Louise K. Waakaa’igan, a poet and member of the Anishinaabe (Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa) tribe in Sawyer County, Wisconsin, spent 16 years at the Shakopee women’s prison on the outskirts of the Twin Cities. Waakaa’igan was one of the 19 writers featured at a program called Beyond Bars: Voices of Incarceration.

The event, held on Oct. 24 at Hamline University in St. Paul, was the 15th public reading organized by the Minnesota Prison Writing Workshop, made possible by a grant from the Minnesota State Arts Board.

Some of the writers, like Waakaa’igan, had been released and now have jobs on the  outside. Waakaa’igan is the event coordinator at Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe University in Wisconsin. Others are still incarcerated and their writings were read by other authors or by a writing mentor or instructor.

More than 500 people filled the large, open venue at Hamline University overlooking the campus. The mood was upbeat. Writers who had recently been released got standing ovations, and all who had spent time in prison received flowers.

Waakaa’igan, who has participated in several of the past events since 2020, said she started writing when she was young as a way to “survive early adolescence,” but had stopped writing as an adult until she was in prison and a volunteer group encouraged her to start writing again in 2004.

“That’s really where my voice solidified, where I had an actual writing community for the first time in my life,” she said.  “Just a circle of writers where we would give each other feedback, where we’d be able to share, learn different aspects and different pieces of the craft, which was really beneficial.”

In 2014 Jennifer Bowen, the founder of the Minnesota Prison Writing Workshop, came to Shakopee, and helped expand the prison writing program with support from a large group of mentors who give feedback to incarcerated writers and instructors who teach in the prisons and provide a “creative community” to encourage writers.

“It’s just a creative, collaborative, supporting community that recognizes the writer, whether they’re incarcerated or not, recognizes the writer as an essential part of our creative life,” Waakaa’igan said of the Minnesota Prison Writing Workshop.

Bowen spoke of her appreciation for the writers and those who came out to support them.

“The incarcerated writers you all have sent thousands, literally thousands, of notes of feedback to, have long written under pressure, under surveillance, and toward change,” she said. “They’ve told us stories about 600 days in segregation, about surviving the Khmer Rouge, about missing their daughter on her birthday every single year for 21 years. Many of those writers are home now, joining us as citizen artists on pages and stages and in the streets, showing up to offer change as artists and the art when it’s most needed, which is now. And they are building nonprofits that connect and organize and heal this community.”

The readings kicked off with a student introduction by an incarcerated writer named Andrew  (read by Tarik Dobbs) who described himself as serving more than one life sentence. He recounted not caring about writing when he joined a workshop in prison just to pass the time, but then found something more:

“Writing gave me my life back, or at least made my fate and future possible, tolerable. And more often than one might think, for someone serving multiple life sentences, enjoyable — the  kind of joy and serenity only possible when one finds a sense of purpose, a reason for being. For me, this meant, in some part, the self-expression, the catharsis that comes from any writing, as small as one word on a post note or a magnum opus on the meaning of the universe.”

Waakaa’igan read “East of Cicero,” a poem that recalls memories of abuse and struggles experienced after leaving the reservation:

“The year was 1999. They just buried half my identity. I refused to attend the ceremony after talking with Ni maama (Ojibwe word for mother). Instead, I sat in the dark, carving scars on my anemic body, dirtying my pale skin blending tears with Mad Dog 20/20, burning stale cigarettes in my nephew’s sandbox. I began driving alone back then, replacing reservation roads for out-of-state freeways…I met my first demon there on I-94 east of Cicero. He silenced me like those drunk hands did in Six Mile. I laughed as I flicked my Newport out the window. I’m not a little girl anymore. I bragged. I’ll fight back this time. It was his turn to laugh, and he did, mimicking that drunken slur that left boozy saliva on my five-year-old body? …It wasn’t until I slept in that cement cell block in Minnesota that he let my tears dry on their own. Those saltless tears pulled next to me on that cement floor pitied me, just as that demon den east of Cicero.”

Commenting on her poem, she said, “There are traumatic events in people’s lives, that I think, unfortunately, happen when we’re young that we learn how to recover and heal from, and I’m not exempt from that, and there have been things that have happened in my life that I’m still trying to recover and heal from, and my writing has definitely been a way to make sense of some of that and move on and heal in a way.”

She also read a poem written in prison about the place that shaped her:

“…I’m from Packer games on Sundays, Greyhound trips for Christmas, and Easter baskets with Karla. I’m from women with the same last name and a father none of us knew. I’m from the woods, northern, where pines and birch bark blanket both ends of tribal roads, paved and gravel. I’m from a single parent household. Michael Jackson cassette tapes, Purple Rain posters, and latchkey kids. Title V programs, commods (commodities, federal government issued food) on pantry shelves, cucumbers from Grandpa Jake’s garden and a mean ol’ dog named Turkey. I’m from ‘crying won’t change anything,’ and ‘you should have known better.’ I’m from punitive silence and where it’s normal, hugs are warm, forced Catholicism still weighs heavy on Imam’s shoulders. This is where I will always return.”

The poem, she said, was a kind of “sweet lamentation,” of the place she couldn’t return to because of incarceration.

Von Johnson, a writer recently released from prison and now on supervision, read his poem “Here Now!” describing the hardships in prison and then being released into society where he was adjusting to the freedom, figuring out who he spend his free time with,  learning new technology, enjoying his first savoy steak, but also the continued accountability to the criminal justice system living with an ankle monitor:

“I have to fill out a pass to go everywhere, even to come here tonight. Noting the time to leave, how long the drive will take, the moment I arrive, the purpose of being in each destination. My selfie game is out of control, except there’s always some address or giant logo next to my face to identify that I reached my destination, as if this ankle monitor wasn’t enough, right? How long I will stay, the minute I leave, my travel time, the next logo-slash-address field, you get the picture. I have to have permission to see my mother. Rules on how long I can hold my significant other, but I guess I’m here now. I need permission to drive a car, own a car. I’m not allowed to finance a car. Hell, get into a car. But I’m here now…”

Mark Altenhofen, called Red because he formerly had a red beard, read his  poem, “Do you remember,” written in prison upon learning a life-long friend outside was dying of leukemia:

“…Do you remember the feel of fist against flesh when we fought? The bitter tears on our lips with “I love you” and “I’m sorry” still foreign to us. Do you remember tumbling through the dust, our blood mixing with it until we fell side by side, too exhausted to do anything but laugh? Your mom compared us to Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer. We acted out the stories written until we nearly drowned…”

After his reading, Altenhofen talked about how  the Minnesota Prison Writing Workshop helps remind people in prison that  “we’re still human beings.” That  is “huge,” he said, “because it’s really easy to lose your humanity in there, and to be reminded we’re still people. We still have people that care about us, and there’s a community out here we can come back to. … It gives us something to hold onto and to look forward to, and to make ourselves better men.”

He added, “I was one of those guys I didn’t know how to talk about emotions. I treated emotions like I was a diabetic and that was sugary cereal for kids.” Writing, he said, was “a way to get to deal with the stuff I never had a chance to deal with, I never had the courage to talk to anybody about.”

Peter Schilling has mentored seven writers through the  Minnesota Prison Writing Workshop.  He said writers in prison often are processing their experience in a way that helps them cope. He noted one of his mentees wrote a Western, with wide open spaces that speak of unrestricted freedom as a counterpoint to his confinement, and another wrote a horror, modeled on a Steven King novel, transposing real struggles into the stories of fictional characters.

Michael Kleber-Diggs, a writing instructor in prisons since 2015 and board president for Minnesota Prison Writing Workshop, said the evening event represented an effort to “transcend prison walls and reach the community,” and also to “tear down the distinction between incarcerated writers and community writers.”

One of the evening’s last offerings was an original song written by a man named Will, who had recently been released. He performed  “Among these voices,” an anthem to living courageously: “Justice, burn my lips come roaring off my tongue. Set me alight to set me free. This tide has risen to make many voices one. Among those voices you’ll find me.”

A jury has found Javarius Hurd, 18, not guilty of reckless homicide in the death of a youth counselor at the Lincoln Hills School for Boys. Hurd was, however, found guilty of battery by a prisoner. 

Hurd had been charged with reckless homicide in the death of Corey Proulx, who died after a confrontation with Hurd in 2024. Prosecutors said that Proulx chased Hurd after the then 16-year-old threw a cup of soapy water in another staff member’s face. Proulx chased Hurd into an outdoor recreational area where, in a scuffle with Hurd, he hit his head on a hard surface. 

After Proulx’s death, the Department of Corrections issued a statement that staff members were collectively mourning. In a press release sent out after the incident, the DOC said that Proulx’s fiancee and daughter “would like everyone to know that Corey was an amazing partner, father, and human being.” 

Hurd’s case became a flashpoint both in and outside of the courtroom. While his attorneys battled prosecutors unsuccessfully to prevent the case from being tried in adult court, Proulx’s death was used by Republican lawmakers to take shots at the approach to juvenile justice taken by Gov. Tony Evers.

Lincoln Hills had become notorious as one of the nation’s largest juvenile prisons where youth suffered abuse and excessive force while guards and counselors were under pressure from  staffing shortages. Recently, Lincoln Hills was found to be in compliance with the requirements set forth after a class action lawsuit over those conditions. As a result, court-ordered monitoring of the facility was halted as new, smaller facilities are being opened around the state. 

A sentencing hearing for Hurd has been set for Friday morning, Oct. 30.

The U.S. Department of Justice in a federal court hearing Tuesday warned California election officials could be prosecuted if they count ballots cast by noncitizen voters, in a case brought by the Trump administration demanding that the state set aside the ballots of 20,000 suspected noncitizen voters.

The remark by a DOJ lawyer about “criminal liability” for election officials who process ballots drew a sharp rebuke from the judge presiding over the hearing.

“This court believes it would be wise — it would be wise that any threats to the state, county elected employees cease immediately,” Judge David Carter said from the bench.

