Our Work

In the upcoming November 2026 election, Wisconsin voters will be asked to vote on whether the Wisconsin Constitution should be amended to add a section to the Wisconsin Declaration of Rights, prohibiting the government from operating programs that discriminate against or give preference to individuals on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. The authors of the proposed amendment describe it as restricting diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) programs.

In the upcoming November 2026 election, Wisconsin voters will be asked to vote on three proposed amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution. These amendments will be on the ballot alongside a contentious race for governor, state legislative races that will determine control of the state legislature, and at least one closely watched federal House race that may decide which party controls the House after the midterms, among others. In a series of explainers, we describe the proposed amendments, their backgrounds, the national context, the arguments for and against the amendments, and the likely impacts.

In the upcoming November 2026 election, Wisconsin voters will be asked whether to amend Article V, Section 10(1)(c), of the Wisconsin Constitution to ban the governor's use of the partial veto power to increase or allow the increase of taxes or fees. Legislators introduced the partial veto amendment in response to Governor Tony Evers’s “400-year veto,” which struck words, digits, and dashes to allow localities to raise increased school funding through the 2425 school year, instead of just through 2025. 

In the upcoming November 2026 election, Wisconsin voters will be asked whether to amend Article I, Section 18, of the Wisconsin Constitution, which protects religious freedom and bars religious preferences. The proposed amendment would expressly prohibit the government from closing or forbidding gatherings in places of worship in response to an emergency. Legislators were motivated to introduce this amendment in response to restrictions placed on churches and other places of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The Trump Administration has repeatedly suggested that it could try to deploy ICE, the FBI, or troops to voting sites during upcoming federal elections, even though federal law criminally prohibits sending armed agents to the polls. Even if the federal government declines to enforce those laws, this Report highlights some ways for states to potentially halt any federal deployment in real-time: specifically, suits for injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, and/or an ultra vires or non-statutory suit. The Report walks through the various components of a potential lawsuit, explaining how states may rely on federal courts’ broad authority to halt illegal government action through their equitable powers, even if the only directly applicable federal statutes are criminal prohibitions.

A recent episode involving a California sheriff who obtained a search warrant and seized more than 650,000 ballots from a November 2025 special election has raised the troubling possibility that a similar incident could occur while a state's vote-counting process is still underway. This Report explores these concerns and offers guidance to the state and local actors best positioned to address them.

This explainer aims to shed light on existing state laws criminalizing election-related misconduct and their potential application to curb improper actions by federal government officials. This explainer focuses on those provisions of state election codes that criminalize behavior that experts anticipate the federal government may engage in during the November elections in 2026. Part I describes the role of the federal government in elections, including the federal laws that prohibit certain behaviors by federal officials. Part II then explores the parallel provisions in state law, specifically noting the different types of state laws that may apply to anticipated federal activities. Part III then considers what states can do to educate officials about these laws and deter potential interference by federal actors. Finally, Part IV addresses enforcement-related issues and likely legal responses from the federal government.

State courts are encountering a new type of “vote dilution” claim, which asserts that certain election rules or practices are unconstitutional because they increase the hypothetical risk that fraudulent votes which will be cast, which would dilute the weight of “legal” ballots. These hypothetical vote dilution claims increasingly invoke state constitutional rights. With sparse, unsettled, and often conflicting precedent on these types of claims, state courts may understandably find these claims difficult to adjudicate, especially in the highly charged election space. This Report offers state courts context on these claims and analytical frameworks with which to evaluate them under state constitutions.

Mail voting is under unprecedented federal pressure heading into the 2026 midterm elections. From the White House to the Supreme Court to Congress, a series of developments is threatening a form of voting that tens of millions of Americans rely on—and that was relatively uncontroversial until just a few years ago. This explainer examines how mail voting became a partisan battleground, what the current federal threats mean for mail voting, and what states, election officials, and advocates can do in response.

Litigation over election results serves an important role in legitimizing the democratic process, but when these challenges drag on for months, they can undermine that legitimacy and leave citizens without representation. North Carolina’s 2024 Supreme Court race, for example, took six months of post-election litigation to resolve, and some observers worry that similar delays could affect control of Congress in 2027. This Explainer examines the gaps in state laws that increase the risk of prolonged election contests and shows how state supreme courts can use their supervisory and rulemaking powers to ensure prompt resolution of such proceedings.