Protesters filled the Wisconsin Capitol in 2011 to protest the legislation that ultimately past as Wisconsin Act 10, eliminating most union rights for most public employees. (Photo by Emily Mills. Used by permission)

A Dane County judge on Monday struck down the core parts of the landmark state law that eviscerated most union rights for most public employees in Wisconsin.

Judge Jacob Frost ruled that Act 10, passed by the state Legislature’s Republican majority in 2011 and signed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker in his first year in office, was unconstitutional in making some public safety workers exempt from the law’s limits on unions but excluding other workers with similar jobs from those protections.

The ruling essentially confirmed Frost’s ruling on July 3, 2024, when he rejected motions by the state Legislature’s Republican leaders to dismiss the 2023 lawsuit challenging Act 10.

In that ruling, Frost declared that state Capitol Police, University of Wisconsin Police, and state conservation wardens were “treated unequally with no rational basis for that difference” because they were not included in the exemption that Act 10 had created for other law enforcement and public safety employees.

For that reason, the law’s categories of general and public safety employees, and its public safety employee exemption, were unconstitutional, Frost wrote then.

Frost reiterated that ruling Monday. “Act 10 as written by the Legislature specifically and narrowly defines ‘public safety employee,’” Frost wrote. “It is that definition which is unconstitutional.”

In addition, the judge rejected the suggestion that Act 10 could remain in effect without the law’s public safety employee carve-out, and that either the courts or the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission could resolve a constitutionally acceptable definition in the future.

“The Legislature cites no precedent for this bold argument that I should simply strike the unlawful definition but leave it to an agency and the courts to later define as they see fit,” Frost wrote. “Interpreting ‘public safety employee’ after striking the legislated definition would be an exercise in the absurd.”

Advocates, lawmakers react

Opponents of the law, including plaintiffs in the lawsuit, cheered Monday’s ruling, while Act 10’s backers attacked it and vowed to see it through the appeals process.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a group of local and state unions and public employees by the progressive nonprofit law firm Law Forward along with Bredhoff & Kaiser.

“This historic decision means that teachers, nurses, librarians and other public-sector workers across the state will once again have a voice in the workplace,” said Jeff Mandell, Law Forward president and general counsel. “Every Wisconsin family deserves the chance to build a better future through democratic participation in a union. As an organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening democracy, Law Forward is proud to have been a part of this important case.”

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), dismissed Monday’s ruling. Through its Republican leaders, the Legislature was among the defendants in the lawsuit.

“This lawsuit came more than a decade after Act 10 became law and after many courts rejected the same meritless legal challenges,” Vos said in a statement. “Act 10 has saved Wisconsin taxpayers more than $16 billion. We look forward to presenting our arguments on appeal.”

Gov. Tony Evers, who has sought to repeal Act 10 since he took office in 2019, applauded the ruling.

“This is great news,” Evers, a Democrat, said in a social media post on BlueSky and on X. “I’ve always believed workers should have a seat at the table in decisions that affect their daily lives and livelihoods. It’s about treating workers with dignity and respect and making sure no worker is treated differently because of their profession.”

Evers sought to repeal the law in each of the three state budgets he has submitted since taking office, but the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee Republicans stripped those provisions each time.

Ben Gruber, a conservation warden and union leader, called the ruling “personal for me and my coworkers.” Gruber is one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“As a conservation warden, having full collective bargaining rights means we will again have a voice on the job to improve our workplace and make sure that Wisconsin is a safe place for everyone,” he said in a statement distributed by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC).

Member local unions of WEAC were among the plaintiffs.

“The lawsuit was filed because of the dire situation that exists in Wisconsin’s public service institutions since workers’ freedoms were unconstitutionally taken away,” WEAC stated. “The state’s education workforce is in crisis as 40 percent of teachers leave the profession in the first six years because of low wages and unequal pay systems; the conservation warden program is fraught with unfair and disparate treatment of workers; and there is a 32 percent staff vacancy rate for corrections officers.”

Also joining in the lawsuit was the union representing University of Wisconsin  graduate students who work as teaching assistants, TAA Local 3220.

“Graduate workers look forward to claiming our seat at the table to ensure our teaching and research, which helps make UW-Madison a world-class university, are supported and compensated fairly,” said TAA’s co-president, Daniel Levitin. “The winds of change are blowing in our direction and we urge the university to take note and voluntarily recognize the TAA as the union of graduate workers and be prepared to meet us at the bargaining table.”

