Dem vs. Dem and Rep vs. Rep

Wisconsin budget surplus bill gets both bipartisan support and opposition

On May 11 Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican Senate and Assembly leaders announced they had reached a compromise that would spend about 72% of a projected $2.5 billion budget surplus on schools and property tax relief. The bill increased funding for special education, reduced property taxes by about 5% and sent rebate checks to income taxpayers of $300 per individual, $600 per couple. It also eliminated state taxes on tips and overtime.

Evers and GOP leaders had negotiated over the compromise bill since January. When announced on Monday, May 11, it was presented as a done deal. On Tuesday legislative committees held hearings and sent the bill to the floor for votes on Wednesday. Where the bill died.

What is unique, in deeply polarized Wisconsin, is that a bipartisan compromise bill was met with bipartisan opposition. While Evers and GOP leaders supported the bill, both Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates opposed it. In the legislature, the bill passed the Assembly with bipartisan (though far from unanimous) support while in the Senate it was defeated buy opposition from three Republicans and all 15 Democrats, while 15 Republicans voted for passage. That a popular Democratic governor could not get one (let alone the two needed for passage) Democratic senators to support his bill is a telling statement about relations between the governor and his legislative caucus.

The opponents of the bill emphasized uncertainty about the anticipated future budget surplus the bill was tapping. They pointed to the uncertainty of revenues, a possible economic downturn, and “fiscal responsibility.” A subsequent Legislative Audit Bureau report concluded the bill would leave a near $3 billion structural deficit in the budget to be adopted in 2027. Supporters of the bill noted this estimate assumes no revenue growth, and so is a quite conservative estimate. (Such estimates are customary for the Audit Bureau.)   Opponents also noted that Evers and both Republican leaders are retiring, so any mess they leave will be up to someone else to clean up.

In addition to bipartisan opposition in the Senate, several Democratic gubernatorial candidates strongly opposed the bill, others were tepid and only one strongly supported it. And the only major Republican candidate, Rep. Tom Tiffany (WI-7th) also opposed it. News reports say Tiffany aids made calls to senators raising criticisms of the bill. In interviews Tiffany said he would not sign it if he were governor.

And so this is how polarized Wisconsin found bipartisanship break out, yet on both sides of a compromise bill. Supporters say it gave money to schools and property tax relief and cash to voters. Opponents say it wasn’t enough for schools, or for property tax relief or for cash to voters, and pointed to possible future deficits. Unsaid, for the most part, is that each side imagines how they would like to spend the $2.5 billion next year if they control the governorship and the legislature. For Democrats, after 16 years of GOP legislative control, a possible majority in 2027 offers opportunity for proposals that have been stymied since 2011. For Republicans, the chance to win back the governorship after 8 years of Evers is tantalizing. So, with the defeat of the bill, they will get their wish for money to play with. With the one small challenge of actually winning control in November.

Tensions remain now, approaching 3 weeks after the bill was defeated, with governor and legislative Democrats sniping at one another, and some Republican criticism of the three GOP senators who sunk the bill that 15 Republicans voted for. For the gubernatorial candidates the issue of who is in favor of school funding and of property tax relief in the fall will live in the shadow of opposition to a bill that provided some of that. 

After the bill died my Marquette Law School poll asked Wisconsin voters what they thought of the bill. They liked it. Eighty percent said the bill should have been passed, with 11% opposed and 9% didn’t know. In a second question that raised the opponents concerns about future deficits, 69% still favored the bill with 21% opposed and 9% didn’t know. More remarkable was the complete lack of a partisan divide on either question. The tables show opinion on each question.

Surprised? I’m always surprised when partisan divides are absent in Wisconsin. But as the Wisconsin State Journal editorial cartoon put it, maybe I shouldn’t be.

If you have an insatiable desire for more on this very Wisconsin story, see this interview with Wisconsin Public Television’s Here and Now with Frederica Freyberg.

Or listen to a longer radio interview with WCLO in Janesville. 

And you can see the full results of the poll at my Marquette Law School Poll website here.

How to spend a surplus

Property tax relief, schools, both? For now, the answer is neither.

