Voting Rights—State-Created Liberty Faces Eternal Suspicion

Commentary

Introduction

Madison, Wisconsin — If you love your liberty to vote, you can thank your state Constitution.

In state constitutions, you will find affirmative declarations of foundational liberty to cast votes.

Wisconsin law, banter from state agencies and private partisans, all eventually answer to the Wisconsin Constitution when voting liberty is imperiled or chilled.

The United States Constitution has no express right to vote, and what little the U.S. Constitution says about voting rights, beyond amendments, leaves this liberty to states.

Thus, the liberty to vote is explicit and affirmative in state constitutions.

State-created voting liberty in the U.S. Constitution does enjoy protection from incursion by force of several amendments and liberties—First Amendment liberties, equal protection, Due Process, race, color, sex, poll tax, age, for example.

Voting and Prediction Market Betting in States

As Wisconsin campaigns continue into the November midterm elections, an odd social-media, anti-voting, anti-betting crusade waged by Wisconsin Elections Commission member Ann Jacobs, and threats made to the public by the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) in June in official communications work to suppress voting liberty.

This voter suppression is accomplished by falsely claiming and warning that betting in prediction markets wagered from any state runs afoul of Wisconsin statute that forbids betting on elections in which a voter casts a ballot within Wisconsin borders. 

A July 21 declaration of sorts by the Wisconsin Elections Commission opines legal and regulatory clarity, free of all ambiguity, in asserting that predication-market betting on elections in which a voter also casts his ballot is illegal under Wisconsin's 1849 anti-betting statute; and secondly runs afoul of Wisconsin Statute § 12.13(1)(a) that makes it a Class I felony to intentionally vote in an election without being qualified to vote. 

The Wisconsin Elections Commission memo and press release are warnings, purposefully inducing fright into Wisconsin residents, falsely claiming both the state-foundational liberty to cast votes and the liberty not to become felonious slaves of the state, felons, are imperiled by legal conduct outside of Wisconsin, as the Elections Commission claims.

At issue are two Wisconsin statutes, presented and fused together by the Elections Commission.

Wisconsin Statute § 6.03(2) explicitly disqualifies electors from voting "in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election."
Wisconsin Statute § 12.13(1)(a) makes it a Class I felony to intentionally vote in an election without being qualified to do so.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission is not a law enforcement agency, such as the Wisconsin Dept of Justice, and Wisconsin's county district attorneys.

Problems complicate the Elections Commission novel theory on voting and out-of-state betting, and the legal terrain vis prediction betting and voting that is ambiguous and volatile, the exact opposite of what the Wisconsin Elections Commission claims.

The Wisconsin Attorney General has not issued an opinion on out-of-state betting, likely because horizontal federalism among states is a fundamental tenet and Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul is looking for some clarity in a critical area in which no clarity exists.

Attorney General has not put forward any guidance regarding the WEC’s statement, though his office has been requested to do so by constituents and the state legislature.

Democratic Party officials can be counted on to take anti-betting political positions, to the point of telling voters what are 'correct' considerations made by voters in their exercise of their franchise.

State Jurisdiction 

Wisconsin statutes as with any state law apply to acts committed within Wisconsin jurisdiction, within Wisconsin boundaries.

Acts such as betting that are illegal in one state X, Wisconsin; committed legally within a different state Y, Nevada, have no bearing into state X. The taint of legal activity, legal conduct, in one state does not clash with the laws and sovereign police power of another state in which this conduct is illegal. Update: This is regarded as an unsettled constitutional question by some.

Elections Commissioner member and anti-betting crusader Ann Jacobs has taken a novel position on state jurisdiction, asserting, "What you cannot do is bet there [in other states] and vote here," (X.con).

Jacobs is saying, Wisconsin law follows a Wisconsin voter betting in prediction markets in Las Vegas for example, and then follows a voter back into Wisconsin when a Wisconsin resident casts a vote on the election on which he bets. 

Ann Jacobs is substituting her opinions on how and why Wisconsin citizens should exercise their voting state-liberty, asserting citizens ought not vote for their chosen candidates for the 'wrong reasons,' and for 'bad' reasons, (SpectrumNews).

"We don’t allow bribes for the same reason we want people to vote for the right reasons, not the wrong ones," Jacobs said. "If you’re voting because you think you’re going to make money instead of for who should be the best candidate, that’s bad," (SpectrumNews). 

Voter is in violation of Wisconsin law for legal conduct in Nevada, Wisconsin Elections Commission claims. 

Put another way, Jacobs believes a Wisconsin voter carries a taint of legal conduct back to Wisconsin whereupon it becomes illegal upon exercising a state foundational liberty to cast a vote.

Jacobs and the Wisconsin Elections Commission fail to address basic state co-equal, horizontal sovereign, jurisdictional principles.  

Are not Wisconsin voters who are acting legally in other states by betting in prediction markets beyond the reach of Wisconsin law and police power, and contemplated criminal prosecution? 

The answer is, yes, and Jacobs and the WEC do not acknowledge that betting in other states is activity beyond Wisconsin's territorial jurisdiction, again under horizontal-state sovereignty, horizontal federalism.

Wisconsin DoJ Seeks Judicial Clarity

The Wisconsin DoJ filed a lawsuit against several prediction markets in April 2026 in state court. (In linked press release, complaints' text is linked at bottom of press release.)

DoJ seeks judicial declaration that "Kalshi, Robinhood, Coinbase, Polymarket, Crypto.com, and their affiliates, to halt their alleged facilitation of illegal sports betting, a form of unlawful commercial gambling, in Wisconsin."

Horizontal state sovereignty is recognized in the Wisconsin DoJ April 2026 lawsuit against several prediction-betting platforms.

Federal Preemption and Prediction Markets
 
Wisconsin has had an anti-betting statute since 1849, shortly after Wisconsin's1848 inception as a state.

Kalshi and other betting platforms are regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Traders enter into binary-event contracts, (yes-or-no prediction contracts on real-world future outcomes).

People betting on Kalshi are traders executing financial derivatives, event contracts, on a federally regulated exchange.

The CFTC argues that under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), CEA holds exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts traded on designated contract markets, thereby occupying the field and blocking state gambling enforcement like Wisconsin's.

But to what extent ought this vertical-federalism, federal-state, block clear state prerogatives?

Federal circuit and district courts are deeply divided. Some rulings (such as the Third Circuit in Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty, No. 25-1922) have backed field preemption for federally regulated event contracts, while other federal judges have denied injunctions and ruled that federal law does not stop states from enforcing anti-gambling statutes.

The certainty with which the Elections Commission represents the law on prediction markets is misleading and under the circumstances, is absurd.

Howard Schweber on Federal Preemption and States' Power

Notes Howard Schweber, UW-Madison Law and Political Science lecturer, (emeritus):

"Polymarket, et al are arguing that they should be immune from the application of all of these laws as well as all other state laws regulating gambling as applied to them, as a matter of federal preemption."

"Federal preemption occurs when there is a conflict between federal and state laws; in that situation the federal law trumps and the state law is invalid. This can happen in a situation of direct conflict (something is legal under state law but illegal under federal law). It can also happen when the federal system of regulation is found to 'occupy the field' (known as 'field preemption') so that any regulation by states would be in conflict with the federal scheme." 

UW-Madison's Howard Schweber notes a complex, unresolved legal landscape in an email exchange, posted below:

There are two federal statutes that are potentially involved, [in this controversy of federal regulation conflicting with, and preempting state anti-gambling statues.]

The Unlawful Internet Gaming Act (UIEGA) makes it unlawful to engage in 'unlawful Internet gambling,' which means 'to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use ... of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.' 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(A). 
Note the 'where the bet or wager is unlawful' language. The statute specifically says that it does not preempt state law: 'the UIEGA at 31 U.S.C. 5362 (10)(D)(2) 'Rule of construction regarding preemption.--Nothing in this subchapter may be construed to preempt any State law prohibiting gambling.' 
An explicit disavowal of any preemptive effect of a federal law leaves the states entirely free to enact their own regulations of these markets as a form of gambling, and states have longstanding and well establish authority to define conditions on eligibility for voting. So Wisconsin steps in and says yes, under our gambling laws placing a bet on the outcome of an election is unlawful, and prediction markets' operations fit that description of gambling for state law purposes. And as far as the UIGEA is concerned, Wisconsin is absolutely free to do that.
But there is another federal statute, the Commodity Exchange Act,  that regulates futures trading (stock futures, derivatives, etc.) This law says that regulation of those kinds of investments is exclusively the province of an agency called the Commodity Futures Exchange Commission. That law has been held to preempt state regulation of such markets. So no, a state cannot declare that all investments in derivatives are a form of gambling and prosecute everyone involved nor even create restrictions on derivative investments taking place within their state boundaries because the regulation of those investments are preempted by federal law.
How do these two laws interact? The UIGEA explicitly excludes from its coverage any transactions "conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act” or “any other transaction that is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act.” Id. §§ 5362(1)(E)(i), (iv)(I). So if prediction market bets are actually futures investments rather than wagers—i.e., if they are covered under the CEA rather than UIGEA—then state laws are preempted. 
Kalshi and Polymarket are registered with the CFEC based on their self-certification that their business does not involve gambling. In California, a district court judge has ruled that so long as the CFEC accepts their registration, this means that they are not subject to the UIGEA for federal law purposes.  (That ruling is currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit; at oral argument the panel of judges apparently expressed skepticism about the judge's ruling.) In April the Third Circuit — without ever mentioning the UIEGA at all — likewise held that prediction market trading falls under the category of futures contracts, so the only relevant federal statute is the Commodities Futures Act. 
As I mentioned, that federal law preempts all state regulation per se, including-but-not-limited-to anti-gambling laws. So if these rulings stand up at the Supreme Court then the federal law regulating futures contracts is the one that applies to prediction markets and states may not regulate them.
That would mean that states do not have the authority to regulate those markets because of preemption, including treating participation in prediction markets as a form of gambling.
On the other hand, these are just agency rules and agency certifications. The CFEC would have the authority to rule at any time that these markets are not proper participants in the system of futures trading by a simple administrative ruling, in which case the UIGEA kicks in and so do state laws against gambling. The issues involved here are not constitutional, they are about interpreting statutes and decisions by agencies. Kalshi is trying to argue that they have a right to be classified as futures traders by an administrative agency; it is a sign of how weird our constitutional politics have become that Kalshi et al are essentially gambling — er, "predicting" — that the Executive Branch will always be controlled by a President friendly to their interests who will appoint members to the CFEC who will continue to protect them as a form of futures investment market. 
Because if there is ever a Democratic administration in control of the CFEC or a Democratic Congress interested in revisiting the classification of prediction markets under the two federal statutes then Kalshi's case evaporates. Which is what makes their heated rhetoric of 'unconstitutional' and 'crazy' remarkable for its apparent lack of any connection to the legal issues that are being asserted.
32 states have laws against gambling on elections. The prediction markets want to render all of those laws ineffective, a sweeping rejection of state autonomy under the wild theory that a law that prevents states from regulating investments in futures contracts effectively ends states' ability to regulate gambling wholesale. (The Third Circuit noted this possibility in a footnote but declined to address it.)
BUT that's still not the end of the story.  
Even if Wisconsin and the other 31 states cannot prosecute or otherwise regulate betting on elections on prediction markets, that does not mean that the states lose their constitutional authority to define the qualifications for voting in federal elections (Article I, section 2 of the US Constitution) including what acts, if shown, would disqualify someone.  
A ruling that says otherwise would mean, for example, that states could not decide whether felons or those who commit particular felonies may have their eligibility for voting taken away. I have no idea how that logic is supposed to work. 
To summarize, Kalshi et al are making the extraordinary argument that:
     IF the Supreme Court accepts that predictions markets are futures markets rather than gambling so that the UIGEA does not apply,
    and IF the Supreme Court (following the Third Circuit) says that states are therefore precluded from applying their gambling laws to the placement of bets with prediction markets on the outcome of sporting events,
    THEN it will also follow that states are preempted from applying their gambling laws to the placement of bets with prediction markets on the outcome of elections, and
    THEN exercising their authority under Article I, section 2 of the Constitution to define the qualifications for voting.
That is a wild theory. It implies that federal statutes can change the federalism provisions of the Constitution, that preemption of criminal laws against gambling means preemption of any regulation having anything to do with gambling (imagine an age restriction, for example), and that 32 states' laws treating betting on elections as a special case have been rendered ineffective because of a federal law about the derivatives market. It was the deregulation of those markets that led directly to the Crash of 2008; why not try it with elections and see what happens?

