Absentee voting didn’t used to be popular in Addison, a rural town of 3,300 in southeast Wisconsin. A few days before the last Supreme Court election in 2023, only about 60 residents had cast absentee ballots in person.

This year, at the same point in the election cycle, that number was over 300.

The sharp increase is due partly to Republicans’ recent embrace of absentee voting, especially in the nearly two-week period before Election Day when voters can cast absentee ballots in person. Washington County, where Addison is located, is one of the state’s most Republican counties and one of many Republican-dominated areas across Wisconsin where early voting rates have surged. 

But perhaps a bigger reason is a recent Washington County initiative aimed at making early voting more accessible for voters and more feasible for municipalities. The program compensates municipalities for the costs of extending their hours during the state’s early in-person voting period. It makes up for the gaps in municipal budgets that previously limited early voting opportunities.

“It really comes down to a matter of priorities,” Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann, a former municipal clerk, told Votebeat. “And there’s nothing more fundamental to county government and to government in general, in Wisconsin and America, than the opportunity for people to vote.” 

County absorbs the added costs for municipalities

The county first rolled out the initiative during the November 2024 election as part of a broader funding package approved by the county board. The package included over $150,000 for extended in-person absentee voting hours, voluntary audits and cameras for ballot drop boxes across the county. 

Public funding for such activities is more critical now after voters last year approved a Republican-written constitutional amendment banning private funding for election support, responding to a Republican outcry over private grants to fund election administration, especially in Democratic strongholds.

County Board Chair Jeff Schleif said he was eager to support the proposal because it would ensure that Republicans, who were just coming around to voting early, had the time and opportunity to do it, just as Democrats did in places like Milwaukee. 

“Our board is as conservative as it’s ever been,” he said, adding that extending early voting hours is helpful to everybody.

Moreover, Schleif said, the proposal would authorize and fund election audits that could debunk allegations from people like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell that some voting machines were being hacked to change votes.

After the November election, about $71,000 of the funds remained unspent. This year, the county signed off on using that money to continue the program into this high-stakes April election.

For this election, the county is compensating municipalities at 150% of the added cost for extending their early voting hours beyond what they were in the April 2023 election. About 90% of the municipalities in the county are participating, Washington County Clerk Ashley Reichert, a Republican, said. The county also mailed voters a schedule of their town’s early voting hours.

Reichert said the initiative aims to provide local residents with voting opportunities comparable to urban areas, including weekend and night voting options. The additional hours benefit many residents who commute to Milwaukee for work and can’t vote during typical business hours, she said.

“We have quite a few very rural communities where the clerks are very part-time, and their budgets are small, and so for them, offering additional time was just not a feasible option,” she said. “Being able to take the funding off the table as a concern really helped quite a few of our municipalities.”

More hours for voting, and more voters showing up

Addison Town Clerk Wendy Fairbanks said early voting hours have expanded significantly due to the county’s support. In 2023, Addison’s early voting was generally open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Now it’s open as early as 7 a.m. and as late as 6 p.m., including Fridays.

“I’m able to bring in election workers to help me with this so I’m not doing it all on my own,” Fairbanks said. “Otherwise, I’d get no other work done.”

The county’s help, she continued, “takes the burden off the town, so that we’re not using money from our tax levy that could go towards road repair or something in the town.”

Another Washington County municipality, the village of Richfield, now offers Saturday hours for early voting thanks to county funding. About 90 residents participated on a recent Saturday, contributing to a total of 1,674 early ballots cast as of Thursday morning  — about double the amount from this time two years ago.

Village Administrator Jim Healy said the initiative was crucial for voters who couldn’t vote during regular hours. “We really felt strongly for these types of elections that have either state or national implications that we ought to try to go the extra mile,” Healy said, expressing hope that other Wisconsin counties might follow Washington County’s example.

In all, as of Thursday morning, Washington County had over 13,400 voters cast absentee ballots in person, nearly triple the number of votes at this point in the 2023 cycle and the fourth most in the state, despite it being only the 10th largest county by voting age population. 

While increased absentee voting means additional ballots to process, local clerks aren’t concerned about significantly longer counting times.

“This is absolutely adding one more thing,” Schoemann said, “but I also know that their biggest pain point is their budgets. They’re really, really tight. So we want to try to hit their biggest pain point where we can help them and get what voters want, and that is more opportunity.”

Other clerks look at the Washington County model

Reichert, the Washington County clerk, said she has heard from a number of county and municipal clerks, along with legislators, interested in replicating this initiative across the state. Right now, though, she said Washington County appears to be the only county offering municipal clerks that compensation. 

That may change soon: At a recent event, Rep. Scott Krug, a legislative leader who formerly chaired the Assembly Elections Committee, said one of his top upcoming legislative priorities was funding early voting so every municipality offers the same availability. He wasn’t available to comment further on Thursday.

Meanwhile, in most counties, early voting hours are uneven from town to town. In neighboring Ozaukee County, municipal clerks are staggering their hours to try to make time for residents seeking to vote early in person, said County Clerk Kellie Kretlow, a Republican. Some municipal election offices are open every day for early voting, while others are only open a few days across the nearly two-week voting period.

Sheboygan County Clerk Jon Dolson, a Republican, told Votebeat he was interested in the proposal but couldn’t see how his fiscally conservative board would approve a $15,000 funding increase, much less a $150,000 package like the one passed in neighboring Washington County. The county board recently cut the number of positions in his office, he said. 

So how did such a large spending proposal for election offices get through the fiscally conservative Washington County Board of Supervisors, which represents one of the most staunchly Republican constituencies in the state?

Schoemann, the county executive, said the board prioritized this initiative after years of disciplined budgeting and surplus management.

He said it was important for officials at the county level to take the lead, rather than expecting local clerks to each ask for help.

The proposals together were billed as an “election integrity package” that would enhance election security — a concern that Republicans have repeatedly raised.

Reichert, the county clerk, said it likely helped that the support for extended early voting hours was rolled into a broader package addressing security concerns around drop boxes and audits. Extending early voting hours itself addressed a security concern, she said, since some supervisors questioned whether mailed ballots would arrive too late or get lost in the mail.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

How Wisconsin’s Washington County helped its municipalities expand early voting hours is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers approved a bill to allow unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican voted no.

“I just thought big money was an evil, a curse on our politics,” former state Sen. Robert Cowles said recently of his 2015 decision to buck his party.

As Wisconsin voters head to the polls this week to choose a new state Supreme Court justice, Cowles stands by his assessment. Voters have been hit with a barrage of attack ads from special interest groups, and record-setting sums of money have been spent to sway residents. What’s more, Cowles said, there’s been little discussion of major issues. The candidates debated only once.

“I definitely think that that piece of legislation made things worse,” Cowles said in an interview. “Our public discourse is basically who can inflame things in the most clever way with some terrible TV ad that’s probably not even true.”

More than $80 million has been funneled into the race as of March 25, according to two groups that have been tracking spending in the contest — the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy group that follows judicial races, and the news outlet WisPolitics. That surpasses the previous costliest judicial race in the country’s history, approximately $56 million spent two years ago on the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.

Money is pouring into this swing state election so fast and so many ads have been reserved that political observers now believe the current race is likely to reach $100 million by Tuesday, which is Election Day.

“People are thoroughly disgusted, I think, across the political spectrum with just the sheer amount of money being spent on a spring Supreme Court election in Wisconsin,” said Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, which has long advocated for campaign finance reform.

But the elected officials who could revamp the campaign finance system on both sides of the aisle or create pressure for change have been largely silent. No bills introduced this session. No press conferences from legislators. The Senate no longer even has a designated elections committee.

The current election pits former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, now a circuit court judge in conservative-leaning Waukesha County, against Susan Crawford, a judge in Dane County, the state’s liberal bastion.

Though the race technically is nonpartisan, the Democratic Party, including former President Barack Obama, has endorsed Crawford; the party has received financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros. On the other side, President Donald Trump posted a message on his social media platform on March 21 urging his supporters to vote for Schimel, and much of Schimel’s money comes from political organizations tied to Elon Musk.

The stakes are high. Whoever wins will determine the ideological bent of the seven-member court just two years after Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on the court and swung it to the liberals. With Protasiewicz on the court, the majority struck down state legislative maps, which had been drawn to favor Republicans, and reinstated the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots.

A Schimel victory could resurrect those and other voting issues, as well as determine whether women in the state will continue to be able to access abortion.

Two pro-Schimel groups linked to Musk — America PAC and Building America’s Future — had disclosed spending about $17 million, as of March 25. Musk himself donated $3 million this year to the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In the final stretch of the campaign, news reports revealed that Musk’s America PAC plans to give Wisconsin voters $100 to sign petitions rejecting the actions of “activist judges.”

That has raised concerns among some election watchdog groups, which have been exploring whether the offer from Musk amounts to an illegal inducement to get people to vote.

On Wednesday night, Musk went further, announcing on X a $1 million award to a Green Bay voter he identified only as “Scott A” for “supporting our petition against activist judges in Wisconsin!” Musk promised to hand out other million-dollar prizes before the election.

Musk has a personal interest in the direction of the Wisconsin courts. His electric car company, Tesla Inc., is suing the state over a law requiring manufacturers to sell automobiles through independent dealerships. Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment about his involvement in the race.

Also on Schimel’s side: billionaires Diane Hendricks and Richard Uihlein and Americans for Prosperity, a dark-money group founded by billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother David. Americans for Prosperity has reported spending about $3 million, primarily for digital ads, canvassing, mailers and door hangers.

A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund, a union-supported electioneering group, has ponied up over $6 million to advance Crawford. In other big outlays, Soros has given $2 million to the state Democratic Party, while Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another billionaire, gave $1.5 million. And California venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, donated $250,000.

In Wisconsin, political parties can steer unlimited amounts to candidates.

State Sen. Jeff Smith, a Democrat and a minority leader, called the spending frenzy “obscene.”

“There’s no reason why campaigns should cost as much as they do,” he said.

Asked for comment about the vast amount of money in the race, Crawford told ProPublica: “I’m grateful for the historic outpouring of grassroots support across Wisconsin from folks who don’t want Elon Musk controlling our Supreme Court.”

Schimel’s campaign called Crawford a “hypocrite,” saying she “is playing the victim while receiving more money than any judicial candidate in American history thanks to George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and JB Pritzker funneling money to her campaign.”

Quizzed Monday by a TV reporter on whether he would recuse himself if the Tesla case got to the state’s high court, Schimel did not commit, saying: “I’ll do the same thing I do in every case. I will examine whether I can truly hear that case objectively.”

A decade after Wisconsin opened the floodgates to unlimited money in campaigns in 2015, some good government activists are wondering if the state has reached a tipping point. Is there any amount, they ask, at which the state’s political leaders can be persuaded to impose controls?

“I honestly believe that folks have their eyes open around the money in a way that they have not previously,” Nick Ramos, executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks campaign spending, told reporters during a briefing on spending in the race.

A loosely organized group of campaign reformers is beginning to lay the groundwork for change. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently called a Zoom meeting that included representatives of public interest groups inside and outside of Wisconsin, dark-money researchers and an election security expert.

They were looking for ways to champion reform during the current legislative session. In particular, they are studying and considering what models make sense and may be achievable, including greater disclosure requirements, public financing and restricting candidates from coordinating with dark-money groups on issue ads.

But Republicans say that the spending is a natural byproduct of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which equated campaign spending with free speech and opened the spigots for big-money races.

“For the most part, we don’t really, as Republicans, want to see the brakes on free speech,” said Ken Brown, past chair of the GOP Party of Racine, a city south of Milwaukee. Noting he was not speaking for the party, Brown said he does not favor spending limits. “I believe in the First Amendment. It is what it is. I believe the Citizens United decision was correct.”

Asked to comment on the current system of unlimited money, Anika Rickard, a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, did not answer the question but instead criticized Crawford and her funders.

Post-reform bill opened floodgates

At one point, Wisconsin was seen as providing a roadmap for reform. In 2009, the state passed the Impartial Justice Act. The legislation, enacted with bipartisan support, provided for public financing of state Supreme Court races, so candidates could run without turning to special interests for money.

The push for the measure came after increased spending by outside special interests and the candidates in two state Supreme Court races: the 2007 election that cost an estimated $5.8 million and the 2008 contest that neared $6 million, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Candidates who agreed in 2009 to public financing and spending limits received grants of up to $400,000 for the race. The money came from the Democracy Trust Fund, which was supported by a $2 income tax check-off.

“​​Reformers win a fight to clean up court races,” the headline on an editorial in The Capital Times read at the time.

But the law was in place for only one election, in April 2011. Both candidates in the court’s general election that year agreed to take public funding, and incumbent Justice David Prosser, a conservative, narrowly won reelection. Then Republicans eliminated funding for the measure that summer. Instead, the money was earmarked to implement a stringent voter ID law.

By 2015, GOP leaders had completely overhauled the state’s campaign finance law, with Democrats in the Assembly refusing to even vote on the measure in protest.

“This Republican bill opens the floodgates to unlimited spending by billionaires, by big corporations and by monied, special interests to influence our elections,” Rep. Lisa Subeck, a Democrat, said in the floor debate.

Wisconsin is no longer cited as a model. Activists point to other states, including Arizona, Oregon and Rhode Island. Arizona and Oregon established disclosure measures to trace the flow of dark money, requiring campaign spenders to reveal the original source of donations. Rhode Island required ads to name not only the sponsor but the organization’s top donors so voters can better access the message and its credibility.

Amid skepticism that Wisconsin will rein in campaign spending, there may be some reason for optimism.

A year ago, a proposed joint resolution in Wisconsin’s Legislature bemoaned Citizens United and the spending it had unleashed. The resolution noted that “this spending has the potential to drown out speech rights for all citizens, narrow debate, weaken federalism and self-governance in the states, and increase the risk of systemic corruption.”

The resolution called for a constitutional amendment clarifying that “states may regulate the spending of money to influence federal elections.”

And though it never came to a vote, 17 members of the Legislature signed on to it, a dozen of them Republicans. Eight of them are still in the Legislature, including Sen. Van Wanggaard, who voted for the 2015 bill weakening Wisconsin’s campaign finance rules.

Wanggaard did not respond to a request for comment. But an aide expressed surprise — and disbelief — seeing the lawmaker’s name on the resolution.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

How Elon Musk, George Soros and other billionaires are shaping the most expensive court race in US history is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Election officials in Madison are already facing a state and city investigation into the series of errors that resulted in nearly 200 absentee ballots not being counted in last fall’s election. Now officials there face a claim for compensation in an unusual case that aims to emphasize the importance of properly counting all ballots and set a monetary penalty for denying people their vote. 

A liberal election law group called Law Forward served a $34 million claim this month against Madison and Dane County, seeking damages amounting to $175,000 for each Madison voter whose absentee ballot got misplaced. The filing is likely a precursor to a lawsuit, as the group is seeking out other disenfranchised voters to join its case.

“There is going to be a price to pay when you interfere with someone’s right to vote in Wisconsin,” said Scott Thompson, staff counsel for Law Forward.

Cases like this have a history that goes back to the voting rights fights of the late 1800s and 1900s, when officials intentionally sought to bar Black people from voting. But they’re highly unusual today — most voting rights cases seek only to have a challenged right restored, rather than damages — and experts say it’s unlikely that Law Forward’s claim in the Madison case will lead to any damages being paid out.

The threat of a financial cost for errors could add to the pressure on local clerk’s offices, which already deal with the challenges of new laws and court rulings, along with persistent scrutiny from election skeptics and lawmakers. (Madison’s city clerk has been placed on leave while the investigation into her office continues.) Some clerks around the state said they consider the errors in Madison serious, but questioned the move to assign liability.

Melissa Kono, the clerk in the small town of Burnside in western Wisconsin, said that instead of a payout to voters affected by an error, money would be better spent on developing a better system for clerks to manage the increasing number of absentee ballots, which have surged since the COVID-19 pandemic. The uncounted ballots in Madison were all absentee ballots.

Thompson acknowledged the potential impact of his group’s action on clerks. But he said it serves as a broader response to the steady stream of lawsuits filed by conservative groups since 2020 aimed at preventing officials from counting certain ballots because of the way they’re returned or the information they’re missing. In the context of these lawsuits, he said, it’s important to send a message that there should be a cost for disenfranchising people.

“Elections are about exercising the right to vote,” he said. “They’re not about finding ways to kick people off the voter rolls.” 

Legal filing says Madison and Dane County violated constitution

In a statement, Madison spokesperson Dylan Brogan didn’t directly address the Law Forward claim but said every ballot should be counted accurately and that the city is cooperating with ongoing investigations while conducting its own. 

Here’s what investigators have said about the case so far: In all, 193 absentee ballots that were sent to two polling places in the city for tabulation on Election Day went missing, and were not counted, even after they were found. For reasons still unknown, the election workers at those polling places never opened the courier bags containing those ballots. Those ballots then went to the city clerk’s office, but workers didn’t open one of the parcels until Nov. 12 and the other one until Dec. 3. 

The ballots in the bag opened on Nov. 12 could still have been counted — city and county officials have given conflicting accounts on why they weren’t.

The sum total of the oversights, Law Forward alleges in its claim, resulted in the unconstitutional disenfranchisement of the 193 voters. The group appears to be preparing for a class-action lawsuit and is welcoming the other disenfranchised voters to join the case. 

In the claim, the group cites two Wisconsin Supreme Court cases that it says allow it to sue for damages, even if what happened in Madison turns out to be a series of unintentional oversights. 

One of those cases was a judgment from 1866, in which the court ruled that government officers can be found liable for their actions in denying Black Wisconsin residents the right to vote, even if those actions are done without malice. The other is a 1916 finding that because a group of voters was entitled to vote, people depriving them of that right can be held liable for their disenfranchisement.

Claims like these typically move to lawsuits if they’re not resolved, and the city and county are unlikely to accept or negotiate the requested amount, likely prompting Law Forward to file suit this summer.

When voters seek monetary damages 

Why ask for money on behalf of the voters? Thompson said it’s because there’s nothing else to ask for besides money and a finding of the city’s wrongdoing. It was too late, he said, to give the voters back the right they had been deprived of: the right to vote and have their ballots counted in the November 2024 election.

Thompson said attorney-client privilege prevented him from disclosing how the group arrived at the $175,000 figure for each voter. Wisconsin law currently caps damages against government officials at $50,000. Thompson said a secondary goal of the forthcoming lawsuit is to have a court find that law unconstitutional and allow groups to seek larger damages. 

Voter lawsuits seeking monetary damages were never very common, but there were instances in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, typically tied to racial discrimination, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division. 

The most prominent cases of this kind were in Texas, where between the 1920s and 1940s Black voters who were barred from voting in Democratic primaries because of their race sometimes sued for damages in court, Levitt said.

In those cases, Black voters were designed to be left out of the voting process. In Madison, by contrast, it appears at this point that a series of mistakes — not malice or intent — led to these ballots getting lost initially.

But Thompson cautioned against coming to conclusions about why the Madison ballots didn’t ultimately get counted.

“It is too early for anyone, I think, to say with certainty exactly what happened and why it happened here,” he said. 

Lawsuits seeking damages against government officials face two significant challenges, said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law: First, courts usually look for something more egregious than negligence, such as malicious intent. Second, he said, a number of legal doctrines usually give government officials a raised level of immunity. 

He said he couldn’t think of any cases of this kind, where voters deprived of their right to vote successfully sued election officials for damages, since the 1960s.

Clerks question monetary penalty for errors

If the city accepts the claim or a court does award damages, it could have a financial impact of millions of dollars and would send a signal across the state.

“It’s not normal for this quantity of ballots to go uncounted, and I think everybody recognizes that that’s not normal,” Levitt said. “If this case succeeded, it would substantially increase the stakes of an error like that.”

But Madison’s errors stand out as unusually serious, said Wood County Clerk Trent Miner, a Republican. He said he thinks that Law Forward’s claim proposes too high a penalty, but that it shouldn’t make clerks fear the prospect of penalties for the far less consequential errors that they encounter from time to time.

“Humans run elections, so errors will happen,” he said. “This, I think, pole vaults over a minor error.”

Kono, the Burnside clerk, pointed out that the initial error of not counting the ballots at the polling sites was at the hands of the poll workers at the Madison polling sites who never opened or processed the 193 ballots.

“If you’re relying on unpaid or low-paid, glorified volunteers, essentially, what is the liability?” she said.

Even if the court doesn’t ultimately award monetary damages, the discovery phase of the expected lawsuit — where the two sides must share evidence — could significantly increase transparency around Madison’s ballot-counting errors, Thompson said. This process would likely place additional pressure on Madison and Dane County to fully disclose information beyond what has already emerged from ongoing city and state investigations.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Madison’s missing-ballot mess leads to an unusual claim for monetary damages is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then dominated by conservatives, banned the ballot drop boxes that had been used for decades but became especially popular during the pandemic. Then, in 2024, after an election shifted its majority to liberals, the court reversed itself and made drop boxes legal again.

Yet the number of drop boxes available to voters around the state has dwindled. The flip-flopping rulings from a court that’s supposed to serve as the last word on Wisconsin law made many election administrators wary of offering drop boxes at all. So a state that once had nearly 600 drop boxes now has just a few dozen, largely clustered around Madison and Milwaukee.

It’s an example of how ideological swings on Wisconsin’s highest court and an influx of lawsuits in all Wisconsin courts are roiling parts of the state’s election law and complicating the work of local election administrators, with a real impact on voters. 

The court also reversed itself in 2023, when under liberal control it ruled that legislative maps chosen by the court in 2022, then under conservative control, were unconstitutional. That forced county clerks across the state to redraw their districts just months before an election.

And in a recent opinion about the tenure of political employees, liberal justices were explicit about their willingness to overturn more precedent-setting cases.

As a swing state with routinely close elections, Wisconsin was already a key battleground for fights over election law issues, but because of the state’s divided, gridlocked government — Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-controlled Legislature have been at loggerheads since 2019 — more of those fights are ending up in court, with some high-profile cases before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  

The court only rarely revisits past decisions, but those few instances have emboldened activists to initiate still more legal challenges. A case currently before the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeks to undo a law that gutted collective bargaining for most public employees — a law the court previously upheld under a conservative majority.

With another Supreme Court election approaching April 1, the court’s balance of power is once again at stake. That means its positions on voting rights and political appointments could shift yet again from where they were just a few months earlier. 

How legal experts view the court’s instability

Law experts say that the high court doesn’t often reverse itself on cases involving election administration and that some shifting is natural in a state where voters choose Supreme Court justices. 

Stability is a critical value in the law, said Chad Oldfather, a constitutional law professor at Marquette University. But there are other values that conflict with stability, he said, such as — in the case of redistricting — ensuring laws are constitutional.

But the recent instances, the experts say, reflect the increasing number of election issues being settled by the courts.

“This is a national problem, but we experience it disproportionately in Wisconsin because our elections are so close,” said Jeff Mandell, founder of the liberal law firm Law Forward and one of the state’s most prominent election attorneys.

Ultimately, the more intense fights over election law are a sign of changing political tactics, said Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University. Political parties that once focused more on messaging and mobilization have gotten better at identifying how different voting rules can affect their turnout, so “election law generally has become more partisan.” 

“What’s more, I think judges have become more partisan, in terms of the spread between them ideologically and the way that they’ve applied their kind of philosophy to election rules,” he said. 

Clerks and election workers feel the impact

For election officials, the growing volume of lawsuits often makes the job harder. Courts take time to rule on cases, but once they rule, clerks have to move quickly to ensure compliance with new rules in time for the coming election. 

In the past that has meant clerks — many of whom have part-time positions and whose roles extend far beyond just running elections — had only a few weeks before an election to remove drop boxes and change procedures to stop filling in missing information on voters’ absentee ballot envelopes.

It’s especially challenging in a state like Wisconsin, where elections are run at the municipal level, said Sun Prairie Clerk Elena Hilby. “It’s not like you can tell this core group of 50 people, ‘This is how the law changed.’ You have to tell a core group of 1,850 people that it’s changed, and they need to change their ways.”

Hilby says she and other clerks hear the frustration from voters.

“They’re like, ‘What are you guys doing?’ And we’re like, ‘Well, it’s not us,’” she said. “And most of them know that, but just as it’s confusing for the voters, it’s confusing for us.”

Litigation can sometimes clarify murky election laws, Rock County Clerk Lisa Tollefson told Votebeat, but the frequency of lawsuits makes coordination difficult. It is her responsibility to communicate changes in the law to all of the county’s 29 clerks. Those municipal clerks then have to relay those changes to their election inspectors — some of whom work part time every few years. 

How the court cast a cloud over drop boxes

The drop box cases illustrate how the court’s inconsistency can undermine the effect of its rulings.

Drop boxes had been used widely across the state for decades, but their use grew significantly during the 2020 election, as voters sought a safer method for returning ballots amid the peak of COVID-19.

After the then-conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court banned drop boxes in July 2022 — ruling that voters had to return their ballots directly to the clerk — clerks had to adjust to the ruling quickly. A lower court had already ruled drop boxes illegal in January 2022, just weeks before a primary election, but the high court ruling made clear to clerks that their drop boxes couldn’t be used for ballots anytime soon. 

But it wasn’t as simple as removing or sealing off the drop boxes. Some Wisconsin municipalities used the same boxes for utility payments, which they wanted to continue collecting that way. So they had to put new instructions on the boxes that superseded the instructions included with the ballot.

Still, in some cases, voters kept returning their ballots to those drop boxes. Sometimes, clerks would return those ballots to the voter, only to have the voter hand it right back. In other cases, the ballot didn’t count at all. Voters who might have followed the procedure they had used in previous elections suddenly stood to lose their vote.

After liberals gained control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a lawsuit successfully challenged the ban, leading to the reinstatement of drop boxes in 2024 — again, in July, just weeks before a primary election. Municipalities had to move quickly to make decisions about whether and how to make them available for the August and November elections. 

Some municipalities decided not to use drop boxes due to cost concerns and a belief that they were mainly useful during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In other places, the drop boxes returned, but with evidence of lingering suspicions from the legal arguments that led to the 2022 ban. Clerks had to take extra steps to reassure voters that the drop boxes were secure and not vulnerable to fraud. There would be fewer of them, and access would be limited. In Wausau, Mayor Doug Diny unilaterally removed the drop box against legal advice, leading to an ongoing local ethics probe and state criminal investigation into his conduct.

Despite being reversed, the court’s ban of drop boxes in 2022 has contributed to a persistent narrative that drop boxes aren’t an acceptable way to return ballots, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.

Court opens the door to more challenges

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s position on the state’s legislative maps has also swung back and forth, creating problems for election officials and voters and contributing to the perception that the court’s position is driven by partisanship.

In 2022, after the governor and Legislature couldn’t agree on a set of legislative district maps, the court chose boundaries that all but ensured significant GOP majorities in the statehouse.  After liberals took control in 2023, the justices struck down the Republican-drawn maps as unconstitutional, ordering the creation of new politically neutral maps. 

After those new maps were enacted in February 2024, six months ahead of the August legislative primary, clerks had to rearrange their voters, again, into new wards and districts — work that typically takes place once a decade. Mistakes were rare but consequential: In a couple of cases, clerks initially drew some voters into the wrong legislative districts, and in the northern town of Summit, voters showed up during the August 2024 primary to find that their ballots had the candidates for the wrong Assembly district. Ultimately, 188 voters were unable to vote for the candidates who would represent them. 

Under liberal control, the court has also expressed a willingness to reverse more of its previous rulings. 

In allowing Wisconsin’s chief election official, Meagan Wolfe, to remain in office past her term, the justices relied on a 2022 ruling by the then-conservative-led court that permitted other political appointees to stay on after their terms expired. But liberal Justice Jill Karofsky, in a concurring opinion joined by two other liberals, said “it may behoove” the court to overturn that same decision. That comment prompted conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley to suggest that the liberal majority didn’t respect precedent.

Such an apparent invitation to overturn precedent is somewhat common in the U.S. Supreme Court but far rarer in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Mandell of Law Forward said.

Mandell sees the potential risks of that pattern but said the volume of election litigation is unlikely to ease anytime soon. He is one of the state’s most prolific election lawyers, frequently arguing before all sorts of state courts and the Wisconsin Elections Commission on behalf of clients seeking to expand voting access.

“I get it, I’m part of the problem. We would be better off with less of this election litigation,” he said. But if people advocating for wider voting access stop fighting these cases, he said, the other side will have the unilateral ability to shift policies. 

“It’s not quite clear what the path out of this is,” he said, “or where we’re going to get some kind of rational, deliberative process that tries to fill these holes and bring our election code up to speed.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Why more of Wisconsin’s election law disputes are ending up in court is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A behind-the-scenes legal effort to force Congress to call a convention to amend the Constitution could end up helping President Donald Trump in his push to expand presidential power.

While the convention effort is focused on the national debt, legal experts say it could open the door to other changes, such as limiting who can be a U.S. citizen, allowing the president to overrule Congress’ spending decisions or even making it legal for Trump to run for a third term.

Wisconsin Watch and ProPublica have obtained a draft version of a proposed lawsuit being floated to attorneys general in several states, revealing new details about who’s involved and their efforts to advance legal arguments that liberal and conservative legal scholars alike have criticized, calling them “wild,” “completely illegitimate” and “deeply flawed.”

The endeavor predates Trump’s second term but carries new weight as several members of Trump’s inner circle and House Speaker Mike Johnson have previously expressed support for a convention to limit federal government spending and power.

Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a convention to propose and pass amendments if two-thirds of states, or 34, request one. This type of convention has never happened in U.S. history, and a decadeslong effort to advance a so-called balanced budget amendment, which would prohibit the government from running a deficit, has stalled at 28.

Despite that, the lawsuit being circulated claims that Congress must hold a convention now because the states reached the two-thirds threshold in 1979. To get there, these activists count various calls for a convention dating back to the late 1700s. Wisconsin’s petition, for example, was written in 1929 and was an effort to repeal Prohibition. The oldest petition they cite, from New York, predates the Bill of Rights. Some others came on the eve of the Civil War.

“It is absurd, on the face of it, that they could count something that had to do with Prohibition as a call for a constitutional convention in 2025,” said Russ Feingold, a former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who co-wrote a book critical of convention efforts like this one. “They’re just playing games to try to pretend that the founders of this country wanted you to be able to mix and match resolutions from all different times in American history.”

To avoid the threat of a convention, the legislatures in some states like Colorado and Illinois have passed resolutions withdrawing their petitions. The draft lawsuit says those actions don’t count because “once the Article V bell has been rung, it cannot be unrung.” Nearly half the states the draft counts have rescinded their petitions.

The draft lawsuit is the work of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, a low-profile nonprofit that has drawn support from balanced budget advocates and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The group’s chair, David M. Walker, oversaw government accountability as U.S. comptroller general during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The draft lawsuit is signed by Charles “Chuck” Cooper, a high-powered conservative lawyer in Washington, D.C., who represented Trump’s previous attorney general during the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Walker and his team have shopped the lawsuit to over a dozen state attorneys general and Republican-controlled legislatures seeking to find states to serve as plaintiffs, according to emails obtained through records requests, public testimony and interviews. Alongside ALEC’s CEO, they met with members of the Utah attorney general’s office in 2023, trying to recruit the state to take the lead, and planned to meet with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, emails show. Lawmakers in Utah, Arizona, South Carolina and West Virginia have sought to get their states to join the lawsuit.

Walker declined to confirm the authenticity of the draft complaint and wouldn’t say which states have signed onto the lawsuit. But it mirrors the legal arguments Walker and his group have made, and the document’s metadata shows Cooper’s firm authored it. Neither Cooper nor his firm returned repeated requests for comment. An ALEC spokesperson said the group has merely provided a “forum” to “exchange ideas.”

Walker said an attorney general’s office has written its own version with “modifications.” He said he hopes the states will announce their intent to sue within the next two months and file shortly after.

Walker and the draft complaint say the convention is necessary to confront the national debt and would be limited to discussing fiscal responsibility.

“Some people think that the convention would get together to basically rewrite the Constitution. That’s totally false,” Walker said. “That has nothing to do with what we’re proposing. Under Article V, it’s just a separate way to get an amendment to the existing constitution.”

Dozens of legal scholars and hundreds of civil society groups, organized by the government watchdog Common Cause, have warned that it would be exceedingly difficult to constrain a convention to just one idea and that calling one would expose the entire Constitution to revision. Some of them say the risk has grown under Trump.

“Nobody is observing any restraints on their power,” Georgetown law professor and convention critic David Super said. “If he continues to lose in the courts, one can imagine he will be trying to get a convention to adopt his view of presidential powers.”

Asked to respond, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly accused Wisconsin Watch of having “TDS” (Trump derangement syndrome) and being a “dark money” group. (Wisconsin Watch makes its donors public here.)

Sam Fieldman, of the campaign finance reform group Wolf-PAC, has individually worked with the foundation on the lawsuit. He said the process empowers states to check the federal government and change the Constitution if Congress fails to act.

“People who are claiming that this process will lead to tyranny are sitting here twiddling their thumbs while we are heading toward tyranny like a rocket right now,” Fieldman said.

‘Fuzzy math’ and a ‘time machine’

Throughout history, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, including to abolish slavery and provide women with the right to vote. An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. It then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states to become law.

The Constitution also offers another way: Congress can call a convention after two-thirds of state legislatures request one.

But Article V provides few other details. It does not say what constitutes a valid application or how to add them together to reach 34. Nor does it say how a convention should run. It does not enumerate specifics on delegates, such as who can serve and how states should select them, nor whether each state gets one vote or votes relative to population. And it does not specify whether a convention can be limited to specific issues.

As of now, the three-fourths ratification requirement still stands. Critics fear delegates could take the extreme step of lowering the threshold to make it easier for the amendments to pass, a scenario that proponents dismiss as “fear mongering.”

Fewer than half the states have laws or policies governing convention procedures. The majority of those would give state legislators, rather than voters, the ability to select delegates. They’d also permit each state one vote, according to a 2023 review by the Center for Media and Democracy, a progressive government watchdog.

The center obtained audio of former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at a private ALEC workshop saying that because “most states are going to be controlled by Republicans,” rural and Republican voters will have “an outsize granted power” in a convention.

“We have the opportunity as a result of that to have a supermajority,” he said, even though “we may not even be in an absolute majority when it comes to the people who agree with us.”

Santorum did not return emails seeking comment.

Over the years, people from across the political spectrum have attempted to call conventions for various topics, such as campaign finance reform and congressional term limits. None of the advocates have tried to use states’ old calls that didn’t specify a topic to reach the required 34.

But during a 2020 ALEC presentation, a balanced budget activist named David Biddulph debuted a new theory: By combining old resolutions that generally called for a convention with ones for a balanced budget amendment, the nation already surpassed the threshold.

Biddulph said he based his theory on a paper authored by Robert Natelson, a former law professor who focuses on Article V, and published by the Federalist Society in 2018. But Natelson’s paper did not claim the threshold had been reached, and in an interview, he said he disagrees with activists claiming otherwise.

During the presentation, moderated by former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Biddulph announced that his organization, which became the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation, was encouraging attorneys general to file suit against Congress.

Biddulph did not respond to repeated calls and emails seeking comment.

That same theory forms the basis of the draft lawsuit, which counts six petitions that called for a convention without stating a specific purpose alongside balanced budget ones to support their claim for a convention.

“They realize they will never get to 34 honestly now, so they are talking about a new math,” said Nancy MacLean, a historian whose book “Democracy in Chains” discusses the dangers of a convention. Some convention opponents, like Super, refer to this as the “fuzzy math” theory.

During a legislative hearing in Utah, Sharon Anderson, a conservative opponent of a convention, used a metaphor to criticize the counting method.

“A certain team, discouraged that they hadn’t scored the winning touchdown yet, devised a way to win the game,” Anderson said. “Instead of actually getting the ball into the end zone, they would basically add up all the yards they had gained until they totaled a distance needed to cross the goal line.”

But Natelson, a member of ALEC’s board of scholars who is cited repeatedly in the lawsuit, said if lawmakers had wanted to limit their calls to specific topics, they could have done so.

The second key part of the foundation’s legal argument is timing, which opponents like Super refer to as the “time machine” theory. Wisconsin passed a balanced budget amendment resolution in 2017, yet the draft instead includes the state’s Prohibition-era petition because it’s counting applications on the books between 1979 and 1998 — a period when the draft argues at least 34 existed.

Unmentioned, however, is that almost nobody during that period claimed that the nation had surpassed the threshold.

This is unlike recent debates over the Equal Rights Amendment, which would prohibit discrimination based on sex. Some argue that enough states have now approved the amendment, but the U.S. archivist declined to certify it because Congress explicitly set a deadline for ratification that states did not meet.

Getting states on board

Biddulph and others began to enlist state support in 2022 with an email that announced: “The historic milestone of 34 Article V state resolutions calling for an amendment convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) has finally been achieved, and surprisingly it happened over 40 years ago.”

The message, obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and provided to Wisconsin Watch and ProPublica, asked states to pass a resolution demanding Congress call a convention and directing the state’s legislature and attorney general to “take such actions as will require Congress’s compliance.”

Republican state lawmakers in Utah and South Carolina responded within days, introducing measures incorporating some of the proposed language.

“We have a tremendous opportunity as a state to deal with an issue that is a very serious and grave moment in our nation,” Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican who introduced the measure, said at a legislative hearing in February 2022. “It’s the power of the state to be able to deal with the excessive debt and the financial explosion and the swindling, as Thomas Jefferson said, the swindling of the future on a massive scale.”

Since the Utah hearing, Arizona and West Virginia have also introduced measures demanding Congress call a convention. West Virginia’s was the most explicit, resolving to “commence federal court action” against Congress, and advanced the furthest, passing the state House of Delegates before stalling in its Senate. So far, none of the resolutions has been adopted. West Virginia’s was reintroduced last month.

In February 2024, activists believed they were close to filing the lawsuit, emails obtained through a public records request show. The Senate presidents and House speakers in Utah and Arizona signed letters expressing their interest in joining a federal lawsuit against Congress to force a convention on fiscal issues.

In an email that was cc’d to the Arizona lawmaker who sponsored the state’s resolution, convention supporter Mike Kapic celebrated Utah’s and Arizona’s interest as a “win.”

“One more and UT says they’ll lead the filing in federal court,” Kapic wrote. “Then watch other states rush to file.”

It still hasn’t happened. The Arizona Legislature does not have standing to file a lawsuit on its own, a spokesperson for the state attorney general said, and the Democratic attorney general has not agreed to take the case.

A spokesperson for the Utah attorney general’s office declined to comment on whether the state had agreed to file the suit.

Ivory said by email that he is unaware whether Utah has any current plans to sue Congress. “New AG, New Congress, New President,” he wrote, adding that he believes “negotiations” may be taking place with Congress “with potential promising results,” but that he is not involved.

Alaska is the only state listed on the draft complaint, but the state attorney general’s office would not confirm whether it has joined.

In Congress, Texas Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington has also introduced resolutions to trigger a convention, including one he put forward last month. His office did not agree to an interview.

If Congress does call a convention, it would likely be up to delegates to keep it from creeping into other parts of the Constitution.

Historians generally agree that the 1787 constitutional convention itself was a runaway convention. Delegates met in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation, a process that required unanimity among states. Instead, they scrapped the entire document and drafted the Constitution, proposing a lower threshold for states to ratify amendments.

Mollie Simon of ProPublica contributed research.

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Wisconsin Watch. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

How a push to amend the Constitution could help Trump expand presidential power is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl has been placed on administrative leave at least through the April 1 election, as city and state officials continue to investigate how she and her staff lost track of nearly 200 ballots on Election Day last fall, the city announced Wednesday. 

Mike Haas, Madison’s city attorney, will take over her duties in the interim. Municipalities typically prefer not to make changes to election oversight so close to an election, but Haas, a former administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, is widely considered one of the state’s foremost experts on election law. It’s not clear when — or whether — Witzel-Behl will return to her post.

“Given the nature of the issues being investigated, we felt this was a necessary step to maintain public confidence in the operations of our clerk’s office,” Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said.

The scrutiny of Witzel-Behl follows a series of oversights that contributed to the mishandling of ballots during the 2024 election.

In its probe, the Wisconsin Elections Commission found that mistakes began well before Election Day. One involved the poll books showing the list of registered voters in each ward. For the two polling locations where 193 ballots went missing, Witzel-Behl’s office printed the poll books on Oct. 23, nearly two weeks before Election Day, despite commission guidance urging election officials to print poll books as close to the election as possible. 

If the poll books had been printed later, they would have automatically marked certain absentee voters’ ballots as having been returned, making it clearer to poll workers on Election Day that some ballots had been received but not counted. Instead, poll workers manually highlighted the poll books to indicate returned ballots — a method that Wisconsin Elections Commission staff warned could have made it less clear to city and county officials reviewing the election results that some ballots were still outstanding. 

“I am genuinely troubled by the number of profoundly bad decisions that are recited in these materials leading up to Election Day,” commission Chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, said in a meeting last week.

In that commission meeting, Jacobs also highlighted what she called an “absolutely shocking set of dates post-election, where every opportunity to fix this is ignored.”

In a statement to Votebeat, Jacobs said she wasn’t surprised by Witzel-Behl being placed on leave.

“We cannot have elections where properly cast ballots are not counted due to administrative errors,” she said. “City Attorney Michael Haas is to be commended for stepping in to manage the upcoming April 1 election with less than three weeks to prepare … I have every confidence he will do everything he can to restore trust in Madison’s elections.”

Clerk’s staff found the first batch of ballots — 68 in total — in a previously unopened courier bag in the clerk’s office on Nov. 12, while Dane County was in the middle of certifying the election. 

There are conflicting accounts of what happened next: An unidentified Madison election worker claimed that the county was informed about the ballots that day, but Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell has vehemently denied this. Either way, Witzel-Behl, who told Votebeat she was on vacation for much of the time following Election Day, didn’t follow up with the county, and those ballots were never counted. She also failed to immediately notify state or city officials outside the clerk’s office.

A second batch of 125 ballots was discovered in the clerk’s office on Dec. 3. However, staff didn’t relay that information to the Wisconsin Elections Commission until Dec. 18 — well after the state certified the election. The commission then notified Haas about the error, and Haas relayed the news to the mayor’s office — which is when both learned of the problem for the first time.

While Witzel-Behl has sought to address some of the issues, her office remains under scrutiny from the Madison mayor’s office, the state and now a civil claim seeking damages for the ballots that went uncounted. She has proposed procedural changes, including requiring clerk’s staff to verify all election materials received on Election Night and ensuring that each polling place receives a list of the absentee-ballot courier bags it handles to prevent any from being overlooked.

The April 1 election that Haas will oversee for Madison includes a pair of high-profile contests: a race for a pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court seat and a ballot question on whether the state’s photo ID requirement for voting should be enshrined in the constitution. Supreme Court elections typically draw a high turnout, especially in Madison. 

Haas said he expected a smooth election, despite the investigation.

“I am completely confident in the ability of the highly trained, incredibly competent professional staff at the Clerk’s Office to continue the operations of the office without interruption, including conducting the upcoming spring primary election,” Haas said. “I look forward to working with them to ensure a secure, transparent, and safe election.”  

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Madison puts city clerk on leave amid investigation into missing November ballots is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Madison city hall during the April 2020 spring election. (Henry Redman

The progressive voting rights-focused firm Law Forward filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Madison and Dane County Thursday over the 193 absentee ballots that city election workers lost and didn’t count during the 2024 election. 

The ballots were found in sealed courier bags after the Nov. 5 election and not counted even though the bags were discovered for the ballots to be added to the final vote tally. Law Forward staff said the lawsuit was filed because voters were denied their constitutional right to vote. 

“The goal of this lawsuit is to reinforce and strengthen the right to vote in Wisconsin law, the right to vote is absolutely fundamental in our democracy, the cornerstone of our entire system of governance,” Jeff Mandell, Law Forward’s general counsel, said at a news conference Thursday. “Law Forward exists to defend and advance democracy in Wisconsin, standing up for the right to vote, whenever and wherever it may be violated, is a key part of Law Forward’s mission. This lawsuit is not an attack on any individual municipality or election official. It is instead a necessary and important defense of the right to vote in Wisconsin.” 

Since discovering the mistake, the city has notified the public about the error and participated in an investigation into how it occurred. 

Dylan Brogan, spokesperson for Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, said the city couldn’t comment on the pending litigation, but that city officials have worked to make sure the mistake isn’t repeated.

“The City of Madison takes election integrity extremely seriously,” Brogan said. “Our Clerk’s Office has issued a public apology and reached out to affected voters directly to apologize for the failure to count their absentee ballot. They have also taken a number of steps to ensure this never happens again. Ahead of the February primary, election officials were trained on new safeguards and procedures for handling absentee ballots. Internal review of the incident is still underway, and additional steps may be taken. The City is also looking forward to any additional guidance the Wisconsin Election Commission may offer to further strengthen our elections processes.”

For now, Law Forward is representing four of the voters whose ballots went uncounted, but Mandell said the remaining 189 voters would have the ability to join the lawsuit if a judge allows the class action to move forward. The suit requests that damages totalling $175,000 be paid to each affected voter — which exceeds the $50,000 limit under state law for claims against municipalities. 

If all 193 voters participate and receive the full requested amount of damages, the city would be forced to pay more than $33.7 million for the error. 

“The truth is the right to vote is valuable, and I think that we are in an ecosystem where standing up for the right to vote matters,” Law Forward staff counsel Scott Thompson said. “Across the country, there have been efforts to subvert the right to vote, and we believe that this litigation sends a message to anyone who might seek to do something like that. In Wisconsin, there’s going to be a price to pay.”

At a meeting on Friday, the Wisconsin Elections Commission is set to hear an update on its investigation into the issue and how the ballots were lost. Among the actions it may take, the commission could decide to issue a statement to municipal clerks across the state reminding them of the best practices when handling absentee ballots.

What is a year of life behind bars worth for someone who didn’t commit a crime?

One standard in Wisconsin suggests it’s no more than $5,000.  

That’s the maximum compensation the state offers for each year of incarceration to those wrongfully convicted of crimes — capping payouts at $25,000 across all years, with rare exceptions. 

Of the 35 states with wrongful conviction compensation laws, Wisconsin is stingier than most. 

The state on average pays about $4,200 per year of wrongful incarceration to those who filed and received compensation, according to an analysis of data collected by the National Registry of Exonerations. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is not among the 19 states that offer additional non-monetary compensation for health care, education, counseling and re-entry into society. 

The federal government, by contrast, offers up $50,000 per year of incarceration to those wrongfully convicted in the federal system, or up to $100,000 per year for those who were on death row. 

“One can be so quickly wrongfully convicted but it takes years to recover,” Fred Saecker, who in 1996 was exonerated by DNA testing for a rape he didn’t commit seven years earlier, testified to a legislative committee in 2017. “When we are released, we are sent out to fail without resources, health care or opportunities.”

In rare cases, the Wisconsin Claims Board can recommend that the Legislature provide additional compensation to exonerees. 

Daryl Holloway in 2022 received $1 million plus $100,000 in attorneys’ fees for the 24 years he spent wrongfully convicted of sexual assault charges. Just two years later, Derrick Sanders was awarded the state maximum of $25,000 for 26 years he spent in prison.

Sanders, who in 1993 was wrongfully convicted of murder, had requested more than $5.7 million from the state, citing his innocence, lack of a criminal record at the time of his arrest and his honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy. Although the board recognized “clear and convincing” evidence of his innocence, he was awarded a tiny fraction of that request. 

State Sen. LaTonya Johnson, D-Milwaukee, supported past legislation to boost the compensation maximum. She said the current limit falls short of what’s just or helpful to someone reentering society.

“You can’t take away somebody’s entire life and then say, ‘Here’s $25,000, go start over,’” she said. “What does that begin to cover?”

Jarrett Adams was denied compensation in 2009, two years after being released from prison. Adams was a teenager in 2000 when an all-white Jefferson County jury convicted him of sexual assault. A federal appeals court later vacated the conviction, citing insufficient evidence and ineffective counsel. But in denying his claim for compensation, the Wisconsin Claims Board wrote that he lacked “clear and convincing” evidence of his innocence.

Adams went on to earn a law degree and was part of the legal team that successfully argued for a new trial for Richard Beranek, who spent two decades in prison on rape, battery and burglary charges before being exonerated with the help of DNA evidence. 

Adams testified in 2015 in support of bipartisan legislation to change compensation practices.

Among other changes, the legislation would have raised the limit on compensation to $1 million for all years of wrongful incarceration while adding additional services to help exonerees reenter society. The legislation unanimously cleared the Assembly but died in the Senate.

“There are no programs designed to help those wrongfully convicted reenter society,” Adams wrote in his testimony. “However, those who are convicted and released from prison are afforded services by the state.”

Years have passed since the last such proposal in the Legislature. Johnson said she would back similar legislation if it returned, but Republican colleagues tell her they lack the appetite. 

In the past 20 years, 61 people have had convictions reversed in Wisconsin, collectively spending about 500 years imprisoned. Of that group, 27 applied for compensation, with 15 receiving some amount. 

In each denial, the claims board concluded that the wrongfully imprisoned person lacked “clear and convincing” evidence of innocence.

Johnson said she was “shocked” by such denials.

In denying Danny Wilber’s compensation claim following the 2022 reversal of a first-degree murder conviction that sent him to prison for 16 years, the claims board wrote that vacated judgments or exonerations based on legal technicalities such as ineffective counsel or unjust treatment in court do not necessarily prove innocence.

Wilber’s conviction was vacated because the extreme way he was shackled in court could have prejudiced the jury.  

Wisconsin law “does not provide compensation to individuals who simply establish that their convictions have been overturned, it provides compensation to individuals who establish their innocence by clear and convincing evidence,” the board wrote. 

The claims board is currently considering requests by Robert and David Bintz, who spent 24 years in prison for a murder in Green Bay that they didn’t commit. They seek about $2.1 million each.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

DataWatch: Wisconsin gives little compensation to wrongfully convicted is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

With years of continued gridlock between the Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic governor, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become the arbiter over some of the most heated election rule debates — from redistricting and drop boxes to the status of the state’s top election official. 

That’s what makes April’s Supreme Court election a race to watch. It features two candidates with a stark ideological divide, competing for the seat of a retiring liberal justice and the chance to secure a majority in the current 4-3 liberal court. And it could determine how voters cast ballots in elections for years to come.

Conservative Brad Schimel is a Waukesha County judge and former Republican attorney general. Liberal Susan Crawford is a Dane County judge and former assistant attorney general under a Democratic administration. While the court is technically nonpartisan, both candidates are running with the support of their respective state parties, with partisan politicians providing endorsements on both sides.

“We don’t know what cases are going to come forward or what the facts or the arguments would be,” said Barry Burden, a UW-Madison political science professor and founder of the Elections Research Center. “But Crawford versus Schimel being on the court does send it in a different ideological direction.”

There are several election-related disputes the new justice may help settle. Fights over electronic voting, Wisconsin’s membership in the multistate Electronic Registration Information Center, and election officials’ ability to access citizenship data are brewing in lower courts. 

More lawsuits may yet be filed if conservatives retake control of the court. Since liberals gained a majority in 2023, they have overseen a case that led the Legislature and governor to redraw the state’s previous Republican-drawn legislative maps in a way that didn’t give either party a built-in advantage. They also legalized drop boxes, which the conservative court banned in 2022.

A victory for Crawford would probably give liberals the final say on election issues for the next two years. That’s because the next two seats up for grabs — one in 2026 and one in 2027 — are both currently held by conservatives.

A Schimel victory would give conservatives the majority, but not as much security. One of the justices providing that majority would be Justice Brian Hagedorn, a sometimes swing voter whom Burden called “the least predictable justice.”

So a court with Schimel wouldn’t be “as reliably conservative as a 4-3 liberal majority would be reliably liberal,” Burden said.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court could have an outsized role in the coming years given the apparent willingness of President Donald Trump’s administration to defy some federal court orders, said Eileen Newcomer, voter education manager at the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. That dynamic could send more issues to state instead of federal court, Newcomer said.

One of the most crucial roles the winning candidate may have during his or her tenure is participating if the court settles disputes over election results. In 2020, the then-conservative court narrowly rejected Trump’s lawsuit to overturn that year’s presidential election, which he lost.

Two candidates diverge on election law

The clearest difference between the candidates on election law is their stance on requiring photo IDs for voting. Crawford was among the lawyers to represent the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network in its challenge to the requirement soon after it became law in 2011. She later called the law “draconian.” 

Schimel, on the other hand, said the requirement kept Wisconsin elections secure, crediting the law for President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory in the state. Schimel’s campaign has pointed out Crawford’s past opposition to the law.

Whoever wins may have a chance to weigh in on the photo ID issue.

The April ballot also has a question that could put the photo ID requirement in the state constitution.

If voters approve the question — which is likely given widespread support for the law and a muted campaign against the ballot measure — overturning the requirement would be all but impossible. Still, experts say, the court or Legislature may still be able to provide some exceptions to the requirement. That means the Supreme Court’s majority could decide just how broad those exceptions could be.

If voters elect Schimel and approve the measure, Burden said, the requirement would be secure. But if voters reject the proposal and elect Crawford, he added, “it’s very likely that some group brings a challenge to the voter ID law.”

Cases that the justices may weigh in on

One lawsuit that appears headed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court is over whether voters with disabilities should be allowed to receive, mark and return ballots electronically. Currently, that privilege is reserved for military and overseas voters. Voters with disabilities in Wisconsin allege that their lack of access to electronic voting violates their rights. 

Another issue that could come before the court is the legality of ballot drop boxes. The court under a conservative majority banned them in 2022, but liberals lifted the ban after they took over the court. A conservative group could bring a case seeking to ban them again if Schimel wins, Burden said.

“They seem very willing to entertain new arguments about the same issue,” Burden said.

Newcomer, from the League of Women Voters, said revisiting settled issues and reversing precedent a third time would “undermine people’s confidence in the court.”

Still more battles are taking place over noncitizen voting, an issue that Republicans are seeking to draw attention to, despite scant evidence that it actually happens in any widespread manner. As part of their campaign, Republicans have been seeking access to Department of Transportation data showing the citizenship status of registered voters. Much of the department’s information is outdated, but some conservatives have sued for access nonetheless to understand the scale of noncitizen voting in the battleground state.

“If that’s what conservatives want, they’re going to be dissatisfied,” Burden said. “But they might still go to the court and try to get some kind of relief or action if they feel like a bunch of officials around the state are not doing all they can to weed out noncitizens from the voting rolls.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

How the Wisconsin Supreme Court race could decide future of election law is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

On a 4-3 vote Tuesday the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission for not acting  against the city of Racine after the city used  mobile vans for in-person early voting in an election two years ago.

The ruling, written by Justice Jill Karofsky and concurred in by the three other members of the Court’s liberal majority, declared that the voter who brought the case lacked standing to demand a judicial review of the commission’s decision.

The case arose from a challenge to Racine’s use in the August 2022 primary election of a van that was sent around the city for early voting, also called in-person absentee voting, in the weeks before Election Day.

For the primary election that summer, Racine’s city clerk designated 22 early voting sites: City Hall and 21 other locations around the city. The clerk’s office dispatched a van with election equipment to those 21 sites for which notices were posted. Voters could obtain absentee ballots, vote and return their ballots to the vehicle.

On behalf of a Racine voter, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a right-wing law firm that has supported other challenges to local and state election practices, filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) charging that using the van for early voting violated state law.

The commission rejected the complaint, and WILL filed a petition in Racine County Circuit Court for judicial review of WEC’s decision. Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz ruled in January 2024 in WILL’s favor that the early voting van favored Democratic parts of the city and violated state law.

The judge held that the state law authorizing municipalities to establish alternate early voting locations applies to physical structures, not mobile vehicles. State law neither affirms nor prohibits mobile early voting sites, he wrote, but lacking “an express prohibition . . . does not mean mobile absentee ballot sites comport to procedures specified in the election laws.”

Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling sidesteps a direct interpretation of that question.

Karofsky wrote that the voter WILL represented lacked standing to take WEC to court over the issue.

State law authorizes an election official or a person who files a complaint “who is aggrieved” by a WEC order to take the matter to circuit court. Karofsky wrote that not everyone on the losing side of a WEC order is “aggrieved,” however, and that “to be aggrieved by a decision, one must have suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result of the decision.”

The plaintiff in the WILL lawsuit, Kenneth Brown, didn’t show he suffered or will suffer an injury, she wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley criticized the decision’s stipulation about the meaning of “aggrieved” as too narrow. Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Brian Hagedorn each concurred in part with Bradley’s dissent. 

When WEC dismisses a voter’s complaint without taking action, Bradley wrote, “the voter’s legal right is adversely affected — the voter is aggrieved — and the voter may challenge WEC’s decision in a court of law.”

Bradley also criticized the majority for treating standing too narrowly. Instead, she wrote, the ruling should have taken up the underlying issue on the legality of mobile in-person absentee voting sites in place of fixed buildings.

In a statement, Lucas Vebber, deputy counsel for WILL, said that while the circuit court “determined the election officials in Racine acted unlawfully in their conduct of an election,” the decision Tuesday “does not address those issues, rather it silences Wisconsinites who seek to challenge such unlawful action.”

Law Forward, the voting-rights focused group that defended Racine’s mobile voting before the Court, issued a statement praising the outcome but expressing surprise and disappointment that the decision didn’t address voter suppression tactics that the organization blamed for the original legal challenge.

“The Court was right to toss Mr. Brown’s lawsuit, which sought to restrict absentee voting in one of Wisconsin’s most diverse communities. But a standing deficiency was perhaps the least problematic aspect of Mr. Brown’s lawsuit, which openly targeted Racine’s efforts to make voting more accessible,” said Scott Thompson, Law Forward’s staff counsel.

“Mr. Brown’s suit attacked the right to vote and equal protection under the Wisconsin Constitution,” Thompson said. “Avoiding any comment on such fundamental civil rights issues does little to strengthen our shared democracy.”

This report has been updated with a comment issued by Law Forward that was received after publication.

Gov. Tony Evers this week will propose a significant overhaul of Wisconsin’s corrections system, pushing a plan that would close one of the state’s two oldest prisons, renovate the other and convert the state’s youth prison into a facility for adult men. 

The proposal, which totals just shy of $500 million, will be included in the governor’s budget proposal, which he will unveil on Tuesday night. The governor shared details of the plan with reporters Friday morning.

The “domino series of facility changes, improvements and modernization efforts,” as Evers described them, would take place between approval of the budget and 2031. The proposal is the solution to the state’s skyrocketing prison population, Evers said, adding there is “not an alternative to my plan that is safer, faster and cheaper.”

The first step would be building a facility for youth offenders in Dane County, allowing the state to close its current beleaguered juvenile prison complex in Irma, home to Lincoln Hills School for boys and Copper Lake School for girls. The cost would be $130.7 million.

Completing the juvenile Dane County facility would be the latest step in a years-long effort to shutter Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake. A similar facility opened in Racine County earlier this month, with another juvenile facility in Milwaukee poised to open next year. With the addition of the Dane County facility, the state would be able to move youth offenders out of Lincoln Hills in early 2029, according to the Evers administration.

The Lincoln County complex would then undergo $9 million in renovations to be converted into a 500-bed, medium-security institution for men.

Another key piece of Evers’ plan would be converting Stanley Correctional Institution into a maximum-security facility for $8.8 million. That would allow the state to renovate Waupun Correctional Institution, the state’s oldest facility, where at times inmates were confined to their cells for months and denied medical care, according to an investigation by Wisconsin Watch and The New York Times. Waupun staff also have faced criminal charges following the deaths of five inmates. 

The estimated $245 million renovation would involve demolishing the prison’s existing cell halls and replacing them with new, medium-security facilities known as a “vocational village” — the first in Wisconsin based on a model used in other states. The facility would be “designed to expand job and workforce training to help make sure folks can be stable, gainfully employed and can positively contribute to our communities when they are released,” Evers said.

Under the plan, the John Burke Correctional Center in Waupun would also be converted to a 300-bed facility for women “with little to no capital cost,” said Jared Hoy, secretary of the Department of Corrections.

Green Bay Correctional Institution, constructed in 1898, would close under the proposal sometime in spring 2029 at a cost of $6.3 million. Many have pushed for the closure of the prison due to overcrowding, poor conditions and staffing issues.

To compensate for the lost beds, the last project in the “domino” series would add 200 beds to Sanger B. Powers Correctional Center in Brown County.

The governor’s budget will guarantee Green Bay staffers a role at another DOC facility to account for the prison’s closure, the Evers administration said. The facility would likely then be sold, the governor told reporters.

In totality, the plan aims to avoid building a new prison in Wisconsin, which the governor’s administration estimates would cost $1.2 billion and take a decade to construct. Evers said Friday that he had not discussed the plan with Republican lawmakers, but implied he was slated to meet with them over the weekend.

The state’s adult institutions were locking up more than 23,000 people as of Feb. 7. That’s more than 5,000 above the design capacity of Wisconsin’s prisons and more than 3,000 above levels four years ago when COVID-19 actions shrunk prisoner ranks.

Justice reform advocates have argued that Wisconsin can’t substantially improve conditions without decarceration, including releasing more inmates and diverting others to programs rather than prisons. 

Other states — some led by Republicans and some by Democrats — have managed to close prisons by adopting rehabilitation-focused reforms that cut thousands from the population. 

The governor is also seeking some policy changes that could trim the population. For example, he wants to expand the capacity of the state’s existing earned release program for nonviolent offenders with less than 48 months remaining on their sentences, allowing more inmates to access vocational training and treatment for substance use disorders.

Evers noted there are 12,000 inmates on a waiting list to access vocational programming, and expanding the earned release program would likely make another 1,000 inmates eligible for the program.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Tony Evers to propose $500 million prison overhaul, closing Green Bay facility by 2029 is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Forcing county sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration officials or risk losing state funding. A tax cut for service industry worker cash tips. Banning “foreign adversaries” from owning Wisconsin farmland. The GOAT committee. 

The first few weeks of the Legislature’s new session have been dominated by ideas inspired, at least in part, by President Donald Trump, as Wisconsin Republicans bring ideas pushed in Washington to Madison.

The localization of Trump’s agenda — which helped the president secure a slim but significant victory in November — comes as Republican lawmakers continue to set the legislative agenda in Wisconsin.

But Democratic legislative leaders are pushing back on that agenda, unlike many of their counterparts at the national level.

“These are not serious proposals,” said Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine. “They are political; they are for the right-wing base. But they are simply not addressing the problems that the people of Wisconsin are facing.”

Immigration crackdown

Last week, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin, unveiled legislation to mandate cooperation between Wisconsin law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

The bill would require “sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals held in a county jail for an offense punishable as a felony,” according to analysis from the Legislative Reference Bureau. It also compels sheriffs to “comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal department of homeland security regarding individuals held in the county jail for a criminal offense.”

If a sheriff shrugs the law, the sheriff’s county would face a 15% cut in state aid in the following year, according to a draft of the bill. But the bill isn’t about targeting places like Dane and Milwaukee counties — where leaders have pledged not to cooperate with federal authorities — said Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, R-Lake Geneva. “It’s about just ensuring that every county is operating the same and that there isn’t a refuge for these violent criminals.”

While introducing the bill, flanked by two dozen of his GOP colleagues, Bradley said the legislation should garner bipartisan support, pointing to the Laken Riley Act — a similar crackdown on theft and violent crime committed by unauthorized immigrants — that received some Democratic support in Congress. It was the first bill signed into law under the new Trump administration.

“Only far-left extremists in this country believe that someone here illegally that commits a felony should be allowed to stay,” Bradley said.

No tax on tips 

State Sen. Andre Jacque, R-De Pere, is one of four Republican lawmakers circulating a bill that would eliminate taxes on cash tips earned by service workers — a proposal Trump heavily touted on the campaign trail. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, later announced support for the policy as well. 

Jacque and a group of bipartisan lawmakers last introduced the bill in 2019, but it never became law. He said it’s heavily favored by those in the hospitality industry.

Trump’s push to enact a similar policy at the federal level made this the ideal time to reintroduce the bill in Wisconsin, Jacque said.

“Having a federal administration that is putting some political capital towards making that part of the equation happen certainly adds a lot of fire to being ready to be aligned at the state level,” Jacque said.

In 2019, the bill, which only would have exempted cash tips from taxation, was estimated to reduce the state’s revenue by nearly $4.7 million annually. A fiscal estimate of the current bill has not yet been released. It would not exempt the majority of tips, which are left on a credit card. 

Banning ‘foreign adversaries’ from owning land

Another state bill introduced by Republicans last month would prevent “foreign adversaries” from “countries of concern” from acquiring forestry and agricultural land in the state. 

The legislation mimics Trump’s campaign promises in January 2023 to ban Chinese nationals from buying farmland and owning other “vital infrastructure,” citing national security concerns. Jacque, an author of the bill, said he wasn’t aware of Trump’s previous support for a similar proposal. 

Jacque introduced similar legislation in 2023 that never became law. He pointed to bipartisan congressional support for similar “foreign adversary” bills introduced at the federal level. It’s a “common-sense concern” that “resonates with the public,” Jacque said. 

GOAT Committee

The Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency Committee is new to the Assembly this legislative session. Like DOGE, the federal Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk, it’s named after a pop culture meme (GOAT is shorthand for greatest of all time; DOGE is named after a meme turned cryptocurrency).

The committee’s chair, Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, said the committee will work “to identify opportunities to increase state government efficiency and to decrease spending.” 

“The people of Wisconsin want to see their hard-earned tax dollars being spent on services that directly affect them, not on the expansion of programs that benefit only select groups of people,” she said in a written response to questions from Wisconsin Watch. “GOAT will investigate ways in which the state can reallocate revenues away from excessive wants and funnel them more into critical needs without increasing spending.”

One motivating factor for her 2022 Assembly run was “to bring my professional experience in process improvement to the public sector because so many glaring inefficiencies in state agencies were exposed during the pandemic,” Nedweski said, noting she wanted to improve “fiscal accountability” for the state long before DOGE was a concept.

The committee was created in response “to an outpouring of demand from the people,” Nedweski said, adding that “DOGE is making fiscal conservatism cool and accessible to more people.”

“The performance of state agencies under the current administration has often been subpar under this administration relative to the tax dollars invested,” she said. “If the (state) agencies are not going to take honest looks in the mirror as to how they can better serve Wisconsinites, GOAT will. Whether or not the Governor chooses to work with us is up to him.”

GOAT serves a different role than the Legislative Audit Bureau, Nedweski said, noting that a “top objective of GOAT is to be responsive to real people facing everyday challenges with state government.” 

While the committee may work with LAB and the Joint Audit Committee, “the function of GOAT will be less technical than Audit and more directly responsive to a wide range of stakeholder concerns,” she said.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Trump policies come to Wisconsin in first weeks of new session is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that the state’s chief election official, Meagan Wolfe, can stay in her job even though her term has expired, heading off a yearslong effort by some Republicans to oust her.

The court found that although Wolfe’s term expired in 2023, the Wisconsin Elections Commission had no duty to reappoint or replace her because her position isn’t vacant. The decision relied largely on a 2022 precedent that continues to bitterly divide justices.

“I am thrilled because Meagan Wolfe is an outstanding administrator and we are lucky to have her at the helm of the agency,” said Ann Jacobs, the chair of the election commission and a Democrat.

After the ruling, Wolfe said she was “excited to continue to work with elections officials around the state” and praised clerks for the work they do.

What was the dispute?

Wolfe became the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s administrator in 2018 after working for the agency and its predecessor in other roles and has been a holdover appointee since the summer of 2023. She is considered one of the most respected — and scrutinized — election officials nationwide, but she became a Republican target after President Donald Trump lost Wisconsin in the 2020 election and took heat for the commission’s decisions in administering that election. 

The case focuses not on Wolfe’s performance as administrator, but rather on the legality of appointees staying on after their terms expire. 

Wolfe’s four-year term expired in July 2023, and the Republican-led state Senate appeared poised to reject her confirmation if the Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted to reappoint her. All three Republicans on the commission voted to reappoint Wolfe, but the Democratic commissioners abstained from the vote. They cited a 2022 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling stating that appointees can stay in their roles past the end of their terms. That meant Wolfe wasn’t formally reappointed and therefore not subject to another Senate confirmation proceeding. Still, Senate leaders took a vote to fire her.

Who were the plaintiffs and defendants? 

After the Senate voted to fire her, Wolfe and the Wisconsin Elections Commission sued Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, a Republican who pushed for the ouster. The lawsuit, first filed in Dane County Circuit Court, also names former Senate President Chris Kapenga and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, both Republicans, as defendants.

What were they asking for? 

Wolfe and the commission asked the court to declare that she was properly continuing in her role and that the commission didn’t have to appoint an administrator just because her term had expired. Republicans asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require the commission to appoint an administrator, a move that could have led to Wolfe’s ouster. 

“WEC does not have a duty to appoint a new administrator to replace Wolfe simply because her term has ended,” conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said.

What happens now? 

The decision means Wolfe can stay on until the commission chooses to reappoint her or appoint somebody else, or until she chooses to leave.

After the 2024 election, Wolfe told Votebeat that she has “no immediate plans to leave” if she wins this case and continues having commissioners’ approval. She said she would reconsider that if her position makes it harder for the commission to operate or receive state financial support in the upcoming budget.

In a concurring opinion Friday, three liberal Supreme Court justices signaled that they’re open to reviewing the 2022 case that was the basis for the ruling. In that case, the court had a conservative majority and ruled that appointees can legally stay in office past the expiration of their terms until the state Senate confirms a successor. At that time, the court’s liberal justices dissented.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Meagan Wolfe can stay on as Wisconsin’s top election official, state Supreme Court rules is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Overshadowed by the state Supreme Court race, the Feb. 18 primary for Wisconsin’s top education official could significantly affect the future of K-12 schools but lacks a candidate with a traditionally conservative background — despite Republican sentiment that voters are trending rightward on education issues.

Three candidates are jostling to be state superintendent of public instruction. Incumbent Jill Underly, who was elected in a landslide four years ago, is seeking a second term in the job. She faces two challengers: Jeff Wright, superintendent of the Sauk Prairie School District, and Brittany Kinser, an education consultant from Milwaukee. The top two vote getters on Feb. 18 will advance to the April 1 general election. 

The superintendent leads the state Department of Public Instruction, serving as Wisconsin’s top education official. A constitutional officer, the superintendent has uniquely broad authority: Wisconsin is the only state that elects its top education official but lacks a state board of education, according to the conservative Badger Institute. That means whoever leads the department “reports to nobody except the voters every four years.”

Underly drew fire after DPI last summer changed the threshold for what is considered proficient performance on state tests. Republican lawmakers and her opponents accused her of “lowering” standards. She stood by the changes in an interview, arguing they better reflect what students are learning in Wisconsin classrooms. 

Underly has the backing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and wants to continue being “the number one advocate for public education in Wisconsin,” she said. To do so, she said she’ll continue to “set the standard” on issues like funding — DPI requested a $4 billion boost in state aid in the state’s next budget — because “this is what our public schools need.” 

The state also needs a seasoned leader to grapple with the wave of changes coming out of Washington, Underly argued. “Do (voters) want somebody who has been proven to be able to manage this work?” she said. “Or do they want somebody to come in (that) has no idea what they’re doing and have to build a team and then meanwhile we’re getting bombarded with all these actions from the federal government?”

“I think that there’s something to be said for a strong incumbent and continuity,” Underly said.

Unusually, she faces a challenger from both sides.

Wright, who hails from battleground Sauk County and has twice run for the state Assembly as a Democrat, is stressing his ability to work with both parties. The political action committee of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, has recommended supporting Wright, though it has stopped short of a full endorsement. “I don’t have a political establishment with me,” he told CBS58. “But I have a lot of the state’s educators with me.” 

Wright’s campaign didn’t respond to multiple requests to schedule an interview for this story.

Kinser, meanwhile, is touting her support for school choice programs as she tacks to the right. She has worked as a special education teacher in Chicago during the early 2000s and the principal of a public charter school in Milwaukee and, until January 2024, served as CEO of Milwaukee education nonprofit City Forward Collective. 

She has previously called herself a “Blue Dog Democrat” and donated to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s 2024 reelection campaign. But last week, she described herself on “The Benjamin Yount Show” as a moderate. “It shouldn’t matter what party we’re in,” she said. “We need to be focusing on teaching our kids how to read, write and do math.” Kinser’s campaign also did not make her available for an interview.

But how can the race lack a clear conservative candidate in 2025 — especially as Republicans feel like voters are trending toward them on education issues? 

The simplest explanation: the stakes of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, one conservative education reform advocate told Wisconsin Watch.

Recruiting a high-quality candidate to run for statewide office without guarantees of financial support is challenging, said the advocate, who works closely with policymakers and was granted anonymity to offer a candid evaluation of the race. And with the outcome of the court race determining ideological control of the court, Republican donors are focusing their resources elsewhere.

More clear-cut conservative-aligned candidates, like Deb Kerr in 2021 and Lowell Holtz in 2017, have been on the ballot in past cycles. But just because the race lacks a prototypical conservative doesn’t mean conservatives are giving up on it. 

Kinser herself has been running to the right as the campaign has picked up. She addressed Republican Party chapters throughout the state and, more recently, on at least two occasions spoke at events alongside conservative state Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel. That could help give her the political base she needs to advance from the primary, the advocate said. 

“If you’re talking about a three-person primary and there’s two lanes, and Underly and Wright are basically fighting over one of the lanes and the other lane is wide open, it makes sense to me to go talk to as many people as you can,” the advocate added.

And just because Kinser isn’t a traditional conservative candidate doesn’t mean she can’t appeal to conservatives, said CJ Szafir, CEO of the Institute for Reforming Government, a conservative think tank. He added that she “is right on all the issues and she’s aligned with conservatives and the conservative base.

“I don’t think there’s any real daylight between what conservatives want in the DPI and what Brittany wants to do at the DPI,” he said. “Brittany’s the one candidate that … is very focused on being pro-child, focused on the core issues and how to overhaul the DPI to better address the concerns of parents.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Race for Wisconsin education chief lacks traditional conservative candidate is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Five years ago, Mike Crowley lacked the courage to serve as a living kidney donor for family — let alone for an absolute stranger, he said.

But on Jan. 8, Crowley — a Waukesha County supervisor and CEO of the National Kidney Foundation of Wisconsin — had surgery to do just that, a decision he now sees as decades in the making.

That’s due to his personal and professional experiences. Twenty-six years ago, his then-2-year-old son was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, often called juvenile diabetes, a condition in which the pancreas makes little or no insulin. If left untreated, it can cause a range of complications, including damage to the kidneys or other organs. 

While his son’s case was found early and he continues to receive treatment, many people with diabetes don’t see such outcomes. People with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes make up over a quarter of those waiting for an organ transplant in Wisconsin. People needing a kidney account for nearly 80% of those on the transplant list.

When Crowley took the helm of the National Kidney Foundation of Wisconsin, he gradually learned much more about kidney disease, including connections to diabetes. And last March, he visited three dialysis clinics in Wisconsin to distribute care bags to patients.

“I cried when I got back to my truck after doing the delivery at each one because what I saw was hopelessness,” Crowley said. “They need a kidney, they’re most likely not going to get a kidney transplant in their lifetime.”

Last year 43 people in Wisconsin died while waiting for a kidney transplant. Another 65 became too sick to receive a transplant.

Crowley wanted to be a part of the solution. He knew he was healthy enough to do so. On his 60th birthday last August, he rode his bicycle 102 miles from Wisconsin to Iowa in less than eight hours as part of a fundraiser for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. When he crossed the finish line, he looked at the Mississippi River and wept as he reflected on how amazing he felt after the grueling ride. If he could pass the strict medical, social, mental health and financial assessments, “why wouldn’t I be a kidney donor?”

Two days later, he logged onto a UW Health portal and began the process. After four months of extensive testing, he was approved to be an altruistic kidney donor, meaning he would donate to a stranger on the transplant list. 

“You don’t need to be a match to anybody in your immediate family or a friend,” he said, calling the decision “the best thing I’ve ever done in my life.”

“Obviously, having kids, getting married, buying a house, those are all, you know, great experiences,” he said. “But this takes the cake.”

Phil Witkiewicz was placed on the transplant list a decade after being diagnosed with a rare liver disease. He had long managed the symptoms with liver stents, but he became nearly bedridden when they stopped working. That flipped his family’s life upside down, his wife Emily said.

Witkiewicz was just 43 when added to the transplant list last July. 

Most people needing an organ transplant in Wisconsin are 50 or older, although those waiting for pancreatic transplants or dual pancreas and kidney transplants are usually younger.

Witkiewicz was called in twice for a potential transplant, only to find that the donated liver wasn’t viable.

But through those disappointments, Witkiewicz and his wife Emily held out hope that one of their friends could donate. The friend passed a battery of blood tests, MRIs and dental screenings only to discover his liver was 3% too small to donate. 

“That was like the ultimate blow,” Emily said.

Last December, almost five months after being put on the transplant list, Phil finally received a liver from someone who had died, flipping life back to a new normal. Witkiewicz still undergoes routine blood testing and takes numerous medications to prevent infections and keep his body from rejecting the organ, but he’s just happy to be alive.

Emily said she recognizes the duality of her husband’s relief: What was the best day of his life was the end of someone else’s. Emily is registered to be an organ donor, as is her 16-year-old son. Wisconsin residents can register when getting their driver’s license or through the Wisconsin Donor Registry.

“Seeing what it did for my husband, and knowing somebody’s sick in bed waiting for an organ and my tragedy could turn into somebody’s best day,” she said, “that would be worth it.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

DataWatch: Many die awaiting kidney transplants in Wisconsin, so this man donated his is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

The vast majority of America’s local election administrators would not encourage their children to do the same job, and a shrinking share of them say they would be proud to tell others about their work.

The findings come from a survey conducted every federal election year by the Elections & Voting Information Center, an academic research group. While it contains small bright spots — election administrators largely find the job personally rewarding, for example — the number willing to encourage their children to follow in their footsteps has decreased by nearly half in the past two election cycles. In 2020, 41% said they would do so. In 2024, that number dropped to 22%.

The full survey results will be released next week. The survey was fielded from early August to late October.

The negative outlook on election work continues a trend researchers say they began observing in 2020, when increasing scrutiny, threats and misinformation fanned by supporters of President Donald Trump began reshaping the profession. Public confidence in elections hit new highs after the November 2024 presidential election — which had a clear outcome despite narrow margins — but election administrators are still pessimistic.

“There are still a lot of cracks in the system, and if things had been closer we would have seen a different reaction,” said Paul Manson, EVIC research director and research assistant professor at Portland State University in Oregon. “Job satisfaction hasn’t gone up — underneath the hood, the people who run elections are still nervous.”

Many election administrators and experts believe the public’s increased confidence in elections is fragile and would look different if Trump had lost again, if the election had been closer or if the results had been contested as they were in 2020. After a grueling few years, the survey found, the administrators remain on edge, a finding that could affect whether communities around the country can find qualified candidates for critical election administration positions.

Survey finds a mix of pride and frustration

Paul Gronke, EVIC director and professor of political science at Reed College, said the center began conducting the survey in 2018, hoping to learn more about the field and the people in it, rather than just about how Americans were casting ballots. Until that point, said Gronke, surveys treated “administrators as if they were just cogs in a system.”

In 2020, as the pandemic worsened and Trump intensified false rhetoric against election officials, the survey became a valuable window for political scientists and the media into how election administrators experienced that shift, said Gronke.

Gronke and Manson say they’ve uncovered a strikingly complex picture over the years.

While election administrators express confidence in their own abilities and say they personally enjoy the work, they struggle to leave their problems at the office.

“While many of us in election administration view our jobs as incredibly important, and we value the choices we have made in our lives, we look at the wasteland that is our lives and we think, ‘We wouldn’t want this for our kids,’ because election administration is so hard,” Judd Choate, Colorado’s election director, told Votebeat.

Choate — who teaches in the election administration program at the University of Minnesota and has helped craft questions for the survey over the years — said his own 17-year-old daughter has become more interested in elections, but still has no interest in doing the same job.

“I’m perfectly fine with that,” he said. “Please, become a doctor. Become a lawyer. Be a mathematician. Don’t do this. One hundred percent, that is the way I view this job.”

Training sessions feel ‘like group therapy’

Melissa Kono is the part-time clerk for Burnside, a 500-person town in western Wisconsin. There, clerks are elected members of the town board. It’s a part-time job, paying only $6,000 a year. Kono is also a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she teaches courses on community resource development.

For her, the combination makes sense — her professorship pays the bills, and the two jobs align nicely. As part of her work for the university, she travels around the state training other election administrators. But she understands that for many others, the bad is starting to outweigh the good.

“The pandemic and the volume of absentee ballot requests coupled with unnecessary criticism is what has led to this fatigue — just saying, ‘I’m done with this,’” she told Votebeat. “People who I never thought would give up have left their positions because of the pressure and criticism and dealing with irrational people.”

All of the anxiety and pressure have led some of her training sessions to feel “like group therapy,” she said.

The survey also shows that election officials in small counties and large counties have very different experiences. In less-populated areas, officials are far more likely to focus on elections for only a small part of the year, while large cities and counties typically have full-time staff dedicated only to elections. Rural areas also have less of a problem recruiting poll workers.

Perhaps the most striking difference is the impact of the spread of false information. Only about 20% of administrators in jurisdictions of under 5,000 voters reported that misinformation was a serious problem. In jurisdictions of more than 100,000 voters, nearly half report that it is.

Kono said that because Burnside, Wisconsin, has so few voters, they are provided “white glove” service. She can interact individually with anyone who is experiencing a problem — whether that’s cynicism over election integrity or a missing absentee ballot.

“In a rural area, we have the advantage of knowing our neighbors,” she said.

By contrast, Heider Garcia in Dallas County, Texas, oversees voting for more than 1.4 million people. He is paid well for his job, which focuses entirely on voting and elections. His ability to pay his full-time staff a livable wage also makes it easier for him to attract candidates from other fields, which medium and small jurisdictions struggle to do.

Finding the right people for election work is difficult

Still, across the board, election administrators say that hiring qualified, full-time staff is difficult. As Gronke and Manson have done follow-up interviews with some of the respondents, they learned that low pay, high stress and intense scrutiny were the barriers.

“We had one election official say they couldn’t compete with In-N-Out Burger on pay,” said Manson. “Administrators want to communicate that this is a long-term job with good benefits, but so are other county jobs. And they do not come with as much scrutiny or criticism.”

Critically, more than 40% of election administrators say that job applicants have little to no experience in elections, and more than a quarter say that applicants lack the practical skills to do the work. That isn’t surprising in such a niche sector.

“Nobody goes to election school. Nobody says, when they are in high school, ‘Oh, when I graduate I want to go here and study to be an election administrator,’” he said. “It’s more about having the right skills, and then the job comes up.”

Garcia said that people who have experience in event planning or who have run a business tend to have transferable skills. In his previous job, in neighboring Tarrant County, his deputy elections administrator was a former Marine.

“You can learn the business if you have the right skills,” he said. The problem, though, is that the number of necessary skills continues to expand. “We joke. Like, you have to be a lawyer, an IT person, a spokesperson, a negotiator, and an event planner.”

In recent years, the availability of training has improved. The University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Policy — where Choate teaches — offers a certificate in election administration, for example. Choate hopes the industry will start proactively reaching out to more people to attract them to these programs and to the field itself.

Choate said the EVIC report (and others like it) “demonstrate the need for an aggressive program to create education opportunities for young people, people in college and people trying to get into a second career … that set them up for success in the world of election administration.”

Why medium-size jurisdictions struggle

Manson said one thing that stands out to him every year is the struggle medium-size counties experience. “Small counties don’t have that many ballots, and large counties have far more resources,” said Manson. They can usually muscle through, he said.

But for the medium-size, often suburban counties, “it’s like reverse Goldilocks,” he said. Demands are growing as population grows, but resources aren’t necessarily coming in as fast: The buildings are frequently too small, and there is almost never enough staff.

A few markers have been consistent since EVIC began the survey in 2018. Most notably, the demographics of full-time staff. Eighty-eight percent say that they are white, far higher than in the population at large. This number is consistent across jurisdiction size. Just under 85% of respondents to the survey were women (though this number is significantly smaller — just under 50% — for larger jurisdictions).

Gronke and Manson say the job of clerk has historically been popular among women because it used to be a quiet job that allowed you to balance the demands of family and work. The nature of the work is also viewed through a gendered lens. Kono said she and other clerks are often treated “just as the secretary, or just the person who takes the minutes.”

“Yeah, I wish I just took the minutes,” she said. “That is the easiest part of the job.”

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Huseman at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat’s newsletters here.

Job satisfaction among election administrators continues to sink, survey shows is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Democrats on Saturday will gather just outside Washington to take an early step in their journey out of the political wilderness: electing their party’s next national chair.

Among the candidates vying to lead the Democratic National Committee is Wisconsin’s Ben Wikler, who has served as chair of the state Democratic Party since 2019. His fiercest competition to lead the national Democratic Party comes from Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chair Ken Martin and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. The three have sparred in recent days over who is leading the race to secure a majority of votes from the DNC’s 448 voting members.

Wikler’s camp declined Monday morning to share an updated whip count with Wisconsin Watch. As of Friday afternoon, he said 151 voting DNC members were backing his bid. The Martin and O’Malley camps did not respond to questions about updated whip counts, but Martin said last week he had the backing of 200 members. Both Wikler and O’Malley questioned that number, with a Wikler spokesperson calling it “inflated.”

The first candidate to secure 225 votes on Saturday will serve as Democrats’ next national chair. If no candidate reaches that threshold during the first round of voting, the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated, and members will cast another ballot, repeating the process until a chair is selected.

Wikler’s time as head of the state party has been, by most standards, a success. Capitalizing on the anti-Trump momentum of the 2018 midterms, Democrats have won eight of 11 statewide races since Wikler took over — including the 2020 presidential race and the 2022 gubernatorial election. The state Democratic Party was also instrumental in winning a liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has remade Wisconsin’s political landscape. 

But there have been setbacks: U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson got reelected in an otherwise positive year for Democrats in 2022, and Donald Trump carried the state last year, helping return him to the White House.

Wikler maintains he’s the right person to lead the party, and he says Democrats need to make their party more transparent, change the way they communicate with voters and return to being focused on addressing the needs of working people.

“(Democrats) don’t talk the talk in a way that shows people that they’re fighting the fight,” Wikler said last week during an introspective moment at a candidate forum hosted by the Texas Democratic Party. “And that’s where we need to change.”

A shift in the landscape

Republicans and Democrats alike in Wisconsin said that if Wikler is tapped to lead the national party it will change the political landscape in Wisconsin.

“I know politics. And I love politics. And he is a very good politician,” Republican former Gov. Tommy Thompson said of Wikler. “The Democrat Party could do a hell of a lot worse going with somebody else than Ben Wikler.”

In fact, Thompson, who congratulated Wikler on his success as state party chair, seems keen on having the Democratic leader move on from his current post.

“I want to contribute to him!” he joked about Wikler while speaking with reporters.

Brian Schimming, chair of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, also acknowledged that Wikler “is a talented guy.” But he was quick to point out that Wisconsin Democrats came up short on key goals in November. Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t carry the state, U.S. Reps. Derrick Van Orden and Bryan Steil are still in Congress, and Republicans still control the Legislature, Schimming noted. Their only success, the GOP chair claimed, was getting Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin reelected.

“Whether it’s Ben or anybody else, that party has a lot of issues,” Schimming said of Democrats. “So they are going to need a lot of people to step up, not just their chair, to fix what’s wrong with that party right now.”

While Democratic leaders acknowledge that Wikler moving on to the national party would be a loss for their efforts in Wisconsin, they said it’s time for the national party to choose a leader from a state that has a history of deciding elections.

Wikler helped Wisconsin Democrats crawl out of the political hole they found themselves in in the 2010s, said Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, which gives him experience the national party could lean on.

“He’s been very invested in the Legislature, (we’ve) spoken often about our strategy and how to win, and he was involved even in calling candidates and helping recruit people,” Neubauer said. “So it’s, of course, going to be a loss for us, but we’re certainly very supportive of his run for DNC chair.”

Wisconsin Democrats have built out infrastructure that will last beyond Wikler’s time as chair, Neubauer added, pointing to year-round organizing efforts that will persist regardless of who is state party chair.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Wisconsin’s Ben Wikler could soon lead national Democratic Party is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Of the nearly 200 uncounted ballots that Madison city clerk’s staff discovered after Election Day, about 70 might have gotten counted if the staff members had promptly alerted the county. 

The clerk’s office staff didn’t find 125 of the uncounted ballots until Dec. 3 — after the state already certified the election. But the staff found 68 of them well before that, on Nov. 12, the same day Dane County certified the election. If the clerk’s office had reported the missing votes to the county within a few days, the county election board could have petitioned the Wisconsin Elections Commission to amend its results to include those ballots.

Kevin Kennedy, formerly the state election chief for over 30 years and a chief inspector at a Madison polling site not associated with the errors, said the county canvass, or official count, could have been reopened at that point if officials had known about the problem. 

“From my perspective, you find the ballots, you tell the city attorney. The city attorney is going to advise you to tell the mayor and to reach out to the county board of canvassers,” Kennedy said. “That’s what should have happened once they were discovered.”

Informing the city attorney in this case could have been especially helpful: Madison’s city attorney, Mike Haas, was formerly the administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission and is regarded by some as one of the state’s top election lawyers.

In a letter to the state election commission, obtained by Votebeat, Madison Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl claimed she “believes” somebody from her office did, in fact, tell the Dane County Clerk’s Office about the ballots on Nov. 12.

On that day, Witzel-Behl said, an employee identified as “employee F” “believes he spoke to the Dane County Clerk in his office but cannot remember what the Dane County Clerk said,” though he was “certain” the conversation had taken place. The office was left with “a general sense that the County would not want” the ballots that had been discovered that day.

Witzel-Behl didn’t supply additional information substantiating that interaction and through a spokesperson said she had nothing to add to the information she shared with the elections commission.

But Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said he “strongly disagrees” with the city’s claims.

“Prior to the information being released publicly, my office and the Dane County Board of Canvassers had no communication with the Madison City Clerk’s Office regarding the discovery of unopened absentee ballots,” he said.

“I find the claim that a conversation took place, without providing details about what was said, difficult to understand,” he continued. “If I had been told about 60 or more uncounted ballots, I would have advised that they talk to their city attorney, who is an election expert.”

“The frustrating part of this whole situation is that a fix allowing some of the ballots to be counted was pretty simple,” he said. “An error of this size is extremely unfortunate, and I worry it will make it difficult for voters to trust their ability to cast an absentee ballot in future elections. I will work to do whatever I can on my part to help ensure our municipal partners know what to do if a similar situation occurs in the future.”

State law outlines what Madison could have done

Under state law, if the Dane County Board of Canvassers — the entity that certifies elections on the county level — becomes aware of a mistake, it can ask the Wisconsin Elections Commission for permission to amend the county results. The window for such a correction stays open until the commission receives every other county’s certification, which in this case didn’t happen until Nov. 18, several days after Madison staff found the 68 ballots. 

Other provisions may also allow the election commission to require the county to correct its canvass, said Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Wisconsin law appears to allow for the “ability to make a correction” if the county board of canvassers or the Wisconsin Elections Commission becomes aware of an error, she said.

Instead, the 68 Madison ballots went uncounted and unreported for weeks. City election staff were under the impression that the ballots couldn’t be counted unless there was a recount, Witzel-Behl said in December.

“They should have asked someone,” said Ann Jacobs, a Democratic member on the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Staff in the city clerk’s office apparently didn’t report the ballot discovery to non-election city staff or any external election agency until Dec. 18, when they told the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The commission told city staff, and the mayor’s office soon after disclosed the oversight to the public. By that point, the window to make any of those ballots count toward the election had all but closed. The 193 ballots weren’t tallied until a Jan. 10 city election board meeting, though none of those ballots counted toward any official election results. Madison voters cast over 174,000 ballots in the November election, and the 193 votes wouldn’t have changed any election outcome. 

At that meeting, Witzel-Behl addressed the lack of city processes that likely contributed to the ballots going missing on Election Day and said there would be new procedures for city election staff and poll workers to prevent a recurrence. 

But at that meeting, Witzel-Behl didn’t explain why her office didn’t communicate with city staff or the county immediately after the ballots were discovered, or identify policies to communicate future errors quicker.

She told Votebeat on Jan. 14 that she’s still developing specific policies.

Kennedy, the former state election chief, said having clear instructions in place from the state would have made a difference. The election commission “needs to lay out some expectations so that everybody in the state, every municipal clerk and county clerk knows, ‘If you have a problem, this is what we expect you to do,” he said. 

Lapse raises doubts for voters

Here’s what we know so far about what happened:

At a polling site in Ward 56, just west of downtown, election officials didn’t open two large carrier envelopes used to transport absentee ballots from the clerk’s office to polling sites, where they are tabulated. Those two envelopes contained a total of 125 ballots, which were discovered on Dec. 3. 

At another site, poll workers at Ward 65 didn’t open a carrier envelope carrying 68 absentee ballots, including one ballot that should have been sent to a different polling place. That batch was found on Nov. 12, and it’s not clear what steps the clerk’s office took after the discovery.

There are two clear issues that arose from the uncounted ballots, Kennedy said. One is the matter of process and communications. Poll workers didn’t count the ballots, and city staff took a long time to find them, but still didn’t report having found them. 

The other is the impact on the voters who cast these ballots. “It’s still personal to them” that their votes didn’t get counted, Kennedy said, even if they wouldn’t have changed any election outcomes.

Among those voters was Carol Troyer-Shank, who received an apology letter from the city about the error. 

“It’s so funny, because I have been a reluctant early voter simply because I imagined such a thing happening,” she said. “It’s too bad this had to happen, but it’s not a big enough deal to lose sleep over. I’m glad the city is apologizing, and I’m glad the city is taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Troyer-Shank said she may still vote early in the future. But she added that there remain outstanding questions about what led to 193 ballots, including hers, going uncounted on Election Day.

“We still don’t know what went wrong,” she said. “We still don’t know why they were uncounted at the sites.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Some missing Madison ballots could have been counted — if clerk’s staff had acted in time is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Donald Trump returned to the White House on Monday afternoon, focusing on so-called “America First” policies.

Among Trump’s top priorities is a pledge to deport millions of people living in the United States without legal status. Trump’s team has prepared a stack of executive orders to sign in short order, with a heavy emphasis on immigration policy.

But some leaders in in Democratic Wisconsin communities say they won’t play ball with the federal government when it comes to residents living in the United States without legal status.

“Dane County will continue to be strong, we will continue to be compassionate, and we will support one another,” Dane County Executive Melissa Agard told reporters last week, adding that county agencies will continue to deliver services to all residents.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne agreed, saying “no matter who you are or where you come from, my office is committed to helping make Dane County a safe and welcoming place for all.”

“Increased fear of mass deportation has already inhibited some members of our most vulnerable populations from reporting their victimization to law enforcement,” he added. “This reality perpetuates a cycle of violence and criminality that have a chilling effect on our entire community.”

The Dane County Sheriff’s Office will also continue its current practices, spokesperson Elise Schaffer told reporters. For example, the office does not provide “proactive communication” to federal immigration authorities nor does it inform U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if deputies encounter someone without legal status while working in the field or if they’ve taken them into custody.

In Milwaukee, Mayor Cavalier Johnson “wants all residents, irrespective of immigration status, to be appropriately respected,” his spokesperson, Jeff Fleming, told Wisconsin Watch. “The mayor has expressed his opposition to the rhetoric and hostility directed toward immigrants.”

ICE is seeking to move its current Milwaukee facility from downtown to the city’s northwest side, Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service reported last week, but has so far been met with significant community pushback.

Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman did not directly respond to questions from Wisconsin Watch. Instead, a spokesperson pointed to the department’s standard operating procedures relating to immigration enforcement.

“Enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws is the responsibility of the federal government,” the policy states. “Accordingly, the Milwaukee Police Department does not unilaterally undertake immigration-related investigations and does not routinely inquire into the immigration status of persons encountered during police operations.”

“A person’s right to file a police report, participate in police-community activities, or otherwise benefit from police services is not contingent upon their immigration status,” it continues, while noting the department may cooperate with federal authorities in certain special cases.

Police officers in the city of Green Bay are also not in the business of keeping tabs on someone’s immigration status, Green Bay Police Chief Chris Davis told Wisconsin Watch in an interview.

“There aren’t very many situations where someone’s immigration status is really relevant to any of the work that we’re doing,” Davis said, adding: “My priority is the safety and the well-being of whoever happens to be in the city of Green Bay at any given time.”

The exact number of people living in Wisconsin without legal status is hard to determine, Wisconsin Watch reported last week, but some groups, like the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, have estimated there to be about 70,000 such people in the state. 

Workers without legal status are particularly critical to the state’s dairy industry, according to a 2023 UW-Madison School for Workers survey. “More than 10,000 undocumented” workers perform around 70% of the labor on Wisconsin’s dairy farms, the report found, and without them “the whole dairy industry would collapse overnight,” the researchers concluded.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

Wisconsin Democrats pledge support to immigrants as new administration takes office is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin has long had a photo ID requirement for voting on its books — one of the strictest in the nation. This year, voters will decide whether to make it harder to weaken that requirement.

The April 1 ballot contains a proposal that would enshrine the photo ID requirement in the state’s constitution. Republican lawmakers backed the proposed constitutional amendment in an effort to prevent the ID policy, passed in 2011, from being gutted in court. 

Approval of the amendment wouldn’t affect the current ID requirement, experts say; rather, it would prevent or at least complicate future efforts to undo it.

The ballot question coming before voters on April 1 will ask whether the Wisconsin Constitution should be amended to “require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law.”

The amendment would state, in part: “No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity.”

Voters can vote “yes” if they want the proposal in the constitution and “no” if they don’t. Whichever way the amendment goes, Wisconsin would continue to have a photo ID requirement for voting because it’s already state law. 

The amendment appears likely to pass. Most constitutional amendment proposals in Wisconsin pass when they come before voters, and 74% of Wisconsin residents polled in 2021 supported the photo ID requirement. The Assembly and the Senate both passed the amendment proposal in January on party line votes, with Republicans in favor and Democrats against.

Making the policy a constitutional requirement, and not just a state law, makes it far less likely that a court could strike it down, said Bree Grossi Wilde, executive director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. It also means a future Legislature can’t remove the requirement by simply repealing the statute, she said, though it would allow lawmakers to modify the requirement to some extent by creating exceptions.

It’s unclear how far those exceptions could go before they would effectively “gut the requirement” in violation of the constitution, Wilde said. Some states, for example, allow people without photo IDs to cast a ballot if they sign a legal statement affirming their identity. 

“Maybe there is still wiggle room on the part of the Legislature to provide relief from the requirement in certain circumstances,” she said. “Whether you could say, ‘If you don’t have an ID, you don’t have to provide it,’ that might be too far. A court might not protect that.”

What’s the history behind photo IDs for voting?

The law that the amendment would enshrine was enacted in 2011 but faced court challenges that limited its implementation for several years. Republican proponents said it would make elections more secure by protecting against voter impersonation, something that research has shown is rare. Opponents of the law filed lawsuits alleging that the policy made it too hard to vote. 

Its first use in a presidential election was in 2016, and the requirement has remained in place ever since. 

The law requires voters to present their photo ID when they vote. If they can’t show ID, they can cast a provisional ballot and would have to present their photo ID afterward to have that ballot count.. Acceptable photo IDs include  driver’s licenses, military IDs, IDs issued by federally recognized Native American tribes, U.S. passports, some university IDs, free voting IDs issued by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and some other types.

Wisconsin is among nine states that have “strict photo ID” laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In these states, voters must have a photo ID when they vote, or have to vote via provisional ballot and then provide photo ID later — either to poll workers on Election Day or to the local election clerk within days of the election — for their ballots to count. Other states either have strict non-photo ID laws, less stringent ID requirements or no ID requirement at all.

Researchers have found that Wisconsin’s law had a disenfranchising effect.

In the 2016 presidential election, an estimated 4,000 to 11,000 eligible people in Dane and Milwaukee counties didn’t vote mainly because they lacked an eligible photo ID, a study concluded, based on survey responses from nearly 300 registered nonvoters. The study, by then-University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor Ken Mayer, estimated that for 8,000 to 17,000 people in those heavily Democratic counties, lack of photo ID was one of many reasons they didn’t vote.

People who were Black, who earned lower incomes and who had less formal education were less likely to have eligible photo IDs, the study states. 

Republicans widely criticized the study over its sample size and methodology. Republicans have also criticized Democrats for simultaneously arguing that photo IDs are too hard for some people to get while also saying, in their effort to encourage voting, that free voter IDs are easy to get.

The IDs are indeed free, but getting to a Division of Motor Vehicles office to obtain one isn’t, said Lauren Kunis, CEO and executive director of VoteRiders, which helps voters obtain the identification they need to vote.

“Convenience matters when we’re talking about voting,” she said. “Some of us think about voting all day, every day, and we’ll make it a priority to get your ducks in a row and get everything you need well in advance of any deadlines. But that is not the case for the average eligible voter in the United States, and we need to design policies and systems that think about that voter.”

The law’s specifications about which IDs are acceptable make it more complicated, said Jake Spence, VoteRiders’ Wisconsin coordinator. 

For example, standard IDs issued by some big state universities, including UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, aren’t suitable for voting. The state’s strict criteria for student ID used for voting requires including the date the card was issued, the student’s signature and an expiration date no later than two years after its issuance. The standard student IDs issued at those universities don’t meet those requirements, though students can ask for compliant IDs.

Across Wisconsin, Kunis said, VoteRiders staff and volunteers have encountered not only people who couldn’t vote because they didn’t have an appropriate ID but also people who had appropriate IDs but didn’t vote because they were confused by the law, sometimes unaware that their ID met the requirements.

What should I know about the proposed amendment?

Republican proponents say they want to put the law in the constitution to keep the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court from striking down the photo ID requirement, especially if liberal candidate Susan Crawford, who argued against the ID rule in court, wins a seat on the high court in April’s election.

“I cannot say for certain how (the) Wisconsin Supreme Court would rule on voter ID laws, but I’m also not willing to risk the Wisconsin Supreme Court, unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution, declaring voter ID laws unconstitutional,” Republican Sen. Van Wanggaard said at a hearing on the proposal.

Democratic legislators and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers ardently opposed the proposed amendment, saying it has a disenfranchising effect. 

“This is about voter suppression,” said Rep. Christine Sinicki, a Milwaukee Democrat, adding that there were people in her neighborhood who can’t get a photo ID to vote. 

The measure passed nonetheless in the GOP-majority Legislature. Evers doesn’t have the power to veto constitutional amendment proposals, which must pass two successive legislatures before they can appear on the ballot.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin’s voter ID ballot question: Here’s what you need to know is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.