As President Donald Trump refuses to rule out taking extreme action in the midterm elections, voting rights advocates and civil rights leaders are bolstering their voter protection efforts in anticipation of possible federal interference.

The focus by activists comes amid uncertainty among advocates and election officials over what Trump may do before, during and after Election Day. Some organizations are preparing to deploy volunteers to the polls to help assure voters in places where fear of federal intimidation may run high.

On Tuesday, several groups — including the Save America Movement, the American Federation of Teachers labor union and the National Action Network — launched Vote Safe, an initiative that will put local volunteers at polling locations in areas where they say pressure on Black, Latino and Asian voters is highest. 

The program will include Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio. The volunteers will document any intimidation and serve as a reassuring presence for voters, organizers said.

“The fear is the point and we must do something about it,” Mary Corcoran, executive director of the Save America Movement, a nonpartisan pro-democracy group, said on a call with reporters. “Left unaddressed, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”

Volunteers will include clergy members, veterans, teachers and others trained to provide clear answers on voters’ rights, Corcoran said.

In Ohio, where Vote Safe will launch on the first day of early voting, Republican Sen. Jon Husted is facing former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country. Springfield, Ohio, also has a large Haitian immigrant population that has been repeatedly attacked by Trump, who is seeking to deport them.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights leader who founded the National Action Network, suggested on Tuesday’s press call that some Americans in Ohio fear they could also be detained or even deported by ICE because of their skin color.

“‘You don’t understand, any Black looks like a Haitian in Ohio,’” Sharpton said, recalling a previous conversation with a journalist in Ohio. “You’ve got to prove you were from Alabama, not Port-au-Prince, after you’re deported.”

ProPublica reported on Tuesday that more than 500 U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents during the second Trump administration. About a dozen citizens, mostly children, have been deported.

What Trump has said

Trump, who has long made false claims about stolen elections and voter fraud, has maintained ambiguity surrounding what election-related actions he may take after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked his plan to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail ballots. Congress also didn’t pass the SAVE America Act, a measure he championed that would require voters to offer documentary proof of citizenship.

In a recent TIME magazine interview, Trump said he hadn’t thought of deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents to the polls. 

But he also left open the possibility of declaring a national emergency, which legal experts say would give him no power over elections. Under the Constitution, states administer elections, not the federal government.

Earlier this year, Trump told reporters he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said ICE agents can serve warrants at election sites, despite a ban on armed federal personnel at polling places. At the same time, DHS has denied any plans to target polling places.

DOJ election monitors

The Department of Justice’s plans to deploy 1,000 election monitors at polling places has also fueled concern among Democrats and voting rights advocates — and some Republicans. 

While the DOJ regularly dispatches monitors each election cycle, the scope of the effort and Trump’s history of pressuring election officials has led to unease about how the monitors will behave. 

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, earlier this year expressed reservations about Justice Department monitors, calling their actions “very odd” after DOJ personnel watched voting in the state’s primary election. 

On Monday, the NAACP sued the Justice Department for records about its election monitor program, alleging the DOJ didn’t comply with Freedom of Information Act timelines.

“Americans deserve to know whether the Justice Department is abusing its law enforcement powers to the detriment of voters and the election officials tasked with running our elections,” Kristen Clarke, the NAACP’s general counsel, said in a statement.

Justice Department spokesperson ​​Kiersten Pels wrote in an email to States Newsroom that monitors comply with all legal and ethical requirements. Pels added that they don’t interfere with the voting process and that their work “is consistent with longstanding Department practice of monitoring elections for compliance with federal law.”

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche dismissed concerns about the monitors in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” While confirming plans for about 1,000 monitors, he emphasized that the department sends out monitors every federal election.

“They’re not going to Republican states, they’re not going to Democrat states. They’re going to every state to make sure that our elections are carried out legally, fairly and appropriately,” Blanche said.

After Election Day

The preparations by civic groups also include post-election planning for potential disruptions to vote counting or attempts to overturn losses.

The FBI seized ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia, in January. The then-director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was present at the raid at Trump’s request, underscoring its importance to the president. 

The Justice Department also spent months seeking information on election workers in Fulton County during the 2020 election before a federal judge quashed the subpoena in July.

The raid raised questions among activists and election experts about whether federal law enforcement would seek search warrants to obtain ballots after Election Day.

Ballot seizures are a point of concern, said Andrew Walchuk, senior policy director and counsel for voting and fair representation at Common Cause, a voting rights group. The raid was “an alert” to election offices that a seizure is something they need to prepare for, Walchuk said.

“It is definitely something that groups across the country are ready for, that we’re watching,” Walchuk told reporters last week.

Like other groups, Common Cause’s election preparations include training a network of volunteers who can help voters and identify potential problems. In Texas alone, more than 400 volunteers are already, said Marliza Marin, Common Cause’s Texas program manager. 

“It’s kind of unheard of to have this many volunteers already trained,” Marin said.

Madison City Clerk Lydia McComas took over her job in September 2025 with the city under heavy scrutiny from state election officials after nearly 200 absentee ballots were lost during the 2024 election. During the April 2026 state Supreme Court election, 23 late arriving absentee ballots nearly weren’t counted after a staff error. 

Ann Jacobs, a Democrat on the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said at a meeting in April that the second error was “absurd.” The two problems made the city of Madison the subject of the first two investigations ever opened by WEC. 

In June, Votebeat reported that McComas told Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway that she would “firmly address the lack of communication” that caused the mistake and the clerk’s office would have more staff in place for the August and November elections. 

But McComas will be on maternity leave during the Nov. 3 election. 

Despite McComas’ absence, city officials say the processes put in place to avoid repeated errors, additional staff and help from other city departments will be enough to smoothly manage the midterm elections and the potential scrutiny that could come from WEC or the Republican Party of Wisconsin —  whose gubernatorial candidate this year, Tom Tiffany, has previously cast doubt on election results from Wisconsin’s largest cities. 

City spokesperson Dylan Brogan said of the recent errors in Madison that the city is “confident these things won’t happen again.” 

“This is a team process that involves 2,000 people,” he said. 

In McComas’ absence, deputy clerk Kaitlyn Bernarde is running the election. Brogan said that other city staff, such as City Attorney Mike Haas, who previously served as the WEC administrator, can help fill in. 

Bernarde spent more than four years as the clerk in Wausau, a credential that convinced WEC the transition wouldn’t be a problem. 

“[McComas] hired a new deputy who was the clerk out of Wausau. Based on that we didn’t have any concerns,” Jacobs told the Wisconsin Examiner. 

In an interview with the Examiner, Bernarde said prior to the August primary elections, the clerk’s office added a staff member who is responsible for managing the thousands of absentee ballots returned to the city, which she believes will prevent any further absentee-related errors. 

“That is one of our major new changes in our office, we implemented an absentee lead position before the August election, and so we have a full time staff member who’s in charge of that, as well as additional hourly staff and other city staff who are helping to ensure that we have checks in place in the system, that we can check in at different points to make sure that we’re on track to get ballots out on time to our AM delivery, our PM delivery, as well as any late deliveries throughout the day so that way some of those similar mistakes don’t happen again.” 

