Staff Reports
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race concluded with a decisive victory for liberal Judge Susan Crawford, marking a significant setback for conservatives and their high-profile backers, including Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump. Crawford’s win ensures that the court maintains its 4-3 liberal majority, a result that has far-reaching implications for both state and national politics. This election, the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history, underscores the growing nationalization of state-level races and highlights the intensifying battle over key issues like abortion, redistricting, and union rights.
Crawford’s campaign successfully framed the race as a referendum on Musk’s unprecedented financial involvement and Trump’s influence. Musk poured over $20 million into supporting conservative candidate Brad Schimel, while Democrats rallied behind Crawford with accusations that Musk was attempting to “buy” the election. Despite Musk’s efforts, including direct voter outreach and record-breaking ad spending, Crawford emerged victorious with approximately 55% of the vote. Her campaign emphasized her commitment to reproductive rights, labor protections, and fair elections—issues that resonated with Wisconsin voters.
For Republicans, this loss represents more than just a judicial setback; it disrupts their broader strategy to secure legislative dominance in Wisconsin. With the court poised to hear cases on redistricting, Crawford’s victory could pave the way for new congressional maps that favor Democrats. This outcome threatens Republican control of two key congressional seats and complicates their efforts to maintain a House majority in 2026. The stakes of this election extended far beyond Wisconsin’s borders, serving as a critical test of Trump-era conservatism and Musk’s political clout.
Schimel’s defeat also highlights the challenges conservatives face in battleground states where cultural and political divides are intensifying. While Schimel campaigned on law-and-order principles and received endorsements from prominent conservatives, his record as attorney general was scrutinized heavily by opponents. Accusations of leniency in sentencing and mishandling sexual assault cases became focal points in attack ads, undermining his appeal to moderate voters. Meanwhile, Crawford leveraged her experience as a circuit judge and her advocacy for progressive causes to solidify support among urban and suburban constituencies.
This election underscores the shifting dynamics in American politics, where judicial races have become proxy battles for national ideological conflicts. For Democrats, Crawford’s win provides momentum as they seek to challenge Republican policies at both state and federal levels. For Republicans, it serves as a sobering reminder of the limits of financial influence and the importance of grassroots engagement. As Wisconsin prepares for future elections, this race will likely be remembered as a pivotal moment in shaping the state’s political trajectory—and as a warning shot for both parties about the stakes of judicial power in America’s polarized landscape.
