1
00:00:01,401 --> 00:00:03,670
>> We'll hear from a
Republican congressional

2
00:00:03,737 --> 00:00:06,874
member on these matters
next week on this program.

3
00:00:06,940 --> 00:00:10,143
In the race for a seat on
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

4
00:00:10,210 --> 00:00:13,480
We are two months away from
Election Day. The seat is

5
00:00:13,547 --> 00:00:16,250
currently held by
Conservative Justice

6
00:00:16,316 --> 00:00:19,820
Rebecca Bradley, but she
decided not to run again.

7
00:00:19,887 --> 00:00:22,923
Liberals currently hold a 4
to 3 majority, so the

8
00:00:22,990 --> 00:00:25,592
winner of this race will
not change the balance of

9
00:00:25,659 --> 00:00:28,562
the court. The conservative
candidate is appellate

10
00:00:28,629 --> 00:00:31,732
Court judge Maria Lazar,
and the Liberal candidate

11
00:00:31,798 --> 00:00:34,968
is appellate Court Judge
Chris Taylor. Here and now,

12
00:00:35,035 --> 00:00:37,771
senior political reporter
Zac Schultz sat down with

13
00:00:37,838 --> 00:00:41,074
each of the candidates
tonight. We hear from Maria

14
00:00:41,141 --> 00:00:43,877
Lazar.
>> Well, Judge Lazar,

15
00:00:43,944 --> 00:00:46,180
thanks for coming in today.
>> Thank you for having me.

16
00:00:46,246 --> 00:00:48,815
>> So let's start with your
judicial philosophy. How

17
00:00:48,882 --> 00:00:50,851
would you describe it and
how does it guide you from

18
00:00:50,918 --> 00:00:53,120
the bench?
>> I describe my philosophy

19
00:00:53,187 --> 00:00:56,723
as originalism with a slice
of textualism, which means

20
00:00:56,790 --> 00:00:59,259
for those who are not law
nerds like me, which means

21
00:00:59,326 --> 00:01:01,995
that I look at the
documents and the laws as

22
00:01:02,062 --> 00:01:04,064
they're written, and I
interpret them from that

23
00:01:04,131 --> 00:01:07,100
point of view. And if you
have to go a little bit

24
00:01:07,167 --> 00:01:09,970
outside, I do, but I don't
go all the way outside to

25
00:01:10,037 --> 00:01:12,139
intent of legislators and
things like that.

26
00:01:12,206 --> 00:01:14,608
>> So obviously this race
is now an open seat because

27
00:01:14,675 --> 00:01:17,110
Justice Bradley decided not
to run again. What was what

28
00:01:17,177 --> 00:01:19,079
was your first thoughts
when she announced she was

29
00:01:19,146 --> 00:01:22,149
not going to do that?
>> Well, it was it was a

30
00:01:22,216 --> 00:01:25,085
surprise. My thoughts were
that I looked at the last

31
00:01:25,152 --> 00:01:27,321
election, and I thought
that it was so politicized

32
00:01:27,387 --> 00:01:30,123
for the people in the state
of Wisconsin that I thought

33
00:01:30,190 --> 00:01:32,226
they actually could use a
judge or a justice like me,

34
00:01:32,292 --> 00:01:35,362
who's someone who is calm,
judicial, has the

35
00:01:35,429 --> 00:01:38,298
experience and will not
legislate from the bench.

36
00:01:38,365 --> 00:01:40,534
>> Has she given you any
guidance? Have you reached

37
00:01:40,601 --> 00:01:43,136
out to her about what it's
like to run for Supreme

38
00:01:43,203 --> 00:01:46,306
Court?
of the past justices. I've

39
00:01:46,373 --> 00:01:48,442
talked to anyone who will
talk to me, and actually

40
00:01:48,509 --> 00:01:52,079
more people talk to me than
you would think.

41
00:01:52,145 --> 00:01:54,314
to be needed to win this
race?

42
00:01:54,381 --> 00:01:57,384
>> I'm not positive on that.
I know it will not be

43
00:01:57,451 --> 00:02:00,287
anywhere close to last year.
>> So in what way? How is

44
00:02:00,354 --> 00:02:02,322
this different from, I
guess, the last two races

45
00:02:02,389 --> 00:02:04,558
when control of the court
was up for grabs?

46
00:02:04,625 --> 00:02:07,361
>> Well, that's one thing.
I think what I meant by not

47
00:02:07,427 --> 00:02:09,396
being anywhere close, I
think the numbers were

48
00:02:09,463 --> 00:02:11,398
bigger because it would
have changed the

49
00:02:11,465 --> 00:02:13,433
composition of the court.
This time we're talking

50
00:02:13,500 --> 00:02:16,336
about a position that is
going to be most likely in

51
00:02:16,403 --> 00:02:18,605
the minority, but someone
who will stand up to be a

52
00:02:18,672 --> 00:02:21,141
strong voice for the common
sense people of my home

53
00:02:21,208 --> 00:02:24,178
state.
fundraising totals came out,

54
00:02:24,244 --> 00:02:25,712
and you raised about
200,000, your opponent

55
00:02:25,779 --> 00:02:28,048
close to 2 million. Some
people raised their

56
00:02:28,115 --> 00:02:30,517
eyebrows at that. But you
got into this race after

57
00:02:30,584 --> 00:02:33,887
her and you're trying to, I
guess, fight your way into

58
00:02:33,954 --> 00:02:36,857
kind of an oxygen starved
environment when it comes

59
00:02:36,924 --> 00:02:39,092
to fundraising. So what's
it been like for you?

60
00:02:39,159 --> 00:02:41,762
>> Well, that's true. So I
started on October 1st. So

61
00:02:41,828 --> 00:02:44,264
I think the numbers
actually are relatively

62
00:02:44,331 --> 00:02:47,901
good for starting that late.
Also since January, which

63
00:02:47,968 --> 00:02:51,104
was the cutoff date January
1st, we've had a big

64
00:02:51,171 --> 00:02:53,740
groundswell of support from
people who've recognized

65
00:02:53,807 --> 00:02:56,076
and actually heard about
this race and realize there

66
00:02:56,143 --> 00:02:58,979
is no primary, and they've
looked at it and they've

67
00:02:59,046 --> 00:03:01,415
said, this is a race and a
candidate they're

68
00:03:01,481 --> 00:03:04,585
interested in supporting.
>> So when you look at the

69
00:03:04,651 --> 00:03:07,387
last two elections, has
that impacted morale for

70
00:03:07,454 --> 00:03:10,057
the number of people paying
attention to this race, or

71
00:03:10,123 --> 00:03:12,593
perhaps for for people
getting behind your your

72
00:03:12,659 --> 00:03:14,695
campaign and seeing, well,
the last two conservative

73
00:03:14,761 --> 00:03:18,332
candidates lost in rather
large fashion.

74
00:03:18,398 --> 00:03:21,235
>> I don't I don't know if
it's impacted morale. What

75
00:03:21,301 --> 00:03:25,205
I will say is this, I think
that the state of

76
00:03:29,276 --> 00:03:32,012
Running and for what reason?
And when I look at this

77
00:03:32,079 --> 00:03:35,716
race. The reason I am
running is because I want

78
00:03:35,782 --> 00:03:39,086
to be someone on that court
who represents the law for

79
00:03:39,152 --> 00:03:41,388
the state of Wisconsin. I
want to be someone who is

80
00:03:41,455 --> 00:03:44,558
their voice, bringing
diversity of thought and

81
00:03:44,625 --> 00:03:47,728
and judicial backgrounds
and experience to that

82
00:03:47,794 --> 00:03:50,230
court. I don't look at
those past races as

83
00:03:50,297 --> 00:03:52,232
anything indicative of
what's going to happen. In

84
00:03:52,299 --> 00:03:54,434
fact, I'm kind of hoping
that there's going to be a

85
00:03:54,501 --> 00:03:57,538
line in the sand drawn now
where we can look forward

86
00:03:57,604 --> 00:03:59,706
and say, who's the better
judicial candidate, who has

87
00:03:59,773 --> 00:04:02,676
more experience? And I
think in this race, it's

88
00:04:02,743 --> 00:04:04,745
pretty clear that that's my
candidacy.

89
00:04:04,811 --> 00:04:07,281
>> When when you compare
the records of the two

90
00:04:07,347 --> 00:04:09,750
candidates here, you're
both circuit court judges.

91
00:04:09,816 --> 00:04:12,085
You've both now in the
appellate court. So how do

92
00:04:12,152 --> 00:04:14,588
you explain to the public
that the difference in your

93
00:04:14,655 --> 00:04:16,323
background.
>> Well, numbers, numbers

94
00:04:16,390 --> 00:04:19,159
are the reason. So I spent
20 years in private

95
00:04:19,226 --> 00:04:21,295
practice. I spent five
years at the Department of

96
00:04:21,361 --> 00:04:23,797
Justice representing the
state of Wisconsin. But I

97
00:04:23,864 --> 00:04:26,533
spent seven years in the
circuit court in every

98
00:04:26,600 --> 00:04:29,570
branch criminal, civil,
juvenile, mental

99
00:04:29,636 --> 00:04:32,039
commitments. My opponent
spent two years in criminal.

100
00:04:32,105 --> 00:04:34,641
I've spent four years in
the Court of Appeals,

101
00:04:34,708 --> 00:04:37,244
published many written
opinions. My opponent has

102
00:04:37,311 --> 00:04:39,646
spent two. I think when you
add up the numbers, it's

103
00:04:39,713 --> 00:04:42,316
pretty clear who has the
judicial and legal

104
00:04:42,382 --> 00:04:44,651
experience.
>> Obviously, there's a

105
00:04:44,718 --> 00:04:46,820
pretty high profile race
for governor also kicking

106
00:04:46,887 --> 00:04:50,224
off right now when we talk
about that oxygen

107
00:04:50,290 --> 00:04:52,793
starvation of people paying
attention, how do you cut

108
00:04:52,860 --> 00:04:54,995
through to let people know,
hey, this race is really

109
00:04:55,062 --> 00:04:56,830
important?
>> Well, you're right. So

110
00:04:56,897 --> 00:05:00,067
my race is April, April 7th
and all the other races are

111
00:05:00,133 --> 00:05:03,570
in November. I think since
I've been on the Circuit

112
00:05:03,637 --> 00:05:06,340
court and the Court of
Appeals, I have continually

113
00:05:06,406 --> 00:05:09,142
gone to my 12 counties and
anywhere else, including

114
00:05:09,209 --> 00:05:11,545
Milwaukee, to talk to
people, to talk to high

115
00:05:11,612 --> 00:05:14,748
school kids, college kids
about the courts, about why

116
00:05:14,815 --> 00:05:17,651
it's so important. And I do
that all the time. So I

117
00:05:17,718 --> 00:05:20,053
think this is just a
continuation of telling

118
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:22,789
people why this race is so
important. It's in April

119
00:05:22,856 --> 00:05:26,460
because it's nonpartisan
and it's in April because

120
00:05:26,527 --> 00:05:29,062
that's how Wisconsin
legislature has determined

121
00:05:29,129 --> 00:05:31,465
it to be.
>> We've seen in the past

122
00:05:31,532 --> 00:05:34,835
couple of races, candidates
talk more about their own

123
00:05:34,902 --> 00:05:38,105
personal values versus
issues. And that's that's a

124
00:05:38,172 --> 00:05:41,608
change compared to races in
prior decades. How are you

125
00:05:41,675 --> 00:05:44,178
talking about your values
versus issues, and what

126
00:05:44,244 --> 00:05:47,915
does that mean to the
public when they're

127
00:05:47,981 --> 00:05:50,184
hear maybe more, more clues
to what you actually feel

128
00:05:50,250 --> 00:05:52,686
or how you might rule, even
though that's obviously not

129
00:05:52,753 --> 00:05:55,789
what you're supposed to be
talking about.

130
00:05:55,856 --> 00:05:58,091
things that are really
important. So how I might

131
00:05:58,158 --> 00:06:00,861
rule is never an issue. And
no judge, no justice, no

132
00:06:00,928 --> 00:06:02,930
candidate should ever say
that. But we've looked at

133
00:06:02,996 --> 00:06:05,199
the rules and we've looked
at the ethical rules, and

134
00:06:05,265 --> 00:06:07,734
we've determined that it's
possible to tell the state

135
00:06:07,801 --> 00:06:10,871
of Wisconsin more
information about where I

136
00:06:10,938 --> 00:06:14,274
stand, what I stand up for,
and what issues I believe

137
00:06:14,341 --> 00:06:18,345
are important and how I
view the law, how I

138
00:06:18,412 --> 00:06:22,082
interpret the law, what my
philosophies are. So on my

139
00:06:22,149 --> 00:06:25,185
website, you can go there.
Judge Maria Lazar com, you

140
00:06:25,252 --> 00:06:28,789
can go there. And it has my
positions on important

141
00:06:28,856 --> 00:06:31,158
issues that are set there,
written in Black and white

142
00:06:31,225 --> 00:06:34,595
so people can see it, can
see what I stand for. I

143
00:06:34,661 --> 00:06:38,165
don't say how I will rule
on a case, but I say what I

144
00:06:38,232 --> 00:06:40,667
believe is important.
>> Is that frustrating when

145
00:06:40,734 --> 00:06:42,636
you when you speak to
people that are potentially

146
00:06:42,703 --> 00:06:45,272
voters who they want to
hear more, they want to

147
00:06:45,339 --> 00:06:47,441
hear you talk like a
politician because they

148
00:06:47,508 --> 00:06:49,243
they think of these races
more political as opposed

149
00:06:49,309 --> 00:06:51,111
to an independent judicial
race.

150
00:06:51,178 --> 00:06:53,714
>> They do. And in some,
some respects, I'll go

151
00:06:53,780 --> 00:06:55,849
places where there will be
politicians speaking. And

152
00:06:55,916 --> 00:06:58,018
it's always that
interesting dichotomy

153
00:06:58,085 --> 00:07:01,255
between the calm demeanor
of a judge versus the

154
00:07:01,321 --> 00:07:03,490
politician who's yelling at
the room and screaming at

155
00:07:03,557 --> 00:07:05,692
everybody. But I think
that's what people want.

156
00:07:05,759 --> 00:07:08,896
They want their judges not
to be someone who's yelling

157
00:07:08,962 --> 00:07:11,231
with their hair on fire in
the room. They want someone

158
00:07:11,298 --> 00:07:15,169
they think they would like
to have adjudicate their

159
00:07:15,235 --> 00:07:17,838
cases. So when I go and
talk to people, I explain

160
00:07:17,905 --> 00:07:20,774
to them that I can't tell
them how I'll rule on case

161
00:07:20,841 --> 00:07:24,611
A versus B, but I do tell
them, here's how I rule,

162
00:07:24,678 --> 00:07:27,314
here's how I respect people
in my court, here's what I

163
00:07:27,381 --> 00:07:30,083
think of victims rights,
those sort of things. I

164
00:07:30,150 --> 00:07:32,252
think that gets across to
people. They recognize that

165
00:07:32,319 --> 00:07:34,021
there are certain limits
and that we're bound by

166
00:07:34,087 --> 00:07:36,890
those limits, or we should
be.

167
00:07:37,357 --> 00:07:39,293
precedent, you've mentioned
a couple of times that if

168
00:07:39,359 --> 00:07:42,162
you win, you would be in
the minority. But that's

169
00:07:42,229 --> 00:07:44,398
not a forever thing. As
we've seen, the court can

170
00:07:44,464 --> 00:07:47,034
change what is the standard
when it comes to overruling

171
00:07:47,100 --> 00:07:49,369
precedent. Well.
>> So people have to

172
00:07:49,436 --> 00:07:52,372
understand that its
precedent means that you

173
00:07:52,439 --> 00:07:55,108
don't. Just because the
court changes composition,

174
00:07:55,175 --> 00:07:57,744
you don't necessarily go
back and then revisit

175
00:07:57,811 --> 00:08:01,715
things you've just done.
Precedent is that you

176
00:08:01,782 --> 00:08:04,117
respect, you give stereo
decisis. Its a credit, and

177
00:08:04,184 --> 00:08:07,521
it's a benefit to cases
that have been done. And

178
00:08:07,588 --> 00:08:11,792
you give them time to maybe
air to be to be looked at.

179
00:08:11,859 --> 00:08:14,995
When courts have overturned
precedent, the US Supreme

180
00:08:15,062 --> 00:08:17,731
Court in general, it's
something that's maybe 20,

181
00:08:17,798 --> 00:08:20,100
30 years down the road.
It's not something that

182
00:08:20,167 --> 00:08:24,605
they just do willy nilly as
as Scalia would say, it's

183
00:08:24,671 --> 00:08:27,207
something that you have to
have seen that it doesn't

184
00:08:27,274 --> 00:08:29,743
work. You can't just say,
I'm now the member of the

185
00:08:29,810 --> 00:08:31,845
majority. So everything
that was done, I get to

186
00:08:31,912 --> 00:08:35,115
undo. That's not how courts
work. We need to restore

187
00:08:35,182 --> 00:08:38,619
the respect and integrity
in those courts and have

188
00:08:38,685 --> 00:08:41,321
them move forward and not
always be looking back to

189
00:08:41,388 --> 00:08:43,323
things that they want to
change.

190
00:08:43,390 --> 00:08:45,626
>> And finally, will you
seek Donald Trump's

191
00:08:45,692 --> 00:08:47,828
endorsement? We saw Brad
Schimel go out and ask for

192
00:08:47,895 --> 00:08:50,163
that towards the end of his
campaign.

193
00:08:50,230 --> 00:08:53,066
endorsements of anyone
who's out of the state of

194
00:08:53,133 --> 00:08:54,935
Wisconsin. If someone looks
at my campaign and they

195
00:08:55,002 --> 00:08:57,371
agree with my vision, my
idea that we need to

196
00:08:57,437 --> 00:08:59,973
restore justice and
integrity to the Wisconsin

197
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:02,142
State Supreme Court, I
would welcome the

198
00:09:02,209 --> 00:09:06,680
discussion. But I'm not
discussion. But I'm not