On May 13, the Wisconsin Senate defeated a proposal from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, Republican Senate Majority leader Devin LeMahieu and Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to use $1.8 billion of a projected $2.5 billion state surplus to provide additional funding for special education, about a 5% reduction of school property taxes, plus direct payments of $300 to each income tax payer in the state. This compromise had been long in the making with Republicans favoring more direct payments to taxpayers and the governor favoring more for schools. Neither side got everything. Both sides got something.

The bill was defeated in the Wisconsin Senate with 3 Republicans and every Democrat voting no. The Assembly easily passed the measure with all Republicans plus 10 Democrats voting yes.

There was also unusual bipartisan opposition from Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, and almost all Democratic candidates for governor, including Francesca Hong, a self-described democratic socialist, and Kelda Roys, who was recently endorsed by the state teachers union, WEAC.

The vote complicates messaging around affordability, property taxes and school funding for the fall campaign in which Republican Tiffany seeks to replace the two-term Democratic governor and Democrats aim to flip both Senate and Assembly after 16 years of Republican majorities.

The compromise spending bill was announced and voted on over just three days, leaving little time for public opinion to form, or for interest groups to mobilize. But we have polling on the central issues from February and March when similar arguments were circulating from Evers and Republicans during the regular legislative session.

A majority of Wisconsin registered voters have come to say holding down property taxes is a greater priority than providing funding to K-12 schools. As of March, 58% said reducing property taxes was more important, while 41% said funding schools was more important. This balance has shifted dramatically since 2018 when 37% wanted property tax cuts while 58% favored school spending. This reversal has been one of the most striking changes in public opinion over the past eight years, and followed a surge in support for public school funding during the previous administration of Gov. Scott Walker.

Funding for special education costs has been a major concern for school districts and was addressed in the previous budget, though rising costs have produced a shortfall in coverage that was partially addressed by the proposed compromise plan. Across 5 polls taken since 2019, more than 70% have favored “a major increase” in state funding for special education, most recently 71% in June 2025.

Concern for property taxes and for special education funding are not mutually exclusive. In the 2025 surveys of February and June, 59% of those more concerned about property taxes also favored more funding for special education, as did 96% of those who place greater priority on school spending over property tax reductions.

As for returning the projected surplus to tax-payers, voters were evenly divided in March, with 47% in favor of a one-time payment to offset property taxes while 52% favored an ongoing increase in state aid to schools to reduce property taxes. There was a considerable partisan divide on this question, though not as enormous as on many issues: 68% of Republicans favored a one-time payment, as did 60% of independents, while 80% of Democrats favored increased state aid to schools.

The amount of the projected surplus that should be used for a property tax reduction divided the state about evenly in February, with 29% saying all or 3/4s should go to property tax reduction, 34% saying about half, and 37% saying 1/4 or none. Here too the partisan divide is clear, though not extreme.

There is a larger partisan divide over state aid to schools. Overall, 51% say the legislature had failed to provide enough funding for schools, while 49% say schools must learn to live within their budget limits. Partisans divide more sharply on this question.

The compromise bill reflected aspects of public opinion by providing some property tax relief, increased aid for special education, and some direct payments to individual income tax payers, while spending about 3/4 of the projected surplus. The lack of extreme partisan divides on these issues also suggest public openness to compromise. The bill did not address the issue of ongoing state aid to schools which would also reduce property taxes, an issue certain to face the new legislature and governor in January.

Affordability, inflation, and the cost of living remain the top concern of 35% of Wisconsin voters. Property taxes are the top concern of 7% and public schools are the top issue for 5%, as of the March Marquette Law School Poll. Costs and broad financial concerns are also reflected by concern with health insurance, 11%, jobs and the economy, 9%, and the affordability of housing, 6%.

Both parties claim they will address voters’ concern about the cost of living. In different ways the positions of Tiffany, Democratic candidates for governor, and Democratic legislators, conflict with their public commitments to property tax reductions, support for school spending and affordability promises, leaving none of them with clean attacks on the other side’s positions on the surplus bill. Both sides positioned themselves against more money for special education and against property tax relief in this bill. Complicated explanations of why may not convince voters of the underlying wisdom of the strategies.

It is too soon to know what voters think about this, or whether this vote will be an issue in the fall campaigns. But I’d love to hear what candidates hear “on the doors” over the next few weeks.

