Voter turnout higher than expected in Fox Valley communities, poll workers say
Ballots sported a variety of nonpartisan local government and school board races, as well as races for state superintendent of public instruction and a seat on the state's supreme court, and a voter ID referendum.
With highs in the mid-30s and and clouds scooting through the sky, voters milled through polls, making their choices and receiving their "I voted" stickers.
In Appleton, two voters told a reporter they were there to pick Susan Crawford in the supreme court race.
"I don't want to lose my rights under Trump," said Dustin Dorin, of Appleton. Marie Dorin added that she voted for similar reasons, and also voted in the superintendent race and local school board races.
In Neenah, Bailey Gutjaher said he was picking Crawford because he saw "big companies trying to buy votes."
Judy Evans, of Grand Chute, said she was motivated to go out to the polls to cast her ballot for Brad Schimel in the supreme court to prevent a Democratic majority in the court.'They're trying to use (the seat) to get more seats in the government and I don't think that's a good thing,' Evans said. 'I think Trump has started to change things, and I want him to be able to keep going.'
Evans also voted in the Grand Chute town supervisor and town chair elections.
Around 3:15 p.m., Michelle Wrobleski, chief election supervisor for Grand Chute Town Hall, said the flow of voters had been 'moderate, steady all day.''I'd say it's been a higher turnout than expected,' Wrobleski said.
Lawrence Juneau, one of the chief election inspectors at St. Joseph Parish Center in Appleton, also said the voter turnout has been larger than he expected, with a steady stream of voters lining up throughout the day.
Polls close at 8 p.m., and The Post-Crescent will post election results online at postcrescent.com as they become available.
Contact Kelli Arseneau at 920-213-3721 or karseneau@gannett.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, at @ArseneauKelli.
Rebecca Loroff covers K-12 education for the Post-Crescent. She welcomes story tips and feedback. Reach out to her at rloroff@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Appleton Post-Crescent: Voters turned out April 1 to vote in Fox Cities, supreme court races
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
CEO of paid protest company says it works with both sides of the aisle
(NewsNation) — President Trump alleged Friday that Democrats are paying protesters to fight his Washington, D.C., crime policies. But how do paid protests actually work? NewsNation spoke with Adam Swart, the CEO of Crowds on Demand, about his company that provides services 'for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,' according to its website. 'All of our protesters are sincere advocates for the cause at hand. We've been in business 13 years, so we have a large roster of people we know and have networks of others we can call upon to be compensated for expressing their sincere points of view,' Swart said. Swart said compensation for protests is typically in the low hundreds of dollars, depending on the assignment. He said organizing a protest 'is like buying an ad.' He said his company receives requests for both conservative and liberal causes. 'We have been clear that we work with both liberals and conservatives on causes that align with common-sense values. Democrats are hiring our company, and so are Republicans,' he said. He did not disclose what protests his company has been asked to be a part of. Swart previously told NewsNation that he turned down $20 million to provide protesters for ' Good Trouble Lives On ' protests in July. 'I'm rejecting it not because I don't want to take the business, but because frankly, this is going to be ineffective; it's going to make us all look bad,' Swart said of the anti-Trump protests at the time.
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
