Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Yesterday — 17 April 2025Main stream

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has become hyper political. The rise and fall of Michael Gableman’s career shows how that happened.

Justice Michael Gableman
Reading Time: 15 minutes
Click here to read highlights from the story
  • Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman has agreed to surrender his license to practice law for three years due to several infractions during his investigation of the 2020 election, but his career — built on serving Republican party interests — began to spiral downward after his attendance at the 2016 Republican National Convention, according to new reporting from Wisconsin Watch.
  • Gableman’s participation as a sitting Supreme Court justice at the 2016 Republican Convention in Cleveland may have violated the state judicial code, which bans partisan political activity. He caused disturbances in two hospitality suites and was escorted out of the convention hall by Wisconsin Republicans. Less than a year later, he decided, at age 50, not to seek re-election to a second 10-year term.
  • Gableman was hired in 2020 by President Donald Trump’s first administration to work in the federal Office of Personnel Management. He was involved in implementing a Trump executive order to curb diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training for federal employees. When Trump lost his 2020 bid for reelection, Gableman returned to the public spotlight by supporting claims the election had been stolen. 
  • After Trump accused Wisconsin Republican leaders of not investigating election fraud and of  “working hard to cover up election corruption,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos announced at the state Republican Party convention that he had retained Gableman, a Trump-aligned former Supreme Court justice, to investigate the 2020 election.
  • Gableman was paid $117,000 for the investigation — more than twice the amount budgeted — and the investigation cost taxpayers a total of $2.8 million — four times the budgeted amount, including $432,000 for a recently settled public records lawsuit. It found no evidence to overturn the election. “He paid no attention to detail, he delegated almost all the work to somebody else and very poor follow-through,” Vos told Wisconsin Watch. “It seemed like Mike Gableman was more concerned about the money he was earning as opposed to finding the truth.”
Listen to Tom Kertscher talking about this story on WPR.

Wisconsin’s recent Supreme Court election, with its $100 million in record spending and wall-to-wall attack ads, spotlighted how politicized the state’s “nonpartisan” high court has become.

To understand how we got here, consider the rise and fall of former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who has agreed to surrender his law license for behavior unbecoming of a lawyer, let alone a former top judge.

Last November’s 10-count complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation, an arm of the very court he served on, is not the first time Gableman, 58, has been accused of an ethical lapse. But until now he has avoided public consequences. One example of Gableman’s actions, not previously reported, shows how closely intertwined an officially nonpartisan justice became with party politics.

Wisconsin Watch has learned that while a justice, Gableman attended the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland — in possible violation of judicial rules prohibiting attendance at party conventions — and while there, he appeared intoxicated and was escorted out of the convention hall after causing disturbances, according to two Wisconsin Republicans in attendance and a third briefed on the incident shortly after it happened.

Former longtime state GOP leader Steve King recalled then-U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy telling him that Gableman “has a problem and we need to get him back to his hotel.”

Gableman had established a solid legal career, having served in district attorney offices and courtrooms across the state. He made history winning election to the Supreme Court — the first candidate in four decades to defeat an incumbent justice.

But after the GOP convention in Cleveland, his career entered a downward spiral. His Republican support waned, and he decided not to run for a second 10-year term and disappeared from public life.

Then in 2021, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos hired Gableman as a special counsel to investigate Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss in Wisconsin. 

At the time, it was not publicly disclosed that Gableman had worked a $170,000 executive branch job in the final year of Trump’s first administration.

According to newly obtained public records, Gableman’s compensation for the failed election probe was more than twice what was budgeted for his role. 

The entire investigation cost taxpayers nearly $2.8 million, a new figure that includes a $432,000 open records lawsuit settlement reached earlier this month. The total is more than four times the $676,000 that was budgeted for the project.

Gableman’s career — from his first major courtroom job in 1999, to the pivotal 2008 Supreme Court election, to perpetuating Trump’s debunked election conspiracies — is a case study in what can happen when partisanship entangles the government branch most shielded from political volatility.

‘Always the adult in the room’

Raised in Waukesha County as the youngest of five in a middle-class family, Gableman stood out for doing right, his cousin David Gableman told Wisconsin Watch. The former justice, through his cousin, declined to be interviewed and didn’t respond to other interview requests.

While growing up, “he was always the adult in the room,” David Gableman said. “Always the serious one, very focused. … He always wanted to have an impact, he always wanted to make a difference in life.”

Yearbook photo of Michael Gableman
Ripon senior yearbook photo, 1988. (Courtesy of the Ripon Crimson)

A multiyear class president at New Berlin West High School, Gableman earned a bachelor’s degree in history and education from Ripon College. At Ripon, he was sports editor of the yearbook and a member of Beta Sigma Pi.

In earning his law degree in 1993 from the Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, Gableman made the dean’s honor roll.

Gableman, who never married and has no children, was aided in his career rise by Republican Party connections and a willingness to move to rural areas.

After working as a county government attorney and prosecutor in Langlade, Forest and Marathon counties in northern Wisconsin, in 1999 Gableman was appointed by GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson as district attorney in far-northwestern Ashland County.

Looking back, Thompson doesn’t see it as odd that he didn’t choose a local attorney, though he acknowledged he doesn’t recall even interviewing Gableman.

“I’m sure that Michael Gableman’s name came forward as an individual, that he was a Republican and that he was a good lawyer,” Thompson told Wisconsin Watch.

Gableman later described himself as an independent when Thompson appointed him. His first recorded campaign contribution in a Wisconsin election was to a Democrat — $500 in 1998 to then-state Assembly Rep. Greg Huber, who represented Marathon County.

Ashland County was something of a GOP launching pad at the time. Gableman was preceded as district attorney by J.B. Van Hollen, who went on to become Wisconsin’s attorney general, and succeeded by Duffy, now Trump’s transportation secretary. Van Hollen and Duffy also had been tapped for the job from outside the county.

Another GOP connection sets up a Supreme Court run

Running unopposed, Gableman was elected Ashland County district attorney as a Republican in 2000. District attorneys, unlike judges, can run with a partisan affiliation.

By then, Gableman chaired the county Republican Party. In 2002, he cut short his term as district attorney to take an administrative law judge position 260 miles away in Appleton under Thompson’s successor, GOP Gov. Scott McCallum.

The low-profile, largely bureaucratic position handles disputes within government agencies. But it gave Gableman the title of judge.

Just two months later, McCallum appointed Gableman to a vacant circuit court judgeship nearly 300 miles away in Burnett County. 

Scott McCallum
Scott McCallum is seen in the 2002 Wisconsin gubernatorial debate, broadcast by C-SPAN.

It played out in a partisan way.

Gableman had not applied for the Burnett County judgeship. Yet McCallum chose him over two local applicants recommended by McCallum’s advisory committee for judicial appointments.

Gableman contributed $2,500 to McCallum’s campaign in the months before the appointment and headed up some McCallum fundraising events.

Asked why he picked Gableman, McCallum told Wisconsin Watch he knew Gableman “as a supporter of mine” and considered him a good attorney and a hard worker.

“It came down to it, the other two were Democrats, I appointed Gableman,” he said.

It’s true that one of the finalists, then-Burnett County district attorney Ken Kutz, was a Democrat. But the other, Mark Biller, then district attorney in neighboring Polk County, was a Republican. McCallum didn’t respond to requests to clarify his recollection of Kutz and Biller.

McCallum made it clear when interviewing Kutz that the selection process was decidedly partisan. 

“The first question was, ‘Why the hell should I appoint a Democrat for judge in Burnett County?’” Kutz recalled to Wisconsin Watch.

Biller was in the right party, but he had lost his run for Polk County judge months earlier.

He said McCallum chose Gableman because McCallum was “looking for someone who could use that job for higher office and advance party goals.”

“He went out there and just campaigned to death,” Kutz recalled of Gableman’s run for Burnett County judge several months after being chosen by McCallum. “The guy is a politician like nobody’s business.”

Nasty ads taint 2008 race

Gableman “ran a real tight courtroom” and performed well as a Burnett County judge, said Kutz, who succeeded Gableman after Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle appointed him to the bench.

Gableman helped create the county’s Drug and Alcohol Court, one of the first in Wisconsin, its Restorative Justice Program that helps divert offenders from jail, and inmate and juvenile justice community service programs.

But in deciding to run for Supreme Court in 2008, he was virtually unknown outside of GOP circles. Republicans speaking on condition of anonymity said Gableman emerged as the candidate after better-known conservatives opted not to challenge the incumbent Justice Louis Butler.

Butler, a former Milwaukee County judge and the state’s first African American justice, had been appointed in 2004 by Doyle. Both he and Gableman were running statewide for the first time.

Gableman’s campaign, led by former state Republican Party executive director Darrin Schmitz, cast Gableman as a law-and-order candidate, drawing a contrast with Butler, who previously had worked as a public defender. In attack ads, Gableman’s supporters nicknamed Butler “loophole Louie” — suggesting Butler would use legal loopholes to help criminal defendants.

Gableman stayed on message, said David Gableman, who accompanied his cousin on many campaign trips. “It didn’t matter what the question was,” Gableman would always quickly pivot to how many sheriffs had endorsed him, his cousin said.

Michael Gableman in black robe stands next to two law enforcement officers and a truck.
Screen grab from Michael Gableman’s promotional video for his Supreme Court run. (From YouTube channel @gableman1)

He also received heavy backing from business interests, especially Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which wanted a reliable conservative to flip what they viewed as an activist Supreme Court. 

The court had issued a series of controversial rulings, including one finding that individual manufacturers could be held liable for a child’s lead paint injuries, even without proof they were responsible. 

WMC and other conservative groups spent $2.75 million backing Gableman, nearly seven times what his own campaign spent, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimated.

Louis Butler
Louis Butler (Wisconsin Supreme Court file photo)

At the time, the $6 million spent on the race — a fraction of the $100 million spent in the 2025 Supreme Court contest — passed the previous campaign spending record for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. That record had been set the previous year and was itself four times higher than the previous spending record.

Gableman defeated Butler by nearly 3 points, becoming the state’s first candidate to unseat an incumbent justice since 1967.

In his victory speech, Gableman declared a triumph for “judicial conservatism.”

William Bablitch, a former Supreme Court justice, said at the time: “Right now, the impression of the people of the state is justice is for sale, and some are going to get a fairer shake than others.”

Surviving accusations of misconduct 

In what would become a pattern, Gableman was accused of two ethical lapses during and soon after the 2008 campaign.

Liberal advocacy group One Wisconsin Now alleged Gableman had made campaign fundraising calls for McCallum from his taxpayer-funded Ashland County district attorney’s office in 2002. One Wisconsin Now produced records showing 55 calls had been made from Gableman’s office and from his government-issued cellphone to McCallum fundraisers and donors, McCallum’s campaign office and others.

One Wisconsin Now requested investigations, but several authorities, including Van Hollen, Duffy, the Government Accountability Board and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, refused.

The calls “sent the message that he was political,” said Sachin Chheda, who ran Butler’s campaign. “It also sent the message that he was willing to push the envelope.”

Gableman also faced a judicial oversight investigation for a misleading campaign ad he approved three weeks before the election.

The ad falsely implied that, as a public defender, Butler used a loophole to free imprisoned rapist Reuben Lee Mitchell, who later molested a child. In fact, Butler’s representation didn’t result in a reduced punishment and Mitchell committed the later crime only after serving his prison sentence.

“It just shows he was willing to do anything,” Scot Ross, former head of One Wisconsin Now, said of Gableman.

David Gableman noted there were harsh attack ads on both sides, recalling that another relative didn’t vote for his cousin after ads accused him of giving light sentences to sex offenders.

Michael Gableman smiles and raises hand
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman acknowledges applause after taking the oath of office in a ceremony at the Capitol in Madison, Wis., on Oct. 24, 2008. Gableman was sworn in by former Justice Donald Steinmetz. (Craig Schreiner / Wisconsin State Journal)

In October 2008, just two months after Gableman was sworn in, the state Judicial Commission filed a complaint against him, alleging his ad violated the state judicial code of conduct. 

The commission dropped the case in 2010 after the Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 on what to do about the complaint. Gableman didn’t participate. The other three conservative justices said that while the ad was “distasteful,” its statements were “objectively true” and protected by the First Amendment.

Reliable conservative falls out of favor with his party

Gableman’s tenure on the Supreme Court was marked by controversy.

When Justice Ann Walsh Bradley accused Justice David Prosser of putting his hands around her neck during an argument — an incident witnessed by four justices — Gableman’s account was the only outlier, characterizing the 5-foot-3 Walsh Bradley as looming over the 5-foot-9 Prosser, according to a sheriff’s report.

Gableman also claimed to sheriff’s investigators that Walsh Bradley had smacked him on the back of the head in the presence of their colleagues for calling Shirley Abrahamson, then the chief justice, by her first name. No other justice corroborated his story.

Ethics complaints were filed with two state agencies over Gableman’s acceptance of two years of free legal services, likely worth tens of thousands of dollars, in the case filed against him over the Butler ad. As a justice, Gableman did not recuse himself from cases argued by Michael Best & Friedrich, the law firm that provided his free legal aid. He ruled in favor of the firm’s clients five times, more than any other justice during his tenure on the court, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. No action was taken against him from those complaints.

Michael Gableman speaks at right next to David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman speaks during a court hearing Sept. 17, 2015, at the Grant County Courthouse in Lancaster, Wis. Also pictured are Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley. (Jessica Reilly / Telegraph Herald)

A strong conservative on the court, Gableman wrote the court’s 5-2 opinion upholding Act 10, the 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions. He also wrote the 4-2 decision that ended what was known as the John Doe II criminal investigation into Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s coordination with outside groups during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections that Act 10 triggered.

Then Cleveland happened.

Attending the Republican National Convention was problematic for a sitting justice. The state Judicial Code of Conduct directs judges to “avoid partisan activity” and says they may not “participate” in political party conventions. But what’s labeled as a comment on the rule says judges “may attend public events, even those sponsored by political parties or candidates, so long as the attendance does not constitute the kind of partisan activity prohibited by this rule.” In recent years, Wisconsin candidates for the Supreme Court and a justice-elect have spoken at state Democratic and Republican party conventions. 

One Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he witnessed Gableman being “loud and obnoxious” at the convention. Gableman appeared to be intoxicated before other attendees escorted him out of the convention hall and back to his hotel, the Republican source said.

That source and another Republican, who was not in attendance, said they were told by party colleagues that Gableman belligerently insulted Janesville U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, then speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in a hospitality suite, before Duffy became involved and whisked him away.

Spokespersons for Duffy and Ryan did not return messages seeking comment.

David Gableman said he drove to the convention with his cousin, though they didn’t attend all of the same events together. He said he wasn’t aware of any incidents. 

The Republicans who declined to be identified said the incident added to concerns about whether Gableman would be the best candidate to back in 2018. In June 2017, Gableman, then only 50, announced he would not run for a second term.

In 2020, Gableman was hired by the federal Office of Personnel Management at a salary of $170,800 putting him among the highest-paid 10% of employees in the agency. Gableman was involved in implementing a Trump executive order to curb diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training for federal employees, a precursor to what would happen this year with Trump’s second administration.

2020 election probe becomes new focus

When Trump lost the 2020 election and fought the result in court with baseless claims of voter fraud, Gableman, no longer working in government, became a lieutenant in Trump’s election fraud-fighting army.

Gableman, like Trump, “has always been kind of anti-establishment,” believes “the swamp” is deep and that politicians aren’t accountable, David Gableman said. “He’s been loyal to Trump not because he’s a blind soldier, but because he has similar political beliefs.”

Defending Trump also allowed Gableman to return to the public spotlight.

Michael Gableman speaks at podium
Michael Gableman, formerly a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, speaks at a rally for President Donald Trump at American Serb Hall in Milwaukee on Nov. 7, 2020, after Joe Biden had won a bitterly fought contest for president over Trump. (Mike De Sisti / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel via USA TODAY NETWORK)

Four days after Trump’s loss to Joe Biden, Gableman suggested at a pro-Trump rally in Milwaukee that the election had been stolen.

In June 2021, Trump accused Vos, the state’s Assembly speaker, and other Wisconsin GOP leaders of “working hard to cover up election corruption.”

The next day, Vos announced at the state Republican Party convention that he had retained Gableman to investigate the 2020 election.

The move took pressure off Vos and other Wisconsin Republicans from Trump’s base. They were placating Trump by choosing a Trump-aligned former Supreme Court justice to lead the investigation.

Vos miscalculated.

It wasn’t widely known at the time that Gableman had been working for Trump’s administration in 2020. Asked if he knew, when hiring Gableman, that the former justice had been working for Trump, Vos said he didn’t think so.

Gableman began his first months of election investigation work at the New Berlin Public Library because he didn’t own a computer.

It didn’t go well. Gableman acknowledged having little understanding of how elections work. He also:

  • Tried to jail the mayors of Madison and Green Bay for refusing to submit to depositions, which he had no authority to do.
  • Endorsed various false claims about lawmakers’ power to decertify Biden’s election victory, which the New York Times reported had lended “credence to the conspiracy theories.” 
  • Deleted records in violation of state regulations, leading Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn to say Gableman appeared to have “gone rogue” and “run amok” by refusing to comply with the state’s open records law.

His work did please one fan, however.

In April 2022, Gableman attended a party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where Trump praised him before an audience: “Michael, you’ve been unbelievable,” The Washington Post reported.

His efforts drew derision from Wisconsin legal authorities and even the party leader who hired him.

In June 2022, a year into the election investigation, Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington asked the Office of Lawyer Regulation in a court order to discipline Gableman. Remington found Gableman in contempt of court and fined him $2,000 per day for refusing Remington’s order to produce documents. Gableman also displayed “sneering” and mocking behavior in court, Remington wrote, and “destroyed any sense of decorum and irreparably damaged the public’s perception of the judicial process.”

Vos fired Gableman two months later, in August 2022, calling him an “embarrassment.” 

After the firing, Gableman’s name was removed from his law school’s list of notable alumni.

Gableman was paid $117,000, more than double the $55,000 that had been budgeted, according to a previously unreported document Wisconsin Watch obtained from the Assembly clerk.

“He paid no attention to detail, he delegated almost all the work to somebody else and very poor follow-through,” Vos told Wisconsin Watch. “It seemed like Mike Gableman was more concerned about the money he was earning as opposed to finding the truth.”

Reviews by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and The Associated Press found no evidence of uncounted, miscounted or fraudulent votes that would have had any bearing in Wisconsin in the 2020 election.

Election probe leads to lawyer regulation complaint

Gableman’s work was supposed to conclude within a few months. Ultimately, the nearly 14-month probe cost taxpayers $2.77 million, including $1.82 million for outside lawyers. Earlier this month, the state agreed to pay $431,843 in legal fees to American Oversight, a group that sued over destruction of records related to the investigation.

Less than a month after being fired, Gableman told a gathering of Outagamie County Republicans: “Our comfort is holding us back from taking the action that’s necessary. … It’s that very comfort that is keeping us from what our Founders knew to be the only way to keep an honest government, which is revolution.”

Even while under investigation for lawyer misconduct, he continued to advance his election conspiracies to sympathetic audiences.

Michael Gableman and others seated at a meeting
Michael Gableman is photographed at a Senate Committee on Shared Revenue, Elections and Consumer Protection hearing about the nomination of Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe on Aug. 29, 2023, in the Capitol in Madison, Wis. Gableman previously acted as special counsel to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, to investigate the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Wisconsin. (Drake White-Bergey / Wisconsin Watch)

The Wolf River Area Patriots promoted its January meeting by touting a Gableman speech on the importance of electing conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel to the state Supreme Court.

About 50 people turned out in tiny New London, two hours northwest of Milwaukee. The meeting was open to the public. Gableman spoke in his resonant baritone for more than an hour, stoking fear and spreading unproven theories about casting votes in the names of overseas military service people or the deceased, and saying Wisconsin elections “are only as secure as the worst criminally minded fraudster wants them to be.” 

Gableman said little about Schimel, who went on to lose the April 1 election, other than that he was superior to eventual winner Susan Crawford. He called Crawford “a particularly nasty piece of work.” 

At more than $100 million, the Schimel-Crawford race set a national record for spending on a state supreme court contest and featured droves of misleading attack ads that have become common since Gableman’s 2008 campaign.

The state Office of Lawyer Regulation’s case against Gableman, which includes allegations raised in a 100-page complaint from the Law Forward law firm in March 2023, said he violated 10 counts of Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for attorneys. He is accused of making false statements about a judge, an opposing attorney and two mayors; making false statements to the Office of Lawyer Regulation; disobeying a court order; and violating the state open records law and confidentiality rules. 

Gableman had gone from a top jurist sworn to uphold the constitution to a political player accused of lying in court and breaking laws. 

He initially denied the charges, which could have led to the permanent loss of his law license. 

But on April 7, he capitulated.

In the settlement filing: “Gableman hereby stipulates that he cannot successfully defend against the allegations of misconduct … and agrees that the allegations of the complaint provide an adequate factual basis for a determination of SCR (Supreme Court Rules) violations as alleged in each of  the ten counts of the complaint.”

He agreed with this admission to losing his license to practice law for three years.

The proposed settlement must be approved by two more authorities to become official: 

A lawyer serving as referee in the case.

And the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Some research for this article was provided by Audrey Nielsen of the nonprofit Sunlight Research Center, which assists newsrooms with investigative reporting.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has become hyper political. The rise and fall of Michael Gableman’s career shows how that happened. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Before yesterdayMain stream

Did billionaire George Soros spend $100 million on the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Spending on the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court race approached $100 million or more – in total – according to reports leading up to Election Day.

The WisPolitics news outlet tally was $107 million, including $2 million contributed by billionaire George Soros to the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

The party, in turn, funneled donations to the liberal candidate, Susan Crawford. 

The Brennan Center for Justice tally was $98.6 million, enough to make the nonpartisan Wisconsin contest the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

According to the center, a program at New York University Law School that tracks campaign spending:

The largest amount spent, $28.3 million, was by Crawford’s campaign.

Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel, whose campaign spent $15 million.

Schimel was backed by billionaire Elon Musk. The Musk-founded America PAC spent $12.3 million. That’s also a national record for outside spending in a judicial race.

Social media posts claimed that Soros spent $100 million supporting Crawford.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Did billionaire George Soros spend $100 million on the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Are a medical bill and school identification legally enough to be issued a Social Security number?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Official proof of three things — identity, age and citizenship or qualifying immigration status — is required to obtain a Social Security number.

For U.S.-born adults, required documents include a U.S. birth certificate or a U.S. passport, though most U.S.-born citizens are issued a Social Security number at birth.

Noncitizens can apply if they have U.S. permission to work in the U.S. or permanent resident status (U.S.-issued green card). Less common are nonworking immigrants, such as those issued a student visa, who need a Social Security number.

“Merely showing a bill or a school ID is not sufficient,” Kathleen Romig, a former senior adviser at the Social Security Administration, told Wisconsin Watch.

Elon Musk claimed March 30 in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that “basically, you can show … a medical bill and a school ID and get a Social Security number.”

Trump administration officials did not reply to emails seeking comment.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Are a medical bill and school identification legally enough to be issued a Social Security number? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Is it illegal in California to require identification to vote?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

In September, California adopted a law that prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification to vote.

The law states that voter ID laws “have historically been used to disenfranchise” certain voters, including those of color or low-income.

The law says California ensures election integrity by requiring a driver’s license number or Social Security number at registration and verifying the voter’s signature with the voter’s registration form.

Voter ID supporters say requiring a photo ID helps prevent voter fraud and increases public confidence in elections.

California is among 14 states that don’t use voter ID. They verify voter identity in other ways, usually signature verification, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Wisconsin has required photo ID since 2016. On April 1, voters approved a referendum adding that requirement to the state constitution.

Elon Musk alluded to the California law during remarks March 30 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Is it illegal in California to require identification to vote? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Did Milwaukee election officials at the end of ballot counting ‘find bags of ballots that they forgot’?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

City of Milwaukee election officials process absentee ballots at one location on Election Day, which sometimes means ballots are still being fed into tabulators late that night or early the next morning. Results are reported once processing finishes.

Conservative Brad Schimel, who faces liberal Susan Crawford in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, suggested the late counting was malfeasance, a long-debunked claim.

Schimel on March 18 urged supporters to vote early “so we don’t have to worry that at 11:30 in Milwaukee, they’re going to find bags of ballots that they forgot to put into the machines, like they did in 2018, or in 2024.”

Schimel lost his attorney general re-election bid in 2018. Republican Eric Hovde lost to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., in the Nov. 5, 2024, election.

State law prohibits municipalities from preparing absentee ballots before Election Day. A bill that would allow an earlier start has stalled.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Did Milwaukee election officials at the end of ballot counting ‘find bags of ballots that they forgot’? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Has Elon Musk’s PAC in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for outside spending on state court elections?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

The Elon Muskfounded America PAC has spent at least $11.5 million on the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, WisPolitics reported March 24.

That doesn’t count another $3 million the PAC gave to the Wisconsin Republican Party, which can funnel unlimited funds to candidates.

Both support conservative candidate Brad Schimel over liberal Susan Crawford.

The nonprofit campaign finance tracker OpenSecrets tracks cumulative independent group spending in state supreme court and appellate court races through 2024.

Its figures indicate the biggest spender nationally is the Citizens for Judicial Fairness, which spent a total of $11.4 million in the 2020 and 2022 Illinois court races.

OpenSecrets’ data cover about two-thirds of the states; not all states report independent expenditures.

The progressive A Better Wisconsin Together has spent $9.2 million on ads backing Crawford, according to ad tracker AdImpact.

Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler said March 18 he believed Musk’s spending might be a national record.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Has Elon Musk’s PAC in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for outside spending on state court elections? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Is the majority of federal government spending mandatory?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

About 60% of federal spending is mandatory — appropriations are automatic.

About 27% is discretionary spending, and about 13% pays federal debt interest.

On mandatory spending, more than half is for Medicare and Social Security. 

About 69 million people receive monthly Social Security retirement or disability payments. About 68 million get Medicare, which is health insurance for people 65 and older, and some people under 65 with certain conditions.

Discretionary spending requires annual approvals by Congress and the president. About half is for defense. The rest goes to programs such as transportation, education and housing.

Projected total federal spending in fiscal 2025 is $7 trillion, up about 58% from $4.45 trillion in fiscal 2019.

President Donald Trump pledged March 4 to balance the budget “in the near future.” But the federal debt is projected to grow about $2 trillion annually through 2035.

On March 12, U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., said most federal government spending is mandatory.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Is the majority of federal government spending mandatory? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Does the Social Security Administration estimate that 30,000 Americans die annually waiting for a decision on their disability benefits?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

The Social Security Administration’s actuary estimated that 30,000 people died in 2023 while waiting for a decision on their application for disability benefits.

That’s according to testimony given to a U.S. Senate committee Sept. 11, 2024, by Martin O’Malley, who was then the Social Security commissioner.

O’Malley said disability applicants wait on average nearly eight months for an initial decision and almost eight more months if they are denied and request reconsideration.

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) makes monthly payments to people who have a disability that stops or limits their ability to work. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) pays people with disabilities and older adults who have little or no income or resources.

Social Security announced Feb. 28 it plans to cut 7,000 of its 57,000 workers, part of the Trump administration’s initiative to reduce the federal workforce.

The deaths claim was made March 9 in Altoona, Wisconsin, by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Does the Social Security Administration estimate that 30,000 Americans die annually waiting for a decision on their disability benefits? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Here are claims about Wisconsin’s Supreme Court candidates — and the facts

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin Watch has fact-checked 10 claims about the backgrounds and positions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates, liberal Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford and conservative Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel.

The election is April 1.

Here’s a look at positions the candidates have taken on immigration, the Jan. 6 riot, abortion, Act 10 and more, as well as at some criminal cases they handled.

Did Schimel say he had ‘no objection’ to Jan. 6 pardons issued by Donald Trump?

No. 

Schimel has said he supports presidential use of pardons, but that rioters who were violent at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, should not have been pardoned. Crawford claimed Schimel had no objection to Trump’s “blanket pardons.”

Has Crawford supported stopping deportations and protecting sanctuary cities?

No

There’s no readily available evidence to back a Republican attack ad that claimed Crawford has supported stopping deportations of illegal immigrants or protecting sanctuary cities, which limit how much they help authorities with deportations.

Did Crawford sentence a child sex offender to four years in prison after a prosecutor requested 10 years?

Yes.

In 2020, Crawford sentenced a Dane County man to four years in prison and six years of probation after a prosecutor requested 10 years in prison and five years of probation. The defense had requested only probation. The man was charged with touching a 6-year-old girl’s privates in a club swimming pool in 2010 and with twice touching a 7-year-old girl’s privates in the same pool on one day in 2018.

Crawford said the crimes occurring years apart made the man a repeat offender, requiring prison, but were less serious than other sexual assaults, and that 10 years was longer than needed for rehabilitation.

Has Schimel supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law?

Yes.

Schimel has campaigned supporting the law, which bans abortion except to protect the mother’s life, asking “what is flawed” about it. He recalled in 2012 supporting an argument to maintain the law, to make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Schimel has also said Wisconsin residents should decide “by referendum or through their elected legislature on what they want the law to say” on abortion.

Was a sexual assault convict freed after Crawford’s office failed to file an appeal?

Yes.

In 2001, while Crawford led the state Justice Department’s appeals unit, a lawyer in the unit failed to meet a court deadline, resulting in a sex offender being freed two years into his seven-year prison sentence.

Did Schimel try to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Yes.

In 2018, Schimel helped lead a failed 20-state lawsuit that sought to have Obamacare ruled unconstitutional.

Did Schimel offer a plea deal to a man whose attorney contributed to Schimel’s campaign?

Yes.

As Waukesha County’s district attorney, Schimel offered a plea deal to a man charged with possession of child pornography. In the year before Schimel won the state attorney general’s election, in 2014, the man’s lawyer made monthly contributions to Schimel’s campaign totaling $5,500. In exchange for the man pleading guilty to the charge, in 2015, Schimel agreed not to file more charges and recommended the mandatory minimum three-year prison sentence, which is what was imposed.

Did Wisconsin taxpayers pay $1.6 million over an abortion restriction law that was ruled unconstitutional?

Yes

Legal fees totaling $1.6 million were paid to Planned Parenthood and others who sued over a 2013 Wisconsin law that was ruled an unconstitutional restriction on abortion access. Schimel was responsible for some of the costs. He became state attorney general in 2015 and pursued appeals of the ruling.

Did Crawford try to overturn Act 10?

Yes.

Crawford was among attorneys who sued seeking to overturn the 2011 law, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions. Act 10 spurred mass protests for weeks in Madison and has saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

Has Crawford opposed Wisconsin’s voter ID law?

Yes.

Crawford was one of three lawyers in a 2011 lawsuit challenging the requirement, which the state Supreme Court rejected. In 2016, she said the law would be “acceptable” if voters could sign an affidavit swearing to their identity rather than providing proof of identification. In 2018, she called the law “draconian.”

Here are claims about Wisconsin’s Supreme Court candidates — and the facts is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel say he had ‘no objection’ to Capitol riot pardons issued by Donald Trump?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel has said he supports presidents using pardons, but that violent rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, should not have been pardoned.

Schimel’s opponent in the April 1 election, Susan Crawford, claimed Schimel “went so far as to say he had no objection” to President Donald Trump’s “blanket pardons” for the rioters.

On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump pardoned, commuted prison sentences or vowed to dismiss cases against all 1,500-plus people charged with crimes in the riot, including people convicted of assaulting police.

On Jan. 27, Schimel told reporters “I don’t object to (presidents) utilizing that power.” Later that day, he said “anyone convicted of assaulting law enforcement should serve their full sentence,” but didn’t say Trump shouldn’t have issued the pardons.

In a subsequent interview, Schimel said anyone who committed violence Jan. 6, “I don’t think, on a personal level, they should have been pardoned.”

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel say he had ‘no objection’ to Capitol riot pardons issued by Donald Trump? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Are Wisconsin sheriffs required to check the immigration status of people in jail?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Wisconsin sheriffs have discretion on whether to report a person booked into county jails to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Racine County Republican, alluded to the background checking Feb. 25.

Vos spoke about an Assembly bill he co-sponsored that would require sheriffs to request proof of legal presence status from individuals jailed for a felony offense.

Former Brown County Sheriff John Gossage, executive director of the Badger State Sheriffs’ Association, said most Wisconsin sheriffs report to ICE a person who is jailed on a felony charge and doesn’t have proof, such as a Social Security number or immigration visa, of legal presence in the U.S.

ICE can ask, but jails are not required, to hold a person for 48 hours if ICE wants to pick up that person for an alleged immigration violation. 

Milwaukee County doesn’t report inmate immigration status to ICE. Dane County also doesn’t assist ICE.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Are Wisconsin sheriffs required to check the immigration status of people in jail? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford supported stopping deportations and protecting sanctuary cities?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

There’s no readily available evidence Susan Crawford has supported stopping deportations of illegal immigrants or protecting sanctuary cities, as a Republican attack ad claims.

Sanctuary communities limit how much they help authorities with deportations.

Crawford, a liberal, faces conservative Brad Schimel in the nonpartisan April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

The attack on Crawford was made by the Republican State Leadership Committee, a national group that works to elect Republicans to state offices.

The group provided Wisconsin Watch no evidence to back its claim. A spokesperson cited Democratic support for Crawford and Democratic opposition to cooperating with deportations, but nothing Crawford said on the topics. Searches of past Crawford statements found nothing.

The ad also claims Crawford would “let criminals roam free,” referring to a man convicted of touching girls’ private parts in a club swimming pool. Crawford sentenced the man in 2020 to four years in prison; a prosecutor had requested 10 years.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford supported stopping deportations and protecting sanctuary cities? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Do states routinely audit insurers for denying health care claims?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Experts said they know of no states that routinely audit insurance companies over denying health care claims.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said Feb. 18 he wants to make his state the first to audit based on high rates of claim denials and do “corrective action” enforced through fines. 

The Wisconsin insurance commissioner’s office and experts from the KFF health policy nonprofit and Georgetown University said they know of no states using claim denial rates to trigger audits.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the national state auditors association said they do not track whether states do such auditing.

ProPublica reported in 2023 it surveyed every state’s insurance agency and found only 45 enforcement actions since 2018 involving denials that violated coverage mandates.

Forty-five percent of U.S. adults surveyed in 2023 said they were billed in the past year for a medical service they thought should have been free or covered by their insurance.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Do states routinely audit insurers for denying health care claims? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford sentence a child sex offender to four years after a prosecutor requested 10?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

In 2020, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford sentenced Kevin D. Welton to four years in prison after a prosecutor requested 10.

Welton was charged with touching a 6-year-old girl’s privates in a club swimming pool in 2010 and with twice touching a 7-year-old girl’s privates in the same pool on one day in 2018.

Welton was convicted of three felonies, including first-degree sexual contact.

Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel are running in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

An ad from an Elon Muskfunded group said Crawford could have imposed 100 years.

A 100-year maximum was allowed, but highly unlikely, given the prosecutor’s request. Welton’s lawyer requested probation.

Crawford said the crimes occurring years apart made Welton a repeat offender, requiring prison, but were less serious than other sexual assaults, and 10 years was longer than needed for rehabilitation.

Welton’s appeals failed. Released in January 2024, he is on extended supervision until 2030.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford sentence a child sex offender to four years after a prosecutor requested 10? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in Wisconsin’s April 1 Supreme Court election, has supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law but also says voters should decide abortion questions.

The liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, claimed Schimel “wants to bring back” the law, which bans abortion except to protect the mother’s life.

Wisconsin abortions were halted, due to uncertainty over the 1849 law, after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, but resumed in 2023 after a judge’s ruling. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is deciding whether the 1849 law became valid with Roe’s reversal, said Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather.

Schimel has campaigned supporting the law, asking “what is flawed” about it. He recalled in 2012 supporting an argument to maintain the law, to make abortion illegal if Roe were overturned.

Schimel said Feb. 18 Wisconsinites should decide “by referendum or through their elected legislature on what they want the law to say” on abortion.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Is Wisconsin one of only six states with same-day voter registration?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Twenty-one states, including Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia offered Election Day voter registration for the Nov. 5 election.

That meant eligible voters could both register and cast a ballot on Election Day.

North Dakota has no registration but requires proof of identification to vote.

Republican Eric Hovde claimed Feb. 12 that the number of states was six. He suggested fraud caused his Nov. 5 loss to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. 

The margin was nearly 29,000 votes (49.3% to 48.5%).

Hovde didn’t reply to a call for comment. 

He might have been alluding to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which exempted six states. Wisconsin was exempted because it had Election Day registration. 

Wisconsin requires proof of residency to register and photo identification to vote.

Its same-day registration can complicate verifying eligibility of certain voters.

Wisconsin’s spring election, featuring two candidates for Supreme Court, is April 1; the primary, featuring three candidates for state schools superintendent, is Feb. 18.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Is Wisconsin one of only six states with same-day voter registration? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Do recent studies link water fluoridation with less dental decay in children?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Recent peer-reviewed studies connect water fluoridation with less dental decay in children.

A Feb. 4 post on a Wisconsin section of Reddit raised the issue. 

The post alluded to a pediatrician’s 2019 statement that dental infections increased significantly after Calgary, Alberta, ended fluoridation in 2011.

Calgary aims to reintroduce fluoridation by March 2025.

In a 2021 study Canadian researchers found that seven years after Calgary ended fluoridation, 65% of Calgary second grade children had cavities, versus 55% in Edmonton, Alberta, which fluoridated.

Canadian researchers in 2024 reported more occurrences of general anesthesia dental treatments among children in non-fluoridated communities.

Israeli researchers in 2024 found treatment of dental problems among children doubled after Israel stopped fluoridation.

The American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control support fluoridation.

U.S. Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has advocated for ending fluoridation.

About 84% of Wisconsinites had fluoridated water in 2024, down from 87% in 2022, as more communities stopped fluoridating water systems.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Do recent studies link water fluoridation with less dental decay in children? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Are airline flights the safest mode of transportation in the U.S.?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Federal data show that airline flights are safer than other major transportation modes in the U.S.

A claim about safety was made by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy after 67 people were killed in the Jan. 29 midair collision of an American Airlines flight and an Army helicopter near Washington’s Ronald Reagan National Airport.

Duffy is a Republican former congressman from northern Wisconsin.

Highway transportation accounts for 95% of fatalities and over 99% of injuries from transportation incidents.

From 2008 through 2022, airline flights had lower passenger death rates than buses, railroad passenger trains and passenger vehicles, according to the latest annual figures. 

The rate is deaths per 100,000 passenger miles. 

In 2022, the rates were:

0.001: Air

0.004: Bus

0.03: Rail

0.54: Passenger vehicles

There were four fatal airline crashes from 2008 through 2022.

The lifetime odds of dying as an aircraft passenger in the U.S. are “too small to calculate,” the nonprofit National Safety Council said.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Are airline flights the safest mode of transportation in the U.S.? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Was a sexual assault convict freed after Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford’s office failed to file an appeal?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

A man convicted of sexual assault was freed after an office led by Susan Crawford missed a court deadline.

In an ad, Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, suggested that Crawford, the liberal candidate, was personally responsible.

In October 1999, a Waukesha County jury convicted Thomas Gogin of second-degree sexual assault. Gogin contended the sex was consensual. He was sentenced to seven years in prison.

In July 2001, a Waukesha-based state appeals court ordered a new trial. It ruled Gogin’s attorney made errors that could have affected the verdict.

An attorney in the Wisconsin Justice Department’s appeals unit, led by Crawford, missed the deadline to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Gogin, who served about two years in prison, was not retried. Instead the Waukesha County district attorney offered a plea deal. Gogin pleaded no contest to third-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to five years of probation.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Was a sexual assault convict freed after Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford’s office failed to file an appeal? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel try to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

As Wisconsin’s attorney general, Brad Schimel helped lead a 20-state lawsuit that sought to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

The federal law, known as Obamacare, expanded health insurance coverage by offering exchanges and subsidies for individuals to buy health insurance, and in other ways.

The 2018 lawsuit argued Obamacare was made unconstitutional by a 2017 tax law change signed by President Donald Trump. Schimel at the time called Obamacare “overreaching and harmful.”

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit. It ruled the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to sue. However, it didn’t decide whether Obamacare was unconstitutional.

Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate in the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, criticized Schimel’s lawsuit. Schimel is the conservative candidate.

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults have a favorable view of Obamacare; 72% of Republicans have an unfavorable view.

A record 313,579 Wisconsin residents signed up for health insurance through Obamacare during the 2025 open enrollment.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel try to repeal the Affordable Care Act? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

❌
❌