87% of Wisconsinites Want Voter ID to Pass. Susan Crawford Opposes It. Why?

New polling shows 87 percent of Wisconsin citizens requiring ID to vote, a good sign for the Question 1 campaign to amend the state's constitution on April 1. But Act 23, the state’s voter ID law, will be on the chopping block if ultra-liberal judge Susan Crawford wins the state’s open Supreme Court seat that same day.

The bruising race between her and conservative Brad Schimel has not dented the state’s bipartisan support for election integrity. Wisconsin voters recognize how essential their voter ID law is because the state allows same-day voter registration. If the court strikes that law down, anyone—ineligible citizens or illegal aliens—will be able to walk into a voting booth, register under false information, and have his vote counted.

The state allows voters to show one of seven different forms of photo ID to vote, including a free state ID card to make it as easy as possible while still verifying voters’ identities. Still, as an attorney and a judicial candidate, Crawford toed the Democrat Party’s line on the issue, calling the law “draconian.”

She even represented the far-left League of Women Voters to get Act 23 declared unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected her arguments, and the law went into effect in 2016.

But rather than run for state senate to pass legislation to her liking, she decided to become an activist judge. She told a Democrat Party town hall, “During that time, we would win favorable rulings . .  . in front of our circuit courts and end up in front of a Wisconsin Supreme Court, which was dominated by a very conservative, right-wing majority.”

At the time, before the Left so heavily politicized the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it had the reputation of being one of the most respected and cited state courts in the nation.

Wisconsin’s Proposed Constitutional Amendment Won’t Protect Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law with Crawford on the Court

Wisconsin’s overwhelming support for voter ID necessarily includes most Democrats and independents—many of whom, no doubt, support Crawford but disagree with her stance on voter ID.

But voting for both Crawford and the proposed amendment to enshrine the voter ID law into the state’s constitution won’t protect it from her and the liberal majority if she wins—a fact she made clear in her debate with Schimel.

In the debate, Crawford appeared to walk back her previous characterization of Act 23. However, she reiterated her refusal to say if she’ll vote for the proposed amendment on April 1.

The legislature proposed the amendment, so that even if a court majority views Act 23 as constitutional, an actual constitutional amendment would leave no doubt about its legality.

Schimel is committed to voting "yes" on Question 1. But when debate moderators pressed Crawford about why she won't tell voters how she plans to vote on Question 1, she claimed she couldn’t say because the amendment’s constitutionality might come before her if she wins.

In other words—in Crawford’s worldview—there is nothing the people of Wisconsin can do to avoid or override the liberal Supreme Court veto with Crawford on the bench.

Remember that Crawford didn’t oppose Act 23 because she believed it unconstitutional. She opposed it because she thought it was bad policy.

Like most liberals, she holds the twisted view of our courts that judges must intervene to protect citizens from themselves against laws they passed—not because the laws are unconstitutional, but because they’re allegedly unjust.

At the aforementioned Democrat town hall, she praised the court’s liberal majority, adding, “I want to make sure we keep it that way, that we keep a Supreme Court that is watching out for our rights and protecting our citizens, protecting our environment, protecting our kids.”

As a judge, Crawford didn’t do a very good job protecting Wisconsin’s kids when she gave a child rapist a slap on the wrist before releasing them into the public.

But her judicial view opens the door for the court to strike down any law or duly enacted constitutional amendment the court’s liberal majority thinks infringes on alleged rights or the environment. So if the liberal judges on the Supreme Court think requiring photo ID to vote disadvantages anyone—even if Wisconsin voters enshrined it in their constitution—they would override the will of the people.

As the latest polling confirms, Democrat-aligned candidates like Crawford are woefully out of step with most Wisconsin citizens on voter ID. As she made clear during the debate, voters who favor her stance on some issues but want secure elections can’t guarantee they’ll get that by splitting their ticket for her and the voter ID amendment.

(READ MORE: In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, Only Brad Schimel Will Protect Election Laws)