If you are reading a political blog, you probably vote. But, in case you were thinking of sitting out the the Supreme Court race, I point out the following as examples of the impact the court has on the state. I am not suggesting, at this point, whether these decisions were right or wrong. You decide if they were important.
1. In 1994, the people of the state of Wisconsin amended the state constitution to prohibit casino-type gambling. In 2006, the court decided that, not only could casino games that were permitted before 1994 on Indian reservations continue, but that new games could be added.
2. The people of the state of Wisconsin amended the state's constitution to guarantee "the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." The court has essentially interpreted this to mean that one may bear arms only for the specifically named purposes (security, defense, hunting and recreation) and only if one, in the court's judgement, really needs to bear arms for that purpose. It has consequently upheld broad application of Wisconsin's laws prohibiting concealed carry.
3. Across the country, people who allege that they have been the victims of pedophile priests have sued Roman Catholic archdioceses for their failure to take steps to prevent such abuse and for, in some cases, covering it up. In Wisconsin, such suits are severely restricted. The reason they are is not because the legislature decided to do so. The state supreme court did.
4. The state legislature passed a system for compensating victims of medical malpractice that placed a limit on "noneconomic" damages that could be awarded to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs could recover all of their medical expenses and lost earnings but were subject to a maximum of $450,000 for things like pain and suffering. The Wisconsin supreme court held that the legislature - the people's representatives - may not do this.
5. The Wisconsin supreme court has embraced a principle called "New Federalism." This means that it feels free to interpret parallel provisions of Wisconsin's state constitution more expansively than the US Supreme Court interprets corresponding provisions in the US Constitution. Thus, criminal defendants may have X rights under federal law but X + Y rights in Wisconsin. Z might not be protected speech under the US Constitution, but would be under the state constitution. You may or may not like the outcome, but the key point is that when the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides cases in this way, it's decision is almost always final, i.e., it may not be appealed to the Supreme Court. Most recently, the court used this doctrine to, essentially, prohibit "show-ups" (cops have a suspect in custody and ask the victim "is this the guy") as a law enforcement tool.
I could go on. You should inform yourself and vote.