By Robert Tabern | Editor, with reports from the Associated Press
WISCONSIN - Wisconsin voters will head to the polls next Tuesday, April 1, to cast ballots in the state Supreme Court election. Republican-backed Brad Schimel and Democratic-supported Susan Crawford are running in the election for an open seat on a court that faces cases on abortion, public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries. Who controls the court also could factor into how it might rule on any future voting challenge in the perennial presidential battleground state—raising the stakes for national Republicans and Democrats.
The race has become a proxy for the nation’s political battles while attracting a massive amount of spending, led by groups affiliated with Elon Musk and other billionaires. Donald Trump, Jr. told Republicans at a rally that a win in Wisconsin’s high-stakes Supreme Court race is imperative to protect his father’s agenda and maintain GOP momentum ahead of the 2026 midterms and the next presidential election. The race is the most expensive court race on record, with spending at $59 million.
Another race voters will decide on next week is drawing slightly less attention. Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly and challenger Brittany Kinser will face off. The winner will be elected to a four-year term overseeing the Department of Public Instruction. Underly, a longtime public educator currently in her first term, is backed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, the American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. Kinser, a former educator and the former head of the school choice advocacy group City Forward Collective, is backed by the Republican Party of Wisconsin and City Forward’s political arm, which spent thousands of dollars on pro-Kinser phone calls before the primary.
Voters will also see a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, asking whether to add a voter ID requirement to the state constitution. The proposed amendment would not change the current voter ID requirements that are outlined in state law. Instead, if approved by voters, the amendment would make it more difficult for a court or future legislature to walk back the existing requirements.
The debate over whether to enshrine a voter ID requirement in the state constitution has largely mirrored the debate over whether such a requirement should exist in the first place. Proponents argue that voter ID requirements improve election security and increase public confidence in elections. Opponents meanwhile point out that, even where photo ID is not required, verifiable incidents of voter fraud are extremely low, and other safeguards exist to ensure electoral integrity.
