Your freedom to choose for yourself and your family is protected when the court is neutral. You decide whether it stays that way.
So does everyone who loses it — slowly, quietly, through decisions made by judges who came to the bench with an agenda.
Most people who care about making their own choices for their families don't see the connection between a court race and that freedom. That's exactly the problem.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court interprets the laws that govern your life. Whoever sits on that bench decides whether the law serves you — or serves someone else's vision of how you should live.
"The court is meant to approach every issue on merit and neutrality. When you trade that for advocacy, you head down a path that ultimately sees personal freedom as a threat to someone else's idea of progress."
One candidate spent a decade as a state legislator pushing gender identity legislation — including constitutional amendments, criminal defense restrictions, and statewide non-discrimination mandates. Now she wants to sit on the court that interprets those same laws.
That is not a neutral candidacy. That is the completion of a strategy that started in the Assembly and is now reaching for the bench.
"One party says: live and let live. The other says: I have a better idea of how you should live. Protecting the rule of law — protecting neutrality — benefits the most number of people."
Voters shouldn't have someone else's worldview written into law from the bench. The court exists to interpret the law — not to advance an agenda, not to extend a career in advocacy, and not to clear the way for one political vision of how Wisconsin families should live.
Your rights won't be decided by someone who sees the bench as an extension of her professional mission. Maria Lazar believes the law should serve everyone equally — that neutrality isn't a weakness, it's the whole point.
"Voters shouldn't vote an advocate onto the bench. With Maria Lazar, they won't have to."
The court that protects the most people is the court that stays neutral. The moment it becomes a tool for one worldview, everyone else's freedom shrinks — quietly, gradually, and without a vote.
A constitutionalist loves the law. An advocate loves their cause. Only one of those belongs on the bench.
You assume your freedom will always be there. So did everyone who lost it slowly. This is the moment you protect it — by choosing who interprets the law that governs your life.
A neutral court protects liberals and conservatives equally. That's the whole point — and it's worth saying out loud to someone you know who hasn't thought about it that way yet.
Don't fight the frame. Widen it.
"I hear that." Here's what I know: a neutral court protects women's rights too. The threat to your freedom isn't a judge who follows the law — it's a judge who doesn't. Once the bench becomes an extension of someone's advocacy, nobody's rights are safe.
Maria Lazar isn't a threat to your choices. She's the reason they stay yours. A court that applies the law equally is the only court that can protect rights in any direction.
A judge who approaches every case with the same question: what does the law say? Not what would I prefer the outcome to be. Not what does my career in advocacy call for. What does the law say — and how do I apply it equally to everyone who comes before this court?
That is what a constitutionalist does. That is what the bench was designed for. And that is the difference between a court that serves you and a court that sorts you.
April 7, 2026. Make sure you're registered and know your polling place.
Check RegistrationText one person. Share a message above. Simple stories are how people decide.
Get Shareable MessagesSee the full ten-year legislative record — and why this court race is the next chapter.
The Full Story →