A heated Wisconsin Supreme Court
debate Thursday night between the
two candidates running to be placed
on the high court.
It featured appeals court judges
Maria Lazar, the conservative,
and Chris Taylor, the liberal
candidate.
They squared off just days before
next Tuesday's election.
For reaction to the debate, we're
joined by UW-La Crosse political
science professor, Anthony
Churgosky, and thanks very much for
being here.
So does a debate performance
sway people to vote in this election
one way or the other?
I think we're a little late in the
ball game for that.
After all, a number of people have
voted by mail, they have voted
early, and even if they are
planning to vote on election day,
they may well have already made up
their mind.
Still, I think debates are
symbolically important as
a ritual in democracy.
I think it matters for candidates to
show up face-to-face in an
unscripted environment and have
to defend their positions.
Sometimes debates can sway voters,
sometimes not, but either way,
I think debates matter.
That said, what do you think
the candidate's performance in
this debate?
Well, this was a heated debate.
I thought that the candidates really
sought to draw contrast
between themselves and their
opponent, and whether it was on
abortion or the issue
of voting or just the
general topic of judicial activism
and judicial philosophy
and the way that someone's
personal views may or may not end up
influencing their opinions.
This was a heeded
debate with plenty of contrasts
between the two sides.
Speaking of judicial philosophy,
let's take a listen to one of the
exchanges about that last night.
This was a place where it was
heated.
I do not intend to follow any
mandate or agenda or to
legislate from the bench.
I am going to actually look what is
there. When people come in front of
my court, they know two
things. One, I always treat
them with respect.
And number two, they always have
a fair and full opportunity to
be heard. And I decide the case
only on the law and the
facts.
Judge Lazar is the only person
in this race who has brought an
extreme right-wing political
agenda to the bench.
She has refused to
follow precedent.
She ruled to release.
Personal private voting
information to a right
wing group that tried to
overturn our election.
Thank goodness she was reversed by
the state supreme court.
She has been reversed repeatedly
because she refuses to
follow the law.
So, in recent cycles,
the partisan veil has really been
lifted in these races.
How do election experts like
yourself regard that, as
good or bad?
We're in a really strange era
in these state Supreme Court
elections because they are
taking on this overtly
partisan tone.
The two political parties have given
money directly to the
candidates.
The candidates have drawn
on political party resources
and networks throughout this
campaign, yet.
They want to maintain
a sense that they will be an
independent judge.
And we saw them accusing
the other of being the activist
judge. So it's this weird,
murky middle ground right now where
the parties are deeply involved.
The justices often accept
the support of the political
parties, but they also want to
be clear that they'll have
some sense of independence.
So in the next back and forth
that we're going to listen to, the
candidates were answering to how
they would have voted when last
summer the liberal majority
invalidated the state's 1849
abortion ban.
Chris Taylor said she would have
voted with that liberal
majority to invalidate the ban.
Maria Lazar would not say how
she would've voted.
There is no one.
More extreme ever
to be a candidate on
issues of reproductive health care
than my opponent.
She called the overturning of
Roe vs.
Wade very wise, and you can look
it up on television.
She said it right on television,
she said she was likely to vote to
support.
I'm going to respond.
I did not say I was likely to vote.
I did not respond ever in
that regard.
And what I said about Dobbs, which
is the decision that overturned Roe
versus Wade, is I said it was good
that it brought that national
ban and put it back into each
individual.
So, as we've said, the
abortion portion of the debate was
really extremely heated.
But how would abortion come before
the court again?
Well, Muriel Lazar mentioned
that after the Supreme
Court overturned Roe vs.
Wade, it significantly empowered
states to make a lot of judgments
about abortion that they previously
would not have been able to make
when Roe v.
Wade was the law of the land.
So we might see
a future state legislature
here in Wisconsin, a future
legislative majority or a future
governor, try to take certain
actions on the issue of abortion.
And in that case...
The Supreme Court could very well
enter the picture in reviewing
actions that the other branches take
on abortion.
I am not surprised at all that
Chris Taylor brought this up because
when we think about the successful
2023 campaign of Janet Protasewicz,
and when we think of the successful
2025 campaign of
Susan Crawford, abortion was a
signature issue of both campaigns,
plus we know that Chris has that
background with Planned I think
people know what her stance is.
I'm not surprised she emphasized
it during the debate.
What are other important cases that
will come before the court in the
next year or so, and how
does the balance of the court inform
how these are going to be decided?
I think a lot about issues related
to collective bargaining, certainly
Act 10, that came up during the
debate.
I also think, Fred, just generally
about the balance of power between
the legislative and the executive
branch.
We may continue to have divided
government in Wisconsin,
divided control of the executive and
legislative branch pending the
outcome of the November midterm
elections.
And when you have divided party
control of the legislative and
executive branch, the courts can
really enter the picture as power
players in sorting out
disputes, in sorting our gridlock
between those branches,
plus the 2028 presidential election.
We know that Wisconsin is often at
the center of legal battles
surrounding election.
And then if we go out even further,
think redistricting come 2030,
the census, and then the redrawing
of the maps shortly thereafter.
That's great. Well, Anthony
Trogowski, thanks very much.
You're great, thank you.
We are gonna tighten that up with a
little edit there, so no worries
on our little glitch
on the rolling.
Good deal. Well, always such a
pleasure to join you.
Thank you for having me.
You are welcome.
Have a good weekend.
Thank you.