When this legislative session began, Wisconsin Senate leaders made the unusual decision not to create a committee dedicated to election policy for the first time in nearly two decades. That choice has had a measurable consequence: The Senate has taken up far fewer election bills than the Assembly, and several measures that cleared the lower chamber are now stalled with no clear path forward.
Of the 19 election bills that Votebeat has tracked this legislative session, 18 have gotten at least a public committee hearing in the Assembly, compared with nine in the Senate. Fourteen of those bills passed the Assembly, compared with six in the Senate.
Even in a session when the Senate has generally moved more slowly than the Assembly on many issues — as of Feb. 25, the Assembly had passed 439 bills since the start of the current two-year session, while the Senate passed 276 — the disparity is especially stark on elections.
Both chambers’ election activity is down compared to last session. With a dedicated election committee in the Senate, about 30 election bills received a committee hearing, compared with about 45 in the Assembly. Republicans have controlled both chambers for more than a decade.
“The lack of the dedicated committee has definitely changed things,” said Sen. Mark Spreitzer, a Democratic member of the local government and government operations committees. Without a clear Republican point person on election policy in the Senate, he said, the chamber is allowing the Assembly to drive most of the legislative action.
Some of the bills that have moved through the Assembly but haven’t passed the Senate include proposals to expand early voting hours and to bring the state in line with a 2022 federal law regarding the timing of casting electoral votes and certifying election results in presidential elections, designed to prevent the kind of post-election chaos that President Donald Trump and his allies sowed after the 2020 election.
Two other bills — one that would require ballots to include plain-language explanations of proposed constitutional amendments and another requiring early in-person voting hours in every municipality — have gotten a public hearing in the Senate but have since stalled.
Clerks have told Votebeat that some of the stalled bills would significantly improve their efficiency — including an omnibus proposal to create a system tracking voters adjudicated incompetent and also send voters text notifications on the status of their absentee ballots, said Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson, a Democrat. That proposal passed through the Assembly in November, but hasn’t been heard in the Senate.
Given the absence of a dedicated Senate election committee, Tollefson added, the Assembly has been doing the heavy lifting. But even with ready-made bills, the Senate does not appear to be eager to pass election legislation.
In every legislative session since 2009, there has been a Senate committee formally tasked with covering election legislation. Committee chairs typically serve as the go-to experts on their panels’ subject areas. They consult with lobbying groups, schedule public hearings and set up committee votes — giving them the power to advance or stall legislation.
But when election bills are scattered across multiple committees, there’s no clear point person in the Senate to guide them through the process.
In the absence of a dedicated election committee in this session, several committee leaders declined to explain whether or when the stalled election bills might move. And some voting groups say it has made it harder to know who to consult with in the chamber to discuss election legislation.
At a WisPolitics event in Madison on Feb. 12, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said that the absence of a Senate committee “doesn’t make it hard to pass election bills.” He added that there are “definitely avenues where election bills can run in the Senate,” including the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Labor and Economic Development and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government.
LeMahieu, a Republican, didn’t respond to Votebeat’s request for comment. Sen. Dan Feyen, the chair of the government operations committee, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. Sen. Cory Tomczyk, who chairs the local government committee, also didn’t respond to a request for comment.
But even some of their fellow Republicans are seeing the effects. For example, Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara is the author of two of the bills languishing in the Senate, which would require and fund a certain number of early in-person voting hours in every municipality. Those reforms, she said, are “crucial to restoring confidence in our election process.”
She said in the Assembly, municipalities and clerks are working on a few details before the bills receive a final Senate vote, though both proposals passed the Assembly in November. The proposal to require the in-person hours got a Senate hearing in late January but has seen no activity since, while the bill to fund it hasn’t gotten a hearing at all.
There could still be a late flurry of committee activity. On Feb. 27, the Senate government operations committee approved the proposal to bring the state in line with new federal laws regulating presidential elections. But the next presidential race is two years away, and most of the bills that would affect all elections — not just presidential ones — remain stalled. Another bill to require the Wisconsin Elections Commission to hear complaints against itself was scheduled for a March 3 hearing.
With the legislative session entering its final stretch, though, the stalled bills face increasingly long odds. The last general floor session period of the biennium ends on March 19, and the Assembly is effectively finished for the session. That means the Senate only has a few weeks left to consider election bills that already cleared the lower chamber, and if the Senate modifies any of them, the Assembly is unlikely to return to approve the changes.
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.
Without a dedicated election committee, Wisconsin Senate lags on election policy 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.
None of the billion-dollar-plus data centers planned for Wisconsin are yet online, but the nationwide, artificial-intelligence-fueled market is already spurring economic growth in the state.
Wisconsin business leaders say no comprehensive accounting has been done. But just three Wisconsin companies have already amassed more than $1 billion in data center-related business:
Many companies don’t publicly report details on data center business they do, so it’s impossible to tally total economic impact in Wisconsin. But there are other examples.
Trane Technologies is manufacturing cooling systems for data centers in La Crosse, where it was founded in 1913, and says data centers are a strong part of its business. In November 2023, Excellerate opened a 385,000-square-foot plant in Little Chute, primarily to manufacture “modular electrical buildings” for data centers. Maysteel, a Washington County manufacturer, opened a data center hub in November 2024 and announced in February it is expanding the operation.
The sheer demand to outfit data centers has meant that some business has trickled down from larger companies to smaller ones.
Modular Power & Data has 90 employees in Dane County and suburban Milwaukee to manufacture electrical distribution products. Chief Operating Officer Erik Thompson told Wisconsin Watch that Modular did $10 million of data center business in 2025 and expects to more than double that in 2026.
That work is “transforming a very small company into what I believe will be a very large Wisconsin manufacturer,” Thompson said. “Without this growth, we’d always be much smaller.”
Because no hyperscale data centers are scheduled to begin operating in Wisconsin until later this year, their ultimate economic impact remains unknown.
Nationally, data centers are known for spurring construction work. That includes companies such as Brownsville-based Michels Corp., a lead contractor on the $15 billion data center under construction in Port Washington, and Waukesha-based Boldt Co. But those jobs are often temporary.
