It’s hard not to get caught up in the increasingly contentious Democratic primary battle that’s mostly being waged online this week. But outside of the social media echo chambers, people who are taking the brunt of a vicious, authoritarian regime are asking deeper questions about how to build political power.  

Union and immigrant-rights organizers in Wisconsin held a joint press conference Thursday to talk about their efforts to get Latinos, newly naturalized citizens and struggling workers to the polls to elect people who will take a stand against the Trump administration’s terrifying crackdown on immigrants as well as Trump administration policies driving the crushing cost of living.

Roselia Navarro, a naturalized citizen who leads Voces de la Frontera’s New American program, helps guide other immigrants through the process of becoming citizens. She gave a touching account of how much citizenship and participating in American democracy means to her. She described it as a privilege to help other immigrants, many of whom have waited as long  as 20 years to obtain their naturalization papers and become eligible to vote. 

“I’m very proud to say I’m the first person that is able to vote within my family,” she said. “And that feels rewarding because when I vote, I feel that I’m not only making decisions for something that would benefit my kids, but it also inspires my family to see that I’m motivated and I’m involved.”

“I want to also invite the people in our community, especially the Hispanic community, that we can come together and we need to vote,” she added. “It’s extremely important for us to be part of the decisions that are being made in our state.”

First-time voter Yondo Borrera, who sat next to Navarro on the panel at the Voces office in Milwaukee, told reporters, “I will be voting to make a change in my community. I don’t like how everything is super expensive right now — gas, food, housing, rent. And I don’t like how ICE is in the community snatching people up, deporting people, taking people away from their families, and that’s something that I’m trying to change.”

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, Voces’ executive director, described the power of Latino voters in Wisconsin, a tippy purple state where elections are often decided by razor-thin margins. Over the last decade, “the Latino population, including the Latino voting population, has continued to grow in force statewide,” she said. She cited data from the 2024 election that showed high turnout among registered Latino voters about 84.9%  of whom voted, “yet this only represents 63% of the estimated eligible Latino citizen voting age population statewide,” she said. 

Immigrant rights’ organizers aim to drive the participation rate higher.

There is something poignant about that aim, which, in other election years, would seem like a run-of-the-mill exercise in civics. This is no ordinary election year, however. 

Armed federal agents have been dragging people out of their cars in Milwaukee. A young mother with no criminal record who fled violence in Colombia and was going through the U.S. asylum process, checking in with the government regularly as her case progressed, was grabbed along with her 8-year-old son out of their home in the Wisconsin Dells and is now incarcerated along with her little boy in an ICE detention facility in South Texas. 

This is just one case of the thousands across the country. Neumann-Ortiz described a few more in Wisconsin. “We’ve seen mothers and fathers and children and the larger community traumatized by the violence and the persecution and the racism, which is completely unchecked right now,” she said.

People who have full legal status are wary of being grabbed by rogue ICE agents looking to fill quotas in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. Going to the polls in this environment is fraught. And yet, advocates say, it’s more important than ever. 

“We are in an unprecedented time of income inequality, with unwanted wars in the Middle East, and a quarter of a trillion of our national budget being used for the violent persecution and racial profiling of Black and brown people, Asian people, and shifting away these critical resources from healthcare and public schools and childcare and things that people need,” Neumann-Ortiz said. 

The only way to change all that is for people who are suffering under this terrible regime to grab control of their government.

Adrian Bracy, a worksite representative for the Service Employees International Union, spoke on the panel to people who feel that their vote doesn’t matter, that the system is too broken to be fixed at the ballot box. 

“Working for a union for 20 years, I know that uniting and standing strong and fighting firmly for what we believe in, it can make the difference,” she said. “It can definitely change things.” She urged people to encourage their friends and neighbors to vote.  “Let them know how important it really is, and that they do matter,” she said. “It does matter. It makes a difference …  in spite of the tactics they may use to intimidate or discourage or discredit our voters.”

As it happens, the effort to discourage and discredit voters is led by Wisconsin’s representatives in Congress. U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville), who chairs the House Committee on Administration, is demanding information from the state Department of Corrections on voting by felons. The case that prompted Steil’s letter to DOC Secretary Jared Hoy involves a man convicted of theft who was one day shy of having served his full sentence on community release. Had he voted the following day, his ballot would have been legal. This single case, which did not affect the outcome of any election, is fodder for a campaign Steil is spearheading to cast doubt on the legitimacy of elections and disenfranchise likely Democratic voters by making them jump through hoops before they can vote, all in the name of rooting out exceedingly rare cases of voter fraud.

