Yearly Archives: 2023

(The Center Square) – There’s a pitch at the Wisconsin Capitol to add watermarks to the state’s absentee ballots.

Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha, said absentee ballots in Wisconsin need to be more secure.

Allen said absentee ballots are very convenient, but also present a threat to election integrity in the state.

“Our citizens need to have faith in the integrity of our election process,” Allen said.

Allen’s solution is to place watermarks on each ballot, similar to what the U.S. Treasury does for dollar bills, to make them harder to copy or forge.

“If we are going to continue using absentee ballots, then it is important to ensure that they are a safe and reliable method for voting,” Allen said. “To help curb public distrust in absentee ballots, it is certainly worth the additional cost to make our absentee ballots secure and restore trust in our election process.”

Absentee ballots in Wisconsin have come under scrutiny since the election in November of 2020 when the state saw an explosion in people voting early, and not-in person.

In that election, a voter in Waukesha said he was sent the wrong absentee ballot that didn’t have Allen’s race against Democrat Aaron Perry on it.

Waukesha’s village clerk said someone in her office likely mistakenly mailed the wrong ballot.

Allen’s plan will go back to the legislature, and if it makes it through, would then go to Gov. Tony Evers.

That is likely as far as it would go. The governor has made it his policy to veto any legislation that he says would make it harder to vote in Wisconsin.

(The Center Square) – Race-based admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison may not be the only thing that could be changing.

A new report from Center for Investigative Oversight at the Institute for Reforming Government takes a look at the university’s Target of Opportunity Program.

“In practice, the TOP program creates a two-track system by which departments can hire ‘diverse’ candidates outside of the normal hiring process, giving the candidates a leg up over non-diverse candidates,” the report states.

Anthony LoCoco, who is IRG's head of the Center for Investigative Oversight, wrote in an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using race to determine who gets into college is largely unconstitutional. He said the same theory applies to race-based hiring.

“Similar to Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions policies, for example, the actions of several UW departments approximated racial balancing, something the Supreme Court reminded is ‘patently unconstitutional’,” LoCoco wrote. “UW’s School of Business supported its TOP proposal with a helpful chart showing faculty race by percentage with imprecise categories like ‘Asian,’ ‘White,’ and ‘African American’ and expressed a desire that faculty and student racial diversification proceed ‘at the same rate.’ The School of Medicine and Public Health argued a targeted hire was necessary in part because ‘[n]ationwide, there are only 4.2% of dermatologists of Hispanic origin compared with 16.3% in the general American population’.”

LoCoco and his Center for Investigative Oversight compiled the report based on UW-Madison’s TOP applications and reports.

The university has not said what may become of the TOP program after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Instead UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin said in a statement that the school is reviewing the ruling.

“The full implications of today’s ruling — both nationally and on our campus — will not be known for some time. UW–Madison and UW System attorneys are now carefully reviewing the Court’s opinions and monitoring the potential release of additional guidance from relevant federal agencies,” Mnookin said in a statement to students, faculty members, and university workers.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has suggested ending the UW’s race-based scholarship program because of its reliance on race. LoCoco suggested that lawmakers do the same with the TOP program.

“In Wisconsin, as nationwide, if TOP programs and their ilk are not ultimately corrected legislatively, expect more litigation. The Supreme Court has made clear that it takes seriously the Equal Protection Clause’s ‘core purpose’ of abolishing ‘all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.’ Faculty diversity programs thus present those seeking to fully vindicate the ‘colorblind Constitution,’ in Justice Thomas’ words, with a major target of opportunity,” LoCoco added.

(The Center Square) – There’s a new plan at the Wisconsin Capitol to try and keep more retirees in the state.

State Rep. David Steffen, R-Howard, and state Sen. Rachael Cabral Guevara, R-Appleton, on Monday introduced legislation that would exempt the first $100,000 of retirement income for people 67 or older, and the first $150,000 for married couples.

“When our residents reach retirement age, they are faced with the impossible decision – do I stay in my home state with all the relationships and connections I’ve spent a lifetime building, or do I relocate to another state where I can afford to live out the retirement I’ve worked so hard for?,” Steffen said. “They shouldn’t have to choose. The bottom line is, we know the value our retirees bring to our families, communities and economy.”

Many states don’t tax retirement income in one shape or form.

Wisconsin currently doesn’t tax Social Security and military earnings for retirees, but the new proposal would go further.

