Wisconsin Elections Commission Chair Ann Jacobs is warning voters that it’s against state law to wager on an election if you are casting a ballot in that race. 

Jacobs’ comments, made last week on X, come as prediction market sites such as Kalshi and Polymarket have continued to grow in popularity. 

“I know it’s all the rage to bet on everything, but you cannot bet on an election in Wisconsin,” Jacobs wrote. “If you do, your ballot can be challenged & thrown out … So go vote and save your $ for playing Euchre with your uncle!” 

Wisconsin’s election laws include a provision that states nobody “shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.” 

Currently on Kalshi, tens of thousands of dollars in bets have been placed on the result, turnout and margin of victory of next week’s state Supreme Court election. Even more money has been wagered on the state’s upcoming race for governor — including $85,000 on the Democratic primary race. 

The ethics of participating in prediction markets have come under scrutiny as their popularity has grown, particularly the opportunity for placing bets that are akin to insider trading. More than $500 million in bets were placed on the prospect of the U.S. going to war with Iran shortly before major announcements about U.S. military actions in the country, NBC News reported. 

The law against betting on elections has been on the books in some form since 1849. Other states, including Arizona and Texas, also have laws against wagering on elections. 

Jacobs told Wisconsin Public Radio that the state isn’t going to go looking for offenders of the election betting law, however if someone brags online about a big win, that could open them up to scrutiny and the potential cancellation of their vote. 

“No, the state is not going out and issuing search warrants to betting platforms to cross reference against voters,” Jacobs told WPR. “I think the most likely way this would come up would be exactly how you think, which is somebody posted on social media saying, ‘Hey, I made this big bet,’ and then someone who doesn’t like them reports it to the authorities.”

Jacobs told the Wisconsin Examiner a voter’s ballot could be voided because of betting through the state’s existing ballot challenge processes, which allow anyone to object to the counting of an absentee ballot. She compared it to challenges that are received for people who post selfies with their ballots.

“Who would do such a thing? people who hate you,” Jacobs said. “It’s almost always the opposing candidate. Is that a lot of work? Yes. Is it sort of silly? Yes. If you think you’re going to get a big amount of money, then don’t vote.”

The emergence of the prediction markets was also an impetus for the state Legislature quickly passing a bill to legalize online sports betting in Wisconsin. That bill is currently awaiting the signature of Gov. Tony Evers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Robert Yablon on Judge Recusal Rules and a Rise in Requests Robert Yablon on standards of recusal as requests for the action increase. Transcript Robert Yablon: The recusal standards go […]

The post Robert Yablon on judge recusal rules and a rise in requests appeared first on WPR.

Is it illegal to wager on a Wisconsin election you also vote in? The chair of the state's elections commission says you bet it is.

The post ‘You cannot bet on an election in Wisconsin!’ warns WEC chair appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

A jury convicted a Wisconsin man of election fraud and identity theft for requesting the ballots of Republican state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Democratic Racine Mayor Cory Mason without their consent.

Jurors in Racine County on Tuesday found Harry Wait guilty of two misdemeanor election fraud charges and one felony identity theft charge following a two-day trial. He was acquitted of a second count of identity theft.

Wait leads a group that makes false election claims, including that Wisconsin’s elections are riddled with fraud and that President Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Trump lost Wisconsin in 2020 by about 21,000 votes.

Wait admitted in 2022 that he requested Vos’ and Mason’s ballots to try to prove that the state’s voter registration system is vulnerable to fraud. Wait told The Associated Press at the time that he wasn’t surprised he was charged.

“You got to expect to pay some costs sometimes when you are trying to work for the public good,” he said.

His efforts drew praise from Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2022, who called Wait a “white hat hacker.”

After the verdict, Wait told WTMJ that he “would do it again.”

“I tested the system and the system failed,” he said.

A sentencing date has not been set. Wait’s attorney Joe Bugni did not respond to an email Wednesday asking whether he would appeal.

Wait, 71, faces up to six years in prison on the felony conviction and up to a year in jail on each of the misdemeanor convictions.

His conviction comes after a jury in 2024 found a former Milwaukee election official guilty of misconduct in office after she obtained three military absentee ballots using fake names and Social Security numbers in 2022. Like Wait, Kimberly Zapata argued that she was trying to expose vulnerabilities in the state’s election system.

Zapata was fined $3,000 and sentenced to one year probation.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin man who ordered ballots without consent found guilty of fraud and identity theft 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 debate scheduled for Wednesday night has been postponed after Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor's campaign said she is ill.

The post Wisconsin Supreme Court debate postponed appeared first on WPR.

Harry Wait, the Racine-area man who requested absentee ballots on behalf of other people to prove it could be done, was convicted Tuesday night on election fraud and identity theft charges. 

The post Racine County man convicted on election fraud charges after ordering absentee ballots for other voters appeared first on WPR.

New federal fundraising data shows Wisconsin's Democratic party brought in nine times as much as the state's Republican party last month.

The post State Democratic Party trounces GOP counterpart in February fundraising appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Monday appeared skeptical of the validity of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, in a case that could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of voters during the upcoming midterm elections.

The high court heard arguments on whether federal law overrides a Mississippi law that requires mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days of the election. Fourteen states have similar laws, which extend a “grace period” to ballots that arrive through the mail after polls close.

Several conservative justices raised concerns with allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day, including whether voters could recall ballots once they’ve shipped them but before they arrive at election offices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether late-arriving ballots risk undermining election confidence.

“‘The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry the election has been stolen,’” Kavanaugh said, quoting from an analysis by a New York University law professor.

The case comes before the Supreme Court at a moment of broader attacks against mail-in voting. Four Republican-led states eliminated their ballot arrival grace periods last year. And Congress is mulling proposals that would restrict voting by mail amid a sprawling debate in the U.S. Senate over legislation demanded by President Donald Trump that would impose sweeping new voter restrictions nationwide. That legislation, known as the SAVE Act, is unlikely to pass because of the filibuster.

The Republican National Committee is challenging Mississippi’s grace period law. The party contends a longstanding federal law that sets the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for federal offices preempts state laws that allow ballots cast by Election Day, but received later, to count.

Paul Clement, an attorney for the Republican National Committee, argued the prospect that the outcome of an election could change because of ballots arriving after Election Day would be unacceptable to losing candidates. After the 2020 election, President Donald Trump demanded election officials not count ballots that came in after Election Day. States kept counting ballots.

“If you have an election and the election is going to turn on late-arriving ballots in a way that means what everybody kind of thought was the result on Election Day ends up being the opposite a week later, 21 days later, the losers are not going to accept that result. Full stop,” Clement told the justices.

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican who is defending the state law, argues that federal law allows ballots cast by Election Day to be received later. In legal filings, attorneys for the secretary argue both legal and historical precedent support his position. States may decide that voters have made their final choices when ballots are submitted to state officials rather than when they’re received, according to Watson.

On Monday, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines, with conservative justices skeptical of the grace periods and liberal justices more sympathetic. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court.

“It seems to me that we have a very long history of states having a variety of different ballot receipt deadlines, to include after Election Day,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal members.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the court the dispute is over whether Congress in an 1845 law blocked states from counting ballots cast by Election Day but received later. “No one challenged it until now,” Stewart said.

At least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day 2024 and arrived within a legally accepted post-election window, The New York Times has reported, citing election officials in 14 of 22 states and territories where late-arriving ballots were accepted that year.

