In anticipation of the April 1, 2025 election, the ACLU of Wisconsin sent a questionnaire to the two candidates running for Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding their background, access to justice, and civil rights and liberties. Candidate responses are listed below.
The ACLU of Wisconsin does not endorse or oppose candidates. We want every eligible voter to cast an informed vote.
1. Describe two or three important cases on which you have worked and explain their significance to you, your client, or the law's development.
Susan Crawford: As a judge, the most significant cases I have presided over involve children and families. In cases involving children in need of protection and services, I had the opportunity and privilege to reunite children with their families after the parents received court-ordered services to help them to overcome problems like mental health crises and drug addiction that had prevented them from caring for their children.
As a lawyer, I litigated several high-profile public interest cases that broadly impacted the rights of Wisconsinites. One such case was Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad Schimel. Our team of lawyers successfully challenged an anti-abortion law that threatened doctors with the loss of their medical licenses for providing abortions to women. The law was found unconstitutional by the federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin and the decision was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond
2. What do you consider the worst Wisconsin or U.S. Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years and why?
Susan Crawford: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs overturned nearly 50 years of constitutionally–protected rights. I disagree with this decision, which I believe marks the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever reversed its own long-standing precedent recognizing constitutional rights. The court should not be in the business of taking rights away from people.
Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond
3. What barriers prevent the promise of equal justice under the law from being realized for all Wisconsinites? How does this impact public trust and confidence in our legal system?
Susan Crawford: The most significant obstacle is the lack of affordable legal services to people facing significant legal issues without representation. Although as a judge I take care to explain courtroom procedures to pro se litigants, many civil cases, including evictions, family court matters, and mortgage foreclosures involve complex legal issues that place unrepresented parties at a disadvantage. As a judge, I’ve seen firsthand how the lack of representation affects parties and the legal system. Low or no-cost legal representation or legal clinics, simplified court procedures and forms, and better access to quality legal research materials could help reduce these disadvantages. If elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I’ll advocate for increased resources to serve Wisconsinites fairly and effectively.
Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond
4. How would you characterize the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s role in protecting people’s civil rights and liberties?
Susan Crawford: I strongly believe that one of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s primary purposes is to protect and uphold the rights of citizens recognized under our Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions. This includes closely scrutinizing governmental actions that are alleged to infringe on constitutional protections.
Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond
5. In your opinion, what purpose do the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution serve in modern society?
Susan Crawford: These important amendments operate as a check on law enforcement and other governmental power to invade the private sphere of decisions. As a judge, I have observed law enforcement’s ever-increasing reliance on digital evidence from the devices most of us constantly carry, and public surveillance footage (such as security cameras), to investigate crime. Technological developments such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition software threaten to further expand the reach of the government into our personal lives. Citizens unwittingly hand over huge amounts of data about their lives to corporations, not realizing that the same data may be subject to governmental searches. The courts must keep abreast of technological developments, and interpret the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to check these intrusions and maintain a zone of privacy in our daily lives.
Brad Schimel: Did Not Respond
Date
Wednesday, March 5, 2025 - 5:00pmFeatured image
