Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
In a fiercely contested debate, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford defended her decision to reduce the sentence of a repeat child molester. This controversial ruling involved a convicted individual who had repeatedly assaulted a five-year-old girl in a case from 2020. The debate took place on Wednesday night and marked the only opportunity for the candidates to face off before the pivotal election on April 1.
The debate, held at Marquette University Law School, was moderated by the ABC affiliate WISN 12. The outcome of this election holds significant implications for the ideological balance of Wisconsin’s highest court. Justices are preparing to address critical cases that will touch on issues such as abortion, gender identity, and the powers of labor unions.
Contentious Background of the Case
During a segment focused on the multi-million dollar advertisements each candidate has utilized to criticize one another’s judicial records, Crawford, currently serving as a judge on the Dane County Circuit Court, faced pointed questions from the moderator. The inquiry centered around her ruling in the aforementioned sexual assault case.
“In 2020, you did sentence a child sex offender to four years in prison after prosecutors requested a ten-year term. Do you regret that sentence?” asked the moderator, seeking clarity on Crawford’s judicial philosophy.
In defense, Crawford asserted, “I don’t regret that sentence because I followed the law in that case, as I always do. I applied the law, which mandates that judges consider every relevant factor in sentencing. You must evaluate both aggravating and mitigating factors, and the Supreme Court dictates that judges should impose the minimum prison time necessary to safeguard the public. That’s what I did in this and every other case.”
Community Safety as a Priority
Crawford continued, emphasizing her commitment to community safety. “My goal is always to keep the community safe. These sentences have proven effective in maintaining safety. In contrast, the brief jail sentences that my opponent, Brad Schimel, has imposed have allowed offenders to commit new crimes, which indicates a failure in sentencing.”
The debate shifted focus when the moderator turned to Schimel’s record regarding the delayed testing of thousands of sexual assault evidence kits. This issue has become a focal point in Crawford’s campaign against him.
Schimel’s Defense and Attack
“Some of the ads people have seen about you, Judge Schimel, point out that only nine rape kits were tested during your first two years as the Attorney General. Do you regret that?” the moderator posed, seeking insight into Schimel’s management as attorney general.
Instead of addressing the question directly, Schimel leveraged the opportunity to criticize Crawford’s sentencing decision. “My opponent just revealed her flawed judgment. By giving the minimum sentence to a dangerous offender, she prioritizes that over community protection. That is what she just disclosed,” he argued, positioning himself as a staunch advocate for public safety.
In response, Crawford firmly rebutted, asserting, “That is not what I said. The court requires judges to impose sentences necessary to protect the community, and I’ve adhered to that principle.”
Funding Controversies and Political Backing
The debate also highlighted the substantial financial backing both candidates have received. Crawford has reported a $1 million donation from the prominent progressive philanthropist George Soros, alongside an additional $500,000 from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who has been mentioned as a potential Democratic presidential contender for 2028. This influx of funds has become a critical topic in the race.
Conversely, Schimel’s campaign has received million-dollar contributions from political action committees affiliated with Tesla CEO Elon Musk. This financial dynamic has sparked discussions about the influence of outside money in judicial elections.
Hot-Button Issues on the Table
Throughout the debate, the candidates did not shy away from contentious issues beyond their judicial philosophies. They engaged in spirited exchanges over abortion rights, an upcoming state ballot measure regarding voter ID, and the impact of President Donald Trump on state politics.
Overall, the Wisconsin Supreme Court currently holds a narrow 4-3 liberal majority, making this election particularly consequential. The selected candidate will not only shape future court rulings but will also influence the broader political landscape in Wisconsin.
Implications of the Supreme Court Election
As the April election approaches, both candidates will continue to face scrutiny from voters concerned about judicial decisions and their long-term impact on public safety and individual rights. The differing philosophies on sentencing and judicial responsibility demonstrated in this debate reflect broader ideological divides that characterize the current political climate in the state.
With both candidates firmly establishing their positions, the upcoming election promises to be a crucial turning point in Wisconsin’s judicial history, setting standards for how justice is administered in the state for years to come.