Bernarde also said that the city and election staff are prepared to run the midterms under scrutiny from WEC and outside observers.

“I think Madison always kind of is under scrutiny by the state, our residents and other people who are involved in the process, and so we’ve had experience working under that kind of pressure the last couple elections,” she said. “And we all want a zero [error] election, and so we talk through that with our staff, with our poll workers to ensure that we are trained and that we document any instances that happen. Because elections involve humans and so sometimes mistakes happen but we have processes in place to confront them, minimize them and then also respond to address them appropriately after.”

President Donald Trump wants to sharply curtail mail ballots. He’s called them “inherently corrupt” and baselessly condemned them as a major source of fraud.

But with Republicans falling behind in the polls, the president is now urging his supporters to vote in the midterm elections any way they can, including by mail.

The White House has also sent emails through a government account promoting voter registration in recent days and Trump is continuing a string of campaign rallies in typically conservative states, including Nebraska on Monday night. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed that members of the military, who tend to support Republicans, have a day off to vote.

“If your state has early voting, do not wait. Go out and vote. Vote early, vote by mail, or vote in person on Election Day, November 3rd, so we can defeat the radical left ‘Dumocrats’ in a midterm victory that is too big to rig,” Trump said in a social media video over the weekend, using a derogatory term for Democrats.

The about-face by the president is familiar. Trump encouraged his voters to cast their ballots by mail in 2024 and has repeatedly voted by mail himself, despite a long record of attacking the practice.

Republicans battle against loss of majorities

The latest comments — along with the red-state rallies — underscore the political peril that analysts see facing Republicans and Trump. 

If Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate, Democrats are likely to launch investigations into the White House that could complicate the president’s final two years in office. A Democratic House would face pressure from the base to pursue impeachment against Trump or other administration officials.

Democrats enjoy an 11-point advantage over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, according to a nonpartisan September national poll by Emerson College. The poll also found Democrats more enthusiastic, with 78% “very excited” to vote compared to 66% of Republicans. 

A poll by The New York Times and Siena College, released Saturday, found Democrats ahead or tied in Senate races in several GOP-leaning states, including Alaska, Kansas, Ohio and Texas. 

Several of those same states — including Alaska, Kansas and Ohio — allow voters to cast a ballot by mail without providing an excuse. Iowa also features a highly competitive Senate race and has no-excuse absentee voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Vice President JD Vance was visiting Alaska on Monday to campaign for the Republican Senate candidate, while Trump was scheduled to hold a rally in Grand Island, Nebraska, where the incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts faces a competitive challenge from independent Dan Osborn. 

‘We seem to have no choice’

Republicans are scrambling to find ways to turn out their base voters, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. The immediate objective for the party is maximizing voter turnout among their supporters, he said, adding that discouraging them from using legal methods to vote would be an obvious electoral disadvantage.

“The overriding concern for the White House is turnout, not consistency,” Rottinghaus said. “The political messaging has been inconsistent on this. But all of that aside, the need to get Republicans to come vote is paramount for Republicans.”

Trump at the White House on Monday said that he prefers voters to cast their ballots in person but that they can “vote by mail if they want because we seem to have no choice.” Without offering evidence, he alleged significant cheating in voting by mail.

Pressed by reporters for evidence, the president pointed to California. The blue state, where all voters receive a ballot in the mail, has drawn his ire in the past for a vote-counting process that can last weeks, in part because of ballots that arrive in the mail after Election Day. But a slow count isn’t evidence of fraud.

When asked about Trump’s shifting stance, the White House referred States Newsroom to the president’s Monday remarks.

Supreme Court blocked Trump

Trump’s decision to again tout voting by mail — while also attacking it — came after he spent months pursuing a high-stakes effort to impose restrictions on mail ballots. 

In August 2025, Trump promised to lead a movement to eliminate mail-in voting. 

Less than a year later, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to require states, at least 90 days before a federal election, to notify the Postal Service whether they intended to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would have then had to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

Postmaster General David Steiner had said that the Postal Service wouldn’t deliver ballots for states that refused to comply with the rule. Democrats and other opponents said it would have given the Postal Service unprecedented and unconstitutional authority over elections, which are administered by the states under the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the rule from taking effect in a one-paragraph order that upheld a lower court decision halting it. Election officials and voting rights advocates had warned that implementing the requirements so close to the election would have caused chaos.

Trump railed against the decision at the time, calling it a “big loss” for Republicans and alleging it would make cheating by Democrats on mail-in ballots much easier. “And now they have open field to do so,” he wrote on social media when the order was issued in mid-September.

On Monday, League of Women Voters President and CEO Celina Stewart emphasized that the Trump administration had spent months attacking voting by mail. She said in a statement that while Trump sought to impose restrictions through an executive order — which the League sued over — “the President does not have the authority to unilaterally dictate how states administer elections.”

“A shift in rhetoric does not undo those actions, nor does it erase the need for the League to take this fight to court. We will judge this administration by its actions, not by its latest statement,” Stewart said.

Trump’s attacks on voting by mail

Trump’s attacks on voting by mail stretch back to the 2020 election, when mail voting surged amid the pandemic. 

At that time, he characterized mail ballots arriving after Election Day as fraudulent, even though late-arriving ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day — indicating that voters made their choices before the close of polls. The Supreme Court this year upheld the authority of states to count mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Six years later, mail-in voting remains a major way for Americans to cast their ballots. Nearly a third of U.S. voters cast a ballot by mail in 2024, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

This year, nearly 1 million people have already voted by mail in the general election, with more than 52 million mail ballots requested, according to data compiled by the University of Florida Election Lab.

For campaigns, every ballot a supporter casts by mail represents a “bird in the hand,” said Rottinghaus. By contrast, voters who wait until Election Day remain potential voters, with the risk that something will come up that keeps them from voting.

Campaigns build whole persuasion operations around mail voting, he said, adding that demonizing the practice takes away a weapon some campaigns rely on.

“This is a top-down effort from the most vocal and visible Republican that can create a lot of complications for Republicans down ballot who may rely on mail voting for a big part of their strategy,” Rottinghaus said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission met Thursday to assess its preparations for the midterm elections in November, review reports on allegations of voter fraud and determine the outcome of two complaints against election officials. 

The commission met as concerns continue to swirl around Wisconsin and the country over the possibility that President Donald Trump and his Republican allies will work to undermine confidence in the results of the election. 

In the meeting, WEC Administrator Meagan Wolfe gave the agency’s pre-election readiness report in which she outlined the ways the commission works to keep the state’s voter rolls accurate, train election officials, ensure the election’s security and answer any questions that come from local officials or voters. 

One of the most frequent complaints about the election system made by conspiracy theorists is that Wisconsin’s voter registration database includes the information of “inactive” voters who have moved, died or been convicted of a felony. The critics argue that leaving these files in the database makes it easier for fraud to occur.

The report states that WEC and local election officials have reviewed or updated nearly 500,000 voter files ahead of the election to make sure that only eligible voters cast votes in November. 

“And in total, since the last general election, our municipal clerks have updated or deactivated over a half a million records, and so I think that’s really, really important to highlight how much work goes into maintaining Wisconsin’s voter registration list all day, every day to ensure that anybody that’s lawfully registered will show up on the registration list,” Wolfe said. “They’ll show up on the polls when they go to vote on Election Day, and anybody who is not eligible, so anybody who maybe has been convicted of a felony or is otherwise not eligible, is removed from the list or their record is updated.”

Commission Chair Don Millis, a Republican, said that leaving the inactive voter files in the database actually protects against fraud. 

“Basically, you have one database with 7 million records, and there’s a very good reason why we keep records of inactive voter records, deceased voters, because if you got rid of those, you would lose one of your best tools to combat election fraud,” Millis said.

Wolfe also said that in an effort to provide as much information as possible to voters and clerks, the WEC office is set to open at 5 a.m. in the weeks ahead of the election. 

Commissioner Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said she appreciates the sacrifice from WEC staff to help people, but that the agency’s 30-person staff is not large enough to handle the demands of the public. 

“We have put in a request for our budget for many more positions because the work we’re doing has expanded dramatically,” Jacobs said. “It shouldn’t be something where people are sacrificing as much as they are. And I want to express my admiration for our staff’s devotion to this work and commitment to it. And also say that our need for additional staff is real. It’s profound. And I hope if any legislators are out there listening, that you treat our budget request for more personnel with great attention, and hopefully give us those staff positions.”

Voter fraud, felon reports 

Commission staff also presented the results of the agency’s regular reports on felons who have voted and reported election fraud. 

As is generally the case, neither report shows widespread levels of election fraud at the level Republicans have regularly alleged in recent years. 

The report shows that since the 2020 general election, nearly 22 million votes have been cast in Wisconsin. Only 445 of those votes, 0.002%, were matched to voters with felony convictions and an even smaller number of those instances were actually referred to prosecutors and charged. 

The commission’s annual report on voter fraud found that in the elections since November 2025, municipal clerks have referred 53 cases of election fraud to local prosecutors. The WEC report, agency staff said, could be an undercount because it’s dependent on clerks reporting the referrals to WEC when they happen. 

Most of the referrals, 44 of them, were made because the “election day registration” postcard delivered to a person’s address after they register at the polls was returned undeliverable. 

Milwaukee Complaint

The commission also voted on Thursday that there is no probable cause to further investigate a voter’s complaint that the city of Milwaukee violated state law by sorting absentee ballots at its central count location behind a curtain. 

The complaint alleged that city staff were conducting “observable” election activities behind the curtain at the city’s central count location during the November 2024 and April 2025 elections. The commission’s discussion of the complaint reopened long-running arguments between commission members — most notably from Republican Robert Spindell, who has long been the WEC member most friendly to election conspiracy theories. 

Spindell argued that people continuing to have doubts about Wisconsin’s elections is evidence that Wisconsin’s elections aren’t run competently or transparently enough. 

“Let’s stop having these problems that we have, where 45% of the citizens of Wisconsin feel that there’s something wrong with this thing,” Spindell said. “I’m sure Mayor [Cavalier] Johnson does not like the bad publicity that comes out regarding the lack of transparency. There’s no reason why that black curtain is up. There’s no reason why all these actions are being blocked if there’s nothing nefarious going on.” 

Jacobs pointed out that the complaint included several blatantly false statements.

“Bob, I’m concerned by your comments because I know you’ve been to Central Count. I know you have seen ballots being opened in the machines. I know you have seen the tables. I know you have seen the poll workers calling out names. I know you have seen all this,” Jacobs said. “And this complaint was by someone who swore under penalty of perjury that those things were happening behind this curtain. This man brought a lie to us, a lie, because he’s so invested in putting forward this conspiracy theory of secret things going on behind black curtains that he’s willing to lie on these documents to us. You and I both know, we’re both there, you and I both know that’s not true and he lies to this commission with the hopes of diminishing the work being done in the city of Milwaukee and I think you should be as offended as I am by that, because I’m pretty darn offended.” 

Mark Thomsen, another Democratic member of the commission, said that it’s Spindell’s repeated indulgence of conspiracy theories that has allowed distrust of the system to continue. 

“For you to turn this discussion about a complaint and a recommendation into the politics of the election, I think that hurts us more than anything,” Thomsen said. “I think that promotes mistrust, and … years and years of this is like it’s like Chinese torture, Bob. I mean, it’s enough.”

Reading Time: 4 minutes

President Donald Trump recently broke Wisconsin law by offering cash to voters if his preferred candidates win this fall’s congressional elections. This continues his patterned disregard for state election laws and long-standing policies enacted to keep our democracy free from corruption. The president is unlikely to face legal repercussions, though others have been punished and likely would be prosecuted for similar conduct. The reality is that we, as citizens and voters, bear the responsibility of deciding what we will tolerate from our leaders.

Recently in Texas, the president said, “If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000. It will be called the Trump dividend.” Some shrugged his comments off as unserious or impracticable. Others opined that they fall within the bounds of First Amendment protected speech. But Wisconsin law expressly rejects paying for votes in any fashion; in particular, Wis. Stat. § 12.11(1m)(a)3. prescribes felony charges for “Any person who … offers (or) gives … anything of value … in order to induce any elector to … vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular person.” 

A different provision in the same statute — this one prohibiting offers to induce people to vote or refrain from the act of voting — is the basis of Law Forward’s ongoing lawsuit against Elon Musk for promising opportunities to receive $1 million payments in exchange for voting before Election Day in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Wisconsin’s election bribery statute contains exceptions to protect ordinary endorsements of candidates and robust campaign activities, but neither the president’s recent promise nor Musk’s scheme last year seems to fit into those exceptions. 

This is a big deal. Wisconsin law forbids any offers to voters worth more than a single dollar. This has been raised over the years in response to numerous food-related giveaways, from sandwiches to barbecue to ice cream. Wisconsin authorities even considered filing election bribery charges against Democratic campaign workers who provided kringle to residents of a group home in an effort to encourage them to cast absentee ballots. This is no kringle: The president is using the prospect of $5,000 payments to sway the midterm elections in favor of Republican candidates. 

Wisconsin law forbids election bribery to prevent any hint of corruption and to ensure that voters are making their choices on the merits. For the same reasons, Wisconsin forbids voting in an election where you have wagered on the outcome. This law has recently been criticized by prediction market websites.

The law’s laudable goals will remain out of reach if prosecutors are unwilling or unable to enforce them. No prosecutor has challenged President Trump over his latest comments. That is unsurprising: The U.S. Supreme Court decided a few years ago that the president stands above the law, enjoying near-absolute immunity from prosecution for his conduct. In so doing, the court weakened a fundamental axiom of our democracy: that ours is a nation of laws, not men. This misguided decision shields the president from even the threat of criminal liability for, among other things, violations of Wisconsin’s election bribery law. 

But even those without presidential immunity are evading criminal accountability. Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Elections Commission found probable cause that Musk engaged in illegal election bribery. La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke nevertheless declined to prosecute, even as he acknowledged that a statement by Musk “could be seen as … (offering) to pay someone (for) voting.” To be sure, picking a fight with Musk is a daunting prospect, given his public profile, his wealth, his ownership of X, and his scorched-earth litigation tactics. But the rule of law requires standing up to even those — indeed, especially those — who wield tremendous power. Yet, sadly, America’s most powerful figures increasingly operate under their own set of rules in our shared democracy. 

This is evident right now in the president’s all-out assault on voting rights. Even as he routinely votes absentee by mail, the president seeks to limit everyone else’s ability to do so. He has the federal departments of Justice and Homeland Security running roughshod over state election laws in a fruitless quest to identify noncitizen voters. He has sued dozens of states in an effort to seize private voter information, but courts in Wisconsin and every other state that has considered the matter have ruled against him. And after the president asserted in a primetime national address that DHS had identified more than 24,000 noncitizen voters in just four states, the administration admitted that number is false. DOJ has indicted 19 noncitizens — in the entire country — for allegedly voting unlawfully over the past decade. 

So, what should we expect in the face of unprecedented attacks on the right to vote and ever-increasing threats to our democracy? That is up to us, as citizens and as voters. Each of us individually, and all of us societally, must decide how much we value our freedoms, our traditions and the rule of law. In the face of emboldened corruptors, wary prosecutors and an overburdened judiciary, how will we exercise active citizenship and stand up for our values? Will we demand that political parties and candidates for office, if they want our vote, must speak to these issues and defend democracy? 

Corruption erodes and weakens the foundations underlying democracy. The future of American democracy is in our hands. We are the inheritors of a profound legacy, and it is up to us to ensure that, in Abraham Lincoln’s words, “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  

Jeff Mandell is the president and general counsel of Law Forward.

Guest opinion: Voters must stand up to leaders who act above the law 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.

Federal officials charged a Utah letter carrier Tuesday with throwing 300 primary ballots in a church parking lot dumpster, an incident that a top U.S. Justice Department official said made the case for stricter regulations of voting.

The prosecution of Damon Matai Seei, of Payson, Utah, showed “voting fraud is real,” acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter said at a press conference at DOJ headquarters in Washington.

The Justice Department gave the arrest an unusually high profile, spotlighting the administration’s efforts to combat voter fraud after the U.S. Supreme Court this month blocked a new U.S. Postal Service rule limiting mail voting from going into effect for this year’s elections.

The regulation was meant to “address the chronically abused mail-in ballot system,” McCotter said. He criticized the trial judge who initially blocked the rule, which would have required special tracking and design features, among other things such as creating a national database of eligible voters.

“Election integrity should not be a political or partisan issue,” McCotter said. “Who could be against properly tracking mail-in ballots? Unfortunately, but entirely predictably, that regulation was blocked by a judge in Massachusetts. … The Trump administration, however, will continue taking aggressive actions to protect our elections.”

Postal Service rule

U.S. District Judge Indiria Talwani’s order blocking the rule is only in effect for the Nov. 3 elections, a provision meant to preserve the status quo because the rule was finalized mere months before the midterms. The merits of the case are still being argued. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Talwani’s decision.

The prosecution of Seei, and the attention the administration sought to give it, undercut a key argument the administration made in the case: The rule included only “modest” technical specifications for a category of mail and should not be interpreted as an election regulation.

The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to administer elections, with policy oversight from Congress. 

In siding with the Democratic states and voting rights groups who filed suit, Talwani and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said the rule was clearly an attempt to affect election policy and was not restricted to a modest mail regulation.

Trump and mail-in voting

President Donald Trump has railed against mail-in voting and claimed, without evidence, that it is a major source of election fraud and contributed to his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.

Since Trump retook office in January 2025, the department has charged 70 immigrants with illegally voting, compared with only 13 in the four years of Biden’s term, McCotter said Tuesday.

“And we intend to bring many more,” he added.

Homeland Security Investigations, a Homeland Security Department agency, has made 160 recent arrests, from 1,600 open voter fraud cases, HSI acting Deputy Executive Associate Director Matthew Millhollin said.

A reporter in the room noted that 70 prosecutions amounted to a bare fraction of the 150 million votes cast in the 2024 election.

McCotter responded that the Utah case involved 300 ballots, and that law enforcement had only scratched the surface of possible incidents. “Thousands more” cases were being investigated, he said.

“The folks on the other side, the opponents of the president, insist this has never happened, that there is no voting fraud,” he said. “And so when we have dozens of cases … I think that discourages and defeats their characterization.”

No partisan motive alleged

Seei, who is no longer a postal worker, intentionally threw out about 300 mail ballots on June 3 that were being mailed to voters in advance of the June 23 primary in Utah, according to charging documents.

In an interview with law enforcement, he indicated he did not have a political motive but said he threw away the mail, which also included advertisements, “because he wanted to ‘lighten his workload’ so he could presumably go home earlier,” prosecutors said.

Melissa Holyoak, the top federal prosecutor for Utah, traveled to Washington, D.C., for Tuesday’s press conference. She noted that 95% of the state’s voters cast their ballots by mail.

Many people in Seei’s delivery area in Eagle Mountain, Utah, complained to the Utah County Clerk that they hadn’t received ballots, Holyoak said. Using county databases, the clerk found that voter participation was “remarkably low” in the area where complaints originated.

“As American citizens, we have certain freedoms and rights,” Holyoak said. “And one of those fundamental rights is the right to vote. But when defendant allegedly tossed the mail-in ballots into a parking lot dumpster, those citizens’ right to vote were also thrown away.”

The federal public defender representing Seei did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

President Donald Trump knows the midterm elections are shaping up to go poorly for him and the Republican party so he’s trying to cast as much doubt about the country’s election systems as possible, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said at an event Monday morning. 

Meeting with three Madison-area election officials, Baldwin noted that Trump made 107 false claims about the results of the 2020 election in the six months from December 2025 to May of this year while taking a number of actions to restrict voting or discredit election systems ahead of the November election. 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down Trump’s proposed executive order to limit the ability of the U.S. Postal Service to process absentee ballots sent through the mail. His administration has, at various times, promised to send ICE agents, National Guard troops, FBI agents and other federal law enforcement to polling places on Election Day — an action that opponents see as an effort to intimidate Democratic voters. He advocated strongly for the passage of a bill that would institute strict national voter ID requirements. 

Trump’s Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have been working since he was inaugurated last year to build a national database of registered voters. The effort by the DOJ to obtain Wisconsin’s voter rolls was halted in May by a federal judge. DHS is now working to compile a federal voter registration list for ICE to use to search for non-citizens who are registered to vote. 

“With everything so unaffordable, so expensive, the Trump administration should be focused on that,” Baldwin said. “But instead, I think, they are worried that they’re going to be held accountable for things this election, and so they’re selling conspiracy theories. The president has a history of election denialism, and so instead of focusing on lowering costs, he’s focusing on undercutting the midterm elections.”

At the meeting in the city county building in Madison, Baldwin met with Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, Sun Prairie City Clerk Elena Hilby and Waunakee Village Clerk Karla Endres. McDonell is an elected Democrat while the other two serve as non-partisan officials. 

The three election officials outlined the ways in which Wisconsin’s election systems are built to be resilient and transparent. 

In the years since the 2020 presidential election, a subset of Wisconsin’s electorate has remained skeptical of the state’s election system — repeatedly making false claims that fraud has stolen victories from their preferred candidates. 

McDonell said Monday that every step of the process is done in public, from the pre-election tests of the voting equipment to the voting itself and the counting process. Election officials, he said, try to plan for anything that could go wrong so if it does, they’re able to respond and get ballots counted. 

“We assume failure at every point along the way, and so we’re checking to make sure everything’s accurate as we go along,” he said. 

The three clerks said that in the remaining weeks before the election, they’re working on their emergency response plans in the event that Trump does send armed agents to the polls. Last week, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, celebrated the Trump administration planning to send DOJ staff to the polls. 

Hilby said that she wants the people working the polls in Sun Prairie to know what to do if federal agents show up, balancing the need to follow the law against the risk that poll workers could be put in danger. 

“An armed federal agent is illegal to have at the polling place,” Hilby said. “I wouldn’t want my election officials confronting them, but more approach them and say, you know, ‘what are you here for? Do you have a warrant?’ Get whatever information they can, so they can contact me, so I can immediately contact my city attorney, and I would probably be on the phone to [McDonell], so we knew how to respond. I don’t want to put them in danger. I also want to protect the election.” 

McDonell said it’s “frustrating” that local election officials are being forced to plan for this contingency and that he would like more concrete advice from the state elections commission. This year, the Wisconsin Elections Commission has issued a number of guidance documents to clerks about problems with the U.S. Postal Service, but remained silent on the question of federal agents at the polls. 

“It’s good to have some statewide advice on how to handle these situations, but it is tough,” he said. “We’ve been doing a lot of planning around these scenarios, making sure we have criminal defense attorneys, federal criminal defense attorneys, on retainer in case we have to rush to [federal court] to get an order. So a lot of planning is going on behind the scenes for different scenarios.”

Voting in Wisconsin’s midterm elections has officially begun. Local clerks across the state were required to send absentee ballots to voters with valid requests already on file by Thursday, Sept. 17. 

Data from the Wisconsin Elections Commission shows that 299,849 absentee ballots have already been requested and 4,309 have already been returned. 

The first absentee ballots were sent after months of wrangling by the administration of President Donald Trump to restrict ballots sent through the mail. While the court system thwarted that effort, concerns about the timely return of absentee ballots through the mail remain. 

Absentee ballots must be returned to a voter’s local election clerk by the time polls close on Election Day, Nov. 3. To give ballots enough time, election officials have recommended they be placed in the mail at least 10 days before Election Day. WEC Administrator Meagan Wolfe recently changed  that recommended deadline to 14 days before Election Day, or Oct. 20. 

Voters can also return their absentee ballots directly to their municipal clerk’s office, take it to their polling place on Election Day or, in communities that use them, drop their ballots in an official municipal absentee ballot drop box. 

Early in-person absentee voting will open Oct. 20. Hours and locations for early voting and returning mailed absentee ballots can be found on municipal clerk websites. 

The biggest race on the ballot in Wisconsin this year is the open race for governor between Democratic Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany. Wisconsin’s eight congressional seats, 99 state Assembly seats and 16 state Senate seats are also up for election. Control of the Legislature is up for grabs for the first time in more than 15 years. 

Voters will also decide statewide races for attorney general, treasurer and secretary of state and will vote on three proposed constitutional amendments. The constitutional amendments would prohibit state and local governments from instituting diversity, equity and inclusion policies, prevent government edicts closing places of worship during emergencies and limit the governor’s line-item veto authority. 

Voters can see the candidates and referendum questions on their ballots at MyVote.WI.gov.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in two cases challenging the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps. One challenge is based on the claim that the maps unfairly benefit Republicans and the other is on the grounds that the maps are intentionally anti-competitive to protect incumbents. 

Both cases were previously dismissed by panels of three circuit court judges. In both, the Court is not deciding the merits of the arguments but determining if the circuit panels were correct to dismiss the cases. If the Court determines that the dismissals were incorrect, the cases will be sent back to the circuit court level for discovery and trials on the merits of the argument. 

Because of that process, neither case will change Wisconsin’s maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections, but could install new maps ahead of the 2028 elections. 

Wisconsin’s congressional maps were instituted by the Court in 2022 after Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-controlled Legislature were unable to reach a compromise on new maps. In that case, the Court installed a “least change” principle in which the newly proposed maps had to match as closely as possible to the maps instituted in 2011 — which were widely considered to be the most gerrymandered in the country. 

The maps selected by the Court in 2022 were drawn by Evers, but followed the least change standard. Democrats and fair maps proponents have argued the least change standard poisoned the maps while Republicans have said the argument falls flat because a Democratic governor created them. 

Wisconsin’s congressional maps have repeatedly been challenged since the initial 2011 gerrymander and since the 2022 update. 

In the first part of the day, the Court heard the arguments of the partisan gerrymandering challenge, in which attorney Abha Khanna said that the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal protection clauses give voters in the state protection against maps designed to benefit one party. 

“Was partisan vote dilution the predominant purpose? Was that in fact the effect of the map, and is there any legislative justification outside of sheer partisan dominance that would justify the configuration of these districts?” Khanna said. 

A trio of attorneys argued in favor of the existing congressional maps, saying that the lawsuit was brought so late in the decade it can’t be litigated in the courts anymore, that if the Court wants to rule that partisan gerrymandering isn’t allowed then this case isn’t the right one and that the lawsuit doesn’t give a good enough standard for assessing what counts as an extreme partisan gerrymander. 

During the first arguments, the two conservative justices on the panel expressed skepticism with the claim that the state Constitution protects against partisan gerrymandering. 

“I actually don’t care what happens in other states. I don’t care at all. I care about our Constitution and our laws and what our law says,” Justice Brian Hagedorn said. 

“I know that some states have explicit prohibitions against partisan gerrymandering, however that’s defined. I don’t know what that means,” he added. “But you’re asking for us to just invent a new right that has never been recognized, that even though our founders were well aware of it, as even your own brief recognizes, from the time of our founding, but have never addressed. And you’re appealing to just democratic self-governance, not our actual Constitution, your just sense of what democracy ought to protect.”

The Court’s liberal majority appeared to give some deference to the argument that the lawsuit didn’t properly set up how to assess the extent of a partisan gerrymandering claim, but often got into extended back and forths over the harm that partisan gerrymandering represents. 

Luke Berg, one of the attorneys arguing to protect the existing maps, said in an exchange with Justice Chris Taylor that partisan gerrymandering “doesn’t implicate the right to vote.” 

“How can you say that there is no remedy if it’s demonstrated that partisanship has led to the dilution of the disfavored group’s vote?” Taylor said. “It makes no sense to me, if our whole government is derived from the people, and the power that they give is through the vote, that’s how the people give the power to the government. And so if their right to vote is diluted because of partisanship, I just don’t understand why you’re saying we have no ability as a state court to remedy that.” 

Khanna said Republicans, including some of the attorneys arguing the case in Madison on Wednesday, have made the exact opposite arguments in other states and that they’ve argued map opponents aren’t following the proper process no matter which process is followed. 

“What we’ve seen from just the last couple of years, and frankly, from this argument, where intervenors have said, ‘Oh no, you can’t do this. Oh, you can’t reopen Johnson. Oh wait, you can’t hear this original action. Oh wait, you can’t appoint a three-judge panel. And now that you have appointed a three-judge panel, you can’t hear this appeal,’” she said. “These are just part and parcel of their strategy, which has been to draw this out, and now they say, ‘you know what? The decade’s almost over. There’s really nothing more that this court can do.’”

In the second part of the day, attorney Nicholas Stephanopoulos argued that the congressional maps are illegally anti-competitive. 

“Our position here is a straightforward one,” he said. “Wisconsin’s Constitution does not tolerate officeholders entrenching themselves in power and cutting out the people by suppressing electoral competition.”

But liberal and conservative members of the Court appeared confused by the distinction between a map that is anti-competitive and a map that is gerrymandered to benefit one party. 

“Because it seems to me that what’s underlying that is that the district lines are drawn in such a way to have it be a foregone conclusion that a particular party will win that district, and so I don’t see a whole lot of airspace between this claim and the partisan gerrymandering claim,” Justice Susan Crawford said. 

Stephanopoulos said the difference is that a map drawn to be anti-competitive isn’t concerned with which party wins. 

“It’s relevant what the odds of re-election would be for a candidate, but the anti-competitive theory is uninterested in which party actually,” he said. 

But opponents argued that designing maps to be as competitive as possible comes with trade-offs that might not be ideal. 

“There is a fundamental tension when you maximize for competitiveness or you increase for competitiveness, you are taking away other legitimate values such as representation, such as incumbency protection, such as bipartisan agreement,” Misha Tseytlin, an attorney for Wisconsin’s Republican members of Congress, said. “If you make a map more competitive, then you make it less likely that their incumbents will retain their seats. You also make it more likely that a larger number of the constituents of a particular district are going to be unhappy with the result. There is a legitimate policy dispute as to whether more competitiveness or more representation, incumbency protection is better. Nothing in the Constitution’s text, history, or discourse precedent settles that question as a matter of text.”

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

It took mere minutes for conspiracy theorists to seize on a Milwaukee election error after the August primary, when officials initially forgot to extract election results from five of the city’s nine absentee ballot tabulators. They lobbed baseless accusations that election officials had switched votes or otherwise tampered with the results.

But audit logs from those five tabulators show no evidence of tampering between the time officials initially left the facility and returned again to correctly extract results, experts told Votebeat.

“I don’t see a ‘there’ there,” said Duncan Buell, a chair emeritus of computer science and engineering at the University of South Carolina who has been analyzing election data and voting systems since 2010.

Ryan Macias, an election consultant who previously worked for the arm of the Election Assistance Commission that certifies voting machines, agreed there were “no signs or evidence that anything was done outside the norm” between the initial error and the successful extraction of the results.

More than three weeks after the primary election, city officials released audit logs from all nine tabulators to the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the public on Sept. 4. The files detail every action on the nine Milwaukee tabulators used to count absentee ballots for the Aug. 11 election.

On each of the five affected tabulators, the logs tell the same story: Officials mistakenly selected “export audit log” instead of “export files” during the initial extraction, which happened between 10:15 p.m. and about 10:40 p.m. Then, officials locked the machines.

Officials began turning the machines back on at around 11:30 p.m., after they realized they had made a mistake. They extracted the correct files shortly after midnight. The audit logs show no ballots being scanned, votes being deleted, or that the data contained on the tabulators was manipulated in any way.

The error didn’t change the vote count at all. It just delayed election results by a couple hours.

When Macias first learned of the issue, he assumed that the problem was human error and would be resolved.

“Now, looking at the audit log, I can tell you with a 100% fact that what I assumed happened [is what] happened,” he said.

Other experts agreed.

Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group, said she reviewed the audit logs with her team of experienced election experts.

“From what I see, those logs match the public account exactly,” she said.

“In the roughly two hours between those two exports, there’s no scanning or counting activity recorded in the logs on any of those five machines,” she said. “And just as importantly, the ballot counts on every machine match the officially reported.”

Conspiracy theories percolated well before Milwaukee released audit logs

Conspiracy theories about what may have transpired in Milwaukee on Election Day began circulating almost immediately after Milwaukee officials announced the mistake. Popular social media accounts questioned the credibility of election officials and others suggested that officials were directly involved in fraud.

Three days after the election, Votebeat requested the audit logs — the records that could show exactly what happened on the tabulators during the period conspiracy theorists were questioning. Milwaukee did not release them until Sept. 4, more than three weeks later, and after the Wisconsin Elections Commission also asked the city to make them public.

Experts said that delay was not unusual.

“Releasing audit logs — these machine logs — that’s not a typical part of the documentation that election offices normally produce,” Morrell said, adding that it’s likely that Milwaukee would have needed legal approval before releasing the logs. “The fact that they did make them public, I think that’s a responsible process — not a cover up.”

More important, she said, is that the officials retained the records in the first place.

“The fact that the log is there, the fact that these things are recorded should be seen as a positive even though it was slow for them,” she said. “I think the more concerning thing would be if the log just didn’t exist at all.”

Milwaukee plans better documentation for the future

In response to the error, Milwaukee election chief Paulina Gutiérrez outlined several changes meant to prevent similar problems.

Written instructions for extracting results will now include images showing election officials which options to select on screen, Gutiérrez said in a letter to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Those instructions will also be made available to observers at the city’s absentee ballot facility.

Before the results are downloaded, she said, the extraction teams will be briefed on the process. As workers move through the steps, they will verbally identify each selection they make so other members of the team can confirm they have followed the correct procedure.

“In this instance, an error occurred during the results-download process,” she told the commission. “At the same time, the safeguards surrounding the election worked as intended: the discrepancy was identified, the underlying election results remained intact, the correct files were retrieved, and Milwaukee’s accurate election results were ultimately reported.”

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

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

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

What happened?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted one of two injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, but additional legal hurdles and practical considerations could make it difficult to implement it in time for the quickly approaching November elections.

The unsigned ruling, which cut along ideological lines, focused on a relatively narrow legal question: whether the lower court’s injunction was premature. The majority made it clear that it was not deciding on the legality of Trump’s order as a whole, which is certain to be quickly challenged again in court as the administration moves to put its provisions in place.

“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the majority wrote. “On that score, time will tell.”

The ruling, made in response to an emergency request, didn’t specify which justices had joined it. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, warned that the ruling would create a “Kafkaesque nightmare” that “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

What’s the dispute?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order in March, states, nonprofit organizations and Democratic Party committees filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block it. In June, in the case brought by states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that some key provisions of the order were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections.

Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit. The list included most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The Trump administration appealed, arguing the judge’s order was issued prematurely, before the Postal Service and other relevant agencies had finalized their plans to carry out the order’s provisions. The administration also argued that the injunction prevented it from implementing the order in the unaffected states because of the logistical impossibility of a bifurcated mail-voting system.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Talwani’s order in late July, prompting the administration to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the order and allow the agencies to act in time for the November election. In filings, the states warned that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme” and would disenfranchise voters.

On Aug. 11, Talwani issued a separate injunction against the order in the lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, led by the League of Women Voters. The decision made it clear that her ban on implementing the law extended to all states, not just the 24 jurisdictions that brought the other lawsuit. That ruling again rejected the Trump administration argument that it was too soon to address the underlying issues.

The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling and make it clear that it would also apply to the Aug. 11 court order. If not, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned in a court filing, it would require prolonged legal battles that would “effectively run out the clock” on the government’s ability to implement its plans.

On Friday, while the administration’s request was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Postal Service issued its final rules for implementing the order, which it said it would not put into effect for this November’s election unless and until the Supreme Court cleared the way.

The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed neither the second injunction nor the fact that the Postal Service had issued final rules, leaving observers to wonder about how those developments might affect what happens next.

“I expect that the trial court will now amend (the second) injunction and issue a new injunction that will stop USPS from implementing its now final rule. And that too may end up at the Supreme Court within a week,” wrote Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, on the Election Law Blog shortly after the ruling.

What happens now?

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will not be the final word on Trump’s executive order. The question before the Supreme Court was a relatively narrow one about whether Talwani issued her order prematurely, before the government had taken final action to carry out the executive order. The states and voting rights groups are likely to go back to court quickly to challenge the Postal Service and the final rules it issued last week.

Talwani has also not yet ruled on whether the order can go into effect for future elections, which she found would be premature. A parallel case involving consolidated challenges brought by nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Should Trump’s executive order go into effect, it would mandate the creation of a series of lists. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to send each state a list of citizens over the age of 18. States using mail ballots would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to whom they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The Postal Service’s final rule states that it will decline to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not provide that list.

The order would also create new design standards and ballot-tracking requirements for mail ballots. Creating such a complicated process before November presents a huge challenge for the cash-strapped Postal Service.

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:

• Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026
• Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026
• One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026
• We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026
• Two reminders that the rules of the 2026 election are still in flux, May 11, 2026
• Federal judge refuses to block Trump executive order on mail voting — for now, May 28, 2026
• USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026
• Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026
• Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026
• Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026
• Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026
• Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

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

What to know about the US Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s mail ballot restrictions is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

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

Systems used to transmit unofficial election night results broke down in Green and Winnebago counties during Wisconsin’s August primary, causing problems processing and posting results.

The issues had no bearing on the official results that counties across the state are still certifying. But those breakdowns come as national experts have encouraged a move away from transmitting results over modems and toward physically delivering them. Many other states and election jurisdictions have shifted away from transmitting results by modem, but it remains common in Wisconsin.

Much of the concern about sending results over modems has related to cybersecurity. But experts say there are additional reasons to avoid the use of modems, and the recent issues in Wisconsin are one example. There’s no indication that the Election Day issues in Green and Winnebago counties, which both use Liberty Vote election technology, had anything to do with a hack.

Pam Smith, the president and CEO of Verified Voting, an elections technology organization, said election security is not only about preventing incorrect results or cyberattacks. It also means making sure the systems that election officials rely on are available and functioning when they need them.

A breakdown in transmitting unofficial results may not change the outcome of an election, she said, but it can still disrupt election night operations and consume significant staff time.

“It matters because it’s a time suck for the county and everybody trying to deal with it,” she said.

In a statement, a Liberty Vote spokesperson said the company has “every confidence these isolated issues will not occur in future elections.”

Green County changing results reporting process for November

The results transmission failure caused the most significant delay in Green County, where officials did not fully shift to a backup method for collecting results from municipalities until the next morning.

Officials there and their vendor, Liberty Vote, are still trying to understand what went wrong after county staff were unable to process the results that municipalities sent over via fax modems, Green County Clerk Arianna Voegeli told Votebeat.

When municipalities in Green County send their unofficial results to the county clerk’s office, they appear as encrypted files on a so-called listener server set up to receive the transmissions, said Voegeli, a Democrat. Normally, a different software called a results workstation pulls those files and uploads the results to the county’s unofficial results reporting system, but that process broke down on Election Day, she said.

County staff tried to troubleshoot the issue with Liberty Vote after discovering the issue at 9 p.m. on election night but couldn’t find a solution. That meant they had to turn to alternative methods to get the results from municipalities and didn’t have them all until the next morning — far later than most counties.

Voegeli said she consulted with the Wisconsin Elections Commission at the time to discuss what to do. The commission, she said, encouraged her to get municipal results as quickly as possible.

“Their recommendation was, at that point, to do my due diligence and do the best I can with trying to contact people (that) night to get those results in,” she said.

She opted not to use sheriff’s deputies to wake clerks that night, she said. Instead, she called all 24 of them; most didn’t return her call until early the following morning, but the few who responded delivered results over the phone. She got back to work at 6:30 a.m. on Wednesday to finish processing results as municipal officials either came in person to deliver the unofficial results or told Voegeli the results over the phone. All the results were uploaded by 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday.

Had it been November, she said, she would have employed sheriff’s deputies to wake up clerks. She opted not to do it this time around, Voegeli said, in part because the Wisconsin Elections Commission didn’t give hard guidance, and she didn’t feel she’d save meaningful time by waking them.

As of Monday, she said, officials still had not determined what caused the failure. But Green County is changing its approach for the November election.

Voegeli said nearby municipalities will drive to the county office to physically deliver unofficial results, and the faraway ones will verbally transmit results via telephone.

“Even if we determine what the cause of this issue is, I think we’re still going to plan on that for the general election,” she said. “We really want to make sure that we’re getting those results out in a timely manner.”

Winnebago County shifted gears on Election Day

Winnebago County, which also uses Liberty Vote systems, also had trouble transmitting unofficial results by modem, but officials there shifted to a backup plan that same night.

After polls closed, municipal clerks were initially unable to send unofficial election results over a cellular modem. County officials and Liberty Vote are still trying to understand what went wrong, County Clerk Julie Barthels said. After noticing the error, Barthels instructed municipal clerks in the county to drive in the results and hand them over physically. The last one arrived around 10:30 p.m. on Election Day.

The city resolved the results-reporting issue by 9 p.m., said Barthels, a Republican. But by then, municipal officials were already on their way to the county and Barthels said she didn’t want to turn the municipal officials around again to deliver them via modem.

Winnebago County isn’t planning for any shift in results reporting for November. But she said she’ll work with Liberty Vote to understand what went wrong.

“They’ve promised me this will not happen in November,” Barthels said about Liberty Vote. “We’re going to get to the bottom of what happened. I so trust our system. But it’s like any other computer. One day it works, and the next day it doesn’t.”

Some election security experts warn against modeming results

Smith, the Verified Voting CEO, said any method that requires election equipment to communicate with other devices — whether that’s through a secure cellular network or a physical phone line — introduces additional vulnerabilities.

“It’d be great if they would move towards a safer operation of not not having that connectivity,” she said

But Geoff Hale, a visiting fellow for election security at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said transmitting unofficial results via modem does not pose a major technical risk as long as the official results are protected through testing and audits of paper ballots. Every method for transmitting results has trade-offs, he said: Driving a USB stick for an hour may have fewer vulnerabilities than an internet-connected method, but it also takes far longer.

The more important safeguard, Hale said, is for election officials to stay involved throughout the process, validating results and checking for errors — especially when verifying the official count. Hale previously worked for a decade at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

In this case, he said, Winnebago and Green counties responded appropriately by having backup plans in case their initial systems failed.

“This one doesn’t concern me quite as much as some other things I’ve seen,” he said.

Noah Praetz, president of Ready For Tuesday and a longtime election administration and security consultant, said jurisdictions embraced reporting results via modems in the 2000s and 2010s.

That momentum stalled around 2016, he said, amid Russian attempts to interfere with U.S. elections and after Ukraine’s results reporting system in 2014 was successfully hacked. After that, Praetz said, following responses from the FBI and CISA, and the designation of elections as critical infrastructure by the secretary of Homeland Security, election officials began recognizing that results in transit over modems posed a risk, even if the results were unofficial.

But a major benefit of using modems is speed, and Praetz emphasized the downsides of slower alternatives, as delays in reporting results can create openings for bad actors — including foreign governments — to sow distrust.

“People want to get results out of their hands,” he said. “They want to satisfy their voters.”

That was evident in Milwaukee on Aug. 11, when a human error in exporting results caused a 90-minute delay that exasperated election watchers and prompted widespread conspiracy theories about what had gone wrong.

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.

Issues with election systems delayed primary results in two Wisconsin counties is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Wisconsin election officials have reignited a legal battle over absentee voting with July guidance stating that voters cannot void a returned absentee ballot and cast a new one, even if Election Day is weeks away or the candidate they supported has dropped out. 

Three Democratic residents in Dane County on Thursday sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission over the guidance, which was adopted by the commission on July 9, calling it an unconstitutional violation of the state’s absentee voting laws. All three plaintiffs voted for a gubernatorial candidate who has since dropped out of the primary, and under the commission guidance they cannot change their votes, even though those votes have not yet been counted. The legality of spoiling ballots just to change a vote has long been disputed.

The lawsuit says WEC’s guidance means the plaintiffs “will all be disenfranchised from meaningfully participating in this August election unless this Court steps in.”

Thursday’s lawsuit is the latest development in a legal dispute that began in 2022 and was reopened by an appeals court decision earlier this year. It was filed two days after the Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent the commission a letter urging it to rescind the guidance. The letter raised many of the same concerns later cited in the suit, including that the policy could disenfranchise voters and was adopted after early voting in the primary had already begun.

The July 9 guideline for clerks reverses the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s previous position and Attorney General Josh Kaul’s legal arguments on the agency’s behalf that voters should be allowed to replace absentee ballots they have already returned as long as they comply with statutory deadlines.

The WEC spent years arguing in court in favor of that broader definition of ballot spoiling, but its latest guidance effectively restores the rule imposed by a 2022 court ruling that banned the practice.

The commission adopted the guidance after clerks had already mailed ballots for the Aug. 11 primary and, notably, after multiple candidates in the crowded Democratic gubernatorial race dropped their bids. 

“It seems to me exceedingly likely that this is something that people are going to keep fighting about,” Jeff Mandell, founder of the liberal law firm Law Forward, said ahead of the lawsuit.

He added that the timing of the guidance was unusual: Typically courts are skeptical of efforts to change rules close to an election. Some absentee voters in this election cycle probably cast their ballots under the assumption that they could spoil their ballot and cast a new one if their preferred candidate dropped out or they just wanted to change their vote, Mandell said.

Even if the commission’s guidance is in line with Wisconsin law, it creates a clear discrepancy between in-person Election Day and absentee voters, said Sam Liebert, the Wisconsin state director of All Voting is Local and a former municipal clerk. 

Election Day voters can receive up to three ballots at the polls if they make a mistake, he pointed out. On the other hand, he said, absentee voters now get no second chance once they return their ballots, even if Election Day hasn’t arrived yet.

“The inconsistency is hard to ignore,” he said, and it presents a policy question for the Legislature — or maybe the courts.

Spoiling controversy blew up amid similar political dynamics in the 2022 primary

The WEC’s more permissive August 2022 guidance on ballot spoiling was prompted by similar dynamics as that of the present: highly contested primaries with candidates dropping out throughout the race and at the last minute. 

In September 2022, GOP voter Nancy Kormanik sued over that guidance allowing absentee ballot spoiling, arguing that clerks can only reissue an absentee ballot if a voter returns an absentee ballot in a “spoiled or damaged” condition. Voiding a ballot that’s already been submitted and getting a new one over a voter’s own mistake or a candidate dropping out didn’t fall under that category, she argued.

Kaul, the state’s Democratic attorney general, saw the issue differently. A few different laws allow ballot spoiling, he said in a court filing, and “none requires the elector to explain how or why the ballot is ‘spoiled.’”

Siding with Kormanik, a lower court banned the practice of spoiling absentee ballots in October.

The ban stood until February of this year, when an appeals court vacated the lower court ruling. But the new ruling wasn’t on the merits of the case. Rather, it came because the court said Kormanik didn’t properly serve documents to a legislative committee at the start of the suit.

After the February ruling, clerks sought the commission’s updated guidance about how to deal with spoiling. They didn’t receive it in time for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April, and some municipalities offered instructions on how to spoil ballots. But with midterm primaries coming up — and particularly as rumors of gubernatorial candidates dropping out swirled — clerks were especially eager to know if the commission planned to stand by its earlier interpretation of the law and allow absentee ballot spoiling again.

On July 9, the commission provided an answer: It voted 4-2 that absentee ballot spoiling is prohibited after a voter returns an absentee ballot. Democratic commissioner Carrie Riepl, a former clerk, voted with the three Republicans in favor of the guidance. Democratic commissioners Mark Thomsen and Ann Jacobs voted against it.

The guidance came just one day after Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, dropped out of the race and endorsed Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez for governor. Just over a week later, Rodriguez dropped out of the race and Crowley reentered. 

Over 36,000 Wisconsin voters had already returned ballots by the day the commission issued its guidance, commission data shows. Voters had returned nearly 68,000 ballots by the time Rodriguez dropped out.

At the July meeting, commission chair Don Millis, a Republican, argued that voters should only be able to void — or spoil — ballots before they return them to the clerk.

“Once you’ve turned your ballot in, that’s it,” he said.

Meanwhile, Thomsen noted that in-person voters on Election Day can mark a ballot and receive a replacement ballot if they make an error, as long as the first ballot isn’t tabulated yet. But under the new guidance, an absentee voter couldn’t spoil a returned ballot even if it’s weeks from being tabulated.

“Why are we treating people that use mail differently than me if I show up?” he said.

On one hand, voters can argue that the inability to spoil ballots effectively disenfranchises them if they vote for a candidate that has since dropped out, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative. 

On the other hand, she said, others can cite the Wisconsin law calling absentee voting a privilege, not a right, and argue that voters who exercise that right accept some risk in casting an absentee vote that can’t be taken back.

“The issue of whether ballot spoiling is or is not allowed under Wisconsin statutes hasn’t been definitively resolved,” she said.

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 Wisconsin voters void a returned absentee ballot? New lawsuit sends issue back to court 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.