Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel traded barbs and defended their track records on Wednesday night during their only debate for an open seat on the high court.
Recognized as the liberal and conservative candidates respectively, Crawford and Schimel participated in a one-hour debate moderated by WISN 12 at Marquette University Law School. The April 1 election will determine partisan control of the court.
Here are five takeaways from their feisty Wisconsin Supreme Court debate:
The debate got heated
Both candidates took jabs at each other just minutes into the debate, underscoring how contentious the race has gotten.
After Schimel noted toward the beginning of the debate that he would look at cases objectively and that he wasn’t rooting for any team, Crawford replied that he was “paying good lip service to the principles of impartiality and open mindedness.”
“But throughout this campaign, he has taken issues on cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” Crawford added, pointing to previous remarks he made about the state’s 1849 law that bans nearly all abortions and criminalizes providing an abortion.
She appeared to be referencing reporting where Schimel suggested the 1849 law was valid and that there was nothing in that law that made it invalid.
“That is not the kind of open mindedness that we expect from judges. It is prejudicial to the parties in that case,” she added.
Schimel argued that his remarks were being taken out of context, saying he was asked if the 1849 abortion law was valid.
“And the answer is, my answer was, it was passed by two houses of the legislature and signed by a governor. That means it’s a valid law,” he said. “But what I said next was that there’s a real question as to whether that law reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin now and today.”
Pressed on whether he saw the 1849 abortion law as valid, Schimel repeated that “it was a validly passed law,” but added that “I don’t believe that it reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin today.”
Elon Musk looms over debate
Elon Musk loomed large over the debate, with Crawford repeatedly invoking the Tesla CEO and Trump adviser, who has weighed in on the judicial race in support of Republicans in the race despite the fact that the election is technically nonpartisan. His America PAC has also poured in more than $6 million to support Schimel.
Crawford alleged that Musk was trying to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court race. Democrats have pointed to the fact that Musk has pending litigation in Wisconsin over whether he can open up dealerships in the state — a case that could potentially wind up before the high court.
“I have support from all over the country, and it is because ‘Elon Schimmel’ is trying to buy this race,” Crawford said at one point. “And people are very upset about that, and they are disturbed about that.”
Schimel said he’s “looking for the endorsement of the Wisconsin voters” but noted he couldn’t control outside spending.
“We’re not allowed to coordinate with outside groups. I don’t — I haven’t solicited that money from them,” he said at another point when asked about the contributions he’s received generally. “They’ve made this decision on their own to support my campaign, and they’ve decided what their messaging looks like without any assistance from me.”
Schimel weighs in on voter ID ballot issue
Schimel notably weighed in on a ballot measure coming before voters next month, which would amend the state Constitution to require voter photo ID for voting. While it’s already state law, this ballot measure would take the extra step of including it into the state Constitution.
“I want to start by saying, Mike, when I’m on the bench, personal or political views are utterly irrelevant, and they’re utterly irrelevant in the Supreme Court race, but if you want to know how I’m going to vote, I’m going to vote ‘yes,’” Schimel said, when asked by one of the debate moderators on how he’d vote on the ballot measure.
Schimel called voter integrity laws “critically important,” noting that “the danger with vote fraud is you can’t undo the vote.”
Schimel’s comments underscored how Wisconsin Supreme Court races have become increasingly nonpartisan in name only, as the candidates have leaned into talking about issues more.
Crawford, who’s in the past litigated on behalf of the League of Women Voters to stop implementation of voter ID, would not say how she would vote on the ballot measure.
“I just don’t think it’s appropriate for a judge to weigh in and try to influence voters on something like that,” she said, noting the issue could potentially come before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Crawford defends appearance on fundraiser call
Crawford addressed the controversy over appearing on a donor advisory briefing, in which the subject line of the email said “Time-sensitive: Chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026” — implying she would vote favorably on congressional districting litigation brought by Democrats.
Her campaign has previously addressed her appearance, with campaign spokesman Derrick Honeyman saying in a statement: “She has not publicly or privately commented on congressional redistricting at any time and was on this call briefly to share her background and why she’s running.”
During the debate, Crawford was asked how it was appropriate for her to be on the call.
“Well, I don’t think that the email that was sent out was an appropriate way to announce the judicial candidate to be frank,” she said.
She maintained there was no mention about congressional maps while she was on the call and she had only been on the call to give a quick biography about herself and why she was running.
“I also did not see that email or the way it was being billed before I participated,” she added, saying she only knew about the email’s framing afterward.
Schimel puts space between him and Trump
Schimel, a former Republican Wisconsin attorney general, sought to put space between him and President Trump during the debate, insisting he wouldn’t be a “yes man” for the president despite recent reporting suggested he would be an ally for Trump.
Asked about recent mailers from America PAC that said “Conservative Brad Schimel will support President Trump’s agenda!”, Schimel maintained he would “enforce the law.”
“I will apply the law the way the legislature has written it. If President Trump or anyone defies Wisconsin law, and I end up with a case in front of me, I’ll hold them accountable, as I would anybody,” he added.
Those remarks came after the Wisconsin Examiner reported earlier this month that he suggested to canvassers that he would be a “support network” for the president.
Schimel also offered praise of Trump during an interview with WISN 12 last month and suggested he’d welcome an endorsement from the president.
