The earnings gap between men and women slightly widened last year, according to a new analysis published Thursday. 

The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute calculated women last year earned 18.6% less than men per hour on average. That’s up slightly from 2024, when the wage gap narrowed slightly to 18%. 

The wage analysis, which examines several federal data sets and independent research papers, controls for race, ethnicity, education, age, marital status and geography.

The findings were published ahead of Equal Pay Day on March 26, a symbolic date marking how far into 2026 women would have to work on top of their 2025 hours to match what men earned in 2025.

The new analysis found the wage gap is smallest among lower-wage workers, in part because minimum wages create a uniform wage floor. But women are paid less than men across all education levels — women with a graduate degree on average earn less than men with only a college degree, it said.

The analysis found the widest wage gap among Black and Hispanic women: Black women are paid only 68.3% of white men’s median wages. That’s a gap of $9.87 per hour — translating to roughly $20,500 lower annual earnings for a full-time worker. 

The institute says women earn less because of occupational differences, societal norms and the devaluation of women’s work. 

The organization suggests states enact pay transparency laws, mandate employers provide paid family and medical leave, raise the minimum wage, fund universal child care and remove laws that make it harder to join labor unions. But conservative lawmakers and private employers argue that many of those policies would lead to reduced workforces or higher prices.

“Closing pay gaps by gender and by race and ethnicity will require policy solutions on multiple fronts,” the report said. “Although attacks on gender and racial equity continue at the federal level, state lawmakers can and must take steps to address the gender wage gap.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican bills Friday that would have limited state agencies’ rulemaking abilities, prohibited “rights of nature ordinances,” eliminated “race-based” programs within the University of Wisconsin system and allowed for telehealth care providers with licenses from out of state to practice in Wisconsin. 

Bills to limit rulemaking rejected

A set of bills that sought to limit agencies’ rulemaking abilities were also vetoed. Republican lawmakers introduced the legislation, called the “Red Tape Reset,” alongside the Wisconsin  Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative legal advocacy group. 

SB 275 would have required agency scope statements, which are necessary to start the rulemaking process, from being used for one proposed rule and would have set a six-month expiration period for the use of a scope statement for an emergency rule. 

SB 276 would have allowed those who have challenged the validity of an administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

SB 277 would have implemented a seven years expiration date on all administrative rules unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process. 

SB 289 would have required agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

The bills were introduced in light of recent decisions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that have limited lawmakers’ ability to oversee the rulemaking process, including by blocking rules indefinitely.

“The Legislature asks me, in effect, to undo this decision, enabling the Legislature to go right back to indefinitely obstructing the People’s Work and returning state government to inaction, delays and gridlock,” Evers said in his veto message for SB276. “I decline to do so.”

Rights of Nature prohibition

Evers also vetoed SB 420, which would have prohibited local governments from passing ordinances protecting the rights of nature. GOP lawmakers introduced the measure after Green Bay and Milwaukee pursued symbolic ordinances meant to protect the rights of bodies of water to be kept clean. It is a concept that originates from provisions in constitutions of some South American countries and Native American tribes such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation.

Evers said that he objected to lawmakers “continued efforts to restrict and preempt local control across our state” and GOP lawmakers’ failure to acknowledge that “climate change is affecting our Wisconsin way of life…” and efforts to “make it even harder for Wisconsin to respond to and mitigate the effects of our changing climate.”

“I have always believed the state should be a partner in — and not an obstacle to — the important work our local partners do every day,” Evers said. “ I trust our local governments and the Tribal Nations of Wisconsin to know best how to address environmental concerns within their communities and how to protect the natural resources that are vital to local health, economies and quality of life.”

UW free speech penalties

SB 498 would have barred UW campuses from being able to prohibit speakers from campus and prohibited the establishment of “free speech zones” among other actions. Republican lawmakers supportive of the bill said the goal was to protect free speech and academic expression.

Violations of the provisions in the bill could have resulted in financial penalties including a two-year tuition freeze for more than one penalty on a campus within a five-year period. 

The UW system already implements a policy that establishes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations.

This was the second iteration of the bill. The idea was first developed by Republicans after a controversial survey of UW campuses, which had an average response rate of 12.5%, found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class.

Lawmakers introduced the proposal this legislative session just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, saying it was just one example of conservatives having their voices silenced on college campuses. 

Evers said in his veto message that he disagrees with lawmakers’ attempts to interfere in the day-to-day operation of the state’s higher education system. 

“Students, faculty and staff across university and technical college campuses in Wisconsin continue to discuss diverse ideas and perspectives, engage in thoughtful and difficult discussions with each other, grapple with complex issues and challenges, navigate conversations with people who have different experiences and backgrounds, and hear from other students, as well as faculty and staff, who have viewpoints from across the political spectrum,” Evers said. “I have no doubt this will continue to be the case on our campuses — as it should — so long as Republican lawmakers remain unable to inflict their radical and purely ideological agenda on higher education institutions across Wisconsin through legislative efforts like this.”

Evers also vetoed SB 652, which sought to eliminate “race-based” programs offered through the state’s higher education system, including the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants, by refocusing the programs to focus on “disadvantaged” students. The bill defined the term “disadvantaged” as applying to people who have “experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical or other personal hardship.”

Evers said he objected to lawmakers trying to create “new censorship rules that are designed to police language on our higher education campuses and ultimately prevent our state’s higher education institutions from acknowledging students come to our college campuses with unique and diverse backgrounds, experiences, and needs.”

The bill is part of GOP lawmakers’ attempts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts throughout the state.

Another bill related to the UW system, SB 532, was also vetoed. It would have prohibited UW institutions from charging students additional fees for exclusively online courses.

“If lawmakers sincerely cared about the soaring costs of higher education for students on Wisconsin campuses, they would have approved any number of the countless measures and investments I have proposed over my tenure to ensure the University of Wisconsin System can survive and thrive without having to frequently rely on raising tuition or increasing various fees for students and families,” Evers said.

GOP health care bill vetoed 

SB 214 would have allowed out-of-state health care providers to provide telehealth care services in Wisconsin if they possess a credential as a health care provider issued by another state. 

Lawmakers who supported the bill said it would help Wisconsin by increasing the number of health care providers able to help Wisconsinites. Evers said in his veto message, however, that he was concerned about allowing providers to practice in Wisconsin if they are licensed in another state that has lower standards.

“[The bill] fails to address the fundamental concern I have that out-of-state licensing requirements may not be as rigorous and thorough as the standards we have in Wisconsin,” Evers said. “I object to having out-of-state health care providers potentially bypass the high standards we have for instate licensed health care providers to protect patients and families.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday announced an investigation into 13 states that require health insurance plans to cover abortion care. 

In a news release, the agency said the investigation is based on allegations that the states are coercing health care entities to provide coverage of abortion “contrary to conscience” and in violation of a federal law known as the Weldon Amendment. 

“OCR launches these investigations to address certain states’ alleged disregard of, or confusion about, compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” said Paula Stannard, director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights in a statement. “Under the Weldon Amendment, health care entities, such as health insurance issuers and health plans, are protected from state discrimination for not paying for, or providing coverage of, abortion contrary to conscience. Period.”

But reproductive rights advocates say it is a tactic to make abortion harder to access in states that have fortified protections. 

“At a time when abortion care is getting harder and harder to access, we are deeply concerned that the few states that have taken steps to protect access are now under attack,” said Katie O’Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women’s Law Center, in a written statement. “These investigations also follow a familiar pattern from the administration: attacking states that the president views as political threats.”

Earlier this year, HHS’ Office for Civil Rights clarified the Trump administration would interpret the Weldon Amendment to allow employers and insurance plan sponsors to opt out of covering or paying for abortions because of their personal beliefs, contradicting the Biden administration’s interpretation. The agency sent a letter to top officials in Illinois in January, alleging violations of the Weldon Amendment and the Coats-Snowe Amendment. The latter prohibits governments from discriminating against health care entities as it relates to abortion training or participation.  

The agency did not specify the states being investigated, but the Washington Post reports that states with abortion-related coverage requirements are: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, which all have Democratic governors except for Vermont. 

States defended their laws and criticized the probe as political, following the announcement.

“Donald Trump’s latest ‘investigation’ is nothing but a fishing expedition wasting taxpayers’ money,” said New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, the New Jersey Monitor reported. 

The Vermont Department of Financial Regulation said it is reviewing the federal government’s notice and working with other state agencies to prepare a response. 

“DFR does not believe that it has unlawfully coerced or discriminated against any insurer related to the coverage of abortions as outlined in the (federal government’s) request,” Commissioner Kaj Samsom told the VT Digger. “We stand firmly behind the law in question and the protections and choice it provides Vermonters.”

The Heritage Foundation floated the proposal to withhold Medicaid funding for states in violation of the Weldon Amendment in its controversial presidential administration blueprint Project 2025, which President Donald Trump disavowed during his campaign. 

Visits for contraception and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics have dropped by double-digits after Congress passed a bill cutting off Medicaid funding to certain reproductive health care providers last year, according to a new Democratic congressional report.

Between July 1 and the end of December, the report said emergency contraception distribution fell 10%, oral contraception distribution fell 27%, and IUD insertions fell 10%.

