive exercise in the power of shared experience as attendees learn in minutes to play a song together. This unforgettable presentation will have attendees not only connecting through laughter but have a renewed confidence to update their communication style with necessary clarity and have a customer-centered framework that boosts success for their operations.

Turkel has been in the brand clarity field for over 30 years, running his own global branding firm. His specialty has been how to stand out in a competitive market, having worked with brands like American Express, Nike, Discovery and HBO. He wrote seven books, appeared on national tv news channels and in major publications such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Save $100 on main conference registration with Early Bird Savings when you act by June 5. The STN EXPO West conference will be held July 9-15 at the Peppermill Resort in Reno, Nevada. Updates to agenda and speaker lists can be found at stnexpo.com/west.


Related: STN EXPO West Registration Open for 2026, Features Innovative Conference Experience
Related: Sharda Presented with Innovator of the Year Award at STN EXPO West
Related: STN EXPO Keynote Reveals the Impact of Simple, Intentional Moments

The post Turkel to Uncover Secrets of Communicating Relevance at STN EXPO West appeared first on School Transportation News.

Safety Upgrade Complexities

13 April 2026 at 18:19

To retrofit means to add a component or accessory to something that was not there when originally manufactured. Sounds simple enough, at least according to new or proposed state laws. However, when retrofitting safety technology such as seatbelts or crossing arms, there are many considerations that school district leaders need to consider.

The Lone Star State
Texas Senate Bill 546 requires all school buses transporting students to be equipped with lap/shoulder seatbelts by 2029. It expands upon a 2017 law that only applied to buses manufactured after 2018. SB546, which took effect on Sept. 1, tasks school districts with reporting seatbelt status and retrofit costs to the Texas Education Agency.

SB546 does not provide state funding but allows a temporary exemption if retrofit costs are too high, or retrofitting would void the bus manufacturer’s warranty. Districts are required to publicly report the reason for not ordering lap/shoulder seatbelts and estimated retrofit costs. Teri Mapengo, director of transportation for Prosper Independent School District near Dallas, noted that while all 230 school buses in her fleet have lap/shoulder seatbelts, she cautioned other districts to do their homework. At a previous district, she recalled the challenges of retrofitting seatbelts.

The process is harder than specifying a new purchase order. Instead, legacy buses must be taken out of service while retrofit work is conducted. Plus, she said it takes people power and resources to deliver each bus to the facility, transport that driver back to the facility, then arrange for the bus to be picked up once the installations are completed.

“The hard piece is, that you’re going to have to have some of your buses go out of commission,” she said. “So, if you don’t have spare buses to be able to use for operation, then it’s tough.”

She noted that her previous district also encountered seat structure malfunctions when retrofitting. She recalled taping off seat rows to prohibit students from sitting in them due to safety concerns. Those buses had to be sent back again to be fixed.

She noted the metal attachment that secures the seats at the wall flange would break. Seats are also secured at the aisle floor pedestal. Every bus that was retrofitted would
then need to be inspected by the mechanics to determine any deficiencies.

“The biggest thing that I took away was, when you’re going to retrofit your buses, you [need to be] talking with that company [doing the retrofit] and saying, ‘If this were
to happen, how would we get this fixed? And is there a warranty on that work that you guys are doing?’”

Because all Texas school buses manufactured and sold after 2018 should have seatbelts installed at this point, older buses may not be compatible with newer seats. Around 2014, school bus manufacturers offered seating options that allowed standard seatbacks to be upgraded to those with lap/shoulder belts, which is still an option today. Most older buses do not have options for retrofits or upgrades.

“We were having a big issue with that in my previous district, and so it was just having that communication with the company that we were working with, and they ended up still fixing all of those and then figuring out why that was happening,” she said.

In conversations with other Texas transportation directors, she said many are hoping that the law will add a funding element, especially since Texas districts have received less funding than previously.

Forty miles down the road, Jennifer Gardella sits in a very different situation. The director of transportation for Rockwall Independent School District near Austin currently has almost 50 school buses in need of retrofitting, at an estimated cost of nearly $1.5 million. She noted that the cost estimate depends on the school bus model and how the seats are attached.

She, however, also shared concerns about the scope of statewide installs. “If everyone is doing the retrofit, then how will the vendors keep up with repairs and/or getting the buses back for the start of the school year?” she asked, adding that Rockwall ISD doesn’t have extra activity buses or special program buses to be used as replacements.

