to walk free.
My worst nightmare as a mom
is really disqualifying.
I don't think Susan Crawford
deserves to wear the rope.
It was just a one -time thing.
That's what Brad Schimel said when
he gave a, quote, sweet bargain
to a man who sexually assaulted a
10 -year -old girl.
The sex predator served just 18
months in prison for his crime and
got out. A few weeks ago, he was
convicted of sexually assaulting
a child again.
And that was just one time Brad
Schimel let a sex predator loose
on our kids.
So why would we ever give him
another chance?
Brad Schimel, too extreme
for the Supreme Court.
A great white has taken out
our electrical systems.
We can't move, and we can't send it
to stress signal.
We've got critically ill patients,
they need to be ready for evac to a
hospital.
It's a two -hour boat.
I guess I should be the one out
there.
Passenger Giggle Fest next.
Travel consideration provided by
Imagine checking your own heart with
medical precision from anywhere.
Introducing Cardia Mobile 6L,
the FDA cleared EKG that provides
six times more heart data than any
smartwatch.
And it detects three of the most
common arrhythmias in just 30
seconds, including atrial
fibrillation, bradycardia, and
tachycardia.
Check your heart with the most
advanced personal EKG outside
the hospital.
Get yours at cardia .com or
Amazon.
Stay tuned, there's more
Inside Edition to come.
Extremist Brad Schimel supports the
1849 law that would ban
abortion in Wisconsin,
even in the case of rape or incest,
or to protect the mother's health.
Schimel says we have no right to an
abortion and supported overturning
Roe vs.
Wade. No surprise Schimel is
backed by radicals who oppose birth
control and IVF.
With our rights on the line, Schimel
would be the deciding vote on the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
But he's an extremist politician
who puts Wisconsin women in
danger.
Tiffany's daughter was struck in a
hit -and -run accident.
We only had one opportunity.
to get this right.
She called. She'll be in Abraham.
QP and Abraham knows
how to get what your family
definitely deserves.
medical bills, pain, suffering,
lost wages, all the money
you may deserve.
Call now.
Your case is probably worth more
than you've been told.
Call 800 -800 -5678.
Hupy and Abraham.
They really do mean business.
We've been doing projects in this
house for six years and haven't
had a single quality issue.
The product is incredible.
The workmanship is incredible.
issue.
by one window.
Get 1 30 % off at
next window dot com.
Finally today, this guy definitely
has room to spread out.
This guy is the only passenger
on a plane.
And the Delta flight attendant gives
the safety instructions just
for him.
He thinks it's hilarious.
Yes, ma 'am!
I'd be happy to hope you got some
extra snacks.
See you next time
Attention.
If you suffer from consistent pain
in your joints caused by arthritis,
overuse, or injury, you may be a
candidate for a revolutionary
therapy that could revitalize
damaged tissue.
This approach can provide long
-lasting relief from pain in your
knees, shoulders, hips, and other
joints with no surgery, no
drugs, and no downtime.
To find out if you're a viable
candidate, you may request a free
consultation from QC Kinetics
by calling six zero eight nine
two five three six two eight
Instead of masking the symptoms,
it goes to the root of the problem
to resolve it at its source.
Already used by thousands of
satisfied patients nationwide,
this joint pain therapy is available
right now to the public, but only
for qualified candidates.
Again, to find out if you're a
viable candidate for this therapy,
you may request a free consultation
by calling QC Kinetics
at 608 -925
-3628.
Again, that's 608 -925
-3628.
your home is a place of comfort
and protection.
That's why our durable, energy
-efficient, and weather -resistant
windows, roofing, siding, and
gutters, as well as our bathtubs and
showers, are guaranteed.
Scan the code to try our new,
free Design Studio app.
Upload a few pictures of your home
and transform your home in
3D. Get 60 % off
installation.
Special financing available.
Call 1 -800
-HANDSUNS,
get it done!
The threat of severe weather on our
horizon.
This is one sexy automobile.
If Margot Robbie were a car, she'd
be a 1960s -
potty head fire burn.
It looks great, boy.
I'll tell you what.
We got a modified suspension.
All disk brakes, a straight -six
modified O -Rite cam.
Oh, yeah.
Keep talking, baby.
Y 'all need girlfriends.
No, no, no, don't touch it, don't,
you know, Mr. J.
Leno, very picky about his paint
jobs. Hey, listen, wait a minute, do
you want to hear Grease Ricky's
touch record?
You sound like Tickle Me Elmo.
You guys are crazy.
It sounds just like Leno. Drop the
mic. Come on, let's do some gag.
Little bits.
There's the man I'm looking for.
Did anyone ever call you Matty?
Never more than once.
Are you familiar with the North
Hollywood Improvement Association?
Oh, I love NoHo Imp
Ass.
Anyway, we're fixing up that janky
park down the street I was hoping
you'd join the other local
businesses and donating an item for
our auction.
It'd be great PR for the shop
Much like your biblical namesake,
Eve, I think you're trying to tempt
me, but unlike Adam,
I'm not going to bite on your apple.
Come on, why won't you help us out?
This is a fundraiser for a
good cause.
Just donate something small like
a tire change or your heart.
We're a restoration shop, we don't
do tire changes, and I have no
heart. Bye -bye.
Hey, man, come on, man.
Park's not important.
Plus, the world could use some
generosity from white guys with
money.
since she took Snoop Dogg from us.
A very generous heart.
A generous man.
I'm letting two of my employees
stand around here doing nothing with
their thumbs in their butts.
For the record, my thumb was nowhere
near my butt.
Cute I have a few friends that you
could make really happy for like a
week
Thank you.
So, you like parks?
Oh, I love parks.
Spent my whole childhood in them.
I crashed so many quinceañeras.
Them piñatas didn't stand a chance.
Love it! So what are you donating?
We could make one of those charity
calendars.
You know, the hot mechanics
of Parker Restoration?
I was thinking more along the lines
of a tuna.
Like a sexy tune up?
Stitch.
Oh, my God, Wendy is going to love
you.
Well, what about you? I bet you're
incredibly talented at something.
I do a little DJing, mainly
for my friends.
But I did one slam in Pac -Man's
foot.
Hello, Brick!
Perfect. I'll put you down for a
four -hour event.
Gabe, unlimited auto care for a
year.
Dancing optional.
Oh, there will be dancing.
Stitch.
I'll text you Wendy's number.
Uh, Mom, is it okay if I have some
friends over after school to play
some video games?
Friends? Oh, that's nice.
Did you hire them?
No, she didn't hire them.
You didn't, right?
You think I can afford friends for
you? I can't afford new bras.
So, who are they?
Just a couple guys, I call them
my crew.
They call me C -Dog.
Not sure what the C stands for,
but Duh,
chill dude, it might make sense.
This is
It's hard to watch.
So what's their angle, Carter?
If they don't have an angle, they
want to hang out with them.
I don't buy it, no offense, but
I don't know if I want strange kids
coming over here.
God knows what they're bringing in,
drugs, weapons, crackers made of
seaweed, who knows what.
He needs to make friends here.
Just let me take the lead.
This is a job for cool mom,
not get off my long grandpa.
Hey, guys.
Hey, Eve, what's up?
Hey, how's the auction going?
How many bids you got for DJ Slow
Your Roll?
B -b -b -b -b -b -b -b -a -a
-a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a
-a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a
-a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a -a
-a -a -a -a -a -a -a
Don't worry guys, it's early,
bidding's just getting started.
The Wellness Center's already got 14
bids on a colonic.
So instead of, you know, hearing you
DJ, people would rather have water
pumped up there.
Which is hurtful.
So, you know, I'm gonna go back to
work.
You know what?
I bet people would spend a lot of
money for a spin in one of these
cool cars.
Yeah, they would.
And then they'd find our bodies in
the trunk if Matt ever found out.
I get it.
You're daddy's boy, and
you're the bad boy who
plays by his own rules and doesn't
care what the boss man thinks and
does whatever he wants.
I know what you're doing.
And it's working.
You know, we taking this 66 Shelby
Mustang out for a test drive next
week.
It couldn't hurt if someone happened
to be in the back seat.
I'll be back to take a picture for
the website.
Eve, you want a video for my item?
What's this?
No, but I am donating five
dance lessons. You might want to bid
on those.
Have fun on your sleepover.
Be sure to thank Sophie's mother.
Don't worry. Mom's love me.
I compliment their hair.
Say they've got good taste in music
I make him feel young.
Oh hey, this is Ethan and Kyle.
See? They're real.
Nice to meet your two followers on
Instagram.
Ah, good one.
How's that 830 bedtime treating you?
Well, well, well.
Looks like the Girl Scouts got
through the Sprinklers.
Your dad's like a thousand.
I'm a grandpa, and yeah.
We're gonna go play Call of Duty.
I gotta check these backpacks out
first, and after that, put your
hands against the wall for a little
pat down.
Condoms?
You're never gonna need these.
It's inspirational.
Strip search is over.
Have fun boys, I'll bring you some
snacks.
I don't know what you're worried
about!
that there is nothing wrong with
that law and it should be enforced.
That is not the kind of open
-mindedness that we expect from
judges.
It is prejudicial to the parties in
that case and Brad Schimel is making
those pronouncements not
based on the law in that case or
the facts or the arguments of the
attorneys but based on political
considerations.
I can't let that go.
Quickly, and we'll get to abortion.
Very fine.
My opponent had someone there
recording that speech.
She knows what the whole speech is,
not just the few seconds that they
released to the media.
I was asked if the 1849
law was a valid law.
1849 law was a valid law.
that was a failure.
And the answer is, my answer was,
it was passed by two houses of the
legislature and signed by a
governor. That means it's a valid
law. But what I said
next was that there's a
real question as to whether that law
reflects the will of the people of
Wisconsin now and today.
Let's talk about abortion.
So you believe the 1849 law is
valid.
It was a validly passed law.
I don't believe, I don't believe
that it reflects the will of the
people of Wisconsin today.
Judge, do you believe that law is
valid today?
The 1849 law.
Well Matt, this is an issue that's
pending before the Wisconsin Supreme
Court. The parties in those cases
have filed briefs, they've made
legal arguments, they've presented
evidence in support of their
decision, and I'm not in a
position to weigh in at this point.
It would be prejudicial to the
parties in that case for me to do
so.
So you know, what I can
tell you is that as a lawyer in
Wisconsin, I've represented
organizations like Planned
Parenthood of Wisconsin and their
doctors.
back when Roe versus Wade was
in case, making sure that women
could make their own choices about
their bodies and their healthcare.
As a woman, as somebody who has
gone through pregnancy, labor and
birth, I wanna make my own
healthcare decisions and I trust
women to do that.
Let me set the stage real quick for
our viewers, just on where
everything is with abortion.
Justices have yet to rule on a case
involving the legality of the 1849
law. Another case brought by Planned
Parenthood is pending asking
justices to decide whether there's a
constitutional right to an abortion
in Wisconsin.
So Judge Schimel, you have routinely
said you're pro -life and make no
apologies for that.
You signed on to a 2012 legal paper
from Wisconsin Right to Life,
advocating a plan to make abortion
illegal and keep the 1849 law
in place if Roe was overturned.
You've told supporters you don't
believe there's a constitutional
right to abortion.
Is that a fair position?
Is that your position?
No, I think there's some things
you've said that aren't correct.
I've been clear from the
day I got in this race on my
position on abortion.
My family is somewhat unique.
Two 18 -year -old young women at
the time, 23 and 21 years
ago, gave my wife and I the chance
to have a family we can't have
biologically.
Because of that sacrifice,
my wife and I treasure those two
young women. And we treasure life
even when it's not planned.
But judges don't make the
law.
As a judge, no judge or justice
should be deciding this issue for
the voters of Wisconsin.
This issue belongs in their hands.
And should it be decided by
the voters, or should it be decided
by four justices and a
majority on the court?
And if four justices on the majority
in the court can make that decision
for the voters, that decision can
flip back and forth every time the
majority flips.
We have to let the voters make this
decision. I've been clear on that.
Now, my opponent talks about taking
positions on cases.
When she ran for judge in Dane
County, she proudly declared
that she was the lawyer that went
after the abortion restrictions
that were put in place.
She proudly declared that she
was the lawyer that went after voter
ID. She was the lawyer that went
after Act 10.
She bragged about that when she was
running in Dane County.
Now that she's running and has
to run in 71 other counties as
well, now she backs off from
things she was once proud of
campaigning as a judge.
Judge Crawford I want to ask you
have previously Represented Planned
Parenthood as you mentioned and you
received the endorsement of Planned
Parenthood advocates of Wisconsin in
its endorsement The group called you
a quote leader committed to
reproductive freedom and said that
you have quote upheld Constitutional
rights and protected access to
reproductive health care.
Is that a fair characterization of
you and what you would do as a
justice?
Well, I'm proud of the work that I
did as a lawyer.
I was standing up in court fighting
for the rights of women and their
doctors to make those decisions,
those critical decisions about
healthcare.
You know, when I went through
pregnancy and birth, a really tough,
really long labor and birth,
I wanted to be able to make my own
decisions with my doctors and
not have anybody getting in
the way of those decisions.
And because of the Dobbs decision
of the US Supreme Court that
threw away an almost 50
-year -old precedent, Roe
versus Wade, that recognized
a right under our Constitution
for women to make their own
decisions about their bodies,
my 23 -year -old daughter doesn't
have the same rights that I do.
And what I want for her and what I
want for Judge Schimel's
daughters is the same thing.
If they are pregnant and something
goes terribly wrong in their
pregnancy, I don't want them to lie
bleeding on a hospital bed
while their doctors are huddled in
another room trying to decide if
they're close enough to death before
they can deliver healthcare services
to them.
