Let’s hope Wisconsin voters stand up for democracy in their Supreme court race

New York Post - Mar 31st, 2025

In Wisconsin, a pivotal Supreme Court race could have significant repercussions for the state's political landscape and beyond. If Democratic candidate Judge Susan Crawford triumphs over Republican ex-Attorney General Brad Schimel, the court's liberal majority could order a redistricting that might secure two additional congressional seats for Democrats. This change could bolster the Democratic push to regain the House in 2026 and counter President Donald Trump's objectives. Crawford's supporters see her potential victory as a signal of national opposition to Trump's agenda and the influence of his backers, such as Elon Musk, who has financially supported Schimel. The race has attracted over $80 million in campaign funding, highlighting the high stakes involved.

This election underscores ongoing tensions between democratic processes and judicial interventions. Democrats have historically turned to courts to enact changes when legislative routes prove challenging, as seen in their efforts to overturn Wisconsin's Act 10, which limits collective bargaining for public employees. This tactic reflects broader strategies, such as calls to pack the Supreme Court during Joe Biden's presidency and similar judicial maneuvers in New York. The outcome in Wisconsin could set a precedent influencing other states' approaches to union regulations. Amidst this, Wisconsinites face relentless campaign advertising, emphasizing the state's role as a political battleground.

Donald Trump Elon Musk Wisconsin Supreme Court George Soros Gerrymandering Susan Crawford Brad Schimel Redistricting Act 10 Union Laws

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

3.6

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a timely and engaging topic with significant public interest, focusing on the implications of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. However, it suffers from a lack of balance and source quality, relying heavily on opinionated language and speculative claims without sufficient evidence or attribution. While the clarity and readability are strengths, the piece's bias and lack of transparency detract from its overall accuracy and credibility. The article is likely to provoke controversy and spark discussions, but its impact may be limited by its failure to provide a well-rounded, evidence-based analysis of the issues at stake.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims about the potential impact of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, particularly focusing on the implications for democracy, redistricting, and specific laws like Act 10. While the names of the candidates and their affiliations are accurate, the assertion that a Democratic win would lead to immediate and significant changes such as gerrymandering and overturning Act 10 requires further verification. The article also claims that this could lead to two additional congressional seats for Democrats, but this is speculative and lacks supporting data. The mention of donations from Elon Musk and George Soros is factual but their influence on the election outcome is not substantiated with evidence.

Balance

The article exhibits a clear bias towards a conservative perspective, framing the Democratic candidate's potential actions as threats to democracy. It emphasizes negative outcomes associated with a liberal court majority without equally considering the potential benefits or the motivations behind the Democratic strategy. The piece lacks a balanced view by not including perspectives from Democratic supporters or neutral experts, which could provide a more rounded understanding of the stakes involved in the election.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and direct style, making it relatively easy to follow. However, the tone is highly opinionated, which may detract from the objective presentation of facts. The structure is logical, with a clear progression of arguments, but the lack of neutrality in language can affect comprehension by leading readers towards a specific viewpoint without presenting counterarguments.

Source quality

The article does not cite any sources or provide direct quotes from experts, candidates, or official documents. It relies heavily on opinionated language and assumptions rather than evidence-based reporting. The lack of attributed sources diminishes the credibility of the claims made and raises questions about the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

There is minimal transparency regarding the sources of information and the methodology used to arrive at the conclusions presented in the article. The piece does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or the author's background, which would help readers assess the impartiality of the analysis. Additionally, there is no explanation of how the claims about redistricting and Act 10 were derived, leaving readers without a clear basis for the assertions made.