Susan Crawford’s win in Tuesday’s record-smashing Wisconsin Supreme Court election paves the way for the court’s liberal majority to continue to flex its influence over state politics.
The Dane County Circuit Court judge’s victory guarantees that liberals will control the court until at least 2028.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is at the center of state politics. It has been since 2020, when it denied Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and has continued to make headlines — especially since flipping to liberal control in August 2023.
For the past two years, Justices Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, Janet Protasiewicz and Ann Walsh Bradley — who collectively make up the court’s liberal majority — have flexed their authority and remade Wisconsin’s political landscape. Crawford, who will be sworn in on Aug. 1, will replace the retiring Walsh Bradley, who has served on the high court for 30 years.
Here’s what Crawford’s victory could mean for some key issues.
1. Abortion rights
The Wisconsin Supreme Court seems poised to, in some form or the other, strike down the state’s 1849 abortion law — which bans almost all abortions in the state.
The court’s current justices in November 2024 heard oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging the statute. It was filed by Attorney General Josh Kaul in the days after Roe vs. Wade was overturned. The lawsuit asks the court to determine whether the 1849 law applies to consensual abortions. It also asks whether the 1849 ban was “impliedly repealed” when the Legislature passed additional laws — while Roe was in effect — regulating abortion after fetal viability.
A Dane County judge ruled in late 2023 that the 1849 statute applied to feticide, not consensual abortions. Abortion services, which were halted in the state after Roe was overturned, have since resumed.
Crawford’s opponent, conservative Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, argued during the campaign that the liberal majority was delaying its ruling in the case “to keep the 1849 law a live issue” in the race.
While working in private practice, Crawford represented Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in litigation related to abortion access.
Crawford’s victory on Tuesday ensures the court’s upcoming ruling is likely to remain intact — at least for now — meaning abortion will remain legal in Wisconsin.
2. Congressional redistricting
The liberal majority’s decision to throw out the state’s Republican-gerrymandered legislative maps, breaking a GOP lock on the state Legislature, has been its most influential ruling since taking power. As a result, Democrats picked up 14 seats in the Assembly and state Senate in 2024 in a good Republican year nationwide.
However, during the same time period, the high court denied a request to reconsider the state’s congressional maps without stating a reason. The maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, but under a “least change” directive from a previous conservative court, so they remained GOP-friendly. But in the liberal court’s legislative redistricting decision, it overturned the “least change” precedent. Crawford’s victory opens a window for Democrats and their allies to once again challenge the maps, potentially using the argument that the current lines were drawn under rules that have since been rejected.
The future of the congressional districts were a key issue in this year’s state Supreme Court race.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Susan Crawford, left, celebrates alongside Justice Rebecca Dallet after her win in the spring election on April 1, 2025, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Elon Musk, who spent some $20 million to boost Schimel’s candidacy, said at a rally in Green Bay last weekend that a potential redrawing of the maps is what made the race so important.
He called Tuesday’s election “a vote for which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives.”
Democrats have pushed a similar idea.
The Democratic leader in the U.S. House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, last week called Wisconsin’s congressional lines “broken.”
“As soon as possible we need to be able to revisit that and have fairer lines,” he said during an event with DNC Chair Ken Martin. “The only way for that to be even a significant possibility is if you have an enlightened Supreme Court.”
Crawford’s win makes the court friendlier to a potential congressional redistricting lawsuit.
3. Labor rights
A Dane County judge ruled late last year that provisions of Act 10, a Scott Walker-era law that kneecapped public sector labor unions, violated the state constitution. Under the ruling, all public sector workers would have their collective bargaining restored to what it was before the law took effect in 2011.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in February declined to fast-track an appeal in the case, meaning it must first be decided by a conservative branch of the state Court of Appeals, likely ensuring it won’t come before the high court before the end of the current term.
That means Crawford, who challenged aspects of Act 10 while working as a private attorney, will be on the court when it comes before the justices.
She didn’t answer directly when asked during the race’s only debate if she would recuse herself from the case. But she did note that the provision currently being challenged is different from the one she brought a lawsuit over.
“If the same provision that I was involved in litigating back in those early days was challenged again, I most likely would recuse,” she said.
But with conservative-leaning Justice Brian Hagedorn having already recused from the case, Crawford could step aside and liberals would still have the votes needed to overturn the law.
4. Environmental issues
The high court is currently also considering a case about enforcement of the state’s “Spills Law.”
Enacted in 1978, the law requires people or companies discharging a hazardous substance “to restore the environment to the extent practicable and minimize the harmful effects from the discharge to the air, lands or waters of this state.”
The lawsuit was filed by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s powerful business lobby, in 2021. It argued that the DNR could not require people to test for so-called “forever chemicals” contamination — and require remediation if they’re present — because the agency hadn’t gone through the formal process of designating the chemicals, known as PFAS, as “hazardous substances.” The court’s liberal justices seemed skeptical of WMC’s position during oral arguments in January.
WMC has been a perennial spender in state Supreme Court races. It spent some $2 million targeting Crawford during this year’s race.
Any forthcoming ruling in favor of the DNR is likely safe with Crawford on the court. She was endorsed during the campaign by Wisconsin Conservation Voters.
The Democratic-backed candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court defeated a challenger endorsed by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk on Tuesday, cementing a liberal majority for at least three more years.
Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge who led legal fights to protect union power and abortion rights and to oppose voter ID, defeated Republican-backed Brad Schimel in a race that broke records for spending, was on pace to be the highest-turnout Wisconsin Supreme Court election ever and became a proxy fight for the nation’s political battles.
Trump, Musk and other Republicans lined up behind Schimel, a former state attorney general. Democrats including former President Barack Obama and billionaire megadonor George Soros backed Crawford.
The first major election in the country since November was seen as a litmus test of how voters feel about Trump’s first months back in office and the role played by Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has torn through federal agencies and laid off thousands of workers. Musk traveled to Wisconsin on Sunday to make a pitch for Schimel and personally hand out to $1 million checks to voters.
Crawford embraced the backing of Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights advocates, running ads that highlighted Schimel’s opposition to the procedure. She also attacked Schimel for his ties to Musk and Republicans, referring to Musk as “Elon Schimel” during a debate.
Schimel’s campaign tried to portray Crawford as weak on crime and a puppet of Democrats who, if elected, would push to redraw congressional district boundary lines to hurt Republicans and repeal a GOP-backed state law that took collective bargaining rights away from most public workers.
Crawford’s win keeps the court under a 4-3 liberal majority, as it has been since 2023. A liberal justice is not up for election again until April 2028, ensuring liberals will either maintain or increase their hold on the court until then. The two most conservative justices are up for re-election in 2026 and 2027.
The court likely will be deciding cases on abortion, public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries. Who controls the court also could factor into how it might rule on any future voting challenge in the perennial presidential battleground state, which raised the stakes of the race for national Republicans and Democrats.
Musk and groups he funded poured more than $21 million into the contest. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, campaigned for Schimel in the closing weeks and said electing him was essential to protecting the Republican agenda. Trump endorsed Schimel just 11 days before the election.
Schimel, who leaned into his Trump endorsement in the closing days of the race, said he would not be beholden to the president or Musk despite the massive spending on the race by groups that Musk supports.
Crawford benefitted from campaign stops by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the vice presidential nominee last year, and money from billionaire megadonors including Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
The contest was the most expensive court race on record in the U.S., with spending nearing $99 million, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice. That broke the previous record of $51 million record, for the state’s Supreme Court race in 2023.
All of the spending and attention on the race led to high early voting turnout, with numbers more than 50% higher than the state’s Supreme Court race two years ago.
Crawford was elected to a 10-year term replacing liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley who is retiring after 30 years on the bench.
Wisconsin enshrines voter ID in state constitution
Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement for voting will be elevated from state law to constitutional amendment under a proposal approved by voters.
The Republican-controlled Legislature placed the measure on the ballot and pitched it as a way to bolster election security and protect the law from being overturned in court.
Democratic opponents argued that photo ID requirements are often enforced unfairly, making voting more difficult for people of color, disabled people and poor people.
Wisconsin voters won’t notice any changes when they go to the polls. They will still have to present a valid photo ID just as they have under the state law, which was passed in 2011 and went into effect permanently in 2016 after a series of unsuccessful lawsuits.
Placing the photo ID requirement in the constitution makes it more difficult for a future Legislature controlled by Democrats to change the law. Any constitutional amendment must be approved in two consecutive legislative sessions and by a statewide popular vote.
Voters wait in line and cast their ballots at the Villager Shopping Center during the spring election on April 1, 2025, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Republican legislators celebrated the measure’s passage.
“This will help maintain integrity in the electoral process, no matter who controls the Legislature,” Sen. Van Wanggaard, who co-authored the amendment, said in a statement.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who is leading Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal government, also noted the outcome on his social media platform, X, saying: “Yeah!”
Wisconsin is one of nine states where people must present photo ID to vote, and its requirement is the nation’s strictest, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Thirty-six states have laws requiring or requesting that voters show some sort of identification, according to the NCSL.
State schools chief Jill Underly wins reelection over G0P-backed rival
Jill Underly, the Democratic-backed state education chief, defeated her Republican-aligned opponent, Brittany Kinser.
Underly will guide policies affecting K-12 schools as Trump moves to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Her second term comes at a time when test scores are still recovering from the pandemic, Wisconsin’s achievement gap between white and Black students remains the worst in the country and more schools are asking voters to raise property taxes to pay for operations.
Jill Underly, Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction, speaks to reporters following the State of Education Address on Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024, at the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Wisconsin is the only state where voters elect the top education official but there is no state board of education. That gives the superintendent broad authority to oversee education policy, from dispersing school funding to managing teacher licensing.
Underly, 47, had the support of the teachers union in the general election after failing to secure it in the three-person primary. She also was backed financially by the state Democratic Party.
Underly, who was first elected as state superintendent in 2021, ran as a champion of public schools. Kinser is a supporter of the private school voucher program.
Underly’s education career began in 1999 as a high school social studies teacher in Indiana. She moved to Wisconsin in 2005 and worked for five years at the state education department. She also was principal of Pecatonica Elementary School for a year before becoming district administrator.
Kinser, whose backers included the Wisconsin Republican Party and former Republican Govs. Tommy Thompson and Scott Walker, previously worked for Rocketship schools, part of a national network of public charter institutions. She rose to become its executive director in the Milwaukee region.
In 2022 she left Rocketship for City Forward Collective, a Milwaukee nonprofit that advocates for charter and voucher schools. She also founded a consulting firm where she currently works.
Kinser tried to brand Underly as being a poor manager of the Department of Public Instruction and keyed in on her overhaul of state achievement standards last year.
Underly said that was done to better reflect what students are learning now, but the change was met with bipartisan opposition including from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who was previously state superintendent himself. Evers did not make an endorsement in the race.
High turnout leads to ballot shortage in Milwaukee
A voter enters Centennial Hall at the Milwaukee Central Library to vote on Election Day, April 1, 2025, in Milwaukee. (Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)
Unprecedented turnout led to ballot shortages in Wisconsin’s largest city Tuesday as voters cast ballots in “historic” numbers.
