Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wisconsin's top court rules against a vigorous culling of the voter rolls

voting in Wisconsin
filo/Getty Images

Resolving for good what had been the biggest fight in years over voter rolls, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday against making the state aggressively cull its registration lists.

The 5-2 decision means an estimated 72,000 people technically remain eligible to vote next year, when the state expects to host two of the hottest Senate and governor's races in the country. But that seeming victory for the cause of easy access to the ballot box may prove entirely symbolic: The Wisconsin Elections Commission says that not one of those people voted in the presidential election last year, suggesting they may all have died or moved out of state and might not really deserve spots on the roster any more.

That mixed outcome echoes the sharp partisan divide nationwide over voter rolls. Republicans say too many of them are outdated or riddled with inaccuracies and that democracy is best served with proper "maintenance" that rules out any possibility of cheating. Democrats say that the risk of fraud does not merit sweeping "purges" that would end up denying eligible but infrequent voters their rights.


The suit focus on a state law that regulates voter registration and applies to county officials only, not the state's election administrators, the high court majority concluded in an opinion that ended more than two years of litigation.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In early 2019, the bipartisan Elections Commission sent letters to about 232,000 voters who it believed might have changed Wisconsin addresses, left the state or passed away. It asked them to register at their new address or confirm they were no longer eligible in the state. But the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty sued, arguing the state had to drop all those people from the rolls right away.

A judge in suburban Milwaukee agreed, but a state appeals court reversed his decision and the state's top court heard arguments in the case just before Election Day.

By that time, the list of questionable voters had been reduced by nearly three-quarters. Almost 160,000 either registered at a new address, said they hadn't moved, said they had moved, went to prison, were revealed to be deceased or came off the rolls for other reasons.

The remaining 72,000 voters were scheduled to come off the rolls this spring. Meagan Wolfe, the commission's director, said the agency would review the decision to determine how to treat those names now.

But the ruling's long-term effect may be to give municipal clerks as long as 18 months to decide when to cull people from registration lists in one of the nation's premier political battlegrounds. Last fall, for example, President Biden carried the state with just 21,000 votes to spare out of 3.2 million cast, an outcome that survived a two-county recount and numerous lawsuits. Four years before, Donald Trump won its 10 electoral votes by a similarly tiny margin.

"This decision is a clear win for Wisconsin voters," Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul said.

The law in question says voters should come off the rolls if they have not responded within 30 days to notifications after there is reliable information they have moved. If the court had ruled the opposite way, thousands of deactivated registrations would have happened automatically every two years.

The decision was authored by Justice Brian Hagedorn, a Republican who was elected last year and has emerged as a swing vote on the court.

Read More

The Paradox for Independents

A handheld American Flag.

Canva Images

The Paradox for Independents

Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.

I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

A single pawn separated from a group of pawns.

Canva Images

The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

Excerpt from To Stop a Tyrant by Ira Chaleff

In my book To Stop a Tyrant, I identify five types of a political leader’s followers. Given the importance of access in politics, I range these from the more distant to the closest. In the middle are bureaucrats. No political leader can accomplish anything without a cadre of bureaucrats to implement their vision and policies. Custom, culture and law establish boundaries for a bureaucrat’s freedom of action. At times, these constraints must be balanced with moral considerations. The following excerpt discusses ways in which bureaucrats need to thread this needle.

Keep ReadingShow less
Can a touchdown create community?
Free Images : nfl, national, football, league, logo, icon, sport ...

Can a touchdown create community?

Every year, on Super Bowl Sunday, Americans come together.

For one day, under the banner of a football game, the divisions that so often define our daily lives fade into the background. Our polling shows that three-quarters of liberals and conservatives alike plan to watch this year’s pro football championship game.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Democracy Reform Movement- If we can define it!

This is the first of an ongoing series titled “Cross-partisan Visions.” It is in honor of co-publisher David Nevins' dear friend Rob Stein, who passed away in May 2022. Stein was an early architect of what he called the “Cross-Partisan vision.” He and Nevins spent countless hours thinking about how people from across traditional divides can imagine and, therefore, collaboratively implement strategies to realize their common interests and shared destinies and, in turn, build a new values-based constituency with a collective vision and a compelling new cultural and political voice.

Our Founding Fathers created a masterful document that has stood the test of time. The Constitution of the United States prescribes the principles and the rules defining the organization of our government and is the supreme law of the land.

Despite its magnificence, the Constitution does not fully address the particulars of the manner in which we, the people, are to utilize our founders' marvelous blueprint of self-governance. It offers the mechanics of government; it defines the roles of our executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Its core component, the Bill of Rights, delineates the liberties we all cherish as Americans.

However, the constitution does not consider the question of how ourleadership interacts with each other and with the citizenry.

Keep ReadingShow less