Ninth Republican incumbent retires in Wisconsin Assembly

This is the 2nd GOP retirement in a competitive Assembly seat

State Rep Jessie Rodriguez announced May 7 that she will not seek reelection in November. She is the 9th Republican and 12th member of the assembly to not seek reelection. The three Democrats not returning are all seeking higher office, two for the state senate and one for governor.

Rodriguez, who was born in El Salvador,  was first elected in a 2013 special election, winning reelection each cycle since 2014.

While most retiring Republicans are from rather safe districts, Rodriguez was seen as a top race for Democrats seeking to flip the Assembly majority. Republicans currently hold 54 of 99 seats, leaving Democrats looking for a net 5 seat pickup. 

Members not seeking reelection are shown in the table below. Rodriguez won the 21st district by 930 votes in 2024, a 2.8 percentage point margin. At the same time, Kamala Harris won the district by 4 points. Democrats also won the district 2022 for both governor and U.S. Senate. (The past votes are calculated for the current district boundaries following redistricting in 2024.)

In the current boundaries, the district has consistently voted  Democratic in statewide races since 2018, with Republican wins or extremely close Democratic wins from 2012-2016. Rodriguez’s win in 2024 stands out against a string of blue. 

A visual look at these votes over time makes it clear how the district has evolved from somewhat Republican leaning to the recent strong Democratic performance.

The 21st sits on the south side of Milwaukee county, a traditionally more conservative area relative to the county.

Demographically the district is predominantly white with a significant Hispanic population, 16%, which is double the state’s percentage, and a small Black population. It has slightly more college graduates, 36%, than the state as a whole, 33%. Median income is about $10,000 above the statewide income. 

As a now open seat, this should be one of the most closely competitive districts and a pickup opportunity for Democrats.

Another GOP retirement in Wisconsin Senate

Six of 12 Republican incumbents up in 2026 are now retiring

Wisconsin state Senator Andre Jacque (R – New Franken) became the 6th Republican to announce he will not seek reelection. There are 12 incumbent Republicans up for election this year, so half have now announced they will not seek reelection. There are 18 sitting GOP senators, so there will be at least 1/3 of the caucus new in 2027. 

Republicans currently hold an 18-15 majority in the Senate. Democrats need a net gain of two seats to take the majority for the first time since 2010.

Of the GOP retirements two are in quite competitive seats (the 5th & 21st)), both in districts Harris won in 2024, while 4 are in relatively safe Republican seats, based on recent elections for statewide office. A third competitive seat, the 17th, has an incumbent Republican, Howard Marklein, seeking reelection in a considerably changed district following redistricting in 2024.

Jacque’s 1st district is solidly Republican. The district includes Door county plus parts of counties to the south of the Door peninsula in north-eastern Wisconsin.

The recent voting in the district has been solidly Republican. with the southern part of the district quite red and the northern part of Door county blue.

The full set of Senate seats up, with retirements and splits between incumbent party and 2024 presidential result is shown in the table blow.

Wisconsin Assembly Rep. Kaufert (R-53rd) retires

Creates open seat in one of the most competitive districts

Rep. Dean Kaufert, R-Neenah, announced his retirement from the 53rd district on April 27th. He is the 11th member of the Assembly, and the 8th Republican, to announce they will not seek reelection. Three Assembly Democrats are seeking other offices, two for state Senate and one for Governor. 

Kaufert is the only retiring Republican representative in a district Harris won in 2024. Kaufert won in 2024 by 364 votes, a 1.2 percentage point margin, while Harris won the district by 4.4 percentage points. Gov. Tony Evers carried it by 8.6 points in 2022 and Sen. Tammy Baldwin won it by 3.9 points that same year. (These past votes are calculated for the current district boundaries, following the 2024 redistricting.)

The district includes Neenah and Menasha, and part of Appleton, in northeastern Wisconsin.

The vote in the current 53rd district has been trending Democratic in recent years. From 2012 to 2016 Republicans won it in 2012 and 2014 governor races, and 2016 presidential and Senate races, though Obama and Baldwin won it in 2012. Since 2016 the district has voted Democratic in each of the major statewide races. Kaufert’s win in 2024 was an exceptional GOP victory. 