The extraordinary argument from DOJ came as President Donald Trump’s last-minute push to assert authority over voting encounters skepticism and resistance from federal judges less than a week before Election Day. Trump faces political defeat if Republicans lose one or both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections.

Carter, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, held the hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit that seeks to force California election officials to segregate and not count ballots from the list of 20,000 unless they can prove their citizenship. 

Carter adjourned an hours-long hearing in Los Angeles by promising a decision Wednesday. Before adjourning, Carter urged the Justice Department to drop the menacing rhetoric.

Possibly heading to Supreme Court

Carter’s ruling — whatever he decides — will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court. A three-judge panel of the appeals court has already ruled against the Justice Department once in the case.

During the hearing, Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, raised the prospect that election officials could be criminally exposed if they move forward with counting the ballots.

“What they cannot do is knowingly count ballots when they have specific information that these individuals are noncitizens. That they cannot do,” Essayli said, adding that “they would be criminally liable if they knowingly process a ballot of a noncitizen. They would have the same criminal liability of the person who voted.”

Anne Bellows, a lawyer for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said that even though the Justice Department refers to the list as “likely” noncitizens, the court heard Essayli “threaten elections officials with criminal prosecution if they tabulate the ballots of those on this list.”

Christopher Pelham, a lawyer for Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, said the prospect that state and local election officials could face federal “trouble” for processing ballots “is chilling for them.”

List of suspected noncitizens

Earlier this month, the Justice Department provided a list of 20,000 California voters it said were suspected noncitizens and gave state and local officials 48 hours to review. When state and local election officials refused to act immediately, the DOJ sued to force election officials to segregate ballots from those voters and not count them unless they could prove their citizenship.

Carter appeared to signal he is skeptical of the Justice Department’s emergency request. At one point, he suggested he was inclined to set a hearing within the next couple weeks — likely after the election — for a deeper exploration of how the list of 20,000 people was compiled and its reliability. 

He indicated that would give time for a fuller examination of the issues at play but wrap up before Dec. 3, when California officials must certify election results.

Court documents filed by the Justice Department indicate the U.S. Department of Homeland Security developed the list based on a public California voter roll the agency obtained. 

In a court declaration filed Monday, Nicolas Bartelli, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a sub-agency of DHS, wrote that the agency “enhanced” the voter data using the research service LexisNexis.

‘The stakes here are enormous’

Essayli told the court that the Justice Department’s case would rise and fall on the credibility of the evidence. He said that once California officials were informed about the likely noncitizen voters, they must act.

“It means something to be a United States citizen. It means something to participate in an election,” Essayli said. “We want to make sure those interests are safeguarded.”

Lawyers for Weber and Logan sharply criticized the Justice Department’s arguments during the hearing. They voiced deep reservations over how the list was compiled and cast the DOJ’s move as an encroachment on California’s authority to run its elections.

The U.S. Constitution assigns states the responsibility of administering elections. Congress can override state rules and regulations, but the executive branch has no unilateral power to intervene absent authority from Congress.

The DOJ has pointed to a federal misdemeanor crime against noncitizen voting as justification for segregating ballots. 

But attorneys for the election officials argued the prohibition doesn’t preempt California’s state election laws, which also include a ban on noncitizen voting. Voters in California must attest under penalty of perjury they are a citizen and qualified to vote.

Bellows described the consequences in the case as sweeping. Los Angeles County election officials have written in court declarations that segregating ballots would lead to potentially “catastrophic” problems.

“The stakes here are enormous,” Bellows said, arguing that the DOJ’s demand risks disenfranchising voters.

WASHINGTON — Tens of millions of Americans have already made their way to the ballot box as early voting is underway in a midterm election that will determine control of the House and the Senate, possibly flipping one or both from Republicans to Democrats. 

As of Tuesday afternoon, more than 34 million people have either gone to the polls to cast a ballot or have mailed in their vote, and the current tally is on track to surpass early voting in the 2022 midterm elections, said Michael McDonald, a professor of political science at University of Florida who runs the UF Election Lab that tracks early voting.

With one week until Election Day on Nov. 3, McDonald said he’s not sure if voters will surpass record-breaking early voting of 2018, but it’s clear that the surge in early voting will eclipse turnout in the 2022 midterm elections, where nearly 46 million Americans voted early, according to the UF Election Lab. 

“Right now, the data that I can see, it looks like we’re running at least even to the 2018 election. If the voting continues through Election Day, we would be somewhere around that number,” he said. 

“That’s a high water benchmark,” McDonald said, adding that the 2018 election was the highest turnout for a midterm election since 1914. 

Motivations for the surge

Some states are reporting heavier voter turnout.

Twenty-seven states record party affiliation, and of the roughly 16 million early voters in those states, 45% are Democrats, and about 31% are Republicans, with 24% unaffiliated with either party, according to the UF Election Lab. 

McDonald said he can’t tell from the data the motivation behind a surge in early voting, but he has two ideas. The first is a post-COVID 19  explanation, where voters are less likely to partake in mail-in-ballots, so “we’re sort of reverting back to a normal election.”

“The other is the potential that (President Donald) Trump’s potential threats with trying to monkey around with the U.S. Postal Service, has made some people decide that they don’t want to vote by mail and vote in person instead,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court in September kept in place a lower court’s order blocking Trump’s embattled plan to place new restrictions on mail ballots for this year’s midterm elections.

The GOP is vying to maintain its narrow majority in the House and Senate, though Democrats remain heavily favored to win back the majority in the House, and Senate races continue to move in the party’s favor, according to elections forecasters. 

The party of the president historically loses seats in the midterm elections. Trump is also facing anemic approval ratings amid the war in Iran and its impact driving up gas prices. 

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter shifted 19 House races in the direction of Democrats on Oct. 23. The elections forecaster lists 17 races as toss-ups, with Republicans defending 12. 

In the Senate, the Cook Political Report identified seven toss-up races across the country, including in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Texas.

Early voting in the battlegrounds 

As early voting continues in key battleground states, Republicans are aiming to hold on to their majority in the upper chamber.

In Alaska, as of Monday, more than 46,000 people have voted already, according to the UF Election Lab. Former House Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola is seeking to unseat incumbent GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.

In Iowa, as of Tuesday, nearly 307,000 people have cast their vote early, as Democratic state legislator Josh Turek and U.S. House Republican lawmaker Ashley Hinson compete in a toss-up race for the U.S. Senate seat.

GOP incumbents Susan Collins of Maine and Roger Marshall of Kansas are also trying to keep their Senate seats in tough challenges from Democrats. In Maine, more than 196,000 people have voted, according to Monday data from the UF Election Lab. And in Kansas, more than 245,000 people have voted as of Tuesday, according to the UF Election Lab. 

More than 1.3 million people have already voted early in Michigan as of Tuesday, according to the UF Election Lab. 

The Wolverine State is home to a highly competitive Senate race in an open seat between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed that the Cook Political Report has declared a toss-up. 

In Ohio, as of Tuesday, nearly 1.2 million people have voted early as well, per the tracker. A tight Senate race also listed as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report features Ohio GOP Sen. Jon Husted and Democratic candidate and former Sen. Sherrod Brown. 

In the Lone Star State, more than 5 million people have cast their ballots as of Tuesday, according to the UF Election Lab. 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, and James Talarico, a Democrat, are battling it out in a race dubbed a toss-up by the Cook Political Report. Trump was campaigning in Texas on Tuesday.

Big turnout in some states  

As early voting takes shape across the country, some states are seeing sweeping turnout figures during the beginning days of early voting compared with earlier elections. 

In Tennessee, midterm early voter turnout stood 57% higher compared with the 2022 midterms in the Volunteer State during the first eight days, according to a Monday report from the Tennessee Lookout. 

Meanwhile, North Carolina is witnessing an eagerness among unaffiliated voters, who cast 34% of ballots in the first five days of early voting in the Tar Heel State, NC Newsline reported. 

The Louisiana Illuminator reported that Black voters comprised a larger share of participants on the first day of early voting in the Pelican State compared with nearly every other election over the past 18 years. 

An Oshkosh middle school teacher has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In a statement, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed that on Oct. 14, ICE arrested Wendy Mendez, a Spanish teacher at the Vel Phillips Middle School in Oshkosh. 

The spokesperson said that Mendez entered the United States in August 2020 “on a temporary basis, but in violation of our laws, failed to depart by Feb. 9, 2021.” The statement continues that on Feb. 18, 2026, Mendez was “placed into removal proceedings, and on Sept. 9, was ordered removed by an immigration judge for failing to show up for her removal proceedings. She received due process and will remain in custody pending her removal from the United States.” 

DHS did not clarify the type of visa or permit which Mendez may have had during her time in the United States. Although President Donald Trump campaigned on sending ICE to apprehend “the worst of the worst,” Mendez appears to be the latest example of someone who does not fit that description. A check of online court records showed that the only thing linked to Mendez were divorce proceedings, suggesting that she has no criminal record. 

Reports about Mendez’s detention first emerged on social media.  Facebook posts by someone who said she is a friend of Mendez’s  described Mendez as a woman of Afro-Caribbean descent who was raised in Costa Rica, and who moved to Oshkosh six years ago with her husband and two sons. The posts claim that one of her sons has Down syndrome and doesn’t understand why his mother is missing. The post states that Mendez had no knowledge of her deportation proceedings because notices from the court were sent to an old address. The post claims that while in detention, Mendez was placed in solitary confinement and made to sleep on concrete floors and mold-covered beds. According to the post, Mendez was deported after being moved among multiple detention facilities in different states without having the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge.

Mendez’s story was first reported by the independent University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh student newspaper, the Advance-Titan. 

A spokesperson for Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant rights group that runs a statewide network to verify ICE activity, told the Examiner that the group had not received any information about the case.

