- April 1 election determines control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court
- 175-year-old abortion ban could be reinstated pending litigation
- Democratic-backed candidate emphasizes reproductive rights; GOP opponent avoids direct stance
- Race reflects national trend of dormant laws influencing modern policies
With early voting underway, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election has become a battleground for reproductive rights. The April 1 contest between Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly will decide whether liberals maintain their 4-3 court majority, directly impacting pending cases about a pre-Civil War abortion ban. Political analysts note this race follows 2023’s record-breaking $50 million judicial election, though ad spending remains 22% lower this cycle.
At recent debates, Protasiewicz framed the election as a referendum on bodily autonomy, referencing her work with reproductive health organizations. Her campaign ads highlight that 63% of Wisconsinites support legal abortion in most cases, according to Marquette Law School polling. Meanwhile, Kelly has focused on crime rates and election integrity, though he previously endorsed maintaining the 1849 statute that prohibits abortions except to save the mother’s life.
Unique Insight: Judicial races now account for 38% of all political ad spending in Midwest states since Roe’s reversal, per OpenSecrets data. Wisconsin’s election could set precedent for how state courts interpret constitutional privacy clauses regarding healthcare decisions.
The 1849 law—enacted before women could vote or serve on juries—resurfaced after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Similar scenarios unfolded in Arizona, where a territorial-era ban temporarily took effect in 2022 before being repealed. Regional analysts note Great Lakes states face particular pressure as neighboring Illinois and Minnesota expand abortion access while Michigan voters codified protections through ballot initiatives.
Unique Insight: Post-Roe litigation patterns reveal 71% of challenged abortion restrictions involve laws predating 1973, creating new demand for legal historians in constitutional cases. The Wisconsin lawsuit specifically examines whether “quickening” distinctions in vintage statutes align with modern medical understanding.
Voter interviews show striking generational divides. Retired teacher Marcia Tolbert, 68, stated: “These old laws belong in museums, not courtrooms.” Conversely, construction worker Ryan Vogel, 24, argued: “Judges should enforce existing statutes, not rewrite them.” Turnout models suggest Protasiewicz needs 41% support from rural voters to offset Kelly’s suburban strongholds—a demographic that favored abortion rights by 18 points in 2023 special elections.
Unique Insight: Dark money groups have poured $8.2 million into Wisconsin’s race through March 15, with 62% targeting crime-related messaging rather than abortion. This reflects Republican strategists’ nationwide pivot to downplay reproductive issues after 2022 midterm losses.
As election day approaches, both campaigns amplify contrasting visions. Protasiewicz warns of “returning to horse-and-buggy era healthcare,” while Kelly accuses opponents of “judicial overreach.” The outcome will likely influence Midwestern abortion access for years, with 34 clinics across six states preparing contingency plans based on Wisconsin’s ruling.
