What’s at Stake in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

On April 1, Wisconsinites will cast their ballots in a state supreme court election that is already the most expensive judicial election in history. The Brennan Center has documented an estimated $81.5. million in spending to date on the race for an open seat on the court, much of it from national figures and groups — all evidence that judicial elections have entered a new era of politicization.

My colleague Douglas Keith wrote about the nominally nonpartisan election, in which trial judge and former Republican attorney general Brad Schimel is facing off against trial judge Susan Crawford, who was endorsed by the state Democratic Party. Two years ago, another record-setting election in Wisconsin established the first liberal majority on the court in fifteen years. This year, that majority is again up for grabs.

The Wisconsin election has attracted a presidential endorsement, more than $17 million in spending by groups associated with Elon Musk, and investments from a number of national players on both the left and right, including the ACLU Voter Education Fund, George Soros, Americans for Prosperity, and the conservative donor Richard Uihlein. What accounts for all this attention? 

It’s a sign of the growing profile and national significance of state courts. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has repeatedly been at the center of high-profile cases. Last year, the court’s new liberal majority ruled that election officials can use drop boxes to collect absentee ballots, overturning a ruling that the court had issued two years prior. The court also ordered redrawing of the state’s gerrymandered legislative maps after previously declining to do so. 

Currently, the biggest cases before the justices relate to abortion rights. The court recently heard arguments in a case where it must decide whether a 176-year-old law should be interpreted to ban abortion in the state. If the court rules that the law is an abortion ban, Planned Parenthood is asking the court in a separate suit to hold that the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion.

Given Wisconsin’s status as a battleground state, another looming question is the role the court will play in future election controversies. In 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a postelection effort by Donald Trump’s campaign to throw out more than 200,000 ballots from Democratic counties — one of many lawsuits filed across the country seeking to overturn his election loss. The court was closely divided 4–3, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn joining the court’s three liberal justices to reject Trump’s lawsuit.

Put simply, state courts like Wisconsin’s are hearing cases with national stakes — and national political actors are increasingly paying attention. That’s not all bad news: Heightened attention can foster better voter information and engagement about the critical issues that state courts are deciding. 

But there’s a darker side too. As judicial races become increasingly indistinguishable from political contests, complete with untraceable dark money, megadonors, and misleading attack ads, they can pose serious challenges to judicial independence and to public confidence in the judicial system. 

Professors Michael Kang and Joanna Shepherd have done fascinating empirical work suggesting that fundraising pressures and reelection concerns have a measurable impact on judicial decision-making, whether conscious or unconscious. This new generation of turbocharged judicial elections only amplifies the threat, putting even greater pressure on the justices caught in the maelstrom.

Alicia Bannon is the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and editor in chief for State Court Report.

Suggested Citation: Alicia Bannon, What’s at Stake in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Mar. 27, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/whats-stake-wisconsin-supreme-court-election