The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race saw Susan Crawford, a liberal justice, clinch a dubious ‘victory’ that Kamala Harris, former Vice President, rushed to deem a ‘victory for the working people of Wisconsin’. This is despite Harris’ very prominent defeat to President Donald Trump in the previous presidential election, even in Wisconsin. Her spin on Crawford’s victory seems to be a flimsy attempt at disguising a humbling defeat, to brand it as a triumph instead.
The election saw Crawford eke out a 10-point win over Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate. Schimel’s campaign held the support of both President Trump and Elon Musk, a fact which seemingly only heightened the drama of the race. The viewing audience across the country held their breath, as spending records were toppled in this fiercely contested match.
Aside from her defeat to Trump in the presidential election, Harris, five months on, tried to don an optimistic demeanor regarding Tuesday’s results. However, it’s hard not to detect a hint of bitterness in her hollow ‘thank you’ to Wisconsin voters for their ‘hard work’ during the electoral process.
Harris proceeded to rally her choir with a message of continued persistence for ‘progress’, without clearly stating what this ‘progress’ entails. Considering the ambiguous results from her previous run, one could be skeptical about her understanding of progress.
On the other side of the aisle, Trump maintained a dignified silence about Schimel’s loss, choosing instead to focus his comments on the voter ID referendum that passed, the one Republicans had placed on Wisconsin’s ballot. In his point of view, it was ‘the biggest win’ of the night, a significant win for legislative validity and voter integrity.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the globe’s wealthiest man and a confidante of Trump, emerged into the limelight of the Supreme Court race due to his substantial contribution of over $20 million to Schimel’s campaign. Regardless of this financial boost, Musk displayed an unexpected grace in defeat conceding that he ‘expected to lose’ the Supreme Court race.
After the dust settled on the election, Musk, much like Trump, glanced towards the voter ID referendum. Yet, in an apparent attempt to curry favor with the public, Harris assailed Musk in the same manner as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. She referred to the billionaire as an ‘unelected’ person who shouldn’t and wouldn’t have a greater voice than Wisconsin’s ‘working people’. Yet, this begs the question: when did funding political campaigns equate to surpassing the voice of the populace?
With Crawford’s uncertain triumph, the liberal majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court continues to hang precariously in the balance with a 4-3 edge. The conservative voice is steadily drowned out in a court that has been hijacked by liberal justices, marking the second continuous Supreme Court election where a liberal has overwhelmed a conservative.
In 2023, liberal justice Janet Protasiewicz outpaced Dan Kelly, a conservative justice, in a glaring 11-point win. This added a liberal control to the court, which had not been witnessed in the last 15 years. Nevertheless, the conservative voices continue to echo within the chambers of the court, unbowed and unbroken.
Harris, predictably, proclaimed praise on Crawford, lauding her as a person who would ‘uphold the rights and protect the freedoms of all people in her state’. However, one must wonder how much of this is a genuine belief and not a political rallying cry in a landscape strewn with partisan tumult.
In garnishing her praise, Harris stated that Crawford would ‘advocate for fair wages and working conditions that are safe and who will protect your right to make decisions about your own body without government interference’. This rhetoric echoes the same vaguely defined ‘progress’ and ‘rights’ which seem more about gaining political favor than actual rule of law.
The political battleground of Wisconsin seems to have more at stake than just an election of justices. It has undercurrents of a deeper ideological war spreading throughout the nation. While an unbiased judiciary is the backbone of any democracy, its sanctity must be preserved against becoming a tool for advancing partisan goals.
With each passing election, the pressure keeps mounting on people to steer clear from the fog of political rhetoric and carefully discern the real intent behind the public stances held by politicians.
One thing remains: democracy should run its course, and the faith in the judicial system’s mettle in preserving its conscience against party influence should stand firm. With the uproar from Harris garnering attention, it’s up to the people to parse the truth from the political spin.
In conclusion, the wave of rhetoric from Harris following the Supreme Court race illuminates the increasing divide between concrete victories and hollow political conquests. As the world watches keenly, it will be interesting to chart the future trajectory of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the state politics it influences.