[[link removed]]

THE WISCONSIN COURT ELECTION DRAWING ELON MUSK’S MONEY  
[[link removed]]


 

Emma Janssen
March 21, 2025
The American Prospect
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Liberals and conservatives face off in the most political
apolitical race in the country. _

Candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court former Republican state
attorney general Brad Schimel (left) and trial court judge Susan
Crawford, Andy Manis/AP Photo

 

On April 1, Wisconsin voters will decide the ideological bent of their
state’s Supreme Court in an election that has drawn the attention
and cash of Elon Musk. The two candidates vying for a ten-year term
are liberal trial court judge Susan Crawford and former Republican
attorney general and current trial court judge Brad Schimel.

The election is technically apolitical—the candidates don’t run as
Democrats or Republicans—but in reality it’s anything but. The
election comes after the retirement of liberal Justice Ann Walsh
Bradley [[link removed]]
last year. Since a 2023 Supreme Court election, the court has had a
liberal majority for the first time in over a decade. Now, Justice
Bradley’s retirement and the upcoming election threaten to throw
that balance back to conservatives.

The consequences of a conservative majority on the court would be
wide-ranging, potentially handing conservatives victories on abortion,
elections, and organized labor. That’s why the election is being
flooded with cash
[[link removed]]
by the world’s richest man. All in all, the election has seen more
than
[[link removed]]$66
million in spending
[[link removed]],
with $13 million of that coming from groups associated with Musk
[[link removed]].
The majority of the cash, $36 million, is benefiting Schimel. Some
campaign finance experts have anticipated as much as $100 million
[[link removed]]
will be spent, on an off-year state Supreme Court election.

With the massive flow of national money into a state race, it’s
clear that this election has consequences that will likely reverberate
across the country. Political observers are also looking at the
election as a referendum on the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and
the Democratic Party’s ability to hold onto power in a critical
swing state.

“This will be a referendum on the Trump administration thus far,”
said Thomas Nelson, a Democratic county executive in Outagamie County,
Wisconsin, and former majority leader of the State Assembly. “This
will have a lingering effect on policymaking in the state because,
just like the U.S. Supreme Court, the state Supreme Courts,
particularly Wisconsin, they’re just legislative bodies. The actions
that they take on legislation, on so-called questions of
constitutionality, [are] similar to deliberation that occurs in
legislatures. There really isn’t a lot of daylight between the
two.”

AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE STAKES, two high-profile abortion cases are set
to be decided before the state’s high court
[[link removed]]
in coming months. One case concerns the right to abortion, with
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin arguing that the state constitution
enshrines the right. The second case seeks to strike down an 1849 law
that arguably bans abortion in the state. For more than a year after
_Dobbs_, the 176-year-old law came into effect, and Wisconsin abortion
providers stopped providing abortion care. In 2023, abortion care in
the state was allowed to resume, but that could change depending on
who wins this election.

Schimel is trying to frame himself as neutral on abortion to win over
moderate Wisconsin voters who support abortion rights. A 2024 poll
found that a majority of Wisconsin voters, regardless of party
affiliation, oppose criminalizing abortion
[[link removed]]
at any stage of pregnancy. During a March 12 debate between the two
candidates, Schimel tried to appeal to that majority, saying that the
1849 law was valid legislation, but also noting: “I don’t believe
that it reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin today.”

When pushed to state whether he is pro- or anti-choice, Schimel
continued to walk a tightrope, punting the question back to Wisconsin
voters. “No judge or justice should be deciding this issue for the
voters of Wisconsin,” he said. “This issue belongs in their
hands.”

This pivot comes after years of Schimel’s explicitly anti-abortion
statements, including in this campaign. At an event in Chilton,
Wisconsin, Schimel weighed in on one of the abortion cases
[[link removed]]
before the court, declaring: “There is not a constitutional right to
abortion in our State Constitution. That will be a sham if they find
that.”

With the massive flow of national money into a state race, it’s
clear that this election has consequences that will likely reverberate
across the country.

When running for state attorney general in 2014, Schimel said
[[link removed]]:
“I believe that life begins at conception.” His legal work in the
role backed up that view. He appealed a 2013 federal appeals court
ruling on abortion
[[link removed]]
to the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to overturn the blockage of a
targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law. The law would
have required abortion providers to have hospital admitting
privileges, a medically unnecessary administrative barrier that would
have forced half of the state’s abortion clinics to close
[[link removed]].
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the appeal.

Meanwhile, extreme anti-abortion groups
[[link removed]]
like Pro-Life Wisconsin and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s
Women Speak Out PAC are working against Schimel’s strategy by
endorsing him and mobilizing money and canvassers to get him elected.

During the debate, the candidates also sparred over the state’s
controversial Act 10 law, which severely weakens union power
[[link removed]]
among public-sector employees. The bill was signed in 2011 by
then-Gov. Scott Walker despite massive public opposition. In the 14
years since then, the law has cropped up in numerous court challenges.

For public-sector employees covered under the law, like teachers,
nurses, and prison guards, Act 10 stripped their unions of the power
to negotiate over anything but wages and limited any raises to the
rate of inflation. The law also banned unions from directly deducting
dues from their members’ paychecks, adding an administrative barrier
to union membership. Unsurprisingly, the law squashed union power in
the state. Since Act 10 was signed, Wisconsin saw the largest decline
in union membership
[[link removed]]
of any state.

Over the decades, Act 10 has been upheld in both state and federal
courts. In 2014, a conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme
Court upheld the law
[[link removed]],
saying that public-sector collective-bargaining power is “a creation
of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation.”

Now, the law will likely be back in the hands of the state’s high
court, though it’s unclear which justices will hear the case. Two of
the court’s current justices have past experience that might prompt
them to recuse themselves from any Act 10 cases. Liberal Justice Janet
Protasiewicz said during her 2023 campaign that she believes Act 10 is
unconstitutional, and also that she would consider recusing herself
from cases challenging the law due to her participation in protests
against the law. Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn was Gov.
Walker’s chief legal counsel and helped draft Act 10. When he ran in
2015, though, he declined to make any promises that he would recuse
himself.

Recusals also came up during the debate between Crawford and Schimel.
Tesla is currently suing Wisconsin
[[link removed]]
over a decision blocking the electric-car company from opening
dealerships in the state. Wisconsin has a law that prohibits
manufacturers from owning dealerships, so Tesla itself cannot open its
own without a different owner.

If that challenge comes to the state Supreme Court and Schimel is on
the bench, he may be tempted to rule in favor of his election
benefactor, Musk. During the debate, Schimel dodged a question about
whether he would recuse himself.

Crawford made clear that “Elon Schimel,” as she called him,
appears to be in Musk’s pocket. After Schimel visited Washington,
D.C., for Trump’s inauguration, she said, “All of a sudden Elon
Musk is tweeting about the race and Brad Schimel is bragging about
being on his knees, wearing out his kneepads, asking for
contributions.”

Musk is the biggest outside donor in the race. Part of the $13 million
given to various organizations has gone to sending text messages
[[link removed]]to
moderate and conservative voters
[[link removed]],
ostensibly from a Democratic group called “Progress 2028,”
praising how reliably liberal Crawford is on hot-button issues.
Musk-aligned groups used similar tactics in the 2024 election against
Kamala Harris.

Ads in the race have focused on both candidates’ records on crimes
like rape, assault, and domestic violence. The ads appeal to fears
about public safety, often focusing on the most heinous crimes against
children and vulnerable women. In one Schimel-sponsored ad, a
voice-over says
[[link removed]]:
“It’s terrifying that Susan Crawford would consider a four-year
sentence appropriate for raping a child.” Crawford put out an ad in
a similar vein
[[link removed]]:
“That was just one time Brad Schimel let a sex predator loose on our
kids.” Another Crawford ad
[[link removed]]
tells the story of a “serial rapist” who could have been arrested
had Schimel not waited to process a backlog of rape kits
[[link removed]].
As state Supreme Court justices, it’s likely that neither Schimel
nor Crawford would see cases related to sex crimes. Despite that, ads
about assault and rape are flooding the Wisconsin airwaves to appeal
to voters’ fears.

Schimel wasn’t the only candidate fending off allegations of being
too political. During the debate, Crawford argued that she would
decide cases concerning the state’s legislative lines impartially,
without handing Democrats an electoral edge.

Redistricting has been a contentious issue in the court. In 2023, the
newly liberal court saw a case about the state’s legislative maps
[[link removed]]
and ordered the legislature to draw up new ones, arguing that the
Republican-drawn maps were unconstitutional. The Republican-controlled
legislature bowed to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, passing his maps
instead of attempting to draw their own. These changes have put state
Democrats in a position to possibly win back the state legislature in
2026.

On the campaign trail, Crawford attended a virtual call with
Democratic donors who framed the meeting around putting two more House
seats in play in 2026 by altering the state’s congressional maps.
The court declined to hear a case about redrawing the state’s
congressional maps
[[link removed]]
in 2024. Schimel and the debate moderators chastised Crawford for
attending a call with an overtly political aim, though she argues that
she spoke briefly and was not on the call long enough to hear
discussion of congressional map-drawing.

In a statement to the _Prospect_, Crawford campaign spokesperson
Derrick Honeyman said that Crawford’s personal politics and beliefs
won’t get in the way of her judgments on the court. “Judge Susan
Crawford has spent her career focused on upholding our laws and
Constitution, and fighting to protect the fundamental rights and
freedoms of all Wisconsinites. She understands that a judge’s duty
is to set aside personal beliefs and apply the law fairly and
impartially. Voters know they can trust Judge Crawford to be an
independent, common-sense voice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,”
Honeyman added.

Polling shows a close race [[link removed]] ahead of
the April 1 Election Day. Among registered voters surveyed, 38 percent
say they have no opinion on Schimel, while 58 percent say the same for
Crawford. Otherwise, the candidates seem mostly aligned, with similar
net favorability ratings and predictable levels of support from
partisan voters.

If Schimel wins, it will be a reminder that Trump and Musk’s agenda
doesn’t stop in Washington, D.C. Instead, it threatens to reshape
political life on the state and local levels, too.

“I think that Democrats and progressives across the board are in a
defensive posture at all levels. The sky is falling. The federal
bureaucracy is being destroyed,” Nelson said about the race’s
national consequences. “And it’s only a matter of time [until]
we’re going to sustain direct hits on the ground in local
government.”

===

Emma Janssen is a writing fellow at The American Prospect.

* Wisconsin Court Election; Judiciary; Elon Musk
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]