- 2024 Wisconsin Supreme Court race determines control of state’s highest judicial body
- Candidates split on abortion rights, union laws, and voter ID policies
- National figures pour millions into historically local judicial election
- Outcome could reshape rulings on reproductive rights and electoral maps
With control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Circuit Judges Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford presented starkly different visions for the judiciary during their sole debate ahead of the April 1 election. The race carries national implications as Wisconsin remains a critical battleground in presidential politics, with recent court decisions influencing everything from abortion access to congressional districting.
The election marks a potential turning point for reproductive rights in the Midwest. Judge Crawford, endorsed by Planned Parenthood, has consistently criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, while Judge Schimel maintains that Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban remains enforceable. Legal experts suggest the court could revisit this pre-Civil War statute within months of the election, making judicial philosophy on constitutional interpretation a central voter concern.
Labor rights emerge as another flashpoint, particularly regarding Wisconsin’s controversial Act 10 legislation. Crawford’s unsuccessful challenge to the 2011 law that curtailed collective bargaining for public workers contrasts with Schimel’s defense of the policy during his tenure as attorney general. The court is expected to rule on Act 10’s constitutionality later this year, with implications for 300,000+ public employees.
Voting access disputes further differentiate the candidates. While Crawford fought Wisconsin’s strict voter ID requirements through litigation, Schimel supported measures critics argue disproportionately affect minority voters. A concurrent ballot initiative seeks to constitutionally mandate photo identification—a move opponents claim could permanently entrench voting barriers.
The race has attracted unprecedented national attention, with tech billionaire Elon Musk contributing over $8 million to conservative judicial groups backing Schimel. Liberal counterparts, including donations from George Soros and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, struggle to match this financial firepower. This influx of out-of-state funding highlights growing concerns about judicial politicization, as 78% of Wisconsin’s judicial campaign ads now focus on hot-button national issues rather than legal qualifications.
Public safety records face scrutiny, particularly regarding Schimel’s handling of Wisconsin’s sexual assault kit backlog. While serving as attorney general, Schimel inherited 6,800 untested kits in 2014 but took until 2019—one year after leaving office—to clear the backlog. Advocates argue this delayed justice for survivors, while Schimel maintains his team prioritized establishing reliable testing protocols.
Law enforcement endorsements reveal urban-rural divides, with Schimel securing most county sheriffs’ support and Crawford earning backing from Milwaukee/Dane County officials. This split mirrors Wisconsin’s broader political geography, where 72% of 2022 judicial voters cited public safety as their top concern.
With early voting underway, analysts predict record turnout for a spring judicial election. The winner will either preserve the court’s current liberal majority or restore conservative control, potentially reshaping Wisconsin’s legal landscape through critical redistricting cases ahead of the 2024 presidential contest.