Federal agents spray demonstrators at close range with irritants after the killing of Renee Good by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. Since July 2025, there have been at least 17 open-fire incidents involving federal immigration agents, according to data compiled by The Trace, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news outlet investigating gun violence. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)
Gov. Tony Evers announced Monday that Wisconsin has signed on to an effort to support the state of Minnesota’s lawsuit seeking to challenge the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents in the Twin Cities area.
Minnesota filed its lawsuit after the federal government sent about 3,000 federal agents into the region and an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good Jan. 7. On Saturday, agents shot and killed Alex Pretti. Minnesota is seeking a temporary restraining order against the federal government’s actions.
Late last week, Wisconsin joined Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington in filing an amicus brief supporting Minnesota’s case.
“DHS has set in motion an extraordinary campaign of recklessness and disregard for norms of constitutional policing and the sanctity of life,” the brief states. “This has resulted in federal agents that have fatally shot one resident, seriously wounded others, tear gassed an infant and other children, attacked peaceful protestors, and systematically conducted illegal stops and arrests. When tragedy has struck and public outcry rung out, the response has been a promise to deliver more of the same. Indeed, just days ago, President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and it is reported that the Pentagon is preparing 1,500 troops to possibly deploy to Minnesota, reflecting the Administration’s desire to further escalate tensions and put the military into an unlawful domestic role.”
The brief argues that the states have a “strong interest in ensuring that federal immigration enforcement is not used as an excuse to infringe the sovereignty of the States,” and that if allowed to continue unchecked in Minnesota, will likely repeat the pattern elsewhere.
“Under the claimed auspices of carrying out immigration enforcement, the federal government has seriously undermined state and local authorities and made it impossible for the public to go about their day-to-day activities because they fear being stopped, tear gassed, or worse,” the brief states. “If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere.”
Evers said in a statement that Wisconsin has a responsibility to stand up for its neighbor and work to prevent further damage.
“Wisconsin stands with our neighbors across the river in Minnesota. American citizens are having their rights and freedoms violated and are being put in unsafe and life-threatening situations in their own communities,” Evers said. “Two have already lost their lives. It has to stop.”
“In Minnesota and across our country, dangerous and unlawful actions at the hands of untrained individuals are sowing fear, division, and distrust,” Evers added. “This isn’t helping make our kids, families, and communities safer—in fact, it’s doing the opposite. It’s clearer than ever that this has nothing to do with public safety. And, as states, we have a responsibility to stand up and say no more.”
UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin will be leaving the university at the end of the school year to become president of Columbia University. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)
University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin is set to leave her post at the end of this school year to become the president of Columbia University in New York.
Mnookin has served as UW-Madison’s chancellor since 2022, leading the university as it has faced pressure from Wisconsin Republicans to end diversity programs as well as cuts to federal research grants and tensions surrounding a pro-Palestine encampment on campus.
“It has been a true honor to be a part of the Wisconsin family,” Mnookin said in a statement Sunday. “I am proud of what we have accomplished together, even in a challenging period for higher education, and I know great possibilities lie ahead for the UW-Madison campus community.”
After her departure was announced, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) praised Mnookin’s tenure.
“Chancellor Mnookin had many great accomplishments during her tenure, such as bringing more free speech to campus and closing its division of DEI,” Vos said in a statement. “I enjoyed working with her as we both wanted students to reach their full potential and have a successful and impactful life after graduation. I wish her nothing but the best and I know that Columbia University will be in great hands with her at the helm.”
Mnookin will be taking over at Columbia as the university has been under a national microscope following pro-Palestine protests and a crackdown by both campus officials and the Trump administration. Last year, Columbia agreed to pay the federal government about $200 million to restore federal funding that had been cut.
Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman will name an interim chancellor to take the role after Mnookin leaves following spring commencement. The UW system board of regents will launch a search for someone to fill the role permanently.
“During her tenure, Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin brought unbounded energy, resilience, and deeply thoughtful leadership to this great university. As she now takes on a new opportunity at another prestigious institution, we extend our substantial gratitude for her service and wish her continued success in the years ahead,” Rothman said.
Wisconsin Republicans on Thursday continued their yearslong effort to reverse the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource’s decision not to quantify a specific statewide goal for the state’s gray wolf population with a public hearing on a bill that would require the agency to set one.
The bill, authored by Sen. Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View), is unlikely to be signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers if it’s passed, but shows how the contentious politics around wolves continue to play a major role in the state’s natural resource policy debates — especially in an election year. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, seen as the frontrunner in the Republican primary for governor, was the author of a bill recently passed in the House that would remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list.
State law in Wisconsin requires that whenever the wolf isn’t listed as endangered, the state must hold an annual wolf hunt.
The state’s wolf management plan was updated for the first time in decades in 2023. The plan was established after a two and a half year process involving an advisory committee made up of 28 member organizations and thousands of public comments.
Prior to the current plan’s adoption, Wisconsin was operating under a plan that was first approved in 1999 and then updated in 2007. That plan went into effect as the state was working to responsibly handle the animal’s return to the state after its extirpation in the 1960s.
Initially, the state set a population goal of 350 wolves.
More than a quarter century after the 1999 plan’s adoption, the state’s wolf population is estimated to be about 1,200 wolves. The 350 number that was initially set as an aspiration for a healthy wolf population has come to be seen by some hunters and farmers as a wolf population ceiling.
But under the current wolf management plan, the DNR opted to use an “adaptive management” system which forgoes setting a specific population number. Instead, the state gets divided into zones and in each zone the DNR annually assesses the local wolf population to decide if it needs to be kept stable, allowed to grow or reduced through a hunt.
Adaptive management is the method used by the state for most other game species, including black bear, bobcat, coyote, white-tailed deer and wild turkey. But since the plan’s adoption, Republicans have been opposed to using the method for wolves.
Rep. Green, the bill’s co-author, said that the growth of the wolf population in northern Wisconsin is causing a number of problems, including in the area’s deer population.
“We’d like to see a wolf management goal in place where — most of these wolves are concentrated in northern Wisconsin and we’d like to see that reduced,” Green said. “It’s been heavily impacted on our deer populations and things like that.”
Research has shown that Wisconsin’s wolves have helped cause a noticeable decline in the number of vehicle-deer collisions that occur in the state.
At the hearing, Chris Vaughan, Wisconsin director of the pro-hunting organization Hunter Nation, complained that the wolf management plan focuses too much on the social effects of the wolf population, putting too much weight on people’s personal views about wolves. Vaughan lamented how frequently Wisconsin’s plan uses the word “social” compared to other states
But representatives of the DNR said social carrying capacity is an important consideration for biologists when managing any species.
“Dare I say the biological part of wolf management is the easy part,” Randy Johnson, the DNR’s large carnivore species specialist, said. ”We know how to have a pretty good system of monitoring the population. The science is pretty clear about how we can move the population up and down through harvest. It is the social side of this that continues to be the difficult part of it. Everybody knows it’s a contentious issue. Some people see it different ways, some people want more, some people want less and it’s our job to try to balance that.”
Proponents of a hard limit on the wolf population also cast their argument in social terms.
Brad Olson, president of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, said the state should have a specific population number to assuage the feelings of farmers who are traumatized by losing livestock to wolves.
“For those of us who live in wolf country and deal with wolves on a day in, day out basis, at times, I think the number is very important to those of us in wolf country who have these issues,” Olson said. “You haven’t been on the farms like I have where, where the mule has been killed by a pack of wolves … and I think in all of this, what we’re really missing from the legislative side, from the DNR side, is we’re missing the impact of the mental health on rural ag and those in rural Wisconsin.”
“When compared to other species where adaptive management works, wolves sit at a completely different intersection of biology, social politics and law, where this vague management tool is impossible to apply,” Vaughan said.
Democrats on the committee questioned the prudence of changing the DNR’s management plan before the wolf has been delisted and the plan has a chance to be put to the test when a hunt must be held.
“So if we actually could accomplish [a healthy wolf population] utilizing the tools and the science that the DNR has provided, would that or would that not actually accomplish the goal?” Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) asked.
Wisconsin DNR Secretary Karen Hyun testifies to an Assembly committee about legislation to address PFAS contamination. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a hearing Wednesday on a pair of bills to help mitigate and clean up water contamination caused by PFAS — a class of compounds also known as “forever chemicals” that has been tied to cancer and developmental diseases in children.
For two and a half years, $125 million set aside in the state’s 2023-25 biennial budget to fund the cleanup of PFAS contamination has sat untouched as the Republican-controlled Legislature, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and a collection of interest groups were unable to reach agreement on how to structure the program and who should be held responsible for the pollution.
After initial optimism, the first legislative effort died after Democrats and environmental groups complained that the proposal let polluters off the hook.
While the debate in Madison has dragged on, communities including French Island near La Crosse, the town of Stella near Rhinelander, Wausau and Marinette have continued to face the harms of PFAS-contaminated water.
When the legislation was introduced again at the beginning of this legislative session, legislators again expressed hope that a compromise could be reached. Earlier this week, the bill’s authors, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), released a proposed amendment to the legislation. One of the bills directs how the money in the trust fund will be directed and the other creates the programs through which the money will flow.
At the hearing Wednesday, the duo emphasized how important it was for them to get the money out the door into affected communities and the need for compromise on the issue.
“The 2023-2025 budget included $125 million to address PFAS contamination and support cleanup efforts across the state,” Mursau said. “Unfortunately, those funds are sitting idle because we have failed to pass the legislation necessary to put them to work. Progress will require compromise. There are stakeholders on both sides of the aisle who may not like these amendments, but that is the reality of divided government, and it is not an excuse for inaction.”
The pair said the latest version of the legislation is the result of months of negotiations with the Department of Natural Resources and the Evers administration.
While the legislation still includes the “innocent landowner” provisions that have been at the heart of the dispute, the amended version tightens the definition of who qualifies. Wimberger said the new definition would still allow the DNR to bring enforcement actions against industries including paper companies and airports, but that the current version represents a lot of movement from the DNR and Evers.
“There was quite a bit of coming off the ledge on the governor’s side regarding innocent landowners,” Wimberger said.
Additionally, the bill creates a number of programs to test for PFAS and fund mitigation efforts by helping individual landowners dig new wells, helping communities upgrade water treatment systems and funding more comprehensive testing efforts.
But the language of the proposed amendments shows how difficult it has been for legislators to adjust the dial on Wisconsin’s PFAS policy. The bills now have the support of Evers, the DNR and some of the state’s leading environmental organizations, but industry groups including the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Paper Council argued at the hearing that the bill would single out certain types of industry for enforcement actions.
“Substitute Amendment One takes a huge step backwards in terms of protecting truly innocent landowners and passive receivers,” Adam Jordahl, WMC’s director of environmental and energy policy, said, referring to a particular provision of the bill.
WMC in recent years brought and lost a lawsuit that would have prevented the state’s spills law from being applied to entities responsible for PFAS pollution.
Several industry representatives also threatened that if the amended bills are signed into law, they could invite legal challenges because of “constitutional concerns.” Jordahl said that one of the bills treats municipal facilities such as landfills and water treatment plants differently than private businesses conducting similar activities, which could make the law vulnerable to a lawsuit.
“This discrimination raises a significant constitutional concern under the concept of equal protection,” he said. “A successful lawsuit raising an equal protection claim could result in the invalidation of those unfairly applied exemptions. Second, as a policy matter, we feel this simply makes no sense. What is the policy justification for treating commercial and industrial or manufacturing facilities differently when they’re conducting the same activities and operating under the same laws and regulations?”
Paper industry representatives said at the hearing it’s unfair for the bill to single them out because the industry will be subjected to increased scrutiny despite their claims that the business does not cause most PFAS pollution.
Last year, the DNR named a paper mill as the responsible party for the PFAS contamination in Stella, which has seen some of the highest concentrations of the chemicals in the state.
Despite the skepticism from the business community about the latest version of the legislation, lawmakers throughout the Capitol appeared confident that it could finally get across the finish line.
“I met with Republican lawmakers and the DNR last week about critical PFAS bill changes that will be necessary to garner my support, and I’m really optimistic we’re finally going to be able to get something good done here after months of successful and productive negotiations,” Evers said in a statement. “I’m grateful Republican lawmakers have formally introduced an amendment that reflects the changes we’ve agreed to so far as a sign of good faith. We still have some important details to iron out to make sure DNR has the resources they need, but we’ve made a lot of progress. So, I’m really hopeful.”
Both Evers and Wimberger noted that the only remaining sticking point in the negotiations is how many staff members the DNR will be authorized to hire to support the responsibilities required under the bill. The current version of the amendment authorizes 10 positions while Evers is requesting 13.
Republican leaders in the Legislature have also signaled that the bill is likely to move forward.
“I think it’s a move in the right direction,” Senate Majority Leader Devin Lemahieu (R-Oostburg) said. “I think it’s a bill that hopefully our caucus can get behind and maybe finally get that money out the door.”
A bill to regulate Wisconsin's cottage food industry has drawn opposition from home bakers. (Photo courtesy of Becca Barth)
A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Tuesday on legislation that would create a regulatory system for the cottage food industry in Wisconsin.
In the hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Local Government, representatives of restaurants, commercial bakeries and grocery stores supported the proposal arguing that the bill would treat all food sellers equally, while the home bakers who would be affected by the bill complained that it would institute harsh income restrictions while subjecting them to requirements that aren’t relevant to the specifics of selling food out of a home kitchen.
Authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), the bill has largely Republican support but Milwaukee-area Democratic Reps. Russell Goodwin and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez have signed on as co-sponsors.
Under the bill, cottage food producers would be required to register with the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. As part of that registration, people would need to provide a list of all the foods they sell and an ingredient list for each item. Any producer that earns between $10,000 and $40,000 in revenue from their home business would be subject to inspections by DATCP.
Anyone who makes more than $40,000 in revenue would no longer be considered a cottage food producer and would be required to obtain work space in a commercial kitchen.
The cottage food industry in Wisconsin was allowed to grow after a 2017 lawsuit struck down a state law banning the sale of home baked goods. Since then, the state has operated with just the court precedent guiding the industry.
Throughout the hearing, commercial industry representatives pushed for the passage of the bill as it’s written. Lobbying records show that the Wisconsin Bakers Association, Wisconsin Restaurants Association and Wisconsin Grocers Association have supported the bill.
“You have created these rules for me, and I get to be surprise inspected and tested on them to ensure consumer food safety,” Chrissy Meisner, owner of a bakery in Bloomer and member of the Wisconsin Bakers Association, said. “It is clear, even in my small town, that your honor system of them following the rules doesn’t work. There seems to be a need for the same oversight you require of me to sell bread and cookies applied to everyone.”
While much of the testimony in favor of the bill focused on food safety issues, some of those in favor also said they were concerned about competition from home producers.
“There’s only so much food that can be sold into a community,” Susan Quam, executive vice president of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, said. “And everyone needs to fight for their share of those sales, whether it’s the grocery store, the local bakery, the restaurant or the cottage food baker. However, the first three are regulated, licensed, and have a lot of different and additional requirements that are put upon them to get that same very low profit margin.”
Home producers at the hearing said they would welcome regulation to tame their industry’s current wild west landscape, just not the regulations under the bill as currently written. The Wisconsin Farmers Union and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have both lobbied against the bill.
The 2017 lawsuit that helped the industry bloom was litigated by the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit law firm focused on civil liberties. Ellen Hamlett, the organization’s activism manager, said she believes there’s “been a lot of industry pressure” to draft the current version of the bill.
“Wisconsin’s cottage food laws are overdue for reform,” Hamlett said. “It is very important to note that the way that this bill is structured will jeopardize the living of many cottage food producers.”
Jobea Murray, president of the Wisconsin Cottage Food Association, said that the bill represents a huge administrative burden for both the home producers and for DATCP, which will not receive any additional funding for implementing the registration and inspection requirements under the bill. She also said the food safety certifications required under the bill are specific to restaurant-like settings, which won’t help make home produced products safer.
“So we want to work with you to get this right,” Murray said. “[The bill] is a great starting point, but it needs significant changes to truly support Wisconsin’s cottage food economy.”
A lot of the opposition to the bill was centered around the $40,000 revenue cap. Several speakers noted that most states that allow the sale of cottage foods have no cap or else set their caps much higher. Iowa and Illinois do not set a cap on their cottage food sales while Minnesota’s revenue cap is $78,000.
Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden's farm. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
At the Wisconsin Farmers Union annual farm and rural lobby day on Wednesday morning, the organization’s members heard about how antitrust policy, environmental regulation enforcement and immigration law are affecting the state’s farmers.
About 90 farmers union members sat around tables in a conference room at the Madison Public Library before heading to the Capitol to push their legislators on the group’s 2026 priorities.
Gov. Tony Evers addressed the group in a kick-off address, discussing what his administration has accomplished and what it plans to do moving forward as the “chaos and confusion” of the federal government under the Trump administration “continues to make an already strenuous job harder.”
“Regardless of what happens in Washington, here in America’s Dairyland, we’re going to keep fighting for Wisconsin farmers and producers and their families because Wisconsin’s agricultural industry isn’t just core to our economy, it’s core to our culture, core to our heritage and who we are as a state,” Evers said.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul addressed the group next to discuss how the Department of Justice is working to help the state’s farmers, noting the DOJ was involved in the lawsuit to keep federal food benefits available during the government shutdown last year.
He also discussed the DOJ’s work to protect fair markets and evenly enforce the state’s environmental rules to make sure that the state’s largest corporate farms are playing by the same rules as its smallest family operations.
“One area that we are engaged in is ensuring that the market is fair, that there’s competition, and ensuring that there’s a level playing field for everybody to compete on. To me, that is fundamental to a lot of what we do,” he said. “So one way is regarding consumer protection. Another area where we take that very seriously is protecting our environmental laws and ensuring that the environmental laws in the state are evenhandedly enforced, because, as you all know firsthand, if massive corporate farms are able to cut corners, that puts them at a major competitive advantage, and all the farms that are out there doing the right thing, very carefully complying with rules and regulations that are in place. If the rules aren’t evenly enforced, that puts the small farmers, often small businesses, at a major competitive disadvantage.”
Immigration crackdown
Among the farmers union’s top legislative priorities this year is protecting immigrant farm workers.
On immigration, the organization said it is lobbying legislators to oppose a bill that would require all Wisconsin sheriffs to join the federal government’s 287(g) program, which grants sheriff’s deputies some authority to enforce federal immigration law. Under the bill, if counties refused to participate, the state would reduce the amount of shared revenue provided to the county by the state by 15%.
Across the state, 18 sheriff’s offices have entered 287(g) agreements, including Kenosha County, which signed its contract to hold immigrants in its jail on behalf of ICE last week.
The organization also wants to support a bill that would allow DACA recipients — people whose parents brought them to the country without documentation when they were children — to obtain occupational credentials such as licenses to practice medicine.
In a panel on immigration policy, Amanda Martinez, a policy analyst at Kids Forward, said 287(g) can cause fear to spread throughout rural immigrant communities.
“This could really deeply impact rural communities who already have those smaller budgets, and also impact the immigrant workers within local communities, because they are a big part of the workforce, whether it’s at farms [or] food productions,” Martinez said. “Bills like 287(g) and Assembly Bill 24 really creates that fear in communities, because immigrants don’t want to go to work, take their kids to schools, and can’t really participate in everyday life, and essentially will impact the workforce as a whole.”
Kaul was asked to respond to the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis and criticized the ICE activity that led to the shooting death of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good, and the exclusion of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from the investigation of that incident.
The Farmers Union is also opposing a bill that would regulate cottage foods makers in a way that advocates said would effectively kill the industry — which was only launched after a lawsuit in 2017 changed existing state law. The bill under consideration this year would require the business owner to use a commercial kitchen if their annual revenue exceeds $40,000.
Advocates said this limit makes it impossible for these businesses to survive because $40,000 per year isn’t enough to support a family and the cost of renting commercial kitchen space, in communities where that’s even available, would make it harder to turn a profit.
“If you do revenue of $40,000 your take home or profit is not going to be that, and it is not a living wage, and there is no amount of business you can do and put in an energy that is going to make this a sustainable business, even as a value-add product for farmers,” Jobea Murray, a Milwaukee home baker and president of the Wisconsin Cottage Food Association, said. “The amount of effort and time you put into this. There is no ROI on this. So you can can all day, you can bake all night. You are going to hit that revenue cap and you’re going to make not a lot of money.”
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul addresses the Wisconsin Farmers Union at its annual lobby day in Madison. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s large presence in Minnesota, which has resulted in the shooting death of one resident and numerous clashes between community members and federal agents, is not the right way to make communities safe.
Speaking at the Wisconsin Farmers Union’s annual lobby day Wednesday morning, Kaul said he’s concerned about the federal government “obstructing” the investigation into the death of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good, touted his office’s briefs in support of jurisdictions suing to get federal personnel out of cities and said he’s preparing for similar federal actions in Wisconsin.
“What’s happening in Minneapolis now could very well be repeated in other communities around the country,” he said. “And so making sure that we’re prepared if that does happen is really important to me.”
He said that targeting people based on their race, ethnicity and political beliefs weaponizes the justice system in a way that makes communities less safe.
“We do a lot of thinking about public safety at the Department of Justice, it is my top priority,” he said. “Taking actions that strengthen communities, that strengthen community ties, that build trust, that ensure that laws are evenhandedly enforced … and ensure that people who commit serious crimes are held accountable” is the Wisconsin DOJ’s focus, Kaul said.
“If you start targeting people based on any number of inappropriate factors, whether it’s their race or ethnicity or their viewpoint on political issues or any other inappropriate topic, that takes you away from the kind of law enforcement that makes a positive impact and makes communities safer,” he added.
Kaul noted he’s worked often with Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and said that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension needs to be involved in the investigation so there is transparency for everyone involved.
“I’m very concerned that Minnesota BCA has so far been excluded from the investigative process into the death that happened,” he said. “It is critically important that there be transparency and that there be fairness. That, by the way, is important for everybody involved. If you were an officer involved in a critical incident, you deserve to have a fair investigation conducted so that the public knows what happened in that case, because without a fair, transparent investigation, there’s going to be uncertainty.”
“There’s been reporting recently that the FBI is not investigating necessarily the incident, but rather the wife of the woman who was killed,” he added later. “There’s the fact that six Assistant U.S. Attorneys, six federal prosecutors, have resigned in Minnesota because of the way that that investigation is being conducted. And I think it is really important that we distinguish between good faith efforts to get to the truth, that provide information clearly, and what’s going on in Minnesota, because what’s going on right there is obstructing full investigation and full review and risks that we not have information publicly available.”
Interior of a modern data center. (Stock photo by Imaginima/Getty Images)
Dozens of data centers have been built in communities across Wisconsin, with more planned or in process. In many of these communities, the proposed data centers have sparked significant local opposition.
Both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature have proposed bills to regulate the growth of data centers as community leaders across the state have asked for more direction from the state government on the approval of what are often massive facilities.
So far, the state has had little input on data center construction outside of a provision in the 2023-25 state budget which exempted data center construction projects from paying sales taxes.
The Democratic bill, introduced last year by Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland), would require data centers to report the level of energy and water they’re using, fund the development of renewable energy projects and ensure the cost of increased energy demands aren’t passed on to regular consumers.
The Republican bill, introduced this month, also requires the Public Service Commission to prevent energy use and infrastructure costs from being passed on to consumers, requires the data center to use a closed-loop water cooling system to limit the amount of water needed and includes provisions that would require the data center company to cover the cost of restoring the land it’s built on if the data center is closed or unfinished. The bill also includes a provision that requires any renewable energy created to power the data center be sourced on site.
Last year, the issue of data centers was a common theme on the campaign trail in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, as voters respond to the effects of hosting more of the centers than any other state.
Here in Wisconsin, communities are grappling with how to make agreements with the big tech companies hoping to build the data centers, how to avoid the broken promises at the top of mind of many Wisconsinites after the Foxconn development in Mount Pleasant failed to live up to its lofty initial projections and how to manage the often huge demands the data centers make on local water supplies and energy.
Despite those challenges, the construction of a data center can offer benefits to local governments — mostly by boosting property tax revenue from a development that won’t consume many local government services.
Unlike many other issues, the question of data center development has not become politically polarized, with a range of positions among candidates of both parties.
“Data centers are a new issue that has not taken on a partisan edge in the public mind,” Barry Burden, a political science professor at UW-Madison, said. “This is likely to change because among politicians Democrats are more skeptical about data centers and Republicans are more enthusiastic about them. If this partisan divide continues or even becomes sharper, the public is likely to begin mimicking the positions taken by party leaders. But at least for a while the issue is likely to cut across party lines.”
In Wisconsin’s crowded open race for governor, most of the candidates told the Wisconsin Examiner they were supportive of some level of statewide regulation on data centers.
Democrat Missy Hughes’ campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Her public comments on the issue are included below.
Mandela Barnes
The former lieutenant governor said in a statement to the Examiner that it’s important that data center construction not increase utility rates, not damage the environment and use Wisconsin union labor. He also said the companies developing the centers need to meaningfully work with the communities they’re trying to build in.
“A lot of communities feel left out of conversations about what is going on in their own backyard and that is not fair,” Barnes said. “Any development of this scale must meaningfully engage local communities and address their concerns and input throughout their proposal. We must also ensure that data center projects do not drive up utility rates for Wisconsinites or contribute to harmful pollution, and that they invest in training and hiring Wisconsin workers to staff these facilities.”
Joel Brennan
The former secretary of the Department of Administration said in a statement from his campaign that the desire of tech companies to move fast is in opposition to the government’s need to engage the public transparently.
“Wisconsinites shouldn’t have to foot the bill for AI or data center projects, period. At a time when affordability is a challenge in every community, taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for construction, operations, or higher utility costs. No one should have to worry about affording their heating bill because a data center has driven up energy prices,” he said. “It’s reasonable for people to have concerns about AI, and I share those concerns. The technology is moving fast, and companies often prioritize speed. Government’s responsibility is different: transparency, accountability, community engagement, and coordination with local communities who stand to be impacted by these projects. Data centers can create jobs and support local economies, but only if they’re done right — protecting taxpayers and our natural resources, and ensuring that the benefits truly serve Wisconsin communities.”
David Crowley
At a gubernatorial candidate forum in November, Crowley was mostly supportive of data center development, saying the government shouldn’t be picking “winners and losers” and instead “make sure that this is fertile ground for entrepreneurs and businesses to either stay or move right here to the state of Wisconsin.”
In a statement to the Examiner, a campaign spokesperson said Crowley wants to encourage investment in Wisconsin’s economy while enforcing stringent environmental regulations, making sure companies pay the cost of increased energy use and giving local governments the power to say no to a data center project.
“Growth that drives up rates or drains local resources is not innovation. It’s a bad deal,” the spokesperson said. “Communities will have clear authority to condition or deny projects based on energy and water use, demand transparency, and community benefit agreements, because the people who live with these projects deserve the final say. Crowley’s approach is simple: Wisconsin will lead in technology and economic growth without raising utility bills, without sacrificing our natural resources, and without letting Big Tech write the rules. Development will be transparent, accountable, and judged by whether or not it delivers real benefits to the people who live in Wisconsin.”
Francesca Hong
In a policy framework released last week, the Madison-area representative to the state Assembly called for a moratorium on the construction of new data centers while the state works out how to responsibly manage their effects. Hong also wants to end sales tax and use tax exemptions for data centers, require the construction of more renewable energy sources and increase environmental protections on data centers. She is also a co-sponsor on the Democrats’ data center bill in the Legislature.
In an interview with the Examiner, Hong said Wisconsin’s political leaders have a responsibility to listen to local opposition to data centers.
“Our communities deserve long-term investments and contributions to their local communities,” she said. “The bipartisan opposition that is building coalitions against AI data centers means that elected officials have a responsibility to get more data on data centers, which is what informed our decision to support a moratorium on the construction of new data centers.”
Hong said that on the campaign trail she has heard from voters who want Wisconsin to be “a hostile environment for AI data centers.” She added that it’s a bipartisan issue, which presents an opportunity to her as a Democratic socialist running for governor.
“I think there’s an opportunity here, not only for us to engage the left and bring them into electoral politics here in Wisconsin, but actually build that coalition amongst voters who are across the political spectrum and recognizing that as working class people, they’re getting screwed and they’re stressed, and they’re right to demand that their government do more to hold corporate power accountable,” she said.
Missy Hughes
At the November forum hosted by the Wisconsin Technology Council, Hughes, who as the former head of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation was involved in efforts to build the Microsoft data center at the former Foxconn site, promoted their positive potential for the state.
“To have some of these data centers land here in Wisconsin, provide incredible property tax and revenue for the communities that are really determining how to pay their bills, how to build new schools, how to build new fire departments, it’s an opportunity for those communities to access some of that investment and to benefit from it,” she said, adding that a data center isn’t right for every community and local pushback should be considered.
Sara Rodriguez
A spokesperson for the current lieutenant governor said that she would issue an executive order to freeze utility rates while state officials develop a long-term data center plan.
That long-term plan would include ways to prevent energy costs from increasing while making sure local residents get a say.
“Sara strongly believes data center projects should be developed collaboratively with local communities. That means early community input, clear communication, and transparent planning to reduce misinformation and ensure projects make sense locally,” the spokesperson said. “Data centers aren’t the right fit for every community, but when done right they can bring real benefits — including jobs, redevelopment of otherwise unusable land, and new revenue that can help local governments lower taxes for residents, as we’ve seen in places like Janesville.”
The campaign added that agreements with local governments must include provisions to prevent developers from bailing out and abandoning communities.
“Sara also believes all details must be negotiated up front in binding agreements. If utilities make grid investments or communities commit resources, developers must be on the hook if a project is delayed or canceled,” the spokesperson said. “Families and local governments shouldn’t be left holding the bag. Wisconsin can support growth and innovation, but only if it’s fair, transparent, and doesn’t raise costs for working families.”
Kelda Roys
The Madison-area state senator is a co-sponsor of the Democrats’ data center bill and in an interview with the Examiner, said that as governor she’d support regulation that follows a similar framework to the legislation.
“I think there needs to be a statewide strategy with guardrails that protect our workers, our environment and our consumers from massive price increases,” she said. “I’m very skeptical of this idea that the biggest and richest and most powerful companies in the world should get to just come in and pick off local communities and local elected leaders one by one and make these sweetheart deals in the dark that screw over the public. And I think in the absence of statewide standards and transparency, that is what is happening.”
She said the state should use its sway to insert itself as a negotiating party in agreements with data center developers in an effort to keep energy costs low, reduce environmental impact and protect Wisconsin workers.
She also said that the state government doing something to ease the budget crunch facing local governments will put those local officials in a better position when deciding whether or not to allow a data center to be constructed.
“Part of the reason that we’re having this problem is that we have put local governments in an impossible situation because of the fiscal mismanagement and the harm of Republican politicians,” she said. “Communities will have more bargaining power when they don’t feel like, ‘Gosh, we’re desperate for more revenue, and our hands are really tied by the state. This is the only option,’ right? They will be in a stronger negotiating position if this is a nice to have, but not a necessary to have. And that’s the position that we want communities to be in. I want Wisconsinites to be able to have a say in our communities’ future, to be able to have an open and transparent process where we can say, ‘actually, we don’t think that this site is an appropriate one for a data center.’”
Josh Schoemann
The Washington County executive said at the November candidate forum there is an “abundance of opportunity” with data centers but that the state needs to be “very, very strategic and smart about where” data centers are built. In a statement from his campaign, he said the state needs to prioritize developing nuclear power to provide enough energy for data centers and everyday Wisconsinites.
“I have great optimism about the potential for data centers and AI for Wisconsin, but it must be people focused,” he said. “Our lack of sufficient energy supply and distribution is a real threat to strategic growth and personal property rights. Growing up in Kewaunee, we had clean and efficient nuclear power right in our community. We need to get back to nuclear energy as a large part of a diverse energy portfolio — not just for data centers, but for the multitude of new homes we need for people, as well as more innovation and industry.”
Tom Tiffany
The Republican congressman and frontrunner in the party’s primary has often opposed the development of large solar farms in and around his northern Wisconsin district, arguing they’ve taken too much of the region’s farmland out of commission.
In a statement from his campaign, Tiffany said the development of data centers should be handled “responsibly.”
“As demand for internet infrastructure continues to grow, data centers present new opportunities for economic development, but like any innovation, they must be developed responsibly,” he said. “Wisconsin families and small businesses should not be left footing the bill for increased electricity demand, local residents deserve a seat at the table when decisions are made about these projects, and taxpayer subsidies should not be used to build data centers on productive farmland. Growth should be responsible and transparent, without shifting costs onto existing ratepayers.”
The Milwaukee Police Administration Building downtown. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
The Milwaukee Police Department says it doesn’t have a plan in place if federal immigration authorities mobilize into the city at a scale similar to operations in nearby Chicago and Minneapolis.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched one of the largest operations in its history last week, sending about 2,000 agents into the Twin Cities. That mobilization resulted in an ICE agentshooting and killing 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good Wednesday morning in Minneapolis. Minneapolis schools were closed Thursday because, in a separate incident, ICE agents deployed tear gas at a high school as students were being dismissed.
Late last year, ICE’s “Operation Midway Blitz” similarly sent a large number of federal agents into the Chicago area. While the operation was underway, ICE and other federal agents killed a 38-year-old Mexican man during a traffic stop and in another incident rammed into the car of a woman who was warning neighbors about ICE presence before shooting her five times.
The Chicago operation included at least another dozen incidents in which federal agents pointed their guns or fired less-lethal weapons at residents, according to data compiled by The Trace.
“Local police departments and many state governors have been very firm in their communication to federal law enforcement that federal law enforcement is not welcome in their cities conducting these sorts of major operations because of the fact that it is so disruptive,” says Ingrid Eagly, a law professor at UCLA who focuses on immigration enforcement. “Because people you know can be injured and harmed, and communities are living in fear. It’s causing a great amount of disruption in communities to have this kind of strong law enforcement presence.”
In cities across the country where ICE agents have been deployed in large numbers, local officials have had to decide how local cops engage with the operations and what that engagement communicates to local residents. Eagly says that operating as “a backup service for unprepared ICE agents” would be using local resources to legitimize ICE’s presence.
“To send in local law enforcement, as backup, as sort of part of the enforcement team, would be essentially being part of the of the federal police force conducting ICE operations,” she says.
The operations in Chicago and Minneapolis, two largely Democratic Midwestern cities that are frequent targets of rhetorical attacks by Republicans, are prominent displays of force in communities similar to Milwaukee. Even though Wisconsin has so far avoided the brunt of the Trump administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement efforts, that could change.
Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that the city had to be prepared for the “eventuality” that an ICE surge is coming.
“Given what happened [Wednesday] and the young woman who was killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis, we got to prepare on the ground,” Johnson said.
But when asked if the Milwaukee Police had a plan for managing a potential ICE operation in the city, a spokesperson for the department only pointed to the department’s existing immigration policy.
The department’s immigration policy states that Milwaukee Police officers are not allowed to cooperate with ICE’s civil immigration enforcement actions.
“Proactive immigration enforcement by local police can be detrimental to our mission and policing philosophy when doing so deters some individuals from participating in their civic obligation to assist the police,” the policy states.
But the written policy does not include any provisions for how police personnel should respond in the event of massive ICE presence in the community. Having a noncooperation or “sanctuary” policy could make Milwaukee a target for Trump’s mass deportation program. Despite that, when pressed for clarification because the policy does not state now the department would manage the fallout of an ICE surge, the spokesperson refused to answer.
“It states what our policy [is] in regards to immigration enforcement,” a Milwaukee police spokesperson said in an unsigned email on Tuesday, before the Minneapolis incident. “We do not have an operation like Chicago therefore cannot provide information about a policy of something that we do not have in our city.”
Pressed again for an answer to the specific question about managing the traffic and crowd control implications of a massive ICE operation in Milwaukee, the spokesperson again refused to answer.
“We have an immigration enforcement policy just because you do not like the answer does not mean we are going to answer different to you,” the spokesperson wrote.
After the shooting in Minneapolis, in answer to a follow-up question from the Examiner, the MPD spokesperson again cited the department’s existing policy preventing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Update: After publication of this story, the Milwaukee Police Department provided further comment asserting its sanctuary policy serves as its plan to handle a large ICE presence in the city.
“We saw your article and assert that your title is misleading. Our policy reflects MPD’s course of action in working with immigration enforcement officials. To be clear, US Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has been present in Milwaukee for many years, even prior to the current presidential administration. You asked what our plan was if immigration authorities mobilize into the city at a scale similar to operations in other jurisdictions — our response is that we have a policy in place and we will continue to abide by our policy. That does not change regardless of the number of agents who are present in our City.”
Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. According to some reports, explosions were heard in Caracas and other cities near airports and military bases around 2 a.m. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)
The U.S. military action to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Saturday night has divided the candidates running for Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District.
The swing district is set to be among the most high profile congressional races in the 2026 midterm elections as Democrats try for a third time to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden. President Donald Trump won the district in 2024 with 53% of the vote.
Since Trump’s inauguration, Van Orden has positioned himself as a vocal supporter of the president, often appearing at White House events and loudly defending Trump on social media.
That defense extended to the Venezuelan raid, of which Van Orden, a former U.S. Navy SEAL, described on X as “perfect.”
“I would like to commend @realDonaldTrump, @SecWar, and the members of our glorious military that conducted the raid in Venezuela to capture the narcoterrorist Maduro,” Van Orden wrote on X shortly after the news of the action was announced. “Perfect operational security and execution.”
Despite regularly criticising American “forever wars,” Van Orden has praised the Venezuela attack as part of an effort to prevent the flow of drugs into the U.S.
“This operation sends a clear message to America’s adversaries: harming U.S. citizens carries consequences,” Van Orden said in a statement. Nicolás Maduro operated as a narco-terrorist under the false cover of political authority. His criminal network helped fuel the drug trafficking that has killed thousands of Americans. He is now detained and no longer in a position to threaten American lives. President Trump’s decisive leadership made this possible. His administration has made it clear that America will no longer tolerate narco-terrorists who profit from the deaths of our citizens.”
While Van Orden’s defense of the president is expected, two of the Democrats running in the primary to challenge him have diverged on the issue.
Rebecca Cooke, who ran against Van Orden in 2024 and is widely seen as the frontrunner, criticized the lack of a long term plan in Venezuela and the break from Trump’s campaign promise to stay out of foreign wars, but celebrated the unseating of Maduro despite the lack of congressional involvement in the decision to approve military action on a foreign country.
“Donald Trump and I don’t agree on much, but one thing we used to agree on is ending American involvement in endless foreign wars,” Cooke said in a statement. “I applaud the excellent work of the CIA and Delta teams in capturing a ruthless dictator in Nicolas Maduro — but where is the concrete plan for stability in the region? We haven’t seen one yet. Without it, our nation involves itself in another foreign conflict. I am disappointed — as I’m sure many Wisconsinites are disappointed — to see this administration betray a central promise when communities across Western Wisconsin are struggling.”
Cooke also said she thinks the president should be more focused on domestic issues.
Emily Berge, the president of the Eau Claire City Council who is running against Cooke in the Democratic primary, criticized the military action without any laudatory comments about deposing Maduro.
“Derrick Van Orden and Donald Trump promised to be ‘America First’ and to end the longstanding waste of our tax dollars bombing other countries based on fabricated stories all in the pursuit of foreign oil,” Berge said in a statement. “They are both breaking their promises to the American people.”
Across the country, criticism of the attack has focused on the president’s decision to go into Venezuela without approval from Congress — which under the U.S. Constitution retains the authority to approve the use of military force.
On X, Van Orden supported the lack of congressional notification before the operation, agreeing with a post that stated telling Congress would have resulted in details being leaked to the press.
However, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin has co-sponsored legislation prohibiting the use of military force in Venezuela without authorization by Congress.
“President Trump stormed into Venezuela and is drawing the U.S. into another forever war just to take Venezuela’s oil and enrich his big oil buddies,” Baldwin said in a statement. “Simply put, this is not what Wisconsin families signed up for. This puts all the men and women who don the uniform at risk, reeks of corruption, and just shows the President is focused on everything except lowering costs and the issues that keep Wisconsin families up at night. The President cannot just start wars at a whim; he needs to get the people’s approval – and that means Congress signing off.”
The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would require the state to hold an annual hunt of sandhill cranes.
The sandhill crane was once nearly extinct and its recovery is seen as a conservation success story. Similar to the return of the wolf, the growth of the sandhill crane population has caused a long running political debate in Wisconsin. For years, Republicans in the Legislature have been pushing for a sandhill crane hunt — arguing the opening of recreational opportunities would benefit the state’s hunting industry and advocating for eating the birds’ meat.
The proposal this session stems from a legislative study committee commissioned last summer which examined how to mitigate damage caused by the birds to the state’s farm fields and the possibility of holding a hunt. Estimates say that each year the birds cause almost $2 million in crop damage, mostly to corn seeds that are eaten before they can sprout.
In the initial version of the bill proposed by the study committee, a number of provisions were included that would have directly addressed the crop damage. If a sandhill crane hunt is authorized, that would allow farmers to access money through an existing Department of Natural Resources damage abatement program, but otherwise all the farm-specific provisions have been removed from the version of the bill now being considered by the Assembly.
If a bird is frequently damaging a farmer’s crops, a depredation permit is obtainable from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however federal law requires that the bird’s carcass not be consumed.
Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), the bill’s author, said the bill is a “well thought out proposal to relieve farmers and promote new opportunities for hunters.”
But Democrats on the committee and critics of the bill questioned why the specific farmer assistance programs were cut out, how a hunt would affect the crane population and how much establishing a hunt would cost the DNR.
Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point) noted that the Republicans were simultaneously arguing that holding a hunt wouldn’t significantly impact the state’s crane population and that holding a hunt would help mitigate the crop damage caused by the birds.
“If it’s not going to impact the population very much, then how do we protect farmers’ investment in seed and corn sprouts and potatoes and cranberries, if we’re not going to actually impact the population to the benefit of the farmer,” Miresse said.
Taylor Finger, the DNR’s game bird specialist, said in his testimony that opening the existing crop damage abatement program up to sandhill crane damage without adding additional funds to the program would result in “worse outcomes for farmers seeking assistance.”
Republicans on the committee largely questioned the testimony of sandhill crane researchers. Anne Lacy, director of eastern flyway programs at the Baraboo-based International Crane Foundation, said she is concerned about holding a hunt in Wisconsin because it is one of the few places on the continent where sandhill cranes breed.
“I don’t think there is a [population] number that justifies a hunt,” Lacy said. “There are many states that hunt sandhill cranes, and they do it successfully. They’ve been managed for years, including this population. But Wisconsin is a breeding state, so that puts a different spin on a hunting season … So it’s not so much a number. It is how a hunt affects this bird because of its ecology.”
In an extended back and forth in which he raised his voice, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) pushed Lacy to say she is supportive of sandhill crane hunts elsewhere.
“All right, so I catch you dodging me, so therefore you do not personally support a hunt in any other state,” Sortwell said.
Milwaukee's King Park surrounded by yellow tape after Sam Sharpe, a resident of a temporary encampment there, was shot by Ohio police officers during the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Tuesday held a public hearing on a pair of bills that would require homeless people on the state’s sex offender registry to wear ankle monitors and increase the penalty for selling drugs close to homeless shelters.
Under the first bill, authored by Rep. Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin), people required to sign up for the sex offender registry and unable to provide a permanent address must be placed under GPS monitoring. An estimated 16% of Wisconsin’s homeless population is on the sex offender registry, according to Maxey, who said he wanted to make sure this population was not a blind spot for Department of Corrections monitoring of people on the list.
“This bill is a clear and common-sense public safety measure that applies one uniform standard so every registrant is monitored at the same level, regardless of housing status,” Maxey said. “This is a straightforward way to protect every member of our society.”
A number of Democrats on the committee had concerns about putting the proposal into practice.
Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) wondered if the cost of the monitoring would end up being paid for by the state.
“Most times, the GPS monitoring is paid for by the person who needs to wear it eventually,” Emerson said. “And if they don’t have the resources to afford a home, I don’t know if they’re going to have the resources to pay the state back for this. And is this something that we’re just going to end up incurring extra costs on? I’m trying to balance the cost versus safety factor.”
Rep. Sequanna Taylor (D-Milwaukee) noted that the ankle monitors need to be regularly charged, which might pose a challenge for people without a home.
“When we talk about the GPS, I know even the people that are not in this situation, who may be on it, there are sometimes tweaks or glitches with them, and also the everyday charging, if we’re talking about someone who’s homeless, is not staying anywhere, I guess I’m just trying to see, how can we encompass or ensure that it will be charged, because once it’s not able to be charged and it’s off, are they meant to go report somewhere or is that a process we haven’t thought about yet?”
Another bill heard by the committee Tuesday, authored by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield), would add homeless shelters to the list of places including schools, government buildings and public parks that are considered drug-free zones. Convictions for selling drugs within these zones carry harsher penalties.
“Drug-related crimes pose a severe threat to community safety, particularly in areas where at-risk populations are located, current law wisely imposes enhanced penalties for distributing illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of sensitive locations like schools and parks, adding up to five years to the maximum sentence,” Donovan said. “These Drug Free Zones deter illegal activity and safeguard those who are most vulnerable. However, homeless shelters are not included in these protections. Many, many homeless individuals face profound challenges, including addiction and mental health issues. Extending these zones is about punishing malicious drug dealers who prey upon the homeless while providing basic security for them as they attempt to reenter society.”
But advocates for addiction treatment and criminal justice reform questioned the wisdom of the proposal.
Dr. Charles Schauberger, an Onalaska resident and president of the Wisconsin Society of Addiction Medicine, said making homeless shelters a drug-free zone could increase police presence around a shelter, which might push homeless drug users away from the area and into more dangerous situations.
“This legislation is not only ineffective in helping homeless people, but potentially worsens the situation,” Schauberger said. “Increasing criminal penalties for substance-related offenses near shelters may lead to increased law enforcement presence around these facilities for people who use substances they may carry, or may even carry a small amount for personal use, which creates a great deal of fear, fear of harassment, fear of incarceration, fear of losing the only safe place they have yet to go.”
He added that when people are afraid to use shelters, “they don’t disappear. They move further into unsafe spaces. They sleep outside. They use substances alone. They disengage from services. They increase risk of overdose. Medical emergencies, deaths make it much harder for clinicians like me to reach them.”
Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said that while the proposal has an “admirable goal” it comes with unintended consequences. She said that in the state’s larger, denser cities, so much of the land is covered by various drug-free zones that lots of drug-related activity is punished there more harshly than in rural parts of the state.
“In densely populated urban areas, that radius around each of these integrated locations overlaps to the point where sometimes an entire city can become functionally a drug-free zone,” she said, noting that the city of Milwaukee contains 156 public schools, 101 private schools, 12 multi-unit public housing facilities, four public swimming pools, dozens of youth and community centers, hundreds of child care facilities, six correctional facilities and more than 130 public parks.
“So studies have shown that these zones don’t necessarily track where drug activity is most prevalent, but rather where certain populations are concentrated,” she said. “So we create this kind of two-tiered justice system based on geography rather than the nature of the crime. So residents in cities can face greater exposure to enhanced maximum penalties than those in rural or suburban areas for the exact same conduct.”
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse on May 15, 2025. Judge Dugan appeared in federal court to answer charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan is resigning after she was convicted last month of a felony for helping a man avoid immigration enforcement agents in the county courthouse.
Dugan submitted her letter of resignation to Gov. Tony Evers on Saturday, writing that serving as a judge has been “the honor of my life.”
“Behind the bench, I have presided over thousands and thousands of cases — with a commitment to treat all persons with dignity and respect, to act justly, deliberatively, and consistently, and to maintain a courtroom with the decorum and safety the public deserves,” Dugan wrote.
Dugan was convicted last month of felony obstruction of justice following a four-day federal trial. The split jury also found she was not guilty of a related misdemeanor.
The case against her stemmed from an incident at the courthouse April 18 in which she directed an immigrant appearing before her who was in the U.S. without legal authorization through a side door out of her courtroom while federal agents waited in the hallway outside to arrest him. Agents later apprehended the man outside the building.
Since her April arrest, Dugan’s case has drawn national political attention as an illustration of the Trump administration’s efforts to increase immigration enforcement in ways that many critics say are heavy handed.
Following the verdict, Wisconsin Republicans demanded that Dugan resign immediately, citing state law that forbids anyone who has been convicted of a felony from serving as a judge. She has been suspended from duty since her arrest.
Dugan has not yet been sentenced and her legal team has signaled they’ll make a broad and lengthy appeal effort. But Dugan wrote in her letter that the people of Milwaukee County need a permanent judge on the bench.
“I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary,” Dugan wrote. “I am pursuing this fight for myself and for our independent judiciary. However, the Wisconsin citizens that I cherish deserve to start the year with a judge on the bench in Milwaukee County Branch 31 rather than have the fate of that Court rest in a partisan fight in the state Legislature.”
Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)
At a Wisconsin Assembly committee meeting in November to consider a proposal to extend the widely popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) complained that too much land in his district has been conserved through the program.
That sentiment has become increasingly common among a subset of Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, most of them representing the far northern reaches of the state. The complaint they often make is that Knowles-Nelson has taken too much land off local property tax rolls, depriving already struggling local governments of important revenue.
These complaints also go hand-in-hand with laments that the Wisconsin Supreme Court undermined the Legislature’s authority to conduct oversight of the grant program by ruling the Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Finance was unconstitutionally blocking stewardship grant projects proposed by the Department of Natural Resources. These Republicans say that their districts have borne the burden of Wisconsin’s land conservation goals for too long and some of that work should shift to southern parts of the state.
Because of this group’s objections in the Republican legislative caucus, the stewardship program is facing its demise next year.
Popular program hits roadblocks
The Knowles-Nelson program was started in 1989 to fund land conservation in the state. Grants from the program to local governments and non-profits help cover some of the costs for purchasing and conserving land that can be used for recreation, preserving animal habitats and supporting local industries such as forestry. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites support the program.
Despite that support, it is set to expire next summer and, so far, legislative efforts to extend the program have failed.
In his initial 2025-27 state budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers asked to extend the program for ten years with $100 million in annual funding. Republicans stripped that provision from the budget immediately.
Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) have authored a bill that would extend the program for four years at $28 million per year. The bill also includes a provision that would require the full Legislature to approve any land purchases that cost more than $1 million — a proposal that critics say would be far too slow for the speed at which real estate transactions need to move.
A separate proposal from Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) would re-authorize the program for six years at $72 million per year and create an independent board made up of members appointed by the Legislature to approve large land purchases through the program.
Separately, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) has introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the full Legislature to approve any state spending on land conservation.
Data contradicts lawmakers’ complaints
The complaints that Knowles-Nelson has conserved too much Northwoods land may prove fatal to the program in a Legislature that has been unable to find common ground on environmental issues.
But an analysis of public lands data shows that the Knowles-Nelson program plays a comparatively small role in Wisconsin’s conserved land portfolio. Despite the claims of critics, the program’s land purchases have been made in all corners of the state.
“Knowles-Nelson becomes like sort of the straw man argument,” says Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at the land conservation non-profit Gathering Waters. “If legislators stood up and said, ‘I don’t think that we should have public land in the way that we do, we should reduce our public land portfolio,’ that would be a terribly unpopular position.”
The program has widespread support, he says.
“Public lands are the prized heritage of Americans, right?” Carlin says. “It’s one of the only things that we just largely agree on as a country, is that we are really proud of our public lands. And this is part of our national identity, and I think it’s certainly part of our Wisconsin identity.”
Swearingen’s 34th district, which covers north central Wisconsin from Rhinelander up to the Michigan border, has more land conserved by the DNR than any other district in the state — almost 335,000 acres, nearly 24% of the district. That includes land set aside for state parks, natural areas, forests and similar uses.
But only 4.7% of the district is conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Another 4.6% of his district is conserved by the federal government, and 8.6% is conserved county forest land.
Despite the claims that Knowles-Nelson has devoured valuable land across the state, no Assembly district has had more than 5.1% of its land conserved through the program, data shows. The average amount of Knowles-Nelson conserved land across all 99 Assembly districts is 1.13%.
Many small purchases
Ron Eckstein, a board member of Wisconsin Green Fire, says Knowles-Nelson is best equipped to help the state purchase smaller tracts to connect already conserved land across the southern part of the state.
“Many state fish and wildlife areas, state parks, and state natural areas across the southern two-thirds of Wisconsin have private land inholdings within their property boundaries,” he said in an email.
“It is very important to continue to purchase these inholdings so these state properties can meet their intended purpose: fish and wildlife habitat, rare species, game species, public access, recreation and recreational trails,” Eckstein said. “This means continuing the long-term, slow process of purchasing a 20-acre tract here and an 80-acre tract there to complete these state-owned areas and fulfill their public purpose.”
Other DNR land and federal land take up hundreds of thousands more acres across the state.
The 74th District, represented by Rep. Chanz Green and Sen. Romaine Quinn has the most Knowles-Nelson land at 5.1%. Nearly 11% of the district is other DNR land while 14.5% is federal land and 23.8% is county land.
Twenty Assembly districts have more general DNR conserved land than the 74th has Knowles-Nelson land.
Across the five Assembly districts with the most federal land, 1,596,129 acres have been conserved. Across the five districts with the most Knowles-Nelson land, 413,453 acres have been conserved.
The data also contradicts Republican claims that the northern parts of the state unfairly get too much land conservation attention.
The Dane County districts represented by Reps. Mike Bare (D-Verona), Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) and Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) are all among the 10 districts with the highest percentage of land conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Rep. Karen DeSanto’s Baraboo-area district, Rep. Chuck Wichgers’ suburban Waukesha County district and Rep. Scott Krug’s district south of Stevens Point are also in the top 10.
When divided by dollar amount, Knowles-Nelson is similarly disbursed. Since its inception, $1.2 billion has been given out through the program to all but one of the Assembly districts; the Milwaukee district of Rep. Supreme Moore-Omukunde (D-Milwaukee) is the only district to not receive any money.
The 36th district, represented by Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), has gotten the most of that money — $102 million, which amounts to 7% of the total Knowles-Nelson purchases over the program’s lifetime. But districts have received an average of $13 million through the program.
“While we’ve done some really cool things with Knowles-Nelson, it’s largely been a drop in the bucket of our sort of overall public lands portfolio,” Carlin says. While some critics complain about the state’s total public land portfolio, he adds, “Knowles Nelson investments are really targeted and strategic, and cumulatively not actually that big.”
Republicans defend focusing on Knowles-Nelson because they have limited control over the land conserved by the federal and county governments. Legislators have authority over the program through the biennial budget process and the confirmation of members of the Natural Resources Board, but despite that, have put the stewardship program in the crosshairs.
In the last several years, Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee began using passive review — an anonymous veto system — to selectively block some Knowles-Nelson projects, to the wide condemnation of members of the public and conservation groups. A 2024 state Supreme Court ruling, in a lawsuit filed by Gov. Tony Evers against the committee’s co-chair, Sen. Howard Marklein, found that the “legislative veto” was unconstitutional.
“Until the Evers v. Marklein decision by the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court, there was a good process in place for new stewardship land purchases,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the Wisconsin Examiner in a statement. “Those checks and balances between the executive branch and the Legislature ensured that it was a collective decision, and that the state did not overpay for stewardship land. Unfortunately, since this process was destroyed, the Legislature is forced to put even more scrutiny on the stewardship program.”
Carlin says the program has played an important role in helping local governments in more rural parts of the state invest in projects that help the local economy in the long term. Dane County’s recently passed 2026 budget includes $20 million for land conservation, which is not an expense most counties can afford.
“But if collectively, we choose as a state to say this is an important priority, we’re all going to work on this together, then we can make meaningful investments in rural communities that wouldn’t otherwise be able to do it themselves,” Carlin says.
“At a time when there is such incredible inequality of wealth and opportunity,” he adds, “what the data tells us is that Knowles-Nelson has been a really good democratizer of investments in conservation and recreation.”
A PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Thursday on a bipartisan bill that would require the state Department of Natural Resources to notify county and tribal governments when local groundwater contamination is found to exceed state standards.
Throughout the hearing, the bill’s authors and residents of communities with water quality problems complained of incidents in which significant amounts of time passed before people learned their water was contaminated with harmful chemicals such as nitrates or PFAS.
“Time really counts, hours, days, weeks, and in our case, even years,” said Lee Donahue, a resident of the town of Campbell on French Island near La Crosse, which has been dealing with PFAS contamination for years. “It’s been heart wrenching to know that my family and my friends and my neighbors have all been impacted by these toxic chemicals. I don’t wish anyone to have contamination in their water. And the sad part is we had no clue that PFAS was pouring from our faucets and that we were drinking that water for years and years and years before any notification was made.”
Initially authored by Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), more than 60 legislators of both parties have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, signaling the legislation has enough support to be signed into law during a legislative session in which efforts to find compromise on environmental issues — including efforts to extend the Knowles-Nelson stewardship grant program and to create a method to spend $125 million that has been set aside for more than two years to remediate PFAS contamination — have been stuck in the partisan muck.
Under the bill, if the DNR finds an exceedance of the state’s groundwater standards the department will have seven days to notify the local county or tribal health department as well as the county land and conservation department.
For several years, Wisconsin policymakers have been unable to establish a state standard for the acceptable amount of PFAS in the state’s groundwater, hitting roadblocks at the state Natural Resources Board and in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The state does have established standards for the amount of PFAS in the state’s surface water and the drinking water provided by municipal water utilities.
As the Legislature has tried and failed to pass a bill that would spend the $125 million in the PFAS trust fund, residents of communities affected by PFAS contamination have frequently said the policy change they’d most like to see is the establishment of a groundwater standard.
The contaminant notification bill does not establish a groundwater standard for PFAS, however it requires the DNR to notify the county government if the groundwater is found to have PFAS levels higher than the existing state standards for PFAS in surface or drinking water.
About one-third of Wisconsin residents get their water from private drinking wells. While the bill does not establish a groundwater standard and does not provide any assistance if the groundwater they use to shower, brush their teeth, make coffee or mix baby formula is contaminated, proponents said it does make sure residents have the information they need to make decisions about the source of their water.
“If people have a right to clean water, then they have a right to know when their water is not clean,” said Michael Tiboris, the agriculture and water policy director at the River Alliance of Wisconsin. “And this bill is exactly the kind of action that we appreciate having legislators take a strong position on, giving families knowledge of the threats to their drinking water makes it possible for them to protect themselves.”
None of the people or groups that testified at the hearing Thursday were in opposition to the bill, but a few industry groups expressed a handful of complaints and said they’d like to see amendments to the bill’s final version.
The concerns of business groups centered around making sure that any notifications were made after test results have been verified and making sure that the notifications don’t instigate regulatory action from the government that it doesn’t have the authority to undertake.
“It’s just not appropriate for the government to take any kind of action,” said Adam Jordahl, director of environmental and energy policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “I know it’s not a direct regulatory action where we’re expecting an individual or business to do something or comply with something, but nevertheless, the issue of sort of holding people accountable to a regulatory PFAS standard that has not yet actually been promulgated into the administrative code. We find that to be very problematic and kind of a slippery slope going down in terms of holding people accountable or responsible to something that hasn’t gone through the full rulemaking process.”
Scott Suder, the president of the Wisconsin Paper Council, said he’s concerned that prematurely telling people their water is contaminated could create “reputational risks” for nearby businesses.
“It creates unnecessary legal and reputational risk for industry, potentially because the notice is subject to public inspection and copying under [Wisconsin open records law],” Suder said. “All exceedance notifications would become public records, creating significant disclosure and some reputational risks, so even minor errors or omissions could trigger liabilities, and the visibility of exceedances may lead to public misunderstanding about actual risks. So it is a bit concerning for industry as well.”
The Vernon County farm owned by Wisconsin Farmer's Union President Darin Von Ruden. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
Wisconsin lawmakers at the state and federal level have proposed a flurry of policies to support Wisconsin farmers after the first year of the second Trump administration brought increased uncertainty, the whiplash of trade wars and the fear of increased immigration enforcement against migrant workers.
Last week, the Trump administration announced it would be providing $12 billion in bridge payments to American farmers to help them manage the economic fallout of Trump’s tariffs. The tariffs have increased the costs of inputs such as machinery and fertilizer while limiting international markets for U.S. farm products.
After the bailout was announced, Wisconsin farm advocates said the money was needed to help make ends meet this year, but called for more permanent solutions so farmers can make a living from what they grow.
“This relief will help many Wisconsin farm families get through a tough stretch, and we recognize the need for that kind of support in a crisis,” Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden said in a statement. “But farmers in our state don’t want to rely on emergency payments year after year — we want a fair shot at making a living from the work we do. It’s time for long-term solutions that bring stability back to our markets, tackle consolidation, and ensure rural communities across Wisconsin can thrive.”
Wisconsin’s soybean farmers have been among the hardest hit by the Trump trade wars because China was a massive market for the crop.
Dr. Success Okafor, policy fellow at the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the Trump administration needs to help farmers of commodity crops such as corn and soybeans and specialty crops such as vegetables. The U.S. Department of Agriculture program has set aside $11 billion for commodity producers and $1 billion for specialty crops.
“For many Wisconsin farmers, especially those already under financial pressure, the relief is important, but the key issue is not whether the relief exists, but it is whether it is accessible and aligned with long-term resilience,” Okafor said. “Soybean farmers in Wisconsin have been hit particularly hard by the trade disruptions, and targeted relief for those losses is absolutely warranted. But the question is not whether soybean producers should receive support, but how this relief can be structured so it does not unintentionally exclude other farmers who are also economically vulnerable.”
Okafor said key elements of an equitable government relief program for farmers would include transparency in how losses are calculated, flexibility in program design and making sure access is not limited by short deadlines or complex paperwork.
Bipartisan bill to help for organic farms
Last week, Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden joined a bipartisan effort to support organic farmers. The Domestic Organic Investment Act would extend a UDA grant program to help organic farmers find markets for their products.
A number of Democratic state legislators also introduced legislation aimed at helping Wisconsin’s farmers find markets for their products. The bills are unlikely to move forward under the Republican-controlled Legislature, but the package of agriculture bills is among the proposals Democrats have made throughout the year to signal their agenda if they win a state legislative majority next year.
The proposal includes grants to support specialty products that are sold locally, providing healthy food to federal food assistance recipients and expanding the state’s farmland preservation program.
“The federal government has failed our farmers and our agricultural economy,” Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said at a news conference last week. “We would not need a $12 billion bailout for our farmers if the Trump administration was doing right by them in the first place. We are now trying to play catch up, and here in Wisconsin, we are trying to fill in those gaps and support our farmers in these difficult times as the Trump administration fails.”
At its annual conference in Wisconsin Dells last week, the Farmers Union set its 2026 priorities, which include managing the continued consolidation of the agricultural industry, protecting the rights of immigrant workers, supporting family dairy farms and ensuring access to quality health care.
At the local level across Wisconsin, debates are raging over the best use of the state’s agricultural land. A number of communities had heated arguments over proposals to construct massive data centers on existing farmland while others have continued yearslong efforts to oppose the expansion of massive factory farms.
Despite pressure from industry groups and business lobbyists, towns across western Wisconsin have enacted local ordinances limiting the ability of farms to expand without local approval. Last week, the town of Gilman became the third Pierce County community to pass a local CAFO ordinance. Gilman officials said their goal was protecting local resources while trying to encourage a local agricultural industry that can support smaller family farms.
The new ordinance, Gilman town board chair Phil Verges said, puts in place minimum standards to address community concerns.
“We have legitimate concerns and this is the best option we have to protect ourselves from the seemingly unlimited growth of these factory farms,” Verges said. “We can’t sit by and do nothing.”
