Annette Ziegler

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a conservative activist's request to obtain guardianship records to identify ineligible voters, ruling that such records are not public under state law. The 5-2 decision upheld privacy protections, with two justices dissenting. The case, involving Ron Heuer and the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, sought to cross-reference voter registration lists with court records to challenge election integrity.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a conservative activist's request to release guardianship records to identify ineligible voters, citing privacy protections. The 5-2 ruling upheld state law that such records are not public, with liberal justices and one conservative justice disagreeing with a lower court's decision to release redacted records. The case, brought by Ron Heuer and the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, sought to compare voter registration lists with names of individuals deemed ineligible to vote due to guardianship orders.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state must stop awarding race-based retention grants to minority students, citing violations of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The decision followed a lower court's reversal of a program that provided financial aid to Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Southeast Asian immigrant-descended students to prevent college dropout, aligning with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 SFFA v. Harvard ruling against race-conscious admissions.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear a second challenge to the state’s congressional maps, with Bothfield v. Wisconsin Elections Commission arguing the districts are illegally gerrymandered. The court’s liberal majority faced criticism from conservative justices Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler, who accused the court of political bias. The cases will not be resolved in time to affect the November midterms.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional maps, alleging they are anti-competitive gerrymandered to protect incumbents. The decision reflects the court’s partisan split, with four liberal justices accepting the case while two conservative justices accused the majority of political bias. The case, brought by a bipartisan business group, argues that the maps violate a 2011 state law and may not conclude in time to alter the maps for the November midterms.