Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story each week about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back. You’ll also receive updates on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

The worst recent voting take I thought I had heard was when House Republicans supporting stricter identification laws pointed to the Olive Garden restaurant’s identification requirements for its “Never-Ending Pasta Pass.” But the predictions-market company Kalshi just did one better, calling a Wisconsin law that bars voters from betting on elections a form of “voter suppression.” Kalshi’s politics lead Benjamin Freeman tweeted last week that the recent guidance to that effect issued by the Wisconsin Election Commission “will literally disenfranchise voters who use Kalshi to trade [on] elections. This is blatantly unconstitutional and illegal.” He also called the commission’s interpretation “INSANE,” “dystopian,” and “really dangerous for democracy.” Another Kalshi executive called the ruling “bananas.” But laws like Wisconsin’s are constitutional, and it’s Freeman’s comments, and maybe betting on elections, that are a greater danger to democracy.

Put aside the broader question of whether predictions markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are simply dressed-up gambling forums that are already illegal under many states’ anti-gaming laws. That issue will end up getting resolved by courts or even Congress.

The narrower question raised by Freeman’s tweet is whether states can bar—and in cases like Wisconsin, already have barred—betting on elections by voters. The question of whether a........

© Slate