A Pivotal Supreme Court Race in Wisconsin: Ideology, Money, and the Future of Key Issues
The race for Wisconsin’s next Supreme Court justice has become a battleground for some of the most divisive issues in American politics. On Wednesday night, liberal Judge Susan Crawford and conservative Judge Brad Schimel faced off in a tense, one-hour debate in Milwaukee, marking the first major statewide race in a battleground state since the 2024 election. The contest, scheduled for April 1, will determine the ideological balance of the court for the second time in two years, with significant implications for abortion rights, union laws, and congressional maps. At stake is whether the court’s current 4-3 liberal majority will hold or shift back to conservative control.
Two Judges, Two Visions: The Candidates and Their Backgrounds
Judge Susan Crawford, a state judge in Madison, brings a liberal perspective shaped by her earlier work in the Democratic administration of former Gov. Jim Doyle. She has been a vocal advocate for reproductive rights and has represented Planned Parenthood in the past. Judge Brad Schimel, a state judge in Waukesha County and former Republican attorney general, represents the conservative wing, emphasizing law and order and the validity of existing statutes. Both candidates are vying to replace retiring liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, whose departure has thrust the court’s control into uncertainty.
The debate highlighted the stark differences between the two candidates, with reproductive rights taking center stage. Crawford criticized Schimel for his past remarks supporting the validity of Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban, while Schimel argued that the law, though outdated, remains valid until the legislature or courts act to change it. Crawford, meanwhile, refused to take a definitive stance on the ban, stating that the issue remains an open question for the court. The exchange underscored the high stakes for abortion rights in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court is currently reviewing challenges to the ban and a separate case asking whether the state constitution guarantees a right to abortion.
Money and Influence: Billionaires and Outside Spending Dominate the Race
The debate also revealed the intense scrutiny over the role of money in the race. Both candidates accused the other of being unduly influenced by wealthy donors, with Crawford repeatedly criticizing Schimel for his ties to billionaire Elon Musk. She even misnamed him “Elon Schimel” in a dramatic moment, suggesting that Musk’s involvement had galvanized opposition nationwide. Schimel, on the other hand, slammed Crawford for accepting donations linked to liberal billionaire George Soros, calling him a “dangerous” figure to associate with.
The race has drawn unprecedented outside spending, with Musk-aligned groups such as Building America’s Future and America PAC pouring in over $8 million to support Schimel. Crawford’s campaign, meanwhile, has benefited from Soros’s $1 million donation to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which can legally transfer funds to her campaign. Crawford argued that Musk’s involvement was particularly concerning, pointing to Tesla’s recent lawsuit challenging a Wisconsin law banning carmakers from owning dealerships—a case that could potentially reach the Supreme Court. “It is no coincidence that Elon Musk started spending that money within days of Tesla filing a lawsuit in Wisconsin,” she said, accusing him of trying to “buy access and influence.”
When asked whether they would recuse themselves from cases involving their major donors, both candidates gave cautious responses. Crawford said she would step aside if she felt she could not remain impartial, while Schimel declined to commit to recusing himself in the hypothetical scenario of the Tesla case reaching the court. Theexchange highlighted concerns about judicial independence and the perception of bias in a race that has already shattered spending records.
Beyond Abortion: Unions, Redistricting, and the Court’s Policy Impact
While reproductive rights dominated the debate, other critical issues also emerged as flashpoints. Both candidates were pressed on their positions on the landmark 2011 legislation signed by former Gov. Scott Walker, which severely curtailed collective bargaining rights for public workers. Schimel, who has previously defended the law, argued that it remains valid, while Crawford hinted at her opposition, suggesting that the court could revisit the issue. The candidates also sparred over Wisconsin’s congressional maps, which currently favor Republicans. Crawford accused Schimel of supporting gerrymandering, while Schimel insisted that redistricting decisions should be left to the legislature.
The High Stakes of the Election: A Court—and State—at a Crossroads
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race has become a microcosm of the broader political struggles in the United States. With millions of dollars pouring in from high-profile billionaires and outside groups, the election has drawn national attention and underscored the increasing politicization of judicial races. For voters in Wisconsin, the choice between Crawford and Schimel represents a decision not just about the court’s ideology but about the future of abortion rights, worker protections, and fair representation in the state. As the April 1 election approaches, the tension between the two candidates—and the deep-pocketed interests backing them—continues to escalate, setting the stage for a historic and potentially transformative outcome.
