- April 1 election to decide court's ideological balance on abortion and redistricting.
- Schimel (R-backed) and Crawford (D-backed) spar over 1849 abortion law validity.
- Musk-linked groups fund Schimel; Soros supports Crawford via state Democratic Party.
- Tesla's lawsuit against Wisconsin dealership laws sparks Musk's interest in the race.
- Candidates address recusals in cases involving donors and Trump's legal challenges.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court election has become a battleground for national interests, with candidates Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford sharply divided on issues like abortion rights and the role of external funding in judicial races. The April 1 contest will determine whether the court maintains its liberal lean or shifts toward conservative priorities, impacting pending cases on Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban and redistricting maps.
During a heated debate, Crawford criticized Schimel’s stance on the 1849 abortion law, alleging he prejudged its validity during campaign events. Schimel countered that his comments were misinterpreted, emphasizing procedural legitimacy over political outcomes. This exchange underscores how historical statutes are being reevaluated through modern legal and social lenses, a trend occurring in multiple states revisiting pre-Roe v. Wade laws.
Outside spending has flooded the race, with conservative groups tied to Elon Musk contributing millions to Schimel’s campaign. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Democratic Party—bolstered by a $2 million donation from George Soros—has funded Crawford’s bid. This influx of out-of-state money highlights growing concerns about corporate and billionaire influence in local judiciary elections, which traditionally focused on regional issues.
Musk’s involvement may link to Tesla’s ongoing lawsuit against Wisconsin’s ban on manufacturer-owned dealerships. A favorable court ruling could enable Tesla to expand its retail presence, illustrating how corporate litigation risks shaping judicial appointments. Wisconsin’s case mirrors tensions in states like Michigan and Texas, where auto giants lobby to reshape dealership regulations.
Both candidates faced scrutiny over impartiality. Crawford avoided committing to recuse herself from cases involving the Democratic Party, while Schimel declined to address potential conflicts with Tesla-related matters. Their responses reflect broader debates about judicial ethics in an era of high-stakes, politicized courts.
Schimel also addressed mailers tying him to Trump’s agenda, asserting he would rule independently on any cases involving the former president. Crawford accused him of allowing external actors to “buy” the election, a charge intensifying as Wisconsin becomes a testing ground for national political strategies ahead of the 2026 midterms.
