MILWAUKEE (CN) - Two state appellate judges faced off on Thursday night in a debate that touched on hot button issues from abortion rights to President Donald Trump's assault on the judiciary, underscoring the politicization of the bench.  

The debate between appellate Judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor was twice delayed - once after Taylor was suddenly hospitalized with kidney stones and again for a tornado watch in the greater Milwaukee area.

The pair began with a handshake and kept up a level of decorum not often seen in Wisconsin politics, though it was far from friendly. While the April 7 state Supreme Court election is officially nonpartisan, the judges traded tense jabs over all the same issues one would see between lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle.

Lazar, 61, describes her approach as "originalism with a slice of textualism" and has spent much of her campaign railing against "activist judges."

The seven-year District II judge hails from Brookfield, Wisconsin, and advocates for restraint on the bench - a trait she says voters need and her opponent lacks.

Taylor, 58, is a former member of the Wisconsin Assembly and policy planner for Planned Parenthood. After that, she served on the Dane County Circuit Court and now sits on the District IV state appeals court.

Though she denies being a registered Democrat, the Californian has oriented her campaign around many of the party's biggest winning issues, like abortion and criticism of the Trump administration.

Lazar took every opportunity during Thursday night's debate to point out Taylor's roots as a legislator, arguing she would put her own causes over the law if elected. Lazar has 12 years of experience on the bench to Taylor's six.

"You have a radical extreme legislator who is known as the most liberal of the 99 in the assembly, who now, as a judicial activist, wants to put her views, her values and her agenda on the court above the law," Lazar said.

The candidates' differences appeared most starkly on questions about abortion policy in Wisconsin, where the high court rejected a total ban on abortion dating back to 1849 just last summer.

While Lazar responded to questioning on that case from last summer saying she did not follow the briefs or hearings, Taylor took the opportunity to say she would have voted with the majority.

"It is tragic that we have someone running for the state Supreme Court that is celebrating that there are women all over this country who are victims of rape and incest," Taylor said, batting away Lazar's protests. "That is what the reality of overturning Roe v. Wade is, which you called 'very wise.'"

Lazar, looking aghast at the implication, attempted to cut Taylor off several times.

"That's absolutely ridiculous," Lazar said. "This is exactly what we've been doing in this campaign. It's the same old political playbook. I have never wanted women injured, ever, ever, ever. To say that I want women to die or suffer, its absurd."  

Role of the judiciary

One topic the candidates could agree on at Thursday's debate is on Trump's attempt to exert his influence over the judiciary. When asked about the arrest and prosecution of Judge Hannah Dugan - who was convicted in December of obstructing immigration enforcement - they agreed things have gone too far.

"There have been threats to judges and rhetoric that I don't like - I think the manner in which Judge Dugan was arrested created a spectacle and it didn't need to happen that way," Taylor said. "That was concerning."

For the first time all night, Lazar nodded along in agreement as Taylor condemned the Trump administration's campaign against judges and vowed to uphold the independent judiciary in the face of federal overreach.

"A judge's life is difficult, and it does not help when you have politicians insulting judges," Lazar said. "Judges are under significant threats, and I've spoken on that in front of our state Legislature to try to get the judicial security package done."

Ostensibly nonpartisan

Tuesday's victor will replace Justice Rebecca Bradley, a strong conservative voice on the bench known for her exhaustive questioning during oral arguments and openly critical dissenting opinions.

In her retirement announcement, Bradley referenced a perceived epidemic of judicial activism amongst her liberal colleagues. Her cutting dissenting opinions often ring alarm bells on that topic, once even accusing Chief Justice Jill Karofsky of betraying women as a whole in a recent case involving abortion.  

The moderators at one point pitted the candidates against Bradley, asking if they agree with her about the state of the court and what they would do about it if elected.

Taylor recalled her time as part of the minority in the Legislature when unconstitutional laws were passed and later upheld by a conservative state Supreme Court "in the pocket of right wing extremists."

The approach will likely resonate with politically engaged voters who may be thinking about the composition of the court in the coming years. A win by Lazar could give conservatives an opportunity to flip the court's ideological majority as soon as 2028.

But Taylor win could set up the liberal majority until 2030. With the last two state Supreme Court elections ending in landslide victories for liberal candidates, state Republicans are not rushing to support Lazar.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin waited to make a substantial contribution to Lazar's campaign until mid-March, while the Democratic Party of Wisconsin has given nearly $1 million to Taylor's campaign since she entered the race.

Polling shows most voters were still undecided in late March. Of likely voters, Taylor maintains her lead just five days away from the April 7 election.

Lazar said on Thursday that her position as an independent is the cause, but experts told Courthouse News that the state party is still licking its wounds from the upset in 2025 when Justice Susan Crawford beat the conservative candidate by ten points despite an endorsement from President Donald Trump and millions in funding from Elon Musk.

Source: Courthouse News Service