After being delayed for kidney stones and weather, the debate to be Wisconsin’s next Justice went late. So what happened?
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin debate between Judge Maria Lazar and former legislator/circuit court judge Chris Taylor delivered a contrast in styles, priorities, and approaches to the bench, but will voters change their minds accordingly?
Chris Taylor is a politician—and a good one.
She didn’t just answer questions; she pivoted and turned every topic she could into an attack on her opponent. Abortion, redistricting, Voter ID, 2020 election challenges, Planned Parenthood—you name it, Taylor steered the conversation back to framing Lazar as extreme, agenda-driven, or tied to “right-wing groups.”
Taylor did a good job of delivering the quintessential judge line, “I can’t comment on that” while also using a parallel message to signal to her voters, “her values.” Namely, she dropped personal anecdotes regarding her family’s union ties and how they helped her. They also have the added benefit of softening her image and making her more human. She leaned into her legislative record defending rights and “the people” to again signal her values to voters.
Democrats have a playbook for judicial races and Taylor followed this one properly: stay on message, never let the opponent breathe, and subtly imply values without breaking judicial ethics.
Lazar had legitimate attacks; needed to sustain them.
Lazar scored points on Voter ID and Marsy’s Law, which are both extremely popular positions. She reminded voters that Taylor opposed Voter ID and briefly tied it with the recent constitutional amendment passed by voters. This was the only time Taylor looked to be on the backfoot and was audibly stumbling for an answer briefly.
Victim protections and Marsy’s Law was another valid attack by Lazar noting Taylor’s vote against the victims’ rights amendment while Lazar emphasized its necessity. These were fact-based hits that could have defined the race, but Taylor pivoted to her support for victims’ rights generally, despite having issues with Marsy’s Law itself. Lazar’s responses were professional, but the failure to circle back and hammer those vulnerabilities left the hits feeling like one-off jabs that were forgotten by the end of the debate.
Other missed opportunities came when Lazar and Taylor “agreed” on principled positions such as not commenting on cases or respecting the jury. However, for Taylor she loses nothing by looking professional or judicious. Lazar can agree with her in principle, but had to find those contrast moments to differentiate herself. If voters see two similar products, they are going to go with the stronger option. Contrast allows you to define yourself as that preferred option, but when you acquiesce to judicial speak it hamstrings you from gaining ground.
Impartiality wasn’t just Lazar’s talking point—it was her entire brand.
Lazar repeatedly stressed her independence: “I am not here to legislate from the bench,” “I’ve never been a member of any party,” “I rule on the law and facts,” and “I’ve been a complete girl scout on this issue (impartiality).”
She defended her record of recusal integrity and neutrality at length. Make no mistake—this clearly sits at the core of her judicial philosophy, and she believes it deeply. In today’s world that is extremely admirable, but does not match what was needed for a judicial race in the year 2026. She discussed it at length and began to feel defensive rather than defining.
Multiple times throughout the night Taylor would attack Lazar’s impartiality because of various issues and instead of flipping the question to attack her opponent, she felt the need to defend her honor. No one likes to have a core tenetof who they are attacked, but this continually burns up valuable air time. If impartiality is your strongest suit, leading with it makes sense, but over-relying on it risks sounding like you’re protesting too much.
Abortion dominated, but it probably won’t move the needle.
There were at least three dedicated abortion exchanges (plus pivots throughout) that discussed everything from a heartbeat bill to unrestricting abortion altogether. Taylor hammered Roe v. Wade, and Lazar’s comments that it was a “wise choice” to overturn the decision. Lazar countered that abortion isn’t on the ballot, pushed the 20-week ban currently state law, and reminded everyone the issue belongs with legislators, not courts.
The reality is the balance of the court isn’t at stake in this race. Abortion hasn’t been as major an ad focus, as overall spending is down from historic levels last spring. For voters tuned into this debate, it will always be a heated question, but those who watch have already made up their minds.
This debate likely won’t move many voters.
Both candidates stuck to their lanes. Taylor’s progressive undertones pitch vs. Lazar’s independent-jurist record. The audience already inclined toward one side probably left feeling the same. Closing statements were on-brand: Taylor for “the rights of all,” Lazar as “your independent justice for the next 10 years.” There were no major viral moments or game-changers.
Bottom line: Taylor showed she knows how to fight like a legislator. Lazar showed she thinks like a judge. Whether that choice actually shifts votes on April 7will be determined soon.
