Wisconsin election officials have issued a warning that voters who place bets on election outcomes may be disqualified from voting in the same contests. The notice follows a recent memorandum from the Wisconsin Elections Commission that interprets state law to prohibit anyone with a direct or indirect interest in an election wager from casting a ballot.
Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe explained that the guidance is based on Wisconsin Statute § 6.03(2), which bars individuals with a betting interest from voting, and Statute § 12.13(1)(a), which classifies knowingly voting while disqualified as a Class I felony. The commission emphasized that suspected violations could lead to challenges to voter eligibility and referrals to prosecutors.
The memorandum was adopted unanimously during the commission’s July 9 meeting, underscoring the potential legal consequences for voters who engage in prediction market trading tied to elections.
Kalshi, a federally regulated prediction market platform, quickly disputed the interpretation, arguing that its contracts are authorized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and that the commission’s warning infringes on constitutional rights.
General counsel Robert Denault stated that the commission’s threat to prosecute voters for legal trading activity is unconstitutional and that the state should challenge the regulation of the markets themselves rather than targeting individual voters.
Kalshi’s head of government relations, Benjamin Freeman, described the commission’s statement as “active voter suppression,” noting that the platform serves hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin users.
The dispute occurs amid broader regulatory scrutiny of prediction markets in the state. Earlier this year, an executive order prohibited government employees from using confidential information to profit from such markets, citing concerns about public trust.
Wisconsin has also filed lawsuits against Kalshi, Robinhood, Coinbase, and related companies, alleging that sports‑event contracts offered on these platforms constitute illegal sports betting under state law.
Despite the legal challenges, the elections commission maintains that voter qualification rules apply regardless of where or how an election wager is placed, and warns that violations could lead to loss of voting rights.
The conflict highlights the growing tension between state election regulations and the expanding use of prediction markets, with both sides preparing to defend their positions in court.
