Meet the candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court

Current Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor vie for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court created by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's retirement. The election is April 7.

Lazar is an appellate judge in District 2 (centered in Waukesha and composed of southeastern Wisconsin counties excluding Milwaukee County) and previously was a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge. She graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1989. A copy of her resume/CV is here.

Taylor is an appellate judge in District 4 (centered in Madison and composed of south central and southwestern Wisconsin counties) and previously was a Dane County Circuit Court judge. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1995. A copy of her resume/CV is here.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name. 

Maria Lazar

​Maria Lazar

Why do you want to become a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? 

I am running to serve as a Justice on the State Supreme Court to restore justice, independence, impartiality, and integrity to the courts and our highest court. I believe every case deserves a fair hearing, free from political influence or partisanship. I have grown increasingly concerned that judicial elections in Wisconsin have turned into bitter, partisan political campaigns where the qualifications and judicial experience of the candidates is ignored and special interest and political parties vie to seat their preferred justice. My home state of Wisconsin deserves better. It deserves a Justice who will remember that the sole purpose of the courts is interpret the Constitution and laws, not to legislate from the bench. The goal of justice is not to please any party, but to serve the people. That has how I have conducted myself for the more than eleven years I have served as a judge.

I have lived my entire professional career with the sole purpose to serve justice, to respect the laws, and to protect the rights of the people of my state. This is a race to restore to the Supreme Court that sense of fairness and integrity that appears to have faltered. People in Wisconsin deserve a court that they believe in and one that they know will operate fairly and without judicial activism. Every day that I enter my courthouse or place on my black robe, I remember that obligation – that I owe a solemn duty to the people who have elected me as their judge. I believe that I am the better candidate in this race, that I can administer justice for the people of this state, and that my determination and dedication to the law will continue to enhance my service.

The short answer to this question, is that I am running because I believe, in my heart, that this the right thing to do at this time – for me and my fellow Wisconsinites.
 
Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why.

Many times it is the little-known opinions that cause the most devastation. One of the most basic principles that underlies every person’s ability to prosper, to gain security and to pass that down to their children is the right to own private property and to keep that property out of the hands of a government that seeks take it away. The Fifth Amendment clearly provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The US Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2000) does precisely when it allowed a government to take private property to allow another private land-owner to develop a project after demolishing several homes.
 
As Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her dissent, this is an assault upon a bedrock principle that there has to be a public use otherwise the government will be able to take private property without any legitimate purpose. Allowing economic development to take precedence over private homeowners is to remove the phrase “for public use” from our Constitution. The majority in Kelo expands the concept of eminent domain and allows more powerful entities to expand their businesses at the expense of the common, ordinary landowner. This is such an intrusion into our basic rights to property that it should never have been permitted.
 
In addition, in the decades since the opinion was issued and after all the homes including that of Suzette Kelo were bulldozed, nothing has been built on the property. It remains vacant and has been described solely as a home to weeks, trees, and feral cats.  The destruction of property rights is a bitter reminder that sometimes government actions hurt the little people.

Describe your judicial philosophy. 

I am an originalist with a leaning towards textualism. I believe the Constitution is the rock to which our republic is anchored.  That means the text of our law should always first be given the original public meaning that they had when they were drafted. The first, and best, source of interpretation is the words and phrases used by the legislature when it drafts our laws. Judges are not supposed to scrutinize documents in an effort to find a hidden intent by the drafters. We should consider the language of the text, and only when it is ambiguous, should we look further. First, we should look to the rest of the statute, its heading, and surrounding statutes. Then we can go to secondary sources such as dictionaries and other legal documents that were written at the same time. Our laws must have a fixed or settled meaning or we will invite uncertainty and leave the door open for judicial activism.

This is in line with the separation of powers doctrine. The rule of law is one of – if not the most basic – fundamental principles in our representative democracy. To ensure that the law is respected, a judge/justice must be independent of agendas, political persuasion, and bias. Judges must never align themselves with a political parties or special interest groups. To do so is to jeopardize the impartiality with which we must make our decisions.

The law must be a level playing field for all individuals regardless of their race, age, gender, nationality, sex, or political persuasion. Each party is entitled to respect and an opportunity to have a full and fair opportunity to present their case.  I have never tilted a decision based upon who was the litigant. Justice must always be blind in that respect. Judges must strike the proper balance of deference to the law as written while still upholding our duties as one of the three branches of government.

In my eleven years as a judge, I have devoted myself to respecting that law while constantly striving to interpret the laws fairly so as to protect the rights and liberties of all people in my court. Underneath it all, my role is to impartially interpret the law to give it the proper effect.

The main attributes of a good justice who follows this philosophy is to have the ability to exercise fair, impartial, and legally based judgement. 
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judge.
 
The first case altered my path and lead me to the judiciary. The second was the largest civil matter I presided over when I first started as a circuit court judge. Neither case are well-known in the state, but both impacted my life and career as a judge.
 
In the first case, I represented the Department of Children and Families in a foster parent case (at the DOJ). A Dane County judge, on the record, told me that the law did not matter and declared an expired foster care license to be in effect; it allowed the foster parents to keep one sibling and give back the other—permanently separating these children. The stark refusal to accept and follow the clear statutory requirements, to adhere to the written law and to ignore legislative and agency directives and policies shook me to the core. That is not how I expect our judiciary to act. It also lead me to realize that I could and would do better. It was the reason that I ran for circuit court judge in my home county. It was the spark that made me realize that it is not enough to have legal experience, but that a judge must have more. A judge must have a deep respect for the law, must never act as an advocate for one side or the other and must never legislate from the bench by placing their views ahead of the law.

The second case I handled as a civil judge. It involved a $50 million bond transaction to a Native American tribe to establish a riverboat casino, hotel, and bed-and-breakfast. I heard the equitable or legal issues during a nine-day bench trial, and then there was to be a 7-week jury trial. After finding jurisdiction, under Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 236 Wis. 2d 384 (2000), I learned about tribal law and constitutions. In addition to my written decision, I made hundreds of rulings on various motions. I issued a 55-page written opinion concerning the legal issues of express or implied warranties, whether documents were void as ultra vires acts or invalid under the Tribal Constitution, and then the parties settled the other issues right before the jury trial.

It was an amazing case and confirmed my belief that I not only belonged on the bench, but that I would excel as a judge/justice.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
I practiced at a Milwaukee lawfirm for twenty years. The majority of my practice centered upon civil litigation (non-personal injury) in federal and state court. Our clients were middle-class business owners, private individuals, and some financial institutions. I also had a significant practice in bankruptcy law (representing creditors). In general civil litigation, I focused upon commercial litigation; I worked on real estate, contract, secured transactions, securities’ arbitration and non-competition cases to name but a few. I argued and prevailed in a matter before the State Supreme Court. I was also a Special Investigator for the Office of Lawyer Regulation for several years.
 
After joining the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I represented the state, its agencies and officers. I also handled several foster care placement challenges, several injunction hearings, and several Seventh Circuit appeals. In addition, I handled a variety of other litigation matters, many of which involved constitutional challenges. My only work on criminal matters was in the appellate courts.
 
I have represented private practice clients in administrative law proceedings (and arbitrations and mediations), and after joining the DOJ, I have advised agency clients and have worked on several administrative cases for several different Departments. 
 
In both my private and public practice, I appeared frequently in court, arguing motions, conducting hearings, and in both bench and jury trials. 
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.
 
When I was an associate at my lawfirm, I was asked by a client to falsify a document to be produced to the other side. I refused and went to my partners to explain what had happened and to insist that I no longer represent the client. I also asked that my name be removed from the signature blocks of all further proceedings. I believed that my participation or the inclusion of my name would indicate that I agreed with the lies suggested by the client. I was young enough in the practice that I wasn’t certain that they would believe me or, worse, that they would decide to fire me because I was standing up against a good client. I didn’t take a day (or night) to think about the right thing to do; I went straight to the senior partner and explained the situation. As I walked down the hallway to the partner’s office, all I thought about was how important it was to be able to respect myself the next day and how I couldn’t jeopardize my name, my reputation, and my career by just letting the fraud slip by.  I also considered that I was the main wage-earner and that we had small children. But, that wasn’t a basis to just get-along. I recognized that I would possibly face criticism and it might be difficult to find another job if my partners decided to be vindictive. That didn’t happen.
 
Luckily, my partner not only believed me, but he allowed me to stop working on that matter. I tell young lawyers (and other students who I mentor) that there is nothing more important that their reputation—it is something you can never regain so it must be carefully protected. I explain that not even the fear of losing a position is enough to stop you from doing the right thing. And, that often they will find that they gain much more respect when they take a principled and honest stand. It is never an easy thing to do—but inherent in the concept of courage is that you stand up for yourself and your reputation by facing your fears.
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?
 
I have consistently advocated for standard rules that manage to address both the subjective and objective biases that judges may have when they are faced with such cases. The public deserves to have faith and trust in their courts and their ability to have their case heard by a judge that is free from bias as well as the appearance of impropriety.
 
Respecting the law, however, is not enough. My judicial oath—every judicial oath—requires that we act impartially and without respect to persons. While that sounds odd at first blush, it is actually a sound foundation requiring judges to not take into account who is in the courtroom, and to not weigh or consider the power, prestige, or financial heft of any party. But, rather to maintain a permanent level playing field and to ensure that all rights of all litigants garner the same respect.
 
The issue of recusal, and questions of contributions, however, is presently before the State Supreme Court in a petition that was filed by several retired judges.  Therefore, I cannot opine further. 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit.]
 
I don’t know that “true justice” can be defined. There are too many times that good people are hurt (both physically and monetarily) in circumstances where even restitution, penalties, prison time, or civil judgments simply cannot make up for the damage or destruction. How can there be true justice if someone is murdered, raped, or brought to the brink of despair? The obstacles before a judge include a failure to render full and complete recoveries, an inability to make someone whole, and the fact that some individuals live lives of quiet despair or lack any sense of social or familial stability which leads them to act in ways our society cannot stand.  Even in the face of these obstacles, judges must make the difficult decisions, must protect every citizen and the society as a whole, and must provide some level of accountability and punishment for wrongs committed regardless of the underlying circumstances.
 
In addition, judges must be cognizant of their role in our government.  We cannot fix all of society’s wrongs and we err when we try to set policy or legislate from the bench. A judge must not be too timid to declare and interpret the law, but also must not be an activist but, rather, must always act with appropriate judicial restraint. A judge must strike the proper balance of deference to the law as written while still ensuring that each branch of government stays within its zone of authority. It is the judiciary’s role to say what the law “is” not what we believe it should be. In fact, it is those decisions that run contrary to a judge’s own personal views that show we are administering justice. 

As a judge, I endeavor to respect the law, to look for the meaning and intent of its drafters all the while honoring the rights and liberties of everyone who appears in front of me. It is in this way that I truly administer justice. I respect and always endeavor to uphold the Constitutions—state and federal—and strive to remember the oath I took as an attorney, an assistant attorney general and a judge to act fairly and impartially and without respect to persons. The law is paramount, for without it, our rights would be trampled and chaos would ensue. It is only in pursuing that vision of the blind-foldled lady justice that we can achieve justice.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

I have the legal and judicial background that makes me exceedingly qualified to be your next Justice. When I was an AAG, in a foster care case, I was devastated when a Dane County Judge told me that the law didn’t matter. Knowing I could do better, I ran for circuit judge in Waukesha County where I served seven years in many rotations, including Drug Treatment Court, and as presiding judge in two. I was elected to the Court of Appeals (District 2), where I have served for four years. My opponent spent two years on the criminal bench after her appointment and has been an appellate judge for three. 

During my 11 years as a judge, I have faithfully applied the law to ensure justice for all parties. Unlike a politician, I have never (and will never) legislate from the bench. I have taught literacy to adults and served on community boards. I have been active in my church, my children’s schools, and I educate students, lawyers and judges about our judicial system.

I approach my judicial role with humility and an understanding that I am a part of one branch of government and that my role is only to say what the law is, not what I want it to be. I take my oath of office seriously. We swear to uphold the Constitutions and to administer justice “without respect to persons.” That means that a good judge/justice never looks at who is in front of them in the courtroom, or which side has a better lawyer, or a member of a political or social group. I discover the facts and then I apply the law as it is written and make a rational, reasonable decision without respect to persons.

I went to law school to give something back to my state and its citizens. I became a judge because I saw justice was being trampled upon and knew that I could do better. I am fair, independent, and impartial. Unlike my opponent, I have never been a member of a political party nor have I been appointed to any judicial position.  It is critical to the people of my state that they elect a Justice who has the courage to stand against the winds of chaos, who will set aside all political biases and agendas, and will serve as a humble and faithful servant of the law.

Chris Taylor

​Chris Taylor

​Why do you want to become a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? 

It is so important that the people of Wisconsin have a strong State Supreme Court committed to protecting their rights and freedoms, our democracy, our state, and delivering justice to the people of Wisconsin in the fairest, most independent way possible. I have spent my thirty-year legal career as an attorney, legislator, and judge, using the law to improve people’s lives and our communities. I have worked to make sure that the people who appeared before me in the Circuit Court and in the Court of Appeals have a fair chance to present their cases, that their positions are carefully considered and that I apply the rule of law evenly, fairly and independently. Throughout my legal career, I’ve been focused on applying these core principles in the many capacities in which I have been fortunate to serve. I am running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to continue this work for the people of Wisconsin.
 
Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why. 

Two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that have negatively transformed our country are Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
 
Citizens United is a 2010 decision, in which the five-person majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on corporate and special interest spending in elections on the grounds that such restrictions violate the First Amendment rights of such entities. This case has contributed to the erosion of our democracy by allowing the rise of super PACs and massive increases in election spending by the most wealthy and powerful entities. These entities can raise and spend unlimited money in elections, giving them a supersized voice in our elections and drowning out the voices of average voters. Because of various legal loopholes, super PACs often coordinate with candidates and keep their funding sources secret.
 
Dobbs is another harmful case that overturned Roe v. Wade, rescinding each woman’s constitutional right to access abortion services regardless of where she lived. This decision was rooted in politics rather than based on robust constitutional grounds, and ignored almost 50 years of precedent. As a result of this decision, a woman’s right to make her own personal, private health care decisions depends on what state she lives in, rather than on a fundamental constitutional protection.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

I center my role as a judge on the principle of equal justice under the law. To me, this means that every litigant whose case I consider is entitled to being treated fairly, and to having their constitutional and legal rights protected. This principle also ensures that no individual or entity is above the law, and that the rule of law must apply to everyone, including the most privileged and powerful.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judge. 

Two significant published cases I have authored as an appellate judge are Rise, Inc. v. Wisconsin Election Commission, 2024 WI App 48, 413 Wis. 2d 366, 11 N.W.3d 241, and Hubbard v. Neuman, 2024 WI App 22, 411 Wis. 2d 586, 5 N.W.2d 852.
 
Rise concerned setting a state-wide standard for municipal clerks in determining whether absentee ballot witnesses complied with a statutory address requirement that must be provided on an absentee ballot envelope. I affirmed the circuit court in concluding that as long as the address information provided by the absentee ballot witness identifies a place where the witness may be communicated with, the address requirement is satisfied. I reversed the circuit court in concluding that the determination of whether the address requirement has been satisfied is determined from the viewpoint of the municipal clerk, acting reasonably in discharging their duties, rather than from an objective person’s perspective as determined by the circuit court.
 
Hubbard concerned the scope of Wisconsin’s patient informed consent law in the context of a negligence claim in which a patient alleged that her ovaries had been surgically removed without her informed consent. My decision details the common law and statutory origins of Wisconsin’s informed consent law, and affirmed the circuit court’s decision that allowed the patient’s case to continue. My decision was affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme court by a 5-2 majority. 
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. 

I spent many years practicing law in the civil arena, where I focused on family law. I represented regular people dealing with stressful family situations that required legal resolution. I also served as a Guardian Ad Litem and volunteer mediator. As the legal director at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, I advocated for policies that protected and facilitated access to health care, including the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Act, which requires all hospital emergency rooms to tell sexual assault survivors about emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy and to dispense the contraception if requested. In the legislature, I introduced and advocated for over 250 bills and resolutions to expand access to affordable health care, protect clean drinking water and to provide economic support for working families.
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. 

I had a complicated, lengthy and contentious homicide trial, which involved strong emotions for the families, friends and communities impacted and strong public sentiments. I focused on maintaining a calm and respectful courtroom, anchoring myself in the law and the sentencing factors I was required to consider, and in delivering a thoughtful, balanced and fair decision.
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set? 

Wisconsin's recusal rules require judges to evaluate each case individually to determine whether they can be fair and impartial. I take my recusal obligations very seriously and examine every case in front of me to ensure that I can fulfil my responsibilities and also ensure that the public has faith in the decisions I make. I am the only candidate in this race who supports holding a public hearing to solicit the public’s input in strengthening judicial recusal rules. Wisconsinites deserve to have faith and trust in their judicial system, and the judicial system needs the public’s trust to fulfill our duties.
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit.]

To me, “true justice” occurs when litigants have access to affordable, quality legal services; when litigants have the ability to present their cases to a fair, impartial court; and when our courts have the resources and time to thoroughly consider the merits of each argument. And finally, true justice depends on strong community resources and support systems. These resources should help individuals address conduct which resulted in their contact with the legal system and skills to avoid conflict in the first place.
 
There are many obstacles to true justice. First, often the people involved in the judicial system have significant addiction and mental health issues. Community investment in these two areas could significantly decrease the volume of criminal charges and cases in our criminal justice system. There is also a need for more public funding for our prosecutors, state public defenders, and for affordable legal services, in both criminal and the civil arenas. Finally, we all need to invest more time in teaching our young people how to resolve disputes, without resorting violence or criminal behavior.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

The people of Wisconsin deserve a strong State Supreme Court that will stand up for them. I will be a justice for all Wisconsinites.