Judge Susan Crawford has won a high-stakes election to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, preserving the court’s 4–3 liberal majority in a major political setback for former President Donald Trump and his close adviser, Elon Musk. Crawford defeated conservative Judge Brad Schimel by a nine-point margin, despite an unprecedented wave of spending from right-wing donors and political groups.
The race drew national attention and became the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, with total spending exceeding $90 million. A significant portion of that came from Musk, who poured over $21 million into Schimel’s campaign in a bid to tip the ideological balance of the court. Trump also publicly endorsed Schimel, framing the race as an early referendum on his second-term agenda and judicial priorities.
Despite the high-profile support and massive funding, Wisconsin voters decisively backed Crawford. Her victory ensures continued liberal control of the state’s highest court—an outcome that could have lasting implications for key legal battles on voting rights, reproductive access, redistricting, and labor laws.
Wisconsin has emerged as a critical battleground not just in presidential politics, but in judicial contests that increasingly shape the state’s legal and electoral framework. In recent years, the court has weighed in on challenges to mail-in voting procedures, redistricting maps, and pandemic-era policies. Crawford’s election helps secure a left-leaning majority likely to oppose further erosion of voting access and reproductive rights, which have come under renewed pressure during Trump’s second term.
For Musk and Trump, the result signals the limits of financial firepower and elite influence in state-level races. Despite aggressive campaigning and media efforts to paint Crawford as out of touch with Wisconsin values, voters favored her message of judicial independence and protection of constitutional rights.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, Democrats are likely to view the Wisconsin result as a momentum builder, while conservatives may reassess their strategy in similar judicial races. Beyond partisan narratives, the outcome reinforces the growing national significance of state courts and the role they play in safeguarding—or reshaping—core democratic norms.
