Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Young Wisconsinites denied their voting rights, latest suit contends

Students at University of Wisconsin football game

Students in Wisconsin, like many at this Badgers football game, face an unconstitutional burden at the polls according to a new lawsuit.

Christian Petersen/Getty Images

Wisconsin's rules limiting student IDs at the polls are so strict they violate the constitutional right of young people to participate in democracy, a progressive group alleges in the latest lawsuit claiming voting rights violations in 2020 battleground states.

The suit, filed this week, asks the federal courts to block enforcement of the rules during the 2020 election, when the state's 10 electoral votes will be hotly contested. Last time, Donald Trump carried Wisconsin by less than 1 percentage point, breaking a seven-election winning streak for the Democratic nominees.

And suppression of the youth vote was a big reason why, the lawsuit alleges. It notes that while college-age turnout increased nationwide by at least 3 percent between 2012 and 2016, that same figure across Wisconsin declined at least 5 percent and in some parts of the state more than 11 percent.


The suit is one of at least a dozen filed this fall by progressive and civil rights groups alleging that improper barriers to voting have been raised in nine states, most of them with Republican governments but places where a Democratic nominee has the potential to compete next fall: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas.

The voter ID law at issue in Wisconsin was enacted in 2011 by an all-GOP power structure in Madison.

"While this decline is alarming, it is not surprising," the suit says. "It was precisely what the Wisconsin Legislature and former governor Scott Walker intended" when they enacted the voter ID law.

The claim was filed against the Wisconsin Elections Committee by the Andrew Goodman Foundation, which advocates for expanded political power for young people. It was created by Goodman's parents to honor their son, who was one of the three civil rights workers killed by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi in 1964.

The law allows a student to use a school ID as proof of identification at the polls only if it contains the issuance date, an expiration date no more than two years later and the holder's signature. Most IDs normally issued by Wisconsin colleges, universities and technical schools still do not meet those requirements.

The liberal super PAC Priorities USA estimates that without the law an additional 200,000 ballots would have been cast in the state, which Trump won by just 23,000 votes.

The suit asks the court to declare the ID law unconstitutional and block Wisconsin officials from enforcing it.

"What we continue to see in Wisconsin and other states around the country is that as student voter participation increases so do state-sponsored efforts to restrict their access to the ballot box," said David Goodman, president of the foundation.

The suit says the restrictions violate the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 nationally in 1971.

A separate and much broader challenge to Wisconsin's election voter IDs laws is before the 7th US. Circuit Court of Appeals.


Read More

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
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
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

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

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less