Thank you for running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Faith and Freedom Coalition is collecting information to help inform faith-based voters about both candidates for this seat. Please consider answering the following questions. If you do, we will post your complete answers unedited on a blog on our website and link to that blog when we distribute materials or other information about the election. If you feel a question should be reworded, feel free to state that in your answer. We plan to include everything in your reply, or inform you if something is left out to limit the length of the total blog or for some other reason. Thank you for your consideration. – John Pudner, President of Wisconsin Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The following are Judge Schimel’s February 14 responses to our survey sent to both candidates on February 8 with a February 15 deadline for responses. Click here for Judge Crawford’s questionnaire. The answers are unedited.

1. Late-term Abortions. In July 2022, Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper threw out Wisconsin’s abortion law and changed Wisconsin law to allow abortion up to the 22nd week. This is later than 45 of 47 European countries. With abortion commercials already running in this election, what can you say about your position on late-term abortions?

   I am a father of two adopted daughters. I cherish all life, even when it is unplanned, and I am deeply grateful for the decision my daughters’ birth mothers made. But a judge’s job is to apply the law, not make the law. The people of Wisconsin, through referendum or their elected representatives, should decide the question of abortion. As your next Supreme Court Justice, I will respect the will of the people.

2. Judicial Activism. Which is closer to your judicial philosophy: judicial restraint, under which judges should not legislate from the bench and should interpret the Constitution as written, or do you view the Constitution as an evolving document, open to judicial activism in order to more aggressively shape policy?

   Legislating from the bench is not appropriate. The court must scrupulously avoid injecting its own preferences and discern the intent of the legislature as faithfully as possible. 

   Courts should never make law. Rather, we must faithfully interpret the law as written and leave policy developments to the legislative and executive branches. 

   My judicial philosophy is further anchored in humility. Judicial activism and legislating from the bench reflect extraordinary arrogance. All public servants should respect that we serve only with the consent of the public and thus must follow the rules and respect the limitations on the power with which we are entrusted.

3. Voter ID/Act 10. Judicial candidates have argued cases as lawyers or have taken public positions on certain issues. How should a judge handle a case that comes up in which they have previously advocated for a particular decision, such as changing Wisconsin’s Voter ID laws or expanding collective bargaining for public sector employees?

   As a Judge, when I work with juries, I administer the oath and tell the jury members that they are not to discuss the case with one another until they’ve heard all the facts and arguments. Everyone who comes to court comes with a history, but those jurors set their personal opinions aside and hear the case objectively. 

   I hold myself to that same standard. All judges have a history and personal beliefs, but we must set our personal history aside when we preside over a case. Before each case, I search my conscience and make a truthful decision on whether I can rule objectively or not. I will hold myself to that same scrupulous process when I serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

   My opponent, on the other hand, was the lead attorney attempting to eliminate Wisconsin’s Voter ID law – she called the law “draconian” and compared it to a “poll tax.” Similarly, she was the attorney who fought to abolish Act 10. Does anyone believe that those laws stand to face a fair and objective review if she is on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

4. Genders. The White House recently signed executive orders stating that the U.S. only recognizes two genders and restricting federal funding for hospitals that perform certain transgender treatments on minors. Multiple hospitals have announced that they are canceling appointments for transgender treatments on minors, while the Attorney General of New York has urged hospitals to ignore the orders, claiming they conflict with state law on the grounds of discrimination. Should these executive orders be treated as the “law of the land” in Wisconsin, or do you consider them non-binding?

   Through our faculties of reason and Natural Law, we can know with certainty that there are only two genders. God created man and woman. A justice system not bound by Natural Law and Truth is, by definition, not a justice system at all. The backward ideology of the Left is a large part of why I am running to restore the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

5. Illegal Immigration. Should Wisconsin localities be allowed to serve as sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, or can they ignore federal mandates on this issue? Immigration is at the forefront of national discourse. Do you believe immigrants who have come to the U.S. illegally should be deported?

   President Trump’s actions on the issue of immigration will likely be litigated in our courts. Therefore, I will not prejudge these matters. 

   I can say that every Nation’s fundamental duty is to protect its citizens. Enforcing measured and reasonable immigration laws is not only permissible, but a foundational requirement of every Nation.

6. Trump Impeachment. Congressman Al Green announced he would begin the process of trying to impeach President Trump on February 5, eight days after the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed an email invite for a fundraiser at which you/Susan Crawford would speak, with the subject line: “Time-sensitive: Chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026.” Should this Supreme Court decision be viewed as a chance to either give Democrats enough seats to impeach President Trump or hold a Republican majority to enable him to enact more of his agenda? Are there any fundraising events with this or any other stated goal that a judicial candidate should not attend?

   I have never and will never participate in any event where I promise outcomes on cases before the court. Wisconsin deserves better from its Justice System. We deserve a Justice who upholds impartiality, rules objectively and puts the law first.