1
00:00:01,568 --> 00:00:04,972
Gwen Moore, we leave it
there. Thanks very much.

2
00:00:05,038 --> 00:00:08,041
>> Thank you.
>> We'll hear from a

3
00:00:08,842 --> 00:00:11,411
Republican congressional
member on these matters

4
00:00:11,478 --> 00:00:14,982
next week on this program.
In the race for a seat on

5
00:00:15,048 --> 00:00:18,018
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
We are two months away from

6
00:00:18,085 --> 00:00:21,288
Election Day. The seat is
currently held by

7
00:00:21,355 --> 00:00:24,358
Conservative Justice
Rebecca Bradley, but she

8
00:00:24,424 --> 00:00:27,461
decided not to run again.
Liberals currently hold a 4

9
00:00:27,528 --> 00:00:30,430
to 3 majority, so the
winner of this race will

10
00:00:30,497 --> 00:00:33,901
not change the balance of
the court. The conservative

11
00:00:33,967 --> 00:00:36,436
candidate is appellate
Court judge Maria Lazar,

12
00:00:36,503 --> 00:00:39,473
and the Liberal candidate
is appellate Court Judge

13
00:00:39,540 --> 00:00:42,976
Chris Taylor. Here and now,
senior political reporter

14
00:00:43,043 --> 00:00:45,612
Zac Schultz sat down with
each of the candidates

15
00:00:45,679 --> 00:00:49,049
tonight. We hear from Maria
Lazar.

16
00:00:49,116 --> 00:00:51,418
>> Well, Judge Lazar,
thanks for coming in today.

17
00:00:51,485 --> 00:00:54,154
>> Thank you for having me.
>> So let's start with your

18
00:00:54,221 --> 00:00:55,889
judicial philosophy. How
would you describe it and

19
00:00:55,956 --> 00:00:58,292
how does it guide you from
the bench?

20
00:00:58,358 --> 00:01:01,061
>> I describe my philosophy
as originalism with a slice

21
00:01:01,128 --> 00:01:04,131
of textualism, which means
for those who are not law

22
00:01:04,198 --> 00:01:06,767
nerds like me, which means
that I look at the

23
00:01:06,834 --> 00:01:09,336
documents and the laws as
they're written, and I

24
00:01:09,403 --> 00:01:11,405
interpret them from that
point of view. And if you

25
00:01:11,471 --> 00:01:14,441
have to go a little bit
outside, I do, but I don't

26
00:01:14,508 --> 00:01:17,244
go all the way outside to
intent of legislators and

27
00:01:17,311 --> 00:01:19,513
things like that.
>> So obviously this race

28
00:01:19,580 --> 00:01:22,082
is now an open seat because
Justice Bradley decided not

29
00:01:22,149 --> 00:01:24,451
to run again. What was what
was your first thoughts

30
00:01:24,518 --> 00:01:26,486
when she announced she was
not going to do that?

31
00:01:26,553 --> 00:01:29,523
>> Well, it was it was a
surprise. My thoughts were

32
00:01:29,590 --> 00:01:32,426
that I looked at the last
election, and I thought

33
00:01:32,492 --> 00:01:34,595
that it was so politicized
for the people in the state

34
00:01:34,661 --> 00:01:37,431
of Wisconsin that I thought
they actually could use a

35
00:01:37,497 --> 00:01:40,167
judge or a justice like me,
who's someone who is calm,

36
00:01:40,234 --> 00:01:42,736
judicial, has the
experience and will not

37
00:01:42,803 --> 00:01:45,739
legislate from the bench.
>> Has she given you any

38
00:01:45,806 --> 00:01:48,242
guidance? Have you reached
out to her about what it's

39
00:01:48,308 --> 00:01:50,911
like to run for Supreme
Court?

40
00:01:50,978 --> 00:01:53,714
of the past justices. I've
talked to anyone who will

41
00:01:53,780 --> 00:01:56,416
talk to me, and actually
more people talk to me than

42
00:01:56,483 --> 00:01:59,520
you would think.
to be needed to win this

43
00:01:59,586 --> 00:02:01,755
race?
>> I'm not positive on that.

44
00:02:01,822 --> 00:02:04,658
I know it will not be
anywhere close to last year.

45
00:02:04,725 --> 00:02:07,628
>> So in what way? How is
this different from, I

46
00:02:07,694 --> 00:02:09,663
guess, the last two races
when control of the court

47
00:02:09,730 --> 00:02:11,965
was up for grabs?
>> Well, that's one thing.

48
00:02:12,032 --> 00:02:14,668
I think what I meant by not
being anywhere close, I

49
00:02:14,735 --> 00:02:16,637
think the numbers were
bigger because it would

50
00:02:16,703 --> 00:02:18,672
have changed the
composition of the court.

51
00:02:18,739 --> 00:02:20,741
This time we're talking
about a position that is

52
00:02:20,807 --> 00:02:23,644
going to be most likely in
the minority, but someone

53
00:02:23,710 --> 00:02:26,246
who will stand up to be a
strong voice for the common

54
00:02:26,313 --> 00:02:29,116
sense people of my home
state.

55
00:02:29,616 --> 00:02:31,518
fundraising totals came out,
and you raised about

56
00:02:31,585 --> 00:02:33,520
200,000, your opponent
close to 2 million. Some

57
00:02:33,587 --> 00:02:35,622
people raised their
eyebrows at that. But you

58
00:02:35,689 --> 00:02:39,092
got into this race after
her and you're trying to, I

59
00:02:39,159 --> 00:02:42,196
guess, fight your way into
kind of an oxygen starved

60
00:02:42,262 --> 00:02:44,131
environment when it comes
to fundraising. So what's

61
00:02:44,198 --> 00:02:46,300
it been like for you?
>> Well, that's true. So I

62
00:02:46,366 --> 00:02:49,203
started on October 1st. So
I think the numbers

63
00:02:49,269 --> 00:02:53,140
actually are relatively
good for starting that late.

64
00:02:53,207 --> 00:02:55,909
Also since January, which
was the cutoff date January

65
00:02:55,976 --> 00:02:58,645
1st, we've had a big
groundswell of support from

66
00:02:58,712 --> 00:03:00,948
people who've recognized
and actually heard about

67
00:03:01,014 --> 00:03:03,851
this race and realize there
is no primary, and they've

68
00:03:03,917 --> 00:03:06,954
looked at it and they've
said, this is a race and a

69
00:03:07,020 --> 00:03:09,423
candidate they're
interested in supporting.

70
00:03:09,489 --> 00:03:12,059
>> So when you look at the
last two elections, has

71
00:03:12,125 --> 00:03:14,828
that impacted morale for
the number of people paying

72
00:03:14,895 --> 00:03:17,397
attention to this race, or
perhaps for for people

73
00:03:17,464 --> 00:03:20,067
getting behind your your
campaign and seeing, well,

74
00:03:20,133 --> 00:03:22,202
the last two conservative
candidates lost in rather

75
00:03:22,269 --> 00:03:25,939
large fashion.
>> I don't I don't know if

76
00:03:26,507 --> 00:03:29,109
it's impacted morale. What
I will say is this, I think

77
00:03:29,176 --> 00:03:33,413
that the state of
Running and for what reason?

78
00:03:36,850 --> 00:03:39,820
And when I look at this
race. The reason I am

79
00:03:39,887 --> 00:03:43,390
running is because I want
to be someone on that court

80
00:03:43,457 --> 00:03:46,260
who represents the law for
the state of Wisconsin. I

81
00:03:46,326 --> 00:03:49,396
want to be someone who is
their voice, bringing

82
00:03:49,463 --> 00:03:52,666
diversity of thought and
and judicial backgrounds

83
00:03:52,733 --> 00:03:55,402
and experience to that
court. I don't look at

84
00:03:55,469 --> 00:03:57,137
those past races as
anything indicative of

85
00:03:57,204 --> 00:03:59,673
what's going to happen. In
fact, I'm kind of hoping

86
00:03:59,740 --> 00:04:02,609
that there's going to be a
line in the sand drawn now

87
00:04:02,676 --> 00:04:04,878
where we can look forward
and say, who's the better

88
00:04:04,945 --> 00:04:07,514
judicial candidate, who has
more experience? And I

89
00:04:07,581 --> 00:04:10,417
think in this race, it's
pretty clear that that's my

90
00:04:10,484 --> 00:04:12,019
candidacy.
>> When when you compare

91
00:04:12,085 --> 00:04:14,688
the records of the two
candidates here, you're

92
00:04:14,755 --> 00:04:17,157
both circuit court judges.
You've both now in the

93
00:04:17,224 --> 00:04:19,226
appellate court. So how do
you explain to the public

94
00:04:19,293 --> 00:04:21,495
that the difference in your
background.

95
00:04:21,562 --> 00:04:24,264
>> Well, numbers, numbers
are the reason. So I spent

96
00:04:24,331 --> 00:04:26,466
20 years in private
practice. I spent five

97
00:04:26,533 --> 00:04:28,669
years at the Department of
Justice representing the

98
00:04:28,735 --> 00:04:31,772
state of Wisconsin. But I
spent seven years in the

99
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:34,608
circuit court in every
branch criminal, civil,

100
00:04:34,675 --> 00:04:36,677
juvenile, mental
commitments. My opponent

101
00:04:36,743 --> 00:04:39,446
spent two years in criminal.
I've spent four years in

102
00:04:39,513 --> 00:04:42,449
the Court of Appeals,
published many written

103
00:04:42,516 --> 00:04:44,852
opinions. My opponent has
spent two. I think when you

104
00:04:44,918 --> 00:04:47,421
add up the numbers, it's
pretty clear who has the

105
00:04:47,487 --> 00:04:49,857
judicial and legal
experience.

106
00:04:49,923 --> 00:04:51,925
>> Obviously, there's a
pretty high profile race

107
00:04:51,992 --> 00:04:54,661
for governor also kicking
off right now when we talk

108
00:04:54,728 --> 00:04:57,998
about that oxygen
starvation of people paying

109
00:04:58,065 --> 00:04:59,900
attention, how do you cut
through to let people know,

110
00:04:59,967 --> 00:05:02,069
hey, this race is really
important?

111
00:05:02,135 --> 00:05:05,138
>> Well, you're right. So
my race is April, April 7th

112
00:05:05,205 --> 00:05:08,642
and all the other races are
in November. I think since

113
00:05:08,709 --> 00:05:10,911
I've been on the Circuit
court and the Court of

114
00:05:10,978 --> 00:05:14,314
Appeals, I have continually
gone to my 12 counties and

115
00:05:14,381 --> 00:05:16,884
anywhere else, including
Milwaukee, to talk to

116
00:05:16,950 --> 00:05:19,920
people, to talk to high
school kids, college kids

117
00:05:19,987 --> 00:05:22,823
about the courts, about why
it's so important. And I do

118
00:05:22,890 --> 00:05:25,192
that all the time. So I
think this is just a

119
00:05:25,259 --> 00:05:27,995
continuation of telling
people why this race is so

120
00:05:28,061 --> 00:05:30,797
important. It's in April
because it's nonpartisan

121
00:05:30,864 --> 00:05:34,501
and it's in April because
that's how Wisconsin

122
00:05:34,568 --> 00:05:36,470
legislature has determined
it to be.

123
00:05:36,537 --> 00:05:39,773
>> We've seen in the past
couple of races, candidates

124
00:05:39,840 --> 00:05:43,377
talk more about their own
personal values versus

125
00:05:43,443 --> 00:05:45,712
issues. And that's that's a
change compared to races in

126
00:05:45,779 --> 00:05:49,216
prior decades. How are you
talking about your values

127
00:05:49,283 --> 00:05:52,085
versus issues, and what
does that mean to the

128
00:05:52,152 --> 00:05:55,355
public when they're
hear maybe more, more clues

129
00:05:55,422 --> 00:05:58,192
to what you actually feel
or how you might rule, even

130
00:05:58,258 --> 00:05:59,960
though that's obviously not
what you're supposed to be

131
00:06:00,027 --> 00:06:03,197
talking about.
things that are really

132
00:06:03,263 --> 00:06:05,365
important. So how I might
rule is never an issue. And

133
00:06:05,432 --> 00:06:08,135
no judge, no justice, no
candidate should ever say

134
00:06:08,202 --> 00:06:10,370
that. But we've looked at
the rules and we've looked

135
00:06:10,437 --> 00:06:12,573
at the ethical rules, and
we've determined that it's

136
00:06:12,639 --> 00:06:15,676
possible to tell the state
of Wisconsin more

137
00:06:15,742 --> 00:06:18,812
information about where I
stand, what I stand up for,

138
00:06:18,879 --> 00:06:22,716
and what issues I believe
are important and how I

139
00:06:22,783 --> 00:06:26,420
view the law, how I
interpret the law, what my

140
00:06:26,486 --> 00:06:29,723
philosophies are. So on my
website, you can go there.

141
00:06:29,790 --> 00:06:33,627
Judge Maria Lazar com, you
can go there. And it has my

142
00:06:33,694 --> 00:06:36,296
positions on important
issues that are set there,

143
00:06:36,363 --> 00:06:38,699
written in Black and white
so people can see it, can

144
00:06:38,765 --> 00:06:42,269
see what I stand for. I
don't say how I will rule

145
00:06:42,336 --> 00:06:45,506
on a case, but I say what I
believe is important.

146
00:06:45,572 --> 00:06:47,841
>> Is that frustrating when
you when you speak to

147
00:06:47,908 --> 00:06:50,477
people that are potentially
voters who they want to

148
00:06:50,544 --> 00:06:52,713
hear more, they want to
hear you talk like a

149
00:06:52,779 --> 00:06:54,815
politician because they
they think of these races

150
00:06:54,882 --> 00:06:56,717
more political as opposed
to an independent judicial

151
00:06:56,783 --> 00:06:58,752
race.
>> They do. And in some,

152
00:06:58,819 --> 00:07:01,154
some respects, I'll go
places where there will be

153
00:07:01,221 --> 00:07:03,123
politicians speaking. And
it's always that

154
00:07:03,190 --> 00:07:05,759
interesting dichotomy
between the calm demeanor

155
00:07:05,826 --> 00:07:08,262
of a judge versus the
politician who's yelling at

156
00:07:08,328 --> 00:07:10,864
the room and screaming at
everybody. But I think

157
00:07:10,931 --> 00:07:13,367
that's what people want.
They want their judges not

158
00:07:13,433 --> 00:07:16,370
to be someone who's yelling
with their hair on fire in

159
00:07:16,436 --> 00:07:19,306
the room. They want someone
they think they would like

160
00:07:19,373 --> 00:07:23,043
to have adjudicate their
cases. So when I go and

161
00:07:23,110 --> 00:07:25,479
talk to people, I explain
to them that I can't tell

162
00:07:25,546 --> 00:07:29,149
them how I'll rule on case
A versus B, but I do tell

163
00:07:29,216 --> 00:07:32,019
them, here's how I rule,
here's how I respect people

164
00:07:32,085 --> 00:07:34,621
in my court, here's what I
think of victims rights,

165
00:07:34,688 --> 00:07:37,391
those sort of things. I
think that gets across to

166
00:07:37,457 --> 00:07:40,027
people. They recognize that
there are certain limits

167
00:07:40,093 --> 00:07:42,029
and that we're bound by
those limits, or we should

168
00:07:42,095 --> 00:07:44,498
be.
precedent, you've mentioned

169
00:07:44,565 --> 00:07:47,367
a couple of times that if
you win, you would be in

170
00:07:47,434 --> 00:07:49,570
the minority. But that's
not a forever thing. As

171
00:07:49,636 --> 00:07:52,239
we've seen, the court can
change what is the standard

172
00:07:52,306 --> 00:07:54,508
when it comes to overruling
precedent. Well.

173
00:07:54,575 --> 00:07:57,444
>> So people have to
understand that its

174
00:07:57,511 --> 00:07:59,680
precedent means that you
don't. Just because the

175
00:07:59,746 --> 00:08:02,916
court changes composition,
you don't necessarily go

176
00:08:02,983 --> 00:08:06,486
back and then revisit
things you've just done.

177
00:08:06,553 --> 00:08:09,022
Precedent is that you
respect, you give stereo

178
00:08:09,089 --> 00:08:12,025
decisis. Its a credit, and
it's a benefit to cases

179
00:08:12,092 --> 00:08:16,263
that have been done. And
you give them time to maybe

180
00:08:16,330 --> 00:08:20,067
air to be to be looked at.
When courts have overturned

181
00:08:20,133 --> 00:08:22,636
precedent, the US Supreme
Court in general, it's

182
00:08:22,703 --> 00:08:25,339
something that's maybe 20,
30 years down the road.

183
00:08:25,405 --> 00:08:28,842
It's not something that
they just do willy nilly as

184
00:08:28,909 --> 00:08:32,045
as Scalia would say, it's
something that you have to

185
00:08:32,112 --> 00:08:34,915
have seen that it doesn't
work. You can't just say,

186
00:08:34,982 --> 00:08:37,150
I'm now the member of the
majority. So everything

187
00:08:37,217 --> 00:08:40,254
that was done, I get to
undo. That's not how courts

188
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:43,390
work. We need to restore
the respect and integrity

189
00:08:43,457 --> 00:08:46,560
in those courts and have
them move forward and not

190
00:08:46,627 --> 00:08:48,729
always be looking back to
things that they want to

191
00:08:48,795 --> 00:08:50,664
change.
>> And finally, will you

192
00:08:50,731 --> 00:08:52,633
seek Donald Trump's
endorsement? We saw Brad

193
00:08:52,699 --> 00:08:55,035
Schimel go out and ask for
that towards the end of his

194
00:08:55,102 --> 00:08:57,437
campaign.
endorsements of anyone

195
00:08:57,504 --> 00:09:00,240
who's out of the state of
Wisconsin. If someone looks

196
00:09:00,307 --> 00:09:02,543
at my campaign and they
agree with my vision, my

197
00:09:02,609 --> 00:09:05,078
idea that we need to
restore justice and

198
00:09:05,145 --> 00:09:07,281
integrity to the Wisconsin
State Supreme Court, I

199
00:09:07,347 --> 00:09:11,251
would welcome the
discussion. But I'm not