This year's SCOWIS race is drawing less national attention. The candidates are happy about that

MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) -- Compared to the last two Wisconsin Supreme Court races, this year's campaign is incredibly tame.

The state Supreme Court races in 2023 and 2025 shattered national records for campaign spending on a judicial election. Yet, after last year's race saw more than $100 million in spending, this year's campaign spending total is closer to $5 million.

Both of the 2026 candidates, Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor, said they believe that's a good thing.

It's no secret why there is so much less national money pouring into this year's race. No matter what happens in Tuesday's election, liberals will still hold a majority.

Taylor, an appellate court judge based in Madison, is backed by progressives pushing to further tip the balance of power and hold a 5-2 majority.

Lazar conservatives' preferred candidate, and the appellate judge based in Waukesha County would keep the ideological balance at a 4-3 edge for liberals if she wins.

This week, both candidates sat down with CBS 58 to discuss their views on the race and the key issues surrounding it.

On the drop-off in spending:

Both Lazar and Taylor said they welcomed the dramatic decline in outside spending this year. Last year's election, which saw Crawford win by nearly 250,000 votes, was headlined by the outsized involvement of tech billionaire Elon Musk, who spent heavily in support of Schimel.

"Well, I'd rather be [campaigning] this year," Taylor said. "And I think this level of spending is much better for our democracy."

Lazar said she believed the lack of national attention was an advantage. Her reasoning was the campaigns' outreach efforts will carry more weight with less advertising money being spent to sway voters.

"This time, it's more personal, it's more close," Lazar said. "And I really feel I'm able to reach people, and I'm still doing that, and I have more time in this last week."

A Marquette University Law School poll released in late March found 23% of voters planning to vote for Taylor, compared to 17% supporting Lazar. 53% of voters said they were undecided.

Do you disagree?

CBS 58 reporter asked both candidates to cite a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling with which they disagreed.

Lazar declined to answer the question, saying she felt it would be inappropriate.

Instead, she pointed to instances where she dissented in recent appellate court rulings.

In one 2025 case, Santner v. Matson, Lazar dissented with the court's two other judges. Lazar argued an individual had satisfied legal requirements when dictating the terms of his will by phone while hospitalized with COVID-19. The man died shortly thereafter, and the two other appellate judges found the transcribed telephone call should be a legally recognized will.

Taylor quickly recited State v. Stetzer when asked to name a recent Supreme Court ruling she felt was wrong.

In that case, Stetzer was pulled over on the suspicion of driving while intoxicated. She told police she was fleeing from abuse at the hands of her husband.

Taylor said she disagreed with the 6-1 decision upholding Stetzer's conviction, saying she'd have dissented if she was on the court last year.

Rules of Redistricting

The biggest case currently before the court involves two separate challenges to the maps currently used to elect Wisconsin's representatives in Congress.

A three-judge panel appointed to review one of the cases decided this week against taking action on the maps.

Lazar said she largely opposed any efforts to redraw maps in the middle of a 10-year cycle. A reporter asked if that includes states like Indiana, where President Donald Trump openly called for Republicans to redraw the maps to give the GOP a greater chance of holding a House majority.

"I've said I don't think it's appropriate that there's any of this maneuvering mid-10-year cycle," Lazar said. "So I'll let that stand as is."

Taylor noted the Wisconsin case is different from the challenge that led to the state's high court striking down legislative maps in early 2024.

The state constitution specifically sets restrictions for how the Legislature can draw boundaries for state Assembly and Senate districts, but it doesn't address congressional maps.

Taylor said because of that, deciding a challenge to congressional maps is more difficult that challenges to legislative maps.

"I think, in some ways, yes," Taylor said. "Because it's so clear on the legislative maps...it is more complicated, I think, with gerrymandering."

Lazar said the court striking down a map on the basis of partisan gerrymandering could lead to a slippery slope.

"Do you know how many lawsuits we're going to have and how many different interpretations of the word 'partisan'?" Lazar said. "'Is it partisan if you do this?' 'Is this political?' We're going into a deeper quagmire than we need to."

Taylor said she believed the court has the ability to ensure a map isn't so gerrymandered that it devalues a citizen's vote.

"Every eligible citizen has the constitutional right to pick their elected representatives, not the other way round," Taylor said. "There is no constitutional right for the other way around."

When is it right to recuse?

Before becoming a Dane County Circuit Court judge, Taylor represented part of Madison in the state Assembly.

During her time as a state lawmaker, Taylor took clear stance on when justices should recuse from a case in order to avoid any conflicts of interest.

She issued a statement in April 2017 denouncing a 5-2 decision by a then-conservative majority that rejected a petition seeking to establish thresholds for when judges and justices would have to sit out cases involving campaign donors.

Under the petition, Supreme Court justices would have to recuse from cases involving a donor who gave at least $10,000.

This week, however, Taylor would not commit to recusing from a case involving a party who'd given her that much. Instead, she said she'd make recusal decisions on a case-by-case basis.

"Well, it's important we all are abiding by the same rules," Taylor said. "I am very interested in hearing from the public on what they want to see in a recusal law."

Acting on Act 10

Taylor has said Lazar has a clear conflict of interest in any case involving Act 10, the 2010 law that largely stripped most public worker unions of their collective bargaining rights.

Lazar was an assistant attorney general who worked on the state's defense in one of the challenges to the law.

Lazar said her involvement was confined to specific challenge to whether the law was properly enacted, as opposed to a broader challenge to whether the law's changes are unconstitutional.

"We didn't discuss the merits. We didn't discuss its constitutionality," Lazar said. "So, unless Act 10 right now, coming up before the court, is talking about whether it was properly enacted, I have no reason to recuse."

Taylor called Lazar's stance "a distinction without a difference" since she was involved with arguing in support of keeping Act 10 on the books.

Taylor, herself, was openly critical of Act 10 while in the Legislature. On the flip side, she argued those comments shouldn't force her to recuse because she was talking about the policy merits and not the constitutionality of the law.

Abortion law: Two very different views of Dobbs

Democrats have pushed to make abortion law a top issue in the race, highlighting Taylor as a candidate who'd uphold last year's 4-3 ruling that struck down Wisconsin's 1849 near-total abortion ban.

Taylor said she believed federal protections for abortion rights should still be in place, as part of a broader "right to privacy" legal framework that also tied to birth control rights and interracial marriage.

Wisconsin's original abortion ban went back on the books following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson ruling that struck down 50-year-old federal abortion rights under Roe v. Wade.

"I think that's ridiculous," Taylor said of the Dobbs ruling. "What the U.S. Supreme Court did in overturning Roe v. Wade was a tragic legal decision. It's a poor legal decision."

Lazar held a very different view of the decision. She argued Dobbs properly allowed states to once again place their own restrictions on abortion.

Wisconsin currently has a 20-week abortion ban in place, which was adopted by Republicans under former Gov. Scott Walker.

Lazar argued any future changes to the law should come only from the Legislature.

"If the voters are not happy with [a ban at] 20 weeks, and they want it to be 18 or 22 [weeks], that's their choice," Lazar said. "They make that decision. They elect their representatives to do that. This is not a court issue; it's never been."