Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Simel traded barbs on Wednesday night to defend their track record in the sole discussion of the high court's open seats.
Recognised as liberal and conservative candidates, Crawford and Simel participated in a one-hour discussion moderated by WISN 12 at Marquette University Law School. The April 1 election will determine partisan control of the court.
Here are five takeaways from the Wisconsin Supreme Court argument:
The discussion got heated
Both candidates took jabs with each other minutes after the discussion, highlighting how controversial the race has become.
After Shimmel headed towards the start of the discussion, saying that he had objectively seen the incident and that he had not supported any team, Crawford replied, “I'm paying good lip service to the principles of fairness and open-mindedness.”
“But throughout this campaign he has problems with cases pending in the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” Crawford added, pointing to his previous statements, and he described the state's 1849 law that bans almost all abortions and criminalizes abortion.
she wasReference ReportIf Schimel suggested that the law of 1849 was in effect and that there was nothing in it that invalidated it.
“That's not the open mind we expect from a judge. In that case, it's a disadvantage for the parties,” she added.
Simel claimed that his statement was out of context, saying that he was asked whether the abortion law of 1849 was effective.
“And the answer is that my answer was handed over in two houses in Congress and signed by the governor. That means it is an effective law,” he said. “But the next thing I said was that there was a real question as to whether the law reflected the will of the people of Wisconsin today and today.”
Pressing whether he saw the abortion law of 1849 as effective, Shimmel reiterated that “it was a legislation that was effectively passed,” but added that “I don't think it reflects the will of the Wisconsin people today.”
Elon Musk is approaching debate
Elon Musk peers deeper into the debate, with Crawford repeatedly calling Tesla CEO and Trump's advisers. People who place emphasis on corporate type Despite the fact that the election is technically nonpartisan, he supports Republicans in the race. His American PAC has poured over $6 million to support Schimel.
Crawford argued that Musk was trying to buy a seat in a state Supreme Court race. Democrats pointed to the fact that Musk is pending lawsuits over whether he can open dealers in Wisconsin in the state.
“I have support from all over the country, because 'Elon Simmell' is about to buy this race,” Crawford said at one point. “And people are very upset about it and they're getting in the way about it.”
Simel said he was “looking for support from Wisconsin voters,” but he said he couldn't control external spending.
“We are not allowed to coordinate with external groups. I don't – I don't ask for that money from them,” he said at another point when asked about the contributions he generally received. “They made this decision themselves to support my campaign and decided what their messaging would look like without my support.”
Schimel gets heavier on the issue of voter ID voting
Schimel placed particular emphasis on voting measures that will come in front of voters next month. It's already a state law, but this voting measure would take the extra step of including it in the state constitution.
“Mike, I want to start by saying that when I'm on the bench, my personal or political views are completely irrelevant and in the Supreme Court races, but if you want to know how to vote, and if you want to know how to vote for 'yes', Shimmel said when asked by one of the debate moderators in the way you vote for Ballot's measurements.
Shimmel called the voter consistency law “very important,” saying “the risk of voting fraud cannot cancel a vote.”
Schimel's comments highlight how the Wisconsin Supreme Court race has become independent by name alone as candidates are leaning towards talking more about the issue.
Crawford, who previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of a female voter league to stop the implementation of voter IDs, did not say how he would vote for the voting measure.
“I don't think it's appropriate for a judge to put pressure on such things and try to influence voters,” she said.
Crawford defends the look of fundraising calls
Crawford tackled the controversy that appears in donor advisory briefings; The subject of the email said “Time-sensitive: A chance to play two more house sheets in 2026” – meaning she will vote favorably in the Democratic-subscription district lawsuit.
Her campaign previously dealt with her appearances, with campaign spokesman Derrick Honeyman saying in a statement:
During the discussion, Crawford was asked how appropriate it would be for her to call.
“Well, I don't think the emails sent are a proper way to announce that judicial candidates are open,” she said.
She claimed that there was no mention of the Congress map while she was on the phone, and she only called to give a brief biography of herself and why she was running.
“I also didn't see the email or how to make a request before I joined,” she added, and she only knew about the framing of the emails that followed.
Shimmel has a space between him and Trump
Former Republican Wisconsin Attorney General Schimmel set a space between debates between him and President Trump, claiming he is not a “yes man” for the president, despite the recent reports suggesting he would become Trump's ally.
I askedRecent mailer from the US PACIt said, “The conservative Brad Simel will support President Trump's agenda!”, Simel insisted he “enforces the law.”
“I apply the law the way Congress wrote it. If President Trump or someone violates Wisconsin law, if I get into an incident in front of me, I will hold them accountable, just like anyone,” he added.
Those comments came later Wisconsin Examiner reported Earlier this month, he proposed to Canvas that he would become the president's “support network.”
Shimmel also praised TrumpInterview with Wisn 12Last month, he proposed to welcome support from the president.
