Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidates Debate Key Issues Ahead of Critical Election
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A contentious debate on March 12 placed abortion rights and the impact of significant donations from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros in the spotlight, as candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court faced off less than three weeks before the pivotal election on April 1.
The outcome of this election will determine the ideological balance of Wisconsin’s highest court, which will address critical issues such as abortion rights, public sector unions, voting regulations, and congressional district mapping.
This election is seen as a potential indicator of political sentiment early in President Donald Trump’s term, particularly in this crucial swing state.
Candidates Overview
Competing for a seat on the court are Republican-supported Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel, a former attorney general, and Democratic-backed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford.
Focus on Abortion Rights
Central to the debate was the challenge to an 1849 law that imposes strict restrictions on abortion access in Wisconsin. Schimel, aligned with anti-abortion activists, defended the legality of the 1849 law but acknowledged it may not reflect current public opinion.
“I don’t believe it reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin today,” he stated, advocating instead for voter involvement in such significant legal decisions.
Contrastingly, Crawford chose not to directly comment on the pending litigation but remarked on her previous support for Planned Parenthood in abortion-related legal matters. She also criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, emphasizing its relevance to the election. “This is a critical issue in this race,” she declared, highlighting Schimel’s stance on the 1849 law.
Influence of Billionaire Donations
The candidates exhibited stark differences regarding campaign financing. Crawford accused Schimel of allowing his campaign to be influenced by Musk, citing over $10 million from Musk-funded groups supporting Schimel through advertising and voter outreach. “This is unprecedented to see this kind of spending on a race,” she stated.
Furthermore, she noted the timing of Musk’s campaign spending, suggesting it was linked to a lawsuit involving his company, Tesla, against the state.
In his defense, Schimel asserted his independence from outside contributions, saying he does not control the financial actions of supportive organizations. When asked whether he would rule against Trump if necessary, he assured that he would uphold Wisconsin law impartially.
On the other hand, Crawford accepted contributions from Democrats including Soros and Governor JB Pritzker, with Schimel labeling Soros as a “dangerous person to have an endorsement from.”
Union Rights and Legislative Issues
Union rights also emerged as a topic of debate. Crawford previously attempted to challenge Wisconsin’s Act 10, legislation that significantly curtailed collective bargaining rights for public workers. A recent ruling declared parts of this law unconstitutional, and a Supreme Court review is anticipated.
Crawford expressed that she would likely recuse herself from cases directly related to the same provisions she had challenged. Schimel, however, defended the law during his tenure as attorney general without indicating whether he would recuse himself from future cases.
Voting Regulations and Redistricting
With an amendment to solidify Wisconsin’s voter ID law on the upcoming ballot, Schimel announced his support, while Crawford, who has previously sued to overturn the law, did not state her position on the amendment.
The candidates also touched on upcoming challenges to congressional redistricting. Crawford faced scrutiny over a prior gathering aimed at fundraising for Democratic candidates, which she maintained was mischaracterized. Schimel expressed skepticism regarding her claims.
Conclusion
This debate highlighted the divergent paths in Wisconsin’s judicial future, as both candidates prepare for an election that may significantly impact both state law and the upcoming broader national political landscape.
