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 Schimmel 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 Schimmel let
a sex predator loose on our kids.
So why would we ever give him another chance, Brad Schimmel?
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 signals.
We've got critically ill patients.
They have to be ready for you back to hospital.
It's a two-hour boat.
I should be the one out there.
MUSIC
Pass under a giggle fast next.
Travel consideration provided by.
Imagine checking your own heart with medical precision
from anywhere.
Introducing Cardiomobile 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.
Extremis Brad Schimmel 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.
Schimmel says we have no right to an abortion
and supported overturning Roe vs. Wade.
No surprise, Schimmel is backed by radicals
who oppose birth control and IVF.
With our rights on the line, Schimmel
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 an 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.
QP 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.
Buy one window.
Get 130% off at nextwindow.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 608-925-3628.
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 608-925-3628.
Hanson's knows that 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.
Go 1-800-Handsons.
Get it done.
The threat of severe weather on our horizon.
MUSIC
And this is our sexy automobile.
Margot Robbie, we're a car.
She'd be at 1968 Pontiac Firebird.
LAUGHTER
It looks great, boy.
I'll tell you what.
We got modified suspension.
All disc brakes, a straight-six modified O-ray cam.
Oh, yeah.
Keep talking, baby.
LAUGHTER
Yawnee, girlfriend.
LAUGHTER
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Mr. J. Leno, very picky about his paint shots.
All right, listen to me.
What are you doing?
Do you want to hear the grease rack?
He's touching like her?
Dude, that's your Leno.
You sound like tickle me, Elmo.
LAUGHTER
You guys are crazy.
Sounds just like Leno.
Trapped their mic.
Come on, it's just some gag.
Little bitch.
There's the man I'm looking for.
They will never call you Maddie.
Never more than once.
LAUGHTER
Are you familiar with the North Hollywood Improvement
Association?
Oh, I love no whole imp ass.
LAUGHTER
Anyway, we're fixing up that janky park down the street.
I was hoping you'd join the other local businesses
in donating an item for auction.
It'd be great PR for the shop.
You know, much like your biblical namesake, Eve.
I think you're trying to tempt me.
But unlike Adam, I'm not going to buy it on your apple.
LAUGHTER
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 for your heart.
For a restoration shop, we don't do tire changes,
and I have no heart.
Bye-bye, Eve.
Hey, man, come on, man.
Pop's on, boy.
Plus the world could use some generosity
from white guys with money.
Especially since they took Snoop Dogg from us.
LAUGHTER
A very generous heart and generous man.
I'm letting two of my employees stand around here
doing nothing with their thumbs and their butts.
LAUGHTER
For the record, my thumb was nowhere near my butt.
LAUGHTER
You're cute.
I have a few friends that you could make really happy
for, like, a week.
LAUGHTER
Thank you.
LAUGHTER
So?
You like parks?
Oh, I love parks.
Spent my whole childhood.
I crashed so many kids in Yannas.
LAUGHTER
Damn pin Yannas didn't stand a change.
LAUGHTER
Love it.
So what are you donating?
We could have make one of those charity calendars.
You know, the hot mechanics of parka restoration.
LAUGHTER
I was thinking more along the lines of a tuna.
Like a sexy tuna?
LAUGHTER
Stitch.
LAUGHTER
Oh, my God.
Wendy is going to love you.
LAUGHTER
Well, what about you?
I bet you're incredibly talented at something.
I do a little DJ, and mainly for my friends,
but I did one slam in Pac-Mitzvah.
LAUGHTER
Oh, I love break!
LAUGHTER
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.
LAUGHTER
Stitch.
LAUGHTER
I'll text you Wendy's number.
LAUGHTER
APPLAUSE
Oh, Mom, is it okay to have some friends ever after school to play some video games?
Friends?
Oh, that's nice.
LAUGHTER
Did you hire them?
LAUGHTER
No, she didn't hire them.
You didn't, right?
LAUGHTER
You think I can afford friends for you?
I can't afford new bras.
LAUGHTER
So, who are they?
Just a couple guys.
I call them my crew.
They call me C-dog.
I'm not sure what the C stands for, but...
Duh, chill dude.
It makes sense.
This is hard to watch.
LAUGHTER
So what's their angle, Carter?
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 all my strange kids coming over here.
God knows what they're bringing in.
Drugs, weapons, crackers made of seaweed.
Who knows what?
LAUGHTER
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.
LAUGHTER
Hey, guys.
Hey, what's up?
Hey, how's the auction going?
How many bids you got for DJ Slow Your Role?
LAUGHTER
None.
I'm a fan, fan, fan.
Don't worry, guys.
It's early bidding.
It's just getting started.
Well, the center's already got 14 bids on a Kalana.
So instead of hearing you DJ,
people would rather have water pumped up there.
LAUGHTER
We choose hurtful.
So, you know, I'm going to 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.
LAUGHTER
Right.
I get it.
You're daddy's boy.
And you're a bad boy who plays by his own rules.
It doesn't care what the boss man thinks
and does whatever he wants.
I know what you don't.
LAUGHTER
And it's working.
LAUGHTER
You know, we taking his 66-shell beating,
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.
LAUGHTER
Have fun on your sleepover.
Be sure to thank Sophie's mother.
Don't worry.
Mom's lovely.
I complimented her hair.
She has vodka taste in music.
I make him feel young.
LAUGHTER
Oh, hey.
This is Ethan and Kyle.
See?
They're real.
LAUGHTER
Nice to meet your two followers on Instagram.
LAUGHTER
Ah, good one.
How's that 8.30 bedtime treat to you?
LAUGHTER
Well, well, well.
Looks like the Girl Scout
got through the sprinklers.
LAUGHTER
Your dad's like a thousand.
It's not grandpa.
And yeah.
LAUGHTER
We're going to go play Call of Duty.
I got to check these backpacks out first.
After that, put your hands against the wall for a little pat down.
LAUGHTER
Condoms?
LAUGHTER
You're never going to need these.
LAUGHTER
It's inspirational.
OK.
Strip search is over.
Have fun.
Was I'll bring you some snacks?
I don't know what you're worried about.
It lies 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 Schimmel 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 was a valid law.
1849 was a valid law.
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 today.
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 health care.
As a woman, as somebody who has gone through pregnancy, labor, and birth,
I want to make my own health care decisions and I trust women to do this.
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 Jimma, you've routinely said your 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 in the 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 health care.
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 U.S. Supreme Court that threw away an almost 50-year-old precedent, Roe v. 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 Schimmelstodders 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 health care 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.
One 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 Dobbs decision was wrongly decided when the Wisconsin, the U.S. 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 prominent part of this campaign.
I'm sorry, but she just said several things about me that I need to respond to.
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 tallied a record $59 million spent on this race and counting.
You both receive praise and criticism for the support you have received, Judge Crawford from Elon Musk, for example.
Judge Shimmel, that is from Elon Musk, for example, Judge Crawford from George Soros.
At least we got to laugh from the audience a few minutes into this.
I want to first quickly start with this.
Judge Shimmel, 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 airways to all the voters of Wisconsin.
But there's a difference here.
My opponent was supported by George Soros.
That man has funded DA's and judges.
Fair enough, but I'd like to talk about it.
He's funded DA's 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.
And 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.
I wasn't there.
I didn't organize it.
And I certainly didn't hire the singer.
Let's get back to campaign finance.
Let me ask you about George Soros.
Do you embrace his endorsement and his spending on yours?
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.
I want to 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 cause to 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 Schimels campaign.
He's got paid canvassers who are knocking on doors,
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.
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 was trying to buy access and influence by buying himself a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
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,
I will recuse.
There are new flyers coming out from groups tied to Elon Musk that say that are arriving
into voters mailboxes tonight that say conservative Brad Schimel will support President Trump's agenda.
Is that true?
I have no control over whatever 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 will 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 have had political cases in my civil courtroom.
It makes no difference who is 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 recusal.
Tesla and what 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?
I don't know the 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 it 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 if 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 saying 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 Schimmel, you've recently accused Judge Crawford of being an ally to child rapists
and violent criminals.
Judge Crawford, you have recently accused Judge Schimmel 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 to say it manages DNA testing,
a question for both of you, but we'll start with Judge Crawford.
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 health care 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 Schimmel'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, and 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 preexisting health conditions, to not allow health insurance
executives to take away their coverage.
Well, 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 a.m. 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 need 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 a 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 Schimmel has given dozens of people convicted of crimes like domestic violence, sexual assaults,
and abuse of children.
Short jail sentences are 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 have handled where I sentenced 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 Schimmel'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.
It is not a lie.
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.
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 were seen.
You referenced one.
In 2020, you did sentence the 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 it's 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 sentences fail.
The ads people have seen about you judge Schimmel.
Nine rape kids 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, ways higher than protecting the community.
That's what she just revealed to you.
It is not what I said.
And she has not found one case.
The court has heard the court requires you to order the sentence.
Go ahead.
The sentence is necessary to protect the community.
And that's what I have done, and that's what those sentences did.
Judge Schimmel, 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 with 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 departments, storerooms, and hospital storerooms.
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 a 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 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 Korowski.
We work 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.
Chairman, let's move on down the table.
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 market, 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 represent a teacher who sued attempting to overturn the law.
And then wouldn't you recuse yourself from the 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 saw that Justice Hagadorn 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.
Is that provision in this current challenge?
No.
Judge Shimmel, 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 on court.
Why didn't you voters believe that you could hear a case on Act 10 fairly?
So as you noted, that was all resolved.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that case in 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 Schimmel?
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 going to 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 Proticeowitz, 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?
Well, I read the decision that Justice or ordered that Justice Proticeowitz 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 reason decision that she believed that she could be fair and impartial in that case.
That's what the law required.
And, you know, I think that it's a decision that she should stand by.
And you believe that as well that she can be fair and impartial?
Well, you know, I think that I agree with Judge Shimmel 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 1 ballot asking voters whether to untrine the law into the state constitution.
77% of Wisconsin voters say they favor voter ID.
Judge Shimmel, 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 let a lot of people be 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, a voter's 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 Schimmel said at the time that that law was pending, that if the legislature revisited that law and enacted an affidavit procedure, 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 that.
You have told us previously that you will not reveal how you vote on a 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 let me just explain a little further.
And that in part is because 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 Schimmel, how will you vote on the constitutional amendment?
I want to 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 want to know how I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote yes.
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 going to 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 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 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.
So, 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, gave a standard short 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.
It 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 of the congressional maps while I was in the meeting.
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.
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.
No 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 to 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.
And we'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?
Very quickly.
In fact, I have twice as many Wisconsin contributors to my campaign as Brad Schimmel 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.
Do you not disagree?
And he has a very active imagination about this call.
I did not mention that I am speaking, please.
I mentioned that I have never taken any position on the congressional maps and I don't think it's appropriate as a judicial candidate to do so.
Senator Johnson.
Sorry, but you don't dispute that nearly 50% of your donors don't live in this state.
You know, I have support from all over the country and it is because Elon Schimmel 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's history.
You both should be very concerned about that.
You 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 Schimmel?
As I said before, I don't control that money.
We're not allowed to coordinate with outside groups.
I don't.
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.
Judge, why should voters believe you?
Well, you know, look, Brad Schimmel 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, D.C. 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 Schimmel is bragging about being on his knees, wearing out his knee pads, asking for contributions.
Judge, you're in 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 Schimmel 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 said how he would decide that at 10 case that's moving through the courts, he made his campaign issue to press release on that decision.
A day after Judge ruled that it was unconstitutional.
Not based on anything in that case, but just based on the headlines.
Quick response.
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 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 Shimmel, 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?
I'm going to agree with Judge Shimmel 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.
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.
Judge Shimmel?
That's the kind of thing I would do in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Judge Shimmel, give me an example of a case that would force you to recuse yourself.
Well, I think you asked about it on the Supreme Court.
Yeah.
I mean, certainly on the circuit court, I 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 here in 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 they came up on the campaign trail,
but then once on the bench 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 should 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, 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.
Justice 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 Protecewards, who once called those maps red?
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.
Do you believe those maps were rigged?
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 that the outcome of that decision was to send the legislative 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.
Some of the courts' 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 Hagadorn 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 you have a question?
Did Justice Hagadorn make the right decision in this?
You've got to tell me which case you're referring to.
The 200,000 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.
That's part of what's so important about this race.
Is the decision by four 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 Shimmel, in fact, said 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.
I'll say the same thing that I said in front of those crowds and I'll set 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 what they've... 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 outcome of an election.
We have just a few minutes left, Sharon.
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 they're important, if I may.
The important thing for voters to know is that the cases that come before the Supreme Court
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 in voting these elections.
Judge Himmel, 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 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 both said you will act independently, which at times could anger your supporters.
Judge Himmel, 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, you have an example?
Sure.
I have one.
So I had a lawsuit before me in the Circuit Court in which the current Attorney General was trying
to get laws thrown out that were enacted in the lame duck period after Brett Shima 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 Shima, what U.S. Supreme Court justice current or former would you like to have dinner with?
I, Antonin Scalia would, as I've heard, as a fascinating dinner campaign.
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 Anne Walsh Bradley, who's
seat I'm running for.
And Judge Shima?
Oh my goodness.
We're all human beings.
We all have good character traits, and we all have weaknesses.
I don't, I'm not a, I don't hear a worship, anything like that.
It is now time for our closing statements.
We flip the coin to determine the order we will begin with Judge Crawford.
Right.
Well, thank you.
I want to 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 want to have a common sense judge, someone who's going to be fair, independent,
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 Schimmel, 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 Schimmel.
Well, thank 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 of this court.
That's my sound 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 the front.
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-Him.
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-Him say there's been an increase in patients looking for
long-acting reversible contraception.
At 10, the doctors are seeing now and why it's happening.
And we're tracking that next thread of potentially strong to severe storms in our forecast.
At Muir Rufing 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 Mueller 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 WIAA station.
One chance to win it all.
Watch our stream live March 13th.