Frank Bisignano, Social Security commissioner nominee, at his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on March 25, 2025. (Senate webcast)

WASHINGTON — A Senate panel voted Wednesday to send Frank Bisignano’s nomination as Social Security commissioner to the floor, despite allegations from Democrats that he was dishonest in his testimony before the committee about his relationship with Elon Musk’s DOGE cost-cutting operation.

The 14-13 party-line vote took place one day later than originally scheduled in an ornate room just steps from the Senate floor, instead of the committee hearing room.

Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said Tuesday morning that he supported Bisignano’s commitment to improve customer service and reduce improper payments.

Crapo also committed to looking into an anonymous whistleblower letter that was sent to the committee’s Democrats, though he declined to delay the panel’s vote until after that process concluded.

“Even though the timing of the anonymous letter suggests a political effort to delay the committee vote on this nominee, my staff have told Sen. Wyden’s staff — and we have discussed this just now — we are open to meeting with the author of the letter and keeping the individual anonymous,” Crapo said. “However, any information provided by the individual must be thoroughly vetted, including allowing the nominee the opportunity to respond.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the panel, urged Crapo to delay the vote until after a committee investigation, alleging Bisignano was untruthful during his testimony.  

“This nominee lied multiple times to every member of this committee, including the bipartisan Finance staff and the nominee’s actions and communications with DOGE remain very much at the heart of my objection here,” Wyden said. “My office received an account from a whistleblower about the ways the nominee was deeply involved in and aware of DOGE’s activities at the agency.”

Wyden said that Bisignano, though not confirmed and with no official role yet at the agency, intervened at the Social Security Administration to ensure that staff from U.S. DOGE Services had “immediate access to Social Security systems.” DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency, is a temporary Trump administration entity aimed at slashing the federal workforce and spending.

Wyden also argued that Bisignano’s history in corporate America wasn’t a good fit for running the Social Security Administration, saying he “has made a career of swooping in, firing workers, selling off pieces of the company and merging with a competitor.”

“These practices may be good for shareholders, but they hurt American families,” Wyden said. “So we, Senate Democrats, are not going to stand by idly while Trump’s cronies take a sledgehammer to Social Security and deprive seniors of their earned benefits under the false manner of fighting fraud.”

Bisignano hearing

Bisignano, of New Jersey, testified before the committee for nearly three hours in late March, fielding questions on several issues, including overpayments and customer service.

He pledged to reduce the 1% overpayment rate significantly and said he could bring down the average wait time for customer service phone calls from about 20 minutes to less than one minute.

“If you look at the Social Security website, and you look at the statistics, taking 20-plus minutes to answer the phone is not really acceptable,” Bisignano said during his confirmation hearing. “And that’s the reason why only 46% of the phone calls get answered, because people get discouraged and hang up.”

Bisignano promised senators he would ensure Americans’ personal information would be kept secure.

If confirmed by the full Senate, Bisignano testified he would “ensure that every beneficiary receives their payments on time, that disability claims are processed in the manner they should be.”

“So my first actions are going to be to get organized around delivering the services,” Bisignano said. “And I’ve only been given one order, which is to run the agency in the right fashion.”

He also rejected the possibility of privatizing Social Security.

“I’ve never thought about privatizing. It’s not a word that anybody’s ever talked to me about,” Bisignano said. “And I don’t see this institution as anything other than a government agency that gets run to the benefit of the American public.”

Bisignano works as chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Fiserv, Inc., which “enables money movement for thousands of financial institutions and millions of people and businesses,” according to its website. The company is based in Wisconsin.

He previously worked as co-chief operating officer and chief executive officer of Mortgage Banking at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans both claimed victory and the support of voters nationwide following closely watched elections on Tuesday in Wisconsin and two Florida congressional districts.

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford securing a seat on Wisconsin’s highest court over a challenger backed by billionaire Elon Musk was broadly cheered by Democrats as a clear sign voters have rejected GOP policies just months after that party secured control of Congress and the White House.

Republicans, meanwhile, pointed to their candidates’ wins in special elections in two Florida U.S. House seats as proof Americans back the party’s policy goals and leaders.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech Wednesday the Wisconsin Supreme Court results were a signal from the American people that they are not happy with how President Donald Trump and other Republicans are running the country.

“Yesterday was a sign Democrats’ message is resonating,” Schumer said. “When Democrats shine a light on the fact that Republicans are taking vital programs away from the middle class simply to cut taxes for the ultrarich, the public doesn’t like it. When we shine a light on Republican attacks on Medicaid, on Social Security, on veterans’ health care, simply to cut taxes for the rich, Americans listen and they’re aghast of what they see.

“That is one of the main reasons that the results in Wisconsin came in as resoundingly as they did.”

Schumer didn’t mention Republicans winning two U.S. House special elections in Florida.

Ticket splitting in Wisconsin

Wisconsin voters have a history of ticket splitting, including during November’s presidential election, when the state favored Trump, but also voted to send Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin back to Washington.

Trump won the state by less than 30,000 votes out of more than 3.3 million cast. Baldwin secured another six-year term by roughly the same margin.

Crawford received 55% of the vote in this election, winning by about 238,000 votes out of nearly 2.4 million votes cast, according to data from The Associated Press.

GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida told reporters Tuesday evening shortly after the results came in that he’s not reading too much into the narrower margin of victory for the two newly elected Republicans in his home state and he doesn’t believe it tells lawmakers anything about what might happen in the 2026 midterm elections.

“Remember, they’re special elections. It’s hard, you know … when there’s a presidential race, everybody knows to vote, even a governor’s race,” Scott said inside the U.S. Capitol. “But when there’s a special election, it’s hard for people to go out and vote.”

Former Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis defeated the Democratic candidate in the state’s 1st Congressional District after receiving 56.9% of the vote, according to the Division of Elections’ unofficial results. The GOP lawmaker who won that district in November did so with 66% of the vote.

In the 6th Congressional District, former state Sen. Randy Fine secured election with 56.6% of the vote, a smaller margin of victory than the 66.5% the former Republican congressman who occupied the seat received in November.

Trump focuses on Florida

Trump hailed the GOP wins in Florida in a social media post, but didn’t mention Wisconsin, where special government employee and close political ally Musk campaigned late last month.

“BOTH FLORIDA HOUSE SEATS HAVE BEEN WON, BIG, BY THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE,” Trump wrote. “THE TRUMP ENDORSEMENT, AS ALWAYS, PROVED FAR GREATER THAN THE DEMOCRATS FORCES OF EVIL. CONGRATULATIONS TO AMERICA!!!”

DNC Chair Ken Martin wrote in a statement the Wisconsin Supreme Court election results show voters in the state “squarely rejected the influence of Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and billionaire special interests.”

“Democrats are overperforming, winning races, and building momentum,” Martin wrote. “We’re working hard to continue the trend in the Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey elections this year and then — with the people on our side — to take back the House in 2026.”

Martin, similar to Schumer, didn’t mention the Florida congressional district races won by GOP politicians.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Mike Marinella released a statement pointing to Florida as solid evidence the party is on the right track.

“Florida’s resounding Republican victories send a clear message: Americans are fired up to elect leaders who will fight for President Trump’s agenda and reject the Democrats’ failed policies,” Marinella wrote. “While Democrats set their cash ablaze, House Republicans will keep hammering them for being out of touch — and we’ll crush them again in 2026.”

Jeffries targets 60 districts

U.S. House Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, didn’t release any statements on the Florida election results. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said during a press conference Wednesday that the Democratic candidates in the Sunshine State “dramatically overperformed” how Trump did in those areas in November.

“There are 60 House Republicans who hold districts right now that Donald Trump won by 15 points or less in November. Every single one of those Republicans should be concerned,” Jeffries said. “The American people have rejected their extreme brand and their do-nothing agenda and they’re going to be held accountable next November.”

UW President Jay Rothman tells lawmakers that this will be a “make it or break it” budget for the UW system. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Leaders of the Universities of Wisconsin and the state Department of Corrections (DOC) defended Gov. Tony Evers’ budget requests to lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee during a meeting Tuesday. 

The hearing marks the start of lawmakers’ official work on the state budget, which will continue this week with public hearings in Kaukauna on Wednesday and West Allis on Friday. 

Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Mark Born (Beaver Dam), co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee, said during a press conference ahead of the meeting that they were looking for “justification” on the “massive” requests from the UW and wanted an explanation of the plan for DOC. 

“[The DOC request is] lacking in a lot of details and seems to be a little short of being able to accomplish its mission, but I’m interested to hear more about how they arrived at that and why they made some of the decisions they made and hopefully provide some information that will allow us to improve that plan and make sure that it’s a good plan for the future of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and for public safety here in Wisconsin,” Born said.

In the past, lawmakers have heard from a greater number of agencies about their requests. During the last budget cycle, lawmakers heard from four agencies, including DOC, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Safety and Professional Services and the Department of Administration. That year, state Superintendent Jill Underly traveled to Eau Claire to talk to lawmakers about the Department of Public Instruction budget after not getting an invitation to speak. 

The lawmakers said it would have been a “waste of their time and our time” to hold briefings with other agencies.

“[The agency leaders] just have not been straight with us on things. They just don’t want to really talk about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it,” Born said. He said lawmakers were hopeful that the UW and DOC would work with them to answer some questions. 

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman told lawmakers during the briefing that he agrees with Gov Tony Evers’ assessment that this will be a “make it or break it” budget for the UW system. Evers’ request for the UW includes an additional $856 million, which would be one of the largest investments in the university campuses in state history. 

Rothman acknowledged that the request is “significant” but he emphasized that Wisconsin currently sits at 43rd out of 50 when it comes to state investment in public universities. The investments in the request would bring the system up to the median nationwide. 

Rothman explained to lawmakers that inflation and a lack of state investment over the last three decades to meet increasing costs has hindered the UW system. 

UW schools have worked to make changes, he said. When he started as president in June 2022, Rothman said 10 of the system’s 13 campuses were running fiscal deficits. That number is now six and should hit zero over the next year or so. He also noted there have been six two-year colleges that have closed or will close this year.

Rothman called the reforms necessary and said that the changes position the system for sound investments from the state. 

“We have to be asking ourselves a question: who will teach our children and grandchildren? Where will the nurses come from that will help care for our families and perhaps ourselves? Where will the engineers come from?” Rothman told lawmakers.

Rothman explained that the proposals seek to address five goals including increasing affordability, accessibility, developing talent, ensuring quality and investing in innovation.

“You cannot cut your way to success,” Rothman said. “You need to invest.” 

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) asked Rothman what would happen if the state did not fund the requests. 

“If we get the budget funded, we will not have to raise tuition. If we don’t get funded at an adequate level, that’s one of the levers… that I don’t want to have to use,” Rothman said. “I want to be able to maintain the accessibility that our students get, but we will do what we need to do, and it won’t be just one piece. That will be multiple levers, and we get more efficient in some places. We have to stop offerings, programs at certain universities.”

Republican lawmakers grilled Rothman on “administrative bloat” across the system and requests for additional positions and funding from the UW schools. 

The budget request would add 214 positions funded by state general purpose revenue to UW campuses. Rothman noted that UW campuses, excluding flagship UW-Madison, have lost 6,000 positions funded by the state since 2019. 

Born asked why there was a request for 13 additional staff members to support students who have aged out of the foster care system. He noted that a 2023-24 report found there were 420 of those students across the system. 

“I’m trying to wrap my head around — you talked about strategic investments, sound investments, and you’re asking for 13 positions, one on every campus to serve 420 kids?” Born asked. 

Rothman said the intention would be to expand the number of students who could be supported. 

“They’ve had a tough lot in life to start with,”  Rothman said, adding that the additional staffing  could give those students a leg up. “I would hope that we could expand that number.” 

Rothman also said that the specific request is part of the general goal of investing in students to ensure they make it to graduation. 

“If you look at the positions that we have asked for, they are all student-facing. We are trying to help our students be successful,” Rothman said. 

“This is a shining example of the governor’s desire to grow government and your desire to grow your system, and it’s not focused on the reality of how you invest in this stuff,” Born said. 

Born also focused on the idea of funding new programs on UW campuses. 

“Why would we need to fund a curriculum of the future? Isn’t there things that are fading away, things that are no longer of interest to students, things are no longer of interest to the workforce? Shouldn’t there be funds available to offer new things?” Born asked. 

Rothman said that the UW system has cut about 100 programs already. 

“So you’ve eliminated about 100 programs, but you can’t fund a new program and curriculum and AI without more funding?” Born continued. 

“I think the fact of the matter is if we had kept up with inflation in terms of our state support, we’d be in a different position,” Rothman answered. 

Corrections budget 

DOC Sec-designee Jared Hoy also defended Evers’ proposals during the hearing, saying that policy changes, increased investments and capital projects are needed to improve safety in facilities across the state. The proposal, Hoy said, is “not simply a list of funding requests” but is a “blueprint for the future” of state corrections. 

Under the proposal, the state would invest about $634 million in the DOC. The majority of the money would be used to fund major reforms throughout the state’s prisons including infrastructure upgrades and capital improvements to Waupun Correctional Institution, Lincoln Hills School, Stanley Correctional Institution, Sanger B. Powers Correctional Center and John C. Burke Correctional Center. The improvements would culminate in the closure of the Green Bay Correctional Institution. 

Hoy told lawmakers that the budget proposal was developed through conversations with DOC staff, legislators and outside experts with a focus on “safety for those in our communities and the people that work in our facilities every day.” 

The proposal also includes some policy changes meant to help limit recidivism, including by expanding access to workforce training and substance use treatment for people who have 48 months or less left in their sentences for nonviolent offenses.

“A system that prioritizes re-entry and release, but fails to reduce recidivism is not truly safe. A facility that contains individuals but is dangerous and unstable inside its walls is not safe,” Hoy said. “Safety must be both measured by what happens inside the walls of our facilities, and by what happens when a person releases into the community.”

Hoy said that he hoped lawmakers would see some of their thoughts and ideas for the agency reflected in the plan.

“The governor’s budget request is an opportunity for our state to come together and use our taxpayers’ money responsibly to help keep our children and our communities safe,” Hoy said.

The idea that some lawmakers have floated of building a new facility would take significantly more time and money, he added. 

“Our agency does not have time to wait 10 to 12 years for a new facility to be built,” Hoy said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

State Superintendent Jill Underly won a second term in office Tuesday evening. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Incumbent Jill Underly, who had the backing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, won a second term as state superintendent on Tuesday, defeating education consultant and Republican-backed candidate Brittany Kinser. 

“I’m just deeply honored and humbled for the trust you have placed in me to continue as state superintendent for public instruction,” Underly told supporters at her Election Night party. “This victory belongs to all of us who believe in the power of public education, but for every educator, family, and most importantly, kids across our state.”

The Associated Press called the race at 10:05 p.m. with Underly leading by more than 5 points and with more than 80% of the votes counted.

Kinser’s campaign released a statement shortly before 10:30 p.m. in which she acknowledged the result was “not the outcome I had hoped for.”

“Our kids’ future shouldn’t rest on the politicization of our education system, but on the belief that our kids deserve so much better than they currently receive,” she said.

The state superintendent, a technically nonpartisan position, is responsible for providing guidance for the state’s 421 public school districts, leading the Department of Public Instruction (DPI)  — an agency responsible for administering state and federal funds, licensing teachers and developing educational curriculum and state assessments — and also holds a position on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. 

Underly received the endorsement from Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, and AFT-Wisconsin. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin contributed over $850,000 to her campaign. While Underly had the backing of the state Democratic party, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers refused to endorse in the race. 

WEAC said in a statement that the “victory inspires the public school educators who work with students every day to be even more visible and more involved in education policy deliberations to solve staffing shortages and the state funding crisis that forces communities to referendum every year to keep the schoolhouse doors open” and that the result is a rejection of “the school voucher lobby in favor of educators, so all students – no exceptions – have the opportunity to learn without limits and unlock their dreams.”

Kinser had never worked in a traditional Wisconsin public school and received criticism during the campaign for never holding a Wisconsin teachers’ license and allowing her administrator’s license to lapse, though she eventually updated it. She had also worked mostly in charter school circles in recent years, including as principal and executive director of Rocketship schools in Milwaukee and as a leader of the City Forward Collective, a Milwaukee-based advocacy group that has lobbied in favor of increasing funding for the state’s voucher program.

With her background, Kinser, who describes herself as a moderate, found support from Republicans and school choice advocates, receiving over $1.6 million in contributions from the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

While decisive, Underly’s victory was by a narrower margin than her first election in 2021, while Kinser did better than past DPI candidates who have run with the backing of the state’s powerful school choice lobby.

Underly said her takeaway from the closeness of the race is that “we need to just communicate better.” 

Throughout the campaign, Underly faced criticism from her opponent, Republicans and others for her recent approval of changes to state testing standards and poor communication with school districts. 

“There’s a lot that goes on at the agency that I think in years past, maybe state superintendents took for granted, but I think it’s important that we are communicating more,” Underly told the Wisconsin Examiner.

Underly said that the agency is working on rebuilding its relationship with legislators. 

“The Legislature and the relationship with the state superintendent hasn’t always been that great…,” Underly said. “We meet with them frequently. We meet with the governor’s office quite frequently also. I’m just going to go back to the fact that I hope that we all want the same things, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum.” 

Underly said that she also respected Evers’ decision not to endorse in the race and that her working relationship with his office is “fine.”

Throughout her campaign, Underly defended her decisions during her first term and said that she has served as “the No. 1 advocate for public education” and will continue to do so. Prior to being elected to the top DPI position, Underly worked as assistant director in DPI. She also previously served as a principal and superintendent of the Pecatonica Area School District and taught in public schools in Indiana.

Underly leaned on her advocacy for public schools while making the argument for her reelection. She introduced a budget request for the state that would have invested over $4 billion in public education, saying that it’s what schools deserved. Republicans and Evers both said it was too large. 

Democratic lawmakers said Underly’s victory is a sign of Wisconsinites’ support of public schools and will hopefully bode well for the future of securing improved funding for public education. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told the Wisconsin Examiner that Underly’s victory was a vindication of her first term in office.

“She’s had to make do with some really tough choices, and she’s done a great job for kids and for teachers,” Hesselbein said.

“We know public schools unite communities, and when we have strong public schools, we have strong communities,” Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) said. “We’ve got a state superintendent who’s going to be looking out for every learner in our state, and so I’m also looking forward to the transparency and accountability that will come with ensuring that public dollars are for public schools.” 

Hong said that the lack of communication between Republican lawmakers and Underly is the fault of  lawmakers who are not interested in meeting the needs of students. She said that Underly’s win and “Republicans needing to answer to their communities who care about their public schools again” could encourage them to work across the aisle. She noted that Wisconsinites have repeatedly raised their property taxes to ensure schools have funding in lieu of reliable state investments. 

Hong also said that she thought Underly’s victory showcased that “public dollars going to private schools was a deep concern for a lot of Wisconsinites.” During her campaign, Underly criticized  her opponent for her lobbying for and support for Wisconsin’s school choice programs. She also expressed her opposition to the growth of those programs, saying it is not sustainable for the state to fund two school systems and that she would oppose dedicating more money to private school vouchers.

Underly said it’s clear that her opponent “cares about kids and she cares about kids learning,” and that something she would take away from the race is that “we all want the same things. Ultimately, we want kids to be successful.”

(Photo by Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

Wisconsin voters on Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment to enshrine the state’s already existing voter ID law into the state Constitution. 

The amendment was approved by 25 points. The Associated Press called the election less than 40 minutes after the polls closed. 

The Republican-authored referendum does not change the law that was already on the books in the state which requires that voters show an approved ID to register to vote and receive a ballot. Republican legislators said the amendment was necessary to protect the statute from being overturned by the state Supreme Court. In recent years, Republicans in the Legislature have increasingly turned to the constitutional amendment process to shape state law without needing the signature of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. 

Democrats had accused Republicans of including the referendum on the ballot in this election as an effort to boost conservative turnout in the state Supreme Court election. 

Wisconsin’s voter ID law has been on the books for more than a decade. During debate over the law, Republican lawmakers discussed its potential to help the party win elections by suppressing the vote of minority and college-aged people who tend to vote for Democrats. 

Democrats and voting rights groups said the law amounted to a “poll tax.” A 2017 study found that the law kept 17,000 people from the polls in the 2016 election. 

Since its passage, a number of court decisions have adjusted the law, leading the state to ease restrictions and costs for obtaining a photo ID — particularly for people who can’t afford a high cost or don’t have proper documents such as a birth certificate. 

Republicans in Wisconsin and across the country have increasingly focused on photo ID requirements for voting since conspiracy theories about election administration emerged following President Donald Trump’s false claims that he was robbed of victory because of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential campaign.

While the law doesn’t change, the approved language of the amendment gives the Legislature the authority to determine what types of ID qualify as valid for voting purposes. Currently, approved IDs include Wisconsin driver’s licenses and state IDs, U.S. passports, military IDs and certain student IDs.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford thanks supporters after winning the race Tuesday for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday, solidifying liberal control of the body until 2028 and marking a sharp rebuke by the state’s voters of the policies of President Donald Trump and the financial might of his most prominent adviser, Elon Musk. 

Crawford rode massive turnout in Dane and Milwaukee counties and outperformed Kamala Harris’ effort last year in a number of other parts of the state to defeat her opponent, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel by about 10 points.

The former chief legal counsel for Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle who represented liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Madison teacher’s union as a private practice attorney said during the campaign that she would look out for the rights of all Wisconsinites on the Supreme Court while repeatedly criticizing Schimel for his eagerness to show his support for Trump, his record as attorney general and the outside assistance his campaign got from Musk. 

Crawford’s victory marks the third straight Supreme Court election for Wisconsin’s liberals and maintains the 4-3 liberal majority that has been in place since Justice Janet Protasiewicz was elected in 2023. Crawford will replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. 

Since gaining control of the Court, the new liberal majority has ruled that the state’s previous legislative maps were unconstitutional, ending the partisan gerrymander that had locked in Republican control of the Legislature for more than a decade, and accepted cases that will decide the rights of Wisconsinites to have an abortion. The Court is also likely to consider a challenge to Wisconsin’s 2011 law stripping most union rights from public employees within the next year or two. 

“I’m here tonight because I’ve spent my life fighting to do what’s right,” Crawford said after the race was called for her. “That’s why I got into this race, to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all.”

Schimel said he got into the race because he was opposed to the “partisanship” of the liberal controlled Court but his effort to nationalize the race and show his support for Trump proved unsuccessful against a backlash to the second Trump term and voters’ distrust of Musk, who offered cash incentives for people who got out the vote for Schimel. 

Tuesday’s election was the first statewide race in the country since Trump won the presidency last fall. Trump narrowly won Wisconsin and in counties across the state, Schimel failed to match the president’s vote total. In La Crosse County, Crawford performed 11 points better than Harris did last year and Schimel didn’t even match Trump’s vote share in his home of Waukesha County. 

Schimel ran nearly even with former Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz in the 2023 race. Wisconsin’s conservatives have now lost the past three Supreme Court elections by double digits.

The 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for the most expensive judicial campaign in U.S. history, topping the $100 million mark. While Crawford received support from liberal billionaires including George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Musk dwarfed all other contributors, dumping more than $20 million into the race.

Musk’s money helped blanket the state’s airwaves with attack ads against Crawford’s record as a judge, often criticizing sentences she gave to people convicted of sexual violence. A Musk-associated PAC also hired people to knock on thousands of doors in an effort to turn out Trump’s base of Wisconsin voters, who have often sat out non-presidential elections. America PAC, a political action committee associated with Musk, paid door knockers $25 an hour, offered voters cash if they filled out a petition against “activist judges” and gave two people $1 million checks at a rally on Sunday. 

“But I’ve got to tell you, as a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world  for justice in Wisconsin,” Crawford said. “And we won.”

In a concession speech delivered shortly before 9:30 p.m., Schimel told supporters they “didn’t leave anything on the field,” and when a few began to complain said “no, we’ve gotta accept this.”

“The numbers aren’t going to turn around. Too bad. We’re not going to pull this off,” he said. “So thank you guys. From the bottom of my heart. God bless you. God bless the state of Wisconsin. God bless America. You will rise again. We’ll get up to fight another day, it just wasn’t our day.”

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin, harnessing voters’ alarm at the actions Musk has been leading from his federal DOGE office to cut government programs and fire thousands of public employees, held People v. Musk town halls across the state where residents said they were worried about the effect those cuts would have on services they rely on like Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s benefits and education funding. 

Gov. Tony Evers said that Wisconsin “felt the weight of America” in this election, which proved Wisconsinites “will not be bought.”

“This election was about the resilience of the Wisconsin and American values that define and unite us,” Evers said. “This election was about doing what’s best for our kids, protecting constitutional checks and balances, reaffirming our faith in the courts and the judiciary, and defending against attacks on the basic rights, freedoms, and institutions we hold dear. But above all, this election was as much about who Wisconsinites believe we can be as it was about the country we believe we must be.”

Democrats and Crawford accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court, partially to influence a lawsuit his company, Tesla, has filed challenging a Wisconsin law that prohibits car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. Musk said he was focused on the race because the Court could decide the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps, which currently favor Republicans and help the party hold a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

At the victory party, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler compared the effort against Musk and Trump to Gov. Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette’s fight against the oligarchs of the early 20th century, adding that Republicans’ association with Musk will be an “anchor.”

“I think what Susan Crawford did by making clear that Elon Musk was the real opponent in this race, what voters did by responding to Elon Musk, it made clear that Elon Musk is politically toxic, and he is a massive anchor that will drag Republicans from the bottom of the ocean,” he said. “And that’s a message that I hope Republicans in Washington hear as fast as possible. Not only will they lose, but they will deserve to lose resoundingly and they will be swept out of power in a wave of outrage across the nation.”

On the campaign trail, Crawford sought to tie Schimel to Musk — she called her opponent “Elon Schimel” at the only debate between the two candidates — while portraying herself as the less partisan candidate. Throughout the nominally non-partisan race, both candidates lobbed accusations of extreme political views at the other. 

With Crawford’s victory and the retention of the Court’s liberal majority, the body is expected to rule on cases that ask if Wisconsin’s Constitution grants women the right to access an abortion, the legality of the Republican-authored law that restricts the collective bargaining rights of most public employees, how Wisconsin’s industries should be regulated for pollution and the legality of the state’s congressional maps. 

Heather Williams, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement that Democrats were offering a better vision for the country than the one promised by Schimel, Trump and Musk. 

“Despite Republicans’ best efforts to buy this seat, Wisconsin voters showed up for their values and future,” Williams said. “While Trump dismantles programs that taxpayers have earned, support, and are counting on, voters across the country are turning to state Democrats who are delivering on promises to lower costs and expand opportunities.”

This story was updated Wednesday morning with current vote totals.

Children at The Playing Field, a Madison child care center that participates in the federal Head Start program. (Courtesy of The Playing Field)

Head Start child care providers in Wisconsin and five other Midwestern states were stunned Tuesday to learn that the federal agency’s Chicago regional office was closed and their administrators were placed on leave — throwing new uncertainty into the operation of the 60-year-old child care and early education program.

“The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, in a statement distributed to news organizations Tuesday afternoon.

The surprise shutdown of the federal agency’s Chicago office — and four others across the country — left Head Start program directors uncertain about where to turn, Mauer said.

“We have received calls throughout the day from panicked Head Start programs worried about impacts to approving their current grants, fiscal issues, and applications to make their programs more responsive to their local communities,” Mauer said.

The regional offices are part of the Office of Head Start in the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

In an interview, Mauer said there had been no official word to Head Start providers about the Chicago office closing. Some program leaders learned of the closing from private contacts with people in the office. 

“We have not seen official information come out” to local Head Start directors, who operate on the federal grants that fund the program, Mayer said. “It’s just really alarming. For an agency that is about serving families, I don’t understand how this can be.”

The National Head Start Association issued a press release Tuesday expressing “deep concern” about the regional office closings. 

“In order to avoid disrupting services for children and families, we urge the administration to reconsider these actions until a plan has been created and shared widely,” the association stated.

Katie Hamm, the deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development at HHS during the Biden administration, posted on LinkedIn shortly before 12 noon Tuesday that she had learned of reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to employees in the Administration for Children and Families earlier in the day. 

RIF notices appear to have gone to all employees of the Office of Head Start and the Office of Child Care in five regional offices, Hamm wrote, in Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle in addition to Chicago. 

“Staff are on paid leave effective immediately and no longer have access to their files,” Hamm wrote. “There does not appear to be a transition plan so that Head Start grantees, States, and Tribes are assigned to a new office. For Head Start, it is unclear who will administer grants going forward.”

Hamm left HHS at the end of the Biden administration in January, according to her LinkedIn profile. 

Mauer said regional office employees “are our key partners and colleagues,” and their departure has left Head Start operators “incredibly saddened and deeply concerned.” 

Regional employees work with providers “to ensure the safety and quality of services and to meet the mission of providing care for the most vulnerable families in the country,” Mauer said. 

The regional offices provide grant oversight, distribute funds, monitor Head Start programs and advise centers on complying with regulations, including for child safety, she said. They also provide training and technical assistance for local Head Start programs.

“The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” Mauer said. “These cuts will have a direct impact on programs, children, and families.”

In addition to Wisconsin, the Chicago regional office oversees programs in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota. 

Head Start supervises about 284 grants across the six states in programs that  enroll about 115,000 children, according to Mauer. There are 39 Head Start providers in Wisconsin enrolling about 16,000 children and employing about 4,000 staff.

The federal government created Head Start in the mid-1960s to provide early education for children living in low-income households. Head Start operators report that the vast majority of the families they serve rely on the program to provide child care so they can hold jobs.

The regional office closings came two months after a sudden halt in Head Start funding. Head Start operators get a federal reimbursement after they incur expenses, and program directors have been accustomed to being able to submit their expenses and receive reimbursement payments through an online portal.

Over about two weeks in late January and early February, program leaders in Wisconsin and across the country reported that they were unable to log into the system or post their payment requests. The glitches persisted for some programs for several days, but were ultimately resolved by Feb. 10.

Mauer told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday that so far, there have not been new payment delays. But there has also been no communication with Head Start operators about what happens now with the unexpected regional office closings, she said.

“No plan for who will provide support has been shared, and the still-existing regional offices are already understaffed,” Mauer said. “I’m very nervous to see what happens. With no transition plan this will be a disaster.”

In her statement, Mauer said the regional office closing was “another example of the Federal Administration’s continuing assault on Head Start” following the earlier funding freeze and stalled reimbursements.

She said closing regional offices was undermining the program’s ability to function.

“We call on Congress to immediately investigate this blatant effort to hamper Head Start’s ability to provide services,” Mauer stated, “and to hold the Administration accountable for their actions.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Cory Booker started his speech on Monday at 7 p.m. and said he would continue as long as he is "physically able." (Photo by John Partipilo)

This story was updated at 7:16 CST

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker broke the record for longest floor speech in the history of the Senate on Tuesday, surpassing the 24-hour and 18-minute record set in 1957 when South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond attempted to prevent passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Booker, a Democrat who began his remarks Monday at 7 p.m. saying he wanted to highlight President Donald Trump’s “complete disregard for the rule of law,” by Tuesday at 7:20 p.m. was raspy-voiced, occasionally teary-eyed, and wearing what he called a “ripe” shirt.

It was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s Democratic leader, who interrupted Booker to say he had broken Thurmond’s record.

“Do you know how proud this caucus is of you? Do you know how proud America is of you?” Schumer said to applause and a standing ovation from his fellow Democrats and visitors.

Booker noted that Thurmond with his 1957 filibuster “tried to stop the rights upon which I stand.”

“I’m not here, though, because of his speech. I’m here despite his speech. I’m here because, as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful,” Booker said.

Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis was one of just two Republican lawmakers in the chamber at the time. Lummis joined Democrats in celebrating Booker’s accomplishment by standing and clapping.

Guests and staff are normally barred from any displays of support or disapproval while sitting in the gallery, but Utah Sen. John Curtis, a Republican who was presiding over the chamber, allowed it.

Booker finally yielded the floor a few minutes after 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Booker’s record-breaking speech comes as the Democratic Party faces criticism from voters who say the party’s leaders are not doing enough to stand up to Trump’s actions, especially those that experts say fly in the face of legal precedent.

“These are not normal times in our nation, and they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate,” said Booker, 55. “The threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more to stand against them.”

Booker, a Democrat first elected to the Senate in 2013, on Monday said he’d continue speaking as long as he is “physically able.” After his speech surpassed 20 hours, he looked exhausted, joked about his shirt being “ripe,” and took occasional breaks by yielding the floor for questions from his Democratic colleagues, who praised the former college football player for his endurance.

His speech comes as the Democratic Party faces criticism from voters who say the party’s leaders are not doing enough to stand up to Trump’s actions, especially those that experts say fly in the face of legal precedent.

“This is not right or left. It is right or wrong. This is not a partisan moment. It is a moral moment,” Booker said early Tuesday afternoon. “Where do you stand?”

Booker’s speech is one of the longest ever given on the Senate floor. The record was previously held by Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican who held the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957 in protest of the Civil Rights Act.

The senator covered a breadth of topics: health care, Social Security, Medicaid, grocery prices, free speech, veterans, public education, world leaders, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, and national security concerns. He read letters and comments from constituents and he quoted speeches from the late Rep. John Lewis — invoking Lewis’ famous call to action to “get in good trouble” — and the late Sen. John McCain.

Booker, a former mayor of Newark, also assailed Trump’s policies on immigration. He said the Trump administration is doing “outrageous things like disappearing people off of American streets, violating fundamental principles of this document” — here he held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution — “invoking the Alien Enemies Act from the 1700s that was last used to put Japanese Americans into internment camps.”

“Do we see what’s happening?” Booker asked.

He spent about a half-hour reading the account of Jasmine Mooney, a Canadian citizen who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for 12 days in March. He also noted that the Trump administration conceded Monday that it deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Maryland man with protected legal status, to an El Salvador prison because of an “administrative error.”

“The government can’t walk up to a human being and grab them off the street and put them on a plane and send them to one of the most notorious prisons in the world, and just say, as one of our authorities did, ‘Oopsie,’” Booker said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who asked about the impact of potential Medicaid cuts and tariffs about 15 hours into Booker’s speech, told Booker he has the support of the entire party.

“Your strength, your fortitude, your clarity has just been nothing short of amazing. All of America is paying attention to what you’re saying. All of America needs to know there’s so many problems — the disastrous actions of this administration in terms of how they’re helping only the billionaires and hurting average families — you have brought this forth with such clarity,” he said.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

French wine on display in a District of Columbia shop on March 13, 2025, the day President Donald Trump threatened tariffs on European wine and French Champagne. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — American business owners and consumers are bracing as President Donald Trump teases, with few details, the announcement of sweeping tariffs expected Wednesday afternoon.

Trump has dubbed April 2 “Liberation Day,” his self-imposed deadline to fulfill his campaign promise of taxing imported products from around the globe.

The White House confirmed Tuesday that Trump had made a decision on tariff levels but would not provide further details.

“He’s with his trade and tariff team right now perfecting it to make sure this is a perfect deal for the American people and the American worker, and you will all find out in about 24 hours from now,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday afternoon at the daily briefing.

The new tariffs come as Trump already imposed 25% duties on imported steel and aluminum, as well as 25% levies on foreign cars and vehicle parts set to begin Thursday.

But the anticipation of more tariffs on numerous imported goods has stopped business owners in their tracks as uncertainty about costs and consumer reaction clouds day-to-day decisions.

Stockpiling coffee cups

Gabe Hagen, owner of Brick Road Coffee in Tempe, Arizona, said small business owners are feeling “whiplash.”

“Are we going to have a tariff? Are we not? It’s not easy for me to change my prices overnight. But at the same time, if all of the sudden I have my cost of goods going up, it’ll put me into a loss territory.”

Most disposable beverage cups are produced in China, so Hagen made the decision last year to purchase and store $26,000 worth of coffee cups in anticipation of tariffs.

He also had to pull back $50,000 in capital for development on a second shop location, he said.

“The main thing we’re asking for is stability,” said Hagen, who also sits on the Small Business for America’s Future advisory council.

Walt Rowen, owner and president of Susquehanna Glass Company in Columbia, Pennsylvania, said “there’s no clarity at this point at all.”

“Everybody is in a holding pattern. We’re stuck wondering what is going to happen,” Rowen said. “We can sort of know that we’re gonna have to increase prices if the tariffs come into effect. But what we don’t know is if we increase prices, how much does that affect demand?”

Rowen’s historic 1925 three-story production facility right in the middle of the southeastern Pennsylvania town employs anywhere from 35 to 65 workers, depending on the season.

Through a variety of decorating techniques, his employees engrave or imprint screened paint logos, names and other messages on wine glasses he sources from a manufacturer in Italy and mugs made in Vietnam.

Rowen’s production rooms buzz, especially in the months leading up to the holidays, when his employees laser engrave and hand paint personalized ornaments sourced from China for the Lenox Corporation.

“My Christmas ornament business is huge for us in the fourth quarter, and I would normally be planning to bring in 20 to 30 people to work in that category of business. But if those prices increase by 30, 40, 50%, I don’t know how many we’re going to sell this year. So I can’t even plan production. It’s frightening,” he said.

States to feel economic pain

Economists are warning the rollercoaster tariff policy coming from the Oval Office is undermining economic growth and trust in the U.S. as a stable trading partner.

Trump told reporters as recently as Sunday that he was planning to slap tariffs on “all countries.”

His administration’s mid-March levies on aluminum and steel imports sparked retaliation from the European Union and Canada, which beginning in mid-April will enforce taxes on hundreds of American products crossing their borders, including iconic Kentucky bourbon, Tennessee whiskey and Harley-Davidson motorcycles.

Unless Trump carves out exceptions on certain products, more states can expect to feel economic pain, said Mary Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“For example, a state like Washington state is very export dependent, not just obviously aircraft, but also apples and a wide variety of other manufacturing and agricultural (products). That state will be really hard hit if there are retaliatory tariffs, both from Canada, which is a market, but also from Asia,” Lovely said.

Trump’s tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico could cost the typical American family at least an extra $1,200 annually in price increases, according to a report Lovely co-authored. The dollar amount increases when calculating for universal tariffs on all imported goods, and when accounting for retaliation from other countries.

European Union President Ursula von der Leyen already made clear in a speech Monday that the bloc wants to negotiate with Trump but will apply more levies on American products given no other choice.

“Europe has not started this confrontation. We do not necessarily want to retaliate, but we have a strong plan to retaliate if necessary,” she said.

Tariffs on Canada

On Capitol Hill, Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota introduced a resolution to block the president’s tariffs on Canada, which he triggered under his emergency powers.

Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Power Act to slap 25% tariffs on products out of Canada and Mexico marked the first time a president had ever done so.  

“We think that the economic chaos that’s being caused and markets being roiled and consumer confidence dropping, and some predicting recession, together with a bipartisan vote might convince the White House — ‘Hey, look, there’s a better way to treat American citizens and customers,’” Kaine told reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Tuesday.

Kaine said his message to Republicans is “stand up for your constituents and say no tax increase on them.”

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation late Tuesday or Wednesday.

Bill Butcher, founder of Port City Brewing in Alexandria, Virginia, spoke alongside the senators Tuesday, expressing concern about the price of Canadian Pilsner malt that he’s used for 14 years.

“It’s a very specific strain of high quality barley that grows in the cold climate of Canada, and there’s not a suitable U.S. substitute that we can get at the same quality to make our beer,” he said. “If there’s a 25% tariff on this basic ingredient, it’s going to slow our business down.

“By the time it goes from us to our distributor to the retailer to the consumer, this $12.99 six-pack of beer is going to end up at $18.99. How many people are still going to want to buy a six-pack of great-tasting beer but at $18.99? People are going to start looking for a different substitute,” Butcher said.

White House defends tariffs

In an emailed statement Tuesday to States Newsroom, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said Trump used tariffs “to deliver historic job, wage, and economic growth with no inflation in his first term, and he’s set to restore American Greatness in his second term.”

“Fearmongering by the media and Democrats about President Trump’s America First economic agenda isn’t going to change the fact that industry leaders have already made trillions in investment commitments to make in America, and that countries ranging from Vietnam to India to the UK have already begun to offer up trade concessions that would help level the playing field for American industries and workers,” Desai said.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior counselor on trade, told “Fox News Sunday with Shannon Bream” Trump’s new tariffs will raise $600 billion a year for the U.S., plus another $100 billion from the 25% duty on foreign cars that will launch this week.

The government would gain that revenue from U.S. businesses who will need to pay the duty rates to get their purchased goods through the U.S. border.

Erica York with the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank that advocates for lower taxes, said Tuesday that number is “very, very wrong” because Navarro is basing the math on the current level of imports.

“If we put a 20% tax on imports, people are not going to buy as many imports, so that reduces how much revenue you get,” York said. “Also, mechanically, if firms are making all of these tariff payments, that reduces their revenue. They don’t have as much to pay workers (and) to return to shareholders.”

U.S. stocks showed their biggest losses since 2022, according to Monday’s report on the first quarter of 2025.

Both Moody’s Analytics and Goldman Sachs warned on Monday that they’ve raised their forecasts for an economic recession to 35%.

Colorado Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen speaks on the U.S. House floor on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, while holding her newborn. (Screenshot from U.S. House Clerk livestream.)

This story was updated at 3:02 p.m. EDT.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republican leaders on Tuesday were unable to use a procedural maneuver to block a Florida Republican and a Colorado Democrat from bringing a resolution to the floor that would allow expecting mothers and new parents to vote by proxy.

GOP leaders tried to block their discharge petition from moving forward by putting language in a rule that would have set up House floor debate on separate pieces of legislation.

That provision and the rule were blocked following a 206-222 vote, with nine Republicans voting to buck party leaders. GOP leaders opted to cancel votes for the rest of the week afterward.

“People have emotional reasons for doing what they’re doing,” Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the failed vote. “But we’re going to keep governing. This is a small, razor-thin majority and we have to build consensus on everything. I wish they had not taken this course, but we’re not shaken by this.”

The discharge petition from Florida GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna and Colorado Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen received signatures from 218 lawmakers, indicating it has the support needed to change the House’s rules when a vote is held.

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, Georgia Rep. Richard McCormick, New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, New York Rep. Michael Lawler, Ohio Reps. Michael Rulli and David Joyce, Pennsylvania Rep. Daniel Meuser, Tennessee Reps. Tim Burchett and Andy Ogles and Texas Reps. Dan Crenshaw and Wesley Hunt were the Republicans who signed the discharge petition.

A newborn on the House floor

Pettersen, holding her newborn in her arms, urged House lawmakers to ensure that women who cannot travel to the Capitol due to their pregnancies and new parents can still represent their constituents.

“When I was pregnant, I couldn’t fly towards the end of my due date because it was unsafe for Sam, and you’re unable to board a plane,” Pettersen said during floor debate. “I was unable to actually have my vote represented here and my constituents represented.”

“After giving birth I was faced with an impossible decision: Sam was four weeks old and for all of the parents here we know that when we have newborns it’s when they’re the most vulnerable in their life, it’s when they need 24-7 care, when taking them even to a grocery store is scary because you’re worried about exposure to germs and them getting sick — let alone taking them to an airport, on a plane and coming across the country to make sure you’re able to vote and represent your constituents.”

Pettersen said she was “terrified that no matter what choice” she made about whether to vote in-person, she would have “deep regrets.”

“So Sam and I made the trip out and this is our third time coming to the floor for a vote,” she said. 

Pettersen said it was “unfathomable that in 2025” Congress had not modernized to have basic parental leave and said the institution has “a long ways to go to make this place accessible for young families like mine.”

Luna said she had spent years trying to convince Republican leaders to allow new parents to vote by proxy. But after exhausting all of her options, worked with her colleagues to gather signatures for a discharge petition.

“Now, leadership, because of the fact they don’t like that I was successful at this, is trying to change the rules,” Luna said, calling GOP leaders’ choice “fundamentally dangerous.”

‘A new laptop class in America’

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, ranking member on the Rules Committee, said Republican leadership was “trying to overturn the Democratic process of majority rule.”

“When 218 of us sign a petition, the House rules say it can be brought up for a vote,” McGovern said. “But a backdoor provision slipped into this rule is being used to shut down that process — an unprecedented step. Literally, it has never been done before in the history of the House.”

House Rules Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., opposed moving forward with the discharge petition and a floor vote on proxy voting.

“I know there’s a new laptop class in America that seems to operate increasingly in a virtual space, but that’s simply not a fact of life for most American workers and I believe Congress should live by that standard,” Foxx said.

Members of Congress, including dozens of Republicans, voted by proxy during the coronavirus pandemic.

Speaker Johnson has also allowed discharge petitions to move forward before. Just last year Congress cleared a bill making changes to Social Security benefits for some Americans after members from both political parties signed a discharge petition.

Tuesday’s measure, titled Proxy Voting for New Parents Resolution, would allow House members who just gave birth, or had a spouse give birth, to designate another lawmaker to vote on their behalf for 12 weeks.

The resolution would also allow House lawmakers to vote by proxy before giving birth if their health care providers advised the “pregnancy presents a serious medical condition or that she is unable to travel safely.” 

The legislation would not affect the Senate. Generally, each chamber of Congress sets its own rules and does not try to tell the other chamber how to operate.

Luna quits Freedom Caucus

Luna left the far-right Freedom Caucus on Monday over the group’s efforts to block her discharge petition from moving forward, writing in a two-page letter that “the mutual respect that has guided our caucus” for years was “shattered last week.”

“This was a modest, family-centered proposal,” Luna wrote. “Yet, a small group among us threatened the Speaker, vowing to halt floor proceedings indefinitely — regardless of the legislation at stake, including President Trump’s agenda — unless he altered the rules to block my discharge petition.”

Luna rebuked several of the Freedom Caucus members, without naming names. She said their choice to try to block the discharge petition from moving forward by embedding language in a rule that set up debate on a separate bill was duplicitous.

“This tactic was not just a betrayal of trust; it was a descent into the very behavior we have long condemned — a practice that we, as a group, have repeatedly criticized leadership for allowing,” Luna wrote. “To those involved, I ask: Why? Why abandon the principles we’ve championed and resort to such conduct?

“The irony in all of this is that I have never voted by proxy, yet one of our own on the Rules Committee that is so adamantly opposed has done so over 30 times.”

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

Wisconsin’s spring election takes place Tuesday, with voters across the state weighing in on the races for state Supreme Court and superintendent of schools, a constitutional amendment and local offices.

Polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Voters who are already in line to vote when polls close should remain in line and will still be able to cast their ballots. Absentee ballots must be returned by the time polls close and can be returned to a voter’s polling place or municipal clerk’s office. Information on polling places can be found at MyVote.WI.gov. 

Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites have already cast their ballots, surpassing the early vote turnout of the 2023 Supreme Court race when 1.8 million people voted. On the Monday before the election that year, more than 409,000 ballots had already been cast. This year, more than 644,000 votes have already been cast, with Dane and Milwaukee counties each seeing the most turnout. More than 100,000 votes have already been cast in both counties. 

While the lower turnout of spring elections means results usually come faster than in presidential elections, state law still doesn’t allow election officials to begin processing absentee ballots until polls open on Election Day. Last year, Republicans in the state Senate killed a bill that would have allowed absentee ballots to start being processed on the Monday before the election. This means that especially in Milwaukee, where all absentee ballots are processed and counted at one central count location, results may take longer to come in. 

Supreme Court race

The race for Wisconsin Supreme Court is the most consequential on the ballot on Tuesday, with the ideological balance of the body up for grabs. Liberal-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford is taking on conservative-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel. The winner will replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. 

Wisconsin is holding the first statewide election in the country since President Donald Trump was elected last November. That opportunity to test the voting public’s mood, and the $20 million that Trump adviser Elon Musk has pumped into the race to support Schimel, has turned the race into a referendum on the first months of the second Trump administration. 

Musk appeared at a rally in Green Bay on Sunday night to advocate for Schimel, give $1 million to two attendees and hype up his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been making drastic cuts to federal agencies and programs. 

Schimel has said he is running to remove partisanship from the Court and that if elected he would  treat Trump like any other litigant in a case. But he also told a group of canvassers associated with Trump-aligned Turning Point USA that he’d be a “support network” for Trump on the Court and, the Washington Post reported, told a group of Republicans in Jefferson County that Trump was “screwed over” by the Court when it ruled against Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of  the 2020 election. 

Democrats and Crawford’s campaign have accused Musk of attempting to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court. They point to Musk’s current litigation in Wisconsin challenging a state law that prevents Tesla from selling cars directly to consumers. Democrats have held People v. Musk town halls across the state where attendees said they were worried about DOGE’s cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and education. 

At the only debate between the two candidates in March, Crawford called her opponent “Elon Schimel.” Crawford has said if elected she’ll be a justice who seeks to protect the rights of all Wisconsinites while Schimel has said he’s running to counter the alleged partisanship of the Court since liberals won a majority in 2023. 

The race for Supreme Court has set the record for most expensive judicial campaign in U.S. history. The race recently surpassed the $100 million mark, nearly doubling the record set by Wisconsin’s 2023 Supreme Court election when more than $50 million was spent in the race between Justice Janet Protasiewicz and former Justice Dan Kelly. 

While the race has been nationalized, the winner will hold a deciding vote in cases that could decide how Wisconsin’s congressional maps are drawn, how pollution is regulated, the collective bargaining rights of the state’s workers and if Wisconsin women have the right to access an abortion.

Superintendent of Schools

Also on the ballot on Tuesday is the race for superintendent of schools. The race is between incumbent Jill Underly, supported by the state Democratic party, and Brittany Kinser, an education consultant who’s been backed by the state Republican Party. 

The two candidates appeared together at just one virtual forum, with Underly declining to attend a number of proposed events. Kinser has criticized Underly’s effort to change the standards used to assess student progress and advocated for more support for the state’s “school choice” programs including taxpayer-funded private school vouchers. 

Underly is endorsed by the state’s teachers union and says she will defend  public schools against privatization efforts by school choice advocates such as Kinser. 

Voter ID amendment

Voters will also weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to codify the state’s voter ID law. The Republican-authored proposal would require that voters provide a photo ID to register to vote, which is already the law. Republicans say the amendment is necessary to prevent the state  Supreme Court from striking down the voter ID requirement. Republicans have increasingly used the constitutional amendment process in recent years as a way to shape state law, avoiding Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ veto.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Tennesseans and Wisconsinites involved with the Builders' project. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Madison School Board member Ali Muldrow said people who work in education know that the “worst day” is when children get hurt in school. 

“When the Abundant Life shooting happened, which was at a private Christian School very close to my home, it was just a really horrible day, and I think I realized it’s too late to talk about this,” Muldrow said. “It’s been too late and we can’t keep letting it be too late.”

A teacher and student were killed and six others were injured by a 15-year-old who brought a gun to Abundant Life Christian School, a private school in Madison, in December 2024. It is the deadliest school shooting on record in Wisconsin.

The shooting made national headlines, but it is just one example of children harmed by gun violence. According to the K-12 School Shooting Database, there were 332 school shootings in 2024. A 2024 report by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions found firearms continue to be a leading cause of death for children and teens, and those who are Black are disproportionately the victims

Muldrow, who is running unopposed for another term on the Board this spring, said measures taken to try to prevent shooting deaths at school have not been enough. 

“All of the things that we’ve done to our students haven’t resolved this issue — whether it’s practicing and having drills or whether it’s making our schools harder places to get into,” Muldrow said. “None of that changes the reality that a 15-year-old went into their school, two guns, and killed multiple people, including themselves.”

Students from Madison Metropolitan School District walked out of class in December and marched to the state Capitol to demand something be done about gun violence. 

“They asked for two things,” Muldrow said. “They asked for laws related to gun storage and gun safety, and they asked for more mental health support within their education.”  

Muldrow said that adults should “honor” the demands of the students and build bridges across political divides to get the work done. She said having conversations is an important starting point. 

In the aftermath of the Madison school shooting, Muldrow said she wanted to organize an event to inspire people in the community to feel capable of making change. She turned to a group that tried to find solutions after a school shooting took place about two years ago and more than 620 miles away.

Tennesseans were left reeling in 2023 after a shooter killed three 9-year-olds and three adults at the private Christian Covenant elementary school. A nonprofit organization called Builders (formerly known as Starts With Us) that seeks to ease political polarization brought together a group of 11 Tennessee residents with a range of opinions on the issue of guns to discuss and come up with some solutions. 

Muldrow was part of a similar group in Wisconsin in 2024 that explored the debate on abortion. She saw a documentary about the Tennessee group and thought its approach could be a way for the community affected by the Abundant Life shooting to come together and find a way forward. 

Muldrow said that the point of the event she helped organize Sunday was not necessarily to “mirror or mimic what happened in Tennessee, but to learn from that collaborative attitude towards solutions.” 

More than 100 people attended the event at the Overture Center for the Arts in Madison, which included a screening of the documentary about the Tennesseeans’ journey and a panel discussion with two of the participants and a handful of Wisconsinites.

Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll noted during the panel that potential solutions to gun violence would look different for Wisconsin, given the difference in state laws and the general beliefs of residents in each state. A key point of disagreement among participants in the documentary centered on concealed carry permits and whether they should be mandated. Tennessee has allowed for permitless carry of handguns since 2021.

Wisconsin already requires a permit for concealed carry, however, and it’s mostly not a partisan debate, Franklin said. According to the most recent polling, about 65% of Wisconsinites support concealed carry, but only under certain circumstances. 

“We do have a concealed carry law that requires a permit. When the Legislature has considered concealed carry without a permit, we found only about 20% support for that, about 80% opposition,” Franklin said. “There is a distinction that the public makes… public opinion is quite opposed to that form of concealed carry, but solidly in favor of [concealed carry] with a permit.”

Franklin said he thought proposals that originate from and garner support among Second Amendment supporters should be celebrated. He noted that there is a Republican bill that’s been introduced in Wisconsin that would create a tax exemption for gun safes. 

“That’s a small, incremental matter of, what, 5 ½% on the cost of the safe, but on the other hand, when you think of children’s access to guns in the home, access to those guns by burglars or other circumstances,” it could be a significant step, Franklin said. 

Franklin said the idea that “if you don’t get everything you’ve got nothing” is a huge barrier to progress. 

“I would just stress that incremental improvements are still improvements,” Franklin said.

Steve D’Orazio, founder and president of the Oregon, Wis., gun shop and range Max Creek Outdoors said during the panel that his business works hard to educate people who acquire guns. He said he has been working with a doctor at the UW Health System to educate doctors on guns and have them talk with their patients about gun safety and awareness, including keeping guns locked away. 

“My goal is the safety of our children,” D’Orazio said. 

The solution to school shootings he emphasized the most was implementing metal detectors in all schools. 

“Every one of us here today walked through the front door of this building and we walked through a metal detector, but our schools don’t have metal detectors,” D’Orazio said. “I sell guns. That’s our business. There’s so much education that we do at our shop to make sure that the gun owner doesn’t get hurt and that they use it correctly…, but every school district should have a metal detector. That’s how you’re going to stop this stuff.” 

The documentary shows the Tennessee group taking and presenting their recommendations at the Tennessee State Capitol. Those recommendations included temporary removal of firearms based on risk of violence, developing tools to support responsible gun ownership, expanding the role of school resource officers, investing in community to reduce trauma and developing gun literacy resources for schools, communities and media. 

Tennessee leaders did pass a bill in 2024 requiring education in schools about guns, a policy similar to the recommendation of the group. Though the end result was not exactly as participants imagined it. 

Adam Luke, a Tennessee marriage and family counselor and conservative, spoke to how the “rush to be right” by lawmakers on the issue may diminish the effectiveness of the legislation.  

“People will not be able to opt out [of the curriculum]. Now, I would like to turn to conservative America and say, ‘If you did not have the ability to opt your child out of sex education would that bother you?’” Luke asked. “This is what happens when you have super majorities.” 

Luke said that the Tennessee Department of Education also doesn’t have the curriculum for teachers and just recently closed the public response period. He said lawmakers were so quick to want to get something done that they’ve created a policy that may not be effective.

“Let’s say that we did something, but guess what? We forgot to actually give you the resources to be successful with it,” Luke said. 

Political polarization was on display following the Madison school shooting. Muldrow said she has been “saddened” by the divide.

“It’s really hard to see our Legislature be so divided and in such a contentious relationship with our governor, and it’s a shame because all of these people represent us and there is an expectation that they work together,” Muldrow said. 

Since the shooting, Gov. Tony Evers has launched the Office of Violence Prevention and has proposed adopting further gun safety policies including stricter background checks and red flag laws. Republican lawmakers were quick to criticize Evers’ proposals and have been developing their own proposals for addressing school shootings, including financial support for the Office of School Safety and allowing teachers to be armed. 

The Madison Common Council and the Dane County Board of Supervisors both passed resolutions urging the Legislature to take action and implement common-sense gun measures. 

Steven Olikara, a former candidate for Wisconsin Senate and founder of the nonpartisan organization the Future Caucus, said the actions of local leaders and Evers are a step forward, but the state needs to take bigger steps. 

“Those bigger steps will come from bringing Democrats and Republicans together in a real way and building trust,” Olikara said. “And I think conversations like this can help create that kind of momentum. [When people are at] each other’s throats, the kind of progress you make is very small and very incremental. When you have conversations like the one today, you can reach transformative change, and that’s really what we need.”

Tennessee educator Alyssa Pearman, who lost one of her students to gun violence, said the key is to keep showing up to have the conversations.

“You are going to be told no, and you are going to have people who have no interest in making a change and being a builder, but you keep showing up,” Pearman said. “You find people who want to do something, who want a better tomorrow, and you have conversations like these… This is the type of conversation that needs to be had, whether it’s in Wisconsin, whether it’s in Tennessee and whatever state where we have this crisis.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway alongside other Wisconsinites at a city celebration for Transgender Day of Visibility. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Wisconsin Democrats and city of Madison leaders recognized transgender visibility day in Wisconsin Monday, introducing legislation that would provide protections for people and raising the transgender pride flag. 

This year’s International Transgender Day of Visibility comes amid a political environment in which trans people have been targeted by new proposed federal and state restrictions. Wisconsin Republican lawmakers spent significant time in March on a slate of bills focused on transgender kids and would have limited their ability to play sports, access gender affirming medical care and change their names and pronouns in school. The bills are among more than 800 anti-trans bills that have been introduced nationwide this year.

Participants in the Madison celebrations said the point of the day was not to focus on the negative and harmful actions being taken, however, but to focus instead on the positive experiences of being transgender. 

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove), co-chair of the Transgender Parent and Nonbinary Advocacy Caucus, said during a press conference that the purpose of the day is to “elevate the voices of our trans and non-binary communities, emphasize the joy of living life as your authentic self and to visualize the world in which all our trans and non-binary children, co-workers, neighbors, parents and elected officials throughout Wisconsin and the world are loved, accepted and safe.”

Democrats holding the press conference proposed a handful of bills. One would extend Wisconsin’s nondiscrimination laws to include transgender and nonbinary people by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.

Another bill would create an exception to current law for those seeking a name change for gender identity reasons. Under the current state statute people seeking a name change petition must publish notice of their petition in a local newspaper, including in the area where the petition will be heard, once per week for three consecutive weeks before they may petition the court.

A third bill would declare March 31, 2025 as Transgender Day of Visibility in Wisconsin and recognizes the achievements of several transgender people and organizations who have made contributions to Wisconsin.

In addition to the bills, Gov. Tony Evers, who has committed to vetoing any anti-trans legislation that makes it to his desk, signed a proclamation declaring Monday Transgender Day of Visibility.

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said the bills are important because lawmakers need to send a positive message to young Wisconsinites who may be paying attention. He said that when he was young he remembers feeling discouraged as a gay teen when the state passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 

“Thirteen-year-olds across Wisconsin are listening to political actions and messages that are being sent out of the Capitol,” Phelps said, adding that children should know there are elected officials and allies and leaders who are fighting for transgender, non-binary and gender-expansive people of all ages across Wisconsin.

“That’s the message that we want people to take out of the Capitol and into their communities and to see [protections] passed in the state law as well,” Phelps said. 

When asked about plans to discuss the legislation with Republicans and the potential for garnering support across the aisle to pass any of the bills, the lawmakers sounded doubtful. Republicans hold majorities in the Assembly and Senate and support from them would be necessary for any of the Democratic legislation to be taken up.

“I don’t think they will sign on to this legislation. I certainly wish that they would take a look at it and hear our voices here today and see the love and support of so many community members,” Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) said. 

Clancy called it a “valid question” that Democrats get every time they hold a press conference. 

“Will Republicans sign on to this? And every time the answer is somewhat the same…,” Clancy said. “Republicans, two weeks ago, sat on the floor of the Assembly just feet from here for hours. They said that trans people should not exist, should not have basic rights. They have had the opportunity to weigh in on this, and I would welcome any of them moving across the aisle, breaking ranks from their, frankly, hateful leadership and joining in on these things.” 

The city of Madison also recognized Transgender Visibility Day by raising the transgender pride flag outside of the city municipal building.

Mayor Satya Rhodes Conway said the city was raising the flag to celebrate trans people, because the city respects individual rights and “rejects hate.” 

“The safety and the livelihoods of trans people are being threatened, and the issue of the fact of trans people is being used to divide our country in a hateful and really disappointing way, but here in Madison, we refuse to go backwards, and we refuse to let hate divide.” 

Asked about communicating the message of acceptance to those who disagree, Rhodes-Conway said that she thinks it’s important people recognize that diversity makes the Madison community stronger and invited people to “learn about the things that maybe make them nervous or scared and to be a part of the incredible diversity.” 

Rhodes-Conway also urged people to educate themselves.

“Folks can educate themselves and each other and a lot of the fear and resistance comes from lack of knowing, and so I just encourage people — there’s a lot of resources,” Rhodes-Conway said. “Please don’t ask the trans people in your lives to educate you. There’s a lot of resources out there and our libraries, our fantastic resources, and people can educate themselves about the history.”

Dina Nina Martinez-Rutherford, the first out transgender member of the Madison Common Council, said that transgender people are all “part of an unbroken legacy of resilience” and “authenticity.” 

Martinez-Rutherford said that she never expected to feel “so much love and community” when first elected in 2023 and never expected when she first started transitioning in 2007 to be in a position to advocate for people. 

“We raise the transgender flag today for it to be a symbol that Madison is welcoming and that you belong here,” Martinez-Rutherford said. “Let it be a beacon of hope, a reminder that we will not be erased.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Top Democrats in Congress are asking the Government Accountability Office to open an investigation into whether the Trump administration violated federal law by freezing funding for several programs.

Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, ranking members on the House and Senate Budget committees, wrote in a two-page letter sent Monday to the government watchdog organization that certain actions appear to have violated the Impoundment Control Act.

“Unilaterally impounding funds is illegal, and Donald Trump and Russ Vought are trying to gut the federal government piece by piece,” Merkley wrote in a statement accompanying the letter. “GAO must get to the bottom of this and reiterate to the administration that Congress has the power of the purse, not Trump and Vought.”

The Senate voted along party lines earlier this year to confirm Vought as director of the Office of Management and Budget, which has wide-reaching authority over decisions within the executive branch

A Government Accountability Office spokesperson told States Newsroom the agency is working through its process to determine whether it will launch an investigation based on the letter.

GAO, the spokesperson said, also has ongoing work related to the ICA.

OMB authority

Boyle wrote in a statement that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine when and where the federal government spends money.

“The administration’s withholding of critical investments harms American communities that rely on these funds for jobs, economic stability, and essential infrastructure,” Boyle wrote. “Robust congressional oversight, alongside litigation, is vital to protecting the interests of the American people.”

The Impoundment Control Act, enacted in the 1970s, bars presidents from not spending the money that Congress has appropriated. Vought has said repeatedly he believes the law is unconstitutional and that presidents have this authority.

Several lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration opting not to spend federal money, some of which have blocked the actions from taking effect while the cases proceed through the federal courts. 

The Boyle-Merkley letter alleges the Trump administration has run afoul of the law on several occasions, including on his first day in office when he ordered a pause on foreign development assistance as well as funding in the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law.

The two ask GAO to also look into the Trump administration’s decision to halt military aid to Ukraine for about a week in March, writing they are “concerned this pause may have been an illegal impoundment with negative foreign policy and national security implications.”

“The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation,” Boyle and Merkley wrote in the letter. “Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound or withhold budget authority only in limited circumstances as expressly provided in the Impoundment Control Act.

“The executive branch may withhold amounts from obligation only if the President transmits a special message to Congress that includes the amount of budget authority proposed for withholding and the reason for the proposal (2 U.S.C. §§ 683–684).”

What can GAO do?

During the first Trump administration, the GAO found the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act  when it halted assistance to Ukraine.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO wrote in the report. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The GAO writes on its website that the ICA “authorizes the head of GAO, known as the Comptroller General, to file a lawsuit if the President illegally impounds funds.”

Comptroller General Gene Dodaro testified before Congress earlier this year that he plans to do just that if the independent agency finds violations of the ICA.

“We’re going to make these decisions as fast as possible,” Dodaro said, according to a news report. “I fully intend to carry out our responsibilities under the Impoundment Control Act expeditiously and thoroughly . . . I’ll do it as quickly as I can, but we need to be careful and thorough, because the next step for us is to go to court ourselves. If we say there’s been impoundment and money isn’t released in a certain period of time, we have to go to court.”

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN - MARCH 30: Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The town hall was held ahead of the state’s high-profile Supreme Court election between Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, who has been financially backed by Musk and endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Days before Wisconsinites go to the polls to decide which candidate will win an open seat on the state Supreme Court, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, gave oversized $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters.

Appearing on stage in front of more than 1,000 people and wearing a cheesehead hat, Musk, who has spent more than $20 million supporting the candidacy of conservative-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, gave out the money at a rally in Green Bay Sunday night. From the stage, Musk  said the race, which will decide the ideological balance of the Court, could “affect the entire destiny of humanity.” 

Aside from the two checks he gave out on Sunday, America PAC, the political action committee Musk has used to funnel money into the race, offered Wisconsin voters $100 each to fill out a petition against “activist judges” and provide contact information. Musk’s money has also been used to hire people from out-of-state to knock on doors on behalf of Schimel and blanket the state in ads. The group has also sent texts to voters in an effort to recruit canvassers that offer $20 for each person they get to vote. 

Democrats and Schimel’s opponent, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, have accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the Court, pointing out that Musk’s company, Tesla, is currently fighting a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin over its law that prevents car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. 

Musk said the $1 million giveaway was a strategy to get attention on the race. 

“We need to get attention,” he said. “Somewhat inevitably, when I do these things, it causes the legacy media to kind of lose their minds.”

Wisconsin state law includes provisions that make it illegal to offer people money in exchange for voting. In an initial post on his social media site, X, Musk said that the winners of the money would need to prove they had voted. He later deleted that post and updated the contest so that people only had to complete the America PAC petition. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul sued to block the giveaway, alleging that it violated state law against election bribery. Judges at the circuit, appellate and Supreme Court levels declined to step in. 

Musk’s involvement in the race has become one of the campaign’s major issues as voters are about to head to the polls. The state Democratic party has held People v. Musk town halls across the state as liberals worry about Musk’s involvement in the election and his DOGE agency’s work to cut funds at a variety of federal agencies.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A yard sign urging voters to vote 'Yes' on a referendum request for Ashwaubenon School District in 2024 when a record number of schools went to referendum. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

As Wisconsin school districts seek permission this week from voters to spend more than $1.6 billion for operational and building costs, state lawmakers are looking for ways to address the issue of schools’ growing reliance on referendum requests.

Voters across the state are deciding this spring on a total of 94 referendum requests including some in February and many in the upcoming April 1 elections. According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, it’s the most ever between January and April in a non-presidential or midterm election year and it’s the continuation of an ongoing trend.

Republicans have introduced three proposals for new limitations on the referendum process in reaction to Milwaukee Public Schools’ successful request last year, with lawmakers saying the proposals would increase fairness and transparency for voters and taxpayers. However, one Democratic lawmaker and other stakeholders said the proposals would limit local control and don’t address the structural financial issues that drive school districts to go to referendum.

Eliminating ‘recurring’ referendum requests

A bill coauthored by Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield)  would eliminate referendum questions that allow permanent operational funding increases and would limit other referendum requests to cover no more than a four-year period.

Duchow said in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that she doesn’t think there is a problem with school districts going to referendum and called them the “perfect tool” to allow local residents to make funding decisions. But she doesn’t think funding increases sought through a referendum should be permanent — or, in legislative terminology, “recurring” year after year. 

The referendum option was created for schools in 1993 as a part of legislation that put limits on schools’ ability to raise revenue by increasing property taxes. 

Anne Chapman, research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials Association (WASBO), said in an interview that the idea behind the legislation was that property taxpayers would be protected and the state would take care of school districts financially in return. From 1993 to 2010, revenue caps — the limit on how much districts could raise without voters’ permission — were tied to inflation. The inflationary increases were eliminated in 2009 and state funding has not filled the gap to give schools an inflationary increase. 

According to WASBO, general school district revenues have lagged the rate of inflation for a decade and a half. If funding had kept up with inflation, districts would be getting $3,380 more per pupil in 2025.

Wisconsin schools also only receive funding for about a third of their special education costs and many are drawing from their general funds to keep up with providing expensive federally and state mandated services to students with disabilities. Districts are also dealing with declining enrollment, which results in lower funding for a district as there are fewer students even if fixed costs such as maintaining facilities may not fall.

School officials and advocates have pointed out that many districts are relying heavily on referendum requests to meet costs (even to keep schools open), saying the trend is untenable. Mauston School District is one example as school leaders were considering dissolving the district after two failed referendum requests until voters finally approved a request in February.

Chapman noted that when a referendum fails it can result in a school deferring maintenance, increasing class sizes and cutting staff, AP programs, language, support staff for special education, nurses, librarians, athletics and “all the things that kids need to kind of stay engaged in school.” 

Dale Knapp, director of Wisconsin-based research organization Forward Analytics, said in 2023 that he didn’t “think the lawmakers who created this law envisioned referenda being relied on this much.”

“Maybe the answer after 30 years of the limits is an in-depth review of the law to see how it can be improved to continue protecting taxpayers and ensure adequate funding of our schools,” Knapp said.

Duchow, however, said that the state is providing “plenty of money” to schools.

“If they want a new gym, that’s on them. I’m not here to build you a new gym. The people who live in that community should make that decision,” Duchow said. She also said there are some schools that probably need to consolidate and others that need to close.

While school districts do go to voters to fund building costs, many are also going to referendum for “operational” (and often recurring) costs and as a way to keep up with staff pay, afford educational offerings and pay utility bills.

Duchow said recurring referendum questions are unfair. She said lawmakers in the caucus have been discussing changing the policy for a while. A similar proposal was introduced in 2017.

“We are looking at declining enrollment around this state, and how do we know what we really need 10 years from now?” Duchow said. “The Milwaukee referendum never goes away, so 10 years from now, we have less students in Milwaukee and we need the same amount of money?  We have more technology coming in, which means we probably need less teachers.” 

Duchow said Milwaukee’s $252 million operating referendum, which was the second largest school operating request in state history, was the “catalyst” for her bill.

Republican lawmakers and other state leaders have been highly critical of the request, which the district said was needed to fund staff pay and educational programming and voters narrowly approved. The criticism grew louder after the district’s financial crisis that resulted in the resignation of the superintendent and audits launched by Gov. Tony Evers.

“Enough is enough. MPS is a disaster. We have the worst reading scores in the nation, and all they do is scream they need more money,” Duchow said. “Money is obviously not the answer.”

Even with declining enrollment, the Milwaukee Public School District is the largest district in the state with 65,000 students enrolled, according to the 2024-25 enrollment data from DPI. This is over 2.5 times as many students as the next largest district in Wisconsin, Madison Metropolitan School District.

MPS students are also more likely to face significant challenges. More than 20% of students in the district have a disability, more than 80% are economically disadvantaged and 17.5% are English language learners. Statewide about 40% of students are economically disadvantaged, 15.7% are students with disabilities and 6.92% are English language learners.

Chapman said students with higher needs often incur higher costs for districts. 

Duchow said that putting a four-year limit on referendum requests for recurring funds gives communities the ability to react to changing circumstances and that school districts should justify to voters why they need the funds. She said she would be open to discussing a different limit when it comes to nonrecurring referendum requests.

“It’s also not fair that everybody could vote for that referendum and then decide, hey, this is really too expensive. I can’t afford these property taxes and then they move out, and I’m still there paying the referendum,” Duchow said. 

Duchow said she hadn’t yet spoken with any school district leaders when she was interviewed by the Examiner in early March, but planned to reach out before a public hearing on the bill.

“I’m sure I can already tell you how the schools are going to feel. The schools are going to feel they want their recurring referendum, just like we want your boss to give you a 20% raise every year without you justifying why you should get it,” Duchow said. “That’s what the schools want, too. I don’t blame them. I would, too, but we can’t do that to our taxpayers.”

According to the Wisconsin Eye on Lobbying website, the Wisconsin Education Association Council has registered against the bill, while the Wisconsin REALTORS Association has registered in favor.

Lawmakers have added new restrictions to school referendum requests before. The 2017-19 state budget limited scheduling of a referendum requests to only two per year and only allowed them to be held on regularly scheduled election days.

“It used to be that referendums could be called by a school district at any time, but the Legislature said… we don’t want you to have the option to run so many referendums,” Chapman said. 

Chapman noted in an interview that recurring referendum requests pass at lower rates than other types because it is harder to convince taxpayers. She said voters “know how to handle this” and lawmakers shouldn’t further reach in to restrict district’s options.

“Some districts and some communities want a recurring referendum,” Chapman said. “School districts have the option of asking for recurring and sometimes they do and voters sometimes approve them because they’re asking to fill structural budget holes that are never going to go away. They’re asking for basic operating dollars that they’re going to need in four years.” 

A recent Marquette Law School poll found that Wisconsinites are becoming increasingly concerned with holding down property taxes since 2018 and less favorably inclined toward increasing funding for K-12 public schools. 

Chapman noted that districts also often make nonrecurring referendum requests for recurring costs because they are an easier ask, though this places districts in another difficult position.

“As soon as you go to nonrecurring referendum in this environment with grossly inadequate state funding and state policies to support schools financially, you are now going to be in your own personal fiscal cliff,” Chapman said. “You’re going to have to go again, and probably for more, because your costs have gone up and funding does not keep up with inflation.” 

Bills meant to provide ‘fairness,’ ‘transparency’

Lawmakers, concerned about the MPS referendum, requested a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo last year that found some school districts in Wisconsin could see a decrease in state aid after the MPS referendum due to the way that equalization aid is calculated.

Equalization aid acts as a form of property tax relief, according to the Wisconsin School Business Officials Association. The amount of aid a district receives from the finite pot of money distributed by the state is determined by a formula that depends on a district’s property wealth, spending and enrollment.

Spending triggered by referendum requests is one factor in determining districts’ equalization aid, and Milwaukee — like other districts with low property wealth per pupil compared to the rest of the state — will receive more state aid per pupil than other districts with higher property wealth per pupil as a result of its increased spending from the referendum.

Chapman noted, however, that all 148 referendum requests for operating expenses in 2024 affect the share of equalization aid districts receive. She also emphasized that it’s not the only factor affecting the amount of aid districts get.

“Some districts have increasing enrollment, which means they’re going to pull more money away from Milwaukee.” Chapman said. “There’s all of these factors that affect every single district, and they intertwine with each other.”

Republicans viewed Milwaukee’s referendum as taking too much from other districts. 

“Is it fair to the students, parents and taxpayers in Waukesha, Madison, Wautoma and others suffer without having the right to cast a vote?” the bill authors Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) asked in a memo. “Local school referendums should not have a significant negative impact on other districts. Simple fairness demands this type of thinking.”

The lawmakers’ bill would exclude any district referendum request worth more than $50 million from being considered when determining equalization aid. The effect of the bill would be that districts that pass a large referendum would have their aid eligibility reduced, leaving local taxpayers to pay more of the cost. The bill would only apply to districts below a certain property wealth value.

Chapman said the bill would penalize districts for being larger and having lower property wealth and is an example of lawmakers trying to micromanage local entities.

A final bill introduced by Allen and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) would require that tax impact information be added to ballots. Currently, referendum ballot questions are required to include the dollar amount of the increase in the levy limit.

Under the bill, referendum questions would also need to include the estimated interest rate and amount of the interest accruing on the bonds, any fees that will be incurred if the bonds are defeased and a “good faith estimate of the dollar amount difference in property taxes on a median-valued, single-family residence located in the local governmental unit that would result from passage of the referendum.” 

Proposal criticisms

Freshman Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said he wasn’t inclined to support a ban on recurring referendum requests given the inconsistency in state funding. 

“We go through this sort of toxic [state] budget cycle every two years and districts have to levy, and they don’t even know what to plan for, so recurring referendums are obviously a response to that,” Phelps said.

Phelps said the question of fairness is relevant when talking about the referendum process, but the framing of the Republican proposals is misguided, given the state’s over $4 billion budget surplus.

“It is not fair to taxpayers that, depending on what school district you live in, you might have an astronomical property tax bill just to keep that district running. That’s not fair,” Phelps said. He said the state of Wisconsin is “underfunding public schools and not using the taxes people already paid.”

Derek Gottlieb, an associate professor at the University of Northern Colorado and senior research director for School Perceptions, an education research firm, said Republicans appear to be “operating on behalf of the taxpayers across the state who have voted no on school referendums and yet lost and so had their taxes raised anyway.”

“Suddenly, because so many [referendum requests] are passing, homeowners, taxpayers who don’t want to have their taxes raised are saying that this is unfair or we shouldn’t have to have our taxes raised just because everybody in our community wants to raise our taxes and Republicans are coming to the defense of those folks,” Gottlieb said. 

According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, while the number of requests continues to rise, approval rates have started to decline with the 66.2% approval rate in 2024 being the lowest in a midterm or presidential election year since 2012.

Gottlieb said some of the concerns raised by lawmakers are valid. For example, he said the current terms used to describe referendum questions are “obscure” and unclear.

“Why not just say a permanent referendum and a temporary referendum?” he asked. “You could do a lot to increase the transparency of what people are voting on if you made that little language change.” 

Gottlieb also said that he does have “sympathy” for those who don’t think there should be permanent funding requests, but acknowledged that this would have consequences for districts because it removes predictability in planning.

However, he said he doesn’t agree that the potential for people to move out of a community or into a community in the future should be the deciding factor in funding decisions. 

“That’s a basic feature of any community anywhere,” he said. 

The argument that “it is not a legitimate exercise of public governmental power to make a decision for a community, given the fact that the community will change in the future…is ridiculous,” Gottlieb said. “If that were the case, it would make all public decisions fundamentally illegitimate.”

The increasing number of referendum requests, Gottlieb said, is a sign that revenue limits are set too low, at an amount that is unacceptable to community members. He noted that when operational referendum requests fail, the schools typically cut theater arts, advanced placement coursework, second language instruction, foreign language instruction and other programs that aren’t required by the state.

Chapman called the proposals a “BandAid” on the issues districts are facing that “isn’t even really fixing the problem.” 

“[If] legislators really wanted to protect taxpayers and make sure schools have what they need, they would do something like keep revenue limits inflationary [and] significantly improve the funding for special education, which would help every single kid,” Chapman said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

White House Senior Advisor to the President, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk arrives for a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol on March 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. Musk is scheduled to meet with Republican lawmakers to coordinate his ongoing federal government cost cutting plan. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

While the role and actions of the Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency remain somewhat murky, data privacy experts have been tracking the group’s moves and documenting potential violations of federal privacy protections.

Before President Donald Trump took office in January, he characterized DOGE as an advisory body, saying it would “provide advice and guidance from outside of government” in partnership with the White House and Office of Management and Budget in order to eliminate fraud and waste from government spending.

But on Inauguration day, Trump’s executive order establishing the group said Musk would have “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems and IT systems.”

In the nine weeks since its formation, DOGE has been able to access sensitive information from the Treasury Department payment system, information about the headcount and budget of an intelligence agency and Americans’ Social Security numbers, health information and other demographic data. Musk and department staffers are also using artificial intelligence in their analysis of department cuts.

Though the Trump administration has not provided transparency around what the collected data is being used for, several federal agencies have laid off tens of thousands of workers, under the direction of DOGE, in the past two months. Thousands have been cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury this month.

Frank Torres, senior AI and privacy adviser for The Leadership Conference’s Center for Civil Rights and Technology, which researches the intersection of civil rights and technology, said his organization partnered with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which researches and works with legislators on tech topics, to sort out what DOGE was doing. The organizations published a resource sheet documenting DOGE’s actions, the data privacy violations they are concerned about and the lawsuits that several federal agencies have filed over DOGE’s actions. 

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” Torres said. “I mean, there are processes and procedures and protections in place that are put in place for a reason, and it doesn’t appear that DOGE is following any of that, which is alarming.”

The organizations outlined potential violations of federal privacy protections, like the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the disclosure of information without written consent, and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment, which protects privacy from government interference.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields would not say if DOGE planned to provide more insight into its plans for the data it is accessing.

“Waste, fraud and abuse have been deeply entrenched in our broken system for far too long,” Fields told States Newsroom in an emailed statement. “It takes direct access to the system to identify and fix it. DOGE will continue to shine a light on the fraud they uncover as the American people deserve to know what their government has been spending their hard earned tax dollars on.”

The lack of transparency concerns U.S. Reps. Gerald E. Connolly, (D-Virginia) and  Jamie Raskin, (D-Maryland), who filed a Freedom of Information Act request this month requesting DOGE provide clear answers about its operations.

The request asks for details on who is in charge at DOGE, the scope of its authority to close federal agencies and lay off federal employees, the extent of its access to sensitive government sensitive databases and for Musk to outline how collected data may benefit his own companies and his foreign customers. They also questioned the feeding of sensitive information into AI systems, which DOGE touted last month.

“DOGE employees, including teenage and twenty-something computer programmers from Mr. Musk’s own companies, have been unleashed on the government’s most sensitive databases — from those containing national security and classified information to those containing the personal financial information of all Americans to those containing the trade secrets and sensitive commercial data of Mr. Musk’s competitors,” the representatives wrote in the request.

Most Americans have indeed submitted data to the federal government which can now be accessed by DOGE, said Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology for the Center for Democracy and Technology — whether it be via a tax filing, student loan or Social Security. Laird said the two organizations see huge security concerns with how DOGE is collecting data and what it may be doing with the information. In the first few weeks of its existence, a coder discovered that anyone could access the database that posted updates to the DOGE.gov website.

“We’re talking about Social Security numbers, we’re talking about income, we’re talking about, you know, major life events, like whether you had a baby or got married,” Laird said. “We’re talking about if you’ve ever filed bankruptcy — like very sensitive stuff, and we’re talking about it for tens of millions of people.”

With that level of sensitive information, the business need should justify the level of risk, Laird said.

DOGE’s use of AI to comb through and categorize Americans’ data is concerning to Laird and Torres, as AI algorithms can produce inaccurate responses, pose security risks themselves and can have biases that lead to discrimination against marginalized groups.

While Torres, Laird and their teams plan to continue tracking DOGE’s actions and their potential privacy violations, they published the first resource sheet to start bringing awareness to the information that is already at risk. The data collection they’ve seen so far in an effort to cut federal spending is concerning, but both said they fear Americans’ data could end up being used in ways we don’t yet know about.

“The government has a wealth of data on all of us, and I would say data that’s probably very valuable on the open market,” Torres said. “It’s almost like a dossier on us from birth to death.”

Musk fired back at critics in an interview with Fox News published Thursday.

“They’ll say what we’re doing is somehow unconstitutional or illegal or whatever,” he said. “We’re like, ‘Well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with?’ And they can’t point to any.”

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a Republican bill that would have undone recent testing standards changes. Evers talks to reporters at a WisPolitics. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a Republican bill Friday that would have undone recent changes to Wisconsin’s state testing standards — taking the state back to those used in 2019 and tying the standards to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Lawmakers introduced the bill after changes were approved by state Superintendent Jill Underly last year, who said the changes would better align tests with educational standards and were developed with the help of teachers and other stakeholders as a part of a standard process. However, lawmakers accused Underly of lowering standards for kids. Evers had criticized the process for the changes as well, saying that there should have been better communication between Underly and other stakeholders. 

Evers said in his veto message for AB 1 that while he has criticized the processes for the recent changes, he vetoed the bill because he objects to lawmakers “attempts to undermine the constitutional authority and independence of the state superintendent.” 

Evers noted that the state superintendent is responsible for supervising public schools under the Wisconsin State Constitution and the Legislature is overstepping, and lawmakers had opportunities to provide input to the review and revision. The bill, he said, would “essentially strip control over school scoring and standard metrics away” from the superintendent and give it to the Legislature.

Underly said in a statement that she commends the veto. She said the bill was “deeply flawed as it relied on the NAEP – a federal assessment that is currently being cut by the federal government and is not aligned to Wisconsin’s rigorous standards – to influence local school policies. Most importantly, it undermined the authority of the state superintendent as outlined in Wisconsin’s Constitution.” 

Lawmakers used the veto as an opportunity to criticize Evers and incumbent Superintendent Jill Underly — and to call on Wisconsinites to vote her out of office next week. Underly is running for her second term and faces education consultant and school choice advocate Brittany Kinser, who has cited the changes as a reason that she entered the race, on Tuesday. 

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said in a statement that Evers “failed” students by vetoing the legislation. 

“In January, the governor slammed State Superintendent Underly for lowering standards, but when he had a chance to fix it he chose politics over students,” LeMahieu said. “If 2025 is going to be the ‘Year of the Kid,’ Wisconsin voters will have to make changes at the Department of Public Instruction.”

Kinser said in a statement that “the decision to restore high standards now rests in the hands of Wisconsin voters” and she would “restore high standards” if elected.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

'Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect?' asked a former Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice | Getty Images Creative

Does it matter to Wisconsin voters that Elon Musk is trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? Maybe not to “Scott A.” as Musk called him, the Green Bay voter to whom Musk gave $1 million as part of his campaign to reward Wisconsinites who sign a petition against “activist judges,” while at the same time handing over their personal data to Musk. Scott A.’s haul is one-fifth the size of Musk’s $20 million investment in campaign ads and door-knocking to support his preferred candidate, Brad Schimel. 

And Musk’s $20 million spending spree accounts for about one-fifth of the total, record-breaking $100 million that makes the April 1 contest the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

The race is a test of many things: Whether Musk, serving as unelected and unpopular co-president to Donald Trump, is a political asset or a liability; whether the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will endure; whether the highest bidder is destined to win state court races even as the ad war becomes a blitzkrieg; whether three months into the Trump administration, amid mass firings, the dismantling of federal agencies and voter unease about the destruction of their health care and retirement security, Wisconsin might be the place where things begin to turn around. 

The money pouring into the Supreme Court race is obscene and a bad sign for the health of democracy regardless of next week’s outcome. But the sickness didn’t flare up overnight. It has been getting steadily worse for almost two decades.

Schimel makes the claim that he is running to restore the Court’s “impartiality,” motivated by his disgust at how “political” the Court’s new liberal majority has become. In truth, the politicization of the Court goes back almost two decades and Schimel, a highly partisan Republican, is an unlikely candidate to take us back to pre-partisan times. On the other side, Susan Crawford is backed by the Democrats and big out of state donors including George Soros. In a recent debate she conceded that the public has an interest in ethics rules that would require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving their donors, but the current rules don’t require that. Neither candidate has promised to recuse from such cases.

The turning point that led us to the current moment came in 2008. That was the year disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman defeated incumbent Justice Louis Butler in a dirty campaign that broke all previous spending records. The race cost $6 million — at the time, an astounding sum.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Gableman’s biggest-spending supporter, paid for ads calling Butler “Loophole Louie” and accusing him of being soft on crime. Gableman himself ran a disgusting ad that placed Butler’s face next to the mugshot of a convicted rapist. Both men were Black. The ad misleadingly claimed that Butler “found a loophole” and let the man out of prison “to molest another child.” In fact, Butler was not the judge in the case. As a public defender assigned to defend his client, he lost in court and his client was imprisoned, then later reoffended after he was released, having served his full sentence. 

Gableman went on to help destroy ethics rules on the Court, refusing to recuse himself from cases involving WMC, which had spent more than $2 million to help elect him. He played a key role in passing the current ethics rule allowing justices to decide for themselves whether to recuse in cases involving their big-money campaign contributors. 

Gableman embarrassed supporters, including Dodge County District Attorney Steven Bauer, who publicly withdrew his support during the campaign because of the attack ad. Tellingly, after he left the Court, Gableman disappeared, never landing a job at a law firm or in public service. His brief return to the limelight, as Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’s chief investigator of nonexistent voter fraud, featured Gableman threatening to jail the mayors of Democratic cities and wasting more than a million taxpayer dollars on a farcical investigation that ended when Vos fired him.  

But the damage done by Gableman and the people who poured money into electing him endures.

The 2025 Supreme Court race, which is on track to double the cost of the last record-breaking election in 2023, is 15 times as costly as Gableman’s expensive and shamefully politicized campaign. 

Ads featuring scary crime stories are still a major feature of Supreme Court races, sponsored by people who know and don’t care that tough-on-crime issues aren’t coming before the Court. Instead, the ads are paid for by ideological groups, political parties and corporations interested in favorable treatment — like Musk, who has a current lawsuit in Wisconsin seeking to overturn a state law blocking him from opening Tesla dealerships here.

Back in 1873, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward Ryan worried about the rise of the robber barons, their accumulation of vast personal wealth and with it political power. Speaking at the University of Wisconsin Law School, he posed the question:  “Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?”

We are well on our way to becoming a nation of feudal serfs to Elon Musk. The liquidation of government agencies and institutions that serve the public interest are a giant step in that direction. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election will take us further down that road, or move us in the opposite direction. But until we do something about the arms race in campaign spending, Ryan’s vision of government by “educated and patriotic free men (and women)” will be increasingly out of reach.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An aerial view of the Pentagon on May 12, 2021. (Photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase/Department of Defense)

WASHINGTON — The chairman and ranking member on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee sent a letter to the Defense Department inspector general on Thursday asking the independent watchdog to open an investigation into top officials’ use of the Signal chat app to discuss plans for bombing Yemen.

Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker and Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed wrote that the group chat, which somehow inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, warranted further inquiry.

“This chat was alleged to have included classified information pertaining to sensitive military actions in Yemen,” the two wrote in the one-page letter. “If true, this reporting raises questions as to the use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know.”

They asked the inspector general to include an “assessment of DOD classification and declassification policies and processes and whether these policies and processes were adhered to” as well as a determination of whether anyone “transferred classified information, including operational details, from classified systems to unclassified systems, and if so, how.”

The senators called on the inspector general to figure out if “the policies of the White House, Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and other Departments and agencies represented on the National Security Council on this subject differ.”

The letter requests the inspector general make recommendations to address any issues that might be identified by an investigation.

Signalgate, as it’s become known, began Monday when The Atlantic published excerpts of the group chat that included Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and others.

President Donald Trump and numerous White House officials have repeatedly tried to downplay the use of a commercial communications app to discuss plans to bomb Houthi rebels inside Yemen.

Hegseth has said publicly that no classified information was shared in the group chat, but Wicker told reporters on Wednesday that the “information as published recently appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that, based on my knowledge, I would have wanted to classify it.”

A spokesperson for the Defense Department Inspector General said the office “received the request yesterday and we are reviewing the letter. We have no further comment at this time.”