Wisconsin Supreme Court Race: Judge Chris Taylor Joins Truth To Power

But truth nation also we have an election coming up here in a little less than two weeks on Tuesday April seventh early voting is open and earlier this week

I was had the opportunity to speak with Maria Lazar who is running to be the next Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice here in the state of Wisconsin

And now I am so excited to have her opponent join me today her name is Chris Taylor. She's the Wisconsin Court of Appeals district four judge

Chris Taylor is joining us here on truth to power Chris. How you doing today?

I'm doing great. Thanks so much Kyle for having me. Absolutely. I'm so excited to have you on here because again

I think it's so important as we get closer to election day that our fans and listeners have

All the information they need to make an informed decision come two weeks from Tuesday now judge Chris Taylor

I want to get straight to it. Can you share your credentials with our truth listeners and explain why you believe you are the best candidate

And this was consensed to state supreme court race

Sure, well again, thanks so much Kyle. There are three things that have motivated me throughout my entire career

The first is I care deeply about people the second is I have a passion for standing up against injustice and that was

I've had that since I was a little kid third

I love the law and what the law can do for people it has the ability to strengthen communities

Remedy wrongs give rights and protect those rights and when I was growing up I learned that the law can be a mechanism to improve people's lives

My grandmother was a single mother to my my mother when my mother was a child and struggled to make ends meet until she got a union job

And that union job paid my grandmother a decent wage a fair wage

She was able to support her three children and help my mother go to college and she became a public school teacher

So I saw as a kid the power of the law and I knew that I would be a lawyer and here I am 30 years later after graduating from law school

I have been a lawyer the

Plan parenthood

Public policy director a legislator and a judge for the last six years and my passion commitment is to stand up for the people of state

It was constant in their rights now

I love to hear all that now if elected how would you approach applying and interpreting the law?

Well, I mean we have guidelines that that guide us if it's a statute

We have statutory construction principles you look at the language of the statute

You look at the context of the statute. We're trying to figure out what a statute means

I will tell you my background and being in the legislature is

Incredibly helpful and makes me a very unique candidate in that I understand the legislative process as a judge

So when I go and look at a statute

I know what went into that statute. I know the background. I understand the rulemaking process

So I apply the law in the most fair and independent way I can when it comes to looking at the Constitution

I believe that the broad principles of the Constitution don't stay frozen in time that they fall

My opponent believes they are frozen in time which is very concerning her originalism philosophy means that basically

When looking at the Constitution we go back in time to 1788 or

1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed and basically she'll say well if the right didn't exist

It can never exist

I think that's interesting because my next question was going to be what are some of the key differences between you and your opponent

But I think right there is one that I think when folks go to the polls right that is something to understand and know is that

Do you believe in the fact that hey?

It was written and it's put that you says this in 1788 as you said or do things kind of change as things evolve and thing change

And would you say that is a key difference between you and your opponent's platform in a way that you guys will approach the bench

Yes, I mean how can it be that our

Principles in our Constitution were supposed to stay frozen in time and not evolve as our society changed as

People who didn't have rights back then got rights and

So the Constitution is a broad set of principles that evolves now

It's rooted in history. It's rooted in precedent how we interpret the Constitution

But I'm more a Ruth Bader Ginsburg

person who believes that the Constitution has to evolve and address barriers to justice and

barriers to equality that we experience present day. Okay, now I appreciate all that now

Although this is a nonpartisan race Chris

It is widely perceived that your opponent is supported by Republicans while you are supported by Democrats

Why should voters trust that you will remain impartial in rule in the best interests of the people rather than the people?

Who are I might who are supporting you in donor supporting you in their political ideology?

Well, first of all most people supporting me are

People in the state of Wisconsin with I've all over 20,000 people who have given a contribution to my campaign

Most of those contributions are less than a hundred dollars that really contrasts with my opponent most of her average

Contribution in the last report was nine hundred dollars

So I am running a really strong grassroots campaign

What people should believe that I'm an affair and independent judge is because I've six years of being on the bench where I've been fair and impartial

I look at the law I look at the facts in front of me and I apply the law in the most

Fair and impartial way I can with always an eye towards achieving justice for the people in front of me

My opponent in contrast has brought a very right-wing political agenda to the court

She has tried to issues decisions that are directly contrary to precedent

She has tried to release personal private voting information to groups that have tried to overturn our

2020 election

Thankfully that was reversed by the state Supreme Court. She has cited with

corporate polluters who dumped toxic chemicals into our water instead of on the side of the people and

She forcefully was also reversed in that decision

She has a history of being reversed by higher course because she does not follow the law

She pursues an agenda that benefits the big corporations and the powerful special interests

I think it's quite interesting that you that you say a lot of that because your opponent has claimed that you have referred to yourself as an

Activist judge. Did you make that statement? And if so, what did you mean by that?

No, I have never made that statement

Judges are not activists judges are not advocates. They sit and they listen to the arguments in front of them

We have to have an open mind and I am very good at not making and not prejudging cases listening

reading the briefs in front of me

And making a really fair decision look I have never been reversed by a higher court. I have had

dozens and dozens of jury trials

I heard thousands of cases as a circuit court judge

I've written dozens of opinions on the Court of Appeals never have I been reversed because I'm

Scrupulous in applying the law that really contrasts with my opponent who's been repeatedly reversed

I have the support of over 160 current and retired judges throughout the state of Wisconsin

Including the majority of

My colleagues who are also the colleagues of my opponent were both on the Court of Appeals the majority of those judges are supporting me in fact

She does not have one

Publicized endorsement from any judge because they know she puts her thumb on the scale

She does not act

Fairly and impartially they know I do that's my reputation

That's my history and that's what I will continue to do on the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Okay, just quick follow up so you never made a statement about being an activist or advocate judge

No, okay, sounds good. That's what she told me on Monday

So I said I would definitely ask about that so it was good to know that you put said you did not say that now

You have also stated that you agree with the decision not to enforce the Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban law

Can you explain your position on that from a legal standpoint?

Sure, well in 1849 before

Many of us had the right to vote the Wisconsin legislature passed

basically a ban on abortion

This case this this law was not implemented because of Roe versus Wade

But when Roe versus Wade was overturned in 2022 there was a ban on abortion in the state of Wisconsin

Which caused a lot of chaos and havoc for women who had pregnancies go wrong and had to be sent out of state to get health care

The state Supreme Court struck down the 1849 ban

Under the theory of an implied repeal of the ban

Since 1849 in 1973 when Roe versus Wade was passed there's been a whole

series of abortion restrictions a whole suite of abortion restrictions that basically

conflicted with that

1849 ban so the state Supreme Court said they both could not coexist and the latter group of

Statutes had basically superseded the 1849 ban

Under this this theory of implied consent and the 1849 ban could not be implemented now my opponent has said she would have

likely voted to implement the 1849 ban

I think it was the right decision by our state Supreme Court

Okay, I appreciate that we are being joined by Wisconsin Court of Appeals district four judge

Chris Taylor also she is running to be your next Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice now

Jerry mandering remains a significant issue me argue that Wisconsin's congressional maps are unconstitutional because they are anti-competitive and were strategically drawn to favor one party as a judge

How would you approach a case involving alleged Jerry mandering or unconstitutional maps?

Well, this is also I think a real difference between myself and my opponent when she was an attorney

Representing governor Scott Walker

She defended legislative maps that some election experts called the most

Jaramandered maps in the nation these maps have been drafted in secret at that time

I was actually in the state legislature

working on a

Nonpartisan

redistricting process to take the politics out of it to make sure that these decisions went to an

independent body who drew fair maps

So I do support the state Supreme Court recently striking down

These legislative maps they were not constitutional they did not contain in the legislative districts

They're supposed to contain

Contiguous territory that means territory that's supposed to be touching a lot of these

Maps divided communities neighborhoods. They had plops of land that didn't touch each other

So I do think our state Supreme Court was right to strike down the legislative maps on the congressional maps

I can't comment too much on that because that's a pending case that could come before and probably most likely will come before the state Supreme Court

But what I can tell you is I would look at the Constitution

That's one of the places we would look we'd look at any state laws that were implicated

But it is incredibly important in the foundation of our government that it is the voters who select their elected

Representatives not the other way around and so I think one of the things that I would look at is well

Do these maps?

Dulute some votes while elevating other people's votes

So really that core principle of making sure that each votes each vote counts each vote has the same weight and

The voters get to pick their representatives is respected

Judge Taylor. Thank you so much. We have two quick ones here for you

There's another case that has received a lot less attention than what we really needed to which involves the legality of colleges and universities

Offering retention scholarships targeted at students of specific racial backgrounds in your personal view

How do you approach the issue of race specific scholarships in the context of state or federal law?

So once again you approach them in the context in the law in which they come I don't know how cases come at me

It depends on what arguments are presented and what arguments are made what are the facts of the case

But I believe that every person is entitled to equal justice under the law

Regardless of their economic status regardless of their religion their race their ethnicity that I am so strongly committed to

We have had a history in this country of discrimination and

And what I learn from watching the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is

The law can be such a powerful tool to breaking down barriers to making sure that people are treated fairly and

Equally and those are the principles that I'm committed to

Thank you so much for sharing that you keep talking about RBG

Which a historical figure

Sometimes I wish you would have stepped down before Trump had an opportunity to get in office

But my last question that I have here is actin and lesis lation

Regarding public sector collective bargaining was passed in the law in 2011 now in 2024 parts of the law were ruled unconstitutional

And the issue may ultimately come before the Wisconsin Supreme Court now

What would your approach be if you were to hear that case?

So again that is a pending case it will most likely come before the state Supreme Court

So I can't comment on the particulars or how I would rule or anything like that

But you know, I come from a really strong working class family as I talked about who survived

Because of unions so I value working people not having less rights

But having more rights. I don't think we need more rights and I don't think the billionaires and the most powerful

Corporations and the most privileged are the ones who need extra protections under the law

I think that it's the working people who deserve to earn a fair wage deserve to have a voice in their employment

So those are things that I value

But again, if that case were to come before me, I would certainly look at the law

I would look at what the arguments are being made. I haven't seen that case yet

That that case I think is in another district in the court of appeals and try to apply the laws fairly and impartially

As I can with always an eye towards achieving justice for the people in front of me

Judge Taylor, thank you so much finally lastly. Why should Wisconsinize vote for you?

Wisconsinize should vote for me because I care about them. I am running

So that they have a justice on this court that prioritizes them

Prioritizes their right to vote

Prioritizes protecting our elections

Wisconsinites need a justice for the people and that's what I'm going to be on our Wisconsin Supreme Court

Thank you so much, Judge Taylor, for joining us here today

And I hope you're feeling better and hopefully got to have that debate

But I hope you start feeling better. I know you had some kidney stones. I hope you're feeling better. Oh, yes

Don't get one of those

I hope I hope and pray I don't I hope I pray my producer right now. He must have one too

I'm hoping I don't know how I avoid it. I'm just going to keep drinking water. Staying hydrated

Drink water

Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much and good luck in two weeks here again

That was Judge Chris Taylor who just joined us here today

Election day is April 7th on the other side when we come back

I'll share my recap now that we had Judge Taylor join us and we had Judge Lazard join us

I'll give my a quick little feedback when we come back and then also truth next we come back on the other side

Ah, I just realized

Ah, I'm not built for some some housework and I'll tell you what that means next

More of truth to power is next on one oh one seven the truth the truth app and one oh one seven the truth dot com