So voters need to understand that
this is a critical issue in this
race. My opponent has said.
He believes the 1849
law in Wisconsin is valid
law. He's trying to backpedal
from that position now.
And he said that he does not believe
there's any constitutional right to
abortion under the Wisconsin
Constitution.
That's the choice presented to the
Wisconsin voters. On that.
Like That's the truth.
On that, do you believe there is a
constitutional right to abortion in
Wisconsin?
Again, I'm not going to take a
position on that, because that is an
issue pending before the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
I have not read the briefs in that
case. I have not heard the party's
arguments or seen the kind of
evidence they've presented in
support of their positions.
That's an open question.
That's a question that will be
decided by the Wisconsin Supreme
Court.
What I can say is that I believe
that Dab's decision was wrongly
decided when the US
Supreme Court, for the first
time ever.
overturned a precedent that had
extended and recognized
constitutional rights to women
through our country.
It threw it away.
And now here we are, back in
the state of Wisconsin, having to
re -litigate and re -decide these
critical issues, these life and
death matters, these very
personal decisions about health care
that women have to make.
I want to turn to money in the race.
This is a problem.
part of this campaign.
I'm sorry, but she just
said several things about me that I
need to respond to. Go ahead.
Go ahead, quickly.
Again, the 1849
law, those oral
arguments were completed five
months ago from yesterday.
I don't know why the Supreme Court
hasn't been able to issue that
decision yet, but I think they're
playing politics.
They're waiting until after this
election to keep the 1849 law
a live issue.
That 1849 law is going to be
resolved by the Supreme Court long
before I take the bench on August
1st.
And what I said about
the Constitution...
I said that the word abortion
doesn't appear in the Wisconsin
Constitution.
So if there's a
constitutional right there to
abortion, someone's going to have to
make a creative legal argument to
explain where that is implied
within that constitution.
Let's move to money in the race with
politics, our editorial partner at
Upfront. Just tally the record, $59
million spent on
this race and counting.
You both received praise and
criticism for the support you have
received. Judge Crawford from Elon
Musk, for example.
Judge Schimel, that is, from Elon
Musk, for example.
Judge Crawford from George Soros.
At least we got a laugh from the
audience a few minutes into this.
from George Soros.
I want to first quickly start with
this. Judge Schimel, do you embrace
the endorsement of Elon Musk?
I got in this race over 15
months ago.
I have campaigned in all
72 counties.
I've gone to every corner of this
state.
I'm looking for the endorsement
of the Wisconsin voters on April
1st.
Outside help that comes is
not something I control.
It is expensive and it's difficult
to get your message out on
the airwaves to all the voters of
Wisconsin, but there's
a difference here.
My opponent was supported by George
Soros.
That man has funded DAs
and judges, fair enough, but I'd
like to talk about it.
He's funded DAs and judges
who have let dangerous criminals out
on the street.
He's funded efforts to defund the
police in America.
He's a dangerous person to
have an endorsement from.
Recently, Bernie Sanders is
campaigning in Wisconsin.
They had a singer perform an
absolutely grotesque attack on
people of faith.
And that crowd of my opponent's
supporters applauded
wildly as that person
blasphemed against the God
that so many Wisconsinites believe
in, taunted us for
being believers.
And they got up after that
speech and said, Those
people in that audience need to vote
for my opponent because she shares
our values.
Nobody in the media has asked her to
disavow that.
She should disavow that kind of hate
speech.
Well, I do disavow that.
I heard some of those lyrics and I
don't agree with those sentiments.
It wasn't my event.
It wasn't. I wasn't there,
I didn't organize it, and I
certainly didn't hire the singer.
But let's get back to campaign
finance. But let's get back to campaign finance.
Let me ask you about George Soros.
Do you embrace his endorsement and
his spending on your...
You know, I have had
generous contributions that have
gone to the Democratic Party of
Wisconsin, the Democratic Party of
Wisconsin has endorsed me and
supported my candidacy.
But let's talk about Elon Musk,
talk about somebody who's been
dangerous, who's firing air
traffic controllers, who's
firing the people who are trying to
figure out the avian flu issue
that is causing the cost of
eggs to increase so rapidly in
Wisconsin.
He has now spent over $10
million on My Opponent's
Race. He has basically taken
over Brad Schimel's campaign.
He's got paid canvassers who are
knocking on doors, handing out
flyers that say, support the
Trump agenda.
Put Brad Schimel on the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
He is putting false ads out
and deceptive ads that
try to make me look like
a more far -left liberal
person than I have ever been in
my life.
and he's putting these untrue ads
out on television.
He is the one, this is unprecedented
to see this kind of spending on a
race and it is no coincidence
that Elon Musk started spending
that money within days of
Tesla filing a lawsuit in
Wisconsin. Two quick questions.
He's trying to buy access and
influence by buying himself
a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme
Court. Two quick questions.
Two quick questions on the endorsements.
Will you recuse yourself from cases
involving the State Democratic Party
of Wisconsin?
Well, look, I will apply the
laws required by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court that set
out the rules for recusal, and
if I believe I cannot be fair
and impartial in a case
involving the Wisconsin Democratic
Party, yes, I will recuse.
there are new flyers coming out from
groups tied to Elon Musk that say
that are arriving to voters'
mailboxes tonight that say
conservative Brad Schimel will
support President Trump's agenda.
I have no control over what
any outside group does.
I will enforce the law.
I will apply the law the way
the legislature has written it.
If President Trump or anyone
defies Wisconsin law and
I end up with a case in front of me,
I'll hold them accountable as I
would anybody.
In my courtroom, I have
individuals come in that sometimes
are supporters of me.
Sometimes are people that don't like
me. It doesn't make any difference.
I've had political cases in my civil
courtroom.
It makes no difference who's in
front of me.
In the courtroom, my personal
views are irrelevant and
President Trump's personal views are
irrelevant as well.
One final question on
the money, on a recusal.
Tesla, which Elon Musk is CEO of,
is suing the state over a decision
that has prevented the company from
opening dealerships in Wisconsin.
If that case came before the court,
would you recuse yourself? on a recuse.
answer to that.
I haven't seen the lawsuit, I don't
know, I know a little bit about what
it's about.
Now the interesting thing is that I
have spent most of, I've spent 35
years representing the people of
Wisconsin. During a large part of
that as the attorney general, I
defended Wisconsin laws.
And I'm aware that there's a law
that requires that for you to sell
vehicles in Wisconsin, you have to
have a dealership.
There are dealership rules.
That's a law passed by the
legislature. It's entitled to a
presumption of constitutionality.
So.
Elon Musk is trying to
get some result in that lawsuit,
he may be failing because I
enforce the law and I respect the
laws passed by the legislature.
That's a law in Wisconsin.
A lot of voters are seeing this play
out on TV ads that are inundating
the airwaves right now.
So let's talk about these TV ads.
You have both accused each other of
being soft on crime in these TV ads.
Judge Schimel, you've recently
accused Judge Crawford of being an
ally to child rapists and violent
criminals. Judge Crawford, you have
recently accused Judge Schimel of
allowing rapists to roam the streets
while rape kits went untested
as attorney general.
Since the court does not sentence
violent criminals or determine how
the state manages DNA testing,
a question for both of you, but
we'll start with Judge Crawford.
And why have you made this a
prominent part of your campaign?
Well, look, I think that voters
deserve to know what our records
are. And I worked as a
statewide prosecutor at the
Wisconsin Department of Justice,
taking cases all the way to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court and making
sure that our communities were safe.
I'm proud of the work that I did as
a prosecutor and I'm
proud of the work that I did later
representing Wisconsinites in
our courtrooms, protecting their
healthcare rights, protecting their
voting rights, and protecting their
rights in the workplace.
I don't shy away from that record.
I am proud of the work that
I've done.
And I think it is important
for voters to know about
Brad Schimel's record, too.
He's the one who, as attorney
general, because he was
pursuing other partisan
right -wing lawsuits, like trying
to take health care away from
people, left over
6 ,000 sexual assault
kits, the kits that may contain
the DNA that can identify
the perpetrators of those crimes.
He failed to get them tested for
years. And in a period of over
two years, He only got nine kits
out of 6 ,000 tested.
And then he lied about it.
He told the press that he had had
hundreds of kits tested that
was wrong.
Earlier, he'd said, oh, there is no
backlog, when indeed there was a
backlog. So I think it's important
for the voters to understand
not only that Brad
Schimmel failed to take care of
that top public safety priority,
left those victims, who were mainly
women and children, waiting for
years while he pursued things
like trying to overturn
the legal protections.
that people have when they have pre
-existing health conditions to not
allow health insurance executives to
take away their coverage.
Judge, and we'll let you respond to
that as well, but I do want to ask
the same question.
While you've made your campaign,
a prominent part of your campaign
has been on the
negative record of Susan Crawford,
Judge Crawford.
My opponent can't even be honest
about her own record.
She calls herself a prosecutor who
put dangerous criminals away.
She never did that.
I spent 25 years as a frontline
prosecutor in the Waukesha DA's
office.
I was the guy they called at 3 AM
to go to the crime scene.
I was the guy who worked with law
enforcement to build that case from
the crime scene all the way to
conviction.
I was the shoulder that crime
victims cried on time
and time again.
My opponent never did that.
She never stood in front of a jury
and argued as a sword and
shield for that crime victim to get
justice for them.
That's a difference between us.
When she started claiming she was a
prosecutor, I needed to start
pointing out that she's not.
And with the cases she decided,
this isn't, there's not an equation
here. She criticizes me on
some cases where I was the
prosecutor.
or as a judge, where I follow the
recommendation of victims, she
has repeatedly just ignored
the pleas of victims to lock up
dangerous offenders.
A man who sexually assaulted a
five -year -old child repeatedly.
She had to testify at trial.
The jury convicted.
My opponent still refused to
revoke bond.
The $500 signature bond she
released him on.
She let him live near us across the
street from an elementary school.
She didn't change any of that after
he was convicted.
And then at sentencing time,
in spite of the pleas of the victim,
she ultimately gave that offender a
sentence that resulted in him being
in prison for less than two years
after that sentencing date.
There is, this is a dangerous flaw
in my opponent's judgment.
And that's just one example of
many.
Sure, you know, Brad Schimel
has given dozens of
people convicted of crimes like
domestic violence,
sexual assaults, and abuse of
children, short jail sentences
or no jail sentences, and those
offenders have gone on to re
-offend. I'll stand by the cases.
They have...
focused between him and Elon
Musk. They have focused on two
cases out of thousands that I've
handled where I sentence people to
prison and then followed that
with several years of extended
supervision.
Those two people are still on
supervision. They have not committed
any new crimes.
and they will be on the sex offender
registry for the rest of their
lives.
So I think that voters need to focus
on Brad Schimel's record.
He is somebody who has blamed
victims, said things like
with child sexual assaults,
that the child was responsible
because she went to a party
or it was, it is not
a lie.
The transcript is a lie.
It was a it was a first -date
situation.
He has let people go and they
have re -offended That has
not happened in the cases that
they're highlighting of mine
Let me ask about these assets.
If I can also just respond to
his claim that I wasn't a
prosecutor.
I was a statewide prosecutor
at the Wisconsin Department of
Justice.
I handled both county
-level prosecutions of health care
fraud and patient abuse, and
I also took cases to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
Those are cases that are the
most relevant for service on
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
cases that involve the development
of the law.
and the kinds of
legal arguments that you have to
consider when you're making
decisions that are going to
involve statewide precedent that
every prosecutor in the
county, in the state rather, will be
bound by.
both of you quick on these ads we're
seeing. You referenced one.
In 2020, you did sentence a child
sex offender to four years in prison
after prosecutors requested 10.
Do you regret that sentence?
I don't regret that sentence because
I followed the law in that case,
as I always do.
I applied the law, which says
that judges have to
consider every relevant factor in
sentencing. You have to consider
both the aggravating and mitigating
factors.
And the Supreme Court has said you
have to order the minimum amount of
prison time you believe is necessary
to protect the public.
That's what I did in that case and
every other case.
and my goal is always to
keep the community safe.
And those have been sentences that
have been successful.
They have kept the community safe,
unlike the short jail sentences
that Brad Schimmel has entered over
and over, where people have gone on
to commit new crimes.
That's when you know the sentence
has failed.
to some of the ads people have seen
about you, Judge Schimel, nine rape
kits tested in your first two years
of the attorney general. Do you
regret that?
My opponent just revealed the
problem in her judgment, that in
weighing all the factors,
giving the minimum amount of time to
a dangerous sex offender.
That is what the law requires.
ways higher than protecting
the community, that's what she just
revealed to you.
That is not what I said.
and she has not found one case,
she hasn't found one case.
has written the court requires you
to order the sentence.
You should go ahead.
the sentence necessary to protect
the community and that's what I've
done and that's what those sentences
did. go right ahead.
Judge Schimel on rape kits.
By the way, on her ads, she hasn't
found one case in her ads
where I failed to follow the
wishes of the victim and the
prosecutor.
The sentences I gave were at
least what the victim and the
prosecutor recommended in every one
of them. On the rape kits,
let's talk about numbers.
She puts it in terms of numbers.
When I got to the Department of
Justice for 25
years, those rape kits had
been neglected in police department
store rooms and hospital
store rooms.
When I got to the Department of
Justice during that 25
years, my opponent had spent 12
years as a manager
and then Attorney General
Doyle's Department of
Justice and as the
Chief Legal Counsel for Governor
Jim Doyle, 12 years.
She didn't lift a finger.
She didn't do anything to try to
solve this problem.
So it was left to when I got
to state government in
2015.
we had zero tests,
tests, excuse me, zero kits tested.
about three and a half years later,
every kit that needed to be tested
was done. But in the interim, let's
talk about some more numbers.
