>> Chris Taylor wins by a landslide in this week's
Supreme Court race, locking down a Liberal majority for
years. How'd it happen and what could it mean? Plus,
the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents fires the
system. President and Republicans don't like it.
This is inside Wisconsin Politic
I'm Shawn Johnson here with my colleague Zac
Schultz Anya van Wagtendonk
and Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, everyone.
>> Hello. >> So we've kind of gotten
used to these big liberal blowouts. Weid use the term
in these April elections. They have figured out how
to win these races. It seems like Chris Taylor,
though, took that to a new level with her race this
time. Anya, what's I guess stuck out to you about this
massive win by Chris Taylor? >> Yeah, I mean, I think
we're all so used to talking about Wisconsin and
it's so purple. And elections are frequently
decided by less than a percentage point. And then
we've had these spring elections that are
determined by closer to ten points. But this time it
was 20 points. And so that is such a significantly
larger gulf. So we kind of saw, you know, some of the
tea leaves leading into the race, less spending, sort
of less excitement across the board. The stakes were
different. But Zac and I were chatting on election
night. We were waiting around at Chris Taylor's,
what turned into her victory party, and we were
saying, you know, this will be an interesting
experiment to see with the sort of pulled punches, the
pulled financial punches, what kind of margin will we
see? And then it turned out to be the largest margin
I've ever seen. And from what I understand in
decades in Wisconsin races. >> Yeah, a 20 point margin
as opposed to the usual, you know, quote unquote ten
in these races. Zac, how about you? What stood out?
>> Well, just to add on to that, earlier that
afternoon, I met up with Chris Taylor on the UW
campus. And one of the questions I asked her was,
are you worried because the lack of investment from the
Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which in past
elections has sent millions of dollars to their
preferred candidate or from outside interest groups who
really spent nothing, that you're leaving possible
voters at the door who may not be aware they need to
get out and vote. And she said, no, I don't think so.
And she was absolutely right. And I think what
this showed was that both sides knew where this
election was going early on and decided, we're going to
save our money for the fall. There's enough to spend it
on there between some very tight assembly races,
obviously the governor's race and even some
competitive Senate races that may not be fully
decided, that may determine the margin for either party
in that chamber that I think they all kind of
walked away from this to the point where when you
saw Lazar at her party, you got the sense that this was
not a surprise to her. She wasn't shocked, maybe at
the final margin. But even hearing from Republican
voters afterwards, there were a lot of them saying,
well, why weren't we trying harder? And I think that
was the main takeaway, is that everyone had an
expectation that this was going to be the result.
>> Rich, as we sit here today, what kind of stands
out to you about this race? >> Well, kind of jumping
off of what Zac just said, there was a sense that the
Republican Party of Wisconsin really wasn't
trying very hard in this race. You know, they're
nonpartisan races, but also they're not in a lot of
ways. So the level of fundraising and money
coming from the state party or third party groups
aligned with conservatives just never materialized.
And you've seen a lot of conservative people on
social media saying, what are you doing, Republican
Party? You know, there was a lot of anger about that,
but also people didn't really love the way that
Lazar was campaigning. They wanted some more aggression
out of her, some more of a Schimel type. So he's the
conservative that ran last year, much more political
generally than Lazar. She stuck to the experience
kind of mantra. And so it did seem like, you know,
all the money was lower in this race than it was in
the past. But really, Republicans kind of stood
down in a way. >> Rich. We were kind of
trading messages throughout the night as you were at
that Maria Lazar campaign election party. It strikes
me that this was not a joyous affair. Can you kind
of talk us through what it was like to be at this
hotel in Pewaukee? >> Yeah, it was it. I mean,
it was there was no celebration. In fact, there
was no people. Generally, when I show up to these
things, we get there early and then, you know, you set
up, but there's already people milling around for
much of the night before the race was called, there
were more reporters in the room than there were
supporters. And that is just something that that
and you kind of get a sense that, well, they kind of
know this is a foregone conclusion. But even I was
still surprised when the race was called less than
40 minutes after the polls closed. I mean, that's
surprising. So the mood was rough. Lazar didn't come
out and speak until after 9 p.m. She said that she
feels that she ran this race with purpose. There
was still a reason for it. She said that she thinks
that her message that Partizanship should get out
of these judicial races kind of resonated, and that
with candidate after candidate in the future
sticking to that message, maybe things will change.
Whether that squares with reality, I'm not sure.
>> Seems like the results might send the opposite
message there in terms of what future candidates will
take from it. As you look at where the votes came in
here, I know we should take them with a huge grain of
salt because we do not have 20 point elections in
Wisconsin. That said, they are a snapshot in time at
this moment. Anything stick out to any of you about
where the votes came in or how they came in.
