Wisconsin – A Landmark Election with National Consequences

In a historic and fiercely contested election, Susan Crawford, backed by the Democratic Party, has won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The race, held on April 2, 2025, was the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, with over $90 million in campaign spending. Crawford defeated Brad Schimel, a conservative judge backed by former President Donald Trump, securing a critical victory for liberals who will now maintain control over the state’s highest court.

Judge Susan Crawford congratulates supporters after voters elected her to Wisconsin's state Supreme Court on Tuesday (Photo via Reuters)

This election was viewed as a referendum on Trump’s presidency, as Wisconsin remains a key battleground state. The outcome will have significant implications for abortion rights, voting laws, and political redistricting in the state. With Crawford’s win, liberals now hold a 4-3 majority in the court, giving them the power to shape Wisconsin’s legal landscape on crucial issues.

The Historic Cost of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

Breaking Records: A $90 Million Battle

The 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election broke all previous records, surpassing the $51 million spent in 2023 on another Supreme Court race in the state. This election saw massive financial contributions from both liberal and conservative donors, making it the costliest judicial election in American history.

• Trump’s Key Backer: Billionaire Elon Musk, a major Trump supporter, spent nearly $20 million through various political groups to support Schimel.
• Democratic Contributions: On the liberal side, billionaire philanthropist George Soros and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman funded Crawford’s campaign, making significant financial contributions.

The high-stakes nature of the election attracted nationwide attention, with political groups, activists, and business leaders contributing unprecedented sums to influence the outcome.

Understanding How U.S. State Supreme Court Justices Are Chosen

The Evolution of Judicial Selection

The process of selecting state Supreme Court justices in the U.S. has evolved over time. Initially, after gaining independence, all states appointed justices through gubernatorial or legislative selection. However, as concerns grew that appointed judges served the interests of political leaders rather than the public, some states introduced elections for judicial positions in the 1800s.

Today, each state follows its own method for selecting Supreme Court justices. These methods include:

• Gubernatorial Appointment: Some states allow governors to appoint justices, sometimes requiring confirmation by the legislature or a special commission.
• Nonpartisan Elections: Justices are elected without party affiliation being listed on the ballot (e.g., Wisconsin).
• Partisan Elections: Justices run with explicit party affiliation.
• Legislative Elections: Some states, like South Carolina and Virginia, allow state legislatures to elect justices.
• Hybrid Systems: In states like New Mexico, governors appoint justices, who must then win partisan elections to remain on the bench.

In Wisconsin, Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, meaning candidates’ political affiliations are not listed on ballots. However, endorsements and campaign funding make the political leanings of candidates clear to voters.

Meet the Candidates: Susan Crawford vs. Brad Schimel

Susan Crawford: The Liberal Contender

• Background: A Dane County judge with extensive experience in law and governance.
• Career: Served in high-ranking positions under a Democratic governor and has been a vocal advocate for progressive legal policies.
• Supporters: Endorsed by former President Barack Obama, Wisconsin’s Democratic Party, and prominent liberal donors.

Brad Schimel: The Conservative Challenger

• Background: A Waukesha County judge and former Republican state attorney general.
• Career: Known for his tough-on-crime approach and conservative judicial philosophy.
• Supporters: Endorsed by Donald Trump, who campaigned actively for him.

The race became a national battleground, with both candidates accusing each other of being too partisan to serve fairly on the Supreme Court. In a March 12 debate, Crawford criticized Schimel for ruling based on political considerations, while Schimel insisted he followed the law impartially, comparing himself to a baseball umpire.

Why This Election Mattered

1. A Test for Trump’s Popularity in a Swing State

This election was the first major test of voter sentiment toward Trump’s second term since he won re-election in November 2024. Wisconsin is a key swing state, and the results indicate how voters are reacting to his policies.

2. Future of Wisconsin’s Congressional Map

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon rule on a case involving the state’s congressional map. Currently, Republicans hold six of eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, a map that Democrats argue is unfairly gerrymandered. With a liberal majority, changes to the district map are likely, which could impact future elections.

3. Abortion Rights and Voter Laws

• Abortion Law: The court will decide on the validity of an 1849 abortion ban, which remains one of the strictest in the U.S.
• Voter ID Law: Wisconsin voters approved a referendum to add a voter ID requirement to the state’s Constitution. This makes it harder for courts to overturn voter ID laws in the future.
• Union Rights: Another major case involves public sector unions and their collective bargaining rights, a hotly debated issue in the state.

What’s Next for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court?

A Liberal Majority and Its Implications

With Crawford’s victory, the Wisconsin Supreme Court now has a 4-3 liberal majority, which is expected to lead to major legal shifts in the state. Cases related to election laws, reproductive rights, and labor policies will be decided in the coming months, setting legal precedents that could have nationwide implications.

A National Model for Future Elections?

The record-breaking spending and national involvement in this race highlight how state Supreme Court elections are becoming battlegrounds for political influence. Moving forward, other states may see similar high-stakes judicial contests with significant national backing.

A Historic Win with Long-Lasting Effects

Susan Crawford’s win is more than just a judicial victory—it reflects broader political dynamics in the U.S. The results indicate that Wisconsin remains a closely contested state, with Trump’s influence still strong but facing significant opposition.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s rulings in the coming months will be closely watched, shaping not just state policies, but potentially influencing national political strategies as well.

Stay updated with the latest news on elections, policy changes, and judicial developments only on The Deccan Times.