The 2024–25 Wisconsin Supreme Court term wrapped up in June and July with a series of high-profile decisions, including on abortion, administrative rulemaking, and the governor’s partial veto power. This article summarizes some of the court’s most notable 2024–25 rulings, including several that implicate democracy and state constitutional law. It also previews what could be ahead in the court’s next term, which begins in September 2025.
In recent decades, the Wisconsin Legislature has increasingly empowered legislative committees, rather than its full membership, to wield control over state agencies and programs. This practice, which makes the state a national outlier, has drawn scrutiny recently from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. his Explainer examines the latest legal battle between Wisconsin’s legislative and executive branches, focusing on the legislature’s unusual approach to funding the childhood literacy program, the legal challenge it faces, and how it compares to other states—where legislative committees typically lack discretionary control over public funds. It also briefly discusses the legislature’s challenge to the governor’s veto power.
On April 1, 2025, Wisconsin voters will choose the newest justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In doing so, they will determine whether the court retains its current 4-3 liberal lean or flips back to a conservative-leaning majority. Either way, the race could have major implications for high-profile issues likely to come before the court, including abortion, election law, and union rights. To provide context and background on the supreme court candidates, this explainer details the types of cases Crawford and Schimel have handled as circuit judges, looks at how their rulings have fared on appeal, analyzes key democracy-related decisions they have authored, and examines what they have said about major issues that may soon come before the court.
On Wisconsin’s April 1, 2025, spring election ballot, voters will see a proposed constitutional amendment asking whether to add a voter ID requirement to the state constitution. Wisconsin already has a state statute that requires voters to present an acceptable photo ID in order to vote. By constitutionalizing this requirement, the amendment would, if approved, make it more difficult for a future legislature or court to change course on voter ID. This explainer describes the proposed amendment, lays out the main arguments being made for and against the proposal, and provides national context on voter ID requirements.
More than a month after the November 2024 election, the result of the North Carolina Supreme Court race is still uncertain. There have been two recounts—one machine and one partial hand recount—neither of which changed the initial result: Democrat and incumbent North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs still leads over Republican North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin by just under 750 votes. The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) also rejected an election protest brought by Judge Griffin, challenging the eligibility of over 60,000 voters who cast a ballot in the last election. Judge Griffin, however, disputes that ruling, and litigation is now underway.
Just weeks after North Carolina Democrats won several prominent statewide offices in the 2024 general election, including governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, the Republican-controlled legislature moved swiftly to limit the authority of these offices in what many have called a significant “power grab.” This Explainer analyzes this and seeks to situate it within the broader context and history of similar efforts in North Carolina and other states.
As part of the November 5th election, Wisconsin voters will be asked for the fifth time this year whether to amend the Wisconsin Constitution. Wisconsin voters will decide whether to amend the constitutional provision defining suffrage or voting rights. Specifically, the ballot question asks: “Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?”
The Michigan Supreme Court finished its 2023-2024 term in July, wrapping up a year in which the court decided several cases that will likely leave lasting impacts on democracy in the state. This report recaps the Michigan Supreme Court’s major democracy decisions from its 2023-2024 term, which ran from August 1, 2023 to July 31, 2024. It begins with an overview of the term before discussing the major democracy-related decisions. It then previews significant democracy cases that are currently working their way through Michigan’s court system and could soon be decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Legislature violated the state constitution when it used a hardball tactic known as “adopt and amend” to thwart two citizen-proposed initiated statutes in 2018. The case is Mothering Justice v. Attorney General. Its most immediate effect is that the thwarted initiatives—one increases the state’s minimum wage and the other provides some guarantees for workers to earn paid sick leave—will take effect in February 2025. In the long term, the case could help safeguard direct democracy rights in Michigan and around the country.
In August, Wisconsin voters will see two proposed state constitutional amendments on their ballots, both aimed at increasing the legislature’s role in allocating federal funds received by the state. The amendments stemmed from legislators’ desire to be more involved with the funding distribution process for billions of dollars in federal COVID-19 pandemic relief funding. This explainer describes each proposed amendment, lays out the main arguments being made for and against the proposals, and provides some broader national context.