Our Work

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2025–26 term unfolded largely outside the political spotlight. However, the 2026–27 term may not be as quiet, with two redistricting challenges to the state's congressional maps and a case that could revisit the court's approach to statutory interpretation.

Last month, New York Governor Kathy Hochul stood alongside New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at a press conference in Manhattan. The purpose: to announce $7.25 million in new legal aid for unaccompanied immigrant children and to reaffirm a state law barring local police from formal cooperation agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The event was an illustration of a broader pattern in modern American federalism: a governor using her office’s visibility, funding authority, and legal tools to push back against perceived federal overreach or abuses of power.

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.

On July 30, SDRI Legal Director Danielle Friedman spoke with Bob Bauer on Executive Functions. They discussed state criminal statutes that could apply to federal deployment of military or ICE and examine the limits of executive authority in the context of potential federal interference ahead of the November midterms.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has vastly expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) presence across the country, extending its reach to nearly every state and major city. In response, state and local governments are increasingly looking to location-specific protections, and to property law more broadly, to address the effects of this federal presence.

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.

This essay is part of a 50-state series about the nation’s constitutions. We’ve asked an expert from each state to dive into their constitution, narrate its history, identify its quirks, and summarize its most essential components for our readers. In 1848, voters in the Wisconsin Territory ratified the Wisconsin Constitution that is still in use today. This founding document, amended more than 150 times, reflects the work of generations of legislators, advocates, and voters on topics from democracy to finance to individual rights.

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.