6 Issues Susan Crawford Won’t Pledge to Recuse Herself on If She Wins WI Supreme Court Race
Crawford has compromised herself through past work and statements on issues likely to go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but she refuses to promise to recuse herself.
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford claims she has "never taken a position on any case or any issue before the Supreme Court." But Crawford has not only taken positions on every case that is pending or could come before the Supreme Court after the April 1 election, but she does so frequently at campaign stops.
Here are six issues that could come before the court on which she should pledge to recuse herself—but won’t.
On Her Donors
Even liberal Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz—who won her race in 2023 based on partisan promises—vowed to recuse herself from cases involving the state’s Democrat Party after the party gave her $10 million. Crawford has not even pledged to do that. When asked about it again in the March 12 debate with her conservative opponent, Brad Schimel, she again refused to commit.
Interestingly, the League of Women Voters, whom Crawford frequently brags of having represented against the state’s voter ID law, petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2009 to adopt a recusal rule that would have force a justice to recuse themself if they face a case involving a party that donated over $1,000 to their election.
On Elon Musk & Tesla
Despite her own lack of a recusal pledge involving direct donors, Crawford accused "Elon Schimel" of trying to buy the race because of an ongoing Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin. She even falsely accused Schimel of "bragging about being on his knees, wearing out his kneepads asking for contributions," something that would be illegal if true. Unlike the Democrat Party’s donations to Crawford, Musk is not donating directly to Schimel, but rather to a super PAC that can’t legally coordinate or even communicate with the Schimel campaign.
Schimel shot down any notion that supporting his campaign would buy Musk favor. Tesla is seeking to overturn a decision by the state to deny it an exemption to a law that prevents car manufacturers from owning dealerships. In the debate, Schimel said he hasn’t seen the lawsuit, but added "If Elon Musk is trying to get some kind of result in that lawsuit, he may be failing, because I enforce the laws, and I respect the laws passed by the legislature."
Crawford, however, is the one who now can’t be trusted to rule on that case. In trying to ride the Democrat wave of anti-Musk sentiment, she’s lashing out emotionally and has compromised her ability to rule impartially on anything Musk-related.
On Act 10
In Madison Teachers Inc. v. Walker, Crawford represented the Madison teachers when they won their case against Act 10 in the circuit court.
The 2011 law signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R), which eliminated most collective bargaining from taxpayer funded employees, is currently headed to the appellate courts on a different argument and will likely reach the state’s Supreme Court after the winner of the April 1 election is seated.
Crawford claims she tried to overturn it because she wanted "Dane County judges to put a stop to government overreaches." But if she’s concerned about government overreaches, she should run for a seat in the state legislature.
Crawford told a county Democrat Party she decided to run for judge because she won cases for unions in circuit courts that the conservative Supreme Court overturned. She was likely referring to Act 10, which the Supreme Court ruled constitutional in 2014, overturning the lower court’s ruling that Crawford helped secure as an attorney.
Justice Brian Hagedorn has already recused himself because he helped draft the law and defended it in court. Justice Protasiewicz protested the law when it was being enacted but has refused to recuse herself. Despite calls for a pledge of recusal, Crawford continues to claim she doesn’t have a conflict of interest. If she wins, without Hagedorn, the law will face a 4–2 liberal court with two of those liberal having already publicly opposed it.
(READ MORE: Left & Right Agree: Act 10 Fostered Better Teachers for Wisconsin Schools)
On Voter ID
Crawford has left no doubt where she stands on the constitutionality of the state’s voter ID law. In 2015, she represented the League of Women Voter to challenge the photo ID requirement, claiming the legislature didn’t have the right to place any burdens on people who want to vote. She called the law "draconian" and compared it to a poll tax.
In her debate with Schimel, she backed off from that characterization, claiming the version of the laws she opposed so vehemently is not the same as the law on the books.
Lest Wisconsinites who want secure elections start to breathe easily, she didn’t rule out the possibility of not only striking down the voter ID law, but the proposed constitutional amendment as well.
The legislature’s conservative majority placed it on the ballot as an amendment, precisely to preempt Crawford’s inevitable ruling against the law if she wins the election. But in Crawford’s world, even a constitutional amendment isn’t safe from the regal veto of liberal Supreme Court justices. She won’t say how she’s going to vote on the amendment on April 1, hilariously citing the danger of her possibly having to recuse herself if she wins and the amendment ever reaches her at the court.
(RELATED: Only Brad Schimel Will Protect Election Laws)
Then—of course—on Abortion
Of all the issues Crawford compromised herself on, abortion remains the most glaring.
The radical pro-abortion group EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin have both endorsed Crawford. That alone is not reason enough to self-recuse on all abortion-related issues; however, she represented Planned Parenthood in its quest to strike down regulations on abortions, because she doesn’t believe the legislature has a right to regulate abortion.
She repeatedly claims the Dobbs decision striking down Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided," and as a state supreme court justice, there’s nothing stopping her from ruling like it doesn’t exist.
Her abortion arguments in the debate with Schimel came out as bafflingly contradictory.
On the one hand, she insisted she cannot commit to an outcome on any pending cases, including the high-profile case on the state’s 1849 abortion law. She even attacked Schimel for recognizing the law as being duly-enacted, as if—as her fellow liberals on the court have argued—a law is supposed to expire with age. But she also made clear she doesn’t believe voters have the right to regulate abortion.
One cannot hold that all abortion laws are invalid and remain undecided on the validity of a specific abortion law any more than one can hate all football teams and love the Green Bay Packers.
Like Protasiewicz, supporters of abortion-on-demand are backing Crawford because they know she’ll provide them a guaranteed veto of any voter-backed proposals to protect the lives of the unborn.
Crawford’s refusal to pledge to recuse herself in cases involving the Democrat Party, Act 10, the state’s voter ID law, or abortion shows conservatives like Hagedorn are willing to play by the rules, while liberals like Crawford pursue ideological victory by any means necessary. Her accusations against Musk, whose company has a case in Wisconsin’s courts, also reveals an irresponsible partisan impulsivity. Wisconsinites simply can’t trust Crawford to rule ethically on their Supreme Court.
(READ MORE: Drag Queens Rallying for Susan Crawford in WI Supreme Court Race—Explicit)
