Village of Kronenwetter voting hours extended to 9 p.m. due to 'technical issues'
Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood and Kronenwetter Village Clerk Jennifer Poyer filed a petition for an extension earlier in the day, 'after technology issues caused significant delays at the Kronenwetter Municipal Center,' according to a release from the Marathon County Clerk's Office.
Polling site officials switched to paper poll books around 10 a.m., but some voters left due to long lines, according to the release.
'We understand the frustration this caused for voters,' Trueblood said. 'Extending polling hours in the Village of Kronenwetter by one hour ensures that every eligible Kronenwetter resident has the opportunity to cast their ballot.'
All other polling sites in Marathon County will close at 8 p.m., according to the release.
Trueblood and Poyer will work with the Wisconsin Elections Commission to determine the cause of the issue, according to the release.
All 11 of Kronenwetter's wards vote at the same location. The village was using Badger Books to check voters in to the polling location. The village's Express Vote electronic voting machines are optional to use, according to the village website.
Election Day is Tuesday. Here's what Wausau-area voters need to know.
Erik Pfantz covers local government and education in central Wisconsin for USA TODAY NETWORK - Wisconsin and values his background as a rural Wisconsinite. Contact him at epfantz@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Wausau Daily Herald: Kronenwetter voting hours extended to 9 p.m. due to 'technical issues'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
Liberty University faces second lawsuit accusing it of mishandling sexual assault cases
A former Liberty University employee says she was terminated in part for cooperating with a federal investigation of the school's handling of sexual assault, according to recently filed court documents. In her suit against the private Christian university, Erika Woolfolk stated she was paid less, required to work more, and the subject of a hostile work environment while employed in the university's office of Equity and Compliance and Title IX. Woolfolk's work involved investigating cases of sexual violence on campus, of which she alleged her bosses would improperly predetermine their outcomes, according to her lawsuit. She claimed in the filing that she shared that information and more about the university's 'systemic violations of federal law' with the U.S. Department of Education. She also claims she was fired for it. She is now the second former Liberty University employee who has alleged in lawsuits that they reported the university's improper and unethical investigations into sexual assault and were later terminated. Most recently, Peter Brake sued the university along similar grounds and his firing was cited in Woolfolk's filing. Both suits also name as a defendant Ashley Reich, a former top administrator at the university who oversaw the Title IX office. In a statement to USA TODAY, Liberty University declined to respond to all the allegations but disagreed with Woolfolk's claims. It stated that her termination did not have to do with her race or her interactions with the federal government. Instead, her firing was tied to "legitimate business reasons" related to Title IX investigations. USA TODAY reached out to Reich for comment but received no response prior to publication. The Biden-era Education Department in 2024 found that the university had created a culture where students and others were afraid to report sexual violence. The university was penalized $16 million as a result. It also remains on federal monitoring through April 2026. Liberty has previously said it believed it was treated unfairly by the Biden administration, while agreeing 'there were numerous deficiencies that existed in the past' with its compliance with the Clery Act. That regulation includes requirements for how universities respond to and report sexual assault and other crimes on their campuses. More: Liberty to pay Jerry Falwell Jr. $15 million settlement after high-profile sex scandal The government's final report found that college administrators overlooked and failed to track repeat cases of sexual violence on campus, and that it failed to warn students of potential danger. It laid out how university officials tried to cover their tracks by seeking technology staff to delete hard drives. Liberty, based in Lynchburg, Virginia, is among the nation's largest and most prominent Christian universities. The school is also hugely popular among Republican politicians. Jerry Falwell, a televangelist and conservative figure, started the school in 1971. The university has grown thanks to online students – about 124,000 combined in the 2023-24 academic year, according to the school – and it took nearly $880 million in federal financial aid for its students in the 2022-2023 academic year, according to the Department of Education. What did Woolfolk allege? In her lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Virginia, Woolfolk stated she earned undergraduate and master's degrees at the school and had been working there since 2014. She initially produced content for the Liberty Flames Sports Network, before transferring to the Office of Equity and Compliance/Title IX in 2018. In that office, she was the only Black employee and faced a hostile work environment, the suit states. She alleged she was paid less than her more inexperienced peers and was asked to work longer hours on more arduous tasks. She said she was denied promotions and accommodations, like remote work, while Reich routinely stayed home, according to the lawsuit. She also described facing racial comments from her colleagues, like one who stereotyped 'Blacks as either 'black-black' or 'white-black'' with more positive connotations for the latter, according to the lawsuit. The suit also included screenshots from Microsoft Teams chats where her peers joked about naming a coworker's new dog after Confederate generals. Woolfolk's suit also states that Reich regularly influenced the findings of Title IX cases, either directly or through another employee. In another instance, Woolfolk learned details of a confidential case were improperly shared throughout the office, which 'posed significant risks of prejudice to complainants and respondents.' That was because members of her team would sometimes have to serve as neutral deciders in cases other than their own. In 2022, Woolfolk spoke to Education Department investigators. Her suit states she told them about numerous violations of Title IX, which included 'systematic efforts to minimize and downplay sexual assault reports; and predetermined case outcomes before investigations were completed.' She also alleged that Reich was aware of her actions. By June 2024, Woolfolk said she had filed an internal complaint against Reich related to workplace discrimination and retaliation for cooperating with the federal government. She was assigned to work virtually, but was fired days later. The suit stated that the university fired her for unspecified compliance issues. She was terminated on the same day as two other investigators, including Peter Brake, who had also raised complaints about Reich. Reich now works at the Education Department where she'll be recused from matters involving the school. In a statement to USA TODAY, a department official praised her nearly two decades of working in higher education, policy development and government affairs, and said that she'll help advance President Donald Trump's agenda but didn't offer more details about her is seeking legal fees and an unspecified amount of Quintana is an investigative reporter at USA TODAY. He can be reached at cquintana@ or via Signal at 202-308-9021. He is on X at @CQuintanaDC
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
There's just a month until TikTok could be banned – again. Here's where things stand.
President Donald Trump has one month to finalize the sale of TikTok or the short-form video platform risks going dark in the U.S. – again. For months, Trump has said negotiations for the sale of TikTok have been ongoing with China, as the platform is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance. Since the platform went dark for less than 24 hours in January, Trump has extended the deadline on a ban of TikTok in the U.S. three times. And he may just conduct a fourth. In late July, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a CNBC interview that if China did not approve a U.S.-drafted deal to sell the platform's American assets, the app would go dark again, once the next ban extension expires on Sept. 17. "If that deal gets approved by the Chinese, then that deal will happen. If they don't approve it, then TikTok is going to go dark," Lutnick previously said. "And those decisions are coming very soon, so let's see what the Chinese do. They've got to approve it. The deal is over to them right now." The White House did not immediately respond for comment when contacted by USA TODAY on Aug. 15. When could TikTok go dark (again) in the US? The next deadline for TikTok to be sold by ByteDance is Sept. 17. Why is TikTok at risk of getting banned? Some government officials are concerned that TikTok poses a national security threat, believing that ByteDance, which is based in Beijing, is sharing U.S. user data with China. TikTok has repeatedly denied these claims. In January, the platform went dark for less than 24 hours under federal legislation signed into law by former President Joe Biden in 2024. Trump has signed executive orders three times now that push back the deadline for when TikTok must be sold, promising that deals with China are on the horizon. The latest was in early July, when Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was hopeful Chinese President Xi would agree to a deal to see the platform to the U.S. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Putin teases new nuke deal ahead of Alaska meeting with Trump
The final pillar of a once-robust set of arms control treaties between the U.S. and Russia expires in six months. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he's interested in securing a new nuclear arms control pact with the United States, raising the stakes of his Aug. 15 summit with President Donald Trump. The world's last remaining nuclear arms control treaty, New START, limits the U.S. and Russia to keeping only 1,550 long-range nuclear warheads on alert at any given time. It expires in February 2026, though Russia in 2022 paused and later stopped consultation meetings and ceased allowing the U.S. and NATO to inspect its nuclear arsenal. But in recent weeks, Putin and Trump have both discussed the possibility of a successor deal. Nuclear threats have emanated from Moscow since 2022 when Russia started its war against Ukraine, which is the main topic of the summit. More: Live updates: Russia predicts marathon Trump-Putin Alaska summit Putin suggested the summit could create 'the long-term conditions of peace between our countries … and in the world as a whole, if we reach agreements in the field of strategic (nuclear) offensive arms control,' while speaking to senior Kremlin military and civilian officials at an Aug. 14 meeting. Trump told reporters July 25 that New START's looming expiration is 'a problem for the world,' and expressed a desire to maintain the treaty's deployment limits. The president, who has long sought to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons, tried and failed to launch three-way nuke talks with China and Russia during his first term. A golden 'opportunity' A top arms control negotiations expert told USA TODAY the summit represents a major 'opportunity' to rein in a potential arms race before it begins. Paul Dean, a former acting assistant secretary of State who oversaw arms control and led the U.S. delegation to the New START implementation body, emphasized that the treaty's enforcement measures also keep the world a safer place. Dean now leads the non-partisan Nuclear Threat Initiative's Global Nuclear Policy Program. More: 'Heed our warnings': Nobel laureates plea for diplomacy to prevent nuclear war The treaty mandates on-site inspections, data exchanges, and other measures intended to allow each side to maintain an accurate picture of the other's nuclear forces, he explained. 'Without (a high) confidence level in the day-to-day picture of what the other side's nuclear forces are, what you really get is the potential for misinterpretation and miscalculation,' Dean said. 'And when it comes to nuclear weapons, a misinterpretation or a miscalculation can be catastrophic.' The U.S. and Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have maintained a series of such nuclear arms control and verification agreements dating back to the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. 'Most people alive right now have never lived in a time during which there were no guardrails on the U.S.-Russia or U.S.-Soviet nuclear deterrence relationship,' noted Dean. He argued that 'people have forgotten what the risks are,' including a potentially costly arms race. The 'world that we're living in is more complicated and more dangerous than it's been in quite some time,' he said. More: Despite DOGE, Pentagon escapes Donald Trump's budget cuts unscathed The presidents could agree in Anchorage to start the negotiating process for a successor deal to New START, but Dean cautioned that 'these are long negotiations and unlikely to be resolved in a matter of weeks or even months.' But there is potential for some immediate progress to emerge from the summit, Dean said. 'Both sides could take a step back from nuclear threats and raising the nuclear temperature. Both sides could recommit themselves to implementing the New START treaty,' he said, and the two sides could agree to respect the deployment limits as negotiations unfold. Contributing: Reuters Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
