Chris Taylor’s victory over Maria Lazar does more than fill an open seat. It expands the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority from 4–3 to 5–2, giving that bloc a firmer grip on one of the most powerful institutions in the state. The Associated Press called the race Tuesday night.

For Wisconsin, this matters because the court is where some of the state’s biggest fights keep landing: abortion rights, union power, redistricting, and future election-law disputes. AP noted Taylor’s win locks in a liberal majority through at least 2030, giving that bloc more stability as those cases move forward.

The bigger takeaway is not that Wisconsin suddenly turned deep blue. It is that liberal-backed candidates have now won four straight state Supreme Court races, and that’s a real power trend, not a fluke. In a state where the Legislature remains heavily shaped by partisan advantage, the court is increasingly the place where major questions about rights, maps, and rules get settled.

Next up: Justice Annette Ziegler’s seat opens in 2027, giving liberals another shot to widen the court’s ideological gap even further.

Takeaway: Taylor didn’t just win a robe. She helped cement a court majority that could shape Wisconsin law and power battles for years.

For over a decade, Wisconsin’s legislative maps were a masterclass in geographic entrenchment. If you were an incumbent in a safe seat, your biggest threat was a retirement party or a particularly aggressive primary from your own side. But in 2024, the game changed. Following the enactment of Wisconsin Act 94—the redistricting plan born from a landmark state Supreme Court ruling—the “safe” walls came down.

Nowhere is this shift more visceral than in the 31st Senate District. This isn’t just a regular election; it’s a “survival battle” between two men who both currently hold keys to the Senate chamber: Democrat Jeff Smith and Republican Jesse James. Because of the new lines, only one gets to stay. It is a rare, high-stakes incumbent-vs-incumbent showdown that could very well determine which party controls the Wisconsin State Senate.

Who They Are: The Rural Progressive vs. The Active-Duty Cop

On one side, you have State Senator Jeff Smith. Born and raised in Eau Claire, Smith is a “rural progressive” archetype. Before he was the Senate Assistant Minority Leader, he spent 30 years owning a window-cleaning business and living on a farm in the Town of Brunswick. He’s the kind of politician who hauls a “STOP & TALK” sign in the back of a 1999 Dodge Ram, waiting for constituents to pepper him with questions. He’s held the 31st since 2018, positioning himself as a rare Democrat who can still speak the language of rural Wisconsin without losing his base in the city.

On the other side is State Senator Jesse James. Currently representing the 23rd District, James is the only active-duty law enforcement officer in the Wisconsin Legislature. He’s a former Police and Fire Chief of Altoona and currently works as a part-time officer in Cadott. His brand is built on public safety and mental health advocacy, often highlighting his work on the opioid crisis and substance-related issues.

While James was drawn into the redrawn 31st, he didn’t move there immediately. He temporarily rented an apartment in Thorp to serve out his current term in the 23rd, but he has announced he is “coming home” to Altoona to challenge Smith.

What They Stand For: Record vs. Rhetoric

The 31st District is a quintessential swing seat. It covers all of Eau Claire County and reaches into parts of Chippewa, Dunn, and Trempealeau. It blends the urban centers of Eau Claire and Menomonie with deep-red rural wards. This geographic mix forces both men to defend their records under a much brighter spotlight.

For Smith, the record is defined by a “people first” approach to local crises. When the HSHS hospital system announced its sudden closure in early 2024—reeling 40,000 patients and 1,600 workers—Smith became a vocal advocate for healthcare stabilization. He pushed for $15 million in flexible funding, criticizing Republicans for “playing politics” by adding restrictions that made the money nearly impossible to use for medical staffing. In 2025, he was one of a handful of Democrats to support a bipartisan budget deal that secured $1 billion for hospital support, framing it as a necessary compromise over partisan purity.

James, meanwhile, leans heavily into his committee chairmanship on Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention. He points to his authorship of bills legalizing fentanyl testing strips and expanding peer support for first responders. He describes himself as someone who “doesn’t like to be political” and prefers getting things done across the aisle. However, his legislative focus often skews toward increased criminal penalties, such as his bill to escalate the crime of impersonating a peace officer to a felony.

The Survival Math: Money and Power

The receipts suggest this will be an expensive, bruising fight. As of early 2026, Smith has reported a massive fundraising advantage, raising nearly double James’ total. In the second half of 2025 alone, James reported less than $43,000 raised, while Smith’s coffers remained significantly more robust.

But money is only part of the story. This race is about the “tipping point.” Currently, Republicans hold an 18-15 majority in the Senate. If Democrats want to flip the chamber for the first time since 2010, they have to defend the 31st. Losing Smith’s seat would essentially slam the door on a Democratic majority, while a Smith win keeps the path alive.

Because of this, expect a deluge of PAC money. Groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) on the right and labor unions or environmental groups on the left will treat the 31st as ground zero.

The Friction Points

No incumbent-vs-incumbent race is without its scrapes. For Jesse James, there is a lingering residency question. While the sources indicate the evidence is incomplete for a definitive legal conclusion, accusations have circulated regarding a discrepancy between a lottery tax credit and his voting address. James has largely brushed off these “political” attacks, but in a district this tight, any perceived lack of “legal residency” can be a vulnerability.

For Jeff Smith, his longevity is both a shield and a target. Republicans often point to his 2010 Assembly loss as proof he’s beatable, and his role in Senate leadership makes him a natural target for the GOP’s “uncompetitive tax climate” messaging. Smith also has a distinct identity hurdle: he has to constantly remind people he isn’t the former Missouri senator of the same name who went to federal prison. (Wisconsin’s Jeff Smith has a clean record, unless you count his vocal frustration with slow rural broadband speeds.)

Why Wisconsin Readers Should Care

For years, the complaint in Western Wisconsin was that voters didn’t choose their politicians—politicians chose their voters through gerrymandering. Act 94 flipped that script. The redrawn 31st is proof that the maps are finally “neutral and competitive.”

This race matters because it forces a choice between two fundamentally different versions of Western Wisconsin representation. Is the district a rural progressive stronghold focused on Medicaid expansion, broadband accountability, and healthcare infrastructure? Or is it a law-and-order seat focused on mental health pilot programs and law enforcement perspectives?

In most elections, an incumbent has a built-in advantage. In this “incumbent deathmatch,” that advantage is neutralized. One veteran lawmaker will lose their job in 2026, and the winner will likely hold the deciding vote on the future of Wisconsin’s Senate.

This isn’t just a local spat in Eau Claire. It’s the first real test of whether competitive maps can actually return power to the people. In the 31st, the voters are finally the ones with the survival kit.

Source List

WisPolitics, 2026-01-14

Wisconsin Examiner, 2025-10-28

Census Reporter, 2024-12-31

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, 2024-02-17

WisPolitics, 2025-10-17

Ballotpedia, 2026-03-17

Wisconsin Legislative Documents, 2024-01-09

Together with Jeff Smith, 2022-10-27

Wisconsin State Legislature, 2025-07-02

Wikipedia, 2026-03-18

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election on April 7, 2026 is about power—who gets it, who keeps it, and who it gets used on. Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor are both appellate judges, but they’re running toward two very different versions of Wisconsin on abortion rights, voting access, and labor protections.

This isn’t theoretical. The Court decides what rules count, who gets heard, and whether rights are treated as guarantees or as obstacles.

So, here’s the breakdown: who they are, where they land on the fights that actually touch your life, and the money trying to buy a decade of control.

TL;DR (for the beautiful skimmers)

• Lazar: conservative coalition lane; tighter-rule instincts on voting, and “judicial restraint” branding that usually benefits power.

• Taylor: rights-and-access lane with major labor backing (worker power), plus pro-democracy and conservation allies.

• The sleeper story: outside money shows up late, screams loudly, and Wisconsin pretends it didn’t see it coming.

Who are they, really?

Maria Lazar (Court of Appeals, District II)

Lazar is a Waukesha-area appellate judge with a “law-and-order, keep-it-tight” résumé. She’s pitched herself as an impartial judge who wants to restore trust in the courts, and she’s leaning hard on the “judges shouldn’t make law” framing.

Which, sure—sounds calming—until you remember every modern Wisconsin court fight is one side accusing the other of “making law,” while millions of dollars are spent to make sure their version wins.

BSB translation: Lazar comes out of the Walker-era legal and political universe, and her support network reflects it.

Subscribe now

Chris Taylor (Court of Appeals, District IV)

Taylor is a Madison-centered appellate judge with a very different origin story: former Democratic lawmaker and formerly tied to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in a policy role. Conservatives treat that as disqualifying; supporters treat it as proof she understands what the Court is deciding.

Taylor’s pitch is essentially: courts should be independent, but also protect rights in real life, not just in theory. Her opponents call that “political.” Her supporters call it “doing the job.”

BSB translation: Taylor’s public career has been rooted in rights-and-access fights long before she ever wore the robe, which is exactly why this race is so polarized.

Where they land on the big fights

Abortion rights

This is one of the clearest contrast points in the race.

Lazar is being embraced by the conservative coalition that wants the Court to stop expanding rights and start narrowing them—especially on abortion.

Taylor is running as a rights-and-access candidate in a state where abortion policy has been bounced between courts, legislators, and chaos for years.

BSB translation: one side sells “states decide,” the other sells “people decide,” and both call it “law.”

Voting + election rules

This race is a fight over whether Wisconsin treats voting like a right or like a maze.

Lazar served on the appellate panel that overturned a ruling that would have allowed voters with disabilities to receive absentee ballots by email. The court said Wisconsin law only allows emailed absentee ballots for military and overseas voters — “no one else”— and emphasized that the lower court’s injunction would have disrupted the status quo. The legal fight continued, but the “email ballots for disabled voters” door was shut by that decision.

And this isn’t some niche edge case. The CDC estimates about 1.06 million Wisconsin adults live with a disability.

BSB translation: when the question is “can disabled voters vote privately and independently,” Lazar’s lane is not that way.

Taylor’s voting-law lane is tangled up in the absentee ballot witness-address dispute that both campaigns keep dragging into this race—because in Wisconsin, the rules of voting are always one lawsuit away from being rewritten. Taylor’s side frames these fights as preventing lawful ballots from being tossed over technicalities. Lazar’s side frames them as tightening the screws to follow the strictest reading possible.

BSB translation: one candidate leans toward ballot access, the other leans toward ballot policing, and both will swear it’s about “integrity.”

Labor

This one isn’t subtle, but it is easy to underestimate.

Chris Taylor has major union backing for a reason: Wisconsin’s Supreme Court routinely ends up deciding fights that shape whether workers have leverage—or just get told to “work harder” while the boss buys a third boat.

Maria Lazar comes out of the conservative legal ecosystem tied to Wisconsin’s biggest labor battles, and her “judicial restraint” lane is exactly the lane conservative donors love when the question is “can workers sue,” “can unions organize,” or “can the state kneecap bargaining again.”

What “labor issues” actually means at the Wisconsin Supreme Court

This Court can touch:

• Collective bargaining (public sector especially) and how aggressively the state can restrict it.

• Workplace rules and agency authority (think what the state can enforce, and what it can’t).

• Worker protections that get litigated as “business freedom” (because of course).

• Election rules that decide who runs local government—school boards, municipalities, county boards—which then decide contracts, staffing, and public services.

How the candidates signal where they’d land

• Taylor’s signal: labor endorsements aren’t given out like participation trophies. They mean “we believe this candidate won’t turn the Court into a corporate shield.”

• Lazar’s signal: her base and background fit the “tighten rules, defer to Legislature, limit court intervention” worldview—which often translates into less room for workers to challenge power once a law is on the books.

Translation: if you care about collective bargaining, workplace protections, and workers having any leverage at all, labor already picked its horse.

Environment

This is where people get lulled to sleep—until PFAS shows up in the water and suddenly “judge stuff” becomes “my family” stuff.

Taylor has a documented legislative-era interest in PFAS (“forever chemicals”) policy debates. Lazar doesn’t campaign as an environmental-policy candidate, but the courts she serves in keep ending up as the decider on whether regulators can actually act.

That’s the point: even if a candidate never says “PFAS” out loud, the court decisions still decide whether cleanup happens or gets stalled by process and politics.

BSB translation: in Wisconsin, “environment” is always also “industry vs. enforcement,” and the courts are the tiebreaker.

Endorsements + Follow the Money

Endorsements: the coalition tells you the story

Taylor is stacking the “rights + democracy + labor + environment” lane: labor support, conservation support, and pro-rights endorsements.

Lazar is in the “conservative infrastructure + anti-abortion org” lane, with that ecosystem lining up behind her.

BSB translation: endorsements aren’t confetti. They’re values receipts.

Follow the Money: what we can document right now

Here’s the hard truth: candidate fundraising is only half the story. Wisconsin Supreme Court races are magnets for outside money, and the loudest spending often shows up late.

Reporting going into 2026 showed Taylor with a massive fundraising advantage over Lazar. But outside spenders can still try to tilt the playing field with “issue ads” that pretend they’re not political. Tracking of ad spending already showed a major gap favoring Taylor early, alongside outside group spending by A Better Wisconsin Together.

BSB translation: Wisconsin Supreme Court races love a late-stage outside-money meteor strike.

Bottom line for voters

If you read nothing else, read this:

• Lazar is the candidate backed by the conservative coalition that wants the Court to clamp down—on ballot rules, on rights, and on what they call “activism.”

• Taylor is the candidate backed by labor and rights-and-access allies who want the Court to remain a check when politics gets ugly.

And here’s the part Wisconsin keeps learning the hard way: the Supreme Court doesn’t just decide “court stuff.” It decides whether your rights are treated like guarantees or like permissions—especially on abortion, ballot access, and worker power.

My practical advice: vote like you understand what a 10-year seat means, because you will not undo this choice with a spicy tweet.

What to watch between now and April 7

• Outside money surge: late “issue ad” floods are basically guaranteed in Wisconsin Supreme Court races.

• The ad war, not the yard signs: the spending gap can tighten quickly if big outside groups decide to go feral.

• The “nonpartisan” messaging pivot: watch both candidates lean hard into “integrity” and “activist judges” language—because it’s the cleanest way to talk ideology without admitting ideology exists.

• Turnout: spring elections are Wisconsin’s consequences trap. Low participation, high impact.

Closing kicker

You don’t need a law degree to vote in this race. You just need to recognize the pattern: Wisconsin ignores spring elections, then acts stunned when the Court decides what rights look like in real life. Lazar vs. Taylor is a choice about whether the next decade treats rights as guarantees or as permissions.

So, vote like your rights are on the ballot—because they are.

Receipts (Sources + docs used)

Wisconsin Court System — Court of Appeals opinion on emailed absentee ballots for voters with disabilities (2025-03-12)

Wisconsin Public Radio — coverage/explainer of the emailed-ballot ruling (2025-03-12)

CDC DHDS — Wisconsin disability estimate (2021 data; accessed 2026-03-05)

AP News — Lazar campaign launch/profile (2025-10-01)

AP News — Taylor campaign launch/profile (2025-05-20)

PBS Wisconsin (AP) — fundraising comparison story (2026-01-15)

Brennan Center — “Buying Time 2026 Wisconsin” spending tracker (2026-02-12)

Wisconsin Watch — Lazar vs. Taylor comparison tied to voting-law dispute (2026-02-02)

Wisconsin Conservation Voters — Taylor endorsement (2026-02-12)

AFT-Wisconsin — Spring 2026 election endorsements page (accessed 2026-03-05)

WisPolitics — ABWT digital buy report (2026-02-04)

Here in Wisconsin, we like to think every voice matters—whether you’re cheering at a Packers game in Lambeau or brewing your morning coffee in Milwaukee. But if you’re a Democrat in 2025, your voice might be echoing in the wrong district list. A new lawsuit contends our 2021 congressional map was drawn so that, even if Democrats win half the vote, they only snag a quarter of the seats. That’s not exactly “Cheesehead” democracy.

The 2021 Map: How We Got Here

After Democrats and Republicans deadlocked over redistricting in 2021, the GOP-controlled Legislature produced maps that were almost carbon copies of their decade-old blueprint. The state Supreme Court’s conservative majority gave it a rubber-stamp with only minor tweaks—effectively preserving a map that packs Madison’s and Milwaukee’s Democratic strongholds into just two districts (WI-02 and WI-04). The result? Republicans held six of eight U.S. House seats even though Democrats nearly matched their statewide vote totals in 2022 and 2024.

Subscribe now

• Packing and Cracking: Democratic voters in Dane and Milwaukee counties find themselves squeezed into two districts where their votes matter little beyond those lines. Meanwhile, many marginally Democratic areas in flip-flop battlegrounds (WI-01 and WI-03) were engineered into safe Republican territory.

• Minimal-Change Rationale: GOP lawmakers argued that keeping districts consistent avoided voter confusion — “least change” was their mantra. Critics say that was code for “least challenge to our incumbents.”

The Lawsuit: One Person, One Vote

On May 7, 2025, nine Wisconsin voters filed suit directly in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts. Represented by the Elias Law Group (led by Marc Elias), they argue the map blatantly violates Article IV of the state constitution: each vote should carry equal weight. By packing and cracking, the challengers say, Democrats are systematically stripped of representation.

• Legal Theory: Under the Wisconsin Constitution, districts must be contiguous, roughly equal in population, and drawn without diluting the voting power of any group. The plaintiffs claim the map’s partisan skew means a 50 percent vote share yields only 25 percent of seats—hardly equal.

• Original Jurisdiction: Asking the state Supreme Court to take the case immediately signals urgency. If a lower court process drags out past candidate-filing deadlines, a remedy could come too late for the 2026 primaries.

The Court’s New Composition

Earlier in 2025, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford won a hard-fought campaign to maintain the court’s 4–3 liberal majority. That shift matters here: in 2023, those liberal justices struck down legislative maps for violating the state constitution’s contiguous-territory requirement, paving the way for fairer state legislative districts. Now, with Elena Karofsky, Rebecca Dallet, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, and Crawford forming the liberal bloc, expectations are high that they’ll scrutinize partisan gerrymandering under Wisconsin’s own rules.

WI-01 and WI-03: The Battlegrounds

If Democrats could redraw the map, they eye WI-01 (along the Illinois border) and WI-03 (west-central Wisconsin) as ripe for flipping.

• WI-01: Encompassing Janesville, Madison’s southern edges, and Rock County, this district flirted with both parties in recent elections. In 2024, the Republican incumbent scraped by with under a 3-point lead even as Biden carried key precincts in 2020. A fair boundary might consolidate Dane County’s liberal precincts, making WI-01 lean blue.

• WI-03: From La Crosse to Eau Claire and rural stretches, this district is a paper-thin margin. In 2024, the Republican incumbent won by about one point, though Biden had a modest edge here in 2020. Current lines shipped La Crosse—a Democratic bastion—into WI-02, tipping WI-03 into red territory. A redraw that reconnects La Crosse and Eau Claire with their outlying allies could flip it decisively.

  ---

Political Reactions and Ground Game

Democratic Mobilization

Grassroots “Fair Maps” coalitions have sprung up statewide—Madison rallies, Milwaukee door knocks, and La Crosse coffee-shop meetups are all focused on one message: “Equal votes, equal seats.” The National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Elias Law Group have pledged financial and legal muscle to back these efforts, ramping up small-dollar fundraising in WI-01 and WI-03.

Republican Pushback

GOP lawmakers aren’t about to cede ground. They decry the lawsuit as a “Democratic power grab” timed to a liberal court majority. State Republican Chair Brian Schimming warns that any court involvement erodes legislative authority and risks chaos come filing deadlines. National Republicans are already funneling money into potentially vulnerable incumbents, doubling down on defense for WI-01 and WI-03.

What’s Next: Timeline and Implications

• Summer 2025: Oral arguments are expected once the court sets a schedule—likely late summer, giving both sides time to exchange briefs and expert analyses.

• Interim Relief: Plaintiffs may request preliminary relief—an interim map—for candidate filings if the court acts swiftly enough. If denied, the case could slip past filing deadlines, locking in the 2021 lines for 2026.

• Possible Outcomes:

  1. Court-Directed Redraw: The court could strike down the map and send the Legislature back with strict guidelines—like in the Clarke v. WEC legislative-map decision.

  2. Court-Drawn Map: If lawmakers stall, the court might impose its own temporary congressional map for 2026.

  3. Status Quo: A denial or delay would leave the 2021 map intact, guaranteeing Republicans maintain at least a 6–2 edge.

A new map—if drawn fairly—could flip those two marginal seats, potentially changing Wisconsin’s U.S. House delegation to 4R–4D in 2026. That doesn’t just matter locally; it could contribute to which party controls the next Congress.

Stakes for 2026 and Beyond

Wisconsin’s redistricting saga has long been the poster child for partisan map-drawing. If this lawsuit succeeds, it could mark the most significant shift in congressional lines since 2010—reshaping battleground districts, energizing grassroots organizers, and redefining how state courts enforce “one person, one vote.” Whether you’re a Democrat in the 608 or a Republican in the Fox Valley, the outcome will ripple far beyond Madison’s chambers. Your coffee and brats won’t decide this—your vote might.

Buy me a coffee.

As Wisconsin's April 1 Supreme Court election approaches, the state is at the epicenter of a political tempest. The contest between Democratic-backed Judge Susan Crawford and Republican-supported Judge Brad Schimel is more than a judicial appointment—it's a referendum on issues like abortion rights, redistricting, and the influence of big money in politics.

In the wake of Roe v. Wade's overturn, Wisconsin's dormant 1849 abortion ban has resurfaced, making reproductive rights a pivotal issue in this election. Judge Crawford, with her history of working with Planned Parenthood, champions abortion rights, while Schimel, despite past support for the ban, now sidesteps the topic, perhaps hoping voters won't notice.

Not content with launching rockets, Elon Musk's America PAC is offering $100 to Wisconsin voters who sign a petition against "activist judges." This tactic, reminiscent of his previous electoral interventions, has raised eyebrows and questions about the ethical implications of such financial incentives.

President Trump has thrown his weight behind Schimel, labeling Crawford as a "Radical Left Liberal." This endorsement adds fuel to an already fiery and expensive judicial race, with spending expected to surpass $76 million. Contributions from political heavyweights like Elon Musk and George Soros underscore the national significance attributed to this state election.

While Democrats focus on abortion rights, Republicans emphasize immigration and the economy. However, the campaign trail hasn't been without controversy. Northeast Wisconsin residents recently received political mailers disguised as newspapers, causing confusion and concern about misinformation tactics.

The outcome of this election could reshape Wisconsin's legislative landscape. A Crawford victory might lead to challenges against gerrymandered districts, potentially altering the state's political balance. Conversely, a Schimel win could solidify conservative stances on contentious issues, affecting policies for years to come

As Wisconsinites head to the polls, they're not just selecting a Supreme Court justice; they're deciding the direction of their state's future. With national figures and vast sums involved, this election serves as a microcosm of the broader ideological battles playing out across the country.

Sources:

https://apnews.com/article/0a7002302fde1604e5d35ad1b6da7b16?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://nypost.com/2025/03/22/us-news/president-trump-endorses-brad-schimel-in-tight-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-warns-rival-is-handpicked-voice-of-the-leftists/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.theverge.com/news/633834/elon-musk-paying-voters-petition-wisconsin-supreme-court-race?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Related:

Subscribe now