Skip to main content

Wisconsin voting citizens only

 Background on the Wisconsin Voter Rolls CaseOn October 3, 2025, Waukesha County Circuit Judge Michael Maxwell ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) must review the state's 3.6 million voter registrations to identify and remove any non-U.S. citizens ahead of the February 2026 spring primary. The order also requires verification of citizenship for all new voter registrations, moving beyond the current system where applicants simply attest to being citizens under penalty of perjury. The lawsuit was brought by two Wisconsin residents, represented by conservative attorneys, who argued that the WEC was violating their voting rights by allowing potential noncitizen registrations, which could dilute lawful votes.

jsonline.com +2

 The state Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul, immediately sought a stay of the order on October 6, arguing it imposes unfeasible new requirements without statutory basis and could disrupt elections.

apnews.com +1

 A partial stay was granted, pausing the new registration verification rule but allowing the rolls review to proceed pending appeal, potentially to the liberal-leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court.

wpr.org

Noncitizen voting is already a federal and state felony, punishable by fines, imprisonment, and deportation, with studies showing it occurs in negligible numbers (e.g., the Heritage Foundation has documented only 23 cases nationwide from 2003–2022, including one in Wisconsin).

cbsnews.com

 This case echoes broader national debates, including a recent GOP-backed constitutional amendment in Wisconsin (passed in November 2024) explicitly barring noncitizen voting, and federal efforts by the Trump DOJ to access voter data in multiple states.

votebeat.org +1

Left vs. Right PerspectivesThe dispute highlights a partisan divide: conservatives view the order as essential for safeguarding elections, while liberals see resistance to it as protecting access from unnecessary barriers. Below is a comparison of key arguments, drawn from statements by politicians, advocacy groups, legal filings, and public commentary.Aspect

Right Perspective (e.g., Republicans, conservative groups like Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty)

Left Perspective (e.g., Democrats, groups like ACLU, League of Women Voters, Law Forward)

Core Argument on the Order

The ruling is a vital victory for election integrity, enforcing a "plain duty" to ensure only citizens vote and prevent vote dilution. Officials must use available data (e.g., from the Dept. of Transportation) to purge noncitizens, as self-attestation alone is insufficient.

jsonline.com +2

The order creates impractical, last-minute changes that could disenfranchise eligible voters without evidence of widespread issues. Noncitizen voting is already illegal and rare; the self-attestation system works, and mass reviews risk errors, especially for naturalized citizens or minorities.

votebeat.org +2

Feasibility & Implementation

WEC and DOJ's resistance shows deliberate negligence or intent to allow fraud; the five-month timeline is reasonable, and tools like federal SAVE database or state DMV matches exist. Past failures (e.g., ignoring prior purge orders) prove the need for judicial enforcement.

Overhauling the system by February is impossible without massive resources, leading to chaos and wrongful removals (as seen in past purges affecting 7–17% eligible voters, disproportionately in non-white areas). No law mandates proactive data-sharing between agencies.

taylorvilledailynews.com +2

Broader Motivations

Democrats' appeal (led by Kaul) is a partisan ploy to protect noncitizen voting, fueling the "narrative" of rigged elections. Ties into national GOP efforts like the SAVE Act to require proof of citizenship federally.

cnn.com +2

This is fearmongering to suppress turnout among immigrants and Democrats, building on baseless 2020 fraud claims. Similar to the 2024 amendment, it's designed to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment and justify future restrictions, not solve real problems.

wisconsinwatch.org +2

Impact on Voters

Protects citizens' rights by ensuring "one citizen, one vote"; minimal risk to eligibles, as same-day registration allows quick fixes. Noncitizen cases (even rare) undermine trust.

Risks purging thousands of valid voters (e.g., naturalized citizens with outdated DMV data), hitting minorities hardest and eroding trust in elections. Focus should be on access, not unfounded purges.

theguardian.com +2

Evidence of Noncitizen Voting

Even isolated incidents (e.g., Alabama's 3,251 deactivations) show systemic gaps; officials' refusal to check databases confirms the problem.

pbswisconsin.org +1

Proven cases are vanishingly rare (e.g., <0.0001% of votes); claims are exaggerated to justify suppression, with no data showing impact on outcomes.

wisconsinwatch.org +2

This divide reflects ongoing tensions in battleground Wisconsin, where elections are often decided by slim margins (e.g., Biden's 2020 win by ~21,000 votes).

pbs.org

 The appeal could escalate, potentially influencing national discourse on voting laws. If you'd like details on similar cases in other states or updates on the appeal, let me know!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tucker anti western propoganda

 Tucker's Qatar Claim: Fact-Checking the "Zero Rapes" MythTucker Carlson recently claimed on his podcast (August 2025) that Qatar has "zero rapes" under Sharia law, using it to argue that Islamic legal systems outperform Western democracies in maintaining order. During an interview with Seth Harp, he praised Sharia for low reported crime, low abortion rates, and no same-sex marriage—positioning it as a model for conservatives frustrated with American liberalism.This is propaganda wrapped in contrarianism—cherry-picked stats that ignore harsh realities. Here’s the breakdown:The Claim's Flaw: "Zero Rapes" Isn't Safety—It's SuppressionOfficial stats vs. reality: Qatar reports near-zero rapes because Sharia-based laws make reporting dangerous for victims. Rape requires four male Muslim witnesses (or a confession), or it's treated as zina (adultery/fornication). Women who report assault often face imprisonment, flogging, or worse for "e...

Qatar Anti-Anerican funding

  Qatar's Spending Overview Qatar, a major Gulf state with significant oil and gas revenues, channels funds through government entities like the Qatar Fund for Development (QFFD), Qatar Foundation, and state-linked charities (e.g., Qatar Charity). These often support humanitarian, educational, and political goals but have drawn criticism for advancing Qatari foreign policy interests, including ties to Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Below, I break down spending in the requested categories based on public reports, FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) filings, U.S. Department of Education disclosures, and analyses from think tanks like ISGAP and the Middle East Forum. Figures are approximate and cumulative where specified; recent years (2023–2025) show acceleration amid the Israel-Hamas conflict. 1. Funding to American Colleges Qatar is the largest foreign donor to U.S. higher education, primarily via the Qatar Foundation (a state-controlled entity) for branc...

EU and X

 LEFT WING RESEARCHERS WANT TO LIMIT RIGHT WING DIALOGE! The EU's DSA requirement for researcher data access (Article 40) gives "vetted" researchers—typically academics or non-profits approved by national regulators—easier access to public X data like post engagement, views, and networks. The official goal is studying "systemic risks" (e.g., disinformation spread). Critics argue this can chill or deter honest/open dialogue in these ways:Broad and subjective labeling of "disinformation" or "harmful" speech: Researchers studying political topics can flag dissenting or unpopular views (e.g., on immigration, elections, gender issues, or COVID policies) as "misinformation" if they don't align with mainstream narratives, leading to reports that pressure platforms or governments to suppress them. Doxxing and harassment risks: Detailed data (e.g., who engages with controversial posts) can reveal user networks or identities, even if post...