“The standard data center development model — speedy dealmaking and opaque negotiations — delivers short-term construction jobs and revenue, but little durable local economic upside,” the Washington, D.C.- based Brookings think tank concluded in February.
In Wisconsin, data center expenditures are projected to raise the state’s gross domestic product from $354 million in 2024 to $881 million in 2029, according to University of Virginia economist João-Pedro Ferreira, author of a study done for the Joyce Foundation. The data center workforce is expected to triple from 360 to 1,143 jobs, but constitute only 0.09% of the overall labor market.
“The impacts might seem a lot, but they are not,” Ferreira said.
At least $46 billion in hyperscale data centers are under construction or under consideration in Wisconsin. Besides Port Washington, $20 billion worth of data centers are under construction and planned in Mount Pleasant, and a $1 billion facility is being built in Beaver Dam. Proposals are pending in Janesville, Kenosha and Menomonie.
That’s as concerns about impacts on land, water and electricity spur loud opposition to data centers in Wisconsin. On Facebook alone, more than 24,000 people have joined groups to fight hyperscale centers that are proposed or under construction in the state.
But Wisconsin businesses see more growth from AI. In November, a foundation connected with Waukesha County-based Pieper Electric announced a $2 million donation to expand Waukesha County Technical College’s Applied AI Lab.
Dale Kooyenga, CEO of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and a former Republican state lawmaker, said skills being developed for data center construction have value after the facilities are built.
“These men and women building these data centers aren’t building just buildings, they’re building the world’s largest computers,” he said.
Kooyenga also pushed back on claims that AI will be bad for the economy.
“The concept that robots and technology are out to get your jobs has been a concept in America since 1900. That’s not a new fear,” he said. “But the fact is, is that there will be a different-looking economy and different opportunities.”
AI’s growth is affecting workers unevenly across industries.
It’s reducing employment in the most AI-exposed industries, such as computer systems design, and it’s especially hitting younger workers, according to a new Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas analysis.
But wages in those sectors have continued to grow as AI tools are benefiting veteran workers — those who have gained knowledge from experience.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Data centers fuel $1 billion in Wisconsin business growth, but some question long-term impact is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
The Milwaukee Common Council is moving forward with local legislation to prepare for any potential escalation of federal immigration enforcement in the city
The post Milwaukee Common Council moving forward with ‘ICE Out Milwaukee’ measures appeared first on WPR.
Republican state lawmakers partially approved a funding request from the Wisconsin Department of Instruction Tuesday, a move that comes about a month after the agency was scrutinized for spending $368,885 on a meeting at a Wisconsin Dells resort.
The post GOP lawmakers approve reduced funding for Department of Public Instruction appeared first on WPR.
Opponents of a large livestock farm’s plans to expand in Pierce County blasted the state’s approval during a contested case hearing Tuesday, voicing concerns the expansion would raise risks of groundwater contamination.
The post Opponents blast CAFO’s plan to expand in Pierce County in contested case hearing appeared first on WPR.
From breakfast oatmeal to brandy old fashioneds at night, maple syrup plays a starring role. Several communities around the state — including Phelps — celebrate the ingredient with festivals.
The post Maple syrup has a special place rural Wisconsin communities appeared first on WPR.
Cold-smoking is a meat preservation method used by many Northern cultures around the world for thousands of years.
The post Cold-smoking sausage tradition continues in Marathon County appeared first on WPR.
A new Republican proposal would require schools to adopt a “bell-to-bell” ban on cell phones by July 1, 2027.
The post Wisconsin could expand newly-implemented school cell phone ban appeared first on WPR.
Gov. Tony Evers has ordered Wisconsin lawmakers to return for a special session next month to consider a constitutional amendment aimed at ending partisan gerrymandering in state legislative districts.
The post Evers calls for special session to ban partisan gerrymandering appeared first on WPR.
Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) announces legislation that would allow people whose incomes don't make them eligible for Medicaid to buy coverage through BadgerCare Plus. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)
With rising costs for health insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act, Democrats in the Legislature are proposing another tactic to help more people afford health coverage.
Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) announced legislation Tuesday that would enable members of the public buy into the state’s BadgerCare Plus health insurance plan.
BadgerCare Plus is Wisconsin’s name for Medicaid and is available to families and individuals with household incomes up to the federal poverty guideline — $15,960 for a single person and $33,000 for a family of three.
Johnson’s bill would expand BadgerCare’s coverage by creating a “public option” — allowing families with higher incomes to pay for the health plan out of pocket. Democrats in Wisconsin have offered similar proposals in the past that have not advanced. At the same time, the idea has been catching on in some other states, Stateline reports, although not all of them are connected to Medicaid.
“When this law is passed, Wisconsinites will have an affordable option instead of the sky-high premiums and massive deductibles currently available from private insurance carriers,” Johnson said at a news conference in the Capitol Tuesday morning. “Public health care keeps prices down because it is not beholden to insurance company stockholders or bonuses for executives, and those savings will get passed on to Wisconsinites.”
“This will dramatically increase, for a large number of people, the number of affordable insurance options at a time when there is a crisis in affordability generally, and health care is one of the top reasons why,” said Robert Kraig, executive director of the advocacy group Wisconsin Citizens Action.
Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said the bill would provide an affordable health care alternative for people who had relied on plans purchased through the federal marketplace, HealthCare.gov, that was created by the Affordable Care Act. Enhanced subsidies that had lowered the cost of policies bought through the marketplace expired at the end of 2025.
On HealthCare.gov policies, “average premiums more than doubled when Republicans in Congress allowed those enhanced subsidies to expire at the end of last year,” Larson said. The subsidies were eliminated for families with incomes of more than 400% of the federal poverty guideline — around $86,000 for a couple.
For a 55-year-old couple at that income level, the premiums on the second-tier of plans sold at HealthCare.gov would increase “from $601 a month to $2,311 per month this year,” Larson said — or about $20,000 a year.
The legislation would “move us closer to the point where we need to get, where health care is a right for all and anyone can get the care that they deserve without a speck of fear that they are going to go broke just so that they can survive,” Larson said. “The fact that that is an open question right now is shameful for our state. It’s shameful for our country.”
