Who is Chris Taylor? Where Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate stands on abortion rights, voter ID
MADISON - The field is taking shape for next year's Wisconsin Supreme Court election with liberal state Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor launching her bid to unseat conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley in the spring 2026 election.
While state Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, justices on the court typically lean liberal or conservative. In recent years, the race has become increasingly polarized, with partisan groups continuing to back their party's preferred candidate.
Liberal candidates have won four of the last five Supreme Court elections. In 2023, the court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in at least 15 years with the election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz.
Justice-elect Susan Crawford's victory over conservative Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel in the April 1 election cemented the court's 4-3 liberal majority through 2028, during which the court is considering issues including abortion and union rights.
Here's what to know about Taylor, including her legal system experience, positions on key issues, education and more.
Taylor has served as a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for District IV, headquartered in Madison, since 2023. Her term expires July 31, 2029, according to the court's website.
Over the course of her 30-year legal career, Taylor said she has worked to make sure "the law is used to protect Wisconsinites, their rights and freedoms."
Before Gov. Tony Evers appointed Taylor to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020, she served in the state Legislature, where she was known as one of the most liberal members.
Taylor also worked as a private practice attorney in Milwaukee and Madison from 1996 to 2002 before becoming a public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.
Taylor is 57.
Taylor lives in Madison with her husband, James Feldman, and their two sons. She grew up in Los Angeles.
Taylor received her bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990. She then attended the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 1995.
Taylor's campaign has officially been endorsed by the liberal majority, Justices Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz. Crawford also endorsed Taylor.
'Having served alongside Judge Taylor on the Circuit Court, I know she cares deeply about the people of Wisconsin and is dedicated to making sure that our justice system protects their fundamental rights," Crawford said in a statement on May 21.
Taylor served as a public policy director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin before joining the state Assembly in 2011. She said whether she would recuse herself from cases involving the organization would depend on the case.
"I would not categorically say because I worked for Planned Parenthood 15 years ago that I can't hear a case on reproductive health care," Taylor told the Journal Sentinel. "That would be like a judge who worked for a law firm 15 years ago who would say, 'Well I can never take a case from that law firm.'"
In Wisconsin, abortion rights have remained a flash point in Wisconsin Supreme Court races with both Protasiewicz and Crawford's campaigns using it as a rallying issue.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state's 1849 law specifically bans abortions or whether more recent laws or court rulings override it.
While the court has agreed to hear another case brought by Planned Parenthood seeking to make abortion a constitutional right, the court has yet to schedule a date for oral arguments. The case will most likely be heard before the winner of the spring 2026 election takes their seat.
As a lawmaker, Taylor weighed in on issues including the "lame-duck" laws that the Republican-controlled Legislature passed to scale back the powers of the incoming Democratic governor and attorney general following Republican losses in the 2018 election.
Litigation over the legislation is before the court.
As a judge, Taylor said, she is not working as an advocate, and as a justice, she would decide on a case-by-case basis whether to recuse herself from litigation on underlying legislation she had voted on as a lawmaker.
During her time on the Appeals Court, Taylor said she has reviewed laws passed during her time in the state Legislature and hasn't run into issues being fair and impartial.
During her time in the state Legislature, Taylor called on Republican leadership to release funding for a comprehensive voter ID informational campaign after voters were turned away from the polls in the spring 2016 election. The League of Women Voters joined Taylor in that effort.
Under Wisconsin's voter ID law, the state was required to fund a public information campaign to educate voters on the new law and the identification needed to vote.
Taylor, a lawmaker at the time, said the spring elections revealed the state failed to fulfill its "obligation to educate voters about this convoluted, nonsensical new law" as many Wisconsinites lacked the proper documentation to successfully vote.
'While we know suppressing our ability to vote is the true intention behind this Voter ID legislation,' Taylor said in a press release in 2016. 'As I tell my kids at home, if you're going to change the rules, you need to let everyone else know. The solution here is simple — the GOP just needs to follow the law that they wrote.'
Taylor has been a vocal opponent of Act 10, a 13-year-old law signed by former Gov. Scott Walker that banned most collective bargaining rights for public employees.
In December, a Dane County judge struck down most of the law and in February, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition to bypass the court of appeals and take up the case directly.
The case now sits in the appeals court and if the ruling is appealed again, it would then go to the state Supreme Court.
Currently, the judge placed his ruling on hold, meaning the law is in effect as it moves through the courts.
Taylor will face off against incumbent Bradley on April 7, 2026. A primary, if necessary, will be held on Feb. 17.
The winner's 10-year term would begin in August 2026. If Taylor wins the seat, the court's liberal majority will grow to 5-2.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about Chris Taylor, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

2 hours ago
Supreme Court rejects Republican bid to bar some provisional ballots in Pennsylvania
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has rejected a Republican appeal and left in place a Pennsylvania court decision allowing people to cast provisional ballots when their mail-in votes are rejected for not following technical procedures in state law. The court released the decision Friday, after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications about orders that had been slated to be released Monday. A technological error also resulted in an opinion being posted early last year. The justices acted in an appeal filed by the Republican National Committee, the state GOP and the Republican-majority election board in Butler County. Pennsylvania's top court ruled last year that the county must count provisional ballots that were cast by two voters after they learned their mail-in ballots were voided because they arrived without mandatory secrecy envelopes. Pennsylvania Democrats had urged the court to stay out of the case.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
'This is part of the game': Trump cuts out Musk
Donald Trump talked to a long list of media outlets on Friday to make it clear that he's not thinking about or talking to Elon Musk after their feud exploded into public view on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to sensitive data held by the Social Security Administration. Michael Steele, Brian Barrett, Nayyera Haq, and Stephen Cloobeck join Stephanie Ruhle for The 11th Hour Nightcap.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'