Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

One Midwest win for each side in the voter purge wars

Wisconsin voting

A legal fight over the fate of thousands of names on Wisconsin's rolls is now likely to linger beyond November. Here, Milwaukeeans waiting to vote in the Covid-troubled April primary.

Sara Stathas/Getty Images

The partisan fight over how to maintain voter registration lists has delivered one victory for each side this week — both in Midwestern states central to the November election.

The top court in Wisconsin decided against fast-tracking a decision about removing from the rolls more than 100,000 people with potentially out of date registrations — a delay that benefits the cause of voting rights advocates. But in neighboring Michigan, a conservative group claimed victory and dropped its lawsuit against Detroit after the city took a group of dead people and duplicate names off the rolls.

The cases capture a debate that pitches those (mostly Democrats) who believe aggressive attempts to remove, or "purge," names from voter rolls are an attempt at voter suppression against those (mostly Republicans) who believe poorly maintained voter lists clogged with the names of the mortally or physically departed provide an opportunity for fraud.


The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request to expedite a case that initially involved the proposed removal of more than 230,000 names from the rolls.

Instead, the court said it would hear oral arguments in late September. The schedule makes it highly unlikely the court will rule before Election Day, when the state's 10 electoral votes could play a central role in the presidential contest.

Since the legal dispute began, about 100,000 of the voters facing potential removal have updated their information — still leaving in dispute 4 percent of the people on the rolls statewide.

Election rules in Wisconsin prohibit any change to the voter rolls within 30 days of an election, making it nearly impossible to remove any names before Nov. 3 even if the court rules that way.

In addition, a newly elected and progressive Supreme Court justice takes the bench in August, narrowing conservative control of the court.

The original suit was filed in November by a conservative think tank and law firm, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, claiming the elections commission was ignoring state law requiring the removal of people who don't answer a mailing sent to those who appear to have moved.

A trial court judge ordered the rosters culled but an appeals court unanimously overturned the judge in February.

In the Detroit case, the conservative. Indianapolis-based Public Interest Legal Foundation, which had sued city election officials in federal court in December, dropped its lawsuit on Tuesday after noting that officials had taken action to remove some of the out-of-date registrations.

The foundation claimed in its suit to have identified more than 2,500 dead people who remained registered to vote.

More than half had been dead more than a decade, nearly 900 have been dead more than 15 years and one was found with a birth date listed as 1823.

In addition, foundation researchers discovered what appeared to be duplicate and triplicate registrations for individuals, using different addresses.

The group repeatedly brought its findings to the attention of Detroit election officials but says the city did not take any steps to clean up the voting rolls.

Detroit election officials said the recent updates to voter rolls were largely the result of regular maintenance but conceded they had looked into a few specific claims in the lawsuit.

It turns out the listing for the voter with a birth date of 1823 caused by a typo.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Xavier Becerra

Getty Images

California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Political strategist, IVN commentator, and The Latino Century author Mike Madrid has a blunt warning for California: The campaign to repeal the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary would disproportionately silence the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

In a new Sacramento Bee op-ed, Madrid argues that Latino voters—particularly those who do not align with either major party—played a significant role in California’s record-setting June primary.

Keep ReadingShow less