Republican members of the House and Senate passed a sweeping budget reconciliation bill in July that included a one-year provision barring clinics from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursement if they offered abortion services and billed Medicaid more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023. The rule largely affected Planned Parenthood because of the high dollar amount, but some large independent clinics were also affected, such as Maine Family Planning and Health Imperatives in Massachusetts.

Since July, Planned Parenthood reported 20 clinics were forced to close because of the cuts. That was in addition to numerous clinics that had to close after the loss of Title X funds and other factors, bringing the total to 51 last year. The report said nearly 75% of those closures were in rural, medically underserved areas. About half were in the Midwest, including Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, affecting about 25,000 patients.

“Almost all, 48 of 51, that closed between January and December offered primary care, and nearly half were in primary care shortage areas,” the report said.

In recent months, the decline in services grew. The report also notes there were 20% fewer visits for birth control pills in November, and a drop of 36% for intrauterine devices in December, the steepest decline out of all services measured. Some clinics have reported dropping their IUD offerings because it is a costly birth control device to obtain that was normally covered by Medicaid, but it is also the most popular and preferred form of birth control.

The number of visits for breast cancer screening exams fell by 25% in December, according to the report, and testing for sexually transmitted infections fell 11% in November, both of which could result in delayed treatment that increases overall health care costs.

Twelve states have committed their own funding to help address the gap from federal Medicaid cuts, amounting to about $300 million, according to the report. That includes California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But advocates for Planned Parenthood say it still leaves a significant shortfall, because health centers nationwide provided an estimated $700 million in care annually to Medicaid patients before the law went into effect.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who represents Oregon and a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said at Thursday’s press conference that he will vigorously oppose any reconciliation efforts to make the cuts permanent.

“We’re here to tell people who are opposing access to health care for women, no way. It’s not going to happen on my watch at the Finance Committee, period. Not going to happen,” Wyden said.

Federal law already prohibits providers from using federal dollars to pay for abortion care, with limited exceptions. Medicaid dollars paid for all of the other types of care that clinics provide, including contraception, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and screenings for breast and cervical cancer. Maine Family Planning also provided primary care services to about 1,000 patients statewide, but had to halt that program in October because of the cuts.

“The report makes clear that it actually costs money to see all these Planned Parenthood offices or providers close, and once they’re closed, it’s not as though you can just bring them back up,” said U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat who represents Hawaii, at a news conference Thursday morning. “But once they’re closed, people still need this kind of care, and so they’re going to go to other providers, or they will go without — which results in undiagnosed illnesses and health care needs.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America and two of its affiliates sued to block the law, but the effort was unsuccessful. Republicans in Congress have signaled a goal of extending the cuts and making them permanent, as outlined in the Republican Study Committee’s framework for the next budget reconciliation bill, released in January.

A coalition of major anti-abortion advocacy organizations, including Live Action, Heritage Action, National Right to Life and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, signed a letter sent to House Republican leadership urging them to immediately begin the reconciliation process and make the cuts permanent.

“Since the enactment of the 2025 reconciliation law, multiple abortion businesses have already closed facilities or scaled back operations, demonstrating the measurable impact of the defunding provision,” the letter said.

In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open.

Utilities, states and grid operators have said the aging plants are expensive, in bad repair and no longer needed to meet regional energy needs. But Trump’s efforts to save the dwindling coal industry have forced plant operators to continue investing in the facilities — a move that some consumer advocates fear could mean billions of dollars in added costs for customers in dozens of states.

Trump has long positioned himself as a champion of coal, making it a centerpiece of his “energy dominance” agenda. The emergency orders issued by his administration claim that the grid is at risk of energy shortfalls, and the coal plants are needed to ensure a reliable power supply.

But state officials in many places affected by the orders say that’s not true.

“Rather than allowing the realities on the ground, the regulators and the utilities to make rational decisions about how to meet energy needs, we have the Trump administration trying to do Soviet-style central planning to push an ideological agenda that will drive costs to customers,” said Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office.

Under Trump, the U.S. Department of Energy has issued emergency orders to block the retirements of coal plants in Colorado, Indiana, Michigan and Washington state. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has claimed that the power demands in various regions require the plants to stay operational.

Observers expect similar orders to be issued for most, if not all, of the dozens of coal-fired units slated for retirement during the remainder of Trump’s term. Utilities subject to the orders have said they will increase costs for ratepayers, and argue those costs should be borne by the multistate region to which they provide power, rather than just their local customers.

Despite their costs, three of the five plants being blocked from retirement haven’t produced electricity since the emergency orders went into effect, either because they need extensive repairs or because power demands have been met without them.

Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act gives the secretary broad authority to take temporary control of the U.S. electricity system during emergency situations. Until now, that authority had only been invoked during wartime or natural disasters. All of the Trump administration’s orders were issued before the war with Iran. Consumer advocates say Trump’s use of the act to overturn long-planned facility retirements is unprecedented, and likely illegal.

State officials, utilities and environmental groups have challenged all of the orders.

While such emergency orders can be issued only for 90-day periods, Wright has repeatedly renewed the orders before they expire.

The Department of Energy did not respond to a Stateline interview request.

Keeping coal online

Last May, Wright issued the first emergency order to prevent the shutdown of the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant in Michigan, just days before it was scheduled to retire. The plant has remained open since then, accruing $135 million in net costs through December. Consumers Energy, the utility operating the plant, is seeking to charge ratepayers in 11 states to recoup those costs.

Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel has appealed the order, while a coalition of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn it, arguing that the feds have failed to demonstrate a true emergency. That case is currently in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals awaiting oral arguments, which may take place in May.

State leaders in Colorado have appealed an order to keep a plant there open, while Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, has sued the federal agency. Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the order in Indiana. Energy analysts say the Michigan case will likely be resolved first, and is expected to have major implications for the emergency orders elsewhere.

Douglas Jester, a former state energy official in Michigan, noted that Consumers Energy has had to pay extra to bring back staff, establish new delivery contracts for coal and catch up on maintenance. Jester now serves as managing partner at 5 Lakes Energy, a clean energy consulting group.

In his emergency order, Wright said the plant was needed to ensure energy reliability and reduce the risk of blackouts. His agency, in a statement issued last month, said the coal plants kept open by the emergency orders helped keep the power system online during Winter Storm Fern.

Coal industry leaders have made a similar argument, saying that growing energy demands require more baseload power, as opposed to intermittent renewables such as wind and solar.

The emergency orders are “very much needed,” said Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council, an industry trade group, “so that we can continue to have the energy just for our day-to-day lives,” said Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council, an industry trade group. “Coal plants, baseload plants, are critical to the well-being of our grid. Coal is needed at critical moments for energy.”

Some labor unions have also praised the orders as beneficial to their workforce.

But state leaders and consumer advocates argue that utilities and regulators have already completed detailed plans to replace the power the aging coal plants provided, through a mix of renewables, natural gas plants and battery storage.

“If you were to believe the Department of Energy, you would believe that more than half the country is experiencing an emergency around the clock,” said Michael Lenoff, senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental group that is suing the Trump administration to overturn the orders. “It costs a lot of money to make sure that an old, decrepit coal plant is available to operate.”

Lenoff and other environmental advocates have said the coal plants ran during the winter storm because the government forced them to, not because the grid needed them to meet power demands.

Even as his administration has declared an energy shortage emergency, Trump has tried to block new renewable projects from being built, including several offshore wind farms that East Coast states are relying on to meet their power demands.

Meanwhile, the administration has also authorized power generators to export electricity to Mexico and Canada, which may happen only when regulators have determined the U.S. has sufficient energy supply to meet its own needs.

“How can you authorize the export of energy to Canada from a Western market that you just declared is in an emergency status with shortages?” said Tyson Slocum, energy program director at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit. “It’s complete incoherence.”

Aging plants

Three of the five plants being blocked from retirement have yet to even produce electricity since the emergency orders went into effect.

The plant in Colorado suffered a failure in a steam valve that was not repaired because it was on the verge of retiring. The federal order has forced the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association to invest in repairing the plant, and the costs to keep the plant operational could reach $80 million a year even if it never produces power, said Toor, with the Colorado Energy Office.

“It’s very unlikely to actually operate even with this order,” he said.

Tri-State and the other utilities that own the plant have requested a rehearing of the emergency order, saying that keeping the plant open will be costly for their ratepayers.

In Indiana, one of the two plants targeted by the feds has suffered mechanical failures that would require extensive repairs.

“(The order) doesn’t even make sense because it’s not even really open,” said Ben Inskeep, program director at the Citizens Action Coalition, an Indiana-based consumer advocacy group. “You don’t want to throw good money after a plant you’re about to retire.”

Unlike the Democratic-led states subject to the other orders, Indiana’s leaders have welcomed the federal intervention. Republican Gov. Mike Braun issued his own executive order soon after the Department of Energy announcement directing state officials to evaluate ways to extend the life of the state’s remaining coal plants.

Meanwhile, the TransAlta Centralia coal plant in Washington state, while remaining in operational mode, has not supplied power to the grid since January, as the state’s energy needs have been met by more affordable sources elsewhere.

Democratic state Sen. Marko Liias sponsored a bill, signed into law earlier this month, that rolls back tax and regulatory exemptions that were granted to TransAlta under a 2011 agreement to gradually phase out the plant. The compliance burden will make it economically infeasible for the plant to operate again, he said.

