Wisconsin Radio Host Challenges Election Betting Restrictions in Court
United States.- 23 October 2026 | www.zonadeazar.com A radio presenter in Wisconsin, United States, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the application of a state law that could prevent people holding election-related financial contracts from voting.
Joseph Giganti Sr., host of The Regular Joe Show, argues that he should be allowed to participate in election markets on Polymarket US without losing his right to vote in the 3 November 2026 elections.
Filed on 17 October, the lawsuit represents another development in the debate surrounding prediction market regulation and electoral rights.
Wisconsin Warns Voters About Election Wagers
The controversy began when the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) issued a warning concerning the consequences of betting on elections.
The regulator highlighted Wisconsin Statute 6.03(2), which prohibits individuals from voting in an election when they have a direct or indirect financial interest in a wager depending on its result.
In July 2026, the Commission warned that:
- Election contracts on Kalshi and Polymarket could qualify as wagers under state law.
- Ballots cast by individuals participating in these markets could be challenged.
- Successful challenges could prevent those ballots from being counted.
- Knowingly voting while legally disqualified may constitute a Class I felony.
The Commission maintains that its guidance is intended to inform voters about the consequences of existing legislation.
Plaintiff Plans to Trade on Polymarket
Giganti opened a Polymarket US account in August and intends to trade contracts linked to several Wisconsin elections.
According to the complaint, he plans to deposit between US$100 and US$500 and purchase contracts worth approximately US$50 to US$100 on selected candidates.
The proposed transactions include markets involving:
- Tom Tiffany, a candidate for Wisconsin governor.
- Derrick Van Orden, a congressional candidate in Wisconsin’s third district.
- Other congressional elections across the state.
Giganti states that he has refrained from making these trades because he does not want to risk losing his voting rights or facing potential prosecution.
Constitutional Arguments
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, with legal representation from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
Giganti argues that applying the restriction to contracts traded on federally regulated markets would violate several constitutional protections.
His claims include:
- Voting rights: an allegedly unjustified burden on electoral participation.
- Equal protection: different treatment of certain financial interests.
- Freedom of expression: his intended trades are also presented as expressions of political preference.
- Due process: concerns about procedures that could lead to voter disqualification.
His lawyers also argue that other citizens may hold financial interests affected by election outcomes without automatically losing their right to vote.
These are the plaintiff’s legal arguments and have not yet been accepted by the court.
Emergency Court Protection Requested
Giganti is seeking a preliminary injunction ahead of the 3 November election.
He wants to prevent election officials from rejecting or refusing to count his ballot solely because he purchased election-related contracts.
The lawsuit also requests a judicial declaration concerning the constitutionality of applying Wisconsin’s election-wager provision to his proposed transactions.
Giganti is not seeking financial damages, although he has requested legal fees and costs.
Implications for Prediction Markets
The dispute highlights an increasingly important issue in the United States: the relationship between federally regulated event contracts and state gambling legislation.
While platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi maintain that their products are financial instruments, several state authorities argue that certain transactions may fall within gambling laws.
For the prediction markets industry, the case raises questions about regulatory jurisdiction, electoral rights and the legal boundaries of political event contracts.
The court’s response will be particularly relevant given the proximity of the 3 November 2026 midterm elections.
Editó: @fonta
