Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Timely mail vote wins, Greens lose in bipartisan Wisconsin top court ruling

voting in Wisconsin
filo/Getty Images

Profound election complications have been averted in Wisconsin thanks to its judicial system, an exception to the trend of court decisions making voting during the pandemic more problematic in presidential battlegrounds.

Wisconsin's Supreme Court, which pushed the state's election toward fresh chaos last week, reversed course on Monday. The justices ruled the Green Party's ticket will not appear on the ballot, meaning more than a million vote-by-mail packets can be distributed and won't be delayed by a massive and expensive reprinting — and that thousands more ballots already delivered won't need to be replaced.

While the decision was an unexpected judicial victory for the cause of a smooth and comprehensive election despite the coronavirus — the good-governance movement's overriding objective for the year — it was a defeat for a long-term goal of many of those same democracy reformers: breaking the two-party duopoly, which is behind so much governing dysfunction, by propping up independent and outsider campaigns.


So far Green nominee Howie Hawkins, a retired Teamster, and running mate Angela Walker have qualified for the ballot in only about half the states, meaning they are mathematically out of the running. But their progressive presence is nonetheless concerning to Democrats, who worry the Greens could take enough votes away from Joe Biden in a few tossup states to provide President Trump a narrow path to victory. For the same reason, law firms and donors aligned with the GOP have been working to get the Greens more ballot access.

Green candidate Jill Stein took 31,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2016, when Trump secured the state's 10 electoral votes by less than 23,000 votes.

The high court ruled 4-3, with the justices deviating slightly from their usual lockstep party-line votes in election cases. One Republican, who had joined the all-GOP majority that called a halt to the ballot printing Thursday, joined the three Democrats in deciding Hawkins and Walker had waited too long to file their appeal. The state Elections Commission denied them placement on the ballot four weeks ago because of address discrepancies on their petitions.

Reversing that decision now, the court said, would cause "confusion and undue damage to both the Wisconsin electors who want to vote and the other candidates in all the various races on the general election ballot."

The decision signaled a similar fate for another outsider appealing his exclusion from the ballot, rapper Kanye West.

The ruling also means that the local clerks who run elections across the state can meet Thursday's state deadline for beginning to send out mail-in ballots, and Saturday's federal deadline for sending them to Wisconsinites overseas or in the military.

Applications have already been received from three of every eight voters in the state — more than 1 million in total, smashing Wisconsin's records for absentee voting. At the time the court put a hold on the process, packets of ballots and return envelopes had already been prepared by local clerks to fulfill more than a third of those requests, at least 378,000, the Wisconsin Election Commission estimated. At least 75,000 had already gone out the door.

Local election administrators had flooded social media with worry that they would not be able to find printers, let alone the money to pay them, had the high court ordered all new ballots that included the Hawkins-Walker ticket.

Monday was also the first day when local officials in another battleground, Pennsylvania, would normally be allowed to send out absentee ballots. But they could not, the state said, until there's resolution of lawsuit in which the Democrats are arguing against putting the Green candidates on the ballot. They will also be left off the ballot in Montana after Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied their appeal Monday night.

The surprise vote on the Wisconsin Supreme Court came from Brian Hagedorn, who had been counsel to the previous governor, Republican Scott Walker.

While he unexpectedly reversed the course of what had looked, as recently as Thursday, like a totally partisan legal dispute, two other court decisions with partisan overtones that have restricted voting in other swing states in the past week look highly unlikely to be reversed in the seven weeks before Election Day.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that an estimated 774,000 Floridians who have completed felony sentences will have to pay fines and fees before being allowed to vote. The decision reversed a lower court ruling that said the state's law to that effect, enacted after a referendum in 2018 returned the franchise to most people with serious criminal convictions, was akin to an unconstitutional poll tax.

And another federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a state law in Texas that allows no-excuse voting only for people older than 65, which the Democratic Party argues is illegal age dicrimination against younger voters.


Read More

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Many Victims of Trump’s Immigration Policy–Including the U.S. Economy

Messages of support are posted on the entrance of the Don Julio Mexican restaurant and bar on January 18, 2026 in Forest Lake, Minnesota. The restaurant was reportedly closed because of ICE operations in the area. Residents in some places have organized amid a reported deployment of 3,000 federal agents in the area who have been tasked with rounding up and deporting suspected undocumented immigrants

Getty Images, Scott Olson

The Many Victims of Trump’s Immigration Policy–Including the U.S. Economy

The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term resulted in some of the most profound immigration policy changes in modern history. With illegal border crossings having dropped to their lowest levels in over 50 years, Trump can claim a measure of victory. But it’s a hollow victory, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that his immigration policy is not only damaging families, communities, workplaces, and schools - it is also hurting the economy and adding to still-soaring prices.

Besides the terrifying police state tactics, the most dramatic shift in Trump's immigration policy, compared to his presidential predecessors (including himself in his first term), is who he is targeting. Previously, a large number of the removals came from immigrants who showed up at the border but were turned away and never allowed to enter the country. But with so much success at reducing activity at the border, Trump has switched to prioritizing “internal deportations” – removing illegal immigrants who are already living in the country, many of them for years, with families, careers, jobs, and businesses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of stock market chart on a glowing particle world map and trading board.

Democrats seek a post-Trump strategy, but reliance on neoliberal economic policies may deepen inequality and voter distrust.

Getty Images, Yuichiro Chino

After Trump, Democrats Confront a Deeper Economic Reckoning

For a decade, Democrats have defined themselves largely by their opposition to Donald Trump, a posture taken in response to institutional crises and a sustained effort to defend democratic norms from erosion. Whatever Trump may claim, he will not be on the 2028 presidential ballot. This moment offers Democrats an opportunity to do something they have postponed for years: move beyond resistance politics and articulate a serious, forward-looking strategy for governing. Notably, at least one emerging Democratic policy group has begun studying what governing might look like in a post-Trump era, signaling an early attempt to think beyond opposition alone.

While Democrats’ growing willingness to look past Trump is a welcome development, there is a real danger in relying too heavily on familiar policy approaches. Established frameworks offer comfort and coherence, but they also carry risks, especially when the conditions that once made them successful no longer hold.

Keep ReadingShow less
Autocracy for Dummies

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

(Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Autocracy for Dummies

Everything Donald Trump has said and done in his second term as president was lifted from the Autocracy for Dummies handbook he should have committed to memory after trying and failing on January 6, 2021, to overthrow the government he had pledged to protect and serve.

This time around, putting his name and face to everything he fancies and diverting our attention from anything he touches as soon as it begins to smell or look bad are telltale signs that he is losing the fight to control the hearts and minds of a nation he would rather rule than help lead.

Keep ReadingShow less