2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election

In the court's previous election, held in 2023, Janet Protasiewicz won an open-seat race. Prior to the 2023 election, the court had been regarded to have an 4–3 conservative majority in the lean of its justices' judicial ideology. After the election, this changed to a 4–3 liberal majority, however, as the retiring justice Protasiewicz was elected to succeed aligned with conservatism while Protasiewicz is aligned with liberalism.^[13] In the court's 2023–2024 term with its new liberal majority, four of fourteen cases decided saw the court's justices split strictly along its liberal–conservative division.^[14] Conservative justice Brian Hagedorn, who had been a swing vote during the previous conservative majority,^[15] continued being somewhat independent from the court's other conservatives.^[14] Ahead of the 2025 elections, Wisconsin had the largest proportion of female justices of any U.S. state high court, with 6 of 7 justices (86% of its bench) being female (Hagedorn being its sole male justice). This would ultimately remain the case after the 2025 election as well,^[a] with a female candidate prevailing over a male opponent.^[17]

In April 2024, incumbent justice Ann Walsh Bradley (a member of the court's liberal majority) announced that she would not seek an additional term and instead retire when her term expired in 2025. This created an open-seat race. Since Bradley was a member of the court's liberal majority, the outcome of the election was poised to determine the majority ideological lean of the court.^[16] Historically, it has been rare for incumbents to lose reelection to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Due to this, open-seat races have generally been regarded as valuable opportunities to potentially alter the court's ideological composition.^[18] Particularly since (excluding elections held to fill newly created seats) only 22 of the more than 135 elections held for the court have been for open seats.^[19] The 2023 and 2025 elections marked only the sixth instance in which two consecutive elections to the Wisconsin Supreme Court were for open seats.^[b]

Because only two candidates filed for the race, no primary election was held. Had a third candidate qualified for the ballot, a March primary would have been held.^[20][19] It is rare for contested Wisconsin Supreme Court races to be held without the need for a primary, with this being only the third instance going back to 1978 in which a contested race for the court did not require a primary.^[19]

Although Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, news outlets have identified Susan Crawford as the liberal, Democratic-aligned candidate, and Brad Schimel as the conservative, Republican-aligned candidate.^[21][22]

• Susan Crawford,^[c] Dane County Circuit Court judge (2018–present)^[23]
• Brad Schimel,^[d] Waukesha County Circuit Court judge (2019–present) and former Wisconsin attorney general (2015–2019)^[24]

• Ann Walsh Bradley,^[c] incumbent Supreme Court justice (1995–present)^[1] (endorsed Crawford)^[25]

• Pedro Colón,^[c] Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge (2023–present) and former state representative (1999–2011)^[27] (endorsed Crawford)^[28]
• Dan Kelly,^[e] former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice (2016–2020)^[30]
• Maria Lazar,^[f] Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge (2022–present) (endorsed Schimel)^[32]
• Chris Taylor,^[c] Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge (2023–present) and former state representative (2011–2019)^[33] (endorsed Crawford)^[28]

Both candidates and their respective supporters had spent heavily on advertising in this race, with total spending over $100 million, doubling the previous spending record set by the previous Supreme Court election.^[34][3] In 2015, Republican governor Scott Walker signed a bill to allow unlimited financial spending in all state elections.^[35] Multiple sources have cited this, as well as the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, as major reasons both sides had been able to spend such large sums of money on the race.^[36][37]

Both candidates received heavy financial support from groups and individuals based outside of Wisconsin.^[38] Schimel criticized Crawford for advertising spending sponsored by wealthy individuals and billionaires such as Illinois governor JB Pritzker and philanthropist George Soros, while Crawford criticized the involvement of billionaire Elon Musk and his active support of Schimel.^[39][40]

Musk's involvement in the race drew particular attention due to his especially large monetary contributions, his open, partisan support of Schimel as the "Republican" candidate in the nominally nonpartisan race, and his role in the second Trump Administration as the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.^[41] Musk and groups tied to him have spent more than $25 million on television and digital advertisements and funding campaign field operations, making Musk the largest single contributor in any judicial election in United States history.^[42][43][44] An Elon Musk-funded group was linked to misleading ads designed to appear as if they came from Democrats, portraying Crawford as excessively progressive.^[45][46]

Musk additionally funded a petition drive offering financial compensation to voters who declare their opposition to activist judges, similar to a tactic he employed during the 2024 presidential election.^[47] Shortly before the election, Musk offered to "personally hand over" checks of one million dollars each to two voters who had already cast their ballots.^[48][49] Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul sued Musk to block the payments, decrying them as violations of state election law.^[50][51] Before the case could be reviewed by a judge, Musk deleted his original tweet and changed the criteria for the million dollar prize to remove the requirement of having already voted, mitigating the legal issue of paying people to vote. Kaul still pressed his case, citing the original announcement that Musk had deleted, but the courts declined to intervene as the major legal issue had been obviated.^[52] Musk went on to give out two one-million-dollar checks at a campaign rally in Green Bay, one to the chair of the Wisconsin College Republicans.^[53]

Multiple news sources noted that Musk's involvement in the race began shortly after Tesla, which Musk owns, filed a lawsuit against a Wisconsin law which barred them from operating car dealerships in the state.^[43][44][54]

Separate from Musk, Schimel's campaign had attacked Crawford for being "soft on crime," drawing particular attention to her sentencing choices in child sexual assault cases during her tenure as a judge, in which Crawford applied sentences well below the maximum allowed, with several attacks calling her "Catch-and-Release Crawford." Crawford countered these attacks by pointing out that judges are required to consider the specific facts of each case, rather than always imposing the maximum sentence. She also noted that most sentences are based on the recommendations of the prosecutors.^[55] Republicans accused Crawford of "selling" two U.S. House seats to the Democrats in exchange for their support, referencing ongoing redistricting litigation.^[56] Schimel's campaign had specifically attacked comments made by U.S. House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for Crawford's victory to facilitate the redrawing of the state's congressional districts.^[57]

Schimel had also actively curried the favor of Donald Trump at more private events, telling election canvassers he would be a "support network" for the President.^[58] Despite this, Schimel had repeated that financial or political support from figures such as Musk and Trump would not influence his decisions on the court.^[59] In addition to Musk, Schimel also received major contributions from Republican megadonors Diane Hendricks and Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein.^[60] Schimel had also repeated talking points related to conspiracy theories surrounding alleged voter fraud regarding the city of Milwaukee's counting of absentee ballots.^[61]

Crawford had spent much political energy decrying Elon Musk's involvement in the race, claiming he was trying to "buy" the Supreme Court seat.^[43] At the same time, she faced scrutiny over her own financial backing. In January 2025, she drew criticism for attending a briefing linked to Democratic donors, with opponents arguing it signaled a partisan approach to the judiciary.^[62][63] Crawford received over one million dollars in campaign donations from billionaire George Soros, as well as financial support from other prominent Democratic figures such as Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker.^[64][65]

Crawford had also attacked Schimel for his tenure as Wisconsin attorney general, including the high number of untested rape kits early in his tenure. Schimel countered these attacks by noting that the backlog was cleared by the end of his term, which ended after he lost the 2018 election.^[66] In addition to her financial support from figures such as Soros and Pritzker, Crawford received additional campaign support from state and national Democrats. This included the operation of a "People vs. Musk" campaign throughout the state meant to highlight opposition to the billionaire's actions in the Trump administration and his involvement in the race.^[67] Minnesota governor and 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz also held events in Wisconsin in support of Crawford.^[68]

Crawford won 23 of the state's 72 counties, including 10 that were won by Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.^[145]

Republican Waupun mayor Rohn Bishop remarked that "Donald Trump does two things wonderfully: He gets people to turn out to vote for him and he gets liberals to turn out and vote against anyone he supports. The problem is that he can never turn out conservatives to vote for his candidate when he's not on the ballot."^[12] He also said that the race "throws up a bunch of warning signs for the midterm election," and "I thought maybe Elon coming could turn these people to go out and vote, I think [Musk] helped get out voters in that he may have turned out more voters against [Schimel]."^[146]

Unlike the 2024 United States presidential election, the turnout among voters of color for Democrats was "unexpectedly high." Democrats argued that Musk's involvement in the race and their choice to campaign against him helped them win the election.^[12]

A Politico analysis found that Democrats maintained a turnout advantage even in the hotly contested race, with Musk's millions of funding not enough to compel Republicans to vote in "as great numbers in a spring election." In a troubling trend for Republicans, voting levels were similar to that of midterms which suggests a favorable electorate for Democrats leading into the 2026 midterms.^[11]

Three of the preceding four Wisconsin Supreme Court elections (2018, 2020, and 2023, with 2019 being the exception) had also seen a liberal defeat a conservative by about 55% to 45%, despite significant variance in overall voter turnout. Even in his home county of Waukesha, Schimel received 58% of the vote, less than Trump's 59% in 2024.^[147]

Crawford's victory is anticipated to have secured liberal control of the Court until at least the 2028 election, as the 2026 and 2027 elections will both be for conservative-held seats.^[148][149]

Elon Musk's public-facing role in Republican politics greatly decreased following the election, which some have tied to Schimel's defeat and Musk's high-profile backing of him. Musk's popularity had greatly decreased in the previous months, and Democrats had aggressively campaigned against him both in this race and other special elections held in the first half of 2025. Few expected his role in funding Republican campaigns to disappear, but many saw the move as a political tactic to decrease Musk's perceived "toxic" impact on candidates.^[150][151]

• 2025 Wisconsin elections