About 30% of voters cast a mail ballot in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump likewise issued an executive order last year that attempted to require that mail ballots be received by the end of Election Day and to impose other election changes, but much of the order has been blocked by federal courts.

Rick Hasen, a professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law, wrote on his Election Law Blog that it was clear from Monday’s arguments that the Supreme Court will be closely divided, “and the case could come out either way.” A decision is expected later in the spring or early summer.

Caleb Hays, chief policy counsel at the Center for Election Confidence, a conservative-leaning legal advocacy group that opposes ballot grace periods, said his organization was pleased that the justices appeared to pick up on the need for a clear end to the voting period. He also welcomed the justices raising the issue of recalling ballots when they are delivered through the mail or by a third-party service like FedEx.

“That brings into question some of the arguments we saw from (Mississippi) on a ballot being final when it is cast and cast includes when it is deposited in a mailbox,” Hays said in an interview.

As the legal challenge made its way through the courts over the past two years, some Republican-led states moved to eliminate their grace periods. Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio and Utah last year moved to require all or nearly all ballots to be in the hands of election officials on Election Day to count.

The states that continue to extend grace periods for ballots arriving after Election Day are Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia, along with the District of Columbia.

Some local election officials have urged the Supreme Court to uphold ballot grace periods. A decision that strikes down state laws’ grace periods would increase the administrative burdens on many election officials, said a collection of election officials and local governments in California, Massachusetts and Washington in an amicus brief.

“(Grace periods) enable administrators in large and small jurisdictions to do their essential work in a timely and reasonable manner,” the brief says.

If the Supreme Court requires that ballots must arrive on or before Election Day, Clement suggested election officials would have enough time to prepare ahead of November. He said such a decision wouldn’t violate the Purcell principle, a Supreme Court doctrine holding that major changes to election policy and practice shouldn’t be made just before an election because voters could get confused. 

The federal law at issue pertains to general elections, not primary elections, he noted — meaning the court’s decision would apply only to the November election.

“There’s plenty of time,” Clement said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Chris Taylor was a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood and a Democratic legislator before she became a judge. Her path reflects the changing nature of judicial races in Wisconsin.

The post Chris Taylor says her time as an advocate prepared her for the Wisconsin Supreme Court appeared first on WPR.

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) announced Thursday that he will not seek another term in the state Senate this year — marking the departure of yet another top leader in Wisconsin state politics. 

LeMahieu, 53, was first elected to the state Senate in 2015. He has served as the Senate majority leader since 2020, when he was chosen by his caucus to succeed former Senate Majority Leader and now-U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald. 

LeMahieu said in a statement that he made the “difficult” decision after “careful reflection and prayer.” He said that serving in the body was “the privilege of a lifetime” and said he was proud of the work that he’s done, including passing the REINS Act, a 2017 law that limited agencies’ rulemaking power, and income tax cuts.

“The time has come for a new chapter in my life,” LeMahieu said. “I am looking forward to spending more time with my wife in our new Madison-area home and, for the first time since 2006, rooting for bold conservative reform from the sidelines.”

During his first two terms as Senate leader, LeMahieu led an increasingly large Senate Republican caucus which at one time had 23 out of 33 members. Those margins allowed the Senate to reject Gov. Tony Evers’ nominees and also at times override vetoes, though those votes did not lead to any vetoes being blocked as Assembly Republicans never held a supermajority.

New legislative maps adopted in 2024 led to slimmer margins in the body, which currently has 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats. 

LeMahieu has not always been able to gather a majority of his caucus members to support legislation and has at times turned to Democrats to get bills across the finish line, especially after the Republican majority shrank.

During the Senate’s recently concluded final floor session, LeMahieu faced criticism from some of his caucus members for passing bills to legalize sports betting and help the University of Wisconsin pay student athletes for their name, image and likeness without majority support from  Republicans and with the help of Democrats. Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), who is also retiring this year, said that the passage of the “unpopular bills will help pave the way to minority status for Republicans come November.”

Prior to his election to the state Senate, LeMahieu served on the Sheboygan County Board for nine years. His time in the Legislature followed the path of his father, former Republican Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, who served in the state Assembly from 2003 until 2015.

LeMahieu joins three other Senate Republicans who recently announced their retirements including Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Nass.

LeMahieu’s decision means there will be completely new leadership in the state government when lawmakers return in January 2026 after the fall elections. Evers announced his retirement last year and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), the state’s longest serving speaker, announced his retirement last month. Vos has said he thinks Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) would be a good person to succeed him. 

Evers said in a statement that he appreciated working with LeMahieu and his “quiet and polite but frank approach.” 

“While we haven’t always seen eye to eye on every issue all of the time, I’ve never doubted his commitment to doing what he believes is best for the folks and families in Sheboygan County and across our state,” he said. “For the past five years he’s served as majority leader, we’ve navigated difficult issues facing the state of Wisconsin, and we’ve gotten good work done together by putting politics aside and staying focused on doing the right thing.” 

Evers noted their work together on tax cuts for working families and retirees, investments in the state’s child care industry, investments in shared revenue and an investment in the Milwaukee Brewers’ stadium.

“We’re not done yet, and I look forward to getting more good bipartisan work accomplished before our time together in office comes to an end,” Evers said. 

While lawmakers have wrapped their regular session work, leaders are still discussing ways to use the state’s $4.6 billion budget surplus to provide tax relief to Wisconsinites and additional funding to the state’s public schools. 

Negotiations were stalled on that effort last month after LeMahieu said he was cut out of negotiations between Vos and Evers, then his caucus proposed providing tax rebates to Wisconsinites instead of property tax relief or school funding. Vos and LeMahieu then came up with a compromise, but Evers rejected that. 

Vos said in a statement that he has enjoyed working with LeMahieu and repeated his assessment that “being Senate Majority Leader is the hardest job in the Capitol.”

“Devin approached each challenge deliberately and with the goal to move our state forward. We accomplished a lot during our time leading our respective chambers that I am proud of and — even when it was difficult —he always wanted to do what was right and best for the people of Wisconsin,” Vos said.

Control of the Assembly and Senate will be at stake in the November election. Democrats would need to win two additional seats in the Senate and five additional seats in the Assembly to flip the chambers for the first time since 2009. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said in a statement that LeMahieu was “a dedicated public servant” who has provided “tireless service to his constituents.” She has expressed confidence that her party will be able to win a majority in the Senate, which would open a path for her to become the top Senate leader. 

“I have found him to be a man of his word and I wish him and his family the best as he begins this next chapter,” Hesselbein said.

Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca) and Rep. Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger) also announced their retirements on Thursday. Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) is also retiring.

Brian Schimming, chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, called LeMahieu in a statement a “tireless advocate for our shared conservative values and a key force in maintaining Republican majorities.” He said that they “look forward to continuing the fight and keeping a majority in the Senate this November.”

Devin Remiker, the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, said in a statement about LeMahieu’s retirement that other Republicans should “consider retiring alongside your colleagues before you are voted out in November.”

“All potential Republican candidates should take note: Both of your leaders have abandoned you. Your policies are causing working people to turn against you in droves as the Trump administration crashes and burns,” Remiker said.

Update: This story has been updated to include comment from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Brian Schimming. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators debated Wednesday whether the federal government should change how Americans register to vote and cast a ballot, with Republicans maintaining alterations are necessary to safeguard elections and Democrats arguing a new law would add unnecessary obstacles.

Tensions over the issue were on full display when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said GOP lawmakers describing the bill as a simple voter identification requirement is “bullshit,” shortly before Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee contended it would be “a suicidal move” for his party’s leaders not to find a way forward. 

The legislation, dubbed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, is unlikely to become law without bipartisan backing from at least 60 senators, who would be needed to move past a procedural vote. 

Democrats are not expected to help Republicans with that, especially after Schumer called the legislation “Jim Crow 2.0” and “evil” during a morning press conference with voting rights advocates. 

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said during that event GOP lawmakers are acting out of concern they will lose control of Congress following the November midterm elections, due to President Donald Trump’s actions during his second term.  

“The American people have had it with him and with his policies,” Warnock said. “He ran as someone who was going to lower costs, who was going to stay out of endless wars in the Middle East and he is failing. But instead of changing his policies, he’s trying to change the shape of the electorate.”

Problems with lack of birth certificate

New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján said if the bill becomes law, it would create difficulties for anyone who doesn’t have access to their birth certificate or a passport, to prove U.S. citizenship when they try to register to vote. 

“What about my Native American brothers and sisters?” he said. “All my brothers and sisters from the First Nations that I’m proud to represent across New Mexico, who may have been born in their home generationally with other family members. They didn’t have a birth certificate.”

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said GOP lawmakers trying to change the voting process during an election year creates a pattern when combined with several Republican state legislatures redrawing U.S. House maps to benefit their candidates. 

“We see this being about having politicians choose the voters instead of voters choosing the politicians,” he said. 

Several Democratic state legislatures have responded to GOP redistricting efforts by redrawing their maps as well. 

Schumer, D-N.Y., said it’s unacceptable that Republicans want every state in the country to submit a list of registered voters to the Department of Homeland Security to run through a database, which he believes is flawed. 

“They’re trying to dupe America. They say, ‘Oh, this is just a voter ID law.’ Bullshit. It is not a voter ID law,” Schumer said. “It is a law that will kick millions of Americans off the voting rolls.”

‘Debate this as long as it takes to get it done’

Utah’s Lee said Republican leaders shouldn’t schedule the procedural vote that requires at least 60 senators to end debate on the bill until they have found some way to move past that step.  

“I think it would be a suicidal move for us as Senate Republicans, for Republicans in general, if we don’t put everything we’ve got into this,” he said. “I think we need to debate this as long as it takes to get it done. And if we’re not there yet, we need to continue debating.”

Lee contended that prolonged debate on the bill would give Republicans time to sway holdouts to their side. 

“This is going to become popular enough that a lot of our colleagues who currently oppose it, I believe, will start to get on board,” he said. 

Every Senate Democrat, along with Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, voted against formally beginning debate on Tuesday. North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis didn’t vote.

Trump wants national limits on voting by mail

Senate debate on the bill dragging out in the days or possibly weeks ahead won’t be confined to what’s currently in the legislation, which the House passed last month.

Trump has asked senators to make three alterations, which they will attempt to incorporate through amendments. 

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt said he plans to call for a vote to add nationwide restrictions on mail-in voting instead of leaving the issue to state governments. 

“If you have a hardship because of a disability, or an illness, or because of travel, or you’re a caregiver, or some other hardship the state can identify, you can vote by absentee,” he said. “You have to request it. Then you can vote by absentee.”

Schmitt said the carve-out would also include members of the military. 

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn said she plans to call up an amendment that could create a nationwide prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth. 

Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, she said, would push for an amendment to block transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans pressed forward Tuesday with a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot, despite long odds the legislation will ever become law amid bipartisan opposition. 

The 51-48 vote to formally begin debate on the measure, which GOP lawmakers have named the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, only starts the process. Senators are expected to vote on several amendments in the days, or possibly weeks, ahead. 

But at least 60 lawmakers will be needed to end floor debate, a highly unlikely prospect with Democrats arguing the bill would disenfranchise millions of voters. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican to vote against starting debate. North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis didn’t vote. 

Murkowski wrote in a social media post last month the November midterm elections are “fast approaching” and that implementing “new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources. 

“Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this.”

Trump threatens retaliation

President Donald Trump has made enacting nationwide changes to voting his top legislative priority ahead of the midterm elections, although Republicans swept unified control of government less than two years ago. 

He wrote in a social media post Tuesday morning that he plans to campaign against anyone who doesn’t support the legislation, which the House passed last month.

“Only sick, demented, or deranged people in the House or Senate could vote against THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” he wrote. “If they do, each one of these points, separately, will be used against the user in his/her political campaign for office – A guaranteed loss!”

Dems predict millions kicked off voting rolls

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, said during floor remarks the legislation would require Americans “to run through an obstacle course of red tape unlike anything we have ever seen in voter registration.”

The bill becoming law, he said, would lead to millions of Americans being kicked off voter rolls due to a requirement that states run their list of registered voters through a “deeply flawed” Department of Homeland Security database.

“If you’re kicked off the rolls, you may never be told,” he said. “There’s no requirement to let you know.”

Schumer argued the bill is less about ensuring only Americans vote in elections and more about Republican concerns they will lose at least one chamber of Congress later this year. 

“It’s funny. I don’t remember MAGA Republicans screaming about stolen elections and voter fraud after the 2024 election that they won,” he said. “Well, the same rules that governed the 2024 election are going to be the ones that govern the 2026 election. The only difference is that this time MAGA Republicans know they’re in trouble politically. So now they’re suddenly saying the system is compromised and broken and it needs to be changed. It’s all lies.”

77 instances of noncitizen voting 

It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections and anyone found guilty could face fines and up to a year in prison. There are limited instances of people not eligible to vote actually casting a ballot, according to analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center of data compiled by the Heritage Foundation, an especially conservative think tank. 

BPC’s examination “found only 77 instances of noncitizens voting between 1999 and 2023” and that “there is no evidence that noncitizen voting has ever been significant enough to impact an election’s outcome.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., reiterated a few hours before the procedural step that “the votes aren’t there” to pass the bill via a talking filibuster, a path several of his members want him to take. 

“So what we are doing is we are having a fulsome debate on the floor of the United States Senate, which is something that I think the Senate has done in the past, and probably should do a lot more of,” he said. “But we’ll have it up. Everybody will have their say. At some point, we’ll have votes.  And we’ll see where the votes are.”

A talking filibuster would require Democratic senators to give a series of floor speeches in order to delay or prevent final passage. That process could tie up the Senate floor for months.

Thune said he wasn’t sure when votes on amendments would begin, but that he expects the process to last “for the foreseeable future.”

“I think at least for right now, there’ll be some flexibility to see where the road leads,” he said. 

Mail-in voting, gender-affirming surgeries, sports

Trump has asked GOP senators to add several provisions to the legislation, including new restrictions on mail-in voting, a federal prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth and a new law barring transgender women from participating in women’s sports. 

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Policy Committee chair, said she doesn’t believe the federal government should tell states how to manage mail-in ballots. 

“A lot of states, red states and blue, have more than a majority of the votes that are mail-in ballots,” she said. “So I think we’ve got to be careful there.”

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said that once debate on the SAVE America Act has concluded, he wants GOP leaders to hold a floor vote on whether to keep the rule that requires at least 60 senators vote to limit debate on bills, known as the legislative filibuster. 

“I think the days of the minority preventing legislation from passing is over. Because Democrat voters, they want their members to end it. Republican voters want us to end it,” he said. “So in the end, it’ll be that public pressure that I think will eventually end the filibuster. And I’d just rather beat them to the punch so we can pass things like SAVE America Act.”

Thune said during an afternoon press conference he believes the 60-vote procedural hurdle should remain in place because “throughout history it’s protected Republicans and conservative priorities and principles a lot more often than it’s protected Democrats.”

Photo ID

The bill would require local election officials to ensure anyone registering to vote proves they are an American, likely by showing a passport or a birth certificate. Then, when people go to cast a ballot by mail, during early voting, or on Election Day, they would need to show a valid photo ID, like a driver’s license or military identification card. 

The legislation would require state governments to submit their voter rolls to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security so its officials can run them through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system to check if anyone already registered isn’t a U.S. citizen. 

The legislation doesn’t provide state or local governments with any extra money or time to implement the changes, if it were to become law. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center writes in a brief about the legislation that the organization “recommends that policymakers avoid making major changes in an election year given the likelihood that they result in administrative errors and create confusion for voters.”

The three BPC experts who analyzed the bill said it “prioritizes expediency over precision.” 

“The act becomes effective on the date of enactment, giving states no time to adjust processes,” they wrote. “It also requires that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission offer implementation guidance to states within just 10 days of enactment.”

Lawsuits

The legislation would give private citizens the ability to sue election officials who register someone without evidence of U.S. citizenship.

Jeffrey Thorsby, legislative director at the National Association of Counties, wrote in a post about the legislation’s impacts that the “liability provisions could discourage election workers and volunteers from serving at a time when many counties already face recruitment challenges.” 

“Currently, the onus on a non-citizen who registers or votes is on the illegal voter,” he wrote. “SAVE America Act proposes a radical change in how we punish fraudulent voting.”

The voting overhaul measure that the U.S. Senate began debating Tuesday would cause major headaches for underfunded state and local election officials, without meaningfully stopping fraud, according to a collection of voting rights advocates and elections officers.

The so-called SAVE America Act, which President Donald Trump is relentlessly pushing, would create chaos for state and local elections administrators by immediately imposing several new requirements without adding funding, former North Carolina elections chief Karen Brinson Bell said on a press call Tuesday organized by Washington U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell.

“I cannot emphasize enough the Herculean effort that the SAVE America Act would present for election officials across this country,” Brinson Bell, who now advises election officials as a co-founder of the group Advance Elections, said. “Please do not set our country or these public servants up for failure. Bring us to the table. Develop this legislation properly and provide adequate funding and resources so we can all succeed.”

No new money

The bill would initially add $35 million in costs for Washington state to administer this year’s midterm elections, Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey said. The measure would cost an estimated additional $12 million annually in presidential election years for the state’s elections administrators, he added.

But it would not provide federal funding for states and localities to meet the new costs.

“When I looked at the SAVE America Act to understand how it would affect election administration, I did a control-F for the dollar sign, and I did not see a single dollar, much less the hundreds of millions needed to implement these changes,” Brinson Bell said.

The bill, which Trump and other proponents say is necessary to stop immigrants from voting, would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. They would also have to provide a photo ID at polling places.

But the measure “is the very definition of a solution in search of a problem,” Kimsey said on Tuesday’s call. Noncitizens voting in federal elections is exceedingly rare.

Barriers for voting by mail

Overall, the bill would make voting more difficult, especially for people who have changed their names, tribal citizens and people without photo ID, participants on the call said. That counters the goal of elections officials: to make voting easier.

“The problem isn’t that the wrong people are voting,” Kimsey said. “The problem is that not enough people are voting.”

The bill would also create barriers for vote-by-mail, which Washington and other states have used for decades. 

The system has increased voter participation and is widely popular across party lines. 

“The state of Washington’s vote-by-mail system is such a strong system,” Cantwell said. “The whole country should be moving more towards that and not away from it.”

Voting integrity

The bill’s backers, including most Republicans in Congress, say it would erect commonsense safeguards to protect U.S. elections.

In a Tuesday floor speech setting up debate on the measure, U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called it “essential.”

“If there’s anything essential to the integrity of elections, it’s ensuring that those who are registered to vote are eligible to vote – and that those who show up to vote at polling places are … who they say they are,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said.

The way to do that, he added, was to require proof of citizenship and photo identification.

Photo IDs, though, aren’t as universal as commonly thought, League of Women Voters of Maine Executive Director Chrissy Hart said.

Eighteen percent of citizens older than 65 lack a photo ID, as well as 16% of Latino voters, 25% of Black voters and 15% of low-income Americans, Hart said.

Election denial

Kimsey, who identified as a Republican during his first run for office in 1998 and became an independent after the pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol following the 2020 election, was asked if the measure was a continuation of Trump’s efforts to undermine U.S. elections.

He answered that what he deemed the “election denial movement” lost momentum after Trump’s 2024 victory, but that it seemed to be reappearing ahead of the midterms.

“In my view, this is nothing more than a very clumsy — and I hope not effective — but a very clumsy attempt to create chaos in this year’s midterm elections,” he said.

More than 70 school referendum questions will appear on ballots across the state in April, continuing the trend of school districts going to voters to ask permission to raise property taxes to keep up with costs.

The requests this spring include 60 operational referendum requests, totaling over $1 billion in requests, and 14 for capital expenses. Two school districts, Sauk Prairie and Howard-Suamico, have a capital and an operating request on the ballot.

The requests come as state leaders debate the best way to provide property tax relief to Wisconsinites, as a group of teachers, students and community members have turned to the court system to find relief and as districts grapple with the consequences of referendum outcomes. 

Ahead of Election Day on April 7, the Wisconsin Examiner checked in with three school districts seeking to raise property taxes to help with costs. The stakes are high in local communities as passage or rejection will determine which school programs are offered, whether staff get pay raises and whether school consolidation may be on the table.

Dodgeville tries for operational referendum for a third time

Dodgeville School District is one of four school districts in southeastern Wisconsin that have not passed an operational referendum, though not for lack of trying. 

The district is asking voters in the spring to weigh in on a $7.5 million request that would provide $2.5 million annually for operational expenses over the next three years. 

The district had a failed referendum in November 2024 and another failed request in April 2025. Its new request is a slimmed down version of the last one.

A Wisconsin Policy Forum report from April 2025 found that “retry” efforts have increased as districts have become more willing over time to retry operating referenda that failed. According to the report, from 2000 to 2017, about half of failed operational referendum requests were not retried within two years, but since 2018, more than three-quarters of operating referendum failures were retried. 

District administrator Ryan Bohnsack told the Examiner the district needs additional funds to keep up with costs. He said the district has been making cuts where it can, including by delaying technology upgrades, day-to-day maintenance and curriculum upgrades, but that can only go so far.

“We’ve gotten to the point where we know we don’t have the funds to keep operating,” Bohnsack said, adding that the district’s fund balance is below its operational balance and it will  need to start borrowing money to pay its bills.

Bohnsack said rising costs, including for staff pay, declining enrollment and stagnant state aid have all played a role in the district’s financial situation.

Randell Thompson, the treasurer for the Dodgeville School Board, emphasized that the district’s need for an operational referendum is not unique.

“If you look across the 421 school districts in Wisconsin, the vast majority have needed to go to an operating referendum at some level,” Thompson said. “Part of the state funding formula is to get local taxpayers to have a say in how much of the school budget they want to cover.”

According to 2023 census data, Wisconsin has fallen to 26th in the nation in per pupil K-12 education spending and is spending 10% below the national average. The state was ranked 11th in 2002, and at the time spent 11% above the national average. 

In the most recent state budget, lawmakers invested state funds in special education, though recent estimates find the amount of money set aside will not be enough to reimburse school districts at the promised 42% rate. The Legislature also declined to provide additional state aid to schools — blaming Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year veto that extended  districts’ authority to bring in an additional $325 per pupil, which districts will only be able to take advantage of through raising property taxes.

A lawsuit recently filed in Eau Claire County Circuit Court is challenging the state’s school funding formula, arguing that it is unconstitutional as it does not meet the state’s constitutional obligation to provide educational opportunities to all students. 

State leaders are also discussing ways to provide property tax relief through special education funding, school funding and school levy tax credits, though discussions so far have not yielded any results. While Gov. Tony Evers wants to provide additional funding to school general aids, Republican lawmakers have proposed investing in the school levy tax credit, which provides property tax relief but doesn’t provide direct dollars to school districts. 

The last time Dodgeville had an operational referendum was in 2012, which was just a one-year ask. The district has passed two capital referendum requests since then. 

Bohnstack said this means that an operational referendum is a “new concept” to many residents in the area, but that “given the strategy at the state level now… we’re now kind of at the mercy of the local control being able to support the school through the operational day to day expenses.”

The school district lays out the distribution for the referendum on its website. A little over $1 million annually, or 43% of the referendum, would be used for staff costs, $525,591 or 21% would be for the district’s fund balance and the rest would go towards technology costs, curriculum, facilities, playground safety updates at the elementary school and classroom supplies. 

In addition to inflationary costs, Bohnstack said the district is grappling with declining enrollment, which has not helped its financial situation. 

Data from the Department of Public Instruction reports that Wisconsin public schools lost 14,087 students this year. Wisconsin school funding is a complicated per-pupil formula that is tied to student enrollment, meaning that districts receive less state funding if they have a drop in the number of students.

“The challenge I have is I could lose 100 kids in my school district, but not be able to eliminate a single teaching position, because those kids are spread out over 12, 13 different age groups, and if I was originally of class sizes in the thirties, and I now have class sizes in the twenties, I still need a teacher either way,” Bohnstack said.

The state’s funding system also leaves districts with few options, he said.

“They don’t fund special education in a way that you can budget for it,” Bohstack said. “I also see this stalemate right now all because of this 400-year [veto], $325, and to me, who pays the price right now because they won’t work together, is the educators, the kids caught in the middle and the schools and the communities,” Bohnstack said, adding that lawmakers should make use of the $4.6 billion state budget surplus to fund Wisconsin schools.

Over the weekend, Democratic lawmakers introduced a $1.3 billion proposal that would provide over $445 million towards general school aid for the 2026–27 school year and provide schools with a special education reimbursement at 60% sum sufficient, meaning schools would be guaranteed that rate. It’s unlikely that the package will advance in the Republican-led Legislature. 

Bohnstack isn’t holding his breath for action. 

“Hope is not a strategy. I have no hope that they will do anything… Let’s solve our own problems, and in the end, if they do well, we adjust,” Bohnstack said. 

Without the referendum, Bohnstack said the district is looking at freezing staff salaries. He said the district is already preparing to go to referendum in November if voters reject their spring request, though it would likely mean a larger request. 

“There were certain positions that we cut that we cut deeper than what we needed to, and we need to ensure we have the programming in place to recruit and retain teachers, so there are some staffing positions that we need to rebuild,” Bohnstack said. He added that the technology and curriculum in the district needs to be updated.

Thompson said that a later referendum likely won’t be “any easier for people from a tax standpoint, I suspect,” but the district has to “be realistic about it and plan for what happens if it doesn’t pass.”

And still, the passage of the referendum wouldn’t be the end of Dodgeville’s referendum conversations. Its nonrecurring request would end in 2029 and could put it back at the financial point where it is now.

“Either the Legislature changes the formula, or we’re going to be coming back for a referendum in three years,” Bohnstack said. “We’re not going to be able to cut our way out of this challenge that we’re currently in.”

Lake Country’s referendum to determine consolidation or dissolution conversation

Chad Schraufnagel, the district administrator of the Lake Country School District, said his district has no choice but to go to referendum. The district, which is one of seven public school districts that feed to Arrowhead Union High School District, is going for its third “retry” attempt. 

One operational request in 2024 failed, though a capital referendum passed that same year. A second operational request failed in April 2025

Schraufnagel said that without a referendum to help with operational costs, the district is looking at dissolving. 

The Lake Country request would provide the district with the ability to bring in $800,000 annually for four years through property taxes. Schraufnagel said the funds would be enough to “just give us time to try and figure out a strategic way to consolidate and move forward.”

“If we don’t get the referendum, our district [is] going to dissolve,” Schraufnagel said. “It’s going to be hard for us to keep the doors open beyond ’26-27.”

The last school district in Wisconsin to dissolve was the Ondossagon School District in 1990. It was absorbed into the Ashland, Drummond and Washburn districts.

Schraufnagel said he explains the difference to residents this way: “Consolidation, it’s a three-year, three- to four-year process, heavily involved, and it takes a lot of time to do it correctly and strategically, given all of the tax implications, contract implications, costs and things like that, but with consolidation, you have local control… Dissolution the state of Wisconsin is going to tell you how it’s going to go, and you have no more local control.”

Schraufnagel said the factors that led to the district’s financial difficulties are threefold: state aid not keeping up with inflation, overstaffing and the cost related to an unemployment benefit that could’ve been cut many years ago. 

“Those three things really were the financial nightmare for the district,” Shraufnagel said. “We could have as a district, I think, survived a combination of the two, but you cannot survive all three together.”

Schraufnagel said the district has worked to make over $1.6 million in cuts including by increasing class sizes, cutting post-employment benefits and eliminating programming such as band and Spanish courses.

“Those were very significant costs on the district that really were in control of the district… Now our problem is we’ve done all those things, but now it’s a matter of the state funding not keeping up,” Schraufnagel said. 

Schraufnagel said the previous requests were likely rejected for a number of reasons, including a large operational request for the Arrowhead Union High School District that was on the same ballot and was also rejected. He said that the district has also worked to be direct with residents on the issues at hand and why the district needs the referendum. 

Kelly Hoesly, a mother of three Lake Country School District students, is leading the “ Vote Yes” advocacy group in the district. She said the group is taking a new approach to informing community members about the referendum including watching social media and hosting events at local bars to provide answers to questions. She spoke with the Examiner one day after an event where she handed out about 130 “Vote Yes” signs to residents. 

Hoesly said she made the decision to send her children to the district because “it just felt like home” and reminded her of “my elementary school that I had growing up,” and she said she is hopeful the referendum will help prop up the district so it can make decisions about its future without its “back against a wall.”

“This referendum is about maintaining that quality of education that our students have today and supporting that,” Hoesly said. “I’m encouraged by how our community’s been engaging this time around. People are asking questions, they’re attending the meetings, they’re having conversations even with different viewpoints. It shows people care. I’m hopeful.”

The effort has not been without its challenges. Hoesly said there is a misunderstanding among some about what could happen if the referendum doesn’t pass. 

“There’s this appetite in our area to consolidate, and when talking about consolidation, everyone thinks it’s easy,” Hoesly said. 

This legislative session, Republican lawmakers, who have pointed out declining enrollment as the main reason for the funding issues plaguing schools — rather than state aid lagging inflation — have proposed that school districts look at consolidation as a solution to the funding woes that are pushing them to go to referendum. They’ve said the state’s 421 school districts constitute an “unsustainable” number of districts. 

During a public hearing in November on a package of bills meant to encourage school consolidation, Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said many districts have gone to referendum to “backfill” the loss of state aid due to declining enrollment, but that there “is no referendum that can be passed or law that can be signed to single-handedly reverse decades of birth rate declines to alleviate the stresses of declining enrollment in our schools. It’s clear that a more long-term solution is needed to address these demographic challenges because the status quo is not sustainable.”

The bills were framed as an option for schools, not mandatory. It is unclear whether the bills, which have passed the Assembly, will become law. They still need to pass the Senate before they can go to Evers to be signed or vetoed. 

Hoesly said that she has concerns given the complicated nature of school consolidation and the need for a referendum approving any consolidation. 

“In order for two districts to consolidate with one another, both voting communities have to go to the polls in a referendum vote and vote to approve it, and if one does and one doesn’t, then what?” Hoesly said. “If the communities don’t approve it, you are back at square one.” 

Schraufnagel told the Examiner that he didn’t think consolidation would not solve the school funding issue.

“If 87% of all districts, those that are K-12, are going to operational referendum, what is consolidation going to do? It’s going to delay you needing to go to an operational referendum for maybe two or three years. The funding has not changed,” Schraufnagel said. 

After consolidation, Trevor-Wilmot Consolidated Grade School District still goes to referendum

School consolidation did not end funding concerns for Trevor-Wilmot Consolidated Grade School District, though it did help stave off financial crisis for about a decade, according to District Administrator Tracy Donich.

The district was one of five school consolidations in Wisconsin between 2000 and 2022, according to WPR.

Donich said that when the districts consolidated in 2011, the move cut down on costs in some areas including as the district cut administration down to one principal and one superintendent. The state also provided incentives for school districts that opt to consolidate.

But, Donich said, costs remained the same in other areas.

“The things that don’t change are the number of students. You also have the same amount of transportation, so there are a lot of other costs that don’t go away when you consolidate, but they did what they should. That helped for a little while, and eventually that temporary funding ran out,” Donich said. 

Donich said the district “started to see a deficit budget,” which led to it going to referendum in 2022. Since the referendum was approved, Donich said the district has been considering the next one. 

Trevor-Wilmot Consolidated Grade School District is seeking a $6.8 million nonrecurring referendum. It would provide $1.1 million in year one and $1.9 million in years two, three and four. 

Donich said the district is fortunate that the community has been supportive in the past, and they have worked to provide financial updates at school board meetings as well as set up  displays at athletic events and posts on social media and the school website. 

“We’re really trying to be very transparent with the community and give them all the information they need to make an informed decision,” she said. 

This year’s April requests come as Wisconsin voters appear to be less friendly towards school funding referendum asks. Recent polling from Marquette University Law School found that 57% of voters said they would be inclined to vote against a referendum to increase taxes for schools in their communities. 

Donich said the state’s funding formula “is definitely needing some updates… so the local taxpayers aren’t feeling that pinch quite so much.”

This year, the district’s request has increased from the previous referendum to deal with inflationary costs and a lack of state funding. Donich noted that the district has to transfer over $1 million each year from its general fund to its special education fund to keep up with the mandated costs. 

“If we would not have to do that, it would really help us with having to go to referendum, possibly we wouldn’t even have to go to referendum if they had kept up even with half the amount of inflation,” Donich said. “We wouldn’t be in this situation at all.” 

Without the referendum, Donich said the district will look to cut costs by delaying technology upgrades and having classrooms cleaned less frequently.

“We need to find a way that’s sustainable to help our school system thrive and not being able to rely on the factors at the state level definitely encourages people to go to more referendums,” Donich said. “When we have to do a budget without having any idea what the state will be able to provide, federal funding shifts, the most reliable thing we have is our local community.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

PBS Wisconsin's "Here & Now" sat down with the candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court to ask them about an important Supreme Court decision from the 2020 election and see how they would have ruled.

The post Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates offer different takes on 2020 election lawsuit appeared first on WPR.

The U.S. Department of Justice has begun connecting its push to obtain sensitive personal data on millions of voters to whether the upcoming midterm elections will be fair and secure, laying the groundwork for the Trump administration to potentially cast doubt on the results.

The Justice Department has sued 29 states and the District of Columbia over their refusal to provide unredacted voter rolls that include the driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers of voters. The department has lost three of those lawsuits so far this year.

But as the Justice Department begins appealing the losses, it has filed emergency motions warning the “security and sanctity of elections” would be questioned in those states — California, Michigan and Oregon — without immediate rulings.

Election experts told Stateline that federal appellate courts are unlikely to move quickly for the Justice Department. Instead, the department’s court filings suggest that without the data, the Trump administration may question the validity of the midterm elections in November.

“Absent a final Court determination on this matter there is no other process to ensure a fair election in 2026,” the Trump administration’s motions say.

President Donald Trump has made identifying noncitizen voting, an extremely rare occurrence, a priority of his administration, and the Justice Department has said the detailed personal data is necessary to ensure states are properly maintaining their voter rolls. At least a dozen Republican-led states have provided the information.

Democratic election officials, and some Republicans, have condemned the demands as an invasion of voters’ privacy and have voiced concerns the Trump administration plans to use the information to target political opponents or create a national voter list. Other Republican election officials and the Trump administration and have downplayed privacy concerns and said the data will help ensure only eligible voters cast ballots.

The DOJ’s sense of urgency comes after the department spent months sending letters to state officials demanding voter data, followed by successive rounds of lawsuits against states that refused to comply — all in what department officials said was the pursuit of noncitizen voters.

“We know this isn’t a big problem nationwide,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

“We know the states have adequate safeguards,” Becker said. “We see Republicans — Republicans — coming out and saying this repeatedly. So there is no problem that urgently needs to be solved in advance of the election.”

But the Trump administration has increased its attention on elections in recent weeks. In early February, Trump voiced a desire to “nationalize” elections. He demanded Congress pass a proof of citizenship voter registration requirement and strict voter ID rules. The U.S. Senate is expected to debate the bill next week, but it is unlikely to have enough votes to advance.

The FBI has also seized ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia, and the Arizona Senate complied with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to its 2020 audit of that year’s election results in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Michigan responded to the Justice Department in a March 6 court filing by asserting that its case involves no emergency. Lawyers representing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, wrote that the appeal doesn’t challenge any state election law or rule and that the outcome of the case would have little to no effect on the 2026 election.

In response to an interview request, Benson’s office referred Stateline to a news release that quoted the secretary as urging election officials across the country “to stand up to the federal government’s overreach and to safeguard citizens’ private voting information we’ve been entrusted to protect.”

Oregon Democratic Secretary of State Tobias Read said in an emailed statement to Stateline that he’s “confident in our case, and trust the courts will continue to uphold the Constitution and the privacy rights of all Oregonians.”

California Democratic Secretary of State Shirley Weber didn’t respond to an interview request.

Race against time

Federal judges have so far ruled that even though states must perform maintenance on their voter rolls, federal law doesn’t give the Justice Department authority to obtain full voter lists.