We had to conduct a statewide
inventory. We didn't even know how
many kits were out there.
We had to go to every single police
department in Wisconsin, every
hospital storeroom, find out
where the kits were, how many
there were, what the case
circumstances were, and
when I left the Department of
Justice, that problem was solved,
and we put in place a process where
this will never happen again.
Just quickly, do you regret the
first two years of your time as AG?
We did this exactly the way we
needed to. And the architect of
that program is
now Justice Jill Korofsky.
We worked together, I had her
as my director of the Office of
Crime Victim Services, and I'll tell
you, there's nobody in the state
that would have done a better job
than she did in that role.
But this was her plan, we
implemented it. She had been
planning this before I got the
Department of Justice.
When I got there, she was waiting
for an attorney general to finally
give someone the green light to
do it. And when I gave that green
light, we solved this problem.
In the new market, we'll let you
respond in just a second.
We have a lot of issues to get to in
the new Marquette Law School poll.
79 % of voters say that they want
the candidates in this race to
discuss the issues. We've talked
about abortion a little bit.
Other high -profile cases will also
be before this new court, likely
including Act 10, the law signed by
then Governor Scott Walker,
eliminating collective bargaining
for most public employees.
Judge Crawford, you represented
teachers who sued attempting to
overturn the law.
Why then wouldn't you recuse
yourself from a case involving Act
10?
Thanks for that question.
So Act 10 was a 50 -page
long bill that changed
multiple different parts of the
Wisconsin statutes.
And the challenge that I
raised back in the
2011, 2012 period
was focused on a particular
provision that it challenged.
My understanding of the new case
that's now moving through the courts
is that it involves a different
provision.
So, you know, you saw that
Justice Hagedorn decided
to recuse from that
case because he not only was
involved in drafting Act
10, but was involved in
a defense to the exact
same provision that is now at
stake, a previous legal challenge to
that provision.
I think that's appropriate.
And if the same provision that
I was involved in litigating
back in those early days was
challenged again, I
most likely would recuse.
Again, it would depend on the
specific facts of the case, but I
think that when it's the same
provision, yes.
that provision in this current
challenge.
Judge Schimel, you were a
Republican Attorney General under
Governor Scott Walker after the law
passed, but you have previously said
that you would have defended the law
in court.
Why then should voters believe that
you could hear a case on Act 10
fairly?
So, as you noted, Jaren,
that was all resolved.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided
that case and the Seventh Circuit
Federal Court of Appeals in Chicago
decided that case, upheld
Act 10, before I was ever
attorney general.
I've said I would have defended the
law when I was attorney general, of
course I did.
My job as attorney general was
to defend Wisconsin law.
not to pick and choose which laws I
like or didn't like.
My job was to defend the law.
For 35 years, I've been a public
servant and my only client, unlike
my opponent, who's representing some
very left -wing organizations,
my only client has always been the
people of Wisconsin.
And of course, I said that's
the very definition of attorney
general. You represent the people of
Wisconsin, you defend the laws
passed by our legislature and
signed into law by the governor.
Justice Brian Hagedorn, who served
as Governor Walker's chief legal
counsel during that, recently said
he would recuse himself from this
case involving Act 10.
Did he make the right decision,
Judge Schimel? Only he knows that.
only he knows whether he can be
objective about that.
You know, every jury that comes to
my courtroom, before we start
for our dear, I start by
preparing them for what this is
gonna be like.
And I hold up a pen with a click on
the top, and I say, folks,
I don't have one of those men in
black pens that I can click
and erase your memories.
You all come here with a history.
You all come here with political
views, personal views.
The question for you as we go
through this process is for you to
discern, for you to search your
conscience, can you set those
views aside and decide this
case based on the evidence in the
courtroom and the laws I'll instruct
you.
We expect that from jurors.
We should expect the same from
judges. Now, here's the danger.
Do you think he made the right
decision? Here's the danger with the
Supreme. See, as I said, only he can
make that, and that outlines the
danger. Because the only person
who can decide whether a Supreme
Court justice should recuse from a
case is that Supreme Court
justice.
So you're electing someone to a 10
-year term, and if you're not
sure that they'll be objective,
or you're not sure that they'll
recuse on the cases they can't,
you better be careful about giving
them 10 years.
We'll get to recusal.
Justice Janet Protasewicz, who
protested the 2011 law and signed
the recall petition targeting then
-Governor Walker, recently said she
would not recuse herself from this
case. Did she make the right
decision, Judge Crocker?
Well, I read
the decision that Justice, or
order that Justice Protasewicz
put out about that, and
I thought that her analysis
clearly showed
that she considered the facts and
applied the standards under the
Wisconsin Judicial Code and
came to a reasoned decision that.
She believed that she could be fair
and impartial in that case.
That's what the law required and
I think that it's
a decision that she should stand
by.
And you believe that as well, that
you can be fair and impartial.
Well, you know, I think that I agree
with Judge Schimel on this, that the
law requires each individual
justice to make their own
determination about whether they can
be fair and impartial.
I trust that that's what she did.
We'll talk about recusal here in
just a second. I do want to ask,
though, about voter ID.
The state's voter ID law will also
be on the April 1st ballot asking
voters whether to untry the law into
the state constitution.
77 % of Wisconsin voters say they
favor voter ID.
Judge Schimel, as attorney general,
you fought to keep the law in place.
Judge Crawford, you have argued
against it and tried to block the
law, even at one point comparing it
to a poll tax.
Judge Crawford, do you still believe
that?
Well, look, I brought a lawsuit
on behalf of the Nonpartisan League
of Women Voters when that law was
first passed.
And when it was first passed, it was
the strictest voter ID law in the
country. And it left a lot of
people behind.
There were many registered
voters in Wisconsin who were unable
to vote because they simply
could not obtain the ID that they
needed.
People who were disabled,
elderly people, people who were born
in rural communities in poverty
that never were issued a
birth certificate.
That's who we were fighting for.
You know, for me and probably
everybody in this room, the voter ID
law was no big deal.
You show your driver's license and
you get to vote.
But for the most vulnerable citizens
in Wisconsin, it took something
very precious away from them, and
that was their right to vote.
So I'm proud of the lawsuit, the
litigation that we filed, because
ultimately the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, with a very conservative
majority at that time.
Found that because the law
required people to pay to
get a drive Voters
ID they ordered the
administration to make changes so
people would no longer have to pay
and indeed They said it was like a
poll tax and the
legislature, well no because
they removed that.
The court ordered the administration
to stop doing that and the
legislature then revisited
the law and created a procedure
that allows people to get
their IDs more easily even
if they're missing some of these
underlying documents.
It's called an affidavit procedure
and Brad Schimel said at the
time that that law was pending that
if the legislature revisited that
law and enacted an affidavit
procedure The Legislature You that
all the litigation would drop and
go away. And I agree with that.
So the law is a very different law
now than it was then. You said that you
You have told us previously that you
will not reveal how you will vote on
the constitutional amendment.
I'm just curious, why don't voters
deserve to know?
Well, I think that they can hear
from politicians and
legislators and people like that,
what their views are.
I just don't think it's appropriate
for a judge to weigh in and try to
influence voters on something like
that. And that's, and let me just
explain a little further.
And that in part is because
that, you know, if that does
become a constitutional amendment
like any part of the constitution,
it could come before the court and
have to be interpreted.
So I just think it's more proper
not to comment.
Judge Seymour, how will you vote on
the constitutional amendment?
I wanna start by saying, when I'm
on the bench, my personal or
political views are utterly
irrelevant, and they're utterly
irrelevant in the Supreme Court
race.
But if you wanna know how I'm gonna
vote, I'm gonna vote yes, okay?
Now, voter integrity laws are
critically important.
The legislature has a solemn
responsibility to put those laws in
place, and we should all expect as
voters that those laws are gonna be
implemented the way they're passed,
because the danger with
vote fraud is you can't
undo the vote.
You could catch the perpetrator.
You could lock them up in prison for
decades, but you can't change
that fraudulent vote they cast.
And that waters down the honest vote
of a legitimate
voter. That can't
happen.
You have once said that you once
suggested that President Trump won
Wisconsin in 2016 because
the state had voter ID in place.
Does Wisconsin's law favor
Republicans and disenfranchise other
voters?
You know, interestingly, in the
lawsuits, they've never found that
voter that's disenfranchised.
You might have heard my client say,
or my opponent said her client was
the League of Women Voters.
They didn't find that client out
there because that client, they
can't find that person who can't get
that free ID.
To the question, do you believe that
the law favors Republicans and
disenfranchises voters?
No, what the law does is it
favors integrity so that
the votes of the people of
Wisconsin are
accurately reflected in the totals
that are reported on election night.
Let's talk about the state's
congressional maps.
It's widely expected and reported
that if liberals maintain control of
the court, interest groups will file
lawsuits challenging the state's
congressional maps.
Judge Crawford, you were recently on
a call with Democratic donors who
have given to your campaign.
The meeting was billed as a chance
to put two more House seats in play
for 2026.
No matter how long you were on that
call, how was that appropriate?
Well, I don't think that the email
that was sent out was an appropriate
way to announce a
judicial candidate, to be frank.
I appeared in a short
Zoom appearance with that group.
No mention was made of the
congressional maps while I was
in the meeting.
I introduced myself, you know,
gave a standard short.
a little bio of myself
and why I was running for the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
As I always do, I pledged
that I would be fair and impartial
on the Supreme Court,
was not bringing any type of
partisan agenda, and
then I bid the group farewell
and left the meeting.
I don't know what they discussed for
the rest of it, but certainly no
mention was made up the
congressional maps while I was in
this room.
You still chose to join that
meeting.
Right, I also did not see that email
or the way it was being billed
before I participated.
I only found out about that after
the fact.
Judge Simmel, do you believe the
current congressional maps are fair?
That's not my decision to make.
The legislature passes those maps.
The governor signs them.
Sometimes courts have to take a look
at that when there's a dispute that
they can't reach an agreement on
something.
But it's not for me to say whether
they're fair or not.
I'm gonna note this.
We have to take my opponent's word
for it about what happened on that
phone call because we've never had
any evidence of just what happened
except the email that
went out.
And it's hard for me to accept that
she didn't see the email invitation
that was inviting them to come
on this call with her and
find out how you can get
her on the Wisconsin Supreme Court
and they can turn two Republican
congressional seats into Democrat
congressional seats.
And for the viewers,
what that means is the court would
move the lines, just like they
did with the state districting
lines. They struck down the maps
and then started forcing.
how they should be changed, they're
going to do the same thing with the
congressional maps.
And that's why those billionaire
donors started kicking in.
I want to note something about
donations in this race.
97 % of the donors
to my campaign are people
who vote right here in the state of
Wisconsin.
Almost 50 % of my
opponent's donors can't vote in
the state of Wisconsin because they
don't reside here.
I do want to ask you about
transgender issues, transgender
sports bills.
Can I just respond briefly to what
he said about the contributions
because in fact I have because, in
fact, I.
twice as many Wisconsin contributors
to my campaign as Brad Schimel was.
I have a broad base of
supporters and supporters from
every one of Wisconsin's
72 counties.
So, I just wanted to correct that.
And he has a very active imagination
about this call.
I did not mention that...
I'm speaking, please.
I mentioned that I
have never been...
I've never taken any position on the
congressional maps and I don't think
it's appropriate as a judicial
candidate to do so.
And he has a very... But you don't dispute the 50 percent.
I'm sorry, Jim, but you don't
dispute that nearly 50 percent of
your donors don't live in this
state.
You know, I have support from
all over the country, and it is
because Elon Schimel is trying to
buy this race, and people are very
upset about that, and they are
disturbed about that.
He is spending over $10 million.
That dwarfs the contribution
of anybody else in
any campaign in Wisconsin
history.
People should be very concerned
about it.
Both have tried to argue that the
millions of dollars that you receive
are fine and good and the millions
of dollars your opponent receives
are corrupt and equates to selling a
seat on the bench.
So, why should voters trust or
believe either one of you?
Judge Schimel.
As I said before, I don't control
that money.
We're not allowed to coordinate with
outside groups.
I haven't solicited that money from
them.
They've made this decision on their
own to support my campaign, and
they've decided what their messaging
looks like without any assistance
from me.
I have campaigned.
Well, look, Brad Schimel said
that he wanted to be part of
Donald Trump's support network.
That's a very partisan statement.
And that is exactly why Elon
Musk is involved here.
That and the fact that he's got
a Tesla lawsuit going in the
state of Wisconsin and thinks it
might be good to have some influence
over the Wisconsin judiciary.
He's also the one who, when he
launched his campaign, immediately
said that he was going to
nationalize this race and go after
the conservative billionaire
contributors that he had made
ties with as a Republican attorney
general.
He was out at the inauguration
in Washington DC in
January attending these
high ticket fancy galas.
And within days of him coming back,
all of a sudden, Elon Musk is
tweeting about the race and Brad
Schimel is bragging about being on
his knees, wearing out his knee
pads, asking for contributions.
To Jerry's question.
To Jared's question though, how is
that any different than the millions
you are receiving from Democratic
donors across the country?
You know, I have never
promised anything, and that is
the difference.
Brad Schimel is saying what his
positions are on that 1849
abortion law, which he said is
a fine law.
There is nothing wrong with it.
He believes it should be fully
enforced and criminalize all
abortions in Wisconsin.
He has said how he would decide
that Act 10 case
that's moving through the courts,
he made us, that he is.
his campaign issued a press release
on that decision a day
after a judge ruled
that it was unconstitutional.
Not based on anything in
that case, but just based on the
headlines. A quick response and
we'll move on.
I said about the 1814
line law and my opponent knows this
because she has the whole recording
only released a small portion
of it to a reporter the whole
recording makes clear I
said was asked was it a valid law
and yes the legislature passed
it both houses of the legislature
agreed on the final form the
governor signed it that makes it a
law the question then
is does that reflect the will of
the people currently and
unlike my opponent I'm
ready to respect the will of the
voters of Wisconsin on this
and all issues.
Senator Ron Johnson has recently
said this race is critical to
protect laws banning men from
participating in women's sports.
Senator Tammy Baldwin is reportedly
pushing Democratic colleagues to
argue the issue is best left to the
states. Judge Schimel, can
conservative voters count on you to
uphold any law that bans
men from playing in women's sports?
they can count on me to uphold
the laws written by the legislature
unless they violate the
constitution. Absolutely, yes.
Judge Crawford, can liberal voters
count on you to reverse any law that
bans men from playing in women's
sports?
Well, I'm going to agree with Judge
Schimel here. They can count on me
to make a determination about
whether such a law is
constitutional.
And if it is constitutional, I would
uphold it.
A lot of the potential cases all
lead to the questions of recusal.
You both have said that you trust
yourself to make that decision.
Give me two examples of a case,
of any case that would force you to
recuse yourself.
Judge Crawford.
Well, I can give you one that
I recently had on the circuit
court as a judge.
I opened a case file
and was looking at the
complaint that was filed by the
parties and I recognized a name
in there.
The defendant, and this was a kind
of typical personal injury case
involving a car accident,
and the person who was alleged to
be at fault was somebody
I know, somebody I've been friendly
with. And because of that
relationship, I felt I could not
be fair and impartial in that case.
So I stepped aside and recused
myself.
That's the kind of thing I would do
on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Ah, that's.
Judge Schimel, give me an example of
a case that would force you to
recuse yourself.
Well, I think you asked about on the
Supreme Court.
I mean, certainly on the Circuit
Court, I've recused myself.
I know lots of people in Waukesha
County and some of them I have close
relationships with and some of them
end up litigating cases.
Those cases, I've recused myself.
In any case where it's a close call,
I've alerted the parties that I
know someone involved here.
I don't believe it poses a conflict
for me, but if anyone's
uncomfortable with me hearing the
case, I would recuse.
On the Supreme Court, if there's a
case that comes up that's reviewing
a decision I made as a circuit court
judge. Yeah, I probably shouldn't
be deciding if I was right when
I decided the case in the circuit
court.
Certainly, any case that involves
any personal financial
interest for any member of my
family or myself,
absolutely the rules are clear, you
have to recuse.
Otherwise, it's that same
question that you have to ask
jurors. Can you set your
personal opinions and views aside
and hear the case?
Why should voters believe that you
can police yourself?
The whole reason I got in this
race is to try to
restore objectivity to the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
Part of what caused me to jump in
this race was seeing how
a justice candidate promised
how to rule on cases and then
said they'd consider recusing if
that came up on the
wrote a lengthy decision, my
opponent made reference to, wrote a
lengthy decision explaining how,
no, no, I don't have to recuse, I
was talking about my values, I don't
have any problem with this.
I got in this race to end
that.
why some voters believe you can
police yourself.
You know, I think that voters have
to trust justices under
the current rules that we have
for recusals.
And I would welcome
petitions or proposals
to strengthen and improve
the recusal rules.
I think they can always be improved.
And I think that's kind of
underlying your question, is should
there be stronger rules?
We've seen with the U .S.
Supreme Court what happens when
the. ethical rules for
justices are too weak.
When you've got justices who
are accepting luxury trips from
people who have an interest in the
cases, or are flying partisan
flags outside of their homes.
the people lose faith
and lose confidence in the court.
So I would welcome proposals
to increase and improve the
ethical standards for justices.
But as the rules exist now,
the rules require the
public to trust the
justices.
And you know, I've always held
myself to a very high ethical
standard and
I would follow the
law of the court.
You have both said tonight you will
act independently as justices.
You've said that on the campaign
trail.
Judge Crawford, would you have
joined and agreed with the court's
liberal majority when they threw out
the state's legislative maps?
And do you agree with Justice
Protasewicz, who once called those
maps rigged?
Well, I looked at that decision,
and what the court did in that
case is review
a provision of the state
constitution that requires
the legislative maps to be
contiguous.
They had to interpret that term, and
that's what they did.
They actually looked the word up in
the dictionary, which judges
often do.
and they made a determination
that contiguous means basically
you have to draw a line, be able to
draw a line all the way around the
legislative district.
And that's
not the question that was addressed
in that case.
The question that was addressed in
that case was, did those legislative
districts comply with the
Constitution?
I think that the Wisconsin Supreme
Court was correct in deciding that
they didn't comply with the
Constitution and it's important to
note. Get those maps away.
outcome of that decision was to
send the legislative back
maps back to the legislature and
the governor and the legislature
and the governor reached a political
compromise on new maps which
were then put in place it was not
the supreme court rewriting the maps
it was the legislature and the
governor through the normal
political process.
Judge Schimel, some of the court's
most recent consequential decisions
came after the 2020 election when
President Trump challenged the
results in Wisconsin, in one case
attempted to get 220 ,000 absentee
ballots in Dane and Milwaukee
counties thrown out.
Justice Brian Hagedorn joined the
court's liberals, justices,
in rejecting those lawsuits.
Would you ever rule against
President Trump?
If President Trump violates the law
or President Trump brings
a lawsuit that he's
wrong on the law, of
course I would.
I don't have any personal loyalty
to him that supersedes
the oath I take as
a judge.
Did Justice Hagedorn make the right
decision in this?
I get you yet.
You've got to tell me which case
you're
The 220 ,000 absentee ballots.
Boy, I don't know.
I'd have to review that case.
It is the decision of the court,
and that's final.
Part of what's so important about
this race is the decision
for justices
in a majority on the Supreme Court.
That ends up being the final word.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the
final word when it comes to what a
Wisconsin statute means or
the Wisconsin Constitution means.
So we should be very, these
people should pay better attention
to these April court races.
If I may just respond to that,
Brad Schimmel, in fact, said when he
was in front of... I didn't say anything about her.
when he was in front of a private,
what he thought was a private
audience of his political allies,
he said that he believed that
the Wisconsin Supreme Court screwed
Trump over in 2020
when it rejected
his effort
to throw out the results of
the Wisconsin election in 2020.
He has said that he is part of
Donald Trump's support network.
He is partisan.
He is not impartial.
And he says different things in
front of a broad audience like this
when he knows it's going to be
televised than he'll say when he's
talking to his political allies.
He is not trustworthy.
Judge will give you a chance to respond.
I'll say the same thing that
I said in front of those crowds
and I'll say that to this audience
right here.
What I said was in
2020, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court, three liberals
and one conservative decided
not to hear the challenge
from the Green Party.
The Green Party was kept off the
ballot by the Wisconsin Elections
Commission on
a technicality in their nomination
papers. they came to the Supreme
Court.
and demanded their right to be on
the ballot. The Supreme Court said,
we don't want to hear this case
because it's too close to the
election. We could affect the
outcome of an election.
I have said that was a mistake.
The court should have heard the
case, decided that issue
so that we would know whether
the Green Party had a right to be on
the ballot or not.
That's the challenge I made.
And yes, that did screw up
an election because Donald Trump
lost by 21 ,000 votes.
The Green Party typically takes over
30 ,000 votes.
So the decision not to hear that
case did affect the Elkman
election.
We have just a few minutes left,
Chair. I do want to ask about what
you both see as the biggest issues
or the biggest cases that could come
before the Supreme Court in this
next term. Judge Crawford, we'll
start with you.
You know, it's really hard to
predict that, because every term
the Wisconsin Supreme Court
hears petitions from parties
that have had cases moving through
the court system.
And if three justices decide
that that particular case raises
an issue that is of such statewide
importance that should be decided by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they'll
take that case.
I think the important, if I may, the
important thing for voters to know
is that the cases that come
before the Supreme Court can.
can involve a wide
array of issues of great
importance to Wisconsinites.
They can involve issues of public
safety, of fundamental rights,
things like whether we have clean
drinking water, and these
are really important cases.
And as I said at the outset, they
affect the fundamental rights and
freedoms of all Wisconsinites, and
that is why Wisconsinites should
care and pay attention and vote
in these elections.
Judge, what do you see as the
biggest issue or case that could
come before this next Supreme court.
Unfortunately, since the majority
on the court right now is running
through a political agenda,
what cases get filed and what cases
get accepted by the Supreme Court
is going to be impacted by who wins
the election. You know this court
in their first in their first term
heard only 14 substantive
cases.
Normally the Supreme Court hears
over 50.
They've been so busy going through a
political agenda that they've
forgotten that they are supposed to
resolve legitimate disputes that
help guide Wisconsinites
on what the law is.
Real quick, and I apologize if we
cut you off here, but we're getting
close to the end.
Both of you have political
supporters, and that has become a
reality of these campaigns.
You've both said you will act
independently, which at times could
anger your supporters.
Judge Schimel, give me an example.
As a time, as a judge, you made a
decision that angered your
supporters.
I don't recall, I
recall people, I'm
sorry, I don't have an example of a
case that angered supporters, I'm
sorry.
Judge Crawford, do you have an example?
So I had a
lawsuit before me in
the circuit court in which
the current attorney
general was trying to
throw get laws
thrown out that were enacted in
the lame duck period after
Shema lost election,
re -election as attorney general
and...
Governor Scott Walker lost re
-election as attorney general.
Between them and then and
their leaving office, they
enacted laws that stripped
the attorney general of many
of the attorney general's powers
and authority.
And a lawsuit was brought into
my court that challenged several
of those changes.
And I rejected.
most of them.
I did issue a narrow
ruling that found
that a
part of those changes were
unconstitutional but the rest of
them I threw out.
Two quick rapid fire questions, the
first one or two words that come to
your mind. Judge Schimel, what U .S.
Supreme Court justice, current or
former, would you like to have
dinner with?
Antonin Scalia would, as I've heard,
is a fascinating dinner companion.
Judge Crawford.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Judge Crawford, what current justice
on the Wisconsin Supreme Court would
you most resemble as a justice?
I would like to believe
that I would most
resemble Justice Ann Walsh
-Gradley, whose seat I'm running.
And Judge Schimel?
Oh my goodness.
We're all human beings.
We all have good character traits,
and we all have weaknesses.
I don't hero
worship anything like that.
It is.
It is now time for our closing
statements. We flipped a coin to
determine the order.
We will begin with Judge Crawford.
All right, well, thank you.
I wanna thank you for the
opportunity here tonight and
thank you for everyone who's been
listening. This election presents
a really critical choice for voters.
Do they wanna have a common sense
judge, someone who's going to be
fair, independent, and impartial,
or do they want someone who has a
history of being an extreme
politician?
As throughout my career, I have
always worked to protect the rights
of Wisconsinites and protect the
safety of our communities.
And that's based on the values that
I learned growing up in Chippewa
Falls.
Things like honesty,
hard work, and fairness.
And that's what kind of justice I'll
be on the Supreme Court.
By contrast, my opponent Brad
Schimel has always been about
politics, partisanship.
and special interests.
He's the one who failed to get those
sexual assault kits tested,
who attacked the rights of women to
get health care, and supports
now an 1849 abortion
law, and is trying to sell the seat
on the court to the highest bidder.
I'm going to ask you for your vote,
and thank you so much for your
attention. Judge Schimel.
Well, thank you to you to moderating
this and to all the viewers who have
tuned in for this.
I've been a public servant for 35
years.
My only client for those 35 years
has been the people of Wisconsin.
I didn't plan to run for Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
But after I watched what happened in
2023, when the court threw
away objectivity and began going
through a political agenda, I
resolved to get in this race.
and I got in over 15
months ago.
I have campaigned in all 72 counties
of this state and I'm proud to
say that I have the endorsement of
over three quarters of the elected
sheriffs in Wisconsin.
That includes a number of Democrat
elected sheriffs who are publicly
endorsing my campaign because
they've seen behind the scenes what
I do to take care of public safety
and to take care of the people I
serve.
I got into this race to
restore objectivity to this court.
That's my solemn commitment to the
voters of Wisconsin, and I'd be
honored to have your vote on April
1st. Thank you.
We made it.
Our sincere thanks to both of our
candidates this evening for being
here tonight and to all of our
guests here at the Marquette
University Law School, including
the seven current justices on
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
If you missed any part of this
debate, it will be available on the
12 News app and streaming on Very
Local. We will have full post
debate analysis Sunday on Upfront.
Early voting begins in just six days
on Tuesday and Election Day,
less than three weeks away from
right now, April 1st, Tuesday, April
1st, Election Day.
Thank you all for spending part of
your evening with us.
Have a great night.
Welcome to Dwellings, Madison's
best kept secret for beautiful
furniture, sofas,
chairs, and recliners, sectionals,
and fun accessories.
Shop our Fitchburg showroom today.
Doctors at UW Health say there's
been an increase in patients looking
for long -acting, reversible
contraception.
Add 10 what doctors are seeing now
and why it's happening.
And we're tracking that next threat
of potentially strong to severe
storms in our forecast.
At Muir Roofing and Construction, 99
% of our residential roofs are
done in a day and come with a
lifetime shingle warranty, as well
as a 15 -year craftsmanship
warranty. Call me, Jim Muir, for
roofing, siding and gutters, and
remember, as always, we do it
right at any height.
The Girls WIAA State
Basketball Tournament is back!
See every game from every
division.
Live on air, online, and
streaming on the WIAA app.
With analysis and insight from
experts all across Wisconsin.
And the only place to catch all the
action is right here on your
official WIA station.
one chance to win it all.
Watch her stream live March 13th.