Missed the big Supreme Court candidate debate? RPKC’s Frederick Butzen didn’t & he wrote an issue-by-issue synopsis that gives you the highlights to inform your voting choice in the April 1st, 2025 Spring Election!
Note: The full recording of the debate is below, the timestamp in the recording follows the subhead and is in parenthesis.
On Wednesday, March 12, Milwaukee television station WISN hosted a one-hour debate between Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford, candidates for the Wisconsin supreme court. The debate was held before a live audience at the law school of Marquette University, and was moderated by WISN correspondents Matt Smith and Gerron Jordan.
WISN and the moderators conducted the debate well. The audience, which included the current members of the Wisconsin supreme court, was well-behaved. The format was informal, with moderators and candidates seated together at a round table. The moderators managed the flow of debate well, and kept the discussion moving briskly. They asked pointed questions of each candidate, but refrained from “fact-checking” either. The candidates spoke to the moderators rather than to each other or the audience, though at times each candidate was permitted to rebut a claim made by the other.
The debate can be seen in its entirety here. The following gives a synopsis and a few highlights. The numbers in parentheses give times at which the topic was debated.
Abortion (8:45, 10:15)
Abortion came up repeatedly in the debate, with the discussion at times being passionate.
Judge Schimel spoke briefly of how he and his wife were unable to conceive, and had adopted two daughters who might otherwise have been aborted. He spoke of himself as “pro-life,” but stated repeatedly that his personal opinions have no place in his decisions. He acknowledged that the 1849 law does not reflect the thinking of the majority of Wisconsinites, but he repeatedly stated his belief that, having been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, it was settled law. It is, he implied, the task of a judge to gauge the legality of legislation, not its wisdom or propriety.
Judge Crawford spoke of her experiences of undergoing pregnancy and difficult deliveries, and referred to abortion as a health-care issue for women. She spoke of referring to abortion rights and spoke proudly of her endorsement by Planned Parenthood. She implied that Judge Schimel defended, or was a supporter of, the 1849 law. Later in the debate, she attacked the Dobbs decision.
Money in the Campaign (15:00)
Both candidates stated that they have no control over persons who choose to support them or spend money on their behalf.
Judge Crawford repeatedly criticized Elon Musk’s support for Judge Schimel–using Musk as a boogyman. Although the debate was mostly free of snark, Judge Crawford at one point referred to Judge Schimel as “Elon Schimel.” She claimed that Musk supported Judge Schimel because Musk will have litigation before the court. Her repeated references to Musk, and her language and manner, appeared to imply that there was an understanding between Musk and Judge Schimel–which, of course, is illegal.
Judge Schimel denounced George Soros, who is a major supporter of Judge Crawford’s, and his support for radical causes.
Crime (19:00)
Each judge accused the other of being soft on crime, each citing instances where the other apparently let a criminal get off easy.
Rape kits (21:00, 27:00)
Judge Crawford has accused Judge Schimel of having been callous toward rape victims during his term as Wisconsin attorney general, due to the apparent slowness with which rape kits were processed. Judge Schimel responded that he had inherited the situation because his predecessor in office had largely ignored rape kits. He claimed that he established a system for processing them speedily; although it took time for the process to get up to speed, by the end of his term in office the backlog of rape kits had been processed.
Act 10 (29:00)
Both judges hesitated to comment on Act 10 litigation, which is before the court at present. Judge Schimel, however, criticized the court for its delay in returning its decision–five months and counting since the arguments were heard.
Voter ID (35:00)
Judge Schimel criticized Judge Crawford for characterizing voter ID as equivalent to a poll tax intended to disenfranchise poor and minority citizens. Judge Crawford replied that at the time of her criticism, residents had to pay to obtain a state ID, which in effect meant that one had to pay in order to vote, but that in the meantime that situation had been corrected.
Congressional maps (38:00)
The moderators questioned Judge Crawford about her participation in a phone call with the group “Focus for Democracy,” whose email to participants was titled “Chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026.” Judge Crawford repeated her denial that she knew about the email or discussed redistricting with the group.
Judge Schimel said he found it hard to believe that Judge Crawford knew nothing about the group’s agenda or its invitation.
Recusal (46:00)
Both candidates said that recusal was a matter of conscience for a judge, and cited instances in which they had recused themselves. Judge Crawford, however, said that a clear code governing recusal should be legislated.
Candidates closing remarks (57:00, 58:00)
In her closing remarks, Judge Crawford stated that her goal would be to protect rights. She attacked Judge Schimel, implying that he had sold out to Elon Musk, and claimed again that he was a supporter of the 1849 abortion law.
In his remarks, Judge Schimel said that he would restore objectivity to the court. In his opening remark, Judge Schimel said that his decision-making would be marked by, among other qualities, “humility”–a word that is seldom found in the mouths of public servants, and almost never among those who, like Judge Crawford, consider themselves to be “on the right side of history.”
What’s At Stake
Collin Levy, writing in The Wall Street Journal, called the April 1 election “the most important election of 2025.” As Mr Levy noted, “The left is counting on a single state supreme court justice to unravel decades of public policy run through the state’s political branches. That would be an unprecedented inversion of democracy.”
The debate clearly shows that Judge Schimel will honor the democratic process, whereas Judge Crawford will legislate from the bench. But don’t take my word for it: Watch the debate. Judge for yourself.
And on April 1: Vote! Vote as if everything depends on it–because it may well.
—RPKC Member, Frederick Butzen
Watch the Wisconsin Supreme Court Debate:
Make Your Plan to Vote for the April 1, 2025 Spring Election Now!
When & Where To Vote
In-Person Absentee Voting (early voting) begins on March 18th and runs through March 28th, depending upon your municipality. In the city, vote at the Kenosha City Clerk’s office, 625 52nd Street, Kenosha WI. See the Kenosha City Clerk’s official Spring Election 2025 Press Release for additional information. Outside the City, check your municipality’s web site for information on when and where you can early vote.
Municipal Election Information:
If you’re not sure whether you’re registered to vote, check the MyVote Wisconsin website. You can also use this link to update your registration—in particular, if you’ve moved or changed your name.
If you need to register to vote, bring with you a picture ID, and documentation of where you live. Your Wisconsin driver’s license or state-issued ID card is enough, if it shows your current name and address. If your license/ID does not show your current name or address, bring a document that does show your current name and address – for example, a tax bill, a utility bill, or a paycheck or pay stub. Visit Bring It to the Ballot for all the information you need.
Plan Ahead!
A few minutes spent planning when and where to vote could save you hours of aggravation.
If at all possible, do yourself a favor and vote early—but regardless, vote! The future of our nation depends on it.
Make Your Plan to Vote Now!
Online registration deadline: March 12, 2025
Register by mail deadline: Must be postmarked by March 12, 2025
Absentee ballot request to your Municipal Clerk deadline: March 27, 2025, 5PM
In person registration deadline: April 1, 2025