Can anyone buy Wisconsin voter roll data? 14%

By Laura Schulte27% Milwaukee Journal Sentinel23%

8/7/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 13.5% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 272 faulty-reasoning hits from 275 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.9% and a BS Rank of 14% (26,393 of 30,540 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.40% of the article peer group.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce Fact Briefs  bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. 
Read our methodology to learn how we check claims. 
Wisconsin’s voter list from the state elections commission is available to the public  and to foreign countries  for a $12,500 fee. 
In a primetime speech on July 16, 2026, President Donald Trump said voter data had been  bought, stolen or hacked by China  in 18 states following the 2020 election. 
Wisconsin’s voter list is not known to have been hacked , and state election officials say election systems are secure . 
The voter list available from the Wisconsin Elections Commission includes names, addresses and whether a person voted in recent elections, but excludes other personal information such as date of birth, driver’s license number and Social Security number. 
State laws don’t apply limits to how that data can be used once it is purchased, according to Wisconsin Legislative Council guidance . 
Buyers can use it “to contact individuals for any purpose.” 
This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one . 
CNN: Trump’s speech claiming US election vulnerabilities, annotated 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump questioned election security. 
What to know about Wisconsin laws 
Wisconsin Legislative Council: Voter information as public record 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: In reversal, feds proclaim Russians did not seek to hack Wisconsin's election system 
Wisconsin Elections Commission: Contingency Planning and Election System Security 
Can anyone buy Wisconsin voter roll data? 
is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.6%Laura Schulte: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Confirmation Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Laura Schulte: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 13.5%Laura Schulte: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Laura Schulte: 10.9%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.6%Laura Schulte: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Laura Schulte: 6.0%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Negativity Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.3%Laura Schulte: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Recency Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 2.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 2.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.9%Laura Schulte: 2.0%Wisconsin Watch: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.6%Laura Schulte: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Burden of Proof7.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.3%Laura Schulte: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Anecdotal11.3%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Laura Schulte: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Laura Schulte: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 1.3%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Schulte: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Laura Schulte: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

275 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers45%attributed speech150writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words25% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%President Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.