Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Fresh appeal vowed by conservatives pressing to cull Wisconsin voter rolls

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul

"I think that this decision is a win not only for the voters who were close to being purged, but also for democracy," said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will be the next player in the high-stakes game of legal pingpong over the future of 209,000 names on the registration rolls.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which has been fighting since last fall to get those people stricken from the roster of eligible voters, is asking the state's highest court this week to reverse an appeals court ruling from last week that said there should be no such removal.

The dispute is the most intense voter purge fight now underway in an undeniable presidential battleground. Donald Trump's margin of victory in the state was less than 23,000 last time — or about one-ninth the number of voters now in dispute, most of whom are identified with addresses in Democratic precincts. And Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes are central to the strategies of both parties this fall.


"Wisconsin deserves clean elections in 2020," Rick Esenberg, the president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said in announcing the appeal.

"I think that this decision is a win not only for the voters who were close to being purged, but also for democracy," said Josh Kaul, the state's Democratic attorney general.

A decision by the state Supreme Court not to get involved (it's bypassed opportunities to intervene so far) would be a decisive win for voting rights advocates. But if the justices decide to hear the case, and end up reversing the 4th District Court of Appeals to decree that the names should get dropped, the voters will put their hopes in a separate lawsuit being pressed on their behalf in federal court by the League of Women Voters.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The dispute got started last fall after 209,000 registered voters were flagged by a computer algorithm as having changed their residences. The state Board of Elections, with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, decided unanimously that — since such computer runs in the past had mistakenly tagged thousands of voters as having moved away — any purge should be delayed until after this November's election to allow any errors to be identified without disenfranchising people.

That's when the conservative legal foundation sued, arguing state law did not give the board that sort if discretion. The law requires deactivating the registrations of people who don't respond within a month to notices saying there is reliable information they have moved out of state.

A judge in Ozaukee County, a heavily Republican suburban area north of Milwaukee, ordered the voters immediately removed. When the state board deadlocked on how to respond, he ordered them fined and held in contempt.

On Friday, three judges on the appeals court unanimously took the opposite position — essentially ruling that state law leaves it up to local elections clerks to decide when to deactivate voters, and provides no role for the state elections board.

"In interpreting the Wisconsin Statutes, courts may not rewrite the plain language of the statutes the Legislature has enacted," the judges wrote. "Acceptance of the arguments of plaintiffs would cause us to rewrite statutes enacted by the Legislature, and that we cannot do."

The decision will allow for the thousands of voters to stay on the rolls for at least the next five weeks, when Democrats will award 84 delegates in the April 7 presidential primary.

And even if a voter has their registration deactivated, they may register again, even on Election Day when they show up at the polls, assuming they have the necessary proof of identity and residency.

The initial computer run produced a list of 234,000 inactive voters, but that number has been reduced about 10 percent by people who have proven their eligibility and residency.

Read More

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?

In an extraordinary move yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a public statement rebuking President Donald Trump following Trump’s call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

The controversy began when Judge Boasberg ruled against the Trump administration’s deportation plans under the Alien Enemies Act, citing misuse of the rarely used 1798 law. Trump responded furiously on Truth Social, writing:

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Elon Musk's Conflicts of Interest with DOGE

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Co-Chair of the newly announced Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arrives on Capitol Hill on December 05, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

Just the Facts: Elon Musk's Conflicts of Interest with DOGE

Our ongoing series, “Just the Facts,” strives to approach news stories with both an open mind and skepticism, so we may present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we look to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.

Does Elon Musk have conflicts of interest running DOGE?

Keep ReadingShow less
Rollie Olson: Religious diversity for the common good
- YouTube

Rollie Olson: Religious diversity for the common good

Rollie Olson is the Program Manager who supports the Democracy and Bridgebuilding Initiatives at Interfaith America.

Interfaith America believes religious diversity is a foundational American strength.

Keep ReadingShow less