Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Conservatives want Wisconsin punished for resisting voter purge

Rick Esenberg

"Court orders are not suggestions and they're not rendered inoperative by the fact that you've filed an appeal," said Rick Esenberg of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

The pitched battle over the voter list in one of the nation's most important 2020 battlegrounds is only growing more intense.

A group of conservative voters on Thursday asked a judge to hold the Wisconsin Elections Commission in contempt of court and fine the panel $12,000 every day until it removes 209,000 names from registration rosters. Democrats are fighting to keep those people on the rolls.

The fight is particularly important for two reasons. The size of the potential purge is nine times bigger than Donald Trump's margin of victory in the state (23,000 votes) four years ago. And the effort to cull the lists represents one of the right's most aggressive legal challenges to voting rights ahead of this year's presidential election.


Two weeks ago the judge in the case, Paul Malloy of Ozaukee County in the Milwaukee suburbs, ordered deactivation of the registrations of those who did not answer a notice the election commission sent in October to people suspected of moving out of state. The mailing told those people that state law required them to confirm their addresses within 30 days as a condition for staying on the rolls. Otherwise, they would have to reregister.

The panel, with three members from each party, has since deadlocked on attempts by the Republicans to carry out the purge immediately while an appeal is pending.

"Court orders are not suggestions and they're not rendered inoperative by the fact that you've filed an appeal," Rick Esenberg of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which brought the lawsuitand asked for the commission to be penalized, said on WISN.

"This case should not effectively be ended before the appeals process plays out," replied Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul, who is representing the elections commission.

Trump is counting on the state's 10 electoral votes again this fall, but Democrats are intent on winning the state for what would be the eighth time in nine elections.

Doing that, however, will require a strong turnout from urban areas that are home to most of the people on the potential purge list.

Esenberg's group wants the state Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, to hear the commission's appeal. The commission wants an intermediate appeals court to take the next step and to put the judge's ruling on hold in the meantime. And the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin has sued in federal court to stop the purge, arguing the state's system violates the due process rights of voters.


Read More

Robot Holding a Resume Doing HR Work Vector Illustration

AI résumé screening can filter out qualified candidates before a human ever looks. Here's why transparency and human oversight in hiring matter.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

When AI Screens the Resume, Who Gets a Fair Shot at Work?

A job seeker can spend hours tailoring a résumé, checking qualifications and writing a thoughtful application, believing the next step will be a person deciding whether to schedule an interview.

Increasingly, that assumption may be wrong.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Piles of US $1 bills

Piles of US $1 bills split into sections of various hieght, red abstract background

Getty Images

The Genesis of America’s Debt Problem

Their [Trump Administration] new budget framework is the most irresponsible in modern history - and will put the American economy on a very dangerous trajectory.

The Brookings Institution, 2025

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less