|
WJI advocates for progressive change in Wisconsin’s justice system. Some of those changes can only come from legislation and who is positioned to make law. Being so, we are also committed to Wisconsin voter engagement. Whether different or supplemental electoral systems may serve voters' interests is an open question. Some believe other systems may enhance voter turnout, de-escalate the political climate encouraging more citizen participation, and give the electorate more say as to who makes it on the ballot. This piece is the first in a short series that covers other electoral systems and their current status in Wisconsin.
By Alexandria Staubach Thirty-nine percent of Wisconsin early voters cast their ballot for governor in this month’s primary election before the final field of candidates was set, according to Marquette University research and policy fellow, John Johnson. And, according to the Associated Press, 68,343 or 8.3% of the total vote count went to candidates that had dropped out - Mandela Barnes, Sarah Rodriguez, Missy Hughes. According to Johnson’s analysis, Milwaukee’s early voters wasted their votes at a much higher rate. 17.7% of the Milwaukee noncandidate votes came from early voting as opposed to 1.6% on election day. In most places it’s impossible to tell who early voters voted for. While the votes are cast in advance of election day, the ballots are not touched until the polls close. Most of the time, these early votes or absentee ballots (they’re the same thing) are transferred to the voter’s ward to be counted along with the votes cast on election day. However in some larger municipalities, including Milwaukee, many absentee ballots are sent to a single central processing location, and those numbers are not subsumed into a ward’s total count. But wasted votes are not the only criticism of this month's chaotic primary election. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley won the nomination by just 3,800 votes, with just 39.8% of the statewide total compared to Rep. Franchesca Hong’s 38.3% share. Neither candidate touched the majority threshold. Some have suggested that Rank Choice Voting could fix these issues, and the last two state legislative sessions have seen efforts to bring RCV to Wisconsin voters. Real headway was made in the 2023-2024 legislative session when a bipartisan bill for “Final Five” voting was initiated in the Senate and made its way through public hearing. Final Five voting, currently used in Alaska, is a popular model pioneered by Milwaukee native Katherine Gehl. Gehl, who authored a paper on the failure of competition in the U.S. political system, published by the Harvard Business School in 2017, also founded the Institute for Political Innovation which advances Final Five voting nationally. According to Gehl, Final Five is the combination of two electoral innovations. Top-five primaries, and RCV. The combination, according to Gehl, "ensures that we always elect the candidate with the broadest appeal to the most number of voters." Ultimately the bill died in committee and never received a vote but would have brought Final Five voting to Wisconsin for U.S. senator and U.S. representative races. At the time, Sen. Jesse L. James (R-Thorpe), said “change is hard,” but “our current system is not working.” And Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) said the proposal “has the ability to reduce partisanship, encourage cooperation, and puts the power back in the hands of the majority of population.” The bill had ten Democrat co-sponsors and eleven Republican co-sponsors. As the bipartisan effort floundered, a group of Republicans introduced a bill that would ban RCV statewide by constitutional amendment. Then Sen. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville) said, “there’s little evidence to suggest that adopting an alternative voting method would bring about transformative changes to our political environment,” and that banning RCV would “protect our time-tested election system from such experimentation.” Their amendment never made it out of committee. In the most recent legislative session, a group of Democratic senators introduced a bill that would allow municipalities to use rank choice voting at their discretion, but it too failed. So what is RCV? Last year, the American Bar Association’s Task Force for American Democracy published an in-depth analysis of the electoral system, and while it is not the formal position of the ABA, the work nevertheless concluded RCV “may help improve US democracy.” U.S. elections are run a few different ways. Broadly, there’s the “majority system” in which a candidate must obtain more than 50% of the vote in order to win, sometimes culminating in a runoff if no candidate gets the majority vote. The “top-two … or three or four” system lists all candidates irrespective of party affiliation on a single ballot and a predetermined number of those with the most votes go on to the general election. Finally, “plurality systems” are those in which the majority winner takes all regardless of vote share. This is what we use in Wisconsin. Plurality systems are the most common system in the U.S., but the majority system is well established, especially in the Southern States, where it’s been adopted everywhere except Florida. RCV ranks candidates in order of preference. If a single candidate has a majority (50% +1) they simply win. If no candidate has the majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the count starts again. Voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first have their votes transferred to whomever they ranked second and so on. It’s gained considerable traction in the U.S. over the last decade. While examples like the primary race for New York City mayor, in which Zohran Mamdani made history as the first Democratic Socialist elected to that office, make headlines, this isn't the system's maiden voyage in U.S. elections. Between 1915 and 1940, two dozen municipalities across six states adopted RCV, but it fell into disfavor and repeal efforts largely erased the practice between 1940 and 1950, according to the RCV Resource Center. “Politicians displaced by RCV, a lack of organizations amongst groups that benefited from RCV, and a political climate that turned against the parties elected through the proportional representation of RCV,” largely lead to its demise, says the RVC Resource Center. But RCV isn’t a single thing. It, like “top-two,” can be implemented in several ways. In New York City’s mayoral race, RCV was used in the party primary to decide which Democratic candidate went on to the general election. Whereas Los Angeles recently used RCV to hold a nonpartisan “top-two” primary. That ballot included all candidates regardless of party affiliation. If any had won a simple majority, they would have been mayor. However, there was no simple majority winner so the top two candidates – who are both Democrats – will now face each other during November’s general election. According to the ABA, a significant criticism of RCV includes that it is too complex for voters to understand and use successfully. This was also a complaint listed by legislators seeking to ban it in Wisconsin. But the ABA’s analysis found comparable rates of understanding of election rules in a study between voters in RCV cities and those matched in non-RCV cities. The ABA analysis additionally examined whether RCV changes campaign behavior and noted that it has “potential to encourage more civil campaigning by motivating candidates to seek broader support, thus reducing polarization.” “In sum,” says the analysis, “RCV is an improvement over plurality voting with clear benefits in terms of representation, campaign quality, mobilization, and turn out.” The research, demonstrates RCV “encourages greater consensus building as well as more civil political campaigns,” according to the analysis. Below you can find the Wisconsin legislators who have backed or attempted to block RCV. Their contact information is linked for your convenience, if you'd like to voice support or concern. Supported Final Five Sen. Jesse L. James (R-Thorpe) Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) Sen. Robert L. Cowles (R-Green Bay) Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) Former Rep. Daniel Riemer (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Womewoc) Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) Former Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) Rep. Steve Doyle (D-Onalaska) Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Alex Joers (D-Middleton) Former Rep. Scott L. Johnson (R-Jefferson) Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) Rep. Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz) Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville) Former Rep. Katrina Shankland Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) Former Rep. Jimmy Anderson (D-Fitchburg) Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Clinton Anderson (D-Beloit) Supported Ban on RCV Former Sen. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville) Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) Former Sen. Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan) Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) Former Rep. Ty Bodden (R-Hilbert) Rep. Chanz Green (R-Mason) Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) Rep. Elijah R. Behnke (R-Town of Chase) Former Rep. Janel Brandtjen Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) Former Rep. James Edming (R-Glen Flora) Rep. Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger) Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro) Former Rep. Gae Magnafici Rep. Paul Melotik (R-Grafton) Rep. David Murphy (R-Hortonville) Former Rep. Nik Rettinger (R-Mukwonago) Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc) Rep. Nancy VanderMeer (R-Tomah) Rep. Calvin T. Callahan (R-Tomahawk) Former Rep. Michael Schraa (R-Oshkosh) Former Rep. Donna Rozar Rep. Robert Brooks (R-Saukville) Rep. Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin) Former Rep. Peter Schmidt (R-Bonduel) Former Rep. Ellen Schutt (R-Clinton) Rep. David Armstrong (R-Rice Lake) Rep. Jerry L. O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) Supported local discretion for RCV Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) Rep. Amaad Rivera-Wagner (D-Green Bay) Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) Rep. Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa) Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Ben DeSmidt (D-Kenosha) Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) Rep. Darrin Madison (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point) Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) Rep. Ann Roe (D-Janesville) Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon)
0 Comments
 Derek Mosley (L) and Charles Franklin discussing recent poll results on July 22, 2026, at Marquette Law School. Photograph by Erik Reinthaler. By Erik Reinthaler
WJI Intern Growing opposition to proposed data centers, persistent concerns about the cost of living, and renewed public opinion on Act 10 were among the findings in the latest Marquette University Law School Poll, released Wednesday. The latest poll gathered information from 838 Wisconsin registered voters from July 8-16. Poll Director Charles Franklin presented the survey results at an event hosted by Derek Mosley, director of the law school’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Inflation and the cost of living remained voters' top concern, with 42% of respondents identifying it as the state's most important issue. Immigration and border security followed at 13%, and health insurance at 9%. Crime, an issue high on the list of voter concerns during the 2022 midterm election year, ranked low among voters' current priorities, with just 3% of respondents identifying crime in their community as the state's most important issue. "The economic issues are really at the top of people's minds," Franklin said. "It's not just one issue—it's this sort of cluster of things that are connected to the cost of living and affordability." The survey found that 76% of registered voters believe the costs of data centers outweigh their benefits, up from 69% in March and 55% in October 2025. (The October 2025 question was specific to a Microsoft data center.) Opposition increased across Republicans, Democrats, and independents. Just 22% of respondents said the benefits outweigh the costs. Despite those views, only 5% of respondents identified data centers as the state's most important issue. Franklin said the findings raise "an interesting question" about why widespread opposition to data centers has not translated into the issue becoming a major voting priority. "Given how many people have turned out at planning commission meetings and city council meetings to oppose data centers, and this lopsided 76% opposed to them, it doesn't look like it's really the biggest motivator for voting this time," he said. Mosley joked that opposition to data centers appeared to be "something we can all agree on." "Oh yeah," Franklin replied. "It's nice that we can agree on being against something." The poll also revisited Wisconsin's Act 10, which in 2011 terminated most collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. The poll asked respondents whether the act should be repealed and collective bargaining rights restored for public employees. A slim majority of registered voters, 53%, favored repealing the law, while 46% said it should remain in place. Franklin noted that the question had not been asked in several years and was worded differently than in previous Marquette polls, making direct comparisons difficult. Although not discussed by Franklin, poll results posted online show that approval of the Wisconsin Supreme Court rose from 46% in March to 50% in July; 38% of respondents currently disapprove of the court. The Supreme Court has maintained a positive net approval rating in every Marquette Poll since the question was first asked in 2023. Take action now and spread the word: VoteRiders helps Wisconsinites overcome voting barriers7/13/2026 Wisconsin has important elections coming up on Aug. 11 (primary) and Nov. 3 (general), with strict photographic identification requirements in place by law. Now is the time to make sure you, your family members, friends, and even acquaintances have a valid ID for voting. Check your own documents and let others know about the services VoteRiders provides for those who need help obtaining an acceptable voting ID.  By Erik Reinthaler WJI Intern Although for many eligible Wisconsin voters bringing photo identification to the polls is simply another step in the voting process, for others, obtaining the identification now required by law can be a significant obstacle to casting a ballot. VoteRiders is a valuable resource for overcoming that barrier. Spread the word. The VoteRiders nonprofit provides free, one-on-one assistance to eligible voters who need help obtaining identification or supporting documents. Wisconsin is one of the organization's eight priority states because of its long-standing voter ID law. Assistance includes helping people navigate the necessary processes, getting them rides to where they need to go, and even paying for government documents. Every voter's situation is different, and VoteRiders tailors its assistance accordingly. "We provide 100% free resources to people in order to get their ID or other underlying documents, like a birth certificate or Social Security card, cover transportation by getting them round-trip rides through rideshares, things like that," Wisconsin State Director Jake Spence told Wisconsin Justice Initiative in a recent interview. Spence works with voters facing ID obstacles every day. One of the biggest misconceptions, Spence told WJI, is that obtaining an acceptable voter ID is straightforward. In reality, replacing identification can become far more complicated than many people expect. For example, Spence said, ordinary life events can suddenly leave eligible voters without the identification they need. "We've had flooding in Milwaukee, and people are like, 'Oh yeah, I lost my birth certificate in the flood. I just moved to a new place like six months before the flood and hadn't updated my ID yet, so my ID no longer has my current address.'" Replacing lost identification often brings unexpected costs. "IDs don't grow on trees, so they do have to get paid for,” he said. “The voters don't pay anything…We will take care of all those costs," Spence said. “Folks think, 'Oh, I lost my ID. It's not a big deal. I can afford that.' But not everybody is in the same situation, and then when you couple that fact with the fact that we have this voter ID law, I mean, very clearly, some people are being pushed aside and are unable to cast a ballot, even if they want to, because they may be facing these monetary barriers or these bureaucratic barriers." Those are precisely the hurdles VoteRiders aims to eliminate. The burden falls unevenly Although anyone can lose an ID, Spence said the burden of replacing one is not shared equally. According to a national survey fielded in the fall of 2023 by VoteRiders, in partnership with the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Public Wise, an estimated 34.5 million voting-age U.S. citizens either lack a driver's license or state-issued ID, or they have one that does not reflect their current name or address. The survey also found that communities of color are disproportionately affected by these barriers. Although comparable Wisconsin estimates are unavailable, Spence said he sees the same patterns across the state. "It tends to be a lot of the marginalized communities,” he said. Those communities include Black and brown voters, Indigenous voters, young voters, students, voters with disabilities, newly naturalized citizens, and transgender and nonbinary voters. He said name changes, disabilities, and other individual circumstances can create additional challenges to securing acceptable voter identification. Students face unique obstacles because not every Wisconsin college issues student IDs that automatically satisfy the state's voting requirements. "Some of our largest institutions like UW-Madison don't offer that as the regular ID," Spence said. "A lot of places will allow you to get that voting-compliant ID ... but students are unaware of that information." Spence said that ID barriers disproportionately affect younger voters, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 29. He believes a lack of public awareness is one of the biggest reasons why. “These things aren't really taught to people. They're not taught in schools. And so, every year there's new people turning 18 and becoming new voters that just don't know, don't understand." Even when voters understand what they need, obtaining the necessary documents can still be difficult. Spence said the biggest barriers are often not the cost of replacement documents themselves but the transportation expenses and bureaucratic hurdles involved in obtaining them. "I think it's, again, really easy for folks to think, 'OK, this isn't such a big deal. But when you break it down to a person-by-person level, people have all kinds of stuff going on in their lives," he said. People experiencing homelessness often face those challenges even more acutely. "I've seen a lot of folks in homeless shelters. And unfortunately, those aren't always the most secure places,” Spence told WJI. “I've heard a lot of people talking about, 'OK, somebody went into my wallet and stole my ID or stole my Social Security card, things like that.' And that's just something that some folks are exposed to and have more risk around than other people." Much of VoteRiders' work happens through partnerships with homeless shelters, schools, community organizations, and nonprofits across Wisconsin. Rather than expecting voters to travel to VoteRiders, the organization tries to take its resources to places more convenient for the people who need the help. Removing the barriers Spence urges voters to call or text VoteRiders' helpline (866-432-8683) or visit voteriders.org as soon as they realize they may not have acceptable identification. VoteRiders staff determine what documents or assistance each voter needs and guide them through the process. Some voters can resolve the issue in minutes with VoteRiders’ help. "Let's say it's a situation where somebody lost their ID and they just need a renewal. I can go online on DMV's website, get that taken care of, get you that printout receipt that has the picture of the ID on it that says this must be accepted for voting purposes, and I can print that out for you in five minutes also." Other voters may wait weeks for replacement documents from another state. While organizations like VoteRiders can help voters navigate the process, Spence said the best time to make sure everything is in order is well before Election Day. "As soon as you're starting to think about, 'Oh, there's an election coming up,' start thinking about the ID. It's never too soon." Not everyone who contacts VoteRiders is planning to vote, and that is OK. People can still use the nonprofit’s expertise. Many people first seek help because they need government-issued identification to obtain housing or access other services. "I work with people who've told me, 'I don't plan to vote. I don't care, but I need this ID to get into this housing program,'” Spence said. “We will help you today.” Often, helping one person leads others to seek assistance as well. One woman Spence met at a Milwaukee shelter called about a month after receiving help obtaining an ID. She said her son needed an ID as well and wondered whether VoteRiders could help him. "Absolutely, sure, let's get connected,” Spence said. A few months later she called again, saying her brother-in-law and his son needed help as well. "You can see the ripple effect of, you know, helping one person actually led them to remember the help we provided, to talk to other people, to ask them if they had the ID that they needed. And that was just such a perfect story to hear,” Spence said. Preparing before election day Spence encourages Wisconsin voters to check their registration before every election, particularly if they recently moved or have not voted in some time. He recommended using MyVote.wi.gov to verify registration, request an absentee ballot, view upcoming ballot information, and find the polling place. He encourages readers to check whether friends and family have the identification they need and to let them know that VoteRiders provides free help. Notwithstanding Wisconsin's voter ID law, many of the barriers voters face can be overcome with enough time and assistance, Spence said. For anyone who believes obtaining an acceptable voter ID is out of reach, Spence offered a simple message: "We're here to support you. We believe in you. We want to make sure that your voice is heard. This democracy only works if everybody is participating." BEFORE YOU VOTE: A WISCONSIN VOTER ID CHECKLIST Taking a few minutes now can help you avoid problems at the polls.
By Erik Reinthaler, WJI Intern
A Dane County judge heard arguments in early June in a case that could expand absentee voting options for thousands of Wisconsin voters with print disabilities. At the heart of the dispute is whether voters who cannot independently read or mark a paper ballot must reveal their choices to another person to vote absentee. Disability Rights Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, and four Wisconsin voters brought the case against the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The case, assigned to Dane County Circuit Judge Everett D. Mitchell, could reshape how Wisconsin administers absentee voting for voters with print disabilities. At the hearing, the plaintiffs argued that Wisconsin's current absentee voting system denies them the same independence enjoyed by other absentee voters. Most absentee voters may cast a ballot from home privately and independently. But voters with print disabilities often must rely on another person to read, mark, or return a paper ballot. "We're here today because plaintiffs and the print-disabled voters of Wisconsin cannot vote on the same terms as all other Wisconsinites," Scott Thompson of Law Forward told the court. "That is discrimination." Thompson discussed plaintiffs Stacy Ellingen, who has cerebral palsy and cannot mark a ballot on her own; Tyler Engel, whose spinal muscular atrophy prevents him from independently completing a paper ballot because of weakness in his hands; and Michael Christopher and Donald Natzke, both legally blind, who rely on others to assist them with absentee voting. "The point really is not whether they can or cannot vote at all," Thompson said. "It's about whether they're having the same opportunities and benefits of the service provided." Other Wisconsin voters take for granted that they can cast a ballot without disclosing their choices to another person. He described the ability to vote from home without disclosing ballot choices to another person as being "at the heart of American democracy." He also pointed to Wisconsin's constitutional guarantee of a secret ballot. Thompson argued that the ADA requires public entities to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to the benefits of a public program. He said that means voters with print disabilities should access Wisconsin's at-home absentee voting system on the same terms as voters without disabilities. WEC rejected that characterization, saying that plaintiffs’ case comes down to preference rather than access. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Bachhuber pointed to multiple avenues for disabled voters to cast ballots. Absentee voting with assistance, in-person absentee voting, and Election Day voting all provide meaningful access to Wisconsin's voting system, she argued. While plaintiffs seek a private and independent method of voting absentee from home, the ADA does not entitle voters to their preferred accommodation, Bachhuber argued. Bachhuber said state law already provides meaningful access to voting and that the accommodation sought by plaintiffs would require Wisconsin to build an entirely new voting system. Although Wisconsin provides electronic ballot delivery to certain military and overseas voters, electronic ballot delivery differs from electronic ballot return, she said. The latter would require creation of a new service rather than an expansion of an existing one and would raise cybersecurity concerns. Plaintiffs dismissed those concerns as speculative, arguing that election officials had identified no evidence that electronic absentee voting systems had been used to alter election outcomes. They maintained that accessible electronic voting technologies already exist and could be implemented without fundamentally altering Wisconsin's election system. Bachhuber, though, argued that internet ballot return introduces vulnerabilities that do not exist in Wisconsin's current paper-based absentee voting system and that election officials "should not have to wait for a compromised election to take concerns seriously." She said that implementing a secure system would require substantial development, testing, training, and ongoing maintenance and could cost millions of dollars. Thompson repeatedly cited estimates suggesting that approximately 110,000 Wisconsin voters may have print disabilities and could benefit from the requested accommodation. Bachhuber questioned the reliability and significance of those estimates and argued that even a limited electronic voting system would introduce cybersecurity risks and administrative burdens extending beyond the voters who would ultimately use it. The hearing concerned motions for summary judgment filed by both sides in the case. At the end of the hearing, counsel agreed to remove upcoming trial dates from the calendar while Judge Mitchell considers the pending motions. Mitchell indicated that he expects to issue a decision in August. Note: If this case sounds familiar, you may have heard about prior proceedings in the matter. Mitchell in 2024 issued a temporary injunction, ordering WEC to provide electronically delivered, accessible ballots for print-disabled voters who requested them. However, his decision was reversed by District II of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 2025. The appellate court sent the case back to Mitchell for further proceedings.  By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed the conviction of Kimberly Zapata, the former deputy director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission, who unsuccessfully urged the court to overturn her convictions for voter fraud and public-office misconduct, arguing she was a whistleblower. A unanimous jury convicted Zapata in March 2024. The charges included one count of felony misconduct in public office and three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement to obtain or vote an absentee ballot. Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Kori Ashley sentenced Zapata to nine months in jail, stayed in favor of 12 months of probation and 120 hours of community service. The opinion, written by Judge Sara Geenen and joined by Chief Judge Joseph Donald and Presiding Judge Pedro Colón, outlines Zapata’s scheme. Frustrated by the ease with which individuals could obtain absentee military ballots, Zapata requested three, one each for a fictitious Holly Jones, Holly Adams, and Holly Brandtjen. She assigned each a random home address in Milwaukee, Shorewood, and Menomonee Falls. She picked municipalities where she thought the clerks would not notice fraud. Then, using “WisVote”—a secure, employee-access, statewide voter registration database—Zapata retrieved the home address of “a state legislator because the legislator was the most vocal election fraud politician that she knew.” She had the absentee ballots mailed to the legislator. Clerks in all three municipalities mailed absentee ballots to the legislator’s address. Zapata presented a two-fold argument to the Court of Appeals. First, she contended that her conduct was not “for the purpose of obtaining” an absentee ballot because she intended that the absentee ballots be acquired by someone else. Second, she argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her of misconduct in public office because she was acting as a concerned private citizen demonstrating a loophole. Regarding whether Zapata generated the false ballots “for the purpose of obtaining” absentee ballots, Zapata argued that “obtaining” an absentee ballot meant physical possession. But the court agreed with the state that “obtaining” included constructive possession. “(B)y requesting the ballots, Zapata set off a series of actions she knew the ballots would be subjected to," Geenen wrote. While Zapata argued for a more rigid definition of “obtaining,” which is not defined by the statute, she “knew that by requesting the ballots, the ballots would be generated under the fake names that she provided” and “that the ballots, once generated per her request, would be sent to the address that she provided,” Geenen said. “Zapata controlled both the names under which the ballots would be generated and the destination to which those ballots would be sent.” Whether Zapata acted in her official capacity required “a material connection between the public official’s duties and powers and the forbidden act,” Geenen wrote. The court found such a connection. Zapata used her work laptop to request the ballots, her employee credentials to access the WisVote administrative website, and her administrative knowledge to target specific municipalities for sending ballots. All weighed against Zapata’s argument that she acted as a private citizen. “In our view, the State established a material connection between Zapata’s election fraud and the powers and duties inherent to her public office,” wrote Geenen. The court’s decision comes several weeks after another individual, Harry Wait, was convicted of fraud and identify theft after requesting ballots on behalf of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine Mayor Cory Mason in the same election cycle. Wait also purportedly sought to illuminate vulnerabilities in the voting system.  By Margo Kirchner The April 1 ballot presents voters with yet another bad proposed constitutional amendment. Here’s what to know about it and why you should vote “no.” First, here’s a quick summary of general guidelines for ballot questions on proposed constitutional amendments. For a more in-depth discussion of these general guidelines, see this blog post from last year.
Now, on to this particular ballot question and proposed amendment. The question reads: “Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?” The actual amendment limits the types of acceptable photo identification to those that are issued by:
The amendment adds that the Legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification and exceptions to the requirement under the constitutional provision. It also includes a provision that a qualified elector unable to present valid photographic identification on election day must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot that can be counted if the elector presents a valid photographic ID within the time and at the place set by the Legislature. Note that the ID must be valid and photographic, whether presented at the time of voting or later to cure a provisional ballot. No expired licenses would be constitutionally acceptable. No social security cards or nonphotographic IDs would be constitutionally acceptable. This proposed amendment passed along party lines in at the start of the current legislative session. All 54 Republican Assembly representatives voted in favor, while all 45 Democratic Assembly representatives voted against. In the Senate, 17 Republicans voted in favor, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Don’t fall for messaging that makes you fear voter fraud. There is no need for this amendment. It is based on a contrived issue and already covered by a statute. Proponents of the amendment pull out an unsubstantiated mantra about election integrity and preventing fraud. Sponsor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), for instance, said in written testimony that “Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement has been widely successful in preserving election integrity and ensuring that citizens are confident that the ballots cast are legitimate.” But voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. A study by The Washington Post and cited by the Brennan Center in this report found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation fraud in more than 1 billion votes nationwide over a 14-years period. Doing the math, that’s 0.0000031% of the time. Another study, conducted as part of an investigative project centered in the Arizona State University journalism school found just 10 cases of voter impersonation nationwide from 2000 to 2012. "With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters," the reporters wrote. In addition, the voter ID law already exists in a Wisconsin statute, and according to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and National Conference of State Legislatures it’s one of the strictest in the nation because the ID has to be photographic and valid. Per the LRB, although 36 states request or require voters to present some form of identification to vote, in most states photographic ID is not required or else there is a procedure to allow voters without an ID to vote. Not so here. An important point to consider regarding this proposed amendment: because of the voter ID law already in place, the people who can’t get acceptable identification cards will not be able to vote on it. Please consider voting ”no” on their behalf. There is no reasonable purpose for this provision to be added to the Wisconsin Constitution . . . unless one is worried that the law could change someday. Statements by certain Republican legislators indicate that cementing the voter ID law in place against future attacks in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially if Susan Crawford should win this election, is the real reason for the proposed constitutional amendment. The voter ID law cannot violate the state constitution if it’s itself part of that constitution. Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote in written testimony supporting the proposed amendment that “Democratic activists on social media are openly asking someone to challenge Wisconsin’s Voter ID law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court” and that he was “not willing to risk a Wisconsin Supreme Court unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution declaring Voter ID laws unconstitutional.” The Ballotpedia website has reported Rep. Bob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) as saying: “For clarification, photo ID is already required by Wisconsin State Statute. But a ‘yes’ vote would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to include this requirement, which will further protect the integrity of the voting system from our leftist-activist WI Supreme Court.” In addition, placing the voter ID law in the constitution protects it against change should the Legislature someday flip to the Democrats. Amending the state constitution is a years-long process that takes substantial effort. Amending or repealing a statute is far easier. The state constitution should not be changed for political reasons from a document guaranteeing rights to one that restricts rights, especially when a statute already is in place, the purported problem is nonexistent, and some voters will be denied the ability to vote. Disenfranchisement is more prevalent than voter impersonation fraud, though difficult to measure. John Johnson from the Marquette University Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education recently conducted an analysis of Wisconsin population and driver’s license data to arrive at an estimate that somewhere between zero and 6% of adult Wisconsin residents lack a Department of Motor Vehicles photographic ID card. That translates into up to about 290,000 individuals, Johnson said. He found that young adults not enrolled in college and adults living in poverty are the two groups most likely negatively impacted by the voter photo ID requirement. In written testimony opposing the proposed amendment, the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources wrote that “(o)lder voters who lack an acceptable photo ID for voting may not have the availability, financial resources, or mobility to obtain the necessary ID; those who are rural or low-income may face significant barriers obtaining the needed documentation.” All Voting is Local Action wrote that “(e)nshrining voter ID in Wisconsin's constitution risks disenfranchising voters, especially marginalized groups, addresses nonexistent voter fraud, and diverts focus from real issues. Existing laws work—this amendment adds barriers and harms democracy.” In his written statement of support of the proposed amendment, Wanggaard asserted that “(c)ontrary to claims made when Voter ID was passed, the law has not resulted in voter suppression. In fact, voter participation has increased since being implemented in 2014.” But he cited no authority for the assertion and ignored the possibility that voter participation increased because of the contentious elections in 2016, 2020, 2023, and 2024, and that it would have increased more (and possibly resulted in different outcomes) had the voter ID law not been in effect. Numerous organizations have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment, with several signing a joint letter published as a full-page advertisement in the Journal Sentinel in February. This is the third round of proposed amendments in the last 12 months targeting the state constitution’s suffrage provisions. Here's the full text of the proposed amendment: Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this section. (2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law. The following lists are based on the entities that registered in favor or against the proposed amendment during its second round through the Legislature or signed the joint letter that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The list is not meant to reflect all entities that may support or oppose the proposed amendment.
 By Margo Kirchner
Twenty-three organizations took out a full-page advertisement in Wednesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for voters to protect the Wisconsin Constitution by rejecting a proposed amendment on April 1 ballots. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action joined the letter, together with other organizations committed to democracy and voter rights. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign spearheaded the group effort. “The fact that 23 organizations from across Wisconsin have come together on this issue speaks volumes," Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos told WJI following publication of the ad. "We may come from different backgrounds and areas of focus, but we are united in our commitment to protecting democracy and ensuring that our constitution serves the people—not political interests. This kind of broad, collective action is exactly what Wisconsin needs to push back against attempts to undermine our rights and instead build a government that truly represents all of us,” Ramos said. The April ballot question will ask voters to enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution the strict voter identification requirements that already are part of state statutory law. The letter first urges voters “to oppose this amendment and vote no, not just because of its content, but also because of the troubling precedent it sets” regarding the state’s most important governing document. “The Wisconsin Constitution is a foundational framework, meant to protect and reflect the shared values of our state. It is not, and should not be, a tool for political gamesmanship,” the organizations wrote. “Yet, in recent years, we have seen an alarming trend of constitutional amendments being rushed to the ballot—like a team coming to Lambeau Field and running a trick play on every down—to exploit the rules instead of respecting the spirit of the game. Our lawmakers, regardless of political party, should always create bills through meaningful public debate and bipartisan collaboration.” Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved by the Legislature during two consecutive legislative sessions. They then go to voters at an election the Legislature chooses. The April proposed amendment was quickly passed along party lines at the start of the current legislative session in January and placed on the first possible election date allowed by state statutes. The group letter also criticizes the content of the amendment itself. Wisconsin’s voter ID laws are some of the strictest in the nation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Placing them in the constitution will make it significantly more difficult to reverse course in the future. The amendment would affect voting rights for years and decades to come. “Amendments to the constitution should strengthen our democracy, solve real problems, and uplift all Wisconsinites—not erode democratic norms or serve narrow political interests. Unfortunately, the proposed voter ID amendment on the April ballot is another example of how our constitution is being used not to help but to hinder our interests,” the letter said. “(I)t risks creating more barriers for voters, especially for those who already face challenges in making their voices heard.” “(L)et us reject attempts to misuse our most sacred governing document for political advantage, staying true to the principles that make Wisconsin a model for effective, inclusive democracy,” the organizations wrote. The group asked legislators and readers to make Wisconsin “a state where our constitution is used to advance democracy, not undermine it. Inspired by the Wisconsin Idea, let us ensure our constitution and laws reflect the values and aspirations of all Wisconsinites, informed by fairness, research, and a commitment to the public good.” The writers pointed to Gov. Tony Evers’ recently proposed constitutional change to permit citizen-led amendments as a subject worthy of consideration, in comparison to the April proposed amendment. “We call on voters to reject amendments that limit their rights until they are empowered with the tools and power to advance their own reforms and champion amendments that truly strengthen our democracy,” they wrote. “Wisconsin deserves better. Let’s stop changing our constitution for political gain and start using it to make our state stronger, fairer, and more inclusive,” they concluded. By Alexandria Staubach WJI and a coalition of groups are working to get the word out: If you have a felony conviction and you’re “off paper,” you can vote. Wisconsin restores voting eligibility when someone is “off paper,” meaning after full completion of all portions of a sentence, including incarceration, supervision, and payment of all fines, fees, and restitution. In Milwaukee, the League of Women Voters, Souls to the Polls, and EXPO (Ex-incarcerated Persons Organizing) lead efforts to educate and register eligible voters with felony records. Disenfranchisement upon felony conviction is nothing new. Its history extends back to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and Southern Reconstruction. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses (laws allowing old activities to persist despite new laws) have largely been disavowed among the 50 states, but felony disenfranchisement remains. Christal Arroyo Roman of Milwaukee lost her right to vote because of conviction and incarceration, but has been off paper since 2020. Arroyo Roman, who serves on the WJI board, is now a paralegal, Marquette University student, and criminal justice organizer. In an interview with WJI, Arroyo Roman said that voting in 2020’s election “felt liberating.” For so long she felt her voice was suppressed. Prior to incarceration, she thought that politicians did not care about her community, so she did not vote. When she went to prison and felt the “laws and legislation that were being enacted against [her],” she became aware of the importance of voting. “Even if I feel like my community isn’t being heard, it feels good to have a voice,” she said. Arroyo Roman highlighted that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) wants formerly incarcerated people to participate in pro-social behaviors like paying taxes. “If the government wants us to participate, we should be able to vote,” she said. Maine, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico do not participate in felony disenfranchisement. But some form of felony disenfranchisement persists in 48 states, according to the federal government website vote.gov. Twenty-four states permit a person to vote immediately after release from prison, and 13 states may preclude one from voting even after full completion of a sentence. Wisconsin and 11 other states fall in the middle, restoring eligibility to vote after full completion of the terms of a sentence and being “restored to civil rights.” According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, the Wisconsin Legislature constitutionally “may enact laws excluding a person who has been convicted of a felony from voting until he or she is restored to civil rights,” and the law “precludes permanent felony disenfranchisement but does not define or describe what constitutes restoration of civil rights.” By statute, a convicted individual must sign a DOC form acknowledging that they may not vote. DOC is required by law to transmit to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on a continuous basis, a list of each living person who has been convicted of a felony and is ineligible to vote, plus the date on which DOC anticipates the person’s voting rights will be restored. The commission then forwards that list of ineligible people to municipal clerks. Clerks are responsible for notifying each person on the list in their municipalities that their voter registration is inactive until the person is eligible to vote again. Restoration under Wisconsin law occurs automatically upon completion of the terms of any sentence imposed, the Legislative Council says. No separate hearing or procedure occurs; no signed document from any entity is required or provided to prove restoration of the vote. Once a person is off paper, the person must re-register to cast a ballot. The DOC is required to inform an individual when their sentence is complete, civil rights have been restored, and they can vote, says the Legislative Council. An election clerk may nevertheless believe that someone with a felony record is ineligible to vote. In that case, the clerk must allow the person to cast a ballot. The ballot will then be marked for closer inspection, which could lead to a challenge. After an election, each election clerk generates and forwards a list of all persons who voted in their county to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The commission then checks that list against the information provided by DOC. The commission may refer any instance of voting by a disenfranchised person to the district attorney for prosecution in the county where the ballot was cast. Despite the lackluster framework around restoration of voting rights, providing false information on a voter registration form is a class I felony, as is voting in an election when one is not qualified. In recent years, organizations including EXPO, Wisdom, ACLU of Wisconsin, Project Return, Wisconsin Voices, Justified Anger (Madison), and Just Leadership USA, developed a package of legislation that sought to “Unlock the Vote.” The bill package addressed issues from prison gerrymandering (counting those in prison as residents of the prison location rather than as residents of their communities before incarceration) to restoring the right to vote to people who are out of prison yet still on supervision. The bills were introduced in 2022 by Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), who earlier this year left the Legislature after appointment as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. The bills were referred to legislative committees but did not reach committee votes. The bills were not reintroduced in the next legislative session.   By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin Justice Initiative and its sibling organization Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action urge you to vote “no” on the November statewide ballot referendum question. The election is less than a month away, and absentee ballots are already out. Once again, Wisconsin voters are asked to approve an amendment to the state’s constitution. The proposed amendment appears to make a seemingly innocuous change, but one that could actually have significant effects. The referendum question reads as follows: “Eligibility to vote. Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?” At best, the proposed amendment is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, it eliminates a guarantee of voting to U.S. citizens and unnecessarily opens Pandora’s box, permitting more restrictive voter identification laws and regulations. The current language in Article III of the state constitution (emphasis added) guarantees the right to vote: “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” The proposed amendment would eliminate that guarantee and turn the constitutional provision into a restriction on who can vote. The above provision would be changed to read (emphasis added): “Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.” Noncitizen voting is not an issue in Wisconsin. The federal government in 1996 enacted a law prohibiting noncitizen voting in national federal elections, and Wisconsin and its municipalities have not conferred voting rights on noncitizens. In an interview with WJI, professor Atiba Ellis, a nationally noted voting rights scholar at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, confirmed that noncitizen voting should not be issue in this election, as national laws already restrict voting at the federal level to citizens. Some municipalities in other states have permitted noncitizen voting in local elections. Takoma Park, Maryland, for instance, has permitted noncitizen voting in local elections for 30 years. The number of noncitizens voters there is small: 347 registered noncitizen voters, 72 of whom cast ballots in a 2017 election. Frederick, Maryland, recently became the largest municipality in that state to permit noncitizen voting. New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., also have permitted some noncitizen voting. Santa Ana, California, will vote on a measure this November to permit noncitizen voting in local elections. Very little written testimony exists at all in the legislative record regarding this proposed constitutional amendment, and none points to any instance of noncitizen voting in Wisconsin. Notwithstanding that in his written testimony supporting the amendment sponsor Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) called noncitizen voting “a real issue,” he pointed to no instances of noncitizen voting in Wisconsin. He instead refenced only the legally permitted noncitizen voting in Maryland and possible noncitizen voting in Washington, D.C., as a basis for the Wisconsin proposed constitutional amendment. “Article III is one of the provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution that protects the fundamental right to vote. There is no need to amend it,” Chris Donahoe, staff counsel at Law Forward, told WJI. So why here? And why now? Ellis suggests that history may be repeating itself. “Before the early 20th century, citizenship wasn’t treated as that strict of a requirement for voting,” he said. “It was the rise of the nativist movement of the early 1900s, as we saw waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, when noncitizen voting became an issue.” Then, mass migration and concerns about the American working class becoming more diverse tilted toward populist politics, and states began to pass legislative amendments to limit voting to citizens, he said. “One way of reading this amendment is to stir up the specter of noncitizen voting following that patten of attempting to malign social and political interests that were sympathetic to noncitizens,” Ellis told WJI. Ellis noted a potential harm of the proposed change, as the new language may “frustrate someone from voting who might otherwise be permitted to vote.” Bans on noncitizen voting are increasing. Six states (Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio) have adopted the same or a similar amendment. The same or similar amendment is also on the ballot in seven other states (Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina) this November. According to a recent article in The Guardian, Republicans nationwide are trying to make concerns about alleged noncitizen voting a focal point of this election, notwithstanding little to no evidence of noncitizen voting being a problem. Meanwhile, they are ensnaring citizens in their attempts to purge noncitizens from voting rolls, forcing voters to prove their citizenship. The proposed constitutional amendment passed the Legislature in November 2023 along party lines: 21 Republicans for and 10 Democrats against in the Senate, 60 Republicans for and 34 Democrats against in the Assembly. Wisconsin’s Legislature has offered seven proposed constitutional amendments just since the spring of 2023. More than a decade ago Wisconsin joined other states with heavily restrictive voter ID laws, which have already made it more difficult for U.S. citizens, let alone noncitizens, to vote. Some things voters should keep in mind regarding constitutional amendment ballot questions:
By Alexandria Staubach
In honor of National Voter Registration Day and Constitution Day, WJI is highlighting two new complaints filed by Law Forward. WJI believes that fair and equitable access to the ballot box is a fundamental right of every citizen of Wisconsin. If you still need to register to vote we encourage you to do so here. The Law Forward impact litigation law firm has filed two complaints with the Wisconsin Election Commission (WEC) alleging that the Town of Thornapple and its town clerk violated state and federal law when conducting the April and August elections. The complaints seek orders forcompliance with the law for future elections. Both complaints request expedited review in time for November’s election. State and federal law require access to voting systems that permit those with disabilities to cast their ballots independently and securely. The new complaints to the Wisconsin Election Commission say Thornapple, in Rusk County, is breaking these laws after abandoning electronic voting. According to the complaints, the April election was conducted in Thornapple by paper ballot and then hand counted, with no alternative or accommodation for the visually impaired or those who otherwise cannot privately and independently vote on paper. After the April election, a July 8, 2024 letter from the U.S Department of Justice warned that Rusk County needed “at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities available at each polling place.” Nevertheless, Thornapple's August election took place on paper as well. Wisconsin law provides for compliance reviews for any elector of a jurisdiction or district served by an election official who seeks to contest perceived abuses of election administration. One complaint requests a compliance review on behalf of Erin Webster, a Thornapple voter, who ran for Rusk County Board of Supervisors in the spring election and was provided a paper ballot on which her name did not appear, according to the complaint. Webster cast her ballot electronically in every prior election since 2009, and the town had otherwise used electronic voting machines. Under Wisconsin law, municipalities may elect to administer elections by paper ballot if they have populations below 7,500. Webster’s complaint alleges that the same law that permits paper ballots for municipalities under 7,500 people also prohibits reversion back to hand counting of paper ballots without the WEC’s permission, which Thornapple did not receive. The second compliance review complaint was brought on behalf of Disability Rights Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that federal and state law require a municipality to make voting accessible to voters with disabilities. Further, the complaint alleges, federal law requires any voting system to have a means to notify voters if they have selected more than one candidate for a single office, plus the opportunity to redress the error. “By ceasing to use electronic voting equipment and instead exclusively using paper ballots completed and tabulated by hand, Respondents are no longer using voting systems that are accessible for individuals with disabilities in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) as for others,” the Disability Rights Wisconsin complaint asserts. It mentions visually impaired voters and those who may struggle to fill out a ballot by hand being disenfranchised by the paper system. The Ladysmith News, a local paper in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, this summer covered the Rusk County Board’s decision to count ballots by hand. The article described a July presentation given by Mark Cook of Hand Count Road Show, supposedly a one man “subject matter expert on election vulnerabilities who had traveled the county in his camper trailer, educating folks about election systems and how they can go wrong.” According to the reporter, “a number of local governmental officials were in the audience and saw how Cook showed exactly how voting machines can be easily manipulated.” The Webster complaint is available here. The Disability Rights Complaint is available here. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed
