All right, great.
Well, Judge Lazar, thanks for coming
in today. Thank you for having me.
So, let's start with your judicial
philosophy. How would you describe
it and how does it guide you from
the bench?
I describe my philosophy as
originalism with a slice of
textualism, which means, for
those who are not law nerds like me,
which mean that I look at the
documents and the laws as they're
written and I interpret them from
that point of view, and if you have
to go a little bit outside, I do,
but I don't go all the way outside
to intent of legislators and things
like that.
So obviously this race is now an
open seat because Justice Bradley
decided not to run again.
What was your first thoughts when
she announced she was not going to
run?
Well, it was a surprise.
My thoughts were that I looked at
the last election, and I
thought that it was so politicized
for the people in the state of
Wisconsin that I thought they
actually could use a judge or a
justice like me, who's someone who
is calm, judicial,
has the experience, and will not
legislate from the bench.
Has she given you any guidance?
Have you reached out to her about
what it's like to run for Supreme
Court?
I've talked to several of the past
justices.
I've talk to anyone who will talk to
me, and actually more people talk to
than you would think.
How much money is going to be needed
to win this race?
I'm not positive on that, I know it
will not be anywhere close to last
year.
So in what way?
How is this different from, I guess,
the last two races when control of
the court was up for grabs?
Well, that's one thing.
I think what I meant by not being
anywhere close, I think the numbers
were bigger because it would have
changed the composition of the
court. This time we're talking about
a position that is going to
be most likely in
the minority, but someone who will
stand up to be a strong voice for
the common sense people of my home
state.
So some of the early fundraising
totals came out and you raised about
200,000, your opponent close to two
million. Some people raised their
eyebrows at that, but you got into
this race after her and you're
trying to, I guess, fight your way
into a kind of an oxygen-starved
environment when it comes to
fundraising. So what's it been like
for you?
Well, that's true.
So I started on October 1.
So I think the numbers actually are
relatively good for starting
that late.
Also, since January, which was
the cutoff date, January 1, we've
had a big groundswell of support
from people who've recognized and
actually heard about this race and
realized there is no primary.
And they've looked at it and they've
said, this is a race and
a candidate they're interested in
supporting.
Do you expect to have the Republican
Party of Wisconsin make a donation
to your campaign to help along the
way?
You know, I anticipate they
might.
Any party, any group that
wants to do so, they can do that.
I'm not, I can't, as a judge, we
don't ethically ask for money, but
if groups are gonna do that, I have
not said I would not accept.
And we've seen in past elections,
Justice Protasewicz, for example,
received a large amount from the
Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
She said during that election she
would recuse herself from any cases
in which the Democratic party was
a plaintiff.
Would you do the same?
Or how do you handle fundraising
and recusal process?
Well, fundraising and recusals, I
am very strict.
I follow the rules set by the US
Supreme Court, as well as by
the state of Wisconsin.
I have had to look at different
circumstances and decide when and
how to recuse.
And I always look at not only is it
objectively, but subjectively
biased. So if there is an appearance
of impropriety, then I will take
a step back.
We've seen in some more recent
examples, some of the former
Justice Gabelman has asked a number
of members of the bench to
recuse, in some other cases it seems
like it's being thrown out as a
normal course of action.
So what should the public take from
the Wisconsin Supreme Court's
recusal rule when more and more
people are asking them to set out
some of these high profile cases and
in some cases they are not and
I guess in Justice Hagedorn's case
on the case he did.
Excuse me, recusal is a very
interesting circumstance.
It's really internally what a judge
believes that they have to do to
be not only fair and impartial,
but to appear that way.
I think maybe people are seeing it
more.
Recusal happens all the time.
I was on the circuit court bench, on
the court of appeals. People always
have those issues, and I think
they'll continue on the state
Supreme Court.
So, when you look at the last two
elections, has that impacted
morale for the number of people
paying attention to this race,
or perhaps for people getting behind
your campaign and seeing, well, the
last two conservative candidates
lost in rather large fashion?
I don't know if it's
impacted morale.
What I will say is this.
I think that the state of Wisconsin
is looking at these races, and
they're asking who's running and
why people are running and for what
reason. And when I look at this
race, the reason I am running
is because I want to
be someone on that court who
represents the law for the state
Wisconsin. I want be someone who
is their voice, bringing diversity
of thought and judicial
backgrounds and experience to that
court. I don't look at those past
races as anything indicative of
what's going to happen.
In fact, I'm kind of hoping that
there's going be a line in the sand
drawn now where we can look forward
and say, who's the better judicial
candidate? Who has more experience?
And I think in this race, it's
pretty clear that that's my
candidacy.
When you compare the records of
the two candidates here, you're both
circuit court judges.
You're both now in the appellate
court. So how do you explain to the
public the difference in your
background?
Well, numbers.
Numbers are the reason.
So I spent 20 years in private
practice. I spent five years at the
Department of Justice representing
the state of Wisconsin.
But I spent seven years on the
circuit court in every branch,
criminal, civil, juvenile, mental
commitments. My opponent spent two
years in criminal.
I've spent four years on The Court
of Appeals, published many written
opinions.
My opponent has spent two.
I think when you add up the numbers,
it's pretty clear who has the
judicial and legal experience.
Obviously there's a pretty
high-profile race for governor also
kicking off right now.
When we talk about that oxygen
starvation of people paying
attention, how do you cut through to
let people know, hey, this race is
really important?
Well, you're right.
So my race is April, April 7th,
and all the other races are in
November.
I think since I've been
on the circuit court and the court
of appeals, I have continually gone
to my 12 counties and anywhere
else, including Milwaukee, to talk
to people, to talk high school kids,
college kids, about the
courts, about why it's so important.
And I do that all the time.
So I think this is just a
continuation of telling people why
this race is so important, It's in
April because it's non-partisan.
And it's in April because that's
how Wisconsin Legislature has
determined it to be.
We've seen in the past couple of
races, candidates talk
more about their own personal values
versus issues.
And that's a change compared to
races in prior decades.
How are you talking about your
values versus issues, and
what does that mean to the public
when they're listening and they want
to hear maybe more clues to
what you actually feel or how you
might rule, even though that's
obviously not what you're supposed
to be talking about.
So you mentioned two things that are
really important. So how I might
rule is never an issue, and
no judge, no justice, no candidate
should ever say that.
But we've looked at the rules, and
we've looked at ethical rules, and
we determined that it's possible to
tell the state of Wisconsin more
information about where I
stand, what I stand up for,
and what issues I believe are
important, and how I view
the law, how I interpret
the law.
What my philosophies are.
So, on my website, you can
go there.
JudgeMariaLazar.com, you can go
there and it has my positions
on important issues that are
set there written in black and white
so people can see it, can see what
I stand for.
I don't say how I will rule on a
case, but I say what I
believe is important.
Is that frustrating when you speak
to people that are potentially
voters who they want to hear more?
They want to here you talk like a
politician because they think of
these races more political as
opposed to an independent judicial
race.
They do.
And in some respects, I'll go places
where there will be politicians
speaking. And it's always that
interesting dichotomy between the
calm demeanor of a judge versus
the politician who's yelling at the
room and screaming at everybody.
But I think that's what people want.
They want their judges not to be
someone who's yellin' with their
hair on fire in the room.
They want someone they think they
would like to have adjudicate
their cases.
So when I go and talk to people, I
explain to them.
That I can't tell them how I'll rule
on case A versus B, but
I do tell them, here's how I
rule. Here's how respect people in
my court. Here's what I think of
victims' rights.
Those sort of things, I think
that gets across to people.
They recognize that there are
certain limits and that we're bound
by those limits, or we should be.
Looking at some of the most recent
cases of the races over
the last decade, the last one that
seems to fit this parallel, and tell
me if you agree, is Justice
Hagedorn's race, where it was a
little under the radar.
Towards the end of the race, there
were a lot of people that wrote him
off as saying, there's no way he can
win. But it was big ground game,
and he ended up winning that race
when most people had written him
off. Do you see a similarity
there?
Well, secretly, yes.
So the parallels are there.
I think that through my entire
career, people have underestimated
me. It's sort of been a
theme that they don't think someone
a little shorter, a little
softer spoken can be
as strong as Steele, and I am.
And in this race, I think, that's
important too. People think that
it's written off, it's a done
deal, and it's not.
This is a race where the people
in the state of Wisconsin have to
take a step back and say,
who do we want on this court?
Do we want a legislator
who is going to tell you in the
state what you have to do or
do we want to judge who has devoted
her entire life to
representing the law?
A lot of people get focused on the
fundraising numbers and the millions
of dollars, but how important
is Get Out the Vote?
And can this be a trial run for
people that are going to be doing
Get Out The Vote activities all
through the summer and into the
fall?
I really don't look at what's going
on legislatively and what they're
going to do.
I will say I do look at this as the
250th anniversary of our country and
I'm really excited that this
election will be happening in this
year and that when I win in August
I get to have my investiture in the
250 anniversary year.
As to get out the vote, I think that
everywhere I go I talk to people,
all different groups, people who are
on one side or the other, in fact
even people who hate everybody.
And I talk to all of those groups
and I get them to the point where
they recognize.
Why this race is important and
why I'm going to win.
Most of the candidates for Supreme
Court over the last few have come
strictly from the judiciary.
There have been a couple of examples
of those with partisan backgrounds.
Brad Schimel, obviously, was the
Attorney General.
Justice David Prosser had a history
in the assembly.
Your opponent has a history of the
assembly, how much should
that factor in when people are
looking at whether a judge may
politicize something as
their ruling?
Well, I think it factors in a lot.
I think that David Prosser was
in a different generation, a
different time, where people did
come from different avenues and
some from the legal
profession or teaching instead
of just being a legislator or a
lawyer. But I think now we're seeing
people that are so partisan.
And my opponent was a legislate
from Madison.
My opponent was appointed by Tony
Evers to the circuit court.
I've never been a member of a
political party. I've never been
appointed to any position.
I've won all of my seats by
running elections and running and
winning my elections.
I think it's really important when
you look at that and you compare and
contrast the two of us, our
experience as well as where we
come from.
What would you say is one of the
most important Wisconsin Supreme
Court decisions over the last five
years?
So the last five years.
That's really hard to say.
I guess perhaps.
So I know that they've made rulings
on issues with respect to
mental commitments.
I know those have been very
important to people.
I know they just issued an opinion
just about a week or two
ago about privacy rights
and people
who have Instagram accounts
and things like that.
I think those are the cases that
the state Supreme Court is doing
that are really important, and I
don't think that people in the state
see them. They look at more of the
political cases and the
election area cases.
But it's those down and important
to us standards of law.
There was another one about criminal
burdens of proof
for termination of parental rights
cases. Those are the things that I
think are really important.
It's interesting you bring up the
Snapchat case because I read that
decision.
And what struck me is something we
covered in last year's Supreme Court
election in that judges
from the bench often,
if they're going to run for a higher
office, have to be concerned that
any decision they make from the
bench can be used against them in a
campaign commercial where there's no
room for nuance.
So when justices are looking at
something, dealing with someone
who's been accused of, you know,
I guess, watching child porn,
for lack of a better term, on
Snapchat, could
there have been any other outcome?
Or is the public nuanced enough to
understand a distinction about
privacy rights when something
that high profile gets attached to
that topic or that subject?
So you're saying that the judge who
authored the opinion, whether that
or no. No, I guess.
I guess all the way down from like
the circuit court bench through the
appellate process all to the Supreme
Court Could there have been another
outcome or do you think because it
had to do with something so
disgusting as child porn that that
was Could over over
inflame the way people viewed that
case or that decision
No, I really don't.
I think that if you go back, and
now I'm going to be wrong, maybe 10,
15 years to the US Supreme
Court cases, Riley and Carpenter
and other cases like that, that talk
about the fact that our cell phones
are actually file cabinets.
And when the founders created and
drafted the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights, they talk about
searches and seizures.
They obviously didn't think about
your cell phone.
So it wasn't a question of what's in
your cell phone, is it good or bad.
It could be that you're talking
about an alibi.
It could you're talk about selling
drugs. It could the child porn
situation.
So I don't think that that was
necessarily the key.
The reason that was important in the
Gasper case, which is the case
you're taking about, was that it was
something where there are
algorithms that determine
that it WAS child porn.
And that was turned over to
the attorney general's office and
the law enforcement to then go and
look and get the warrants to look at
what was there.
I think if it was something else
they may not have noticed it because
there are certain algorithms, but
the issues of privacy are so
important with our cell phones.
They are really everything we
own in our lives is now in our hands
and I think that's an important
issue and I know the public
understands that and they should
understand that as well.
I want to run through some
high-profile cases just to get your
opinion on how you
might have ruled if you've been on
the bench.
So most recently, the Congressional
redistricting lawsuit, Bothfield
versus WEC,
creating the three judge panels,
what do you think of that decision?
Well, so that's an opinion that
could come up in front.
I did release something on my
website that talks about
redistricting and that it's supposed
to only happen once every 10-year
cycle with the United States
Census.
So in that respect, I think
that my position is pretty clear.
You do this once, you don't get two
or three kicks.
However, what they're going to do
and what they are going to say, I
have no position on.
Be on the court by the time.
I might be on the court, so I would
not have a position as to what that
would be.
Another case from last year is
Planned Parenthood versus Zermansky.
It was a 4-3 decision to invalidate
Wisconsin's 1849 abortion law.
How would you have ruled on that?
I'm not going to say how I would
rule, but I will say what I will do
moving forward.
And I have put that in positions.
I've released a statement.
I've release an op-ed talking
about abortion and indicating that
this is a really complicated issue
for the woman.
And her life is so valuable
and important.
And I've indicated that one, I
respect the rule as
decided by the state Supreme Court.
I will only be one of three members
in the majority, so I won't
be changing that.
And two, I think...
Women in this state need clarity,
they need certainty, and three, you
need to lower the temperature on
this issue.
This is resolved, as far as I'm
concerned, for courts, for the
judiciary.
The legislature can do what they
want, and the people in the state of
Wisconsin can do what the want.
But the judiciary, it's clear it's
done.
Another series of high-profile
decisions comes from Evers versus
Marklein, and rebalancing
some of the power between the
executive and the legislative
branch.
The JCRAR, it was
a four to one and two
concurrences, it was kind of a mixed
message, but that
and also the Knoll Stewardship,
it was 6-1 decision.
What do you think of those
decisions? Kind of trying to redraw
the line or re-figure the modern
interpretation of that balance of
power.
And that's a difficult question,
because I actually had some cases
that went up on the same sort of
issues. And I think that the
separation of powers is so
important. And I follow in line
with the views of the US Supreme
Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and
his view on what the separation
powers are and how they fall.
I see this court maybe
going a little astray from that
view. But again, I'm going to
be on the minority on this court.
So while I'll be writing a dissent
or not.
I'm not the person who's going to
change anything that's happened,
and I really can't comment further
because I'm sure there will be more
coming up the pipe.
Another case that's going back a few
years now is Trump versus Biden from
the 2000 election seeking to
Invalidate more than 200,000 votes
from Dane in Milwaukee counties.
That was a 4-3 decision on whether
they should take the case
on standing.
On standing and decide then
go forward, not actually how they
would have ruled on that, but what
was your interpretation of the
decision of the court at that time?
Well, standing goes back all the way
to the Teegin case as well and
talking about who has standing and
taxpayer standing and not in this
case it would have been taxpayer,
but voter standing.
This is sort of an area that's
really deeply in flux with our
state Supreme Court.
They have issued several opinions
that have gone around
the edges of it and so I'm not going
to comment any further on where they
would go because I honestly believe
that standing is going to come back
up in our next term.
So, when I'm on this court, I don't
want to have someone say...
You said in an interview, so now you
can't rule on this case.
As far as whether someone's gonna
say, well, you didn't answer the
question, Trump v.
Biden, would you have overturned all
those votes?
Can you give me a reaction to that?
Well, I have answered the
question, but with respect to
overturning votes, I
strongly believe that every vote
should be counted.
So every legal valid vote should
counted. So I wouldn't
comment and I don't actually know
the parameters of how they were
going to try to disenfranchise
or not disenfrancise voters.
So I really don't have any further
thing that I can say about that
case.
When it comes to precedent, you've
mentioned a couple of times that if
you win, you would be in the
minority, but that's not a forever
thing. As we've seen, the court can
change.
What is the standard when it comes
overruling precedent?
So people have to understand that
precedent means that you don't,
just because the court changes
composition, you don't necessarily
go back and then revisit things
you've just done.
Precedent is that you respect.
You give stare decisis.
It's a credit and it's a benefit to
cases that have been done.
And you give them time to
maybe err, to be looked at.
When courts have overturned
precedent, the US Supreme court in
general. It's something that's maybe
20, 30 years down the road.
It's not something that they just do
willy-nilly, as
Scalia would say.
It's that you have to have seen that
it doesn't work.
You can't just say, I'm now the
member of the majority, so
everything that was done, I get to
undo. That's not how courts
work. We need to restore the respect
and integrity in those courts and
have them move forward and not
always be looking back to things
that they want to change.
We saw earlier, sorry,
last year, a Milwaukee County
Circuit Court judge who was actually
tried in federal court for her
interfering with an ICE operation in
the courthouse.
What is the advice that would be
given to both judges and
the public when it comes to
understanding the rules, no matter
their personal feelings, on the
interactions with federal agents in
the court house?
Wow, well, I'm not really sure what
the rules are for interacting.
I would just say that you always
have to respect law
enforcement. You have to make sure,
however, that they have valid
warrants, that they had valid
circumstances.
And I think the Hannah Dugan case
that you're talking about, the
interesting thing there and the
thing that I think everyone misses
is this really was an excellent
example of how great our jury system
is. This jury looked at it
deeply. They were impartial.
They made a decision, they asked a
lot of questions, and then when it
was all said and done, they came up
with a decision that showed that
they really dealt in depth
with what was going on, and they
gave their decision.
As to what we have to do with
dealing with other law enforcement,
sometimes you have to ask
supervisors, ask other people,
find out what the rules are,
and I don't know what they all are
with that respect, in courthouses.
We work in a separate building, it's
not a courthouse.
There's obviously a lot of
controversy over ICE's engagements
in Minnesota right now.
There's speculation that that could
be moving to Wisconsin.
What role would the Wisconsin
court system have when
we've heard some local law
enforcement say they will not work
with federal officials?
Some say they will work with, when
it comes to protestors' rights.
How do you see Wisconsin courts
getting involved in this?
Or is this strictly a federal issue?
It is a federal issue.
In the circumstances, you never want
to see anyone injured or lose their
life. That's a tragedy in all
respects in every case.
But I think that cooler heads have
to prevail.
There is a right to First Amendment
freedom of speech.
But I also believe that this is an
excellent example of why we
need our courts.
In this case, it's probably federal
courts. But why we our courts to
be fair, impartial,
and independent, to look at the
facts, to make a reasoned,
calm decision.
And to do so fairly and justly.
And there was a statement by the FBI
Director Cash Patel over the weekend
saying you can't bring a firearm
loaded to any kind of protest that
you want. I want to get your legal
reaction to whether that is
a true statement in the sense of the
First Amendment and the Second
Amendment.
I would have no idea what those
rules are with regard to federal
rules about bringing a firearm.
I think you're violating possibly
the Second Amendment where people
have the right to conceal carry,
their right to open carry.
I wouldn't comment on his statement
at all whatsoever.
And finally, will you seek Donald
Trump's endorsement?
We saw Brad Schimel go out and ask
for that towards the end of his
campaign.
I'm not seeking endorsements of
anyone who's out of the state of
Wisconsin. If someone looks at my
campaign and they agree with my
vision, my idea that we need
to restore justice and integrity
to the Wisconsin State Supreme
Court, I would welcome the
discussion. But I'm no seeking
anything.
All right, George Lazar, thanks for
your time.
Thank you very much.
It was a pleasure.
Well, thanks for sitting down.
I really appreciate it. Thank you.
You're still tethered, so don't run
off too fast. Too fast?
Yeah, I would have gotten up.
Oh, yep, they just want to get some
sound of the room.
Don't tap my shoes.
That should be good.
It's great. We can get an inside
shot.