Tag: wisconsin supreme court
Expanded Liberal Bloc On Wisconsin's Supreme Court Will Safeguard Democracy

Expanded Liberal Bloc On Wisconsin's Supreme Court Will Safeguard Democracy

Wisconsin voters on Tuesday picked Chris Taylor to be the next state Supreme Court justice in what was the most emphatic of recent victories for Democratic-backed candidates, who will control the high court for the next several years.

Taylor won 60 percent of the votes, according to preliminary election results, in what has been known as a purple swing state where recent presidential elections have often been decided within one percentage point. Taylor’s win over Maria Lazar, the Republican-backed candidate, will expand the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to 5-2.

At her election party, Taylor said the people of Wisconsin stood up for rights, freedoms, democracy, and elections.

“I met people in the smallest towns, in the largest cities, and they were all working to improve our democracy,” Taylor said. “They inspired me every single day to keep going. We live in an incredible state, and people are hungry for a government that works for them.”

Taylor served as a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and prior to that on the Dane County Circuit Court after nearly a decade in the state Legislature representing parts of Madison and surrounding communities. She was also the policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

She is replacing conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley and will begin a 10-year term on August 1.

At Taylor’s event, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky said judicial races are important for democracy, ensuring that the judicial branch is accountable to the public. Taylor was appointed by Gov. Tony Evers to fill Karofsky’s seat on the Dane County Circuit Court after Karofsky was elected to the Supreme Court in 2020. She won election to the seat for a full term in 2021.

“What struck me most was how much Chris Taylor truly cares about people,” Karofsky said.

Taylor dominated in the state’s Democratic strongholds, Madison and Milwaukee counties, winning 83.8 percent and 75.8 percent of the votes, respectively, according to preliminary data compiled by the Associated Press.

But Taylor also flipped suburban Ozaukee County, which had been reliably Republican. In that county, Taylor won 52.1 percent of the vote. Susan Crawford, the successful liberal candidate in the 2025 Supreme Court election, lost the county with 48.4 percent of the vote. In the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris lost Ozaukee County with 43.9 percent.

In all, Taylor won a majority of the vote in 42 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, according to the AP data. In 2025, Crawford won 23 counties, and Harris in 2024 won 13.

Taylor’s election to the Supreme Court follows those of Crawford and Janet Protasiewicz, two liberal candidates who won elections that each broke national fundraising records for judicial races. Taylor comfortably outraised Lazar, but this race lacked the same stakes of flipping ideological control of the court.

Races for the high court are technically nonpartisan, and candidates tend to repeat the same message that they are independent judges who will assess each case on the facts alone. Candidates stay away from taking a stance on cases that could come before the Supreme Court in the future, which in Wisconsin could include cases about the state’s congressional map and union rights.

But the state’s political parties are still quite involved in these elections. In a statement, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Devin Remiker said Taylor will continue her career of protecting democracy and the freedom of Wisconsin residents.

“Wisconsinites showed up in droves to elect Chris Taylor because they know every election is an emergency,” Remiker said. “Our state Supreme Court has repeatedly shown it is the last line of defense against the federal government’s unconstitutional overreach, and with tonight’s election, we have secured a pro-freedom, pro-democracy majority on the Court through 2030.”

Reprinted with permission from The Wisconsin Independent

'Conservative'? Wisconsin Court Nominee Stumbles On Basic Constitutional History

'Conservative'? Wisconsin Court Nominee Stumbles On Basic Constitutional History

In a recent interview, Maria Lazar, a conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, appeared not to know basic facts about the Dred Scott decision, one of the most pivotal rulings in the history of American jurisprudence.

Lazar currently sits on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. She is running in the April 17 election to replace retiring conservative Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley.

The Dred Scott decision was an 1857 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the Constitution did not grant full citizenship rights to Black people. Lazar pointed to the ruling in an October 1, 2025 radio interview as an example of a case that was wrongly decided but later overturned by the court.

“Precedent doesn’t mean that you never overturn a case,” Lazar said. “I mean, there are cases, for example, Dred Scott and some other appalling cases that the U.S. Supreme Court issued that deservedly should have been overturned.”

There’s just one problem: the court never overturned the Dred Scott decision. Instead, it was effectively nullified by new amendments to the Constitution: the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment extending full citizenship rights to Black people, and the 15th Amendment prohibiting the government from infringing a citizen’s right to vote.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently composed of four liberals and three conservatives. The upcoming April 7 election will determine whether the liberal majority becomes more entrenched, or remains unchanged. The court will likely hear a case on congressional redistricting once the new judge is seated.

Lazar’s liberal opponent is Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Chris Taylor. Taylor has been endorsed by Sen. Tammy Baldwin and the AFL-CIO.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

Can Democrats Come Back? They Already Are

Can Democrats Come Back? They Already Are

During a summer when the popularity of Donald Trump fell to abysmal lows — and strong disapproval of his presidency achieved record highs — those dire warnings were mostly brushed aside. What received far more intense and sustained attention were the awful numbers registered by the Democratic Party, with analysts bemoaning its "historically" weak condition.

The occasion for all the funereal commentary was the release in late July of a Wall Street Journal poll that any honest Democrat had to find alarming. According to that survey, 63 percent of voters said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the party, while only 33 percent said their view of the party is favorable, the lowest rating ever for Democrats in a Journal survey. The party's net unfavorable was 19 points worse than the Republican Party, an unprecedented gap.

Such troubling findings can't be dismissed or waved away, even though the Journal poll was much worse than recent polls by other media outlets, which showed a mere 10-point ratings advantage for Republicans. Before we start putting up black crepe around the Democratic headquarters and drafting documents of surrender, however, there are some numbers that deserve our attention as well. For although the Democrats currently languish under a burden of public disfavor, those sour feelings may have almost no impact on their ability to defeat Republicans and achieve power again.

How can that possibly be? The real question in upcoming elections is not whether voters like the Democratic brand (or the GOP brand) but rather which party's candidate they will choose when marking their ballots. So far this year, despite the bad branding suffered by Democrats, the party is overperforming in dozens of special elections across the country and appears almost certain to win the two major statewide elections this November in New Jersey and Virginia. Polls in Virginia have showed Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger beating her Republican opponent by double digits, and her New Jersey counterpart Mikie Sherrill is ahead of the Republican by nearly as much in some polls.

Special elections are not necessarily predictive of a general election outcome, as we learned last year. Yet the results in many races this year have been startling, dating back to Wisconsin's state supreme court contest last April, when Elon Musk and right-wing organizations spent nearly $40 million to defeat liberal Democrat Susan Crawford. The Tesla zillionaire made news not only with his brazen attempt to buy the election but by declaring its outcome decisive "for the future of Western civilization."

All that money and publicity drove unusually high turnout for an off-year judicial election — which Crawford won by 10 points, a landslide humiliation for Musk and a repudiation for the Republican far right (including Trump).

The trend kicked off by Crawford's victory continued across the country over the ensuing months, including races and places considerably less hospitable to Democrats than the purplish Badger State. In Iowa, for instance, the Democrats have picked up not one but two state senate seats in specials this year — the first in January, when Democrat Mike Zimmer won in a district that Trump had carried by 20 points only two months earlier, and the second in June, when Democrat Catelin Drey won by 11 points in a district that Trump took by an equal margin last fall — a turnaround of 22 points in less than a year.

Such encouraging results for Democrats have been commonplace across the country in 2025. According to The Downballot, a website that compiles and analyzes election results across all nonpresidential races, Democratic candidates in 34 special elections this year have run about 16 points on average better than 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris in the same districts.

Does that mean Democrats will win next year's midterms? It is far too early to make any such happy prediction.

But even that grim Journal poll demands a deeper look before anyone descends into gloom. As pollster G. Elliot Morris, formerly of FiveThirtyEight, explains on his Substack, it is very possible for voters to say they disapprove of the Democratic Party — and then cast their votes for Democratic candidates. That same poll found Democrats ahead in the generic ballot for 2026, measuring which party voters plan to support in the midterm, by three percentage points.

"That's a six-point swing from their last poll in 2024," notes Morris, "and would be large enough for the Democrats to win somewhere around 230-235 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives." Depending on specific circumstances in the states, it might even mean a change in control of the U.S. Senate.

The negative atmosphere surrounding the Democratic Party and its public image arises from dissatisfaction and even anger among the voters in its own base, furious over the feckless leadership that led to the 2024 debacle and the hesitant response to Trump's first months in office. Their reaction is understandable and predictable after a national defeat — but their more recent victories are a signal of hope on the horizon.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Susan Crawford

Wisconsin Supreme Court Reminds Us Why Judicial Elections Are Vital

As abortion-rights wins feel few and far between, it’s great to see the Wisconsin Supreme Court strike down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban. Getting there has been a long process, one that required Wisconsin Democrats to make a significant, long-range commitment to winning judicial races. Oh, and also to beat back the deep pockets of the far-right billionaire Elon Musk.

In 1973, after the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion, many states, including Wisconsin, kept their old abortion bans on the books. Known as “trigger laws,” they lived on like a zombie, ready to shamble back to life if Roe v. Wade was reversed. After Dobbs v. Jackson was decided in June 2022, Wisconsin’s ancient ban was technically back in effect—but only technically since the state’s Democratic leadership promised not to enforce the law. They argued that newer, more lenient abortion laws superseded it.

Enter the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The fight over whether the 1849 ban would hold was a proxy fight for abortion access more broadly—and a fight for abortion access more broadly was always going to end up on the doorstep of a state court that had flipped control over the previous several years.

Wednesday’s 4-3 decision strikes down the ban and declares abortion legal in the state. This victory for reproductive care was possible only because of the multiyear efforts that Wisconsin Democrats and abortion activists put in. In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz trounced Daniel Kelly, a former justice on the court, to win a seat on the state Supreme Court. If you want to know what Kelly is like, just know that he went on to become a “Stop the Steal” lawyer.

Fast-forward to 2025, when liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced she would not be running for reelection, and whoever won her seat would determine the balance of the court, given its 4-3 liberal majority. This made it one of the most important judicial races in the country, and in strolled Musk, thinking he could buy the race.

That very much did not work. Liberal candidate Susan Crawford beat the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 percentage points, showing that heart and grit and organizing could beat back Musk’s torrent of cash. Better still, Crawford had previously represented Planned Parenthood in an abortion-related case, so to the right wing, she was basically Satan.

For decades, state judicial races were a pretty sleepy affair. But after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in 2009, three justices were ousted by a very well-funded, well-organized recall effort. Since then, state judicial races have gotten much more expensive and much more partisan. The Crawford-Schimel race was the most expensive state judicial race ever, with spending hitting $100 million.

It’s not great that state courts have become an expensive partisan battleground, but paying attention to them and committing to election support is more important than ever. Control of a state’s highest court can make the difference on LGBTQ+ issues, abortion access, election redistricting, and so on.

As Trump judges have ravaged the federal courts, and as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to take a hacksaw to the Constitution, state courts remain a place where—sometimes—justice can still be served.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World