Rural voters in Wisconsin were part of a broad swing toward the Democratic Party in Tuesday’s state Supreme Court race, in which Democrat Janet Protasiewicz defeated Republican Daniel Kelly by more than 10 points.
Protasiewicz garnered 45% of the rural, or nonmetropolitan, vote in the election – not enough to win the rural vote outright but a significant improvement for the Democratic candidate compared to two recent high-profile elections: the presidential contest in 2020 and the U.S. Senate race in 2022.
[raw][/raw]
The race hinged on the abortion issue and Republican redistricting and is considered a bellwether on how abortion rights might play in other elections. Her election will flip the court from a conservative majority to a liberal one.
Protasiewicz performed significantly better than President Joe Biden in 2020 and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mandela Barnes in 2022 in all parts of Wisconsin, from major metropolitan areas to rural counties.
In the central counties of major metropolitan areas (Milwaukee and parts of the Minneapolis and Chicago metros), she earned 73% of the vote, 3 points higher than Biden in 2020.
Her biggest gains were in medium-sized metropolitan areas (Madison, Green Bay, and Duluth, Minnesota, whose metro area has one county in Wisconsin). In those metros, she performed 7 points better than Biden in 2020 and Barnes in 2022.
Besides losing the rural vote, Protasiewicz also lost among suburban voters in major metros. Protasiewicz lost those voters by 11 points, a bigger margin than her 10-point loss in rural areas.
Protasiewicz’s race against Republican Kelly was one of the most closely watched elections in the nation this year. Protasiewicz campaigned openly on her opinion that Wisconsin’s abortion ban and redistricting decisions should be overturned.
Major metropolitan statistical areas are defined as having 1 million or more residents. Medium-sized metros have 250,000 to under 1 million. Small metros have 50,000 to under 250,000. Nonmetropolitan counties are not part of a metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget in 2013. In this story, nonmetropolitan and rural are used synonymously.
This article first appeared on The Daily Yonder and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
I own property in Northwest Wisconsin and drive up there frequently. Using political signage as my guide I have noticed a shift in what’s posted. 2016, was all Donald all the time, with various (what is a term for far right leaning lunatics that won’t get my post rejected) threaded fasteners that can be tighten by hand, tossed in. In 2020 I saw far fewer Donald signs and even a few Biden/Harris signs on the main streets of towns along Wisconsin 35. There is a fight against a factory hog farm in the area north of St. Croix Falls that may be helping to change minds in that area, but whatever the case its heartening to see.
“Protasiewicz campaigned openly on her opinion that Wisconsin’s abortion ban and redistricting decisions should be overturned.” It used to be that supreme court judges up for appointment or election would refuse to say how they would rule on this or that divisive issue because they promised to be open-minded and to wait until they heard all the arguments before forming an opinion. Now they’re just bought and paid for politicians like the rest of them.
Like Brent Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch?
Who just lied and prevaricated on their way to the Supreme Court?
Doubt me? Go ask Susan Collins who voted for them based on their lies
Double precedence indeed!
“No man is so blind as one who will not see”
The Federalist Society is Exhibit AAA in politicizing the judiciary…
Not too many years ago, a major political party in Minnesota fought to allow partisan endorsements in judicial elections. The theory was that the voters deserved to know a judge’s opinions and how they might vote on important issues. Now, given the rank unpopularity of what that party stands for (insofar as it stands for anything), that doesn’t seem like such a great idea anymore.
Anyone remember which party that was?
There’s nothing wrong with a nominee saying they agree or disagree with the reasoning of some existing precedent(s), and most of the rulings by the democratically-illegitimate Trump Supreme Court are legally indefensible, after all. Nothing wrong with a judge pointing that out.
In any event, the “Don’t Say Anything” tactic was largely championed by “conservative” nominees, whose actual goal was to overturn popularly-supported precedents (such as Roe/Casey). And there have been plenty of Repubs running for state judgeships who make their sentiments about particular legal doctrines quite clear.
So this is just sour grapes. And if you want to know who really started politicizing the nation’s judiciary, Edward Blaise has explained that exactly right. And I’d add Godfather Nixon to the list as well.
At least she didn’t lie about her position on abortion, which is what Brett Kavanaugh did (and Alito, etc.) to get on the nation’s Supreme Court.
Bought and paid, like Clarence Thomas? She openly stated her positions so voters could choose while her opponent had a long history of prevarication ( that’s lying for you GOP types) when asked about his positions. Sounds to me like WI voters chose someone who was transparent, fair and balanced. Like your favorite media source.
Right you are, Edward.
ProPublica today reveals Justice Clarence Thomas has been accepting money, private plane services and elaborate vacations for maybe 20 YEARS from a “conservative” billionaire. He has declared none of it.
“conservative” must mean “hopelessly corrupt” and “without any moral compass.” What can you say about Kelley when all the other Rs including Clarence and Ginni keep making news from politicizing the judiciary.
Wisconsin’s fever might be breaking. Their jerrymandering is about to be re-cast after the WI Supreme Court gets its functional majority.
In a serious and politically functioning nation, Clarence T would be impeached after a two hour senate trial.
Oh, come on. Let them break for lunch.
Well, there are an awful lot of brazen ethical violations by Clarence to wade through…
Wisconsin seems to be coming back to its senses on political issues–at least we can see it when the whole state gets to vote someone up or down, as the state has done with the governor’s position and now the Supreme Court.
Gerrymandering is another thing (the GOP has rigged the state so they get an unearned legislative majority no matter what).
Clarence Thomas should be up for House and Senate hearings.
Juxtaposing Clarence T and affirmative action policies might cause heads to explode here and there.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Justice Thomas is a product of affirmative action and, in true conservative fashion, has not cared one whit about the hypocrisy of his situation.
With turnout being lower than a typical November election, these “trends” (not sure you can call it that from one election) don’t mean much other than that left leaning voters were more motivated to vote in this special election.
Since the democratically-illegitimate Repub Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last June, there has been a (quite obvious) national trend in favor of elective candidates supporting reproductive choice (even in some Deep Red states). And the point of the article is that the judge did better with (right-leaning) rural voters in WI, so it would seem erroneous to think that the victory is explained solely by greater motivation of “left-leaning voters”.
Can you explain why right leaning voters were not motivated to vote?