Left-leaning judge Chris Taylor has won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, according to projections by NBC News, expanding the court’s liberal majority in the battleground state.
Taylor, a state appeals court judge and former Democratic state legislator, defeated Maria Lazar, a fellow appeals court judge who previously served in the administration of former Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Taylor will serve a 10-year term.
Taylor’s victory for the seat held by retiring Justice Rebecca Bradley gives liberals a 5–2 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a margin that is expected to remain in place until at least 2030.
The result continues a broader trend in recent elections for the court. Liberal-backed candidates have now won four consecutive Wisconsin Supreme Court races and five of the last six. Since 2017, Democratic and Democratic-aligned candidates have won 19 of the last 24 statewide elections in Wisconsin, NBC News reported.
During the campaign, Taylor, who was supported by the state Democratic Party, held a significant advantage in fundraising and advertising over Lazar, thanks to heavy donations from out of state. Her campaign emphasized issues such as abortion and voting rights, themes that have featured prominently in recent state Supreme Court races.
In 2023, liberal-backed candidates gained a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the first time in 15 years, and they retained that majority in 2024 following a high-cost race that drew significant outside spending, including contributions from Elon Musk in support of the conservative candidate. With no shift in control at stake in 2025, overall fundraising and voter engagement declined.
Liberals expand majority in Wisconsin Supreme Court: 3 key takeaways from Tuesday’s election night results https://t.co/lVMSSpKSE6 pic.twitter.com/2YQTfRjeO4
— New York Post (@nypost) April 8, 2026
According to AdImpact, spending in the 2025 race totaled about $85 million across candidates and outside groups. Television advertising accounted for approximately $6.5 million, including about $4.7 million backing Taylor and more than $1 million opposing Lazar.
The court’s liberal majority has already influenced policy in Wisconsin. In recent years, the court struck down legislative district maps that had favored Republicans, leading to new boundaries implemented in 2024. Democratic leaders have said they are aiming to win control of at least one legislative chamber for the first time in more than a decade.
Democrats are also looking to bring challenges to Wisconsin’s congressional maps before the state’s highest court, where Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight U.S. House seats. Legal challenges could also target other policies enacted under previous GOP administrations, including laws limiting collective bargaining rights for public employees.
In 2025, the court voted 4–3 to strike down a near-total abortion ban dating back to 1849 that had taken effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Liberals may have another opportunity to expand their majority on the court in the coming years. Conservative Justice Annette Ziegler has announced she will not seek a third term, and three additional justices are scheduled to face reelection between 2028 and 2030, NBC News reported.
Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled Monday that the conviction of former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan for obstructing immigration enforcement will stand, rejecting her post-trial efforts to overturn the verdict.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, a Clinton appointee, said the evidence presented during Dugan’s December trial was sufficient for a jury to find that she obstructed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers attempting to make an arrest outside her courtroom in April 2025.
Following a weeklong trial late last year, the jury convicted Dugan of felony obstruction while acquitting her of a separate charge of concealing an individual facing deportation.
Dugan filed a post-trial motion in January asking Adelman to overturn her conviction or grant a new trial. In the filing, Dugan challenged several aspects of the case, including the validity of the administrative warrant for the individual scheduled to appear in her courtroom, the jury instructions, her intent, and the court’s interpretation of the obstruction statute.
Dugan argued that her actions fell within her authority to manage courtroom proceedings, a position she had also raised in pre-trial motions that were previously rejected by the court.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