TAA is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers. “Workers must have the right to partner with their employer and negotiate fair wages, benefits, and working conditions,” said AFT-Wisconsin President Kim Kohlhaas.

Appeals expected

WEAC’s statement cautioned that the ruling’s impact would be delayed by appeals. “The plaintiffs acknowledge that while this decision is a major win for Wisconsin’s working families, it is likely that the case will remain in the courts for some time before a final victory is reached and pledge to continue fighting until the freedoms of all workers in Wisconsin are respected and protected,” the teachers union said.

Sen. Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) was first elected to the Legislature the year after the law was passed and now leads the Democratic minority in the state Senate.

“This is a crucial step to recognize and restore the rights of hard-working public employees doing the people’s work in every corner of Wisconsin,” Hesselbein said in a statement. “There are likely further hurdles ahead and I applaud the resolve of those who have kept up the effort to restore the right to collectively bargain in the state.”

State Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) was a Milwaukee Public Schools teacher when the law was enacted.

“I saw firsthand the negative impact that the lack of collective bargaining had not only on our profession of teaching but also the schools, students, and our communities,” Clancy said in a statement. He called Monday’s ruling “a crucial step to ensuring that every Wisconsin worker has access to fair and equitable working conditions.”

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Fox Crossing), was among the GOP lawmakers decrying the decision, declaring that the law had saved taxpayers $30 billion — nearly twice the figure Vos asserted.

“Today, an activist Dane County judge overstepped his role and unilaterally struck down Act 10 because it didn’t align with his politics,” she said in a statement. “One judge, appointed by the current governor, acting like a super-legislature is about to bankrupt local governments and school districts across Wisconsin.”

Kurt Bauer, president of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby and among the groups that had championed the legislation, called the ruling “wrong on its face and … inconsistent with the law” in a statement Monday that called Act 10 “a critical tool for policymakers and elected officials to balance budgets and find taxpayer savings.”

He said the business lobby’s members “hope this ruling will be appealed and that Act 10 will be reinstated as quickly as possible.”

This story has been updated with reactions to the ruling. 

2023-CV003152_DOR11815507

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Janel Brandtjen speaks at a February 2022 rally of election conspiracy theorists, where she told them "you're not crazy." (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

One of the Wisconsin Legislature’s most prominent election deniers has sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to force the state out of an agreement with an organization that helps states track when voters move to or die in other states. 

State Rep. Janel Brandjten (R-Menomonee Falls) filed the lawsuit last month in Waukesha County Circuit Court. The suit takes aim at the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), an organization currently made up of 24 states and Washington D.C., established to help states keep accurate voter rolls. 

Election conspiracy theorists have regularly targeted ERIC in recent years, and a number of Republican-controlled states have dropped out of the compact, despite its role in assisting state election officials in keeping voter rolls updated. Election deniers in Wisconsin and across the country have frequently complained that the voter rolls don’t get updated enough and leave the election system open to fraud. 

Brandtjen brought the lawsuit despite voting in 2016 for a bill that required the state to enter into an agreement with ERIC. She is being represented by Kevin Scott, who worked as an attorney for former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman during his ill-fated review of the 2020 election. Scott represented Gableman in court during Gableman’s attempt to jail the mayors of Green Bay and Madison. 

The case has been assigned to the circuit court of Judge Brad Schimel, the former Republican Attorney General under Gov. Scott Walker who is now running a campaign for a seat on the state Supreme Court. 

Jeff Mandell, general counsel for voting rights-focused firm Law Forward, says the lawsuit  — which he doesn’t believe will be successful or even heard before Election Day in November — shows how far into the conspiracy rabbit hole Brandtjen has gone since 2020. 

“We’ve seen that Rep. Brandtjen over the last four years has slipped fairly deep into the fringes of election denial, and given that, I think it’s somewhat unsurprising that she would bring claims that are part of discredited conspiracy theories, but are similar to claims that we’ve seen in other states,” Mandell says. “It is, of course, a testament to her journey that what is most bizarre about this lawsuit is that she is asking a court to order the Elections Commission to end its relationship with ERIC when that relationship is required expressly by state law, and it’s a law that she voted for.”

The lawsuit argues that Wisconsin’s agreement with ERIC was made by Kevin Kennedy, who was the executive director of the Government Accountability Board (GAB), the predecessor agency to the elections commission that was disbanded by Republicans in the spring of 2016. Because the agreement was made with the GAB, it is not valid, Brandtjen argues. 

Brandtjen’s lawsuit also states that the agreement with ERIC violates a constitutional amendment passed by voters earlier this year which prohibits non-election officials from carrying out election-related duties; violates the state public records law because of ERIC requirements that its data remain confidential, and violates the statute that initiated the agreement with ERIC because rather than just updating the voter rolls, the state uses the data to find voters and contact people who are eligible to vote but not registered to vote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voters in Grand Rapids, Mich., cast their ballots during the state’s August primary

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Some voters are already casting early ballots in the first presidential election since the global pandemic ended and former President Donald Trump refused to accept his defeat.

This year’s presidential election won’t be decided by a margin of millions of votes, but likely by thousands in the seven tightly contested states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

How legislatures, courts and election boards have reshaped ballot access in those states in the past four years could make a difference. Some of those states, especially Michigan, cemented the temporary pandemic-era measures that allowed for more mail-in and early voting. But other battleground states have passed laws that may keep some registered voters from casting ballots.

Trump and his allies have continued to spread lies about the 2020 results, claiming without evidence that widespread voter fraud stole the election from him. That has spurred many Republican lawmakers in states such as Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina to reel back access to early and mail-in voting and add new identification requirements to vote. And in Pennsylvania, statewide appellate courts are toggling between rulings.

“The last four years have been a long, strange trip,” said Hannah Fried, co-founder and executive director of All Voting is Local, a multistate voting rights organization.

“Rollbacks were almost to an instance tied to the ‘big lie,’” she added, referring to Trump’s election conspiracy theories. “And there have been many, many positive reforms for voters in the last few years that have gone beyond what we saw in the COVID era.”

The volume of election-related legislation and court cases that emerged over the past four years has been staggering.

Nationally, the Voting Rights Lab, a nonpartisan group that researches election law changes, tracked 6,450 bills across the country that were introduced since 2021 that sought to alter the voting process. Hundreds of those bills were enacted.

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, cautioned that incremental tweaks to election law — especially last-minute changes made by the courts — not only confuse voters, but also put a strain on local election officials who must comply with changes to statute as they prepare for another highly scrutinized voting process.

“Any voter that is affected unnecessarily is too many in my book,” he said.

New restrictions

In many ways, the 2020 presidential election is still being litigated four years later.

Swing states have been the focus of legal challenges and new laws spun from a false narrative that questioned election integrity. The 2021 state legislative sessions, many begun in the days following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, brought myriad legislative changes that have made it more difficult to vote and altered how ballots are counted and rejected.

The highest profile measure over the past four years came out of Georgia.

Under a 2021 law, Georgia residents now have less time to ask for mail-in ballots and must put their driver’s license or state ID information on those requests. The number of drop boxes has been limited. And neither election officials nor nonprofits may send unsolicited mail-in ballot applications to voters.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp said when signing the measure that it would ensure free and fair elections in the state, but voting rights groups lambasted the law as voter suppression.

That law also gave Georgia’s State Election Board more authority to interfere in the makeup of local election boards. The state board[AS1]  has made recent headlines for paving the way for counties to potentially refuse to certify the upcoming election. This comes on top of a wave of voter registration challenges from conservative activists.

In North Carolina, the Republican-led legislature last year overrode Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto to enact measures that shortened the time to turn in mail-in ballots; required local election officials to reject ballots if voters who register to vote on Election Day do not later verify their home address; and required identification to vote by mail.

This will also be the first general election that North Carolinians will have to comply with a 2018 voter ID measure that was caught up in the court system until the state Supreme Court reinstated the law last year.

And in Arizona, the Republican-led legislature pushed through a measure[AS2]  that shortened the time voters have to correct missing or mismatched signatures on their absentee ballot envelopes. Then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the measure.

“Look, sometimes the complexity is the point,” said Fried, of All Voting is Local. “If you are passing a law that makes it this complicated for somebody to vote or to register to vote, what’s your endgame here? What are you trying to do?”

Laws avoided major overhauls

But the restrictions could have gone much further.

That’s partly because Democratic governors, such as Arizona’s Katie Hobbs, who took office in 2023, have vetoed many of the Republican-backed bills. But it’s also because of how popular early voting methods have become.