Ambiguity in the law should be read in favor of the defendant, a principle that ought guide any contemplated state prosecution of voting bettors, (Rule of Lenity).

The Wisconsin DoJ's is seeking a measure of clarity in its lawsuit against several prediction markets filed in April 2026 in state court.

Criminal prosecution referrals and threats made against voting by the Wisconsin Elections Commission's are ill-advised, irrational and false.

Future of Prediction Markets

It's a good bet that the Wisconsin DoJ April 2026 lawsuit seeking clarity prevails in Wisconsin County Circuit court, and eventually at the Democrat-dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court.

It's an equally good bet that federal litigation pursued by the commercial gambling eventually prevails in federal court, and perhaps on First Amendment grounds.

Consider Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). 

Afterall, a 5-4 Court in 2010 held campaign donors are effectively people with First Amendment liberties that prohibit government from restricting campaign and political donations by corporations and unions.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). 
Held

(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20–25. 

In light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it would seem bizarre but possible that federal courts would rule states hold power to dictate what are wrong considerations voters take under advisement in exercising their state-created liberty to vote, as courts consider proposition that political speech includes voters' liberty to put their money where their mouth is, without laws burdening free speech.

#

Wisconsin Democrats Try to Create New Constitutional Qualification to Vote without Amending State Constitution

Democrats: Vote and Go to Jail; New Shite Show

Commentary

Madison, Wisconsin—Wisconsin Democrats in the Wisconsin Elections Commission have issued decree that Wisconsin law creates a new qualification to vote supplanting Wisconsin Constitution without amending the Wisconsin Constitution.

"With prediction markets and online gambling platforms growing in popularity, the Wisconsin
Elections Commission is warning voters: if you bet on an election - it could cost you your vote," reads a WEC press release.

No ambiguity there.

This new Constitutional qualification— no betting by Wisconsin residents on Wisconsin elections from anywhere— to vote is created by two statutes, (one in the criminal code; one a voter eligibility statute), says the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

WEC is reacting to the emergence of trading and prediction markets, Kalsi and Polymarket, that are legal under federal regulation as financial derivatives, and legal in many states.

This is the Gov Tony Evers (D) administration at work in Wisconsin where mostly Democrat, anti-gambling dogma is claimed to supplant the Wisconsin Constitution on Suffrage (voting).

At issue are two Wisconsin statutes, cited by WEC today:

Wisconsin Statute § 6.03(2) explicitly disqualifies electors from voting “in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.”
Wisconsin Statute § 12.13(1)(a) makes it a Class I felony to intentionally vote in an election without being qualified to do so.

Wisconsin statutes above as with any state law apply to acts committed within Wisconsin jurisdiction, within Wisconsin boundaries.

But not according to Wisconsin Elections Commission.

And not according to Ann Jacobs, former Wisconsin Election Chair and Democrat: "What you cannot do is bet there [in other states] and vote here."

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, remarkably, fails to address basic state law jurisdiction principles, and creation of new constitutional qualification to vote without amending the Constitution.

Jurisdiction

Since when does commitment of a legal act in one state, X, come within the adjudicative power of another state, Y?

I posed this question to WEC this morning:

[O]n the matter of jurisdiction, are not Wisconsin voters who are acting legally in other states by betting, beyond the reach of Wisconsin law, and contemplated criminal prosecution?

If I smoke pot in Chicago, have I acted beyond jurisdiction of Wisconsin law, and does smoking or betting in legal jurisdictions of sovereign states not carry any criminal taint into Wisconsin?

No reply.

I did get replies in social media from the former Wisconsin Elections Commission Chair, Ann Jacobs, speaking as a private citizen. Below are questions and answers:

What about betting in a different state such as Missouri, Ohio or Nevada where this betting is legal? Are you really claiming jurisdiction of Wisconsin law extends beyond Wisconsin into other states? Betting here, no. But betting beyond Wisconsin border, no problem, correct?

— Michael Leon (@mal644) July 21, 2026

What about betting in a different state such as Missouri, Ohio or Nevada where this betting is legal? Are you really claiming jurisdiction of Wisconsin law extends beyond Wisconsin into other states? Betting here, no. But betting beyond Wisconsin border, no problem, correct?

— Michael Leon (@mal644) July 21, 2026

According to Wisconsin Democrat orthodoxy, Wisconsin law now extends to acts committed outside its territorial borders.

And administrative fiat is now sufficient to create a new Constitutional qualification to vote without amending the Wisconsin Constitution.

Jacobs did not acknowledge basic jurisdictional principles, that is that betting in other states is activity beyond Wisconsin's territorial jurisdiction.  

But, Jacobs finally acknowledged that "the [Wisconsin] act it applies to is not the betting occurring in another state," pretending Jacobs said this all along, (she did not, and is lying).

Then, in the next sentence Jacobs contradicted herself, saying, "What you cannot do is bet there and vote here."

Better than what the WEC is willing to acknowledge at least.

This is Wisconsin Democrats today.

— Ann Jacobs (@AnnJacobsMKE) July 21, 2026

Bottom line if you want to gamble on Wisconsin elections, go ahead, just do it in another state beyond the jurisdiction of Wisconsin law.

Whatever WEC Administrator Meagan Wolfe says, you can bet heavily on elections outside Wisconsin and Democrat nannies cannot do a thing about it.

Below is WEC July 21 press release reproduced in full.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wisconsin Elections Commissioners
Don M. Millis, chair | Marge Bostelmann | Ann S. Jacobs | Carrie Riepl | Robert Spindell | Mark L. Thomsen
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Administrator
Meagan Wolfe
Wisconsin Elections Commission
201 West Washington Avenue | Second Floor | P.O. Box 7984 | Madison, WI 53707-7984
(608) 266-8005 | elections@wi.gov | elections.wi.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
July 21, 2026 Emilee Miklas, emilee.miklas@wisconsin.gov
Don’t Bet on Your Ballot: WEC Warns Voters Against
Election Gambling
MADISON – With prediction markets and online gambling platforms growing in popularity, the Wisconsin
Elections Commission is warning voters: if you bet on an election - it could cost you your vote.
“We want voters to understand that they cannot legally make a bet on an election and cast a ballot in that
same election,” WEC Administrator Meagan Wolfe said. “We are not able to police someone placing a bet
on these platforms, but it’s important for voters to understand the consequences if they bet on an election
outcome.”
Wisconsin law is clear: a voter cannot, even indirectly, make a bet or wager on the outcome of an election
and then vote in that same election:
• Wisconsin Statute § 6.03(2) explicitly disqualifies electors from voting “in any election in which
the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon
the result of the election.”
• Wisconsin Statute § 12.13(1)(a) makes it a Class I felony to intentionally vote in an election
without being qualified to do so.
Voters who place bets on elections and then try to vote in that election may be subject to voter qualification
administrative challenges, which, if successful, would prevent them from being able to cast their ballot and
could also result in a referral to the District Attorney.
Earlier this month, the bipartisan Commission unanimously voted and approved a memo during its July 9,
2026, meeting outlining legal ramifications and concerns about prediction markets and elections. You can
view the memo in the open session materials here (beginning on page 149).
Prediction markets, most prominently run by the companies Kalshi and Polymarket, have quickly emerged
and become popular across the United States. Users can trade and invest in “yes” or “no” outcomes, from
sporting events to what the President may do on a certain day.
Regulation of prediction markets has been a recent litigation topic at the state and federal levels.
There are currently no federal laws addressing prediction markets for elections, however the Stop Trading
On Predictions (STOP) Corrupt Bets Act of 2026 (H.R. 8123) which would ban prediction market bets on
elections has been introduced as a bill. The U.S. Senate also has banned its members and staff from
prediction market betting.
More than half of states (23) have laws that prohibit betting or wagering on elections, at least under certain
circumstances, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL).
Additionally, Governor Tony Evers signed Executive Order #294 to address the growing concern for
government officials’ use of prediction markets, which prohibits all Wisconsin state executive branch
employees from “disclosing or using any nonpublic information obtained due to their public service to
personally profit from, avoid loss from, or assist another person or entity, including spouses and family
members, in profiting or avoiding loss from participating in prediction markets.”
#

Wisconsin Dem Primary Race for Gov—Explosive Shite Show

Establishment effort to rig Primary race appears doomed, sure to divide Democratic Party 

Commentary

Madison, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Democrat establishment — off-center from grassroots voters — lost their rightest champ, Lt Gov Sara Rodriquez, who suspended her campaign for governor under a smokey ethical and legal cloud.

State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), a young progressive, appears on the glidepath to the Democrat Party nomination for Wisconsin governor.

So, outgoing Wisconsin Gov Tony Evers will stay out of the race, and leave it to voters three weeks out from Aug 11 Election Day. Right?

Wrong.

Democrats Party bureaucrats and Zionist donors moved hard today for Zionist Milwaukee County Exec David Crowley's reentry into the race, following Sara Rodriquez' exit.

Wisconsin Democrats—Peace v Genocide

Early Friday, Crowley said, yes, to getting back in, setting off a race described in historical terms by Wisconsin political journalist, Bill McCoshen: "This is going to turn into a battle for the soul of the WI Dem party over the next 24 days."

This is going to turn into a battle for the soul of the WI Dem party over the next 24 days.

— Bill McCoshen (@BillMcCoshen11) July 17, 2026

The description is apt and recalls the anti-war movement here of the 1960s when the Wisconsin Peace Movement took over the Wisconsin Democratic Party in 1968, as a grassroots coalition of peace activists and college students propelled Minnesota Sen Eugene McCarthy to a massive upset victory over incumbent President Lyndon Johnson in the April 2 Democratic presidential primary.

Wisconsin Democrats are at a crossroads not seen since 1968 
when the Peace Movement displaced pro-war old guard.

We are at a similar moment recalling the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the demands for peace by Wisconsin's delegates led by Donald Peterson, the Wisconsin state chair.

Those events led to a powerful anti-intervention force in Wisconsin politics lasting some 50 years.

Today, at issue is Genocide that has taken on prominence when establishment Democrats, Sara Rodriquez and David Crowley, earlier this month snubbed a voter forum at the last moment in Oak Creek organized by the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance, after learning questions would include, "Do you agree with the overwhelming consensus among genocide experts that the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide?" 

Reports John Nichols:

Why did Rodriguez and Crowley skip the forum? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that they opted out 'after learning they would be asked about Israel's actions in Gaza and other controversial topics.' At issue were 'lightning round' questions that asked for yes/no responses to inquiries about, among other things, whether candidates thought the Israeli military assault on Gaza — which has cost the lives of more that 70,000 Palestinian men, women and children — was 'a genocide.'

Five candidates remain now: Frontrunner Francesca Hong, Mandela Barnes, Kelda Roys, Joel Brennan and David Crowley.

It's likely Evers and pro-Genocide Wisconsin Democrats will push to clear the field as much as possible following Crowley's reentry Saturday. 

But noone knows how successful this effort will be this late in the game as animosities linger, and Wisconsin's population remains heavily anti-Genocide.

Writes Matt Henkel: "Roughly 70,000 Wisconsinites have already voted in the August primary. Theres a whole day lag to that number. By the time Crowley gets into the race I’m betting it’ll be 100,000. The math to pull this top-down Dem insider driven switchweroo is not even close to in their favor."

In 2018, when Gov Evers won a plurality with 41 percent of the vote, the Wisconsin Democratic Party Gubernatorial Primary results saw 538,857 total votes cast.

This means roughly 18 percent of the vote has been already cast today, and David Crowley can be expected to have garnered only a scattering.

So, Crowley will not win, and Evers and Party bureaucrats will have alienated and incensed 10,000s of well-organized Francesca Hong voters who already are hostile towards the Democrat establishment.

What is the Wisconsin Democrat Party thinking? They are not thinking, they are following orders to appease an aggressive and indecent Zionist wing.

To find out from whom, run the Sara Rodriquez and David Crowley big donors through Tracking AIPAC and Open Secrets, though arriving at figures is difficult in state elections.

The Democrat-establishment's attempted rigging reeks of desperation, and most observers who have gamed the effort through are scoffing at it.

Wisconsin Democrat Establishment Fav, Lt Gov Sara Rodriquez, Snubs Muslims

Wisconsin Democrats reach absurdity not seen since fleeing 
from a foul, vicious white rabbit (at left) of Monty Python 
fame in 1975. White rabbit and other scary foes forced 
King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table to run away.

Governor's Race Features Democrat Bigotry Against Muslims

Commentary

Madison, Wisconsin— Wisconsin's Democrat establishment left no doubt how they feel about American Muslims at the July Gubernatorial Candidate Forum in Oak Creek, hosted by the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance.

Run away!

In my entire life in Wisconsin, I have not witnessed a more cowardly and vile act of bigotry from Wisconsin Democrats.

The vile is so bad, it's laughable.

This is a battle cry exclaimed with an absurd urgency rivaling Monty Python's King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table shouted as they fled a vicious white rabbit and anybody else perceived to be scary.

Wisconsin gubernatorial candidates, Lieutenant Governor Sara Rodriquez led the retreat, with David Crowley, (Milwaukee County Executive), in tow, as both at the last moment rebuffed appearance in the Forum. 

Crowley, who never garnered more than low single digits in statewide polls, resigned a few days after the event, and declared he has decided it's time for other candidates to rally around Rodriquez now that Crowley's campaign was rejected by voters, (WisPolitics).

"All the candidates should be looking really hard as far as what do they want to see as an outcome," Crowley intoned, (WisPolitics).

Reported the Muslim Civic Alliance, (WMCA) on the forum and its fleeing guests: 

[Forum is] a chance for candidates to speak directly to a community of over 70,000 Wisconsin Muslims who have too often been an afterthought in state politics. While six candidates were scheduled to attend, two candidates cancelled shortly before the forum after receiving the list of 13 questions they would face. ...
Among our questions was a simple yes-or-no: Do you agree with the overwhelming consensus among genocide experts that the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide?" ...
The questions asked were meant to measure the candidates’ moral clarity as they seek to lead this state: on the atrocities and genocide in Gaza and whether or not they selectively seek to restrict First Amendment rights through Wisconsin’s IHRA and anti-BDS [Boycott-Divest-Sanction Israel] laws.

Media Coverage Light

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Molly Beck first reported on the Democrat snub of Wisconsin Muslims on July 9.

John Nichols followed with a first-rate piece on July 12 in the Madison daily, The Capital Times, defending Wisconsin's estimated 70,000 Muslims, and heavily criticizing Wisconsin Democrats. 

Writes Nichols:

So, it was quite reasonable to presume that all of the Democratic contenders for governor of Wisconsin would be enthusiastic about showing up for the July 1 candidate forum organized by the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance and Wisconsin Muslim Civic Foundation. But it didn’t work out that way. ... 
A pair of Democratic contenders pulled out of last week’s forum after learning they would be asked about Israel's assault on Gaza and other controversial topics. Organizers of the forum complained, 'Two campaigns withdrew, rather than respond to our forum questions.' Those candidates were Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Crowley has since suspended his candidacy and endorsed Rodriguez, who remains very much in the running.
Why did Rodriguez and Crowley skip the forum? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that they opted out 'after learning they would be asked about Israel's actions in Gaza and other controversial topics.' At issue were 'lightning round' questions that asked for yes/no responses to inquiries about, among other things, whether candidates thought the Israeli military assault on Gaza — which has cost the lives of more that 70,000 Palestinian men, women and children — was 'a genocide.'

Genocide Is Forbidden Topic Among Wisconsin Democrats

Anti-Muslim sentiment is a defining feature of the Wisconsin Democrat establishment funded with heavy Zionist money and unhinged Zionist mouthpieces such as Ann Jacobs. 

Wisconsin Democrats parade their fear and hatred of Wisconsin's 70,000 Muslims, owing in part to this heavy Zionist blood money to the Democrats.

Still, in response, many Democrat politicos have gone silent, seeing who speaks up, though Democrat candidates being Democrat candidates still believe there is not a political price to be paid by their silence in this time of moral crisis with a madman in the White House funding israel with ungodly sums of money.

An educated guess who wins the Democratic Party nomination for Governor on August 11 sees State Rep Francesca Hong (D-Madison) running away with the Primary victory, or winning a close battle over Mandela Barnes, with Sara Rodriquez who has not moved the needle, to this bringing up the rear.

For campaign updates, see Bill McCoshen on X.
---
The Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance (WMCA) July 2, 2026 press release on the Wisconsin Democrat snub is republished below:

FRANKLIN, WI — On July 1, 2026, the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance (WMCA) hosted a Gubernatorial Candidate Forum at the Oak Creek Performing Arts Center, a chance for candidates to speak directly to a community of over 70,000 Wisconsin Muslims who have too often been an afterthought in state politics.  While six candidates were scheduled to attend, two candidates cancelled shortly before the forum after receiving the list of 13 questions they would face.

In the spirit of transparency and fairness, we shared the discussion topics earlier in the week and, on the day of the forum, provided every participating candidate with the complete list of questions. This ensured each candidate had an equal opportunity to prepare thoughtful, substantive responses. The forum featured six in-depth questions and seven lightning-round questions (yes or no), covering issues ranging from IHRA and Gaza and independent redistricting. Despite this level of transparency, two candidates chose to withdraw. We were deeply disappointed that Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley withdrew just hours before the forum, while Lt. Governor Sara Rodriguez withdrew after the forum had already begun.

Among our questions was a simple yes-or-no: Do you agree with the overwhelming consensus among genocide experts that the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide?  

This question came directly from the Wisconsin Muslim community. The results of many listening sessions with our community are unambiguous: Wisconsin Muslims are not a monolith on most issues; we hold a wide range of views on economic policy, education, criminal justice, and more. But on this issue, our community speaks with a single voice. What is happening in Gaza is a genocide, and our community expects its elected leaders to say so plainly.  WMCA exists to serve as the vehicle to ensure our community gets answers and accountability on core issues. The questions asked were meant to measure the candidates’ moral clarity as they seek to lead this state: on the atrocities and genocide in Gaza and whether or not they selectively seek to restrict First Amendment rights through Wisconsin’s IHRA and anti-BDS laws.

Two campaigns withdrew, rather than respond to our forum questions. On the lightning-round issues, our community has not asked for round-about responses, but clear positions.  However, we generously offered two minutes at the end of the lightning round questions for candidates to make any clarifications.

Some campaigns have since offered private meetings in place of the public forum. Private meetings are not a substitute for public forums. Our community deserves the dignity and respect of having the questions that matter to us answered to gain our votes, in public and on the record. We cannot always have a curated version delivered behind closed doors to a select audience. Nonetheless, WMCA is still open to engage in dialogue with the two candidates who did not attend and hear their perspective as we continue to advocate on behalf of the community.  

Time and time again, we have witnessed attempts to silence the Muslim community. Silencing our community or evading discourse about issues like the genocide has serious impacts and is the backbone of the Trump Administration’s fight to suppress, detain, and deport our community members, building precedents for broad-based suppression. This is relevant for the state as a major Wisconsin leader, Salah Sarsour, is still fighting deportation proceedings as retaliation for his free speech against the atrocities in Palestine. 

Wisconsin Muslims have been an integral part of the state for generations and have demonstrated themselves as a powerful voting bloc. We are organized, engaged, and deeply connected to allied communities. We are proud members of coalitions that span racial, ethnic, and faith communities across the state.  Several questions came directly from coalitions that WMCA are part of, from independent redistricting, to 287(g) agreements and even data center accountability.  

The Wisconsin Muslim community will always ask direct questions because that is who we are and have always been. We will always stand up for justice because that is what our faith demands of us. 
#