View source for Wisconsin Supreme Court

{{short description|Highest court in the U.S. state of Wisconsin}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2020}}
{{Infobox high court
| court_name = Wisconsin Supreme Court
| image = Seal of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.svg
| imagesize = 150px
| caption = Seal
| established = 1848
| jurisdiction = {{flagicon|Wisconsin}} [[Wisconsin]]
| location = [[Wisconsin State Capitol]], [[Madison, Wisconsin|Madison]]
| coordinates = 
| type = Non-partisan statewide election
| authority = [[Constitution of Wisconsin|Wis. Const.]], Art VII § 4
| appealsto = [[Supreme Court of the United States]]
| appealsfrom = {{ubl|[[Wisconsin Court of Appeals]]|[[Wisconsin circuit courts]]}}
| terms = Ten years, no term limits
| positions = 7
| website = [https://www.wicourts.gov/ Wisconsin Court System]
| chiefjudgetitle = Chief Justice
| chiefjudgename = [[Jill Karofsky]]
| termstart = July 1, 2025
| termend = April 30, 2027<ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Ann Walsh Bradley elected as chief justice |url=https://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=1693 |website=Wisconsin Court System |date=April 3, 2025}}</ref>
}}
The '''Wisconsin Supreme Court''' is the [[Supreme court|highest and final court of appeals]] in the state judicial system of the [[U.S. state]] of [[Wisconsin]]. In addition to hearing appeals of lower Wisconsin court decisions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also has the option to take [[original jurisdiction]] of cases, and serves as a regulator and administrator of judicial conduct and the practice of law in Wisconsin.<ref>''See'' Wis. Const. Art. VII § 4 cl. 3, ''available at'' http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf.</ref>

Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are elected. The two most recent elections ([[2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election|2023]] and [[2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election|2025]]) received national attention. They both broke records for the most expensive judicial elections in U.S. history.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-03-30 |title=WisPolitics review: Spending in Supreme Court race surpasses $45 million |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/wispolitics-review-spending-in-supreme-court-race-nears-45-million/ |access-date=2025-04-02 |website=WisPolitics |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-01 |title=Crawford beats Schimel in nation’s most expensive court race |url=https://www.wispolitics.com/2025/250401supremecourt/ |access-date=2025-04-02 |website=WisPolitics |language=en}}</ref>

==Location==
[[File:Wisconsin Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|right|Interior of the Supreme Court room]]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court normally sits in its main hearing room in the East Wing of the [[Wisconsin State Capitol]] building in [[Madison, Wisconsin]]. Since 1993, the court has also traveled, once or twice a year, to another part of the state to hear several cases as part of its "Justice on Wheels" program. The purpose of this program is to give the people of Wisconsin a better opportunity to understand the operations of the state supreme court and the court system.<ref>[https://www.wicourts.gov/courts/resources/wheels.htm Justice on Wheels]. Wisconsin Court System. Accessed February 20, 2018.</ref>

==Justices==
The [[court]] is composed of seven [[justices]] who are elected in statewide, non-partisan elections. Each justice is elected for a ten-year term. Importantly, only one justice may be elected in any year. This avoids the sudden shifts in jurisprudence commonly seen in other state supreme courts, where the court composition can be radically shifted if two or three justices are simultaneously targeted for an electoral challenge based on their views on controversial issues. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the [[Governor of Wisconsin|governor]] has the power to appoint an individual to the vacancy, but that justice must then stand for election in the first year in which no other justice's term expires.

After passage of a state constitutional amendment on April 7, 2015, the [[chief justice]] of the court is elected for a term of 2 years by the vote of a majority of the justices then serving on the court, although the justice so elected may decline the appointment. Prior to that amendment, the justice with the [[Seniority#In politics|longest continuous service on the court]] served as the chief justice.

While the court is officially nonpartisan, its members are generally regarded as having consistent ideological positions. Justices Dallet, Karofsky, Protasiewicz, and Ann Walsh Bradley are frequently described as liberals, while Justices Ziegler, Hagedorn, and Rebecca Bradley are described as conservatives. Liberal justices and candidates are endorsed and electorally supported by the [[Wisconsin Democratic Party|Democratic Party]] and related organizations, and conservatives have an equivalent relationship with the [[Wisconsin Republican Party|Republican Party]]. Justice Hagedorn was considered the court's "swing justice" prior to Justice Protasiewicz's investiture; while his campaign was supported by Republican organizations and he previously served as chief legal counsel to Republican governor [[Scott Walker (politician)|Scott Walker]], he has sided with the so-called liberal justices in several noteworthy cases.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Johnson |first=Shawn |date=2022-06-07 |title=Wisconsin Supreme Court issuing record number of 4-3 rulings |url=https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-issuing-record-number-4-3-rulings |access-date=2022-11-10 |website=Wisconsin Public Radio |language=en}}</ref>

===Current justices===
{{See also|List of justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Justice
!Born
!Joined
!Term ends{{efn|Terms end on July 31.}}
!Law school
|-
|{{sortname|Jill|Karofsky}}, ''Chief Justice''
|{{Birth date and age|1966|7|15}}
|{{dts|2020|08|01}}{{efn|Elected Chief Justice on April 3, 2025, by peer vote and took office on July 1, 2025.}}
|2030
|[[University of Wisconsin Law School|Wisconsin]]
|-
|{{sortname|Ann Walsh|Bradley}}
|{{birth date and age|1950|7|05}}
|{{dts|1995|08|01}}
|2025
|[[University of Wisconsin Law School|Wisconsin]]
|-
|{{sortname|Annette|Ziegler}}
|{{birth date and age|1964|3|6}}
|{{dts|2007|08|01}}
|2027
|[[Marquette University Law School|Marquette]]
|-
|{{sortname|Rebecca|Bradley}}
|{{Birth date and age|1971|8|2}}
|{{dts|2015|10|12}}{{efn|Originally appointed by Gov. [[Scott Walker (politician)|Scott Walker]] (R) after the death of Justice [[N. Patrick Crooks]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Halsted |first1=Gilman |last2=Wilson |first2=John K. |title=Gov. Walker Appoints Bradley To State Supreme Court |url=https://www.wpr.org/justice/gov-walker-appoints-bradley-state-supreme-court |access-date=April 27, 2024 |work=[[Wisconsin Public Radio]] |date=October 9, 2015}}</ref> Elected to a full term on April 1, 2016.}} 
|2026
|[[University of Wisconsin Law School|Wisconsin]]
|-
|{{sortname|Rebecca|Dallet}}
|{{Birth date and age|1969|7|15}}
|{{dts|2018|08|01}}
|2028
|[[Case Western Reserve University School of Law|Case Western Reserve]]
|-
|{{sortname|Brian|Hagedorn}}
|{{Birth date and age|1978|1|21}}
|{{dts|2019|08|01}}
|2029
|[[Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law|Northwestern]]
|-
|{{sortname|Janet|Protasiewicz}}
|{{birth date and age|1962|12|3}}
|{{dts|2023|08|01}}
|2033
|[[Marquette University Law School|Marquette]]
|-
|}
{{notelist}}

===Current justice-elect===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Justice
!Replacing
!Born
!Joining
!Term ends{{efn|Terms end on July 31.}}
!Law school
|-
|[[Susan M. Crawford]]
|[[Ann Walsh Bradley]]
|March 1, 1965 (age 60) 
|August 1, 2025<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-02 |title=Susan Crawford wins Wisconsin Supreme Court race, defying Elon Musk |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-rcna198353 |access-date=2025-04-02 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref>
|2035
|[[University of Iowa College of Law|Iowa]]
|}

==Chief justice selection==
The members of the court choose their chief justice every two years by majority vote. This method of choosing the chief justice is a recent change, from a 2015 constitutional amendment. The change was controversial at the time, even leading to a federal lawsuit by the outgoing chief justice, [[Shirley Abrahamson]], after the loss of her role to [[Patience Roggensack]].<ref>{{cite news|url= https://isthmus.com/news/news/wisconsin-supreme-court-bradley-retains-seat-but-referendum-passes/  |title= A mixed outcome for the Wisconsin Supreme Court |date= April 8, 2015 |first= Allison |last= Geyer |newspaper= [[Isthmus (newspaper)|Isthmus]] |access-date= September 21, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url= https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chief-justice-shirley-abrahamson-sues-over-amendment-approved-by-voters/article_e448ebbb-f376-5a40-a2f0-ac0515b31ba3.html  |title= Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson sues over amendment approved by voters |date= April 9, 2015 |first= Scott |last= Bauer |newspaper= [[Wisconsin State Journal]] |access-date= September 21, 2023 }}</ref>

Prior to 2015, the chief justice was simply the longest continually-serving member of the court. This was the method for most of the court's history, since 1889. Prior to 1889, the court's chief justice was a separate seat on the court, elected by the public.<ref name="court-history">{{cite web|url= https://www.wicourts.gov/courts/history/index.htm  |title= History of the courts |website= Wisconsin Court System |access-date= April 7, 2023 }}</ref>

==Controversies==

===Recusal===
In 2009, the [[United States Supreme Court]] decided ''[[Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.]]'', holding 5–4 that a campaign expenditure of over $3 million by a corporate litigant to influence the election of a judge in West Virginia to the court that would hear its case, although legal, was an "extreme fact" that created a "probability of bias", thus requiring the judge to be [[recusal|recused]] from hearing the case.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf ''Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.'', 556 U.S. 868 (2009).]</ref> Wisconsin had adopted a limit of $1,000 for campaign contributions to judges, but it was unclear when mandatory recusal was required.<ref name="lwv" />  The [[League of Women Voters]] petitioned the Court to require a judge to recuse himself or herself from a proceeding if the judge had received any campaign contributions from a party or entity involved in it.<ref name="lwv" />  Instead, during its 2009–2010 term and by a 4–3 vote, the Court adopted a rule that recusal is not required based solely on any endorsement or receipt of a lawful campaign contribution from a party or entity involved in the proceeding, and that a judge does not need to seek recusal where it would be based solely on a party in the case sponsoring an independent expenditure or issue advocacy communication in favor of the judge. Voting in favor of the new rule were Prosser, Gableman, Roggensack, and Ziegler. Voting against were Abrahamson, Crooks, and A. Bradley. In the opinion of Justice Roggensack, "when a judge is disqualified from participation, the votes of all who voted to elect that judge are cancelled for all issues presented by that case. Accordingly, recusal rules . . . must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest." In dissenting, Justice A. Bradley called the decision "a dramatic change to our judicial code of ethics" and took issue with the majority's decision to adopt a rule "proposed by special interest groups."<ref name="lwv">[http://www.wisciviljusticecouncil.org/key-issues/legislative-report-special-legislative-committee-studies-judicial-discipline-and-recusal wisciviljusticecouncil.org]; accessed January 28, 2014.</ref>

The issue of recusal became a major controversy again after the 2023 judicial election, but with the ideological positions reversed. Conservatives justice Rebecca Bradley and chief justice Annette Ziegler abandoned their previous position, which favored narrow recusal rules, and instead urged a broad recusal standard after Wisconsin elected a liberal majority to the Court in 2023.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://captimes.com/news/government/wisconsin-supreme-court-justice-changes-tune-on-recusals-she-opposed/article_fc5850ba-5650-5c6d-813c-df0d7bbdefbd.html |title=  Wisconsin Supreme Court justice changes tune on recusals she opposed  |first= Peter |last= Cameron |date= September 2, 2023 |newspaper= [[The Capital Times]] |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref> Their demand was targeted at the newest justice, [[Janet Protasiewicz]], and was paired with a threat from the Republican Assembly speaker to begin an impeachment. At issue was the allegation that Protasiewicz had pre-judged pending [[Redistricting in Wisconsin|redistricting]] cases, because she had remarked during the campaign that Wisconsin's legislative maps were "rigged".  Several complaints were also filed against Protasiewicz with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, but the commission quickly dismissed those complaints.<ref>{{Cite news|url= https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/complaints-campaign-comments-wisconsin-supreme-court-justice-dismissed-102941446 |title= Complaints over campaign comments by Wisconsin Supreme Court justice are dismissed |date= September 5, 2023 |first= Scott |last= Bauer |work= [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref>

=== Confrontation ===
On June 13, 2011, a confrontation between Justices [[David Prosser, Jr.]] and [[Ann Walsh Bradley]] occurred in Bradley's chambers. Prosser, Bradley, and the other justices (except [[N. Patrick Crooks]]) were discussing the following day's decision that would overturn a ruling blocking the Wisconsin [[collective bargaining]] law. Witnesses stated that the incident happened after Prosser had stated that he'd lost all confidence in the leadership of Chief Justice [[Shirley Abrahamson]].<ref name="mjs" /> Bradley later accused Prosser of putting her in a chokehold.<ref name="mjs">{{cite news|url=http://archive.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124546064.html |author=Crocker Stevenson, Cary Spivak, and Patrick Marley |title=Justices' feud gets physical |newspaper=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |date=June 25, 2011 |access-date=November 19, 2016}}</ref> Prosser denied the allegations and asked for "a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it".<ref name="mjs" /> The incident was investigated by the Dane County Sheriff's Office. Witnesses to the incident disagreed about what had happened<ref name="mjs" /> and neither Prosser nor Bradley was charged by a special prosecutor.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/128389748.html Neither Prosser nor Bradley charged], ''Milwaukee Journal Sentinel''. Accessed January 28, 2014.</ref> Ethics charges brought against Prosser based on Bradley's allegations were never adjudicated due to the lack of a quorum on the Court after recusals.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/news/165750116.html |author=Bruce Vielmetti |title=Gableman joins recusals in Prosser discipline case; court now short of quorum |publisher=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |date=10 August 2012 |access-date=19 November 2016}}</ref>

===2020 primary election amid COVID-19 pandemic===
In April 2020, amid the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled (virtually, due to the pandemic) that [[Governor of Wisconsin|Governor]] [[Tony Evers]] could not delay the [[2020 Wisconsin Democratic primary|state's 2020 primary elections]], despite public fears of [[COVID-19]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wisn.com/article/wisconsin-election-moves-ahead-awaits-supreme-court/32018135#|title=Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Evers cannot postpone election|date=April 6, 2020}}</ref>

===Stay at home order===
In May 2020, in response to a lawsuit brought by the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]]-led [[Wisconsin Legislature|state legislature]], the Court ruled 4–3 to strike down an order issued by Secretary-designate of the Department of Health Services Andrea Palm, which extended the stay-at-home order previously issued by Governor Tony Evers.<ref>{{cite web |title=Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm, 2020 WI 42. |url=https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=260868}}</ref> The portion of the order that kept all K-12 schools closed for the remainder of the school year remained in effect.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vetterkind |first1=Riley |title=Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order; Dane County institutes local order |url=https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-down-stay-at-home-order-dane-county-institutes-local-order/article_fd2be344-666f-5437-8955-f5cd9ae17a50.html |website=Wisconsin State Journal |access-date=14 May 2020}}</ref> The deciding vote to strike down the Secretary-designate's order was by [[Daniel Kelly (Wisconsin judge)|Daniel Kelly]], who had recently lost his bid for re-election to [[Jill Karofsky]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Marley |first1=Patrick |title=Liberal Jill Karofsky wins Wisconsin Supreme Court election, defeating conservative justice Daniel Kelly |url=https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/13/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-daniel-kelly-vs-jill-karofsky-conservative-liberal/2983933001/ |website=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |access-date=14 May 2020}}</ref>

===Redistricting===
{{Main|Redistricting in Wisconsin}}
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has played an increasingly important role in the redistricting process in Wisconsin. The Court was first involved in redistricting in the 1890s, when they struck down two versions of state legislative maps and set standards for equal representation and district boundaries which the Legislature largely adhered to until the guidance was superseded by federal guidance in the 20th century.<ref>{{cite court| url= https://cite.case.law/wis/83/90/ |litigants= State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham |court= Wisconsin Supreme Court |date= September 27, 1892 |vol=83 |reporter= Wis. |opinion= 90 |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref> The Court next played an important role in the 1950s redistricting, when the Legislature passed two redistricting plans in consecutive sessions (1951 & 1953). At that time, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Legislature to enact two redistricting plans for the same census.<ref>{{cite court|url= https://cite.case.law/wis/264/644/  |litigants= State ex rel. Thomson v. Zimmerman |court= Wisconsin Supreme Court |date= October 6, 1953 |vol= 264 |reporter= Wis. |opinion= 644 |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref> The following decade, the Court took the extraordinary step of drawing the map themselves, in 1964, after the Governor and Legislature had failed to come to an agreement.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.newspapers.com/clip/70387597/reaction-to-court-remap/ |title= High Court Remap Gives 25 Seats to Milwaukee County |newspaper= [[Wisconsin State Journal]] |date= May 15, 1964 |first= William |last= Brissee |page= 2 |access-date= February 13, 2021 |via=[[Newspapers.com]] }}</ref>

After the federal [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] and related United&nbsp;States Supreme&nbsp;Court cases, the Wisconsin Supreme Court backed off from redistricting issues and deferred to federal courts. That changed after the United States Supreme Court case of ''[[Gill v. Whitford]]'', in 2018, which significantly reduced federal jurisdiction of gerrymandering cases. In 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took on redistricting again. But the state court lacked many of the laws, procedures, and precedents of the federal courts which had settled redistricting cases for the previous four decades. In their absence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struggled with the case, which was further exacerbated by a significant partisan split between the court's three conservatives and three liberals.<ref>{{cite press release|url= https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/fair-elections-project-statement-on-wi-supreme-court-decision-and-2021-redistricting |title= Fair Elections Project: Statement on WI Supreme Court decision and 2021 redistricting |work= Fair Elections Project |via= [[Wispolitics.com]] |date= March 3, 2022 |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref>

Going into the 2022 case, Wisconsin's legislative map had among the worst partisan biases in the country.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/  |title= New election data highlights the ongoing impact of 2011 GOP redistricting in Wisconsin |newspaper= [[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]] |first= Craig |last= Gilbert |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url= https://isthmus.com/news/news/dems-sweep-statewide-offices-in-midterms-but-remain-underrepresented-in-assembly/  |title= No contest |newspaper= [[Isthmus (newspaper)|Isthmus]] |date= November 15, 2018 |first=Dylan |last= Brogan|access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref> At the outset of the case, the court's three conservatives, along with the swing vote Hagedorn, established a novel legal concept that all parties should pursue the "least changes" to the existing map necessary to bring it into compliance with the applicable laws.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.wpr.org/win-republicans-wisconsin-supreme-court-promises-least-changes-approach-redistricting |title= In win for Republicans, Wisconsin Supreme Court promises 'least changes' approach to redistricting |work= [[Wisconsin Public Radio]] |date= November 30, 2021 |first= Shawn |last= Johnson |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref> The Republican legislature and the Democratic governor each submitted map proposals. The court quickly found that Evers' proposal actually best adhered to the court's "least changes" guidance, nevertheless, the three conservatives who had established that guidance voted against his plan. The plan was adopted by the court's three liberals, {{nowrap|A. Bradley}}, Dallet, and Karofsky, with the swing vote of Hagedorn.<ref>{{Cite news|url= https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/03/wisconsin-supreme-courts-picks-evers-maps-redistricting-fight/9363175002/ |title= Wisconsin Supreme Court picks Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' maps in redistricting fight |newspaper= [[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]] |date= March 3, 2022 |first= Patrick |last= Marley |access-date= March 3, 2022 }}</ref>

Wisconsin's Republican legislature, however, appealed the case to the United&nbsp;States Supreme&nbsp;Court, which threw out the Wisconsin decision in a [[shadow docket]] opinion.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/supreme-court-wisconsin-redistricting.html |title= Supreme Court Sides With Republicans in Case on Wisconsin Redistricting |newspaper= [[The New York Times]] |date= March 23, 2022 |first= Adam |last= Liptak |access-date= September 6, 2023 }}</ref> The U.S. Supreme&nbsp;Court stated that the ad hoc process adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme&nbsp;Court had failed to give proper consideration to questions of racial gerrymandering under the federal Voting Rights Act. Without further deliberation, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's action, Hagedorn switched his vote to the Republican plan, although it suffered from an identical process defect. The Republican legislative map was then utilized for the 2022 elections.<ref>{{cite news |last=Johnson |first=Shawn |date=April 15, 2022 |title=Wisconsin Supreme Court chooses maps drawn by Republicans in new redistricting decision |work=[[Wisconsin Public Radio]] |url=https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-chooses-maps-drawn-republicans-new-redistricting-decision |access-date= September 6, 2023}}</ref>

On December 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in ''[[Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission]]'', holding that Wisconsin's state legislative districts violated the [[Constitution of Wisconsin]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Johnson |first=Shawn |date=2023-12-22 |title=Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns Republican-drawn legislative maps |url=https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-overturns-republican-drawn-legislative-maps |access-date=2023-12-23 |website=Wisconsin Public Radio |language=en}}</ref> Justice [[Jill Karofsky]], writing for an ideologically split 4–3 majority enjoined the [[Wisconsin Elections Commission]] from using the maps for the [[2024 Wisconsin elections]].<ref>{{Cite web |agency=Associated Press |date=2023-12-22 |title=Wisconsin Supreme Court orders new state legislative maps |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/22/wisconsin-supreme-court-legislative-maps-00133135 |access-date=2023-12-23 |website=POLITICO |language=en}}</ref>

==Elections==
{{Wisconsin Supreme Court elections|state=expanded}}

===Election laws===
Justices are elected in nonpartisan elections for ten-year terms. Only one justice may be elected in any year. Justices are elected in the spring election, on the first Tuesday in April. If there are more than two candidates, a spring primary is held on the third Tuesday in February.

The [[Wisconsin Constitution]], as initially ratified in 1848, prohibited judicial elections from coinciding with general elections for state or county officers (such as gubernatorial elections), or within thirty days of any such election.<ref name="portraits"/> The current wording of this clause in the constitution prohibits judicial elections from coinciding with any partisan general elections for such offices.<ref>Wisconsin Constitution ART. VII, §6, SECTION 9.</ref> In 1858, a state law was enacted scheduling judicial elections to be held the first Tuesday of April.<ref name="portraits"/> A 1949 law change mandated that winners of judicial elections must secure a [[majority]] of the vote. Prior to this, justice candidates could win election with a mere [[Plurality voting|plurality]] of the vote. This law change was implemented in time for the [[1949 Wisconsin Supreme Court election|1949 Supreme Court election]].<ref name="portraits"/> [[1953 Wisconsin elections|In April 1953]], Wisconsin voters approved a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment so that all elections to the supreme court (even early elections held following vacancies) are for full ten-year terms. This means that rather than holding special elections for the remainder of an uncompleted term (as had been done previously), vacancies instead now can result in the date of the next regular election being advanced to an earlier year (also impacting the tentative scheduling of future elections beyond that).<ref name="portraits">{{cite web |title=Portraits of Justice |url=https://www.wicourts.gov/courts/supreme/docs/portraitsofjustice.pdf |website=Wisconsin Courts |publisher=Wisconsin Historical Society Press |access-date=27 March 2025 |pages=IX, X, and 59 |date=2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Wisconsin Question 2, Judicial Terms of Office Amendment (April 1953) |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Judicial_Terms_of_Office_Amendment_(April_1953) |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=27 March 2025 |language=en}}</ref> [[1977 Wisconsin elections|In April 1977]] voters adopted a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment unifying the state's court system, which included the stipulation that no more than one seat on the state supreme court may be up for election within the same year.<ref>{{cite web |title=Wisconsin Question 2, Unified Court System Amendment (April 1977) |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Unified_Court_System_Amendment_(April_1977) |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=27 March 2025 |language=en}}</ref> Consequentially, vacancies can only result in the year of the next election being shifted if there is a more immediate year without a scheduled contest.

An exception to the holding of supreme court elections on the first Tuesday in April took place [[1996 Wisconsin Supreme Court election|in 1996]]. That year, the election was shifted to March 19 after Governor [[Tommy Thompson]] signed a bill into law that rescheduled both the 1996 spring general election and [[1996 United States presidential election in Wisconsin|the state's presidential primaries]] in order to have the presidential primaries coincide with the [[1996 United States presidential election in Illinois|Illinois]], [[1996 United States presidential election in Michigan|Michigan]], and [[1996 United States presidential election in Ohio|Ohio]] primaries already scheduled for March 19. This was done in hopes that Wisconsin could join those fellow Midwest states in forming a prominent "[[Big Ten]] primary" scheduled close after [[Super Tuesday]] in the major party primary calendars.<ref>{{cite web |title=Big Ten Primary |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/273715764 |via=Newspapers.com |url-access=subscription |publisher=Wausau Daily Herald |access-date=5 April 2025 |language=en |date=April 6, 1995}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Primary Election Date To Change |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/404122154 |via=Newspapers.com |url-access=subscription |publisher=Wisconsin State Journal |access-date=5 April 2025 |language=en |date=May 17, 1995}}</ref> This was not subsequently repeated.

=== Campaign spending ===
Although these elections are supposed to be nonpartisan, parties and individual donors have begun providing significant contributions to their preferred candidates, especially recently. Elections have become increasingly expensive. Spending has grown from $4.3 million in 2016 <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/spending-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-totals-more-43-million |title=Spending in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Totals More Than $4.3 Million |publisher=Brennan Center for Justice |date=April 6, 2016|access-date=December 20, 2017}}</ref> to $45 million in 2023<ref>{{Cite web |title=Liberal Janet Protasiewicz defeats conservative Dan Kelly in closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court race |url=https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/04/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-2023-janet-protasiewicz-daniel-kelly/70052928007/ |access-date=2023-04-06 |website=Journal Sentinel |language=en-US}}</ref> and nearly $100 million in 2025.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.wisn.com/article/crawford-schimel-clash-over-musk-soros-money-in-59-million-court-race/64176457 |title= Crawford, Schimel clash over Musk, Soros money in $59 million court race |date= March 13, 2025 |first= Matt |last= Smith |newspaper= [[WISN-TV]] |accessdate= March 15, 2025 }}</ref>

===2020===
{{Main|2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court election}}

On April 7, 2020, incumbent conservative justice [[Daniel Kelly (Wisconsin judge)|Daniel Kelly]] lost re-election to liberal Dane County circuit judge [[Jill Karofsky]]. The election was held during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin|coronavirus pandemic]], forcing many voters to choose between voting by mail, waiting in long lines for hours, or not participating at all.<ref>[https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/13/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-daniel-kelly-vs-jill-karofsky-conservative-liberal/2983933001/ Liberal Jill Karofsky wins Wisconsin Supreme Court election, defeating conservative justice Daniel Kelly] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 13 Apr 2020</ref> Kelly was the first incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to lose re-election since 2008, and only the second since 1967.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.wpr.org/health/jill-karofsky-wins-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-defeating-conservative-incumbent |title= Jill Karofsky Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, Defeating Conservative Incumbent |first= Shawn |last= Johnson |date= April 13, 2020 |work= [[Wisconsin Public Radio]] |access-date= January 30, 2025 }}</ref>

=== 2023 ===
{{Main|2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election}}