“It’s crystal clear to the market that we’re not going backwards, we’re slamming the door and nailing it shut,” Liias said.

Consumer costs

While some states have pushed to close coal plants due to climate goals and pollution concerns, market forces have largely driven the coal industry’s decline. According to a 2025 analysis by the financial advisory firm Lazard, electricity from coal-fired power plants costs an average of $122 per megawatt-hour. That same amount of power can be produced for $78 from natural gas plants, $61 from onshore wind and $58 from utility-scale solar.

Some energy analysts say Trump’s efforts to keep fossil fuel-powered plants open could become very costly to ratepayers. A report published by Grid Strategies LLC, a consulting firm, found that as many as 90 aging plants could be subject to similar emergency orders during the remainder of Trump’s term. The analysis found that keeping those plants open could cost ratepayers anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion a year.

“What the Department of Energy is doing is picking losers, the uneconomical plants that the utilities, the regulators, everybody involved agreed need to retire and be replaced with something cheaper and more efficient,” said Michael Goggin, who authored the report, which was commissioned on behalf of Earthjustice and other environmental groups.

Meanwhile, some consumer advocates say the orders have created chaos for utilities and energy planners. The operators of plants scheduled for retirement in the coming years no longer know if it’s safe to cancel their coal contracts, transition their workforce or defer maintenance on their facilities. And financiers may be wary of investing in new, cheaper energy projects that could be sidelined by orders to keep coal online.

“The administration has made clear that they’re not going to allow a coal-fired power plant to retire, regardless of whether or not it’s absurdly expensive to operate, whether it’s contaminating soil, air and water in that community, they literally don’t care,” said Slocum, of Public Citizen.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

ICE raids have been taking place at an unprecedented scale in big cities all over, including in the South. Texas and Louisiana house more ICE detainees than any other state. 

Mississippi also plays a special part in immigration enforcement. 

Over the next few months, States Newsroom will partner with Mississippi Today and The New York Times to report on and publish stories about one of the largest ICE detention centers in the nation – the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Miss.

Although Mississippi has one of the smallest immigrant populations, Adams Correctional Center is the second largest ICE detention facility in the country, housing more than 2,000 detainees. 

Little is known about the facility, which is located in a remote county of about 30,000 people in southwestern Mississippi.

The federal government limits access to ICE detention centers. They aren’t inspected as often as state prisons. Only immediate family members and attorneys are allowed to visit detainees. And because the Adams County facilityis owned and run by a private, for-profit company, CoreCivic, it isn’t covered by public records laws, and taxpayers don’t get to see what happens inside.

Reporting from Mississippi Today and The New York Times will inform you about the facility – from what it’s like inside, to how it impacts the local economy. 

If you know something about the detention center, if you know someone who works there or is detained there, or want us to find out something about it for readers, please contact Mukta Joshi, who is reporting on the facility for Mississippi Today and The New York Times.

Your name or any part of your submission will not be used without contacting you first. Contact Mukta through this form, or at mukta.joshi@nytimes.com, or anonymously through Signal @mmj.2178.

The Wisconsin State Senate did not vote on the “Justice for All Act” before it concluded regular work this week, likely punting the court staffing concerns addressed in the bill to the next legislative session. 

In an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner on Wednesday, Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) said that this issue didn’t get enough attention in the latest state budget process. 

“We have criminals who will not be prosecuted, we have innocent individuals who will remain in jails and property taxpayers will be picking up a massive tab associated with this inaction,” said Steffen, one of the bill’s authors. 

Steffen said that the issue will have to be addressed in the next budget process, in 2027, though the work done and awareness raised on this issue will make those discussions easier. 

The “Justice for All Act,” or Assembly Bill 514, was introduced in October and passed the Assembly last month. It involves additional criminal justice system positions that would help address backlogs of court cases in Wisconsin. These include additional judges, assistant prosecutors and public defenders, court reporters and public defender support staff for the 2027-2029 and 2029-2031 bienniums. 

Steffen said he thinks that if the bill had gone before the Senate, it would have passed. However, it didn’t reach the needed threshold of support from Republicans, he said. That threshold of GOP support is also known as the  unwritten “rule of 17” which means obtaining the votes of 17 Republicans or an all-GOP majority to pass any bill through the Senate. (Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, who announced Thursday he is stepping down, drew criticism for allowing bills on sports betting and funding for the University of Wisconsin athletic department to come to the floor and pass on a bipartisan basis without garnering 17 Republican votes.)

Steffen said he’d heard that, as he understood it, some senators were concerned about handling this large of an expenditure outside of the budget process. However, Steffen called this “unfortunate, and likely more of a punt than a real reason.” He said exceptions are routinely made for important matters facing the state.

In an interview with the Examiner on Wednesday, Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said that at some point, Milwaukee County “is going to have to file a lawsuit to recoup some of the money that they’re spending on our criminal justice system.”

“We’re forced to come to the state to beg for resources that they should be voluntarily giving us, and they have the nerve to tell us no,” Johnson said. 

Will the new positions be delayed?

The bill would provide authority for some of the new positions beginning in July 2027, while for others, it would be the summer of 2028 or 2029. 

A staff member from Steffen’s office told the Examiner that if the proposal is taken up next session, Steffen would not expect the timing of the positions related to the judges and court reporters to be affected. However, Steffen would anticipate that the other positions in the bill — positions related to assistant district attorneys, assistant public defenders and public defender support staff — would be pushed back by a year. 

Steffen expects the same timing would apply if the measure is introduced as a standalone bill, like the Justice for All Act, or through the state budget. 

Next time, how will Milwaukee fare?

An amendment to the Justice for All bill stripped additional public defender and public defender support staff positions for Milwaukee from the bill, the Examiner reported last month. The bill still held additional prosecutor positions for Milwaukee. 

“In order for me to get the support I needed in the Assembly, it was necessary for me to hold back those public defender positions in Milwaukee County,” Steffen said. 

Steffen said that next year, he hopes to include the public defender positions for Milwaukee that were in the original version of the bill he crafted. 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson said that the motivation to cut those Milwaukee positions out stemmed from a conflict involving the district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and Enough is Enough, a court watch group, the Examiner reported last month. Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) criticized the public defenders, who said the court watchdog group was operating as an extension of the district attorney’s office. 

Steffen said that some in the Assembly had concerns that were particularly about Milwaukee public defenders “displaying a lack of attention on the core responsibilities of defending the indigent versus some of their comments and actions against community watchdog groups who were in Milwaukee County.” Asked if this was about what the public defender’s office put out regarding Enough is Enough and that controversy, Steffen said that was correct. 

Steffen said some lawmakers took issue with what the defenders’ letter represented, that more time was being spent “worried about some retirees sitting there in the courtroom than they were focusing on defending the rights of the accused.” 

Steffen said he was very interested in working with the state public defender’s office to address the issue, but “we were unable to do so” before the end of the session. He said that the removal of the Milwaukee positions wasn’t a barrier to the bill going up for a vote on Tuesday. 

Johnson opposes the idea that the Milwaukee positions shouldn’t have been included due to the controversy involving public defenders and Enough is Enough and said it speaks of overreach. She also argued that if the public defenders were honest about how they felt in the letter, they did their job.

Johnson said she and her Milwaukee colleagues weren’t supportive of the Justice for All Act because of  the removal of the Milwaukee public defense positions.

Johnson said she spoke with one of the bill authors about why the bill wasn’t on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday. She said that he highly doubted “that Milwaukee would be a part of that process even next year, because if it was, then they would have people who would be unwilling to support it in the Senate.” Johnson hopes that when legislators return, Republicans will no longer hold the Senate majority.

In Milwaukee County, the backlog of unresolved felony-related matters is more than 10,000, as of Oct. 13, Wisconsin Watch reported.

“How do you remove public defender support and staff support from the largest county in the entire state?” Johnson said.

What was the conflict involving the court watch group?

Regional manager Angel Johnson and deputy regional manager Paige Styler of the public defenders’ office signed a letter sent to judges in Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s criminal division, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

The letter alleged that Enough is Enough “functions more as an extension of the DA’s office” and that the group’s activities and formation have been closely coordinated with the DA’s office, the Journal Sentinel reported. It argued that “Enough is Enough” shouldn’t be seen as an independent, grassroots organization. 

Johnson and Styler asked judges to consider that context when evaluating impact statements or the presence of the group in court, the Journal Sentinel reported. The group’s president called the public defenders’ allegations “false, exaggerated and without merit.” 

The letter highlighted Assistant District Attorney Joy Hammond and retired Assistant District Attorney Thomas Potter, who public defenders said “reviewed, drafted, and edited letters for Enough is Enough addressed to the judiciary,” according to the Journal Sentinel. 

Public defenders claimed that emails obtained from a public records request outline extensive meetings between the DA’s office and Enough is Enough, the Journal Sentinel reported. In a memo to a judge, Lovern described the emails public defenders received as “mostly logistical in nature” and nothing “nefarious,” according to the Journal Sentinel. 

Public defenders call for more positions

The lack of a vote on the bill creates uncertainty for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, according to a spokesperson for the office.