The Facebook posts mention details about Mendez that later appeared in official statements from DHS and the school district. However, the original poster has not responded to Wisconsin Examiner’s requests for comment. 

In an emailed statement, the Oshkosh Area School District confirmed that Mendez “is an employee in good standing who has been placed on an unpaid leave of absence due to unforeseen circumstances.” A district spokesperson added that “at no point was this a school safety or performance-related issue. Our primary focus remains on supporting our students and staff and keeping learning moving forward in our classrooms.”

On Monday, the district sent a letter to the families of students about Mendez, saying that although it normally follows privacy laws regarding employee matters, “this situation has become public and is felt across the community. We are sharing this update directly to address her absence, reduce uncertainty, and outline the support available.” The letter reiterates that Mendez has been placed on unpaid leave due to “unforeseen circumstances,” and that she was in good standing with the district. “The district is working through the process of obtaining more details and will provide more information if we are able.”

The letter explains that students in Mendez’s class were informed of her absence last Tuesday. “We know this situation brings heartbreak, frustration, and worry for many in our community,” the letter states. “Additionally, whenever a sudden absence occurs, it naturally brings up questions or concerns for students. Our primary responsibility is to ensure every student feels safe, supported, and grounded.” 

School counselors and support staff are being made available to listen to students, and help them process what’s happening. 

Mendez was named employee of the year last year by the Oshkosh Area School District. A video posted to the district’s YouTube page showed a surprised Mendez receiving a balloon and coffee thermos as her students applauded. 

“We are keeping Mrs. Mendez and her loved ones in our thoughts during this difficult time,” the letter states. “If you feel your child needs additional support during the day, please contact our Vel Phillips Middle School counseling office directly.” The letter is signed by Oshkosh Area School District Superintendent Dr. Bryan Davis, and Vel Phillips Middle School Principal Amanda Patza. 

Oshkosh is situated in Winnebago County, where the sheriff’s office is part of the 287(g) program which deputizes local law enforcement to participate in immigration enforcement and detention. Since last January, ICE has reported 25 arrests in Winnebago County, almost all of which originated from the jail, Wisconsin Watch reported.

In September during a town hall meeting, Sheriff John Matz said that his office’s participation in 287(g) “needs to continue.” Matz said, however, that he isn’t interested in street enforcement or in renting jail beds to ICE. This year, voters will decide whether to support Matz or his Democratic opponent Jason Ripple, a patrol officer. Ripple told Wisconsin Watch that he would void the 287(g) program, stating that the program “may be an open door for additional involvement with (ICE)…and I think that by any modern law enforcement standards, we’ve seen pretty clearly that their tactics are sloppy.”

The U.S. Department of Justice plans to send election monitors to every state ahead of Election Day, expanding a long-standing practice that’s spurred concern this year among Democrats and voting rights advocates because of President Donald Trump’s push to influence elections.

The Justice Department for decades has deployed monitors across the country to watch the voting process. During President Joe Biden’s administration, the DOJ sent monitors to 64 jurisdictions across 24 states for the 2022 midterm elections.

The 2026 monitoring program is larger, with the Justice Department announcing it will have a presence in all 50 states. DOJ spokesperson Kiersten Pels told States Newsroom on Monday that about 1,000 monitors will be involved but that the department won’t disclose the full list of monitored locations until Election Day — Nov. 3.

“Every monitor will merely observe and report any potential violations of federal law to the Department, which will be reviewed after Election Day,” Pels said in a statement.

Lawsuits prompt unease

While election monitors, who watch polling places and election officials for compliance with federal voting rights laws, have long been a feature of U.S. elections, the Trump administration’s extraordinary moves to assert federal authority over state-run elections have left many Democrats and even some Republicans uneasy about this year’s expansive effort.

The Justice Department has sued dozens of states in an attempt to force election officials to turn over voter lists that contain sensitive personal data, such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The DOJ has lost 27 cases so far, and won none.

Less than two weeks ago, the Justice Department sued California to block election officials from counting ballots from roughly 20,000 voters it says are suspected noncitizens. 

And on Friday, the DOJ sued Alaska to preemptively prevent the certification of its U.S. Senate election if the Republican incumbent loses by less than the number of votes received by another candidate of the same name, citing the potential for voter confusion.

But concerns about DOJ monitors began building in August after Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, expressed reservations about monitors, calling their actions “very odd” after DOJ personnel watched voting in the state’s primary election. 

Andrew Walchuk, senior policy director and counsel for voting & fair representation at the watchdog group Common Cause, told reporters last month that monitors in and of themselves are nothing new, pointing to the long history of the DOJ’s monitoring program.

“But with this administration, we will be watching their activity very closely,” Walchuk said.

1,000 monitors, 95,000 polling places

Election experts have emphasized that even with a 1,000 monitors, the Justice Department presence across the country will be far too small to interfere with voting on a wide scale. For example, the 2024 election included more than 95,000 polling places, according to survey data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

“The math just ain’t mathing,” Harry Black, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said during a panel discussion on the midterms earlier this month at the University of Pittsburgh.

In early October, the NAACP sued the Justice Department for records about the election monitoring program. In their complaint, lawyers for the NAACP argued that the “unprecedented deployment” of federal officials could jeopardize the election and interfere with the right of voters to cast their ballots without intimidation.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, an appointee of President Joe Biden in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., denied a request by the NAACP for an emergency order directing the DOJ to immediately begin producing records. The underlying lawsuit remains pending.

Local announcements of locations

While the full location list for the election monitors remains closely held, the Justice Department last week began notifying counties that will have monitors. In turn, some state and local election officials have announced where monitors will be present.

In Washington state, DOJ monitors will deploy to King County, which includes Seattle. In Oregon, they’ll be sent to the Portland area.

Salt Lake County in Utah will receive at least one monitor. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican who has clashed with the Trump administration after she refused to hand over voter data, told reporters last week that the Justice Department offered assurances about how the monitors will act.

“They won’t be approaching voters. They won’t be wearing any sort of insignia,” Henderson said.

In Maine, DOJ monitors are expected to be present in Portland and Lewiston. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, has said her office “will monitor the monitors very carefully to ensure that they don’t cross any lines.”

Pels said all monitors must meet the same legal and ethical requirements, which includes not interfering in the voting process.

“Every monitor has the same role: observe for potential violations of federal law and report concerns to the Department, which the Department will review after Election Day and act where appropriate,” Pels said.

Reporting contributed by Maine Morning Star’s Lauren McCauley and Utah News Dispatch reporter Alixel Cabrera.

President Donald Trump’s 11th-hour campaign to intervene in California’s vote counting encountered its first resistance from federal courts on Monday, with appellate judges ruling against the effort.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a U.S. Department of Justice request for a court order requiring California election officials to segregate and not count the ballots of some 20,000 voters, who federal officials say are suspected noncitizens, until those voters can prove otherwise. The decision, issued Monday, came after rare oral arguments on Sunday.

Two of the three judges sharply questioned a Justice Department lawyer over the demand, as well as the timeline of the agency’s actions. A third judge appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments.

The oral arguments, held virtually, came after the Justice Department said a district court judge hadn’t ruled fast enough on its request for a temporary restraining order to require California officials to set aside the ballots of suspected noncitizens. 

In Monday’s 2-1 decision, the majority wrote that the appeals court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the DOJ “failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider” the request.

One of the appellate judges emphasized on Sunday that the district court judge had swiftly scheduled a hearing, currently set for Tuesday, less than a week after receiving the case.

“I don’t see how we have jurisdiction,” said Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee who often led the skeptical questioning of the DOJ.

Last-minute push

As Election Day approaches, the Trump administration is mounting a furious final bid to assert authority over state and local election officials. 

The Justice Department first demanded immediate action in a last-minute lawsuit that alleges ballots cast by alleged noncitizens in California risk diluting the votes of U.S. citizens. 

It then opened a new front on Friday, preemptively suing Alaska over the future certification of its U.S. Senate race. Democrats and voting rights groups filed a flurry of court papers over the weekend opposing the Alaska lawsuit.

Sunday’s oral arguments in the California case, which lasted nearly two hours, marked the first courtroom showdown in the Trump administration’s new round of preelection legal action. One or both lawsuits could be before the U.S. Supreme Court within days, depending on the speed of lower courts.

An ‘astronomical’ number of ballots

Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly told the three-judge panel that the DOJ decided to seek an emergency order after learning how many mail-in ballots election officials were already processing, at least several hundred thousand so far. 

He said the agency hadn’t been aware of what he called the “astronomical” number of ballots as he explained why the DOJ didn’t ask for a temporary restraining order until four days after it first sued California.

“Frankly, we did not appreciate the scale,” Donnelly said, though California is a universal vote-by-mail state that sends a ballot to all voters.

Seth Waxman, a lawyer for Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, told the court that Donnelly’s assertion was “absurd on its face.” Election officials in California have warned that complying with the Justice Department’s demands so close to Election Day could have catastrophic consequences. 

“The numbers are publicly available,” Waxman said.

Authority over elections

The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause places the responsibility for administering elections with the states, with Congress retaining the power to override state regulations. 

Donnelly clashed with Bennett over whether the legal basis for the Justice Department’s demands of California, a federal law that makes it a misdemeanor crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, represents an instance of Congress asserting its authority over elections.

Donnelly said the federal law preempts California’s action “here that frustrates its purpose” — in other words, the refusal of state and local officials to set aside the suspected noncitizen ballots. 

But Bennett said California law also bans noncitizen voting, and he argued that what Congress passed doesn’t directly change the rules state lawmakers adopted, which require voters to attest under penalty of perjury that they are qualified to vote.

‘An emergency of their own making’

The Trump administration has said the Department of Homeland Security compiled the list of 20,000 suspected noncitizens based on public California voter data it obtained. 

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, an appointee of President Joe Biden, questioned the reliability of the list, noting that federal officials initially told California this summer they believed the state had potentially more than 190,000 noncitizens on its rolls.

