Utah school board member who questioned a student’s gender censured by lawmakers

The Utah Legislature voted Thursday to censure a conservative member of the state Board of Education whose social media post questioning the gender of a high school basketball player triggered threats against the girl and led state officials to call for the board member's resignation.

Lawmakers passed a resolution condemning the actions of Natalie Cline a day after the Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously to strip Cline of her committee assignments and nearly all administrative responsibilities. The board will no longer allow Cline to attend meetings or place items on the agenda, and her colleagues have asked her to resign by Feb. 19.

The legislative reprimand, which now heads to the governor's desk, carries no real punishment but is a formal way for lawmakers to express their disapproval. The measure received unanimous support in the Senate after passing the House with only two votes against, one from a Democrat and the other from a Republican.

GOP SENATE HOPEFUL KEPT TIES TO GEORGE SOROS-BACKED GROUP WHERE HUNTER BIDEN SERVED ON BOARD

Both the Legislature and Board of Education have left it up to Cline whether to resign or remain in her role with limited authority. She is up for reelection in November. Democrats had urged the Republican legislative leaders to punish Cline more harshly, either by impeaching her or by allowing the board to impeach her — a power it does not currently have.

Cline, who had previously come under investigation for inflammatory comments about LGBTQ+ students, singled out the Salt Lake City athlete in a Facebook post that falsely insinuated the girl was transgender. After she learned that the girl was not trans, Cline apologized for provoking a firestorm of vulgar comments.

House Speaker Mike Schultz, a Hooper Republican, said ahead of the vote that members of his chamber were "scattered" on whether to impeach Cline or allow voters to decide her future in the fall.

"If this body moves ahead with impeachment, this blows up like a mushroom cloud on the national stage," Schultz said. "The hate that you’re seeing directed toward that family right now then becomes national. That’s a hard decision to make."

House Minority Leader Angela Romero said she was frustrated that Republican leaders cut off debate before she could propose an amendment that would instead initiate impeachment proceedings. She and her fellow Democrats nonetheless overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution to censure Cline.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox told reporters Thursday that he supports the board's forceful censure and thinks it effectively has the same impact as impeachment. He had urged the board to take action against Cline, saying she "embarrassed the state."

Even when she apologized, Cline defended her initial suspicions, saying that a national push to normalize transgender identities makes it "normal to pause and wonder if people are what they say they are."

Cox pushed back Thursday against criticisms from LGBTQ+ rights advocates who argue he and Republican lawmakers enabled Cline's behavior by passing a transgender bathroom ban that they say gives people license to question someone's gender.

"Even if this young person was transgender, it would still have been inappropriate," Cox said. "That is not who we are or what we should be doing."

In a Facebook post Wednesday, Cline argued the board was taking away her right to represent her constituents without due process. She wrote that she did not have enough time to read all the materials and create a response before Wednesday’s meeting.

The board determined that Cline violated policies requiring members to respect student privacy and to uphold state educator standards, which include not participating in sexual or emotional harassment of students and treating students with dignity and respect.

The board's resolution said Cline allowed negative comments about the girl to remain on her social media page while comments in support of the student were deleted, which together "appeared to constitute cyberbullying as defined" in Utah law.

In a letter published Thursday in The Salt Lake Tribune, the girl’s parents, Al and Rachel van der Beek, also urged Cline to resign and called for her impeachment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Ms. Cline did the very thing we teach our children not to do — she blasted social media without fact checking, which ultimately led to a barrage of hateful and despicable comments that were directed at our daughter that lasted for more than 16 hours," the letter said. "It was one of the most painful things we’ve had to endure."

Texas lawmaker calls for AG Ken Paxton impeachment inquiry to be reopened

A Texas state senator wants to reopen the impeachment case against state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

State Sen. Drew Springer, a Republican from Muenster, urged his colleagues in the Texas Senate to take a second look at impeachment charges against Paxton after the attorney general said he would not contest allegations in a whistleblower lawsuit. 

"He cannot admit guilt while claiming innocence," Springer wrote on X. "I urge the Lt. Gov & my Senate colleagues to consider reopening Paxton's impeachment. Paxton has not only admitted to violating the articles of impeachment, but he is exposing Texas taxpayers to a settlement of WELL OVER $3.3M. Texans deserve the truth!"

Paxton was acquitted in September of all impeachment articles filed against him for corruption and unfitness for office. He had faced accusations that he misused his political power to help real estate developer Nate Paul — allegations that stemmed from a lawsuit filed by four former employees who reported him to the FBI. 

TEXAS AG PAXTON ACQUITTED ON ALL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES: ‘THE TRUTH PREVAILED’

The whistleblowers — Blake Brickman, Ryan Vassar, Mark Penley and David Maxwell — claimed that they were unjustly terminated for reporting Paxton. 

Springer voted for Paxton's acquittal on 16 impeachment charges at trial in September. However, he now says that "recent developments have made me question whether AG Paxton and his legal team misled the Senate." 

TRUMP WEIGHS IN ON TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, ARGUES ‘ESTABLISHMENT RINOS’ WANT TO ‘UNDO’ ELECTION

What happened? Last week, the Office of the Attorney General said in a court filing it could "obtain a verdict in this case in its favor," but instead moved to settle the lawsuit to "stop the self-aggrandizing political weaponization of our State’s courts by rogue employees who have what seems to be a monomaniacal goal to undermine the will of the voters," FOX 7 Austin reported.

"Doing so precludes further unwarranted expense to the people of the State of Texas as well as the disruption to the State’s principal law enforcement arm — the time and personnel of which are more appropriately dedicated to the business of the State of Texas and not the personal, political agenda of four rogue, former employees," the filing states.

EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR DETAILS SURFACE IN HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON

In the filing, Paxton stated, "OAG hereby elects not to contest any issue of fact in this case, as to the claim or damages." 

Springer argues this amounts to an admission of guilt that should be reviewed by the legislature.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"While AG Paxton claims this decision is not an admission of guilt, the fact of the matter is it is an admission of guilt. He can't accept the whistleblower's claims against him while touting that he's innocent against those very claims," Springer said. 

The Office of the Attorney General did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

New Mexico state Republicans file impeachment articles against Dem governor over gun control

Two Republican state lawmakers in New Mexico filed a resolution Wednesday to impeach Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, accusing her of breaking her oath to the U.S. Constitution over her use of emergency public health orders to restrict the right to carry firearms in some public places.

Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block claim that with the restriction, Lujan Grisham infringed upon the rights of New Mexicans.

"The rights of New Mexicans are not up for debate, and no matter how hard Lujan Grisham tries to violate the Constitution, she will never succeed," Lord said in a statement. "I stood firm against her tyranny when she tried to use a Covid health order to take our guns, and I will continue to stand firm against her continued attempts to destroy our Republic."

Lujan Grisham, a second-term Democrat, invoked the emergency orders last year in response to a spate of gun violence, including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium. The orders restrict firearms in places like parks and playgrounds in the greater Albuquerque area.

NRA PREPARES FOR BATTLES AGAISNT BLUE STATE GOVERNOR ‘TORCHING THE CONSTITUTION’ WITH GUN CONTROL

Block accused the governor of "violating the Constitution to make a political statement," noting that Lujan Grisham said she expected legal challenges from the outset.

In the federal court system, a judge has allowed enforcement of the gun provision to continue while legal challenges run their course.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE STATE SPEECH DISRUPTED BY PROTESTERS

In response to the impeachment articles, Lujan Grisham spokesperson Maddy Hayden said in an email to The Associated Press that the two lawmakers are more interested in political stunts than crafting meaningful legislation, citing their bills to criminalize necrophilia and offer sex offenders an early release from prison if they agree to chemical castration procedures.

"There's not much to say in direct response to this inane effort," Hayden said, referring to the impeachment resolution.

Democrats outnumber Republicans in both chambers of the state legislature. Both the House, with a simple majority vote, and Senate, with a two-thirds vote, would have to vote to impeach the governor.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Texas AG Ken Paxton, wife targeted by home ‘swatting’ on New Year’s Day

FIRST ON FOX: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife are the latest elected Republicans to fall victim to "swatting" after a false report using their home's address was made to authorities.

Addressing the swatting incident in a statement to Fox News Digital, Paxton and his wife, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, said they were not at their McKinney home on New Year's Day when first responders arrived on the scene. The couple described the false report to police as being a "life-threatening" situation.

"On New Year’s Day, a currently unidentified caller made a false report to 911 describing a life-threatening situation at our home in McKinney," the couple said. "As a result, the City of McKinney Police and Fire Departments quickly and bravely responded to what they believed could be a dangerous environment. We were not home at the time and were made aware of the false report when a state trooper, who was contacted by McKinney police, informed us of the incident."

"Making false reports to 911 is a crime which should be vigorously prosecuted when this criminal is identified. These fake calls divert resources from actual emergencies and crimes and could endanger our first responders," the couple continued. "We are grateful for the bravery and professionalism of the men and women serving in the McKinney police and fire departments."

WHAT IS 'SWATTING,' THE 'CRIMINAL HARASSMENT' HOAX THAT'S HIT 3 GOP LAWMAKERS SINCE CHRISTMAS?

"It is also important to acknowledge that this 'swatting' incident happened weeks after the disgraced Speaker of the House Dade Phelan, his lieutenants, and the Dallas Morning News doxed our family by publicly posting our address," they added. "We understand some people may not agree with our strong conservative efforts to secure the border, prevent election fraud, and protect our constitutional liberties, but compromising the effectiveness and safety of law enforcement is completely unacceptable."

The McKinney Police Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the matter.

"Swatting" is a crime that has become prominent in recent years, gaining more steam in the social media age when people's addresses are easily accessible.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital recently that swatting is a crime that could be "charged as a form of criminal threats."

"Swatting constitutes a false police report that can be criminally charged," Turley said. "Virginia recently passed a new law making swatting specifically a criminal misdemeanor. It can also be charged as a form of criminal threats."

The incident involving Paxton comes after three Republican lawmakers – Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene of Georgia, and Rep. Brandon Williams of New York – reported "swatting" incidents at their homes after the Christmas holiday.

"This is a crime that flourishes because there is insufficient deterrent," Turley added. "The anonymity and rare prosecutions combine to fuel this form of criminal harassment. … There is no mystery to how to address these crimes. There must be greater detection and penalties to achieve deterrence."

The crime targets an individual by calling in a false police report for a violent crime — such as a murder, a hostage situation or other crimes that would require a greater law enforcement response — to the home of the target.

The goal of the false police report is to elicit a SWAT team response by the police to the target's home. Consequently, swatting draws police resources away from real crimes while the state becomes the unwitting arm to terrorize a person at their own home.

MTG TO INTRODUCE BILL AIMED AT 'SWATTERS' AS RICK SCOTT BECOMES LATEST TARGET

Greene, who has been a victim of the move multiple times herself, announced last week on X that she would be "introducing legislation to make it much easier for law enforcement to arrest and prosecutors to prosecute these criminals" who engage in the false reports.

Over the course of the last year, Paxton has faced an onslaught of accusations from officials in the state, primarily Texas Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of being unfit for office.

Last May, the Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Paxton over charges of bribery, disregard of official duties and abuse of public trust after hours of debate in an afternoon session – sending the case to the state Senate. The Texas Senate, however, acquitted Paxton of all impeachment articles filed against him for corruption and unfitness for office in September 2023.

Though there was support for impeachment on both sides of the aisle, votes to convict on each charge did not clear the required 21-vote threshold in the Senate. Republican Sens. Robert Nichols and Kelly Hancock joined all 12 Democrats to vote in favor of conviction on several charges.

"Today, the truth prevailed. The truth could not be buried by mudslinging politicians or their powerful benefactors," Paxton said in a statement at the time, thanking his supporters after the verdict was delivered. "The sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his kangaroo court has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, disrupted the work of the Office of Attorney General and left a dark and permanent stain on the Texas House."

"Now that this shameful process is over, my work to defend our constitutional rights will resume. Thank you to everyone who has stood with us during this time," he added.

Prior to his acquittal, Paxton faced accusations that he misused his political power to help real estate developer Nate Paul. Paxton's opponents have argued that the attorney general accepted a bribe by hiring Paul.

Paxton was also previously indicted in June for allegedly making false statements to banks.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Paxton, who was suspended from office pending the trial's outcome, was not required to attend the proceedings. Paxton's wife, who has represented the state's eight district in the Senate since 2019, was required to be present for the whole trial but was prohibited from participating in debate or voting on the outcome of her husband's trial.

Paxton, who previously served as a member of both the Texas House and Senate, was first elected to serve as the Lone Star State's attorney general in 2014. He was re-elected to the position in 2018 and 2022.

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo, Houston Keene, and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Vermont sheriff accused of kicking shackled suspect loses certification

A Vermont sheriff charged with assault for kicking a shackled prisoner is losing his law enforcement certification.

After hearing two days of testimony, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council on Wednesday found that Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore violated the state’s use of force policy and voted 15-1 that he permanently lose his ability to enforce the law in Vermont.

VERMONT LEGISLATURE FORMS IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY OFFICIALS

"Hopefully, law enforcement officers who might think of engaging in this kind of conduct will think not just twice, but many more times before engaging in this way," said Bill Sorrell, the chair of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, WCAX-TV reported.

Grismore will not lose his job as sheriff but he will no longer be able to issue tickets, make arrests, and investigate crimes. He said he plans to appeal.

"Demonstrating to law enforcement officers that they will lose their career by going out of their way to try to assist and intervene with unruly and dangerous individuals is going to have an extreme chilling effect," his attorney, Robert Kaplan, said, according to mynbc5.

Grismore was elected sheriff in November of last year even though he was fired from a job as a captain in the Franklin County sheriff’s department that August after video surfaced of him kicking a shackled prisoner. He pleaded not guilty to a simple assault charge.

Just before he took office in February, state police said they were investigating the finances of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department and Grismore. He is also facing the results of an investigation by a special committee of the Vermont Legislature formed to investigate his possible impeachment. The committee is scheduled to meet on Monday.

Tennessee Supreme Court justice announces retirement

Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Roger Page announced on Monday that he plans to retire in August 2024.

In a statement from Tennessee's court system, the 68-year-old said his time as a judge has been humbling, inspiring and the honor of a lifetime. He was first appointed to the high court by former Republican Gov. Bill Haslam in 2016. His last day will be Aug. 31.

"The Tennessee judiciary is truly a family, and I have been fortunate to walk this path with my great friends in the judiciary," Page said in a statement. "I will miss all of them and treasure their friendship."

FORMER WISCONSIN CHIEF JUSTICE ORDERED TO TURN OVER RECORDS RELATED TO PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVISEMENT

The decision will give Republican Gov. Bill Lee a chance to appoint his third justice on the five-member court. The five current justices were all appointed by Republican governors.

Page has spent more than 25 years as a judge at the trial court, intermediate appellate and Tennessee Supreme Court levels. Haslam appointed him to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in 2011 before picking Page for the state Supreme Court about five years later. Page served as the chief justice from 2021 to 2023.

During his tenure, Page helped secure funding for electronic filing for the court system, advocated for access to pro bono services and promoted livestreaming of appellate arguments, according to the statement.

SANDERS TAPS ARKANSAS GOP CHAIRMAN, EX-FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FOR STATE SUPREME COURT SEAT

Page grew up on a farm in the Mifflin area of West Tennessee. Before his legal career, he worked as a chief pharmacist and assistant store manager for Walgreens.

"If I hurry, I might have time for one more career," Page said.

He praised the work done by Tennessee's judiciary system during the pandemic, including advances in technology.

"It has been incredibly gratifying to watch the start of an evolution across the judiciary," Page said. "I look forward to following those changes and to catching up with my judicial family in between trips I have been planning for years, watching my grandkids play sports, and spending time with my wonderful wife."

In Tennessee, the governor's picks for Supreme Court must also be confirmed by state lawmakers. Republicans have supermajority control in both legislative chambers. Additionally, Supreme Court justices face "yes-no" retention elections every eight years. Voters retained Page and the other four justices at the time during the 2022 election.

