The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday took up arguments in a highly watched case concerning ballot dropboxes. Supporters of lifting a near-total ban say such a move would help a range of voters across the state.

In 2022, the state's highest court and its then-conservative majority ruled that dropboxes should be limited to election clerks' offices. But with a liberal majority now in place, the court is revisiting the issue. Dropboxes have become popular among voters in a post-pandemic world.

Jenelle Ludwig Krause, who leads the group GrassRoots Organizing Western Wisconsin, said many people benefit from having different places to securely return their absentee ballots.

"Busy farmers who need be on their field when the conditions are dry; it makes it possible for parents that are juggling a million things to cast their ballot; for people with disabilities, for elderly people," she explained.

She added dropboxes aren't just beneficial to certain geographic locations, noting they help voters in both urban and rural areas. Broader debates about this option tend to focus on whether the boxes invite fraud and could be tampered with. But the Bipartisan Policy Center says they're set up by government officials and are often under 24-hour surveillance.

Krause also pointed out that with dropboxes helping voters all around Wisconsin, more people from all kinds of backgrounds would have their say on key issues come election time. She said it's difficult to enact change when a person is weighed down by restrictive voting policies.

"There are special interest groups in Wisconsin that have worked really, really hard to make it hard for regular people in Wisconsin to vote. You know, they want to protect the status quo," she said.

Conservative justices, along with those representing the Republican-led Legislature, were critical of arguments to overturn the 2022 opinion. However, liberal justices appeared receptive to the belief that the original ruling was flawed. Election analysts say the outcome could have a significant impact on the 2024 presidential race, with Wisconsin again forecast as a battleground state.


get more stories like this via email

In Ohio, the debate over Issue One has stirred strong emotions among residents and community leaders.

For many, the proposal to establish a citizens' redistricting commission transcends politics. It represents a push for fair representation.

Marian Stewart, a retired pastor from Greene County, is a vocal supporter of the measure and frames the issue as a moral imperative.

"Rigging the maps is not fair; it's cheating," Stewart asserted. "Disenfranchising voters and limiting accountability does not value or respect all of our voices. It's just wrong. That's why I joined with faith leaders across Ohio in voting yes on Issue One."

Stewart's words echoed the concerns of many Ohioans who believe gerrymandered districts limit the political voice of everyday citizens. Proponents argued Issue One will ensure a fairer process by empowering a bipartisan citizens' commission to draw electoral maps.

Critics of the measure, including some conservative groups, countered it could introduce new forms of political bias into redistricting. The opposing group had the language of the ballot issue changed to include the word "gerrymander."

For advocates of Ohio's labor community, the proposal is about ensuring working people's interests are not drowned out by political manipulation.

Ted Linscott, president of the Southeast Ohio Central Labor Council, described how unfair districts can sideline Ohio's working-class voices.

"Working people need fair voting districts so their voices can be heard," Linscott contended. "Workers don't need extreme right or left. We need fairness."

The League of Women Voters of Ohio has been advocating for anti-gerrymandering reforms since 1981, underscoring the need for a responsive government.

Jen Miller, the group's executive director, views Issue One as an important step toward accountability, noting the first initiative had support from the Ohio Republican Party but was opposed by Democrats, who held power at the time.

"The first thing that mappers did was look at the addresses of their favorite candidates and incumbents and draw lines around them, rather than drawing districts that keep communities together and make sure that Ohioans have meaningful elections," Miller pointed out.

Ohio's Issue One has drawn support from a diverse coalition, including labor unions, faith leaders and civic organizations, all advocating for a more representative government. As voters head to the polls, they are faced with a question beyond party lines: Should Ohio's electoral districts be shaped by politicians or by the people they serve?

Uproar over racist jokes at a Madison Square Garden rally for former President Donald Trump has put a spotlight on the increasing influence of right-leaning comedians.

Nick Marx, associate professor of film and media studies at Colorado State University and author of the book, "That's Not Funny: How the Right Makes Comedy Work for Them," said comedy has become politically weaponized, especially over the past decade and money is the main driver of division and partisanship.

"It absolutely plays into the polarization of the United States on virtually every political issue," Marx contended. "They're trying to create different sets of 'in-groups' and 'out-groups' with their comedy."

In some ways, it is nothing new. Marx pointed out comedy has always created two groups, a laugh-er and a laugh-ee, the butt of the joke. He explained what has changed since the rise of Trump is conservative comics are no longer confined to niche right-wing comedy spaces, they are reaching more mainstream audiences through platforms like Netflix.

Long the bastion of liberal-leaning shows including Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show, comics lobbing political jabs from a right perspective are gaining ground through popular podcasts such as the Joe Rogan Experience. Marx warned while many guests may hold back because Rogan is on Spotify, the show can be a gateway to people who have some pretty nasty ideas about how the world works.

"These pathways exist, to the much more extreme and further right's trolling-type humor and avowedly racist and misogynist humor," Marx noted. "Comedy is very often a front door to those universes."

As the slur against Puerto Ricans at Madison Square Garden underscored, right-wing humor is also getting more extreme. Marx added because comedy is such a competitive field, many lean further to the right in order to get a social media boost, gain more listeners and advertising revenue.

"You have to stand out somehow," Marx acknowledged. "Comedians will joke about that which makes them money and gets them the next gig, the next booking, the next appearance on somebody's podcast."

This story is based on original reporting by Stacy Nick for The Audit.

A new report found Project 2025's policies would increase annual energy costs for Nevadans by more than $230 per household in 2030. The figure goes up to about $460 in 2035.

Caitlin Gatchalian a mother and renter, is scared by the prospect of higher energy prices and said while she is fortunate to have a good-paying job, she cannot afford to see her energy bills skyrocket even more.

"I have a daughter that I put into day care," Gatchalian explained. "That is competing with all the other bills that I have to pay for including utilities. Utility bills are high, and they keep getting higher. It is no longer really affordable to live anywhere."

Gatchalian stressed she is living paycheck to paycheck and fears the dream of owning a home could be only a dream. She encouraged voters to elect officials who will work to address their concerns and needs.

While clean energy advocates said Project 2025 would derail the nation's clean energy transition, conservatives argued the plan is about government accountability and taking power back from the political establishment.

Stephen Lassiter is with a solar-energy developer that operates in Las Vegas and said Nevadans are proud their state is leading in the number of folks employed by the solar industry.

"Obviously the federal policies that support solar-energy development have been a key backbone and driver to help Nevada achieve that milestone," Lassiter pointed out. "Taking away those policies would, potentially for that reason, hurt Nevada more than any other state."

Angelyn Tabalba, clean energy consultant for the Nevada Conservation League, contended with days before Election Day, the billions of dollars invested and the tens of thousands of jobs created by the clean energy transition will affect voters' attitudes and decisions. Tabalba noted the environmental policies enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure law just celebrated its two-year anniversary.

"All of this is a demonstration of what we can get started when we are given the resources to do that," Tabalba asserted. "There is a lot of excitement in Nevada and even in Republican districts where a ton of these jobs are living, folks are excited, they're taking these jobs and clearly excited about the clean energy economy."

Tabalba argued Project 2025 would also gut clean energy tax credits which she emphasized have already saved more than 40,000 Nevada families more than $150 million in new, cleaner technologies.