Wisconsin supreme court race a litmus test for Elon Musk's political power
A race to determine control of the Wisconsin supreme court that has profound stakes for voting, abortion and labor rights in the state, is also shaping up to be a litmus test of Elon Musk's political power, making it one of the most consequential elections of Donald Trump's second term.
Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority on the state supreme court, but the liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley is retiring. Susan Crawford, a liberal judge, is facing off on Tuesday against the conservative judge Brad Schimel for the seat. The winner will determine which party has control of a court that is set to rule on the future of the state's 1849 abortion ban, collective bargaining rights and the makeup of the state's six congressional districts.
The election has become the most expensive judicial election in American history, with more than $80m spent on both sides so far. Musk began spending in the race earlier this year, shortly after Tesla filed a lawsuit challenging a Wisconsin law that blocks the company from opening car dealerships in the state.
The billionaire's Super Pac is offering $100 to those who sign a petition in opposition to 'activist judges'. So far, Musk and groups he funds have spent more than $20m in the race. On Friday, he posted on Twitter/X and said he would campaign in Wisconsin this weekend and give away $1m as part of a sweepstakes-like contest to people who had voted. He later deleted the post after experts pointed out such a program could be illegal under state law. He posted a revised tweet saying he would distribute the money to people to act as spokespeople for the petition. The Wisconsin attorney general, Josh Kaul, a Democrat, also sued Musk and his Pac on Friday to stop the giveaway.
'This is kind of a test case for Elon Musk,' Crawford, a former prosecutor, said in an interview. 'He wants to make sure that nothing stands in the way of what he's doing to try to dismantle the federal government.'
Schimel's campaign did not respond to an interview request.
Musk's entrance in the race comes as he has railed against federal judges who have threatened to halt Trump's agenda, calling for the impeachment of some and backing Republicans who have heeded the call.
So much money being spent in a state supreme court election would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected to 10 year terms, and until recently the candidates had low profiles and few paid attention to the races. In a 2020 state supreme court race, both candidates spent a combined $10m.
But in recent years, awareness has grown of the powerful role state supreme courts can play in defining major issues, bringing more money and hard-nosed politics to these races. In North Carolina, a Republican candidate is seeking to overturn a supreme court election he lost to a Democratic candidate by 734 votes.
'What we've really seen in recent years is just how important state courts are in determining election law and how elections are run,' said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the state democracy research initiative at the University of Wisconsin law school. She noted that Trump carried the state by just 30,000 votes in 2024 and Biden by even less in 2020.
'Really what we're seeing is state courts are playing a huge role not just in determining issues for the state, but in determining rules for elections that can have impacts at a national level when you're looking at a swing state like Wisconsin,' she added.
Schimel, a former Republican state attorney general, has made no secret that there would be little daylight between him and Trump, praising the president and talking about the need for a 'support network' for him. He has also posed with a large inflatable Trump and said the justices 'screwed [Trump] over' by keeping a Green party candidate off the ballot in 2020 (Trump narrowly lost the state to Joe Biden that year). He has also called one of the female justices on the state supreme court 'dumb as a sack of hammers' and another female justice 'crazy'.
Trump endorsed Schimel on 21 March.
State Democrats have made the race a referendum on Musk, putting up 'people v Musk' billboards across the state and holding town halls. When the party tested messaging, it showed ads highlighting Musk's connections to Schimel to 'motivate Democrats who otherwise want to tune out politics entirely to come out, cast a ballot, and recruit their friends', said Ben Wikler, chairman of the state Democratic party.
'If Brad Schimel loses this race and Susan Crawford wins, it'll become clear to Democrats that they can fight back against Musk and win,' said Wikler. 'And it'll be clear to Republicans that Musk may not be able to save their bacon if they keep going along with his attacks on our country. That could have a profound impact on the whole arc of American politics in this era.'
The race has energized Democrats. 'Back in November and December, I think a lot of people I was talking to were pretty discouraged by some of the results that they saw in the November election after having put a lot of time and energy into some of those campaigns,' Crawford said. 'That has dramatically changed in the last couple of months as the administration has taken a lot of actions in a hurry that have made people really worried and concerned about the direction our country is heading.'
In the weeks after Musk got involved in race, Wikler said, he saw Democrats 'get up off the mat and lean into the fightback'.
• • •
Even before Musk's involvement, the high stakes of the race were clear. The court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the state's 1849 abortion ban last year and is set to consider another one dealing with whether the state constitution protects the right to an abortion.
In 2020, the state supreme court narrowly voted 4-3 to turn away a Trump lawsuit challenging his loss in the state and seeking to overturn the results.
In 2023, Democrats won a major victory when the liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on the court and flipped its ideological balance. Last year, the new state supreme court struck down state legislative maps, getting rid of Republican districts that were so distorted they gave Democrats no chance of ever winning a majority. Republicans went from having a near two-thirds supermajority to a slim majority in the statehouse.
The next court could hear a challenge to Wisconsin's congressional maps, in which Republicans hold six of eight seats. That balance is also considered severely askew in favor of Republicans and could ultimately help determine control of the US House, where Republicans hold a majority of just a few seats.
The spending in the race has shattered the more than $50m spent in the 2023 race. Musk has spent more than $18m through America Pac and Building America's future. The Republican mega-donor Richard Uihlein has gotten somewhat less attention, but Uihlein-aligned groups have spent at least $5.3m in favor of Schimel, funneling it through various entities, according to campaign finance records.
Related: In Wisconsin's supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shots
Lynde Uihlein, a cousin of Richard Uihlein has also been a major donor to the group A Better Wisconsin Together, which has spent more than $6m in the race supporting Crawford. The family members were also on separate sides of the 2023 state supreme court race.
Robert Yablon, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that the huge spending in the race was only possible because of the state's loose campaign finance laws. People in Wisconsin can donate unlimited amounts to state parties, which can pass that money on to candidates. There are also very weak anti-coordination laws between independent expenditure groups and campaigns.
The race, Yablon said, was a 'test for judicial independence'. If Musk succeeds in winning and ultimately gets rulings favorable to him, it could undermine that perception.
'You would hope that in a judicial race, you might have different candidates – maybe they have different ideologies or philosophies, different ways that they talk about the law, but it's shared ground that they believe that the judiciary ought to operate independently from other branches, ought to check those branches,' he said.
The turnout in Tuesday's election is expected to be much lower than the turnout in the November presidential election, making it difficult to make firm conclusions about the voter reaction to Trump so far. But there still may be signals to take away from Tuesday's contest.
'If there is a strong win for Crawford, it will at least be evidence of the energy of liberals and the extent to which opposition to the Trump administration, to Elon Musk, has been effectively activated,' Yablon said. If Schimel wins, he said it 'will probably be quite disheartening for liberals, for the Democratic party that's invested so much in this race, and they may then really have to go back to the drawing board'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
GOP rep speaks out after being forced to evacuate offices over threats from pro-abortion activists
Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., is speaking out about the death threats she's received from pro-abortion activists after publicly sharing her experience with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy — an ordeal that ultimately led to the evacuation of her offices. Cammack told "Fox & Friends First" on Friday that she was targeted by pro-abortion activists after sharing her life-threatening ectopic pregnancy story with The Wall Street Journal. Last May, the Florida congresswoman found herself in a frightening position when her doctors were hesitant to treat her possibly fatal pregnancy complication due to the state's near-total abortion ban. "It took about 10 days to discover exactly what was going on. Doctors originally thought that I was just miscarrying, and then they discovered a very rare ectopic — actually one of the rarest and most dangerous types of ectopic pregnancies you can have," she said. Cammack noted that while Florida's abortion laws have exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, her doctors were still hesitant to provide her with life-saving care because they were scared they would face losing their license or even being sent to prison. "I literally was lying on the table reading them the law, and it dawned on me as I was sitting there with my husband — this is what women are experiencing because of the fearmongering around women's healthcare, and it has to stop," she asserted, adding, "The left absolutely played a role in making sure that doctors and women were scared to seek out the help that they needed." Following the publication of her story in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, Cammack began receiving death threats from pro-abortion activists, leading to the evacuation of her offices. One of the threats she received read: "We would be better off if you hadn't survived. The only good Republican is a dead Republican." Cammack said that she's received "thousands of threatening phone calls" and more than three dozen "actionable, credible" death threats since sharing her story. "Things that are so horrible, like 'I'm going to come cut out your unborn child and roast it over a fire.' Things that I can't say on air," the congresswoman recalled. "What is really, really scary is the vitriol and the fact that people don't even want to look into the details or take accountability for their actions," she said. According to Cammack, the most important lesson she's taken away from her traumatic experience is that there's not only a "literacy crisis" unfolding in the country, but also a basic lack of understanding of "what healthcare for women is," adding that "ectopic pregnancies are not abortions."

9 minutes ago
Trump admin live updates: White House sticks to megabill deadline despite Senate GOP's Medicaid setback
President Donald Trump is back in Washington after his trip overseas for a NATO summit, where allies committed to an increase in defense spending long pushed for by Trump. On Thursday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine provided more information about U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, with Hegseth pushing back against a preliminary U.S. intelligence report that said Tehran's nuclear program may have only been set back months. Meanwhile, the Senate is making changes to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" as Republicans try to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline for passage.


Politico
11 minutes ago
- Politico
Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call
Gavin Newsom is taking a page right out of Donald Trump's media playbook. The California governor accused Fox News of defamation in a lawsuit Friday morning, alleging the network should fork over $787 million after host Jesse Watters claimed Newsom lied about his phone calls with Trump, who ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles this month. Newsom's lawyers argue Watters' program misleadingly edited a video of Trump to support the claim. The Democratic likely presidential hopeful's request for damages is nearly identical to the $787.5 million sum Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle another defamation case over election falsehoods. And it comes amid a spate of lawsuits from Trump against major media and other companies that resulted in multi-million dollar settlements. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom told POLITICO in a statement. 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Public officials must clear an extremely high legal standard to prevail in defamation cases, as the U.S. Supreme Court established six decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. But the lawsuit's filing marks a pointed escalation in Newsom's feud with the Republican president and his allies in media. Newsom is suing in his personal capacity and has agreed to pay any possible fines or penalties from his campaign account, aides said. Any proceeds from the case to Newsom would be disseminated to anti-Trump causes. Newsom's suit echoes Trump's own lawsuits against major news networks like ABC, which agreed in December to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation case over George Stephanopoulos' inaccurate claim that Trump was found civilly liable for rape. (Trump was actually found civilly liable for sexual abuse, though the judge in the case later ruled that it was accurate in 'common modern parlance' to say Trump had been found liable for rape.) Trump in another suit accused CBS' '60 Minutes' last fall of misleadingly editing an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race. At least two executives from the company have since left their posts and the unresolved CBS suit has become a central drama in the pending sale of a controlling stake in Paramount. Newsom's lawyers said he is prepared to drop the lawsuit if Fox retracts its claims and Watters apologizes to him on air. A copy of Newsom's complaint filed in the Delaware Superior Court — in the same state where Fox News is incorporated — claims he last spoke with Trump for approximately 16 minutes by phone on June 7, two days before the president deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops over Newsom's objections to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump, however, told reporters on June 10 he had spoken with Newsom 'a day ago,' implying a conversation took place the same day 700 U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles. Newsom refuted Trump's claim in a post on X minutes later. That evening, Watters played an edited clip of Trump's remarks on air before asking, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' He simultaneously showed a screenshot of the president's call history, obtained by Fox host John Roberts, showing Trump's last call with Newsom was on June 7, as the governor had claimed. Newsom's lawyers argue the incident meets the legal standard for defamation and potentially harmed the governor's standing with voters in future elections. Additionally, they claimed it violated California's Unfair Competition Law, which outlaws 'deceptive and unfair business practices.' Mark Bankson and another private lawyer representing Newsom, Michael Teter, summarized their case in a five-page letter to Fox on Friday littered with biting insults of the network's credibility and sarcastic jabs at Trump's mental acuity. 'It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates,' the lawyers wrote. 'But Fox's decision to cover up for President Trump's error cannot be so easily dismissed.' Newsom's suit adds further drama to his love-hate relationship with Fox. He's an avid viewer who's enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the network at times over the last three decades, reveling in the ability to go toe-to-toe with firebrand hosts like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in front of millions of conservatives. Yet he's often decried Fox's rightward tilt while smiling for its cameras, as he did in 2023 when heaccused Hannity of helping Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, cheat in a primetime debate. His relationship with Trump is more complex but follows a similar rhythm of a tense rivalry punctuated by moments of collaboration. This year alone, Newsom hugged Trump as the president deplaned to tour wildfire damage in Los Angeles, only to sue him over tariffs months later before savagely attacking the president in a June primetime address that catapulted him back to the forefront of Democratic resistance against the president's agenda. Newsom's tense face-off with Trump put him squarely in conservative media's bullseye. Just last week, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post mocked Newsom on its front page with a photo of him sipping wine in Napa on the same weekend Trump called in Guard troops. Newsom's press office has since said he was at a cancer fundraiser honoring his late mother, who died of breast cancer. The governor's legal team is no stranger to high-profile defamation cases. Bankson represented the parents of an elementary school student killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre in a defamation suit against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Bankson's team secured a verdict in 2022 ordering Jones to pay $49.3 million in total damages.