5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights
'Major Victory for Democracy': Liberals Secure Wisconsin Supreme Court Majority for Rest of Decade
“Wisconsin showed the entire nation that we believe that the people should be at the center of government and the priority of our judiciary, not the billionaires," said newly elected Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Chris Taylor.
Apr 08, 2026
Liberals on the Wisconsin Supreme Court strengthened their majority on Tuesday when Democratic-backed candidate Chris Taylor romped to victory over her conservative opponent by more than 20 percentage points.
With the win, liberals hold a 5-2 majority on what's been described as "one of the most important courts in America" and are guaranteed control through at least 2030.
As reported by the Associated Press, Taylor centered her campaign on protecting reproductive freedoms, which have come under threat across the country after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
In her victory speech, Taylor also spoke out against billionaires using their vast wealth to buy influence in politics.
“Once again, Wisconsin showed the entire nation that we believe that the people should be at the center of government and the priority of our judiciary," said Taylor, "not the billionaires, not the most powerful and privileged, but the people."
In addition to protecting access to reproductive care, Taylor's win also gives liberals a bulwark to stand against any efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to suppress voting in future elections.
As Bolts staffer writer Alex Burness explained in a post-election analysis, the Wisconsin Supreme Court "may soon be asked to weigh in on congressional redistricting... and could see any number of lawsuits during the coming midterms and 2028 presidential election, as it did in 2020."
Burness pointed to an interview Taylor gave to Bolts in February in which she emphasized her determination to protect voting rights, saying that "we cannot be fatigued when it comes to democracy... it's just something we have to keep working on."
Progressive research and communications organization A Better Wisconsin celebrated Taylor's win as "a major victory for democracy, reproductive freedom, and the constitutional rights of all Wisconsinites."
Melinda Brennan, executive director of ACLU Wisconsin, said Taylor's win showed "resounding support for protecting abortion access and defending voting rights in our state."
Ben Wikler, former chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, said Taylor's victory was a tribute to Wisconsin progressives who have not stopped fighting after Trump's 2024 victory.
Wikler added that the result is further evidence that "the overall environment is toxic for anyone aligned with Trump."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Voting Rights Advocates Sue Over Florida GOP 'Show Your Papers' Law
"The Legislature's failure to look out for constituents instead of legislators' own political interests will harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters."
Apr 01, 2026
As President Donald Trump bullies Congress to pass a voter suppression bill while also trying to take matters into his own hands with an executive order, voting rights advocates on Wednesday sued to block similar legislation passed by Florida Republicans.
Common Cause, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Florida Rising, Hispanic Federation, League of Women Voters of Florida, and UnidosUS filed the lawsuit over House Bill 991 on the same day that the state's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed it. The law requires documentary "evidence of citizenship," such as a birth certificate or passport, to register to vote or remain on the rolls.
"New barriers to voting too often fall hardest on the communities that have long fought to be heard in our democracy," noted Caren Short, director of legal and research at the League of Women Voters of the United States. "Sadly, but unsurprisingly, Florida's new documentary proof of citizenship law requirement is based on xenophobic lies and disinformation."
It's already illegal for noncitizens to vote, and research has shown voter fraud is incredibly rare. Short said that "the Legislature's failure to look out for constituents instead of legislators' own political interests will harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters who do not have ready access to documents like passports or birth certificates."
Common Cause Florida executive director Amy Keith warned that "if this law stands, thousands of US citizens will be removed from Florida's voter rolls, blocking them from voting in the next presidential election if they can't afford specific documents."
"Life is getting increasingly harder and more expensive in Florida," Keith continued, "but with this bill, legislators are purging the very voters who are suffering most from Florida's affordability crisis. I don't think that's a coincidence."
UnidosUS Florida state director Jared Nordlund similarly said that the state's Republican policymakers "know their agenda is unpopular, and when they cannot win by persuading voters, they try to win by making it harder for people to vote."
"HB 991 is another solution in search of a problem, and Florida is once again the testing ground for a voter suppression playbook that could spread nationwide," Nordlund declared. "These laws target the voices they fear most, especially women, communities of color, and working-class voters."
The groups behind the suit—filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida—are represented by the state and national ACLU as well as the Advancement Project and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
BREAKING: Gov. Ron DeSantis just signed Florida’s new anti-voter law, HB 991. This “show your papers” law adds unnecessary barriers to voting, so @aclu.org and @aclufl.bsky.social are suing. In America, voters choose our leaders — politicians don’t get to choose who votes.We’ll see you in court.
— Abdelilah Skhir (@abskhir.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 12:18 PM
"Florida's new 'show your papers' law is a blatant attempt to add unnecessary barriers to the ballot box," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We bring this lawsuit to ensure that Florida cannot block its eligible voters from exercising their fundamental right to vote because of missing or mismatched paperwork."
Separately on Wednesday, Elias Law Group launched another legal challenge on behalf of the Florida NAACP and the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, also challenging what law firm partner Abha Khanna called "one of the worst voter suppression laws in modern American history." This case was filed in the Northern District of Florida.
DeSantis' signing of HB 991 and the subsequent suits came a day after Trump signed a voter suppression executive order that critics called a "blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power." The measure requires the secretary of homeland security to establish a "citizenship list" of verified eligible voters in each state and directs the postmaster general to make new rules for voting by mail.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a Tuesday statement that "once again, President Trump is attempting to seize power he does not have. The president's order is not about protecting elections—it's about trying to control them and using that control to make it harder to vote for his perceived enemies. The Constitution is very clear: Only Congress and the states can make laws regarding our elections."
"The ability to vote by mail is crucial to our democracy," she explained. "It ensures that voters with disabilities, those without transportation access, working families, those who are deployed or otherwise abroad, and many others who rely on its flexibility can exercise their right to vote. President Trump's attempts to undermine a safe, proven, and reliable method of voting is just another part of his strategy to sow distrust in our elections. As always, we are prepared to protect our democracy and our right to vote in court against these continued unconstitutional attacks."
Trump signed the order while pressuring the US Senate to pass anti-voter legislation that's already been approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives. Advancement Project power and democracy program director Hani Mirza said that the president's directive "cannot be separated from the broader legislative push for the SAVE America Act, which would impose burdensome proof-of-citizenship and photo ID requirements that would create new barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans."
"The authoritarian plan to shrink the number of people who can participate in the 2026 midterms is clear," Mirza added, just over seven months before Election Day. "In our ongoing pursuit of a truly multiracial democracy, we refuse to remain silent and will continue to defend the right to vote until every community is heard and every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot that counts."
This article has been updated to include a second lawsuit against the Florida law.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Accused of ‘Intimidation Tactic’ for Attending Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Hearing in Person
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
Apr 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular