Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Republican official had no right to bring lawsuit challenging mobile voting
The lawsuit sought to ban the use of mobile voting vans in any future election in the presidential battleground state. The court did not address the legality of mobile voting sites in its ruling, meaning mobile voting vans could be used in future elections.
A single van has been used only once — in Racine in a primary election in 2022. It allowed voters to cast absentee ballots in the two weeks leading up to the election. Racine, the Democratic National Committee and others argue that nothing in state law prohibits the use of voting vans.
But the court did not rule on the merits of the case. The court ruled 4-3 to dismiss the case, with four liberal justices in the majority and three conservative justices dissenting.
Instead, it ruled that the Racine County voter who brought the lawsuit, the county's Republican Party chairman, Ken Brown, was not "aggrieved" under state law and therefore was not permitted to sue. The ruling could make it more difficult to bring future lawsuits challenging election laws.
Republicans in this case argued that it violates state law to operate mobile voting sites, that their repeated use would increase the chances of voter fraud, and that the one in Racine was used to bolster Democratic turnout.
Wisconsin law prohibits locating any early voting site in a place that gives an advantage to any political party. There are other limitations on early voting sites, including a requirement that they be "as near as practicable" to the clerk's office.
For the 2022 election, Racine city Clerk Tara McMenamin and the city had a goal of making voting as accessible to as many voters as possible.
Racine purchased its van with grant money from the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. Republicans have been critical of the grants, calling the money "Zuckerbucks" that they say was used to tilt turnout in Democratic areas.
Wisconsin voters last year approved a Republican-backed constitutional amendment banning the use of private money to help run elections.
The van was used only to facilitate early in-person voting during the two weeks prior to that 2022 election, McMenamin said. It traveled for two weeks across the city, allowing voters to cast in-person absentee ballots in 21 different locations.
Brown filed a complaint the day after the August 2022 primary with the Wisconsin Elections Commission, arguing that the van violated state law. He argued that it was only sent to Democratic-leaning areas in the city in an illegal move to bolster turnout.
McMenamin disputed those accusations, saying it shows a misunderstanding of the city's voting wards, which traditionally skew Democratic.
The elections commission dismissed the complaint four days before the 2022 election, saying there was no probable cause shown to believe the law had been broken. Brown sued.
A Racine County Circuit Court judge sided with Republicans, ruling that state election laws do not allow for the use of mobile voting sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Illinois gov. signs bill opening financial aid to all residents — including illegal immigrants
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a major Democratic leader and rumored presidential candidate, signed a bill into law opening student financial aid to all residents, regardless of immigration status, opening a pathway for illegal immigrants residing in the state to receive educational financial benefits. The move was slammed by conservative Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., as rewarding illegal immigrants and a 'slap in the face' to Illinois families and students. The bill purports to establish 'equitable eligibility for financial aid and benefits' for all students in the state. The bill reads that 'a student who is an Illinois resident and who is not otherwise eligible for federal financial aid, including, but not limited to, a transgender student who is disqualified for failure to register for selective service or a noncitizen student who has not obtained lawful permanent residence, shall be eligible for financial aid and benefits.' One of the bill's sponsors, state Sen. Celina Villanueva, a Democrat, celebrated Pritzker signing the bill by saying in a statement that 'this law is about making sure no student is left behind because of where they were born.' 4 Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a bill into law opening student financial aid to all residents, opening a pathway for illegal immigrants residing in the state to receive educational financial benefits. REUTERS A statement by Villanueva's office said that the measure 'eliminates the patchwork of confusing and sometimes conflicting requirements that have excluded undocumented, DACAmented, and mixed-status students from critical aid.' The law pertains to any student residing in Illinois, making him or her eligible for financial aid programs funded or administered by the state, local governments, or public universities, according to the statement. The statement said that the law 'builds upon Villanueva's long-standing advocacy for immigrant and first-generation students by creating a more consistent and inclusive pathway to accessing support.' 4 The move was slammed by conservative Rep. Mary Miller (above), R-Ill., as rewarding illegal immigrants and a 'slap in the face' to Illinois families and students, according to reports. AP 'If you live in Illinois and are pursuing higher education, you should have access to the same opportunities as your peers,' said Villanueva. 'Illinois invests in all of our students, and we're committed to helping them succeed.' Commenting on the legislation, Miller told Fox News Digital that 'allowing taxpayer-funded financial aid for illegal aliens is a slap in the face to hardworking Illinois families and students.' 'Our state is drowning in debt, yet JB Pritzker is determined to drain even more taxpayer dollars to reward illegals,' she said. 'It's absolutely shameful.' 4 The bill purports to establish 'equitable eligibility for financial aid and benefits' for all students in the state, reports say. Allison Bailey/NurPhoto/Shutterstock 4 One of the bill's sponsors, state Sen. Celina Villanueva (right), a Democrat, celebrated Pritzker signing the bill by saying in a statement that 'this law is about making sure no student is left behind because of where they were born.' AP A spokesperson for the Illinois GOP also chimed in, telling Fox News Digital that 'once again, Governor Pritzker proves that he is prioritizing illegal immigrants at the expense of Illinois families.' 'Illinois taxpayers should not have their hard-earned taxpayer dollars pay for benefits to illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place,' added the spokesperson. Pritzker's office declined Fox News Digital's request for comment. Villanueva's office had not replied to Fox News Digital's request for comment by the time of publication.
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Air Force's top uniformed officer is retiring early in latest Trump military shake-up
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Air Force's top uniformed officer is set to retire early in the most recent shake-up of military leadership during President Donald Trump's second term. Gen. David Allvin will continue serving as the service's chief of staff until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate, the Air Force announced Monday. He expects to retire around Nov. 1, two years into his four-year term, it said in a statement. Allvin joins other top military officials who have stepped down or been fired by Trump's Republican administration during a broader leadership upheaval, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's plans to slash the number of senior military positions in what he calls an efficiency effort and a purge of top officers who were believed to endorse diversity, equity and inclusion programs. For example, Trump fired Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in February. Brown was the second Black general to serve as chairman, and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine later took over the role. Allvin, a command pilot with more than 4,600 flying hours, was appointed Air Force chief of staff by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, serving since November 2023. Before that, he was vice chief of staff during Trump's first term. 'I'm grateful for the opportunity to serve as the 23rd Air Force Chief of Staff and I'm thankful for Secretary Meink, Secretary Hegseth and President Trump's faith in me to lead our service,' Allvin said in the Air Force's statement. ___