Wisconsin Supreme Court weighs challenge to constitutionality of state-funded school choice programs

Supporters of Wisconsin's taxpayer-funded school choice and independent charter school programs urged the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to reject a lawsuit seeking to declare the programs unconstitutional, saying such a move would create chaos for tens of thousands of families with students currently enrolled.

Private schools, parents with students who attend them, advocacy groups and the state chamber of commerce argue in court filings that the 32-year-old program has benefitted families for a generation and the effort to undo it is politically motivated, after the Supreme Court's majority shifted to liberal control earlier this year.

"A mere change in membership should not create an opportunity to challenge precedent," supporters of school choice programs, being represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, contend. "A single election is not a mandate to radically change the law."

FORMER WISCONSIN CHIEF JUSTICE ORDERED TO TURN OVER RECORDS RELATED TO PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVISEMENT

The lawsuit was filed two months after the state Supreme Court flipped to 4-3 liberal controlled. With that change, Democrats hope the court will rule in their favor in pending cases seeking to overturn Republican-drawn legislative electoral maps and undo the state’s ban on abortion.

The school choice lawsuit comes after decades of complaints from Democrats who have argued that the program is a drain on resources that would otherwise go to public schools.

The nation's first school choice program began in Milwaukee in 1990. Then seen as an experiment to help low-income students in the state's largest city, the program has expanded statewide and its income restrictions have been loosened, and it served more than 52,000 students at a cost of $444 million in the last school year.

Democrats including Gov. Tony Evers, who previously served as state superintendent of education, have been longtime critics of the program. But Evers this summer agreed to increase spending on the programs as part of a larger education funding package that was also tied to a deal sending more money to Milwaukee and local governments.

The first question for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide is whether to take the case directly or first have it work its way through lower courts. The plaintiffs want the high court to take it directly, which would mean a ruling could come in months rather than perhaps years if it had to go through the lower courts.

The lawsuit was brought by several Wisconsin residents and is being funded by the liberal Minocqua Brewing Super PAC. Kirk Bangstad, who owns the Minocqua Brewing Co., is a former Democratic candidate for U.S. House and state Assembly. His brewery produces beer with politically themed names that tout Democrats, such as "Evers Ale," a nod to the governor.

Bangstad's super PAC has funded previous lawsuits targeting Republicans.

The lawsuit asks the court to stop three state officials from continuing the choice programs: Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly and Secretary of the Department of Administration Kathy Blumenfeld.

All three of them faced a Tuesday deadline to file arguments.

The lawsuit argues that the state’s revenue limit and funding mechanism for voucher school programs and charter schools violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s declaration that public funds be spent for public purposes.

It also contends that vouchers defund public schools, do not allow for adequate public oversight and do not hold private schools to the same standards as public schools.

WISCONSIN SENATE APPROVES 3 NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN ELECTION SECURITY PUSH

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that Milwaukee’s voucher program was legal. But the current lawsuit alleges that as the program has expanded, the situation has dramatically changed.

At the start of last school year, enrollment in choice programs was more than 29,000 in Milwaukee, 3,900 in Racine and 17,000 elsewhere in the state, according to the state Department of Public Instruction. Another 2,200 disabled students received vouchers under a special needs scholarship program.

Ending the programs now would cause "chaos," for tens of thousands of families, argued 22 parents of voucher-enrolled students, private schools and choice advocacy groups.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative activist law firm, on Tuesday released a report claiming that if the school choice program ended, the Milwaukee school district would have to open about 17 additional buildings to accommodate the influx of students. Statewide, more than 3,700 teachers would have to be hired in public schools, the report said.

Former Wisconsin Chief Justice ordered to turn over records related to Protasiewicz impeachment advisement

A Wisconsin judge on Friday ordered the former chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to produce records related to her work advising the Republican Assembly speaker on whether to impeach a current justice.

Former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack was one of three former Supreme Court justices asked by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to give him advice on pursuing impeachment. Vos has floated impeachment against liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz based on how she rules on a pending redistricting lawsuit Democrats hope will result in new legislative electoral maps.

The liberal watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit seeking records from Vos and the three former justices. Vos and two of the former justices, David Prosser and Jon Wilcox, turned over records. That included an email from Prosser to Vos advising against impeachment. Vos turned over more than 21,000 pages of documents last week, American Oversight attorney Ben Sparks said at a Friday hearing.

WISCONSIN ASSEMBLY DELAYS VOTE ON LIKELY VETO-BOUND $2B INCOME TAX CUT

Wilcox told The Associated Press he did not produce a report, but verbally told Vos impeachment was not warranted.

The only former justice who did not produce any records was Roggensack. She has not said what her advice was to Vos and he has refused to say what it was.

When American Oversight attempted to serve Roggensack with a subpoena at her home, an elderly man who answered the door said he did not know anyone by that name and closed the door, Sparks said in court while quoting a statement from the process server.

On Friday, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington issued an order giving Roggensack 30 days to produce any records she has.

"Wisconsin has had and continues to have a long and storied tradition on the responsibility of open government," Remington said.

All of the former justices have a responsibility to produce records they maintain related to their work "whether they understood it or not in accepting the invitation to opine on the question presented," he said.

Roggensack's attorney, Robert Shumaker, did not return a phone message or email seeking comment.

Vos originally said he was considering impeachment if Protasiewicz did not recuse herself from the redistricting case. She did not recuse. Vos did not move to impeach her, following the advice against impeachment from the former justices. But now he’s suggesting he may attempt to impeach her if she does not rule in favor of upholding the current Republican-drawn maps.

The Wisconsin Constitution reserves impeachment for "corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors."

EX-WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FIGHTS SUBPOENA OVER PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVICE

Republicans have argued Protasiewicz has pre-judged the case based on comments she made during the campaign calling the current maps "unfair" and "rigged."

Protasiewicz, in her decision not to recuse from the case, said that while stating her opinion about the maps, she never made a promise or pledge about how she would rule on the case.

The redistricting lawsuit, filed the day after Protasiewicz joined the court in August and flipped majority control to 4-3 for liberals, asks that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election next year in newly drawn districts.

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Republicans adopted maps last year that were similar to the existing ones.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an AP analysis.

Wisconsin GOP leader downplays pressure to impeach nonpartisan elections czar

Wisconsin's Republican Assembly leader on Tuesday downplayed pressure he's receiving from former President Donald Trump and fellow GOP lawmakers to impeach the state's nonpartisan elections administrator, saying such a vote is "unlikely" to happen.

Some Republicans have been trying to oust state elections administrator Meagan Wolfe, who was in her position during the 2020 election narrowly lost by Trump in Wisconsin. The Senate voted last month to fire Wolfe but later admitted the vote was symbolic and had no legal effect.

Five Assembly Republicans in September introduced 15 articles of impeachment targeting Wolfe, a move that could result in her removal from office if the Assembly passed it and the Senate voted to convict. The Republican president of the Senate has also called on Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to proceed with impeachment.

WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS MOVE TO IMPEACH STATE ELECTIONS CZAR

A group led by election conspiracy theorists launched a six-figure television advertising campaign last month threatening to unseat Vos if he did not proceed with impeachment. On Monday night, Trump posted a news release on his social media platform Truth Social from one of GOP lawmaker's who sponsored the impeachment. The release from state Rep. Janel Brandtjen criticized Vos for not doing more to remove Wolfe.

Vos on Tuesday said Republicans were "nowhere near a consensus" and no vote on impeachment was imminent.

"I can’t predict what’s going to happen in the future, but I think it is unlikely that it’s going to come up any time soon," Vos said.

Vos has previously said he supports removing Wolfe, but he wanted to first see how a lawsuit filed on her behalf to keep her in the job plays out.

The Assembly can only vote to impeach state officials for corrupt conduct in office or for committing a crime or misdemeanor. If a majority of the Assembly were to vote to impeach, the case would move to a Senate trial in which a two-thirds vote would be required for conviction. Republicans won a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate in April.