Retrofit Decisions Not to Be Taken Lightly
“School bus and seat manufacturers rely on specific manufacturing and assembly processes to ensure their vehicles, seating and lap/shoulder seatbelts meet all applicable state and federal safety regulations,” explained Albert Burleigh, vice president of North America Bus Sales at Blue Bird. “School bus makers typically do not sanction or certify compliance of any aftermarket installations or modifications made to the bus that changes the original seating configuration. Therefore, retrofitters need to conduct their own evaluations to ensure full compliance with all safety regulations. They bear full
responsibility.”

A spokesperson for Thomas Built Buses shared a similar sentiment, noting that “school bus seating systems are engineered as an integrated structure that must meet specific safety standards for strength, crash performance, and so on.”

They added that in many cases adding lap/shoulder seatbelts requires replacement seats specifically designed and tested to accommodate those restraints, as well as proper attachment to the bus structure.

“Thomas Built Buses certifies that each vehicle meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at the time it is manufactured but cannot attest to the compliance of items installed after that,” the spokesperson continued.

For buses originally built with convertible seating designed to accommodate future restraint upgrades, Thomas can provide technical guidance, the spokesperson said, adding that school districts and operators “should work closely with qualified vendors and ensure that any retrofit work is properly certified and compliant with all applicable regulations.”

A spokesperson for IC Bus said the process of adding lap/shoulder seatbelts to existing seats involves various considerations with federal seatbelt standards and requirements. IC Bus encourages its customers and operators to consult with their local IC Bus dealer to discuss retrofitting options.

Addressing Other Safety Needs
Meanwhile, Maine lawmakers introduced legislation that would require school buses in the state to have crossing arms mounted on the front of the vehicle and anti-pinch door sensors that detect objects caught in the loading doors. The bill aims to address two safety issues, which resulted in state fatalities within a little over a month span. A 12-year-old was killed in Rockland by their own school bus during drop off in November, and a 5-year-old in Standish was dragged and killed by a bus door in December. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the dragging incident.

The bill would apply to all buses regardless of model year, meaning older buses without these systems would need to be retrofitted or replaced. Additionally, school bus drivers who do not activate the crossing arm when students load or unload could lose their school-bus endorsement for up to two years.

Different from Texas, Maine state leaders proposed funding to support the upgrades, about $4.3 million. A school bus mechanic in Maine who requested to remain anonymous shared their district hasn’t started the retrofitting process as it waits to see if there will be funding. The mechanic said the district currently has 50 to 55 school buses in its fleet and all but seven have crossing arms. Those are more straightforward retrofits due to the fact they have already been on buses for many years.

Retrofitting anti-pinch systems onto older buses, the mechanic said, will be harder and more expensive. “Not only do you have to fit a new door mechanism but you have to run a new electrical system and reprogram if not swap out modules to be able to properly operate the system,” he said.

They added a preference that retrofitting be performed in-house to save on labor and overall costs to the district. “If the legislation passes, we are prepared to do what is
needed to meet it,” the mechanic noted. “I haven’t heard any specifics yet, but I know Blue Bird is taking this issue very seriously and is working on a solution to the retrofitting issues of the anti-pinch. Without funding from the state, I believe that a large portion of the entire bus fleet in Maine will be out of service and off the road.”

Andrew Wiseman, sales engineer at anti-pinch sensors manufacturer Mayser USA, said his company is working with Maine very closely on the potential retrofit.

Based on conversations, he said there are 2,000 to 3,000 school buses statewide that would require anti-pinch doors. “We have our partnership with Blue Bird, so we will be working on an aftermarket kit with them in the near future,” he said, adding there are also ongoing discussions with IC Bus and Thomas dealers in Maine on retrofit solutions.

“One of our big unknowns is some of the older buses do not have the necessary [electronic] logic to process an anti-pinch sensor’s signal, so we are also providing a control unit that can be mounted above the door and wired into the main control system, but we are still determining how many of these vehicles need control units at this time.”

He said it would be ideal for Mayser to work with the dealers on the best or recommended installation, and then the bus dealer can disperse this knowledge to school district mechanics on how to install the technology.

Wiseman noted that Mayser’s solution for the Maine retrofit costs around several hundreds of dollars per door, if a control unit is required, with the price being reduced further if the control unit can be omitted. For serial production on new vehicles, the price is “even more affordable for school districts” to implement.

The exact time it takes to perform an installation is still in question. “Putting the actual rubber profiles on the doors is easy and takes only a few minutes,” he said. “The difficult part of installation will be the wiring, as a wire will need to be routed from the door blades, into the compartment above the door, wired into a control unit, and then wired into the rest of the vehicle. Our current estimates are that this will take one- to- two hours per vehicle, but this is a rough estimate. Hopefully, we will gain this knowledge soon when we are testing our solutions with the manufacturers.”

Editor’s Note: As reprinted from the April 2026 issue of School Transportation News.


Related: Using AI to Reclaim Time & Improve Safety
Related: Is Safety Everyone’s Responsibility?
Related: The Importance of Streamlined Communication in School Bus Transportation for Safety and Efficiency
Related: (STN Podcast E297) Deep Dive into Safety: Illegal Passing & Child Restraints, Plus Green Bus Funding

The post Safety Upgrade Complexities appeared first on School Transportation News.

Anti-abortion lawmakers seek to redefine ‘abortion’ to exclude medical treatment

14 April 2026 at 10:00
South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden prepared to sign three anti-abortion bills into law last month in Sioux Falls. One of the laws redefines “abortion” so abortion ban penalties would not apply in cases where the death of an “unborn child” is the result of medical care provided to the pregnant woman. (Photo by Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden prepared to sign three anti-abortion bills into law last month in Sioux Falls. One of the laws redefines “abortion” so abortion ban penalties would not apply in cases where the death of an “unborn child” is the result of medical care provided to the pregnant woman. (Photo by Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

Some anti-abortion state lawmakers are pushing to revise the definition of “abortion” so abortion bans don’t apply to cases in which the death of an “unborn child” is the result of medical care provided to the pregnant woman.

In the four years since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to ban abortion, stories continue to emerge of women with doomed pregnancies who developed life-threatening infections, had to travel to another state, or even died because doctors were afraid to provide what was once considered standard pregnancy-loss care.

Thirteen states have abortion bans, and all of them include a medical exception that allows abortions to protect the life of the pregnant woman. Some, but not all, of the bans also have exceptions to protect the health of the woman.

But patients and providers have argued in lawsuits challenging the bans that such exceptions are too ill defined to give doctors and hospitals the confidence to provide timely care. As a result, they say, providers end up denying care until the woman’s condition deteriorates to a point where the exceptions definitely apply, jeopardizing her health and future fertility.

Last year, states including Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee enacted laws designed to provide additional clarity. Confusion persists in those states and others, however, and research has linked abortion restrictions to higher rates of maternal death and injury.

The latest measures, crafted and promoted by national anti-abortion groups, would redefine “abortion” as the intentional ending of the life of the “unborn child.” Supporters say they would clear the way for doctors to manage miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and other pregnancy-related emergencies.

“No one wants a physician to hesitate or pause and further endanger the life of the mother,” said Ingrid Duran, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, which has advocated for all of the measures, in a written statement. “This is why providing clearer language in defining terms can be beneficial.”

But reproductive rights advocates and many OB-GYNs say the real purpose of the bills is to fortify abortion bans that are broadly unpopular, even in states with full bans, and under legal challenge in multiple states. They argue the new measures are still too vague because they hang on the intentions of individual physicians, and many of the same procedures and medicines used in abortions are used to treat miscarriages.

They also say the language in the bills could grant embryos legal rights, thereby making some fertility treatments illegal.

“If you’re trying to define what is and is not an abortion, and you’re creating really specific, narrow guidelines, it could really unintentionally classify some pregnancy-related procedures as abortion care, and therefore within the law not medically necessary,” said Elias Schmidt, state legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group.

South Dakota is first

In March, South Dakota became the first state to enact such a law. Its measure states that the state’s abortion ban only applies to “the intentional termination of the life of a human being in the uterus,” and not to medical treatment that results in “the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child,” treatment to resolve a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, “the removal from the uterus of a deceased unborn child,” or a medical procedure that aims to save the fetus.

To the concern of fertility-treatment advocates, the law also defines “human being” as “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”

A similar bill introduced in Missouri defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother’s womb.” It explicitly exempts miscarriage management and treatment for ectopic pregnancies from the definition.

And a bill in Utah, where abortion is still legal up to 18 weeks’ gestation, would regulate how an abortion procedure is recorded in a patient’s chart, distinguishing between an elective abortion and a medically indicated abortion. It defines the latter as an abortion “to remove a deceased fetus,” resolve an ectopic pregnancy, or to avert the death or “serious physical risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of a woman.”

Wisconsin’s legislature recently voted not to advance a similar bill this past legislative session.

Blame for the confusion

Anti-abortion groups blame doctors and abortion-rights advocates for creating the confusion around the medical exceptions in abortion bans, insisting it is clear what is a medically indicated abortion and what is purely elective.

“The fact that we’re in a place now that states actually have to define (abortion) is a result of my field, particularly (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) not clarifying it,” said Dr. Susan Bane, vice chair of the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is made up of about 7,500 physicians and other medical professionals who oppose abortion.