The Bad River in Mellen, south of the Bad River Band's reservation. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, challenging the corps’ decision to grant a permit allowing the oil company Enbridge to reroute its Line 5 pipeline around the tribe’s reservation in northern Wisconsin
The lawsuit, filed in the Washington D.C. federal circuit court, is another step in the long legal history of the Enbridge pipeline and the company’s effort to move it from its current route through the tribe’s land. The tribe is asking that the permit approval be vacated.
In October, the corps approved Enbridge’s permit to reroute the pipeline off the reservation despite significant public opposition.
The new route moves the pipeline south but it still runs across land on three sides of the reservation and crosses the Bad River upstream of the reservation. The permit was approved as the administration of President Donald Trump has moved to more aggressively support oil and natural gas projects. Earlier in the year, the corps approved a fast-tracked permitting process for Enbridge to construct a tunnel across the Straits of Mackinac so Line 5 can cross from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to its Lower Peninsula.
The tribe’s lawsuit alleges that the corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by not properly conducting required environmental reviews or following the proper procedures.
“For hundreds of years, and to this day, the Band’s ancestors and members have lived, hunted, fished, trapped, gathered, and engaged in traditional activities in the wetlands and waters to be crossed by the Project,” the lawsuit states. “The Project would encircle the Reservation on three sides and damage areas the Band highly values for their ecological and cultural significance. The Corps’ failure to properly review and address the Project’s environmental impacts to wetlands and waterways harms the Band’s interest in maintaining its Reservation homeland and resources in the ceded territory.”
The lawsuit alleges that the corps violated the NEPA by not giving proper consideration to the “environmental effects of construction, maintenance, and operation of the Project,” including how it will harm the health of resources on and near the reservation.
Under the Clean Water Act, the corps cannot approve permits until the state or tribal government responsible for water quality in the project area certifies the project won’t harm the local water. While the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources did previously approve the state permits for the Line 5 reroute, those permits are currently being challenged in a separate legal process.
The tribe alleges in the lawsuit that the corps should not have moved forward with its permits until after the state process is complete.
[The corps] violated the Clean Water Act by issuing the Permit without ensuring that construction and maintenance of the Project would not adversely affect Wisconsin and the Band’s water quality,” the lawsuit states. “This includes issuing a … permit while the required … state water quality certification is not yet final, pending state administrative proceedings; without addressing the inadequacies the Band identified with Wisconsin’s Water Quality Certification; or ensuring compliance with the Band’s water quality standards.”
The lawsuit also states the permit approval does not address how the project construction will affect the tribe’s “ability to exercise treaty-protected rights to hunt, fish, trap, and gather in ceded territory,” “failed to evaluate the risks and impacts of oil spills along the pipeline route” and “failed to evaluate the risks and impacts of blasting as a construction method.”
In a statement, tribe chairwoman Elizabeth Arbuckle said the tribe would do whatever it can to protect the health of the Bad River, Lake Superior and surrounding watersheds.
“For more than a decade, we have had to endure the unlawful trespass of a dangerous oil pipeline on our lands and waters,” Arbuckle said. “The reroute only makes matters worse. Enbridge’s history is full of accidents and oil spills. If that happens here, our Tribe and other communities in the Northwoods will suffer unacceptable consequences. From the Bad River to Lake Superior, our waters are the lifeblood of our Reservation. They have fed and nurtured our Tribe for hundreds of years. We will do everything in our power to protect them.”
Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said in an email that while the Army Corps made an initial permit decision, it has not been signed by the corps or the company and therefore isn’t a final decision that can be challenged in court. She said the company would intervene in the lawsuit to defend the permit approval.
“Enbridge submitted permit applications to state and federal regulators in early 2020 to build a new segment of pipeline around the Bad River Reservation,” she said. “Enbridge’s permit applications are supported by thorough and extensive environmental analysis and modeling by leading third-party experts confirming project construction impacts will be temporary and isolated, with no adverse effect to water quality or wetlands.”
Voters at the Wilmar Neighborhood Center on Madison's East Side cast their ballots. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday denied a demand from the U.S. Department of Justice for the state’s full voter registration list, including personally identifiable information such as dates of birth, driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers.
At a special meeting Thursday afternoon and in a letter sent in response to the DOJ demand, WEC stated that Wisconsin law explicitly prevents the commission from sharing the personal information of voters.
“The U.S. DOJ is simply asking the commission to do something the commission is explicitly forbidden by Wisconsin law to do,” commissioner Don Millis said.
This is the second time this year the DOJ has requested Wisconsin’s voter database. Both times, the department has been informed that Wisconsin state law requires that the commission charge a fee to obtain the list.
Since the summer, the DOJ has requested the voter databases of several states — raising concerns over why the department is seeking massive amounts of voter data, especially as President Donald Trump has remained fixated on conspiracy theories that his 2020 election loss was rigged.
In its demand for the data, sent Dec. 2 as a “confidential memorandum of understanding” the department said it was seeking the data to check if Wisconsin is properly complying with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.
“The Justice Department is requesting your state’s [Voter Registration List] to test, analyze, and assess states’ VRLs for proper list maintenance and compliance with federal law,” the memo states.
However the WEC response questions the authority with which DOJ is asserting its right to the records. For one, Wisconsin is exempt from the NVRA because it offers same-day voter registration at polling places. Also, WEC wrote in its response letter that HAVA does not grant the DOJ access to confidential voter data.
Compliance with HAVA and the thoroughness of states’ compliance with voter list maintenance requirements have become regular talking points among Republicans who say they’re concerned that there are thousands of people who have active voter registrations when they should be ineligible to vote because they’ve moved, died or otherwise are unable to cast a ballot.
The sources of those complaints include the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a right-wing law firm that in October sent a letter to the DOJ asking for the department to assess Wisconsin’s compliance with HAVA.
WEC has said repeatedly that the commission and Wisconsin’s municipal election clerks are properly maintaining the voter rolls. They’ve also noted that the concerns are often overstated because even if a voter is ineligible and their file is deactivated in the database, their name will still appear in the system.
“The joint effort between state and local election officials enhances the integrity of the system by ensuring responsibilities are distributed across thousands of officials in every city, village, and town, rather than concentrated among a small handful of state employees in the Capitol,” the WEC response letter states. “The vast majority of list maintenance work consists of routine updates, and the processes also serve to identify attempts at wrongdoing. Each year, Wisconsin election officials at all levels of government identify and refer to criminal prosecution: felons attempting to vote, double voters, non-citizens, and others trying to circumvent election law.”
In the WEC decision to deny DOJ’s request as well as to release the DOJ memo and the response letter, Republican commissioner Bob Spindell was the lone vote against. Spindell pointed to a provision of state law that allows WEC to share restricted information in the voter database with law enforcement agencies. Spindell has often used his role on the commission to indulge conspiracy theories and cast doubt on the security of the election system.
“This is a highly, highly controversial issue throughout the country at this point in time, and my point of view is that this information can be released,” Spindell said. “I believe that through the HAVA Act, the federal government has the appropriate ability to see if we’re doing everything that’s correct and OK. I’ve talked forever about we need to have, in the state of Wisconsin, an independent audit, or whatever, of the registration list to satisfy the many individuals and groups and so forth that question it. And all HAVA is doing here, the federal government is asking for a chance to take a look at us.”
But commissioner Mark Thomsen said there is no way that a provision meant to help law enforcement find information about suspects in criminal investigations could be interpreted to mean WEC can give the personal information of every Wisconsin voter to the federal government.
“Our rights as commissioners are limited by the Fourth Amendment, by state law itself,” Thomsen said. “Mr. Spindel is just flat out wrong that this one provision that he relies on would allow us to legally give Wisconsin citizens’ private information off to someone for some unknown reason. It’s not just a person that’s suspected of a crime, it’s everybody, and Wisconsin has never stood for the proposition that any government is entitled to all this data anytime someone asked. So I think Bob, you’re just making up the law there.”
As power-hungry data centers proliferate, states are searching for ways to protect utility customers from the steep costs of upgrading the electrical grid, trying instead to shift the cost to AI-driven tech companies. (Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)
Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission seeking to force the release of unredacted documents showing how much electricity will be used at Meta’s planned data center in Beaver Dam.
In a news release, MEA said it had sought electrical load projections for data center projects in Beaver Dam and Port Washington in an October open records request. The PSC initially provided the firm with versions that redacted the electrical load information. MEA sent a follow-up request seeking unredacted versions of the document.
The PSC sent the unredacted version of the Port Washington project but denied the request for the Beaver Dam project, claiming it contained trade secrets.
Wisconsin’s open records law allows government agencies to deny records requests if the information within the document is a trade secret, however MEA disputes that the amount of energy Meta plans to request for its data center counts.
“It appears the PSC is unlawfully withholding this information because either Meta or a public utility is claiming the electricity demand for the data center is a trade secret,” MEA legal fellow Michael Greif said in a statement. “We call on Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company and Meta to be forthright with the public about their plans. These companies are asking a lot of the public and the public deserves, at least the very least, basic information about the data center’s massive energy needs.”
Data center projects across the country are often shrouded in secrecy. A study in Virginia found that at least 80% of local governments involved with data center proposals had signed non-disclosure agreements with the data center companies — though it’s unclear how an NDA would be enforceable against Wisconsin’s public records laws.
Earlier this year, MEA filed a separate lawsuit to force the city of Racine to release records related to the projected water use at Microsoft’s planned data center in Mount Pleasant.
Login
