Wisconsin state Supreme Court election

Wisconsin voters are electing a Supreme Court justice on April 7, 2026, with significantly less voter interest compared to a year ago.

Objective Facts

Conservative state Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar faces liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor for a 10-year term on the state's highest court. Incumbent justice Rebecca Bradley chose not to seek reelection. Liberal justices currently have a 4-3 majority on the Court. If Lazar wins, that status won't change. If Taylor wins, the liberal majority will be 5-2. As of Monday, 324,396 people have voted early in Wisconsin by mail or in-person absentee ballots, marking a 50% decrease compared to the 693,981 early votes cast in all of last year's state Supreme Court race. This election has had less than $9 million total spending compared to over $100 million in the 2025 election.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets and Democratic voices emphasize Taylor's commitment to democratic values and voting rights. Taylor campaigned at Democratic headquarters asking supporters how many "are fired up to help protect our democracy" and stating the election offers "an opportunity with this election to strengthen a pro-democracy majority on our court that's going to protect our rights and freedoms, that's going to protect our democracy and our elections." Recent rulings by the liberal majority offer a preview of their approach: "Following Crawford's election, the court determined that Wisconsin's 1849 abortion law is not applicable, preserving abortion access in the state. It unanimously rejected an effort by Republican lawmakers to remove the Wisconsin Elections Commission's nonpartisan administrator." Left-leaning analysis focuses on the stakes for voting rights and democracy protection. With the Trump White House signaling a willingness to interfere in the conduct of state election systems, Democrats and left-leaning organizations have argued the Supreme Court race this year will build an important barrier against Republicans copying the 2020 playbook in the 2028 presidential election. On abortion, Taylor "value women and families and individuals having the right to make those personal, private health care decisions" and stated "My values say that those are not decisions for politicians. Those are decisions for individuals with their doctors." The left emphasizes Taylor's credentials and broad support while warning about Lazar's potential impact on voting rights and abortion access. Opponents have pointed to appeals court decisions in which Lazar has sided with 2020 election conspiracy theorists trying to gain access to private voter information and with corporate interests trying to weaken the state's toxic spills law.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning outlets and conservative voices emphasize Lazar's judicial philosophy and claim about impartiality. Lazar campaigns on a message of "common-sense, judicial impartiality, and independence," saying she's "committed to a fair and independent court grounded in the rule of law." Lazar states she is "an independent, impartial judge who follows the law and Constitution in every decision I make" and runs to "restore that dedication to the Court." Conservative messaging focuses on concerns about court activism and the need for balance. When Lazar discusses what's on the line, "she tells supporters that the liberal majority on the court cannot 'ever' grow to five justices" and says "We need to make sure that we have someone up there who will not legislate from that bench." Lazar says it is time to "draw a line in the sand and stop the destruction of our courts, especially our state Supreme Court" and wants to "bring back dignity, respect, integrity, impartiality, and independence to the court." Right-leaning outlets attack Taylor's political background as disqualifying for judicial office. Lazar continues her attacks on "Taylor's years as a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and as Democratic state representative." The Lazar campaign claims she will be "an independent justice while her opponent...will be a partisan actor on the bench," noting that Lazar has "never been a member of a political party" while Taylor "served in the state Assembly for nine years."

Deep Dive

The 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election reveals how judicial races have become ideologically sorted even when formally nonpartisan. The election occurs as Wisconsin's highest state court shifted from a conservative majority (2008-2023) to a 4-3 liberal majority with the elections of Janet Protasiewicz in 2023 and Susan Crawford in 2025. Yet this year's race has dramatically lower engagement than predecessors. The race between Dane County Judge Chris Taylor and Waukesha County Judge Maria Lazar follows the record-breaking 2023 and 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, but features lower outside funding, advertising and media coverage. The difference is structural: One key contributing factor is that control of the court is not at stake, as liberals hold a 4-3 majority that cannot be lost. Because the balance is not in question, national political groups and major donors have been less likely to invest heavily, reducing the overall intensity of the race. Each side makes defensible points but omits important context. Conservatives correctly note that Taylor's Democratic background and Planned Parenthood work represent clear political engagement, yet they overlook Lazar's own partisan history—her work as assistant attorney general defending Republican-era laws like Act 10 and voter ID restrictions. Liberals emphasize the stakes for democracy and voting rights, citing concerning rulings from Lazar on voting access and election-related disputes, but they downplay that Lazar's judicial philosophy (judicial restraint, textualism) is internally consistent rather than simply "activist" in a partisan sense. Neither side adequately grapples with the fact that there is a considerable Democratic advantage in engagement: 77% of Democrats say they are certain to vote compared to 59% of Republicans, and 65% of Democrats say the outcome is very important compared to 46% of Republicans and 24% of independents. What unfolds on April 7 will set the court's ideological composition for a decade, with major implications for voting rights disputes in the 2028 presidential election and ongoing battles over abortion, redistricting, and labor rights. The most consequential case the next justice could face may come in 2028, the next presidential election year. In 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court narrowly halted Trump's attempt to throw out enough Democratic votes to change the outcome. The 2024 election wasn't extensively litigated in Wisconsin courts, but the potential for court challenges remains in future presidential contests.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Wisconsin state Supreme Court election

Wisconsin voters are electing a Supreme Court justice on April 7, 2026, with significantly less voter interest compared to a year ago.

