The candidates competing for a desired seats on the Wisconsin Supreme Court seem to agree on much, but they are of like head on one amply clear level: The stakes in this nationally-watched election couldn’t be much higher.  ,
Leftist Dane County County Judge Susan Crawford squared off Wednesday against liberal Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel in the only conversation in a culture that The Wall Street Journal has dubbed” the most important poll of 2025″. And rightfully thus. The April 1 competition will determine whether progressives retain a small 4-3 bulk or conservatives take back control of Wisconsin’s court of last resort. Wisconsin’s higher court will not only be deciding significant cases in a swing state under divided government but could have far to say about power in the U. S. House via a crucial congressional maps case.  ,
So it’s little wonder that the competition has become the most expensive state criminal race in U. S. story, with nearly$ 59 million spent at a little less than three months to go before the spring election, according to a review by Wispolitics.
Big money ( the billionaires injecting millions of dollars into the court battle ) was the debate’s recurring theme.  ,
‘ A Dangerous Person to Have ‘
Crawford and her leftist allies have tried to make the race a political litmus test on President Donald Trump and his federal government fat-trimming ally Elon Musk. Wispolitics ‘ review shows two political PACs tied to Musk have or plan to spend more than$ 12 million on the race so far.  ,
Crawford, who often came across as a lecturing schoolmarm, at one point mistakenly (? ) called Musk ( or was it Schimel? ) Elon Schimel. The distortion was not lost on the audience.  ,
” Elon Schimel is trying to buy this race. And people are very upset about that and they are disturbed about that”, the candidate said.  ,
The “very upset” people, of course, are the leftists who want to see the court continue to be controlled by liberals with a troubling record of judicial activism. They’re not so upset by the millions of dollars thus far dumped into the race by far-left sugar daddies such as George Soros, Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzer, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. They believe their politically active billionaires are better.  ,
Schimel said he can’t control outside spending in the race. That’s true. Doing so is against campaign finance law.  ,
” The difference here is my opponent was supported by George Soros. He’s funded district attorneys and judges who have let dangerous criminals out on the streets. He’s defunded police in America”, Schimel said, driving home the Soros-funded lawlessness that Americans rejected at the polls in November. ” He’s a dangerous person to have an endorsement from” . ,
‘ How Was That Appropriate?’
The debate ultimately settled into the key issues facing or likely to face the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Again, money was at the core.  ,
Crawford was asked about the big-donor call she attended earlier this year. Invitees were told that “winning this race could also result in Democrats being able to win two additional US House seats, half the seats needed to win control of the House in 2026”. The implication, of course, is that electing Crawford would sustain the liberals ‘ 4-3 majority and open the door for a favorable ruling on redrawn Wisconsin congressional maps. Under the current district lines, Republicans hold six of the Badger State’s eight House seats. Victories in swing state Wisconsin could make a huge impact on the Democrats ‘ campaign to take back the House and upend the Trump administration agenda.  ,
” No matter how long you were on that call, how was that appropriate”? one of the debate moderators asked Crawford.  ,
The liberal judge agreed that the email invitation was” an inappropriate way to announce a judicial candidate”. But she claimed to have not seen the email and that no once discussed congressional maps during the” short” period of time she was on the call. Schimel found his opponent’s claims dubious.  ,
Crawford shot back, asserting that her opponent “has a very active imagination about this call” . ,
In the most recent campaign finance reports, Crawford was outraising Schimel nearly 2 to 1. Schimel took aim at the significant portion out-of-state money filling Crawford’s campaign coffers.  ,
” Almost 50 percent of my opponent’s donors can’t vote in the state of Wisconsin because they don’t reside here”, the conservative judge said, adding that 97 percent of his campaign’s donors live in Wisconsin.
Keeping the Abortion Issue in Play
Taking a page from the Democrats ‘ 2022 playbook, Crawford and her far-left allies are trying to make this Supreme Court election all about abortion. The June 2022 U. S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade was fresh at the time and a big factor, political pundits say, in staunching an expected red wave in the 2022 midterms. The hangover definitely was felt in the April 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, when the liberal candidate won a double-digit victory over her conservative opponent.  ,
Crawford, who has the backing of Big Abortion’s Planned Parenthood and an array of other” choice” advocates, attempted to paint Schimel as a defender of the 1849 state law that went into effect following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling. The law, which limits abortions in most cases, is before the state Supreme Court. The liberal-led court, which appears poised to strike down the law, is taking its sweet time delivering its ruling. Critics say there’s politics in the timing, asserting the court’s majority wants to keep the abortion issue live and in play to again drive abortion supporters to the polls.  ,
” He has openly said … that there’s nothing wrong with that law”, Crawford said of Schimel. She was referring to an audio tape, recorded by leftist operatives, of comments Schimel made at a campaign event. Schimel said the short clip was taken out of context from his expanded thoughts on the law.  ,
” I was asked if the 1849 law was a valid law. My answer was, it was passed by two houses of the legislature and signed by a governor. That means it’s valid law”, Schimel said. ” But what I said next was, there’s a real question as to whether that law reflects the will of the people in Wisconsin today” . ,
While Crawford pushed pro-abortion and erroneous talking points that the Dobbs ruling tossed out a well-established constitutional right, she, like a lot of liberal politicians, didn’t say whether there is a time limit on that right. When does the right to end the life of the preborn end? Three months? Six months? Just before full term? After? She didn’t have to answer the question. The debate moderators on WISN, ABC’s Milwaukee affiliate, never asked the question. Corporate media reporters rarely do.  ,
Eye on Voter ID
Crawford had some more explaining to do on some other legal challenges expected to land at the state Supreme Court’s door. As a private practice attorney for a liberal Madison law firm, Crawford represented the left-wing League of Women Voters in a lawsuit against Wisconsin’s voter ID law. She compared the popular election integrity statute to a poll tax. Crawford said it was a different law at the time because it didn’t include a provision requiring the state to pay for government-issued IDs to those who did not have them.  ,
The liberal judge unloaded the same old liberal talking points about how some voters — the disabled, the elderly, the poor — lost a “previous” right because they didn’t have access to proper identification. The argument has always been a stretch at best. As voter ID proponents have noted, IDs are required for everything from buying booze and cigarettes to applying for government benefits. As Schimel said, Crawford represented the League of Women Voters, not a “victim” of Wisconsin’s voter ID law.  ,
The April 1 ballot includes a question asking Wisconsin residents whether they want voter ID enshrined in the state Wisconsin. Polling shows the vast majority of voters favor the election security requirement. Schimel said he will vote for the constitutional amendment.  ,
” Voter integrity laws are critically important”, the judge said. ” The danger with vote fraud is you can’t undo the vote. You could catch the perpetrator, you could lock them up in prison for decades, but you can’t change that fraudulent vote they cast. And that waters down the honest vote of a legitimate voter” . ,
‘ Justice is No Longer Blind ‘
Crawford closed the debate by attacking Schimel as a partisan beholden to special interests, a candidate willing to sell a Supreme Court seat” to the highest bidder”. She did so as if her campaign finance reports and her list of endorsements aren’t a matter of public record.  ,
Schimel said he jumped into the race in 2023 after he saw the court’s liberal majority rip off the blindfold of Lady Justice.  ,
” Justice is no longer blind in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That’s what’s at stake. We have to restore objectivity”, the candidate said.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
