A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court this evening rejected Dem AG Josh Kaul’s request to block Elon Musk and his PAC from giving $1 million awards to two voters.
The decision came just minutes before Musk’s rally was to begin in Green Bay, where he planned to give the awards to two people for signing a petition opposing activist judges.
The court offered no rationale for its decision in the brief ruling.
Ahead of the decision, Musk’s attorneys filed a motion today seeking the recusal of Justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, both of whom have campaigned for liberal candidate Susan Crawford. They rejected the motions in short orders adding, “An amended order containing the rationale for my ruling will be issued at a later date.”
>> WisPolitics is now on the State Affairs network. Get custom keyword notifications, bill tracking and all WisPolitics content. Get the app or access via desktop.
Retiring liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, whose seat is at stake in Tuesday’s election, wrote in a concurring opinion that while some justices have supported a candidate in the race between Crawford and conservative Brad Schimel, “the rule of necessity overrides recusal in this instance.” That doctrine states a judge can hear a case they should otherwise recuse from if doing so would prevent a court from hearing the suit due to a lack of quorum.
All four liberal members of the court have backed Crawford, while conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley earlier this month appeared at a post-debate news conference in support of Schimel.
The Supreme Court needs four justices to hear a case for there to be a quorum.
It was the third time in as many days that a court had rejected Kaul’s request.
Musk dropped his original offer of giving awards to people during a rally in Green Bay in appreciation for them voting. Instead, he planned to give out two $1 million awards to those who have signed a petition opposing activist judges.
But as he did in filings with a circuit court and the 4th District Court of Appeals, pointed out in his petition to the state Supreme Court that neither Musk nor America PAC had formally announced plans to drop the $1 million payments to two voters.
In a brief filed with the court, Kaul argued that even if Musk hadn’t put up the original post, a “reasonable inference could be drawn that the offer of two $1 million payments just two days before the 2025 spring election was intended not simply to encourage people to sign a petition but to induce electors to vote.” Combining the existing offer with the original post means “there can be no serious question that the payments are intended to induce electors to vote.”
State law bars giving someone anything of value in return for voting.
Musk’s offer is the latest sign of his involvement in the race between liberal Susan Crawford and conservative Brad Schimel that will decide ideological control of the court. Musk and his PACs have spent more than $23 million in the race, according to a WisPolitics tally, as they have been one of the biggest spenders backing Schimel.
The current members of the court have also been involved in the race. All four liberal justices have endorsed Crawford. Meanwhile, conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley appeared at a post-debate news conference supporting Schimel earlier this month.
