Wisconsin election officials say residents who trade contracts tied to an election may become ineligible to vote in that same contest. Kalshi accused the commission of voter suppression and warned courts could force a retraction of any such move.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin says election trades may disqualify voters from that same election.
- Intentionally voting while disqualified can constitute a Class I felony.
- Kalshi called the warning voter suppression and threatened legal action.
Kalshi calls warning ‘voter suppression’
The Wisconsin Elections Commission warned residents that buying election-related contracts on Kalshi or Polymarket could disqualify them from voting in the same election. The bipartisan commission issued the statewide notice Tuesday after unanimously approving a legal memorandum on prediction markets during its July 9 meeting.
“We want voters to understand that they cannot legally make a bet on an election and cast a ballot in that same election,” Administrator Meagan Wolfe said. She acknowledged that the commission cannot monitor who trades on prediction platforms, but said residents need to understand the possible consequences.
Wisconsin Statute 6.03(2) disqualifies a person from voting in any election in which they hold a direct or indirect interest in a wager depending on its result. A separate provision makes intentionally voting while unqualified a Class I felony. The restriction is election-specific and does not automatically remove a trader’s eligibility to vote in unrelated contests.
Instead of an automatic ballot rejection, an affected voter could instead face an administrative challenge to their qualifications. This would require election officials to determine whether the person held a prohibited financial interest. A successful challenge could prevent the ballot from being cast and lead to a district attorney referral.
Commission lawyers concluded that the statute’s broad reference to “any bet or wager” includes election contracts traded through modern prediction markets. They said someone who risks money and receives a payout if their forecast is correct could not truthfully deny having a financial wager on the result.
Kalshi disputed the commission’s interpretation. Benjamin Freeman, who heads the company’s elections division, wrote on X that the guidance was “blatantly unconstitutional and illegal” and that the commission was implying it would “literally disenfranchise voters who use Kalshi to trade elections.” He said Kalshi has hundreds of thousands of users in Wisconsin alone and called the statement “active voter suppression.”
Robert DeNault, Kalshi’s head of enforcement and legal counsel, also weighed in. “Election markets certified by the CFTC and available on federally regulated exchanges are legal. Wisconsin hasn’t challenged them,” he wrote, adding that the state should sue the CFTC rather than prosecute voters. He said the commission should retract the guidance “before courts are required to force them to do so.” A Polymarket spokesperson said the company would address the commission’s claims through the appropriate legal process.
Both companies maintain that their products are tradable financial contracts rather than gambling. That distinction sits at the center of Wisconsin’s separate legal fight with the industry, after the CFTC sued the state in April to stop it from enforcing gambling laws against federally regulated exchanges.
The voting dispute presents a different legal question, as Wisconsin is not directly ordering an exchange to remove election contracts – instead, it is applying state voter-qualification rules to people with a financial interest in an election. No court has yet determined whether federal commodities law or constitutional voting protections restrict that interpretation.
Commissioner Ann Jacobs first publicized the issue in March and said she was unaware of any Wisconsin ballot previously challenged over election wagering. She said a potential case would more likely begin with a trader publicly discussing a position than with officials systematically obtaining customer records.
Kalshi and Polymarket expand hundreds of midterm markets covering congressional, gubernatorial and primary races. Federal lawmakers have also sought restrictions on sports and election contracts, while reports of campaign staff trading around internal polling have intensified concerns about political-market integrity. Now, trading on a race could be used to challenge voters’ legal right to participate in its outcome.