Apr 7, 2026
What's Going On

Conservative state Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar faces liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor for a 10-year term on the state's highest court. Incumbent justice Rebecca Bradley chose not to seek reelection. Liberal justices currently have a 4-3 majority on the Court. If Lazar wins, that status won't change. If Taylor wins, the liberal majority will be 5-2. As of Monday, 324,396 people have voted early in Wisconsin by mail or in-person absentee ballots, marking a 50% decrease compared to the 693,981 early votes cast in all of last year's state Supreme Court race. This election has had less than $9 million total spending compared to over $100 million in the 2025 election.

Left says: Chris Taylor frames the election as an opportunity to "strengthen a pro-democracy majority on our court that's going to protect our rights and freedoms, that's going to protect our democracy and our elections." Taylor has lined up more than 160 judicial endorsements, including from liberal-leaning state Supreme Court Justices, and is endorsed by Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and organizations like the Wisconsin AFL-CIO.
Right says: Maria Lazar pushes a message of judicial impartiality and independence, saying she's committed to a fair and independent court grounded in the rule of law. Lazar said she wouldn't weigh in on election disputes based on personal alignment, arguing "A vote is a vote."
✓ Common Ground
Both Lazar and Taylor write that they will follow and uphold the Constitution, and both state that their personal views will not affect their decisions.
Some commentators across the spectrum acknowledge that most Wisconsin residents are not tuned into the race and are not prepared to make a decision, reflecting broader concerns about voter engagement in judicial elections.
Critics on both sides express concern about the need for stricter recusal rules for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, with both Lazar and Taylor asked about whether they would support such rules.
Objective Deep Dive

The 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election reveals how judicial races have become ideologically sorted even when formally nonpartisan. The election occurs as Wisconsin's highest state court shifted from a conservative majority (2008-2023) to a 4-3 liberal majority with the elections of Janet Protasiewicz in 2023 and Susan Crawford in 2025. Yet this year's race has dramatically lower engagement than predecessors. The race between Dane County Judge Chris Taylor and Waukesha County Judge Maria Lazar follows the record-breaking 2023 and 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, but features lower outside funding, advertising and media coverage. The difference is structural: One key contributing factor is that control of the court is not at stake, as liberals hold a 4-3 majority that cannot be lost. Because the balance is not in question, national political groups and major donors have been less likely to invest heavily, reducing the overall intensity of the race.

Each side makes defensible points but omits important context. Conservatives correctly note that Taylor's Democratic background and Planned Parenthood work represent clear political engagement, yet they overlook Lazar's own partisan history—her work as assistant attorney general defending Republican-era laws like Act 10 and voter ID restrictions. Liberals emphasize the stakes for democracy and voting rights, citing concerning rulings from Lazar on voting access and election-related disputes, but they downplay that Lazar's judicial philosophy (judicial restraint, textualism) is internally consistent rather than simply "activist" in a partisan sense. Neither side adequately grapples with the fact that there is a considerable Democratic advantage in engagement: 77% of Democrats say they are certain to vote compared to 59% of Republicans, and 65% of Democrats say the outcome is very important compared to 46% of Republicans and 24% of independents.

What unfolds on April 7 will set the court's ideological composition for a decade, with major implications for voting rights disputes in the 2028 presidential election and ongoing battles over abortion, redistricting, and labor rights. The most consequential case the next justice could face may come in 2028, the next presidential election year. In 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court narrowly halted Trump's attempt to throw out enough Democratic votes to change the outcome. The 2024 election wasn't extensively litigated in Wisconsin courts, but the potential for court challenges remains in future presidential contests.

◈ Tone Comparison

Both sides claim to champion judicial independence and impartiality, but use starkly different language to frame the stakes. The left emphasizes "protecting democracy" and uses phrases like "pro-democracy majority," while the right focuses on "restoring dignity" and "stopping destruction" of the court. Left-leaning outlets describe the election as defensive (protecting rights), while right-leaning outlets frame it as restorative (fixing a broken court).

✕ Key Disagreements
Abortion Rights
Left: Taylor values women having the right to make personal, private health care decisions about abortion, arguing those decisions belong with individuals and their doctors, not politicians.
Right: Lazar calls the U.S. Supreme Court decision throwing out Roe v. Wade "very wise" and a "good move forward."
Election Dispute Standards
Left: Chris Taylor is on the side of the liberal candidates, saying the court made the right decision in refusing to hear the Trump election case and the votes should never have gotten that far.
Right: Maria Lazar did not want to take a position on the merits and said the issue of standing is still going to come back before the court, without going further.
Court Balance Philosophy
Left: If Taylor wins, liberals will hold a 5-2 majority, which left-leaning voices view as necessary to solidify protections on key issues.
Right: When Lazar discusses what's on the line, she tells supporters that the liberal majority on the court cannot "ever" grow to five justices, emphasizing the need for ideological diversity.
Past Record and Partisanship
Left: Opponents point to appeals court decisions in which Lazar has sided with 2020 election conspiracy theorists and corporate interests trying to weaken environmental protections.
Right: Lazar's campaign notes her "opponent has always been a politician first" while she "is not a member of any political party" and "serves only the law, the Constitution, and the people."