>> I mean, I think that the grain of salt is actually
kind of part of the story, right? There was a lot of
trying to claim victory and really cast this forward
from Democrats, cast us forward into November for
what this means, especially because Chris Taylor
performed so well in so-called Trump counties
and up north and things like this. But that's in
part because liberals have the advantage in these
spring elections. That's been true for the last
couple of years. That was true in the sort of
postmortem that Republicans own poor performance last
spring, that the nature of the electorate that comes
out in an election in the springtime without Donald
Trump at the top of the ballot, is a really
different electorate that comes out in a November
election. And so I think overreading the results of
this would be a problem for Democrats.
>> Yeah, I think the extension of that is that
we're not going to see the same environment in the
fall. Republicans won't be outspent 8 to 1.
Republicans won't be pulling their punches and
not trying to campaign through the end. And
nothing to diminish the campaign that Maria Lazar
ran. But she ran it without any outside support. That
is necessary in this modern environment for a Supreme
Court candidate to be successful. She simply
didn't have the party infrastructure that is now
relied upon. If you want to win a statewide campaign
that is a completely different game than what
we're going to see this fall. And yes, I think
Democrats are sending out statements trying to fire
up their own supporters. But I saw this game a
couple years ago, in 2023 when Janet Protasiewicz won.
I was in Ozaukee County the next year, and Ozaukee
County Dems were telling me, oh, we were in the mid 40s
and Ozaukee County for Janet. We're going to win
for fall of 24. Kamala Harris is going to win
Ozaukee and she got blown out. Like things revert
back to the norm when you get to the bigger elections
where more attention is paid. And due to voter
realignment, like you were just talking about, Anya,
we're going to see more people that don't pay
attention to these elections. Vote in the fall,
not at the same level as we would in a presidential
year, but turnout will be significantly higher right
now with realignment. lower turnout events when
they can consistently get their voters to the polls,
and Republicans aren't. So a lot of it will depend on
the atmosphere this fall and how demoralized
Republicans may be. >> I would be surprised,
you know, frankly, if Republicans were able to
win Ozaukee County in November. This is the oh,
in the Wow counties, the vaunted Wow counties that
were the foundation of Republican power in this
state for years. But I have to say, Chris Taylor, 1
Ozaukee County. And that is something that even in
these other big Supreme Court elections, the
Liberal candidate has not yet won Ozaukee County. She
also got 84% in Dane County. And yeah, sure, Democrats
win Dane County. No surprise she's from there.
84% is unheard of. And when it is the leading vote
getting county in the state as Dane County is in these
races, that's a big deal. >> And she did much better
in her home county of Dane County than Maria Lazar did
in her home county of Waukesha County. And
Waukesha County is also one of these that has started
sort of moving away from being as die hard red. It's
still deep red, but that is also a sort of suburban
district that we've been paying attention to, as
some of those shifts have taken place.
>> Far more people than Ozaukee. 2. So a big vote
getter. Rich, how about you? >> Yeah, I just wanted to
go back to the discussion of, you know, you've got
the Wow counties, not as as deep red, but northern
Wisconsin. So it is true that that I've seen some
conservatives say, well, that's the new Wow counties
essentially, you know, a strip of counties from like
the eastern side of the northeastern part of the
state to the Polk County on the west. And that might be
true, but the population just isn't there. So, you
know, that's sort of an area, even if it goes hard
for Republicans in the fall, a Dane County kind of turn
out like we saw could erase that pretty quickly. So
that that was a really interesting thing to see
Republicans say, well, this is where we need to focus
up north. >> So we have this thing
that we do in Wisconsin. At least I can't resist it. We
had an election, and we have to talk about what's
going to what's it mean for the next election. And I
know the 2026 election is way different. But what
does it mean? I mean, are there lessons that either
party would look at these and say, well, that's
that's troubling for us. You know, if you're
Republicans or if you're Democrats, little of that
exuberance that you were talking about, is there
anything kind of real in there?
>> Well, just today before we came on here, we saw two
more Assembly Republicans announced they were not
going to seek reelection. Now, in and of itself, that
doesn't mean anything. But trends matter. We've seen a
lot more Republicans decide they don't want to run. And
we've seen that in the Senate, where it is a
pretty good odds on chance that Democrats will flip
that chamber and the Assembly is 50 over 50. It
sucks to be in the minority. And we've seen that in both
the legislature and on the Supreme Court, where we had
now two consecutive conservative incumbent
justices who were well within the normal age range
to seek another ten year term, decide, I don't want
to be in the minority on this court. I'd rather go
somewhere else. So I think those patterns tell you a
lot more than what any of the the press releases will.
>> Including Annette been up for election in
2027, and somebody who, at least in 2007, showed that
she knew how to win these races. How about 2027? What
does this mean for the next state Supreme Court race?
You know who wants to go there?
right? Sort of gaming out the next couple. We talked
last week about how nobody was talking about this
court election as the most important in a generation
or whatever. And then enter Ben Wikler, the former
chair of the Democratic Party. He sent out this
email day of and he was explaining why he thought
for Democrats and liberals, it was actually hugely
important because essentially this guarantees
liberal control past the point of the census. And so
into the next redistricting cycle, everything comes
back to redistricting, as Zack likes to say. And so
with the next, with the 2027, with 28 and a swing,
a swing justice potentially coming up, maybe we'll see
primaries in the races again. Like in some ways,
this opens the door for some very strange
maneuverings as liberals and Democrats get to kind
of take for granted that they have this court rich.
>> I I'm going to be watching to see if
Republicans or conservatives even run a
candidate. You know, that the inverse of that
happened when the GOP was running the table on these
elections. And there's been a few, you know, talk radio
people wondering, like, who would want to run for a
seat in the minority of the Supreme Court after someone
just got clobbered by 20 points. So I obviously
can't predict the future, but that seems like it
would be a pretty bitter pill to swallow. So it will
be interesting to see who runs for liberals and for
conservatives, or if they just sit this one out.
>> Yeah. >> All right, Sean, your
turn. You don't get out of this.
>> I mean, I've been thinking about how long
this could go really, in terms of how long this
liberal majority could be in place. Because, yes, we
have said accurately the conservatives could flip it
back in 2030. But you know, how much has to go right
for them for that to happen. They have to win next year
when there's an open seat and we see what the
environment is now they have to win in 2028 when
Rebecca Dallet is up and she knows how to run these
races, 2029 is Bryan Hagedorn, who may face a
challenge from the right. And then if all that goes
right, then you get to 2030 and you presumably take on
Jill Karofsky, another double digit winner in her
race. If any of those things does not go their
way, the clock gets set back three years. So this
really does sort of open up a chance for liberals to
look at the court with a long view. And I think
we're kind of looking for clues on how they might
view that. Now that this five two majority is the
sort of new reality we know about Judge Chris Taylor,
the candidate for Supreme Court, she gave us some
hints on election night about how she views the law.
Here's justice elect Chris Taylor.
>> The law can be a tool to lift people up, to improve
their lives, to strengthen our communities. And that's
exciting. That drove me to law school, and I've spent
now 30 my 30 year legal career as a lawyer in
private practice, as a law and policy director for
Planned Parenthood. >> And so, you know, when
candidates for the court get up and give that speech
on election night, they have a choice they can make.
They can kind of withdraw from the campaign messages
and thank their supporters and say it's time to move
on. In this case, I think you heard Chris Taylor
saying, hey, you know, all that stuff I said on the
campaign trail, that's still me. This is who I am.
So knowing that knowing the court that she is stepping
into, what might this court take up?
>> I mean, so one of the things that could be on the
agenda is a challenge to act ten. And I thought that
was really interesting. You know, I did a profile of
Chris Taylor and she talked about on the on the trail,
on her stump speech, she talked about how like the
events of 2011 as part of what motivated her to run
for the legislature, which is part of where she spent
her career, meaning act ten, meaning the protests
against Scott Walker. And so it'll be really
interesting to kind of see the tale of those events
and how those reshaped politics maybe potentially
come before this court. >> Rich, any issues that
you think could be there? >> I mean, obviously
there's a ton of issues, but one thing that has been
interesting to watch is the Liberal majority kind of
dismantling Republicans, the power that they had
built up for themselves when they had, you know,
they still do. But during the Walker years, and this
has been through kind of clipping the wings a little
bit of these various legislative committees that
can delay new rules for agencies, or they could
indefinitely. And, you know, we've seen that sort of
stuff get struck down. So I guess I'd be more
interested to see if there's going to be other
cases challenging the legislature's authority to
be able to stop, you know, things that Democrats want
to see happen. >> We we're going to run
out of time here if we don't keep moving. I think,
you know, use your imagination. Big issues
could come before the court. Let's talk about another
person in the news this week who lost their job.
The UW Board of Regents unanimously fired the
system. President Jay Rothman. What do we know
about why at this point? >> Not much. We know that
they were displeased that he serves at the pleasure
of the board. These are appointees of Governor
Evers. Rothman came in kind of as a whisperer for
Republicans. When Republicans control the
legislature and the U.A.W. needed someone to to
negotiate between the both parties, especially when
the UW was getting trampled in the budget constantly.
And it may signal this idea that we don't need someone
like that anymore, that they expect Democrats to be
in power next year when there's a new budget and
Rothman services, it's time for him to move on. They're
hoping to do it quietly, but it didn't end up that
way. >> It didn't. And
Republicans who control the legislature are not only
protesting, they are using the power that they have
potentially in the state Senate. It sounds like, to
kind of strike back in a way.
>> Yeah. That is one of the powers that they've had
throughout the Evers administration is to push
back against his appointments, and they
a message. Again, we are kind of looking towards a
know who's going to end up in the governor's seat. And
so therefore, we don't know who's going to end up in
charge of the Board of Regents. And so I think
we're going to see some of this power grabbing right
now in order to kind of set the stage for control of
the UW
That's all the time we have for today. Thanks
for joining us for this week's Inside Wisconsin
Politics. Be sure to follow us on PBS Wisconsin.org
wpr..org YouTube or wherever you get
your podcasts.