The top Assembly seats for majority control include the 53rd plus four other seats Republicans narrowly won in 2024, each of which Harris also won. The Assembly is currently 54R-45D. The most competitive Democratic held seat is the 94th which Rep. Steve Doyle won in 2024 by 217 votes, 0.6 percentage points, while Trump carried the district by 2.1 points. The other three potentially competitive Democratic held seats were relatively close for both assembly and president but were Harris victories as well as Democratic Assembly wins. 

As candidates are now circulating nomination papers for access to the ballot, the time for retirement announcements would seem to be drawing to a close. So far, the announced retirements have come in less competitive districts, with the exception of Kaufert’s decision today. Thus, the competition for the majority depends more on close seats with incumbent Republicans seeking reelection in Harris districts, plus the one split decision in a Democratic seat. 

What Wisconsin Independents Think

Dislike Republicans, Democrats and Donald Trump

We often look at polls for the toplines, the balance of opinion across the full population. But it is important to understand the very substantial divisions in our politics that are masked by that single topline. Today I continue a series of posts on what partisans and independents in Wisconsin think. I’m doing them one at a time to stay focused on each party. We’ll come back with some comparisons in the final post. Today let’s look at the independents. (See the first post on the Republicans here, and the post on the Democrats here.

The first thing that jumps out about the opinions of independents is that they are much less lopsided than either Republicans or Democrats. For the partisans a number of opinions were held by over 80% of the party, but for independents only a handful approach that level of consensus.

The one item where independents are nearly unanimous is whether tariffs help Wisconsin farmers. Only 5% think the do.

Independents are united in not liking the parties and related groups. Only 17% are favorable to the Democratic party and 18% are favorable to the Republican party.

Opinions related to ICE are quite negative, with 19% favorable to ICE, and 24% who approve of how ICE is enforcing immigration laws. Twenty-two percent say the shooting of Alex Pretti was justified.

President Donald Trump gets a 23% approval rating from independents and MAGA is viewed favorably by 22%. Twenty-four percent think Trump’s policies will reduce inflation and 25% say they are better off than a year ago. Forty-one percent say they are living comfortably rather than just getting by or struggling.

The chart shows independent opinion on 23 topics covered in my Feb. 11-19, 2026 Marquette Law School Poll of Wisconsin registered voters.

On policies, independents are skeptical of data centers, with 24% saying their benefits outweigh the costs. Online sports betting is favored by 25%.

On immigration issues one-in-four, 25%, favor deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally including long term residents with no criminal record, though 59% favor deporting those in the country illegally when the question doesn’t mention length of residence or criminal records. Forty-five percent think the U.S. is mostly deporting immigrants who have criminal records.

A number of school related issues are more evenly divided among independents. Thirty-nine percent say schools must live within their budgets rather than receive more state aid and opinion is evenly divided on Evers’ 400-year veto which requires annual increases in per-pupil expenditures. A majority, 55%, say they are more concerned with holding down property taxes rather than increasing school spending, though 58% are satisfied with the job their local public schools are doing.

Thirty-seven percent approve of the job the legislature is doing and 46% approve of how Evers is handling his job as governor. Fifty-one percent approve of how the Wisconsin Supreme Court is doing its job.

Most important concerns

The top issue concern for independents is health insurance, closely followed by inflation and the cost of living. A bit less concern is expressed for taxes in general and for electricity costs, followed by gun violence.

Independents are somewhat less concerned about jobs and the economy, and abortion policy. While taxes ranked third in concern at 51%, property taxes specifically ranked next to last at 33%. And immigration and border security ranked last, with just 22% of independents saying they were very concerned about this.

Independents are more like Democrats in ranking health insurance and inflation as their top two issues. Democrats rank inflation first and then health insurance. And independents differ from Republican issue priorities by putting property taxes and immigration at the bottom of their concerns, while Republicans rank immigration first and property taxes second.

While partisans are extremely united on a number of issues, independents are more varied in their views, meaning that for virtually all issues there is at least a significant minority view on every issue for independents while the minority views among partisans are often much smaller, with a more unified majority opinion.

There are other issues not covered in this poll that could also become important in the fall elections, but will await new polling.

Next time: Comparing partisan and independent opinions.

What Wisconsin Republicans Think

United on deportations, support for Trump, property taxes

We often look at polls for the toplines, the balance of opinion across the full population. But it is important to understand the very substantial divisions in our politics that are masked by that single topline. Today I start a series of posts on what partisans and independents in Wisconsin think. I’m doing them one at a time to stay focused on each party. We’ll come back with some comparisons in the final post. Today let’s start with the Republicans.