Arizonans, for example, have been able to vote by mail for more than three decades. More than 75% of Arizonan voters requested mail-in ballots in 2022, and 90% of voters in 2020 cast their ballots by mail.

This year, a bill that would have scrapped no-excuse absentee voting passed the state House but failed to clear a Republican-controlled Senate committee.

Bridget Augustine, a high school English teacher in Glendale, Arizona, and a registered independent, has been a consistent early voter since 2020. She said the first time she voted in Arizona was by absentee ballot while she was a college student in New Jersey, and she has no concerns “whatsoever” about the safety of early voting in Arizona.

“I just feel like so much of this rhetoric was drummed up as a way to make it easier to lie about the election and undermine people’s confidence,” she said.

Vanessa Jiminez, the security manager for a Phoenix high school district, a registered independent and an early voter, said she is confident in the safety of her ballot.

“I track my ballot every step of the way,” she said.

Ben Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election lawyer and Volker Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the think tank Hoover Institution, said that while these laws may add new hurdles, he doesn’t expect them to change vote totals.

“The bottom line is I don’t think that the final result in any election is going to be impacted by a law that’s been passed,” he said on a recent call with reporters organized by the Knight Foundation, a Miami-based nonprofit that provides grants to support democracy and journalism.

Major expansions

No state has seen a bigger expansion to ballot access over the past four years than Michigan.

Republicans tried to curtail access to absentee voting, introducing 39 bills in 2021, when the party still was in charge of both legislative chambers.

Two GOP bills passed, but Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed them.

The next year, Michigan voters approved ballot measures that added nine days of early voting. The measures also allowed voters to request mail-in ballots online; created a permanent vote-by-mail list; provided prepaid postage on absentee ballot applications and ballots; increased ballot drop boxes; and allowed voters to correct missing or mismatched signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes.

“When you take it to the people and actually ask them about it, it turns out most people want more voting access,” said Melinda Billingsley, communications manager for Voters Not Politicians, a Lansing, Michigan-based voting rights advocacy group.

“The ballot access expansions happened in spite of an anti-democratic, Republican-led push to restrict ballot access,” she said.

In 2021, then-Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, signed into law a measure that transitioned the state into a universal vote-by-mail system. Every registered voter would be sent a ballot in the mail before an election, unless they opt out. The bill made permanent a temporary expansion of mail-in voting that the state put in place during the pandemic.

Nevada voters have embraced the system, data shows.

In February’s presidential preference primary, 78% of ballots cast were ballots by mail or in a ballot drop box, according to the Nevada secretary of state’s office. In June’s nonpresidential primary, 65% of ballots were mail-in ballots. And in the 2022 general election, 51% of ballots cast were mail ballots.

Last-minute court decisions

Drop boxes weren’t controversial in Wisconsin until Trump became fixated on them as an avenue for alleged voter fraud, said Jeff Mandell, general counsel and co-founder of Law Forward, a Madison-based nonprofit legal organization.

For half of a century, Wisconsinites could return their absentee ballots in the same drop boxes that counties and municipalities used for water bills and property taxes, he said. But when the pandemic hit and local election officials expected higher volumes of absentee ballots, they installed larger boxes.

After Trump lost the state by fewer than 21,000 votes in 2020, drop boxes became a flashpoint. Republican leaders claimed drop boxes were not secure, and that nefarious people could tamper with the ballots. In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then led by a conservative majority, banned drop boxes.

But that ruling would only last two years. In July, the new liberal majority in the state’s high court reversed the ruling and said localities could determine whether to use drop boxes. It was a victory for voters, Mandell said.

With U.S. Postal Service delays stemming from the agency’s restructuring, drop boxes provide a faster method of returning a ballot without having to worry about it showing up late, he said. Ballots must get in by 8 p.m. on Election Day. The boxes are especially convenient for rural voters, who may have a clerk’s office or post office with shorter hours, he added.

“Every way that you make it easy for people to vote safely and securely is good,” Mandell said.

‘A case of crying wolf again’: Election experts say Wisconsin is prepared to avoid conspiracies

After the high court’s ruling, local officials had to make a swift decision about whether to reinstall drop boxes.

Milwaukee city employees were quickly dispatched throughout the city to remove the leather bags that covered the drop boxes for two years, cleaned them all and repaired several, said Paulina Gutierrez, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission.

“There’s an all-hands-on-deck mentality here at the city,” she said, adding that there are cameras pointed at each drop box.

Although it used a drop box in 2020, Marinette, a community on the western shore of Green Bay, opted not to use them for the August primary and asked voters to hand the ballots to clerk staff. Lana Bero, the city clerk, said the city may revisit that decision before November.

New Berlin Clerk Rubina Medina said her community, a city of about 40,000 on the outskirts of Milwaukee, had some security concerns about potentially tampering or destruction of ballots within drop boxes, and therefore decided not to use the boxes this year.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, who serves the state capital of Madison and its surrounding area, has been encouraging local clerks in his county to have a camera on their drop boxes and save the videos in case residents have fraud concerns.

A risk of confusing voters

Many local election officials in Wisconsin say they worry that court decisions, made mere months before the November election, could create confusion for voters and more work for clerks.

“These decisions are last-second, over and over again,” McDonell said. “You’re killing us when you do that.”

Arizonans and Pennsylvanians now know that late-in-the-game scramble too.

In August, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated part of a 2022 Arizona law that requires documented proof of citizenship to register on state forms, potentially impacting tens of thousands of voters, disproportionately affecting young and Native voters.

Whether Pennsylvania election officials should count mail ballots returned with errors has been a subject of litigation in every election since 2020. State courts continue to grapple with the question, and neither voting rights groups nor national Republicans show signs of giving up.

Former Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, who is now president of Athena Strategies and working on voting rights and election security issues across the country, said voters simply need to ignore the noise of litigation and closely follow the instructions with their mail ballots.

“Litigation is confusing,” Boockvar said. “The legislature won’t fix it by legislation. Voter education is the key thing here, and the instructions on the envelopes need to be as clear and simple as possible.”

To avoid confusion, voters can make a plan for how and when they will vote by going to vote.gov, a federally run site where voters can check to make sure they are properly registered and to answer questions in more than a dozen languages about methods for casting a ballot.

Arizona Mirror’s Caitlin Sievers and Jim Small, Nevada Current’s April Corbin Girnus and Pennsylvania Capital-Star’s Peter Hall contributed reporting.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voters at the Wilmar Neighborhood Center on Madison's East side cast their ballots. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Four years ago, in late September of 2020, the concerns that then-President Donald Trump would not accept the results of the election if he lost began to become more concrete. The COVID-19 pandemic had caused a massive boost in the use of absentee voting and Trump had warned his supporters not to use the voting method. 

Then, in the days after the election when the result remained in doubt, conspiracy theories began to spread around the country. In Wisconsin, Trump supporters complained of a “ballot dump” in Milwaukee that flipped the result for Joe Biden (actually the surge in absentee ballots had just made it slower for election workers at the city’s central count location to tally the votes). 

“There’s been a travesty at the ballot box,” one voter told the Wisconsin Examiner on Nov. 6, a day before Biden was declared the winner. “We’re seeing unbelievable numbers of ballot harvesting, voter fraud, election fraud and nothing’s being done to correct the situation in cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta.”

That same weekend, a Wisconsin attorney and the Trump campaign began to shape a plan. That plan — created as Trump’s final legal avenues to overturn the election results ran out — would soon become the fake elector scheme, in which Republicans in Wisconsin and six other states where Biden had won cast false slates of electors for Trump. The plot underpinned the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, urged on by Trump, as Congress attempted to certify that Biden had in fact won the election. Trump’s supporters used the fake elector scheme to argue that the certification should be stopped so that the fraudulent electoral votes could be counted.

In the months after the election, multiple reviews, audits and investigations were launched, searching for the voter fraud that Trump and his supporters baselessly claimed had stolen the election from him. By June, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had tasked state Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls) and former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman with running their own investigations into the election. Gableman and Brandtjen ultimately joined calls for the election results to be decertified and drew massive amounts of criticism. 

Gableman’s review ran for more than a year, racking up legal fees and keeping public records hidden, without finding any evidence of fraud. Brandtjen, who was at the time the chair of the Assembly’s elections committee, repeatedly invited conspiracy theorists to testify, giving a platform to  debunked claims of wrongdoing. 

After Gableman’s review ended, state Rep. Tim Ramthun ran a Republican primary campaign for governor entirely on a platform of election conspiracy theorism. Election deniers in Wisconsin state government  along with local activists Peter Bernegger of New London (previously convicted of fraud) and Harry Wait, of Union Grove (charged with felonies after illegally requesting absentee ballots), as well as  former Menomonee Falls Village President Jefferson Davis became the core of the state Republican Party’s election denying wing — with allies in the Legislature and a sizable number of voters on their side. 

But despite the hold that election conspiracy theories have on a subset of Wisconsin Republicans, elections experts say the state is prepared for 2024 and unlikely to see a repeat of the 2020 effort to overturn results. 

“It’ll be a case of crying wolf again,” Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, says. “All of this was done in 2020 to no effect, with no evidence.”

Laws and rules have been changed or clarified; election officials and others have spent countless hours repeatedly sharing factual information about how the voting system works; the two attorneys central to planning the false elector scheme have been charged by the state Department of Justice with felonies, Wisconsin’s fake electors have agreed as part of a settlement deal that they tried to falsify the results of the election and that they will not serve as Trump electors in the future, and Trump no longer has the element of surprise. 

Mandell says he thinks the small fringe of election deniers in Wisconsin will make baseless accusations while Heck says he’s looking out for efforts to discourage people from voting and staying vigilant against disruptive observers at polling places and central count locations where absentee ballots are tallied. But generally, the two say they’re confident clerks, election officials and legal observers are prepared. 

“There’s no doubt that there continue to be things thrown at the wall, but I think we’re in a much better place than we were four years ago or even before that,” Jeff Mandell, general counsel at the voting rights-focused nonprofit firm Law Forward, says. “When I think about threats to this election, there are, of course, things, both in Wisconsin and around the country, that we continue to hear. And we are thinking through and preparing for those things, but I regard those as really low likelihood problems. And so while we’re doing everything we can to be ready, in case one of them does rear its head in Wisconsin, I’m pretty skeptical that one will.” 

Leading up to the election, Republican politicians continue to make false claims about the system. Last week, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and a number of county sheriffs held a press conference to attack the use of absentee ballot drop boxes and warn of attempts by non-citizens to vote. Republicans in Congress have tied the passage of a federal spending bill to the SAVE Act, which outlaws voting by noncitizens in federal elections, something that is already a felony carrying  penalties of imprisonment and deportation and which data shows happens incredibly rarely. 

“This just doesn’t happen,” Mandell says. “It is already illegal under state law. It is already illegal under federal law. The consequences are tremendous. And so I would actually say that I think some of this carping about this fictitious idea of non-citizen voting is just evidence of how much election denialism has been marginalized because there’s almost nothing left for them to talk about.”

Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned a previous decision, once again allowing the use of drop boxes for returning absentee ballots. A number of election clerks in Republican parts of the state have decided not to use the method because of unsubstantiated warnings that they are vulnerable to fraud and “ballot harvesting,” the alleged practice of political groups rounding up and returning hundreds of absentee ballots at once. 

The national Republican party has promised to send more than 100,000 volunteers to serve as election observers.  During the last election, a number of Wisconsin’s most prominent election deniers had the police called on them for disrupting voting during the Democratic primary in an August special election for state Senate. They promised to be back in November. 

In the small town of Thornapple in Rusk County, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against local officials for repeatedly refusing to use electronic voting machines and instead hand counting ballots. The lawsuit argues the town must use machines that allow voters with disabilities to vote. Election conspiracy theorists have regularly called for the hand counting of ballots over concerns that electronic machines — which aren’t connected to the internet — are susceptible to hacking. Election officials say that hand counting adds the threat of human error and voting machines are much more accurate. 

In other states, voting rights advocates have warned that Republican members of election boards and other agencies central to the certification of election results may step in and refuse to certify the election if Trump loses. Mandell says that Wisconsin’s decentralized voting system helps defend against that threat. 

Each municipality has a board of canvass responsible for certifying the local election results, which then get sent to the county boards of canvass and then on to the state. Mandell says that the role played by local officials  Wisconsin means someone denying the certification would be tossing out the votes of their friends and neighbors. That’s an important safeguard, he says. 

“You’re talking about folks not saying ‘I am skeptical of elections,’ or ‘I don’t like election machines,’ or some other nonsense,” he says. “You’re talking about people saying ‘I want to throw out my friends’ and neighbors’ votes. I don’t want my spouse’s vote to count or my family’s votes to count.’ And I think people are understandably and correctly reticent to say such a thing.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE