Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images

Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means

In an interview on Fox News, President Trump affirmed his support for H-1B visas. He argued that because the US lacks enough talented people, we “have to bring this talent” from abroad. His words sparked outrage among conservatives.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Trump’s staunchest loyalists, pushed back against Trump’s narrative. Greene praised US-Americans as “the most talented people in the world.” She even introduced legislation aimed at ending “the mass replacement of American workers” by the H-1B visa program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cryptocurrency: Debunking Myths, Understanding Realities, and Exploring Economic and Social Impacts
a pile of gold and silver bitcoins
Photo by Traxer on Unsplash

Cryptocurrency: Debunking Myths, Understanding Realities, and Exploring Economic and Social Impacts

“In 2020 and 2021, there was a big crypto bubble. You couldn’t turn a corner without seeing another celebrity crypto endorsement," said Mark Hays, the Associate Director for Cryptocurrency and Financial Technology with AFR/AFREF and with Demand Progress during the NFRPP’s October 25th, 2025, panel discussion. Hilary J. Allen, a Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law, joined Hays. The discussion was moderated by Peter Coy, a freelance journalist covering economics, business, and finance.

Celebrities like Kevin Hart, Gwyneth Paltrow, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Serena Williams, Paris Hilton, and Snoop Dogg jumped to endorse crypto-related companies. The record of these endorsements has been poor (Bloomberg), and some are calling for people who endorse these products without doing due diligence to face legal repercussions (Boston College Law Review). The message from the NFRPP’s panel discussion was one of intense skepticism towards cryptocurrencies in general, with Professor Allen going so far as to call them a “failure as a technology.”

Keep ReadingShow less