“Somehow the district court was supposed to resolve all this in a matter of hours by noon on October 22?” Sanchez said, referring to the deadline the Justice Department requested for a decision from the district court judge.

Samuel Siegel, a lawyer representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, told the appeals court the voter list the Trump administration obtained was “wildly outdated.” He said the 9th Circuit has nothing to decide because U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, has yet to rule.

“It is an emergency of their own making,” Siegel said of the Justice Department.

Sanchez and Bennett agreed. In a per curiam majority opinion, they wrote the “United States’s claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one.”

Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee and the only judge on the panel who at times appeared to agree with the Justice Department’s arguments, pushed Siegel on the consequences of not ordering California to set aside the ballots. Donnelly said repeatedly that once the ballots are processed, it becomes impossible to pull them out, even if it later becomes clear they were fraudulently cast.

“Without an injunction, you’ll never know, correct?” Bumatay asked Siegel, who responded that voters must affirm their citizenship.

Bumatay dissented from Monday’s opinion. He wrote that he would have granted the DOJ request.

“The question—does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote.

Carter has promised to rule promptly after a Tuesday hearing on the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order. A denial could prompt the DOJ to appeal again.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

A new guide from Johns Hopkins University recommends 10 policy changes to reduce gun violence in Wisconsin, including three identified as potentially especially helpful for communities such as Milwaukee, where gun violence has been prevalent.

“The recommendations are intended to have statewide impact,” wrote Ethan Bartlett, assistant research and policy adviser at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions and lead author of the guide, in an email to NNS.  

“That being said, research suggests some recommendations may have a larger impact in certain areas than others, depending on factors such as community culture, demographics, rurality and differences in implementation.”

The Wisconsin guide is the seventh state-specific policy road map published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, following guides for Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Maryland and Maine.

Bartlett said researchers began by examining Wisconsin’s existing firearm laws to identify gaps.

“From there, we were guided by research evidence and identified evidence-based policies that would fill those gaps and ultimately work toward better outcomes for Wisconsin residents,” he said. 

Bartlett said the guide is intended to help policymakers, local governments and organizations identify legislative changes that could reduce firearm deaths and injuries.

“We view gun violence as an epidemic-level public health emergency and saw an opportunity to create a product with the potential to be part of the solution,” he said. 

Three recommendations he said may be especially significant for Milwaukee and other communities experiencing higher levels of interpersonal gun violence: establishing firearm purchaser licensing; licensing gun dealers; and providing sustainable funding for community violence intervention and prevention programs.

Current snapshot of Milwaukee gun violence

As of Oct. 8, Milwaukee had recorded 84 homicides and 325 nonfatal shootings, compared with 108 homicides and 425 nonfatal shootings during the same period in 2025, according to the Milwaukee Police Department’s crime dashboard. Both categories declined over 20% compared with the same period last year.

In 2025, the city recorded 142 homicides and 516 nonfatal shootings, compared with 132 homicides and 639 nonfatal shootings in 2024. 

Bartlett emphasized that firearm homicides represent only one aspect of gun violence.

“Firearm suicides represent the largest portion of firearm fatalities, and there are more firearm injuries annually than firearm homicides and suicides combined in Wisconsin,” he said.

In July, NNS reported firearms were involved in the majority of suicides in Milwaukee County in 2025. 

“All forms should be taken into consideration when discussing ways to mitigate gun violence,” Bartlett said. 

Here is a breakdown of the three strategies Bartlett highlighted for communities like Milwaukee.

Firearm purchaser licensing

The first recommendation calls for a requirement that prospective firearm buyers obtain a license before purchasing a gun.

Wisconsin does not require firearm purchasers to obtain a license, according to the guide.

Johns Hopkins recommends requiring prospective purchasers to complete firearm safety training, including live-fire instruction, submitting fingerprints, a comprehensive background check and an in-person application process.

The guide states that purchaser licensing laws were associated with an 11% reduction in firearm homicides in 136 large urban counties between 1984 and 2015. 

The requirements could strengthen background checks and help prevent firearms from reaching people legally prohibited from possessing them, according to the guide.

Milwaukee County Supervisor Justin Bielinski broadly supports the recommendations, but he raised concerns about purchaser licensing.

Bielinski said firearm purchaser licensing requirements could disproportionately affect lower-income residents and people of color, particularly those living in heavily policed communities.

Gun dealer licensing

Another recommendation is for Wisconsin to establish licensing requirements for firearm dealers – on top of existing federal requirements.

Wisconsin does not currently require a separate state firearm dealer license, according to the guide.  

Johns Hopkins recommends statewide licensing that includes recordkeeping, security measures and inspections to strengthen oversight of firearm sales.

The guide cites research finding that strong state firearm dealer regulations, including licensing and inspections, were associated with a 64% reduction in firearm trafficking within states.

The report highlighted federal data showing authorities recovered and traced 8,841 firearms in Wisconsin in 2023, including 3,781 in Milwaukee.

Bridget Whitaker is executive director of Safe & Sound, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit focused on community safety and violence prevention. She said the firearm purchaser licensing and gun dealer licensing speak to the accountability and responsible access to firearms.   

“I think there’s value in creating stronger safeguards to help prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands,” Whitaker said. “This is so important when we consider how quickly a disagreement, an impulsive decision or an unresolved conflict can become a tragedy when a firearm is involved.” 

Sustainable funding of community violence intervention

Whitaker said the recommendation that resonates most with her is for sustainable investment in community violence intervention and prevention.

Milwaukee already has several local efforts, including Safe & Sound, the 414LIFE violence interruption program and other initiatives coordinated by the city’s Department of Community Wellness and Safety. 

Johns Hopkins researchers recommend sustained funding for anti-violence programs and a formal establishment of Wisconsin’s Office of Violence Prevention in state law, which could provide more stable state support for local violence prevention efforts.

“Too often – especially this year – nonprofits are charged to produce long-term outcomes with short-term funding,” Whitaker said. “We are asking organizations to build trust and maintain consistent relationships in neighborhoods while providing funding that may only last a year. Trust doesn’t operate on a grant cycle.”

Gov. Tony Evers’ actions

Bielinski said state lawmakers would need to push for most of the guide’s recommendations.

“Most of the reforms in the Hopkins report have to be initiated at the state level,” he said.

NNS reached out to Gov. Tony Evers about the three recommendations. Britt Cudaback, communications director for Evers, pointed to the governor’s previous budget proposals and calls for special legislative sessions and federal funding investments for violence prevention.

Evers created the Wisconsin Office of Violence Prevention – by way of an executive order in January 2025. The office was initially supported by $10 million in federal funding, and Evers proposed making the office permanent through his 2025-27 budget.

However, the proposal was not included in the final budget.

In 2022, the Evers administration directed $8.4 million in federal funding to Milwaukee’s violence prevention efforts.

He also has called for universal background checks and an extreme risk protection order law, which would allow courts to temporarily restrict access to firearms for people who pose a serious risk of harming themselves or others.

Bielinski questioned whether Milwaukee County could expand its violence prevention programs from a financial perspective.

“Funding-related measures, like hiring more violence interruptors, credible messengers, etc., are highly unrealistic given current budgetary circumstances,” he said.

A spokesperson for the Wisconsin Department of Administration, which oversees the state’s Office of Violence Prevention, also emphasized the need for sustained funding.

“The greatest impact, from the (Office of Violence Prevention) perspective, is continued sustainable, reliable and flexible funding for violence prevention in Milwaukee and across the state,” the spokesperson said.

Whitaker said the guide’s recommendations “reflect something those of us working in neighborhoods have understood for a long time: Reducing violence requires a comprehensive approach.” 

More recommendations

The other recommendations in the Johns Hopkins guide are:

• Strengthening firearm storage requirements
• Strengthening protections against domestic violence involving firearms
• Establishing an extreme risk protection order law
• Expanding restrictions on firearm purchases and possession
• Prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines
• Strengthening requirements for carrying firearms in public
• Requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms

---

Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.

New guide identifies policies that could reduce gun violence 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.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

Wisconsin election officials are divided over how to handle the possibility of unarmed federal immigration or law enforcement agents arriving at polling places this November and asking to observe voting.

The disagreement centers on a passage in new Wisconsin Elections Commission guidance intended to help local election officials navigate encounters with law enforcement at the polls. Among other instructions, the guidance says that agents from ICE, the FBI and other federal agencies who want to observe voting must follow the same rules as other election observers.

But officials in Dane County, home to Madison and one of Wisconsin’s most Democratic strongholds, warn that the language could lead poll workers to admit federal agents in violation of federal law. Federal law bans U.S. officials from sending troops or armed agents to the polls except under extremely limited circumstances, and a different law bans voter intimidation.

In an Oct. 15 email to the commission, the county’s attorney argued that the guidance could be read as permitting armed ICE agents to observe voting, despite federal restrictions.

Dane County officials have spent months preparing for the possibility of federal interference in the election. The commission, meanwhile, approved its guidance less than three weeks before Election Day, after receiving what it said were hundreds of questions from local clerks seeking clarity about federal law enforcement at the polls.

Clerks and attorneys interviewed by Votebeat were divided over whether the guidance provides the clarity they need. Some praised it as helpful and others said it came too late or warned that its language could lead election inspectors to misunderstand the limits of federal law.

On page three, the guidance instructs election officials to contact their clerks and the commission if federal agents arrive to observe voting. If federal officials are present “just to observe, they still have to check in like regular observers and are subject to the observer rule,” it states. The guidance does not, at that point, distinguish between armed and unarmed federal agents.

It then discusses circumstances in which armed, uniformed local officers might observe voting.

Only two pages later does the commission explain the federal law restricting armed personnel in federal service from polling places.

The structure of the advice, Dane County attorney David Gault told Votebeat, “creates the implication it’s OK for ICE to be there and observe, and I just don’t think that’s the case.”

