SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gerrymandering
Elon Musk Dropping Millions on Wisconsin Supreme Court Race to Rig Political Maps for GOP
"Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world," said the Working Families Party.
Mar 25, 2025
Early voting is underway for the April 1 election to determine ideological control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and right-wing billionaire Elon Musk recently admitted why he is pouring millions of dollars into the close contest: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn" in the state.
As Mother Jones' Ari Berman reported Tuesday, Musk—the richest person in the world and a key figure in Republican President Donald Trump's administration—made that comment Saturday, while hosting the right-wing candidate, Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), for a discussion on X, the billionaire's social media platform.
Musk said that if Judge Susan Crawford of Dane County wins, "then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats. In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin. It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Liberals have had a 4-3 majority on the swing state's highest court since the 2023 election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Crawford and Schimel are fighting for a 10-year term filling the seat now occupied by 74-year-old left-leaning Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who decided not to seek reelection. In addition to determining the future of Republicans' 6-2 advantage for congressional districts, next week's election is expected to impact abortion care, labor rights, and voter suppression efforts in Wisconsin.
From @ariberman.bsky.social: Elon Musk revealed why he's spending millions to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court It’s all about preserving gerrymandered districts that lock in Republican power. www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Joe Sudbay (@joesudbay.bsky.social) March 25, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Berman noted that if Crawford won and Wisconsin's maps changed before the 2026 midterm elections, a Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Represntatives could "scrutinize the unprecedented role Musk is playing in shredding the federal government, accessing sensitive personal information on millions of Americans, and the $38 billion in federal funding his businesses receive."
The billionaire also has a personal stake in the race related to one of his businesses. As The New York Timesnoted Saturday: "A conservative-controlled court could be in a position to issue a Musk-friendly decision in a lawsuit from his electric car company, Tesla, challenging Wisconsin's law prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from owning dealerships. On social media, Mr. Musk began to show interest in the Wisconsin court election eight days after Tesla filed the lawsuit in January."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman toldThe Associated Press on Monday that "this race is the first real test point in the country on Elon Musk and his influence on our politics, and voters want an opportunity to push back on that and the influence he is trying to make on Wisconsin and the rest of country."
As of Tuesday, Musk has recently given at least $3 million to the state's Republican Party, according toWisPolitics—which has also "tracked nearly $19.5 million in spending" on the race by two political action committees (PACs) affiliated with the billionaire.
GOP paid canvasser shows depth of support for Schimel. None. www.jsonline.com/story/news/p...
[image or embed]
— Mark Pocan (@markpocan.bsky.social) March 25, 2025 at 9:58 AM
As Common Dreamsreported last week, Musk's America PAC is also offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing "activist judges," which led critics to accuse the billionaire of trying to buy the state Supreme Court seat.
Those critics include the Working Families Party, which has sent a pair of emails in recent days highlighting how much Musk has spent "to install MAGA extremist Brad Schimel" on the court, and arguing that "Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world."
Forbesreported Tuesday that "Musk is far from the only billionaire who is financially backing the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Among the other billionaires listed in public filings as spending thousands to support Schimel—either directly or through the Wisconsin Republican Party—are ABC Supply co-founder Diane Hendricks, Uline president Elizabeth Uihlein, Uline CEO Richard Uihlein, and Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs. Crawford has also drawn significant billionaire support from the likes of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and Democratic megadonor George Soros, who gave the Wisconsin Democratic Party $1 million in January."
WisPolitics noted Tuesday that "Crawford has now reported $26.5 million raised, a record for any judicial candidate in U.S. history," while Schimel "has now raised $14.3 million." However, according to Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money on the race is favoring the right-wing candidate.
"It's already the most expensive judicial race in American history," Waldman said in a Tuesday newsletter. "According to data collected by the Brennan Center and analyzed by my colleagues Ian Vandewalker and Douglas Keith, campaigns and committees have spent $81 million so far, with a week to go."
"Much of the money being spent is untraceable," he stressed. "As the latest data shows, Crawford's campaign spending of $22 million is more than double that of Schimel's $10.4 million. But independent groups like super PACs and nonprofits spending untraceable dark money favor Schimel by a much larger margin: $13.5 million benefiting Crawford compared with almost $35.5 million boosting Schimel."
Schimel also got a boost on Friday from Trump, who endorsed him on social media, writing in part that "Radical Left Liberal Susan Crawford... is the handpicked voice of the Leftists who are out to destroy your State, and our Country." The president added Saturday: "It's a really big and important race, and could have much to do with the future of our Country. Get out and VOTE, NOW, for the Republican Candidate—BRAD!!!"
Meanwhile, Crawford is backed by groups like Wisconsin Conservation Voters IEC, which has invested more than $1.13 million to turn voters out in support of her.
"The stakes in this election could not be higher," the group's deputy director, Seth Hoffmeister, said in a Tuesday statement. "Judge Susan Crawford will defend our democracy and protect Wisconsin's natural resources. She is a strong advocate for the values that make Wisconsin great—fairness, accountability, and a commitment to serving the people, not polluters. Judge Crawford will ensure that our State Supreme Court remains independent and dedicated to upholding the rights and freedoms of all Wisconsinites."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Did the GOP Win the House? Gerrymandering
According to a new analysis, Republicans won a net 16-seat advantage due to manipulated maps drawn for party advantage.
Dec 19, 2024
Many things propelled Donald Trump’s election victory. Inflation. A worldwide anti-incumbent backlash. Anger at institutions. A swing to the right among working-class voters of all racial backgrounds. And more. Analysts are still chewing on all the data (and Democrats are chewing on each other).
As we sift through the results and look forward, Republican control of the House of Representatives will matter greatly. That control is very, very narrow. And it turns out to rest on a shaky foundation of gerrymandering and manipulated maps, all encouraged by the Supreme Court.
The last time a new president took office without a “trifecta” of House and Senate control was 35 years ago. But this will be the slimmest House majority on record. With yesterday’s announcement by Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz that she will not participate in the Republican caucus, control may effectively come down to one vote.
Voters are mad as hell about a government they feel does not deliver for them. Rigged rules are a big part of why Washington too frequently does not work.
And according to my colleague Michael Li in a new analysis, Republicans won a net 16-seat advantage due to manipulated maps drawn for party advantage. (Democrats garnered an edge in 7 seats through gerrymandering, but the GOP gained a total of 23 seats that way—hence, 16 seats.)
How did this skew happen? Simply, Republican legislators control the drawing of many more districts than Democrats do. In some states, nonpartisan commissions or state courts have actually produced fairer maps. But in most places, politicians are free to press for partisan advantage.
North Carolina is split relatively evenly between Republican and Democratic voters. This year, Trump won the state even as Democrat Josh Stein swept into the governor’s mansion. However, the heavily gerrymandered legislature drew congressional maps that produced 10 seats for Republicans and only 4 for Democrats. The state high court had blocked the gerrymander, a move upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper. But then a judicial election shifted partisan control of the North Carolina court, which abruptly blessed the gerrymander it had previously banned. That judicial reversal alone gave the GOP an extra 3 seats in Washington—enough to control the House.
Today Republicans are strutting, but that swagger may not last long. Speaker Mike Johnson will have to manage a fractious majority that could be defeated by one or two defections. Individual members will be empowered to extort policy concessions, no matter how extreme.
In fact, what may matter even more than the gerrymandered seats is the collapse of electoral competition. Only 27 districts nationwide saw margins of less than 5%. Lawmakers will look more nervously at the prospect of primary challenges than at the risk of alienating the broad mass of persuadable voters.
It did not have to be this way. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented the most egregious gerrymanders along racial lines. Then in 2019, John Roberts led the justices to rule that federal courts could not police partisan gerrymandering at all.
Congress has the power to act, and in 2022 it tried—coming within two Senate votes of passing the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which together would have barred gerrymandering for congressional seats nationwide. Both parties would have been forced to compete on a level field. (This legislation would also have undone other damage wrought by rulings such as Citizens United, which legalized the campaign system that saw Elon Musk spend a quarter of a billion dollars to help elect Trump.)
All this is a reminder that the rules of American politics, often arcane, often hidden, bear tremendous weight. It should caution us from drawing too many conclusions about any recent victor’s supposed “mandate.”
Voters are mad as hell about a government they feel does not deliver for them. Rigged rules are a big part of why Washington too frequently does not work. Partisans must do more than battle for inches of advantage. To truly reconnect the seats of power to a sullen electorate, real reform and real competition must be part of the answer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
North Carolina Woman Running 'Can't Win' State Senate Campaign Against Gerrymandering
"In a gerrymandered state like North Carolina, it means representatives are choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives."
Oct 17, 2024
A North Carolina woman is running a self-described "built to lose" campaign for a state senate seat in a bid to draw attention to anti-democratic partisan gerrymandering.
Kate Barr, a 42-year-old mother of two, is a Democrat running for North Carolina's 37th Senate District, a seat she says she cannot win because it "is so gerrymandered that I don't stand a chance."
"But we deserve to have two names on the ballot," Barr
says on her campaign website. "If I'm going to lose, we might as well have a little fun, raise a little hell, and shine a light on the impacts of gerrymandering along the way."
Barr's
platform includes protecting abortion rights, fully funding public schools, and "common sense gun laws."
"All of those would be achievable in our purple state if we had a representative democracy instead of this gerrymandered nonsense," she asserted.
"Why am I losing?" Barr asked during a recent campaign speech covered by The Washington Post. "In a gerrymandered state like North Carolina, it means representatives are choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives."
As the Post reported last month:
Barr centers her pitch on the principle of giving voters an option, even in deep-red districts where the outcome is all but predetermined. Having Democrats campaign in those conservative areas also gives a political boost to [U.S. vice president and Democratic presidential candidate] Kamala Harris in a state where the presidential race is seen as a toss-up and could prove nationally decisive if Democrats can peel off enough voters to secure North Carolina's 16 electoral votes...
Gerrymandering arrived in Barr's backyard last year when the state legislature redrew Davidson—the liberal, picturesque college town where she lives—into a state Senate district with conservative Iredell County for the 2024 election. Davidson went from being part of a district centered in Mecklenburg County—where Donald Trump lost by 35 percentage points in 2020—to being part of Iredell, which he won by about the same amount.
Last year, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of partisan gerrymandering in what voting rights advocates called a "blatant attack on democracy."
Barr said in an opinion piece published Tuesday by the Courier that the court decided that "basically, we, the voters in North Carolina, have a right to free elections but not to fair ones."
"That's some real bullshit," she wrote.
Anderson Clayton, who chairs the North Carolina Democratic Party, told the Post that "gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression in every single way, shape, and form."
Clayton added that many North Carolina voters "go into a voting booth every November and they're like, 'Damn, I don't have a Democrat to vote for. You know that means that somebody didn't care, that my vote wasn't worth fighting for.'"
Barr said the fact that she has little chance of winning isn't the point.
"We know we can't win it, because they've made sure we can't," she told one voter, according to the Post. "But that doesn't mean we go down without a fight."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular