Significant political news was made yesterday, and it happened far from a New York courtroom. Two elections were held, in Wisconsin and Chicago, and in both cases the progressive candidate emerged victorious. This will have some wider repercussions on the Democratic Party, so it's worth taking a look at what just happened in a little more detail.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

This was the big one, both for those who live in Wisconsin and for Democrats in general. A seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court opened up, when a conservative retired at the end of her term rather than seek re-election. The balance of power on the court had been 4-3 towards the conservatives, which had empowered the rest of the state's Republicans to go on an ideological spree that reaches back to the days of Governor Scott Walker. The Wisconsin Supreme Court came within one vote of overturning their electoral results in 2020 and throwing the election to Donald Trump, which shows how conservative this court has been (one lone conservative voted against doing so, which saved us all from such a disastrous and undemocratic outcome). So the race for the swing vote was a very big deal indeed.

In fact, it set records for the most expensive supreme court race in American history, with over $40 million spent. The race was theoretically nonpartisan, but both candidates essentially campaigned in a very partisan manner -- there was no doubt left in the voters' minds what they were choosing between, in other words.

The winner, Janet Protasiewicz, made no secret of how she felt on the issue of abortion, to give the most prominent example. She also let it be known her thoughts on the extreme gerrymandering Republicans have been doing to lock down both their state legislature as well as their delegation to the United States House of Representatives (which she called "rigged" and "unfair").

Campaigning so directly on political issues was seen as unseemly, but what it really meant was that finally the Democrats were engaging on the same ideological battlefield Republicans have been fighting on for decades, really. Daniel Kelly, the conservative in the race, had previously sat on the state's highest bench and was seeking a return. It was no mystery at all where he stood on abortion or gerrymandering, which allowed the voting public to make a clear choice.

Which they made rather overwhelmingly -- which was surprising for such an evenly-balanced swing state. As of this writing, with over 95 percent of the ballots counted, Protasiewicz was leading Kelly by a whopping 11 points. That's pretty astonishing for an off-off-year election and for a state that has been so close in recent presidential elections.

This will assure (barring unforeseen events) that liberals have a majority on the state's high court until at least 2025, when a liberal justice's term will end. Protasiewicz will sit on the court for the next 10 years.

Kelly was petulant in defeat, stating in his election-night speech: "I wish that I'd be able to concede to a worthy opponent, but I do not have a worthy opponent." He also sneered: "I wish Wisconsin the best of luck, because I think it's going to need it." These days, that's about par for the course for a defeated Republican (at least he hasn't challenged the vote itself, which is more than some failed GOP candidates can say).

As I said, the repercussions of this election will be felt in two very big ways. The state's abortion ban -- which it reverted to after the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision -- was enacted in 1849, which was seven decades before women even got the right to vote. It is being challenged by the Democratic attorney general already, and the case is expected to be heard by the state high court within the next year. Also teed up will be a case challenging the state's gerrymandered maps, which was described in one article today as: "possibly the most extreme gerrymander in the country, [which] turned a 50-50 state into a 6-to-2 Republican advantage in congressional seats." If a case is ruled on quickly, this could even change the district maps for the 2024 election cycle (although that timeline may be optimistic). So Wisconsin could even play a part in determining the balance of power in Congress, if Democrats manage to pick up three or four seats the next time around.

The real takeaway from this election is that abortion has in no way dimmed as a powerful and motivating issue for a whole lot of voters. Getting rid of Roe v. Wade has given the Democrats an enormous advantage in all sorts of places in this country, and will likely continue to do so for at least the next few election cycles.

Chicago mayor

This race was completely different, because it was a Democrat-versus-Democrat situation. Yesterday's election was actually a runoff between the top two candidates from a few weeks ago (when the current mayor, Lori Lightfoot, became the first sitting Chicago mayor to lose re-election in over 40 years).

The race pitted a solid progressive (a former teacher who was endorsed by the city's teachers' Union) against a candidate more acceptable to the Democratic Chicago machine. This race was a lot closer than the one held to the north of the Windy City, it should be noted. As of this writing, with 92 percent of the vote in, Brandon Johnson is beating Paul Vallas by a margin of just under three points (but the race has been called for Johnson).

The race may have come down to voters not trusting that Vallas was an actual Democrat. This was reinforced by a clip from 2009 that emerged with Vallas actually calling himself: "more of a Republican than a Democrat." Which led voters to react by calling him: "A Republican in disguise," and saying things like: "Vallas makes me nervous. I'm basically voting against Vallas for someone who is more progressive." Vallas was endorsed by all kinds of Illinois and Chicago political bigwigs, as well as by the Chicago Fraternal Organization of Police. Which also could have been the tipping point for a lot of voters. The issue of crime was huge in this election, with Vallas staking out a very pro-cop position while Johnson took one with more nuance:

Mr. [Brandon] Johnson, 47, walked back some of his most progressive positions, including budget cuts to Chicago's police force. But he never disavowed the position that, in a city where violence and crime are surging, those in power must take a fundamentally different approach to public safety. Instead of more police on the beat, he called for economic and community development, more social workers and mental health professionals -- and more detectives to actually solve the crimes that are committed.

"He may not call that law enforcement activity, but it will be part of the law enforcement system," said Representative Danny K. Davis, a longtime House Democrat from Chicago who backed Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson's victory may be a lesson for other Democrats struggling with the issue under the verbal assault of Republicans. Representative Delia Ramirez, a newly elected progressive Democrat from Chicago's Northwest Side, was ecstatic. "We've had a police department that had been attempting to do the jobs of social workers, counselors, mediators, you name it," she said. "What we haven't had is help."

With Republicans everywhere absolutely demonizing the idea of "defund the police," last night's results surprised many, who expected Vallas to win the day. This may actually become a political campaign examined by other Democrats who agree with the principle of: "let's give the police additional resources so they don't have to deal with so many issues with people who are mentally ill," but are still extremely leery of being attacked as advocating "defund the police."

That may be an overstatement, to be fair. While it was indeed an upset, it was a close race. And Vallas wasn't exactly the perfect candidate -- he had problems other than his pro-cop stance as well. And what worked in Chicago won't necessarily work as well elsewhere.

Even with the caveats, however, and even not knowing what really turned the tide in a very close race (something which we may never know with any degree of accuracy, it bears mentioning)... even with all that, this was still a night for big progressive wins.

The media doesn't often like to admit it, but while progressive candidates don't fit with the local electorate everywhere they run, at times they are the best fit. The model may not work everywhere it is tried, but each one of these victories proves that it can indeed happen. Which is why my takeaway from last night's election returns was a full-throated: "It was a good night for progressives!"

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant