Tag: susan crawford
Susan Crawford

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reminds Us Why Judicial Elections Are Vital

As abortion-rights wins feel few and far between, it’s great to see the Wisconsin Supreme Court strike down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban. Getting there has been a long process, one that required Wisconsin Democrats to make a significant, long-range commitment to winning judicial races. Oh, and also to beat back the deep pockets of the far-right billionaire Elon Musk.

In 1973, after the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion, many states, including Wisconsin, kept their old abortion bans on the books. Known as “trigger laws,” they lived on like a zombie, ready to shamble back to life if Roe v. Wade was reversed. After Dobbs v. Jackson was decided in June 2022, Wisconsin’s ancient ban was technically back in effect—but only technically since the state’s Democratic leadership promised not to enforce the law. They argued that newer, more lenient abortion laws superseded it.

Enter the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The fight over whether the 1849 ban would hold was a proxy fight for abortion access more broadly—and a fight for abortion access more broadly was always going to end up on the doorstep of a state court that had flipped control over the previous several years.

Wednesday’s 4-3 decision strikes down the ban and declares abortion legal in the state. This victory for reproductive care was possible only because of the multiyear efforts that Wisconsin Democrats and abortion activists put in. In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz trounced Daniel Kelly, a former justice on the court, to win a seat on the state Supreme Court. If you want to know what Kelly is like, just know that he went on to become a “Stop the Steal” lawyer.

Fast-forward to 2025, when liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not be running for reelection, and whoever won her seat would determine the balance of the court, given its 4-3 liberal majority. This made it one of the most important judicial races in the country, and in strolled Musk, thinking he could buy the race.

That very much did not work. Liberal candidate Susan Crawford beat the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 percentage points, showing that heart and grit and organizing could beat back Musk’s torrent of cash. Better still, Crawford had previously represented Planned Parenthood in an abortion-related case, so to the right wing, she was basically Satan.

For decades, state judicial races were a pretty sleepy affair. But after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in 2009, three justices were ousted by a very well-funded, well-organized recall effort. Since then, state judicial races have gotten much more expensive and much more partisan. The Crawford-Schimel race was the most expensive state judicial race ever, with spending hitting $100 million.

It’s not great that state courts have become an expensive partisan battleground, but paying attention to them and committing to election support is more important than ever. Control of a state’s highest court can make the difference on LGBTQ+ issues, abortion access, election redistricting, and so on.

As Trump judges have ravaged the federal courts, and as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to take a hacksaw to the Constitution, state courts remain a place where—sometimes—justice can still be served.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

What Was Behind The MAGA Republicans' Florida Stumble?

What Was Behind The MAGA Republicans' Florida Stumble?

Is the 2024 MAGA magic fading already?

Don’t bet on it. And yet, Tuesday’s special election results in Wisconsin and Florida were…not terrible for the Democrats.

Let’s start with Wisconsin, where the news is good. Liberal Democrat Susan Crawford pulled out a State Supreme Court win [in a "nonpartisan" election] by a healthy ten points, despite tech billionaire Elon Musk having sunk $25 million of America PAC money into the race. Jill Underly was also re-elected as State Schools Superintendent, defeating education consultant Brittany Kinser by a comfortable five points. Kinser, who was running on the Republican ballot line, described herself during the campaign as a “blue dog Democrat.”

In fact, OpenSecrets identifies Kinser as a consistent Democratic donor. That said, she supports school choice and ran a public charter school network. She outspent Underly more than 2-1, much of the money from the Wisconsin GOP, and I am sure she had nothing to do with the mailers and texts targeting blue districts that falsely identified her as the actual Democrat in the race.

However, our main focus today is Florida, where the Democrats did not win either congressional race, but demonstrated potential Republican weaknesses as we make the turn into 2026.

