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's New Qualification for Voting: Physical Ability, Faces Constitutional, Federal-Law Challenge

Lawsuit: Carey et al v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al (Civil  Case No: 22-402) Promises Legal-Moral Spectacle

Madison, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Republicans may have overplayed their political hand in their legal war against voting.

Many disabled Wisconsinites believe they may vote, though they need to vote absentee and physically cannot travel to election clerks and drop off their absentee ballots. They believe their voting franchise persists, irrespective of physical ability.

Wrong, say Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (not really a Court, just a raw political body, protected by both Democrats and Republicans), in its July 2022 edict-opinion in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Case NO.: 2022AP91). (See Teigen opinion and Teigen case history.) (See also Law Forward.)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled absentee ballot drop boxes are henceforth illegal and that only voters can return their absentee ballots in person to their clerk’s offices or official designated sites, drop boxes.

If physical ability prevents voters from returning their ballots without help, too bad is the effect of the ruling and a seemingly purposefully provocative statement of interpretation of Teigen from Meagan Wolfe, Democrat-leaning Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission: "the voter is the one required to mail their ballot," (CBS News-Minnesota).

Disabled Wisconsinites and their supporters say corrupt Wisconsin justices are ignoring federal law and the United States Constitution, citing several Amendments, the powerful Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Voting Rights Act, and other federal legislation. See also Associated Press.

Even Frank Easterbrook, ace Republican operative on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is thought to have a tough time [for his future anti-voting moves] with this new scheme to stop voters unpopular with Republicans.

The case is currently before the liberal-dominated U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The case is Timothy Carey v Wisconsin Elections Commission.

The complaint reads in part:

Some voters with disabilities, including Plaintiffs, require ballot-return assistance and are physically incapable of voting in person on election day.
For these voters, Wisconsin’s absentee-voting program is not just a program available to every Wisconsin voter, regardless of their physical ability.
Rather, it is their only means of accessing the franchise. Unless redressed by this Court, the prohibition on ballot-return assistance announced by Administrator Wolfe will eliminate these voters’ right to vote altogether.
This is unlawful. Federal law guarantees that voters with disabilities enjoy full and equal access to state voting programs and thus that they are entitled to ballot-return assistance. And when a state makes it impossible for some voters with disabilities to vote at all, it violates the U.S. Constitution.
Following the Teigen ruling and Administrator Wolfe’s interpretation of that decision, Wisconsin voters with disabilities are in a glaringly unequal position.
They are prohibited under Teigen from using ballot-return assistance to deliver their ballot in person to the municipal clerk.

Perilous politics

Politically, and for many — morally, Republicans are on thin ice, challenging rights and humanity of fellow citizens, based on their physical ability.

It's okay to impugn, lie, defame and refuse issue dialogue in American politics. From Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden to Donald Trump, descents into politcal malice and inanity are legion.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates some 900,000 Wisconsin residents suffer some kind of disability.

Even as legal forces defending the disabled work to stop other candidates from gaining ballot access, this latest effort of Republicans to stop voters from voting with minimal help of municipal clerks likely will not play legally or politically.

"Rank distortion" of statutes and unsubstantiated rhetoric define majority (Republican) opinion, notes dissent.