possible for the federal government to dictate how
elections are run. That's done by the states.
>> 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 U.A.W. La
Crosse, political science professor Anthony Chergosky.
And thanks very much for being here. Thank you. 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 contrasts 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. >> 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 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
partizan 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 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 will
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 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, Maria 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.
>> 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? >> 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 and
sorting out gridlock between those branches.
Plus the 2020 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. shortly thereafter.