Supreme Court candidates Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford crossed swords repeatedly during a testy Wednesday debate, arguing with one another about abortion, union rights and Elon Musk.

“That’s a lie,” Schimel, a conservative Waukesha County judge, said at one point.

At another, Crawford, a liberal Dane County judge, accused Schimel of backing away from his support of an 1849 abortion ban. Schimel, meanwhile, suggested that Crawford was retreating in her opposition to voter ID and Act 10 public union law, two measures that she went to court to try to overturn.

Both also tried to distance themselves from their biggest financial supporters — Musk in Schimel’s case and Democratic megadonor George Soros for Crawford.

“Elon Schimel is trying to buy this race, and people are very upset about that,” Crawford said.

The debate is the first and only time the two candidates face off before the April 1 election. The event was hosted and moderated by Matt Smith and Gerron Jordan, co-hosts of the station’s public affairs show “UPFRONT” on WISN-TV (Channel 12).

The two are vying for the seat being vacated in the upcoming departure of liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who is not seeking re-election. All seven members of the Supreme Court attended the debate at Marquette University.

The partisan spending and advocacy in the only nominally nonpartisan race have highlighted the stakes of the election, in which voters will decide whether liberals or conservatives control the state’s highest court.

Here are takeaways from the debate:

Debate comes as poll shows candidates are not well known to voters

The debate comes just a week after the release of a Marquette University Law School poll that found a large percentage of Wisconsin voters still don’t have an opinion about the two candidates.

Schimel was viewed favorably by 29% of the registered voters and unfavorably by 32%. About two out of five said they had no opinion of him.

Crawford was given favorable ratings by 19% of the voters, compared to 23% who viewed her unfavorably. Nearly three out of five said they don’t know enough about her.

Crawford accuses Schimel of backpeddling on 1849 abortion ban

Crawford attacked her opponent early in the debate for weighing in on Supreme Court cases before the election, pointing at his past comments on the 1849 abortion ban. She noted that he once said the measure was “valid.”

But Schimel said he simply meant the bill had been passed by both houses of the Legislature and signed by the governor. The question, he said, is whether the law reflects the will of the voters today. He has said he would support a referendum on abortion, though the state doesn’t have a system that allows voters to pass legislation on their own.

“My opponent has said he believes the 1849 law in Wisconsin is valid law.” Crawford said. “He’s trying to backpeddle from that position now.”

Overall, Crawford and Schimel are deeply divided on the issue of abortion.

Schimel opposes abortion but recently said he would respect voters’ “will” on the issue.

Crawford has called the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade that struck down the constitutional right to abortion “wrong.” And she says she’s proud of her record “fighting for our fundamental rights and freedoms.”

The Supreme Court will decide soon whether it believes an 1849 abortion ban is the law of the state.

Schimel has come under criticism for saying that the liberal majority, made up of four women, were “driven by their emotions” during oral arguments. He has said he did not point to the justices’ gender while leveling the criticism.

Both candidates have said they will not let their personal beliefs affect their rulings if elected to the high court.

Billionaires come under attack for their support of two candidates

Schimel emphasized repeatedly that he doesn’t control how outside groups and individuals, including Musk, express their support for him. He declined to disavow his backing from Musk.

“I’m looking for the endorsement of the Wisconsin voters,” Schimel said. He said he would treat Musk like anyone else if he were to appear in his courtroom.

But Schimel attacked Crawford for her support from Soros, saying he had favored defunding police and allowing felons on the streets. “He’s a dangerous person,” Schimel said.

Crawford turned the conversation back to Musk. She said he has made cuts to the federal government that could have an impact on people, including trimming the number of air traffic controllers and those studying avian flu.

“Talk about somebody who’s been dangerous,,” Crawford said.

Two Musk-funded groups — America PAC and Building America’s Future — have spent more than $10 million helping Schimel in the race by airing TV and digital ads, canvassing and texting. America PAC, Musk’s super PAC, has tried to turn the race into a forum on President Donald Trump by saying Schimel will support the Republican president’s agenda on the court.

Musk has become a highly controversial figure nationally for slashing the federal government in his role as head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency. Musk, the wealthiest person in the world, spent some $288 million helping Trump’s election victory in November, including paying for voter outreach in Wisconsin.

For her part, Crawford has come under fire for receiving money from prominent billionaires, including $1 million from Soros, $500,000 from Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and $250,000 from LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, donations to the state Democratic Party that were funneled to Crawford’s campaign.

Crawford defends her record on sexual assault cases

Schimel criticized Crawford for the sentence she handed down in a case involving someone who repeatedly raped a 5-year-old. He said the victim had to testify at trial, and a jury convicted the man. But under the sentence handed down by Crawford, the felon spent only two years behind bars after sentencing.

“This is a dangerous flaw in my opponent’s judgment,” Schimel said.

Crawford pushed back, saying her opponent and other conservative groups are hitting her over her sentences in two cases. She said both individuals are still on extended supervision and will be on the sex offender registry the rest of their lives.

Neither individual, she said, has re-offended. She said the same could not be said in some of Schimel’s cases.

“They have focused on two cases out of thousands that have handled, where I sentence people to prison and then follow that with several years of extended supervision,” she said.

In fact, both sides have criticized the other as being soft on crime. At the debate, the two even got into whether Crawford was officially a prosecutor when she worked at the Justice Department. She said she was, while he said she was not.

Schimel responds to criticism over untested rape kits

As she has throughout the campaign, Crawford accused Schimel of failing to test more than 6,000 rape kits during his first two years as attorney general. These kits contain forensic evidence collected from a sexual assault victim at a hospital.

Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky, who used to work for Schimel, said he did not ask his fellow Republicans who controlled the state Legislature and the Governor’s Office for funds to more rapidly move testing forward. Karofsky is backing Crawford in the race.

Crawford said Schimel spent too much time focusing on pursuing “right-wing lawsuits” as attorney general instead of clearing the backlog of rape kits.

“I am proud of the work that I’ve done, and I think it is important for voters to know about Brad Schimmels record, too,” Crawford said.

Schimel countered that the problem had accumulated over years. He said he needed time to inventory the kits and to find private labs to test them. His agency eventually secured a $4 million federal grant, and Schimel said his office tested more than 4,100 kits for which victims gave permission during his tenure.

“About 3 1/2 years later, every kit that needed to be tested was done,” he said.

Crawford is hesitant to say whether she’d hear Act 10 case.

Crawford acknowledged that she had gone to court to try to block Act 10, the 2011 law that ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions. She even told The Capital Times in 2018: “I fought against Act 10.”

A Dane County judge last year ruled that much of the law was unconstitutional, and the decision has been appealed. The case is expected to come to the state Supreme Court eventually.

She said this is a different matter than the litigation she brought, so she wouldn’t commit to recusing herself if the matter came before her on the Supreme Court.

“It would depend on the specific facts in the case,” she said.

Schimel said it was clear what positions Crawford held on issues like Act 10, voter ID and abortion.

“Now she backs off from things she was once proud of, campaigning as a judge,” Schimel said.

As the Republican attorney general, Schimel said he would defend Act 10 and stated that its restrictions shouldn’t apply to police and firefighter unions.

While in private practice, Crawford filed a lawsuit on behalf of the League of Women Voters to block the state law requiring voters to show photo identification. On one occasion, she likened the measure to a poll tax — the now-banned laws that imposed fees to prevent poor people, many of them racial minorities, from voting. On another occasion, she labeled it “draconian.”

But she has declined to state her opinion on the measure because she said she doesn’t “take positions on issues that could end up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.” She has said her lawsuit helped make the voter ID law better, including by making the IDs free of charge.

Schimel has been a strong supporter of the law, which the recent Milwaukee Law School Poll found had the support of 77% of those surveyed and was opposed by 22%.

Alison Dirr can be reached at adirr@jrn.com.

Contact Daniel Bice at (414) 313-6684 or dbice@jrn.com. Follow him on X at @DanielBice or on Facebook at fb.me/daniel.bice.