Supreme Court Wisconsin Election
Wisconsin, a perennial swing state, has become a microcosm of America’s deepening political polarization.
The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was not merely a judicial contest but a high-stakes battle over abortion rights, redistricting, and election administration.
With the court’s ideological balance at stake, the race between liberal Janet Protasiewicz and conservative Daniel Kelly drew record-breaking spending over $45 million making it the most expensive judicial election in U.
S.
history.
The outcome shifted the court to a 4-3 liberal majority, raising urgent questions about judicial impartiality, dark money influence, and the future of democracy in a state where elections are often decided by razor-thin margins.
The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election underscores the erosion of judicial independence, the outsized role of partisan spending, and the broader consequences for electoral integrity revealing a justice system increasingly vulnerable to political weaponization.
Wisconsin’s judicial races were once low-key affairs, but (2010) opened the floodgates to unlimited spending.
Protasiewicz’s campaign was bolstered by $9 million from the Democratic Party, while Kelly benefited from millions funneled through conservative groups like Fair Courts America, funded by Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein.
A report (2023) found that 40% of all judicial election spending since 2000 occurred in just the last five years, with Wisconsin leading the trend.
This raises ethical concerns: Can justices remain impartial when their campaigns are bankrolled by partisan interests? Legal scholar Michael Kang warns in (2021) that such spending creates “the perception if not the reality of justice for sale.
” The election’s central issue was Wisconsin’s legislative maps, deemed among the nation’s most gerrymandered by the.
Protasiewicz openly criticized them as “rigged,” while Kelly avoided the topic a strategic move that backfired.
After her victory, the new liberal majority agreed to hear a challenge to the maps, with oral arguments scheduled for late 2023.
Critics argue that judicial candidates campaigning on specific issues undermines impartiality.
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman (a conservative) condemned Protasiewicz’s rhetoric as “prejudging cases,” while liberal advocates counter that transparency about judicial philosophy is democratic.
The (2023) contends that voters deserve to know where justices stand on pivotal issues like voting rights.
Wisconsin’s battle mirrors broader trends.
In Ohio, the state supreme court struck down gerrymandered maps, only for the GOP-led legislature to defy the ruling.
In North Carolina, a Republican judicial majority reversed a prior decision against partisan gerrymandering.
Wisconsin’s election thus reflects a national crisis: state courts are now the final arbiters of democracy itself.
A study (2022) warns that when courts are politicized, public trust erodes.
In Wisconsin, a (2023) found 58% of Republicans no longer trust the state supreme court after Protasiewicz’s win a dangerous sign for judicial legitimacy.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court election exemplifies the precarious state of American democracy.
While judicial elections theoretically ensure accountability, the infusion of dark money and overt partisanship risks transforming courts into extensions of political parties.
The Protasiewicz-Kelly race was not just about abortion or maps it was a referendum on whether courts can remain above the fray.
The broader implications are stark: if state judiciaries become as polarized as legislatures, the rule of law may hinge on electoral outcomes rather than constitutional principles.
Wisconsin’s experiment with hyper-politicized judicial races serves as a cautionary tale one that demands urgent reforms, from public financing of judicial campaigns to stricter recusal rules.
Without intervention, the very foundation of impartial justice may crumble.
- Brennan Center for Justice.
(2023).
- Kang, M.
(2021).
“Campaign Contributions and Judicial Impartiality.
”.
- Marquette Law School Poll.
(2023).
- Harvard Law Review.
(2022)