Conservative Justice [[Patience D. Roggensack|Patience Roggensack]] did not seek re-election in 2023. Liberal Milwaukee County circuit judge [[Janet Protasiewicz]] defeated conservative former Supreme Court justice [[Daniel Kelly (Wisconsin judge)|Daniel Kelly]] at the April 4, 2023, general election.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Liberal Janet Protasiewicz declared winner over conservative Dan Kelly in closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court race |language=en-US |url=https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/04/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-results-2023-janet-protasiewicz-daniel-kelly/70052928007/ |access-date=2023-04-05}}</ref> Circuit judges [[Jennifer Dorow]] and Everett Mitchell also ran, but they were eliminated in the February 21 primary.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edelman |first=Adam |date=February 21, 2023 |title=Trump ally with ties to 'fake elector' scheme advances in Wisconsin Supreme Court race |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/daniel-kelly-wisconsin-supreme-court-trump-fake-electors-rcna71276 |access-date=2023-02-22 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Epstein |first=Reid J. |date=2023-02-22 |title=Strong Democratic Showing in Wisconsin Court Race Sets Up a Frenzied Finish |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/us/politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-race.html |access-date=2023-02-22 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The race attracted widespread media attention, as it would determine the ideological balance of the court for at least the next two years. Protasiewicz's victory could determine how the court rules on future cases involving [[Abortion in Wisconsin|abortion]], voting rights, and labor rights,<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Montellaro |first1=Zach |last2=Messerly |first2=Megan |date=January 16, 2023 |title=The most important election nobody's ever heard of |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/16/wisconsin-state-supreme-court-race-abortion-00077958 |access-date=February 23, 2023 |website=Politico}}</ref> while [[Redistricting in Wisconsin|redistricting]] was decided on in ''[[Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission]]''.

=== 2025 ===
{{main|2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election}}
Liberal justice [[Ann Walsh Bradley]] did not seek reelection in 2025.<ref>{{Cite news |url= https://www.wispolitics.com/2024/justice-ann-walsh-bradley-wont-seek-reelection-in-25-when-liberal-majority-will-be-on-the-line/ |title=Justice Ann Walsh Bradley won't seek reelection in '25, when liberal majority will be on the line|date= April 11, 2024  |work= [[WisPolitics.com]] |access-date=April 11, 2024 }}</ref> Circuit judges [[Susan M. Crawford]] and [[Brad Schimel]] competed in the April&nbsp;1 general election, in a race that which again would determine the ideological balance of the court.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wagtendonk |first=Anya van |date=2025-04-01 |title=Trump and Musk's backing wasn't enough to flip Wisconsin Supreme Court |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/04/01/nx-s1-5345862/wisconsin-supreme-court-crawford-schimel-election-results |access-date=2025-04-02 |work=NPR |language=en}}</ref> Crawford won with 55 percent to Schimel's 45 percent of the vote.<ref>{{cite news |last=Marley |first=Patrick |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/01/wisconsin-supreme-court-race/ |title=Liberal wins Wisconsin Supreme Court race in blow to Trump |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date=April 2, 2025 |access-date=April 2, 2025}}</ref>

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==See also==
* [[Wisconsin Court of Appeals]]
* [[Wisconsin Circuit Court]]
* [[State supreme court]]

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* Adelman, Lynn. ''[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3086693_code1249821.pdf?abstractid=3086693&mirid=1&type=2 How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin]'', 66 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1 (2017).
* Ranney, Joseph A. ''Wisconsin and the Shaping of American Law.'' Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2017.

==External links==
* [http://www.wicourts.gov Wisconsin Supreme Court website]
* {{citation |url=https://cite.case.law |title= Wisconsin |work= Caselaw Access Project |publisher= Harvard Law School |oclc=1078785565 |quote= Court decisions freely available to the public online, in a consistent format, digitized from the collection of the [[Harvard Law Library]] }}

{{coord|43.074635|-89.384562|region:US_type:landmark|display=title}}

{{US Judiciaries}}
{{authority control}}

[[Category:Wisconsin Supreme Court| ]]
[[Category:1848 establishments in Wisconsin]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1848]]