The organization has launched a medical education and messaging campaign arguing that abortion bans do not prevent necessary health care.

According to Bane, the main difference between an induced abortion and medically indicated termination is that in the first case, “you want a dead baby at the end of whatever you do.”

The author of the South Dakota law, Republican state Rep. Leslie Heinemann, said he sponsored the measure to quell some of the criticism that the medical exceptions in his state’s ban were ill defined. He admitted he underestimated how difficult it would be to codify in law when care for a miscarriage is necessary.

“Even the medical community had trouble with helping define some of the issues,” he said.

The version of the bill that became law names only a few conditions and leaves the rest up to the discretion of physicians, who must exercise “appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female” to avoid felony charges.

Heinemann insisted his measure would not restrict fertility treatments or birth control. But reproductive health and legal experts say that by defining the beginning of human life as “the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation,” it could have that effect.

“Embedding personhood language into state laws does really bring up concern around contraceptive access and IVF access,” said Kimya Forouzan, principal state policy adviser for the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that supports abortion rights.

“As personhood provisions grow in the state code, it brings up the question: At what point are we granting the legal rights of a person and placing those rights above the individual themselves?”

Dr. Amy Kelley, an OB-GYN in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, who was the chair of the South Dakota chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from 2023 to 2025, said lawmakers ignored her and other doctors’ concerns that the amended abortion ban is still too vague.

“The whole point of medicine is to prevent people from becoming on the brink of death, right? So are they expecting us to wait until that?” Kelley said. “It’s still not very clear, and the definition for miscarriage and ectopic is also not the one we wanted. It’s just not helpful.”

Kelley said that since her state enacted an abortion ban, she often waits longer to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons, and will sometimes send patients out of state for care. She noted that the new law doesn’t explain what level of risk to the pregnant woman justifies terminating a pregnancy.

“They want to say elective abortions are not allowed. But what do they consider elective?” she said. “Let’s say they have a heart condition and their risk of dying in pregnancy is 40%. Is that an elective abortion because their risk is not 100%?”

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Budget co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein running for reelection as more Assembly Republicans retire

13 April 2026 at 22:27

Joint Finance Committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein was first elected to the state Senate in 2014 after serving two terms in the Assembly. Marklein speaks at a June 2025 press conference alongside co-chair Rep. Mark Born. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) announced his reelection bid on Monday — seeking a fourth term in the state Senate as other longtime Republicans are opting out of running.

Marklein was first elected to the state Senate in 2014 after serving two terms in the Assembly. He last won reelection in 2022 with 60% of the vote. This will be his first time running for reelection to the redrawn Senate District 17 under new voting maps adopted in 2024. 

“I am running again to keep investing in our shared priorities, protect Wisconsin’s checkbook, continue working across the aisle to solve problems, and move Wisconsin forward,” Marklein said in a statement. “We have made a lot of progress, but there is more work to do.” 

The district includes Crawford, Grant, Green, Iowa and LaFayette counties as well as the southwestern corner of Dane County. According to an analysis by John Johnson, a research fellow at Marquette University, the district leaned Democratic by 1 percentage point in the 2024 presidential election and by over 4 percentage points in the 2024 U.S. Senate race.

Marklein’s decision to run again could help Republicans defend their majority in the state Senate, since his incumbency gives him an advantage, especially as other Republicans, including leaders and longtime incumbents in critical seats opt out of seeking another term. 

Republicans currently hold an 18-15 majority in the state Senate, meaning they can only afford to lose one seat as they struggle to hold control of the chamber.  The GOP has held the Senate majority since 2011.

The retirements of Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) could diminish  Republicans’ chances of holding the Senate majority as the party loses the advantage of incumbency in two key districts. 

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) are leaving at the end of their terms.

Last week, Rep. Rob Brooks (R-Saukville), who has served in the Assembly since 2015, and Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac), first elected in 2022, both announced they won’t seek reelection this fall.  

“While I am stepping away from office, I still care deeply about the future of Wisconsin,” Brooks said in a statement. “Strong leadership in Madison matters, and it is important that we continue to elect people who understand our communities and are willing to stand up for them.” 

Other announced retirements include Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca), Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) and Rep. Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger).

Marklein is the co-chair of the powerful Joint Finance Committee, a position that has given him a hand in writing Wisconsin’s two-year state budget for the last three sessions, deciding which state programs receive funding. He pointed to his work on the committee in his statement, saying it has given him a “a front-row seat in shaping Wisconsin’s budget and priorities.” 

“I have always used that position to ensure that our communities are well represented when decisions about state spending are made,” Marklein said. “I am proud to have led three successful bipartisan state budgets that have made historic investments in our K-12 schools, local governments, and infrastructure, strengthened our hospitals and healthcare system, and returned billions of dollars to taxpayers through tax relief for the middle-class and retirees. We accomplished this all while putting Wisconsin in one of the strongest fiscal positions in the country, boasting record surpluses and continuing to pay off debt and invest in the rainy day fund.” 

Marklein could face one of three Democrats, who are competing in a primary: Rep. Jenna Jacobson, who has the backing of the State Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, Corrine Hendrickson, a child care advocate and Lisa White of Potosi, a small business owner.

While he didn’t launch his campaign until Monday, Marklein had been fundraising and reported in January that he raised $194,137 during the most recent six-month period, a number that tops what any of the Democratic candidates raised.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

Lawsuit seeks to declare Wisconsin fusion voting ban unconstitutional

13 April 2026 at 21:28
Ballot, voting, elections

Ballot (Getty Images)

A legal brief filed late last week seeks to have a Dane County judge declare that an 1897 law banning the practice of fusion voting is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights to a “free government,” equal protection and freedom of speech through a law that was passed to explicitly create a partisan electoral advantage. 

The motion was filed on Friday in a lawsuit brought last year by United Wisconsin, a nascent centrist political party hoping to offer voters an alternative to the “duopoly” of the Democratic and Republican parties. The group is represented by the voting rights focused firm Law Forward. 

Fusion voting is a practice through which multiple political parties can nominate the same candidate to the ticket. Under the system, a minor party such as United could choose to nominate its own candidate, but more often the party would endorse one of the major party candidates. Voters would be able to cast their votes for the same preferred candidate under either party line. 

At a conference on fusion voting hosted at UW-Madison last year, political scientists and proponents of the system said that in theory it can give minor parties more influence. A third party candidate under the current system is unlikely to win, but a minor party’s policy preferences are harder to ignore if the party has just enough sway to swing an election result in either direction.

The brief describes a hypothetical congressional race in which United cross-endorses the Democratic candidate, given the name Olson. After the hypothetical votes are counted, the Republican candidate has earned 48.2% of the vote on the Republican ticket while Olson has earned 45.9% of the vote on the Democratic ticket and 4.9% on the United line. When added together, this gives Olson the win with 50.8% of the total vote. 

In Wisconsin, where elections are often decided by single digit margins, this could result in meaningful considerations of the desires of the minor party voters — rather than the current system under which third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election, are seen as spoilers who can pull enough support away from the closest ideological major party candidate to help the other side win. 

“That is fusion voting in action. United Wisconsin will claim, with merit, to have helped her over the finish line,” the brief states. “No doubt Olson will be more attentive to her ‘home’ party, but if she’s a competent politician, she won’t ignore the priorities of the moderates and centrists in the United Wisconsin Party. If she does, United Wisconsin, and its key bloc of voters, might cross-nominate her opponent in the next election.”

Fusion voting is often considered alongside ideas such as ranked choice voting and multi-member congressional districts as a reform proposal that could help prevent the country from sliding into an authoritarian government. 

“Fusion offers the opportunity to create meaningful new political identities,” the legal brief states. “It allows voters of all ideological stripes to vote for their values without having to support a rival or opposing party with a mostly intolerable program.”

In the 19th century, fusion voting was used across the country. The practice was phased out in most of the country but exists currently in New York and Connecticut. The brief, which includes as many examples from history and political science as it does legal citations, states that Wisconsin’s fusion voting ban was enacted by the Republican Party in 1897 as it surged to become the state’s dominant political force in a direct effort to limit the ability of the Democratic Party and other minor parties to win. 

“History shows the ban was enacted as a form of invidious political discrimination,” the brief states.

The lawsuit argues the state has no direct interest in maintaining the power of the Democratic and Republican parties, so the law must be put under “strict scrutiny” for fundamentally restricting the speech of Wisconsinites. 

“When political parties cannot nominate their candidates of choice, they cannot effectively organize, campaign, advance priorities, or exercise political power,” the brief states. “They are relegated for perpetuity to a spoiler role, whereby any electoral effort they make is not only futile in advancing their own candidate and platform, but also seriously risks helping their least-favored major-party candidate win the race and get to govern. While the ban still allows political parties to nominate most candidates, it prohibits them from nominating the only candidates who can win; and while it allows political parties some degree of speech, it constrains their speech in the context for which political parties exist — the ballot.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

❌
❌