On Tuesday, March 25, 2025, Bloomberg Law published an article detailing the ongoing judicial election in Wisconsin, which has become the most expensive in U.S. history, with over $64 million spent on the campaign. The election, taking place on April 1, features candidates Judge Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel vying for a seat on the state Supreme Court, which holds significant sway over critical issues such as abortion, labor rights, and electoral regulations.

Both candidates have faced scrutiny regarding their ethical obligations and potential conflicts of interest related to judicial recusal. Judge Crawford, a circuit judge with a liberal platform, has been criticized for her refusal to recuse herself from cases that may involve her past legal work, including representation of Planned Parenthood and a lawsuit concerning Wisconsin’s Act 10, which regulates union activities. Her opponents argue that her past involvement with these issues raises questions about her impartiality.

Crawford’s campaign contends that her lawsuit against Act 10 did not challenge the law’s entire substance but rather aspects of its legislative process. Her campaign emphasized that Wisconsin’s recusal requirements are limited, arguing that their candidate’s legal history should not disqualify her from participating in relevant cases. In a statement, Crawford’s campaign also highlighted Schimel’s support for the 1849 abortion ban, framing him as an extremist focused on advancing a personal agenda rather than adhering to constitutional principles.

Brad Schimel, the Republican candidate and former state attorney general, has positioned himself as a conservative originalist, expressing concerns about what he perceives as a liberal bias in the current Supreme Court. Schimel has declined to pledge recusal from abortion-related cases, asserting that his personal beliefs would not influence his judicial decisions. He has labeled the 1849 abortion law as “valid” but acknowledged that it might not align with the current sentiments of Wisconsin voters.

Legal experts are examining the implications of the candidates’ stances on recusal. According to Bryna Godar from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the complexities surrounding recusal in cases like Crawford’s highlight the challenges in establishing ethical standards for judges. The rules in Wisconsin provide judges with considerable discretion regarding when to recuse themselves, particularly in situations where they have previously represented a party involved in a case.

The debate over judicial ethics has intensified as campaign contributions from high-profile figures, including Elon Musk and George Soros, have flowed into the race. Musk has reportedly contributed millions to a group supporting Schimel, while the Democratic Party of Wisconsin has funneled significant resources into Crawford’s campaign. This financial backing raises further questions about the influence of money in judicial elections and the potential impact on the candidates’ impartiality.

The historical significance of this election is underscored by its potential to shift the balance of power on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Currently, the court is divided 4-3, and the outcome of this election could affect future rulings on contentious issues such as abortion and labor rights. The candidates’ ability to navigate the ethical landscape surrounding recusal may be pivotal in their quest for the judgeship.

As the election draws near, both campaigns are working to solidify their positions and sway public opinion. Schimel has criticized his opponent’s legal approach and the perceived liberal agenda of the current court, while Crawford’s team is focused on portraying their candidate as a defender of constitutional rights against what they characterize as extremist views.

The growing public discourse on judicial ethics reflects a broader trend in which voters are increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications and affiliations of judicial candidates. Legal scholars, including Emory University Professor Michael J. Broyde, suggest that the current electoral climate necessitates open discussions about judicial issues and ethics, as the public has opted for a system in which judges are elected rather than appointed.

With just days remaining until the election, the stakes are high for both candidates. The outcome will not only determine the future composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court but may also set precedents for how judicial ethics are perceived and enforced in the state’s legal landscape.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg Law