WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Rhode Island Friday struck down several Trump administration policies that halted processing for asylum seekers following a shooting in Washington, D.C., that left one West Virginia National Guard member dead and another seriously injured.

In a searing opinion, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. said the Trump administration “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo” when it directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to pause asylum applications and green card paperwork for immigrants hailing from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries subject to the president’s travel ban. 

The policy was announced in November after the two National Guard members were shot. Authorities later charged Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who was granted asylum, with the shooting. He has pleaded not guilty in federal court. A status conference is set for June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

McConnell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said the policy “violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering.”

USCIS is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that oversees processing of legal immigration, ranging from asylum seekers to work authorization forms.

“USCIS’s hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth,” McConnell wrote.

He added that “the Court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.’ This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”

New policy paused processing 

Labor unions and immigration advocacy groups in Rhode Island sued the Trump administration over the policies. They brought the suit on behalf of their members, immigrants who had the processing of their work visas and travel documents paused after the new policy following last year’s shooting in Washington, D.C.

After the November shooting, on the eve of Thanksgiving, one guard member, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, was critically wounded, but recovered. 

One of the groups that sued, Democracy Forward, praised the decision. 

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the state’s congressional maps on the grounds that they’re an anti-competitive gerrymander, the Court ruled Friday afternoon. 

In an order that again showed the Court’s partisan divide spilling out into the public, the Court’s four liberals voted to accept the case while Justices Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler accused the majority of acting as tools of the Democratic party. 

The lawsuit against the maps was brought last summer by a bipartisan business group, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy Coalition, represented by the progressive nonprofit Law Forward. Rather than challenging the state’s congressional maps on the grounds that they’re an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander — a tactic that has repeatedly failed — the lawsuit argues the maps purposefully protect incumbents from realistic challenges. 

Because of a state law passed by Republicans in 2011, the lawsuit was first heard by a panel of three circuit court judges. In a ruling late last month, the panel dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the claims were essentially the same as those made in a partisan gerrymander challenge and therefore a question for the executive and legislative branches. 

The panel’s ruling was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court because the 2011 law states that appeals of these panel rulings can’t be heard by the Court of Appeals. 

While accepting the case, the Court denied a request that it be heard on an expedited schedule. With candidates for this fall’s midterm elections required to file ballot access signatures by June 1 and ballots are set to be printed shortly after, it’s unlikely the case will be concluded in time to change the state’s maps before November. 

In response to the Court accepting the case, Bradley and Ziegler vehemently objected — arguing that accepting the case is signaling the majority’s intent to redraw the maps. 

“An astonishingly activist court will once again revisit precedent it doesn’t like in order to do the bidding of its political masters,” Bradley wrote. “The Democratic Party bought multiple seats on this court to achieve yet another outcome unobtainable democratically. Like last time, the United States Supreme Court will likely reverse the majority’s unlawful ruling and protect our Republic. No kings. No queens either.”

Bradley, who frequently cites sources from a wide range of non-legal texts, also quoted George Orwell’s “1984” in her dissent. 

Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote a concurrence to the ruling, defending the majority from the conservative justices’ criticisms and calling them “false, inappropriate, and disingenuous.” 

“Deciding to hear a case does not reflect any weighing of the merits of any party’s claims, let alone prejudgment about who will prevail and why,” Dallet wrote. “Instead, we must — as a majority of this court does — stick to our neutral role, and let the parties argue their case before we render judgment. When the time comes to issue our decision, we will follow the law wherever it leads.”

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with a fund that opponents fear will be used to pay off the president’s political allies.

Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a brief order halting the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department and other high-ranking administration officials from taking any additional actions to create the fund or make payments from it.

The order came in a lawsuit filed by a former federal prosecutor and a California professor. The plaintiffs are represented by the legal advocacy groups Democracy Forward and Common Cause. The lawsuit is part of a flurry of legal challenges against the fund.

The Justice Department on May 18 announced a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” that will make payments to individuals who believe they have been wronged by past administrations. The fund came as part of a settlement agreement in a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over the leaking of his tax return information by a former IRS contractor.

Trump’s settlement agreement provides for the creation of the fund overseen by a board of five members chosen by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney. Trump can fire the members for any reason.

Brinkema, a President Bill Clinton appointee, took no position on the legality of the fund in her order. She wrote that her order is to ensure no money is “irreversibly disbursed” while the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is pending.

She also set a hearing for June 12 — likely ensuring the fund will remain blocked for at least the next two weeks.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Andrew Floyd, a former federal Jan. 6 case prosecutor who was fired by the DOJ in June 2025, and Joseph Caravello, a California university professor who was charged with felony assault on a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid last summer. A jury acquitted Caravello in April.

The nine-count lawsuit alleges in part the fund violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, and violates the authority of Congress.

“Since its inception, this fund has been on a collision course with the United States Constitution,” their complaint says.

Trump has written on social media that the fund will help those “who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration” receive justice.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed the request from the U.S. Department of Justice for Wisconsin’s unredacted voter rolls. The ruling marks a defeat in the Trump administration’s renewed effort to scrutinize the election administration of swing states that President Donald Trump lost in 2020. 

The federal government first requested Wisconsin’s unredacted voter registration list last summer,  making a similar request to most other states. The Wisconsin Elections Commission denied the DOJ request, citing state privacy laws, and pointed the department to the publicly available redacted list. 

The DOJ responded by suing WEC for the unredacted list. The federal government has filed similar lawsuits in 30 other states. 

Republicans and their allies have for years alleged that the data management practices of state election administrators are vulnerable to fraud. Voting rights groups and Democrats have countered that the Trump administration is seeking to fan the flames of election conspiracy theories and meddle in state elections by collecting massive amounts of voter data. 

U.S. Judge James Peterson found that the personal information of voters, including birthdays, Social Security numbers and driver’s license details, isn’t a record the DOJ can demand under the Civil Rights Act. 

“Defendants and their amici contend that the government’s position fails for multiple reasons, specifically: (1) a voter registration list is not a record subject to production under Title III; (2) the government has not provided an adequate statement of basis and purpose, as required by the statute; (3) the government has not explained why it needs an unredacted copy of the voter list, as opposed to the publicly available redacted version; and (4) the government’s request is barred by state and federal privacy laws,” Peterson wrote. “The court agrees that a voter registration list is not a record subject to production under Title III, so it will dismiss the complaint on that ground without considering defendants’ other arguments.”

The DOJ has lost parallel efforts to obtain this type of data in eight other federal district courts. 

After Peterson’s ruling, attorneys from Law Forward and the ACLU celebrated the decision, stating that it protects Wisconsin’s voters from potential intimidation. 

“Requiring Wisconsin to disclose this sensitive personal information despite laws prohibiting just that would have threatened the privacy of Wisconsin voters and the removal of eligible voters from voter rolls for no reason,” said Doug Poland, Law Forward’s director of litigation. “Federal law leaves it to states to administer their own elections, and Wisconsin already has reliable processes for maintaining its voter rolls.”

Poland said the purported premise behind the federal demand — to uncover evidence of noncitizens voting in elections — was a pretext.

“Given the rarity of noncitizen voting, this lawsuit, and similar efforts in other states, are thinly-masked efforts to manipulate and subvert future elections,” he said. “The court recognized this as an illegal attempt to gather and weaponize data on Americans, dressed up in the language of voting rights enforcement. We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s illegal schemes to interfere with elections administration and erode the rights of voters in Wisconsin.”

The Wisconsin Elections Commission should not have ordered the city of Madison to remove 23 late-arriving absentee ballots from its April 7 election count, a Dane County judge ruled.

The ruling, issued last week, was forced by a lawsuit from two of the voters whose ballots were affected. The lawsuit was brought by the voting rights-focused firm Law Forward. 

During the April 7 election, the voters returned their ballots on time, but due to what city officials called an election administrator’s error, they were not delivered to the proper polling location until after polls closed at 8 p.m. State law requires that ballots be “delivered to the polling place no later than 8 p.m.” 

At a May 6 meeting WEC decided to follow the exact letter of the law and found that the city must exclude the ballots. But the lawsuit argued that voters shouldn’t be punished because of an error outside of their control. 

“Voters who comply with every element that is required for them to vote a special absentee vote, and then not being allowed to have the votes count, is contrary to what good law in Wisconsin has been,” Dane County Judge Everett Mitchell said in court.

WEC Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, voted not to count the ballots, but expressed her hope during the commission discussions that a court would overturn the ruling. 

“As I have indicated previously, as an administrative agency we are bound by the language of the state statutes which precluded counting those ballots,” Jacobs said in a statement after the ruling. “That said, it has been my firm belief that voters should not be penalized by the actions of a clerk as these 23 voters were. The right to vote should not be predicated on a clerk failing to deliver properly and timely submitted ballots.”