Republicans in Wisconsin are most united in support of deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally, reducing property taxes, supporting President Donald Trump and approving of the way ICE is going about enforcing immigration laws. Between 87% an 95% of Republicans embrace these four topics.

Republicans are also united in disliking the Democratic party, Gov. Tony Evers and his 400-year school funding veto.

The chart shows Republican opinion on 23 topics covered in my Feb. 11-19, 2026 Marquette Law School Poll of Wisconsin registered voters.

The GOP is almost as united on believing that most deportees have criminal records, having a favorable view of ICE, being favorable to the Republican party (though less so than to Trump), and believing that public schools must live within their budgets rather than receive more state aid. Each of these opinions are embraced by 80%-83% of Republicans.

Solid majorities say that the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis was justified, that immigrants in the U.S. illegally should be deported even if they have been here a long time and have no criminal record and that Trump’s policies will decrease inflation.

Similar majorities oppose online sports betting, and disapprove of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Only 35% think tariffs are helping Wisconsin farmers, though a similar number think tariffs have no effect. On this topic opinion is less solid than it appears.

Then there is a set of issues that are less consensual with only small majorities: 57% say they are living comfortably and 55% say they are better off than a year ago; 53% approve of the job the legislature is doing and 51% are satisfied with their local public school. And 43% think the benefits of data centers outweigh their costs.

Simplifying, the GOP backs Trump and his policies (with some doubts on tariff effects) and wants to rein in property taxes and school spending. And they don’t care for Democrats or Tony Evers (no surprise there.)

Most important concerns

The priorities Republican have across issues largely mirror the unifying issues above. The top issue concern is illegal immigration and border security followed by property taxes. Those are followed by inflation and the cost of living and taxes more generally.

Further down the concerns, with less than 50% saying they are very concerned, are health insurance and the cost of electricity. Still further down are abortion policy and jobs and the economy. Ranked last is concern over gun violence.

The Wisconsin GOP is strongly united on issues of national politics centered on President Trump, and in state politics concerning property taxes and school funding. Also in opposition to Democrats.

There is less unity on new issues like data centers and online sports betting. And just over half say they are getting along well financially or better than before while there is some significant concern with inflation and the effect of tariffs.

There are other issues not covered in this poll that could also become important in the fall elections, but will await new polling.

Next time: What Democrats think.

Thirty years of Wisconsin Supreme Court Elections

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court elections were once low-key, low-turnout April affairs. Not so much any more. In 2023 total spending on the court race reached $50 million. Two years later, in 2025, total spending doubled that, passing $100 million. The big spending reflects the stakes in a shifting majority on the court. In the 2019-20 term, conservatives held a 5-2 majority. In 2020 liberals narrowed the conservative majority to 4-3. After the 2023 election it became a 4-3 liberal majority, which was maintained in 2025. With a retiring conservative justice, the 2026 election can either hold the 4-3 liberal majority or increase it to 5-2 for the 2026-27 term. (The seven justices are elected to 10 year terms.)

This recent shift contrasts with consistent conservative majorities from 1995 until the recent shifts. The figure shows the results of court elections since 1995. From 1995 through 2003 conservatives won 5 elections to 2 for liberals. From 2005 to 2013 conservatives again won 5 elections to 2 for liberals. But since 2015 liberals have won 5 seats to 3 for conservatives.

Since the 1990s Wisconsin Supreme Court elections have become far more partisan with voting patterns coming to be strongly linked to partisan elections and with the parties endorsing and financially supporting candidates in the formally non-partisan court races.

The next figure shows this changing partisan structure to court voting. As an example, I use Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who won in 1995 and 2015 before retiring in 2025. (In 2005 she ran unopposed.) In 1995, there was a moderate correlation, .45, between how counties voted for the court race and how they voted in the previous presidential race. But by 2015, the correlation between Bradley’s vote and the 2012 presidential vote had risen to .78. In 2025 when Bradley retired, the correlation for liberal Susan Crawford with the 2024 presidential vote was an astonishing .99. This reflects the surge in party polarization in Wisconsin and the emergence of court races more tightly tied to partisan divisions.

