Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford sparred over how the court might impact abortion law in the state, as well as the involvement of Elon Musk in the high-profile race, during a Wisconsin Supreme Court election debate on Wednesday night in Milwaukee, Wisconsin hosted by ABC affiliate WISN.

Wisconsin is holding a Supreme Court election on April 1, as part of its spring elections, with what is technically a nonpartisan race to replace retiring justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

Whoever wins the seat will help determine the ideological bent of the court — which currently leans liberal — and will join the bench as the court grapples with hot-button issues such as abortion access and redistricting.

Outside groups have poured millions into ads and get-out-the-vote efforts. Conservative groups affiliated with Musk have spent millions in the race supporting Schimel, while liberal billionaire George Soros donated to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford.

Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate and a Dane County Circuit judge, is a former private attorney.

“I think a lot is at stake. The future of our state, for our kids and our grandkids, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone in Wisconsin,” Crawford said.

Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general who is currently a circuit court judge in Waukesha County.

“I’ve never been involved in anything where the stakes were bigger than this,” he said. “And if you told me five years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would be going through a political agenda, I would have said, ‘you’re crazy’ … Justice is no longer blind on the Wisconsin Supreme Court; that’s what’s at stake. We have to restore objectivity.”

It took little time for one of the race’s key issues — abortion access — to come up, given ongoing and pending court cases surrounding whether an 1849 Wisconsin law that bans almost all abortions is valid or constitutional. The law is currently not enforced.

Crawford seized upon Schimel’s remark about objectivity to claim that Schimel was paying “good lip service” to objectivity, but that while campaigning he had opined about pending cases such as those dealing with the 1849 law.

“He has openly said, when he’s in front of audiences of his political allies, that there is nothing wrong with that law and it should be enforced. That is not the kind of open-mindedness that we expect from judges. It is prejudicial to the parties in that case,” Crawford said, referencing audio that had leaked from an event Schimel spoke at where he asked if there were any flaws with the law.

“And Brad Schimel is making those pronouncements not based on the law in that case or the facts or the arguments of the attorneys, but based on political consideration.”

Schimel — interjecting “I can’t let that go” — countered that his remarks had been taken out of context and that he was referring to the validity of the way the law was passed.

“I was asked if the 1849 [law] was a valid law … And the answer is, my answer was, it was passed by two houses of the legislature and signed by the governor. That means it’s a valid law. But what I said next was that there’s a real question as to whether that law reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin now and today,” Schimel said.

Pressed on if he thinks the law is valid today, Schimel added, “I don’t believe that it reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin today.”

Crawford later accused Schimel of trying to “backpedal” his position on the law, while Schimel later said he thinks the current Wisconsin Supreme Court is “playing politics” by not ruling on one of the cases surrounding the 1849 law yet.

The sheer amount of money in the race also became a major flashpoint during the debate.

Asked if he embraced the support of Musk, Schimel framed investments from Musk-related groups as beyond his control.

“I got in this race over 15 months ago. I have campaigned in all 72 counties; I’ve gone to every corner of this state. I’m looking for the endorsement of the Wisconsin voters on April 1. Outside help that comes is not something I control,” Schimel said.

He also criticized Crawford for allegedly getting support from Soros. When asked if she embraces that endorsement, Crawford responded, “I have had generous contributions that have gone to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has endorsed me and supported my candidacy. But let’s talk about Elon Musk. Talk about somebody who’s been dangerous,” she said, mentioning some examples of cuts Musk has overseen in the federal government.

Crawford suggested that Musk is interested in the race because of a lawsuit brought by his company, Tesla, in the state.

Tesla has a lawsuit against the state over not being allowed to open dealerships in the state. Wisconsin law largely prohibits manufacturers from opening dealerships. Some have speculated that Musk’s interest in the race stems from this suit; Musk and Tesla have not confirmed this.

Later, during another back-and-forth about donors in the race, Crawford referenced “Elon Schimel.”

“I have support from all over the country, and it is because Elon Schimel is trying to buy this race. And people are very upset about that, and they are disturbed about that,” Crawford said.

Schimel, asked if the mailers from outside groups that say he would enforce President Donald Trump’s agenda in the state are true, countered again that he cannot control what outside groups say.

“I will enforce the law,” he added. “I will apply the law the way the legislature has written it. If President Trump or anyone defies Wisconsin law, and I end up with a case in front of me, I’ll hold them accountable as I would anybody in my courtroom.”

Later, when asked about the 2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision where the court blocked an attempt by the Trump campaign to invalidate around 220,000 absentee ballots, Schimel was similarly blunt over how he would act if Trump brought a case.

“If President Trump violates the law or President Trump brings a lawsuit that he’s wrong on the law — of course I would. I don’t have any personal loyalty to him that supersedes the oath I take as a judge.”

He declined to weigh in on whether a justice who recused himself from that case made the right decision, saying he’d have to review the case.

Crawford sidestepped when asked if she would recuse herself from cases involving the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, while Schimel sidestepped similarly over if he would recuse himself from the Tesla case.