The race for control of the court, which became a proxy battle for the nation’s political fights, broke records for spending and was poised to be the highest-turnout Wisconsin Supreme Court election ever.
Early voting was more than 50% ahead of levels seen in the state’s Supreme Court race two years ago, when majority control was also at stake.
Seven polling sites in Milwaukee ran out of ballots, or were nearly out, due to “historic turnout” and more ballots were on their way before polls closed, said Paulina Gutierrez, the executive director of the Milwaukee Elections Commission.
Clerks all across the state, including in the city’s deep-red suburbs, reported turnout far exceeding 2023 levels.
A state race with nationwide significance
The court can decide election-related laws and settle disputes over future election outcomes.
“Wisconsin’s a big state politically, and the Supreme Court has a lot to do with elections in Wisconsin,” Trump said Monday. “Winning Wisconsin’s a big deal, so therefore the Supreme Court choice … it’s a big race.”
Crawford embraced the backing of Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights advocates, running ads that highlighted Schimel’s opposition to the procedure. She also attacked Schimel for his ties to Musk and Trump, who endorsed Schimel 11 days before the election.
The results of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Susan Crawford’s victory over Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel are shown at the Crawford watch party on April 1, 2025, in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel hugs supporters after making his concession speech Tuesday, April 1, 2025, in Pewaukee, Wis. (AP Photo/Andy Manis)
Schimel’s campaign tried to portray Crawford as weak on crime and a puppet of Democrats who would push to redraw congressional district boundary lines to hurt Republicans and repeal a GOP-backed state law that took collective bargaining rights away from most public workers.
Voters in Eau Claire seemed to be responding to both messages. Jim Seeger, a 68-year-old retiree, said he voted for Schimel because he’s concerned about redistricting.
Jim Hazelton, a 68-year-old disabled veteran, said he had planned to abstain but voted for Crawford after Musk — whom he described as a “pushy billionaire” — and Trump got involved.
“He’s cutting everything,” Hazelton said of Musk. “People need these things he’s cutting.”
What’s on the court’s agenda?
The court will likely be deciding cases on abortion, public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries.
Last year the court declined to take up a Democratic-backed challenge to congressional lines, but Schimel and Musk said that if Crawford wins, the court will redraw congressional districts to make them more favorable to Democrats. Currently Republicans control six out of eight seats in an evenly divided state.
Musk was pushing that message on Election Day, both on TV and the social media platform he owns, X, urging people to cast ballots in the final hours of voting.
There were no major voting issues by midday Tuesday, state election officials said. Severe weather prompted the relocation of some polling places in northern Wisconsin, and some polling places in Green Bay briefly lost power but voting continued. In Dane County, home to the state capital, Madison, election officials said polling locations were busy and operating normally.
Record-breaking donations
The contest is the most expensive court race on record in the U.S., with spending nearing $99 million, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Musk contributed $3 million to the campaign, while groups he funded poured in another $18 million. Musk also gave $1 million each to three voters who signed a petition he circulated against “activist” judges.
Elon Musk speaks at a town hall Sunday, March 30, 2025, in Green Bay, Wis. (Jeffrey Phelps / Associated Press)
Schimel leaned into his support from Trump while saying he would not be beholden to the president or Musk. Democrats centered their messaging on the spending by Musk-funded groups.
“Ultimately I think it’s going to help Susan Crawford, because people do not want to see Elon Musk buying election after election after election,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said Monday. “If it works here, he’s going to do it all over the country.”
Dane County Judge Susan Crawford thanks supporters after winning the race Tuesday for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Dane County Judge Susan Crawford was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday, solidifying liberal control of the body until 2028 and marking a sharp rebuke by the state’s voters of the policies of President Donald Trump and the financial might of his most prominent adviser, Elon Musk.
Crawford rode massive turnout in Dane and Milwaukee counties and outperformed Kamala Harris’ effort last year in a number of other parts of the state to defeat her opponent, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel by about 10 points.
The former chief legal counsel for Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle who represented liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Madison teacher’s union as a private practice attorney said during the campaign that she would look out for the rights of all Wisconsinites on the Supreme Court while repeatedly criticizing Schimel for his eagerness to show his support for Trump, his record as attorney general and the outside assistance his campaign got from Musk.
Crawford’s victory marks the third straight Supreme Court election for Wisconsin’s liberals and maintains the 4-3 liberal majority that has been in place since Justice Janet Protasiewicz was elected in 2023. Crawford will replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
Since gaining control of the Court, the new liberal majority has ruled that the state’s previous legislative maps were unconstitutional, ending the partisan gerrymander that had locked in Republican control of the Legislature for more than a decade, and accepted cases that will decide the rights of Wisconsinites to have an abortion. The Court is also likely to consider a challenge to Wisconsin’s 2011 law stripping most union rights from public employees within the next year or two.
“I’m here tonight because I’ve spent my life fighting to do what’s right,” Crawford said after the race was called for her. “That’s why I got into this race, to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all.”
Schimel said he got into the race because he was opposed to the “partisanship” of the liberal controlled Court but his effort to nationalize the race and show his support for Trump proved unsuccessful against a backlash to the second Trump term and voters’ distrust of Musk, who offered cash incentives for people who got out the vote for Schimel.
Tuesday’s election was the first statewide race in the country since Trump won the presidency last fall. Trump narrowly won Wisconsin and in counties across the state, Schimel failed to match the president’s vote total. In La Crosse County, Crawford performed 11 points better than Harris did last year and Schimel didn’t even match Trump’s vote share in his home of Waukesha County.
Schimel ran nearly even with former Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz in the 2023 race. Wisconsin’s conservatives have now lost the past three Supreme Court elections by double digits.
The 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for the most expensive judicial campaign in U.S. history, topping the $100 million mark. While Crawford received support from liberal billionaires including George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Musk dwarfed all other contributors, dumping more than $20 million into the race.
Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel delivers his concession speech in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
Musk’s money helped blanket the state’s airwaves with attack ads against Crawford’s record as a judge, often criticizing sentences she gave to people convicted of sexual violence. A Musk-associated PAC also hired people to knock on thousands of doors in an effort to turn out Trump’s base of Wisconsin voters, who have often sat out non-presidential elections. America PAC, a political action committee associated with Musk, paid door knockers $25 an hour, offered voters cash if they filled out a petition against “activist judges” and gave two people $1 million checks at a rally on Sunday.
“But I’ve got to tell you, as a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin,” Crawford said. “And we won.”
In a concession speech delivered shortly before 9:30 p.m., Schimel told supporters they “didn’t leave anything on the field,” and when a few began to complain said “no, we’ve gotta accept this.”
“The numbers aren’t going to turn around. Too bad. We’re not going to pull this off,” he said. “So thank you guys. From the bottom of my heart. God bless you. God bless the state of Wisconsin. God bless America. You will rise again. We’ll get up to fight another day, it just wasn’t our day.”
The Democratic Party of Wisconsin, harnessing voters’ alarm at the actions Musk has been leading from his federal DOGE office to cut government programs and fire thousands of public employees, held People v. Musk town halls across the state where residents said they were worried about the effect those cuts would have on services they rely on like Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s benefits and education funding.
Gov. Tony Evers said that Wisconsin “felt the weight of America” in this election, which proved Wisconsinites “will not be bought.”
“This election was about the resilience of the Wisconsin and American values that define and unite us,” Evers said. “This election was about doing what’s best for our kids, protecting constitutional checks and balances, reaffirming our faith in the courts and the judiciary, and defending against attacks on the basic rights, freedoms, and institutions we hold dear. But above all, this election was as much about who Wisconsinites believe we can be as it was about the country we believe we must be.”
Democrats and Crawford accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court, partially to influence a lawsuit his company, Tesla, has filed challenging a Wisconsin law that prohibits car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. Musk said he was focused on the race because the Court could decide the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps, which currently favor Republicans and help the party hold a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
At the victory party, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler compared the effort against Musk and Trump to Gov. Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette’s fight against the oligarchs of the early 20th century, adding that Republicans’ association with Musk will be an “anchor.”
“I think what Susan Crawford did by making clear that Elon Musk was the real opponent in this race, what voters did by responding to Elon Musk, it made clear that Elon Musk is politically toxic, and he is a massive anchor that will drag Republicans from the bottom of the ocean,” he said. “And that’s a message that I hope Republicans in Washington hear as fast as possible. Not only will they lose, but they will deserve to lose resoundingly and they will be swept out of power in a wave of outrage across the nation.”
On the campaign trail, Crawford sought to tie Schimel to Musk — she called her opponent “Elon Schimel” at the only debate between the two candidates — while portraying herself as the less partisan candidate. Throughout the nominally non-partisan race, both candidates lobbed accusations of extreme political views at the other.
With Crawford’s victory and the retention of the Court’s liberal majority, the body is expected to rule on cases that ask if Wisconsin’s Constitution grants women the right to access an abortion, the legality of the Republican-authored law that restricts the collective bargaining rights of most public employees, how Wisconsin’s industries should be regulated for pollution and the legality of the state’s congressional maps.
Heather Williams, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement that Democrats were offering a better vision for the country than the one promised by Schimel, Trump and Musk.
“Despite Republicans’ best efforts to buy this seat, Wisconsin voters showed up for their values and future,” Williams said. “While Trump dismantles programs that taxpayers have earned, support, and are counting on, voters across the country are turning to state Democrats who are delivering on promises to lower costs and expand opportunities.”
This story was updated Wednesday morning with current vote totals.
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN - MARCH 30: Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The town hall was held ahead of the state’s high-profile Supreme Court election between Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, who has been financially backed by Musk and endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Days before Wisconsinites go to the polls to decide which candidate will win an open seat on the state Supreme Court, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, gave oversized $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters.
Appearing on stage in front of more than 1,000 people and wearing a cheesehead hat, Musk, who has spent more than $20 million supporting the candidacy of conservative-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, gave out the money at a rally in Green Bay Sunday night. From the stage, Musk said the race, which will decide the ideological balance of the Court, could “affect the entire destiny of humanity.”
Aside from the two checks he gave out on Sunday, America PAC, the political action committee Musk has used to funnel money into the race, offered Wisconsin voters $100 each to fill out a petition against “activist judges” and provide contact information. Musk’s money has also been used to hire people from out-of-state to knock on doors on behalf of Schimel and blanket the state in ads. The group has also sent texts to voters in an effort to recruit canvassers that offer $20 for each person they get to vote.
Democrats and Schimel’s opponent, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, have accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the Court, pointing out that Musk’s company, Tesla, is currently fighting a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin over its law that prevents car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers.
Musk said the $1 million giveaway was a strategy to get attention on the race.
“We need to get attention,” he said. “Somewhat inevitably, when I do these things, it causes the legacy media to kind of lose their minds.”
Wisconsin state law includes provisions that make it illegal to offer people money in exchange for voting. In an initial post on his social media site, X, Musk said that the winners of the money would need to prove they had voted. He later deleted that post and updated the contest so that people only had to complete the America PAC petition.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul sued to block the giveaway, alleging that it violated state law against election bribery. Judges at the circuit, appellate and Supreme Court levels declined to step in.
