Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What not to do: Wisconsin provides a case study in election resilience

Opinion

Wisconsin voters

"Every state has an opportunity and obligation to learn from the debacle in Wisconsin," writes U.S. PIRG's Joe Ready.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Ready is the democracy program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the network of state organizations that use research, grassroots organizing and direct advocacy to advance the public interest.

Last week's election in Wisconsin was a total failure of leadership. No one should ever be forced to choose between going to the polls and risking coronavirus infection, or staying home and forgoing the basic right to vote.

Yet despite the clear threat to public health and to our democracy, about 300,000 Wisconsinites confronted that very choice and decided to get out and vote. The full extent of the damage, both to human health and voter participation, may never be known.

What is abundantly clear though, is that with a bit of foresight and planning, this could have been avoided. Elected officials in Wisconsin and across the country should act now to avoid repeating the same mistakes.


States have a constitutional obligation to provide all voters the opportunity to participate in elections safely. But for too many Wisconsinites, the long lines and packed polling places, as well as the confusing and (up until the eve of election day) constantly changing absentee voting policy, casting a vote under the life-threatening cloud of a deadly disease seemed too dangerous. That can't happen again.

The Covid-19 outbreak has exposed a gaping hole in our election systems. Very few states have established voting procedures to withstand the public health emergency that a pandemic presents.

Over the past weeks, we've seen states scramble to come up with ways to safely run elections. Some states, including Maryland, were successful. Republican Gov. Larry Hogan decided weeks ago to turn his state's April 28 special congressional election in Baltimore into a vote-by-mail contest, and to postpone the state's spring primary to June.

Of course, safe, secure elections can't happen overnight. It takes time — as well as money and infrastructure — to print ballots, mail them to voters, staff polling places and implement systems for tracking and counting votes. With that in mind, every state has an opportunity and obligation to learn from the debacle in Wisconsin and start work now to quickly establish plans for resilient elections come November.

Fundamentally, each plan should ensure that every voter is able to access and cast their ballot safely, even if the novel coronavirus persists. More specifically, states must untether themselves from the traditional voting model — the idea that everyone votes on one day at one place.

We need to create more space, both literally and figuratively, for people to engage in the election process. One of the best ways to do that is to expand access to voting by mail, up to and including having the emergency option to mail every eligible voter a ballot directly.

Vote by mail isn't perfect; there is real value in a private voting booth. But during a pandemic, the advantages and necessity of emergency universal vote by mail are clear. If by November, allowing thousands of people to congregate at the polls still presents a public health risk, states need to have the ability to directly mail all registered voters an absentee ballot. This would allow them to make their voices heard from the comfort and safety of their own homes.

In addition to expanding voting by mail, states should expand access to voter registration, adjust deadlines and make plans to accommodate voters for whom voting by mail doesn't work. Building out all of these systems will require additional infrastructure and a robust public education effort.

The smart thing to do is to plan for a Nov. 3 when Covid-19 is continuing to make crowding in public places unsafe. That planning needs to start today. Seven months from now, there will be no excuse for elected officials caught unprepared.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less