This increase in partisan voting structure is not a sudden phenomena, but one which has grown steadily since the 1990s. In the 1970s and 1980s there was little partisan structure to court elections. Indeed, in 1978 the correlation was nil, .002. This rose sporadically in the 1990s, then grew steadily since 2007 to the current astonishingly high .99 of 2025.

This extremely high correlation doesn’t mean outcomes are locked in. Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative, won in 2019 by less than a 1 percentage point margin, with a correlation of .92 with the 2016 outcome, while Justice Rebecca Dallet, a liberal, won the year before with a 10 point margin and a correlation of .89 with the same 2016 presidential race. If all counties shift their votes up or down by the same amount, the correlation remains high though the outcome can shift, as in these two cases. Correlation tells us about the structure of the votes but not where the majority necessarily falls. What we have now is that the most Republican counties are now virtually certain to also be the most conservative in their court votes and the most Democratic counties the most liberal. That wasn’t the case before the 1990s when knowing a county’s presidential vote told us very little about their court vote.

The April 2026 election is likely to reflect this strong partisan structure of voting, though we can’t yet say if the net election forces will shift in the liberal or conservative direction.

The geography of the court vote has shifted dramatically over 30 years. In 1995, liberal Justice Bradley won with 55% of the vote. In 2025, liberal Justice Crawford replaced the retiring Bradley with a nearly identical 55% of the vote. But the sources of these two victories was dramatically different. In 1995, Bradley was strongly supported in the north, north-central, and southwestern parts of the state. Notably her vote was significantly less in Brown, Dane and Milwaukee counties. In 2025, Crawford lost badly in the north, north-central and most of the southeast, while she ran up large margins in Dane and Milwaukee, much more than Bradley’s 1995 totals in those counties. She also ran a little ahead in Brown, a county Bradley had lost badly in 1995. The maps shows how dramatically the geography of the vote has shifted even with identical vote margins in the two races.

With so much of the state shifting from blue to red, how is it that the vote margin is unchanged? Democratic gains have been large and come in counties with large populations. Republican gains are widespread but mostly in less populous counties. In large Republican leaning counties, Waukesha, for example, the conservative majority has increased but only slightly, with a larger increase in Washington, but a slight decrease in Ozaukee. Republicans have gained in Marathon, but the conservative margin is only moderate.In contrast, Dane has gone from pretty liberal to overwhelmingly liberal, and Milwaukee which was quite competitive has also become very liberal in its court vote. These shifts also highlight the greater geographic polarization in the 2020s compared to the 1990s, while not shifting the statewide balance at all.

Public opinion

Since 2023 the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held a consistent net approval rating, though about 15% say they don’t have an opinion. Court approval slightly improved during and after the 2025 court election, declining slightly in October.

As of October, the candidates for the court in 2026 were little known to the public. This is not unusual in court elections and especially so with no incumbent. The Marquette Law School poll in October asked registered voters if they had a clear idea what the candidates stand for. For both candidates, 69% said they hadn’t heard enough, and only 10% or 11% said they did have a clear idea. With less than 3 months left before the April election, the campaigns have a lot of messaging to do.

Voters have a strong preference that candidates for the court discuss issues so voters know what they stand for, 83%, while only 17% say candidates should avoid discussing issues so as to not appear to have prejudged issues. On this, partisans and independents are in agreement.

The balance of the court

With the current balance of the court, and the justices coming up for election in the next 10 years, the liberal majority is assured until at least 2028. Should the liberal candidate win in 2026 the majority will remain in liberal hands until at least 2030 (absent an unscheduled vacancy occuring.)

After more than two decades of conservative majorities, the liberal victories in five of the last eight court elections has altered the balance, and created the prospect for continued majorities well into the 2020s or beyond.

The shifting balance of the court since 2019 is shown in the table below.

And for those who want way more detail (you know who you are), here are all Wisconsin Supreme Court elections since 1976. My ideological classification of justices may be debatable in some cases prior to 2000. In those less partisan times ideology played less of a role and moderate justices may be mislabled. The distinctions since 1995 are much more clear, though note that Hagedorn was elected as a conservative candidate but does not align strongly with either the liberal or conservative wings of the court in his decisions, siding with conservatives a little more than half the time in some terms and a little more than half with liberals in other terms. See the excellent SCOWstats.com for detailed analysis of court alignments since 1918.