The voting rights-focused firm Law Forward filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission Wednesday over the commission’s decision to throw out the spring election votes of 23 Madison voters whose absentee ballots were properly filled out and filed in time, yet were delivered by the city clerk’s office to poll sites after 8 p.m. on Election Day. 

The six-member commission voted last week to order the Dane County Board of Canvass not to count the votes in its certification of the election results because the ballots were delivered minutes after the polls closed April 7. State law allows absentee ballots to be returned until polls close. Ballots can be returned through the mail, to absentee ballot drop boxes located around Madison, to the city clerk’s office or directly to the voter’s polling location. 

The lawsuit, filed in Dane County Circuit Court, argues WEC’s application of the law is unconstitutional because the voters followed all the rules and their ballots were late through “no fault of their own.” 

Madison’s election administration has generated negative headlines several times in the last few years after the city clerk’s office misplaced and failed to count nearly 200 absentee ballots during the 2024 presidential election. The clerk in charge during that election no longer works for the city and the commission has instituted a number of requirements on city election officials to prevent similar errors from happening again. 

Law Forward President Jeff Mandell said in a statement that in this case, WEC is overreaching. He pointed to a long history of Wisconsin court precedent that states voters can’t be disenfranchised over administrative failures of election officials. 

“These voters did everything Wisconsin law asked of them, and the city and county properly counted their ballots,” Mandell said. “Their votes were cast, received, and counted on Election Day. WEC is now trying to erase them from the record because of a clerical error these voters had absolutely no control over. Failing to count these absentee votes will only erode trust in our elections and jeopardize access to voting in future elections. It’s critical that the court take urgent action to ensure these votes are counted.”

No local or state election results will be changed by the 23 votes. The lawsuit must move quickly because state law requires that the results of the state’s April 7 election must be certified by May 15.

A lawsuit seeking to throw out Wisconsin’s congressional maps on the basis that they’re unconstitutionally anti-competitive was dismissed Tuesday by a panel of three circuit court judges. 

The lawsuit was brought last summer by bipartisan business group Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy Coalition, represented by the progressive nonprofit Law Forward. 

For more than a decade, Wisconsin has been a national symbol of the effects of extreme partisan gerrymandering and Tuesday’s dismissal comes amid a effort by both major parties to redraw maps ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. 

A national mid-decade redistricting tit-for-tat started last year when Texas Republicans drew new maps, at President Donald Trump’s request, in an attempt to limit the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives. A number of other Republican states, including Missouri and North Carolina, followed suit. In response, voters in California and Virginia voted to change state laws to allow Democrats to re-draw their maps to minimize Republican seats. 

This week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis introduced a bill that would redraw his state’s maps to give Republicans four more seats. 

While both parties have drawn political maps to favor their own candidates, only congressional Democrats have proposed a bill that would ban partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin, state Democrats have long pushed for the adoption of a non-partisan redistricting commission. 

Wisconsin’s current congressional maps were adopted in 2021 by the state Supreme Court after Gov. Tony Evers and Republicans in the Legislature were unable to reach a deal on their own. When forced to weigh in, the Supreme Court instituted a “least change” rule that required any maps proposed to the Court to hew as closely as possible to the maps instituted by Republicans in 2011. The map the Court chose was proposed by Evers, a Democrat, but resulted in a heavily Republican congressional delegation, since they were drawn to adhere to the “least change” standard.

The 2011 political maps and the least change decision allowed Republicans to hold six of the state’s eight congressional seats. The state Supreme Court tossed out the state’s legislative maps in 2023 — which remained heavily gerrymandered under the “least change” standard — on the grounds that the shapes of the districts, some of which were broken into noncontiguous parts, were illegal. 

Over the years, the court system has heard a number of challenges to Wisconsin’s congressional maps on the basis that they are an illegal partisan gerrymander. A separate three-judge panel dismissed another lawsuit on partisan gerrymandering grounds late last month. 

Despite that dismissal, the Law Forward lawsuit argued that its claims were new and therefore deserved to be considered by the courts. The lawsuit argued that the maps were drawn to unfairly give incumbents of both parties an advantage, pointing to the fact that only one of the state’s congressional districts, western Wisconsin’s 3rd CD, is regularly decided by a single-digit margin. 

“After the Wisconsin Legislature adopted the 2011 congressional map, congressional races over the ensuing decade were, as intended, highly uncompetitive,” the lawsuit stated. “The Court’s adoption … of the ‘least change’ congressional map necessarily perpetuated the essential features — and the primary flaws — of the 2011 congressional map, including the 2011 congressional map’s intentional and effective effort to suppress competition.”

Republicans and their allies intervened in the case, arguing that it should be dismissed because the anti-competitive argument treads the same ground as the partisan gerrymandering claims the Court has already declined to hear. 

The three-judge panel, made up of Dane County Judge David Conway, Marathon County Judge Michael Moran and Portage County Judge Patricia Baker, agreed and dismissed the case, noting that the makeup of the state’s political maps is a question best left to the political branches of government, not the judicial system.

“Plaintiffs’ anti-competitive gerrymandering claims are functionally equivalent to partisan gerrymandering claims, at least for purposes of the political question analysis,” the judges wrote. “In a two-party system, partisan fairness and competitiveness are correlated: a more competitive map is typically a fairer map, whereas less competition usually means less partisan fairness. The objective of both theories is to change ‘the partisan makeup of districts,’ whether by achieving proportional representation, electoral competitiveness, or both.” 

Doug Poland, Law Forward’s director of litigation, said in a statement Tuesday that it’s disappointing the panel dismissed the case before it had the opportunity to hear evidence. He also said the panel’s ruling will be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. 

“This is the first anti-competitive gerrymandering case ever filed in Wisconsin courts, and it deserves to be heard,” Poland said. “We believe that the circuit court was wrong in concluding that anti-competitive gerrymandering is ‘functionally equivalent’ to partisan gerrymandering. They are different claims, based on different evidence, that target different ways of manipulating representation to the detriment of voters.”

Republican lawmakers want a lawsuit challenging the state’s school funding formula as unconstitutional dismissed, according to court filings. 

The lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s current school funding system was filed in February by Law Forward, a public interest law firm, in Eau Claire Circuit Court. The progressive legal group filed it on behalf of a group of school districts, parents, teachers, students and two advocacy organizations, the Wisconsin PTA and the Wisconsin Public Education Network (WPEN). The suit argues that the state Legislature is not fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide a “sound basic education” under the current school funding formula.

GOP lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and members of the Joint Finance Committee, called the lawsuit “meritless” in their filing and said that the majority of questions asked in the lawsuit have been previously answered in previous court cases, including in the state Supreme Court’s Vince v. Voight decision. That 2000 lawsuit found that the state’s school funding formula was constitutional. 

“For all of plaintiffs’ sky-is-falling assertions, the school finance system that plaintiffs challenge here is the same system that the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld against similar (indeed, mostly identical) constitutional claims in Vincent v. Voight,” the filing states. “That system, Vincent explained, complies with the Wisconsin Constitution because it affords every student the opportunity to obtain a constitutionally adequate education. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion notwithstanding various complaints relating to test scores, school facilities, teacher staffing, and the like — complaints that are materially indistinguishable from those that Plaintiffs raise here.”

The lawmakers said the plaintiffs in the suit are asking the judiciary to take over the Legislature’s constitutional role in determining funding for primary and secondary education, even as the Legislature has fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities by enacting a comprehensive school finance system for the state’s public schools. 

The new lawsuit argues that declines in student proficiency for Wisconsin’s reading and math test scores are the result of declining investments in schools. It also argues that the growth of the state’s school voucher programs, which use state money to cover the cost of private school tuition, have contributed to declining funding for Wisconsin public schools.

The lawsuit asks the court for a declaration that the Legislature hasn’t fulfilled and cannot “shirk” its constitutional obligation to fund schools at a sufficiently high level to “ensure that every Wisconsin student has an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education that equips them for their roles as citizens and enables them to succeed economically and personally in a tuition free public school where the character of instruction is as uniform as practicable.” It calls for the current funding system to be ruled invalid.

Jeff Mandell, co-founder of Law Forward, called the motion to dismiss a “predictable attempt to avoid accountability” in a statement.

“We filed this lawsuit because families, educators, and communities across Wisconsin are seeing firsthand that the current system is not meeting that promise — forcing schools to rely on referendums, widening inequities, and leaving too many students without the resources they need,” Mandell said. “We maintain that this case deserves to be heard and are confident that the court will agree.”

The lawmakers also argue in the filing that the five school districts named in the suit, including the Adams-Friendship Area School District, the School District of Beloit, the Eau Claire Area School District, the Green Bay Area Public School District and the Necedah Area School District, should be dismissed from the case, arguing that they lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the school finance system as a political subdivision of the state.

The lawmakers argue that the issues the plaintiffs pointed to in the lawsuit are not sufficient evidence of the state not upholding its constitutional obligation.

The lawsuit specifically points to the increasing reliance of Wisconsin school districts on asking voters to help them keep up with operating costs by increasing local property taxes through ballot measures (with varying results) as well as the decline in the state’s special education reimbursement rate.

The state currently picks up a little more than one-third of special education costs, despite the state budget promising to cover 42% of costs this year. The Necedah Area School District, which recently failed to pass a  referendum in April, has diverted all of its revenue from its previous operational referendum requests, about $6.6 million, to its special education fund. Meanwhile, the special education reimbursement rate for private voucher schools is 90%. 

“The Wisconsin Constitution makes clear that localities are expected to cover a significant portion of the cost of funding public schools,” the Republicans’ filing states. “That some school districts have had to use some of their own general education funds to cover the costs of special education is not constitutionally significant in the absence of any plausible allegations that any student has been deprived of the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education. And as for districts’ need to use referenda to exceed the revenue limits here, this too is constitutionally irrelevant.” 

The Legislature appropriated more than $7 billion in school aid in the 2024–25 fiscal year, the Republican filing noted. 

Democratic lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee submitted their own filing, which was supportive of the lawsuit. 

“A constitutional promise is not optional,” the lawmakers wrote. “Wisconsin children cannot receive one level of educational opportunity in communities that can raise and pass local referenda and another in communities that cannot.”

The lawsuit also lays out how the state’s private-school choice system, which was launched in the 1990s and has grown exponentially over the years, has contributed to the erosion in  funding for public schools. There are four distinct school voucher programs in the state: the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the Racine Parental Choice Program and the Special Needs Scholarship Program. Wisconsin is paying about $700 million this year for more than 60,000 students to participate in the voucher programs.

Republican lawmakers rejected the assertion that the choice programs are related to the lawsuit’s claims.

“This is a baseless attempt to tar these longstanding, alternative educational offerings that are both highly effective and extremely popular across the State,” the lawmakers stated. 

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of parents and School Choice Wisconsin Action are also seeking to intervene in the case as are parents represented by EdChoice Legal Advocates, a school choice litigation firm.

What are the odds the soon-to-retire Republican leaders of the state Legislature are seriously considering Gov. Tony Evers’ call to end partisan gerrymandering? 

Evers called the special session that began and ended with no action this week, asking legislators to take up a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of drawing voting maps that give a disproportionate advantage to one political party. 

Legislators didn’t exactly refuse — they’ve kicked the can down the road, adjourning temporarily until later this month. As Baylor Spears reports, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu explained that legislators need to “gain public input in order to make an informed decision on how to proceed.” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Majority Leader Tyler August said they want to have more discussions with Evers to reach a “transparent and balanced solution that reflects the interests of all Wisconsinites.” 

Or maybe they just want to run out the clock, do nothing and then blame the governor for their failure to act. 

After all, President Donald Trump, the Republicans’ national leader, has been strong-arming GOP legislators in red states to hold extraordinary mid-decade redistricting sessions to draw him some extra seats to shore up an unpopular Republican House majority. Wisconsin Republicans would be swimming against the tide if they made their last act in office a good-government effort to lock in fair maps. 

Giving up power is not exactly on brand for Wisconsin Republicans. These are the same legislators who drew themselves into the most partisan gerrymandered districts in the country back in 2010. When it came time to draw another round of maps after the 2020 census, they gathered copious public input, holding hearings in which an overwhelming majority of voters told them that they wanted fair maps, and then ignored the public and gerrymandered the maps again. Only after the state Supreme Court declared those maps unconstitutional did they relent and accept 50/50 maps that lean slightly toward Republicans majorities.

Now they’re quitting in droves rather than work in a Legislature where they’ve lost the disproportionate power they conferred on themselves through gerrymandering.

Still, staring down the possibility of Democratic trifecta control of government, it’s possible Republicans could take the long view and try to protect their 50/50 stake before the other party has a shot at redrawing the districts. 