While the Justice Department now claims the security and sanctity of upcoming elections necessitates the need for speed, the department hasn’t alleged any states are violating federal voter list maintenance requirements, said Derek Clinger, senior counsel and director of partnerships at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

“This is the first time in all the litigation that DOJ has claimed that there’s an urgent need to resolve the cases,” said Clinger, who is tracking the voter data lawsuits.

Even if courts ultimately determine that states must provide the voter data, it’s not clear that the Justice Department could make effective use of it before the midterms.

Federal law generally prohibits states from conducting significant purges of registered voters less than 90 days before primary and general elections. For example, that period will begin in Michigan on May 6 ahead of the state’s Aug. 4 primary election.

The Justice Department has asked for all court documents in its Michigan appeal to be filed by April 1. Even if the appellate court immediately ruled in the department’s favor, only 35 days would be left until the pre-primary blackout period.

Lawyers for Michigan wrote in its court filing that it is “dubious” that any serious assessment of the state’s 7.3 million voters could occur in that time frame.

Still, Rosario Palacios, a naturalized U.S. citizen who leads the good-government group Common Cause Georgia, said she’s worried the federal government could wrongly flag her or others like her as noncitizens if the Justice Department eventually obtains her state’s unredacted voter roll.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security operates a powerful online program called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) that it uses to verify citizenship. It has previously invited states to run their voter rolls through the program, and the Trump administration in September confirmed the Justice Department is sharing state voter roll data with Homeland Security. But SAVE has faced criticism from some election officials for mistakenly flagging U.S. citizens for review.

After the department sued Georgia for refusing to turn over its data, Palacios and Common Cause intervened in the lawsuit to oppose the demand.

Palacios said in an interview she’s worried some may choose not to participate in the election. “The fear alone of this is going to make people withdraw.”

Some GOP states share voter data

The Justice Department has offered few details about how it intends to analyze the voter data it obtains. The agency didn’t answer questions from Stateline and declined to comment.

Idaho Republican Secretary of State Phil McGrane last month said he wouldn’t turn over voter data. McGrane declined an interview request, but in a Feb. 26 letter to the Justice Department he raised concerns about data security.

“While I appreciate the Department’s representations that Idaho’s data will be safeguarded, I cannot take that now-apparent risk in the absence of clear legal duty to do so,” McGrane wrote.

Some Republican election officials have decided to share their state’s data, however.

Eric Neff, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s Voting Section, wrote in a March 2 court filing that 18 states had either shared voter data or planned to do so soon. He didn’t name those states.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which tracks the voter data requests, has identified at least a dozen states that have provided the data: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Two of those states — Alaska and Texas — provided their voter rolls after signing a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with the Justice Department.

The document, marked confidential, says that after the state provides its voter roll, the department agrees to test, analyze and assess the information. Each state agrees to “clean” its voter roll within 45 days by removing any ineligible voters. States would then resubmit their list.

Tennessee Elections Coordinator Mark Goins, who works under Tennessee Republican Secretary of State Tre Hargett, said in an interview that the state had shared its voter data after concluding that DOJ was entitled to it as part of its authority to enforce federal voting law. But Goins said Tennessee had decided against signing the memorandum of understanding because of concerns that the agreement conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act, which sets rules on when election officials can remove voters from their lists.

“When you’re dealing with this much data, and we have 4 million registered voters here, there could be a false flag and you certainly don’t remove anyone improperly,” Goins said.

In Texas, it’s unclear when the Justice Department will provide feedback on the state’s voter list. The state is currently in the preelection blackout period on sweeping changes to its voter registration list ahead of a May 26 primary runoff election, a spokesperson for Texas Republican Secretary of State Jane Nelson told Stateline.

Texas already ran its voter roll of more than 18 million voters through Homeland Security’s SAVE program last year, identifying 2,724 potential noncitizens registered to vote. County election officials were then left to investigate the flagged voters.

Christopher McGinn, executive director of the Texas Association of County Election Officials, said he’s unsure what would happen now, given that the state’s voter roll was recently examined by SAVE.

“Especially since those noncitizens were, in theory, cleaned up,” McGinn said.

In Alaska, the decision to share voter data has produced blowback from some state lawmakers. The state constitution guarantees a right to privacy that “shall not be infringed.”

Alaska Director of Elections Carol Beecher faced skeptical lawmakers during hearings last week that probed her refusal to waive attorney-client privilege to divulge the legal advice she received before providing the voter roll. In response to questions from Stateline, Beecher’s office referred back to her remarks to lawmakers.

“At this point, I am not willing to waive that privilege,” Beecher said at an Alaska Senate hearing.

Alaska state Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat who was among those who questioned Beecher, in an interview predicted the state will soon face lawsuits challenging the data sharing. He also said lawmakers are looking into pursuing legislation that would direct state officials to seek the return of the information from the Justice Department.

“I just think there’s a total lack of trust in what the federal government will do with this information,” Wielechowski said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Earlier this week, the ACLU of Wisconsin announced a $450,000 ad buy in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. It's substantial, but a drop in the bucket compared to last year's court race.

The post This year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court fundraising fight is comparatively calm appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin is one of 29 states being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over sensitive voter data, and state election officials have asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.

The post Wisconsin election officials pushing back against US DOJ lawsuit seeking voter list appeared first on WPR.

Public concern about rising costs is fueling hopes for a blue wave in the November midterm elections, as well as Democratic wins in Wisconsin that could deliver trifecta control of the Legislature, governor’s mansion and state Supreme Court.

But even if the would-be autocrat in the White House does not find a way to disrupt the midterms, the rise of affordability as the dominant public issue is a both blessing and a trap. The intense focus on micro (household) economics neglects a bigger battle Democrats must fight. 

It’s dangerous to make too narrow a response to President Donald Trump’s authoritarian threat. Democracy is menaced on two fronts: first the immediate attack on its institutional bedrocks — fair elections, equal justice, constitutional checks and balances — and second by the underlying cause of the civic emergency: a profound crisis in legitimacy arising from a chronic failure of government to deliver on the most pressing problems affecting peoples’ lives and futures. 

The long-term failures of the U.S. government to promote and protect a decent life for most people have  produced combustible political kindling, exploited by an authoritarian movement and its charismatic leader, to seize power  and ignite the most profound crisis in democracy since the darkest days of the Great Depression.

Thousands of our neighbors in Minnesota and Illinois, thrust into the first front of the struggle, are responding with courage and discipline. They are demonstrating the power of organized people and civil society groups with active members, aided by the elected officials they inspire to action, to hold the line for democracy. Grassroots defenders of democracy must continue to peacefully resist every authoritarian offensive, but if we fail to also address the underlying drivers of the crisis, victory will be fleeting.

Wisconsin’s crucial role

As a state that will determine the outcome of the 2028 presidential election, Wisconsin may be fated to play its most important role on the second front: the challenge of demonstrating that democracy is up to the task of meeting the challenges of 21st century life. To meet this charge we must come to terms with the depth of public discontent that has opened millions to the scapegoating rhetoric of authoritarian demagogues while demoralizing and disengaging still more who have come to believe, through embittering experience, they have no stake in democracy.

The affordability crisis is not transitory, it is a symptom of a long-term decoupling of the general economy, and democratic government itself, from the bread-and-butter worries of working people. The widespread realization that the economy is stacked against most people casts a pall over American politics. According to a recent New York Times/Siena poll, two-thirds of respondents believe the middle class is beyond the reach of most Americans. 

Until the late 1970s, majorities of voters could believe that a thriving economy would benefit them personally, and that most had a pathway to the middle class. There were glaring inequalities along racial, gender and geographic lines, yet for millions of working class people, including immigrants from around the globe and Black refugees from the Jim Crow South, macro and micro economics were conjoined.

After 50 years of economic rigging orchestrated by the ultra wealthy, the most rapacious corporations, and pliant politicians from both parties, this faith has been dashed. While lacking the suddenness of the 1929 crash, the cumulative effect is like a slow motion slide towards depression for the working and middle classes. In the richest country on Earth a stunning 60% of Americans worry about affording the basics of life, while in Wisconsin 35% of all households, and 60% of Black households, make less than a survival income.

This is no accident. As Harold Meyerson details in The American Prospect, through a half century of deliberate policy choices most of the benefits of growth have been funneled to the privileged few, resulting in a $79 trillion shift in assets to the top. If national income were distributed now as equally as in 1975, each wage earner would make an astounding $28,000 more per year on average. Combined with the deliberate encouragement of massive corporate monopolies with the power to jack up prices, this immiseration is pushing people to  a breaking point, making affording health care, housing, energy, food and education more and more challenging for the less than rich.

Despite its effectiveness in abetting the largest wealth transfer in history, government at all levels has been rendered stunningly inept when it comes to public works, social policy, and almost everything else that benefits the working and middle classes. 

A parallel crisis in the 1930s

In the New Deal economic order, there seemed to be nothing the government could not accomplish, from the work programs of the 1930s, to the economic mobilization against fascism, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and the moon mission. Now everything from high speed rail to rural broadband, affordable housing, health care, child care, public education and cheap, renewable energy is tied up in knots.

While much of the blame can be placed on  the deliberate sabotage of government by an unholy alliance of grasping billionaires, big corporations, and right wing ideologues, a growing chorus of social critics also point the finger at a major shift in liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s. Recent books by Paul Sabin, Marc Dunkelman, Richard Kahenberg, Yoni Appelbaum, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and to significant degrees Bill McKibben and Gary Gerstle, make parts of a compelling case that the reaction against abuses of administrative power provoked liberals to overcorrect by creating so many regulatory and legal hurdles that government struggles to get anything big done that benefits the working and middle classes.

Further tarnishing public trust, this impotence does not apply to oligarchic power. The only force with the political and economic resources to cut through all the landmines and bottlenecks to bold action are the giant corporate monopolies, as we are seeing with the reckless buildout of highly unpopular AI data centers without guardrails to protect the public interest in affordable energy, clean air, and the stability of the climate on which we all depend.

The most useful historical analogy to our perilous situation is what Franklin Roosevelt confronted after Herbert Hoover’s futility in responding to the calamity brought on by that era’s economic royalists. Jonathan Alter and Eric Rauchway show that top opinion leaders of the era such as Walter Lippmann and William Randolph Hearst believed democracy too paralyzed to succeed, and openly advocated for Roosevelt to suspend Congress and assume dictatorial powers. 

Roosevelt was reportedly quite taken with the movie Gabriel Over the White House, a Hearst-funded production about a president seizing dictatorial power and curing the Great Depression. Ultimately, Roosevelt refused to take this path, although he fretted that failure would make him the last president. Democracy’s last near death experience in the 1930s has passed from collective memory only because Roosevelt did not fail. 

Drawing on reforms developed over three decades of progressive and labor organizing, Roosevelt amassed sufficient power to take radical action within the constitutional order to restructure and democratize the economy. Despite atrocious racial discrimination baked in by segregationist Democrats, the reforms tangibly improved material circumstances enough to restore the public’s belief that democracy could deliver. Despite receiving only half a loaf, even Black voters defected from the GOP in droves.

A difference between 1933 and 2026 is that authoritarians had not yet seized power, and despite sharp policy disagreements, Hoover and Roosevelt were committed to democratic norms. Today’s political crisis, like the crisis of the 1930s, is driven by economic elites capturing public policy and destroying democracy’s capacity to deliver what people need to thrive.

Divided Democrats

Within the big tent of the current pro-democracy coalition there is a comparable division to that of Roosevelt’s time on the necessity of structural reform. The division is even more dangerous now, in the face of an actual authoritarian takeover. This fissure is exemplified by the vast gulf between two of the most successful “blue wave” candidates of 2025: New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani, and Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, who gave the Democratic response to Trump’s State of the Union. 

Spanberger’s affordability agenda focuses on the cost of health care, housing, and utilities. Although strongly messaged, substantively she offers a series of opaque technocratic fixes and small bore policies that will not shift pricing power away from monopolies, nor raise the incomes of workers. For example, she nibbles around the edges of health care, yet keeps the foxes in the henhouse, leaving hospital monopolies, big insurance and Big Pharma in control of setting grossly inflated prices.

This contrasts sharply with Mamdani, who offers remarkably clear and understandable solutions — a rent freeze, fast free buses, a $30 minimum wage, free universal child care, paid for with a wealth tax — which would make one of the world’s most expensive cities more affordable for working and middle class New Yorkers. While Mamdani’s agenda is challenging to achieve in a system stacked against bold action, in contrast to Spanberger’s suite of solution-ettes, its clarity means voters can fulfil their democratic role by holding either the mayor or those who block his agenda accountable.

This divide among Democrats does not necessarily map on a left to center axis but on whether the affordability crisis requires small adjustments to an otherwise healthy system or structural reform that democratizes power and tangibly improves material circumstances. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), the co-chair of the centrist Blue Dog Democrats, declares: “You do not save democracy by running around, yelling about saving democracy. You do it by demonstrating that democracy and Democratic values deliver better quality of life for normal people.”

Springing the affordability trap

Donald Trump is feeling the brunt of public outrage for his false sales pitches on affordability. If he actually had a program to lower prices and raise wages he would have built greater support for his authoritarian project. We may not be so fortunate if a more effective autocrat is elected in 2028.

This is why affordability is a trap for Democrats: winning elections on empty promises will only deepen the crisis in democracy, setting the table for future authoritarians. Josh Bivens writes for In These Times that creating a more equal and affordable economy requires a “sharp change” in the “policy path” of the last half century.

The only solution to the ails of democracy is deeper and more robust democracy. As I wrote in the Wisconsin Examiner after Gov. Evers ignored public pressure to fight for a better state budget, the future of multiracial democracy does not depend on elected officials alone. It depends on more people organizing effectively to push them towards compelling and forceful action. Movements make leaders, not the other way around. 

We have already seen this happen on the first front of the fight to save democracy. Democratic leadership in Congress is fighting harder and using the power they have to more assertively check Trump’s lawless usurpations only because of immense pressure from organized people and everyday Americans. We must now apply this same pressure to demand that candidates and electeds fight to transform the rigged economy and ossified governing structures stacked against effective action. 

Because of Wisconsin’s enormous influence in presidential elections, we have a special obligation to light a fire under Democratic candidates for the Legislature and governor in a crowded primary field. We need more people to push the candidates, and more to join with organizing groups that are working to impel them to fight for bold and impactful reforms that a beleaguered and disillusioned people will feel in their daily lives. How Wisconsin Democrats run in 2026, and especially how they govern in 2027, will have a tremendous influence on how presidential contenders run in 2028, a year that could be democracy’s last best hope.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The United State Postal Service has changed a postmark rule. How will that affect Wisconsin voters who mail in their voter registration or absentee ballots?

The post Will new postmark rule affect voter registration, absentee ballots in Wisconsin? appeared first on WPR.