Photos of flooded streets in Milwaukee during the August 2025 storm. (Photo courtesy of Anne Tuchelski)

Disaster relief for six Wisconsin counties inundated by historic flooding back in August has again been denied by the federal government. It’s the second time that Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Grant, Milwaukee, Door and Grant counties have been denied assistance from the Trump administration since the floods drowned parks, damaged homes and trapped people in their cars in the middle of the night. 

This latest denial was in response to an appeal filed by Gov. Tony Evers in November, after the first denial came from  the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). At the time, Evers stressed that the extreme storms had left over $26.5 million in disaster costs. 

In a statement Monday, Evers called the new denial “completely unsatisfactory,” saying that the Trump administration  had again denied the  relief for Wisconsin “without any explanation” and calling for the decision to be reversed. “Wisconsinites have been hard at work to build back from these historic flooding events, but folks are not out of the woods yet,” said Evers. “Efforts to rebuild will cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that local communities will be on the hook for, and it’s really disappointing to see our federal leadership turn their backs on Wisconsin, our families, and our communities in our time of need. We will continue to advocate to the Trump Administration and our federal partners that Wisconsin needs these resources to rebuild and recover, and we will continue to do what we can to support our local partners however we can in the meantime.” 

FEMA’s letter to Evers said that assistance “is not warranted,” but does not otherwise explain the rationale for the denial. 

Evers declared a state of emergency on Aug. 11, as communities across Wisconsin picked themselves up from the storms. A ceaseless downpour began on Aug. 9, though the extent of the flooding wasn’t apparent to many until after the sun went down. In Milwaukee County, the Wisconsin State Fair had to close early as people fled the grounds in waist-high water. People who traveled the roads that evening found themselves trapped by floodwaters, requiring rescue from local authorities and neighbors. 

Swaths of Hart Park in Wauwatosa were left underwater, and the storm’s aftermath left neighborhoods strewn with downed trees and abandoned vehicles. Flooding also challenged emergency response in Waukesha County, though no injuries or missing persons reports had been received by the sheriff’s department. In Milwaukee, reports of people missing from homeless encampments emerged in the days after the floods. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley called the denial for disaster relief “deeply disappointing” in a statement Monday. “My administration has worked to rebuild and recover after last summer’s historic storms and flooding,” said Crowley. “Without federal assistance, the financial burden of these public infrastructure repairs falls to local governments to cover. Communities rely on intergovernmental partnerships in times of crisis, and this decision by the Trump administration erodes that public trust. To move forward, my administration will continue working with the State of Wisconsin, our municipalities, and community partners to identify responsible funding solutions to rebuild our roads, bridges, parks, and public buildings. Our residents should not be forced to shoulder the full cost of disasters beyond their control, and we will continue advocating for the resources our community deserves.”

Leaders from the other counties, most of them Republican-leaning, that were  denied disaster relief have not commented. A spokesperson for the Waukesha County Executive’s Office was unable to provide an immediate response, though this story will be updated if one arrives. The executives for Door, Washington, and Ozaukee counties could not be reached and Robert Keeney, the county board chairman for Grant County, refused to comment on the denial. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agents in fatigues gather in Minneapolis last month. Health care workers in Minnesota and other states say ICE is increasing its presence in health care facilities, deterring people from seeking medical care. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Last month, the parents of a 7-year-old girl whose nose wouldn’t stop bleeding took her to Portland Adventist Health in Portland, Oregon, for urgent care. Before the family could get through the doors, federal immigration agents reportedly detained them in the parking lot and took them to a detention center in Texas.

At Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, workers say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers hang around the campus, asking patients and employees for proof of citizenship. Last month, tensions came to a head when ICE agents used handcuffs to shackle a 31-year-old Mexican immigrant to his hospital bed. ICE claimed the man, who had broken bones in his face and a fractured skull, had run headfirst into a wall on purpose while handcuffed and trying to flee.

And last summer, ICE agents chased an immigrant into the Ontario Advanced Surgery Center in Ontario, California, precipitating a confrontation with two surgery center workers wearing scrubs. The two workers were later indicted by a federal grand jury, charged with assaulting and interfering with federal immigration officers.

As the Trump administration intensifies its immigration crackdown, health care workers in multiple states say ICE is increasing its presence in health care facilities, deterring people from seeking medical care and creating chaos that jeopardizes the safety of their patients.

Even before Trump took office last year, Republican-led states such as Florida and Texas began mixing health care and immigration enforcement by requiring hospitals to ask patients about their immigration status. Now that ICE has extended its enforcement activities to hospitals and health care facilities — areas that were largely off-limits during the Biden administration — an increasing number of Democratic-led states are pushing back.

Last month, Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey filed legislation “to keep ICE out of courthouses, schools, child care programs, hospitals and churches,” and signed an executive order to limit ICE actions on state-owned property.

In December, Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed a measure that bars health care providers from sharing sensitive health information with federal immigration agents and requires hospitals to develop policies around how they will interact with agents.

And in September, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that makes immigration status and place of birth protected health information, and prohibits agents from entering nonpublic, patient-sensitive areas of health care facilities without a warrant signed by a judge.

Other Democratic states — including Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington — are considering similar bills.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Arizona are pushing legislation that would require hospitals accepting Medicaid patients to include a question on intake forms about immigration status.

Skipping medical care

Whether or not ICE presence is actually increasing at health care facilities, it’s clear that people living in the country illegally are being deterred from seeking medical care, said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at the health policy research group KFF.

A KFF and New York Times survey released last November showed that 43% of respondents identifying as immigrant parents living in the country illegally skipped or delayed health care for their children over a 12-month period because they were concerned about immigration enforcement. Even among lawfully present immigrants,10% said that they avoided seeking medical care for their children due to immigration-related concerns.

Pillai also pointed to the Trump administration’s efforts to consolidate the bits of personal data held across federal agencies, creating a single trove of information on people who live in the United States.

“We are expecting that these fears have further been exacerbated this year since the data sharing agreement was made public, and there are certain concerns around privacy of data going forward,” Pillai told Stateline.

Dr. Paula Latortue, an OB-GYN in Washington, D.C., who volunteers with the Migrant Clinicians Network, a nonprofit group that provides health care to immigrants, said it’s unclear how many people are avoiding health care, and how often.

“The one part that is really hard to know is people who are not showing up to the hospital when they usually would for some sort of urgent or emergency complaint,” Latortue said in an interview. “But I think there’s a concern for many physicians in the community that has happened.”

States step in to protect sensitive locations

The Biden and Obama administrations directed ICE to avoid enforcement activities in “sensitive” places such as hospitals, schools and churches unless it received permission from top leaders at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In January 2025, however, the Trump administration rescinded those guidelines, opening up these spaces to immigration enforcement.

Stateline reached out to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security multiple times but did not receive a response. When the administration changed the guidelines, the Department of Homeland Security said that opening up “sensitive” areas to agents “empowers the brave men and women in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and ICE to enforce our immigration laws.”

The previous guidelines didn’t prohibit ICE from operating in those locations, but it did “strongly discourage” them, according to Sophia Genovese, a legal fellow specializing in immigration law at Georgetown University.

She added, however, that states and cities can enact laws to protect such spaces, even though they are limited in their capacity to “infringe and engage in immigration lawmaking.”

“Warrants are always needed to conduct searches or investigations in private, nonpublic areas, and these warrants need to be signed by a judge. This is just a basic Fourth Amendment right,” Genovese said. “When it comes to ICE entering hospitals and gaining access to private areas of hospitals, that’s an issue of individual hospital policy.”

Genovese said states also can require that hospitals standardize their policies on where law enforcement agents can go within a medical facility and create protocols to ensure agents are presenting a warrant before entering the premises.

Health care workers want protections

Those moves are exactly what health care workers in many states are asking for.

“There’s a high level of fear and anxiety. Nurses see the videos of what’s happening around the country, and nurses have experienced it themselves,” Peter Starzynski, spokesperson for the Oregon Nurses Association, told Stateline.

Last month’s incident involving the 7-year-old girl and her parents in Portland highlighted the importance of protecting health care spaces from ICE, he said.

“That should never happen. That’s disgusting,” Starzynski said.

The Oregon Nurses Association also has condemned ICE’s presence at Legacy Emanuel Medical Center in Portland, claiming agents are violating hospital policies, including on access to patients. Legacy has disputed the union’s allegations, saying that no ICE officers have entered its facilities “unless accompanying a patient in custody.”

“Nurses in emergency rooms deal with local law enforcement on a regular basis, and those relationships are built on mutual respect, where law enforcement understands what they need to do once they enter a hospital,” Starzynski said. “That has changed with the increase in federal agents in Oregon.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

An absentee ballot drop box with updated signage in Madison following the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision to allow the use of ballot drop boxes. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A Dane County judge on Monday denied a motion from the city of Madison to dismiss a lawsuit against the city over its loss of nearly 200 absentee ballots during the 2024 election. 

Since misplacing and failing to count the ballots, Madison has been subjected to penalties from the Wisconsin Elections Commission and has hired a new city clerk. The lawsuit against the city was brought by a group of the voters whose ballots were not counted. The voters are represented by the voting rights focused firm Law Forward. 

Madison’s defense against the lawsuit has sparked criticism from voting advocates across the state for diminishing the importance of the right to vote. The city had argued it could not be sued for losing the ballots because absentee voting is a “privilege” and not a constitutional right. A legislative policy statement adopted in 1985 states that “voting is a constitutional right,” but that “voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.”

The lawsuit comes as Wisconsin election officials and Democrats have been defending absentee voting rights from Republican attacks for years. The argument by Madison officials drew criticism from a number of Democrats, including Gov. Tony Evers.

Dane County Judge David Conway wrote in his order denying Madison’s motion to dismiss that it wouldn’t make sense if the constitutional right to vote did not extend to absentee voting.

“Just because the absentee voting process is a privilege does not mean that those who legally utilize it do not exercise their constitutional right to vote,” he wrote. “Of course they do. Once a voter casts a valid absentee ballot that complies with the Legislature’s rules for utilizing the absentee process, the voter has exercised the same constitutional right to vote as someone who casts a valid in-person ballot at a polling place. And that right to vote would be a hollow protection if it did not also include the right to have one’s vote counted.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive for the National Governors Association Evening Dinner and Reception in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Trump hosted the governors in Washington for the annual National Governors Association meetings. (Photo by Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump decided to exclude Democratic governors from a traditional annual meeting at the White House and to disinvite several others from a black-tie dinner, according to the White House, the governors and the National Governors Association.

The National Governors Association organizes the bipartisan winter gathering that usually includes a working meeting with the U.S. president and a major dinner at the White House. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, serves as current chair of the association, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, is vice chair.

The governors’ visit to the nation’s capital comes amid rising tensions over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and surge of federal immigration border patrol agents into Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois, Minnesota and Oregon.

Moore: ‘blatant disrespect’

Moore issued a statement Sunday that he was “uninvited” from the dinner, adding that the decision was “especially confounding” given that he was among a bipartisan group of governors at the White House in recent weeks to discuss lower energy costs.

“My peers, both Democrats and Republicans, selected me to serve as the Vice Chair of the NGA, another reason why it’s hard not to see this decision as another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership,” Moore said. “As the nation’s only Black governor, I can’t ignore that being singled out for exclusion from this bipartisan tradition carries an added weight — whether that was the intent or not.”

Moore’s exclusion also comes on the heels of Trump’s posting of a racist video Friday depicting former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. Trump deleted the post following loud disapproval that included criticism from his own party but has declined to apologize.

The offices of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz did not immediately respond for comment. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek decided “some time ago” not to attend the event so that she could be in her state during the legislative session, according to spokesperson Elisabeth Shepard.

Moore added: “As Governor of Maryland and Vice Chair of the NGA, my approach will never change: I’m ready to work with the administration anywhere we can deliver results. Yet, I promised the people of my state I will work with anybody but will bow down to nobody. And I guess the President doesn’t like that.”

The office of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, learned Friday about the exclusion of Democratic governors and similarly issued a statement of concern.

“Gov. Polis has always been willing to work with anyone across the political spectrum who wants to help work on the hardest problems facing Colorado and America, regardless of party or who occupies the White House. This is a disappointing decision for a traditionally bipartisan event between governors and whomever occupies the White House,” according to a statement from his office emailed to States Newsroom. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office confirmed Monday he had also been uninvited.

‘Many Democrats’ invited, but not all

A White House official on Monday confirmed Trump’s exclusion of some Democratic governors from the annual dinner.

“Many Democrats were invited to dinner at the White House, and others were not. These are White House events and the President reserves the right to invite whomever he wants,” the official told States Newsroom in an emailed statement.

Brandon Tatum, the National Governors Association’s acting executive director and CEO, said, “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

“To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration. At this moment in our nation’s history, it is critical that institutions continue to stand for unity, dignity, and constructive engagement. NGA will remain focused on serving all governors as they deliver solutions and model leadership for the American people. Traditionally the White House has played a role in fostering these moments during NGA’s annual meeting. This year, they will not,” Tatum said in a statement.

This year’s meeting follows a tense exchange during the 2025 gathering between Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, and Trump, who threatened to withhold all federal funding from the state unless Mills complied with the president’s executive order to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.

The association’s 2026 meeting is scheduled for Feb. 19-21. The gathering will include “special guests and national experts for solutions-driven conversations on pressing national issues including education, energy, economic growth, artificial intelligence and more,” according to the association website.

Julia Shumway contributed to this report.

Enbridge pumping station, Mackinaw City, Feb. 7, 2023 | Laina G. Stebbins

On Friday, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the final version of its Environmental Impact Statement on Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project, starting a 30 day waiting period before making its final decision on whether to grant the pipeline company a permit to move forward with the proposal.

Canada-based Enbridge celebrated the release of the statement as a true milestone, with spokesperson Ryan Duffy praising the six-year review as “thorough, transparent, and science driven.” However, Line 5 opponents argue the final document fails to address several key concerns, including the project’s impacts on Indigenous treaty rights and alternatives for transporting oil outside of the Great Lakes.

The Line 5 tunnel project would replace the segment of dual pipelines operating in the Straits of Mackinac – where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet – with a new, single segment housed in a tunnel in the bedrock beneath the lakes. 

The 645-mile long pipeline runs from Northwestern Wisconsin, through Michigan where it ends in Sarnia, Ontario. It carries up to 22.68 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids through the Straits of Mackinac each day. 

Julie Goodwin, a senior attorney for Earthjustice, which is supporting the Bay Mills Indian Community in its fight against the pipeline, said the final environmental impact statement sets up a predetermined decision to approve the tunnel by failing to consider scenarios where oil is not flowing through the straits.

In its review, the corps looked at four main scenarios: taking no action and allowing the dual pipelines to continue operating, constructing a tunnel beneath the lakebed as Enbridge would prefer, placing a gravel/rock protective cover over the dual pipelines, and replacing the dual pipelines with a new segment installed using horizontal directional drilling under the lakebed.

“The corps had the opportunity, of course, during this environmental review process to look at alternatives that transport oil outside of the Great Lakes region or in different ways. And they just, they never took that opportunity,” Goodwin said.

A 2016 study from the University of Michigan determined more than 700 miles of shoreline in lakes Huron and Michigan would be vulnerable to pollution should Line 5 rupture. A 2018 study published by Michigan State University determined that the economic damage from a Great Lakes oil spill would amount to $5.6 billion dollars.

While the environmental impact statement acknowledges the straits are a profoundly sacred place in the culture, history and spirituality of Anishinaabe Tribal Nations, it does not address the tunnel project’s impact on treaty rights, which grant tribal nations the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands ceded to the federal government. 

The corps writes that its review of treaty rights is separate from its review of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act and that it is consulting on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized Tribes to determine if the tunnel project would infringe upon treaty rights. The final finding will be included in its record of decision.

On March 21, 2025, Bay Mills Indian Community alongside the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi, and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi sent a letter to the Army of Corps of Engineers withdrawing their participation as cooperating agencies in drafting the environmental impact statement, due to President Donald Trump’s Administration’s plan to expedite review of the tunnel project. 

The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians similarly withdrew from talks with the corps on March 26.

Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said it has been frustrating to watch the corps move forward with the environmental impact statement without completing surveys and research on cultural resources and treaty rights. 

“That’s one of the reasons we left as a cooperating agency,” Gravelle said. “The corps has disregarded tribes. They’ve disregarded tribal treaty rights, they’ve disregarded cultural resources, and it has just been one of the most dehumanizing processes I have ever participated in.”

The tunnel itself will bore through several cultural sites, archaeological resources and what Anishinaabe consider to be the site of creation, Gravelle said and there are hundreds if not thousands of archaeological sites on the north and south ends of the straits.

“Those burial places are how we understand our history, how we understand our culture, how we understand our trade movements, or where we’re meant to be harvesting, hunting and gathering,” Gravelle said. “To then be told that all of these places can be destroyed and that it doesn’t really matter, what you’re really saying is that our Indigenous lifeways then don’t matter.”

Gravelle emphasized that the impacts from the tunnels construction are not abstract or theoretical, telling Michigan Advance that these places are where parents go to teach their children ceremony on the water, uncles teach their families how to hunt and put food on the table and elders share stories so their community can understand who they are as a people. 

“To have those rights limited or overlooked or misunderstood is really undermining the impact that will be felt by generations,” Gravelle said. “Not only by myself, but by my niece, you know, by my children, by the generations that will exist long after I’m gone from this earth.”

In a statement, Sean McBrearty, the campaign coordinator for anti-Line 5 Oil & Water Don’t Mix coalition pointed to several of the environmental impacts included within the assessment. 

“The EIS confirms that the tunnel would result in permanent wetland loss and require excavation and removal of roughly 665,000 cubic yards of bedrock from beneath the Straits of Mackinac, the ecological heart of the Great Lakes system,” McBrearty said. “These impacts are not temporary, and they cannot be undone.”

While much of the focus on Line 5 has centered around the Straits of Mackinac, Gravelle noted that concerns about an oil spill stretch the length of the pipeline, which has leaked more than 30 times over its lifespan, spilling more than 1 million gallons of oil.

However, Gravelle and several other pipeline opponents emphasized that a permitting decision from the Army Corps of Engineers does not give Enbridge a green light to move forward with the project, as the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has yet to decide on a Clean Water Act permit for the project. The Sierra Club and Oil and Water Don’t Mix have already called on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to block the project from moving forward. 

“All eyes are really turning to Governor Whitmer,” Goodwin said. “She has two choices to either cave to the Trump administration’s agenda and their friends in the oil industry, or stand up for Michigan and protect the Great Lakes.”

Gov. Tony Evers vetoes legislation in April 2024 that would have eliminated work permits for 14- and 15-year-olds. A large child labor case against a Burger King franchise owner demonstrates the importance of the work permit requirement in educating employers and youth workers about the state's child labor regulations, says Amy Pechacek, the head of Wisconsin's Department of Workforce Development. (Governor's Facebook page photo)

A child labor investigation that uncovered more than 1,600 violations of Wisconsin law at more than 100 Burger King restaurants was probably the largest case of its kind in the state’s history, according to the head of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 

DWD has ordered Chicago-based Cave Enterprises to pay more than 600 Wisconsin teens back pay as well as damages totaling $237,436. The company owes the state an additional $828,000, according to DWD — $500 for every one of the 1,656 violations uncovered in an extensive audit of the company’s payroll and employment records.

The company has until Feb. 25 to pay the back wages and penalties, although it also has the option of challenging DWD’s actions in court. 

Cave Enterprises has not responded to requests for comment about DWD’s audit findings, which the department announced Friday.

State alleges child labor violations at more than 100 Wisconsin Burger Kings owned by one firm

Amy Pechacek, the department’s secretary-designee, said in an interview after the agency announced the results of its investigation that the case was the largest one DWD could document. 

“Since the records are somewhat limited in terms of going back several decades, we just chose to be safe and said this was the largest violation we have in modern history,” Pechacek said. 

Cave Enterprises received a formal letter notifying it of the investigation findings on Thursday, according to DWD. But in the months before, there were repeated communications between DWD auditors and management personnel for the company, Pechacek told the Wisconsin Examiner.

The investigation was triggered by a series of complaints DWD’s Equal Rights Division received in 2024, Pechacek said. The division’s responsibilities include enforcing Wisconsin’s child labor and wage laws. 

Pattern of company behavior

The complaints in 2024 prompted investigators to look back through department records. Investigators turned up 33 previous complaints in the years since 2020. Pechacek said those complaints were resolved individually.

The number of complaints, however, showed investigators a disturbing pattern in “how this employer interacts with its minor-age workforce,” Pechacek said. “And due to that, they then said, this warrants a very deep-dive, intensive audit about their practices as it relates to employing minors here in the state of Wisconsin.”

DWD has 25 auditors who review workforce practices in response to complaints, eight of them focusing on minors. 

“So this was a large undertaking,” Pechacek said of the Cave Enterprises review. “They poured their heart and soul into this, and we’re just really proud of that work and what this means in terms of making sure our youth can engage and work in a meaningful and safe way in our state.”

The audit showed that the problems weren’t confined to just a handful of the more than 100 Burger King locations that Cave owned between 2023 and 2025, the audit’s time span. There were violations found at 103 of the company’s stores, according to DWD. 

Work permits underscore child labor rules

In the letter to Cave detailing the audit findings, DWD reported that 593 14- and 15-year-olds started work without required work permits — 84% of the company’s employees in that age group, according to the agency. At a Green Bay Burger King, one teen started working at the age of 13, auditors reported — too young for that work under Wisconsin law.

In 2024, Republican majorities in both houses of the state Legislature passed bills that would have repealed Wisconsin’s work-permit requirement for 14- and 15-year-olds. Supporters of the repeal argued they amounted to a needless bureaucratic roadblock and discouraged young people from working. 

Democrats opposed the bill and Gov. Tony Evers vetoed it. Pechacek said cases like the audit of Cave Enterprises demonstrate the value of the work permit requirement. 

“Every time a permit is even requested for a minor child, there is an explanation of obligations that are sent to the employer as it relates to child labor laws,” Pechacek said. Those informational documents list Wisconsin’s wage and hour laws, the requirements for breaks and the restrictions on what machines minors can operate under state law. The parents, who must sign the work permit, get the same information.

“We want to be able to allow youth to participate in a safe manner that doesn’t impact or impair their ability to still go to school and still be children, but also help out our local economies and our businesses,” Pechacek said. “These duties of the employer and the rights of the minor-aged worker are continually enforced and communicated throughout the process.” 

The widespread lack of work permits at the Cave Burger Kings means that neither the employer nor the teenage workers would have received that communication at hiring. Despite that, each of the previous 33 complaints would have resulted “in another explanation of the law throughout the complaint process,” Pechacek said. “So there are many opportunities for this employer — and for every employer — to get it right.”

The audit also found 627 workers 17 or younger — 45% of the company’s minor employees — who worked longer than six hours without a required 30-minute meal break. 

“All minor employees under the age of 18 must have a 30-minute, duty-free break during shifts of six or more consecutive hours,” states the DWD audit report sent to Cave management. “Multiple shorter breaks totaling 30 minutes are not a lawful substitute for the required 30-minute break.”

Breaks that are less than 30 minutes must be paid under Wisconsin law, regardless of the worker’s age, the DWD report states. Unpaid breaks must be at least 30 minutes, with no duties during that time and with the employee free to leave the worksite.

“We found multiple instances of employees taking unpaid breaks of less than 30 minutes in length,” the DWD letter states — one of the reasons for back pay owed to teen workers. 

Large Wisconsin footprint

The Cave Enterprises website states the company currently owns 100 Wisconsin restaurants and that it has the largest number of Burger King franchises under a single owner in the country. The company also operates 77 Burger King franchises in seven other states. 

The company’s list of Wisconsin locations has 105 restaurants, but internet search results for three of them — two in Milwaukee and one in Waukesha — describe them as permanently closed. 

The Wisconsin Examiner’s review Friday of a job portal on the company website showed 379 openings at the company’s Wisconsin Burger King locations. 

Pechacek acknowledged that filling job openings has been a stiff challenge for employers for years.

“We know that youth are a very important part of our workforce, especially during worker shortages,” Pechacek said. “There is no excuse ever to violate labor laws — especially when it comes to protecting our youth, but for any worker.”

DWD has an outreach operation and can send personnel to help train employers about the ins and outs of state and federal child labor regulations. The department has videos available online along with other information in plain language, she said.

“We aren’t here just to be a compliance arm. We would rather have this conversation before any type of laws are violated and before anybody’s rights are infringed on,” Pechacek said.

“So there are many opportunities for education and compliance before forfeitures and penalties even come into play — or large-scale audits. And we are always available to have those conversations with any employer and any minor-aged child or parent who is unclear about what the rules are.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Milwaukee's Fire and Police Commission (FPC) holds a public hearing on facial recognition technology used by the Milwaukee Police Department. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A years-long debate over the use of facial recognition software by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) came to a head at a contentious Thursday meeting of the city’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC) attended by more than 60 local residents. Over the course of questioning, stretching late into the evening hours, commissioners learned from MPD leadership that the department had continued using facial recognition software, even as a draft policy to put guardrails on the technology was still being developed outside of the FPC’s control. 

By meeting’s end, FPC vice chairwoman Bree Spencer expressed a desire for the commission to consider finding some way to push for a pause to MPD’s use of facial recognition software, though the FPC itself did not take any immediate formal action. Less than 24 hours later, MPD Chief Jeffrey Norman announced that the department would ban the use of facial recognition technology, and discontinue its efforts to acquire permanent access to the technology. 

During the Thursday meeting, Norman and his staff were grilled by FPC commissioners after hours of impassioned public testimony. The sweltering meeting room was packed almost shoulder-to-shoulder, with every seat taken and people standing along the wall in spaces not already taken by the local news station’s bulky cameras. Many others waited in the hallway, as an overflow room had not been set up.

One by one, local residents expressed a variety of grievances about facial recognition. Some decried MPD’s prior use of software without disclosure to the public or FPC, while others expressed fears about how the technology could be used against Milwaukeeans by what many called an authoritarian federal government. 

Paul Smith, a member of the Oneida Nation who serves on Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission, was the first to speak. Smith described how his relatives had been among the first to come down from the Oneida reservation to Milwaukee seeking factory work. “We are also people who have to carry two IDs all the time,” said Smith. He suggested that facial recognition and other camera technologies are methods the government uses to track people it considers enemies. 

“I live in fear every day,” said Smith, describing how his heart rate accelerates when he drives out of Milwaukee County. Smith added that facial recognition technology is unreliable.  “My dad can use my phone because his face looks like mine,” he said.  “These cameras don’t work and they punish people, and there’s no presumption of innocence when you’re being watched all the time.”

Nadiyah Johnson, founder and CEO of the Milky Way Tech Hub, highlighted the notoriously high error rates facial recognition software has for people of color. Johnson said that federal tests have shown false positive rates as much as 10 to 100 times higher for Black people. “I’m sure that we all can understand why that would be a problem for the city of Milwaukee,” said Johnson. She added that “guardrails do not fix the core problem.” 

When surveillance infrastructure is created, Johnson said, the scope of who is targeted expands. She and other community members who spoke brought up Flock license plate reader cameras which, like facial recognition, are AI-powered and a top concern for many who attended Thursday night’s FPC meeting. Flock has attracted criticism for being used for vague or unlawful reasons by police, and for leaving some feeds exposed on the open internet. “This is not a future concern, this is already happening nationally,” said Johnson. “The public cannot meaningfully consent to systems we can not see, audit, or challenge.”

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, recounted her attempts to learn more about MPD’s use of facial recognition by filing open records requests. After waiting five months and threatening to sue, the ACLU was sent a response that the MPD does not track requests made for use of facial recognition in individual investigations. When the city’s IT department ran an email search, the term “facial recognition” appeared in 196,688 emails from 2020-2025. 

When the ACLU narrowed the request to 16 cases which MPD cited in presentations to city commissions, they found that “in a handful of those cases” which had been “hand picked” by MPD for those presentations, “the police reports did not mention [Facial Recognition Technology] at all,” Merkwae told the FPC. “In conversations with some defense attorneys, it appears that [Facial Recognition Technology] use was not turned over to the defense in discovery in some cases,” said Merkwae. “In cases where attorneys filed pre-trial motions to get insight into the notoriously racially biased [Facial Recognition Technology] algorithms, they hit a brick wall because that information is proprietary.” 

In its presentations to city officials, MPD had said that facial recognition helped identify suspects in cases including sexual assault and shooting investigations.

Much of the public testimony Thursday focused on the potential for surveillance technologies to harm democracy. Speakers focused on the immigration crackdown in Minnesota, where thousands of people have been arrested and two people killed by federal agents. Videos posted online show immigration agents taking pictures of protesters, legal observers and vehicles, using facial recognition technology to identify detainees, and taunting members of the public by saying their pictures were going to be uploaded to a database of  domestic terrorists. An immigrants’ rights group recently discovered what it describes as a watchlist of immigration attorneys created by ICE.

Taleavia Cole and her husband Caliph Muab-El have experienced police surveillance after protesting the killing of Cole’s brother Alvin. Several of Cole’s family members, their lawyers and dozens of others were placed on a list created by the Wauwatosa Police Department. The list, which also included a Wisconsin Examiner reporter, was shared with numerous state, local, and federal agencies and was also referred to by police as a “target list”.

Muab-El said Black and brown communities have been used as test subjects for surveillance and militarized policing. This is how he views MPD’s deal with the data company Biometrica, which has offered to trade 2.5 million jail and booking photos from Milwaukee for MPD to have access to facial recognition software. 

“We’re talking about people,” said Muab-El. “And when we’re talking about people, we need to focus on the things that are most important for people to thrive in circumstances like this. Everything in our society and our community has been gutted from us almost. The resources are very scarce already…To institute something like this that will exacerbate the circumstances of our already falling and broken-in-pieces communities is definitely an attack on justice on our people.” 

He stressed that “anybody can be misidentified at any time,” and that the city will not be able to prevent federal agencies from accessing the data it collects using facial recognition software. “No one is safe,” said Muab-El. “Bystanders who believe in justice and the cause of people, these people are going to become more vulnerable. These attacks are going to become more prevalent…They’re going to become more intense.”

Cole recounted her own experiences of being placed on the target list, and her belief that even her family’s phone calls were being monitored. “So whose side are you on is the real question, because someday it could be your family member,” she said. “And next thing you know, they want to know what you know, what you’re saying, what you’re doing. Like you’re a criminal, like you’re nobody.” 

Testimony went on for several hours, pausing for a presentation on facial recognition technology from the New York University Law School Policing Project. The presenters said that while facial recognition can assist law enforcement investigations, the technology also carries serious constitutional and civil risks. Whether a city or town uses facial recognition software should be a decision made by the entire community, the presenters said, adding that having guardrails to prevent abuse of the technology is important. 

Late in the meeting, after many people had left, Chief Norman and MPD staff provided an update and took questions from the FPC. Norman said a draft policy his department’s use of facial recognition technology had not yet been finalized, and that he was “slow walking” the process to get as much input as possible. He stressed that facial recognition software is used to develop leads, and cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing probable cause for an arrest. The department had also begun logging uses of facial recognition, but those records only captured uses since 2024. 

Under sharp questioning from FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung the commission learned that MPD had continued using facial recognition technology even as the drafting of a policy was ongoing. Some sort of of a draft policy — described by Fung as a “draft of a draft of a draft” — appeared to have been viewed by at least some members of the city’s common council, but not the FPC. 

Although several commissioners expressed concerns about facial recognition technology and MPD’s deal with Biometrica, the FPC’s power to do anything about it is limited, since the Republican-controlled Legislature had worked to eliminate the FPC’s policy-making powers for the Milwaukee police. The debate over the use of facial recognition software in Milwaukee had gone on since last year, with members of the public speaking against its adoption consistently and in great numbers. Spencer, the FPC’s vice-chairwoman, said that the public shouldn’t have to attend more meetings to say the same things, and that her own trust in the department on the issue had eroded. 

In a statement issued Friday, Heather Hough, Norman’s chief of staff, said the police department understands “the public concern, particularly in light of national circumstances…Despite our belief that this is useful technology…we recognize that public trust is far more valuable.” Hough’s statement continued, “therefore, effective immediately, Chief (Jeffrey) Norman will issue a department directive banning the use of facial recognition for all members.” 

Hough said that MPD will continue work on creating a policy, but will not use facial recognition technology until that process is complete. While MPD appeared to be responding to the public outcry, the Milwaukee Police Association (the department’s union) said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned and disappointed” by the decision to restrict facial recognition technology. The police association was also irked by recent restrictions on vehicle pursuits saying that both policy shifts do not “eliminate crime or danger,” but instead “risks shifting that danger onto Milwaukee residents and the officers sworn to protect them.” 

The union’s statement described facial recognition as “an investigative tool that can assist detectives in generating leads in violent crime cases. It does not replace traditional police work or serve as a basis for arrest without further investigation. When used responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, this technology can help identify violent offenders, support victims, and improve case clearance rates.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) – A bill that would change the oversight of Wisconsin’s major event funds to reduce the number of approvals needed will be discussed in the Assembly on Tuesday.

(The Center Square) - A bipartisan Assembly bill that would contribute funding to WisconsinEye to focus on live video of the Wisconsin Legislature, committees and state government operations is expected to be taken up in front of the full Assembly…

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s lieutenant governor says she misspoke and is clarifying a statement she made to CBS 58 that she would support Immigration and Enforcement agents making arrests in the state.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• An eighth billion-dollar data center project is in the early stages of development, this one in southwestern Wisconsin, the Grant County Economic Development Corp. confirmed in an interview Monday.

• An undisclosed company is seeking 400 to 500 acres in the town of Cassville, the town of Cassville chair told Wisconsin Watch. Not much else is known at this point.

• The project comes as public scrutiny of data center projects intensifies and the Public Service Commission considers how to structure rates for large utility consumers like data centers.

A site in the Driftless Area in southwest Wisconsin is being eyed for a possible $1 billion data center, just as the state considers who should pay to provide the unprecedented amount of electricity such projects need.

It would be the eighth major data center known to have been proposed in Wisconsin, though one of those, near Madison, has been dropped.

Ron Brisbois, executive director of the Grant County Economic Development Corp., said Feb. 9 he expects to learn by spring whether Grant County remains in consideration by a company scouting sites for what it said would be a $1 billion data center. 

“They’re casting a pretty wide net, Grant County just happens to be part of that net,” Brisbois told Wisconsin Watch. “It’s very, very preliminary.” 

The revelation contrasts with how other Wisconsin officials have handled data center proposals. 

A Wisconsin Watch investigation found that local officials in some of the seven communities where hyperscale data centers have been proposed worked on the proposals for months before making any announcement to the public. In four of the communities, officials signed confidential nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), pledging to keep details of the plans private.

Brisbois said he has not been asked to sign a data center NDA. He said he met with a company, whom he would not identify, in November before announcing at an open meeting in December that a $1 billion data center was being floated in Grant County. That mention was reported by local news media.

Brisbois told Wisconsin Watch he felt that his board of directors deserved to know about the initial inquiries, but that he wouldn’t release details that might jeopardize the project.

“I don’t know who the end user would be, all I’m being told is it’s one of the big five or six businesses,” Brisbois said. “I’ve asked not to be told that information. I don’t need that information to do my job.”

Besides storing and processing data, data centers are vital to advancing the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Major companies building data centers in Wisconsin include Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, in Beaver Dam, which used an NDA; and Microsoft in Mount Pleasant and Vantage Data Centers in Port Washington, to serve OpenAI and Oracle, which did not.

“I like to be transparent with my board of directors,” Brisbois said. “But did I give a lot of details? No. I thought it was an appropriate time that we were being evaluated, at least initially. Did I need to do that? No. But it’s how I do my job.”

Doug Schauff, the town chair in Cassville, in southwest Grant County, told Wisconsin Watch he attended a meeting about the data center about a week ago. He wouldn’t reveal other details, other than the company involved is seeking 400 or 500 acres in the town.

“Everything is so vague right now,” Schauff said. “They had not contacted land owners. … They wouldn’t give us any definite figures (on power usage), which would be Greek to us anyway.”

The seven major data center projects detailed in the Jan. 26 Wisconsin Watch report were valued at more than $57 billion, including one in the Madison suburb of DeForest. DeForest city officials did not sign an NDA, but kept details of a $12 billion data center proposal quiet for months before announcing it to the public. Amid opposition from residents, the city dropped the project Jan. 27. 

Data center proposals are pending in Kenosha, Menomonie and Janesville, all of which signed NDAs. 

The Janesville City Council has scheduled five informational sessions on an $8 billion data center proposed there. The first is Feb. 9, when the council is also scheduled to consider a proposal from data center opponents that would require a referendum on such large-scale projects.

Republican state lawmakers on Feb. 6 introduced a bill that would prohibit local governments from signing data center NDAs.

Meanwhile, attention is turning to how the state will determine who will pay to provide the massive amounts of electricity that data centers need to operate.

On Feb. 10, the Public Service Commission is scheduled to hold a hearing, which will be livestreamed, on establishing a payment structure for the generation and distribution of electricity needed by “very large customers,” such as data centers.  

A key question is whether data centers will be required to pay entirely, or whether some of those costs will be spread among other residential and other general ratepayers.

Bert Garvin, an executive vice president of We Energies, has said the rate structure proposed by the utility to the PSC will protect general ratepayers. “While your bills may go up for other cost-of-service reasons, we can assure all our customers your bills aren’t going up because of” data centers, he said at a public forum last week.

At the same forum, Tom Content, executive director of the consumer advocate Citizens Utility Board, said “the devil’s in the details” on how the PSC protects ratepayers. 

“I think it’s really important that these wealthy tech companies have to put up the money and not have to achieve compliance with that some other way,” he said.

Content also alluded to stranded assets — power plants that are shut down while ratepayers are still paying off their debt. He said the PSC must impose “exit fees” stringent enough so that data centers remain financially responsible for new multibillion-dollar power plants, should the AI phenomenon become a “bubble” and data centers shut down early.

Wisconsin Watch reported in December that residential and business utility customers in Wisconsin owe $1 billion for stranded assets — the debt taken on to build and upgrade power plants that have been shut down or are scheduled to be shut down soon.

One challenge in trying to protect ratepayers for the costs of electricity needed for data centers is that the PSC has never faced a surge in electricity demand of this scale. We Energies alone plans to spend $19 billion over five years to meet what is expected to be a doubling of its demand for electricity, largely from the two Milwaukee-area data centers, in Port Washington and Mount Pleasant. 

Nationally, the procedures that regulators use are “not designed for the current level and pace of load growth,” one energy consultant wrote in a December report. 

“As a result, the estimated cost to serve new customers can quickly become outdated and inaccurate,” potentially leading to costs being shifted to other customers, the report said.

The Republican-controlled Assembly on Jan. 20 passed a bill to require that the PSC ensure “that no costs associated with the construction or extension of electric infrastructure that primarily serves a data center are allocated to or recovered from any other customer.” 

No action has been scheduled in the GOP-controlled state Senate. 

Opponents have criticized a “poison pill” provision in the bill they say would severely limit the ability to use renewable energy to power data centers.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has said he likely would not sign the bill.

As Wisconsin weighs who should pay, another possible billion-dollar data center emerges 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: 3 minutes

A Dane County judge on Monday rejected the city of Madison’s claim that absentee voting’s characterization in state law as a “privilege” precludes damages against the city for disenfranchising 193 voters and ruled that Madison can face potential financial liability for the error.

In rejecting motions by the city and other defendants to dismiss the case, Dane County Circuit Court Judge David Conway said that a state law describing absentee voting as a privilege does not mean absentee ballots receive less constitutional protection than votes cast in person.

“That right to vote,” Conway wrote, “would be a hollow protection if it did not also include the right to have one’s vote counted.”

Conway also rejected former Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl’s legal argument that there is a meaningful legal difference between intentionally not counting votes and mistakenly failing to count them due to human error. He held that state law allows for people to seek damages against election officials who “negligently deprive citizens of the right to vote.”

“When an election official fails to count a valid absentee ballot, whether by negligence, recklessness, or malice, he or she deprives the absentee voter of that constitutional right,” he wrote. 

The city and Witzel-Behl’s legal argument, made in response to a lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of 193 Madison voters disenfranchised in the 2024 election, drew sharp rebukes from legal experts, Gov. Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which filed its very first friend-of-the-court brief opposing the rationale. 

Conway dismissed the Madison clerk’s office from the case after arguments that it could not be sued separately from the city, but allowed the case to proceed against the city, Witzel-Behl and Deputy Clerk Jim Verbick. The voters are represented by a liberal election law firm, Law Forward. 

“At the dawn of another election season, the message is clear: The right to vote protects Wisconsinites whether they vote in-person or absentee,” Law Forward staff attorney Scott Thompson told Votebeat. “We are pleased the court agreed with our arguments and that this case will proceed.”

Matt O’Neill, the lawyer representing Witzel-Behl, declined to comment.

Madison spokesperson Dylan Brogan said the city is reviewing the decision and considering its next steps. Brogan stressed that the city “has a long history of promoting and protecting absentee voting and that policy has not changed,” but said monetary damages for unintentional errors would mean money and resources “would be diverted to pay for this human error.”

Madison mayor says ‘nonsensical’ lawsuit could weaken elections

In an interview with Votebeat last week, Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said she didn’t like the state law calling absentee voting a privilege, not a right. But she said that critics should direct their concerns at the Legislature, rather than at the city. 

Rhodes-Conway said the city’s argument “literally repeat(s) what’s in state law.” Legal experts have disputed that characterization, saying the city advanced a novel interpretation of a long-standing statute. Rhodes-Conway said she wasn’t sure those critiques were relevant.

“It shouldn’t be in the law,” she said. “And the state Legislature should take action to correct that and better protect voting in this state.”

The 1985 state law describes absentee voting as a privilege exercised outside the safeguards of the polling place. Another provision requires absentee voters to comply with laws regulating the practice for their votes to count. The law has been cited in lawsuits seeking to restrict absentee voting, but it had never before been used to shield election officials from liability for failing to count valid ballots.

In his Monday ruling, Conway dismissed the city’s interpretation of the law without questioning the statute itself.

“Just because the absentee voting process is a privilege does not mean that those who legally utilize it do not exercise their constitutional right to vote,” he said.

Rhodes-Conway said that, despite using that legal argument in court, the city has consistently promoted absentee voting and will continue to do so.

Rhodes-Conway criticized the lawsuit as a whole, saying that the solution for the city disenfranchising 193 voters in the 2024 presidential election “is not to charge the city of Madison millions of dollars because our clerk’s office made a mistake.” 

“That’s not achieving anything. It’s not making elections better,” she continued. “It’s simply taking money that could be invested in basic services and in election protection and election services, and paying it to the plaintiffs. It’s just nonsensical to me.”

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

This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Court says Madison can be liable for disenfranchising voters 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: 3 minutes

Wisconsin Watch, one of the nation’s most successful nonprofit news organizations, will come under new leadership March 2 when Andy Pennington succeeds retiring CEO George Stanley.

Pennington has been regional president for Adams Multimedia, overseeing 10 Wisconsin news outlets and 150 employees. Prior to this, he was president and director of strategy for the Anchorage Daily News. In 2018, a new owner bought the bankrupt Daily News and recruited Pennington to build a thriving, sustainable digital-first news enterprise. 

In 2020, the Anchorage Daily News won the Pulitzer Prize Gold Medal for Public Service for its investigation into lawlessness ravaging Alaskan communities. Its longtime editor, David Hulen, said Pennington was a huge supporter of the newsroom’s mission, which was all about public service to the people of Alaska. 

Wisconsin Watch Board Chair, Kathy Bissen, says “Andy has exceptional expertise on the business side of journalism, combined with a passion for the critical value of local public service journalism. The Board is enthusiastic about Andy’s ability to continue growing Wisconsin Watch’s impact statewide.”

A native of Wisconsin, Pennington decided after seven years in Anchorage to return home, where he has overseen print and digital publications for the Janesville Gazette, Beloit Daily News, Watertown Daily Times, Daily Jefferson County Union, the Hometown Group, Antigo Daily Journal and Marinette Eagle Herald. 

In all, he has spent more than 20 years leading local news organizations and building revenue models that support strong independent journalism. 

 “I am excited about leading Wisconsin Watch,” Pennington said. “The work aligns closely with my experience and what I care about most: expanding access to trusted information, strengthening local journalism across Wisconsin communities, building sustainable financial models, and supporting talented journalists and staff.”

Pennington has a passion, Stanley said, for collaboration, community engagement and serving the most important needs of readers, all of which make him a great fit for leading a statewide news organization with the public service mission of “using journalism to make the communities of Wisconsin strong, informed and connected.”

“Andy has the right blend of knowledge, creativity, enthusiasm and appreciation for our mission that’s needed in the next leader of Wisconsin Watch,” Stanley said. “We’re building on a strong record of partnering with others and sharing important, impactful reporting, work begun by Dee and Andy Hall.” 

The Halls launched Wisconsin Watch in 2009 as the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism to produce important, labor-intensive investigative reports that had declined in Wisconsin and nationwide as the business model that long supported local news collapsed and newsrooms shrank. Wisconsin Watch continues to produce impactful special reports while expanding in recent years to fill growing local news voids across the state. 

George Stanley joined Wisconsin Watch in 2023 after the founders retired. Under Stanley, Wisconsin Watch made great strides in its mission to use journalism to make Wisconsin communities strong, informed and connected.

In 2024, Wisconsin Watch merged with Milwaukee’s Neighborhood News Service, which serves under-served Milwaukee neighborhoods. In 2025, Wisconsin Watch opened a satellite operation in Green Bay to better serve the Fox Valley.

Prior to coming to Wisconsin Watch, Stanley led the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newsroom as managing editor and editor from 1997 until his retirement from that position in January 2023. Over that time, the Journal Sentinel received virtually every major national journalism honor, including 10 Pulitzer Prize finalists.

“George is nationally recognized for his journalism and leadership expertise,” says Bissen. “I can’t imagine anyone who could have stepped in and built upon the founding work of Andy and Dee as successfully as George. To retire knowing that you made such an important impact statewide is amazing.” 

Wisconsin Watch, a 501(c)(3) organization, is supported by its members and Wisconsin philanthropies including the Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation, the Ascendium Education Group, the Kingsbury Family Fund, the Greater Milwaukee and Greater Green Bay Community Foundations, the Journal Foundation, The Brico Fund and Bader Philanthropies.  It is also supported nationally by the American Journalism Project, Emerson Collective, the Joyce Foundation, Arnold Ventures, the Ford Foundation, the Reva and David Logan Foundation and the Jampart Charitable Trust, among others. 

Andy Pennington to succeed George Stanley as Wisconsin Watch CEO is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission typically operates far from the spotlight, quietly regulating the utilities most residents only notice when the lights go out. But a wave of proposed energy-intensive data centers in Wisconsin is fueling wider public interest in the agency’s work.

“These are the three most important people in state government that nobody has ever heard of,” said Tom Content, executive director of the state Citizens Utility Board. “They are setting the state’s policy for its energy future.”

With six new data centers planned or under construction in Wisconsin, the commission must now decide how — or whether — Wisconsinites should pay to keep them running. 

Balancing utility and ratepayer interests

The agency — more than a century old and among the first of its kind in the country — oversees Wisconsin’s utilities, both public and investor-owned. It balances two sometimes conflicting goals: the financial stability of utilities, without which the state’s grid could fall into disrepair, and fair treatment of utility customers. The commission’s roughly $39 million budget for the 2027 fiscal year primarily comes from fees paid by utilities, which pass those costs on to their customers.

The PSC isn’t always the decision maker on energy policy. State lawmakers can write rules for utilities for the PSC to enforce. But when state law leaves room for interpretation, the PSC is left to decide.

Most utilities under the PSC’s authority are municipal water and sewer services — the Milwaukee Water Works, for instance.

But many of the PSC’s highest-stakes decisions center on investor-owned utilities. Private gas and electrical utilities don’t compete for customers. As “regulated monopolies,” each is the sole provider in its portion of the state. The PSC acts as the regulator, approving rate hikes, bond issues and major construction projects.

The PSC also approves utilities’ “return on equity” — a profit margin factored into ratepayers’ bills. In Wisconsin, that rate typically runs around 10%.

Powering the data center boom

The PSC lacks a direct say in data center construction. But because data centers demand vast amounts of electricity, it decides how to distribute the costs of new infrastructure needed to power data centers.

The commission approved the construction of We Energies natural gas plants in Oak Creek in Milwaukee County and the town of Paris in Kenosha County in May 2025.

Both plants are part of We Energies’ more than $2 billion plan to expand its natural gas generation capacity to meet surging electricity demand largely driven by data centers. Planned data centers in Mount Pleasant and Port Washington alone are projected to expand service area electricity demand by 40% between 2026 and 2030.

Wisconsin has no precedent for handling such a surge in demand for electricity.

Now the commission is considering a We Energies proposal for a new payment structure for “very large customers” that could set the standard for allocating the costs of building and operating power plants needed to meet data center demands. 

“Our proposed data center rate is considered by many people to be the gold standard, and one that could be a model for what others across the country use,” We Energies spokesperson Brendan Conway wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch.

The Sierra Club is among several advocacy groups involved in the We Energies case as an “intervenor,” meaning it can question the utility and provide expert witnesses. 

“What the PSC requires them to do will likely influence future decisions on large customer rates, which is why it’s so important that we get this right this time around,” said Cassie Steiner, a senior campaign coordinator with the Sierra Club’s Wisconsin chapter. 

The PSC is also weighing an Alliant Energy proposal to establish a payment structure for Meta’s planned data center in Beaver Dam. Some critics argue Alliant Energy should propose a framework covering all data center customers rather than a one-off agreement.

At the heart of the debate: Should Wisconsin’s residential and industrial customers cover any of the costs of powering new data centers?

To answer that question, the PSC holds proceedings in which utilities and intervenors trade questions and answers about the risks and rewards of a utility’s proposal. The commission collects up to $542,000 from utilities to help intervenors pay attorneys and expert witnesses; utilities cover their own expenses. Utility customers ultimately pay for both sides through their electricity bills.

Not all intervenors are critics. Microsoft and data center developer Vantage have intervened in the We Energies case. The proposed payment structure reflects negotiations between the three companies that took place before We Energies filed its case before the PSC. 

Utilities generally work closely with data center developers. Four of Wisconsin’s investor-owned utilities, including We Energies’ parent company, are founding members of the state’s Data Center Coalition, which says it aims “to ensure our state’s significant growth in data center development translates into sustainable economic benefits.” A data center boom is good business for utilities because they earn a return on any new infrastructure they build.

High-demand customers like Microsoft can also intervene and provide key data to inform PSC decisions.

In the We Energies case, details about Microsoft’s projected energy use for its southeast Wisconsin facilities are protected by an order that limits access to the PSC and other parties in the case. 

The PSC needs the data to judge whether proposed arrangements — like granting data centers 100 megawatts of free electricity if they exceed the supply agreed to in their contracts — properly balance the interests of utilities and the public. Microsoft successfully moved to shield that information from public disclosure on the grounds that it could give competitors a window into their operations.

“Load forecasts are sensitive because they give competitors information about our business outlook and investment decisions,” a Microsoft spokesperson told Wisconsin Watch.

Alliant’s one-off payment structure case is subject to even greater access restrictions: Entire pages of the proposed contract between Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power and Light and Meta are redacted. 

As the PSC considers the two cases, customers are still being billed in the same manner as  large industrial customers — a payment structure not built for such high electricity demands. Critics of the We Energies proposal agree some alternative is needed.

“They would be better off recognizing that there are some potential harms to other customers even with the proposal they have out there,” said Brett Korte, a staff attorney with the advocacy group Clean Wisconsin.

In written testimony, We Energies Vice President and Treasurer Tony Reese wrote that the new payment structure must leave non-data center customers “no worse off” than under the status quo.

Parties that disagree with a PSC outcome can appeal in court. One such challenge reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2005, when the justices upheld the commission’s approval of a coal plant expansion in Oak Creek. 

The commissioners

Unlike state Supreme Court justices, PSC commissioners are not elected. Governors appoint them to staggered six-year terms, subject to Senate confirmation. Gov. Tony Evers appointed all three current commissioners. Chairwoman Summer Strand has served on the commission since 2023; commissioners Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins took their seats in 2024.

The commissioners are supported by a full-time staff of researchers, auditors, attorneys, accountants and a range of other specialists to inform their decisions. Nieto and Hawkins previously worked on the PSC’s staff.

Former commissioners occasionally land jobs with the utilities they once regulated. Six months after stepping down from the PSC in February 2024, commissioner Rebecca Valcq took a job with Alliant Energy — the parent company of Wisconsin Power and Light, which provides electricity for much of central and southern Wisconsin. She became the company’s president in 2025.

Moves like Valcq’s have drawn concerns from watchdogs about utilities’ influence over the agency built to regulate them. Wisconsin law bars ex-commissioners from testifying before the PSC for a year after leaving. State Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, wants to extend that window, proposing a three-year “cooling off period” before ex-commissioners can take executive roles with utilities, enforced by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. 

“Historically, good-government reforms that rein in the influence of special interests tend to draw bipartisan support,” Nedweski wrote in an email — though she said she hasn’t yet secured any Democratic co-sponsors.

What’s next? 

The PSC is set to hold its next hearing in the We Energies case on Tuesday, with room for residents and interest groups to weigh in.

Hanging over the finer details of the proposal is a larger question: What risks will ratepayers bear if the data center boom later goes bust?

“Of course no company is too big to fail,” Reese wrote last month. “But in the very unlikely event that a customer as massive and financially stable as Microsoft becomes unable to meet its financial obligations,” his company’s proposal promises “adequate protection” to the utility and  customers.

“Making sure our customers aren’t stuck paying data centers’ costs is at the foundation of our customer protection plan,” We Energies spokesman Conway told Wisconsin Watch.

Considering that Wisconsin ratepayers still owe nearly $1 billion on “stranded assets” — power plants that have been shut down due to obsolescence — critics of the data center proposals are skeptical. 

Will the utility’s proposed guardrails hold up in a worst case scenario? That’s now up to the PSC.

Data center boom spotlights Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission. Here’s what the agency does. 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: 8 minutes

SUPREME COSTS: This is a follow-up to a series of articles about how Wisconsin chooses its judges. Read the rest of the series here.

Click here to read highlights from the story

• There have been two Appeals Court races since 2020 that cost more than $1 million, both in District 2, which covers counties in southeast Wisconsin outside of Milwaukee.

• This year was shaping up to be another costly race, but one of the candidates filed improper paperwork and was kicked off the ballot.

• The increased spending by outside groups and political parties is part of the same trend that has fueled record spending on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals may be the least visible layer of the state judiciary.

Almost all of its work is behind the scenes. It doesn’t conduct the dramatic trials that can grab headlines in circuit courts. Its rulings in high-stakes cases are usually appealed to the state Supreme Court — if those cases don’t bypass the appellate court altogether. 

But Wisconsin’s intermediate court does have one thing in common with the high court: increasingly expensive campaigns.

In recent years, spending on two Court of Appeals campaigns in the Waukesha-based District 2 exceeded the million-dollar mark — far short of the national record $144.5 million spent on the 2025 Supreme Court race, yet almost certainly unprecedented for Wisconsin appellate elections.

Now another seat is open in that same district, with the upcoming retirement of Presiding Judge Lisa Neubauer, the lone liberal among the district’s four jurists.

The race to replace Neubauer effectively ended Jan. 13, when the Wisconsin Elections Commission disqualified candidate Christine Hansen, an administrative law judge for the state Department of Corrections. Barring a write-in campaign, attorney Anthony LoCoco — known for his work with the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and Institute for Reforming Government — will be unopposed in the officially nonpartisan April 7 election. 

Hansen’s husband notarized her declaration of candidacy, which is against state law. On the recommendation of its staff, the bipartisan commission voted 5-1 to block her from the ballot. 

Before Hansen was knocked out of the race, LoCoco was gearing up for a contest that could have reached the previous spending heights of 2021 and 2022. He raised $209,603 by Dec. 31, his campaign finance report shows.

That’s four times as much as fellow conservative Maria Lazar raised by this point in her successful 2022 bid for another seat in the same district — and even more than Lazar raised last year in her current campaign for Supreme Court.

Of the 10 candidates in five contested Court of Appeals elections in the last decade, only Neubauer posted a bigger total on a January report: $231,264 for a 2020 reelection race that followed her narrow loss for Supreme Court in 2019.

In comparison, Hansen raised $50,000, all from her own pocket.

Lazar is facing liberal District 4 Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in the Supreme Court race to succeed conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who is not seeking reelection. If Lazar wins, conservatives would retain their three-justice minority on the seven-member high court — but Democratic Gov. Tony Evers could name a liberal to replace Lazar in District 2, maintaining its current 3-1 conservative-liberal split.

That district has become Wisconsin’s top appellate court battleground. Statewide, 44 of 53 appellate races were uncontested from 2008 through 2025, along with all three this spring. But five of the nine contested races were in District 2, and total spending in four of those contests topped half a million dollars each, including the two million-dollar campaigns. Spending was under $300,000 in the other five races, including one in which the two candidates spent less than $25,000 total.

Like the Supreme Court, the rising cost of some appellate court campaigns appears to be part of a nationwide trend, and for some of the same reasons: growing involvement of political parties and special interests, driven by hot-button issues and national polarization and fueled by Wisconsin’s narrow ideological divide and lax campaign finance laws.

But it also reflects a dynamic in which each of the four Court of Appeals districts has evolved into liberal or conservative turf, triggering a challenge whenever a governor fills a vacancy with a judge from the other side.

Quiet but powerful

The Court of Appeals didn’t exist for Wisconsin’s first 130 years. Until 1978, all appeals from trial courts went directly to the state Supreme Court, unlike the three-level federal system. Eight sparsely populated states still don’t have appellate courts.

Now, after a 1977 state constitutional amendment created the Court of Appeals, 16 appeals judges are elected for six-year terms, on a staggered schedule. Five judges sit in Madison-based District 4 — which covers 24 central and western counties and originally heard virtually all challenges to state laws — with four each in District 1 (consisting of Milwaukee County only) and District 2 (covering the other 12 counties in southeastern and east-central Wisconsin) and just three in the 35-county northern District 3, based in Wausau.

Those judges work in three-member panels for about three-quarters of their cases. Single judges handle the least complex appeals, such as small claims, misdemeanors and violations of traffic laws or municipal ordinances.

Contributing to the court’s low profile, appellate judges hear oral arguments in only about 1% of cases. More often, the judges focus on attorneys’ written briefs and lower court trial transcripts.

But in its quiet way, the Court of Appeals holds the final word on nearly all everyday cases. In 2024, civil litigants and criminal defendants filed 2,529 appeals in the appellate courts. They appealed 561 of the appellate judges’ decisions to the Supreme Court. However, the high court agreed to hear just 17 appeals, typically only those posing significant constitutional questions. In another six cases, the justices allowed the parties to bypass the appellate court altogether. That means more than 99% of cases appealed from circuit courts ended at the Court of Appeals.

With so few cases going to the high court, the stakes are rising in appellate court elections, former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske said.

A bench divided

Running in nonpartisan elections, many Court of Appeals candidates were traditionally not viewed as liberal or conservative. But that has changed in recent years, mirroring the highly public divisions on the Supreme Court.

Of the 16 current Court of Appeals judges, eight were appointed to the appellate or circuit bench by Democratic governors, ran for the Supreme Court as liberals or ran for or won partisan office as Democrats. Another six were either former GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s appointees, ran for the appeals court as conservatives or held partisan office as Republicans.

Retiring Chief Judge Maxine White and Deputy Chief Judge Joe Donald were appointed to Milwaukee County Circuit Court by former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson and to the District 2 bench by Evers, while District 4 Judge Jennifer Nashold held appointed offices under both Walker and former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. However, all are considered liberals. That means  all judges in Districts 1 and 4 are liberals, while conservatives hold all District 3 seats. Only District 2 is ideologically split.

That distribution reflects the political composition of the districts, former Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly said. All District 2 counties voted for Republicans in the 2024 presidential and 2022 gubernatorial elections, but liberals carried Kenosha and Winnebago counties in the last two Supreme Court races, plus Racine County in 2025.

While the divide among District 2 judges isn’t new, it didn’t initially draw political attention. After Doyle appointed Neubauer to fill a vacancy in 2008, ideology didn’t play a major role in her campaign for a full term later that year. She won that $641,259 contest against attorney William Gleisner, then was unopposed for reelection in 2014. 

It was only after Neubauer ran a liberal Supreme Court campaign against conservative District 2 colleague Brian Hagedorn in 2019 that she became a target of the right. She fended off a 2020 challenge from conservative Waukesha County Judge Paul Bugenhagen Jr. in a $589,037 campaign.

Challenges to another Democratic governor’s appointees soon followed. In 2021, Shelley Grogan, a Bradley aide and Muskego municipal judge, attacked her opponent, then-incumbent Jeff Davis, as a liberal appointed by Evers in 2019 — even though Davis had strong Republican ties and was endorsed by conservative Justice Annette Ziegler and former conservative justices Patience Roggensack and David Prosser. 

Grogan — who was backed by Walker, Bradley, Kelly and Republican billionaires Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein and Diane Hendricks — defeated Davis in a $1.56 million campaign. Although the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign doesn’t track appellate court campaign spending the way it does Supreme Court races, the 2021 District 2 contest was likely the state’s most expensive. 

In 2022, Lazar took down then-incumbent Lori Kornblum, who had been appointed by Evers earlier that year, in a $1.05 million contest.  

Conversely, former Democratic Assembly candidate Sara Geenen scored a 2023 victory in a $299,717 District 1 campaign to unseat then-incumbent William Brash, a 2015 Walker appointee who had been unopposed for a full term in 2017. Geenen won by 37 percentage points, the widest margin of victory in the last nine contested races.

Originally positioning himself to challenge Neubauer, LoCoco’s campaign website leaves no doubt where he stands. On his homepage, he labels himself “a proven conservative fighter who will keep our communities safe and the bureaucracy out of our lives.” Elsewhere, he rails against “activist judges who have … given in to woke ideology,” and he blames “progressive politics” for “putting our kids and families in danger.”

LoCoco is endorsed by an array of Republican politicians — including Walker and Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, now running for attorney general — and conservative jurists, including Bradley, Ziegler, Kelly, Lazar, Grogan and District 2 Judge Mark Gundrum. LoCoco’s top donors include former GOP Senate candidate Eric Hovde and the Uihleins.

LoCoco’s approach differs from that of most judicial candidates, who traditionally have tried to play down their ideological leanings, regardless of who has endorsed or donated to them, particularly in the lower courts. Only in recent years have Supreme Court candidates publicly stated their views on controversial issues like abortion, public employee collective bargaining rights and legislative redistricting. Campaign websites for Lazar and Taylor portray them as independent and impartial.

Following the money

However, state and local arms of the two major parties have been increasingly involved in recent Court of Appeals races, although their spending started years later and at a much lower level than in Supreme Court races. 

District 2 accounted for all three of the races with Republican cash: $34,054 to Grogan, $19,140 to Bugenhagen and $10,856 to Lazar. It was also home to three of the five contests with Democratic money: $189,272 to Davis, $66,777 to Kornblum and $14,146 to Neubauer. Democrats gave another $14,126 combined to Geenen and losing 2021 District 3 candidate Rick Cveykus.

All told, the parties have spent $348,372 on appellate races since 2020, with Democrats outspending Republicans more than 4 to 1. The combined $223,326 of party spending in the 2021 Grogan-Davis race was the most for any Court of Appeals campaign.   

District 2 was also the focus of another relatively new development in appellate elections: independent spending by special interests that advertise separately from candidates’ campaigns, though at much lower levels than in Supreme Court races. Lazar was backed by $250,000 in outside spending by Fair Courts America — funded by Richard Uihlein to back conservative judicial candidates — and Grogan benefited from $56,173 spent by the Republican State Leadership Committee, a national organization. 

The Uihlein group spent more than Lazar’s own campaign, the only time that has happened in a Court of Appeals race. Together, the $306,173 in independent expenditures by conservative groups was more than 27 times the combined total of $11,134 that liberal groups spent in support of Davis, Neubauer and former Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard, who won a District 4 seat in 2010.    

Nationally, million-dollar campaigns for intermediate appellate courts remain uncommon,  according to Douglas Keith, deputy director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. The Brennan Center compiles campaign spending figures for state Supreme Court races but not lower court contests.

However, Wisconsin’s top two Court of Appeals campaigns weren’t the country’s most expensive. In 2004, a Georgia candidate reportedly spent more than $3 million of his own money on a losing bid for an appellate judgeship. And 2023 spending by four candidates seeking two Pennsylvania appellate court seats totaled more than $2.6 million.

As with Supreme Court campaigns, wealthy individuals can donate heavily to influence lower court contests, Keith noted. Before billionaire Elon Musk spent $55.9 million on Wisconsin’s 2025 high court election, he gave a total of $3 million to two political action committees active in multiple 2024 Texas judicial races.  

For now, most appellate court campaigns are “still very much under the radar,” Keith said. But that could change “as we’re seeing greater recognition of just how important these courts are,” he added.

A Wisconsin Appeals Court election was shaping up to break records until a candidate got kicked off the ballot 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.

With cleaner water, improved habitat and sustained stocking, Bruch said the outlook is strong statewide — and increasingly visible to the public.

The post Sturgeon spearing season nears as Wisconsin’s ancient fish continue comeback appeared first on WPR.

New federal guidelines recommend Americans include full-fat dairy in their diets. While recent studies suggest full-fat milk may not harm heart health, scientists say more research is needed.

The post Full-fat dairy is back. But nutrition experts say it might not be so simple. appeared first on WPR.

More people participating in the citizen science project Globe At Night could help fill gaps in what astronomers know about the extent of skyglow.

The post Help scientists document Midwest light pollution by looking at Orion appeared first on WPR.

UW-Madison has a knack for churning out Olympic hockey players. Four current and two former Badgers are in Milan representing Team USA in Women's Ice Hockey — including hockey legend Hilary Knight.

The post Team USA Women’s Ice Hockey has big Wisconsin representation appeared first on WPR.

This week, Madison again plays host to Superior Days — the annual gathering of elected officials, business leaders, students and civic activists from northwest Wisconsin advocating for the region to state lawmakers and agency officials.

The post Superior Days delegation advocates for northwest Wisconsin at Capitol this week appeared first on WPR.