Wisconsin’s Supreme Court abortion ruling emerged from a digital revolution: sustained online organizing transformed sleepy judicial elections into the most expensive court races in American history, proving that strategic digital engagement can capture institutional power and reshape policy for generations

Wisconsin Abortion Ruling Showcases Digital Organizing’s Institutional Power

How digital-first campaigns transformed judicial elections into high-stakes battlegrounds that reshape policy for generations

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4–3 decision today striking down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban represents far more than a legal victory for reproductive rights advocates. It marks the culmination of a remarkable case study in how sustained digital organizing can capture institutional power and transform traditionally low-profile elections into instruments of major policy change.

This ruling was not the product of legislative action or executive decree. It emerged directly from strategic digital campaigns that flipped Wisconsin’s Supreme Court from conservative to liberal control through elections in 2023 and 2025. The majority that ruled today to invalidate the 1849 ban exists because digital-first organizing transformed judicial races from sleepy, low-turnout affairs into the most expensive court contests in American history.

The Digital Revolution in Judicial Politics

Wisconsin’s judicial transformation began with a fundamental insight: in an era where traditional legislative channels are gridlocked, state courts represent the most accessible path to institutional change. But capturing judicial power required reimagining how Americans engage with elections that historically drew minimal attention.

The numbers tell the story. Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s 2023 campaign raised $12 million and received $11.3 million in outside spending, while her opponent raised $2.2 million and received $15.4 million in outside spending. The 2025 race between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel surpassed even those records, with total spending topping $100 million and making it officially the most expensive judicial election in American history.

But the real revolution wasn’t financial; it was digital. Crawford’s campaign succeeded because it treated judicial elections like presidential contests, using sophisticated voter targeting, social media mobilization, and grassroots organizing techniques typically reserved for federal races. The campaign achieved something unprecedented: it made voters care about judicial elections in ways that transcended traditional partisan engagement.

Turnout reached extraordinary levels for a judicial race. More than 2.3 million people voted in the 2025 contest, approaching the roughly 2.7 million who voted for governor in the 2018 and 2022 midterms. Turnout in Milwaukee County increased from 45% to 55% of registered voters since the 2023 court race, representing sustained engagement rather than a temporary surge.

Platform Politics Meets Institutional Strategy

The Crawford campaign’s success reveals how digital organizing has evolved beyond viral moments to create lasting institutional change. This wasn’t about generating social media buzz; it was about using digital tools to identify, mobilize, and sustain voter engagement in elections that traditionally fly under the radar.

Crawford won four of eight congressional districts, including two represented by Republicans. She captured 23 of the state’s 72 counties, including 10 that Trump won in 2024. Among University of Wisconsin-Madison residence halls, Crawford received roughly 92.3% of the vote, outperforming Vice President Harris by nearly 15 percentage points in university wards.

This demonstrates sophisticated voter targeting that goes beyond traditional demographic assumptions. The campaign successfully identified and mobilized voters who might support liberal judicial candidates even in conservative-leaning areas, suggesting digital tools enabled more precise political organizing than traditional methods.

The geographic spread of Crawford’s victories challenges conventional wisdom about partisan geography. Brown County, which includes Green Bay and went for Trump, nevertheless supported Crawford. This suggests that digital organizing can identify cross-cutting political preferences that traditional campaign strategies might miss.

The Long Game of Institutional Capture

What makes Wisconsin’s judicial transformation particularly significant is its durability. Unlike legislative or executive victories that can be quickly reversed, judicial appointments typically last for decades. Crawford’s victory likely secures a liberal majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court until at least August 2028, providing institutional power that outlasts individual election cycles.

This represents a fundamental shift in how political movements think about power accumulation. Rather than focusing exclusively on high-profile federal races, Wisconsin’s example shows how sustained attention to state-level institutional positions can yield long-term policy influence.

The strategy’s effectiveness becomes clear in today’s abortion ruling. Justice Rebecca Dallet, writing for the majority, ruled that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating abortion “so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban.” This legal reasoning was possible only because liberal justices controlled the court.

The dissenting opinion from conservative Justice Annette Ziegler reveals the stakes involved. She called the ruling “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will” and charged that the liberal justices ruled based on personal preferences rather than legal interpretation. But such criticisms miss the point: elections have consequences, and democratic movements that successfully capture judicial power can legitimately shape legal interpretation.

Digital Infrastructure Versus Traditional Money

The Wisconsin races reveal important dynamics about how digital organizing competes with traditional political spending. Despite massive financial support from figures like Elon Musk, who personally donated $3 million to the Wisconsin Republican Party and whose super PACs spent more than $17 million on Schimel’s behalf, conservative candidates lost both recent judicial elections.

Musk’s involvement demonstrates how tech billionaires are attempting to influence state-level politics, but also suggests limits to what money alone can accomplish. Musk campaigned in Brown County, wearing a cheesehead hat and handing out $1 million checks, yet Crawford still won the county. This indicates that digital organizing’s effectiveness comes from sustained engagement rather than last-minute financial interventions.

The Crawford campaign’s success despite being outspent suggests that digital organizing creates different forms of political value. Rather than relying primarily on paid advertising, digital-first campaigns can build grassroots networks that generate voter enthusiasm and turnout through organic engagement.

Democratic megadonor George Soros gave $1 million to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, while LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman contributed $250,000, showing that Crawford’s campaign also benefited from major financial support. But the key difference was how these resources were deployed: supporting comprehensive digital organizing rather than traditional advertising blitzes.

The Reproductive Rights Catalyst

Abortion rights provided the substantive foundation that made digital organizing successful, but the relationship between issue advocacy and digital strategy is more complex than simple cause and effect. Crawford’s background representing Planned Parenthood gave her campaign concrete credibility on reproductive rights, but digital organizing enabled that message to reach and mobilize voters who might not otherwise participate in judicial elections.

The timing proved crucial. With federal abortion rights eliminated by the Dobbs decision, state courts became the primary venue for reproductive rights advocacy. This created genuine policy stakes that justified the extraordinary investment in judicial elections, providing substance that digital organizing could amplify.

Justice Janet Protasiewicz had openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights, creating expectations about how the court would rule on the 1849 ban. Today’s decision validated those expectations, demonstrating how candidate positioning in judicial elections can produce predictable policy outcomes.

A solid majority of Wisconsin voters, 62%, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to 2024 polling, providing favorable terrain for pro-choice candidates. But translating public opinion into electoral success required sophisticated organizing that could mobilize sympathetic voters in low-turnout elections.

National Implications for Democratic Strategy

Wisconsin’s judicial transformation offers a replicable model for how democratic movements can capture institutional power in polarized environments. State courts are deciding crucial issues from abortion rights to voting access to labor protections, making judicial elections increasingly important venues for policy change.

The success of digital organizing in Wisconsin suggests that similar strategies could work in other states with elected judiciaries. Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, and other states with competitive judicial elections could see similar transformation if progressive movements apply Wisconsin’s lessons about sustained digital engagement.

However, replication requires understanding what made Wisconsin’s strategy successful. The state’s particular political geography, with dense urban areas balanced against rural regions, may have created optimal conditions for targeted digital organizing. States with different demographic patterns might require different approaches.

The role of reproductive rights as a mobilizing issue also may not translate directly to all contexts. Wisconsin’s activists succeeded partly because abortion rights provided concrete, immediate stakes that motivated voter engagement. Other states might need different substantive foundations for sustained digital organizing around judicial elections.

The Conservative Response and Future Challenges

Conservative movements are learning from Wisconsin’s example and developing counter-strategies. The massive financial investment in Schimel’s campaign, including Musk’s involvement, represents an attempt to match liberal digital organizing with traditional political spending.

Future conservative judicial campaigns will likely adopt digital organizing techniques that progressives pioneered, potentially neutralizing some strategic advantages. The question becomes whether digital organizing inherently favors certain political messages or can be equally effective for different ideological positions.

The geographic patterns of Crawford’s victory suggest that digital organizing may be particularly effective at mobilizing younger, more educated voters who are comfortable with online political engagement. If conservative movements can develop digital strategies that mobilize their base constituencies, judicial elections could become even more competitive.

Abortion figures to be a key issue again in Wisconsin’s next Supreme Court race in spring 2026, when another conservative seat will be contested. The durability of the digital organizing model will be tested as the novelty wears off and both sides adopt similar technological approaches.

Beyond Wisconsin: The Template for Institutional Change

The Wisconsin model demonstrates how digital organizing can transform institutional politics in ways that transcend individual campaigns. By making judicial elections into high-stakes contests, digital strategies fundamentally altered how Americans think about state court politics.

This represents a democratization of institutional power in important ways. Traditionally, judicial elections were dominated by legal establishment figures and low-information voting. Digital organizing enables broader public engagement with judicial selection, potentially making courts more responsive to democratic preferences.

However, the transformation also raises questions about judicial independence. When judges campaign on specific policy positions and voters choose them based on those positions, courts become more political in ways that might undermine their legitimacy as neutral arbiters.

The Wisconsin experience suggests these concerns may be overblown. Voters are already making political choices about judicial candidates; digital organizing simply makes those choices more informed and representative. Courts that result from democratic engagement may be more legitimate than those selected through elite processes.

The Verdict on Digital Democracy

Today’s Wisconsin abortion ruling validates a new model of democratic participation: sustained digital organizing focused on institutional capture rather than symbolic politics. The four liberal justices who struck down the 1849 ban won their seats through campaigns that treated judicial elections as seriously as presidential contests.

This approach required patience, resources, and strategic thinking that extends beyond traditional election cycles. It demanded understanding that lasting policy change requires institutional power, not just public opinion victories. Most importantly, it demonstrated that digital tools can overcome traditional barriers to political participation when deployed systematically over time.

The ruling allowing abortion access until about 20 weeks of pregnancy affects millions of Americans and establishes Wisconsin as a refuge state for reproductive rights. But the broader significance lies in proving that democratic movements can capture institutional power through sustained digital organizing, even in polarized environments where traditional legislative channels are blocked.

Wisconsin’s transformation from judicial backwater to national battleground illustrates how digital organizing can reshape institutional politics. As conservative Justice Ziegler noted in dissent, the liberal majority’s decision reflects their “personal preferences” becoming law. That’s exactly what democratic elections are supposed to accomplish.

The real lesson of Wisconsin isn’t just about abortion rights or judicial elections. It’s about how sustained digital organizing can transform any low-salience election into a vehicle for institutional change, providing a roadmap for democratic engagement in an age of political polarization.