“If they’re armed, it’s clearly prohibited,” he said. “If they’re unarmed but still in some kind of a uniform designating them as a federal agent, I think the law is still pretty clear they’re not supposed to be there.”

Dane County officials object to commission guidance

Election officials across Wisconsin have been preparing for months for the possibility of federal law enforcement at the polls, but the concern is particularly acute in the state’s largest, heavily Democratic counties. In Dane County, the state’s second-largest, officials say listening to the commission’s guidance could complicate their efforts to keep federal agents from interfering with voting.

The guidance lays out steps for election officials to take when federal agents appear. Chief inspectors are instructed to immediately notify their municipal clerk, who must then contact the county clerk and commission staff. Agents carrying out legitimate law enforcement duties, rather than observing voting, are treated differently. In those cases, election officials are told to request identification and any warrants, document the encounter and ask officers to conduct their business outside the voting area when possible.

The commission also tells election inspectors they can remove observers if they have a reasonable basis to believe they are, or are about to, intimidate or disrupt voters. In its instructions addressing local law enforcement officers who insist on observing while armed and in uniform, the guidance leaves inspectors to determine whether their presence crosses that line.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell took issue in particular with the statement that if federal agents wish to observe, they can check in like regular observers.

“It’s inaccurate,” said McDonell, a Democrat. “It’s confusing. It doesn’t reflect what the law is.”

If a back-office ICE employee who’s unarmed wants to observe, that might be fine, McDonell said. “But that’s not how I think anyone would read that,” he said, saying clerks may assume the sentence is referring to armed federal agents.

Sharing McDonell’s concerns, Gault, the Dane County in-house attorney, sent an email to Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe on Oct. 15, the same day the commission finalized the guidance.

Gault said that while armed ICE agents are clearly banned from the polls under federal law, a separate federal law bars a person acting under the color of law from intimidating voters. Gault argued that it would ban even an unarmed but uniformed ICE agent from observing at the polls.

“There is no legitimate reason for ICE to be at a polling place,” he told Wolfe. “Everyone there is presumptively a U.S. citizen. I don’t think WEC’s guidance should imply that an ICE agent can be a legitimate observer.”

Commission attorney supervisor Angela O’Brien Sharpe disagreed, saying federal law doesn’t address every situation that may bring federal agents to the polls. “If federal law enforcement wishes to observe an election, then they are permitted to do so,” she said, adding that they would be subject to Wisconsin observer rules.

She emphasized that the guidance does not authorize armed federal observers and was intended to help poll workers “manage how to respond to varying situations like these” including deciding whether an officer’s presence constitutes intimidation or a disturbance.

Gault was unsatisfied, calling the guidance “confusing at best.”

“If asked, this office will advise election officials and law enforcement in Dane County that armed federal agents should not be at a polling place under any circumstances,” he wrote. “If they are there legitimately to vote they should at a minimum be unarmed.”

Local attorneys can offer advice to city and county election offices that contradicts the commission’s, Sharpe said.

Little precedent for federal agents observing elections

Federal election monitors from the Justice Department have observed voting for decades, but the prospect of ICE or FBI agents arriving at polling places specifically to monitor voting presents a largely untested legal question.

Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who worked in the White House under President Joe Biden on voting rights issues, said the commission’s guidance is “legit and accurate,” adding that it’s “straight down the middle of providing lawful advice without picking a fight.”

“I understand why Dane County wants a different emphasis,” Levitt said. “I don’t think that means they were right and the state was wrong. I think that just means they’ve got different interests here.”

He said the commission and Dane County agree more than they disagree: They both agree that armed agents are banned at the polls and that chief inspectors can kick out anyone intimidating voters.

Had the commission gone further and said ICE was banned from the polls entirely, he said, “That would actually be getting Wisconsin in trouble because you cannot single out federal officials for special treatment.”

Sterling Knoche, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School-based State Democracy Research Initiative, similarly said the guidance provides clerks with good instructions for minimizing disruptions at the polling place while instructing them to consult the people who could seek a court injunction if necessary.

Knoche said the commission may not have had a sound legal basis to categorically prohibit unarmed federal agents in uniform from observing. Whether their presence is lawful would depend on their conduct and the circumstances, he said.

In Milwaukee on Monday, Wolfe drew a similar distinction. She said that federal and state law prohibits armed federal agents from showing up at the polls, but said the legality of unarmed agents observing is less clear. In that case, she said, chief inspectors and poll workers must determine whether their presence intimidates or disturbs voters.

How clerks are preparing to apply the guidance

Local officials offered differing assessments of how useful the guidance would be, even as some agreed that federal agents in uniform could intimidate voters.

Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood, a Republican, said the guidance was “fine.” She said county clerks have been coordinating with their local sheriffs, who would be their first call if federal agents do show up at the polls. If she were an inspector, she said, she would not allow federal law enforcement agents to register as observers if they’re in uniform, even if they were unarmed.

“We would be on a very strong legal footing to say, ‘You standing there in your FBI vest is intimidating to voters, and so we’re not going to allow that,’” she said.

In an interview, Green Bay Police Chief Chris Davis told Votebeat that the guidance was quite helpful and would be instructive in the unlikely situation that federal agents show up at a city polling place.

“We have to make a decision about what to do fairly quickly,” he said, “so any time we can get guidance like this from an authority, it helps us do that.”

Green County Clerk Arianna Voegeli, a Democrat, said the commission’s guidance came late but was consistent with the guidance that she already had given to local election officials. She agreed that the mere presence of federal officers in uniform could constitute voter intimidation, though she said it’s a legal gray area if they’re unarmed.

“I’m not too concerned about issues here in Green County, just because we’re a smaller county,” she said, though she’s discussed the issue with law enforcement and feels prepared. Larger counties, she said, have likely developed their own plans already.

McDonell, the Dane County clerk, said this guidance might add to the confusion for some clerks instead of taking away from it.

“It would have been better if they hadn’t sent this out,” he said. “It’s at minimum badly worded.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Can unarmed ICE agents watch voting? In Wisconsin that depends on who you ask 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 U.S. Department of Justice is stepping up its legal campaign over the midterm elections, suing Alaska over its U.S. Senate election and appealing a lawsuit against suspected noncitizen voters in California.

Election law experts have cast doubt on the strength of the cases, criticizing them as performative.

The Justice Department sued Alaska election officials late Thursday in a preemptive attempt to stop the state from certifying the results of its Senate election if, under the state’s ranked-choice voting method, the Republican incumbent loses by a smaller margin than the votes earned by another candidate of the same name. 

Separately, the Justice Department appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a lawsuit seeking to prevent California election officials from counting the ballots of approximately 20,000 voters it says are likely noncitizens unless they can prove their citizenship. The DOJ had demanded a district court decision by Thursday.

Collectively, the Justice Department’s actions signal an expanding legal effort to assert authority over voting as Election Day approaches. President Donald Trump faces political peril in the midterms, with Democrats all but certain to launch investigations into his administration if they retake the House or Senate.

The Trump administration’s past attempts to influence how states run elections largely failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court blocking proposed restrictions on mail ballots and federal judges dismissing DOJ lawsuits to obtain states’ sensitive voter data. But in the waning days before the midterm elections, federal officials are again ramping up election-related activity.

“I’m the one that said do it,” Trump, speaking to reporters on Friday, said of the Alaska lawsuit.

Another Dan Sullivan suit

The Alaska lawsuit came hours after U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche refused to rule out efforts to block states from certifying their elections. Speaking to reporters after an unrelated event in Virginia, Blanche said it wasn’t the DOJ’s intention to “improperly interfere” with election certifications even as he left room for his department to act.

“I mean, is there any scenario? Yes, of course there’s scenarios that we could all come up with, hypothetically, you know, some doomsday scenario, for example, right?” Blanche said.

The Alaska Division of Elections and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

In the Alaska Senate race, Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and his supporters have cast Dan J. Sullivan, also a Republican, as a spoiler in a competitive race against Democrat Mary Peltola. 

State officials initially kept Dan J. Sullivan off the August primary ballot but the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the decision. He finished third, with 2.5% of the vote, qualifying for the four-way general election.

Trump had previewed a possible lawsuit earlier in the week. On Truth Social, the president on Wednesday called the Senate race in Alaska “totally confusing” and slammed Dan J. Sullivan’s presence.

“We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness,” Trump wrote.

Experts skeptical

Early expert reaction to the Justice Department’s complaint has been sharply critical. The complaint cites the preamble of the National Voter Registration Act, which says one of its purposes is “to protect the integrity of the electoral process.” 

Writing in Election Law Blog, Derek Muller, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame focused on elections, called the legal argument “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.”

“Some, in a panic, might react that the Department is trying to deny certification of an election in a state. Of course that’s what the Department is trying to do. But the legal claim is so absurdly thin, there’s essentially no likelihood of success,” Muller wrote.

California noncitizen case appealed

In California, Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Hamill filed a notice of appeal in the Justice Department’s lawsuit over alleged noncitizen voters just three days after the the DOJ requested a temporary restraining order to halt ballot counting for individuals on the list of 20,000. 

Hamill wrote that the DOJ was interpreting U.S. District Court Judge David Carter’s silence as a denial of its request. 

Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, had only taken on the case a day earlier and had set a hearing for Oct. 27. Earlier this year, he became the first federal judge in the country to rule against the Justice Department’s lawsuits attempting to force states to turn over sensitive voter data.

On Friday, the Justice Department filed a new motion asking Carter to block the ballot counting and requested a ruling by noon Pacific time. 

In that filing, Hamill wrote that “every minute” of ballot processing that occurs without setting aside ballots of suspected noncitizens dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens.

Case ‘exceedingly weak,’ critics say

Critics of the Justice Department’s actions argue the time crunch is largely of its own making. 

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, noted during a press call Thursday that the DOJ didn’t file its lawsuit until more than a week after California began mailing ballots — and then several more days to seek a temporary restraining order.

