Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Wisconsin's top court will decide bellwether purge vs. clean voter roll case

Milwaukee, Wis., skyline

The voter registrations under dispute are concentrated in the Democratic strongholds of Milwaukee (above) and Madison.

Ron and Patty Thomas/Getty Images

This year's most prominent and consequential fight over voter registration — whether Wisconsin's rolls need to be "maintained" better or are at risk of being "purged" unfairly — is approaching a climactic moment.

The state Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the dispute, setting up a final resolution to a legal donnybrook that has transfixed good-government groups and political strategists since the fall.

The court's timetable leaves unclear whether its decision will come before November, however, when Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes will be central to the presidential outcome. The dispute is over the fate of 129,000 people whose whereabouts are in doubt. And President Trump carried the state last time by just 23,000 votes, breaking a seven-election Democratic run.


Beyond the consequence for another razor-thin election in the state, the case also raises central issues about the fairness of electoral democracy nationwide. Conservative groups say the system only works, free of fraud, if rosters of eligible voters and their addresses are kept up to date. Civil rights groups say overly aggressive culling of lists is part of a longstanding history of voter suppression.

The lawsuit was filed in November by a conservative think tank and law firm, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, alleging the Wisconsin Elections Commission was ignoring a state law requiring the removal of individuals who don't answer a so-called "movers mailing" within a month. The panel now allows people to stay on the rolls for two years after such a postcard gets sent.

A mailing was sent in October to 232,000 people identified by the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit group that many states use for maintaining registration lists. ERIC keeps track of such government paperwork as death certificates, felony sentencings, change-of-address forms and drivers' licenses.

That prompted 5,000 people to prove they were still at the address on file, 57,000 to re-register at their new homes and 42,000 to get dropped because they'd moved out of state, died, gone to prison or decided they didn't want to vote anymore.

So the heart of the dispute is now about the remaining 129,000 voters who had not been heard from as of this month. They live disproportionately in the Democratic strongholds of Milwaukee and Madison.

A trial court judge ordered the rosters culled in December and weeks later ordered elections commissioners held in contempt for not complying while they pursued their appeal. An appeals court unanimously overturned the judge in February and said the rolls should stay untouched until after the August primaries and the November election.

The state Supreme Court declined to intervene this winter, deadlocking 3-3. The seventh justice, conservative Daniel Kelly, recused himself because he was seeking re-election in April. He lost, and on Monday he was part of the majority deciding the court should now get involved.

Once his term ends in August, he will be replaced by liberal Jill Karofsky, narrowing the court's rightward tilt to 4-3. It's not clear when oral arguments or a decision will come, though, because lawyers have two months to file briefs and the court is usually in recess most of the summer.

But in a separate order, the justices declined Monday to immediately take voters off the rolls. And voters who are kicked off the rolls may re-register, in person or online, as late as Election Day.


Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

American flag funnel with money

Illustration provided

Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

Reducing the influence of money pouring into presidential politics since the 2010 Citizens United decision may actually be possible by addressing the "winner-take-all" (WTA) structure of the Electoral College. By changing how electoral votes are allocated, the incentive to concentrate money in a few swing states could be reduced.

The winner-take-all (WTA) feature of the Electoral College narrows the focus of massive campaign expenditures in a “Funnel Effect”* to a handful of closely divided battleground states. Because candidates have little to gain from spending in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind, they concentrate all their financial resources on 15 or 16 states, or in some cycles, as few as seven key swing states. All this could change if the "battleground state" phenomenon were taken away from the wealthy, as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) would accomplish.

Keep ReadingShow less