I am ready, I am
recording.
All right, Judge Taylor, thanks for
your time today.
Thanks so much for having me, I
really appreciate it.
Let's start with your judicial
philosophy.
Tell me how you came by it and how
it impacts you when you're on the
bench.
Well, in every case, I'm guided
by the same things.
I'm a guided by a
desire to do justice for the
people who are in front of me.
I'm guidance by an
obligation to apply the law
as fairly and
as consistently as possible.
And then I'm also obligated to
hold those who violate the law
accountable, regardless of who they
are or how powerful
they are. So those are really the
three principles that guide.
My decisions in
cases.
So you've been in this race for a
while, and originally your opponent
was gonna be the incumbent justice,
Rebecca Bradley.
What was your reaction when she
decided not to run again?
You know, my focus really is on
the people of the state of
Wisconsin, regardless of who my
opponent is.
I am in this race because I
care deeply about the people
in our state.
They deserve a justice
and a court that is going to stand
up for their rights and protect
their freedoms.
And they deserve a court is going
make sure that the other branches
of government are held accountable,
including the federal government,
when they overreach into the
independence of our state.
So I'm very focused on getting
to the people, talking with the
people. My approach doesn't change
based on who I'm running against.
This is a campaign about
the people of the
state of Wisconsin. I'm going to be
a justice for the people of
the State of Wisconsin
Building off that, then you don't
see a big difference between Rebecca
Bradley and Maria Lozare, your
opponent now.
Well, you know, I think they're very
similar in a lot of ways.
They have very extreme positions
that are out of touch
with the people of
Wisconsin. On reproductive health
care, my opponent, Maria Lazar,
celebrated the overturning of Roe
versus Wade.
She has made comments that she would
have enforced an 1849
criminal ban that
would We've outlawed abortion in
almost every instance.
She has made comments that
she thinks a six-week abortion
ban would be a good thing,
signaling to the legislature that
this might be a law that she would
be okay with as a judge.
So those things indicate that
she cannot be counted on
to protect rights
and freedoms of Wisconsinites, and
she wants to take us backwards.
I want to take the state and
the people of the state forward.
Given the last couple of races we've
seen in Wisconsin, how much money do
you think it's gonna take to win
this race?
You know, I'm hoping not
as much as what we have
seen. It has gotten
ridiculous how much
money are in these races.
And when I was in the legislature,
I fought against the
erosion of our campaign finance
laws.
The reality is here in Wisconsin,
we have very little
laws that prevent
these out-of-state billionaires
and big money special interests from
coming into this race.
They're going to be coming in to
support my opponent.
That is how she got elected to the
Court of Appeals.
These same right-wing billionaires
that we saw last April
have supported her in the past.
So I anticipate that they
will be back trying to buy a
seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Now, the great news is
the people of the state of Wisconsin
rejected this effort.
They are going to send a
loud message again that justice is
not for sale here in the state
Wisconsin.
So I have a lot of confidence in the
people of this state that regardless
of how much money the billionaires
spend against me and
the right-wing extreme
special interests that the people,
the state of Wisconsin will see that
I am running for them to be a
justice for them and
not these, prioritizing
these powerful special interests.
The first fundraising numbers that
came out showed you with a
commanding lead in fundraising.
Is there a danger that some of your
supporters may think all this race
is over?
I hope not, because this race is
not over. We are right in the thick
of it. I take nothing for granted.
I worked very hard to
get out in all corners of
the state. And of course, my
campaign worked very hard
to raise the resources that I would
need.
Out of my, I think, 19,000
campaign contributions, 15,000
of those are $100 or
less.
So I am receiving a
lot of support from the people
of the State of Wisconsin.
In that contrast.
With my opponent.
Her average campaign donation was
$1,800 and
she only had 16
donations that were $100 or
less.
So she's clearly getting
her support and will continue to
do so from the
billionaires, from the big
corporations.
I'm going to the people and asking
for their support because this
race is about them.
What's it like trying to fundraise
in this environment where you have a
gubernatorial primary that's wide
open, legislature's up for grab,
everyone's out there looking for
dollars?
Well, of course, I can't ask any
money, anybody directly, for
campaign contributions.
I'm a sitting judge and we are
prohibited from doing so.
But I can ask people to support
me. And I think there's a
lot of enthusiasm about
this race.
I think that there's concern about
what people see going on
in our country.
There is never been more important
that we have a strong state
supreme court to stand up for
the people to protect their
rights and freedoms.
To make sure that everyone is
held accountable under the law.
The most wealthy and the most
powerful don't get a pass.
The law applies to everyone,
and the people of the state of
Wisconsin wanna make sure we have
a strong state supreme court to
protect them, our state,
and to make that justice is done.
Unlike the last couple of races,
this one's not going to likely
determine the majority on
the bench.
Does that run the risk that this
flies under the radar for some
people because they don't feel the
stakes are as high?
I mean, I don't think so because
the majority on this court can
be changed on a
dime. We have five state
Supreme Court elections coming up.
And so just because there's now a
pro-democracy majority on
this Court by only one vote
does not
lessen the importance of
this Court. And when we have so many
elections coming up, there's four
more state Supreme Court elections,
coming up after mine.
No one should take anything for
granted. This court can change very
quickly.
But if I am able to get
elected, there will be
a pro-democracy majority
on the court until at least
2030.
When you look at the
amount of money that's coming in, in
support or opposition, how does
that impact recusal?
How do, and is Wisconsin's recusal
law strong enough for the Supreme
Court?
Well, I support, as Justice
Korofsky has indicated,
us looking at the issue of
recusal and having public
hearings so the public can weigh in
on the issues of recusals.
So I definitely support that.
Recusal, I make on a
case-by-case basis.
Of course, any case
that I have presided over, I recuse
myself from, and so I was on the
circuit court.
If one of my cases comes
to the court of appeals, I recuse
myself as a matter of course,
likewise. If I'm lucky enough to
get on the state Supreme Court,
I would recuse myself from any case
that I had presided over.
But besides that, I'm
instructed by my ethical obligations
to look at each case on a
case-by-case basis and make sure
that I can be fair and impartial,
and that's what I do every day.
There have been a lot of recusal
requests over the last couple of
years for the redistricting cases,
Mike Gabelman's disciplinary
process, where are
recusal request becoming more
political in the sense of trying to
send a message, or do you think
there's
an earnest intent behind those?
I mean, they could be becoming
more political.
I don't, you know,
most judges have had a
whole legal career before
they became judges.
And it just would not be
realistic to require people
to recuse in areas
of law that they practiced in
or on issues they've worked on in
the past.
So that's why it is a case-by-case
basis, because we all come to the
court. With experiences
and a history in our legal
profession.
And so I think it is really
important to look case
by case for
the judge to make sure they can be
fair and impartial.
A couple of years ago when Janet
Protasewicz won her race, she kind
of changed the game in terms of
talking as a candidate about
her values versus issues and
making sure to stay away from how
she would decide, but explaining to
voters, this is what I care about,
this is what i'm passionate about.
How do you approach talking about
your values or issues?
Well, I think it's really important
that voters see who
I am, and they deserve that.
They are electing me to a 10-year
term to the highest court in
our state.
So I am very open about
what my values are.
You know, I value every
person's ability to make their
own personal private health care
decisions.
My opponent does not.
She has stated that.
That is not a value that she has.
I value courts.
Protecting people's rights and
freedoms and holding people
and entities accountable when
they violate our law and
violate our constitution.
My opponent has shown that
she is a rubber stamp for
the most powerful and
the right-wing extremists in
the decisions that she has issued.
And so I think it's really fair game
for the public to know
these things are things we
value. I think my values
are reflective throughout the state
of Wisconsin.
I have Wisconsin values.
People want a court to stand up for
them. That's what I will do as a
justice on the state Supreme Court.
They want a Court who's going to
hold those accountable who hurt them
or violate the law.
That's I will will do.
And they certainly want a courtroom
that is going to check the other
branches of government when they
act unconstitutionally and
unlawfully. And that is what
I will do.
Over the last five years, what would
you say is one of the most
important, significant cases the
Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued?
Well, I would say the case that
struck down the legislative maps
was extraordinarily important.
The majority on the Wisconsin
Supreme Court by one vote found
that the legislative
map that some election
experts called the most
gerrymandered in 40
years out of any state,
they found those maps to be
unconstitutional.
And that led the legislature
to pass new maps that
were signed by the governor.
And I think...
And that has led to more
competitive maps.
So that was an incredibly important
decision.
And I think what that really signals
to the people of the state of
Wisconsin is their vote
should matter.
They should have the ability
to vote
for and to choose
their elected representatives,
not the other way around.
And that's exactly what George
Washington said at the founding
of this country.
I want to run through a few cases
over the last few years just to get
your reaction to some of them.
One of the more recent ones, the
Congressional Registration Lawsuit,
Bothfield versus WAC,
creating the three judge panels.
What do you think about the decision
to accept that case for
congressional districts?
Well, it was filed.
The case was filed in
the state Supreme Court.
The state Supreme court has to
abide by a law that requires,
when their apportionment or
redistricting filed
for original jurisdiction,
that that be assigned to a
three-judge panel.
So there's two cases now in
congressional redistricting that
are working their way through
the judicial system.
They are with two different three-
judge panels.
So that's a pending case, which I
will not comment on.
But that's the process.
And we have to let the judicial
process play out and let
the circuit courts have
their trial and make their findings
a fact and reach their conclusions.
What about Planned Parenthood versus
their man's?
Okay, remind me of that one again.
That was the 1849.
1849, yes.
So I can comment. How would you have
voted on that? Sure, and I can
common on that case because it's
been decided.
If it were still pending, I would
not be able to comment on it.
So I agree with the decision
that the 1840
law should not be implemented
based on laws that
had been passed since then that
directly conflict with it.
I think that that was the right
decision by the majority
on the state Supreme Court.
Again, it was by one vote.
This really contrasts with my
opponent. My opponent would
have voted to implement
an 1849 abortion
ban that was
passed when I couldn't vote.
And many people couldn't.
So I think it was
really the right decision by
our state Supreme Court and that's
a big point of
difference between myself and my
opponent.
There were a couple of cases under
the Evers versus Barclay lawsuits
having to do with the separation of
powers between the legislature and
the administrative branch, JCRAR,
for rules oversight and NOLS
stewardship and the
releasing of funds.
Would you have agreed with the majority
in those cases?
I had concerns when I
was in the legislature that
there was no check
on the power of the legislature
and so there were
laws being passed that as an
attorney I really wondered are
these even constitutional laws?
The problem is we had a
very right-wing majority
on the state Supreme Court
that refused to hold the
legislature accountable.
That's the system my opponent
wants to go back to.
I, as a justice, will not
be a rubber stamp for any branch
of government.
But yes, I was not surprised
to see that those
laws were overturned by our
state Supreme Court.
There were real separation of powers
issues with those laws.
Some of those laws really
assigned the Joint Finance Committee
to approve settlements
that the Attorney General was
making. It made no sense whatsoever.
So yes, I think that those were
also the right decisions.
And looking at Trump versus Biden
from 2000, the 4-3 seeking
to, Trump was trying to invalidate
more than 200,000 votes in Dane and
Milwaukee County.
How would you have voted on that?
I would have rejected that effort.
Again, that stands in contrast
with my opponent.
My opponent has been supported
in the past in her court of appeals
race by the same individuals
that led the charge in trying to
overturn our 2020 election.
I think that was the right decision.
That was, again, a one, only a
one-vote decision, which
is alarming because if that case
had been successful, hundreds
of thousands of votes.
In the state of Wisconsin would have
been thrown out.
And that's alarming to me.
How do you approach precedent?
Because we've seen, as the court
shifted majorities over the last few
years, a number of cases looking
at old cases that had been settled
in the past, Mark Lyne being one of
those. But in that category, what
would you do when you approach a
precedent?
Well, first of all, you have to look
at, does the presidential
case violate the constitution?
Does it protect or take
away people's rights?
So that is the first thing that I
would look at.
Secondly, I think if it is an issue
that evolves in constitutional
rights, you look at,
well, has this been in
place for a long period of time such
that people have relied on these
protections, like Roe versus
Wade. It's a perfect example.
The dog's case took
away.
Rights that American women
and Wisconsin women had come to
depend on over the last 50
years throughout the duration of my
life.
And so that was very alarming
that it was so flippantly done,
50 years of precedent.
Again, that conflicts my opinion
about Roe versus Wade, conflicts
with my opponent,
who celebrated the reversal of
Roe vs.
Wade. So what I look at though,
in looking at precedent is,
did this case...
Comport with constitutional
protections or did it not so
there is appropriate cases where
precedent should be overturned I
mean look at Plessy versus
Ferguson the separate but
equal we all know
that is wrong and
Thankfully, there was a case that
overturned that type of
discrimination in Brown versus
Board of Education
You obviously served in the
legislature as a Democrat.
You wouldn't be the first sitting
Supreme Court justice who would
serve in the assembly.
Justice Prosser did that.
Brad Schimel was a Republican
attorney general when he ran.
So have we turned a corner in terms
to a partisan background in the past
for people running for the Supreme
Court?
I am so committed
to politics
not being anywhere near courts.
I saw, as I mentioned when I
was in the legislature, the grave
danger of not having
an independent state Supreme
Court.
Our courts must be independent.
They cannot be rubber stamps for
any political party,
any group, any ideology.
And I have a six year
record now of being a judge.
Who has meticulously applied
the law.
I certainly try in every single case
to make sure people are heard,
to make I know exactly
what the law is and I
attempt to apply it in the fairest
way with total
fidelity to that law.
So I think I have shown I
understand I'm in a different
position.
Judges have to be independent.
They must give everybody a fair
chance.
To get justice in front of them.
That conflicts again with
my opponent.
She has blatantly disregarded
precedent, recent precedent,
to achieve a political objective.
And that was in a case where
she ruled that
releasing the private
voting information of
some Wisconsin voters was,
it was okay.
So that Some individuals'
private voting data would have been
released to the public.
Thankfully, her decision,
which directly conflicted
with a decision out of my district
in the Court of Appeals, was
overturned by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
That's not the first time her
decisions have been overturned
because she has her thumb
on the scale and is
applying the law in a way that
achieves a particular political
outcome.
You can look at my cases.
I've written a lot of cases.
I've said a lot in the circuit
court. You're not gonna see that.
You will never see that
blatant political influence
come into my decisions.
I am totally committed to the
Constitution and to people's rights
in making sure people get a fair
chance in our judiciary.
We talked earlier about the
fundraising needed to win this race,
but what about get out the vote?
What kind of ground game is
necessary, and especially with
the partisan ground
game coming in the fall, is this a
trial run?
Is there room for people who are
already excited to thinking about
the fall to be participating in a
race this spring?
In my opinion, I want everyone
who cares about justice
and our democracy and fairness
to join my campaign for
justice. This campaign is about
everyone in the state who
cares about having a strong court
to protect them and a strong core
to protect our state.
So this is a broad campaign.
I am going to all corners
of this state.
I'm most excited about
these incredible Wisconsinites that
I get to meet every single day, I'm
totally inspired by
how people participate
in government in our state.
We should be so proud of that.
And I think we're going to have a
big turnout, I hope so, because
my campaign is about
them, and I will be a justice
for the people of this state.
And I really do hope that people
are very
inspired to turn out, because they
can make a huge difference in
their government.
That brings up a recent
Supreme Court election of Brian
Hagedorn where, similar to
Maria Lazar, he was written off by
some people saying he hadn't raised
enough money, he doesn't have a
chance, but it was the ground game
at the end that brought it over when
people thought the race was already
in the pocket for his opponent.
Is that something that you're gonna
try and hammer home to your
supporters?
Oh, I won't rest until
April 8th, the day after
this election.
I take nothing for granted.
This is going to be a hard
competitive race.
I will need every vote
that I can get.
I need all the help that I get
from the people, the state of
Wisconsin.
So I invite them all to
please join me in making sure
our government's about them, not
the powerful special interests, not
the out-of-state billionaires.
My campaign is about them.
And the kind of court they deserve
and the justice they deserve on the
state Supreme Court.
I want to talk a little bit about
the Milwaukee County Circuit Court
judge who was prosecuted
in federal court for her handling of
a subject in her court dealing with
ICE and interference.
What message has gone out to the
courts and should go out to public
about how to handle
these kind of situations, whether
it's in public or in
a business or in your home
or in the courtroom about these
situations?
Well, look, everyone has
to abide by what the law is.
It doesn't matter who you are, it
doesn't matter what your position
is, or how much money
you have, or how powerful you are.
So I think that judges
are very much committed
to that and are trying to do the
right thing every single day
in our courtrooms.
It's not always clear with all these
new situations that emerge.
I think trial court judges in
particular are balancing a
lot.
And so I think trial
court judges, you know, I was a
trial court judge.
I've been very impressed by
most of the circuit court judges I
have met. They are trying to do the
right thing. They're trying to keep
people safe in their courtrooms.
They're tying to apply the law in a
way that is fair to people.
So I have great faith in the
judiciary. I think the
judiciary has really been targeted
by the federal government, and
that concerns me greatly.
We're just trying to do our jobs.
And trying to make sure that people
have access to justice.
We should not be the target of
vitriol and
not be placed in danger because
we are just trying to administer
justice.
So that's been concerning to judges,
and I think it's concerning to
attorneys as well, who have also
been targeted for just representing
people. So that is very concerning.
And I think the judiciary and the
legal profession in general has
to stand up by any effort
to intimidate us
to. Make certain rulings
that benefit certain people.
That's not our role.
Our role is to make sure justice is
done.
We've seen a lot of action in
federal court dealing with ICE in
Minneapolis.
There are rumors that ICE could be
coming for an engagement in
Wisconsin.
Would any of that play out in state
courts? Would you imagine Wisconsin
courts having any interaction
between local law enforcement
saying they will or will not work
with ICE or local businesses who
say they are not going to allow them
to eat or stay in
their place of business?
Well, certainly I will tell you,
Zach, as I go out around the
state, I think that Wisconsinites
are really concerned by
what they're seeing in Minnesota.
They're afraid.
And I don't blame them.
State courts must
make sure that
every person who
violates the law is held
accountable. So in Minnesota,
they should do their full
and fair investigation, and
then they will make a decision in
that state about whether criminal
charges will be brought.
And they should be able to do that.
So yes, state courts absolutely
could be involved, because
criminal charges are
brought in state courts, typically.
Nobody is above the law.
The Constitution applies to
everyone.
And so I think
that we will see some
involvement.
Or potentially see involvement
if they're a criminal charge is
filed in the Minnesota
state courts.
And that could happen here in
Wisconsin as well.
And I want to read you a statement
that came from FBI Director Cash
Patel over the weekend in
regards to the latest shooting in
Minneapolis. He said, you can't
bring a firearm loaded to any kind
of protest that you want.
Is there any legal validation
in that statement?
Well, I don't know all of
the laws of the state of Minnesota,
but I believe they do have
a concealed carry
law.
So this investigation of what
exactly happened in this scenario
will play out, and
we will find out a lot more.
And we will see
if Minnesota makes a
decision on how
they're going to act. Are criminal
charges going to be brought?
There are other charges going to be
brought. But I don't specifically
know all the laws in Minnesota.
But what I would say is
everyone should support a
full and complete investigation
into what occurred.
And if there has been unlawful
activity, people need to be held
accountable.
But I wanna make sure that Minnesota
has that ability
to do their investigation and
make their conclusions before I
jump to any conclusions.
But my gosh, we should be.
Standing in support of them being
able to do that.
And lastly, obviously you're running
for Wisconsin Supreme Court
position, but how much of what's
happening nationally and
President Trump's impact will
overshadow this race as voters
take all of that into account
when they're making their choices at
the ballot box.
Well, look, I think that we
have an incredible opportunity in
this race, the people, the state of
Wisconsin, to elect a
justice who is going to stand
up for their rights,
for their freedoms, who is to
hold the federal
government accountable when they
overreach into the state.
And I'm going to protect the
independence of Wisconsin.
We are an independent state.
We have our own constitution,
our own laws.
And everyone is subject to
those when they come in the state of
Wisconsin.
So I will be a strong justice,
making sure our people are
protected and our state is
protected.
Judge Taylor, thanks for your time.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
Excellent.
Thank you so much.
Yeah.
Yeah, if we could just be quiet for
10 seconds, we're going to record
the air conditioner.
The heater.
That should be good.
Excellent. Well, thanks so much for
coming.