“I think this case is exceedingly weak,” said Becker, who worked as a senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Attorneys for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, and Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan have both asked Carter to dismiss the lawsuit. 

Logan’s legal team on Wednesday wrote that Los Angeles County hasn’t changed how it conducts elections. What’s changed, they wrote, was the federal government’s posture.

“Weeks before Election Day, the United States asks this Court to intrude on the administration of an election,” Logan’s lawyers wrote.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As the Milwaukee Brewers take on the Tampa Bay Rays in their first World Series in more than 40 years, tour Milwaukee to see how artists have celebrated the home team with public art.

“Wild Bill”

“Bob Uecker”

Baseball sculptures

“Hank Aaron” 

“El Paletero” 

“Sam’s Rocks WI”

“South Side en La Hora Mágica”

The Valley Passage Mural

“The Launch”

---

Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.

Here’s where you can find Brewers-inspired public art in Milwaukee 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 current Trump administration claims its mass deportation efforts have expelled nearly a million people through July of this year, but those include both voluntary returns and people turned around at the border, according to a new analysis by the former chief statistician for the Department of Homeland Security.

The level of deportations is sharply higher than during the Biden and first Trump administrations but well below the level of the 2000s. Deportations peaked at about 1.9 million in fiscal year 2000 as border enforcement ramped up under a sweeping immigration enforcement law in 1996.

Former DHS official Marc Rosenblum did the analysis, using only public records, for the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank for immigration research. Rosenblum resigned in protest in July against what he called the Trump administration’s “war on immigrants.” He had been with DHS since 2016 and executive director of the statistics office since 2023. 

Rosenblum emphasized in his analysis how many non-criminals have been either forcibly deported or pressured to leave voluntarily. Only 20% overall — and 28% of those in the U.S. for at least two years — have a criminal conviction.

“These data here do not suggest the administration is deporting the worst of the worst,” Rosenblum said.  

Even among convicted criminals, he added, the records were more likely to be immigration or traffic infractions rather than violent or other more serious crimes. 

DHS officials have maintained that living in the country illegally is enough reason to be deported. Tom Homan, the administration’s so-called border czar, told a Florida audience Oct. 1 that deportations have ramped up this fall and will be even higher in 2027. He was speaking to a Hispanic leadership event near Miami sponsored by the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank.

“Mass deportation is happening,” Homan said. “I think September’s going to be the highest deportations of any month in the history of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Right now we’ve arrested more people than in the history of this nation.” 

He added later, “Wait until you see what we do next year.”

Rosenblum tallied 980,000 deportations, including arrangements to leave voluntarily after arrest, during the second Trump administration through July 31, about 18 months. About 300,000 had been arrested inside the United States, but most deportations were from the U.S. border with Mexico. There, 680,000 people were either turned around at the border or arrested at the border and deported after processing. 

The number of people leaving the country without being arrested is disputed — DHS earlier this year claimed more than 2.2 million “self-deportations,” apparently based on a decline in immigrant population in surveys. Others dispute that number, saying it’s more likely immigrants are avoiding government surveys. 

In his analysis, Rosenblum estimated the number of immigrants leaving of their own accord — not including people who had formal agreements to leave voluntarily — at between 310,000 and 1.5 million for immigrants who had been here at least a year. The departures include legal immigrants and those who had been living here illegally. 

Rosenblum’s estimate of departures, other than deportation, is imprecise, relying on Mexican census data on its returning citizens to estimate a “plausible level of departures” for other nationalities. 

The numbers in his analysis include people making arrangements to leave voluntarily rather than continue their court cases or contest a return at the border, about 170,000.  It may not include some people who came forward voluntarily to claim financial assistance to leave from the Project Homecoming program. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

A 13-year-old boy remains in critical condition after the mini-dirt bike he was riding collided with a school bus, reported KTVB 7.

The crash reportedly occurred Monday shortly after 4 p.m. at an intersection in Caldwell, Idaho. State police said v the school bus was traveling south on Colorado Avenue when the teen, identified by his family as Daniel, struck the bus while riding the mini-dirt bike.

Daniel underwent surgery and sustained multiple broken bones and injuries to his brain and lungs, his family told local news reporters. His brother, David Corral, asked the community to pray for Daniel, their family and everyone involved.

“At the end of the day, all that matters to me and my family right now is Daniel’s health,” Corral said. “We hope God does a miracle.”

The bus had eight students and two adults on board, including the driver, at the time of the collision. All occupants were wearing seatbelts, the type unspecified, and no one aboard the bus was reportedly injured. State police said Daniel was not wearing a helmet while riding the mini-dirt bike.

Caldwell Mayor Eric Phillips said he met with Daniel’s family Monday night and prayed with them. Phillips emphasized that Daniel is a child and said the immediate priority should be helping him recover.

Authorities are also investigating how Daniel obtained the mini-dirt bike. David Snider said that Daniel took the mini-dirt bike from his son before the crash. Snider explained that Daniel approached his son and another child, asked to ride the bike, and then pushed them away before leaving with it.

Daniel’s family disputed that account. Authorities have not announced any charges related to the allegations.

Snider said his son was shaken by the incident but sympathized with Daniel and did not wish him harm.

The intersection remained closed for approximately an hour as first responders worked at the scene. Both the collision and the allegations involving the dirt bike remain under investigation.

Written with the assistance of AI.

---

Related: Student, Motorist Killed in Florida School Bus Crash
Related: Boy on Scooter Collides with School Bus in Northwest Miami-Dade
Related: Minnesota Teen Faces Charges in Connection to School Bus Crash
Related: Maryland Bus Driver Pays Fine for Crash that Killed 11-Year-Old Bicyclist

The post Mini-Dirt Bike Rider, 13, Critically Injured in Collision with School Bus appeared first on School Transportation News.

National Democrats are suing President Donald Trump, accusing his administration of intimidating election officials and asking a federal court to block him from interfering in the midterm elections.

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in Washington, D.C., comes as the Trump administration mounts a highly public offensive against voter fraud in California just two weeks before Election Day and as federal agents face allegations they are questioning people at their homes about their voter status.

The Department of Justice has sued state and local officials, demanding they not count the ballots of roughly 20,000 California voters that the DOJ alleges are noncitizens and suggesting they will face prosecution if they do. The Trump administration is currently scrutinizing an additional 17,000 California voters, according to a court filing.

Jeffries, Schumer sign on 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who’s in line to become speaker if his party retakes the House, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democratic groups and a California voter, allege in their lawsuit that the Trump administration has engaged in a pattern of intimidation intended to frighten officials into complying with unlawful demands to thwart voting.

The executive branch has no authority to assert authority over states’ maintenance of their own voter rolls and determinations of who is qualified to vote, they say. The U.S. Constitution assigns states the responsibility of administering elections.

“Thwarted in Congress and the courts, the administration has now simply disregarded the tools Congress provided it and fashioned its own cudgels instead,” lawyers for the Democrats write in their legal complaint.

The lawsuit names Trump, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the leaders of both agencies as defendants.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it enforces federal election law and that election integrity is a top priority. Every action the DOJ has taken related to this year’s elections, the statement said, “is grounded in law and being litigated in open court.”

Homeland Security called the lawsuit a “political stunt.”

Dozens of states unsuccessfully sued by DOJ

Noncitizen voting is a rare phenomenon, studies have consistently found. The Justice Department this week charged 38 noncitizens in California with election crimes, an infinitesimal percentage of registered voters. 

Even if all 20,000 individuals on the DOJ list are noncitizens, it would represent only about 0.08% of the nearly 23.2 million registered voters in California. 

For more than a year, the Trump administration has attempted to influence how states run elections. The Justice Department sued dozens of states — all unsuccessfully — to force them to hand over sensitive data on voters. Homeland Security refashioned a powerful computer program called SAVE into a tool that can verify citizenship, though critics say it falsely flags U.S. citizens.

Trump pushed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would have required voters nationwide to prove their citizenship. The legislation passed the House but encountered bipartisan opposition in the Senate, where a handful of Republicans and Democrats prevented it from advancing.

Trump also attempted to use the U.S. Postal Service to impose national restrictions on voting by mail. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Postal Service rules from taking effect ahead of the midterms.

The broad effort has played out as Trump’s political fortunes appear to be dimming. Just 36% of likely voters approve of Trump’s performance, according to a New York Times-Siena University poll released Wednesday. If Democrats retake the House or Senate, they will likely initiate a myriad of investigations into Trump and his administration that could consume the final two years of his term.

New blitz in California

Against that backdrop, the Trump administration has in recent days launched a new voter fraud blitz targeting California, a blue state that mails ballots to all voters. 

Last week the Justice Department provided state and local officials with 20,000 names that it said Homeland Security had identified as likely noncitizens. After giving state officials just 48 hours to act on the list, the DOJ sued. 

On Monday, DOJ attorneys asked for a temporary restraining order that would immediately force California to comply with their demands that these individuals not be provided mail ballots and that their ballots not count unless they offer proof of citizenship. It also suggested in a court filing that Homeland Security could accuse more California voters of being noncitizens.

Nicolas Bartell, associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a sub-agency of Homeland Security, said in a declaration filed in court on Tuesday that USCIS “has identified a separate batch of more than 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens after an initial review of voter rolls.”

But Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan is casting doubt on the reliability of Homeland Security’s review — and arguing complying with the DOJ’s demands would severely disrupt the election locally.

Logan’s office analyzed a sample of 200 names of the 20,000 provided by the Justice Department. In a court filing, lawyers for Logan wrote that his office found that 25.8% of the sample recorded a U.S. birthplace, a guarantee of citizenship except in extremely limited circumstances. About 71% had never voted.

Monica Flores, the assistant registrar-recorder for the Candidate and Voter Services Bureau, wrote in a court declaration that if forced to comply with the Justice Department’s demands, “it would be virtually impossible to timely certify the election results in compliance with state law.”

‘Fearmongering and intimidation’

California state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat, at a news conference on Tuesday called the Trump administration’s efforts an attempt to silence voters. She urged voters not to be afraid.

“This is a federal administration that operates through fearmongering and intimidation,” Gonzalez said.

San Francisco, Santa Clara and several advocacy groups sued Homeland Security in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that DHS has authorized broad election-related field operations. Armed agents have been sent to homes to interrogate residents about their voter eligibility, the lawsuit says.

The California Nurses Association, National Nurses United and the Voto Latino Foundation joined the local governments in suing.

A Homeland Security Investigations internal memo dated Aug. 31 describes a “surge initiative” beginning Sept. 1 that includes conducting field interviews. The memo, which was filed in court, identifies California, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin as targets of the surge during September. Additional locations are redacted in the document.

“DHS’ stated intention of questioning Americans at their homes weeks before an election is voter intimidation, and protections against this form of harassment extend beyond the polling place,” Hayden Johnson, a lawyer at Protect Democracy, a legal advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement when the lawsuit was filed.

Justice Department lawyers have responded in court filings that the plaintiffs haven’t identified a single affected voter. The allegations of intimidation also lack specifics, the DOJ says.

The federal government has statutory authority to investigate potential voting by noncitizens,” DOJ lawyers wrote in a filing. “Enjoining the government from even investigating such criminal violations would damage the public interest, not serve it.”

A hearing on a preliminary injunction in the case was held Monday. No decision was immediately issued.

Republican Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney is waging his second challenge against Wisconsin's Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul on Nov. 3.

The post Trump looms large in rematch for Wisconsin attorney general between Kaul, Toney appeared first on WPR.

More elected leaders including both U.S. Senators from Wisconsin have reported their offices received packages containing a suspicious substance.

The post More Wisconsin lawmakers receive ‘suspicious’ substances by mail appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. Department of Justice is intensifying its campaign against voter fraud with a spree of arrests in the final weeks before Election Day, an effort that voting rights advocates warn risks instilling fear among voters.

Over the past week, the Justice Department unveiled election-related criminal charges against 28 noncitizens in California and threatened state and local election officials with prosecutions. 

It’s now asking a federal judge to immediately order California election officials to not count the ballots of voters it suspects are noncitizens until their citizenship can be verified — citing the new wave of arrests as justification.

Federal prosecutors’ focus on alleged voter fraud comes as President Donald Trump stares down an increasingly dire political landscape in the midterm elections. 

As his approval ratings sag, Democrats are favored to retake the U.S. House and possibly the Senate, an outcome that would trigger a wave of congressional investigations into the president and his administration.

Feds and states

The Trump administration’s confrontation with California is quickly developing into a last-minute showdown over the limits of the federal authority in elections. 

The Justice Department failed to force states to turn over sensitive voter data and the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Trump’s plan to restrict voting by mail. The pressure on California marks a new front in the federal government’s push to assert influence over how elections are run, a responsibility assigned to the states by the U.S. Constitution.

“The Trump administration’s decision to launch a highly publicized federal sweep just two weeks before Election Day is the latest escalation in a coordinated campaign meant to sow fear and confusion amongst voters,” Jonathan Paik, executive director of OC Action, an Orange County, California, civics group, told reporters on Tuesday.

On Monday, the Justice Department announced the arrests of 11 noncitizens and criminal charges against 28 noncitizens in total in California. The DOJ said all 28 individuals are lawful permanent residents. 

The Los Angeles Times reported that some expressed confusion over the charges as they made their initial appearances in federal court in Los Angeles, saying they had no recollection of registering to vote.

The same day, the DOJ filed court papers asking a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order requiring California to not count ballots cast by roughly 20,000 registered voters that the department says are likely noncitizens unless they can confirm their citizenship. 

The request comes after the DOJ first sued California last week, after giving state and local officials 48 hours to investigate the names.

In the court documents, the DOJ says that without court action, a significant risk exists that American votes will be diluted. It notes that all 28 individuals charged were on the list of suspected noncitizen voters given to state officials.

“California is mailing ballots to noncitizens, and they are refusing to comply with federal law, which makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote. The voting rights of American citizens must be protected,” Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney in California, said in a statement.

Election officials warned

The Justice Department recently raised the prospect that election officials who stand in its way could face prosecution. In a Friday letter to Los Angeles County, Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter wrote that if people knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals “identified by federal agencies as noncitizens, they risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime.”

While the DOJ’s actions appear concentrated in California, Aaron Reitz, the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Texas, said in a Monday statement that local election administrators have a duty to prevent illegal voting “and I’m here to make sure they do their job.”

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, predicted the Justice Department’s California lawsuit would fail. 

Becker, a former senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, said election officials are not committing crimes but he anticipates that the Trump administration may raise the “noise level” as Election Day approaches.

“I think there is just a lot of garbage being thrown at the wall because they don’t have any other tools left and they appear to have given up on persuading the electorate in this election,” Becker said on a press call Tuesday.

California election officials have begun to fight back in federal court. Lawyers for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat in court filings on Tuesday urged the court not to let the Justice Department effort proceed.

Weber’s lawyers argue that no barrier exists to the Justice Department enforcing federal prohibitions against noncitizen voting. They note that since August, the California Secretary of State’s office has received federal grand jury subpoenas for about 300 people. Monday’s arrests, they say, actually underscore that federal prosecutors can already work through existing rules and procedures to combat alleged fraud.

“At best, this litigation is a reckless political stunt. At worst, it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election,” lawyers for Weber wrote.

In a declaration filed in court, Aman Bhullar, a high-ranking official in the Los Angeles County Assistant Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s Information Technology Bureau, warned that the Justice Department’s request raised the possibility of a “catastrophic impact” to voting within the county, the most populous in the nation. 

The consequences, Bhullar wrote, range from halting all vote counting to halting the ability of voters to cast a ballot in person. 

Additionally, Bhullar wrote that his team had analyzed a sample of 200 of the 20,000 names provided by the DOJ. They found that nearly 43% had canceled voter registration records and that 86 of the 200 had been mailed a ballot — and that every voter not mailed a ballot had a canceled or inactive record. 

Of the 200 names analyzed, about 71% had never voted.

Dramatic voter fraud arrests

The Justice Department has said that the Department of Homeland Security identified the names after analyzing the state’s publicly available voter roll data and checked them against immigration records and other sources of federal information. Justice Department lawyers say Homeland Security didn’t use the SAVE system, a computer tool that can verify citizenship that Democrats and other critics say falsely flags U.S. citizens. 

DOJ lawyers are separately fighting with the watchdog groups Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over whether the actions in California violate a federal judge’s order in Washington, D.C., blocking the department’s efforts to obtain state voter roll data and feed it to Homeland Security.

Amid dueling court filings on Tuesday, the Justice Department posted to social media a video montage of voter fraud arrests in California set to rock music. Several clips show Homeland Security Investigations agents in tactical gear leading away a handcuffed man who appears to be wearing red pajama bottoms.

Kevin Lainez, the mayor of Commerce, California, where one person was arrested in the Justice Department’s anti-voter fraud operation, told reporters on Tuesday that the charged individuals must go through the appropriate legal process.

“But let me be clear,” Lainez said. “The timing of the operation and the way it was run was nothing short of political theater.”

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Wisconsin’s general election is Nov. 3, with voters deciding who will be the state’s next governor and attorney general, as well as picking candidates for the state Legislature in several other races. Voters also will decide on three proposed amendments to the state constitution. 

When voting in person, residents throughout the state must present an acceptable form of photo ID, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Wisconsin law allows eligible residents to obtain a state-issued ID for voting free of charge.

Despite there being no cost, the process can still present other challenges, said Peg Schrader, president of the League of Women Voters of Milwaukee County.

“The practical barriers include missing supporting documents, the cost and effort of replacing them, transportation to the DMV and understanding which documents and IDs are acceptable,” wrote Schrader in an email to NNS.

Here’s what to know about getting a free ID before the election.

Steps

U.S. citizens who will be at least 18 years old on or before Nov. 3 – but who don’t have an ID that can be used for voting – can apply for one for free through the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles, or DMV.

Although “voter ID” is a common term, there is no separate ID specifically for voting. Wisconsin accepts state-issued ID cards, which also can be used for other purposes.

Other acceptable forms of ID for voting include Wisconsin driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, military IDs and certain student and tribal IDs.

The photo ID requirement also is separate from voter registration, which has different requirements. 

Registration establishes a person’s eligibility to vote, while the photo ID requirement is for when someone actually votes.

People applying for a state ID for the first time must visit a DMV customer service center in person. People renewing or replacing an existing state ID may be able to do so online or by mail. 

When applying for a state ID for the first time, people ordinarily need to bring:

• Proof of name and date of birth.
• Proof of identity.
• Proof of Wisconsin residency.
• Proof of U.S. citizenship or legal status.
• Their Social Security number.

Some documents can fulfill more than one requirement. For example, a certified U.S. birth certificate can establish name and date of birth as well as U.S. citizenship.

The DMV maintains a list of acceptable documents for each type.

Generally, people must bring original documents or certified copies rather than photocopies. However, the DMV accepts printed electronic records and photocopies of certain documents used to prove Wisconsin residency.

Also, people generally need to provide their Social Security number but do not have to bring the physical card unless the DMV cannot verify the number electronically.

In addition to these documents, people must complete the Wisconsin Identification Card Application, indicating that they want a free ID for voting.

People who complete the regular in-person application generally receive a temporary paper receipt with their photograph at the DMV. The receipt is good for 45 days and can be used to vote while they wait for the permanent card to arrive by mail.

According to the DMV, permanent cards generally arrive within 10 business days.

Identification Petition Process

Wisconsin has an alternative process for eligible residents who do not have the documents usually required to obtain a state ID, called the Identification Petition Process. 

The process allows U.S. citizens who will be at least 18 on or before the next election to apply for an ID for voting while the DMV works to verify their information.