“Retirement income and savings is something that impacts folks for years after they retire. This is then reflected by how much people spend at restaurants, on housing, and in their community,” Cabral-Guevara said. “By keeping these retirees in Wisconsin, we will see an economic benefit. As I’ve said in the past, I trust hardworking Wisconsinites to spend their money more wisely than the government.”

Two of Wisconsin’s neighbors, Illinois and Iowa explicitly do not tax retirement income such as IRAs, 401(k) plans or pensions.

Wisconsin’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau figures that Steffen’s and Cabral Guevara’s new exemptions would almost entirely eliminate the income tax burden for retirees here in Wisconsin.

The legislation is out for co-sponsorship currently, Steffen and Cabral Guevara say it will likely get a hearing later this fall.

Former President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social Tuesday that Special Counsel Jack Smith informed him he is the target of a criminal probe related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

This update, which has not yet been confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice, is the latest in a series of legal challenges for the former president. Trump released a lengthy statement on his social media site of choice laying out what he says was told to him.

"Deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden's DOJ, sent a letter (again, it was Sunday night!) stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation, and giving me a very short 4 days to report to the grand Jury, which almost always means an Arrest and indictment," Trump said.

Smith has already filed nearly 40 charges against Trump related to his handling and retention of classified documents at his Florida residence.

Trump's lawyers and federal prosecutors are currently wrangling over when the classified documents trial should take place, with Trump's team working to push the case past the 2024 election.

The former president went on to call out what he calls a double standard of justice, pointing to the lack of indictment for President Joe Biden, who also admitted mishandling classified documents and also faces ongoing allegations about his role in a family "bribery scheme."

"Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before, or even close," Trump said. "They illegally spied on my Campaign, attacked me with a totally Fake 'Dossier' that was funded by Hillary Clinton's Campaign and the DNC, Impeached me twice (I won!), they failed on the Mueller Witch Hunt (No Collusion!), they failed on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, the 51 'Intelligence' Agents fraud, the FBI/Twitter files, the DOJ/Facebook censorship, and every other scam imaginable."

(The Center Square ) – Former President Donald Trump criticized the U.S Secret Service's investigation into cocaine found in the White House after it failed to turn up any clues or suspects.

The U.S. Secret Service said Thursday it closed its investigation into cocaine found at the White House because of a "lack of physical evidence" 11 days after the illegal drug was found in one of the nation's most secure buildings.

"There was no surveillance video footage found that provided investigative leads or any other means for investigators to identify who may have deposited the found substance in this area," the U.S. Secret Service said in a statement. "Without physical evidence, the investigation will not be able to single out a person of interest from the hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered. At this time, the Secret Service's investigation is closed due to a lack of physical evidence."

Trump said on his social media platform that he doesn't buy it.

"It has just been announced that the 'investigation' of Cocaine in the White House has ended. Despite all of the cameras pointing directly at the 'scene of the crime,' and the greatest forensics anywhere in the World, they just can’t figure it out?" Trump wrote on Truth Social. "They know the answer, and so does everyone else! In the meantime, they continue to target and investigate me, for years, in what has been called the greatest Witch Hunt of all time - Over NOTHING!!! ELECTION INTERFERENCE & a Two Tier Level of Justice."

Trump had previously claimed, without evidence, that the cocaine belonged to President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden detailed his years-long struggle with drug and alcohol addiction in his 2021 memoir.

The Biden family was not at the White House when the cocaine was found. The family had gone to Camp David for the holiday weekend.

Several of Trump's former White House staffers took to social media to say that the press paid more attention to who got COVID-19 in the White House than the cocaine mystery.

"The press tracked who had the sniffles more aggressively during the Trump administration than who's been sniffing COCAINE in the WEST WING of the Biden administration," former staffer Harrison Fields wrote on Twitter.

The Department of Education announced Friday that $39 billion in federal student loan debt for about 800,000 borrowers will be "discharged," or canceled, in the coming weeks.

The move comes just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s effort to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars through the HEROES Act. That plan would have forgiven $10,000 per qualifying borrower and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.

The DOE plan announced this week would change how monthly payments are counted for those under the Income Driven Repayment plans. Those paying for more than two decades with lower monthly payments because of their income would qualify to potentially be impacted by this announcement.

"The Biden administration is trampling the rule of law, hurting borrowers, and abusing taxpayers to chase headlines," Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., who chairs the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, said in a statement. "Biden’s student loan scam is far from over. From day one, this administration has encouraged borrowers not to repay their loans and has expected taxpayers to foot the bill."

The Biden administration said the administrative changes to cancel old debts made the loan balances more accurate, but Republicans quickly blasted Biden’s latest loan forgiveness plan as a blatant attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In particular, Republicans blasted the part of Biden’s plan that allowed months where borrowers missed payments under a wide variety of circumstances to still count toward their total number of monthly payments made.

"Taxpayers should be enraged but not surprised. Don’t forget, this is the same agency that was called out for using cost estimates that weren’t grounded in reality," she added.

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said the move was about fairness for disadvantaged borrowers and helping those "cheated" by colleges.

"For far too long, borrowers fell through the cracks of a broken system that failed to keep accurate track of their progress towards forgiveness," Cardona said in a statement announcing the decision. "By fixing past administrative failures, we are ensuring everyone gets the forgiveness they deserve, just as we have done for public servants, students who were cheated by their colleges, and borrowers with permanent disabilities, including veterans.

"This Administration will not stop fighting to level the playing field in higher education."

The Center Square) – A pair of Republican Wisconsin congressmen is pitching what they are calling a “federalist solution” to elections across the country.

Republicans Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden this week introduced legislation that would implement some of Wisconsin’s election rules nationwide.

“It gives states the tools they need to improve their elections,” Steil told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber on Wednesday.

Steil’s American Confidence in Elections Act would allow states to double check social security numbers against a state’s voter rolls, make it easier for states to use REAL ID to confirm citizenship, stops federal funds from going to states or cities that allow non-citizens to vote and stops non-citizens from voting in Washington, D.C., and makes sure military ballots are counted on time.

Steil said his plan is not a federal takeover of elections across the U.S.

“I am of the belief that federalism, that states running their own elections is the best principle,” Steil explained. “What we do [here] is punish states that don’t follow some pretty obvious principles.”

One of those is voter ID.

Western Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden is phishing a resolution that he calls the Citizen Vote Protection Act. It would require states to make it clear who is, and who is not a citizen, and not allow non-citizens to vote.

“Over 80 percent of Americans agree that voters should have to show identification to vote – this is the mainstream position,” Van Orden said. “This bill will help strengthen voter confidence and help ensure free, fair, and secure elections.”

Van Orden’s resolution states “It is vital to voter confidence and election integrity that we institute ID reforms to make it easier for election officials to ensure noncitizens do not vote in federal elections.”

“It’s both, kinda the carrot and the stick,” Steil added. “Giving states the opportunity to do this. But making sure that we’re improving the databases that states have to get this right.”

Wisconsin currently requires voter ID for all voters, and the state does not allow non-citizens to vote. But there are questions as to how often, and how accurately, Wisconsin’s election managers cross check the state’s voter rolls.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin doesn’t currently have any openly trans lawmakers, but there is a new trans legislative caucus at the statehouse.

State Reps. Melissa Ratcliff, D-Cottage Grove, and Ryan Clancy, D-Milwaukee, on Wednesday announced they are forming the Transgender Parent and Non-Binary Advocacy Caucus.

“In 2023 alone, there have been almost 600 anti-trans bills introduced in states across the country, including here in Wisconsin,” Ratcliff said in a statement. “Violence against transgender people is on the rise. The Transgender Parent and Non-Binary Advocacy Caucus will be a proactive, visible, and active coalition of legislators who share a common goal: to ensure Wisconsin’s trans and non-binary communities are seen, heard, and their rights respected and protected.”

Both Ratcliff and Clancy are parents of trans or non-binary kids.

““As parents of transgender children, we are uniquely positioned and aware of the challenges that our children and other transgender and non-binary children face in our communities. We have seen a trend of anti-trans legislation that [seeks] to invalidate their existence and tries to criminalize life-saving, gender affirming healthcare and we will not allow it in our state,” Clancy said.

The new caucus was announced on the same day that a pair of Republicans, Rep. Barb Dittrich, R-Oconomowoc, and Sen. Dan Knodl, R-Germantown, introduced legislation that would keep trans students out of girls’ sports in Wisconsin.

“Last month’s Marquette poll [said] 71% of Wisconsinites are in favor of laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams matching their biological sex as assigned at birth,” Knodl said in a tweet. “This legislation reinforces Title IX and ensures that Wisconsin's women athletes have equal opportunities.”

“We have formed this caucus to show our trans and non-binary community members that there are people in the Statehouse that see them, respect them, and will fight to protect them,” Clancy responded.

The new Transgender Parent and Non-Binary Advocacy Caucus is separate from Wisconsin’s Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus.

That group on Wednesday also bashed Knodl and Dittrich’s plan.

“We strongly condemn these bills, and any legislation that attacks LGBTQ+ youth in Wisconsin. Studies have shown that participating in youth sports can lead to lifelong, positive impacts on a child’s physical, mental, emotional, and social health,” the LGBTQ+ Caucus said in a statement of its own.

Republicans raised questions about the security of the White House on Thursday after a U.S. Secret Service probe failed to find out how cocaine ended up in the White House.

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said he expected better from the Secret Service.

"The White House is supposed to be the most secure residence in the world, but today Secret Service officials failed to answer basic questions or provide any meaningful information related to security failures and cocaine being found at the White House," he said in a statement.

Comer said the Secret Service must "reassess their security operations to prevent illegal substances from entering the White House."

The U.S. Secret Service said Thursday it closed its investigation into cocaine found at the White House because of a "lack of physical evidence" 11 days after the illegal drug was found in one of the nation's most secure buildings.

"There was no surveillance video footage found that provided investigative leads or any other means for investigators to identify who may have deposited the found substance in this area," the U.S. Secret Service said in a statement. "Without physical evidence, the investigation will not be able to single out a person of interest from the hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered. At this time, the Secret Service's investigation is closed due to a lack of physical evidence."

Officers from the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division discovered what later turned out to be cocaine July 2 inside a vestibule leading to the lobby area of the West Executive Avenue entrance to the White House. The stash was located inside a receptacle used to store electronic and personal devices before entering the West Wing. After finding what was then an unknown white powder, the Secret Service temporarily closed down the White House as a precaution.

Last week, the White House declined to provide additional information about the matter, but said the cocaine was found in a "heavily traveled area."

"We have confidence that the Secret Service will get to the bottom of this," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters at the time.

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said the White House is supposed to be the "most secure location on the planet."

"You better damn well believe that if [the Biden administration] wanted to go figure out where that cocaine came from, the Secret Service of the United States in the White House could figure it out," Roy said during an interview with Fox News.

(The Center Square) – Republican lawmakers at the Wisconsin are trying again with a plan to keep individuals born biological males from playing girls’ sports.

Rep. Barb Dittrich, R-Oconomowoc, and Sen. Dan Knodl, R-Germantown, on Wednesday reintroduced the Save Women’s Sports Act, which would ban transgender athletes from competing with biological women and girls in high school and college sports in Wisconsin.

“This legislation will ensure that female athletes continue to have equal access to athletic opportunities and safe competition under the spirit of Title IX,” Knodl said in a statement. “As the father of two daughters and former student athletes, I am committed to upholding a level playing field where female athletes can thrive, compete, and excel.”

Dittrich first tried to get a girls-sports-only law in Wisconsin two years ago.

“On March 2, 2021, I held a news conference with legislators, parents, and student athletes to bring attention to the issue of saving women’s athletics for biological females. At that time, the name Lia Thomas was not widely known nor had pictures showing the side-by-side physical size differences between the genders been widely circulated,” Dittrich explained. “Since that time, more women have been injured by biological males competing in things like volleyball…Additionally, women continue to be erased by having their lifetime of hard work stolen by biological males in athletics winning top podium spots.”

Dittrich and Knodl’s plan would require schools to have either male, female, or co-ed teams. Trans students would play on the co-ed teams.

More than 20 other states already have a single-sex sports law like the plan Dittrich and Knodl are proposing.

“To every biological girl & woman out there, we see you,” Dittrich said on Twitter Wednesday. “You matter! You don't have to keep giving your awards to boys & men. Our fed'l gov't made sure that you would be protected under Title IX. We reject this assault on your protected spaces & categories.”

The LGBTQ advocacy group Fair Wisconsin also took to Twitter Wednesday to push back on Dittrich and Knodl’s plan.

“To all of our trans and non-binary youth in Wisconsin: You are seen. You are valued. You are loved. We will always have your back and we will never stop fighting for you,” the group said in a tweet.

It will be a while before anything could happen with Knodl and Dittrich’s plan. Lawmakers are pretty much done for the year. And even if it does make it through the legislature, the plan would face an almost certain veto from Gov. Tony Evers.

A legal nonprofit has pledged to sue any medical school that does not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest ruling blocking raced-based admissions policies, possibly ushering in a wave of enforcement actions to set new admissions policies around the nation.

The Liberty Justice Center is the group in question, which sent a letter to medical school deans around the nation with a simple message: if you delay in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling, you’ll face a lawsuit.

The group also pushed for an end to other diversity and equity policies at schools, though it is unclear which if any of those policies are affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

“In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., your medical school must immediately cease any and all policies, practices, programs, or procedures that include a racial component,” the letter said. “This includes any Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ("DEI") policies. Consequently, to the extent your medical school fails to immediately comply with the Supreme Court's recent decision, Liberty Justice Center will actively engage in strategic litigation to vindicate the fundamental constitutional rights of those individuals whose rights have been violated.”

The letter comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the race-based affirmative action admission policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That case upends years of common practice at higher education institutions.

“University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and – at some point – they must end,” the majority opinion said. “Respondents’ admissions systems – however well intentioned and implemented in good faith – fail each of these criteria.”

That ruling, though, brings into question how schools will comply and what specifically may need to change to adhere to the ruling. There are more than 150 U.S. medical schools across all 50 states, and it remains unclear how those schools will react to the new affirmative action ban.

The legal group pointed to delays in the past where Supreme Court decisions were largely ignored for a stretch of time before another case had to be brought.

“In an industry where merit and skill must be the most important factors when selecting the top applicants for admission, medical schools have a moral obligation to swiftly comply with the law and remove these discriminatory practices,” Jacob Huebert, president of Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement.

The majority opinion states there is an allowance for discussion of race and its impact on a student’s life in their application, furthering complicating what it will practically look like to not consider race in admissions.

"Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” the majority opinion said. “But, despite the dissent's assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”

(The Center Square) – Assembly Speaker Robin Vos is vowing Republicans will move to end race-based scholarship programs across the state in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court moving to erase race as a factor in college admissions.

Soon after conservatives on the high court used their 6-3 advantage to impose the new standard, Vos took to social media to tweet “we are reviewing the decision and will introduce legislation to correct the discriminatory laws on the books and pass repeals in the fall.”

One of the programs Republicans have set their sights on is the Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant program, which offers scholarships of as much as $2,500 to Black, Native American, Hispanic or Southeast Asian students.

“This bolsters the idea that race as a predominant factor in making decisions in America today is an outdated notion that should not continue,” Vos said at a news conference soon after the decision was rendered. “It shouldn't be for hiring, shouldn't be for promotion, shouldn't be for acceptance into the university."

Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty president and chief counsel Rick Esenberg agrees, and goes even further in making his case.

There is "nothing about (the Supreme Court's) decision that limits it to higher education," he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, adding that state contracts with preferences to race and grants that prop up minority-owned businesses also need to be changed. "I think it was fairly clear before, but now it's doubly clear that any use of race is just not permitted.”

Even before the high court’s decision, GOP lawmakers had been pushing to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the University of Wisconsin System.

With research already showing that Black and Hispanic students are less likely to graduate than whites, Democrats are warning that the Supreme Court’s decision could come to spell even greater racial disparity in higher education.

Gov. Tony Evers has long insisted he will not sign off on the new state budget with the $32 million cut to the UW System being pushed for by Republicans still in place.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis posted the best first fundraising quarter of any non-incumbent Republican candidate in over a decade, according to campaign finance data.

The DeSantis for President campaign raised $20 million in six weeks, surpassing the amount the Trump campaign raised during its first two fundraising quarters combined.

“The campaign’s haul is the largest first-quarter filing from any non-incumbent Republican candidate in more than a decade,” DeSantis’ campaign announced in a news release on Thursday. “It bests the $18.3 million former president and quasi-incumbent Donald Trump's campaign raised during its first two fundraising quarters as a candidate,” citing $3.8 million raised in Q4 2022 and nearly $14.5 million raised in Q1 2023, according to campaign finance data filed with the Federal Election Commission.

“Joe Biden’s leftist policies are destroying the country, and Republicans are excited to invest in a winner ready to lead America’s revival,” DeSantis for President campaign manager Generra Peck said. “We are grateful for the investment so many Americans have made to get this country back on track. The fight to save it will be long and challenging, but we have built an operation to share the governor’s message and mobilize the millions of people who support it. We are ready to win.”

Campaigns are due to report fundraising data to the Federal Election Commission by July 15. Trump’s campaign reported raising $35 million in the second quarter but had double the amount of time that DeSantis’ campaign had since entering the race on May 24.

The Never Back Down super PAC supporting DeSantis’ campaign has raised $130 million since March, the Sarasota Herald Tribune reported, including “$82.5 million transferred from DeSantis' former state political committee, part of the record-breaking fundraising for his re-election campaign.”

The Campaign Legal Center, run by a Trump supporter, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission claiming DeSantis’ campaign violated campaign finance laws by transferring money to two different PACs and was using money donated by Trump supporters “against them,” Newsweek reported.

Of the $20 million DeSantis’ campaign raised, $8.2 million was raised within the first 24 hours of launching his campaign, ABC News reported. This surpassed the $6.3 million candidate Vice President Joe Biden raised in the first 24 hours after he launched his presidential campaign in 2019.

Trump remains the frontrunner among registered voters, according to numerous polls.

According to a June Eschelon Insights poll, Trump has a 39% favorability rating compared to DeSantis’ 36%. In four randomized scored hypothetical votes, if the 2024 presidential election were held at the time of the survey, Biden beat Trump in one vote by 1% and Trump beat Biden in three separate votes each time by 2%.

The poll also found in a DeSantis-Biden matchup, Biden defeated DeSantis by a vote of 45% to 42%. In a Trump-DeSantis primary, Trump trounced DeSantis by a vote of 60% to 32%.

The findings are consistent with a July 2022 Eschelon survey. If Trump weren’t running for president, DeSantis was the overwhelming choice of voters, the survey found, including among “Trump-first” Republicans and “Party-first” Republicans. The survey also paired the two with Trump leading by double-digits last year.

According to a July Newsweek YouGov/Economist survey, DeSantis has combined 35% favorability rating compared to Trump’s 39%.

If the 2024 presidential election were held today, the pluraliity of those polled said they’d vote for a Democratic Party candidate over a Republican Party candidate by a vote of 39% to 36%.

According to a RealClear Politics 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination polling average, Trump has 53% support compared to DeSantis’ 20.9%. All of the eight other GOP candidates have single digit support ranging from 6.1% to 0.1%. Trump’s spread is over 32 points.

Among the polls cited, Fox News has Trump defeating DeSantis by 34 points, Harvard-Harris has him winning by 45 points, CNN by 21 points.

The outlier is a June Marquette University Law School poll, which has Trump leading DeSantis by only one percentage point, 31% to 30%, with a margin of error of +/-4.3%.

“Among Republicans and independents who lean Republican, the GOP presidential primary is a near-even divide,” the poll states. “If the election were held today and DeSantis were the GOP nominee against Biden, it would be a very close race, with 49% for Biden, 47% for DeSantis, and 4% declining to choose. Biden has a materially larger lead over Trump in a hypothetical matchup, with 52% for Biden to Trump’s 43% and 4% undecided.”

(The Center Square) – Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday signed the new two-year $99 billion state budget.

The governor is keeping all of the spending in the new state budget while getting rid of almost all of the tax cuts that Republicans wanted.

“In addition to the critical efforts to expand access to affordable housing statewide, address PFAS in our water, and make historic investments in communities across our state, I am also pleased this budget provides substantial and well-deserved increases in compensation for correctional officers, youth counselors, psychiatric care technicians, assistant district attorneys, and public defenders,” Evers said in a statement. “But even as I am glad the Legislature joined me in making critical investments in several key areas, the fact remains that this budget, while now improved through strategic vetoes, remains imperfect and incomplete.”

Republicans included $3.5 billion in income tax cuts in the budget, which the governor largely erased by vetoing cuts for Wisconsin’s top two income tax brackets.

The Republican plan was written to cut Wisconsin’s top income tax rate of 7.65% to 6.5%, which means a 15% tax break for married couples making over $405,550 a year. The same married couple making between $36,840 and $405,550 would see their income tax rate go from 5.3% to 4.4%, which is a 17% tax cut.

The governor called those tax adjustments “cuts for millionaires.” He left $175 million in tax cuts for lower earners in the state budget.

Some Republican lawmakers are furious.

“Last year Governor Evers campaigned on Republican tax cuts; now that he’s been re-elected, he shows his true colors,” Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point, said Wednesday. “The Governor’s partial veto of the legislature’s tax cut hurts taxpayers, hinders Wisconsin’s ability to attract new talent, and stifles our potential for growth. Evers politically motivated actions will have real life consequences for our future.”

Sen. Julian Bradley, R-Franklin, also expressed his disappointment in a tweet: “During a time of record inflation, Gov. Evers included tax increases in his budget proposal. Today, he vetoed BILLIONS in tax relief from the budget GOP Lawmakers passed. He believes the government can spend your money better than you can. He’s wrong.”

Evers did not veto the $32 million shift in the University of Wisconsin’s budget aimed at defunding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the UW System. But the governor used a partial veto to protect the nearly 200 jobs that lawmakers wanted to eliminate.

In all, Gov. Evers issued 51 partial vetoes to the new state budget. Two years ago, Evers issued 50 partial vetoes, and he issued 78 partial vetoes to the first budget he was presented back in 2019.

One specific Republican was pleased with the budget as signed by Evers.

“I am happy to see the governor sign this historic budget bill into law," State Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, said in a statement. "Months of negotiations have led up to this bipartisan moment: tax cuts, investments in critical infrastructure, and historic funding for our schools is now law.”

Cabral-Guevara continued: “This budget addresses the need for chiropractic reimbursement parity, investments into our surgical collaboration, child care, local mass transit, upgrades to our state’s campaign finance system, improved district attorneys wages, and so much more.”

The senator added she was grateful for securing funding for such "critical investments" as the Appleton International's terminal expansion project.

“So, today, I am giving the Legislature a second chance. I am using my broad, constitutional veto authority to ensure ample state resources are readily available for the Legislature to complete their work on this budget – to do the right thing, to rise to meet this moment of historic opportunity and responsibility, and to focus on passing real solutions for the urgent challenges facing our state,” the governor said at the end of his budget-signing speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the state of Colorado cannot force a graphic designer to make websites with messages that go against her religious beliefs, citing the First Amendment.

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic designer based in Colorado, asked for an exemption to the state’s public-accommodation law that bars discriminatory sales. Smith wishes to create wedding websites only for straight couples, arguing the law compels her speech against her traditional religious beliefs on marriage in violation of the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is Reversed," said Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 case.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the minority, stated the ruling exempts a business from following state law.

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote. “Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’”

Gorsuch’s opinion for the majority showed chasm between the justices.

“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch wrote. “… But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group representing Smith, said the ruling reaffirmed the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe in.

“Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it,” ADF President and CEO Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “Lorie works with everyone, including clients who identify as LGBT. As the court highlighted, her decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never on who requests it.”

The ADF also represented Colorado cake designer Jack Phillips, in a similar case that made its way to the Supreme Court that was narrowly ruled.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in February 2022 and heard arguments last December.

Cancelling hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt cannot be done by President Joe Biden and his administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court said Biden’s administration did not have the authority to unilaterally cancel student loan debt, blocking the president’s plan to cancel $10,000 per borrower.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case known as Biden v. Nebraska.

“The issue presented in this case is whether the Secretary has authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers,” the court said.

The court ruled that the previous legislation allowed for tweaks to student loan forgiveness but did not allow for the sweeping forgiveness Biden tried to enact.

“The authority to ‘modify’ statutes and regulations allows the Secretary to make modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions, not transform them,” said the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The court also ruled that the state of Missouri, a lead challenger in the case, would suffer injury from the plan and therefore had standing to challenge the forgiveness program, which was a key legal question in this case. Missouri was one of six states that sued.

In the dissent, written by Kagan, the justices argued that during COVID-19 both Republican and Democratic administrations used the HEROES Act to delay student loan repayment, signaling a universal understanding of the legislation’s broad power.

“The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan,” the dissent said. “They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum – in adjudicating their complaint – the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.”

Federal student loan repayments had been put on hold. The Department of Education said last year that repayment would resume 60 days after this court ruling.

As The Center Square previously reported, Biden announced last year that his administration would cancel $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 per year. For those who have received Pell Grants, the debt forgiveness could total $20,000. The administration also said debtors would be allowed to cap repayment of their loans at 5% of their income.

Biden said in the original announcement that his plan and the delayed repayments were “to give working and middle-class families breathing room…”

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated that Biden’s debt plan would cost taxpayers about $400 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released an analysis last year predicting it would take only a few years for debt levels to return to the precancellation levels.

Biden’s student loan announcement has been a highly political fight since it was announced.

House Republicans voted in May to overturn Biden’s student loan forgiveness under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to undo federal rules. The Senate then voted in June, with the support of a few Democrats, to also overturn the plan.

Although the plan had little chance of becoming law since the president would have had to sign the legislation, it showed the student loan forgiveness was far from a highly popular plan. In fact, several Senate Democrats turned against it as criticisms piled up that it is unfair to those who worked to pay off their loans or who never took them out in the first place.

“President Biden’s student loan transfer scheme shifts hundreds of billions of dollars of payments from student loan borrowers onto the backs of the American people,” Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., who led the House effort, told The Center Square earlier this year. “I am proud to lead the fight against President Biden’s reckless, unilateral, and unauthorized action that would unfairly penalize those who worked hard to pay off their loans or who never took them out in the first place."

(The Center Square) – The University of Wisconsin says it doesn’t yet know what the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to end affirmative action university admissions will mean for UW schools.

UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin on Thursday said she will need some time to examine the university’s admission policy, and determine if any changes are needed.

“The full implications of today’s ruling — both nationally and on our campus — will not be known for some time. UW–Madison and UW System attorneys are now carefully reviewing the Court’s opinions and monitoring the potential release of additional guidance from relevant federal agencies,” Mnookin said in a statement to students, faculty members, and university workers.

Mnookin said UW-Madison does consider race when admitting students.

“We have considered the race of applicants as one factor in a holistic admissions process that focuses first and foremost on candidates’ academic strength. Our process looks at written statements, extracurriculars, recommendations, and the range of experiences, talents and backgrounds candidates will bring to the university. Every admitted student here at UW–Madison has demonstrated the potential for academic success within our competitive applicant pools,” Mnookin added. “Though we have seen a roughly 50 percent increase in our underrepresented undergraduate student population in the past five years, our current enrollment percentages of underrepresented students still lag behind many of our peers.”

The Supreme Court yesterday said basing university admissions on race violates the constitution’s equal protection clause.

State Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, said the nation’s high court got it right.

Republicans have always believed in merit. People shouldn’t be pigeonholed into categories based only on the color of their skin. They should be recognized as unique individuals. Each student has talents and abilities of their own. Our country is based on equal opportunity, and this decision helps treat college applicants with equality,” Murphy said. “No student should enter the college admission process at a disadvantage. Asian students and others have been discriminated against, and their hard work and merit have been overlooked.”

Murphy is part of a group of Republican lawmakers who are pushing for a change in UW-Madison admissions, specifically to guarantee top high school grads in Wisconsin a seat at the university.

Mnookin said UW-Madison will continue to focus on diversity on campus.

“The ruling will require some modifications to aspects of our current admissions practices; we will, of course, adapt our practices to comply with the law. At the same time, I want to reiterate that our commitment to the value of diversity within our community, including racial diversity, remains a bedrock value of the institution,” Mnookin added. “I want to stress to all our students, faculty, staff, prospective students and families that UW–Madison remains committed to creating a community where people of all backgrounds, identities, and beliefs belong and can thrive.”

(The Center Square) – The latest effort to get more Wisconsin kids into the University of Wisconsin would require UW to change admissions procedures for incoming freshmen.

A group of Republican lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that would guarantee a seat at UW school for any Wisconsin high schooler who graduates in the top 5% of their class.

“With the amount of money that we as taxpayers [pay] for K-12 and University of Wisconsin System, is it too much to say ‘We want that top 5%?'” Rep. Jerry O’Connor, R-Fond du Lac, asked reporters on Wednesday.

O’Connor’s plan would require the UW System to rewrite its admissions formula, and share with schools, parents, and teachers more of what it takes for students to get into UW-Madison.

Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, said getting any answers about UW-Madison’s admissions is a part of the problem.

“As chairman of the Colleges and Universities Committee, my office asked for UW-Madison’s admissions policy. We got a more than 50-page document that is about 90% redacted,” Murphy added.

The UW has said it shares the lawmakers’ goal of keeping Wisconsin’s “best and brightest” in the state, and at a UW school. But the university didn’t specifically comment on the requirement that the Republicans are pursuing.

O’Connor said he hasn’t spoken to the university about the requirement, but did say “this issue has been brought-up to the university previously, and they’ve made no changes.”

There are fewer than 70,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin each year. Five percent of that comes to about 3,500 kids. UW-Madison accepts about 3,600 Wisconsin students each year.

“So the idea that we are going to push somebody else out, I don’t buy that,” Murphy said.

UW-Madison’s freshman class was 8,628 students back in September of last year. The UW’s own numbers show that about 45% of that class is from Wisconsin, the rest are from other states or other countries.

O’Conno said those lopsided numbers leave Wisconsin kids left out.

“[There] seems to be an institutionalized brain drain, sending some of our best people to other states,” O’Connor said. “And guess what happens when they graduate from the University of Minnesota, or Iowa, or Indiana? They make that their home. They don’t come back.”

Any changes to UW admissions will come later, however. Lawmakers in Madison are due to wrap up their session for this year by the end of the week.