The April 7 Supreme Court race does not happen in isolation. The court that takes its seat after April 7 will interpret every bill on this site — every gender identity law that passes, every challenge to those laws, every conflict that arises. The question is whether the court does that neutrally — or whether one candidate already knows what the answer should be.
This page presents public legislative and judicial records. It draws no conclusions. The records speak for themselves.
Every bill on the Count the Bills WI site — every veto override, every parental choice mandate, every constitutional amendment — will eventually face legal challenge. Those challenges will be decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
A 4–3 liberal majority currently controls the court. A Taylor win would create a 5–2 liberal supermajority. A Lazar win would maintain the 4–3 balance. That mathematical difference determines the court's ideological direction for years.
"The person who spent a decade writing these bills is now asking voters to put her in the position of interpreting them. That is not a coincidence. It is a strategy. And it is worth knowing before April 7."
Both records below are public and verifiable. Chris Taylor's legislative record is searchable at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Maria Lazar's judicial record is publicly available through the Wisconsin court system.
This is not a record assembled from opposition research. Every bill number below is publicly searchable at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. The record is hers. The pattern is worth knowing before voters decide whether she is the right person to interpret the laws she spent a decade advancing.
| Bill | Year | What it does | The judicial implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB 319 | 2019 | Statewide gender identity non-discriminationEmployment, housing, education, and insurance. Would have made gender identity a protected class across virtually all of Wisconsin civic life. | Any challenge to gender identity protected-class status would reach the Supreme Court. Taylor wrote the statute. Should she interpret it? |
| AJR 156 | 2019 | Constitutional amendmentWould add gender identity to the Wisconsin Constitution as a protected class, creating a constitutional right to gender identity accommodation statewide. | Constitutional amendments, once passed, are interpreted by the Supreme Court. Taylor co-authored this one. |
| AB 436 | 2019 | Criminal defense restrictionRestricts what a criminal defendant can argue if the claim involves the victim's gender identity — changing the scope of allowable defenses in Wisconsin courts. | Criminal law challenges are appellate matters. Taylor wrote the restriction. Should she rule on challenges to it? |
| AB 111 | 2019 | Conversion therapy banDefines prohibited practices in part by reference to gender identity. Creates a new category of professional liability for licensed practitioners. | Professional licensing and liability questions reach appellate courts. Taylor shaped the definitional framework. |
| AB 312 | 2019 | Gender identity education protectionsGender identity protections in education settings — affecting schools, administrators, and students statewide. | Education policy conflicts — especially parental rights vs. institutional policy — are a primary source of Supreme Court litigation. |
| AB 418 | 2019 | Additional gender identity protectionsSixth gender identity bill in a single legislative term. One of the most concentrated single-session records on this issue in Wisconsin history. | The volume is the point. This is not incidental. This is the organizing purpose of her legislative career applied to the court. |
Courts are supposed to be neutral interpreters of the law — not advocates for outcomes they already believe in. That principle applies regardless of the issue.
"Ask whether you want it decided by a court whose majority includes someone who wrote it. Advocates on courts produce decisions that can be reversed. Neutral decisions are harder to overturn."
"Ask whether a court with a 5–2 liberal supermajority — including the principal author of this legislation — is the court that will interpret any challenge you bring. The answer is straightforward."
"Ask whether a decade-long record of advancing one side of the most contested issue before the court is consistent with neutrality. The record is public. The question answers itself."
"That's exactly the point. The record is public. The connection between her legislative career and this court race has not been prominently discussed. Now you know."