After a lower court held they were not a valid way to cast a vote, Wisconsin's Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether absentee ballot drop boxes are permitted under state law.

The lower court's January opinion held the boxes, although previously permitted by the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, were not specifically authorized by the Legislature, and therefore are not a valid method to cast a ballot.

Steven Kilpatrick, the assistant attorney general appearing before the justices on behalf of the Elections Commission, argued state law gives clerks leeway when administering elections.

"So therefore, there is giving discretion to the municipal clerk to set up these secure drop boxes as a way for absentee voters to return their ballots," Kilpatrick contended.

The high court's decision will determine whether drop boxes can be used in future elections, including this year's upcoming fall races, in which two pivotal lawmakers, Gov. Tony Evers and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., will be up for re-election. While it barred them at most locations, the lower court's ruling permitted drop boxes at clerks' offices and in other specific scenarios.

It also held people filling out absentee ballots must be the ones to mail or return them to the clerk's office, and ballots cannot be submitted by an unapproved third party. The finding prompted a flurry of hypotheticals from the court's justices Wednesday, who questioned the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the suit on several potential situations.

Brian Hagedorn, State Supreme Court Justice, considered to be the high court's key swing vote, asked how far the chain-of-custody rule should go.

"If I'm mailing an absentee ballot and my wife takes the three steps to put it in the mailbox rather than me, have I violated the law?" Hagedorn posed. "Do we need to decide that question?"

The lower court's order barring drop boxes has previously been both upheld and blocked by the state Supreme Court. Shortly after the lower court's initial decision, they permitted drop boxes for the spring primaries, holding clerks did not have enough time to adopt alternate rules. Later, the high court barred drop boxes for the April general election. In both cases, they did not rule on the underlying legal validity of the boxes.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Democrats have struggled to turn "red" rural areas "blue" across the country for years, but some left-leaning candidates won in 2022, raising the question of how they succeeded where many others have failed.

In Washington, Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez flipped a red U.S. House seat in the southern part of the state.

Amber Rosewood, chair of the 19th Legislative District Democrats in Cowlitz County, said her organization partly coordinated with Glusenkamp Perez's campaign, but noted her group has been organizing year-round since 2018.

She emphasized it was important Glusenkamp Perez's campaign did not attempt to take over her group's efforts.

"You really just need to find the people that are already organizing, that are natural leaders, that have a group of people around them willing to do good work," Rosewood explained. "And figure out how you can incorporate those efforts into your campaigns."

The race for Washington state's 3rd Congressional District was one of the most hotly contested House races of the 2022 election. It had been represented by a Republican since 2010.

The Rural Urban Bridge Initiative has released a report about what the keys to success for Democrats are in such areas.

Anthony Flaccavento, co-founder of the group, said one finding is winning candidates were widely seen as engaged with the local community, whether they were fourth-generation residents or relative newcomers.

"They had strong what we call in the report 'local fluency.' They knew the community, they knew the history, they knew the language and the morays and the vernacular, and all of that," Flaccavento noted. "They knew what mattered to the majority of people, and they, in one way or another, had been engaged with trying to make the community strong."

Rosewood added it is likely to be the case for any successful candidate in rural America.

"We're all here in these rural communities. We care very much about where we live and the resources we have are really important to us," Rosewood outlined. "And when a candidate can show that our issues are their issues we want to work with them. We want to work hard for them, we want them to represent us."

For the first time in almost 50 years, Iowa will not hold the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses for Democrats.

The national party has ousted the state from the number one position, but could face a challenge from an Iowa law. Iowa cemented its status as an influential state in the political process during the 1976 presidential campaign, when a little-known peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter burst onto the national political scene with folksy charm, moral charisma and a genuine connection with Iowa farmers. Then governor of Georgia, Carter won the Democratic caucus, and was elected president.

Paul Pate, Secretary of State, said since then, Iowa has leveled the playing field for presidential hopefuls.

"These other states cater to the big candidates," Pate observed. "The newbie, the underdog, the other candidates who perhaps don't have the same kind of resources won't have the chance to even be competitive because of the expense of running for president."

Iowa law mandates its caucuses be first in the nation, and the state has weathered challenges to its status before. But the national Democratic Party has never taken official action to name a new first-in-the nation event until now.

Critics of the caucuses have pointed out Iowa's population is not representative of the entire country and argued the state should not have such an outsized influence.

Pate has encouraged the Democratic Party to reconsider ignoring Iowa's prominence in rural America, but as the state's top elections official, he must remain nonpartisan in the debate.

"I don't get to wear a team jersey, I'm the referee," Pate explained. "But as referee, I want to see the game. I want to make sure we have the game. And in this case, the nomination process is very, very important."

National Democrats have said the change is intended to hear the voices of more people.

Democracy reforms got the seal of approval from many Washington state voters this November.

While some changes were big, others were subtle but could make a difference in election turnouts.

In King County, voters approved a measure to move local elections from odd to even numbered years.

Jay Lee, democracy researcher with the Northwest-based organization Sightline Institute, said this will make a difference in elections immediately.

He said turnout craters in odd numbered years when federal elections aren't on the ballot.

"By moving elections to even years," said Lee, "you can really increase voter turnout and increase the number of residents who have a say in local decision making."

King County, which has more than two million residents, approved the measure to move elections by nearly 70%.

An arguably bigger change is coming to elections in Seattle. Voters approved ranked choice voting in the city's primaries.

However, Lee said state law bars Seattle from using ranked choice voting in general elections. He said state lawmakers have been looking at this issue in recent years.

"Moving forward, in the future," said Lee, "one of the avenues to change this is to provide for what folks are calling a local option to give localities the option, if they choose to, to do ranked choice voting or another system."

Lee noted that in two other Washington counties - Clark and San Juan - voters opted not to change their charters and allow ranked choice voting.

Regardless, he said this is an exciting time in Washington state because states and localities have a chance to try new ways of voting to see what models work.

"There's a concept in political science where states are laboratories of democracy," said Lee. "States are able to try different systems and different policies that are harder to do at the federal level, and much bigger changes."