The bill also would allow small businesses with fewer than 50 employees to enroll in BadgerCare plans. Madison chef and restaurateur Evan Danells said some of his employees had relied on ACA plans but were also confronted with increased premiums that many would have trouble being able to afford. Danells is a member of Main Street Alliance, a small business group that has organized support for the ACA among other policies.
“One of the coolest things about having a public option is it allows people to go in and get affordable preventative care,” Danells said. As a result, “they don’t become wards of the state health care system when they’re all of a sudden broke and the problem has snowballed.”
Indiana Hauser of La Crosse said she works two part-time jobs, neither of which provides health insurance. Last year she was able to purchase health coverage for $12 a month with the enhanced subsidies. “This year it went up to $400 a month for worse coverage,” said Hauser, who is active with the advocacy group Citizens Action of Wisconsin.
Hauser said she has life-long health complications due to a traumatic brain injury when she was a teenager. Nevertheless, she said, she has had to go without insurance this year because she cannot afford it.
An affordable community clinic helps her, she added, but many communities don’t have such resources. While rationing her medications and visits to the doctor, Hauser worries that she’s “one small accident away from a financial crisis,” she said.
“Across the state, there are people and families making life or death decisions, and it doesn’t have to be that way,” Hauser said. “The BadgerCare public option could change my life and the lives of people all across our state.”
Larson and Kraig said that due to changes made by the federal tax- and spending-cut bill that President Donald Trump signed in July 2025, the likely premiums people would pay for BadgerCare under the Public Option haven’t yet been calculated. A 2025 analysis by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau projected premiums could cost about $971 a month, but also noted that a variety of factors could increase or reduce that cost.
According to the Feb. 17, 2025, fiscal bureau memo, “It is possible that the purchase option population could be, on average, less costly, which could make the premium lower” compared with the medical needs of BadgerCare patients who qualify for Medicaid. “If, on the other hand, the purchase option attracts older individuals or individuals with more significant health conditions, the premiums may be similar to, or even higher than, the average cost of BadgerCare Plus coverage.”
With the legislation being introduced after the Assembly has already wrapped up its floor period for 2026, the proposal seems unlikely to advance this year.
“I would say it’s always a good idea to introduce good bills,” Johnson said when asked about the timing of the announcement. Gov. Tony Evers, she noted, earlier Tuesday called for a special session to pass a resolution against gerrymandering the state’s legislative maps.
“We have five days on the calendar in March. We have five days in the calendar in April, I think it’s three days in May,” Johnson said. “There’s no reason that we cannot take up this legislation.”
Then she corrected herself. “Well, there is one reason, and it’s because the speaker chooses not to call us into session,” Johnson said.
“A lot of these bills are sitting in Google Drives,” added Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee). “All this session, we have bills ready to go. It’s a matter of will they be heard? It’s a matter of what is the appetite to have the debate about them? We know that this is something that Wisconsinites care about. They want us to stay here. They want us to get this done.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
A woman looks at health insurance options on Nevada’s health exchange. This year Nevada became the third state to add a public option plan to its marketplace. (Photo by Shalina Chatlani/ Stateline)
Nearly two decades ago, progressives fought to include a so-called public option — a government-run health plan — in the broad health care overhaul known as Obamacare. That effort failed, defeated by heavy lobbying from the insurance industry and opponents who decried it as a government takeover of health care.
But the final Affordable Care Act, which President Barack Obama signed in 2010, didn’t bar states from adding a public option plan to their state-run insurance marketplaces. In recent years, several states have done so — and others might follow as rising health care costs, the expiration of federal subsidies and Medicaid cuts make coverage less affordable and available for millions of Americans.
This year Nevada became the third state, after Colorado in 2023 and Washington in 2021, to add a public option plan to its marketplace. So far, 10,762 people have signed up, according to figures provided by the Nevada Health Authority.
The goal of such efforts, said Christine Monahan, an assistant research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, is to provide an alternative to profit-driven private insurance companies, “and to give people an option that doesn’t have that kind of capitalistic incentive in place.”
The results so far have been mixed, however. It’s still too early to say whether the states’ public option plans, which are public-private partnerships rather than purely government-run, will significantly lower costs for consumers or pay enough to providers to ensure their continued participation.
Meanwhile, other states’ efforts to create public options have stalled. In 2024, Minnesota delayed the creation of a public option amid concerns about the lack of a dedicated funding source. Efforts in Maine and New Mexico also have faltered.
“It’s really too early to see what the right combination of design of a public option is,” said Andrew Shermeyer, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the University of Minnesota and the author of a study on the Colorado plan. “We don’t know what works and what doesn’t. So that’s a real challenge for policy makers.”
As public-private partnerships, the public option plans in Washington, Colorado and Nevada rely on the participation of private insurers as well as health care providers. And they have to compete for customers with the purely private plans offered on the exchanges.
“We all know health insurance is extremely, extremely unaffordable and expensive. So the challenge behind it is you have to find something that’s attractive to consumers,” Shermeyer said. “You have to find something that insurers will comply with, and you have to find something that providers will feel adequately compensated for.”
States have used a combination of carrots and sticks to make sure those things happen.
In Washington state, private insurers that sell plans on the state marketplace can choose to offer the public option plan, which is called Cascade Select, but they don’t have to. To keep costs down and premiums low, the state mandates that participating insurers pay providers within a certain range.
In the first two years that Cascade Select plans were available, many providers were unwilling to participate. So in 2023, Washington began requiring that hospitals contract with at least one public option plan. The change has expanded the availability of Cascade Select plans — as of last year, they were available in every county — and boosted enrollment: Last year, about 30% of Washingtonians who purchased coverage on the marketplace enrolled in a Cascade Select plan, up from 1% in 2021.
We don't know what works and what doesn't. So that's a real challenge for policy makers.
– Andrew Shermeyer, researcher at University of Minnesota
Laura Kate Zaichkin, director of market competition and affordability at the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, said that figure is up to 40% this year. In 2021, Zaichkin said, Cascade Select premiums were a bit higher than for many other plans on the exchange. This year, they are about $100 per month cheaper, she said.
Zaichkin said the public option is more important than ever, because of the recent expiration of federal tax credits that had dramatically lowered the costs of purchasing marketplace coverage, as well as looming Medicaid cuts.
“I would say that it is a really important lever,” she said. “It always has been, and it is even more so right now, when individual market coverage is under threat and when customers cannot afford their premiums.”
Unlike in Washington, every private insurer that participates in Colorado’s marketplace must offer versions of the state’s public option plan, which is called the Colorado Option, in every county where it sells its own plans. Colorado Option plans all offer the same benefits across insurance carriers, so companies compete based on premiums, their networks of providers and customer service.
To keep premiums relatively low, participating health insurers are required to negotiate with providers to keep costs down. If state regulators think premiums are getting too high, they can take charge of the negotiations and mandate that hospitals or providers lower their reimbursement rates.
About 14% of marketplace enrollees chose the Colorado Option in 2023 when the plan launched. In 2025, the public option accounted for nearly half of the roughly 282,500 enrollees on the exchange, the state said.
But Julie Lonborg, senior vice president and chief of staff of the Colorado Hospital Association, said limiting payments to providers could end up reducing services and access to care for patients.
“Overall, enrollment continues to grow in the program, so it is having some success from the purchasers,” Lonborg said in an email. “But it is built on a fundamentally flawed policy of rate setting on hospitals that will result in consequences. Hospitals have felt pressured into rate reductions at a time when threats to health care funding are escalating.”
One of the arguments for a public option is that it introduces competition that pushes down premiums for all marketplace enrollees, no matter what plan they choose. But in his study of the Colorado marketplace, researcher Shermeyer said the Colorado Option only lowered premiums for people who were receiving the federal subsidies; unsubsidized enrollees saw higher prices compared with people living in other states.
Kyla Hoskins, a deputy commissioner who oversees the Colorado Option program at the state’s division of insurance, disputes that finding. Hoskins cited other research that found premiums across the state, even for private plans, declined by more than $100 after the Colorado Option was introduced.
She said more people are buying the Colorado Option plan because it’s more affordable and because of its simplicity.
“Your deductibles, your maximum out-of-pocket costs, the amount you pay when you see your primary care [provider] or fill a prescription — that cost sharing is the same no matter which health insurance company is offering the plan,” Hoskins said.
“And I think that clarity that standardization provides, has been a value to consumers,” Hoskins said.
Like in Washington, insurers in Nevada don’t have to offer a public option plan, called Battle Born State Plans (after the state’s nickname). However, the state has given them a strong incentive to do so by tying it to Medicaid.
Around 75% of Nevada’s Medicaid enrollees receive coverage through managed care. In order to remain eligible for Medicaid managed care contracts, insurers have to submit a bid to offer a public option plan that meets certain requirements.
Those Medicaid contracts are worth “millions if not billions to carriers,” said Stacie Weeks, director of the Nevada Health Authority, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program and its insurance marketplace. “Essentially, this new contractual arrangement leverages the state’s purchasing power with its Medicaid carriers to get a better deal for consumers in the private market.”
To ensure the participation of providers, Nevada’s law requires them to be in-network with at least one public option plan to remain eligible for Medicaid, public employee and workers’ compensation payments, according to the Century Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank. Instead of regulating reimbursement rates, Nevada hopes to keep premiums low by mandating that they be at least 5% below those of private plans.
Nevertheless, enrollment has been slower than expected.
State officials predicted that around 35,000 people would sign up in the first enrollment period. The actual number is less than a third of that. And so far, only three out of the state’s eight health insurance companies on the state’s exchange have picked up the plan.
“We expect to see this number grow over time as public awareness increases and as Nevadans continue to seek quality coverage options that help reduce their monthly costs, regardless of their income,” Weeks said. She added that many Nevadans automatically reenrolled in their previous health plans, and may not know about the public option yet.
Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
In Minneapolis, a masked border patrol agent stands in front of protestors in January as people gather near the scene of a fatal shooting by federal agents. The Milwaukee Police Department has issued a policy banning Milwaukee police officers from wearing masks to conceal their identity. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)
The Milwaukee Police Department has explicitly banned officers from using masks or other facial coverings to hide their identities, Milwaukee Common Council members announced on Monday.
“We met with the police chief, delivered the message of what our constituents were demanding, and he acted. This is about responsiveness, accountability and trust,” Alderperson JoCasta Zamarripa said in a statement that quoted four members of the council, including council president José Pérez.
The statement said the new policy is aligned with the council’s “ICE Out” public safety plan.
Last month, officials announced a package of local ordinance proposals that aim to prepare the city for a possible surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The package included a requirement for all ICE agents to be unmasked when interacting with the public in Milwaukee.
The department updated the uniform requirements in its standard operating procedure, effective Monday.
The Milwaukee Police Department procedure states that facial coverings and masks are allowed in certain circumstances. These include but are not limited to the following: protection to prevent exposure to hazardous materials, protection on assignments to prevent the spread of diseases or viruses and protection from cold or extreme weather during assignments that require a staff member to be outdoors for periods of time.
“Note: Facial coverings and masks shall not be used for the purpose of concealing identity,” the procedure states.
In a statement to the Examiner, the police department expressed gratitude to elected officials, the Milwaukee Police Association and the Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, who worked in collaboration to make the modification to the operating procedure, the unsigned statement said, adding, “We are always better together.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on March 3, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers said Tuesday after classified briefings on Capitol Hill they don’t intend to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to continue the war in Iran, though some said sending in ground troops would be a step too far.
Democrats argued that military and administration officials shared no clear objectives or exit strategy for the war, making debate and a vote in Congress more important.
“When there is no set plan … you end up with an endless war, you end up with mission creep, you end up with all kinds of problems,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “What’s really needed is a public debate so the American people, who already are very much against this, can see what we have seen.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during an afternoon press conference before the briefing that he doesn’t believe Congress needs to declare or authorize the war.
“No, I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and the operations that are currently underway there,” he said. “As you know, there’s a lot of controversy around, questions around the War Powers Act. But I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests by ensuring that he’s protecting Americans and American bases and installations in that region, as well as those of our allies.”
Lawmakers received closed-door briefings from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe.
The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a War Powers Resolution co-sponsored by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul that would direct the administration “to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.”
The House will vote later this week, likely Thursday, on a similar proposal from Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said that effort doesn’t have the support to take effect.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said as he was walking out of the afternoon briefing that the Trump administration will not rule out boots on the ground.
Wicker said he doesn’t believe Congress would need to authorize U.S. troops in Iran, though he declined to answer a question about why he thinks the president holds the authority for a ground war not approved by lawmakers.
A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that while Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, that authority “has been heavily debated.”
“The Supreme Court has observed that only Congress has the power to declare war, but the implications of this exclusive assignment are not well-settled,” the report says. “In particular, the relationship between Congress’s power to declare war and the President’s war powers granted under Article II of the Constitution is the subject of significant disagreement.”
Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he doesn’t “think the American people want to see troops on the ground. I don’t think that’s the case. And although they left open that possibility, it seems not to be something they’re emphasizing.”
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley said he believes Congress would need to authorize U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, something he’s unlikely to support.
“I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where I would,” he said.
Hawley said the classified briefing left the impression the Trump administration’s war in Iran will continue for some time.
“I think there’ll be a lot more to come, because one of the things I took away from this is, this is a massive operation and rapidly changing,” he said.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said it “was an important briefing that we had today and it is a situation that is clearly evolving rapidly.”
North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven declined to answer a question about whether he would support Trump sending U.S. troops into Iran.
“Well, again, that’s an option, and if and when it would occur, we could deal with it at that point,” he said. “But I think at this point, there’s no indication of that.”
Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin said that Hegseth is “not going to limit any options to the president” when asked about the possibility of U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.
Mullin described the role Congress plays in authorizing the administration’s offensive in Iran as “debatable.”
“We’re not going to take away the authority of the president of the United States to be able to be the commander-in-chief. … We don’t need 535 commanders,” Mullin said.
Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, said the level of interceptor stockpiles is a “big concern.”
“We do not have an unlimited supply and the Iranians do have the ability to make a lot of Shahed drones, ballistic missiles, medium-range, short-range. And they’ve got a huge stockpile,” Kelly said. “So at some point, we’re probably already in this, this becomes a math problem. And how can we resupply air defense munitions? Where are they going to come from? How does that affect other theaters?”
The Trump administration pulling from the Indo-Pacific Command, for example, Kelly said, would leave troops in that region of the world “more vulnerable.”
“We don’t have an unlimited supply. They’re shooting a lot of stuff,” he said. “Certainly, the number has gone down somewhat over time. But the math on this currently seems to be an issue.”
Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the administration has yet to ask Congress to provide additional funding for the war.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., exited the briefing saying he “never felt better about how this ends.”
Graham said he spoke with Arab leaders by phone earlier in the day and “they’re going to get in the fight in a more direct way.”
Graham also spoke directly to the cameras, in case Trump was watching, he said, to encourage the president to join Israel in bombing Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.
“Not only take the mothership of Iran down, also take the proxy of Hezbollah. Settle the score,” Graham said.
Johnson said Trump took advantage of “a narrow and unique opportunity” to attack Iran over the weekend, and that he was “well within his constitutional authority to do what he has done.”
“We had counsel from the (Department of Justice) here tonight, who said very well, very clearly — fell just short of citing the specific case law — but explained that this has been the tradition for decades.”
Johnson said the U.S. joint war with Israel in Iran has been “very effective thus far” and described the proposed War Powers Resolution as “dangerous.”
The U.S. mission in Iran “needs to be completed,” he said. “We don’t need Congress getting in the way of that.”
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said she is a “no for now” on the Wars Powers Resolution vote later this week.
“But if this thing goes beyond a few weeks, I’m going to have a lot more concerns,” Mace said, adding that boots on the ground “would be a very different conversation.”
“That’s not where we are today. That’s not what I heard in the briefing,” Mace said, declining to provide more details from the classified meeting. “I feel very good and very confident about where we are roughly just over 100 hours into the strikes in this conflict.”
U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, speaks as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee March 3, 2026. Tillis is among the lawmakers who have criticized Noem's handling of immigration enforcement. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Republicans on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee mounted unusually blunt criticisms of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a tense five-hour hearing Tuesday, with North Carolina’s Thom Tillis threatening to obstruct the chamber’s business if Noem did not answer questions from his office about immigration enforcement.
Tillis even revisited a book written by Noem in which she famously detailed shooting a pet dog as well as a goat, comparing her actions in that instance with drawing too-hasty conclusions in the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by immigration agents in Minneapolis.
The oversight hearing was Noem’s first appearance on Capitol Hill since the months-long immigration enforcement surge in Minneapolis, during which agents of her department killed the two citizens and the surge was later scaled back amidst a national uproar.
Tillis, a Republican who is retiring rather than seeking reelection this year, focused his critique on Noem’s handling of immigration, while other GOP members raised separate concerns. At times, he raised his voice.
“We expect exceptional leadership and you’ve demonstrated anything but that,” Tillis said. “What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership. What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turn out are American citizens.”
He castigated Noem for not admitting her mistake in labeling Renee Good, a poet and mother of three, and Alex Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse, as domestic terrorists. Good and Pretti both died in January from gunshots fired by federal immigration agents.
Tillis called for Noem’s resignation, and threatened that if she did not answer multiple questions submitted by his office, he would hold up en bloc nominations that come to the floor and deny quorum in Senate committees. Tillis’ absence from committee markups could grind those panels’ work to a halt, pausing nominations and party line bills.
Democrats on the panel questioned Noem about the Minneapolis operation, racial profiling by immigration officers that has led to the arrests of U.S. citizens, and whether immigration agents will be at polling locations in the midterm elections.
Noem largely stood by her decisions, and, when she was grilled by senators about the aggressive tactics by her immigration agent, she pivoted to the families behind her, known as angel families, who have had loved ones killed by an immigrant in the country without legal authorization.
“These poor angel families behind me will never have their children again, that’s one of my motivations every day,” Noem said.
Republicans John Kennedy of Louisiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri quizzed Noem on a $220 million advertising contract and the slow response from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for reimbursements and disaster assistance.
Tillis did not ask Noem any questions. Instead, for his full 10 minutes allocated for questions, he said he was giving her a “performance review,” during which he expressed multiple frustrations.
He criticized her handling of the operation in Minnesota.
“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like, under investigation, is going to prove that Miss Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back,” Tillis said.
After Pretti’s death, President Donald Trump instructed Tom Homan, the White House border czar who reports directly to the president and operates outside of DHS’ chain of command, to take over operations in Minneapolis.
Tillis told Noem that he read her book, in which she details how she shot and killed a 14-month-old dog named Cricket for bad behavior. She also revealed she killed a goat for similar reasons.
“You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time and training, and then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it’s a leadership lesson about tough choices,” Tillis said.
He also took issue with the goat.
“If you don’t castrate a goat, they behave badly,” he said.
Research indicates that neutering a goat can lead to lower testosterone levels and mellow out an aggressive goat.
“My point is, those are bad decisions made in the heat of the moment, not unlike what happened up in Minneapolis,” he said, referring to how quick Noem was to label Pretti and Good as domestic terrorists.
Tillis pointed to how a policy Noem started at FEMA, in which she must personally approve any contract that is more than $100,000, has led to delay in his state that is still reeling from Hurricane Helene in 2024.
“This is what incompetent FEMA leadership looks like,” he said. “People are hurting in western North Carolina from the most significant storm they’ve ever experienced.”
Tillis said Noem had “failed at FEMA” and that he believes she is violating the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that he said “expressly prohibits the secretary of Homeland Security from restricting or diverting FEMA resources from the agency’s mission.”
Hawley also brought up an issue with FEMA.
He said following multiple deadly tornadoes in his state, FEMA was helping fund debris removal. Local officials have estimated roughly 10,000 homes qualify for the removal aid, but “some of the conditions that have been placed on the funds by FEMA mean that only (100) or 200 homes out of those 10,000 can actually get access to FEMA debris removal funds.”
Noem said she would work with his office to address that issue.
Kennedy questioned Noem about her decision to award a no-bid contract for her ad campaign that costs $220 million. A ProPublica investigation found that Noem awarded the contract to the husband of former DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
“Look, we all have friends who are qualified, I’m not quibbling with that,” Kennedy said. “It troubles me, … a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money when we’re scratching for every penny and we’re fighting over rescission packages, I just can’t agree with.”
Noem said she was not involved in approving the contract.
Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar slammed Noem for the aggressive immigration enforcement operation in her state.
“Two of my constituents, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed,” she said. “They should be alive today.”
Klobuchar asked Noem how many federal immigration officers are still in Minneapolis. The Trump administration sent more than 2,000 agents, dwarfing the city’s local police force that stands at roughly 600 officers.
Noem said about 650 immigration agents are still in the city.
Klobuchar told Noem that she spoke to the parents of Pretti.
“When I spoke to Alex’s parents, they told me that you calling him a domestic terrorist… (was) one of the most hurtful things they could ever imagine was said by you about their son,” Klobuchar said.
She asked Noem if she wanted to apologize to Pretti’s parents for calling him a domestic terrorist.
“I did not call him a domestic terrorist, I said it appeared to be an incident of domestic terrorism,” Noem said.
Tuesday was day 17 of a partial shutdown of DHS. Senate Democrats forced the shutdown after the shootings of Good and Pretti.
The department is also now dealing with additional cybersecurity and counterterrorism risks after President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran.
Though Congress has not passed a fiscal 2026 funding bill for DHS, the department has a separate funding stream, from the tax cuts and spending package Republicans passed last year, to continue immigration enforcement. Nearly all of the department is considered essential, so its employees are continuing to work, some without pay.
In the days following the Trump administration’s decision to launch an attack on Iran, senators pressed Noem on what security preparations the agency is taking amid the shutdown.
Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa said he was concerned about potential terrorism due to the war in Iran. He asked Noem how she was vetting immigrants and intercepting potential acts of terrorism.
Noem blamed the Biden administration for concerns of terrorism and said the agency was re-vetting all refugees and Afghan allies who fled to the U.S. after the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“We are re-vetting some of the individuals and some of the programs that we may have concerns about, looking at social media, also going through those interviews that are necessary for some of our programs that the Biden administration abused and perverted under their time,” Noem said.
Republican of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Noem if she thought the threat level to the U.S. was up or down when it came to terrorism from Iran.
Noem said it was up.
Graham has been vocal in his push for the ousting of the current Iranian government.
“We’re engaged in military action against the mothership of terrorism, Iran, which I hope will sink pretty soon,” Graham said.
Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, the top Republican on the appropriations panel that funds DHS, asked Noem what the implications of her agency being shut down are.
Britt raised concern about the shooting in Austin, Texas, over the weekend that is being investigated as a possible act of terrorism.
“We’re continuing to do that work and will every single day, but we need funding to make sure that all of our law enforcement agencies have the tools they (need) to bring them to justice,” Noem said.
Ahead of November’s midterm elections, Democrats have raised concerns the administration would send immigration officers to polling locations.
Noem said Tuesday that elections were up to the states to run, but was evasive when asked to rule out sending DHS agents to monitor polling places.
Sen. Chris Coons asked Noem if she would issue a directive telling ICE agents to not be at election sites.
Noem didn’t answer the Delaware Democrat’s question but asked, “Do you plan on illegal aliens voting in our elections?”
It’s already illegal for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election and has only rarely happened.
Trump is pushing for Congress to pass a law to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.
An aerial view of the Pentagon, May 12, 2021. (Department of Defense photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase)
The U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday named four of the six U.S. soldiers killed by an Iranian drone strike, the first U.S. casualties of the war with Iran that President Donald Trump launched over the weekend.
Army Reserve soldiers Capt. Cody A. Khork, 35, of Winter Haven, Florida; Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, 42, of Bellevue, Nebraska; Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor, 39, of White Bear Lake, Minnesota; and Sgt. Declan J. Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa, died March 1, a Pentagon statement said.
All were assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command in Des Moines. They were killed during a March 1 drone attack on a commercial port in Kuwait, a U.S. ally.
The Defense Department has not released the names of the two other soldiers killed in the strike. The incident remains under investigation, the statement said.
The Pentagon did not mention Iran, but said the soldiers were supporting Operation Epic Fury, the administration’s name for the operation.
Trump and Cabinet officials have struggled since Saturday to articulate a cohesive rationale for the strikes, which U.S. forces conducted with Israel.
Trump said Tuesday he “forced Israel’s hand” to launch the joint attack, contradicting Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s explanation a day earlier that the U.S. joined an Israeli operation.
The incident marks the second time in a matter of months that Iowa service members have been killed in the Middle East.
A lone gunman associated with ISIS killed two Iowa National Guard members, Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard of Marshalltown and Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar of Des Moines, in Syria in December.
An Iranian flag is planted in the rubble of a police station, damaged in airstrikes, on March 3, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Tuesday he “might have forced Israel’s hand” in launching the war on Iran that has already cost the lives of six American troops.
Trump’s statement came less than a day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters the United States joined the campaign to protect American troops after Israel’s planned strike.
“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” Trump told reporters. “… and I didn’t want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact, because virtually everything they have has been knocked out.”
Trump made the comments prior to a bilateral White House meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as lawmakers on Capitol Hill scrambled to understand the sudden war.
Merz said Germany is “on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran away” — though administration officials have maintained the conflict is not about regime change, but rather about destroying Iran’s conventional missile stockpiles and production, and thwarting any nuclear ambitions.
Iran has launched numerous missiles and drones since the killing Saturday of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The strikes have caused damage across the Middle East, including to the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia Tuesday, The Associated Press reported.
During a previously scheduled hearing Tuesday to question Undersecretary of Defense Policy Elbridge Colby on the administration’s national defense strategy, Senate Democrats pressed for the justification for war with Iran.
Sen. Angus King, an independent of Maine who caucuses with Democrats, homed in on Rubio’s statements Monday that the U.S. joined the war to preempt retaliatory attacks on American troops in the region, following Israel’s planned strikes on Iran’s leadership compound. Earlier, administration officials said U.S. intelligence was heavily involved in planning Israel’s offensive.
“I find it very disturbing that we’re committing this nation to war based upon a decision by … a staunch ally, and I’m a supporter of Israel,” King said. “I don’t think anybody should drive our decision to go to war, but the interest of the United States.”
“The president made our decision,” Colby replied.
Congress, meanwhile, is poised to vote this week on a War Powers Act resolution that has drawn limited Republican support to stop Trump’s unilateral military actions in Iran without congressional authorization.
Lawmakers are largely split along party lines in their support for the military action, with Republicans falling in line behind Trump.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Monday the measure will likely fail in the House. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is the lone Republican sponsor of the House version of the legislation.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., defended the administration’s initiation of war in Iran and chastised “grandstanding” allegations that Trump broke the law in not first seeking congressional authorization.
“This is the first president in seven presidencies that actually did something about the thorn that constantly came after us. And now you criticize him, you say it’s illegal. It’s not,” Mullin said Tuesday during the Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing.
“How about we say, ‘thank you, Mr. President, for finally getting rid of this nuisance, this murderer, this sponsor of terror,’” Mullin said.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., lead sponsor of the Senate’s War Powers Act bill, criticized Mullin for suggesting “that the angst on this side of the aisle is because we don’t like President Trump.”
“He has misstated that concern. I think I can speak for most of my colleagues who have concerns, and say our concern is this, have we learned nothing from 25 years of war in the Middle East?” Kaine said.
Kaine said during a brief interview that Republicans who support Trump’s war in Iran should put an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, on the floor to formally give it Congress’ stamp of approval.
“And the fact that there has been a reluctance to put AUMFs on the table tells me that while Republicans don’t want to be contrary to the president, they’re also nervous about voting for a war,” Kaine said. “If you’re nervous about voting for the war, well then, think what that says to the troops who are risking their lives. That anxiety should lead you to question whether it’s a good idea or not.”
Kaine said the 2001 AUMF, which Congress wrote somewhat broadly following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and is still in effect, doesn’t cover Trump’s military actions in Iran.
“The president has not cited that,” he said. “And we all agree that Iran was not covered by the ‘01 AUMF. It was meant to cover non-state terrorist groups, not sovereign nations.”
Lawmakers were set to receive closed-door briefings on the war from administration officials later Tuesday.
The Joint Finance Committee meeting room in the Wisconsin Capitol. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
The Joint Finance Committee voted to approve releasing funds for the Department of Public Instruction’s operations after putting it off last month.
The committee approved the release of $1.75 million, including $750,000 for 2025-26 and $1 million for 2026-27. It is about $250,000 less than what was placed in a supplemental fund during the budget cycle as a part of a deal negotiated between lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers. Republicans on the budget committee initially were going to cut the funding from the agency, but instead made it es a supplemental appropriation, requiring the JFC to release it before it was available to the agency.
JFC was scheduled to vote on the proposal last month, but the committee delayed action after a report from the Dairyland Sentinel, a nonprofit publication published by longtime GOP strategist Brian Fraley, that the agency spent over $368,000 on its standard setting meeting held at a water park in the Wisconsin Dells in 2024. It acquired the information through open records requests.
After the report and delayed vote, JFC co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said that lawmakers had been having conversations and having its answers answered by the agency.
According to information released by DPI Tuesday, the meeting costs totaled about $219,225, which included lodging, meals, travel reimbursement, meeting expenses, laptops and hotspots. The remaining cost was for the work done by Data Recognition Corporation, the vendor DPI works with each year to update the assessment and ensure it is valid, reliable and up to date. The vendor planned and facilitated the meeting and wrote a final report.
The total cost of the standards setting work equated to about $30,740 per grade and subject. Similar work done by DRC for other states has ranged from $48,500 to $94,000 per grade/subject, according to DPI.
The $2 million makes up about 10% of the DPI operating budget, and the agency had warned that it could need to delay recruitment, continue to restrict travel, conference attendance and professional development participation, modify the replacement cycle for IT equipment and lay off staff.
A Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo to the budget committee said that approving just $1.75 million would ensure that there is sufficient funding for the projected staffing costs, but limit the amount available to cover supplies, services, professional development and other costs not directly related to staff.
Chris Bucher, director of communications for DPI, said in a statement that the funding is critical for the agency to serve students, educators, schools and libraries.
“While we received slightly less in the current fiscal year than we requested, our agency will make it through the year without layoffs or additional staffing reductions,” Bucher said.
The committee voted unanimously to release the funds, though Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) criticized Republicans for not releasing the full $2 million.
“Every time we gather together as a body and there’s an opportunity to do the right thing and allocate money towards anything that helps public education, anything that helps our kids, the Republicans on this committee find a way to not do it, to offer less money than has been requested and needed, to fail once again to give our kids what they need,” Roys said.
Update: This story has been updated to include comment and additional information from DPI.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order Tuesday to call the state Legislature into a special session to vote on a constitutional amendment proposal that would ban partisan gerrymandering. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order Tuesday to call the state Legislature into a special session to vote on a constitutional amendment proposal that would ban partisan gerrymandering.
The proposed amendment would include language to expressly prohibit drawing districts that give a disproportionate advantage or disadvantage to any political party.
“There are no tricks, no gimmicks, no funny politics here,” Evers said at a press conference. “Just a straight up ban on partisan gerrymandering. Nothing more. Nothing less. I could not have made this vote any easier for the Legislature. With nine months left in the calendar year and the legislative session, we’ve got work to do.”
The executive order calls for the special session on the proposal to be held at noon on April 14. During his two terms in office, the Legislature’s Republican leaders have repeatedly spurned Evers’ special session calls on a range of issues.
Evers announced his intention to sign the order at his State of the State address last month. Constitutional amendments must pass two sessions of the state Legislature, then go to voters for consideration. If a proposal were to pass the Legislature in April, the next state Legislature, which could look very different after this year’s November elections, would need to vote on the proposal as well. Evers, who opted against running for office, would also not be in office to advocate further for the proposal.
Wisconsin adopted new state legislative maps in 2024 after the state Supreme Court ruled that the previous maps were an unconstitutional gerrymander and ordered new maps to be implemented.
The adoption of the new maps did not change the process that Wisconsin uses to draw its legislative maps, which is currently done by state lawmakers. Wisconsin Democrats last held a trifecta in the 2009-2010 legislative session and did not pass legislation to adopt nonpartisan redistricting. In 2011, Wisconsin Republicans, who won a trifecta and took control of the state government, drew the state’s maps to heavily favor the GOP, and the maps drawn in 2021 further entrenched the gerrymander.
Before passing the current maps in 2024, the state Assembly passed a proposal to implement what Republicans said was an Iowa-style nonpartisan redistricting mode. That proposal led to pushback from Democratic lawmakers, who contended it allowed for too much partisan influence on the process. When it passed the Senate, the bill had been amended to implement maps that would have protected Republican incumbents. Evers vetoed the bill.
Evers said that the maps adopted in 2024 have given each party a chance at winning control and ensured that every vote matters in battleground Wisconsin.
States must engage in redistricting every 10 years. Wisconsin lawmakers will be in charge of the process next in 2031 and could engage in partisan gerrymandering, Evers said, unless gerrymandering is banned or a new process is adopted.
“If the Legislature doesn’t act now, our maps could go right back to being rigged. Wisconsinites could go right back to living under some of the most undemocratic maps in America,” Evers said.
Evers added that he’s been “especially worried” due to recent actions being taken at the national level. President Donald Trump has pressured Republican-led states, including Texas, to engage in explicit partisan gerrymandering to ensure Republicans keep the majority in Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. In response, some Democratic-led states, including California, have redrawn or are considering redrawing their lines to combat the impact.
The Evers proposal does not specify what process lawmakers would need to adopt to prevent partisan gerrymandering, but leaves that up to lawmakers.
Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said at the press conference that the state needs to take redistricting out of lawmakers’ hands altogether and make it a nonpartisan process.
“It’s about fairness. It’s about equity. It’s about honoring the principle that every voice in Wisconsin deserves an equal say, no matter where you live, who you are or who you vote for,” Ramos said. “Gerrymandering is bad public policy, no matter who’s doing it, what flag they wave.”
Ramos said the constitutional amendment proposal is a “significant nod to one unifying truth that politics should stay out of redistricting from start to finish.”
“Calling a special session is one thing. Taking meaningful action is another. If this Legislature is serious, they will take this special session and not gavel in and gavel out like they always do,” Ramos said.
Evers, who is in his final year as governor, has called special sessions on a variety of issues over his time in office including abortion, gun violence and the state budget. The Republican-led Legislature has usually just immediately gaveled in and out of them without taking action or completely rewritten his proposals.
Evers said that he would seek to raise public awareness of the issue and encourage people to call on their lawmakers to pressure them into not doing the same this time.
“We’re going to work real hard in the meantime to make sure that the people of Wisconsin are talking to the legislators and making sure that they understand that this is the will of the people,” Evers said.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) expressed some openness to discussing a proposal to address partisan gerrymandering, but was skeptical about Evers’ proposed constitutional amendment.
“This one-sentence constitutional amendment provides no details as to how this would actually work. But we’re supportive of the governor’s concept and we would be more than happy to negotiate with him to develop a plan to be voted on by the entire Assembly,” Vos said.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) has not responded to a request for comment.
Last week, Evers said that he had heard some pushback from members of his own party “through the grapevine.” He was joined at the press conference by 10 Democratic lawmakers, though neither Democratic legislative leader was present. Evers said that he hadn’t “taken a poll” but that he is confident that Democrats feel they are in a good position with fair maps.
In statements on Tuesday, neither Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer or Senate Minority leader Dianne Hesselbein expressly said that they supported Evers’ proposal.
“Many of us as Legislative Democrats served under Republicans’ gerrymandered maps for years,” Neubauer said in a social media post. “We deeply understand the importance of competitive maps and remain committed to supporting a redistricting process where the voters’ voices are heard.”
“I have served in the Legislature under gerrymandered maps created by Republicans and have seen firsthand the damage they do to democracy and to good public policy. The fair maps we passed two years ago have made a difference in Wisconsin,” Hesselbein said. “I am a fighter and my commitment is to make sure the people of Wisconsin have a strong voice in their democracy and that Democrats have the resources and tools to fully participate in whatever redistricting processes may occur in the future.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Login