“We’re still hopeful that we can obtain the resources we need in the next state budget, but without the Justice for All Act in place as a bipartisan consensus to build from, the path forward is significantly less clear,” the spokesperson told the Examiner in an email. 

In a press release on Tuesday, the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office argued that “lawmakers cut short a lifeline for Wisconsin’s overburdened public defense system” by not putting the bill on the calendar. 

“Our attorneys are drowning, and it’s Wisconsinites who pay the price when constitutional rights are treated as an optional expense,” State Public Defender Jennifer Bias said. 

The public defenders said that public defenders and Wisconsinites who rely on them will have to wait almost a year and a half for the next budget cycle to offer another chance at relief. 

The Justice for All Act would have given public defenders an additional 18 attorney positions and 35 support staff positions in the next budget biennium, the agency’s largest staffing increase since 2009, the public defenders said.

The public defenders argued that these resources would have allowed the agency to confront growing case delays brought on by prosecutors charging more crimes and by “an explosion of digital evidence in criminal cases.” 

In a press release in January, the public defender’s office said that criminal cases in Wisconsin have become increasingly complex over the past two decades — that cases once involving a few police reports now regularly involve hundreds of hours of body camera footage and thousands of pages of digital records. 

A lack of sufficient support staff forces public defenders to take on “vast amounts of extra work outside the courtroom,” the agency said in January, adding that in its Stevens Point region, 30 attorneys covering 13 counties share only one paralegal. 

According to Bias’s testimony in January, the lack of support staff positions is a consistent reason attorneys give for leaving the public defender’s office. While an attorney shortage makes it difficult to fill attorney roles quickly, the agency has very little trouble finding qualified support staff, she testified.

In testimony on the bill, Bias said the agency recently had a case in which police misidentified a suspect. The client had been sitting in jail for six months by the time the attorney was able to review the bodycam footage and see that the video didn’t show the client. She said the client was released but had already lost a job and housing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democracy in the United States is in trouble. According to the 2026 Democracy Report, produced by thousands of scholars and experts around the world for the Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-DEM), “The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.”  Civil rights, equality before the law and freedom of expression and the media in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 60 years, the report finds.

The press is under tremendous pressure from the Trump administration, which is cutting off access to journalists, suing media organizations that produce critical stories, and demanding that national news organizations toe the administration’s line.

Meanwhile, at the state and local level, news coverage is shrinking. 

In Wisconsin, which has a proud tradition of public access to government and open records, we’re experiencing a contraction in local news coverage and, recently, the temporary shutdown and uncertain future of WisconsinEye, which offers CSPAN-like video coverage of the state Legislature.

A bill banning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAAP) that passed the Wisconsin Assembly died on Tuesday in the Wisconsin Senate, leaving media organizations vulnerable to lawsuits designed to discourage news coverage and silence free speech. Now-state Sen. Cory Tomczyk filed a SLAPP suit against the Wasau Pilot & Review back in 2021, after the news outlet reported he was overheard using an anti-gay slur. Although the news outlet prevailed, legal expenses took a heavy toll, driving the publisher to the brink of bankruptcy.

The fight to keep government open and accountable to the public is never-ending. Just this week, a bill that awards $14.6 million in taxpayer funds annually to the University of Wisconsin athletic department and sets rules for sponsorship deals by UW athletes also creates a sweeping exemption for UW athletics from the state’s open records law — shielding all revenue, spending and financial records within the UW athletic department from public view.

That kind of secrecy about the use of public funds violates public trust. So does the exemption from public records law the Legislature drafted for itself, allowing state lawmakers to delete emails to avoid turning them over to journalists and members of the public who want to know whose interests their representatives are serving.

This week is Sunshine Week, the annual collaboration among journalists and civic groups around the country to highlight the importance of public records and open government. 

Here at the Examiner, we sent out a few special newsletters this week on our reporters’ use of open records requests to investigate government activities, from Isiah Holmes’ reporting on police officers who misused surveillance technology to spy on their romantic partners to an award-winning story by Andrew Kennard and Frank Zufall about the policy of shredding mail from attorneys to their clients in Wisconsin prisons.

The Kennard-Zufall story was one of 12 by Examiner staff that the Milwaukee Press Club announced this week won top-three journalism honors, with gold, silver and bronze winners to be announced in May.

We have encountered high fees and long delays in some of our records requests, but our reporters persist. Just this week, Zufall, a Criminal Justice Project fellow, finally received a response from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to a Freedom of Information request he made in February 2025. The request was part of his reporting on a new public defender service the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is creating, citing unspecified complaints about the Wisconsin Public Defender. Stay tuned for more on that story.

We don’t do this work in a vacuum.

On Thursday night, journalists and engaged citizens gathered to honor this year’s recipients of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council Openness in Government Awards.Wisconsin Watch reporter Tom Kerscher and the group Midwest Environmental Advocates were each honored for their work exposing the secrecy surrounding the development of massive data centers.

“The idea that tech companies whose goal is to learn everything about us are coming into the state and trying to prevent us from learning anything about them, it really has become a politically toxic issue for them,” said Michael Grief, an attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates. MEA received  its award for lawsuits the group filed challenging the secrecy surrounding a data center project in Racine and against the state Public Service Commission, contesting the “trade secret” status of energy demand data for Meta’s proposed data center in Beaver Dam. 

Kertscher’s investigation exposed four projects in which local officials signed nondisclosure agreements with companies, much to the consternation of their constituents.

Data centers are a growing concern for the public, and we need to know about the deals to build these giant facilities.

Here at the Examiner we are proud to stand with other Wisconsin journalists and nonprofits fighting for open records and public access to government.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

With a controversial bill to stipulate a definition of antisemitism in Wisconsin law now heading to the desk of Gov. Tony Evers, opponents have stepped up a campaign against the legislation.

The measure, AB 446, would incorporate in state law a definition of antisemitism that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in May 2016.

If enacted, it would require agencies to apply the alliance’s definition when evaluating claims of racial, religious or ethnic discrimination. The definition also would be used in decisions on enhanced penalties for crimes that target people or property based on race, religion, color or national origin.

The Assembly passed the bill Feb. 17 on a vote of 66-33 that split the body’s Democratic caucus.

The state Senate concurred Tuesday in a voice vote with no debate, a day after more than 40 organizations published an open letter urging the body to reject the bill and Evers to veto it. The letter was endorsed by organizations including Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, the faith-based social justice group WISDOM and many more, including Muslim groups, Jewish peace groups and an assortment of other organizations.

Proponents have said the legislation is needed to draw a line against an increase in antisemitic incidents. Opponents argued that the bill infringed on free speech by conflating prejudice against Jews with criticism of Israel’s government.

Public hearings in both the Senate and the Assembly drew impassioned testimony both for and against the bill, and critics as well as supporters included prominent Jewish leaders.

The coalition letter sent Monday asserted that “there is overwhelming evidence that codifying IHRA is unconstitutional, reproduces anti-Palestinian racism, and is unnecessary and harmful to public institutions.” Its citations included a brief published by the Center for Security, Race and Rights at Rutgers University Law School in New Jersey.

Both supporters and critics have made their arguments in the context of the attack on Oct. 7, 2023, by the Palestinian political and military organization Hamas and the subsequent Israeli military attacks on the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

Proponents have cited statistics showing a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents across the country, including what they described as antisemitic actions on college campuses during demonstrations opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Opponents have warned that the IHRA definition could be used to criminalize protesters who publicly criticize the Israeli government, and said that examples incorporated in the IHRA definition omit major forms and sources of antisemitism.

Supporters have highlighted language in the bill stating that it may not be construed to infringe on First Amendment rights or to conflict with federal or state antidiscrimination laws. Opponents have dismissed that disclaimer as meaningless and ineffectual, however.

On the day that the Assembly voted on the legislation, its author, Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison), amended it with a declaration that “nothing in [the measure] may be construed to create any additional civil or criminal penalty, including for activity protected under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution at any public school in this state or at any University of Wisconsin System institution or technical college.”

The opposition coalition’s letter also dismissed that provision. “When legislation requires an emergency disclaimer clarifying that it is not meant to criminalize students, that alone reveals the inherent danger embedded in the bill’s structure,” the letter declared. “The need for this language underscores what critics have warned all along: the bills were designed to invite punitive enforcement and chill protected speech.”

In an email inquiry sent Thursday morning, the Wisconsin Examiner asked the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, one of the primary advocates for the legislation, about efforts that proponents were making to appeal to Evers to sign the bill.

The federation’s communications director, Jeff Jones, replied Friday, including links to the federation’s FAQ on the legislation as well as its statement on the Senate’s passage of the bill.

“We worked with lawmakers to help develop a bipartisan bill with both parties having consensus and confidence that the governor will sign it into law,” Jones wrote in an email message.

This report has been updated with the response Friday of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In Milwaukee, the family of a woman detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) joined local activists in pleading for her release. Elvira Benitez, who was born in Mexico, has never been in trouble with the law since she came to the United States 36 years ago. But Benitez was taken into custody earlier this month after a routine check-in, and transported out of state to a detention facility in Kentucky. 