Schrader called the petition process an important option.

“Its key benefit is that a missing birth certificate or other required document does not have to prevent someone from obtaining identification for voting,” she said.

People who apply must go to a DMV office, fill out paperwork and wait for the document to arrive by mail.

People should bring whatever documents they have to a DMV service center and also complete two forms: the Wisconsin Identification Card Application and the Identification Petition Process application.

The DMV then mails a temporary photo identification document that can be used for voting while the petition is processed.

According to Wisconsin law, the DMV generally must issue the temporary document within six working days of receiving the petition.

For petitions filed within seven days before or two days after a statewide election – Oct. 27 through Nov. 5 for this year’s general election – the DMV must issue the document within 24 hours and send it by overnight or next-day mail.

Expedited processing does not guarantee people will receive the document before Election Day for those who file before Nov. 3. 

Other ID options

Residents may already have an ID that meets the Wisconsin voting law requirements. 

Wisconsin driver’s licenses and state ID cards are acceptable for voting if they are unexpired or expired after Nov. 5, 2024, the date of the last general election. U.S. passports and qualifying military IDs also are acceptable if these meet the same expiration requirements.

Joel DeSpain, a communications specialist for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, refers voters to the agency’s list of acceptable photo IDs.

A REAL ID is not required to vote, and the address on a photo ID does not have to match the voter’s current address.

The City of Milwaukee Election Commission also provides information about which IDs qualify.

Wisconsin enacted its voter ID law in 2011, although legal challenges delayed its full implementation until 2015. 

In April 2025, voters approved a constitutional amendment adding the photo ID requirement to the state constitution, making the requirement more difficult to change.

Options on Election Day 

Registered voters who arrive at the polls without acceptable photo ID can still request a provisional ballot for this year’s general election.

For the ballot to count, these people must present an acceptable photo ID at their polling place by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 3, or to their municipal clerk by 4 p.m. Friday, Nov. 6.

Wisconsin also allows eligible residents who are not registered to go through that process at their polling place on the day of the election. However, they must provide proof of residence to register, which is a separate requirement from having the right ID to vote. 

Where can I get help?

The Wisconsin DMV operates a voter ID hotline at 844-588-1069 for questions about free IDs and the Identification Petition Process.

Schrader named several organizations that can assist Milwaukee-area residents:

• You can call or text VoteRiders at 866-432-8683 for free help obtaining identification and supporting documents, as well as arranging transportation the day of the election. 
• Souls to the Polls provides information about free rides to DMV offices and polling places. You can reach the organization by calling 414-742-1060.
• The League of Women Voters of Milwaukee County provides voting information and assistance resources at mkevote.com.
• Disability Rights Wisconsin can be reached at 844-347-8683 with questions about voting rights and accessibility for people with disabilities. 

For questions about voter registration, polling locations and other election information, visit MyVote Wisconsin.

Here’s how to get a free photo ID before the Nov. 3 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.

After the U.S. Department of Justice sued California over its refusal to remove voters the federal government alleges are noncitizens, voting rights advocates fear the Trump administration is violating a court order blocking it from rooting out noncitizens with states’ voter data.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan on Oct. 9 ruled against the Justice Department’s year-long project to obtain state’s unredacted voter rolls, which include sensitive personal data, and share them with the Department of Homeland Security to identify possible noncitizens. The DOJ on Friday said it plans to appeal the decision.

In letters sent on Oct. 13, the Justice Department gave California officials 48 hours to review and remove a list of some 20,000 registered voters that the Trump administration believes are noncitizens. 

Many are concentrated in the Los Angeles area, and state and local elections officials both refused to act on the list. The DOJ immediately sued after its deadline passed on Thursday.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit, coming less than three weeks before Election Day and with voting underway in California, amounts to the latest development in President Donald Trump’s efforts to assert authority over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by the states. Trump faces a deluge of investigations and pushback if Democrats retake one or both chambers of Congress in November.

Democrats and voting rights groups have previously raised alarms about the possibility of the Trump administration attempting to interfere with voting. For some, the legal action against California only exacerbates their concerns. 

Letter sent, hearing requested

On Thursday, several Democratic senators wrote to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche to demand that the DOJ confirm it won’t seize ballots or other election materials.

The watchdog groups Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, which represents voters who sued to block the DOJ’s voter data sharing, have asked Sooknanan to hold a hearing to look into whether the Trump administration’s actions violate her order. They said the DOJ has adopted an “exceedingly narrow view” of her decision.

“By attempting to superintend voter roll list maintenance and prohibit registered voters from exercising the franchise without adequate consideration of the reliability of the underlying data, DOJ’s October 13 letters and the actions described in the California (lawsuit) appear to implicate — and perhaps outright violate” Sooknanan’s order, lawyers for the groups wrote in a court filing.

On Friday, Sooknanan ordered the Justice Department to respond to the request for a hearing in District of Columbia federal court by Monday.

Email exchange

Common Cause and CREW filed in court a late Thursday email exchange with Christian Dibblee, a Justice Department trial attorney, in which Dibblee writes that Homeland Security obtained a publicly available voter roll of California voters — as opposed to the full, unredacted roll that DOJ has sued states over — and that DHS didn’t use the SAVE system to identify possible noncitizens. 

SAVE, a computer system operated by DHS, combs through government databases to verify citizenship, but critics point to examples of the program falsely flagging U.S. citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court in September ruled that states could continue accessing SAVE ahead of the midterm elections, but most states are currently prohibited from conducting mass purges of voters because it’s too close to the election.

Sooknanan’s order “does not extend to using other methods, nor does it prohibit taking enforcement actions based on those other methods,” Dibblee wrote, adding that Homeland Security also wasn’t a party to the lawsuit challenging the DOJ’s voter roll effort.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit against California offers a broad overview, but few specifics, of how Homeland Security compiled its list of suspected noncitizens. It says that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, compares “information about voter rolls” with “its internal data” to identify possible noncitizens. Additional investigative steps, not described, are used to assign a confidence level — low, medium or high — to each match.

ICE then connects high confidence matches with an “alien number” and those individuals are compared against internal records regarding naturalization and parental citizenship. Records from the State Department and Social Security Administration are also reviewed, the DOJ says in its lawsuit.

Individuals that ICE still believes to be noncitizens are then sent to Homeland Security Investigations, a sub-agency of ICE, according to the Justice Department. HSI conducts an “analytical data enrichment process” before sending data to HSI criminal investigators in the field.

In a statement Friday, DHS said it uses multiple data sources, from both government and commercial third-party sources, to supplement public information.

Mullin slams ‘unlawful voting’ 

In a Thursday statement, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin called the number of alleged noncitizens registered to vote in California “completely unacceptable.” He said even one noncitizen vote cancels out the ballot of a U.S. citizen and undermines elections.

“DHS is committed to identifying unlawful voting, protecting the integrity of federal elections, and ensuring that only eligible American citizens elect America’s leaders,” Mullin said.

Democrats and voting rights experts have questioned the Justice Department’s decision to file the lawsuit with the election underway. The DOJ previously lost a lawsuit seeking to force California to turn over its unredacted voter roll — one of 23 similar lawsuits over state voter data that the Trump administration has lost.

The Trump administration’s efforts to identify large numbers of noncitizen voters have, up to this point, also fallen short of its own standards. Over the summer, the federal government claimed that California had upwards of 190,000 noncitizens on its voter roll. 

By contrast, Thursday’s lawsuit alleges only roughly 20,000 noncitizen voters — about 0.08% of the nearly 23.2 million registered voters in California.

DHS said Friday that 190,000 remains the number of potential noncitizen voters but that 20,000 represents a subset who have gone through a manual verification process so far.

“Every count, recount, hand count, lawsuit, and audit has found that there’s no widespread voter fraud in the U.S.,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, wrote on social media. “The Trump Admin’s last-minute demands are meritless, and we look forward to making our case in court.”

School bus service was disrupted after multiple buses were reportedly vandalized at a contractor Durham School Services’ transportation lot over the holiday weekend, reported CBS News.

The Schenectady Police Department said Tuesday that officers responded at approximately 5:40 a.m. after Durham officials reported that multiple school buses had been damaged at its facility.

At least two school buses at the lot reportedly had damaged windows with what appeared to be impact marks, possibly caused by rocks or another object. Police said the vandalism likely occurred sometime during the holiday weekend.

According to the news report, the Schenectady City School District described the damage as severe and said it affected Durham’s entire fleet, preventing the transportation contractor from operating its regularly scheduled morning routes.

The district reportedly notified families of the disruption Tuesday morning and advised parents and guardians that morning transportation would be unavailable. It did not immediately specify how many buses were damaged, how many routes were affected, or the estimated cost of repairs.

Despite the morning cancellations, the district said Durham would provide afternoon transportation for all students who normally receive school bus service.

All after-school programs were also expected to operate as scheduled, with transportation available to participating students.

However, the district warned families that buses could arrive later than usual because of the vandalism and resulting operational changes. “We are asking for your patience as buses may be arriving at stops later than expected,” the district stated via the article.

The Schenectady Police Department is investigating the incident. No information about potential suspects or arrests was immediately available.

The district did not indicate whether surveillance footage captured the vandalism or whether additional buses would be brought in to restore normal service. It also had not announced whether regular morning routes were expected to resume Wednesday.

Families were encouraged to monitor communications from the district for additional transportation updates. Further information about the investigation and the extent of the fleet damage was not immediately released.

Written with the assistance of AI.

---

Related: Parent’s Vandalism Arrest Results from School Bus Disturbance in California Gold Country
Related: Catalytic Converter Thefts Delay Wisconsin Contractor’s School Bus Routes
Related: South Carolina Man Charged in Connection to School Bus Arson, Vandalism
Related: School Buses in Georgia Vandalized, Suspect in Custody

The post Vandalism Disrupts New York School Bus Routes appeared first on School Transportation News.