Musk’s involvement in the race has become one of the campaign’s major issues as voters are about to head to the polls. The state Democratic party has held People v. Musk town halls across the state as liberals worry about Musk’s involvement in the election and his DOGE agency’s work to cut funds at a variety of federal agencies.
This story was originally published by ProPublica.
Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers approved a bill to allow unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican voted no.
“I just thought big money was an evil, a curse on our politics,” former state Sen. Robert Cowles said recently of his 2015 decision to buck his party.
As Wisconsin voters head to the polls this week to choose a new state Supreme Court justice, Cowles stands by his assessment. Voters have been hit with a barrage of attack ads from special interest groups, and record-setting sums of money have been spent to sway residents. What’s more, Cowles said, there’s been little discussion of major issues. The candidates debated only once.
“I definitely think that that piece of legislation made things worse,” Cowles said in an interview. “Our public discourse is basically who can inflame things in the most clever way with some terrible TV ad that’s probably not even true.”
More than $80 million has been funneled into the race as of March 25, according to two groups that have been tracking spending in the contest — the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy group that follows judicial races, and the news outlet WisPolitics. That surpasses the previous costliest judicial race in the country’s history, approximately $56 million spent two years ago on the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.
Money is pouring into this swing state election so fast and so many ads have been reserved that political observers now believe the current race is likely to reach $100 million by Tuesday, which is Election Day.
“People are thoroughly disgusted, I think, across the political spectrum with just the sheer amount of money being spent on a spring Supreme Court election in Wisconsin,” said Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, which has long advocated for campaign finance reform.
But the elected officials who could revamp the campaign finance system on both sides of the aisle or create pressure for change have been largely silent. No bills introduced this session. No press conferences from legislators. The Senate no longer even has a designated elections committee.
The current election pits former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, now a circuit court judge in conservative-leaning Waukesha County, against Susan Crawford, a judge in Dane County, the state’s liberal bastion.
Though the race technically is nonpartisan, the Democratic Party, including former President Barack Obama, has endorsed Crawford; the party has received financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros. On the other side, President Donald Trump posted a message on his social media platform on March 21 urging his supporters to vote for Schimel, and much of Schimel’s money comes from political organizations tied to Elon Musk.
The stakes are high. Whoever wins will determine the ideological bent of the seven-member court just two years after Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on the court and swung it to the liberals. With Protasiewicz on the court, the majority struck down state legislative maps, which had been drawn to favor Republicans, and reinstated the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots.
A Schimel victory could resurrect those and other voting issues, as well as determine whether women in the state will continue to be able to access abortion.
Two pro-Schimel groups linked to Musk — America PAC and Building America’s Future — had disclosed spending about $17 million, as of March 25. Musk himself donated $3 million this year to the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In the final stretch of the campaign, news reports revealed that Musk’s America PAC plans to give Wisconsin voters $100 to sign petitions rejecting the actions of “activist judges.”
That has raised concerns among some election watchdog groups, which have been exploring whether the offer from Musk amounts to an illegal inducement to get people to vote.
On Wednesday night, Musk went further, announcing on X a $1 million award to a Green Bay voter he identified only as “Scott A” for “supporting our petition against activist judges in Wisconsin!” Musk promised to hand out other million-dollar prizes before the election.
Musk has a personal interest in the direction of the Wisconsin courts. His electric car company, Tesla Inc., is suing the state over a law requiring manufacturers to sell automobiles through independent dealerships. Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment about his involvement in the race.
Also on Schimel’s side: billionaires Diane Hendricks and Richard Uihlein and Americans for Prosperity, a dark-money group founded by billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother David. Americans for Prosperity has reported spending about $3 million, primarily for digital ads, canvassing, mailers and door hangers.
A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund, a union-supported electioneering group, has ponied up over $6 million to advance Crawford. In other big outlays, Soros has given $2 million to the state Democratic Party, while Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another billionaire, gave $1.5 million. And California venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, donated $250,000.
In Wisconsin, political parties can steer unlimited amounts to candidates.
State Sen. Jeff Smith, a Democrat and a minority leader, called the spending frenzy “obscene.”
“There’s no reason why campaigns should cost as much as they do,” he said.
Asked for comment about the vast amount of money in the race, Crawford told ProPublica: “I’m grateful for the historic outpouring of grassroots support across Wisconsin from folks who don’t want Elon Musk controlling our Supreme Court.”
Schimel’s campaign called Crawford a “hypocrite,” saying she “is playing the victim while receiving more money than any judicial candidate in American history thanks to George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and JB Pritzker funneling money to her campaign.”
Quizzed Monday by a TV reporter on whether he would recuse himself if the Tesla case got to the state’s high court, Schimel did not commit, saying: “I’ll do the same thing I do in every case. I will examine whether I can truly hear that case objectively.”
A decade after Wisconsin opened the floodgates to unlimited money in campaigns in 2015, some good government activists are wondering if the state has reached a tipping point. Is there any amount, they ask, at which the state’s political leaders can be persuaded to impose controls?
“I honestly believe that folks have their eyes open around the money in a way that they have not previously,” Nick Ramos, executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks campaign spending, told reporters during a briefing on spending in the race.
A loosely organized group of campaign reformers is beginning to lay the groundwork for change. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently called a Zoom meeting that included representatives of public interest groups inside and outside of Wisconsin, dark-money researchers and an election security expert.
They were looking for ways to champion reform during the current legislative session. In particular, they are studying and considering what models make sense and may be achievable, including greater disclosure requirements, public financing and restricting candidates from coordinating with dark-money groups on issue ads.
But Republicans say that the spending is a natural byproduct of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which equated campaign spending with free speech and opened the spigots for big-money races.
“For the most part, we don’t really, as Republicans, want to see the brakes on free speech,” said Ken Brown, past chair of the GOP Party of Racine, a city south of Milwaukee. Noting he was not speaking for the party, Brown said he does not favor spending limits. “I believe in the First Amendment. It is what it is. I believe the Citizens United decision was correct.”
Asked to comment on the current system of unlimited money, Anika Rickard, a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, did not answer the question but instead criticized Crawford and her funders.
Post-reform bill opened floodgates
At one point, Wisconsin was seen as providing a roadmap for reform. In 2009, the state passed the Impartial Justice Act. The legislation, enacted with bipartisan support, provided for public financing of state Supreme Court races, so candidates could run without turning to special interests for money.
The push for the measure came after increased spending by outside special interests and the candidates in two state Supreme Court races: the 2007 election that cost an estimated $5.8 million and the 2008 contest that neared $6 million, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
Candidates who agreed in 2009 to public financing and spending limits received grants of up to $400,000 for the race. The money came from the Democracy Trust Fund, which was supported by a $2 income tax check-off.
“Reformers win a fight to clean up court races,” the headline on an editorial in The Capital Times read at the time.
But the law was in place for only one election, in April 2011. Both candidates in the court’s general election that year agreed to take public funding, and incumbent Justice David Prosser, a conservative, narrowly won reelection. Then Republicans eliminated funding for the measure that summer. Instead, the money was earmarked to implement a stringent voter ID law.
By 2015, GOP leaders had completely overhauled the state’s campaign finance law, with Democrats in the Assembly refusing to even vote on the measure in protest.
“This Republican bill opens the floodgates to unlimited spending by billionaires, by big corporations and by monied, special interests to influence our elections,” Rep. Lisa Subeck, a Democrat, said in the floor debate.
Wisconsin is no longer cited as a model. Activists point to other states, including Arizona, Oregon and Rhode Island. Arizona and Oregon established disclosure measures to trace the flow of dark money, requiring campaign spenders to reveal the original source of donations. Rhode Island required ads to name not only the sponsor but the organization’s top donors so voters can better access the message and its credibility.
Amid skepticism that Wisconsin will rein in campaign spending, there may be some reason for optimism.
A year ago, a proposed joint resolution in Wisconsin’s Legislature bemoaned Citizens United and the spending it had unleashed. The resolution noted that “this spending has the potential to drown out speech rights for all citizens, narrow debate, weaken federalism and self-governance in the states, and increase the risk of systemic corruption.”
The resolution called for a constitutional amendment clarifying that “states may regulate the spending of money to influence federal elections.”
And though it never came to a vote, 17 members of the Legislature signed on to it, a dozen of them Republicans. Eight of them are still in the Legislature, including Sen. Van Wanggaard, who voted for the 2015 bill weakening Wisconsin’s campaign finance rules.
Wanggaard did not respond to a request for comment. But an aide expressed surprise — and disbelief — seeing the lawmaker’s name on the resolution.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
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.
A reader asked: Was Elon Musk’s endorsement of Brad Schimel a violation of lobbying laws because of Musk’s status as a federal employee?
We’ll get to that question in a second, but we also wondered about the answer to a related question: Are the cash giveaways from Musk’s America PAC ahead of the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election legal?
Musk, the centibillionaire tech CEO turned efficiency czar for President Donald Trump, has dominated the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in recent weeks. Musk and affiliated groups have poured cash into the race between liberal candidate Susan Crawford and conservative candidate Brad Schimel, which will determine ideological control of the high court and could have national ramifications.
America PAC and Building America’s Future, two groups that are funded by Musk, have spent more than $16.7 million on advertising and voter mobilization efforts meant to aid Schimel’s candidacy. Musk has also donated $3 million to the Republican Party of Wisconsin, which can transfer the money to Schimel’s campaign.
Musk’s super PAC, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing “activist judges.”
“Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas,” the petition reads. “By signing below, I’m rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role — interpreting, not legislating.”
Participants can also get $100 for referring another petition signer.
Late on Wednesday the super PAC announced that “Scott A.” from Green Bay had been selected to win $1 million after filling out the petition. That mirrors a move America PAC deployed in last year’s presidential race.
It’s less clear whether America PAC’s “special offer” violates Wisconsin’s election bribery statute, according to Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative.
(1m) Any person who does any of the following violates this chapter:
a. Offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend, or endeavors to procure, anything of value, or any office or employment or any privilege or immunity to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to:
i. Go to or refrain from going to the polls.
ii. Vote or refrain from voting.
iii.Vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular person.
iv. Vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular referendum; or on account of any elector having done any of the above.
The $100 reward for signing the petition “definitely falls into a gray area because (America PAC) is paying people to sign the petition,” Godar said. “The question is whether the payment is being given in order to induce anyone to vote or refrain from voting.”
“These payments kind of walk an uncertain line on whether they are amounting to that or not,” Godar added.
Godar also noted that you have to be a registered Wisconsin voter to receive the payment, “so it does seem like it is inducing people to register to vote.” That violates federal law for federal elections, she said, but “federal law doesn’t apply to this election because there aren’t any federal offices on the ballot.”
“Under the state law, that’s not specifically one of the listed prohibitions,” Godar said. “It’s definitely in a gray area and sort of walks the line.”
Elon Musk posted on X, the social media platform he owns, that he would incentivize voting in Wisconsin with $1 million checks. The post appears to have been taken down. An X user asked the platform’s AI chatbot, Grok, whether Musk’s plan was election fraud. The bot responded that the plan likely violates Wisconsin election law.
Late on Thursday, Musk announced he would “give a talk in Wisconsin” in a social media post that has since been taken down.
“Entrance is limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election,” he wrote. “I will also personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.”
An AI chatbot on Musk’s own social media site flagged the activity in the post as potentially illegal. “Though aimed at boosting participation, this could be seen as election bribery,” the AI profile @grok replied to someone asking if the post was legal.
In a follow-up email, Godar said giving “the payment for voting instead of for signing the petition much more clearly violates Wisconsin law.”
On Friday afternoon, Musk posted again: “To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges.”
“I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition,” he wrote.
UPDATE (March 31, 2025, 9:00 a.m.): On Friday afternoon, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit to bar Musk and America PAC from promoting the “million-dollar gifts.” The suit also sought to prohibit Musk and America PAC “from making any payments to Wisconsin electors to vote.” The case was randomly assigned to Crawford, who immediately recused, and then reassigned to Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voigt. Voigt declined to hear the petition prior to Sunday’s event, so Kaul went to the Court of Appeals and subsequently the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Both turned down his request to stop Musk from giving away two $1 million checks, which he did on Sunday evening.
Violating the statute is a Class I felony, which can carry a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment of up to three-and-a-half years, or both.
A county district attorney or the Wisconsin attorney general would be responsible for filing criminal charges for violations of the statute, Godar said. It’s also possible someone could try to bring a civil claim to have a judge halt the payments. So far that hasn’t happened.
Now back to our reader question about Musk’s political activities as a federal employee.
Musk, in his role as a “special government employee” leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is bound by the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting “political activity while you’re on duty, while you’re in the workplace, and the use of your official position to influence the outcome of an election,” said Delaney Marsco, the director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center.
But special government employees like Musk are only bound by the Hatch Act while they’re on duty representing the federal government, Marsco said, so the world’s wealthiest man “is allowed to engage in political activity that might otherwise be prohibited as long as he’s not on duty when he’s doing it.”
The Hatch Act is intended to “maintain a federal workforce that is free from partisan political influence or coercion,” according to a memo from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Wisconsin Watch readers have submitted questions to our statehouse team, and we’ll answer them in our series, Ask Wisconsin Watch. Have a question about state government? Ask it here.
'Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect?' asked a former Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice | Getty Images Creative
Does it matter to Wisconsin voters that Elon Musk is trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? Maybe not to “Scott A.” as Musk called him, the Green Bay voter to whom Musk gave $1 million as part of his campaign to reward Wisconsinites who sign a petition against “activist judges,” while at the same time handing over their personal data to Musk. Scott A.’s haul is one-fifth the size of Musk’s $20 million investment in campaign ads and door-knocking to support his preferred candidate, Brad Schimel.
And Musk’s $20 million spending spree accounts for about one-fifth of the total, record-breaking $100 million that makes the April 1 contest the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.
The race is a test of many things: Whether Musk, serving as unelected and unpopular co-president to Donald Trump, is a political asset or a liability; whether the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will endure; whether the highest bidder is destined to win state court races even as the ad war becomes a blitzkrieg; whether three months into the Trump administration, amid mass firings, the dismantling of federal agencies and voter unease about the destruction of their health care and retirement security, Wisconsin might be the place where things begin to turn around.
The money pouring into the Supreme Court race is obscene and a bad sign for the health of democracy regardless of next week’s outcome. But the sickness didn’t flare up overnight. It has been getting steadily worse for almost two decades.
Schimel makes the claim that he is running to restore the Court’s “impartiality,” motivated by his disgust at how “political” the Court’s new liberal majority has become. In truth, the politicization of the Court goes back almost two decades and Schimel, a highly partisan Republican, is an unlikely candidate to take us back to pre-partisan times. On the other side, Susan Crawford is backed by the Democrats and big out of state donors including George Soros. In a recent debate she conceded that the public has an interest in ethics rules that would require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving their donors, but the current rules don’t require that. Neither candidate has promised to recuse from such cases.
The turning point that led us to the current moment came in 2008. That was the year disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman defeated incumbent Justice Louis Butler in a dirty campaign that broke all previous spending records. The race cost $6 million — at the time, an astounding sum.
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Gableman’s biggest-spending supporter, paid for ads calling Butler “Loophole Louie” and accusing him of being soft on crime. Gableman himself ran a disgusting ad that placed Butler’s face next to the mugshot of a convicted rapist. Both men were Black. The ad misleadingly claimed that Butler “found a loophole” and let the man out of prison “to molest another child.” In fact, Butler was not the judge in the case. As a public defender assigned to defend his client, he lost in court and his client was imprisoned, then later reoffended after he was released, having served his full sentence.
Gableman went on to help destroy ethics rules on the Court, refusing to recuse himself from cases involving WMC, which had spent more than $2 million to help elect him. He played a key role in passing the current ethics rule allowing justices to decide for themselves whether to recuse in cases involving their big-money campaign contributors.
Gableman embarrassed supporters, including Dodge County District Attorney Steven Bauer, who publicly withdrew his support during the campaign because of the attack ad. Tellingly, after he left the Court, Gableman disappeared, never landing a job at a law firm or in public service. His brief return to the limelight, as Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’s chief investigator of nonexistent voter fraud, featured Gableman threatening to jail the mayors of Democratic cities and wasting more than a million taxpayer dollars on a farcical investigation that ended when Vos fired him.
But the damage done by Gableman and the people who poured money into electing him endures.
The 2025 Supreme Court race, which is on track to double the cost of the last record-breaking election in 2023, is 15 times as costly as Gableman’s expensive and shamefully politicized campaign.
Ads featuring scary crime stories are still a major feature of Supreme Court races, sponsored by people who know and don’t care that tough-on-crime issues aren’t coming before the Court. Instead, the ads are paid for by ideological groups, political parties and corporations interested in favorable treatment — like Musk, who has a current lawsuit in Wisconsin seeking to overturn a state law blocking him from opening Tesla dealerships here.
Back in 1873, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward Ryan worried about the rise of the robber barons, their accumulation of vast personal wealth and with it political power. Speaking at the University of Wisconsin Law School, he posed the question: “Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?”
We are well on our way to becoming a nation of feudal serfs to Elon Musk. The liquidation of government agencies and institutions that serve the public interest are a giant step in that direction. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election will take us further down that road, or move us in the opposite direction. But until we do something about the arms race in campaign spending, Ryan’s vision of government by “educated and patriotic free men (and women)” will be increasingly out of reach.
The payment to a Green Bay man, which Musk announced Wednesday night on his social media platform X, is similar to a lottery that Musk’s political action committee ran last year in Wisconsin and other battleground states before the presidential election in November.
The upcoming election on Tuesday, filling a seat held by a liberal justice who is retiring, will determine whether Wisconsin’s highest court will remain under 4-3 liberal control or flip to a conservative majority. The race has become a proxy battle over the nation’s politics, with Trump and Musk getting behind Brad Schimel, the Republican-backed candidate in the officially nonpartisan contest.
The campaign for the Democratic-supported candidate, Susan Crawford, blasted the $1 million payment from Musk as an attempt to illegally buy influence on the court in a state where Tesla, his electric car company, has a lawsuit pending that could end up before the court.
“It’s corrupt, it’s extreme, and it’s disgraceful to our state and judiciary,” Crawford spokesperson Derrick Honeyman said in a statement.
No legal action against Musk’s payments to voters has been filed in Wisconsin with the Supreme Court election five days away.
Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, said the payments were a last-minute attempt to influence the election.
“Whether or not Wisconsinites will believe this is legitimate or not probably won’t be settled until after the election,” he said. “But this is not what a Wisconsin Supreme Court election ought to be decided on. Races for the high court are supposed to be on judicial temperament and impartiality, not huge amounts of money for partisan purposes.”
Musk’s political action committee, America First, announced last week that it was offering $100 to voters who signed a petition in opposition to “activist judges.” He did not say there would be $1 million prizes at that time, but in his post on Wednesday said an additional $1 million award would be made in two days.
It was not clear who determined the winner of the $1 million or how it was done.
Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the White House election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.
It is a felony in Wisconsin to offer, give, lend or promise to lend or give anything of value to induce a voter to cast a ballot or not vote.
The Musk petition says it is open only to registered Wisconsin voters, but those who sign it are not required to show any proof that they actually voted.
The petition says: “Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas. By signing below, I’m rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role — interpreting, not legislating.”
The petition, while designed to collect data on Wisconsin voters and energize them, also is in line with Trump’s agenda alleging that “activist” judges are illegally working against him. Trump’s administration is embroiled in several lawsuits related to his flurry of executive orders and Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency effort to downsize the federal bureaucracy.
During last year’s presidential race, Philadelphia’s district attorney sued in an attempt to stop the payments under Pennsylvania law. But a judge said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.
America PAC and Building for America’s Future, two groups that Musk funds, have spent more than $17 million trying to help elect Schimel, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice. Musk also has given the Wisconsin Republican Party $3 million this year, which it can then give to Schimel or spend on the race.
More than $81 million has been spent on the race so far, obliterating the record for a judicial race in the U.S. of $51 million set in Wisconsin just two years ago, according to Brennan Center tallies.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and political groups he backs are pouring millions of dollars into the race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the electric vehicle company sues to overturn a state law that prevents it from opening dealerships — a case that eventually could make its way to the high court.
Tesla’s multiple attempts to open its own dealerships in Wisconsin keep running up against a state law that allows only third parties, not auto manufacturers, to operate them. The company filed a lawsuit in January seeking an exemption, just as two Musk-backed political action committees started supporting the Republican-backed candidate, Brad Schimel, over his opponent, Susan Crawford, who is supported by Democrats.
Musk, who is the world’s wealthiest person and is running President Donald Trump’s initiative to slash the size of the federal workforce, has given $3 million to the Wisconsin GOP while groups he supports have funneled more than $17 million into the race. The contributions are part of an extraordinary spending spree in the race, making it by far the most expensive judicial race on record in the United States. Total spending has eclipsed $80 million with days still to go before the final day of voting on April 1.
Schimel’s critics have accused Musk of trying to buy a favorable ruling for Tesla should the dealership case make it to the state Supreme Court. Here are details of the law and Musk’s lawsuit:
Why can’t Tesla set up Wisconsin dealerships?
State statutes generally prohibit vehicle manufacturers from owning or operating dealerships in Wisconsin and give that franchise to third parties. The law was intended to prevent manufacturers from undercutting independent dealerships.
Nearly 20 states have similar prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The laws took hold in the 1930s as carmakers started to rely on independent dealerships to sell and service vehicles so they could focus on production. Later, independent dealers wanted to prevent manufacturers from opening their own dealerships and driving them out of business.
Tesla sells its vehicles directly to consumers, who can have their vehicles shipped directly to them or to dealerships in 27 states. Because the company can’t set up its own dealerships in Wisconsin, buyers there must have the cars delivered to them or travel to dealerships in neighboring Minnesota or Illinois to pick them up.
Tesla officials have been working for almost a decade to secure an exemption from the law. In 2017 and 2021, Republican legislators introduced bills that would permit Tesla dealerships, but none of those made it out of the Legislature. They inserted an exemption for Tesla dealerships into the 2019-21 state budget, but Democratic Gov. Tony Evers used his partial veto powers to erase the provision.
The Wisconsin Automobile and Truck Dealers Association has been fighting to preserve the law. Bill Sepic, the association’s president and CEO, told The Associated Press that Tesla should have to follow the law like any other vehicle manufacturer. He said the statutes exist to enable third parties to act as consumer advocates “in making one of the larger purchases of their life.”
What is the company doing now?
Tesla filed a lawsuit in state court in January seeking permission to open four dealerships in Wisconsin.
The company argues that independent dealers wouldn’t meet its standards and says selling vehicles at its own dealerships is in the public interest because unaffiliated dealers’ prices are higher and less transparent.
Its lawsuit says that the state law barring manufacturers from running their own dealerships violates economic liberty rights and that the prohibition exists only to protect independent dealers from competition.
The case is pending in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, though no hearings have been scheduled.
The state Justice Department is defending the law. An agency spokesperson declined to comment.
How did Musk get involved in the state Supreme Court race?
Schimel, the conservative state Supreme Court candidate, is vying with Crawford for an open seat on the high court.
The race is the most significant election nationally since the November presidential contest, providing an early barometer for Republicans and Democrats given the intense interest and outside spending it has generated. It also will determine whether the highest court in the perennial presidential battleground state will flip from liberal to conservative control with major cases involving abortion, union rights and congressional redistricting on the horizon.
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford, left, and Brad Schimel wait for the start of their debate March 12, 2025, at the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School’s Eckstein Hall in Milwaukee. The hourlong debate was the first and only debate between the candidates ahead of the April 1 election. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Eight days after Tesla filed the Wisconsin dealership lawsuit, Musk tweeted: “Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud!”
To be clear, there has been no evidence of widespread voting fraud in Wisconsin. Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state over then-President Donald Trump in 2020 was affirmed by a recount and an independent audit. Trump, a Republican, won the state last November and offered no objections then to the voting or ballot-counting.
According to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, Musk-backed groups America PAC and Building America’s Future have spent more than $17 million to support Schimel with ads and flyers. The money he donated to the state Republican Party has been used to help Schimel, who has been endorsed by Trump.
Are the candidates focused on the Tesla case?
Crawford’s supporters contend the timing of the contributions show Musk is trying to ensure that Schimel wins and creates a conservative majority on the court that ultimately would rule in Tesla’s favor. Crawford said during a debate with Schimel this month that Musk “has basically taken over Brad Schimel’s campaign.”
Sepic, president of the state dealership association, said Wisconsin should elect the candidate who enforces the prohibition but declined to comment when asked if he thought Schimel or Crawford would do that.
Schimel has repeatedly said he would treat any case involving Tesla the same as any other when he considers whether to hear it or recuse himself. Schimel also has insisted that the donations from Musk and his groups do not make him beholden to them.
Crawford has said the same thing about billionaires who have donated to her campaign, including George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Soros has contributed $2 million and Pritzker $1.5 million to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which has funneled the money to Crawford’s campaign.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel debate at Marquette Law School Wednesday evening, March 12. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)
The race for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court continues to draw record-breaking campaign donations, with both candidates receiving contributions from billionaires and out-of-state donors.
With less than a week left in the race that will decide the ideological balance of the Court between Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, observers believe the total amount raised will reach $100 million by Election Day on April 1. That amount makes the race the most expensive state court election in U.S.history and far surpasses Wisconsin’s record of $56 million, which was set when Justice Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Justice Dan Kelly in the 2023 race.
On Monday, the Crawford campaign announced that it had raised $17 million since early February and $24 million since she entered the race last summer.
Full campaign finance reports of the reporting period are not yet available, but late contribution reports filed on Monday show Crawford’s campaign received more than $1.2 million in just the last few days, including more than $600,000 of in-kind donations from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
The report also shows a number of contributions to Crawford of more than $1,000 from donors across the state and the U.S., including a $5,000 donation from the actor Kevin Bacon and $1,000 from former state Department of Revenue Secretary Peter Barca.
Schimel’s late-filing report showed he received about $1.2 million from the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
State law puts a $20,000 limit on individuals’ donations to a judicial campaign, however both candidates are benefiting from a workaround that allows unlimited donations to both political parties, which can in turn transfer unlimited amounts of cash to the campaigns.
Schimel’s campaign has also received $13 million in outside support from a political action committee associated with Elon Musk. Musk has been an outspoken supporter of Schimel, and Musk’s America PAC, which he used to back President Trump during the 2024 election, has offered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition opposing “activist judges” and has sent staff to knock on doors in Wisconsin. Schimel was also endorsed by President Donald Trump over the weekend. WisPolitics reported last week that Musk had also given $2 million to the state Republican party, the largest contribution ever recorded to the state GOP.
The Elon Musk–founded 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.
The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
I’ve studied the rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for well over a decade, and for most of that time, the court tended to put corporations and employers over workers or consumers. That has changed in the last couple of years. And now that voters have elected a pro-worker majority, billionaires like Elon Musk are spending big to return a pro-corporate majority to power.
In a 2023 report that I authored for People’s Parity Project Action, we found that the state Supreme Court had ruled for corporations or employers in most of the cases where individuals were on the other side. The report commented on the stakes of that year’s election: “Instead of the reactionary justices who’ve put corporations over workers, [Wisconsinites] could have a majority that gives everyone a fair shot.”
In the weeks after our report was released, around the time of the spring 2023 election, the high court ruled for workers or consumers in several cases. Later that year, Judge Janet Protaseiwicz was sworn in, forming a progressive, pro-democracy majority.
Around a year ago, this new majority ruled along ideological lines in a case that impacted workers across the state. The appeal involved unemployment insurance for Catholic Charities and some affiliated charities that help the poor and people with disabilities find jobs. The nonprofit employers tried to argue that they were exempt from the unemployment insurance system under the “ministerial” exception, which applies to employers that are both controlled by a religious organization and “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
The court ruled 4–3 that the organizations aren’t “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The justices examined the activities of the groups (job training, help with daily living activities, etc.) and concluded that they aren’t religious. As the court notes, the smaller charities weren’t even receiving funding from Catholic Charities and were primarily funded through government contracts.
The majority emphasized that the unemployment statute has always been interpreted broadly to cover as many workers as possible, ever since the state became the first to set up such a system in 1932. The statute says that unemployment compensation addresses an “urgent public problem” by sharing the burdens of unemployment.
This ruling meant that dozens of Catholic Charities workers and all of its sub-organizations’ employees — the people who help people in need find jobs — can get unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The Freedom from Religion Foundation noted that a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities would have jeopardized unemployment insurance for thousands of workers at “religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges.”
Justice Rebecca Bradley, whose dissent was partially joined by the other conservatives, began with a Bible verse and an invocation of “Jesus Christ himself.” She argued for deferring to an employer’s stated motivations to determine if its workers are ministerial.
Bradley also argued that the majority’s ruling violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The case is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has expanded the First Amendment rights of religious employers at the expense of their workers. Though this case implicates the First Amendment, most cases involving workers only involve state law. This means that the Wisconsin Supreme Court gets the final say.
Right now, billionaires and corporations are spending big to end the pro-worker majority and put the state Supreme Court’s power back in the hands of right-wing justices who will rule in their favor. With Musk-aligned groups pouring in at least $12 million, spending in the race is on track to break the record for spending in a U.S. judicial election — a record set in 2023 in Wisconsin, the election that changed control of the court.
The pro-corporate majority that presided over the state for a decade-and-a-half first came to power in 2008. In that year’s election, corporate interests deliberately targeted a justice who had ruled against the manufacturers of dangerous lead paint. This majority was mired in conflicts of interest and bitter interpersonal conflicts. In 2010, they adopted an ethics rule that was literally written by a corporate-funded group that backed the conservative justices. A few years later, they shut down a campaign finance investigation into big business groups that had spent millions to get them elected.
For billionaires and corporations, the stakes are clear in this year’s high court election. Wisconsin judges are ruling on cases affecting voters, workers, and people facing criminal charges.
In one case, Musk’s Tesla car company is currently appealing a judge’s decision to deny it an exemption to a state law that prohibits car companies from owning car dealerships. Musk’s company wants to open four dealerships throughout the state — at a time when those dealerships are facing hundreds of protests in states around the country. If a Tesla customer sues the company, Musk would probably prefer that a pro-corporate judge hear the case.
With the court’s current majority in power, workers and consumers actually have a shot at justice. The justices have made progress in protecting democracy. They finally struck down gerrymandered election districts and overturned a prior ruling that barred the use of ballot drop boxes.
Musk and his wealthy friends want to take all of that away. But in Wisconsin, the voters decide who sits on their state’s highest court.
The election to fill a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat has become a referendum not only on the new administration, but on Elon Musk, the billionaire who has become one of President Donald Trump ‘s top financial backers and the architect of his efforts to slash the federal workforce.
The April 1 election is the first major test in American politics since Trump secured a second term in November. It will serve as a crucial barometer of enthusiasm in both parties heading into next year’s midterm elections and is happening in a critical battleground state that Trump won by less than a percentage point.
It’s also a test for Musk himself. The Tesla CEO’s nascent political operation, which spent more than $200 million to help Trump win in November, is canvassing and advertising in Wisconsin on behalf of the conservative candidate. A win would cement his status as a conservative kingmaker, while a loss could give license to Republicans distancing themselves from his efforts to stymie government functions and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs.
“This is the first major election held since Donald Trump took office,” said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. “And I think notably Democrats are concentrating more on Elon Musk than Donald Trump.”
Musk, who is the race’s biggest donor by far, has also inserted himself into the race, holding a get-out-the-vote event on his X platform Saturday.
“It might not seem important, but it’s actually really important. And it could determine the fate of the country,” he said. “This election is going to affect everyone in the United States.”
April 1’s election will determine majority control of a court facing critical issues: abortion rights, collective bargaining and voter access. They include decisions that could have major implications for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election, particularly if they end up hearing challenges to the state’s congressional maps, which could theoretically swing the balance of power in Washington if they are considerably redrawn.
The Supreme Court race is officially nonpartisan, but the campaign has been anything but. Brad Schimel, the Republican-backed candidate, has openly courted Trump’s endorsement, which he received on Friday night, as he campaigns against Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, the Democrat-backed candidate.
The Waukesha County judge and former Republican attorney general attended the president’s inauguration in January and has said that he would be part of a “support system” for Trump. Earlier this month, he attended a “Mega MAGA rally” where he posed for a picture in front of a giant inflatable version of the president, which had a “Vote Brad Schimel Supreme Court” poster plastered on its chest.
He spoke on Musk’s get-out-the-vote call on Saturday. And he joined the president’s eldest son on stage at a get-out-the-vote rally, where Donald Trump Jr. said a Schimel win would protect his father’s agenda and keep up GOP momentum.
“We can’t just show up when Trump’s on the ticket,” he said at a brewery in the Milwaukee suburbs. “You have to engage because it’s not just about now, it’s about that future. This presidency could be put to a halt with this vote.”
Schimel has also resurfaced long-debunked conspiracies about voter fraud that Trump has embraced, urging his supporters to vote early to “make this too big to rig 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.”
Still, he pledged to judge any case that comes before him on its merits — including potential cases involving Trump and Musk.
Republicans have cast the race as a chance for Trump’s loyal supporters to rally around their leader and push back against liberal judges they accuse of working to stymie his agenda.
Mailers from Musk’s America PAC feature photographs of the president. “President Donald Trump needs your vote,” they read. Others warn that “Liberal Susan Crawford will stop President Trump’s agenda.”
America PAC is also offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition in opposition to “activist judges” — and another $100 for each signer they refer.
Republicans have argued that if even 60% of the voters who cast ballots for Trump in November turn out, Schimel can win, helping to drive momentum for the party heading into next year’s midterms.
“In theory, the opposition party should be energized, but we’re feeling very good about the energy on our side of the aisle,” said Andrew Iverson, Wisconsin GOP executive director.
Andrew Romeo, senior adviser to the Musk-backed group Building America’s Future, which has spent millions on the race, issued a recent memo advising Schimel’s campaign to remind voters that he is “a strong conservative and Trump ally.”
Two groups funded by Musk have so far spent more than $14 million on the race, according to a tally by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice — with plans to spend around $20 million total.
Musk donated another $2 million to the Wisconsin Republican Party on Thursday, the same day the party gave $1.2 million to Schimel’s campaign.
Under Wisconsin law, contributions to candidates are capped, but candidates can accept unlimited cash from state parties, which in turn can accept unlimited cash from donors.
His spending has helped make the race the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history, with more than $73 million spent so far, according to the Brennan Center, breaking the record set by another Wisconsin Supreme Court race two years ago.
Crawford has also received her own support from billionaires, including philanthropist George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
Democrats want race to be the people vs. Musk
Democrats are hoping to channel their voters’ outrage at the Trump administration by casting the race as an opportunity to stand up to Musk. After nearly a decade of running against the president, they see Musk as a potentially more divisive figure who can motivate their base voters to turn out.
“This race is the first real test point in the country on Elon Musk and his influence on our politics, and voters want an opportunity to push back on that and the influence he is trying to make on Wisconsin and the rest of country,” said Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman.
State Democrats have hosted a series of anti-Musk town halls, including one featuring former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, and featured Musk heavily in ads.
Crawford has also seized on Musk, going as far as to refer to her opponent as “Elon Schimel” during a recent debate.
“There’s so many people who are desperate for a way to fight back against what Trump and Musk are doing nationally,” said Ben Wikler, the Wisconsin Democratic Party chair, and see the race as an “opportunity to punch back.”
Wikler said the party had seen an “explosive surge” in grassroots and small-donor fundraising from across the country tied to Musk’s involvement. Both in Wisconsin and nationally, Democrats are packing town halls and angrily protesting the Trump administration’s firings of thousands of workers and shutdown of agencies. They have also show disillusionment with their party’s own leaders.
“Most voters still don’t know who Crawford and Schimel are, but they have extremely strong feelings about Musk and Trump,” he said.
What’s at stake for Musk
Musk said Saturday that he became involved in the race because it “will decide how the congressional districts are drawn in Wisconsin,” echoing Schimel’s claims that Crawford would push through new congressional maps that could favor Democrats.
Schimel’s campaign has relentlessly attacked Crawford for participating in a call with Democratic donors that was advertised in an email as a “chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026,” a reference to the state’s redistricting fights that have played out for years.
Crawford has said that she didn’t know that that was how the call had been billed when she joined and that nothing of that nature had been discussed while she was on the line.
“In my opinion, that’s the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin,” Musk said. “It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place, and then we wouldn’t be able to get through the changes that the American people want.”
Musk has also been giving money to Republican members of Congress who have echoed his calls to impeach federal judges whose decisions he doesn’t like.
He has other interests at play.
Democrats and Crawford have noted that, just days before Musk’s groups started spending on the race, Musk’s electric car company Tesla sued Wisconsin over a rule banning car manufacturers from operating dealerships — forcing buyers to purchase Teslas out of state.
The case could ultimately go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Associated Press writer Scott Bauer contributed to this report.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS - NOVEMBER 19: Elon Musk speaks with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump as they watch the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket on November 19, 2024 in Brownsville, Texas. SpaceX’s billionaire owner, Elon Musk, a Trump confidante, has been tapped to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency alongside former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
A political action committee associated with Elon Musk is offering Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition “in opposition to activist judges” and another $100 if they refer another person who signs the petition. The petition requires people to provide a name, address, email and phone number — information that will help the group make further contact with voters.
The group, America PAC, has reported spending more than $7 million in support of Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel’s campaign for state Supreme Court. Musk himself has contributed more than $13 million to pro-Schimel efforts.
During the campaign, Schimel’s opponent, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, has accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Musk’s company, Tesla, recently filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to change Wisconsin’s law about who can operate car dealerships within the state.
Schimel himself has portrayed himself as a “support network” for President Donald Trump if elected to the Court.
Derrick Honeyman, a spokesperson for the Crawford campaign, accused Musk of “buying votes.”
“Elon Musk is trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to secure a favorable ruling in his company’s lawsuit against the state,” Honeyman said. “Now Musk has resorted to buying votes. Brad Schimel has spent his career looking out for wealthy special interests and campaign donors, and Musk wants a justice who will rule in his favor to help his own bottom line. Wisconsinites can see right through this extreme corruption and they don’t want a slimy billionaire like Elon Musk or a corrupt politician like Brad Schimel controlling the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”
The payouts from America PAC mirror an effort the group undertook during last year’s presidential election when it circulated a petition expressing support for free speech and gun rights and gave daily awards of $1 million to voters in swing states that had signed similar petitions.
A group funded by billionaire Elon Musk is offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition in opposition to “activist judges,” a move that comes two weeks before the state’s Supreme Court election and after the political action committee made a similar proposal last year in battleground states.
Musk’s political action committee America PAC announced the petition in a post on X on Thursday night. It promises $100 for each Wisconsin voter who signs the petition and another $100 for each signer the voter refers.
The campaign for Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, said Musk was trying to buy votes ahead of the April 1 election. The offer was made two days after early voting started in the hotly contested race between Crawford and Brad Schimel, the preferred candidate of Musk and Republicans.
The winner of the election will determine whether the court remains under liberal control or flips to a conservative majority.
Musk’s PAC used a nearly identical tactic ahead of the November presidential election, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.
Philadelphia’s district attorney sued in an attempt to stop the payments under Pennsylvania law. But a judge said that prosecutors failed to show that the effort was an illegal lottery, and it was allowed to continue through Election Day.
America PAC and Building for America’s Future, two groups Musk funds, have spent more than $13 million trying to help elect Schimel, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice. The winner will determine whether conservative or liberal justices control the court, with key battles looming over abortion, public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries.
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman accused Musk of “trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to secure a favorable ruling in his company’s lawsuit against the state.”
Just days before Musk’s groups started spending on the Supreme Court race, electric car manufacturer Tesla sued Wisconsin over its decision to not allow it to open dealerships. Musk is the CEO of Tesla and also the head of rocket ship manufacturer SpaceX. Tesla’s case could ultimately come before the Supreme Court.
“Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud,” Musk posted on X, just eight days before the lawsuit was filed in January.
Andrew Romeo, a spokesperson for America PAC, referred to the post on X announcing the petition when asked for comment on Friday. A spokesperson for Schimel’s campaign did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Crawford and her allies have made linking Schimel with Musk a key plank of their campaign. The Wisconsin Democratic Party released a new ad this week accusing Musk of trying to buy the seat for Schimel, a close ally of President Donald Trump.
Schimel earlier this week campaigned with Donald Trump Jr. at an event where the president’s son said electing Schimel was essential for protecting Trump’s agenda. America PAC has also been making that argument in flyers it’s handing out to Wisconsin voters.
Musk’s other group, Building America’s Future, said in a memo Thursday that to defeat Crawford it must “present Schimel as a pro-Trump conservative.”
The new petition says: “Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas. By signing below, I’m rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role — interpreting, not legislating.”
The petition, while designed to collect data on Wisconsin voters and energize them, is also in line with Trump’s agenda alleging that “activist” judges are illegally working against him. Trump’s administration is embroiled in several lawsuits related to Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency effort to downsize the federal bureaucracy.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
900 people crowded into Eau Claire's Pablo Center March 18 for a town hall with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
About 900 alarmed and angry Wisconsin voters, searching for an answer to their political helplessness, crowded into the Pablo Center in Eau Claire Tuesday evening to attend a town hall with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz hosted by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
At the event, voters said they were scared of how cuts made by the administration of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will affect their health care, children’s education and the future of the country.
Taking place on the same day early voting started in Wisconsin’s spring election, which will decide the ideological swing of the state Supreme Court, Democratic officials repeatedly said that the April 1 election gives Wisconsinites a chance that few Americans will have this year — to reject the aggressive cuts to government programs and agencies that Trump and Musk have already made and promised to deepen.
Musk has now spent more than $13 million supporting the campaign of Waukesha County Judge and former Republican attorney general Brad Schimel. Democrats and the campaign of Dane County Judge Susan Crawford have repeatedly pointed out the ties between Schimel and Musk.
Schimel has said he doesn’t have control of how people spend outside money on his campaign, but in several campaign appearances, he has directly tied himself to Trump. He told a group of canvassers associated with the right-wing Turning Point USA that he’d be a “support network” for Trump, and said to supporters in Jefferson County that Trump was “screwed over” by the state Supreme Court when it decides against overturning the results of the 2020 election. In a radio appearance this week Schimel alleged that elections in Milwaukee are frequently rigged for liberal candidates.
“In the rest of the country, people are protesting, which is great, but essentially, they don’t have a way to fight back at the ballot box in this moment,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler told the Eau Claire crowd. “In Wisconsin, uniquely in this country, we’re the only state with a statewide election, all the way until November of this year, we’re the only state where we can go to the polls, recruit everyone we know to go to the polls and send a message to the GOP [against] this extremism, this assault by Republicans on our democracy.”
Exactly 223 days after he was in Eau Claire for his second campaign appearance as the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, Walz pushed attendees to support Crawford in the election, criticized Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden for not holding town halls in the district and said he was searching for how Democrats can re-assert themselves as a party that makes government work for people.
“We’re here for a very specific reason, we know what’s at stake,” Walz, who has made similar appearances across the country in recent weeks, said. “I’m not going to whistle past the graveyard here and tell you things are fine. I’m also having the most unsatisfactory I-told-you-so tour in the history of the world … You came here because, you know the fight’s still on, and you know that you love your country, and you wanted to be here in front of your member of Congress, because the First Amendment to the Constitution gives you that right and responsibility to address your congressman.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz addressed 900 Wisconsin voters Tuesday, saying the state’s April 1 election was a chance for “America’s first chunk of cleaning” up after President Trump and Elon Musk. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
During his remarks, Walz called Musk a “dipshit” and an “unelected South African nepo baby” before comparing the state’s April 1 election to cleaning the house, saying “America’s first chunk of cleaning is Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.”
In a statement, the Schimel campaign said Crawford is being “propped up” by leftists.
“Tim Walz, the leftist Governor of Minnesota and failed Democratic Vice Presidential candidate is now propping up dangerous Susan Crawford in an attempt to dismantle our state the same way he ruined Minnesota,” the campaign said.
Prior to the event, a group of four men wearing Make America Great Again hats and other pro-Trump apparel tried to get into the auditorium before being asked to leave by staff. Republicans said the denied entry showed Democrats’ “hypocrisy.”
Joe Oslund, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, said the men were asked to leave because they were clearly looking for trouble.
“Four individuals who arrived with the clear intention of inciting a confrontation were asked to leave the event,” Oslund said. “We welcomed more than 900 people in Eau Claire last night, and I’m certain that we had folks in the audience who didn’t agree with us on everything. We’re always happy to engage folks with different points of view, but when you show up to cause a scene, we’re going to save ourselves the trouble.”
While the April 1 election will be the first test across the country of the voting public’s mood after the first months of the second Trump administration, people in attendance said they were desperate for something more to do.
During the event’s question and answer period, one man compared the Trump administration to Nazi Germany, saying this is “our World War II to save the world from Trump” before inviting people to a weekly protest outside the federal building in Eau Claire.
Menomonie resident Shari Johnson said that after the November election she and a group of politically minded friends started having dinners to discuss ways to counter Trump. She told the Wisconsin Examiner that she’s found her answer, saying that on Saturday she’s going to start marching through her town wearing a six-foot tall inflatable chicken costume while carrying signs that promote justice and fairness in the political system.
Helen Durden said she skipped work to attend the event because “I feel terrified, angry and lost. What do I do to fix this? Besides a vote, there’s got to be something else. There’s got to be something more. And I’m looking for answers from our leaders to help me figure out, where do I step in to make that change?”
Joe Wendtland, a teacher who lives in Chippewa Falls, said he attended because he’s trying to find ways to be part of the solution. One part of that, he said, is voting in a spring election he usually would have sat out.
“Quite honestly, in the past, I wouldn’t have bothered with the coming up election. Just, I wouldn’t have shown up unless it was a presidential election year,” he said. “But what I’m seeing is the Republican Party and current administration is just chipping away at all the little options that are out there. And this is me saying, ‘You know what, I’ve got a responsibility to protect what we have.’ And this is one of the few ways that I can really make a difference, is to vote in this election. So I’m gonna be there April 1.”
During a question and answer session , attendees fretted about losing Social Security and Medicaid benefits, how cuts to programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will affect kids and the dismantling of government agencies like the Department of Education.
Walz said that he believes the Democratic Party should respond to Trump by loudly acting as an opposition party, declaring forcefully that public service is noble and working to strengthen labor rights.
“Look, I understand what I have. I have a platform and a megaphone, and my goal of doing this now also is I was hearing that primal scream of God dang it, do something,” he said.
“They’re destroying our country, taking our freedoms,” he added, noting that Republicans are complaining about being called fascists. “Quit exhibiting fascist tendencies and we won’t say that.”
The Republican-backed candidate in Wisconsin’s closely watched state Supreme Court race has resurfaced long-debunked concerns about voting fraud because of the late reporting of ballots in Milwaukee just two weeks before the April 1 election.
Brad Schimel, a former Republican attorney general, spoke of the possibility of “bags of ballots” and fraud in Milwaukee during an interview Tuesday on conservative talk radio. Schimel faces Democratic-backed Susan Crawford in the April 1 election with majority control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court at stake.
Schimel, in an interview on WISN-AM, said his supporters need to “get our votes banked, make this too big to rig 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.”
Schimel said that happened in 2018 and in November “when (U.S. Senate candidate) Eric Hovde was ahead all night, and then all of a sudden, Milwaukee County changed that.”
Republicans and Democrats alike, along with state and Milwaukee election leaders, warned in the run-up to the November election that Milwaukee absentee ballots would be reported late and cause a huge influx of Democratic votes. Milwaukee is the state’s most populated city and is heavily Democratic. Its chief elections official was chosen with bipartisan support.
The reporting of those absentee ballots swung the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden, fueling baseless conspiracy theories that the election had been stolen from President Donald Trump.
Milwaukee’s absentee ballots are counted at a central location and reported all at once, often well after midnight on Election Day. Elections officials for years have made clear that those ballots are reported later than usual due to the sheer number that have to be counted and because state law does not allow them to be processed until polls open.
A bipartisan bill to allow for processing prior to Election Day died in the Republican-controlled Senate last year. Republicans, who have controlled the Legislature since 2011, routinely complain about slow processing in Milwaukee but have not passed bills to allow for speedier counting.
In 2018, the reporting of more than 47,000 absentee ballots after midnight put Democrat Tony Evers ahead of then-Gov. Scott Walker. Evers went on to win, and Walker criticized the late reporting, saying it blindsided him.
And in November, Hovde said he was “shocked” by the reporting of more than 108,000 ballots in Milwaukee early in the morning after the election in his defeat to Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin.
Schimel said in the radio interview he didn’t know what happened.
“I don’t know if there was fraud there,” Schimel said. “There’s no way for me to know that. All I know is this: We need to turn our votes out. That’s the best insulation we have against any potential fraud, is just get our people to the polls.”
Asked about his concerns during an appearance later Tuesday at the Milwaukee Rotary Club, Schimel said he brought up fraud because voters often ask him how to guarantee election integrity.
“I tell people, by following the rules,” Schimel said. “And then I tell them, ‘Here’s the best way to make sure your vote isn’t stolen: Go use it.’ That’s the answer.”
Yet despite his concerns, Schimel said: “I will always accept the results of the election.”
Crawford’s spokesperson, Derrick Honeyman, said Schimel was “dabbling in conspiracy theories to please his ally, Elon Musk, and it’s unbecoming of a judge and candidate for the state’s high court.”
Groups funded by billionaire Musk have contributed more than $11 million to help Schimel’s campaign. Crawford is backed by several billionaire Democrats, including philanthropist George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
Schimel’s comments drew criticism from the Democracy Defense Project, a bipartisan coalition promoting truth about elections that includes former Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.
“There is no evidence of fraud in Milwaukee, but the failure of the state to allow early counting on absentee ballots before the close of polls feeds into conspiracy theories,” the group said in a statement.
The court is currently controlled 4-3 by liberals, but one of them is retiring, creating the battle for the majority.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup.This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Reading Time: 10minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
The Wisconsin Supreme Court election has been awash in record-setting spending and menacing ads about each candidate being soft on crime, even though Supreme Court justices are primarily focused on interpreting the law, not sentencing those convicted of crimes.
The nasty ads date back to the 2008 Supreme Court election in which conservative Michael Gableman launched similar ads against liberal Justice Louis Butler. The state’s business lobby spent what at the time was a staggering $1.8 million, an amount that seems paltry compared with the record-setting tens of millions being spent on this year’s race.
Though both candidates have talked about impartiality and objectivity, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel has more openly tacked to the right in what appears to emulate liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s winning 2023 strategy. Dane County Judge Susan Crawford has more recently emphasized her liberal credentials and has tried to turn the election into a referendum on billionaire Elon Musk, who has spent heavily on the race and stirred controversy as the White House efficiency czar.
The TV ads are dark and ominous. The faces of people convicted of serious crimes are flashed across the screen. A grim-sounding voice-over accuses one candidate of letting “a sex predator loose on our kids.” Another spot accuses the other of “putting pedophiles back on the street.”
These messages have for weeks blanketed TV broadcasts across Wisconsin and permeated digital media spaces like YouTube. Funded by candidates or third-party groups pushing a political agenda, they have largely focused on the same subject: crime and public safety. Another wave of ads is expected over the next two weeks.
The ads are meant to define Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel for voters ahead of the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
The race has become “probably the most intense Supreme Court race the state has ever experienced,” said Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “For the second time in a row, (the election is) going to determine the ideological direction of the Supreme Court. And, in part, the ideological direction of state government.”
High-profile cases concerning abortion rights, voting rights, legislative and congressional maps, labor rights, environmental issues, tax policy and power disputes between the state’s Democratic governor and Republican Legislature have all come before the court in recent years or are expected to arrive there in the coming months.
The candidates have mostly shied away from sharing their thoughts about those issues with voters, though it’s widely believed Crawford would side with the Democratic position and Schimel would side with Republicans.
Instead, the ads — which represent most of the candidates’ direct communication with voters — have focused on criminal prosecutions and sentencing practices.
But those two things have little to do with the work Crawford or Schimel will be doing when the winner is sworn in as a state Supreme Court justice in August, four political and legal experts told Wisconsin Watch.
A means to an end
The TV ads are a means to an end for both the campaigns and third-party groups, the experts told Wisconsin Watch.
“What the ads are about is not what the court is about,” Burden said. “When those justices get together in the state Capitol and hear cases, they’re about facts and precedent and legal theories and their understandings of the law, at least that’s the idea. But what the discourse is about — especially from the groups that are not the campaigns themselves but are these outside groups running ads somewhat independently — they can be about whatever the groups think would be effective to get their side a victory.”
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford declined to take a position during the only candidate debate on a pending case challenging the state’s 1849 abortion law, but she criticized a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel said during the only candidate debate that Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law was a validly passed law, but voters should decide whether to change it, not the state Supreme Court. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
The campaigns have zeroed in on issues that don’t often concern the work of the justices because “some campaign consultants somewhere concluded that they work,” said Marquette University Law School professor Chad Oldfather. Focusing on crime and public safety is a common playbook for judicial candidates across the country, Oldfather said.
“The role of a state supreme court justice does not involve much day-to-day interaction with the workings of the criminal justice system,” Oldfather said, adding that tough-on-crime or soft-on-crime ads are a way for interest groups to motivate voters.
A group like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby and a heavy financial backer of conservative judicial candidates, including Schimel, is more focused on having a court that is friendly to business interests than it is concerned about the sentences Crawford has handed out, said Douglas Keith, a senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Judiciary Program.
“The people who are spending money to run those ads, those are not actually the cases they care about,” he said in an interview. “This is just a visceral idea that they can use to get voters’ attention in an ad.”
But while the spending behind these ads has exploded, the approach itself is not new. In the 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, conservative candidate Michael Gableman successfully ousted liberal Justice Louis Butler with the help of similar-sounding ads funded by WMC for $1.8 million — a quaint figure compared to the amounts groups have spent on the race so far this year.
An ad from Gableman’s campaign also sparked controversy. It pictured Butler side-by-side with the mugshot of a convicted rapist and made misleading assertions that Butler was responsible for getting the man out of prison. After the man was paroled in 1992, he committed another rape and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. The ad was unusually vicious for the time, but would fit among the ads in this year’s race.
Switching playbooks
At the start of the campaign, Crawford and Schimel both talked about wanting to bring “common sense” and “objectivity” to the court, but more recently they have tried to rally voters around more political issues.
Crawford initially backed away from Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s 2023 approach, in which the liberal then-candidate spoke openly about her “values” on abortion rights and gerrymandering — though in recent weeks the Dane County judge has been more forthcoming about her support for things like abortion rights. Crawford wants her work as an attorney to speak for itself, she said, pointing to her private practice work advocating for abortion rights, labor rights and voting rights.
“I think that tells a lot about my values and what I have worked for throughout my entire career,” Crawford told Wisconsin Watch in an interview earlier this month.
Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate, speaks to supporters during a canvassing event March 1, 2025, at the Madtown Os Neighborhood Action Team headquarters in Madison, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
The race is about the “future of the court, and it’s about the fundamental rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites,” she said. “For me, it’s about how we interpret the laws and constitution in the state of Wisconsin. I believe they should be interpreted to protect the rights of every Wisconsinite. That’s really why I’m running.”
A Schimel victory, Crawford said, could result in the restriction of Wisconsin residents’ individual rights and liberties. “I’m running to be a common sense justice who wants to use our laws and constitution to protect every Wisconsinite,” she said. “(Schimel is) an extreme politician who has an agenda that he’s bringing to the Supreme Court.”
“That’s garbage,” Schimel fired back when Crawford made a similar assertion at the candidates’ sole debate. Schimel’s campaign did not respond to multiple interview requests for this story.
Schimel seems to be embracing the Protasiewicz campaign approach, said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at UW-La Crosse. Giving stronger partisan cues to voters, like Schimel is doing, “was massively rewarding for (Protasiewicz),” he said. Pairing those cues with election-defining issues like abortion rights and gerrymandering helped carry her to a blowout victory, Chergosky added.
Accordingly, Schimel has tried to tap into President Donald Trump’s political movement to bolster his campaign.
“The stakes could not be higher here in Wisconsin,” he told conservative commentator Charlie Kirk during an interview late last month. “Leftists took over the majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court two years ago in 2023 and they’re going through a political agenda. They are working to wipe out every conservative reform that’s been passed in Wisconsin to make us strong, prosperous, safe. All those things are on the chopping block now.”
The court’s decisions to throw out the state’s gerrymandered legislative districts and take up a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Act 10, the Scott Walker-era law that crippled public employee unions, are two examples, he said.
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate and Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel, left, shakes hands with an attendee as part of his “Save Wisconsin” tour during the Republican Party of Dane County annual caucus March 15, 2025, at the Madison West Marriott in Middleton, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Schimel said Trump’s election victory in November represented “a movement to save our nation.” Backing him on April 1 is a way to continue to be part of that movement, he said.
While speaking at an event the next day, Schimel continued to push that idea.
Prior to Nov. 5, he said, “America had walked up to the edge of the abyss and we could hear the wind howling. You could look down but you can’t see the bottom.” Trump’s victory let the country take “a couple steps back from that abyss,” he added.
“The job’s not done,” Schimel said. “And this is the message we have to get out to people: The job’s not done.”
Schimel is also appealing to Trump to visit Wisconsin to bolster his campaign, the New York Times reported last week.
Billionaires bloat spending
The stakes of the election — with the assistance of billionaires and outside groups — have already propelled the race to record spending. A recent WisPolitics.com tally found almost $59 million had been spent on the race with several weeks left to go, surpassing the record $56 million spent in the 2023 race between Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly. Prior to 2023, the record for spending in a judicial election was $15 million in a 2004 Illinois contest.
Crawford’s campaign has been the biggest spender so far, dropping almost $23 million on just TV ads. The Madison judge’s fundraising has been boosted by the state Democratic Party, which has accepted sizable donations from liberal mega-donors like LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — all billionaires.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, second from left, Janet Protasiewicz, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky walk to a press briefing with Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford following the WISN 12 Wisconsin Supreme Court debate with Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel on March 12, 2025, at the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School’s Eckstein Hall in Milwaukee, Wis. The hour-long debate was the first and only debate between the candidates ahead of the April 1 election. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
While the maximum contribution individuals can make to candidate campaigns is capped in Wisconsin, there is no limit on how much one person can donate to a state political party. Those parties can then, in turn, make unlimited transfers to candidate campaigns, a loophole used to bolster candidate fundraising.
Billionaire support for Schimel has largely come through third-party groups, though Schimel’s campaign has spent some $8.8 million on ad buys. The Waukesha judge’s largest benefactor, by far, has been Elon Musk, the centibillionaire tech CEO serving as Trump’s efficiency czar.
Musk’s super PAC has spent more than $6.5 million on the race so far, the bulk of which has been on canvassing and voter outreach efforts to bolster Schimel. A second Musk-affiliated group, Building America’s Future, has spent $6 million on TV ads, according to a WisPolitics.com tally.
Chatter about the race’s spending dominated the contest’s only debate. Crawford called Musk “dangerous” and tied him to the firing of air traffic controllers and the increased price of eggs.
“(Musk) has basically taken over Brad Schimel’s campaign,” Crawford continued, arguing that Musk is trying to buy himself a justice on the high court as Tesla filed a lawsuit seeking to open dealerships in Wisconsin. Crawford at one point called Musk “Elon Schimel.” The play comes as Democrats seek to make the election an early referendum on Musk and Trump.
Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Democratic Party launched “a seven-figure grassroots effort to turn Elon Musk’s attempt to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court race into a political disaster for Brad Schimel.” It includes a digital ad campaign, town hall events and billboards. Less than two weeks before Election Day, Crawford for the first time released an ad tying Schimel to Musk.
Schimel hit back, pointing to Soros’ financial support for Crawford, arguing the billionaire financier “funded DAs and judges who have let dangerous criminals out on the street.”
Another outside group funded by billionaire Richard Uihlein, Fair Courts America, has spent over $2.5 million on TV ads targeting Crawford. Americans for Prosperity, a group with close ties to billionaire Charles Koch, has spent over $1.2 million to boost Schimel.
Such heavy spending underscores how groups see the race as a means to advance their political agendas — despite being officially nonpartisan. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, for example, recently added the race to its target list for the 2025-26 cycle.
“Our mandate (at the DLCC) is obviously building Democratic power and securing and maintaining majorities in state legislatures,” said Jeremy Jansen, the group’s vice president of political. He added that the DLCC has been focused on state supreme court races in recent years that could affect that power, with a focus on redistricting.
“Investing in this race is a way to protect or preserve some of the work that the DLCC did in the most recent cycle and in previous cycles,” Jansen said, noting how Protasiewicz’s 2023 victory led to new legislative maps and 14 additional Democratic seats in the Legislature.
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate and Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel gives a speech as part of his “Save Wisconsin” tour during the Republican Party of Dane County annual caucus March 15, 2025, at the Madison West Marriott in Middleton, Wis. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
Republicans are eager for conservatives to retake a majority on the high court and protect the authority of the Legislature.
“For all the people who are concerned about concentration of power in the executive branch at the federal level, I think that we would have that happen here in Wisconsin,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, told reporters last month in response to a question about the stakes of the race. “We’re already seeing that the liberal court is taking power away from the Legislature simply because they don’t agree with us. I don’t think that’s right.”
A new normal
The final days of the campaign will be critical for both candidates. A Marquette Law School Poll from earlier this month found large portions of voters are unfamiliar with both candidates.
The survey of registered voters found that 38% of respondents lacked an opinion of Schimel and 58% lacked an opinion of Crawford. That’s “a very perilous position for a candidate to be in because it means that they need to define themselves quickly before the other side does it for them,” Chergosky said.
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, left, and Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel, right, wait for the start of the WISN 12 Wisconsin Supreme Court debate March 12, 2025, at the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School’s Eckstein Hall in Milwaukee. The debate featured clashes over the tens of millions being spent on both candidates by billionaires. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
The Marquette poll did not feature a head-to-head question. But a poll commissioned by WMC earlier this month found the race tied 47% to 47%. The survey was conducted by OnMessage Inc., which receives an “A” rating from polling guru Nate Silver.
The same poll found that “fighting to uphold the rule of law,” “reducing crime and keeping violent criminals off the streets” and “ensuring that abortion is available and accessible in Wisconsin” are the top issues in the race. Those issues continue to be prominent among the ads being rolled out by the candidates and outside groups.
And while crime has long been an issue in these races, Oldfather said, “(before 2008) judicial campaigns just did not use to look like this.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
On April 1, voters will cast their ballots in a nationally watched election to select Wisconsin’s next state Supreme Court justice.
The election, which pits liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford against conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, has already smashed the prior record for spending in a judicial race. In turn, TV stations across the state have been blanketed with ads from both campaigns and third-party groups. The ads reek of politics and often focus on issues that have almost nothing to do with what justices actually do.
So, what does the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually do?
What is the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest court in Wisconsin’s judicial system.
It has seven justices, each elected to a 10-year term in an April general election. If a vacancy occurs on the court, the governor appoints a replacement. That justice serves until an election can be held, which occurs in the first April without an already-scheduled state Supreme Court election.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has the final authority on determining whether lower courts in state criminal or civil cases followed the law and also whether a Wisconsin law adhered to the state constitution.
In some rare instances, decisions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. But those appeals typically claim the state Supreme Court’s ruling in some way infringes on federal law or rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.
How do cases reach the Supreme Court?
Cases arrive at the state Supreme Court in a number of ways:
A party who lost a case in the Court of Appeals, the state’s intermediate court, can ask the court to review the decision.
Any party involved in litigation decided by a county circuit court may ask the high court to bypass the Court of Appeals and take a case. There are 71 county circuit courts in the state, each staffed by a varying number of judges. Circuit courts are sometimes referred to as “district courts” or “trial courts.”
The Court of Appeals can ask the high court to take a case.
The state Supreme Court, on its own motion, can decide to review a case appealed in the Court of Appeals directly.
A party can petition the state Supreme Court to take a case directly, known as an original action.
Who are the current justices on the court?
Today’s court is generally believed to have four liberal justices and three conservative justices. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz make up the court’s four-member liberal majority.
The court’s three conservative members are Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justices Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn. Of those, Hagedorn has most frequently voted with the liberal majority, giving him the reputation of a swing vote.
The April 1 election is to replace Walsh Bradley, who is retiring after serving for 30 years on the high court.
Who is running on April 1?
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel are jostling to be the state’s next justice.
Supreme Court elections are supposed to be nonpartisan. However, justices tend to adhere to liberal and conservative judicial and political philosophies, and partisan interests have spent heavily on candidates aligned with their interests.
Crawford is considered the liberal candidate. She has served as a Dane County judge since 2018. Prior to taking the bench, she worked for the state Department of Justice and served as chief legal counsel for Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle. She has also worked in private practice, where she represented Planned Parenthood in litigation relating to abortion access. Crawford also worked on behalf of clients challenging the state’s voter ID law and Act 10, the Scott Walker-era law that hamstrung public sector labor unions. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin and liberal donors are heavily funding her campaign.
Schimel is considered the conservative candidate. He has served as a judge in Waukesha County since 2018. Prior to becoming a judge, he served one term as Wisconsin attorney general and spent eight years serving as the Waukesha County district attorney. He won both jobs campaigning as a Republican. As attorney general he led an unsuccessful national effort to invalidate the Affordable Care Act and appealed a federal court ruling that struck down a law restricting abortion access. Wealthy state and national Republican donors are backing his candidacy.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Login