“I’m asking all of you to put aside your biases and put aside preconceived notions, and simply look at the facts of Elvira’s case,” said attorney Marc Christopher during a press conference Thursday. “And I think that if you look at it not through a political lens, not through a preconceived lens but through a lens of justice, integrity, and fairness…These are values our country has traditionally upheld, I think you’ll find her to be an extremely sympathetic case.”

Christopher, hoping to reach people both in and outside of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recounted the story of what led Benitez to America. “I want you to imagine a 15-year-old girl whose mother has died. She’s living in poverty in Mexico, and she’s facing the most extreme and terrible abuse at the hands of her own family. She then takes her 9-year-old sister and together they flee, crossing a desert with no guarantee of safety, no certainty, and nowhere to turn. It’s not a calculated decision that that 15-year-old child made. It was a decision of survival. That girl is Elvira, 36 years ago.”

When she arrived in the United States, said Christopher, “she did what we say we all value.” Benitez worked, paid her taxes, learned English, and raised four children. She became active in her church, started a small cleaning business, and never crossed paths with the law for over three decades. “Not a jaywalking ticket, not even for anything minor,” said Christopher. 

Benitez’s world turned upside down last July. During a family trip to Niagara Falls, GPS led the family on a wrong turn towards Canada. After they turned around, both Benitez and her husband were detained at the border. Husband and wife were separated, one sent to northern Michigan and the other to Ohio. “The extended family was then required to travel to Michigan to pick up the two youngest children,” said Christopher. “For the next six months they had to endure something that you hope no family would have to endure — absolute separation from each other.”

Benitez was incarcerated with  people who had committed  serious criminal offenses. When her case was finally reviewed by an immigration judge, the judge found that Benitez was a good candidate for permanent residency. Benitez was able to go home in December, a week before Christmas, to spend time with her family. Then, on March 10, when Benitez went for a routine check-in at the ICE office. As she walked out, she was detained. The federal government had decided to appeal Benitez’s release, on the very last day they were able to do so. 

Stressing that the law does not require that she  be detained, Christopher asked, “What  purpose does this really serve? What does it say about us as a county, and us as a society?” Benitez was shackled and shipped to Chicago, then transported to Kentucky. Christopher added that people who question why Benitez didn’t get her citizenship after 36 years do not understand the immigration system. He said that it is not fair or practical to expect a traumatized, desperate 15-year-old girl to understand immigration laws, and that Benitez integrated into American society and followed all the rules. 

Benitez’s husband and children sat beside Christopher during the press conference. “My wife is not a criminal but she is being treated that way,” her husband said, calling her detention physical and emotional abuse. Her oldest daughter, Kristal, said her mother’s case is not about politics.  “it’s about being a human.” Benitez’s two youngest children, ages 11 and 12, said they miss their mother, and the 12-year-old broke down and cried.  

A family friend of Benitez spoke about Benitez’s participation in church and community events, and said that she’s “ashamed of what’s going on in our country right now.” Kristal said that Benitez is having a hard time, having just endured an extended time in immigration detention last year. “She’s literally in despair,” said Kristal. “She’s having a hard time remaining strong this time around. She was getting her freedom again, and then taken again…And she’s scared. She is with the general population…So she’s terrified, scared that something might happen to her and she just wants to be home and she doesn’t see any hope.” 

The federal government’s appeal of Benitez’s case could take up to 18 months, meaning she’ll likely be detained for more than a year. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, said that using ICE detention to crush people’s hopes is an intentional strategy of the Trump administration. Neumann-Ortiz praised the Benitez family’s bravery, saying  people are often fearful of speaking out about their experiences with ICE. 

Voces de la Frontera has been collecting and verifying  reports of ICE arrests in Milwaukee. 

In early May, the group is planning a  march to Milwaukee’s federal building, calling for an end to Trump’s deportation campaign and to call for reform to the immigration system.  

In an emailed statement, a DHS spokesperson described Benitez in bold black text as “an illegal alien from Mexico” and said “she will receive full due process.” The spokesperson stated, “being in detention is a choice. We encourage all illegal aliens to take control of their departure with the [Customs and Border Protection] Home app. The United States is offering illegal aliens $2,600 and a free flight to self-deport now. We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live the American dream. If not, you will be arrested and deported without a chance to return.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) announced Thursday that he will not seek another term in the state Senate this year — marking the departure of yet another top leader in Wisconsin state politics. 

LeMahieu, 53, was first elected to the state Senate in 2015. He has served as the Senate majority leader since 2020, when he was chosen by his caucus to succeed former Senate Majority Leader and now-U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald. 

LeMahieu said in a statement that he made the “difficult” decision after “careful reflection and prayer.” He said that serving in the body was “the privilege of a lifetime” and said he was proud of the work that he’s done, including passing the REINS Act, a 2017 law that limited agencies’ rulemaking power, and income tax cuts.

“The time has come for a new chapter in my life,” LeMahieu said. “I am looking forward to spending more time with my wife in our new Madison-area home and, for the first time since 2006, rooting for bold conservative reform from the sidelines.”

During his first two terms as Senate leader, LeMahieu led an increasingly large Senate Republican caucus which at one time had 23 out of 33 members. Those margins allowed the Senate to reject Gov. Tony Evers’ nominees and also at times override vetoes, though those votes did not lead to any vetoes being blocked as Assembly Republicans never held a supermajority.

New legislative maps adopted in 2024 led to slimmer margins in the body, which currently has 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats. 

LeMahieu has not always been able to gather a majority of his caucus members to support legislation and has at times turned to Democrats to get bills across the finish line, especially after the Republican majority shrank.

During the Senate’s recently concluded final floor session, LeMahieu faced criticism from some of his caucus members for passing bills to legalize sports betting and help the University of Wisconsin pay student athletes for their name, image and likeness without majority support from  Republicans and with the help of Democrats. Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), who is also retiring this year, said that the passage of the “unpopular bills will help pave the way to minority status for Republicans come November.”

Prior to his election to the state Senate, LeMahieu served on the Sheboygan County Board for nine years. His time in the Legislature followed the path of his father, former Republican Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, who served in the state Assembly from 2003 until 2015.

LeMahieu joins three other Senate Republicans who recently announced their retirements including Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Nass.

LeMahieu’s decision means there will be completely new leadership in the state government when lawmakers return in January 2026 after the fall elections. Evers announced his retirement last year and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), the state’s longest serving speaker, announced his retirement last month. Vos has said he thinks Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) would be a good person to succeed him. 

Evers said in a statement that he appreciated working with LeMahieu and his “quiet and polite but frank approach.” 

“While we haven’t always seen eye to eye on every issue all of the time, I’ve never doubted his commitment to doing what he believes is best for the folks and families in Sheboygan County and across our state,” he said. “For the past five years he’s served as majority leader, we’ve navigated difficult issues facing the state of Wisconsin, and we’ve gotten good work done together by putting politics aside and staying focused on doing the right thing.” 

Evers noted their work together on tax cuts for working families and retirees, investments in the state’s child care industry, investments in shared revenue and an investment in the Milwaukee Brewers’ stadium.

“We’re not done yet, and I look forward to getting more good bipartisan work accomplished before our time together in office comes to an end,” Evers said. 

While lawmakers have wrapped their regular session work, leaders are still discussing ways to use the state’s $4.6 billion budget surplus to provide tax relief to Wisconsinites and additional funding to the state’s public schools. 

Negotiations were stalled on that effort last month after LeMahieu said he was cut out of negotiations between Vos and Evers, then his caucus proposed providing tax rebates to Wisconsinites instead of property tax relief or school funding. Vos and LeMahieu then came up with a compromise, but Evers rejected that. 

Vos said in a statement that he has enjoyed working with LeMahieu and repeated his assessment that “being Senate Majority Leader is the hardest job in the Capitol.”

“Devin approached each challenge deliberately and with the goal to move our state forward. We accomplished a lot during our time leading our respective chambers that I am proud of and — even when it was difficult —he always wanted to do what was right and best for the people of Wisconsin,” Vos said.

Control of the Assembly and Senate will be at stake in the November election. Democrats would need to win two additional seats in the Senate and five additional seats in the Assembly to flip the chambers for the first time since 2009. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said in a statement that LeMahieu was “a dedicated public servant” who has provided “tireless service to his constituents.” She has expressed confidence that her party will be able to win a majority in the Senate, which would open a path for her to become the top Senate leader. 

“I have found him to be a man of his word and I wish him and his family the best as he begins this next chapter,” Hesselbein said.

Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca) and Rep. Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger) also announced their retirements on Thursday. Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) is also retiring.

Brian Schimming, chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, called LeMahieu in a statement a “tireless advocate for our shared conservative values and a key force in maintaining Republican majorities.” He said that they “look forward to continuing the fight and keeping a majority in the Senate this November.”

Devin Remiker, the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, said in a statement about LeMahieu’s retirement that other Republicans should “consider retiring alongside your colleagues before you are voted out in November.”

“All potential Republican candidates should take note: Both of your leaders have abandoned you. Your policies are causing working people to turn against you in droves as the Trump administration crashes and burns,” Remiker said.

Update: This story has been updated to include comment from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Brian Schimming. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin will now require additional coverage of breast cancer screenings for women with dense breast tissue, which puts them at a higher risk for cancer. 

Gov. Tony Evers signed SB 264, now Wisconsin Act 103, in the state Capitol Thursday while surrounded by the family of Gail Zeemer, a Neenah woman who advocated for the measure before she died in June 2024 at the age of 56 and for whom the law is named.

“The system failed Gail. However, in the face of adversity and unimaginable struggle, she chose to persevere,” Evers said. “Now, thanks to Gail, Wisconsin will have not one, but two laws on the books to protect women’s health.” He added that the bill would ensure that women at higher risk won’t “be left behind.”

Zeamer was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in 2016. According to WPR, she had been getting annual mammograms, but she was never told she had dense breast tissue or of the increased risks associated with breast density. According to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, nearly half of women over 40 have dense breast tissue.

Zeamer headed up an advocacy effort for a measure that became law in 2017 that requires health care facilities to notify women if they have dense breast tissue. When they are notified, women are also encouraged to follow up to discuss risk and the potential need for further screening. 

According to a 2019 study from Susan G. Komen, the average out-of-pocket cost of a diagnostic mammogram was $234 on average and the average cost for a breast MRI was $1,021 on average. 

“Despite its prevalence, roughly a quarter of women with breast cancer are not diagnosed until the cancer has progressed to stage three. As a cancer survivor myself, my family and I were blessed to have caught it, but anyone who has faced this terrible disease knows that the key is getting as far ahead of it as you can,” said Evers, who was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and  underwent treatment for it in 2008. “Breast cancer is already one of the costliest cancers to treat. With these changes today, we’re ensuring no woman slips through the cracks because they weren’t able to afford additional tests that were covered by insurers.”

The law will require health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for women with dense breast tissue with no patient cost-sharing requirements.

The bill received unanimous support in the Assembly despite having previously been held up due to opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Vos had said recent federal changes made changes in breast cancer screening coverage unnecessary. Advocates disagreed.

Zeamer’s daughters, Claudia and Sophie, spoke about their mother’s strength in advocating for changes even as she battled cancer. 

“I feel very lucky knowing that my mom is now part of history, and I miss her more than ever, but I also know that she’s looking down on all of us with that big, beautiful smile of hers, knowing that we finished this for her,” Claudia said. “I wish more than anything that she could be here to see what she started and to see how many lives she’s going to help in the future.”

The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 6,000 women in Wisconsin will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, and more than 600 lose their lives to cancer annually. Women with dense breast tissue are at higher risk and dense breast tissue can make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms, meaning that additional screening could help catch cancer earlier. 

“There was no doubt after she lost her battle, we would finish this for her,” Claudia said.  “She wasn’t doing it for attention or recognition. She did it because she cared so deeply about other people.” 

“My mom taught me what it really means to be selfless to do something,” she added, “not because you’ll get anything out of it, but because, you know, it might make someone else’s life better.” 

Sophie thanked the lawmakers, including bill coauthors Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) and Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield), and advocacy groups including the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen.

“My family would like to extend our most heartfelt gratitude to everyone who helped make my mom’s final life’s work come to fruition,” she said. “This has been an emotional roller coaster for our family and for all involved, but persistence and the determination to make Wisconsin better for everyone has gotten us to this point today.”

The Early Detection Saves Lives Coalition, which advocated for the legislation, celebrated the signing in a statement. 

“Gail’s Law is a decisive step toward closing a critical gap in women’s health,” said Jyoti Gupta, who is the president and CEO of women’s health and X-ray for GE HealthCare. “No woman should face delays in breast cancer diagnosis because she cannot afford the imaging needed to complete her screening. By removing cost barriers to medically necessary exams, Wisconsin is helping ensure breast cancers are detected earlier, when treatment is most effective and survival rates are highest.”

As Evers signed the bill, Zeamer’s husband, Steve, wiped away tears. The crowd of advocates and lawmakers cheered.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Thursday voted to move forward Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination to lead the Department of Homeland Security. 

After the 8-7 vote, Mullin’s nomination will head to the Senate floor. 

Thursday’s vote comes a day after Mullin, a Republican, appeared before the committee in a contentious nomination hearing in which the GOP chair, Sen. Rand Paul, questioned whether Mullin should lead the department given his “anger issues.”

Paul, of Kentucky, voted against advancing Mullin’s nomination, the only Republican on the panel to oppose a fellow senator.

But because Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted with the rest of the Republicans, Mullin’s nomination advanced.

In a statement, Fetterman said his vote to approve Mullin was “rooted in a strong, committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security.”

Paul at the Wednesday hearing took issue with Mullin referring to him as a “freaking snake” and expressing sympathy for a neighbor who assaulted Paul in 2017, breaking six ribs and injuring a lung.

Mullin told senators in the hearing that he aims to lead DHS differently than Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the former South Dakota governor whom the president removed from the post earlier this month and reassigned to another position within the administration. 

Mullin said he would do away with several policies that Noem implemented, such as a requirement for disaster grants to be personally approved by the secretary of Homeland Security. 

He added that he wants DHS to “not be in the news every day,” referencing the aggressive enforcement tactics by immigration agents that have been caught on camera, including their involvement in the deaths of two Minneapolis residents. 

Mullin will likely leave his Senate seat after he votes for his own nomination to lead DHS. It’s similar to a move by Secretary of State Marco Rubio last year, when he left his U.S. Senate seat representing Florida after voting to confirm his nomination to lead the State Department. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, said Thursday that DHS “needs a leader who can restore the trust that DHS has broken with the American people,” and that he did not have confidence that Mullin could tackle that challenge. 

Peters, like Paul, raised concerns about Mullin’s “temperament to lead this critical department.”

”There will be no shortage of political disagreements facing the new DHS secretary,” Peters said. “The department and the American people deserve a leader who is steady and proven under pressure, not just someone better than the very low bar set by his predecessor.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday didn’t rule out asking Congress for an additional $200 billion to cover the cost of his war in Iran, a substantial sum that will likely be difficult to move through both chambers. 

“It’s a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top,” he said when asked about the number, first reported Wednesday evening by the Washington Post and since confirmed by several other news organizations.

The White House deferred questions from States Newsroom about a possible supplemental spending request to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond to an email. 

Trump, when asked specifically about the $200 billion figure, didn’t rebuff the reporter’s question or say the number was incorrect. Earlier news reports expected the request to total about $50 billion, a significantly smaller sum. 

Trump also indicated he may need the additional money for other military operations. And while he didn’t specifically mention Cuba, he has talked repeatedly about “taking” the island nation in recent days. 

“We’re asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran,” Trump said. “This is a very volatile world and the military equipment, the power of some of this weaponry is unthinkable. You don’t even want to know about it. Oh, you could end this thing in two seconds if you wanted to. But we are being very judicious.”

Any request for emergency funding would need to move through the House, where Republicans hold an especially thin majority, and the Senate, where the GOP has a majority but legislation cannot advance past a 60-vote legislative hurdle without bipartisan support. 

‘Preposterous’

Democrats have been overwhelmingly opposed to Trump’s war in Iran since it began and are unlikely to give Republicans the votes needed to move such a large emergency spending request through the upper chamber. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said shortly after Trump’s remarks in a floor speech that such a request would be “preposterous.”

“Even a fraction of that is unacceptable for a war without a plan, without a goal, without the support of the American people,” he said. “Let’s be very clear, if Trump wants $200 billion, that means he believes we might be in a war with Iran for a very, very long time.”

Schumer said that funding could instead be spent on lowering health care premiums, education, helping people afford the rising costs of groceries and improving infrastructure. 

“It’s an indefensible number, one of the most wasteful and unthought-out budget requests I have ever heard in my time in the Senate,” he said. 

Defense spending already provided

No path forward in Congress would leave the Trump administration with the spending lawmakers have already approved. 

Congress approved $838.7 billion for the Department of Defense in January as part of its annual government funding process. Republicans approved another $150 billion for the Pentagon to spend on specific programs, like air and missile defense, as well as shipbuilding, in their “big, beautiful” law enacted in 2025.

The funding in the GOP tax and spending cuts package was intended to be spread out over the next few years. 

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

For the third state Supreme Court election in a row, the conservative supported candidate is running a campaign based largely on accusations that the liberal candidate will be a partisan actor on the bench. But this year, the target of that accusation, who is running to secure a 5-2 liberal majority on the Court, served as a Democrat in the Wisconsin Assembly for nine years  and previously worked as the state policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. 

“I don’t come with a political agenda to the bench,” says Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, who, after serving in the Assembly, was appointed to the Dane County Circuit Court by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and then elected to the District IV Court of Appeals.  “My agenda is to make sure every person has justice under the law, to make sure that everyone’s held accountable when they violate the law, regardless of how powerful or privileged they are and to be independent. And I saw in the Legislature how important it was to have an independent court. You don’t want a court to be a rubber stamp for any party or the Legislature or the federal government.” 

Taylor’s opponent, Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, has spent more time as a judge and throughout the campaign has accused Taylor of being a partisan actor. 

Lazar’s initial race for the Court of Appeals and her race this year have involved the support of some of the state’s most prominent election deniers. Taylor said that support and Lazar’s ruling in favor of the Wisconsin Voter Alliance are important signals for a race whose winner will likely be involved in deciding election law challenges in the 2028 presidential race. 

“I certainly don’t have confidence that she would act to protect our elections if it didn’t go the way that the right wing wants it to go,” she told the Examiner. “So yes, I would be very worried about that, and people should with her record, and they should have no such worry with me, because I will make sure that unmeritorious attacks on our elections are struck down or are rejected.” 

After the 2023 and 2025 campaigns for the Court set national records for judicial campaign fundraising, the 2026 race between Taylor and Lazar is comparatively sleepy. Taylor said at a forum hosted by Marquette Law School Wednesday that it’s probably a good thing that the temperature has been brought down a bit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

But with less money involved — and the ideological lean of the Court not at stake — less attention has been paid to the race. A Marquette Law poll released last month found that Taylor had a slight lead in the race, but that most people had not yet started paying attention or learned who either candidate was. 

Taylor said she believes her campaign’s work over the past month has changed that, and that Wisconsin voters are “overwhelmed” by the state of the country. 

“The people [of Wisconsin] are so engaged in government. They are hungry for a government that works for them. They are hungry for a court that stands up for them and protects their rights,” Taylor said at the Marquette event. “Now I will say I think people are overwhelmed. I really do. I think they’re overwhelmed because it’s hard right now. I think working families are struggling with high costs, gas prices have gone up so much. You know, there’s a lot going on in the world. Sometimes it feels very overwhelming. It’s very hard to see sometimes where you can make a difference and what you should be doing. But I tell people, this is a way to make a difference, is show up and vote.” 

She said that if elected, she wants the Court to be better at engaging with regular Wisconsinites, pointing to oral arguments the Court held recently in Richland County rather than its Madison chambers as an example of something that should happen more. She also said that the Court needs to take more cases — a regular critique of the liberal-majority Court is that its caseload has dropped significantly. 

“I have a duty to be independent, but I do not want to be isolated from the public,” she said. “I’m part of the community, and I want to be out in the community, doing what I can to do my part to make sure people know what we do in the judiciary, we have confidence in what we do. I think the more we can talk about it and invite people in, the more confidence people will have in our process.” 

Both candidates in this year’s race for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court have served as circuit and appeals court judges. But Taylor says the difference between them is that she’s “never been reversed” by a higher court. 

But Taylor points to the instances in which Lazar’s decisions have been overturned as evidence that the former Waukesha County judge is more likely to tilt her rulings toward one side. 

“The only person, though, who has brought politics to the bench is my opponent,” Taylor told the Wisconsin Examiner. “And you look at the cases she has decided and thankfully been reversed on and you can see it.” 

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned Lazar’s decision in a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, a group that has been heavily involved in the effort to discredit Wisconsin’s election administration system since the 2020 election. The group had sued to force the release of voter registration files for people who had been declared incompetent to vote by a judge. 

A previous appeals court decision had ruled the records weren’t able to be released, yet in a second lawsuit Lazar ruled otherwise — even though Wisconsin’s appeals courts don’t have the authority to overturn precedent. 

“I have never seen that be done on the Court of Appeals. My colleagues, who’ve been there, some of them, over a decade, have never seen such a blatant disregard of precedent,” Taylor said. “Maria Lazar put her thumb on the scale. She didn’t like the result. She has brought politics to this bench.” 

Taylor told the Examiner that in an era in which people across Wisconsin are worried about the Trump administration’s effects on their livelihoods and safety, the exact ideological swing of the Court is less important than having a Court that isn’t afraid to stand up on behalf of the Wisconsin people.

“People don’t care about what the ideology is on the court, they want justices who are going to protect their rights, who are going to stand up for our democracy and our elections, stand up to the federal government and make sure people get justice,” she said. “That’s what they want. That’s what my opponent does not understand. People want justices that are going to be fair and are going to protect them and have their back. My opponent has not ever done that in her life. That is not her priority like it is for me, it’s not ever been her priority.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans and one Democrat blocked another War Powers Resolution Wednesday night to stop President Donald Trump from further military action in Iran without authorization from Congress.

The resolution failed to advance, 47-53. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., broke with Democrats to join Republicans in opposing the measure. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted in favor.

The vote came two weeks after a similar effort to rein in Trump’s executive war powers failed in the Senate, and a day later in the U.S. House. 

The vote also occurred hours after congressional Democrats, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., protested on the Capitol lawn against the war, calling attention to a U.S. strike on the war’s first day that killed more than 100 elementary school children.

Booker leads opposition to war

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., one of the resolution’s lead sponsors, said “Americans are paying the price” for the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.

Booker said Trump, whom he described as “cocky” about the conflict, should send Cabinet members before the Senate to testify under oath.

“Thousands of people have died in this war. In barely two weeks, 200 Americans have been injured in this war. Thirteen Americans have paid the ultimate price for a war that we have gone into on the decision made by one man. The American people at large are paying costs in the billions of dollars a week,” Booker said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Booker was joined by Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn, in sponsoring the measure. One Republican, Paul, co-sponsored the previous War Powers Resolution aimed at curtailing Trump’s actions in Iran.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said “ there’s no end in sight” to the war. 

“No more senseless wars in the Middle East. No more gas prices shooting through the roof. No more US service members fighting and dying in endless wars,” he said on the floor just before the vote.

Graham defends war

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a vocal proponent of Trump’s war in Iran, said he knows the economy is “tough” for Americans.

“I know the economy on the gas front is hurting, but I do believe this with every ounce of my being — if we had not done this, they would be on the path, the Iranian regime, to a nuclear capability, and they would use it. Eventually, they would use it or give it to somebody who would,” Graham said.

Oil shot up to nearly $111 a barrel on the global market Wednesday as Iran continues to block a major shipping route.

Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, dismissed the Democrats’ “dangerous, obstructive resolutions.” 

“Fellow senators, I urge you tonight to join me in defeating this resolution, as we have done over and over again,” said Risch, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, on the floor ahead of the vote. 

A War Powers Resolution to cut off Trump’s military power in Venezuela narrowly failed in the Senate in January when Vice President JD Vance had to break a tie.

War Powers Resolutions require a simple majority to advance.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution law mandates the president report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops. If after 60 days from first notice Congress has not authorized a war or passed legislation related to the military action, the president’s use of armed forces is automatically terminated. 

Congress passed the act to rein in presidential war powers, despite a veto from President Richard Nixon amid the ongoing Vietnam War. Congress overrode the veto.

WASHINGTON — Against a backdrop of children’s backpacks and shoes Wednesday, congressional Democrats protested President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, specifically denouncing an early U.S. strike that killed more than 100 elementary school students in the country’s southern city of Minab.

The lawmakers attended the installation organized by peace advocacy group Win Without War nearly 20 days into the U.S.-Israeli campaign in Iran that has claimed the lives of 13 U.S. service members, nearly 2,000 civilians and military personnel in Iran, just under 1,000 civilians in Lebanon, and dozens of civilians across the Persian Gulf nations and Israel, according to state officials and human rights organizations.

The conflict, which Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have vowed to continue unabated, is “illegal” and a “war of choice,” the Democratic lawmakers said on the lawn just outside the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., said Trump launched the war “without a clear case made to the American people and without any strategy or plan.”

“And that lack of planning has had devastating consequences. One of the very first strikes of this illegal war hit a girls elementary school in Iran, killing at least 175 people, most of them children,” said Ansari, who added she is the only Iranian-American member of Congress.

News reports citing Iranian authorities and human rights organization Amnesty International say 168 children were killed when the U.S. struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Hormozgan province on Feb. 28, the first day of the war.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters on March 4 that the Pentagon is investigating the strike and that the U.S. does not target civilians.

Reporters then pressed Hegseth days after a March 11 News York Times report revealed an ongoing military investigation determined a U.S. Tomahawk missile had hit the school.

“We’re not going to let reporting lead us or force our hand into indicating what happened in a particular situation, because the truth matters,” Hegseth responded during a March 13 briefing. “So I can report that (U.S. Central Command) has designated an investigating officer to complete a command investigation.”

Nearly every Senate Democrat demanded in a March 11 letter that the Pentagon swiftly reveal the investigation’s findings.

 

Hearings sought

Congressional Democrats are also urging Republican colleagues to hold open hearings where administration officials would be tasked with publicly testifying under oath.

“The administration refuses to send their decisionmakers up to Capitol Hill to explain why they dragged America into this war, and the reason they don’t want to show up is they don’t have good answers for the American people,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen said at the Wednesday event.

“We have lost 13 of our service members (and) over 2000 civilians have been killed throughout the Middle East. And of course, those are the greatest losses, the loss of life, but it’s also costing the American people $1 billion a day,” the Maryland Democrat continued.

The cost to the federal government of funding the war is substantial, reaching $5.2 billion after just two days, according to one estimate. Other estimates have put the cost at closer to $11.3 billion after two weeks.

Ansari, Van Hollen and several other Democratic members at the protest assured they would vote ‘no’ should the White House ask Congress for extra money to fund the war.

The majority of House and Senate Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, have so far blocked attempts to rein in Trump’s executive war powers in Iran.

Senate Democrats are expected to force another War Powers Resolution vote as early as Wednesday evening.

Gabbard testifies to Senate

Senators tasked with overseeing federal intelligence had the opportunity to question Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other top national security officials Wednesday at a previously scheduled annual hearing on the worldwide threat assessment.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., pressed Gabbard during the nearly three-hour hearing on Trump’s reasoning for attacking Iran last month when the administration claimed Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been “obliterated” in joint air strikes with Israel in June.

“Was it the intelligence community’s assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a quote ‘imminent nuclear threat’ posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?” Ossoff asked.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard responded. “That is up to the president based on a volume of information that he receives.”

On Tuesday, Gabbard’s deputy, Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, publicly resigned in a letter stating “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Milwaukee reacted to a the New York Times investigation published Wednesday that details sexual misconduct allegations against  influential civil rights and labor activist Cesar Chavez. Ald. JoCasta Zamarripa, who represents parts of Milwaukee’s predominantly Latino south side, announced that an annual celebration of Chavez’s life will be canceled this year. 

Milwaukee is also considering renaming a street that honors Chavez, who is accused of assaulting girls as young as 13. Images of Chavez appear on  murals and statues around  Milwaukee. All of these sites are being re-evaluated as the community processes the impact the allegations have on the labor and Latino civil rights movements Chavez led.

In a statement, Zamarippa said that Chavez’s contributions “are a matter of historical record”  but so are the “devastating” accounts of his accusers, including Dolores Huerta, Ana Murguia and Debra Rojas.  Zamarippa said that “both things are true, and our community deserves leaders who will say so clearly rather than ask survivors to wait until we process our own grief.” 

The Times investigation focused on Ana Murguia who, alongside Debra Rojas, say that Chavez — then in his 40s — abused them for years when they were  young girls. Murguia decided to come forward after she  heard that a street near where she lives in California was being renamed after Chavez, who died in 1993 at the age of 66. 

Neither Murguia nor Rojas had publicly shared their stories before. The Times investigation found “extensive evidence to support their accusations and those raised by several other women” against Chavez. Both women were the daughters of longtime organizers who marched and rallied alongside Chavez. According to the Times, Chavez had known Murguia since she was 8 years old, and the repeated abuse she endured in his office traumatized her so much that she  attempted to take her life multiple times at the age of 15. 

The pattern of abuse extended beyond Murguia and Rojas. Dolores Huerta, an icon of the farmworkers movement, said that Chavez also sexually assaulted her. The Times’ findings are based on interviews with over 60 people, including Chavez’s top aides, relatives and former members of the United Farm Workers movement. The Times also reviewed hundreds of pages of union records, confidential emails, photographs and hours of audio recordings from the movement’s board meetings. 

Many of the women who say they were abused by Chavez waited decades to tell their stories due to the shame they felt and fear of going against a man who’d become a cultural icon. 

Zamarripa said in her statement,  “the farmworker movement was never one man. It was built by thousands of workers, organizers, and families who gave their lives to the fight for dignity and justice.” 

Darryl Morin, president of Forward Latino, like Zamarripa, said, “this movement has never been about any one individual; it has always been about the people. It is grounded in the dignity of all, for farmworkers in the fields to students in our schools, and in the ongoing pursuit of justice. Upholding these values requires recognizing that no one is above accountability, whether they lead a movement, major corporation, or a government.”

Mayor Cavalier Johnson called the accusations “extremely troubling” and added that “the victims, those who have come forward and those who are unnamed, deserve our compassion,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

Milwaukee County Supv. Juan Miguel Martinez, a labor organizer, said that South Cesar E. Chavez Drive will be renamed “Dolores Huerta Way.” Martinez said in a statement that “too often, men of status abuse their power and use it for heinous acts towards women, and especially toward defenseless children…A union is built by people, not one person.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators debated Wednesday whether the federal government should change how Americans register to vote and cast a ballot, with Republicans maintaining alterations are necessary to safeguard elections and Democrats arguing a new law would add unnecessary obstacles.

Tensions over the issue were on full display when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said GOP lawmakers describing the bill as a simple voter identification requirement is “bullshit,” shortly before Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee contended it would be “a suicidal move” for his party’s leaders not to find a way forward. 

The legislation, dubbed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, is unlikely to become law without bipartisan backing from at least 60 senators, who would be needed to move past a procedural vote. 

Democrats are not expected to help Republicans with that, especially after Schumer called the legislation “Jim Crow 2.0” and “evil” during a morning press conference with voting rights advocates. 

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said during that event GOP lawmakers are acting out of concern they will lose control of Congress following the November midterm elections, due to President Donald Trump’s actions during his second term.  

“The American people have had it with him and with his policies,” Warnock said. “He ran as someone who was going to lower costs, who was going to stay out of endless wars in the Middle East and he is failing. But instead of changing his policies, he’s trying to change the shape of the electorate.”

Problems with lack of birth certificate

New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján said if the bill becomes law, it would create difficulties for anyone who doesn’t have access to their birth certificate or a passport, to prove U.S. citizenship when they try to register to vote. 

“What about my Native American brothers and sisters?” he said. “All my brothers and sisters from the First Nations that I’m proud to represent across New Mexico, who may have been born in their home generationally with other family members. They didn’t have a birth certificate.”

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said GOP lawmakers trying to change the voting process during an election year creates a pattern when combined with several Republican state legislatures redrawing U.S. House maps to benefit their candidates. 

“We see this being about having politicians choose the voters instead of voters choosing the politicians,” he said. 

Several Democratic state legislatures have responded to GOP redistricting efforts by redrawing their maps as well. 

Schumer, D-N.Y., said it’s unacceptable that Republicans want every state in the country to submit a list of registered voters to the Department of Homeland Security to run through a database, which he believes is flawed. 

“They’re trying to dupe America. They say, ‘Oh, this is just a voter ID law.’ Bullshit. It is not a voter ID law,” Schumer said. “It is a law that will kick millions of Americans off the voting rolls.”

‘Debate this as long as it takes to get it done’

Utah’s Lee said Republican leaders shouldn’t schedule the procedural vote that requires at least 60 senators to end debate on the bill until they have found some way to move past that step.  

“I think it would be a suicidal move for us as Senate Republicans, for Republicans in general, if we don’t put everything we’ve got into this,” he said. “I think we need to debate this as long as it takes to get it done. And if we’re not there yet, we need to continue debating.”

Lee contended that prolonged debate on the bill would give Republicans time to sway holdouts to their side. 

“This is going to become popular enough that a lot of our colleagues who currently oppose it, I believe, will start to get on board,” he said. 

Every Senate Democrat, along with Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, voted against formally beginning debate on Tuesday. North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis didn’t vote.

Trump wants national limits on voting by mail

Senate debate on the bill dragging out in the days or possibly weeks ahead won’t be confined to what’s currently in the legislation, which the House passed last month.

Trump has asked senators to make three alterations, which they will attempt to incorporate through amendments. 

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt said he plans to call for a vote to add nationwide restrictions on mail-in voting instead of leaving the issue to state governments. 

“If you have a hardship because of a disability, or an illness, or because of travel, or you’re a caregiver, or some other hardship the state can identify, you can vote by absentee,” he said. “You have to request it. Then you can vote by absentee.”

Schmitt said the carve-out would also include members of the military. 

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn said she plans to call up an amendment that could create a nationwide prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth. 

Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, she said, would push for an amendment to block transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

Gov. Tony Evers signed SB 23, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 102 on Wednesday, officially making Wisconsin the 49th state to provide a year of coverage for postpartum mothers on Medicaid. 

“It’s been a long time coming, but I’m darn proud we got it done,” Evers, who signed the bill at Children’s Hospital in Milwaukee, said in a statement. 

Evers first proposed Wisconsin submit a waiver to the federal government to extend Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months in his 2019 state budget, but years of legislative gridlock on the issue made Wisconsin the second to last state to make the change. 

According to KFF, the Medicaid program pays for about four in 10 births in the U.S. and federal law had required states to provide Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers through 60 days. The American Rescue Plan Act gave states the option to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage to 12 months, and most states took steps towards expansion.

“We knew from the get-go that getting this passed was an uphill battle, but we also weren’t going to let partisanship or politics stop us from continuing our work to build support for this important proposal, because we know just how high the stakes are,” Evers said in a statement. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), who is retiring, was the main reason for the hold up. Articulating his opposition to the expansion, which he previously refused to bring to the floor, he said he was opposed to expanding “welfare.” A group of Republican lawmakers, including lead authors Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), lobbied for Vos to let the bill through as Democratic lawmakers applied pressure through procedural moves to try and force votes on the legislation. A breakthrough came the night before Assembly lawmakers’ final regular floor session this year. 

The bill passed in the Assembly 95-1. It passed the Senate 32-1. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (Delafield) were the sole opposing votes.

The expanded coverage, which will be available starting on July 1, means low-income mothers on Medicaid and their babies, who automatically get a year of coverage, will have Medicaid coverage for the same length of time. The only state in the U.S. left that has not implemented the expansion is Arkansas. 

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, about half of pregnancy-related deaths occur in the postpartum period and 95% of those deaths are preventable. Black mothers are more than twice as likely as their white, non-Hispanic peers to die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

“Research has shown us that expanding postpartum coverage leads to improved maternal and birth outcomes, thanks to more folks being able to access the care they need when they need it — and without breaking the bank,” Evers said. “Now more than ever, we should be working to make healthcare more affordable and more accessible, not making it more expensive and harder for folks — including new moms and families — to get the care they need.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE