Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission declined to vote Wednesday on whether the state’s top elections official should appear before a state Senate hearing on her reappointment as a fight continues over who will lead elections in the critical battleground state ahead of the 2024 presidential race.

Without clear instructions from commissioners, it is up to Meagan Wolfe, the commission’s administrator, to decide whether she will testify before Republicans who control the state Senate and wish to force a vote on firing her.

“It is a really difficult spot,” Wolfe said. “I feel like I am being put in an absolutely impossible, untenable position either way.”

Wolfe has been a target of conspiracy theorists who falsely claim she was part of a plan to rig the 2020 vote in Wisconsin, and some Republican leaders have vowed to oust her.

The bipartisan elections commission on June 27 deadlocked 3-3 along party lines on a vote to reappoint Wolfe, with Democrats abstaining in order to cause the nomination to fail. Without a nomination from at least four commissioners, a recent state Supreme Court ruling appears to allow Wolfe to continue indefinitely as head of the elections commission, even past the end of her term.

Senate Republicans tried to proceed with the reappointment process anyway, deciding in a surprise vote the following day to move ahead with a committee hearing and ultimately hold a vote on whether to fire her.

Commissioners said Wednesday they would not vote on a motion to either authorize or prohibit Wolfe from appearing at a hearing of the Senate elections committee, as it is not standard for the commission to decide those matters.

“Meagan Wolfe is the chief elections officer for the state of Wisconsin. I have no interest in babysitting who she speaks to,” said Democratic Commissioner Ann Jacobs.

The commission’s decision came despite partisan disagreements about the legitimacy of the Senate’s actions.

“They do not have a nomination before them. I don’t care what they said in that resolution,” Jacobs said. “I don’t have any interest in indulging the Legislature’s circus, which is based on a false reading of the law.”

But Don Millis, the Republican chair of the commission, argued that if Wolfe fails to appear, it could worsen the already tense situation.

“They’re probably going to hold a hearing anyway,” he said. “We’ve already seen what’s happened when we didn’t approve her nomination with four votes. I think that turned out very badly.”

The Senate has not yet set a date for the committee hearing on Wolfe’s reappointment, and Wolfe did not say at Wednesday’s meeting whether she will appear once a date has been set.

Commission won’t tell Wisconsin’s top elections official whether to appear at reappointment hearing is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

If Wisconsin state Rep. Jimmy Anderson wants to visit residents in some of the northern neighborhoods he represents, he first must leave his own district — twice.

From his Fitchburg home in suburban Madison, Anderson must exit his 47th Assembly District, pass through the 77th District, reenter the 47th District, then head north through the 48th District to finally reach a cluster of homes assigned like a remote outpost to his district.

Unusual? Yes. Inconvenient? Yes.

Unconstitutional? Perhaps.

Though the Wisconsin Constitution requires legislative districts “to consist of contiguous territory,” many nonetheless contain sections of land that are not actually connected. The resulting map looks a bit like Swiss cheese, where some districts are dotted with small neighborhood holes assigned to different representatives.

Wisconsin’s nationally peculiar practice of detached districts is cited as one of several alleged violations in a recent lawsuit seeking to strike down current Assembly and Senate districts and replace them before the 2024 election.

Like similar cases in states ranging from North Carolina to Utah, the Wisconsin lawsuit also alleges partisan gerrymandering is illegal under the state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and free speech.

Though such claims have had mixed results nationally, Democrats hope the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s new liberal majority will deliver a resounding rejection of gerrymandering that has given Republicans a lopsided legislative majority.

But the challenge to noncontiguous districts could provide judges a way to decide the case without ever addressing whether partisan gerrymandering is illegal.

“It could be that this gives the court a completely neutral basis for deciding the maps are no good,” said Kenneth R. Mayer, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most tilted nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis. In other states, such as Nevada, Democrats have reaped a disproportionate advantage from redistricting.

Most states are guided by at least four traditional principles for reshaping state legislative districts after each decennial census. Those include districts being nearly equal in population, compact and contiguous and following the boundaries of cities and counties. “Contiguous” generally is understood to mean all parts of a district are connected, with some logical exceptions for islands.

In some states, mapmakers have gotten creative by using narrow strips of roads or rivers to connect otherwise distinct parts of a district. But few have gone so far as Wisconsin in treating contiguous as a loose synonym for “nearby.”

Wisconsin’s detached districts are ”profoundly weird,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School in Los Angeles who created the All About Redistricting website.

Anderson’s legislative district, for example, includes more than a dozen remote territories scattered around the Madison area that are disconnected from the district’s main portion in Fitchburg, McFarland and Monona. That makes door-to-door canvassing particularly challenging for Anderson, who uses a wheelchair that must be repeatedly loaded and unloaded from a van.

The situation also is confusing for his remote constituents whose neighbors are represented by someone else, Anderson said.

“It just doesn’t serve the people that live in those little bubbles to not have the same kind of community cohesion and interests being represented,” he said.

Gabrielle Young, 46, lives in one of the “land islands” Anderson represents. But until she was contacted by lawyers filing the redistricting lawsuit, Young said she had no idea Anderson had to travel through another district to campaign in her neighborhood. Young agreed to serve as a plaintiff in the lawsuit alleging the disconnected districts violate the state constitution.

“I could have gone the rest of my life living here not realizing it was happening, but that doesn’t make it OK,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”

Among other things, the lawsuit cites an 1892 case in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated districts “cannot be made up of two or more pieces of detached territory.” Yet the practice proliferated over time, with 55 of the 99 Assembly districts and 21 of the 33 Senate districts now composed of disconnected portions, according to the lawsuit.

“Clearly, at some point, things sort of went awry,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that helped bring the lawsuit.

“It seems pretty clear to me that you have to enforce the words as they are written,” Gaber added.

That has not always been the case.

In 1992, a federal judicial panel considering a Wisconsin redistricting lawsuit essentially endorsed detached legislative districts. Wisconsin’s Democratic-led Legislature and Republican governor had failed to agree on new districts following the 1990 census. The court was left to pick among various plans submitted by the parties. Republican plans proposed districts with literal contiguity, but the judges opted for a Democratic approach that did not.

The federal judges said legislative districts containing disconnected “islands” of land were similar to towns that had been legally permitted to annex noncontiguous areas.

“Since the distance between town and island is slight, we do not think the failure of the legislative plan to achieve literal contiguity a serious demerit,” the judges wrote in 1992.

The political roles are reversed 30 years later. Republicans, who now control the Legislature, proposed Assembly and Senate maps with disconnected districts that the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted last year. Democrats, who control the governor’s office, are backing the legal challenge.

“The districts are constitutional because they are legally contiguous,” Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said in a statement to The Associated Press alluding to prior court rulings. He declined further comment.

Though contiguity requirements have a long national history in redistricting, they have not always been explicitly defined, thus leaving room for interpretation, said Micah Altman, a research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose specialties include redistricting.

Criteria such as contiguous and compact districts must be balanced with other principles, such as distributing the population equally and not splitting municipalities and counties among districts, he said.

“Turning one knob on the system makes you have to turn down the other knob at least a bit,” Altman said.

In the case of Anderson’s district, the disconnected sections likely have not made much difference in the partisan composition of his voters. Anderson is a Democrat, and so are the majority of Madison-area voters.

But redistricting experts say there still is potential for politicians to rig the map to their favor by drawing remote sections of districts.

“When you allow mapmakers to draw districts that are noncontiguous, you give them even more flexibility to perpetrate abuse,” Levitt said.

Lawsuit targets Wisconsin legislative districts resembling Swiss cheese is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

This story was originally published by ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive their stories in your inbox every week.

Margaret Rose Bostelmann’s ideals are clear from one glance at her well-kept ranch-style house in central Wisconsin.

A large American flag is mounted near the front door, and a “We Back the Badge” sign on her front lawn announces her support for law enforcement. Bostelmann, a Wisconsin elections commissioner, said she voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and added: “I will always vote Republican. I always have.”

But her fellow Republicans have exiled her and disparaged her, sought to upend her career and, on this day in July, brought the 70-year-old to tears as she discussed what she’s been through over the last several years because she refuses to support false claims that Trump won the state in the 2020 presidential election.

Bostelmann, who goes by Marge, previously served for more than two decades as the county clerk in Green Lake County, overseeing elections without controversy. But two years into her term in a Republican slot on the Wisconsin Elections Commission she became a target, denounced and disowned by the Republican Party of Green Lake County, which claimed she had failed to protect election integrity in the state.

Now a suit filed in June by a Wisconsin man who promotes conspiracy theories about election fraud seeks her removal from the commission. Citing her estrangement from the county party, the suit claims she’s not qualified to fill a position intended for a Republican.

The elections commission, which has an equal number of Republican and Democratic members, has faced an onslaught of discredited claims about election fraud in Wisconsin. The most recent drama involves the commission’s nonpartisan administrator, Meagan Wolfe, whose term is expiring and whose future in the role is in doubt. After the three Republican members of the commission supported Wolfe in a June vote, Republicans in the state legislature made it clear they wanted to find a way to get rid of her.

The Republican clashes in Wisconsin exemplify ongoing discord seen across the country, with elections officials shunned, berated and even driven away by members of their own party over their defense of the integrity of the 2020 election.

In Hood County, Texas — a solid red block in a red state — hard-line Republicans successfully pushed for the resignation of the elections administrator, even though Trump won 81% of the vote in the county. In Surry County, North Carolina, where Trump also won overwhelmingly, the Republican elections administrator was threatened with firing or a pay cut for refusing to give a GOP party leader access to voting equipment to conduct a forensic audit. And in Clare County, Michigan, officials are considering possible charges against a GOP activist accused of kicking the party chair in the groin.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission has been sued by numerous parties, verbally attacked by voters and earmarked for elimination by GOP lawmakers. It has survived only because a Democrat still occupies the governor’s office and wields veto power.

In an April survey of local election officials nationwide, the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent, nonpartisan law and policy organization, found that nearly one in three reported being abused, harassed, or threatened because of their job.

In a rare interview, Bostelmann wept at one point. For the most part, though, she was defiant, insisting the 2020 election was not stolen by Joe Biden.

“I’m a Republican who stands up for the truth and not for a lie,” Bostelmann said. And she predicted the latest legal gambit, which seeks her removal, would fail.

Don Millis, the Republican who chairs the Wisconsin Elections Commission, also has expressed frustration with the election conspiracy theorists. At the commission’s June meeting, he said he considered some of the agitators to be “grifters” who are conning people of goodwill into thinking there is something wrong with the election system.

“It’s not about winning or preventing fraud,” he said of the conspiracy theorists’ motives. “It’s about getting publicity or attention. It’s about grifting, convincing others to donate to their cause.”

In a recent interview with ProPublica, Millis said he was referring to a small set of people he believes are trying to raise money by spreading lies through social media or newsletters. “There are many people who believe them, who don’t know any better,” he said.

From Fraudster to Fraud Investigator

The man who brought the suit against Bostelmann is Peter Bernegger, grandson of the founders of Hillshire Farm, the Wisconsin deli meat and sausage company. Now 60, Bernegger has described himself as a “data analyst” and an “independent journalist.”

He has engaged in relentless — and so far futile — legal efforts to prove fraud in the 2020 election. This mirrors a different kind of legal fight from earlier in his life: trying to overturn his own fraud conviction.

A 2008 indictment accused Bernegger and a business partner in Mississippi of deceiving investors, bilking them of $790,000 in various ventures — including the development of a gelatin, intended for pharmaceutical or cosmetic companies, made from the carcasses of catfish. A federal jury acquitted the partner, who has since died, but convicted Bernegger of mail and bank fraud. He was sentenced to 70 months in prison and ordered to pay nearly $2.2 million in restitution.

Bernegger overwhelmed the courts with claims to clear his name, alleging procedural errors, insufficient evidence, judicial bias, ineffective counsel, violations of his constitutional rights and other misconduct.

“Mr. Bernegger, you file an awful lot,” said U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach of Wisconsin. “Just let me say that. You file so many things. And in all honesty, I don’t have time to keep up on it all.”

Though most of his claims failed, Bernegger did succeed on one front: He got his restitution reduced to roughly $1.7 million. Ordered in 2019 to get a steady job to make payments on the debt, Bernegger testified that he had limited options.

He said his health was too poor for him to be able to lift heavy objects, drive a truck or operate heavy equipment. “I work odd jobs, a wide variety of them. And it is cash, but it’s legal,” he explained.

When ProPublica reached Bernegger by phone for this story, he immediately hung up. He did not respond to letters and emails seeking comment.

Much of his energy, it appears, is now devoted to stoking doubt about election integrity. In his social media posts and podcast appearances, he has railed against Wolfe, the Wisconsin elections commission administrator, while repeating sweeping, unsubstantiated claims about problems in voting systems across the country. Along the way, he has made alliances with like-minded individuals beyond his home state.

Bernegger has ties to Omega4America, a website promoting a super-fast computing method to identify fraud by matching voter data with property tax records and other large databases. The site solicits donations to a nonprofit called Election Watch Inc.; Bernegger founded a tax-exempt organization with that same name in 2022.

The Texas Tribune has reported that the Omega4America project was initially funded by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a conspiracy theorist close to Trump. Omega4America makes glowing claims about programming marketed by Texan Jay Valentine as a powerful tool that could replace the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a multistate consortium that ferrets out duplicate voter registrations across states. ERIC has been the subject of heavy criticism from conservatives who believe its work identifying unregistered voters for states bolsters the rolls for Democrats.

In a podcast, Bernegger mentioned that he has access to the “Valentine fractal programming system” as he seeks to uncover voter fraud. Valentine, who is listed on the Omega4America website as the site contact, declined to discuss his work or Bernegger, telling a ProPublica reporter: “I have nothing to say to you.”

In an April episode of a podcast called The AlphaWarrior Show, Bernegger said he’s now part of a team of 10 scouring federal campaign data for oddities. He named James O’Keefe as a member of that team. O’Keefe is the former head of Project Veritas, a conservative group known for secretly recording liberal organizations, and has a new media company that encourages “citizen journalists” to investigate election fraud. ProPublica’s attempts to reach O’Keefe for comment were unsuccessful.

Toward the end of the AlphaWarrior podcast, the host urged viewers to “smash” the blue donate button on an Election Watch website to show support for Bernegger and his team.

“It means we sacrifice a movie or a fancy dinner and we throw a couple dollars their way,” he said.

“I Don’t Know That I’d Be Welcome”

Marge Bostelmann still doesn’t fully understand how it got to this point, how she became such a target of Bernegger and others, including people she once thought held similar values.

But she does know that things in Green Lake began to change in 2020, during Trump’s reelection bid. Bostelmann said she stopped paying membership dues to the county party after the party chair became critical of her and of the way the 2020 election had been run in Green Lake County by her successor.

By November 2021, as conservatives carried out investigations into voting accommodations made in Wisconsin during the pandemic — including the use of drop boxes and allowing unsupervised absentee voting in nursing homes — Bostelmann and others on the elections commission came under attack for their votes shaping those procedures.

Kent McKelvey, the Green Lake County GOP chair at the time, issued a press release saying Bostelmann’s actions on the Wisconsin Elections Commission “do not reflect the principles, values and beliefs of the Green Lake County Republicans, in this case, supporting the proper enforcement of the law and of election integrity.”

The press release said flat-out that “Ms. Bostelmann is no longer a member of the Republican Party of Green Lake County.” McKelvey did not respond to requests for comment.

The snub hurt. Bostelmann, a former foster parent who knows many local Republicans through her activities with her church and the Rotary Club, said she stopped attending many local GOP events. “I don’t know that I’d be welcome,” she said.

Even as efforts to prove fraud in Wisconsin fizzled, the pressure on the commission remained intense. Powerful Republicans in the state Senate called for Wolfe’s ouster, blaming her for what they saw as regulatory overreach by the commission, though in her role she carries out the orders of the six voting members.

Prior to the commission’s key June vote on Wolfe, Bostelmann said, she received a disturbing phone call from an acquaintance who had been critical of Wolfe. “The patriots would not be happy” with her, she was told, if she backed Wolfe. Bostelmann took that as a threat.

Still, she and the panel’s two other Republicans voted to reappoint Wolfe. Bostelmann defended Wolfe publicly at the June meeting, saying the administrator had been unfairly targeted “as the scapegoat” by people dissatisfied with the commission and the outcome of the 2020 election.

In a tactical move, Democrats abstained from voting, leading to a final tally of three yes votes. That appeared to mean that the panel did not have the requisite four votes to send the matter to the state Senate for final consideration, and it was widely thought Wolfe would continue in her post because of the impasse.

But the Senate, surprisingly, decided the three affirmative votes were enough for it to take up her nomination. Wolfe’s reappointment is now pending before the Senate elections committee. No public hearing or vote has been scheduled.

Lawsuits are expected, though for now she remains on the job.

“Some judge will tell us who our administrator is. That’s my guess,” said the commission chair, Millis, a tax attorney who favored retaining Wolfe.

Like Bostelmann, Millis has been the target of Bernegger, who on Twitter has ranted about Millis ignoring election system problems, referring to him as “Blind Don.”

Robert Spindell, the third Republican member of the commission, said he hasn’t been chastised for his renomination of Wolfe. He said he thought it best that the Senate take up the matter. “I haven’t had anybody call or criticize me,” he said, noting: “Most of the people I know on this election stuff are not shy.”

Through a spokesperson, Wolfe declined a request for an interview.

Bernegger’s suit against Bostelmann demands that the circuit court remove her from her seat on the commission, citing the disavowal from Green Lake County Republican Party. “She cannot prove she is a member of the Green Lake County Republican Party and is otherwise qualified to hold the designated Republican seat,” he wrote.

The statute that governs commission appointees does not specifically require them to be dues-paying party members.

Records show Bernegger has bombarded the Wisconsin Elections Commission with official complaints and demands for data, often accompanied by threats of legal action and accusations of criminal conduct. In one email he referred to a commission staffer as a “prick.”

“Please note that I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this individual’s erratic behavior that is directed at myself, our staff and local election officials,” Wolfe wrote to the commission in October 2022. In May of this year, Wolfe told the commission Bernegger made her feel “incredibly unsafe” when he noted her home address in bold in an email to the commission and called her a “pathological liar.”

The commission fined Bernegger $2,403 in March 2022 for filing frivolous complaints. Records show commission staff have, at times, forwarded his correspondence to the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

On July 7, the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Criminal Investigation Division served Bernegger with a letter at his home in New London, stating that his actions could reasonably have made Wolfe and others at the commission feel “harassed, tormented or intimidated.” It warned that he could be arrested for stalking if he continued his behavior.

One of Bernegger’s lawsuits over records against the commission is still ongoing.

He has also sued officials in Dane, Door, Grant, Marathon, Milwaukee and Ozaukee counties, the town of Hudson, the city of Hudson, the city of Milwaukee and the town of Richmond in Walworth County. The suits are related to broad public record requests he made for absentee ballot applications, images of ballots, router logs and other materials and involve disputes over costs and access. While many of those have been dismissed, four are still pending.

“We’re all trying to do our jobs to the very best of our abilities. It makes it difficult when we are constantly being undermined and questioned,” said Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood. Her office provided Bernegger with some information when he inquired but denied him certain documentation that Trueblood said was exempt from release. He sued, but a judge dismissed the case.

Another clerk, Vickie Shaw of the town of Hudson, said she had to go to court three times to deal with a Bernegger suit over records. A judge threw out the case, Bernegger appealed, and it was tossed again.

Before Bernegger’s suit, Shaw had quit in 2021, finding the job too burdensome and confrontational. But she returned the following year because, she said, the town “didn’t have anybody to run the April election.”

Bostelmann expressed dismay with Bernegger’s tactics against her and the other election clerks.

“It’s bullying is what it is. It’s truly bullying,” she said. “It’s almost like they are trying to get people who are knowledgeable, and do a good job, to quit to have people who don’t know how to do the job to come in.”

Bullied by her own party, a Wisconsin election official’s GOP roots mean nothing in volatile new climate is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

Gov. Tony Evers found himself in familiar territory last week, issuing his first 10 vetoes of the legislative session.

Only this time, instead of putting the legislation to bed, as a veto has done for decades in Wisconsin, the governor’s pen triggered a “veto watch” among Democratic lawmakers.

“Our caucus has determined protecting Gov. Evers’ veto to be a top priority,” Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, told Wisconsin Watch, adding that Democratic lawmakers are “remaining extremely vigilant and will do so throughout the session to ensure that we are able to uphold (the governor’s) vetoes and prevent Wisconsin from moving backwards.”

But why do Democrats need to be on alert when Republicans control fewer than 66 seats in the Assembly — the two-thirds supermajority needed to override a veto?

The answer: The Wisconsin Constitution says that to successfully override a veto, lawmakers only need support from two-thirds of members who are present on a given day — not two-thirds of all Assembly members. So if just three Democratic lawmakers were absent on a given day, Assembly Republicans could have a two-thirds majority and would be able to undo Evers’ vetoes.

It’s been a record 38 years since the Legislature has overridden a veto, a failure that “in recent decades has made the governor’s veto power practically invincible,” according to a January 2023 memo on the veto override process from the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau.

How do vetoes work in Wisconsin?

When lawmakers send a bill to the governor for a final signature, the governor has six days, excluding Sunday, to veto it or it becomes law. Once the governor vetoes a bill, it first returns to the chamber where it originated. In the Assembly, Republicans control 64 of 99 seats. In the state Senate, they control 22 of 33 seats. The Assembly can vote on a veto override for the same bill multiple times during a session, whereas the Senate may only vote for one on the same bill once, according to the LRB.

Evers has vetoed bills passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature at a record-breaking clip in recent years. During the 2021-22 legislative session, he struck down 126 bills sent to his desk, or 32% of all bills sent to his desk, the most by any governor in a single session in Wisconsin history. Other governors have vetoed on average 3.7% of bills they receive, the LRB reported.

Four of the bills Evers vetoed last week would have made changes to Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance system. Another would have prevented state agencies and local governments from restricting the sale of gas-powered vehicles.

But with such slim margins this session, the governor’s veto doesn’t feel invincible to Democrats, and lawmakers are planning accordingly in an attempt to avoid being caught off guard by a surprise vote scheduled by their Republican colleagues. To prepare for a potential surprise override vote, Assembly Democrats are slated to receive a briefing from the LRB on the veto override process this fall, Neubauer spokesperson Sidney Litke told Wisconsin Watch.

When could a veto override take place? 

Veto votes may take place at any time during a regularly scheduled floor session. Those periods include Sept. 12-15, Sept. 18-21, Oct. 10-13, Oct. 16-19, Nov. 7-10, Nov. 13-16 and in 2024 on Jan. 16-19, Jan. 22-25, Feb. 13-16, Feb. 19-22, March 12-14 and April 11, 16-18. 

Next year on May 14 and 15 any vetoes that have not been overridden are automatically placed on the calendar for what is known as a “veto review floorperiod.”

“All of our members have made this commitment to be in Madison for every scheduled session day,” Neubauer said.

And now that there are vetoes available to be scheduled for an override vote, the Democratic leader said all 35 of her caucus members will also be in Madison on all skeletal session days — procedural sessions usually involving only a few members that are required to maintain established floor schedules on session days when the full body doesn’t actually meet.

Evers is also conscious that his veto authority is protected by the slimmest of margins.

“After the last election I met with all the legislators on the Democratic side and said, ‘You can’t be sick this year.’ And so far that’s worked out,” the governor told Wisconsin Watch earlier this summer in Oshkosh. He added, “We are well prepared to ensure that we keep the margins where they should be. Obviously, the Republicans have a large number of people in the Legislature, but the Democrats will always be there.”

