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
Chugoski.
And thanks very much for being here.
Thank you.
So does it debate performance sway people to vote in this election one way or the other?
I think we're a little late in the ballgame 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 candidates' 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 heated debate with plenty of contrasts
expressed 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 the 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 is 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 will have some sense of independence.
So in the next back and forth that we're going to listen to the candidates for 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.
Marie Lazar would not say how she would have voted.
There is no one more extreme ever to have been to be a candidate on issues of reproductive
health care than my opponent.
She called the overturning of Roe versus 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 state.
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, Marie Lazar mentioned that after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus 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 versus Wade was the law of the land.
So we might see a future state legislature here in Wisconsin, a future state 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 that all that Chris Taylor brought this up because when we think about
the successful 2023 campaign of Janet Protisawitz, and when we think about the successful 2025
campaign of Susan Crawford, abortion was a signature issue of both campaigns, plus we
know that Chris Taylor has that background with Planned Parenthood.
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
out 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.
Great.
Well, Anthony Trigoski, thanks very much.
Thank you.
Great.
You're great.
Thank you.
We are going to tighten that up with a little edit there.
So no worries.
On our little glitch on the rolling.
Good deal.
Always such a pleasure to join you.
Thank you for having me.
You are welcome.
Have a good weekend.
Thank you.
Thanks.