Shawn Johnson:
Chris Taylor wins by a landslide in this week's Supreme Court race, locking down a liberal majority for years. How'd it happen and what could it mean? Plus, the Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents fires the system president and Republicans don't like it. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. I'm Shawn Johnson here with my colleagues Zac Schultz, Anya van Wagtendonk, and Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, everyone.

Zac Schultz:
Hello.

Anya van Wagtendonk:
Hi Shawn.

Rich Kremer:
Hey Shawn.

Shawn Johnson:
So we've kind of gotten used to these big liberal blowouts, we'd use the term, in these April elections. They have figured out how to 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?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
Yeah, I mean, I think we're all so used to talking about Wisconsin, and it's so purple, and elections are frequently decided by less than a percentage point. And then we've had these spring elections that are determined by closer to 10 points. But this time it was 20 points. And so that is such a significantly larger gulf. So we kind of saw some of the tea leaves leading into the race — less spending, sort of less excitement across the board. The stakes were different. 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 interesting experiment 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 margin I've ever seen, and from what I understand in decades in Wisconsin races.

Shawn Johnson:
Yeah, a 20-point margin as opposed to the usual, you know, quote unquote ten in these races. Zac, how about you? What stood out?

Zac Schultz:
Well, just to add on to that, earlier that afternoon, I met up with Chris Taylor on the UW campus. One of the questions I asked her was, are you worried because the lack of investment from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin — 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 may not be aware they need to get out and vote. She said, no, I don't think so. And she was absolutely right. I think what this showed was that both sides knew where this election was going early on, and decided we're going to save our money for the fall. There's enough to spend it on 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 I think they all kind of walked away from this to the point where when you saw Lazar at her party, you got the sense that this was not a surprise to her. She wasn't shocked. Maybe at the final margin. But even hearing from Republican voters afterwards, there were a lot of them saying, well, why weren't we trying harder? And I think that was the main takeaway, is that everyone had an expectation that this was going to be the result.

Shawn Johnson:
Rich, as we sit here today, what kind of stands out to you about this race?

Rich Kremer:
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. You've seen a lot of conservative people on social media saying, what are you doing, Republican Party? You know, there was a 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. She stuck to the experience kind of mantra. And so it did seem like all the money was lower in this race than it was in the past, but really, Republicans kind of stood down in a way.

Shawn Johnson:
Rich, we were kind of trading messages throughout the night as you were at that Maria Lazar campaign election party. It strikes me that this was not a joyous affair. Can you talk us through what it was like to be at this hotel in Pewaukee?

Rich Kremer:
Yeah, it was — 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 before the race was called, there were more reporters in the room than there were supporters. And that is just something, and you kind of get a sense that, well, they kind of know this is a foregone conclusion. But even I was still surprised when the race was called less than 40 minutes after the polls closed. I mean, that's surprising. So the mood was rough. Lazar didn't come out and speak until after 9 p.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 partisanship 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.

Shawn Johnson:
Seems like the results might send the opposite message there in terms of what future candidates will take from it. As you look at where the votes came in here, I know we should take them with a huge grain of salt, because we do not have 20-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 or how they came in?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
I mean, I think that the grain of salt is actually kind of part of the story, right? There was a lot of trying to claim victory and really cast this forward from Democrats, cast this forward into November for what 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 have the advantage in these spring elections. That's been true for the last couple of years. That was true 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 off election in the springtime without Donald Trump at the top of the ballot, is a really different electorate that comes out in a November election. And so I think overreading the results of this would be a problem for Democrats.

Zac Schultz:
Yeah, I think the extension of that is that we're not going to see the same environment in the fall. Republicans won't be outspent eight to one. Republicans won't be pulling their punches and not trying to campaign through the end. Nothing to diminish the campaign that Maria Lazar ran, but she ran it without any outside support that is 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 fire up 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 win Ozaukee — no, she got blown out. 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 more people that don't pay attention to these elections vote in the fall. Not at the same level as we would in a presidential year, but turnout will be significantly higher. Right now with realignment, Democrats do better in lower turnout events when they can consistently get their voters to the polls, and Republicans aren't. So, a lot of it will depend on the atmosphere this fall and how demoralized Republicans may be.

Shawn Johnson:
I would be surprised, you know, frankly, if Republicans were able to win Ozaukee County in November. This is the "O," in the WOW counties, the vaunted WOW counties that were the foundation of Republican power in this state for years. But I have to say Chris Taylor won Ozaukee County. And that is something that even in these other big Supreme Court elections, the liberal candidate has not yet won Ozaukee County. She also 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.

Anya van Wagtendonk:
And she did much better in her home county of Dane County than Maria Lazar did in her home county of Waukesha County. And Waukesha County is also one of 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.

Shawn Johnson:
Far more people than Ozaukee too, so a big vote getter. Rich, how about you?

Rich Kremer:
Yeah, I just wanted to go back to the discussion of, you know, you've got the WOW counties, not as deep red, but northern Wisconsin. So it is true 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 Polk County on the west. And that might be true, but the population just isn't there. So, you know, that's sort of an area, even if it goes hard for Republicans in the fall, a Dane County kind of turn out like we saw could erase that pretty quickly. So that was a really interesting thing to see Republicans say, well, this is where we need to focus — up north.

Shawn Johnson:
So, we have this thing that we do in Wisconsin. At least I can't resist it. We had an election, and we have to talk about what's it mean for the next election. And I know the 2026 election is way different. But what does it mean? I mean, are there lessons that either party 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 in there?

Zac Schultz:
Well, just today, before we came on here, we saw two more Assembly Republicans announce 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 chance that Democrats will flip that chamber and the Assembly is 50-50. It sucks to be in the minority. And we've seen that in both the Legislature and on the Supreme Court, where we had now two consecutive conservative incumbent justices who were well within the normal age range to seek another 10-year term, decide, I don't want to be in the minority on this court, I'd rather go somewhere else. So, I think those patterns tell you a lot more than what any of the press releases will.

Shawn Johnson:
Including Annette Ziegler, who would have been up for election in 2027, and somebody who, at least in 2007, showed that she knew how to win these races. How about 2027? What does this mean for the next state Supreme Court race? Who wants to go there?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
It's interesting, sort of gaming out the next couple. We talked last week about how nobody was talking about this court 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 Zac likes to say — and so with the 2027, with '28 and a swing justice potentially coming up, maybe we'll see primaries in the races again. Like in some ways, this opens the door for some very strange maneuverings as liberals and Democrats get to kind of take for granted that they have this court.

Shawn Johnson:
Rich?

Rich Kremer:
I'm going to be watching to see if Republicans or conservatives even run a candidate. You know, the inverse of that happened when the GOP was running the table on these elections. There's been a 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. It will be interesting to see who runs for liberals and for conservatives, or if they just sit this one out.

Shawn Johnson:
Yeah.

Zac Schultz:
All right, Shawn, your turn. You don't get out of this.

Shawn Johnson:
I mean, I've been thinking about how long this could go, really, in terms of how long this liberal majority could be in place. Because, yes, we have 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 seat, and we see what the environment is now. They have to win in 2028 when Rebecca Dallet is up and she knows how to run these races. 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, another double digit winner in her race. If any of those things does not go their way, 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 5-2 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 night about how she views the law — Here's Justice-elect Chris Taylor.

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 my 30-year legal career as a lawyer in private practice, as a law and policy director for Planned Parenthood.

Shawn Johnson:
And so, you know, when candidates 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 messages and thank their supporters and say it's time to move on. In this case, I think you heard Chris Taylor saying, hey, you know, all that stuff I said on the campaign 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?

Anya van Wagtendonk:
I mean, so one of the things that could be on the agenda is a challenge to Act 10. And I thought that was really interesting. You know, I did a profile of Chris Taylor, and she talked about on the trail, on her stump speech, she talked about how the events of 2011 as part of what motivated her to run for the Legislature, which is part of where she spent her career — meaning Act 10, meaning the protests against Scott Walker. And so it'll be really interesting to kind of see the tale of those events and how those reshaped politics maybe potentially come before this court.

Shawn Johnson:
Rich, any issues that you think could be there?

Rich Kremer:
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 had built up for themselves when they had, you know, they still do, but during the 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 if there'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.

Shawn Johnson:
We're going to run out 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?

Zac Schultz:
Not much. We know that they were displeased, that he serves at the pleasure of the board. These are appointees of Gov. Evers. Rothman came in kind of as a whisperer for Republicans. When Republicans control the Legislature and the UW needed someone 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 when there's a new budget and Rothman's services, it's time for him to move on. They're hoping to do it quietly, but it didn't end up that way.

Shawn Johnson:
It didn't. And Republicans who control the Legislature are not only protesting, they are using the power that they have, potentially, in the state Senate it sounds like, to kind of strike back in a way.

Anya van Wagtendonk:
Yeah. That is one of the powers that they've had throughout the Evers administration is to push back against his appointments, and they could do that here to send a message. Again, we are kind of looking towards November, where we don't know who's going to end up in the governor's seat. And so, therefore, we don't know who's going to end up in charge of the Board of Regents. So, I think we're going to see some of this power grabbing right now in order to kind of set the stage for control of the UW.

Shawn Johnson:
That's all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us for this week's Inside Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.