news

Wi Supreme Court Election

Published: 2025-04-02 02:08:18 5 min read

Wisconsin’s 2023 Supreme Court election was one of the most expensive and contentious judicial races in U.

S.

history, with over $50 million spent by candidates and outside groups.

The election, which flipped the court’s ideological balance from conservative to liberal, was framed as a referendum on abortion rights, redistricting, and election integrity.

But beneath the partisan fervor lies a deeper question: Can an impartial judiciary survive in an era of hyper-politicized judicial elections? While Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election was celebrated as a democratic victory by progressives, it exposed systemic flaws in judicial elections including dark money influence, partisan polarization, and the erosion of judicial independence raising concerns about the long-term legitimacy of the state’s highest court.

Wisconsin’s race shattered national spending records, with outside groups flooding the airwaves with attack ads.

The liberal-backed Janet Protasiewicz and conservative-backed Daniel Kelly collectively raised $42 million, while independent expenditures much of it untraceable pushed totals even higher.

- The conservative group Fair Courts America, funded by Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein, spent $4.

2 million attacking Protasiewicz.

Meanwhile, the liberal group A Better Wisconsin Together poured millions into anti-Kelly messaging.

- A 2022 Brennan Center report found that judicial elections increasingly resemble legislative races, with donors expecting ideological loyalty.

This undermines judicial impartiality, as justices may feel pressured to rule favorably for their financial backers.

Though officially nonpartisan, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race was anything but.

Protasiewicz openly campaigned on protecting abortion rights and reforming gerrymandered maps, while Kelly aligned himself with election conspiracy theories.

- Protasiewicz’s campaign website prominently featured her support for, while Kelly appeared at Republican Party events, blurring ethical lines.

- Some argue judicial candidates must clarify their values for voters.

However, legal scholars like Charles Geyh (Indiana University) warn that such overt partisanship erodes public trust in courts as neutral arbiters.

One of the election’s central issues was Wisconsin’s extreme legislative maps, ranked among the most gerrymandered in the U.

S.

Protasiewicz’s victory ensured a liberal majority likely to revisit, which upheld GOP-drawn districts.

- Conservatives argue courts should defer to legislatures on redistricting, while progressives cite the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantee of free and fair elections.

- A 2019 Stanford study found that partisan gerrymandering entrenches single-party rule, reducing electoral accountability.

Wisconsin Supreme Court election - KiaraKeiara

Judicial intervention, though controversial, may be the only check left.

Wisconsin’s election reflects a national trend where state supreme courts once obscure are now battlegrounds for national political fights.

States like Ohio and North Carolina have seen similar clashes over abortion and voting rights.

- Some advocate for publicly funded judicial elections or appointment systems to reduce politicization.

Others suggest stricter recusal rules when justices receive campaign support from litigants.

- Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a longtime critic of judicial elections, warned that judges are not politicians in robes.

Yet Wisconsin’s race suggests otherwise.

The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election was a triumph for progressive causes but a troubling sign for judicial integrity.

While the liberal majority may reverse gerrymandering and protect abortion access, the flood of dark money and overt partisanship risks undermining the court’s legitimacy.

If judicial elections continue down this path, the very idea of an impartial judiciary could become obsolete a dangerous precedent for democracy.

- Brennan Center for Justice.

(2022).

.

- Geyh, C.

(2020).

Oxford University Press.

- Stanford Law School.

(2019)