Wisconsin Supreme Court

Alongside candidate races, North Carolina voters are deciding three constitutional amendments. One would extend the state's existing in-person photo voter ID requirement to absentee-by-mail ballots, building on a 2018 amendment that survived years of litigation before the state Supreme Court upheld it in 2023. A second would cap the state income tax rate at 3.5%, below the current 3.99% flat rate. A third would limit how much local governments can raise property taxes annually. Polling shows strong public support for all three measures, though critics warn the tax caps could constrain future lawmakers and local governments during downturns. None of the changes take effect immediately after Election Day.

Wisconsin has rolled out a new court portal allowing people to complete and submit restraining order petitions online or by phone, rather than only in person. Launched last month, the system walks users through account creation, form selection, and direct submission to their circuit court. It currently covers domestic abuse and harassment petitions; child abuse and individual-at-risk petitions still require paper filing or the standard e-filing process.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Jill Karofsky said the court system's budget request asks the governor and Legislature for funding to extend the portal to child abuse and adult-at-risk petitions. The budget request also seeks $3 million for statewide courthouse security, half of which would fund a grant program for equipment and facility upgrades. Circuit court judges reported 129 security threats in 2025. Karofsky emphasized that everyone entering a courthouse — jurors, witnesses, staff, and the public — deserves to be safe.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard nearly eight hours of arguments this week on two lawsuits seeking to redraw the state's congressional map before the 2028 elections. Republicans currently hold six of Wisconsin's eight U.S. House seats under the existing map.

One lawsuit claims the map is a partisan gerrymander favoring one party, while the other alleges it is an anti-competitive gerrymander designed to shield incumbents. Two three-judge panels appointed last year to hear the cases both dismissed the challenges, and the state's high court—which holds a 5-2 liberal majority—must now decide whether to send the cases back to lower courts for trial.

Luke Berg, an attorney with the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, defended the current map in an interview, arguing against redrawing it. The outcome could reshape Wisconsin's congressional districts and affect the partisan balance of the state's U.S. House delegation ahead of future elections.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) has filed a lawsuit against the state's Minority Teacher Loan (MTL) Program, arguing its race-based eligibility criteria violate the Equal Protection Clause. The program offers up to $30,000 in forgivable loans to students pursuing teaching licenses in shortage areas, such as special education, math, science, and foreign languages, but restricts eligibility to specific racial and ethnic groups, excluding otherwise qualified applicants based solely on race.

The suit, filed on behalf of Citizens Defending Liberty against the Higher Educational Aids Board and its executive secretary, follows a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board, which struck down a similar race-based minority grant program. WILL contends the MTL Program lacks a compelling government interest to justify racial classifications and worsens the state's teacher shortage by narrowing the pool of eligible applicants. The case adds to a broader wave of legal challenges targeting race-conscious government programs nationwide.

A dispute over which congressional map Missouri will use in November has moved into federal court as a ballot-change deadline looms. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a referendum petition from People Not Politicians was legally sufficient, meaning the 2025 GOP-favored map — drawn last September at President Trump's urging to create a 7-1 GOP advantage — cannot take effect until voters approve it, forcing a return to the old district lines under which much of Kansas City remains in Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's 5th District. The referendum will appear as Proposition A on the November 3 ballot.

Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Solicitor General Lou Capozzi asked a federal judge to block the state ruling on behalf of Secretary of State Denny Hoskins. Separately, U.S. Rep. Bob Onder, state Sen. Rick Brattin, and two voters sued to force use of the 2025 map, with Hoskins siding with them. People Not Politicians seeks dismissal, warning of chaos from last-minute changes. Decisions could come before Tuesday's deadline.

The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously blocked new Republican-drawn congressional districts, backed by Donald Trump, from taking effect in the November election and ordered a statewide referendum on whether to uphold or reject the map. Though used in the August primary, the map cannot be used again unless voters approve it; the 2022 map remains in effect for the midterms otherwise. The court ruled that a constitutional provision allowing referendums on "any act" of the Legislature applies to congressional redistricting, overturning Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' rejection of a petition backed by over 300,000 signatures.

The map had targeted the 5th Congressional District held by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, stretching it into rural Republican territory. Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and Gov. Mike Kehoe called the ruling an unprecedented constitutional crisis and vowed an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; Trump called it a "Dark Day" for Missouri. Hoskins vowed to keep fighting, while Democrats and redistricting advocates celebrated the decision as a rare setback in Trump's nationwide mid-decade redistricting push spanning more than a dozen states ahead of the midterms.

The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked new Trump-backed congressional districts from being used in the November election, ruling that a referendum petition against the map was valid and must go before voters. The decision means the state's 2020 census-based map stays in effect for 2026, dealing a rare setback to Republicans' national mid-decade redistricting push aimed at flipping an additional U.S. House seat. Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said she would immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling the ruling a "constitutional crisis," while Gov. Mike Kehoe and Secretary of State Denny Hoskins also condemned the decision.

The new map, drawn after Trump urged Republicans to redraw districts nationwide, had targeted Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's Kansas City-based seat. Opponents had gathered over 300,000 signatures for a referendum, which Hoskins rejected—a decision the court overturned. The ruling was one of only a handful nationally to go against Republican redistricting efforts amid a fight that has spread to more than a dozen states.

Michigan election officials are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny an emergency request from Americans for Citizen Voting - Michigan (ACVM), which is seeking to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot requiring proof of citizenship and photo ID to vote. The state Board of Canvassers deadlocked on Aug. 24 over disputed signatures, leaving the measure three short of the roughly 446,198 required, despite the group submitting over 709,000 signatures. ACVM sued in state court, then appealed to Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the Michigan Supreme Court did not act, arguing due process and equal protection violations and seeking a ruling before the Sept. 4 deadline for finalizing ballot language.

Attorney General Dana Nessel and Solicitor General Ann Sherman called the application "highly unusual" and "sorely lacking in factual bases and legal substance," arguing no state court has yet ruled and that the state followed its standard review timeline. They asked the Supreme Court to deny the request.