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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less