Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wisconsin voter purge isn't fast enough, conservative suit says

Wisconsin voters

Milwaukee has the highest number of voters — more than 35,000 — at risk of deactivation if a lawsuit in Wisconsin is successful.

Darren Hauck/Getty Images

A conservative group has sued in an effort to accelerate and even intensify a culling of Wisconsin's voter lists before the next election.

The typical narrative about proposed voter purges is that civil rights and progressive groups go to court to slow them down or stop them altogether. This week, the right-leaning Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty did the reverse — filing a lawsuit in state court arguing the state Elections Commission broke the law when it decided to wait until 2021 before deactivating as many as 234,000 voters who appear to have moved or left the state.

The outcome of the litigation could influence what's shaping up to be another close presidential contest in one of the nation's new battlegrounds. President Trump carried Wisconsin by just 23,000 votes in 2016 and is counting on its 10 electoral votes next year, too, but the Democrats are intent on winning the state for what would be the eighth time in nine elections.


The elections panel, with three members from each party, says it has the authority to delay the deactivation of voters beyond what one state law says is a 30-day deadline, because another law allows the commission to create rules for maintaining registration lists.

Two years ago, the commission sent more than 341,000 letters to voters it had identified as having maybe moved — and 98 percent were dropped from the rolls when their letters were not answered or could not be delivered. The panel said it received a flood of calls from people who were then mistakenly turned away from voting in the 2018 midterm election primaries.

The imbroglio prompted the commission to change the way it maintains the state's roster of 3.3 million registered voters — including extending the response time for movers to as long as two years.

Under this new rule, people suspected of moving could still vote in the April primaries and next November's election. The lawsuit says they should be purged immediately and required to register all over again.

Democrats are concerned this would force more of their voters than Republicans' to re-register. While Wisconsin does not track registration by party affiliation, four of the five municipalities with the highest number of movers — Milwaukee, Madison, Eau Claire and La Crosse — backed Hillary Clinton in 2016.

But the plaintiffs say requiring people to register anew is not an onerous burden as the state allows people to register and cast ballots on Election Day.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less