Both Evers and Neubauer said they have not discussed with Republicans an informal deal to avoid a surprise override vote.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, through a spokesperson, didn’t respond to a question about whether he would schedule an override vote if Democratic lawmakers were absent and Republicans had a two-thirds majority on a given day. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, through a spokesperson, didn’t respond to a question about whether he would support an override effort that had been approved by Assembly Republicans using procedural tactics.

Why would a veto override matter? 

Neubauer cautioned that a snap override attempt could harm the Legislature as an institution.

“People … have an understanding of the ways in which the rules have been changed in the Legislature — through the gerrymander and otherwise — to further consolidate Republicans’ power,” she said. “And I don’t think that an unscheduled veto override attempt would reflect well on our democracy and on the institution.”

She continued, “That being said, we just have to be as prepared as possible.”

Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard, D-Madison, echoed Neubauer, likening a surprise override vote to other recent Republican “over stretches,” including lame duck legislation in 2018 that sought to weaken Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, Republicans’ decision to gerrymander the state’s voting maps to insulate their majorities and the attempt to submit fake presidential electors to Congress after the 2020 election.

“These types of parlor tricks are not true governing,” Agard told Wisconsin Watch. “They aren’t in the best interest of our state.”

Could courts play a role? 

A Republican veto override would leave little recourse for Democrats.

Even with liberals taking control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court last week, Democrats could face a tough path to reversing any potential surprise overrides via the courts.

Aside from what’s in the constitution, the Legislature sets the rules for override process. There are no statutes governing the process and the Legislature can change or enforce the rules however it wants, according to the LRB memo.

The state Supreme Court stated in 1983 that “if the Legislature fails to follow self-adopted procedural rules in enacting legislation, and such rules are not mandated by the constitution, courts will not intervene to declare the legislation invalid.”

The LRB concluded in its memo that the courts have no role in overseeing the veto override process.

“The veto override process is an internal, procedural matter created and governed by the Legislature alone. The Legislature adopts rules that regulate the process, and courts may not adjudicate the application or interpretation of the rules,” LRB director Rick Champagne wrote. “The veto override process is in every way a self-determined legislative process.”

Neubauer said Democrats are prepared to prevent it from getting that far.

“Our caucus is very clear that this is one of our top priorities for this session,” she said. “We’ve discussed it countless times and we are in very close communication with every member of the caucus and will be throughout the session to make sure that we’re doing what we need to do. And people will make real sacrifices — time with their family, vacation, time in their districts — in order to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to protect the veto.”

Wisconsin Watch reporter Jacob Resneck contributed to this report.

The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with WPR, PBS Wisconsin, other news media and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by Wisconsin Watch do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Wisconsin Democrats on ‘veto watch’ after Tony Evers blocks 10 bills is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

The conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court accused her liberal colleagues of a “raw exercise of overreaching power” after they flexed their new majority Wednesday and fired the director of the state’s court system.

The four liberal justices, on just their second day as a majority on the court after 15 years under conservative control, voted to fire Randy Koschnick. Koschnick held the job for six years after serving for 18 years as a judge and running unsuccessfully as a conservative in 2009 against then-Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a liberal.

“To say that I am disappointed in my colleagues is an understatement,” Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, now a member of the three-justice conservative minority, said in a lengthy statement after Koschnick was fired.

Ziegler said the move undermined her authority as chief justice. She called it unauthorized, procedurally and legally flawed, and reckless. But she said she would not attempt to stop it out of fear that other court employees could be similarly fired.

“My colleagues’ unprecedented dangerous conduct is the raw exercise of overreaching power,” she said. “It is shameful. I fear this is only the beginning.”

Fellow conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley blasted the move in a social media post, saying, “Political purges of court employees are beyond the pale.”

Koschnick called the move “apparently political.”

“I think that portends bad things for the court’s decision making going forward,” he said.

The court announced Wednesday evening that Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Audrey Skwierawski will serve as the interim director of state courts beginning Thursday. Skwierawski will take a leave from her position on the circuit court, where she has served since her appointment by former Gov. Scott Walker in 2018, it said.

The justices who voted to fire Koschnick did not respond to a request for comment left with the court’s spokesperson.

Ziegler noted that when conservatives took control of the court in 2008, they did not act to fire the director of state courts at that time, John Voelker. He remained in the position for six more years before resigning.

Ziegler praised Koschnick for his 18 years as a judge and his efforts as director of the state court system, a job that includes hiring court personnel and maintaining the statewide computer system for courts. She also applauded him for addressing the mental health needs of people in the court system, tackling a court reporter shortage and keeping courts operating during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Koschnick said he could have accepted his firing — and ensured a smoother transition with his successor — if the justices had waited to do it at a planned administrative meeting next month. Instead, he said, court workers are boxing up his personal belongings while he is in New York at a judicial conference.

“It creates a really unstable workplace,” he said.

Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice accuses liberals of ‘raw exercise of overreaching power’ is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday asks Wisconsin’s newly liberal-controlled state Supreme Court to throw out Republican-drawn legislative maps as unconstitutional, the latest legal challenge of many nationwide that could upset political boundary lines before the 2024 election.

The long-promised action is backed by Democrats and was filed by a coalition of law firms and voting rights advocacy groups. It comes the day after the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped from a conservative to liberal majority, with the start of the term of a justice who said that the Republican maps were “rigged” and should be reviewed.

“Despite the fact that our legislative branch is meant to be the most directly representative of the people, the gerrymandered maps have divided our communities, preventing fair representation,” said Jeff Mandell, board president of Law Forward, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks that all 132 state lawmakers, including senators who were not scheduled to be on the ballot in 2024, be up for election that year in newly drawn districts.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said Democrats were “counting on judicial fiat to help them gain power.” He accused them of “coming to collect” from the newly elected liberal Supreme Court justice.

The Wisconsin lawsuit is just one of many expected or pending court challenges that could force lawmakers or special commissions to draw yet another set of maps before the 2024 election. In one of the most recent examples, Alabama lawmakers passed new congressional districts last month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that its districts violated federal law by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. Voting rights advocates are challenging the new map as well, contending it still falls short.

All states were required to redraw voting district boundaries after the 2020 census. In states where one political party controlled that process, mapmakers often sought to create an advantage for their party by packing opponents’ voters into a few districts or spreading them among multiple districts — a process known as gerrymandering.

The latest challenge asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, rather than have it work through lower courts, arguing that the state legislative maps are an unconstitutional gerrymander. Notably, the lawsuit does not challenge the congressional maps.

Dan Lenz, an attorney at Law Forward, did not rule out a future challenge to the congressional maps, saying targeting the legislative maps is a “first step.”

The petition filed with the Supreme Court argues that the current maps unconstitutionally retaliate against some voters based on their viewpoint and free speech; create non-contiguous districts that include scattered fragments of detached territory; treat some voters worse than others based on their political views and where they live; and violate the promise of a free government.

It also argues that by enacting maps that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed, that Supreme Court violated the state’s separation of powers principle and the governor’s constitutional authority to veto bills.

It would be up to the court to decide how new maps would be drawn and who would submit them, Mandell said.

Evers praised the lawsuit.

“Today’s filing is great news for our democracy and for the people of our state whose demands for fair maps and a nonpartisan redistricting process have gone repeatedly ignored by their legislators for years,” Evers said in a statement.

In addition to Law Forward, others who brought the lawsuit on behalf of Wisconsin voters are the Stafford Rosenbaum law firm, Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Campaign Legal Center, and the Arnold & Porter law firm.

In 2021, the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that it would adopt maps that had the least amount of change as possible from the previous maps drawn in 2011 by Republicans. Those maps, which also survived a challenge that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, were widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in favor of Republicans in the country.

In a sign of how much the 2011 maps entrenched Republican power in the Legislature, Democrats won every statewide race in 2018 and 53% of the statewide legislative vote. And yet, Democrats won just 36 of the state’s 99 Assembly seats.

Republicans currently hold a 64-35 majority in the Assembly and a 22-11 majority in the Senate.

The state Supreme Court in 2022 initially adopted a map drawn by Evers, plans that largely preserved the district lines favoring Republicans. But the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2022 rejected the legislative maps while it accepted the congressional map.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on a 4-3 vote then adopted Republican-drawn legislative maps. The court’s three liberal justices dissented. They are now in the majority with the arrival of Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose 10-year term began Tuesday.

Protasiewicz ran with support from Democrats and other critics of the current maps and was outspoken during the campaign about her desire to revisit the issue.

“The map issue is really kind of easy, actually,” Protasiewicz said during a candidate debate. “I don’t think anybody thinks those maps are fair. Anybody.”

New Wisconsin lawsuit seeks to toss Republican-drawn maps is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

Leading up to the 2020 election, Facebook ads targeting Latino and Asian American voters described Joe Biden as a communist. A local station claimed a Black Lives Matter co-founder practiced witchcraft. Doctored images showed dogs urinating on Donald Trump campaign posters.

None of these claims was true, but they scorched through social media sites that advocates say have fueled election misinformation in communities of color.

As the 2024 election approaches, community organizations are preparing for what they expect to be a worsening onslaught of disinformation targeting communities of color and immigrant communities. They say the tailored campaigns challenge assumptions of what kinds of voters are susceptible to election conspiracies and distrust in voting systems.

“They’re getting more complex, more sophisticated and spreading like wildfire,” said Sarah Shah, director of policy and community engagement at the advocacy group Indian American Impact, which runs the fact-checking site Desifacts.org. “ What we saw in 2020, unfortunately, will probably be fairly mild in comparison to what we will see in the months leading up to 2024.”

A growing subset of communities of color, especially immigrants for whom English is not their first language, are questioning the integrity of U.S. voting processes and subscribing to Trump’s lies of a stolen 2020 election, said Jenny Liu, mis/disinformation policy manager at the nonprofit Asian Americans Advancing Justice. Still, she said these communities are largely left out of conversations about misinformation.

“When you think of the typical consumer of a conspiracy theory, you think of someone who’s older, maybe from a rural area, maybe a white man,” she said. “You don’t think of Chinese Americans scrolling through WeChat. That’s why this narrative glosses over and erases a lot of the disinformation harms that many communities of colors face.”

Tailoring disinformation

In addition to general misinformation themes about voting machines and mail-in voting, groups are catering their messaging to communities of color, experts say.

For example, immigrants from authoritarian regimes in countries like Venezuela or who have lived through the Chinese Cultural Revolution may be “more vulnerable to misinformation claiming politicians are wanting to turn the U.S. into a Socialist state,” said Inga Trauthig, head of research for the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin. People from countries that have not recently had free and fair elections may have a preexisting distrust of elections and authority that may make them vulnerable to misinformation as well, Trauthig said.

Disinformation efforts often hinge on topics most important to each community, whether that is public safety, immigration, abortion, education, inflation or alleged extramarital affairs, said Laura Zommer, co-founder of the Spanish-language fact-checking group Factchequeado.

“It takes advantage of their very real fear and trauma from their experiences in their home countries,” Zommer said.

Other vulnerabilities include language barriers and a lack of knowledge of the U.S. media landscape and how to find credible U.S. news sources, several misinformation experts told The Associated Press. Many immigrants rely on translated content for voting information, leaving space for bad actors to inject misinformation.

“These tactics exploit information vacuums when there’s a lot of uncertainty around how these processes work, especially because a lot of election materials may not be translated in the languages our communities speak or be available in forms they are likely to access,” said Clara Jiménez Cruz, another co-founder of Factchequeado.

Misinformation can also arise from mistranslations. The Brookings Institute, a nonprofit think tank, found examples of mistranslations in Colombian, Cuban and Venezuelan WhatsApp groups, where “progressive” was translated to “progresista,” which carries “far-left connotations that are closer to the Spanish words ‘socialista’ and ‘comunista.’”

How disinformation spreads

Disinformation, often in languages like Spanish, Mandarin or Hindi, flows onto social media apps like WhatsApp and WeChat heavily used by communities of color.

Minority communities that believe their views and perspectives aren’t represented by the mainstream are likely to “retreat into more private spaces” found on messaging apps or groups on social media sites like Facebook, Trauthig said.

“But disinformation also targets them on these platforms, even though it may feel to them to be that safer space,” she said.

Messages on WhatsApp are also encrypted and can’t be easily seen or traced by moderators or fact-checkers.

“As a result, messages on apps like WhatsApp often fly under the radar and are allowed to spread and spread, largely unchecked,” said Randy Abreu, policy counsel for the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which leads the Spanish Language Disinformation Coalition.

Abreu also raised concerns about Spanish YouTube channels and radio shows that are growing in popularity. He said the coalition is tracking more and more YouTube and radio personalities who are spreading misinformation in Spanish.

A 2022 report by the left-leaning watchdog group Media Matters tracked 40 Spanish-language YouTube videos spreading misinformation about U.S. elections. Many of these videos remained on the platform, despite violating YouTube election misinformation policy, the report said.Disinformation and disenfranchising communities of color

Amid changes in voting policies at state and local levels, advocates are sounding the alarm on how disinformation about voting in 2024 may target communities of color. Many of these efforts have surged as Asian American, Black and Latino communities have grown in political power, said María Teresa Kumar, founding president of the nonprofit advocacy group Voto Latino.

“Disinformation is, at its core, meant to be a sort of voter suppression tactic for communities of color,” she said. “It targets communities of color in a way that feeds into their already justifiable concerns that the system is stacked against them.”

The tactics also feed into a history “as old as the Jim Crow era of attempting to disenfranchise people of color, going back to voter intimidation and suppression efforts after the Civil Rights Act of 1866,” said Atiba Ellis, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

While many of the same recycled claims around alleged fraud in the 2020 and 2022 elections are expected to resurface, experts say disinformation campaigns will likely be more sophisticated and granular in attempts to target specific groups of voters of color.

Trauthig also raised concerns about how layoffs and instability at social media platforms like Twitter may leave them less prepared to tackle misinformation in 2024. It also remains to be seen how new social media platforms like Threads will approach the threat of misinformation. Changes in policies like WhatsApp launching a “Communities” function connecting multiple groups and expanding group chat sizes may also “have big implications for how quickly misinformation will spread on the platform,” she said.

In response to the mounting threat of misinformation, Indian American Impact is ramping up its fact-checking efforts through what the organization says is the first fact-checking website specifically for South Asian Americans. Shah said the group is drawing inspiration from 2022 projects, including a voting toolkit using memes with Bollywood characters and passing out Parle-G crackers with voting information stickers at Indian grocery stores.

Cruz of Factchequeado is paying close attention to misinformation in swing states with significant Latino populations like Nevada and Arizona. And Liu of Asian Americans Advancing Justice is reviewing misinformation trends from previous elections to strategize about how to inoculate Asian American voters against them.

Still, they say there is more work to be done.

Critics are urging social media companies to invest in content moderation and fact-checking in languages other than English. Government and election officials should also make voting information more accessible to non-English speakers, organize media literacy trainings in community spaces and identify “trusted messengers” in communities of color to help approach trends in misinformation narratives, experts said.

“These are not monolithic groups,” Cruz said. “This disinformation is very specifically tailored to each of these communities and their fears. So we also need to be partnering with grassroots organizations in each of these communities to tailor our approaches. If we don’t take the time to do this work, our democracy is at stake.”

Election disinformation campaigns targeted voters of color in 2020. Experts expect 2024 to be worse is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

A Wisconsin judge has dismissed a GOP state lawmaker’s lawsuit over military voting records, saying Friday that the challenge should have been brought against a local elections official, not the statewide elections commission.

Rep. Janel Brandtjen, the former head of the Assembly elections committee who has promoted election conspiracy theories, and a local veterans group sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission in November in an attempt to stop military absentee ballots from being counted in the 2022 midterm.

The lawsuit came in response to the actions of a top Milwaukee elections official who falsely requested military absentee ballots and sent them to Brandtjen’s home. Kimberly Zapata, the former deputy director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, claimed she was trying to expose a vulnerability in the voting process. She now faces charges of election fraud and misconduct in office.

Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Maxwell refused to order military absentee ballots to be sequestered in November, issuing his decision just 14 hours before polls opened.

Local elections officials are required by state law to keep a list of eligible military voters in their jurisdictions. Brandtjen and the Concerned Veterans of Waukesha County wanted to obtain updated lists to see whether clerks were complying with the law. In his ruling Friday dismissing the lawsuit, Maxwell said it should have been filed against a municipal clerk, and not the elections commission, which is responsible for issuing guidance and providing support to local officials who actually run elections.

“The Court agrees with the assertion that WEC’s guidance ought to have more information for local election officials on how to utilize the military ballot list and perhaps how to audit the list and ballots to ensure that there are not fraudulent military ballots being cast, but the Court does not have the authority to require such additional guidance,” Maxwell said in his ruling.

Other efforts to address potential vulnerabilities in the military absentee voting process are ongoing. A bipartisan group of Wisconsin lawmakers in May proposed requiring service members to provide their Department of Defense identification number when requesting a military absentee ballot. Local clerks would then be required to verify the voter’s identity using that information.

Wisconsin judge dismisses lawsuit over military voting lists is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

A freshman Republican congressman from Wisconsin is refusing to apologize after he yelled and cursed at high school-aged Senate pages during a late night tour of the Capitol this week, eliciting a bipartisan rebuke from Senate leaders.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, speaking in a round of interviews Friday on Wisconsin conservative talk radio, did not refute reports of his actions or back down from what he did.

Van Orden used a profanity to describe the pages as lazy and and another to order them off the floor of the Capitol Rotunda on Wednesday night, according to a report in the online political newsletter PunchBowl News. The pages were laying down to take photos in the Rotunda, according to the publication.

“I’m not going to apologize for making sure that anybody — I don’t care who you are and who you’re related to — defiles this House,” Van Orden said on “The Dan O’Donnell Show.” “It’s not going to happen on my watch, man.”

Van Orden said he was protecting the integrity of the Capitol Rotunda because it served as a field hospital during the Civil War and it’s where presidents have lain in state upon their deaths. He said the young people he confronted were “goofing off” and that Democrats were making it an issue.

“Would this be an issue if those young people did not have political connections?” Van Orden said on “The Jay Weber Show.” “Why do you think this is an issue, pal?”

A former Navy SEAL who was outside of the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, Van Orden also appeared to embrace the presence of alcohol in his office the same evening he encountered the pages. Images were posted on social media showing bottles of liquor and beer cans on a desk in his office. Van Orden said on X, the platform previously known as Twitter, that the alcohol was from constituents.

And his spokeswoman Anna Kelly posted: “As the Congressman says, once you cross the threshold to our office, you are in Wisconsin!” She followed that with a beer mug emoji.

Van Orden represents Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, a GOP-leaning jurisdiction that comprises parts of central, southwestern and western Wisconsin, including moderate exurbs of Minnesota’s Twin Cities.

On Thursday evening, just before the Senate left for its August recess, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., rebuked Van Orden’s behavior and thanked the pages, high school-age students who serve as helpers and messengers around the Senate. Several of the pages were sitting on the Senate floor at the time, smiling and nodding as dozens of senators stood and gave them a standing ovation.

Without mentioning Van Orden by name, Schumer said he was “shocked” to hear about the behavior of a member of the House Republican majority and “further shocked at his refusal to apologize to these young people.” He noted that Thursday was the final day for this class of pages.

“They’re here when we need them,” Schumer said. “And they have served this institution with grace.”

McConnell said he associated himself with Schumer’s words. “Everybody on this side of the aisle feels exactly the same way,” he said.

When asked about McConnell’s rebuke, Van Orden said Friday “I don’t know what it was because I honestly have not tracked any of this stuff.”

Van Orden was elected to Congress in 2022 after a losing bid in 2020. He has insisted that he did not enter the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and on Friday again condemned those who did, calling them “buffoons.” That didn’t stop fellow Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat, from invoking the Jan. 6 attack in criticizing Van Orden.

“Wonder if he told that to his fellow insurrectionists, who were beating police officers on the same ground?” Pocan said on X.

Rebecca Cooke, a Democrat who is running to challenge Van Orden in 2024, called him an embarrassment and a hypocrite. She called Van Orden a “serial harasser” and referenced an incident in June 2021 when Van Orden was upset about a display of LGBTQ+ books at a southwestern Wisconsin library and yelled at a teenager who was working there.

“For someone to perhaps drunkenly, and definitely belligerently, yell at these kids for enjoying our nation’s Capitol is just stupid,” Pocan said Friday. “He would be best to say it was stupid and just move on.”

Senators rebuke Wisconsin congressman who yelled vulgarities at high school-age pages is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

Heading into the 2024 election, Wisconsin faces a new challenge state lawmakers here have so far failed to address: generative artificial intelligence. 

AI can draft a fundraising email or campaign graphics in seconds, no writing or design skills required. Or, as the Republican National Committee showed in April, it can conjure lifelike videos of China invading Taiwan or migrants crossing the U.S. border made entirely of fictional AI-generated footage.

More recently, a Super PAC supporting a Republican presidential candidate’s bid to make the Milwaukee debate stage on Aug. 23 used an AI-generated video of that candidate to fundraise — which one campaign finance expert called an “innovative” way around campaign finance rules that would otherwise ban a Super PAC and candidate from coordinating on an ad.

Technology and election experts say AI’s applications will both “transform” and threaten elections across the United States. And Wisconsin, a gerrymandered battleground that previously weathered baseless claims of election fraud, may face an acute risk.

Yet Wisconsin lawmakers have not taken official steps to regulate use of the technology in campaigning, even as other states and Congress introduce and begin to implement guardrails.

Rep. Scott Krug, R-Nekoosa, chair of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, told Wisconsin Watch he hasn’t “related (AI) too much to elections just yet.”

In the Senate’s Committee on Shared Revenue, Elections and Consumer Protection, “it just hasn’t come up yet,” said Sen. Jeff Smith, D-Brunswick.

Election committee members in both chambers expressed interest in possible remedies but doubt that they could pass protections before the next election cycle.

Rep. Clinton Anderson, D-Beloit, is drafting a bill that would mandate disclosure of AI, sometimes called “synthetic media,” in political ads, something experts call a basic step lawmakers could take to regulate the technology.

“If we wait til 2024, it’s gonna be too late,” Anderson said in an interview. “If we can get this minimum thing done, then maybe we can have a conversation about, ‘What’s the next step?’ ” 

“No matter where you fall politically, I think you should want some transparency in campaigns,” he added.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission declined to comment.

The AI threat: ‘Real creepy real fast’

Several lawmakers said AI repackages old problems in new technology, noting voters have encountered deceptive visuals and targeted advertising before. 

But generative AI makes such content cheaper, easier and faster to produce. New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice notes that Russian-affiliated organizations spent more than $1 million a month in 2016 to produce manipulative political ads that could be created today with AI for a fraction of the cost. 

Dietram Scheufele, who studies science communication and technology policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that while some of the doomsday predictions about AI are overblown, “we’re definitely entering a new world.” 

The technology, he said, “gets real creepy real fast.”

Scheufele cited a prior study in which researchers morphed candidates’ faces with the participant’s own face in a way that remained undetectable to the participant. They found that people who were politically independent or weakly partisan were more likely to prefer the candidates whose faces had been — unbeknownst to them — morphed with their own. 

“This was done a long time ago before the idea of actually doing all of this in real time became a reality,” Scheufele said. But today, “the threshold for producing this stuff is really, really low.” 

Campaigns could micro-target constituents, crafting uniquely persuasive communications or advertisements by tailoring them to a person’s digital footprint or likeness. Darrell West, who studies technology at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, calls this “precise message targeting,” writing AI will allow campaigns to better focus on “specific voting blocs with appeals that nudge them around particular policies and partisan opinions.”

AI will also quicken the pace of communications and responses, permitting politicians to “respond instantly to campaign developments,” West wrote. “AI can scan the internet, think about strategy, and come up with a hard-hitting appeal” in minutes, “without having to rely on highly paid consultants or expert videographers.”

And because AI technology is more accessible, it’s not just well-funded campaigns or interest groups that might deploy it in elections. Mekela Panditharatne, counsel for the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, and Noah Giansiracusa, an assistant professor of mathematics and data science, described several ways outside actors might use the technology to deceive or influence voters.

Aside from using deepfakes to fabricate viral controversies, they could produce legions of social media posts about certain issues “to create the illusion of political agreement or the false impression of widespread belief in dishonest election narratives,” Panditharatne and Giansiracusa wrote. They could “deploy tailored chatbots to customize interactions based on voter characteristics.” 

They could also use AI to target elections administrators, either through deluges of complaints from fake constituents or elaborate phishing schemes.

“There is plenty of past election disinformation in the training data underlying current generative AI tools to render them a potential ticking time bomb for future election disinformation,” Panditharatne and Giansiracusa wrote.

For Scheufele, one major concern is timing. It can take seconds for AI to create a deepfake; it can take days for reporters to debunk it. AI-driven disinformation deployed in the days before an election could sway voters in meaningful ways.

By the time people realized the content was fake, Scheufele said, “the election is over and we have absolutely no constitutional way of relitigating it.”

“This is like making the wrong call in the last minute of the Super Bowl and the Patriots win the Super Bowl, even though they shouldn’t have,” Scheufele said. “They’re still going to be Super Bowl champions on Monday even though we all know that the wrong call was made.”

Guardrails of democracy

In the abstract, every single aspect of AI is “totally manageable,” Scheufele said.

“The problem is we’re dealing with so much in such a short period of time because of how quickly that technology develops,” he said. “We simply don’t have the structures in place at the moment.”

But Wisconsin lawmakers could take initial steps toward boosting transparency. 

In May, Washington state passed a law requiring a clear disclaimer about AI’s use in any political ad. Anderson’s team looked to Washington’s law as a model in drafting a Wisconsin bill.

Printed ads with manipulated images will need a disclosure “in letters at least as big as any other letters in the ad,” according to The Spokesman-Review. Manipulated audio must “have an easily understood, spoken warning at the beginning and end of the commercial.” For videos, a text disclosure “must appear for the duration” of the ad.

A similar bill addressing federal elections has been introduced in both chambers of Congress. A March 2020 proposal banning the distribution of deepfakes within 60 days of a federal election and creating criminal penalties went nowhere.

Krug called Washington’s law a “pretty interesting idea.”

“If (an ad is) artificially created, there has to be some sort of a disclaimer,” Krug said.

However, he indicated Republicans may wait to move legislation until after Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, convenes a task force later this year on AI in government.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, another elections committee member, noted Wisconsin law already prohibits knowingly making or publishing “a false representation pertaining to a candidate or referendum which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.”

“I think you could read the plain language of that statute and say that a deepfake would violate it,” he said. “But obviously, whenever you have new technology, I think it’s worth coming back and making explicitly clear that an existing statute is intended to apply to that new technology.”

Just the beginning

Scheufele, Anderson, Spreitzer and Smith all said that Wisconsin should go beyond mandating disclosure of AI in ads.

“The biggest concern is disinformation coming from actors outside of the organized campaigns and political parties,” Spreitzer said. Official entities are easier to regulate, in part because the government already does. 

Additional measures will require a robust global debate, Scheufele said. He likened the urgency of addressing AI to nuclear power. 

“What we never did for nuclear energy is really have a broad public debate about: Should we go there? Should we actually develop nuclear weapons? Should we engage in that arms race?” he said. “For AI, we may still have that opportunity where we really get together and say, ‘Hey, what are the technologies that we’re willing to deploy, that we’re willing to actually make accessible?’ ”

The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with WPR, PBS Wisconsin, other news media and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by Wisconsin Watch do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Editor’s note: This story was updated to include Noah Giansiracusa as a co-author of the Brennan Center report.

AI is starting to affect our elections. Wisconsin has yet to take action. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.

The Milwaukee County board voted Thursday to nearly double the county’s sales tax, two weeks after the city of Milwaukee approved a local sales tax increase as part of a bipartisan plan to avoid bankruptcy.

Both the city and county, which make up the state’s largest metropolitan areas, faced running out of money without additional revenue to pay for basic services such as police and fire protection, park maintenance and libraries.

Milwaukee leaders, together with a broad statewide coalition, successfully lobbied the Republican-controlled Legislature to increase funding for all local governments in the state by $275 million and tie future increases to state sales tax revenue under a plan signed into law by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Under that plan, Milwaukee County and the city were allowed to raise additional money through local sales taxes. The Milwaukee Common Council earlier this month approved a 2% sales tax. And on Thursday, the county board voted to approve a 0.4% sales tax increase, nearly doubling the current rate of 0.5%. Combined with the state sales tax rate of 5%, the total tax rate in the city of Milwaukee will be 7.9%.

The higher rates will take effect in January.

Both city and county leaders warned of dire consequences without the additional money that the higher sales taxes will generate.

The additional money will allow the city and county to make additional payments to their underfunded pension systems. Milwaukee County alone faces a $760 million pension liability. City and county leaders also warned of reduced services, such as fewer bus routes, selling off public parks, less snow removal and potential library closures, and hundreds of layoffs of police and firefighters.

“Simply put, revenues fund public services,” Milwaukee County Board Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson said before the vote. “Without revenue, we cannot fund public services. … Failure is simply not an option in my mind.”

The higher county sales tax rate is expected to bring an additional $82 million a year to the county in the first year. That will allow the county to have a budget surplus instead of a projected $18 million deficit. But even with the additional sales tax revenue, the county is projected to have a $13 million funding gap in 2026.

Critics of the plan argued it would hurt lower income people. Opponents also objected to strings attached to additional state funding for the city of Milwaukee, including curbing spending on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

County Supervisor Ryan Clancy said if the sales tax increase had gone to a vote of the people, it would have failed in the face of opposition from the poorest and working class residents. He pushed unsuccessfully for delaying a vote until a more detailed plan for how the money is spent could be prepared.

The county board voted 15-3 to approve the sales tax increase. It required a two-thirds majority, or 12 of the 18 supervisors, to succeed.

The law requires the money raised from the sales tax to go toward paying off the pension debt and public safety. The additional sales tax would end after the pension liability is paid off.

Wisconsin state law does not allow for cities to declare bankruptcy, which means the Legislature would have to vote to allow the city or county to take that step if the city were to run out of money.

Milwaukee County approves sales tax increase as part of plan to avoid bankruptcy is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

This story is part of a collaboration between Wisconsin Watch, Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and The Appeal. 

Four decades ago, a newspaper investigation described Milwaukee’s municipal legal system as “cash register justice.” Thousands of impoverished residents with mental health or substance use issues languished in county jails due to unpaid civil violation fines, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Responding to the outcry from The Milwaukee Journal’s 1985 investigation, the city stopped automatically jailing residents who failed to pay civil fines and expanded its Court Alternatives Program. As a result, Milwaukee sent people like Sue Eckhart to court, where they could help low-income residents and those with mental health problems by offering alternatives to incarceration. 

Eckhart has managed the alternatives program for decades, providing assessments, screenings, and referrals to treatments or community service for those facing civil violations, such as illegal parking or loitering.

Since 2015, the program’s vendor, currently JusticePoint, Inc., has served 705 people with mental health issues, 80% of whom resolved their cases without paying a fine, wrote Eckhart, the organization’s program director, in an email to Wisconsin Watch, Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and The Appeal. The nonprofit says it’s served 11,000 total clients during the last eight years.

Although the organizations providing those services changed over time, the core staff — Eckhart and her colleagues — stayed put. But in May, Eckhart suffered a “gut punch” when the city terminated her organization’s contract before it expired in 2024.

Officials provided little explanation as to why and did not line up another vendor to take over what many see as vital work to curb mass incarceration. 

“I never saw that coming at all,” Eckhart said in an interview.

In a last-ditch effort to seek answers, JusticePoint sued the city on July 10 — a day before the city’s cancellation took effect. A Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge quickly granted a temporary restraining order, allowing JusticePoint’s services to continue as the dispute unfolds in court. 

But the prospect of eliminating — and not replacing — JusticePoint’s services has stirred confusion and deep concerns among those serving some of Milwaukee’s most vulnerable residents.

At a time when numerous states and cities are taking steps to reduce pretrial detention, advocates in Milwaukee say attempting to halt the city’s court alternatives program is a step in reverse.

“It is shocking that Milwaukee Municipal Court would suddenly cancel the contract for such an invaluable program,” wrote a coalition of 24 local organizations in May after the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported the city’s plans. They added that the court had provided no information on what would happen to the hundreds of people JusticePoint currently serves. 

One of JusticePoint’s clients is Quintin Walls, a 42-year-old father of six, who owed $100 for a civil violation. He has received services from the organization three times now, starting when he received parking tickets while living in his car. Over the years, the organization connected him to community service to pay off his fines and to resources that led him to secure housing.

The coalition urged the mayor and the city’s Common Council to save the program, but officials say neither has control over the contract. The council funds but does not oversee the program, allocating $487,000 for JusticePoint’s services this year.

Two Municipal Court judges, Phil Chavez and Valarie Hill, recommended terminating the contract before a third judge, Molly Gena, was elected in April, city officials said during a June Common Council subcommittee meeting. It would have been illegal and unenforceable if the council had directed the court to rescind the termination notice, Assistant City Attorney Kathryn Block said at the subcommittee meeting. 

Alderman Jonathan Brostoff, who represents the city’s East Side, called the court’s decision “fishy” and “quite troubling.” 

Brostoff and Alderman Michael Murphy, who represents Milwaukee’s West Side, later told Wisconsin Watch they were concerned about the court’s lack of transparency.

Court officials declined to answer questions from Wisconsin Watch, Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and The Appeal, citing the pending lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson declined to comment for this story, but added that Johnson “was not involved in any decision-making” regarding the contract.

Nick Sayner, JusticePoint’s co-founder and chief executive officer, said he’s troubled by the lack of transparency from officials.

“The court’s silence and the city’s silence tells you that you should be concerned that there’s something else going on here,” Sayner said.

Judges ‘lost faith’ in JusticePoint

Judges Chavez and Hill told Chief Court Administrator Sheldyn Himle they “lost faith” in JusticePoint over the longstanding practice of sharing citations with attorneys at Legal Action of Wisconsin, a nonprofit that provides free legal services to people with low incomes, according to a May 15 email between Sayner and Himle.

The city attorney’s office had advised JusticePoint to share citations during pilot phases of a program to help people with low incomes find legal representation, Sayner wrote to Himle.  

“It is not clear to me how we were to know we should have ceased this activity prior to receiving your feedback,” Sayner wrote. “Once we were notified by your office to end this activity, we stopped providing that information immediately.”

Sayner also told Himle that JusticePoint hadn’t received broader feedback from the court for several years, but was open to it as long as the program’s principles remained consistent. 

Legal Action of Wisconsin attorneys were not aware of any past issues with sharing citations, said Susan Lund, an attorney with the nonprofit. Her firm receives identical copies of citations through police department open records requests and said she did not know why JusticePoint’s information sharing would be a problem. 

(Legal Action of Wisconsin separately sued the Municipal Court in July, alleging the court failed to record hearings on judgments and case reopenings as required by state law.) 

In a May 15 letter, the city’s purchasing department informed Sayner it was terminating JusticePoint’s contract, effective July 11. JusticePoint had not delivered unspecified “possible solutions” following a May 5 meeting, the letter said. 

Eckhart, whose office sits on the second floor of the Municipal Court building, said she was mortified upon learning the news. 

“‘Oh, my God, what are our clients going to do?’” she said she thought. 

The city terminated the contract under a “convenience” clause, rather than for cause, allowing it to be canceled for any reason as long as the city gave JusticePoint 10-days written notice. If it had terminated for cause the city would have had to give JusticePoint 30 days to fix any alleged deficiencies.

“At no point was JusticePoint informed that failure to respond with possible solutions would result in the termination of the contract,” Sayner and fellow co-founder Edward Gordon wrote to the purchasing division.

Plan to replace JusticePoint’s services is unclear 

Speaking at a June subcommittee meeting, Himle said the court planned to continue the Court Alternatives Program without JusticePoint. She did not clearly answer how that would happen without a new contractor. 

“The judges have made some decisions on how to continue as best they can through referrals they may make,” Himle said.

James Gramling, Jr., a retired Municipal Court judge, said in an interview it was unreasonable to expect judges to make such assessments from the bench, particularly in cases unfolding on Zoom.

“The judges seem to think they’re going to be able to identify from the bench people that have addiction, mental health issues and refer them to some agency. Good luck with that — it’s not workable,” Gramling said. 

As a judge, Gramling would assess the needs of defendants and then rely on one of Eckhart’s case workers to perform a full screening outside of the courtroom, Grambling detailed in a letter to the Common Council. Defendants would often be directed to perform community service or receive counseling or treatment. 

“Many thousands of people are processed without individual treatment by the court,” Gramling wrote. “And many of those defendants are disadvantaged members within our community: the poor, those addicted to drugs and alcohol, those suffering from mental health issues.”

Nearly 60% of JusticePoint participants participate in community service. The program’s alcohol and substance abuse program serves more than 90% of participants, as do its mental health services, according to the city budget.  

Gena, the newest of the three Municipal Court judges, said terminating JusticePoint’s contract would make her job “a lot harder.” Speaking at the June meeting, the former Legal Action of Wisconsin managing attorney said she could order people to pay fines but can’t address root causes that will send many people back to court.

“It was indicated that maybe the other judges have a plan — I don’t,” she said. 

JusticePoint’s lawsuit argues termination lacked good cause

In its lawsuit, JusticePoint argues the city violated the Wisconsin Fair Dealership law, which protects “dealers” — typically business owners — whose economic livelihood could be imperiled by “grantors,” who, through a contract, grants dealers the ability to sell or distribute goods or services. The law prohibits a grantor from terminating a relationship with a dealer without good cause, proper notice and the ability to fix any issue at hand. 

“The City seeks to terminate — abruptly, unilaterally, and without good cause — JusticePoint’s relationship with the City,” the lawsuit argues. “Worse yet, the City has not contracted with another vendor to provide these critical services to the people of Milwaukee.”

The Circuit Court granted JusticePoint a temporary restraining order to maintain its contract as the case plays out. A hearing on that order is scheduled for October 5.

‘Thank you for being so kind to me.’ 

Eckhart has collected countless stories of people her colleagues have helped over the decades. She recalled one man who bathed in a pond outside of the Municipal Court building and had racked up many citations while struggling with alcoholism. Eckhart’s team connected him to a treatment service and resolved his tickets.

She said she later saw him with frostbite on his feet during the winter and gave him a pair of heavy socks. He later returned to thank the team. 

“And I’ll never forget that,” Eckhart said.

Then there was Theodora Athans, whose photo appeared in The Milwaukee Journal’s 1985 “Justice Denied” series that revealed how the court created “debtor’s prisons” within the Milwaukee County’s criminal justice system.

Athans lived with schizophrenia and the Milwaukee County Circuit Court found her to be a “danger to herself.”

But Eckhart said her team found Athans housing and the woman later volunteered for the alternatives program.

“Thank you for being so kind to me,” Eckhart recalled Athans later saying when Eckhart visited her while she was sick in the hospital.

“The people we help, I don’t think would get help anywhere else,” Eckhart said, “and that’s the part that bothers me.”

JusticePoint offers incarceration alternatives in Milwaukee. Two judges tried to cancel its contract. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.