Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Uncertainty envelops next week's Wisconsin primary

Wisconsin primary

This line at a fire station in Milwaukee during the 2018 midterm election will not be replicated during Wisconsin's April 7 primary because of the coronavirus — if the primary is even held as scheduled.

Darren Hauck/Getty Imags

Eight days to the Wisconsin primary and almost every aspect of it remains up in the air, from the rules for how people will vote to whether the election will even take place.

The state, which already looms as the essential presidential battleground in November, has quickly become the heart of the national debate about the propriety of voting during a pandemic. It is the only state that has not in some way delayed an April presidential primary, the main rationale being that some state and local contests on the ballot are for jobs that become vacant without a timely election.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers shifted course Friday and, after saying the polls should be open April 7 as usual, proposed that 3.3 million ballots be printed and delivered to every voter in the state in time for them to be filled in and sent back on schedule. Republicans in charge of the Legislature, who would have to pass a bill for that to happen, said the idea was a logistical impossibility.


A federal judge on Saturday consolidated three lawsuits filed against the state — efforts to postpone the primary altogether or at least relax the rules to make absentee voting easier for more people. The judge promised to rule on these requests in time.

Another federal judge on Friday dismissed Green Bay's bid to delay the election because of concerns about the safety of government employees, poll workers and voters.

Judge William Griesbach said cities lacked authority to bring such lawsuits, but he added that his decision "is not intended to minimize the serious difficulties the city and its officials are facing in attempting to conduct the upcoming election."

Wisconsin is not only an important place in Democratic presidential politics, with 84 pledged delegates at stake, but any changes in the voting process now could still be in place in November, when Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes will be top of mind for both nominees. Donald Trump won the state by just 23,000 votes last time, breaking a seven-election winning streak for the Democrats.

The most sweeping suit before U.S. District Judge William Conley seeks to have the primary delayed at least until the governor lifts his emergency order closing most schools and businesses and requiring most people to stay at home. That's not likely before May given President Trump's decision Sunday to extend federal social distancing guidelines through the end of April.

Another suit, filed on behalf of elderly people living alone and at highest risk of getting sick, wants to eliminate the requirement that a witness must sign all mail-in ballots. The third suit seeks to extend online registration times and suspend the requirement that people provide a photo ID and proof of residency, such as a utility bill, to register.

Conley signaled Monday he'd have a hearing Wednesday and told the Wisconsin Election Commission to explain by Monday night why the primary should not be delayed.

As of Monday morning the state had more than 1,100 confirmed Covid-19 cases and at least 20 deaths. It also had sent more than 848,000 absentee ballots to voters and seen nearly 252,000 returned, already a record for a springtime election in Wisconsin.

Day's end is the deadline for voters to register online if they want to cast an absentee ballot and Thursday is the deadline for requesting one.

"Even he knows that's not logistically feasible," state Senate GOP Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said of Evers' plan to rush out vote-by-mail forms. "Acting like this is doable is a hoax."

The current back-and-forth has totally overshadowed the big voting rights issue in Wisconsin before the novel coronavirus — whether to purge more than 200,000 names from the registration rolls, a matter that has been tied up in court for months and is now on hold.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, the conservative think tank leading that effort, said that Evers' proposal "might make sense if the Wisconsin Elections Commission kept the voter rolls clean and up to date, but we know that it does not."


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