Wisconsin
Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority questions past ruling barring ballot drop boxes
Voting rights and elections: How new state laws could affect you
The 2020 presidential election spurred a wave of voting laws that some say could restrict access to the polls. Here’s how they could affect voters in future elections.
Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
MADISON, Wisc. — The new liberal majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday questioned its conservative members’ past decision to bar state clerks from using absentee ballot drop boxes in a case that could impact turnout in a key swing state this November.
Wisconsin’s highest court heard arguments Monday in a lawsuit backed by Democrats that seeks to overturn the court’s decision under its previous conservative majority that said state law does not allow drop boxes to be placed outside of an election clerk’s office and another ruling that prohibited clerks from filling in missing address information on absentee ballots.
“What if we just got it wrong?” said Justice Jill Karofsky, one of four members of the court’s liberal majority, referring to the court’s prior decision. “What if we made a mistake? Are we now supposed to just perpetuate that mistake into the future?”
The Wisconsin court in the coming weeks will decide whether to reinstate the use of absentee drop boxes, just before voters are set to cast ballots in the next presidential election featuring a rematch of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
Biden defeated Trump in Wisconsin by about 21,000 votes four years ago. Since then, Trump has sought to persuade lawmakers and judges to overturn the battleground state’s election result and in doing so, argued ballots returned in drop boxes amounted to voter fraud despite a lack of evidence to support the claim.
Critical tool for elections in 2020. Why are some states limiting drop boxes?
‘Not something you were obviously concerned about at all in 2020’
Ballot drop boxes had been used since the 1980s or 1990s in Wisconsin and other states but exploded in popularity during the coronavirus pandemic — especially in liberal-leaning areas — to help voters cast ballots while limiting interaction with other people.
On Monday, the court’s liberal justices questioned the court’s 2022 decision to ban the boxes, with some arguments focusing on the state Legislature’s past statements of support for their use.
“This was not something you were obviously concerned about at all in 2020 when you said that these boxes were expressly authorized and lawful,” Justice Rebecca Dallet said Monday to an attorney representing Republican legislative leaders, who are in court defending the 2022 ruling outlawing drop boxes against the challenge brought by liberal group Priorities USA and the Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Voters.
“At that point in 2020 no one had raised any legal objections to drop boxes,” Misha Tseytlin, an attorney representing the Legislature, said in response.
Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn questioned why past policy positions mattered to the justices’ work on interpreting the law.
“We’ve had parties change their positions very recently in this court and other people haven’t been troubled by that — why does it matter that the Legislature takes a different view of the statute for us to read the statute faithfully?” Hagedorn said.
Drop boxes and state law
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, some states have added language about drop boxes to state law. Many include standards about how many drop boxes must be available, based on population, or require one per county.
The plaintiff’s arguments amounted to asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to become lawmakers, argued conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley.
“You are asking this court to become a super Legislature and give free rein, despite what the statutes say, give free rein to municipal clerks to conduct elections however they see fit,” she said. “That, counsel, seems to me to be the greater danger to democracy because you’re asking this court to override what the Legislature wrote.”
Critics say drop boxes aren’t laid out in state law and that lawmakers, not the state elections commission, must create rules for them. Supporters say clerks have wide authority and discretion over what tools should be used to administer elections in their communities, an argument at least one liberal justice echoed Monday.
In spring 2021, there were about 570 drop boxes in Wisconsin, according to court filings. Out of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, at least 66 had drop boxes as of spring 2021, PolitiFact Wisconsin noted.
While Republicans have heavily scrutinized the use of drop boxes, they were used widely in Wisconsin, including in conservative areas.
If the Wisconsin court allows expanded use of drop boxes again, some cities with remaining drop box infrastructure may be able to open them back up quickly. Madison City Attorney Michael Haas said, for Madison, it would be a matter of unlocking the box and likely double-checking the video security.
Contributing: Hope Karnopp, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Contact Molly Beck at molly.beck@jrn.com.
Wisconsin
President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody
A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.
The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.
“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”
Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.
Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.
But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.
A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.
Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.
Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.
The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,
The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.
The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.
Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.
But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.
Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”
A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.
Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.
Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute
(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”
Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.
The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.
In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”
“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.
The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.
According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer
ONEIDA COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) — The Wisconsin DOJ is investigating an officer-involved death that occurred on the morning of June 17 in the town of Lake Tomahawk.
According to a press release, around 10:30 a.m., two Oneida officers arrived at Lumen Lake Drive to arrest a subject in a felony investigation.
Upon contact with the officers, the subject brandished and shot a firearm. One officer shot the subject in return.
EMS pronounced the subject dead on the scene. No members of law enforcement or the public were injured.
Both officers will be placed on administrative assignment, per the agency’s policy.
WFRV will update this story as needed.
-
Pennsylvania1 minute agoPennsylvania lawmakers push for data center regulations as development accelerates
-
Rhode Island7 minutes agoRhode Island Pride marks 50th year as early marcher recalls Providence’s first parade
-
South-Carolina13 minutes agoSouth Carolina family raises awareness of rare Batten disease
-
South Dakota16 minutes agoSouth Dakota man whose life sentence was commuted by Noem now implicated in his niece’s death
-
Tennessee29 minutes ago8 Biggest Winners, 4 Losers from Tennessee Titans’ Minicamp
-
Texas31 minutes agoSweep in the heart of Texas: Twins beat Rangers again
-
Utah36 minutes agoRock Canyon fire doubles in size overnight near Arizona-Utah border
-
Vermont44 minutes agoPossible tornado causes damage in small Vermont town during Thursday’s intense storms – The Boston Globe