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.