Wisconsin Supreme Court contest heads to voters

Election Day is Tuesday, April 7, and, while most people know there’s an open state Supreme Court seat on the ballot, it’s barely generated any interest at the grassroots level.

To call the contest subdued would be an understatement.

In a state where recent high court races have shattered spending records and drawn national figures such as Elon Musk into the state’s fiercely contested judicial waters, this year’s campaign between judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar has been relatively disturbance free, forming few ripples in the political sea.

Beneath that calm surface, though, lies an election that could foreshadow major upheavals in the November midterms while potentially cementing a progressive majority on the high court until at least 2030.  

A March 11-18 Marquette University Law School poll underscores that disconnect. According to the March survey, 53 percent of registered voters were undecided, with the progressive Taylor pulling just 23 percent and conservative Lazar 17 percent. Only 12 percent reported hearing or reading “a lot” about the race, while 57 percent said they had heard “just a little.” 

That combination of low voter interest and a large pool of undecided voters has left both campaigns struggling to define themselves and each other in the final stretch, as well as to motivate under-enthused voters to turn out.

Democrats nonetheless enter the last weekend before the election with a decided political advantage. 

For one thing, recent special elections and legislative races have generally favored Democrats, who have flipped some 30 state legislative and special election seats across multiple states — including in traditionally Republican areas such as Arkansas, Texas, and Florida — according to recent election reporting.

That momentum appears to be reflected in voter enthusiasm.

In the Marquette poll, 77 percent of self-identified Democrats said they were certain to vote in the April election, compared to 59 percent of Republicans. Similarly, 51 percent of Democrats described themselves as “very enthusiastic” about voting, while only 32 percent of Republicans said the same. 

The gap extends to perceptions of importance, with 65 percent of Democrats labeling the outcome as “very important,” compared to 46 percent of Republicans. Those numbers suggest turnout — and which side better mobilizes its base — will be decisive in a race where persuasion will likely take a back seat to participation.

The April 7 election will determine who fills the seat held by retiring justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley.

Experience and judicial philosophy

As sitting judges, both candidates bring extensive legal experience to the race, though their paths to the bench are so different that they have become central to both campaign narratives.

As a legislator-turned-judge, Chris Taylor currently serves on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, winning election to that position in 2023 after previously serving as a Dane County circuit court judge. Prior to becoming a judge, her campaign states, Taylor served nearly a decade in the state Assembly, and, before that, she was an attorney and policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

Her transition from policymaking to the judiciary has become a flash point in the campaign — as much as there is a flash point — with supporters spotlighting her broad experience and critics questioning the partisan implications of her legislative background.

By contrast, Lazar has established a career firmly grounded in the judiciary and in private legal practice. She spent approximately 20 years in private practice in Milwaukee, focusing on business litigation and bankruptcy, followed by five years as an assistant attorney general with the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

She then served for seven years as a circuit court judge in Waukesha County before being elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District 2, where she has served for three years. 

“My last two positions have helped me hone my judicial skills and acumen,” Lazar says in her campaign biography. 

Her campaign has emphasized that she has run for every judicial position she has held, rather than being appointed, and portrays her career as one defined by courtroom experience rather than political office.

“Our judicial races have been inundated with political players,” Lazar said in her campaign announcement. “Not only are there political ads, but political parties have taken over. In my last judicial race for the Court of Appeals, my governor-appointed opponent funded her race with massive influxes of out-of-state money. I have never been appointed to any position on the bench, having run for every judicial seat I have held. My opponent was initially appointed to the Dane County circuit court with no prior experience or will of the people.”

Competing visions

At the heart of the race lies a fundamental disagreement over the Supreme Court’’s role. Lazar leans on the language of restraint and impartiality to paint her candidacy as an effort to restore what she sees as a proper judicial role — one grounded in neutrality and adherence to the constitution as written.

“We need to draw a line in the sand and stop the destruction of our courts — especially our State Supreme Court,” Lazar said in her announcement. 

Lazar said she was particularly concerned about the direction of recent judicial elections. 

“We are bombarded by political ads for a judicial position,” she said. “… First, judicial ethics have been thrown out the window and candidates have openly campaigned on how they would rule in future cases. I realize you, the voters, want to hear that information, but ethics are important. As I campaign, I will tell you how I’ve ruled on important issues, how I make my decisions, and promise to never be swayed by political considerations.”