Then again, Republicans have shown very little appetite for that kind of sensible, good-government approach. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported this week, Republican legislative leaders are paying private attorneys $550 per hour in taxpayer money to defend their practice of hiring private attorneys at the taxpayers’ expense.

This freewheeling expenditure of your tax dollars follows a lawsuit filed by the public interest law firm Law Forward in February challenging the use of expensive private attorneys by GOP leaders. That practice started in the lame duck session after Evers was first elected, when Republican legislative leaders began frantically grabbing powers from the new Democratic administration. 

“It’s all about an unwillingness to exist within the bounds of checks and balances,” says Jeff Mandell of Law Forward. “It smacks of a sense that the Legislature, and particularly its leadership, is beyond accountability.”

That kind of arrogance is on its way out, along with the legislative leaders who, for more than a decade, treated government as their private club, hoarding power and ignoring the will of the voters. The best way to make sure it never returns is to permanently guarantee fair maps.

A legal brief filed late last week seeks to have a Dane County judge declare that an 1897 law banning the practice of fusion voting is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights to a “free government,” equal protection and freedom of speech through a law that was passed to explicitly create a partisan electoral advantage. 

The motion was filed on Friday in a lawsuit brought last year by United Wisconsin, a nascent centrist political party hoping to offer voters an alternative to the “duopoly” of the Democratic and Republican parties. The group is represented by the voting rights focused firm Law Forward. 

Fusion voting is a practice through which multiple political parties can nominate the same candidate to the ticket. Under the system, a minor party such as United could choose to nominate its own candidate, but more often the party would endorse one of the major party candidates. Voters would be able to cast their votes for the same preferred candidate under either party line. 

At a conference on fusion voting hosted at UW-Madison last year, political scientists and proponents of the system said that in theory it can give minor parties more influence. A third party candidate under the current system is unlikely to win, but a minor party’s policy preferences are harder to ignore if the party has just enough sway to swing an election result in either direction.

The brief describes a hypothetical congressional race in which United cross-endorses the Democratic candidate, given the name Olson. After the hypothetical votes are counted, the Republican candidate has earned 48.2% of the vote on the Republican ticket while Olson has earned 45.9% of the vote on the Democratic ticket and 4.9% on the United line. When added together, this gives Olson the win with 50.8% of the total vote. 

In Wisconsin, where elections are often decided by single digit margins, this could result in meaningful considerations of the desires of the minor party voters — rather than the current system under which third party candidates, such as Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election, are seen as spoilers who can pull enough support away from the closest ideological major party candidate to help the other side win. 

“That is fusion voting in action. United Wisconsin will claim, with merit, to have helped her over the finish line,” the brief states. “No doubt Olson will be more attentive to her ‘home’ party, but if she’s a competent politician, she won’t ignore the priorities of the moderates and centrists in the United Wisconsin Party. If she does, United Wisconsin, and its key bloc of voters, might cross-nominate her opponent in the next election.”

Fusion voting is often considered alongside ideas such as ranked choice voting and multi-member congressional districts as a reform proposal that could help prevent the country from sliding into an authoritarian government. 

“Fusion offers the opportunity to create meaningful new political identities,” the legal brief states. “It allows voters of all ideological stripes to vote for their values without having to support a rival or opposing party with a mostly intolerable program.”

In the 19th century, fusion voting was used across the country. The practice was phased out in most of the country but exists currently in New York and Connecticut. The brief, which includes as many examples from history and political science as it does legal citations, states that Wisconsin’s fusion voting ban was enacted by the Republican Party in 1897 as it surged to become the state’s dominant political force in a direct effort to limit the ability of the Democratic Party and other minor parties to win. 

“History shows the ban was enacted as a form of invidious political discrimination,” the brief states.

The lawsuit argues the state has no direct interest in maintaining the power of the Democratic and Republican parties, so the law must be put under “strict scrutiny” for fundamentally restricting the speech of Wisconsinites. 

“When political parties cannot nominate their candidates of choice, they cannot effectively organize, campaign, advance priorities, or exercise political power,” the brief states. “They are relegated for perpetuity to a spoiler role, whereby any electoral effort they make is not only futile in advancing their own candidate and platform, but also seriously risks helping their least-favored major-party candidate win the race and get to govern. While the ban still allows political parties to nominate most candidates, it prohibits them from nominating the only candidates who can win; and while it allows political parties some degree of speech, it constrains their speech in the context for which political parties exist — the ballot.”