The main targets of this campaign are, of course, the supposed masses of noncitizens casting ballots and tilting elections to Democrats. 

U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Prairie du Chien), like Steil an enabler of election conspiracy theories, also took a big stand this week, demanding that Gov. Tony Evers turn over the personal data of FoodShare recipients in an effort to root out “fraud.” People who get food assistance in Wisconsin are already seeing their benefits cut, just as grocery prices skyrocket, under the massive tax cut and spending bill both Van Orden and Steil supported.

These attacks are related. After voting for policies that make life much worse for the people they represent, our Republican members of Congress are trying to make sure voters can’t hold them accountable. 

“The challenges facing our economy and our democracy are inseparable,” says Taifa Smith Butler, president of Demos, a nonprofit progressive public policy organization. Demos rolled out its 2026 national policy agenda this week:  “Power Policies: How to Get and Keep People Power in the United States.” 

“For too long, public debate has centered on short term wins, but the more important question is what happens after power shifts,” Smith Butler said at a press conference announcing the new report. “History shows that periods of political upheaval can also create opportunities for transformative change. Previous generations have used these moments to advance civil rights, expand democracy, and build economic security.”

Rising authoritarianism is linked to the erosion of both economic and political power for most people, Alix Gould-Werth, Demos’ chief of programs and strategy, said at the same event. It’s important to stop that erosion in order to fight back.

The solutions the group lays out in its progressive policy plan include affordable housing, universal childcare and a robust national wealth tax, as well as nonpartisan redistricting and automatic voter registration.

Rebuilding democratic institutions in the current environment seems like a huge hill to climb. But starting on the state and local level, it’s possible to protect “laboratories of democracy” that will serve as models for a larger shift, Gould-Werth said. 

Community housing grants and low-cost loans are one example Demos offers.

Here in Wisconsin, which long ago served as the laboratory for New Deal programs and progressive reforms that grew into lasting federal institutions, there is an opportunity to stand up and defend a better vision of society. 

It’s scary. And it’s challenging. But it’s a relief to see advocates at both the local and national level light a torch and keep us focused not just on the short-term crisis we are enduring, but how it fits into the long-term fight for a better world. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not planning an aggressive campaign at voting sites during the upcoming midterm elections, the Department of Homeland Security said Thursday in response to a States Newsroom inquiry about a letter from U.S. Senate Democrats voicing concerns about armed federal agents at polling places.

ICE, an agency within DHS that has sustained intense criticism since the start of the second Trump administration for its aggressive and sometimes deadly tactics, has no plans to target polling sites in November, a DHS official told States Newsroom in an email. 

The official left open the possibility, though, that the agency’s plans could change based on available intelligence.

“ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” the DHS official said. “ICE conducts intelligence-driven targeted enforcement, and if an active public safety threat endangered a polling location, they may be arrested as a result of that targeted enforcement action.”

The email came from a general DHS media account and did not name the official. The statement did not specify anything about DHS agencies other than ICE.

While DHS made similar statements earlier this year, this one responded to a request for comment about a letter this week from a dozen U.S. Senate Democrats to three Cabinet members demanding to know more about the administration’s possible plans to send federal law enforcement officers to polling places across the country. 

The group, led by Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, sent a letter Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in which the lawmakers asked whether armed federal agents would be deployed at election sites, which they said would be prohibited under federal law. 

“Congress has enacted longstanding criminal prohibitions against sending federal personnel to polling places and using federal power to interfere with elections,” they wrote. “Americans should never have to wonder whether the federal government intends to police the ballot box with armed agents.” 

Democrats have voiced increasing worries that President Donald Trump is seeking to control elements of election administration, which is a state responsibility under the U.S. Constitution. 

The issue is at the center of lawsuits brought by Democratic campaign and nonpartisan voting-rights groups challenging an executive order restricting mail-in voting. And U.S. House Democrats say the administration is withholding disaster relief funds as leverage to force states to change their election laws.

“The letter reflects my and my Senate colleagues’ deep concerns that Donald Trump appears to be planning to steal the upcoming election, which Republicans cannot win on the merits,” Markey said in a Thursday statement to States Newsroom. “We know that no unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional act is beyond him and we must be ready for it.”

Joining Markey on the Tuesday letter were Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Gary Peters of Michigan, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Maria Cantwell of Washington.

Growing concern 

The senators’ concerns, they said, arise partly from findings revealed earlier this month that came out of an investigation launched in 2025 by the Democratic National Committee. 

Last October, the committee sought records regarding the possible deployment of federal law enforcement officers to polling stations, ballot-drop sites and election offices. The departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense initially did not produce any documents, and during ensuing litigation, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement represented it had found “no responsive records,” according to the July 28 letter. 

But after the DNC challenged the search results, ICE admitted to finding “more than 11,000 potentially responsive pages,” while U.S. Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, said it located nearly 117,000, lawmakers wrote. 

The Department of Defense declined to comment Thursday on the senators’ letter, telling States Newsroom that it will instead follow its typical protocol of responding directly to the authors themselves. 

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s focus on elections  

Democrats’ inquiries into the administration’s plans also stem from comments President Donald Trump has made in recent months about election integrity.

When a PBS Newshour correspondent asked Trump in May if he would send ICE agents or National Guard troops to polling sites for the midterms, he said he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”  

And earlier this month, during a nationwide primetime address, he again reiterated claims about the country’s voting systems being vulnerable to hacking and disputed his 2020 presidential loss, sowing doubts about the entire election process despite having a lack of evidence to back up his words.  

“President Trump’s statements, coupled with his repeated threats to invoke the Insurrection Act — which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence — only heighten concerns,” the senators added in their letter. 

“The Administration now has a choice,” they wrote. “It can continue to fuel the appearance that it is laying the groundwork for an unprecedented federal intrusion into state-run elections, or it can finally provide Congress and the American people with the transparency they deserve.”

The lawmakers requested that Blanche, Mullin and Hegseth provide details about any possible plans to deploy federal troops at election sites in November and identify who may have authorized such deployments, setting a deadline of August 11. 

They also asked that the federal agency leaders produce records “concerning the possible deployment of federal law enforcement personnel or troops to polling places or other election sites.” 

A multifaith group of clergy gathered at the state Capitol  Tuesday to call for protecting voting rights and ensuring all votes are  counted.

“Our theology teaches us and tells us that God created all of us in God’s image,” said Rev. David Hart, pastor of Sherman United Methodist Church in Madison, at a press conference on the Capitol steps, adding that all people  “have this voice that deserves to be heard in the public square.”

The event Tuesday was one of three across Wisconsin, organizers said, and one of 15 similar actions held in nine states.

“We have seen the attacks on our election process,” said Rev. Breanna Illéné, director of Ecumenical Innovation and Justice Initiatives at the Wisconsin Council of Churches. “We are here today to celebrate our local poll workers, the city and county clerks who administer elections here in Wisconsin” — who she added, “are helping make our democracy function.”

The event took place as worries have grown about the possibility that President Donald Trump could deploy armed federal agents to polling places, and as Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers joined other governors in demanding that the Trump administration immediately withdraw a rule restricting the mailing of absentee ballots in states, including Wisconsin, that have refused to turn over sensitive voter data to the federal government.

On Election Day in November, clergy will show up at local polling places as poll chaplains — “a peaceful presence” to ensure voters’ rights are protected, and to bring “calm to the site,” Illéné said in an interview. “They are just another layer of trust that we hope to add to the election process.”

Rev. Christopher Ross of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Watertown cited biblical readings that support an egalitarian view of society, and with it, democratic participation.

Early Christians built a community that they viewed as “an alternative to the ways of empire,” Ross said. Alluding to attempts to make voting harder, however, he added, “But not everyone these days seems to want such a community.”

Other leaders pointed to democracy as a key tenet of their faiths.

“Jewish tradition teaches us that the process of choosing leaders is not a privilege but a collective responsibility,” said Rabbi Jonathan Prosnit of Temple Beth El in Madison.

“It comes down to a core yet simple belief. Democracy is strongest when every vote is counted,” Prosnit said. “Democracy suffers when voters are suppressed.”

For Unitarian Universalists, democracy is “a religious imperative” said Rev. Kelly Asprooth-Jackson, a UU minister. “It’s one of our core values and principles that people who are affected by decisions must be involved in the making of those decisions.”

Raising barriers to voting and reducing the power of some people’s votes “diminishes all of us because it diminishes the practice of democracy upon which all of us depend for our most fundamental rights,” Asprooth-Jackson said.

The participants also promoted a national letter, drawn up and sponsored by Faith in Us, a national multifaith group, opposing federal and state actions organizers say threaten voting rights. The letter calls on elected officials to safeguard voting rights and assure access to the ballot box for all voters.

It also criticizes President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail — which a federal judge blocked late last month — and expresses outrage at redistricting actions that produced “rapid gerrymandering of racially discriminatory election maps in many states” after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key key provisions in the Voting Rights Act.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Wisconsin will likely face limited immediate impact at both the legislative and congressional level from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed how the Voting Rights Act can be used to challenge political maps. But it may make it easier for people to challenge school board and city council maps in court.

The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais raises the bar for voting rights challenges by requiring stronger evidence that race, rather than political considerations, drove how districts were drawn, and making it easier for states to defend maps on nonracial grounds. 

Dan Lennington, the managing vice president and deputy counsel at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, said the boundaries that could be most easily struck down as a result of the Wednesday ruling are those that were drawn explicitly for racial reasons. Some examples, he said, are the boundaries for Milwaukee city council districts and certain school districts.

Race is a common factor in drawing Milwaukee city council districts, though campaigns to add additional majority-minority districts haven’t always succeeded. 

For example, departing Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in December 2021 vetoed a proposed city council map because it didn’t include a third Latino-majority district, only for Mayor Cavalier Johnson to sign that same map several weeks later.

Lennington also pointed to state laws that use race as a factor to determine school district boundaries. One of those laws explicitly mentions “racial composition of the pupils” as a factor for drawing boundaries — a law that he said is now implicated by the Callais decision.

“If a plaintiff comes to us and says that they live in a district that’s been racially gerrymandered, we would take a very close look at that case,” he said.

Less likely impact on legislative and congressional level

There likely won’t be much impact in Wisconsin at the congressional district level because there’s just one majority-minority district in the state, UW-Madison political science professor Barry Burden said ahead of the ruling. The 4th Congressional District, represented by Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, comprises much of Milwaukee and the surrounding suburbs in Milwaukee County. 

Even if Section 2 of the VRA did not apply, he said, the district would likely stay much the same given the general principle of keeping communities intact. 

A decision like the one handed down, he said, “would open the door if line drawers wanted to break up that county or city in some way, but I think it would probably be challenged on other grounds.”

Challenges to Wisconsin’s congressional maps have often had more to do with partisan than racial line-drawing. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said he wasn’t surprised by the federal decision but reiterated his call for new congressional maps, which he said unfairly gave Republicans a 6-2 seat advantage in a swing state.

But two recent court decisions in Wisconsin rejected challenges to the state’s congressional maps on the basis that they constitute an unconstitutional “anti-competitive” gerrymander. Those rulings focused not on race, but on whether courts can take up claims based on partisan advantage. 

Doug Poland, co-founder of the liberal law firm Law Forward, said this ruling could empower lawmakers to pursue partisan goals while making racial challenges harder to prove.

But because of Wisconsin’s demographics — a largely white state, with the most significant minority populations concentrated around the Milwaukee area — the state has run into Section 2 challenges far less often than southern states, he said.

“As a practical matter, this decision doesn’t have a big impact on Wisconsin at the moment,” he said. “That could change.”

There’s more at play among state legislative districts, Burden said. The state has nine majority-minority legislative districts, where a single minority group makes up over half of the population: seven in the Assembly and two in the Senate. Two other districts — one in each chamber — are minority influence districts, where combined minority populations make up a majority.

Democrats in Wisconsin have generally steered clear of breaking up minority districts to avoid violating the VRA, Burden said, but packing minority voters in one district sometimes costs them adjacent districts where they might have been competitive if the minority population was more evenly distributed. For that reason, there’s a history of Republicans supporting majority-minority districts in the state.

The issue has been a factor in recent redistricting fights. In March 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court initially selected Evers’ legislative maps, which created an additional majority-Black Assembly district. 

But while Evers argued this addition was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act, it drew criticism from both sides of the aisle. A Black Democratic legislator criticized the move as diluting Black voices, while Republicans appealed the maps to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the GOP and ordered the Wisconsin Supreme Court to select a different map.

If any of the districts are found to be out of compliance with the U.S. Constitution under the ruling via some additional challenge, Burden said, Wisconsin may draw new districts sooner than later.

“I don’t know who that advantages,” he said. “It probably depends who’s drawing the lines.”

Lennington also pointed out President Donald Trump’s success with Black and Latino voters relative to past GOP candidates, adding that splitting majority-minority legislative districts wouldn’t necessarily give either party an advantage here.

What he did predict, though, is that splitting such districts “might polarize us even more” if they were replaced with districts drawn on partisan as opposed to racial lines.

“It just might make the red more red and the blue more blue,” he 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.

Wisconsin will likely see limited, local effects from Voting Rights Act ruling — at least for now 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.