Robin Boles

If you haven’t already voted absentee, you’ll most likely be heading to the polls on Tuesday, Nov. 3. If not, you’re in the minority among your neighbors.

Wisconsinites traditionally rank highly when it comes to voting. In fact, in the 2024 Presidential Election, Wisconsin had the highest voter turnout of all the states.

A close look at elections over the past 25 years indicates that Pierce County reflects a dynamic voting perspective. According to Marquette University Law School’s Lubar Center, Pierce County voted Democratic in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections and has leaned increasingly Republican since; however when it comes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Pierce County residents tend to vote more liberally.

These metrics offer a reminder that rural and small-town communities contain a range of perspectives that cannot simply be sorted into two distinct opposing sides. And while it may seem that politics divide us, protecting nature does not seem to be a partisan concern. Statewide polling indicates that when it comes to our natural resources we can find plenty of common ground despite our widely touted political differences.

A 2025 survey conducted in partnership with Gathering Waters: Wisconsin’s Alliance for Land Trusts, The Nature Conservancy of Wisconsin, and a bipartisan pair of polling firms, found broad support across party lines for protecting drinking water (with 92% support), keeping rivers and streams clean (89%), conserving wildlife habitat (78%), and investing in natural solutions to large-scale issues such as restoring wetlands and forests (93%).

Each of these priorities touches upon everyday life in rural communities like those found in Pierce County: clean water protects families and livestock, healthy soil and diverse pollinator populations sustain farms, and wetlands help manage flooding.

Could these findings mean that neighbors who disagree politically actually share important, practical, and beneficent goals?

Perhaps protecting the land and water we depend upon is where we can begin to find broader support for conservation and sustainability. Perhaps the common ground of what we hope to leave for future generations can lay the foundation for working together to protect the spaces we call home.

So, how can we, regardless of political affiliation, step into the voting booth on election day feeling confident we are putting our votes to good local use? Because elections still matter.

It is our elected officials and courts who draft, implement, and enforce the laws, funding, and programs that protect our natural resources. State legislators, county officials, and judges can all influence the natural-resource policies affecting our own backyard, so protecting our resources means preparing ourselves to vote beyond just the high-profile races.

To do this, it's important to read past the headlines and shocking assertions. Don't just stop at a candidate’s claims to support protecting our resources; examine the legislation and budgets behind their promises and slogans containing words that trigger your emotions.

Look at what they have actually done and what they propose to do, then verify it.

What will they do to protect drinking water and groundwater? How will they address agricultural runoff, soil health, and stream quality? What is their approach to wetland protection and flood prevention? How do they balance renewable energy development, farmland, wildlife habitat, property rights and economics? What conservation programs would they fund, maintain, change, or eliminate?

Consider their position on issues and policies with direct local consequences. In what ways will those policies impact the people and natural resources located where they will be implemented?

While it may be tempting, don’t turn to AI to do this work for you. The simple fact is too much misinformation has been disbursed into the digital landscape to rely upon AI to provide an accurate assessment of a candidate’s position, especially when it comes to matters concerning the environment.

AI applied in this way simply predicts words to use in a particular order based on the parameters the prompt has set and the training it has received. Open AI trains on the internet at large, which we can all agree (I hope) contains vast amounts of misinformation. If the training contains misinformation, then, there is a good chance the answer or response will also contain misinformation.

Instead, it's time to put on your Sherlock hat and do your own research.

Before going anywhere else, visit myvote.wi.gov to preview your ballot. The Nov. 3 election includes three state referenda, and federal, state, and local contests with some offices on the ballot depending upon where you live. Myvote.wi.gov helps you establish what is on your ballot without telling you how to vote.

Once you know what’s on your ballot, evaluate candidates using more than campaign promises. Seek out real data from legitimate sources rather than relying on slogans, mailers, or social media ads funded by Super PACs.

What do the candidates say? Read their actual positions on drinking water, agriculture, wetlands, forests, data centers, energy, public lands, and climate resilience. What have they done? Review their voting records, previous public service, sponsored legislation, and decisions in office. Who supports or opposes them? Examine endorsements and campaign funding. What could they actually accomplish? A legislator votes on laws and budgets; a judge interprets law and resolves disputes. Evaluate candidates according to the powers of the office they're seeking.

When a candidate or advertisement makes a dramatic claim, don't stop at deciding whether it neatly fits your agenda; work through the following questions and evidence:

Find the original claim: is it from the candidate, an independent news report, a campaign advertisement, or someone commenting on social media? Look for the underlying evidence: find the actual bill, roll-call vote, budget proposal, court opinion, scientific report, or public statement. Check the context: was a vote about the whole bill or one provision? Does a quoted statistic refer to Wisconsin, the United States, or a different population? Seek independent verification: consult reputable reporting and fact-checkers. For environmental claims, look for the original scientific study or information from relevant public agencies and research institutions.

Water, land, farms, and forests. Candidates understand these are what concern both liberal and conservative voters. They know the buzzwords that will catch our attention, and environmental issues are in their cross-hairs, being portrayed in misleading ways. For example, a candidate might suggest they oppose data centers but the details of their policies and their voting record might reveal something quite different.

Our natural resources should not be subject to election cycles, but the decisions made by those we elect will likely determine their future. We owe those resources and future generations the effort to vote with intention.