These two special elections, on opposite sides of the state, were in solid GOP districts: the job was to restore two votes to Speaker Mike Johnson’s whisper-thin Congressional majority. FL-06, in northeast Florida, was vacated by Mike Waltz, who is now Donald Trump’s national security advisor and the genius who let The Atlantic editor Jeff Goldberg into the Signal chat. FL-01 is Matt Gaetz’s former seat, which he vacated to become Trump’s attorney general. Except that didn’t work out. Long-suppressed evidence of Gaetz’s bottomless yuckiness finally became public, and even Republican Senators found themselves unable to vote for him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

Democratic Party messaging had held out no hope that either of these seats were winnable, and they weren’t. And yet, here is what I want you to notice. In FL-06, with more than 95 percent of the vote in, State Senator Randy Fine beat Democrat Josh Weil by 14 points. Yet five months earlier, in November 2024, Waltz won the seat by 33 points.

Those 19 points shifting into the Democratic column are, some pundits argue, the victory. But there’s more. Let’s take a look at the county-level margins. Here are Waltz’s numbers from five months ago:

Courtesy of The New York Times


And here are Fine’s margins from Tuesday:

Courtesy of The New York Times

You see disproportionate gaps in two places: Volusia County and St. Johns County, both popular destinations for Canadian snowbirds (these are not birds, but actual people who come to Florida in the winter months.)

Like other Florida property owners, these folks have faced escalating insurance costs and HOA fees, which they are paying with weaker Canadian dollars that will decrease further in value as the Trump tariffs go into effect. Then, as one insurance industry site noted a week before the election, there’s the general Canada-hatred, which has caused Canadians who rent or stay in hotels and resorts to cancel their vacations too.

But, you say, Canadians don’t vote in American elections! Right you are.

However, the many Floridians who rely on snowbird home ownership, rentals and tourism for their own income do vote. And what they are seeing is not good: 25 percent of Florida real estate sales in the past year have been Canadians dumping their property.So, pay attention to that. We may be seeing something similar in FL-O1, where Gaetz trounced Gay Valimont by 32 points in November 2024. His replacement, Florida’s chief financial officer Jimmy Patronis, beat Valimont yesterday by less than half of that. Here’s the part that intrigues me: in Escambia, Florida’s most western county, Valimont—who lost to Gaetz by 14 points—beat Patronis by 3 points.

People, 20 points is a lot of ground to make up in five months.

There’s more: according to Tobie Nell Perkins at First Coast News, Escambia has not voted for a Democrat in the last eight gubernatorial cycles, and last voted for a Democratic president in 1960, when it went for John F. Kennedy. This area, anchored by Pensacola, is also a popular snowbird destination. What may be more significant is how heavily military the area is: Pensacola contains over 16,000 active-duty troops, and 7400 civilian employees, an estimated 5-8 percent of whom will get the axe any day now. Greater Pensacola boasts more than 35,000 retired military, contributing to the largest concentration of veterans in any congressional district in the country.

You see where I am going here? During her campaign, Valimont hammered on the cuts to veterans’ services and federal employees. “Trump’s executive orders and the slash-and-burn tactics of billionaire Elon Musk ’s DOGE take aim at federal agencies that serve the region’s veterans,” AP political reporter Kate Payne observed last week; “the faith of some of the district’s conservative voters is being tested.”

Heather Lindsay, a Republican and the mayor of Milton, Florida, in neighboring Santa Rosa County, called the cuts “disastrous,” saying they’re a threat to services that veterans like her brother rely on.

“We have a demonstrated need in this area. And yet they’re going to cut VA services,” Lindsay said in an interview.
Jason Boatwright, a former staffer for Gaetz, said Patronis should be defending the Pensacola VA.“

He needs to stand up and say: ‘You want to make cuts? That’s fine. But don’t do it here. We can’t afford it here,’” Boatwright said.

Lindsay said she doesn’t understand “why more questions haven’t been asked” by Republican leaders like Patronis.

A reliable Republican political consultant I contacted is taking the Escambia results with a grain of salt. Although the GOP had to spend $4 million in FL-06 to beat back Josh Weil, Ryan Girdusky doesn’t see these contests as a referendum on Trump by Republicans, only an energized Democratic one. “I just don’t think people were that engaged,” he told me. “Also, Republicans spent less than $1 million” in FL-01, while Democrats spent $6 million. Republicans “knew it was in the bag so they just didn’t invest in it,” Girdusky explained, and reliably red active-duty military did not make a special election a priority.

So, what have we learned in the last 24 hours?

First, yesterday’s results reinforce what we know: there are Trump voters and there are Republican voters. While the two categories overlap, Trump voters don’t necessarily get off the couch to vote in other elections, even when Elon Musk leaps around the stage in a foam cheese hat handing out checks.

Second, Musk might have been a negative factor in the Wisconsin race, and this is something to watch. As Reid J. Epstein, Julie Bosman, and Emily Cochrane report at the New York Times, the $25 million and massive social media posting Musk invested in the State Supreme Court race did not move the needle—at all. “Even more than Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk emerged in Wisconsin as the primary boogeyman for Democrats,” they write about a billionaire whose approval rating took a steep dive the day before the election. “Instead of making the race an early referendum on Mr. Trump’s White House and abortion rights, Wisconsin Democrats pivoted to make Mr. Musk their entire focus, while Republicans rode the wave of his largess.”

In other words, because Elon Musk is tied to Donald Trump, here is the unexpected opportunity. If attacking Donald Trump doesn’t work, attacking his policies does. Elon Musk has become the face of that. So, if this election had accomplished nothing else, it gives Donald Trump a choice: risk failure by sticking with Musk, or dump Musk and risk having ripped the federal government to pieces for no gain whatsoever.

Fourth, Musk’s unpopularity might also have cut GOP margins in Florida. We don’t know whether Florida veterans voted in significant numbers, but we do know that they—and their dependents—are getting it from two directions: the direct DOGE cuts to the Veterans Administration, and the cuts to other federal agencies and services that disproportionately employ veterans.

Finally, despite the high media focus on how much money is being raised and spent, it appears there are limits to how much a sea of money can accomplish. Can billionaires buy elections? Sometimes, and sometimes not. If voters either do not like the candidate, or they do not like the candidate’s high-profile supporters, they’ll take the money—and then run.

Claire Bond Potter is a political historian who taught at the New School for Social Research. She is a contributing editor to Public Seminar and wrote the popular blog Tenured Radical from 2006 through 2015. Please consider subscribing to Political Junkie, her Substack newsletter.

Reprinted with permission from Political Junkie.



Susan Crawford

Wisconsin Voters Deliver Powerful Rebuke To Musk And Trump In Judicial Race

Winning by ten points in Wisconsin’s special Supreme Court election, Judge Susan Crawford delivered a stunning rebuke to President Donald Trump and his centibillionaire sidekick Elon Musk, both of whom endorsed and supported her right-wing opponent Brad Schimel.

The decisive Wisconsin defeat was taken as a stark warning for next year’s Congressional midterm elections, with Musk himself bemoaning the prospect of a Democratic Congress. "Losing this judge race has good chance of causing Republicans to lose control of the House. If they lose control of the House, there will be non-stop impeachment hearings, there will be non-stop hearings and subpoenas, they're going to do everything to stop the [Trump] agenda,” he told Fox News before the results came in.

Crawford exulted in her victory speech that she had beaten “the world’s richest man,” plutocratic mastermind of Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency and its chaotic, deeply unpopular crusade to wreck federal agencies. Athough he spent an estimated $25 million against her, turning the Wisconsin race into the most expensive judicial election in American history, she defeated him and Schimel by 55-45 percent.

The Tesla boss’s humiliation was underscored by a campaign trip to the Badger State two days before the election, when he handed out million-dollar checks and donned a “cheesehead” hat. Just hours before voters went to the polls, his auto company’s board asked him to step down as its chief executive.

While Republicans attributed the Wisconsin outcome to Democratic intensity and lower propensity to vote among the Trump base, the results also pointed to potential disenchantment among voters who went Republican last fall. High turnout in Democratic strongholds like Dane County and Milwaukee drove the liberal surge – but Crawford also appears to have flipped a few major counties that backed Trump in 2024

With over 95 percent of the vote counted, the Democratic-backed judge won Kenosha, Racine, Outagamie and Sauk counties, all of which went Republican last year. Her margin in Kenosha County, one of the state’s largest, was roughly five percent.

Trump himself tried to brush off Schimel’s defeat. On Truth Social he emphasized instead that Wisconsin voters approved an amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution requiring voters to display photo identification before casting a ballot. The state already requires voter ID by law, but the constitutional change will protect the law from being changed.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World