Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford is under scrutiny for her refusal to commit to recusing herself from cases that may present conflicts of interest if she wins the upcoming election. Crawford, who claims she has “never taken a position on any case or any issue before the Supreme Court,” faces criticism for not pledging to step aside in cases involving significant campaign donors and contentious issues.
During a debate with her opponent Brad Schimel, Crawford was questioned about her stance on recusal concerning donations from the Democratic Party. Unlike Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who promised to recuse herself in similar situations, Crawford did not make such a commitment. This comes amid concerns about potential bias due to past legal representations and public statements.
Crawford’s accusations against Schimel regarding Elon Musk and Tesla have also raised eyebrows. She accused Schimel of accepting support from Musk through a super PAC, although Musk is not directly donating to Schimel’s campaign. The issue stems from an ongoing lawsuit involving Tesla’s attempt to overturn a state decision affecting car dealership ownership laws.
Crawford’s involvement in Act 10 litigation has been another point of contention. Having represented Madison teachers against the law in circuit court, she now faces calls for recusal should the matter reach the Supreme Court again. Her previous victories were overturned by the conservative court, which upheld Act 10 as constitutional.
The candidate’s past opposition to Wisconsin’s voter ID law adds another layer of complexity. In 2015, she challenged the law on behalf of the League of Women Voters, describing it as “draconian.” Despite moderating her language during recent debates, concerns persist about how she might rule on future challenges to voter ID requirements.
Abortion remains a particularly sensitive topic for Crawford. Endorsed by pro-abortion groups like EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, her past representation of Planned Parenthood suggests potential biases in related cases. Her views on abortion regulations and Roe v. Wade further complicate perceptions of impartiality.
Crawford’s reluctance to pledge recusal in these areas contrasts with other justices’ practices and raises questions about her ability to rule impartially if elected.
Information from this article can be found here.
