1
00:00:02,336 --> 00:00:04,204
possible for the federal
government to dictate how

2
00:00:04,271 --> 00:00:07,341
elections are run. That's
done by the states.

3
00:00:07,407 --> 00:00:10,043
>> A heated Wisconsin
Supreme Court debate

4
00:00:10,110 --> 00:00:12,546
Thursday night between the
two candidates running to

5
00:00:12,613 --> 00:00:16,083
be placed on the high court.
It featured appeals court

6
00:00:16,149 --> 00:00:19,019
judges Maria Lazar, the
conservative, and Chris

7
00:00:19,086 --> 00:00:21,855
Taylor, the Liberal
candidate. They squared off

8
00:00:21,922 --> 00:00:25,058
just days before next
Tuesday's election. For

9
00:00:25,125 --> 00:00:27,427
reaction to the debate,
we're joined by U.A.W. La

10
00:00:27,494 --> 00:00:30,464
Crosse, political science
professor Anthony Chergosky.

11
00:00:30,531 --> 00:00:33,834
And thanks very much for
being here. Thank you. So

12
00:00:33,901 --> 00:00:36,637
does a debate performance
sway people to vote in this

13
00:00:36,703 --> 00:00:39,506
election one way or the
other?

14
00:00:39,573 --> 00:00:42,776
>> I think we're a little
late in the ball game for

15
00:00:42,843 --> 00:00:45,612
that. After all, a number
of people have voted by

16
00:00:45,679 --> 00:00:48,749
mail. They have voted early.
And even if they are

17
00:00:48,815 --> 00:00:51,451
planning to vote on
Election Day, they may well

18
00:00:51,518 --> 00:00:54,555
have already made up their
mind. Still, I think

19
00:00:54,621 --> 00:00:58,859
debates are symbolically
important as a ritual in

20
00:00:58,926 --> 00:01:01,895
democracy. I think it
matters for candidates to

21
00:01:01,962 --> 00:01:05,199
show up face to face in an
unscripted environment and

22
00:01:05,265 --> 00:01:08,635
have to defend their
positions. Sometimes

23
00:01:08,702 --> 00:01:11,939
debates can sway voters,
sometimes not. But either

24
00:01:12,005 --> 00:01:15,943
way, I think debates matter.
>> That said, what do you

25
00:01:16,009 --> 00:01:20,247
think the candidate's
performance in this debate?

26
00:01:20,314 --> 00:01:23,483
>> Well, this was a heated
debate. I thought that the

27
00:01:23,550 --> 00:01:27,287
candidates really sought to
draw contrasts between

28
00:01:27,354 --> 00:01:29,456
themselves and their
opponent, and whether it

29
00:01:29,523 --> 00:01:33,460
was on abortion or the
issue of voting, or just

30
00:01:33,527 --> 00:01:37,064
the general topic of
judicial activism and

31
00:01:37,130 --> 00:01:39,933
judicial philosophy, and
the way that someone's

32
00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:42,936
personal views may or may
not end up influencing

33
00:01:43,003 --> 00:01:47,140
their opinions. This was a
heated debate, with plenty

34
00:01:47,207 --> 00:01:50,777
of contrasts expressed
between the two sides.

35
00:01:50,844 --> 00:01:53,013
>> Speaking of judicial
philosophy, let's take a

36
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:55,449
listen to one of the
exchanges about that last

37
00:01:55,516 --> 00:01:58,085
night.
>> I do not intend to

38
00:01:58,151 --> 00:02:01,321
follow any mandate or
agenda or to legislate from

39
00:02:01,388 --> 00:02:04,258
the bench. I am going to
actually look what is there.

40
00:02:04,324 --> 00:02:07,027
When people come in front
of my court, they they know

41
00:02:07,094 --> 00:02:10,264
two things. One, I always
treat them with respect.

42
00:02:10,330 --> 00:02:13,901
And number two, they always
have a fair and full

43
00:02:13,967 --> 00:02:17,104
opportunity to be heard.
And I decide the case only

44
00:02:17,171 --> 00:02:21,074
on the law and the facts.
Judge Lazar is the only

45
00:02:21,141 --> 00:02:24,578
person in this race who has
brought an extreme right

46
00:02:24,645 --> 00:02:28,916
wing political agenda to
the bench. She has refused

47
00:02:28,982 --> 00:02:33,787
to follow precedent. She
ruled to release personal

48
00:02:35,189 --> 00:02:38,992
private voting information
to a right wing group that

49
00:02:39,059 --> 00:02:42,196
tried to overturn our
election. Thank goodness

50
00:02:42,262 --> 00:02:45,465
she was reversed by the
state Supreme Court. She

51
00:02:45,532 --> 00:02:48,836
has been reversed
repeatedly because she

52
00:02:48,902 --> 00:02:53,807
refuses to follow the law.
>> So in recent cycles, the

53
00:02:54,641 --> 00:02:57,211
partizan veil has really
been lifted in these races.

54
00:02:57,277 --> 00:03:00,414
How do election experts
like yourself regard that

55
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:03,617
as good or bad?
>> We're in a really

56
00:03:04,351 --> 00:03:07,521
strange era in these state
Supreme Court elections

57
00:03:07,588 --> 00:03:10,958
because it's this weird,
murky middle ground right

58
00:03:11,024 --> 00:03:15,796
now where the parties are
deeply involved. The

59
00:03:15,863 --> 00:03:18,799
justices often accept the
support of the political

60
00:03:18,866 --> 00:03:22,035
parties, but they also want
to be clear that they will

61
00:03:22,102 --> 00:03:24,872
have some sense of
independence.

62
00:03:24,938 --> 00:03:27,341
>> So in the next back and
forth that we're going to

63
00:03:27,407 --> 00:03:29,343
listen to, the candidates
were answering to how they

64
00:03:29,409 --> 00:03:32,346
would have voted when, last
summer, the Liberal

65
00:03:32,412 --> 00:03:36,016
majority invalidated the
state's 1849 abortion ban.

66
00:03:36,083 --> 00:03:39,119
Chris Taylor said she would
have voted with that

67
00:03:39,186 --> 00:03:42,456
Liberal majority to
invalidate the ban. Maria

68
00:03:42,523 --> 00:03:46,059
Lazar would not say how she
would have voted.

69
00:03:46,126 --> 00:03:50,063
>> There is no one more
extreme ever to have been

70
00:03:50,130 --> 00:03:53,166
to be a candidate on issues
of reproductive health care

71
00:03:53,233 --> 00:03:56,136
than my opponent. She
called the overturning of

72
00:03:56,203 --> 00:04:00,207
Roe versus Wade very wise,
and you can look it up on

73
00:04:00,274 --> 00:04:02,276
television. She said it
right on television. She

74
00:04:02,342 --> 00:04:04,711
said she was likely to vote
to support. I'm going to

75
00:04:04,778 --> 00:04:07,481
respond. I did not say I
was likely to vote. I did

76
00:04:07,548 --> 00:04:10,551
not respond ever, in that
regard. And what I said

77
00:04:10,617 --> 00:04:12,719
about Dobbs, which is the
decision that overturned

78
00:04:12,786 --> 00:04:15,956
Roe versus Wade, is I said
it was good that it brought

79
00:04:16,023 --> 00:04:19,726
that national ban and put
it back into each

80
00:04:19,793 --> 00:04:23,530
individual state.
>> So, as we've said, the

81
00:04:23,597 --> 00:04:26,567
abortion portion of the
debate was really extremely

82
00:04:26,633 --> 00:04:28,902
heated. But how would
abortion come before the

83
00:04:28,969 --> 00:04:32,105
court again?
>> Well, Maria Lazar

84
00:04:33,240 --> 00:04:36,176
mentioned that after the
Supreme Court overturned

85
00:04:36,243 --> 00:04:39,580
Roe versus Wade, it
significantly empowered

86
00:04:39,646 --> 00:04:42,783
states to make a lot of
judgments about abortion

87
00:04:42,850 --> 00:04:45,252
that they previously would
not have been able to make.

88
00:04:45,319 --> 00:04:48,956
When Roe versus Wade was
the law of the land. So we

89
00:04:49,022 --> 00:04:52,559
might see a future state
legislature here in

90
00:04:52,626 --> 00:04:54,394
Wisconsin, a future state
legislative majority or a

91
00:04:54,461 --> 00:04:57,598
future governor try to take
certain actions on the

92
00:04:57,664 --> 00:05:01,034
issue of abortion. And in
that case, the Supreme

93
00:05:01,101 --> 00:05:04,071
Court could very well enter
the picture in reviewing

94
00:05:04,137 --> 00:05:07,574
actions that the other
branches take on abortion.

95
00:05:07,641 --> 00:05:10,644
>> What are other important
cases that will come before

96
00:05:10,711 --> 00:05:13,914
the court in the next year
or so, and how does the

97
00:05:13,981 --> 00:05:16,884
balance of the court inform
how these are going to be

98
00:05:16,950 --> 00:05:19,520
decided?
>> We may continue to have

99
00:05:19,586 --> 00:05:22,789
divided government in
Wisconsin, divided control

100
00:05:22,856 --> 00:05:25,325
of the executive and
legislative branch, pending

101
00:05:25,392 --> 00:05:28,362
the outcome of the November
midterm elections. And when

102
00:05:28,428 --> 00:05:31,331
you have divided party
control of the legislative

103
00:05:31,398 --> 00:05:34,368
and executive branch, the
courts can really enter the

104
00:05:34,434 --> 00:05:38,305
picture as power players in
sorting out disputes and

105
00:05:38,372 --> 00:05:41,141
sorting out gridlock
between those branches.

106
00:05:41,208 --> 00:05:44,511
Plus the 2020 presidential
election, we know that

107
00:05:44,578 --> 00:05:47,281
Wisconsin is often at the
center of legal battles

108
00:05:47,347 --> 00:05:50,050
surrounding election. And
then if we go out even

109
00:05:50,117 --> 00:05:53,520
further, think
redistricting come 2030,

110
00:05:53,587 --> 00:05:56,190
the census, and then the
redrawing of the maps

111
00:05:56,256 --> 00:06:00,260
shortly thereafter.
shortly thereafter.