Wisconsin Supreme Court Race: Judge Maria Lazar Joins Truth To Power

Truth Nation, I, I told y'all I have a great guest for you coming up now in the Wisconsin

State Supreme Court race is two weeks away. Make sure you get out the vote on Tuesday,

April 7th and to make sure that you are up today and informed on everything you have

to know about the election. I will be talking about the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election

as I did last year. But in addition to that, I'm going to have both candidates on and as I

told you yesterday, I am so excited right now. I'm fortunate to now be joined by Judge

Maria Lazar who is the Wisconsin Court of Appeals district to judge. Judge, how you doing?

And thank you so much for joining us here today on Truth the Power.

Thank you so much for having me. I hope you can hear me.

No, we can't. We can hear you fine and well. And again, thank you. Thank you for

for joining us here today to talk to our audience and, you know, talk about why we should,

you know, get out and vote for you. And I just want to get right into it, Judge,

can you share your credentials with the truth listeners here and explain why we,

why you believe you are the best candidate in this race?

Yes. So my credentials start with I was born and raised in Wisconsin, but I went to Georgetown

Law School. I came back and I worked for 20 years in a private practice small law firm in Milwaukee.

We had four attorneys. And then I worked for five years for the Department of Justice. But key

to this race is that I've spent seven years on the circuit court in Waukesha County in every

rotation but family. I worked in civil criminal juvenile mental commitments drug treatment court.

And then since then I put four years in now as a court of appeals judge. My opponent has about

five years compared to my 11 years of judicial experience. And I think that is so critical.

Thank you so much for sharing your background. Now if elected, how would you approach applying

and interpreting the law? Yes. So I approach applying and interpreting the law the same way I do

on the circuit court, the court appeals and hopefully on April 7th starting then as a Supreme Court

Justice. I look at what the law says, how it was written, and then I go from there. I go a little

bit out. I never legislate from the bench. I've never been a politician. I'm not an advocate or an

activist. I solely look at what the words say. And then I interpret it that way. And then when I

make my decisions, it's based solely on the facts and the law. And that is it. The facts in the law

that is it. Now when you say that, can you explain to me, what are some of the key differences between

you and your opponent and judge Chris Taylor? Yes. So the key thing here is if you have a judicial

activist judge or someone who wants to legislate, excuse me, from the bench, what they will do is

they will look at the facts, but they'll also look at who the people are in front of them and it

shouldn't matter at all. And then they will make decisions to legislate and sort of write the laws

from the bench. My opponent has point blank said as recently as articles posted yesterday that she

thinks her qualifications are that she's an advocate and an activist judges are not advocates.

We are not activists. We solely look at the law. We do not care who's in front of us. We are

literally blindfolded and we make decisions in that regard only. My opponent is going to pursue an

agenda. And I think that's a problem because she's going to put her views ahead of everybody else's.

That's what a legislator does. And you can elect your legislatures. You can elect people to be

in office that way. You do not put a 10 year term or give a 10 year term to someone who is going

to rule and legislate from the bench. That's an interesting thought that you have it. Again,

we are joined by Judge Maria Lazar who is the running for the Wisconsin States Supreme Court.

And with that, you kind of got into it and you didn't say it, but I do want to mention it. This

is not nonpartisan race, but it has been widely perceived that your opponent is supported by

Democrats while you are supported by Republicans. Now, why should voters trust that you will remain

impartial in rule with the best interests of people in mind rather than being influenced by donors

and political ideology because when we look at the donors lists for both candidates in this race,

it seems that each candidate is getting a lot of their dollars from people who may want to push

a certain agenda that you mentioned. So how can you promise and guarantee that you're actually

going to put the people's best interests in mind rather than those who help get you elected

financially? And actually, I love the name of your show, the truth because I think judges' jobs

is to search for the truth. Why voters can trust me is that I have never been a member of a party.

I may have endorsements from either side and what's key is to look at my track record. I have

always ruled independently. I have never ruled for one side or the other. When I was on the circuit

court, there are times when I believe that the state, the district attorney's office,

lied or misheld evidence withheld evidence and I ruled against them. I've ruled in ways that

if I was just seen as an ideologue, just as seen as someone who's on the right all the time,

that's not something that I would do. My record is very clear. I ruled against the Department of

Justice, which is where I used to work. I think that you need only look at what I've done and how

I've moved forward in my entire judicial career. And I'm an open book. My website judgemarylazar.com

has all the opinions, has all the information about me and has my views and my philosophy and why

we need to be independent, impartial and to restore integrity to this court. And that's what I think

I shall do. Again, we are being joined by Judge Malia Lazar, who is running to be your next

Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice. Now, some critics have described you as being anti-abortion.

I say critics, not me. I'm just saying some have. Why are a tech ass portraying you in this way?

And why do you believe abortion rights are, do you believe abortion rights are likely going to

come before the Wisconsin state Supreme Court when you are a judge if elected? So the problem with

this race is that my opponent has turned it into a political race and using the same old political

rhetoric. I will tell you point blank, the state Supreme Court last year determined that abortion

is legal up to the 20 week, sort of the 20 week compromise. And I have said that I will uphold that

decision because it is precedent. It is done. It's been concluded. My opponent, when she was in

the legislature, tried to pass a bill that basically would allow abortion at any time during the

pregnancy up to the end. And she still doesn't disavow that. She also has said she would not step down

off a case if her former employer, Planned Parenthood, brought the lawsuit. I am telling everyone in

this state that I accept the 20 week compromise. Abortion is not an issue in this race. It's been

resolved. But my opponent wants it to be an issue because she really quite frankly wants to scare

people, scare women. And I think that's just not appropriate. Okay, that was a powerful answer.

I give you that. That was a very powerful answer. And I think it was in information as well. So

people understand that right now in the state of Wisconsin, you can confirm if I'm wrong,

there is a 20 week ban in the state of Wisconsin. And that is the currently the law. And if I like

that you will respect that decision, correct? Absolutely. And I've actually written that as far

back as last December, where I put out my position and my opponent continually challenges it and

implies that my written words are lies. And I'm telling you, I am 100% for the truth. All right,

now that sounds good. If you get elected, I'm definitely going to hold you to that. Now Jerry

Mander remains a significant issue here, Judge Lazar. In many argue that Wisconsin's congressional

maps are unconstitutional because they are anti-competitive and were strategically drawn in favor of one

party. Now as Judge, how would you approach your case involving alleged Jerry Mandering or unconstitutional

maps? Well, and I also actually, funnily, I wrote a post on redistricting as well.

Redistricting starts from the principle that you have to every ten years redraw the maps because

people move and there's a census. So you try to get equal number of votes in each district.

But you also have to look beyond that. You have to look to make sure that you are not

separating communities of interest. You're staying with boundary lines. And the key for me,

a big key is you always have to make sure that you are not discriminating and you are not trying

to suppress or eliminate votes or politicians representing minority groups. And I think that's

really, really important. When people complain about the maps in Wisconsin, I always say what they

should do is go online and look up the map of Illinois. It literally looks like there's an octopus

eating the city of Chicago. That's Jerry Mandering, not Wisconsin at right now. We do need to look

at the maps again starting with the next census because people will move in and out of districts

and in and out of our state. And we need to make sure that everyone has the right to vote in a

fair district that's been drawn fairly. Okay, so it sounds like you might be against kind of any

type of redistricting mid decade, correct? Well, constitutionally, you're only supposed to do it once.

And I think that once every ten years, and I think the problem is, and I'll say this really

honestly, for both sides, both political parties are playing games with our maps. And they should

be drawn. And then people should have the confidence that they are voting for someone in their district

and that they're not going to be moved around. When I was campaigning, I met a gentleman who told me

that he's had a different elected official for the last two or three times he's voted, even though

he never moved. That's disappointing, very, very disappointing. Again, we're being joined by

Judge Malia Lazar, who is running to be the next Wisconsin state to preem court justice here.

Election Day is on April 7th. Have a couple more questions here for you. Another case that has

received less attention, but involves the legality of colleges and universities offering retention

scholarships targeted at students of specific racial backgrounds. Now in your personal opinion in

view, how do you approach the issue of race-specific scholarships in the context of state or federal law?

Well, and this is a difficult question because I'm actually, I was on one of the cases that is

up now in front of the state's preem court with this issue. And I'll just take a step back entirely

and say, I'm someone who 100% believes in education. I think our system, our education system,

has left so many people out. It hasn't helped them at all. And I'm appalled by that lack of assistance.

And these cases are so difficult to look at when the goals that I think I have as a person

and as a judge are always to see that everyone gets an opportunity to have an education,

to improve their life, to if they want to. I mean, you don't have to be going to a college.

You can still improve your life. The case that you're mentioning, however, I really can't

comment specifically on because the state's preem court is looking at it. But I can just tell you

that personally, my heart goes out to and wants to help anybody who wants to get that education.

I teach all the time at, I teach lawyers, I teach judges, I go to colleges, I teach little kids,

I teach anyone who will listen about the courts. I think it is sort of in my, my blood to help

people and to educate them. Well, from your judicial background and your attorney,

Georgetown, which is impressive. And if you can share, does this violate any laws you are aware

of in the state of Wisconsin by providing any students a scholarship based off a race?

Well, and I really can't answer that more fully because that's the exact issue that's up

in front of the state's preem court. So I'm not allowed ethnically comment on that.

Okay. Well, sounds good. I would just say as being an African-American, I think it's

important, especially when you talk about the history of disenfranchisement and where we're

adding a reason why African-Americans are, where they are in this day is simply because of

what we've had to deal with when it comes to racism and not having access to the point where we

had to create our own colleges and universities. So I would hope that would be something to

understanding that it's important to give a hand up to those who you held down for many years as

the court is deciding that I will hope they fully understand that. But I appreciate your,

your insight on that. Now, election integrity is something that's also something you people

are talking about with election, election integrity and access continue to be widely discussed,

including conversations around measures like the SAVE Act. Looking at the current Wisconsin voter

ID and election laws, how would the law apply if there were challenges to absentee ballots,

voter drop boxes, or early voting hours here in state of Wisconsin?

Well, the interesting question is that, and I get this at question I asked a lot, and the concern I

have is that we don't apply the law any differently for cases that involve election integrity or

election issues any more than we would if it's a question about what's the burden of proof or

what do you need to prove in a criminal case? What elements are there? Judges are not advocates,

they're not activists. What they have to do is regardless of the issue, regardless of what

impact it will have throughout the state, they have to hone their minds and look solely to what the law

that is written and then apply the facts in a specific case to it. The key with all these

election cases as well is we have to consider what the US Supreme Court has said if it's a federal

issue, then we also have to look at what the legislature has written and we have to make sure,

I mean, to me, voting is also such an important right and I do not ever want to, if I were in charge

of the world, I would have everybody vote in every election. I know that doesn't happen,

but I don't think anyone should ever be deterred from voting. I don't think that we should make it

typical for anybody whatsoever and anyone who's ever done that is wrong. I appreciate that.

Now, Judges are I do want to talk about some stuff I saw in your history. In 2020, there was a case

involving a former Brookfield police officer, a federal agent who was convicted of second

degree sexual assault involving the threat or use of force and faced up to 40 years in prison.

You sent his individuals to 11 months in jail. Why should listeners trust your judgment in light

of this decision? Well, actually in that case, I do not know the case we're talking about.

There was a withheld sentence for prison and then he got time in jail while he was doing that

sentence, I mean, while the sentence was withheld, that case also involved allegations by several

women who the jury determined didn't were not telling the truth and in fact, I can say that there

were issues where there were there allegations against this person that were flat out wrong because

the individual was on a GPS and it was proven that one of the victim alleged victims was lying.

In that case, the sentence was imposed correctly based on the standards of what you impose

for one sexual assault. It was years of prison. It was then probation served because it was a first

offense and it was time, straight time in jail where he wasn't allowed to keep a job and he had

to be incarcerated for that amount of time and then after he got out of jail, he was then on

probation and if he made any missteps or did anything, we took away passports and everything else.

If he did anything at all whatsoever, he would be in prison and I don't know if it was three years

or five years and I just can't remember what the sentence was. That's okay. But there was a prison

held over his head that if he messed up, he'd be doing time in prison.

Now, I understand there was two other women who were involved but when you talk about 11 months in,

you may be able to educate us who are listening here when it comes to time in prison,

spending less than one year in prison is shocking to a lot of people. What message do you think

that sends the victims and their families of sexual assault that knowing that there's only 11

months behind bars when he was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault of one of the women who

accused him? Well, as I said, the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The sentence was 11 months. The sentence was withheld sentence which meant that he was,

he had the prison sentence hanging over his head and the 11 months in jail,

straight time, were imposed as an additional punishment in addition to that prison sentence

that was held over him. So, it wasn't just the 11 months in prison. It was that 11 months in

jail. It was the longer sentence that was imposed upon him. Okay, sounds good. I appreciate you

answering that question because I know it's always uneasy having to answer some of the hard

questions but I appreciate you chiming in on that. Now, finally, lastly, I just want to know why

should Wisconsin ice vote for you? Give your final sales pitch here to Truth Nation.

All right. Well, I think in this race, the choice is very, very simple. You have, on one hand,

you have a judge who has spent 12 years on the bench, who has been in every rotation, who has

been involved in 800 appeals, and who every day, every day, looks out to the rights and the

liberties of the citizens of my home state of Wisconsin. And on the other hand, you have an

individual who was a legislator who is now as an activist judge in her own words, going to

legislate from the bench and put her views and advocate for positions and agendas while she

is on the bench. That's what a legislator does. I will promise everyone that for the next 10

year term that I will stand up for the Constitution for Wisconsin for each and every citizen of this

state every single day, and that I will always do my best to interpret the law as it is written,

and that if I'm given this opportunity to be your Supreme Court justice, that I will always remember

who put me on that court, and I will always remember and serve those people and put their rights

and the law ahead of anything else, ahead of anything I would ever believe. And I think that

this race has that simple, simple choice. And I'm just asking people to start voting today.

It's early voting and devote for me on April 7th. Well, thank you so much, Judge Lizar,

for joining us here today and good luck on the election in two weeks.

Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. Thank you for bringing me to the truth.

Absolutely. Thank you again. Again, that was Judge Maria Lizar. She joined us here today to talk

about the upcoming election here in the state of Wisconsin. So again, truth nation, keep it

locked. We'll have more conversation coming up on the other side as we react to this and also

truth nation. Listen, y'all know how I feel about Donald Trump, right? Y'all know how I feel that

this chaos that we're seeing is country. A lot of it is his fault. But just because somebody sucks

95% of time doesn't mean you can't embrace 5% and when we come back, I'm going to tell you why

maybe just maybe we need to embrace an idea that Donald Trump had. Keep it locked. This truth

to power Kyle Wallace will have more next. Truth to power with Kyle Wallace returns after this

on 101 seven the truth, the truth app and streaming live on 101 seven the truth on you too.