In Wisconsin, judicial elections have recently become high-stakes battlegrounds, attracting national attention and record-breaking spending. The upcoming election on April 1 features liberal Susan Crawford and conservative Brad Schimel, with early estimates suggesting it will surpass the 2023 race in cost. The traditionally nonpartisan race has become highly politicized, drawing involvement from state and national parties as well as major donors like Elon Musk and Democratic megadonors.

This shift in judicial elections reflects a broader trend seen in other states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, where outside spending has surged in recent years. The evolution of judicial races from quiet affairs to highly political contests is reshaping the landscape of state supreme court elections.

The history of judicial elections in the U.S. dates back to the 1840s, but it wasn’t until the 1980s that they began attracting substantial funding from pro-business groups. The messaging in these races shifted towards judges’ records on crime to appeal to voters, ultimately promoting conservative judges aligned with business interests.

The rise of TV advertising in judicial races further intensified the political nature of these contests. Recent high-profile court races, like Wisconsin’s 2023 Supreme Court election, underscore the growing importance and influence of state courts as ultimate decision-makers in key legal battles, such as abortion rights.

As judicial races become increasingly expensive and politicized, concerns arise about the impact of big money and partisan interests on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The need for judges to maintain neutrality and public trust in the face of multimillion-dollar campaigns is a critical issue as these high-cost races for independent seats continue to shape the future of state courts.