Wisconsin Attorney General election, 2018

Elections in Wisconsin, 2018

* General election: Nov. 6
* Voter registration deadline: Oct. 17 (online or mail), or Nov. 2 (in-person)
* Early voting: Varies by locality
* Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

* Online registration: Yes
* Same-day registration: Yes
* Voter ID: Photo ID required
* Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

* * *

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

<- 2014

Wisconsin Attorney General

Democratic primary
Republican primary
General election
Election details
Filing deadline: June 1, 2018Filing deadline
Primary: August 14, 2018
General: November 6, 2018

* * *

Pre-election incumbent(s):
Brad Schimel (Republican)
How to vote
Poll times: 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Voting in Wisconsin
Ballotpedia analysis
Federal and state primary competitiveness
State executive elections in 2018
Impact of term limits in 2018
State government trifectas and triplexes
Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2018
Wisconsin
executive elections
Governor

Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Secretary of state
Treasurer

Attorney Josh Kaul (D) defeated incumbent Brad Schimel (R) and Terry Larson (Constitution Party) in the November 6, 2018, general election for Wisconsin Attorney General.

Schimel was first elected in 2014 by a margin of 6 percentage points. Of the ten preceding attorney general elections, a Republican candidate won four—including Schimel in 2014—and a Democratic candidate won six. At the time of the 2018 election, the most recent Democratic candidate to win an attorney general election in Wisconsin was Peg Lautenschlager in 2002.[1] In 2016, Donald Trump (R) carried the state by a margin of 1 percentage point.

Kaul's victory, alongside Tony Evers' (D) victory in the gubernatorial election and Douglas La Follette's (D) victory in the Secretary of State election, created a Democratic triplex in Wisconsin. At the time of the election, Wisconsin had been under divided triplex control since Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) took office in 2007, breaking a Democratic triplex.

For more information about the Democratic primary, click here.
For more information about the Republican primary, click here.

## Contents

* 1 Candidates and election results
* 2 Candidate profiles
* 3 Polls
* 4 Campaign finance
* 5 Noteworthy endorsements
* 6 Timeline
* 7 Campaign ads
* 7.1 Brad Schimel
* 7.1.1 Support
* 8 Debates and forums
* 9 Campaign themes
* 9.1 Josh Kaul
* 9.2 Brad Schimel
* 10 Social media
* 10.1 Twitter accounts
* 10.2 Facebook accounts
* 11 Election history
* 12 2014
* 13 2010
* 14 2006
* 15 2002
* 15.1 Pivot Counties
* 15.1.1 Presidential results by legislative district
* 15.2 State overview
* 15.2.1 Partisan control
* 15.2.1.1 Congressional delegation
* 15.2.1.2 State executives
* 15.2.1.3 State legislature
* 15.2.1.4 Trifecta status
* 15.2.2 2018 elections
* 15.2.3 Demographics
* 15.3 State election history
* 15.3.1 Historical elections
* 15.3.1.1 Presidential elections, 2000-2016
* 15.3.1.2 U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016
* 15.3.1.3 Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016
* 15.3.1.4 Congressional delegation, 2000-2016
* 15.3.1.5 Trifectas, 1992-2017
* 15.4 Recent news
* 15.5 See also
* 15.6 External links
* 15.7 Footnotes

## Candidates and election results[edit]

General election

##### General election for Attorney General of Wisconsin

Josh Kaul defeated incumbent Brad Schimel and Terry Larson in the general election for Attorney General of Wisconsin on November 6, 2018.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

✔ |

| Josh Kaul (D)  |

49.4

| 1,305,902

| Brad Schimel (R)  |

48.8

| 1,288,712

| Terry Larson (Constitution Party)  |

1.8

| 47,038
|  | Other/Write-in votes |

0.0

| 1,199

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 2,642,851
(100.00% precincts reporting)

|
|

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

#####  Democratic primary for Attorney General of Wisconsin

Josh Kaul advanced from the Democratic primary for Attorney General of Wisconsin on August 14, 2018.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

✔ |

| Josh Kaul |

100.0

| 432,954

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 432,954

|
|

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

#####  Republican primary for Attorney General of Wisconsin

Incumbent Brad Schimel advanced from the Republican primary for Attorney General of Wisconsin on August 14, 2018.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

✔ |

| Brad Schimel |

100.0

| 394,799

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 394,799

|
|

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Constitution primary election

#####  Constitution primary for Attorney General of Wisconsin

Terry Larson advanced from the Constitution primary for Attorney General of Wisconsin on August 14, 2018.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

✔ |

| Terry Larson |

100.0

| 354

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 354

|
|

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

## Candidate profiles[edit]

See also: Editorial approach to writing about key campaign messages

Josh Kaul, attorney

Party: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Political office: None

Biography: Kaul graduated from Yale University with a degree in economics and history in 2003 and obtained his law degree from Stanford in 2006. After clerking for Judge Michael Boudin for one year, Kaul joined the law firm of Jenner & Block in 2007. In 2010, Kaul was named Assistant U.S. Attorney for the district of Maryland. He held that post for four years before joining the law firm of Perkins Coie.

Key messages

* Kaul said that his legal experience as a prosecutor and as a voting rights attorney in the private sector had prepared him to serve as attorney general, saying that he "has spent much of his career working to keep families safe and to protect the right to vote."[2]

* Kaul said that he would focus on responding to the opioid crisis, clearing the backlog of untested rape kits, and prosecuting consumer fraud and environmental protection cases.[3]

* Kaul said that Schimel had not looked out for Wisconsinites while in office, saying that he tested nine rape kits from a backlog of thousands, opposed guaranteed overtime, and spent taxpayer money on promotional items.[3]

Brad Schimel, Attorney General of Wisconsin

Party: Republican

Incumbent: Yes

Political office: Attorney General of Wisconsin (Assumed office: 2015)

Biography: Schimel graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with a degree in political science in 1987. He obtained his law degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1990. Schimel worked for a private practice for five months before joining the Waukesha County District Attorney's office as an assistant district attorney later that year. In 2006, Schimel was named Wakesha County District Attorney. He served in that role until his election as state attorney general.

Key messages

* Schimel said that he had the support of law enforcement officials from both parties.[4]

* Schimel said that he has made significant progress during his first term as attorney general, pointing to his law enforcement wellness campaigns, modifications to the background check process for obtaining firearms, and programs he launched to support seniors and victims of domestic abuse as well as to increase awareness of opioid abuse.[4]

* Schimel said that Kaul did not have the experience necessary to serve as attorney general, saying that Kaul had never tried a criminal case in Wisconsin and that he offered plea bargains in over 70 drug-related cases while working as a prosecutor in Baltimore.[5][6]

## Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
Wisconsin Attorney General, 2018

Poll | Poll sponsor | Kaul (D) | Schimel (R)| Undecided/Other| Margin of Error| Sample Size
Marquette Law School
(October 24-28, 2018)| N/A | 45%| 47%| 9%| +/-3.2| 1,154
Marquette Law School
(October 3-7, 2018)| N/A | 43%| 47%| 11%| +/-3.9| 799
Marquette Law School
(September 12-16, 2018)| N/A | 41%| 48%| 10%| +/-4.4| 614
Note: A "0%" finding means the question was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org

## Campaign finance[edit]

The chart below contains data from financial reports submitted to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, containing information on all contributions and expenditures made between January 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018. In addition to the below figures, Schimel entered 2017 with $156,316.28 in his campaign account.

