Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: New Election Probe Launched in WI as Sheriff Reveals AG Ignored Them
Executive Summary
The central claim — that a new election probe was launched in Wisconsin and that a sheriff revealed the Attorney General ignored them — is partially supported by reporting of multiple county-level investigations and public calls for state action, but there is no single, statewide “new election probe” clearly established in the materials provided. Reporting shows individual sheriffs (notably Racine and Portage/Marathon-area offices) initiated or announced inquiries and publicly urged the Wisconsin Attorney General or Department of Justice to act, while state bodies like the Wisconsin Elections Commission pushed back and legal appeals on election rules continued [1] [2] [3].
1. Sheriff-Led Inquiries Have Proliferated — But Not One Unified State Probe
Several sheriff’s offices in Wisconsin have initiated local inquiries into election-related matters, with Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling publicly claiming election law violations at nursing homes and asking the Attorney General to open a broader investigation, and Portage/Marathon-area authorities examining a removed absentee ballot drop box [1] [4] [2]. Those actions amount to a patchwork of local probes rather than a single statewide investigation led by the Wisconsin DOJ. The available accounts document sheriff statements and referrals to the Attorney General but do not show that the state Attorney General launched a consolidated, new election probe in response to a sheriff’s request.
2. Sheriff Says AG Ignored Requests — Evidence Is Mixed and Context Matters
Racine Sheriff Schmaling publicly called for state action, asserting that the Wisconsin Elections Commission broke state law and urging the Attorney General to investigate; some reporting frames this as the AG being asked to act and not having done so in the sheriff’s view [1] [4]. The materials do not contain a definitive statement from the Attorney General acknowledging an explicit refusal to investigate; rather, they show a sheriff asking for a statewide probe and state institutions responding or litigating on related issues. That leaves open whether the AG “ignored” the sheriff or considered the complaint and chose another course; public disagreement and legal contestation appear to be the more documented reality.
3. Wisconsin Elections Commission Pushback Changes the Narrative
In direct response to local allegations, the Wisconsin Elections Commission has publicly rejected claims of wrongdoing, defending its nursing-home voting measures as necessary and lawful during the pandemic, and noting audits that found no widespread fraud sufficient to alter election outcomes [3]. This official rebuttal undermines the assertion that the sheriff’s claims automatically translate into provable statewide misconduct. The dispute therefore looks like a contested public-policy and legal disagreement: sheriffs alleging violations and requesting state-level action, while the elections regulator and neutral audits dispute those allegations and point to protective measures for vulnerable voters.
4. Legal and Administrative Follow‑Up Is Active and Evolving
Separate but related developments show the Department of Justice pursuing legal work around election administration, such as appealing court rulings on voter citizenship verification, signaling ongoing high-stakes litigation and administrative challenges in Wisconsin elections [5] [6]. The litigation track demonstrates the state-level mechanisms at work rather than a single investigatory sweep initiated in response to a sheriff’s complaint. The existence of appeals and regulatory complaints against actors involved in prior probes (including a complaint against a former justice who led a 2020 review) indicates layered, institution-driven processes rather than a straightforward new probe launched solely because a sheriff said so [7] [6].
5. Local Political Context and 'Constitutional Sheriff' Dynamics Shape Reactions
Reporting on county sheriffs who view themselves as having broad authority in election matters — including the “constitutional sheriff” rhetoric and attempts to seize voting equipment in other jurisdictions — provides crucial context for understanding why sheriff statements can escalate into broader claims and national attention [8]. Those political and ideological dynamics help explain why sheriff-initiated probes draw sharp partisan reactions and why state agencies push back vigorously. The clash is thus not only legal but also political, with different actors invoking different mandates and public safety roles to justify investigation or inaction.
6. How to Read ‘New Probe’ Claims: Accurate Framing Matters
The factual record in these sources supports saying that several local law-enforcement offices launched election-related inquiries and publicly urged state action; it does not consistently support a claim that a single new statewide election probe was launched by the Wisconsin DOJ after a sheriff revealed the AG ignored them [1] [2] [3]. A precise formulation is: multiple local investigations and formal requests to the Attorney General exist, some sheriffs publicly say they were ignored, state election officials dispute alleged violations, and state-level litigation continues — but there is no uncontested, singular “new election probe” confirmed across these documents.