Liberal Wisconsin judge launches state Supreme Court bid
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Chris Taylor announced Tuesday that she's launching a campaign to challenge conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley on the state Supreme Court next year.
'Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court must be fair, independent, and impartial. Justice Rebecca Bradley has proven that she's more interested in pushing her own right-wing political agenda than protecting Wisconsinites' rights and freedoms,' Taylor said in a statement.
'Extremism and partisanship have no place on our state's highest court,' she continued. 'Everyone who comes before the court deserves to be heard, respected, and treated equally – that's exactly what I'll do as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.'
Taylor has served on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals since 2023, and previously served as a judge in the Dane County Circuit Court. She served in the Wisconsin state Legislature from 2011-20 as a Democrat, and was a vocal supporter of abortion access, including testifying before the U.S. Senate about the Women's Health Protection Act.
Taylor also spent time as a public policy director at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.
In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published Tuesday, the liberal judge did not make a commitment around recusing herself on cases pertaining to Planned Parenthood in the event she won the seat next year.
'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 Wisconsin news outlet. '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.''
The announcement comes more than a month after liberal Justice Susan Crawford won an open seat on the state Supreme Court, keeping the 4-3 liberal majority of the high court intact.
Next year's race will not flip the Wisconsin court but provides an opportunity for liberals to expand their majority to a 5-2 edge.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gina Ortiz Jones, lesbian and military vet, elected mayor of San Antonio
Gina Ortiz Jones, a lesbian and military veteran who served in President Joe Biden's administration, has been elected mayor of San Antonio, the second-largest city in Texas and seventh-largest in the U.S. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. Jones beat Rolando Pablos, a former Texas secretary of state, in a runoff election Saturday. The margin was 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent, according to Ballotpedia. They advanced to the runoff because no candidate out of 27 in the May 3 general election received a majority of the vote. In the general election, Jones led with 27.2 percent and Pablos came in second with 16.6 percent. The current mayor, Ron Nirenberg, could not run again due to term limits. Races for mayor and other city positions in San Antonio are officially nonpartisan, but this election was partisan in practice. Jones emphasized her affiliation with the Democratic Party, while Pablos, who was elected secretary of state as a Republican, highlighted his ties to leading Republicans such as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. RELATED: Jones was undersecretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration; she was the first lesbian, second member of the LGBTQ+ community, and first woman of color (she's Filipina American) to serve in the post. She twice ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House as a Democrat. She was an intelligence officer in the Air Force and was deployed to Iraq during the war there, serving under 'don't ask, don't tell.' After leaving the Air Force, she worked for the federal government as an adviser on intelligence and trade, with agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. She left government service six months into Donald Trump's first term. In the mayoral race, 'she campaigned on her plans to expand early-childhood education to more children and increase affordable housing and work programs for unskilled workers,' The New York Times reports. 'San Antonio showed up and showed out,' she told supporters Saturday night after the results came in. 'We reminded them that our city is about compassion and it's about leading with everybody in mind. … So I look forward to being a mayor for all.' RELATED: Lesbian Gina Ortiz Jones Wants to Be Texas's First Out Congress Member Two other cities among the largest 10 in the nation have had LGBTQ+, specifically lesbian, mayors. Annise Parker was mayor of Texas's largest city, Houston, from 2010 to 2016. Until recently, she was president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. Houston is the fourth-largest city in the U.S. Another lesbian, Lori Lightfoot, was mayor of Chicago, the third-largest, from 2019 to 2023. Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson hailed Jones's victory, releasing this statement: 'Every one of us deserves leaders who value equality and will fight to ensure that we can live freely without fear of discrimination. Gina Ortiz Jones is that leader. That's why HRC was proud to make calls and knock doors to help mobilize Equality Voters in San Antonio and put her over the finish line. Her win isn't just exciting, it's historic; as the first ever openly LGBTQ+ mayor of San Antonio during a time of ceaseless attacks on our community, Gina is emblematic of the resilience, strength, and joy that our community has already used to thrive in challenging times. We can't wait to see her get to work tackling the problems that are impacting our neighbors, families and coworkers and standing up for the rights and safety of every San Antonian.' Evan Low, president and CEO of LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, which endorsed Jones, issued this statement: 'Gina Ortiz-Jones is LGBTQ+ Victory Fund family, and we are proud to see her rise to lead America's seventh-largest city as mayor. As a veteran, her service reflects the estimated 1 million LGBTQ+ veterans who have contributed to our nation with honor, distinction, and an unyielding warrior spirit. San Antonio voters made the right call by sending Gina to City Hall, not only making history but selecting a candidate who is driven to make lives better in her hometown.' Jones will be sworn in June 18 for a four-year term.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘I would do it': Trump says he would arrest Newsom
( — President Donald Trump said he thinks California Gov. Gavin Newsom could be arrested following border czar Tom Homan's suggestion that he would have state officials, including Newsom, arrested if they obstructed immigration enforcement efforts. 'I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great,' Trump told reporters, according to The Hill. '…Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing. Look, I like Gavin Newsom. He's a nice guy. But he's grossly incompetent.' Newsom said the threat was a step toward authoritarianism. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor,' Newsom posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. 'This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The sparring comes amid protests in Los Angeles over raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers. In response, the White House deployed the state's National Guard to the city. California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Monday afternoon that the state is suing the Trump administration. 'President Trump's order calling federalized National Guard troops into Los Angeles – over the objections of the Governor and local law enforcement – is unnecessary and counterproductive,' Attorney General Rob Bonta said. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law – and not one we take lightly. We're asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.' In a press release about the suit, Newsom noted that Trump and United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem have previously voiced opposition to moving the National Guard in a state without a governor's approval. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