Lazar stresses the separation of powers.

“My commitment is simple: to uphold the Constitution, respect the separation of powers, and apply the law fairly and without bias,” she said. “Wisconsin’s strength as a democratic republic depends on fair laws, fair courts, and fair judges. That is the kind of justice I will strive to be every day.”

The choice was particularly clear, Lazar said, given that she had a long legal career and her opponent had always been a politician first. 

“I am not a member of a political party,” she said. “My opponent spent years in the legislature. I am fair, independent, and impartial; that is what every justice should be. This is a campaign to restore justice to our Supreme Court, not to place a partisan politician into a robe and on a court that stands atop our judicial system. There is a reason we have three branches of government and that the courts stand apart.”

Taylor, meanwhile, has emphasized a more active role for the judiciary in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring fairness. She says her judicial philosophy is people-centered, grounded in ensuring that individuals get a fair chance in the courts and that their constitutional rights are protected. 

“She knows how important it is for our courts to be places where people feel heard, respected, and treated equally under the law,” her campaign website states of her judicial philosophy. “She is a strong advocate for maintaining the independence of the judiciary, which must also serve as a check on the other branches of government.”

Her campaign messaging frequently ties the court’s role to broader democratic principles, including voting rights and access to the justice system.

Abortion

Abortion always seems to be a central issue in Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin, and this year is no different, albeit it is cutting with a softer blade in this cycle.

Still, Taylor applauded the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Kaul v. Urmanski, which effectively rendered the state’s 1849 abortion ban unenforceable, returning Wisconsin to a legal framework frequently described as the “20-week compromise.” 

“Today’s decision by the majority of justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court correctly renders Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban unenforceable, protecting an individual’s right to make their most personal, private decisions about their bodies and their lives.” 

Taylor took aim at conservative justice Rebecca Bradley’s dissent in that case — perhaps because Bradley had not yet announced her retirement.

“In contrast to the majority opinion, Justice Rebecca Bradley’s dissent constitutes an unhinged political rant, devoid of reasoned legal analysis,” Taylor said. “Using politically charged language unsuited for any judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice, justice Rebecca Bradley continues to be more concerned with forcing her own right-wing agenda onto the people of our state, than protecting our most basic constitutional rights and freedoms. Clearly, the people of Wisconsin deserve more in a Supreme Court justice.” 

Taylor said Bradley had a long record of opposing access to reproductive health care and had even advocated for allowing women to be denied their birth control prescriptions at the pharmacy counter. In contrast, Taylor said she had spent her 30-year legal career facilitating access to justice and protecting people’s rights and freedoms. 

“Throughout my career as an attorney, legislator, and judge, I have been committed to ensuring that everyone has access to justice and that our courts protect the fundamental rights of all Wisconsinites,” she said.

For her part, Lazar has emphasized the legislature’s role.

“Behind every court ruling is a human reality,” Lazar says. “For many women and families, this is not an abstract political debate; it is one of the most difficult and personal decisions a person can face. In the mad rush to select sides, we all forget what underlies this issue — we, the people of Wisconsin, have to take into account and balance the interests and life of the struggling mother and the baby, especially after it has come too far along.”

The real issue is unwanted pregnancies, Lazar said, and as a mother with children and a former juvenile court judge, she said she recognized the hardships some women face and their rights to personal autonomy. 

“They must be supported and treated with empathy,” she said. “We need a compassionate but concise position that will be easily understood by my fellow Wisconsinites and will bring some calm to this constant storm.”

Lazar added that the issue should ultimately be addressed through democratic processes.

“We must, however, all agree that — because we live in a republican democracy — our legislature is where this battle must start and that the sole and proper role of our courts is to declare whether the laws as enacted are constitutional,” she said. “With that in mind, the people are best served by a justice who can set aside personal views and apply the law dispassionately as it is written. That is one of my solemn pledges to Wisconsin.”

Redistricting, fair maps

Redistricting is another area where the candidates’ perspectives diverge.

Taylor says her mission is to protect voter representation, and she said the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating prior state legislative maps was a pivotal moment. 

“The majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court by one vote found that the legislative maps — that some election experts call the most gerrymandered in 40 years out of any state — they found those maps to be unconstitutional,” Taylor said in an interview with PBS Wisconsin. “That led the Legislature to pass new maps that were signed by the governor, and I think that has led to more competitive maps.”

Taylor called it an incredibly important decision. 

“I think what that really signals to the people of the state of Wisconsin is their vote should matter,” she said. ”They should have the ability to protect, to vote for, and to choose their elected representatives, not the other way around. And that’s exactly what George Washington said at the founding of this country.”

Lazar has emphasized that courts should not overstep their role in redistricting.

“If the Legislature and the Governor cannot agree, the matter can go to court,” she says. “At that point, the job of a judge, and especially the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is not to draw new maps or advance political goals. The court’s duty is to interpret the law, not make it.”

The judicial branch exists to uphold the constitution and ensure that each branch of government remains within its designated limits, Lazar says on her website. 

“When courts begin to act like lawmakers, public trust in a fair and independent judiciary is weakened,” she says. “The Wisconsin Supreme Court should be a neutral referee, not a political player.”

Her position reflects a broader focus on the separation of powers and judicial restraint.

On the other hand, Taylor says the Supreme Court plays a critical role in protecting democracy, ensuring that all legally cast votes are counted, and safeguarding the integrity of state election results. Accordingly, she says, the progressive majority — which Taylor says seeks to do just that — is tenuous and must be expanded.

“For example, in 2020, the state Supreme Court was right to reject unmeritorious efforts to overturn our election,” she told Wisconsin Public Radio. “However, these efforts to overturn our elections were rejected by only one vote on our court. This shows how critical it is to have justices who are committed to upholding our state constitution and will put our democracy and the people of Wisconsin ahead of extreme political agendas.”

Judicial ethics and recusal

The issue of judicial ethics — particularly recusal rules — has also emerged as a campaign issue.

Taylor has called for greater transparency.

“Wisconsin’s recusal rules require judges to evaluate each case individually to determine whether they can be fair and impartial,” she told Wisconsin Public Radio. “Because recusal decisions depend on the specific facts and circumstances of a case, I cannot point to a hypothetical example without carefully reviewing the details. I take my ethical obligations seriously and would evaluate every case to ensure I can be fair, impartial, and uphold the integrity of the court.”

That said, Taylor said she was the only candidate in the race who supported holding public hearings to consider strengthening judicial recusal rules. 

“Some of the current judicial recusal rules were written by powerful special interests who spend millions of dollars in our judicial races,” she said. “That is why I believe Wisconsinites deserve a transparent process and a voice in ensuring our recusal standards reflect the highest ethical principles. Maintaining public trust and confidence in the independence and integrity of our courts is essential.”

Lazar has emphasized the importance of case-by-case evaluation and adherence to existing standards. Her campaign has focused more broadly on maintaining impartiality and avoiding political influence in judicial decision-making. Her campaign points out that Taylor has refused to say if she would recuse herself from cases involving her former employer, Planned Parenthood.

Religious liberty

Not unlike many conservative judicial candidates these days, Lazar has made religious liberty a central theme. Religious freedom isn’t a privilege granted by the government, her campaign states, but a right guaranteed by God and protected by the constitution.

“Judge Maria Lazar believes that when government targets faith-based organizations simply because they live out their beliefs, it strikes at the heart of the First Amendment,” her campaign states. “The constitution does not allow politicians to pick winners and losers in matters of religion. It guarantees every person and every organization the right to live and serve according to their convictions — without fear of government retaliation. When this right falters our state suffers.”

Also typical for a progressive candidate, Taylor has not emphasized religious liberty, choosing instead to emphasize broader constitutional rights and access to justice.

The contrast between the candidates extends beyond policy positions to the tenor of their campaign rhetoric. For instance, Lazar frequently characterizes the race as a choice between an “independent jurist” and a “politician,” arguing that her opponent’s legislative background raises concerns about impartiality.

“We must stop the politicization of our courts,” she says. “We need to restore fair and impartial justice to this non-partisan third branch of our government. We need to elect someone with the courage to stand fast against this devastating trend and who will appreciate the grave honor they have been given by the people of Wisconsin every time they put on their black robe. There is only one candidate who fits that bill, and that is me.”

Taylor’s campaign has, in turn, emphasized her commitment to protecting and expanding access.

“As an attorney, public servant, and now as a judge, I’ve always been committed to making sure everyone is able to access our justice system,” she says. “Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court must be fair, independent, and impartial. Everyone who comes before the court deserves to be heard, respected, and treated equally — that’s exactly what I’ll do as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.”

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.