1
00:00:01,735 --> 00:00:04,972
>> Mayor Jim Paine, thanks
very much.

2
00:00:05,038 --> 00:00:08,709
>> Thank you.
>> In the last few weeks,

3
00:00:08,775 --> 00:00:11,745
President Donald Trump has
continued to dredge up

4
00:00:11,812 --> 00:00:14,481
conspiracy theories about
his election loss to Joe

5
00:00:14,548 --> 00:00:18,051
Biden in 2020. Election
controversies are often

6
00:00:18,118 --> 00:00:20,854
settled in court. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court

7
00:00:20,921 --> 00:00:23,423
election is less than a
month away, pitting

8
00:00:23,490 --> 00:00:26,159
conservative candidate
Judge Maria Lazar against

9
00:00:26,226 --> 00:00:29,263
Liberal candidate Judge
Chris Taylor. Here and now.

10
00:00:29,329 --> 00:00:31,598
Senior political reporter
Zach Schultz interviewed

11
00:00:31,665 --> 00:00:34,334
the candidates about an
important Supreme Court

12
00:00:34,401 --> 00:00:37,738
decision from the 2020
election to ask them how

13
00:00:37,804 --> 00:00:41,708
they would have ruled.
>> We won. Let's go.

14
00:00:44,111 --> 00:00:46,980
>> In the days after Joe
Biden won Wisconsin and the

15
00:00:47,047 --> 00:00:50,450
race for president in 2020,
Donald Trump and his

16
00:00:50,517 --> 00:00:53,654
supporters immediately
began spreading election

17
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:56,857
conspiracies among his
efforts to overturn the

18
00:00:56,924 --> 00:00:59,927
election, Trump's campaign
sued in Wisconsin,

19
00:00:59,993 --> 00:01:03,197
attempting to throw out
220,000 ballots in Dane and

20
00:01:03,263 --> 00:01:06,466
Milwaukee counties, the two
largest Democratic areas of

21
00:01:06,533 --> 00:01:09,703
the state. The case reached
the Wisconsin Supreme Court

22
00:01:09,770 --> 00:01:12,873
as Trump v Biden and with
conservatives in control of

23
00:01:12,940 --> 00:01:16,210
the court, it was Justice
Bryan Hagedorn who sided

24
00:01:16,276 --> 00:01:19,346
with the three liberal
justices to deny Trump's

25
00:01:19,413 --> 00:01:21,882
request and refuse to take
the case, saying the

26
00:01:21,949 --> 00:01:24,885
campaign did not have
standing to sue. The three

27
00:01:24,952 --> 00:01:27,354
other conservatives did not
say whether they would have

28
00:01:27,421 --> 00:01:29,990
sided with Trump and thrown
out the ballots, but they

29
00:01:30,057 --> 00:01:33,026
would have taken the case.
We asked the candidates in

30
00:01:33,093 --> 00:01:35,162
this election how they
would have ruled if they'd

31
00:01:35,229 --> 00:01:37,531
been on the court.
>> I would have rejected

32
00:01:37,598 --> 00:01:42,102
that effort. Again, that
stands in contrast with my

33
00:01:42,169 --> 00:01:45,906
opponent. My opponent has
been supported in the past

34
00:01:45,973 --> 00:01:49,142
in her Court of Appeals
race by the same

35
00:01:49,209 --> 00:01:51,879
individuals that led the
charge in trying to

36
00:01:51,945 --> 00:01:56,116
overturn our 2020 election.
I think that was the right

37
00:01:56,183 --> 00:02:00,120
decision. That was, again,
a one only a one vote

38
00:02:00,187 --> 00:02:02,656
decision, which is alarming
because if that case had

39
00:02:02,723 --> 00:02:06,593
been successful, hundreds
of thousands of votes in

40
00:02:06,660 --> 00:02:09,463
the state of Wisconsin
would have been thrown out.

41
00:02:09,530 --> 00:02:13,400
And that's alarming to me.
>> Judge Lazar, like the

42
00:02:13,467 --> 00:02:15,702
conservatives who dissented
in that case, focused on

43
00:02:15,769 --> 00:02:18,539
whether Trump had standing
to file suit.

44
00:02:18,605 --> 00:02:20,908
>> This is sort of an area
that's really deeply in

45
00:02:20,974 --> 00:02:23,877
flux with our state Supreme
Court. They have issued

46
00:02:23,944 --> 00:02:27,347
several opinions that have
gone around the edges of it,

47
00:02:27,414 --> 00:02:29,983
and so I'm not going to
comment any further on

48
00:02:30,050 --> 00:02:32,119
where they would go,
because I honestly believe

49
00:02:32,186 --> 00:02:34,688
that standing is going to
come back up in our next

50
00:02:34,755 --> 00:02:37,491
term. So when I'm on this
court, I don't want to have

51
00:02:37,558 --> 00:02:40,093
someone say, you said in an
interview, so now you can't

52
00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:42,429
rule in this case.
>> As far as whether

53
00:02:42,496 --> 00:02:45,132
someone's going to say,
well, you didn't answer the

54
00:02:45,199 --> 00:02:47,167
question. Trump v Biden,
would you have overturned

55
00:02:47,234 --> 00:02:49,403
all those votes? Can you
give me a reaction to that?

56
00:02:49,469 --> 00:02:52,139
>> I have answered the
question, but with respect

57
00:02:52,206 --> 00:02:54,107
to overturning votes, I
strongly believe that every

58
00:02:54,174 --> 00:02:57,044
vote should be counted. So
every legal valid vote

59
00:02:57,110 --> 00:02:59,847
should be counted. So I
wouldn't comment, and I

60
00:02:59,913 --> 00:03:02,149
don't actually know the
parameters of how they were

61
00:03:02,216 --> 00:03:05,219
going to try to
disenfranchize or not

62
00:03:05,285 --> 00:03:07,287
disenfranchize voters. So I
really don't have any

63
00:03:07,354 --> 00:03:10,290
further thing that I can
say about that case.

64
00:03:10,357 --> 00:03:13,060
>> Reporting from Madison.
I'm Zach Schulze for "Here&

65
00:03:13,126 --> 00:03:15,696
Now".
>> On the current Supreme

66
00:03:15,762 --> 00:03:18,232
Court. Former Chief Justice
Annette Ziegler announced

67
00:03:18,298 --> 00:03:23,537
this week she will not seek
reelection, opening another