right.
>> I'm just gonna wing
it because I forgot to.
>> Chris Taylor
wins
by a landslide in this week's
Supreme Court
race, locking
down a
Liberal majority
for years.
How'd it
happen andwhat
could it mean?
Plus, the University of WisconsinBoard
of Regents fires the system. President
and Republicans
don't like
it. This
is inside Wisconsinpolitics.
I'm Shawn Johnson
here with my colleague
Zac Schultz Anya van Wagtendonkand
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 howto 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 andit's so purple.
And elections are frequently
decided by less than apercentage point. And
then we've had these springelections 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 weredifferent.
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 interestingexperiment 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 marginI'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, howabout you?
What stood out? >> Well, just to add
on to that, earlier thatafternoon, I met
up with Chris Taylor on the UWcampus.
And one of the questions I asked her
was, are you worried because thelack of
investment from the Democratic Party ofWisconsin, 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 maynot 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 bothsides knew where
this election was going early onand decided,
we're going to save our money for the
fall. There's enough to
spend iton 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 Ithink
they all kind ofwalked
away from this tothe
point where when you saw Lazar at her
party, you got the sense that this was
not a surprise to her. Shewasn't shocked,
maybe at the final margin. But evenhearing
from Republican voters afterwards,
there were a lot of them saying,well,
why weren't we trying harder? And I
think thatwas the main
takeaway, is that everyone had an
expectation that this wasgoing to
be the result. >>
Rich, as we sit
here today, what kind of standsout 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 wasa 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. Shestuck
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 inthe
past. But really,
Republicans kind of stood
down in a way.
>> Rich. We were
kind of trading
messages throughoutthe night
as you
were at that
Maria Lazar
campaign election
party. It
strikes me that this was not
a joyous affair. Can
you kindof talk
us through what it
was like to be
at thishotel 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 beforethe
race was
called, therewere
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 wasstill
surprised when therace
was called
less than 40 minutes after the
polls closed. I
mean, that's
surprising. So
the mood was
rough. Lazar
didn't comeout and
speak until
after 9p.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 resultsmight
send the opposite message
there in terms of
what future candidates
will take from
it. As you
look at
where the votes
came inhere,
I know we should take
them with a huge grain
of salt because we do not have20
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 orhow
they came in.
>> I mean, I think that
the grain of salt is actuallykind of
part of the story, right? There was a
lot of trying to claim victory andreally
cast this forward from Democrats, cast us
forward into
November forwhat
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 havethe
advantage in
these spring elections.
That's been true for
the last couple of years. That wastrue
in the sort of postmortem that Republicans
put together about
their own poor
performance last
spring, that the
nature of
the electorate that
comes out
in an
election in the springtime
without DonaldTrump
at the top of
the ballot, is a reallydifferent 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 thatwe're not going
to see the same environment
in the fall.
Republicans won't be
outspent 8 to 1.
Republicans won't bepulling
their punches andnot
trying to campaign
through the
end. And nothing to
diminish thecampaign
that Maria
Lazar ran.
But she ran
it without any
outside support. Thatis
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 fireup 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 winOzaukee 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 morepeople that don't
pay attention to theseelections. Vote in the
fall, not at the same level as we
would in a presidential year, but turnout will
be significantly higher rightnow with realignment.
ats do better in
lower turnout
events whenthey
can consistently get
their voters
to the polls,and
Republicans aren't.
So a lot of it will
depend on the atmosphere this falland 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 thatwere the
foundation of Republican
power in this state
for years.
But I haveto
say, Chris Taylor, 1
Ozaukee County. And that
is something that even inthese other big
Supreme Court elections, the
Liberal candidate has
not yet
won Ozaukee
County. Shealso
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 didin
her home county of
Waukesha County. And
Waukesha County
is also oneof
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 togo back
to the discussion
of, you know,
you've got the Wow
counties, not
as as
deep red,
but northern
Wisconsin. So it is truethat
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 onthe
west. And
that might be
true, but
the populationjust isn't
there. So, you
know, that's
sort of an area,
even if it goes hardfor
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 thingthat we
do in Wisconsin. At
least I can't resist it. Wehad an
election, and we have to talk about what's
going to what's it mean forthe next
election. And I know the 2026 election is
way different. But what does it mean? I
mean, are there lessons that eitherparty would
look at these and say,
well, 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 inthere?
>> Well, just today
before we
came on here, we
saw twomore
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 chancethat
Democrats will flipthat 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 hadnow 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 gosomewhere
else. So I think those patterns tell you
a lot more than what any ofthe
the press releases will. >> Including Annette
who would have been up for election in
2027, and somebody who, atleast in
2007, showed thatshe 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? it's interesting,right? Sort
of gaming out the next couple. We
talked last week about
how nobodywas talking
about thiscourt 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 forsome very
strange maneuverings
as liberalsand
Democrats get to kind of take for
granted thatthey 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 beena
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 theyjust
sit this one
out. >> Yeah.
>> All right, Sean, yourturn. You don't
get out of this.>> I mean, I've
been thinking about how longthis could go
really, in terms of how long
this liberal
majority could bein
place. Because,
yes, wehave
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 seatand
we see what the environment is now they
have to win in 2028
when Rebecca
Dallet is up
and she
knows how to run theseraces,
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, anotherdouble
digit winner
in her
race. If
any of those
things does not go theirway, 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 nightabout 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, whencandidates 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 messagesand
thank their supportersand
say it's time to moveon.
In this case, I
think you heard Chris
Taylor saying, hey, you know,
all that stuff I said on thecampaign
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 thethings that could
be on the agenda is a challenge to
act ten.
And I thought thatwas
really interesting. Youknow, I
did a profile of
Chris Taylor and she talkedabout on the
on the trail, on her stump speech, she
talked about how like theevents of
2011 as part ofwhat
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 eventsand how those
reshaped politics
maybe potentiallycome 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 hadbuilt
up for themselves
when they
had, you know,
they still do.
But duringthe
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 ifthere'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 runout 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 pleasureof
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 whenthere'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 thatway.
>> It didn't. And Republicans who control the
legislature are not only protesting, they
are usingthe
power that
they have
potentially in the
state Senate. It
sounds like,
to kind of
strike back
in away.
>> Yeah. That is one
of the powers that they've hadthroughout the
Evers administration is to pushback against his
appointments, and they do that here to
send a message. Again, we arekind of
looking towards a November where we don'tknow
who's going to end upin the governor's
seat. And so therefore, we don't knowwho's
going to end up incharge of the
Board of Regents. And so I thinkwe're
going to see some ofthis power grabbing
right now in order to kind of set
the stage for control ofU.A.W.
we don't have much time, but animosity between
the legislature and the university, who'd have
it? >> Yeah,
it's a bit of
a pattern, let's put
it that way.
So when
Rothman was hired,
Assembly Speaker
Robin Vos
said, hey,
that's great. You
know, business
leader, that's what theywere looking
for. We
had former
Governor Tommy
Thompson, another Republican,
run the system
before Rothman.
And the
Republicans in the legislature still didn't
give him
very much
in terms
of budget
requests. >> So
now we're going tohave
to wait and see
if theSenate follows through
on this at a time when they'renot
in session, they got other stuff going on.
It's kind of their
move at this point.
That's all the time
we have for
today. Thanksfor
joining us for this
week's Inside
Wisconsin Politics. Be sure
to follow us on
PBS Wisconsin.
Org YouTube
or wherever you
get your podcasts.