Wisconsin says disenfranchising, prosecuting voters prevents corruption, in prediction market ban

More than 3,000 registered voters in Alaska whose citizenship is in doubt can still legally vote without documentation, just an oath. Twice as many avowed non-citizens are on New Jersey's voter rolls, with Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill and a software vendor trading blame.

Despite California's lax voting requirements and ample opportunity for fraud, proactively sending ballots to every registered voter and counting them if received within a week of the election, the Golden State rejected nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots in the June primary, a spike over recent years, possibly for postmarks after Election Day.

Washington state is worried about getting sued for its limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, now that the Supreme Court has struck down federal limits as a First Amendment violation.

Badger State bureaucrats are cheesed about a different menace to election integrity: guessing who will win.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission issued a blood-curdling threat to disqualify voters who make wagers on elections in prediction markets and refer them for prosecution, further milking its national profile after referring billionaire Elon Musk for prosecution for offering $1 million checks to voters in last year's state Supreme Court election.

Voters "cannot legally make a bet on an election and cast a ballot in that same election," even "indirectly," Administrator Meagan Wolfe said Tuesday. 

She cited two provisions of state law, disqualifying voters when they have "made or become interested" in a bet "depending upon the result of the election" and felonizing those who "intentionally vote in an election without being qualified to do so." 

The commission formalized the threat July 9 by voting to approve a same-day staff counsel memo on the "serious but not well-known concerns" presented by prediction markets, specifically naming Kalshi and Polymarket, which have "surged in popularity since the 2024 election."

While Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has already prohibited executive branch employees from "disclosing or using any nonpublic information" obtained through their public service to profit or avoid loss through prediction markets, or helping others do so, rank-and-file voters should be informed of their legal peril for election wagering in and of itself, the memo said.

The U.S. House Administration Committee also narrowly approved a bill last month to prohibit lawmakers, their spouses and families from political betting on "a specific government policy," government action or "political outcome," though HR 9367 hasn't moved since. Democrats voted against the bill, claiming it didn't go far enough.

Intimidating even 'a handful' of users 'could easily swing an election'

Kalshi and Polymarket lambasted the bureaucrats, and a libertarian think tank questioned the constitutionality of the first state law cited by Administrator Wolfe, which is older than the 14th Amendment and may be preempted by its equal protection clause.

The commission is flouting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's "established framework" for prediction markets, Polymarket spokesperson Connor Brandi wrote in an email. "We look forward to addressing these claims through the appropriate legal process," he said, but didn't answer whether Polymarket was planning federal litigation.

Kalshi is "distressed and appalled by" the commission's "incredibly dangerous" rhetoric against its "hundreds of thousands of users in Wisconsin," which is "dishonest" and constitutes "voter suppression," spokesperson Jack Such wrote in an email.

"If even a handful of our users in Wisconsin see this and get scared away from voting, that could easily swing an election," he said. The commission should backtrack "before a court forces them to," though Such clarified Kalshi was not preparing federal litigation "at this time."

"Wisconsin’s election-betting disqualification law functions as a complete and absolute bar to voting" for "a defined class of citizens who are otherwise qualified to vote," not just "regulating the manner of voting (such as voter ID laws)," the Competitive Enterprise Institute said in a legal analysis Thursday.

It asked users of "political prediction markets" who are affected by such "statutory or regulatory threats to your right to vote" to solicit free legal help from the institute.

The commission didn't answer queries to explain the constitutionality of its threats or the underlying 1849 law in light of the 14th Amendment. It got sued by voters Friday for another decision at its July 9 meeting: guidance prohibiting voters from voiding a returned absentee ballot and casting a new one, regardless of timing or candidate dropouts.

Leveling the playing field with 'financial elites'

Wisconsin has already gone after Kalshi, Polymarket and other prediction markets directly, alleging they operate illegal commercial gambling. Attorney General Josh Kaul may have undercut the commission's hand-wringing about Kalshi's election influence, however, by alleging 90% of its revenue comes from sports contracts.

Kalshi separately sued Illinois last month for a different slight: subjecting it to a complicated progressive taxing scheme, allegedly usurping the CFTC's jurisdiction. State Sen. Michael Hastings, who offered similar legislation, also emphasized sports betting dominates prediction markets.

Receiving its CFTC license in 2020, Kalshi recently earned goodwill with the feds by proactively detecting former Congressman George Santos's alleged insider trading, freezing his account and referring the matter to CFTC and the Justice Department, which is reportedly investigating Santos. Panama-based Polymarket only got approved in 2025.

Four months before the commission formally warned Wisconsin voters they could face prosecution for election wagering on prediction markets, then-Chair Ann Jacobs unilaterally warned voters their "ballot can be challenged & thrown out" for betting on state elections. She didn't mention prosecution.

"No, the state is not going out and issuing search warrants to betting platforms to cross reference against voters," Jacobs told WPR, suggesting a more likely scenario for enforcement: bragging about betting online and getting reported to authorities.

She portrayed it as an anti-corruption measure when the commission approved the memo this month. People should vote "based upon who they believe is the best person for the job, not to line their pocketbooks," no different than banning "bribes," Jacobs said.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute portrayed prediction markets as leveling the playing field between "financial elites" and "ordinary Americans," giving the latter the same ability to "hedge political and economic risks."

While it agrees that prediction markets are analogous to "futures and options traded on commodities markets" and not proper "bets," CEI said the bigger problem for threats like Wisconsin's is 60 years of SCOTUS precedent on suffrage requirements.

Wealth is "not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process" and such a "capricious or irrelevant factor" in voting qualifications violates the equal protection clause, the high court said in a 1966 decision striking down Virginia's poll tax. Six years later, it struck down "durational residency requirements" for voting in Tennessee.

While the commission can argue that "having a financial stake in an election" threatens election integrity, "Wisconsin already has a law that criminalizes election wagering under its gambling statutes" and hasn't offered evidence of "election bettors actually engaging in corrupt conduct," making its arguments against electoral wagering "speculative at best."