WISCONSIN SENATE APPROVES 3 NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN ELECTION SECURITY PUSH

Wolfe did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Wolfe accused Republican lawmakers who introduced the impeachment resolution of trying to "willfully distort the truth."

Vos called for moving on from the 2020 election.

"We need to move forward and talk about the issues that matter to most Wisconsinites and that is not, for most Wisconsinites, obsessing about Meagan Wolfe," Vos said.

The fight over who will oversee elections in the presidential battleground state has caused instability ahead of the 2024 presidential race for Wisconsin’s more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections. The issues Republicans have taken with Wolfe are centered around how she administered the 2020 presidential election and many are based in lies spread by Trump and his supporters.

President Joe Biden defeated Trump in 2020 by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review and multiple state and federal lawsuits.

Wisconsin Republicans advance election reform-centric constitutional amendments

Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature have advanced a series of constitutional amendments that would outlaw private funding for elections ahead of the 2024 presidential contest, bar municipalities from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections and enshrine existing voter photo ID requirements in the state constitution.

The proposals debated Tuesday at a joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly elections committees stem from false claims made by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that widespread voter fraud tipped the 2020 presidential election in favor of President Joe Biden.

Constitutional amendments must be passed in two consecutive sessions of the state Legislature before being ratified by voters in a statewide election. The governor cannot veto a constitutional amendment.

EX-WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FIGHTS SUBPOENA OVER PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVICE

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has previously vetoed more than a dozen Republican-backed elections proposals, including a 2021 bill to outlaw private elections grants.

The Legislature approved the amendments requiring voters to be U.S. citizens and outlawing private elections grants in its last session. The voter ID amendment is a new proposal this year, which means the soonest it could be put on the ballot for voter approval is 2025.

Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August said Tuesday that he hopes to put the amendment outlawing election grants before voters in the statewide April 2024 election and put the citizenship requirements on the November 2024 ballot.

Conservatives were outraged in 2020 by a nonprofit that distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, mostly funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, to local election offices. Opponents termed the money "Zuckerbucks" and claimed it was an attempt by the billionaire to tip the vote in favor of Democrats, although there was no evidence to support that. Since 2020, GOP lawmakers in at least 20 states have outlawed private elections grants.

There has also been a recent push for states to specifically make clear that only U.S. citizens can vote in state and local elections. Some cities and towns across the country have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. Federal law already requires U.S. citizenship to vote in national elections and no state constitutions explicitly allow noncitizens to vote in state or local elections.

The Wisconsin Constitution guarantees that every U.S. citizen age 18 and over is a qualified elector. But it does not specifically say that only U.S. citizens are qualified to vote in state or local elections.

"I don't think anyone in this room believes noncitizens are going to gain the right to vote in the state of Wisconsin anytime soon," said Jamie Lynn Crofts, policy director for Wisconsin Voices. "It should be up to people at the local level to decide if noncitizens should be able to vote in their local elections."

The photo ID amendment would enshrine the state's current photo ID law, enacted in 2011, in the state constitution. The Legislature could still pass exceptions to the requirement.

WISCONSIN ALLOCATES $402M TO COMBAT PFAS, OTHER WATER POLLUTANTS

The move to make photo ID a constitutional requirement comes after the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to liberal control. There is no current legal challenge to the state's voter ID requirement, which is one of the strictest in the country. But other election-related lawsuits challenging restrictions on absentee voting and ballot drop boxes could be taken up by the state Supreme Court.

Republican supporters at Tuesday's hearing said the voter ID law is designed to ensure that only qualified voters cast ballots. But opponents say voter ID requirements make it more difficult for people to vote, particularly those with disabilities, the elderly and people who don't have driver's licenses.

Under current law, and the proposed amendment, voters must provide one of a list of approved photo IDs in order to cast their ballot. Acceptable IDs include a Wisconsin driver’s license, U.S. passport, tribal ID, U.S. military ID or student ID. Absentee voters must provide a photocopy of their ID when requesting a ballot.

Voters who do not have one of the required photo IDs can vote a provisional ballot and then return by the deadline with the identification to have the ballot counted. The ability to cast a provisional ballot does not change under the proposed amendment.