It’s easy to worry about it, when the change wasn’t even necessary and has no effect if we’re to believe it was written in good faith.

Case in point, this amendment pretended to close a loophole which didn’t even exist. Wisconsin law already prohibited non citizens from voting. It does not pass the smell test, being as haphazardly written as it is now.

https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/elections/chapter-6-the-electors/subchapter-iv-voting-absentee/section-685-absent-elector-definition

In the context of these definitions, I think “qualified elector” just means a voter.

Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.

To be clear, I know what we’re told the amendment is meant to do. I’m concerned about an unwanted gap in the choice of language it created.

If the new wording was appended to the statement instead of replacing it, I would agree with you.

But the word “every” is a guaranteed inclusion (while not explicitly excluding anyone), while “only” is a guaranteed exclusion (while not explicitly including anyone).

For a dumb example, my chili recipe says “every type of bean may be used”, I can put black beans and pinto beans in it, and no one can tell me otherwise. But if I change it to “only beans may be used”, that is more open to further restrictions by later stipulations.

“Do not use pinto beans” is in direct contradiction with “every type of bean may be used”.

“Do not use pinto beans” is actually not a contradiction with “only beans may be used”.

What I’m seeing with the new language is that a new law saying something like “Students who continue to live with their parents are not permitted to participate in elections” is actually permissible and not in contradiction with the statement "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”

At least according to the constitution. Prior to Nov 5, it would be unconstitutional in WI to pass such a law, that’s no longer the case.

The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.

The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?

I heard Travi are fun guys.

I’m glad to hear you’re turning that page, and I hope he chooses to as well. Congrats, and eventually congrats to him.

First I want to apologize somehow I didn’t register “ex”, and parts of my comment therefore made no sense.

Do you feel physically unsafe to confront him? If not, I think you’re within your right to flat out say “you don’t live here anymore and you need to pack now and then leave”.

He’s your ex. Nobody owes (or is owed) any interpersonal relationship from anyone else, nor any favors or support.

You already know all this though.

If you do feel threatened by him, I am always skeptical about involving police, but you have the best angle for that judgement call, maybe you should get on it. I hope there’s space for you to give him a chance not to need that though. Involving the police only due to being timid I think would be an irresponsible play.

Do you have a trusting relationship with any mutual friends that can help you mediate and navigate this?

No matter what you do, it’s going to have to happen, I don’t see any sense in waiting. You need to be able to take care of yourself and move your life forward. There are only so many years you’re alive… Don’t give him another 2.