Here & Now

Anthony Chergosky on the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court Debate

Frederica Freyberg:
A heated Wisconsin Supreme Court debate Thursday night between the two candidates running to be placed on the high court. It featured Appeals Court Judges Maria Lazar, the conservative, and Chris Taylor, the liberal candidate. They squared off just days before next Tuesday’s election. For reaction to the debate, we’re joined by UW-La Crosse political science professor Anthony Chergosky and thanks very much for being here.

Anthony Chergosky:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
So does a debate performance sway people to vote in this election one way or the other?

Anthony Chergosky:
I think we’re a little late in the ball game for that. After all, a number of people have voted by mail. They have voted early. And even if they are planning to vote on Election Day, they may well have already made up their mind. Still, I think debates are symbolically important as a ritual in democracy. I think it matters for candidates to show up face to face in an unscripted environment and have to defend their positions. Sometimes debates can sway voters, sometimes not. But either way, I think debates matter.

Frederica Freyberg:
That said, what do you think of the candidates’ performance in this debate?

Anthony Chergosky:
Well, this was a heated debate. I thought that the candidates really sought to draw contrasts between themselves and their opponent, and whether it was on abortion or the issue of voting, or just the general topic of judicial activism and judicial philosophy, and the way that someone’s personal views may or may not end up influencing their opinions. This was a heated debate, with plenty of contrasts expressed between the two sides.

Frederica Freyberg:
Speaking of judicial philosophy, let’s take a listen to one of the exchanges about that last night.

Maria Lazar:
I do not intend to follow any mandate or agenda or to legislate from the bench. I am going to actually look what is there. When people come in front of my court, they know two things. One, I always treat them with respect. And number two, they always have a fair and full opportunity to be heard. And I decide the case only on the law and the facts.

Chris Taylor:
Judge Lazar is the only person in this race who has brought an extreme right wing political agenda to the bench. She has refused to follow precedent. She ruled to release personal private voting information to a right-wing group that tried to overturn our election. Thank goodness she was reversed by the state Supreme Court. She has been reversed repeatedly because she refuses to follow the law.

Frederica Freyberg:
So in recent cycles, the partisan veil has really been lifted in these races. How do election experts like yourself regard that as good or bad?

Anthony Chergosky:
We’re in a really strange era in these state Supreme Court elections because it’s this weird, murky middle ground right now where the parties are deeply involved. The justices often accept the support of the political parties, but they also want to be clear that they will have some sense of independence.

Frederica Freyberg:
So in the next back and forth that we’re going to listen to, the candidates were answering to how they would have voted when, last summer, the liberal majority invalidated the state’s 1849 abortion ban. Chris Taylor said she would have voted with that liberal majority to invalidate the ban. Maria Lazar would not say how she would have voted.

Chris Taylor:
There is no one more extreme, ever, to have been to be a candidate on issues of reproductive health care than my opponent. She called the overturning of Roe versus Wade very wise, and you can look it up on television. She said it right on television. She said she was likely to vote to support.

Maria Lazar:
I’m going to respond. I did not say I was likely to vote. I did not respond ever, in that regard. And what I said about Dobbs, which is the decision that overturned Roe versus Wade, is I said it was good that it brought that national ban and put it back into each individual state.

Frederica Freyberg:
So, as we’ve said, the abortion portion of the debate was really extremely heated. But how would abortion come before the court again?

Anthony Chergosky:
Well, Maria Lazar mentioned that after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade, it significantly empowered states to make a lot of judgments about abortion that they previously would not have been able to make when Roe versus Wade was the law of the land. So we might see a future state Legislature here in Wisconsin, a future state legislative majority or a future governor try to take certain actions on the issue of abortion. And in that case, the Supreme Court could very well enter the picture in reviewing actions that the other branches take on abortion.

Frederica Freyberg:
What are other important cases that will come before the court in the next year or so, and how does the balance of the court inform how these are going to be decided?

Anthony Chergosky:
We may continue to have divided government in Wisconsin, divided control of the executive and legislative branch, pending the outcome of the November midterm elections. And when you have divided party control of the legislative and executive branch, the courts can really enter the picture as power players in sorting out disputes, in sorting out gridlock between those branches. Plus the 2020 presidential election, we know that Wisconsin is often at the center of legal battles surrounding election. And then if we go out even further, think redistricting come 2030, the census, and then the redrawing of the maps shortly thereafter.

Frederica Freyberg:
Great. Well, Anthony Chergosky, thanks very much.

Anthony Chergosky:
Thank you.