Madison, WI – Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV Judge Chris Taylor, a liberal candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2026, addressed key issues, including recusal, redistricting, and the role of precedent, in a recent interview with Zac Schultz of PBS Wisconsin’s “Here & Now.” Taylor emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary and criticized the influence of politics in the courtroom.
Taylor voiced support for public hearings on recusal rules, stating that decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure fairness and impartiality. She noted that judges bring diverse legal experiences to the bench, making blanket recusals unrealistic.
Regarding significant cases, Taylor highlighted the decision that struck down the state’s legislative maps, deeming it “extraordinarily important.” She argued that the ruling, which found the maps unconstitutional, signaled that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.
When asked about the congressional redistricting lawsuit, Taylor acknowledged the process of assigning such cases to three-judge panels. On the Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski case, which overturned the 1849 abortion ban, Taylor stated her agreement with the decision, citing conflicts with subsequent laws. She contrasted her position with that of her opponent, who she claimed would have voted to implement the 1849 ban.
Taylor also addressed cases concerning the separation of powers between the legislature and the administrative branch. She expressed concerns about the legislature’s unchecked power and supported the Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn laws that infringed on the separation of powers.
Regarding the 2020 election, Taylor stated she would have rejected efforts to invalidate votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties. She criticized her opponent’s past support from individuals who sought to overturn the election results.
Taylor stressed her commitment to keeping politics out of the courts, citing her six-year record as a judge who applies the law meticulously. She contrasted her approach with her opponent’s, whom she accused of disregarding precedent to achieve political objectives. Taylor concluded by emphasizing the need for a strong ground game and broad support from voters who care about justice and democracy. She vowed to campaign tirelessly until the election and urged voters to participate in shaping the court they deserve.
