The ruling is the latest twist in Musk’s deep involvement in the race, which has set a record for spending in a judicial election and has become a litmus test for the opening months of Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump and Musk are backing Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel in the race, while Democrats are behind Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.

Musk plans a rally Sunday where he intends to give a pair of Wisconsin voters $1 million each for signing an online petition against “activist” judges. He is also offering $100 to anyone who signs it; he previously gave $1 million to a Green Bay man who signed.

Musk and groups he funds have poured more than $20 million into the race, while Democratic megadonors, including George Soros, back Crawford. The race will determine ideological control of the court. Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority but a retirement this year puts the majority in play. The election concludes Tuesday.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, sued on Friday to stop the payments from Musk’s America PAC, arguing they violated a state law making it a felony to give voters anything of value in exchange for them voting.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT candidates Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford are seen before a debate March 12 in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

After being turned down by Columbia County Circuit Judge Andrew Voigt, Kaul said he was going to the state Court of Appeals.

Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments. A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court race comes as the court is expected to rule on abortion rights, congressional redistricting, union power and voting rules that could affect the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

Musk initially said in a post on his social media platform, X, that he planned to “personally hand over” $2 million to a pair of voters who have already cast their ballots in the race. Kaul asked the court to order Musk to stop promoting the Sunday giveaway and to not make any future payments to Wisconsin voters.

Even though Musk’s initial post was deleted, there has been no announcement that the payments will not be made, Kaul argued in the lawsuit.

———

Associated Press writer Scott Bauer contributed to this report.

———

Is Elon Musk skirting election law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race?

By JILL COLVIN and SCOTT BAUER

Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Billionaire Elon Musk’s unprecedented efforts to bolster the conservative candidate in next week’s hotly contested Wisconsin Supreme Court race ran into legal hot water Friday amid accusations that he had broken state election law.

Musk announced late Thursday that he planned to hold a Sunday rally in Wisconsin, where he said he would “personally hand over” $1 million checks to two voters who had already cast their ballots “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.”

Wisconsin state law expressly prohibits giving anything of value in exchange for voting — drawing a slew of complaints, including from Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney, who sued Friday afternoon to block Musk from handing out the checks.

Amid the backlash, Musk deleted the post and later posted a revised offer.

“To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges. I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition,” he wrote.

Andrew Romeo, a spokesperson for Musk’s political action committee, declined to comment on what had prompted the change.

What was the response?

Musk’s initial post drew a flurry of accusations just days before Tuesday’s election, which will determine the ideological makeup of the highest court in the perennial presidential battleground.

Attorney General Josh Kaul on Friday asked the circuit court to issue an emergency injunction to stop Musk from making the payments, calling them a “blatant attempt to violate” Wisconsin’s anti-bribery statute.

They also took issue with Musk’s political action committee, America First, offering to pay $100 to any registered Wisconsin voter who signed a petition voicing opposition to “activist judges” — or forwarded it to someone who did. Earlier this week, the group announced that it had awarded $1 million to a Green Bay man to serve as a “spokesperson for signing our Petition In Opposition To Activist Judges.”

The recipient, Scott Ainsworth, has donated to Republicans and made social media posts supporting President Donald Trump and his agenda.

A bipartisan coalition of government watchdog groups and former officeholders, along with a liberal Madison law firm, asked the Wisconsin attorney general and the Milwaukee County district attorney to investigate the $1 million payment and $100 signing payments.

Wisconsin law makes it a felony to offer, give, lend or promise to lend or give anything of value to induce a voter to cast a ballot or not vote.

Numerous legal experts argued Friday that Musk’s first post promising payments to voters for voting appeared to be in clear violation of the bribery statute.

“You cannot pay people to vote or not to vote,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics chief in the Bush administration. “His running these lotteries based on whether people vote or not, it’s illegal. And he’s got to cut that out.”

Musk’s revised X post, Painter said, “at least purports to comply with Wisconsin law.”

“I guess that technically complies,” he said.

Does Musk deleting his original post make a difference?

Others weren’t so sure.

Bryna Godar, staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said Musk changing the terms of his offer “puts the payments and attendance at the rally back into a gray area under Wisconsin law.”

“The question is whether the offers are ‘in order to induce’ people to vote or go to the polls, and there can be arguments made on either side of that question,” she said in an email.

She also said it is possible that Musk violated the election bribery law simply by offering the payments, even if no money is ever paid.

“Given that he already made the offer and that it was up while early voting was actively underway, there is a question of whether the initial post already violated state law, even though he has later walked it back,” she wrote. “Deleting his post and changing the terms might mitigate the circumstances, but it does not necessarily resolve the legal issue.”

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler was more blunt.

“Let’s be very clear: Elon Musk committed a crime the moment he offered million-dollar checks ‘in appreciation for’ voting, and deleting evidence of that crime changes nothing,” he said in a statement. “Under Wisconsin law, merely the offer of something of value — in this case, the chance to receive one million dollars — is plainly illegal.”

A challenge to Musk’s payments could end up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Has Musk tried this before?

Musk’s political action committee used nearly identical tactics to the ones he is using in Wisconsin ahead of the presidential election last year, when he spent hundreds of millions of dollars helping President Donald Trump win a second term.

That included offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.

Philadelphia’s district attorney sued in an attempt to stop the payments under Pennsylvania law. But a judge said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.

Rick Hasen, a prominent election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, noted that the legal issues raised this week echoed concerns about Musk’s tactics ahead of last year’s presidential election.

“During the 2024 elections, there was a question whether Elon Musk was breaking federal law in offering various incentives only to registered voters, including what was essentially a lottery open only to registered voters,” he wrote. “He’s up to similar gimmicks in the upcoming, very expensive Wisconsin Supreme Court race.”

What is Musk’s involvement in the race?

According to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice, America PAC and Building for America’s Future, two groups that Musk funds, have spent more than $20 million trying to help elect conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, whom Trump endorsed last week.

Schimel is facing Democratic-backed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford in the race that will determine the ideological makeup of the state’s highest court. Liberals currently have a 4-3 majority.

Musk also has given the Wisconsin Republican Party $3 million, which can be passed along to Schimel’s campaign.

That outside cash has made the race the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, by far. More than $81 million has been spent to date, obliterating the $51 million record set just two years ago, when another seat on the same court was up for grabs.

The election will determine control of the court, but has also become a referendum on Trump’s first weeks in office — as well as one on Musk himself.

During a telephone town hall for Schimel on Thursday night, Trump implored his voters to turn out in the off-year election.

“It’s a very important race,” he said. “I know you feel it’s local, but it’s not. It’s really much more than local. The whole country is watching.”

Musk got involved in the race just days after his electric car company, Tesla, filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin in an effort to open dealerships in the state, which could eventually end up before the justices.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is also expected to soon rule on a number of prominent national issues, including abortion rights, congressional redistricting and voting rules, which could affect the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

Jay Heck, the executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, a good government group, said that regardless of the outcome, Musk’s efforts were “unprecedented” in the state.

“It’s obscene and unprecedented. He’s already put in close to $20 million,” he said. “This election for a Supreme Court open seat in Wisconsin is going to cost, when it’s all said and done, somewhere between $80 and $100 million dollars. And this is to influence less than four million eligible voters, of which only 25-30% will turn out because this is a spring, low-turnout election.”

———

Colvin reported from New York.