## Noteworthy endorsements[edit]

This section lists noteworthy endorsements issued in this election, including those made by high-profile individuals and organizations, cross-party endorsements, and endorsements made by newspaper editorial boards. It also includes links to endorsement lists published on campaign websites, if available. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are aware of endorsements that should be included, please email us.

Click the following links for endorsement lists on candidate campaign websites:

* Brad Schimel

## Timeline[edit]

* October 31, 2018: A Marquette Law School poll found Schimel about even with Kaul, with 47 percent support to Kaul's 45 percent.
* October 29, 2018: The candidates filed campaign finance reports covering the period between September 1 and October 22. During this period, Kaul reported raising $850,000 to Schimel's $480,000.
* October 16, 2018: Kaul and Schimel met for a debate in Milwaukee.
* October 12, 2018: Kaul and Schimel met for a debate in Madison.
* October 10, 2018: A Marquette Law School poll found Schimel apparently leading Kaul, with 47 percent support to Kaul's 43 percent. The poll reported a margin of error of 3.9 percentage points.
* September 18, 2018: A Marquette Law School poll found Schimel apparently leading Kaul, with 48 percent support to Kaul's 41 percent. The poll reported a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

## Campaign ads[edit]

###  Brad Schimel[edit]

#### Support[edit]

"Big Yellow House" - Schimel campaign ad, released October 2, 2018

"Connecticut" - Schimel campaign ad, released September 7, 2018

"Mothers" - campaign ad by Wisconsin Freedom PAC, released August 30, 2018

"Fighting for Us: Sexual Assault Test Kits" - campaign ad by Wisconsin Freedom PAC, released July 12, 2018

## Debates and forums[edit]

* Kaul and Schimel met for a debate in Milwaukee on October 16, 2018.[7] Click here for footage of the debate.
* Kaul and Schimel met for a debate in Madison on October 12, 2018.[8] Click here for footage of the debate.

## Campaign themes[edit]

###  Josh Kaul[edit]

Kaul's campaign website stated the following:

“  |

I want my family—and all of our families—to live in a Wisconsin that’s safer and stronger than the one we’re on track for right now. To get there, we need an Attorney General who is willing to take on tough fights and who is focused, every day, on protecting Wisconsinites.

We have an opioid epidemic that’s ripping families apart—and it’s getting worse. We’re not going to beat it until we start responding to it like the crisis it is.

We have a backlog of untested rape kits and increased delays in DNA and toxicology testing. Those backlogs mean that criminals who should be in jail remain on the streets and that justice is being delayed for victims of crime. We need to end the backlogs.

Protecting Wisconsin families also means enforcing the laws that keep us safe from consumer fraud and preserve our natural resources. Those who try to cheat Wisconsinites should expect to be held accountable. So should polluters who break our environmental laws.

My priorities are different from those of our current Attorney General. In his first two years in office, the Department of Justice tested only nine of the thousands of kits in the rape-kit backlog. He hired a corporate lobbyist to be his first Deputy AG. He fought against guaranteed overtime pay for people who put in the hours and make a fraction of what he does. He settled an air-pollution case against a major corporation without requiring the company to pay any fine at all. And he has spent about $83,000 of taxpayer money on promotional swag—from commemorative coins to custom-made fortune cookies.

We need to do better. The job of Attorney General has never been more important or more complex, and we can’t afford four more years of failed leadership. We need to bring change to the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

I’d be grateful to have your support[9]

|  ”

|
|

—Kaul for Attorney General[10]

###  Brad Schimel[edit]

Schimel's campaign website stated the following:

“  |

My fellow Wisconsinites,

Thanks for coming to my website and for the opportunity to tell you a little about myself. When people ask me why I ran for Attorney General, I usually chuckle a little, because it is not as simple an answer as you might expect. The plain fact of the matter is that I did not really plan to enter politics at all.

When I was at UW Law School, my plan for my legal career was to secure a high-paying position in a big law firm. I even cut my hair and shaved my mustache for the interviews. In fact, I cleaned up so well some of my good friends I hung out with did not recognize me in the halls at school. I had my interview suit and was all clean cut, but I did not land one of the jobs I thought I wanted at the time. I was initially disappointed, but one of my professors encouraged me to explore an option under a special program sanctioned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules which permits third-year law students to appear in court as an intern in a DA’s office or the office of the State Public Defender. I took his advice, and that led me to the career as a Wisconsin prosecutor that I have loved for nearly 30 years.

I was fortunate to land a position in the DA’s office in my home county. During the summer of 1989, between my second and third years of law school, I served as a prosecutor intern in the Waukesha County DA’s Office. I fell in love with working alongside law enforcement and crime victims and ended up continuing my internship through my entire third year of law school. While some of my classmates made a LOT more money clerking for law firms, I was actually in court, practicing law. In fact, I tried seven criminal jury trials and many court trials before I finished law school. And with that, I was hooked on public service.

Upon graduation, there was not an immediate opening for a full-time assistant DA in Waukesha, so I had to hang my shingle for about five months in private practice. Then, in late 1990, I got my new dream job and took the oath of office as an assistant DA in Waukesha County. Starting pay was $27,000 per year, which was not much compared to most of my classmates’ salaries, but I was doing something I loved, and making a difference.

I did everything there was to do as a prosecutor. I went on to try over 150 more jury trials–in every type of case a DA’s office sees. I was a hands-on type of assistant DA, and took every chance I could to ride with law enforcement and go to crime scenes. Law enforcement knew that they could count on me any time night or day to help out, whether I was officially on call or not. My wife, Sandi, was not always thrilled about that!

Early on in my career, I was invited to join the board of the Waukesha County Addiction Resource Council, the nonprofit organization that provides assessments and referrals to treatment for people struggling with substance abuse addiction. I eventually was elected treasurer of the board and served for ix years. My service on this board framed my understanding of addiction and inspired work I would do later as DA and Attorney General, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Along the way, I had earned the respect of Judge Marianne Becker, who honored me by asking me to assist her with a project she was discussing with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The goal was to create the very first Victim Impact Panel for Intoxicated Drivers in Wisconsin. A small team of us succeeded in the mid-1990s in creating the program that has changed countless lives and is still used by the criminal justice system to this day. We paved the way for a program that is now in place in many of our counties and that is making communities safer throughout our state.

During my college and law school years, I had not gone to church very often. This might surprise you, but my work as an Assistant DA gave me many experiences where I saw God at work in people’s lives. Assistant DAs are not paid much, but they have enormous responsibilities. We handle thousands of cases and impact countless lives with the decisions we make. It started to occur to me that this was all bigger than me; that service as a state prosecutor is not just a career. It is a vocation.

I remember trying an OWI homicide case in which two great grandparents from my hometown of Mukwonago were killed coming home from church on Sunday morning. That was in 1993 or so, and was my first solo homicide jury trial. I was on call when the crash happened, so I worked on it with the police over the weekend. On Monday morning, I went to my boss, the DA, and asked him to let me handle the case, even though I was still pretty young. I had tried quite a few cases, and he felt I had proven myself, and he gave me the chance.

To try the case, I needed to know the victims for whom I was standing up. I learned from their adult children and grandchildren all about Laurence and Lillian Guderyon. They were amazing people. One grandson shared with me how he and grandpa had recently been up north chopping firewood, and the grandson needed to sit down for a break, but grandpa, who was in his 80s, continued to work. That detail came in handy at trial when the defense tried to suggest to the jury that Laurence had experienced an heart attack and had been the one who caused the crash.

The day they were hit head on by a repeat drunk driver, Laurence had donated a lawn mower he had restored to the church. Lillian used to bring cookies into the police department to thank the officers for their work. They were always doing things like that. They reminded me an awful lot of my grandparents. That truly was the “greatest generation.” It was a challenging trial for a number of reasons, but I knew I MUST get justice for Laurence and Lillian and their family.

I felt a lot of pressure, and in the midst of the trial preparation, I decided to pray for guidance. I felt the pressure lift and from that time on, I have viewed my work as a prosecutor and my quest to get justice for victims as my “mission field,” and I never enter my mission field without giving thanks.

By the way, the trial went well, and the killer was sentenced to the maximum possible sentences on every count, even every single day he could serve in prison for operating with a revoked license. I helped convince some legislators at the time that we needed to increase the penalties for homicide by OWI. I still have in my office a stuffed pig wearing Harley Davidson gear that the family of Laurence and Lillian gave me to say thank you. They knew I loved riding my motorcycle. That momento serves as a reminder of why I do what I do.

I have a number of those types of keepsakes in my office, and the small gifts I received from crime victims I helped are among my most treasured possessions. I have a small homemade chopper fashioned from bolts welded together that I received from a young man who had developmental disabilities. He was sexually assaulted and physically abused by a coworker who resented that the employer hired people with disabilities at the company. He had a hard time communicating because of his disabilities, but I worked with him to help him be able to tell the jury what happened, and the defendant was convicted. The young man had seen pictures of my motorcycle in my office, and asked one of his other coworkers to make the little motorcycle for me. That little motorcycle on my credenza at work goes unnoticed by many who come to my office I’m sure, but I cherish it.

Everyone who knows me knows I love to ride motorcycles, and have had my current Electra Glide Classic for 24 years now. I served seven years as a Road Captain with the Kettle Moraine Chapter of the Harley Owners Group. These days, I don’t get to ride very often.

I knew that if I was going to be successful in the kind of work I had chosen, I needed God’s support, and I started going back to church at St. William Catholic Parish in Waukesha. I wanted to be active, and joined the Human Concerns Committee. I eventually became the Chair of the committee, and also chaired the Right to Life subcommittee. The Human Concerns Committee gave me the chance to participate in so much good work in our community. Perhaps the most rewarding was coordinating a Sunday prayer service at the former Ethan Allen School for Boys, a juvenile correctional facility in western Waukesha County. For some of the young men, we were the only visitors who came to see them. We went there to share our faith with those young men, but every one of us gained more than we gave.

My family is now at St. Anthony on the Lake Parish in Pewaukee, and I have been privileged to share His Word as a Lector for the last few years.

After I had completed my service on the Board of Directors at the Addiction Resource Council, I was approached by another non-profit that was at the time called the Pregnancy Support Connection. It would eventually merge with another organization and become Safe Babies Healthy Families. The organization provided full wrap-around services from counseling and newborn care training all of the way to residential placement in one of the transitional homes we managed. I eventually went on to be elected President of the Board and served for over eight years. The organization did great work to ensure that moms-to-be, mostly young in age, had the skills, resources and support to have a healthy pregnancy and safe and healthy child all of the way up to age five.

One winter I was asked to announce at mass that the Human Concerns Committee at church was looking for volunteers to help shovel snow for seniors through Interfaith Caregiving Network. I ended up signing up myself. After a couple of winters of snow shoveling, the Executive Director approached me about joining the Board of Directors. I loved my grandparents, and the opportunity to serve seniors was too good to pass up, so I joined yet another nonprofit board. The agency eventually became Interfaith Senior Programs and recently rebranded as ERAs Senior Programs. The name has changed, but the core mission remains to provide services to our seniors and adults with disabilities, both in the form of in-home services to keep them safe and thriving and in opportunities to be active in the community to whatever extent they are able. I was eventually elected President of the Board and served for seven years. What I learned on that board played a pivotal role in our formation of the Elder Abuse Task Force at the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Somewhere in the midst of this, I also served for six years on the Board of Directors for the Waukesha County Food Pantry, another incredibly rewarding experience. I served on the Executive Committee, but the part of my service about which I am most proud was co-chairing the committee that fostered the move of the agency to a very much bigger location. It was a risky move, because it meant that agency had to dramatically increase fundraising, but we desperately needed the space if we were to serve a client population that had grown exponentially. That was over a decade ago, and the agency is stronger than ever in that new location.

I spent over five years assigned to Juvenile Court in the late 1990s, and helped implement the completely revamped Juvenile Code that was enacted in 1995. I became active in and was eventually elected President of the Waukesha County Juvenile Officers Association.

The largest part of my career as an assistant DA was spent in the Sensitive Crimes Unit, which handled sexual assault, child abuse and elder abuse prosecutions. This was both the most difficult and most rewarding work at the same time. It was emotionally draining, and the cases were very difficult to prove, but to me there were no more important cases. I fully immersed myself in this work and became involved as the office representative to the multidisciplinary Coordinated Community Response and Sexual Assault Response Teams.

Those of us working on child abuse cases became frustrated that we did not have a local child advocacy center in Waukesha. The Child and Adolescent Treatment Center (CATC) in Milwaukee was outstanding but there were unavoidable waiting lists for forensic interviews and even medical exams, because it was at the time the only place to go in southeastern Wisconsin. Plus, some families in Waukesha did not want to take their child all the way to downtown Milwaukee. Further, it was only a place to get a forensic interview and a medical exam. Non-offending family members of the victim were sent home with fliers and business cards for counselors and victim service agencies, but these families were in crisis, and often did not follow up with making those calls to schedule appointments with agencies that could help the child begin the healing process.

A group of five of us, from various agencies that worked with children who were victims of abuse set out to change that, and I am proud to say, our work led to a sea change throughout Wisconsin. We formed a small task force made up of a police lieutenant, associate director of The Women’s Center, executive director of Family Service of Waukesha, a supervisor of juvenile services at the Waukesha County Department of Human Services and me. We sought and received grant funding to attend a 2004 multidisciplinary team conference in the Minneapolis area focused on creating a child advocacy center. We did not really know what we were getting into, but we came back committed to do something no one in Wisconsin had yet done. We partnered with Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and less than two years later, opened the doors to the Big Yellow House, our state’s first full-service child advocacy center. The template we created encouraged other communities to do the same, and Wisconsin now has a strong network of CACs in communities all around the state. I co-chaired the Steering Committee for the Big Yellow House until I left the DA’s office to become Attorney General.

In 2006, I received one of the greatest professional honors of my career when the Wisconsin Association of Victim and Witness Professionals named me their “Professional of the Year” for my work on behalf of survivors of sexual assault.

It was not just child victims we served in the Sensitive Crimes Unit. There were also adult victims of sexual violence. Like with child victims, the services available to adult victims needed improvement. I had an opportunity to work with the team at Waukesha Memorial Hospital to create a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Program in Waukesha County. Adult sexual assault victims were being taken to the Sexual Assault Treatment Center in Milwaukee, which like the CATC, was an outstanding, but overwhelmed facility. We decided that the state’s third largest county should have its own SANE services, and thanks to the community service oriented approach at ProHealth Care and some very talented people in our law enforcement and human services teams, we got it done.

We also created a protocol for the handling of the Sexual Assault Kits that were collected by the SANE Nurses. As a result, when I ran for AG, I knew what to do to tackle our state’s 20-year problem of accumulated sexual assault kits that had not been submitted to the Crime Lab for testing. At DOJ, we put in place a process that will resolve that decades-old problem in less than three years. Even more importantly, we developed a statewide protocol that will prevent this from ever happening again.

By the way, thanks to the protocol we put in place in Waukesha County years ago, the third-largest county only had 39 unsubmitted kits that needed to be tested. Statewide there were over 4,100. At DOJ, I saw the value in constructing a comprehensive, victim-centered plan like we did in Waukesha. The criminal justice system is run by human beings, so there will always be some mistakes, but my experience in the DA’s office taught me how to implement strategies to minimize those mistakes.

I also knew that a strategy to serve sexual assault survivors better required coordination of SANE services across our state. I campaigned on the promise to do so, and shortly after taking office as AG, I hired our state’s first statewide SANE Coordinator. Through this position, DOJ has increased training for SANE nurses and made the training more affordable to local health care systems and more convenient to the individual nurses.

I know that if we are to make the criminal justice system as effective as possible, we need to provide the best training possible. I worked hard for over 20 years to make sure that the young professionals coming into the criminal justice system were prepared for the ever changing challenges of the work. For most of my career, I have been an instructor in the law enforcement in-service trainings that all certified police officers must complete each year. Eventually, I was invited to become an adjunct instructor at Concordia University of Wisconsin in the criminal justice program. After several years of that, I moved to Waukesha County Technical College, where I taught Criminal Law and Criminal Evidence to future law enforcement officers for well over a decade.

Since coming to DOJ, we have implemented tremendous enhancements to law enforcement training statewide, and even increased the number of hours of training necessary to become a police officer. We have also created a comprehensive physical, emotional and psychological wellness program for our law enforcement across the state. It is the first and only program of its kind in America, and I am immensely proud of our efforts to better serve and protect those who serve and protect us. My experiences in the DA’s office working alongside law enforcement for 25 years taught me the importance of this.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this, I was elected Waukesha County District Attorney in 2006. Remember at the beginning of this when I said I chuckle when people ask why I decided to run for AG? The fact of the matter is that I never even planned to run for District Attorney. I had no plans to become involved in politics. I was thriving as a sensitive crimes prosecutor, and planned to stay in that role. When my predecessor moved on, though, he and the lead deputy DA in the office approached me and said I should run for DA. I did not take that seriously until the other attorneys in the office told me that I was the person they wanted to run. The current and all living past sheriffs, police chiefs and police officer unions also pledged their support and urged me to run. It was a contested race with a very well qualified opponent, but I prevailed.

As DA, I set out to use the things I had learned in 17 years as an assistant DA. I had spent some time assigned to the Metro Drug Unit, and by 2005, I saw the growing storm of the opiate epidemic coming. When I took office as DA in 2007, I became an executive committee member of the county Criminal Justice Collaborating Council. Waukesha County had already established the state’s very first Alcohol Treatment Court, and I knew we desperately needed the same kind of opportunity for those struggling with opiate addiction. I began beating the drum to form a Drug Treatment Court, but was having some difficulty convincing some of the others on the CJCC that it was necessary. Eventually, I think I became such an annoyance that they authorized me to form and chair a Drug Abuse Trends Task Force to explore the options. That committee was eventually successful in launching our very successful Drug Treatment Court that is changing lives to this day.

As DA, I served on the Board of Directors for the Wisconsin District Attorneys’ Association, on the Wisconsin Judicial Council, on the Wisconsin Crime Victim Council, as President of the Preventing Alcohol Related Crashes (PARC) Task Force, co-chaired the Waukesha Child Fatality Review Board, served on the Board of Directors of the UW Waukesha Foundation, served as a member of the Wisconsin STOP Grant Committee. I served as an active member of the Waukesha Noon Rotary for almost a decade, but could not keep that up as AG.

I served as DA in our state’s third largest county for eight years. I suppose it was only natural that people would occasionally ask me if I had plans to run for Attorney General someday. When they asked, it was usually my wife Sandi who answered with an emphatic “no!” I did not argue with her, partially because arguing with her is a losing proposition, but partially because I loved what I was doing, and did not really have a desire to run for AG.

That changed when my predecessor decided not to seek a third term as AG and asked me to consider running. I was not really on board, but said I would need to pray on it and ask my wife for permission and guidance. I did the praying first, and began to feel a calling to run, but fully intended to give my wife veto power. I went to her to ask permission, and expected to be denied permission, and that would be the end of it. Only Sandi said “yes.” When I asked her why she had changed her mind, she told me I needed a change. I debated that I loved my 25 years in the DA’s Office, and did not think I needed a change, but she stood firm and made a strong case. She told me that the work on the front lines had been affecting me negatively, and I was quiet and distracted when I was at home. Once I did become AG, I saw she was right. The cumulative burden of working directly with so much negativity and trouble had become so much that it was affecting my home life.

That revelation from Sandi inspired me to launch our first in the nation Law Enforcement Wellness Program at DOJ, which focuses not just on physical fitness, but more importantly on the emotional and psychological impacts of serving in law enforcement. Those cumulative impacts have resulted in law enforcement officers having shorter lifespans, higher divorce rates, and most tragically, we lose four times as many officers to suicide as to duty deaths. One of my most important missions is to change this. DOJ requires any conference we sponsor to have a wellness component. We have worked tirelessly to get every police department in the state to provide a full array of services to address officer wellness. We have developed a police chaplain credentialing program that is the only such program in America. I am proud of the great work we are doing to protect and serve those who protect and serve us.

I have not done any of this alone. As I have said, I am grateful to God for the gifts He has given to me. Also, my family has been supportive, and without much recognition. There was one time when my wife and daughters did receive a formal recognition… in 2013 when the Schimel family received the Family Service of Waukesha award as Family of the Year. Sandi and I have been married 22 years, and she is my rock. Mackenzie is 17 and Hailey is 15 now, and I am so grateful to the girls for all that they have sacrificed so that I could pursue my calling.

I know this note is very long, and a little unorthodox. But I figure if you care enough to come to this site, you are researching your options and deserve to know who I am, what motivates me, and how I go about my job as your Attorney General.

I respect people of all backgrounds and faiths, including those who choose not to believe in a higher power. My faith isn’t exclusionary. But it is a part of who I am, and I’m not ashamed of it. My Catholic faith guides me to serve others, and to try to be the best person, father, husband and public servant I can be.

Whether or not I’ve earned your support, you’ve earned my appreciation for taking the time to read this and learn more about me than you could from any political advertisement or public appearance.

My experiences and my faith guide my approach as a public servant. At DOJ we are part of a team. We work closely with local law enforcement leaders to help them keep Wisconsin families safe, and I am running for re-election to continue to have the honor to serve all of Wisconsin.

Major Accomplishments as Attorney General

* Streamlined background checks for gun purchases and expedited concealed carry permits.
* Led initiatives that support victims of domestic abuse and violent crime, such as Marsy’s Law and the Safe at Home program.
* Created the Elder Abuse task force to protect seniors from fraud and harm.
* Launched the Dose of Reality campaign to increase awareness about opioid abuse, a program many other states have modeled directly.
* Led Drug take Back Days across the state to safely dispose of unused prescription drugs, amassing 17 semi trucks full.
* Promoted officer wellness to keep the men and women of law enforcement healthy and enabled to do their jobs.[9]

|  ”

|
|

—Schimel for Attorney General[11]

## Social media[edit]

### Twitter accounts[edit]

Tweets by Josh Kaul Tweets by Brad Schimel

### Facebook accounts[edit]

Click the icons below to visit the candidates' Facebook pages.

Josh Kaul

Brad Schimel

## Election history[edit]

# 2014[edit]

See also: Wisconsin attorney general election, 2014
Attorney General of Wisconsin, 2014

Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes
| Republican  | Brad Schimel | 51.5% | 1,211,388
| Democratic  |  Susan Happ | 45.4% | 1,066,866
| Libertarian  |  Thomas Nelson | 3% | 70,951
| Nonpartisan  |  Scattering  | 0% | 1,120
Total Votes | 2,350,325
Election results via Wisconsin Government Accountability Board

# 2010[edit]

See also: Wisconsin Attorney General election, 2010

On November 2, 2010, J.B. Van Hollen won re-election to the office of Attorney General of Wisconsin. He defeated Scott Hassett (D) in the general election.

Attorney General of Wisconsin, 2010

Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes
| Republican  | J.B. Van Hollen Incumbent | 57.8% | 1,220,791
| Democratic  |  Scott Hassett  | 42.1% | 890,080
| \-  |  Scattering | 0.1% | 1,614
Total Votes | 2,112,485
Election results via Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

# 2006[edit]

On November 7, 2006, J.B. Van Hollen won election to the office of Attorney General of Wisconsin. He defeated Kathleen Falk (D) in the general election.

Attorney General of Wisconsin, 2006

Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes
| Republican  | J.B. Van Hollen | 50.2% | 1,065,453
| Democratic  |  Kathleen Falk | 49.7% | 1,056,594
| \-  |  Scattering | 0.1% | 2,420
Total Votes | 2,124,467
Election results via Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

# 2002[edit]

On November 5, 2002, Peggy A. Lautenschlager won election to the office of Attorney General of Wisconsin. She defeated Vince Biskupic (R) in the general election.

Attorney General of Wisconsin, 2002

Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes
| Democratic  | Peggy A. Lautenschlager | 51.6% | 882,945
| Republican  |  Vince Biskupic  | 48.3% | 826,862
| \-  |  Scattering | 0.1% | 1,488
Total Votes | 1,711,295
Election results via Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

## Pivot Counties[edit]

See also: Pivot Counties by state

Twenty-three of 72 Wisconsin counties—32 percent—are Pivot Counties. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.

Counties won by Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008

County  |  Trump margin of victory in 2016  |  Obama margin of victory in 2012  |  Obama margin of victory in 2008
Adams County, Wisconsin | 21.92% | 8.73% | 18.35%
Buffalo County, Wisconsin | 21.82% | 2.93% | 14.66%
Columbia County, Wisconsin | 2.14% | 13.58% | 15.26%
Crawford County, Wisconsin | 5.40% | 19.98% | 27.03%
Door County, Wisconsin | 3.22% | 6.99% | 17.33%
Dunn County, Wisconsin | 11.09% | 4.97% | 14.95%
Forest County, Wisconsin | 26.58% | 5.44% | 15.16%
Grant County, Wisconsin | 9.43% | 13.77% | 23.88%
Jackson County, Wisconsin | 11.74% | 15.01% | 21.84%
Juneau County, Wisconsin | 26.05% | 7.03% | 9.00%
Kenosha County, Wisconsin | 0.31% | 12.23% | 18.06%
Lafayette County, Wisconsin | 8.99% | 15.37% | 22.32%
Lincoln County, Wisconsin | 20.60% | 0.71% | 12.48%
Marquette County, Wisconsin | 24.09% | 0.27% | 5.28%
Pepin County, Wisconsin | 23.08% | 2.22% | 12.89%
Price County, Wisconsin | 25.00% | 0.04% | 13.40%
Racine County, Wisconsin | 4.28% | 3.54% | 7.41%
Richland County, Wisconsin | 5.50% | 16.13% | 20.63%
Sauk County, Wisconsin | 0.35% | 18.47% | 23.04%
Sawyer County, Wisconsin | 18.41% | 0.49% | 6.23%
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin | 12.64% | 14.08% | 26.39%
Vernon County, Wisconsin | 4.43% | 14.73% | 22.00%
Winnebago County, Wisconsin | 7.34% | 3.73% | 11.66%

In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) won Wisconsin with 47.2 percent of the vote. Hillary Clinton (D) received 46.5 percent. In presidential elections between 1900 and 2016, Wisconsin cast votes for the winning presidential candidate 76.7 percent of the time. In that same time frame, Wisconsin supported Republicans slightly more than Democratic candidates, 50.0 to 46.7 percent. The state, however, favored Democrats in every presidential election from 2000 to 2012 before voting for Trump in 2016.

#### Presidential results by legislative district[edit]

The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state Assembly districts in Wisconsin. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[12][13]

In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 43 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 34.1 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 36 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 34.6 points. Clinton won three districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections.

In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 56 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 12.1 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 63 out of 99 state Assembly districts in Wisconsin with an average margin of victory of 19.4 points. Trump won two districts controlled by Democrats heading into the 2018 elections.

2016 Presidential Results by State Assembly District '

District |  Obama |  Romney |  2012 Margin |  Clinton |  Trump |  2016 Margin |  Party Control
1 | 49.45% | 49.55% | R+0.1 | 40.19% | 55.31% | R+15.1 | R
2 | 45.06% | 53.88% | R+8.8 | 35.98% | 58.55% | R+22.6 | R
3 | 46.37% | 52.37% | R+6 | 39.25% | 54.77% | R+15.5 | R
4 | 47.96% | 51.02% | R+3.1 | 42.82% | 51.96% | R+9.1 | R
5 | 45.84% | 53.01% | R+7.2 | 35.60% | 58.94% | R+23.3 | R
6 | 44.15% | 54.75% | R+10.6 | 30.90% | 64.34% | R+33.4 | R
7 | 57.11% | 41.73% | D+15.4 | 55.20% | 39.20% | D+16 | D
8 | 86.53% | 12.79% | D+73.7 | 82.43% | 14.14% | D+68.3 | D
9 | 74.69% | 24.42% | D+50.3 | 71.60% | 23.86% | D+47.7 | D
10 | 89.76% | 9.63% | D+80.1 | 89.09% | 8.09% | D+81 | D
11 | 86.92% | 12.62% | D+74.3 | 85.40% | 12.20% | D+73.2 | D
12 | 80.00% | 19.52% | D+60.5 | 79.28% | 17.84% | D+61.4 | D
13 | 41.61% | 57.43% | R+15.8 | 46.60% | 48.01% | R+1.4 | R
14 | 42.53% | 56.71% | R+14.2 | 49.36% | 45.05% | D+4.3 | R
15 | 44.86% | 54.03% | R+9.2 | 43.63% | 50.53% | R+6.9 | R
16 | 90.18% | 8.97% | D+81.2 | 88.16% | 8.20% | D+80 | D
17 | 86.03% | 13.52% | D+72.5 | 85.53% | 11.96% | D+73.6 | D
18 | 89.18% | 10.15% | D+79 | 87.03% | 9.71% | D+77.3 | D
19 | 69.95% | 28.13% | D+41.8 | 72.67% | 20.16% | D+52.5 | D
20 | 58.37% | 40.39% | D+18 | 55.33% | 39.27% | D+16.1 | D
21 | 47.93% | 51.07% | R+3.1 | 44.81% | 50.06% | R+5.3 | R
22 | 42.44% | 56.73% | R+14.3 | 35.41% | 60.15% | R+24.7 | R
23 | 34.62% | 64.61% | R+30 | 50.43% | 44.81% | D+5.6 | R
24 | 43.05% | 56.18% | R+13.1 | 45.71% | 49.32% | R+3.6 | R
25 | 46.93% | 51.76% | R+4.8 | 35.85% | 58.74% | R+22.9 | R
26 | 45.64% | 53.35% | R+7.7 | 38.91% | 55.22% | R+16.3 | R
27 | 45.07% | 53.89% | R+8.8 | 40.39% | 54.00% | R+13.6 | R
28 | 43.68% | 54.77% | R+11.1 | 32.63% | 61.90% | R+29.3 | R
29 | 48.16% | 50.05% | R+1.9 | 38.58% | 54.01% | R+15.4 | R
30 | 46.24% | 52.24% | R+6 | 42.51% | 50.44% | R+7.9 | R
31 | 46.56% | 52.48% | R+5.9 | 40.68% | 53.70% | R+13 | R
32 | 41.42% | 57.37% | R+15.9 | 34.97% | 59.41% | R+24.4 | R
33 | 39.95% | 58.97% | R+19 | 35.54% | 59.27% | R+23.7 | R
34 | 44.59% | 54.39% | R+9.8 | 35.28% | 60.34% | R+25.1 | R
35 | 46.89% | 52.10% | R+5.2 | 34.68% | 60.52% | R+25.8 | R
36 | 46.49% | 52.48% | R+6 | 32.07% | 64.35% | R+32.3 | R
37 | 45.97% | 52.93% | R+7 | 39.87% | 54.26% | R+14.4 | R
38 | 41.66% | 57.48% | R+15.8 | 38.23% | 56.78% | R+18.5 | R
39 | 42.12% | 56.85% | R+14.7 | 32.76% | 62.11% | R+29.4 | R
40 | 45.04% | 53.94% | R+8.9 | 32.61% | 62.85% | R+30.2 | R
41 | 48.58% | 50.35% | R+1.8 | 36.02% | 59.60% | R+23.6 | R
42 | 51.09% | 48.03% | D+3.1 | 40.26% | 54.51% | R+14.3 | R
43 | 58.46% | 40.22% | D+18.2 | 50.24% | 43.54% | D+6.7 | D
44 | 63.57% | 35.53% | D+28 | 55.44% | 38.62% | D+16.8 | D
45 | 63.99% | 34.88% | D+29.1 | 52.83% | 41.86% | D+11 | D
46 | 63.63% | 35.46% | D+28.2 | 61.74% | 32.95% | D+28.8 | D
47 | 71.05% | 27.83% | D+43.2 | 71.89% | 23.13% | D+48.8 | D
48 | 77.21% | 21.61% | D+55.6 | 76.06% | 19.26% | D+56.8 | D
49 | 56.34% | 42.26% | D+14.1 | 42.01% | 51.26% | R+9.3 | R
50 | 54.10% | 44.84% | D+9.3 | 38.35% | 57.05% | R+18.7 | R
51 | 59.12% | 39.77% | D+19.4 | 48.42% | 46.59% | D+1.8 | R
52 | 45.04% | 53.91% | R+8.9 | 38.03% | 56.66% | R+18.6 | R
53 | 43.36% | 55.55% | R+12.2 | 34.18% | 60.93% | R+26.7 | R
54 | 57.39% | 41.08% | D+16.3 | 49.16% | 44.12% | D+5 | D
55 | 47.32% | 51.08% | R+3.8 | 41.80% | 51.70% | R+9.9 | R
56 | 43.05% | 55.69% | R+12.6 | 37.98% | 56.68% | R+18.7 | R
57 | 58.41% | 39.31% | D+19.1 | 51.73% | 41.22% | D+10.5 | D
58 | 31.25% | 67.77% | R+36.5 | 28.43% | 66.52% | R+38.1 | R
59 | 31.24% | 67.73% | R+36.5 | 25.52% | 69.73% | R+44.2 | R
60 | 31.82% | 67.23% | R+35.4 | 32.35% | 62.53% | R+30.2 | R
61 | 44.42% | 54.59% | R+10.2 | 36.49% | 58.50% | R+22 | R
62 | 45.73% | 53.46% | R+7.7 | 41.17% | 54.02% | R+12.9 | R
63 | 42.73% | 56.47% | R+13.7 | 37.80% | 57.26% | R+19.5 | R
64 | 58.84% | 40.05% | D+18.8 | 52.63% | 42.23% | D+10.4 | D
65 | 67.06% | 31.78% | D+35.3 | 57.76% | 36.48% | D+21.3 | D
66 | 75.23% | 23.77% | D+51.5 | 68.34% | 26.50% | D+41.8 | D
67 | 48.07% | 50.75% | R+2.7 | 36.41% | 58.15% | R+21.7 | R
68 | 51.24% | 47.56% | D+3.7 | 40.11% | 54.44% | R+14.3 | R
69 | 43.65% | 55.15% | R+11.5 | 34.08% | 60.83% | R+26.8 | R
70 | 48.55% | 50.09% | R+1.5 | 36.82% | 57.83% | R+21 | R
71 | 57.55% | 41.03% | D+16.5 | 50.34% | 43.28% | D+7.1 | D
72 | 48.68% | 50.09% | R+1.4 | 36.95% | 58.55% | R+21.6 | R
73 | 60.93% | 37.66% | D+23.3 | 47.53% | 47.49% | D+0 | D
74 | 57.74% | 40.88% | D+16.9 | 46.22% | 49.38% | R+3.2 | D
75 | 47.55% | 51.22% | R+3.7 | 34.53% | 60.84% | R+26.3 | R
76 | 81.64% | 15.70% | D+65.9 | 82.30% | 11.34% | D+71 | D
77 | 82.23% | 16.20% | D+66 | 83.80% | 11.48% | D+72.3 | D
78 | 71.91% | 26.85% | D+45.1 | 75.62% | 19.47% | D+56.2 | D
79 | 60.89% | 38.29% | D+22.6 | 62.65% | 32.43% | D+30.2 | D
80 | 63.93% | 35.08% | D+28.9 | 62.12% | 32.50% | D+29.6 | D
81 | 61.46% | 37.67% | D+23.8 | 51.23% | 43.11% | D+8.1 | D
82 | 43.03% | 56.32% | R+13.3 | 43.69% | 51.79% | R+8.1 | R
83 | 31.12% | 68.10% | R+37 | 29.71% | 65.91% | R+36.2 | R
84 | 42.31% | 56.84% | R+14.5 | 41.43% | 53.68% | R+12.3 | R
85 | 52.04% | 46.78% | D+5.3 | 44.67% | 49.90% | R+5.2 | R
86 | 43.96% | 55.02% | R+11.1 | 36.19% | 59.18% | R+23 | R
87 | 44.81% | 53.95% | R+9.1 | 30.93% | 64.82% | R+33.9 | R
88 | 48.79% | 50.35% | R+1.6 | 43.75% | 50.75% | R+7 | R
89 | 46.02% | 52.97% | R+6.9 | 32.41% | 63.26% | R+30.9 | R
90 | 63.31% | 35.13% | D+28.2 | 53.29% | 39.82% | D+13.5 | D
91 | 60.63% | 37.68% | D+22.9 | 55.95% | 36.72% | D+19.2 | D
92 | 55.89% | 42.98% | D+12.9 | 40.90% | 54.33% | R+13.4 | R
93 | 47.10% | 51.80% | R+4.7 | 38.30% | 56.18% | R+17.9 | R
94 | 51.53% | 47.32% | D+4.2 | 45.50% | 49.03% | R+3.5 | D
95 | 64.46% | 33.93% | D+30.5 | 58.03% | 34.66% | D+23.4 | D
96 | 55.57% | 42.95% | D+12.6 | 42.90% | 51.64% | R+8.7 | R
97 | 39.90% | 59.02% | R+19.1 | 39.37% | 54.43% | R+15.1 | R
98 | 33.69% | 65.46% | R+31.8 | 35.20% | 59.58% | R+24.4 | R
99 | 26.70% | 72.64% | R+45.9 | 28.97% | 66.40% | R+37.4 | R
Total | 52.92% | 45.97% | D+7 | 47.01% | 47.78% | R+0.8 | \-
Source: Daily Kos

## State overview[edit]

### Partisan control[edit]

This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Wisconsin heading into the 2018 elections.

#### Congressional delegation[edit]

* Following the 2016 elections, Democrats and Republicans each hold one U.S. Senate seat in Wisconsin.
* Republicans held five of eight U.S. House seats in Wisconsin.

#### State executives[edit]

* Republicans held six of 11 state executive positions, while one position was held by a Democrat and four were held by nonpartisan officials.
* The governor of Wisconsin was Republican Scott Walker.

#### State legislature[edit]

* Republicans controlled both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature. They had a 64-35 majority in the state Assembly and an 18-15 majority in the state Senate.

#### Trifecta status[edit]

* Wisconsin was a Republican trifecta, meaning that the Republican Party controlled the state government. Scott Walker (R) served as governor and Republicans controlled the state legislature.

### 2018 elections[edit]

See also: Wisconsin elections, 2018

Wisconsin held elections for the following positions in 2018:

* One seat in the U.S. Senate
* Eight U.S. House seats
* Governor and lieutenant governor
* Three lower state executive positions
* 17 out of 33 state Senate seats
* 99 state Assembly seats
* Municipal elections in Dane and Milwaukee Counties

### Demographics[edit]

Demographic data for Wisconsin

| Wisconsin| U.S.
Total population:| 5,767,891| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 54,158| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 86.5%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 6.3%| 12.6%
Asian:| 2.5%| 5.1%
Native American:| 0.9%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 2.1%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 6.3%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 91%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 27.8%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $53,357| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 15%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Wisconsin.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

As of July 2017, Wisconsin had a population of approximately 5,800,000 people, with its three largest cities being Milwaukee (pop. est. 600,000), Madison (pop. est. 250,000), and Green Bay (pop. est. 110,000).[14][15]

## State election history[edit]

This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

### Historical elections[edit]

#### Presidential elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Wisconsin every year from 2000 to 2016.

Election results (President of the United States), Wisconsin 2000-2016

Year  |  First-place candidate  |  First-place candidate votes (%)  |  Second-place candidate  |  Second-place candidate votes (%)  |  Margin of victory (%)
2016  |  Donald Trump |  47.8%  |  Hillary Clinton |  46.3%  | 1.5%
2012  |  Barack Obama |  52.8%  |  Mitt Romney |  45.9%  | 6.9%
2008  |  Barack Obama |  56.2%  |  John McCain |  42.3%  | 13.9%
2004  |  John Kerry |  49.7%  |  George W. Bush |  49.3%  | 0.4%
2000  |  Al Gore |  47.8%  |  George W. Bush |  47.6%  | 0.2%

#### U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.

Election results (U.S. Senator), Wisconsin 2000-2016

Year  |  First-place candidate  |  First-place candidate votes (%)  |  Second-place candidate  |  Second-place candidate votes (%)  |  Margin of victory (%)
2016  |  Ron Johnson |  50.2%  |  Russ Feingold |  46.8%  | 3.4%
2012  |  Tammy Baldwin |  51.4%  |  Tommy Thompson |  45.9%  | 5.5%
2010  |  Ron Johnson |  51.9%  |  Russ Feingold |  47.0%  | 4.9%
2006  |  Herb Kohl |  67.3%  |  Robert Lorge |  29.5%  | 37.8%
2004  |  Russ Feingold |  55.3%  |  Tim Michels |  44.1%  | 11.2%
2000  |  Herb Kohl |  61.5%  |  John Gillespie |  37.0%  | 24.5%

#### Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Wisconsin.

Election results (Governor), Wisconsin 2000-2016

Year  |  First-place candidate  |  First-place candidate votes (%)  |  Second-place candidate  |  Second-place candidate votes (%)  |  Margin of victory (%)
2014  |  Scott Walker |  52.3%  |  Mary Burke |  46.6%  | 5.7%
2010  |  Scott Walker |  52.3%  |  Tom Barrett |  46.5%  | 5.8%
2006  |  Jim Doyle |  52.7%  |  Mark Green |  45.3%  | 7.4%
2002  |  Jim Doyle |  45.1%  |  Scott McCallum |  41.4%  | 3.7%

#### Congressional delegation, 2000-2016[edit]

This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Wisconsin in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.

Congressional delegation, Wisconsin 2000-2016

Year  |  Republicans  |  Republicans (%)  |  Democrats  |  Democrats (%)  |  Balance of power
2016  |  5 |  62.5%  |  3 |  37.5%  | R+2
2014  |  5 |  62.5%  |  3 |  37.5%  | R+2
2012  |  5 |  62.5%  |  3 |  37.5%  | R+2
2010  |  5 |  62.5%  |  3 |  37.5%  | R+2
2008  |  3 |  37.5%  |  5 |  62.5%  | D+2
2006  |  3 |  37.5%  |  5 |  62.5%  | D+2
2004  |  4 |  50%  |  4 |  50%  |  \-
2002  |  4 |  50%  |  4 |  50%  |  \-
2000  |  4 |  44.4%  |  5 |  55.6%  | D+1

#### Trifectas, 1992-2017[edit]

A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

Wisconsin Party Control: 1992-2021
Two years of Democratic trifectas • Ten years of Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year  |  92  |  93  |  94  |  95  |  96  |  97  |  98  |  99  |  00  |  01  |  02  |  03  |  04  |  05  |  06  |  07  |  08  |  09  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  13  |  14  |  15  |  16  |  17  |  18  |  19  |  20  |  21

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Governor |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  D |  D |  D |  D |  D |  D |  D |  D |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  D |  D |  D
Senate |  D |  R |  R |  R |  D |  D |  R |  D |  D |  D |  D |  R |  R |  R |  R |  D |  D |  D |  D |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R
House |  D |  D |  D |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  D |  D |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R |  R

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Wisconsin attorney general election 2018. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Wisconsin Attorney General election, 2018 - Google News

## See also[edit]

Wisconsin government:

* Wisconsin state executive offices
* Wisconsin State Legislature
* Wisconsin courts

Elections:

* Wisconsin state executive official elections, 2018
* Gubernatorial elections, 2018
* Lieutenant gubernatorial elections, 2018
* Attorney General elections, 2018
* Secretary of State elections, 2018
* State executive official elections, 2018, 2017, 2016

Ballotpedia exclusives:

* State executives compensation
* State of the state addresses
* Trifecta control of state government

|
|

## External links[edit]

|  Suggest a link

|

* Wisconsin attorney general official website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Smart Politics, "The Longest Partisan State Attorney General Streaks in the Nation," October 25, 2018
2. ↑ Josh Kaul for Attorney General, "Meet Josh," accessed October 3, 2018
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Josh Kaul for Attorney General, "Why I'm Running," accessed October 3, 2018
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Brad Schimel for Attorney General, "About Brad," accessed October 3, 2018
5. ↑ Brad Schimel for Attorney General, "Kaul’s Minimal Record Includes Slew of Plea Deals with Drug Dealers," September 28, 2018
6. ↑ Brad Schimel for Attorney General, "New Television Commercial Highlights Schimel’s Experience, Accomplishments," October 17, 2018
7. ↑ Wisconsin Public Radio, "Schimel, Kaul Spar Over ACA, Opioids, School Safety," October 16, 2018
8. ↑ Wisconsin Public Radio, "Brad Schimel, Josh Kaul Meet In First Attorney General Debate," October 12, 2018
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
10. ↑ Josh Kaul for Attorney General, "Why I'm Running," accessed October 3, 2018
11. ↑ Brad Schimel for Attorney General, "About Brad," accessed October 3, 2018
12. ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
13. ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017
14. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Quick Facts - Wisconsin," accessed January 15, 2018
15. ↑ Wisconsin Demographics, "Wisconsin Cities by Population," accessed January 15, 2018

v • e

Attorneys General

Elected (by voters)|

Alabama • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Appointed (by gov.)|

Alaska • Hawaii • New Jersey • Wyoming

Appointed (by courts)|

Tennessee

Elected (state leg.)|

Maine • New Hampshire

Elections|

2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010

Other|

State executive offices • Chart of state executive officers • Attorney General office comparison

v • e

State of Wisconsin
Madison (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

v • e

2018 state executive official elections

Governor|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Hawaii • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Iowa • Kansas • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Mexico • New York • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Lieutenant Governor|

Alabama • Alaska • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Hawaii • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Iowa • Kansas • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • New York • Ohio • Oklahoma • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Texas • Vermont • Wisconsin

Attorney General|

Alabama • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Iowa • Kansas • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • New York • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Texas • Vermont • Wisconsin

Secretary of State|

Alabama • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Vermont • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Treasurer|

Alabama • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delware • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Massachusetts • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • Ohio • Oklahoma • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Vermont • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Auditor|

Alabama • Arkansas • Delaware • Indiana • Iowa • Massachusetts • Minnesota • Missouri • Nebraska • New Mexico • Ohio • Oklahoma • South Dakota • Vermont • Wyoming

Comptroller|

California • Connecticut • Idaho • Illinois • Maryland • Nevada • New York • South Carolina • Texas

Education officials|

Alabama (board of education) • Arizona (superintendent) • California (superintendent) • Colorado (board of education) • Colorado (board of regents) • District of Columbia (board of education) • Georgia (superintendent) • Idaho (superintendent) • Kansas (board of education) • Michigan (board of education) • Michigan (board of regents) • Nebraska (board of education) • Nebraska (board of regents) • Nevada (board of regents) • New Mexico (education commission) • Ohio (board of education) • Oklahoma (superintendent) • South Carolina (superintendent) • Texas (board of education) • Utah (board of education) • Wyoming (superintendent)

Commissioners|

Alabama (agriculture) • Alabama (public service) • Arizona (mine inspector) • Arizona (public service) • Arkansas (public lands) • California (board of equalization) • California (insurance) • Florida (agriculture) • Georgia (agriculture) • Georgia (insurance) • Georgia (labor) • Georgia (public service) • Iowa (agriculture) • Kansas (insurance) • Louisiana (public service) • Montana (public service) • Nebraska (public service) • New Mexico (public lands) • New Mexico (public service) • North Dakota (agriculture) • North Dakota (public service) • North Dakota (tax) • Oklahoma (insurance) • Oklahoma (labor) • Oklahoma (public service) • Oregon (labor) • South Carolina (agriculture) • South Dakota (public lands) • South Dakota (public service) • Texas (agriculture) • Texas (public lands) • Texas (railroad)

v • e

State executive offices

Offices|

Governor • Lt. Governor • Secretary of State • Attorney General • Treasurer • Auditor • Superintendent of Schools • Insurance Commissioner • Controller • Agriculture Commissioner • Natural Resources Commissioner • Labor Commissioner • Public Service Commissioner

States|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Elections|

2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010

Features|

Chart of state executive officers • Compensation • Gubernatorial power comparison • How gubernatorial vacancies are filled • Irregular office changes • State executive officials serving in home states • State government trifectas • State of the state addresses • Term limits

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy

Communications: Kayla Harris • Megan Brown • Mary Dunne • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski
External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch • Sara Horton • Elizabeth Brown
Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jace Lington • Jimmy McAllister
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Manager • Ryan Burch • Michael Cella • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney • Tom Reitz

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial|

Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Josh Altic, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Ryan Byrne • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Corinne Wolyniec • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora