The upcoming election could shift the court’s balance on voting rights, healthcare, and abortion, with record-breaking ad spending fueling the fight.
What to Know:
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court election could shift the balance on key issues like abortion, voting rights, healthcare, and union rights.
- Susan Crawford has spent nearly $13 million on ads, while Brad Schimel has allocated $5.8 million, with outside groups increasing spending.
- Billionaire-backed PACs have spent over $5 million supporting Schimel or attacking Crawford, prompting Democrats to launch a $1 million counter-effort.
- Polling shows a tight race, with Schimel leading at 40%, Crawford at 35%, and 23% of voters still undecided.
- The race is on track to surpass the $51 million record set in 2023, making it the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history.
As Wisconsin prepares for the pivotal Supreme Court election on April 1, the contest between liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel is drawing intense political and public scrutiny. The outcome of this race could significantly impact the ideological balance of the state’s highest court, potentially shifting the court’s stance on key issues such as voting rights, healthcare, union rights, and abortion access.
With Justice Ann Walsh Bradley retiring, this election represents an opportunity for either party to solidify their influence on the judicial landscape of Wisconsin.
Image Cred: WisPolitics
Key Issues at Stake
The Wisconsin Supreme Court plays a crucial role in shaping laws that affect the everyday lives of the state's residents. Several pressing issues that may come before the court in the near future include:
- Voting Rights: Wisconsin’s election laws, including voter ID requirements and the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, have been subjects of legal challenges and will likely continue to be contested.
- Health Care Access: Decisions regarding Medicaid expansion and state regulations on health insurance could be influenced by the court’s ideological composition.
- Union Rights: The ongoing debate over workers’ rights and collective bargaining, particularly concerning Act 10, remains a significant point of contention.
- Abortion: The court is currently reviewing a lawsuit that could determine the future of abortion in Wisconsin, a topic that has become even more politically charged in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
- Privacy and Technology: Cases regarding social media regulations, data privacy laws, and government surveillance could soon make their way to the state’s highest court.
Each of these issues holds immense significance for voters across the political spectrum, making this Supreme Court race one of the most closely watched in recent Wisconsin history.
Polls Indicate a Tight Race
Recent polling by the Institute for Reforming Government (IRG) has revealed a competitive race, with Schimel holding a slight edge at 40% compared to Crawford’s 35%. However, a significant 23% of voters remain undecided, indicating that the final weeks of the campaign will be crucial for both candidates in swaying public opinion.
Source: Data from Institute for Reforming Government
The same poll also revealed insights into voter sentiment on key judicial issues:
- 50% of respondents supported the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing drop boxes for absentee ballots, while 43% opposed it.
- 47% expressed support for a Supreme Court candidate who backs Act 10, while 37% said they would support one who opposes the law.
- 22% favored the Supreme Court upholding Wisconsin’s abortion ban, while 46% supported overturning the law to allow abortion up to 20 weeks, and 25% believed the decision should be left to the state legislature and governor.
Source: Data from Institute for Reforming Government
These poll results underscore the stark divisions among Wisconsin voters, reflecting broader national debates over judicial and legislative authority in shaping public policy.
Ad Spending and Campaign Strategy
With the high stakes of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, both candidates and their affiliated groups have significantly escalated their advertising expenditures.
As of February 28, 2025, Susan Crawford's campaign had allocated nearly $13 million to advertising efforts, according to AdImpact. This substantial investment underscores the campaign's commitment to reaching voters across the state.
On the other hand, Brad Schimel's campaign had reserved approximately $5.8 million for advertisements by the same date. In addition to the campaign’s spending, conservative groups have bolstered support for Schimel. Notably, Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin announced on March 4, 2025, an increase of $300,000 to its existing $1 million ad expenditure, launching a new campaign to advocate for Schimel.
The infusion of funds from external organizations has intensified the advertising landscape. Groups financially supported by billionaire Elon Musk, such as America PAC and Building America’s Future, have collectively spent over $5 million on digital ads, mailers, and television advertisements either supporting Schimel or attacking Crawford. This involvement has prompted the Wisconsin Democratic Party to launch a $1 million-plus effort to counteract Musk’s influence, aiming to nationalize the race by highlighting his involvement.
Source: WisPolitics
Collectively, these expenditures have positioned the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race to potentially become the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, surpassing the previous record of over $51 million spent in 2023.
The ad campaigns have been characterized by contrasting narratives. Crawford’s advertisements emphasize her extensive experience as a judge and prosecutor, highlighting her commitment to judicial fairness and protecting individual rights. In a recent spot, she addresses "false ads" against her, asserting her dedication to safeguarding personal privacy and common-sense values.
Conversely, Schimel’s supporters portray him as a steadfast conservative, focusing on themes of public safety and traditional legal interpretations. Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin’s ads urge voters to support Schimel to "restore fairness, trust, and integrity" to the state’s judicial system, criticizing Crawford’s record as "soft-on-crime".
The Role of Political Polarization in the Courts
The increasing politicization of judicial elections is a growing concern in Wisconsin and across the country. Historically, judicial races were seen as nonpartisan contests focused on legal philosophy rather than political ideology. However, in recent years, both political parties and special interest groups have turned to the courts as battlegrounds for policy debates, a trend that can be traced back to landmark judicial decisions during the Civil Rights Movement and beyond.
As political divisions deepen, the role of state Supreme Courts has expanded beyond mere interpretation of laws to include significant policy decisions. This shift has led to heightened campaign spending, aggressive political advertising, and an increased emphasis on the partisan implications of judicial appointments.
Wrap Up
With the election fast approaching, Wisconsin voters will need to weigh their choices carefully. The composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court could determine the direction of major legal rulings for years to come, affecting policies on healthcare, education, workers' rights, and civil liberties.
The outcome of this race will also set a precedent for future judicial contests, demonstrating whether the state will continue along its current trajectory of partisan judicial elections or whether a shift toward judicial independence is possible. Regardless of the final vote count, the implications of this election will be felt across Wisconsin’s legal and political landscape.
As the campaigns ramp up their final outreach efforts, voters must critically assess the candidates, their records, and the long-term consequences of their decision. With the balance of power at stake, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race is more than just another election—it is a defining moment for the state’s judicial and political future.
