In Milwaukee County, Marisabel Cabrera and Rochelle Johnson-Bent vie for the open Branch 43 seat after Judge Marshall B. Murray chose not to run for reelection. Cabrera is a member of the Wisconsin Assembly and an attorney in private practice at Cabrera Law Office. She graduated from Michigan State University College of Law in 2002. Her resume is here. Johnson-Bent is an attorney and manager of procurement and risk management for the Milwaukee Public School District. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt
A Milwaukee County judge acted with “apparent antipathy” toward a state law designed to protect businesses from unfair treatment when he ruled the law did not apply to a contract between Milwaukee Municipal Court and JusticePoint, a nonprofit that provides services to indigent defendants, the organization alleges in an appeals brief. Circuit Judge J.D. Watts “disregarded the factual record, made unsupported factual findings, and erroneously interpreted and applied the law to find that the relationship between JusticePoint and the City does not qualify as a dealership under the WFDL,” attorneys Jeffrey Mandel, Erin K. Deeley, and Rachel E. Snyder wrote on behalf of JusticePoint. The WFDL is the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the 50-year-old statute designed to protect businesses from unfair and arbitrary actions by entities issuing contracts. The appeal seeks reversal of Watts’ ruling, a remand to circuit court, and a temporary injunction while the case is litigated there. JusticePoint qualifies for WFDL protection and the city must show that it met certain requirements in ending the contract, they wrote. The city must show it had good cause to end the relationship, that it issued proper notice, and that it provided JusticePoint an opportunity to correct any performance problems. “The city admits to making no effort to comply with any of these three requirements, relying instead on a ‘convenience’ clause as its sole justification for terminating JusticePoint’s contract,” they wrote. “This is patently insufficient under the WFDL.” JusticePoint’s agreement to provide Milwaukee Court Alternatives Program (MCAP) services was terminated at the behest of two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges without explanation, under a “convenience” clause that allows the city to end a contract for any reason with 10 days' notice. The city notified JusticePoint of the termination in May 2023, giving the organization until mid-July to finish its work. Municipal Court officials did not name any successor provider program and said the court would seek bids sometime in the future. That meant that without JusticePoint, Municipal Court defendants would lose the assistance the organization provides for completing community service requirements, handling inability-to-pay forfeiture cases, or finding various social services. JusticePoint sued over the termination, alleging that it violated the WFDL, and Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan temporarily placed the contract cancellation on hold. Watts took over the case after that, ruling against JusticePoint after an October hearing on the matter. The city contended that, applied to a municipality, the WFDL should protect only businesses with a profit motive or a business offering, to protect public procurement law, the JusticePoint lawyers said. “Its concern was not a concrete one in this instance but an abstract fear of a potential slippery slope,” they said. The city also argued that applying the WFDL would lead the city to violate competitive procurement regulations, but “admitted this might be an illusory issue because it ‘may be accurate’ to say that the instant case has no bearing on procurement regulations.“ “Though the city maintained its consistent agreement that JusticePoint distributes city MCAP Services, the trial court at numerous points attempted to steer the city into making arguments contrary to that position — and inconsistent with the factual record,” they said. Minutes after the October hearing ended, the attorneys wrote, Watts “presented a single-spaced, 11-page written decision that disregarded the city’s arguments and the undisputed factual record, concluding instead that: 1) the relationship between JusticePoint and the City was not a dealership protected under the WFDL because JusticePoint was distributing its own, rather than the City’s, services; and 2) there could be no community of interest between the parties in the absence of a ‘joint undertaking’ and shared profitability.” Watts then prompted the city to seek dismissal of the entire case, which he granted, they said. Appellate Judge M. Joseph Donald issued a stay pending appeal, maintaining the suspension of the contract termination. At the trial court level, Watts “made a series of legal errors in applying the law to the undisputed facts of this case, fundamentally narrowing the purview of the WFDL in contravention of both statutory text and binding precedent,” the JusticePoint attorneys said. Watts held, for example, that the “WFDL cannot apply outside of conventional franchise-franchisee, profit-driven, commercial relationships,” an error appellate courts have consistently warned against, they wrote. “To the contrary, JusticePoint’s delivery of services on behalf of the City fits soundly in the ambit of the WFDL under the uncontested facts before this Court,” they said. The nonprofit qualifies for protection under the law because it has an agreement with the city, distributes city services, and shares a community of interest with the city, they said. While the city effectively conceded that JusticePoint distributed city services, Watts found differently, ruling that JusticePoint was distributing its own services. Watts found it dispositive that the city “ ‘did not have the services’ themselves and . . . Municipal Court defendants do not directly pay JusticePoint for the MCAP Services those defendants receive,” the lawyers wrote. The law does not require that, however, they said. It simply requires that a dealer sell or distribute the grantor’s — in this case the city’s — goods or services. “If WFDL protection applied only if JusticePoint was selling city services, the agency could charge a penny meeting Watts’ “atextual, invented requirement” but not making JusticePoint profitable or defraying city expenses for MCAP services, they said. Watts’ misinterpretation also would effectively block charitable nonprofits from WFDL protection if they provide services free of charge for recipients, they wrote. Watts also misread the law’s “community of interest” provision to require JusticePoint to maintain a commercial business enterprise receiving revenue and setting prices, the JusticePoint attorneys said. Under state Supreme Court precedent, a community of interest exists when there is continuing financial interest and interdependence, they said. A “ ‘continuing financial interest’ contemplates a ‘shared financial interest in the operation of the dealership or the marketing of a good or service,’ while ‘interdependence' is the ‘degree to which the dealer and grantor cooperate, coordinate their activities and share common goals in their business relationship,’ ” they wrote. Watts also “arbitrarily rejected the uncontested factual record” to find that there was "no coordination of activities” between the city and the nonprofit. He found that JusticePoint’s investments in staff and computer programming infrastructure needed to run its program were not substantial compared to its overall expenses, despite there being no evidence of overall expenses offered, the lawyers said. While JusticePoint does not charge clients for its services, it saves the city money and has a financially interdependent relationship with the city, they wrote. The city’s own goal for the program, as stated in its most recent request for proposals to operate the program, is to “ ‘ultimately reduce Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility and House of Correction populations and reduce the associated cost to the City of housing these offenders.’ “ The agency also works closely with Municipal Court and other city officials in its program operations, they said. In Sauk County, Nancy Thome and Blake J. Duren vie for an open seat after Judge Pat Barrett chose not to run for reelection. Thome is an attorney in private practice in Baraboo. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1994. Her resume is here. Duren is an attorney in private practice in Reedsburg. He graduated from the St. Louis University School of Law in 2010. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
In Oneida County, Michael Fugle and Mary M. Sowinski vie for an open seat after Judge Michael H. Bloom chose not to run for reelection. Fugle is corporation counsel for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel and in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2002. His resume is here. Sowinski is an assistant district attorney for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel in Vilas County and an assistant DA in Milwaukee County as well as in private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Gretchen Schuldt Judges from around the state are supporting a bill that would outlaw protests at their homes, but a constitutional law professor says the measure raises First Amendment concerns. The bill would prohibit people from demonstrating near a judge’s residence if they are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. The word “near” is used but not defined in the legislation, Assembly Bill 965 / Senate Bill 926. A chart showing the sponsors of the measure is at the bottom of this post. Ed Fallone, a constitutional law professor at Marquette University, said in an interview that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment generally does not allow a group to exist in a protected “bubble” denied to others. The bill would create such exclusive protections, he said. That amendment protects freedoms of speech and religion and the rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Those offering testimony in favor of the bill included state Supreme Court Justice Annette K. Ziegler and judges from St. Croix County, the District II Court of Appeals, Juneau County, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Dunn County, Sauk County, Fond du Lac County, Washburn County, Dodge County, Racine County, Sheboygan County, Clark County, Sheboygan County, Ozaukee County, Outagamie County, Brown County, Chippewa County, Waukesha County, Brown County, Dane County, Calumet County, Barron County, Manitowoc County, Monroe County, Door County, Milwaukee County, and Rusk County. The State Bar of Wisconsin also offered testimony in support. The bill is one of three about judges and their security concerns. Judges' written testimony on the three-bill package included discussion of security for their families and them; incidents they had experienced personally; and the June 2022 murder of retired Juneau County Judge John Roemer by a man Roemer sentenced years earlier. In some instances, multiple judges from the same county signed on to testimony in support of the bill, raising potential conflict-of-interest issues if the measure becomes law and the judges are asked to rule on related cases. The Assembly’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee recommended passage of the bill, 13-2, with Reps. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) opposed. The full Assembly approved the measure without a roll call vote. The Senate’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee recommended approval on a 5-1 vote, with State Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) opposed. The bill is pending before the full Senate. In her written testimony to the Assembly committee, Ziegler said that “Judges should not be threatened with acts of violence from people or groups who want to intimidate or harm us, push a cause, subvert the rule of law, or control the outcome of a case. That is a basic tenet of Judicial independence.” The bill is modeled on a federal statute, she said. The Wisconsin bill, unlike the federal statute, “removes the prohibition …against picketing, parading or demonstrating at, in, or near a building housing a court,” Ziegler wrote. The federal law, adopted in 1950, prohibits the same type of picketing of federal judges’ residences as the Wisconsin bill would ban. It also has raised recent First Amendment questions, especially after protests in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning abortion rights. Allowing courthouse picketing, which judges can easily avoid entirely, is not enough, Fallone said. “One of the aspects of your free speech right is to be heard by the person you’re expressing your opinion to,” he said. While he sympathizes with judges seeking to reduce the stress levels of their jobs, Fallone said, protections such as those proposed should be limited to specific judges in response to specific events or threats. If judges deserve special security considerations, those protections could well spread to other protest targets, thus further limiting the scope of the First Amendment, he said. Bill Sponsors
In Walworth County, Estee E. Scholtz and Peter M. Navis vie for an open seat after Judge Phillip A. Koss chose not to run for reelection. Scholtz is the deputy corporation counsel for Walworth County and previously worked as an assistant district attorney in Walworth and Milwaukee counties. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2009. Her resume is here. Navis is a judicial court commissioner in Walworth County. He previously was an assistant corporation counsel for Walworth and Dodge counties and an attorney in private practice. He graduated from Hamline University School of Law (St. Paul, Minnesota) in 2007. His resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without insertion of “(sic)” for errors and without editing except as to length (answers are limited to 500 words).
In Door County, Brett Reetz and Jennifer Moeller vie for an open seat after Judge D. Todd Ehlers chose not to run for reelection. Reetz has been a self-employed trial lawyer since graduation from DePaul University Law School in 1992. His CV is here. Moeller has been a Door County court commissioner since 2011 and before then worked in private practice. She received her law degree from Marquette University Law School in 1994. Her bio is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin voters in April will see two referendum questions focused on perceived voting issues. Senate Joint Resolution 78 passed the Legislature in November and will appear on the April 2 ballot as two questions about amending the state constitution. If approved by a majority of voters, the amendments would enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution bans on private funding for election administration and the involvement of third parties in elections. The proposed amendments passed the Senate and Assembly along party lines. They passed in two successive legislative sessions as required by the state constitution’s amendment process. Constitutional amendment resolutions avoid the governor. They go directly from the Legislature to voters for approval. Rather than creating statutes, which can be changed more easily if they cause problems later, the laws become part of the document underlying all of Wisconsin's government and laws. Republican legislators introduced the resolution in response to grant money supplied by the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to various election offices around the country during the 2020 election cycle to alleviate the burden of COVID-19 related costs. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and tech billionaire, supplied more than $400 million to CTCL. As a result, the funds have been referred to as “Zuckerbucks.” The first question addresses those Zuckerbucks: “Use of private funds in election administration. Shall section 7 (1) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that private donations and grants may not be applied for, accepted, expended, or used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum?” A “yes” vote will place in the state constitution a prohibition on any level of government in the state applying for or accepting nongovernmental funds or equipment for election administration. Currently, Wisconsin law does not restrict the Wisconsin Election Commission or municipalities from accepting grants or other private money to facilitate the administration of an election. The second question addresses the involvement of outside people in elections: “Election officials. Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?” Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay) testified about this proposed amendment to Senate and Assembly committees in October 2023. He stated that a stipulation of the CTCL grant money required third-party oversight from Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, who then worked for the nonprofit National Vote at Home Institute. According to Wimberger, Rubenstein “orchestrated the fall election and acted as a city clerk would act, though paid by CTCL, including managing staff and having access to ballots.” Wimberger’s assertion was part of the larger tent of theories undermining Wisconsin’s 2020 election results. It was debunked by Green Bay’s city attorney, who after investigation said the city was “allowed, but not required, to receive advisory services from persons knowledgeable in various areas of election administration” and that although Rubenstein provided “best practice support” he “had no decision-making authority.” Rubenstein also provided best-practice support in Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Wauwatosa and West Allis. In at least the case of Green Bay, he was hired directly by the city. Current statutory law already provides that elections are administered only by “election officials” and defines an election official as “an individual who is charged with any duties relating to the conduct of an election.” A “yes” vote on question 2 will put the restrictions permitting only election officials designated by law to administer elections into the state constitution. Elections officials include a municipal clerk, who is responsible for conducting elections in a municipality; a chief election inspector and election inspectors, or poll workers, who staff polling places on election day; election registration officials, who carry out registration duties on election day; special voting deputies, who are appointed by the municipal clerk to carry out absentee voting at qualified retirement homes; greeters, who acknowledge voters and assist in answering questions about the polling place but may not participate in any election inspector duties unless acting as a substitute; and tabulators, who aid election inspectors in counting and tallying votes after polls close. All such election officials are required to take and file an oath and record set amounts of training for every term they serve. In La Crosse County, Candice C. M. Tlustosch is challenging incumbent Mark A. Huesmann for Circuit Court Branch 3. Huesmann was appointed to the court by Gov. Tony Evers in 2023. He was previously a municipal court judge, La Crosse County court commissioner, and practicing attorney. He received his law degree from the University of North Dakota School of Law in 1994. His resume is here. Tlustosch is a practicing attorney at Tlustosch Law Office. She was a La Crosse County judge in Branch 5 in 2015, appointed by Gov. Scott Walker. She did not win the next election and returned to private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2005. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is. Name: Jorge R. Fragoso Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 18, 2023, effective Nov. 4, 2023 (term ending July 31, 2024) (running unopposed in April 2024 election) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana High School – Homer Hanna High, Brownsville, Texas Recent legal employment: April 2021-present – Defense attorney, Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, Milwaukee, Wisconsin September 2016-March 2021 – Appellate attorney, defense, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Milwaukee, Wisconsin January 2012-September 2016 – Trial attorney, defense, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Waukesha, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Illinois State Bar General character of practice: I am an attorney in a well-regarded, mid-sized law firm founded over fifty years ago. I predominantly practice criminal law. My practice is evenly divided between trial and appellate cases, though I sometimes practice in other fields as well, including white collar defense, investigations by the Wisc. Dept. of Children and Families, Title IX, restraining orders, etc. Before joining GRGB, I spent almost five years as an appellate attorney for the Public Defender's Office, where I handled criminal appeals, as well as juvenile cases, CHIPS cases, protective placements, and termination of parental rights cases. I began my career as a trial attorney with the SPD in Waukesha County, where I worked for four years. I represented adults in criminal prosecutions, and I was a member of the drug and alcohol courts. Describe typical clients: I represent people who work hard to pay my legal fees. These people are often blue collar workers who are looking for the best defense they can afford. Before that, I defended indigent clients for nearly a decade. About 20-25% of my clients have been native Spanish speakers with little to no English language skills. I have specialized in cases involving research, writing, and litigation, including at the trial and appellate level. Number of cases tried to verdict: One as lead counsel, four total List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: My first argument before the Supreme Court happened on November 5, 2018, mere weeks after my first daughter was born. It was a challenging case that had been assigned to an experienced attorney shortly after I transferred to the appellate division of SPD. I was appointed as co-counsel so I could observe him and learn about juvenile cases, but he moved out of state shortly after I joined the case and I took on the case myself. The case—a state’s appeal from a decision by Judge T. Christopher Dee—was complicated. It involved the reinstatement of a juvenile delinquency proceeding after a juvenile had been found not competent and his JIPS case had lapsed. . . . (T)he decision, written by Justice Rebecca Dallet, was handed down on March 7, 2019. The decision was unanimous and was not in our favor. This case taught me a lot about a narrow area of the law, but more importantly, it made me realize that I could take on a difficult case, figure it out on my own, and become so familiar with the material that I could represent my client in front of the state’s highest court, even though it was the first juvenile case I had ever worked on. In February 2021, I was on the verge of winning a postconviction motion hearing in the courtroom of Judge Janet Protasiewicz. The case was almost 10 years old at that point, and my client had been in custody for its entirety. He was due to be released three years later. By then, this case had gone up to the court of appeals and back two times. We won the appeal the second time it went up, and Judge Brash remanded the case for a Machner hearing. The hearing went well, and it seemed clear the defense was headed for victory. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Protasiewicz brought us into chambers to let us know that she would be granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial unless we were willing to come to an agreement on the case. The state’s prosecutor . . . refused to make an offer that did not involve a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence, so my client was left to choose between risking a trial that could result in adding at least 13 years to his current sentence or waiting out the remainder of his sentence. He chose the latter, and after fighting the case consistently for ten years, he withdrew his postconviction motion. This case stands out to me as an example of the power of the prosecution. My client probably had a good chance of winning a trial, but when faced with the possibility of spending an additional ten years in prison, he chose not to take that chance. In February of 2022, I argued a motion to dismiss before Commissioner Daniel Rieck in Waukesha County. The state’s prosecutor . . . filed a long complaint on behalf of a wealthy family claiming that the house my client was gifted by the family’s deceased patriarch was obtained fraudulently. They claimed that she had tricked him into buying her a house and that he was too old to make that kind of decision with his own money. What stood out to me about that case was the way in which my client talked about the deceased man. She seemed to be the only one that saw him as a full and flawed person rather than just a benefactor with a high net worth. She had spent a lot of time with him before he passed away, and even though he was difficult at times and she was made to suffer by his family, she was very fond of him. She was also someone who had struggled with money her entire life. She was eccentric and did not live in the county. The man’s family was wealthy and well-established in the county. The commissioner really went out on a limb finding that the state had not borne its burden and dismissing the case. In May of 2022, Judge Bohren agreed and affirmed the judgment of dismissal on de novo review. The case was officially dismissed, and the dismissals were not appealed. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: For the most part, my experience in adversary proceedings before an administrative agency involves the revocation of supervision for clients convicted of criminal offenses. I have represented a client before the Dep't. of Children and Families, and I appealed a pro bono case in which a couple of prisoners challenged the restitution garnishment policies Dep't. of Corrections. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Most of my non-litigation legal experience involves negotiating with prosecutors. I have also appeared at medical licensing hearings and represented clients during an SEC investigation, a Title IX investigation, and an investigation by the Dep't. of Children and Families. I've worked on drug and alcohol courts and volunteered with the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic. In law school, I helped interview inmates at an ICE immigration detention center. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: n/a Previous runs for public office: n/a All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: n/a Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Milwaukee Young Lawyers Association, member, 2021-present Milwaukee County Bar Association, member, 2020-present Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, member, 2019-2022 Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic, volunteer, 2017-2022 Big Brothers, Big Sisters, volunteer, 2015-2016, 2021-2023 Waukesha County Bar, member, 2015-2016,2021-2023 Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, member, 2012-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I wrote the Respondent's Brief in Victor Ortiz, Jr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2020AP1394 and Jacquese Harrell, Sr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2020AP1601. Ortiz and Harrell were granted relief in the circuit court, and the state, by the Department of Corrections, appealed. The court of appeals reached out to Attorney Jason Luczak to brief the issue on behalf of the respondents, and he accepted the pro bono appointment. I was the lead writer of the briefs. We won in the court of appeals, and the state did not seek review by the Supreme Court. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Milwaukee County because I know that I can do an excellent job. I have over ten years of experience at the trial and appellate level, which has uniquely prepared to serve as judge. I want to be part of a court that treats people with dignity and works on behalf of the people it serves. Because of my formative experiences, I am well-positioned to do this. I have always been motivated to stand up for marginalized people. I was raised in Matamoros, Mexico, a mid-sized city on the border with South Texas where extreme poverty is ever-present. I spent the first five years of my school-aged life crossing the border every day to attend a Catholic school in Brownsville, Texas. I was raised in a Catholicism molded by the precepts of liberation theology and Catholic Social Teaching that had spread throughout Latin America. During the pandemic, a retired teacher from my former school regularly carted books across the border to hold classes for asylum-seeking children. That is the type of role model I had growing up. I moved to Brownsville at age 8 and enrolled in public school. The freshman class of my public high school had over 1,100 students, but only 500 of us graduated. I left Brownsville to attend the University of Notre Dame, but I did not lose sight of how privileged I was to graduate and be able to attend a good school. At Notre Dame, I became involved with the Center for Social Concerns, and through them, the Center for the Homeless, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, and the Catholic Worker House. These experiences involved close contact with marginalized groups, and they informed my views. Working as a public defender was the culmination of these experiences. Every day presented an opportunity to show people respect and dignity where they may not expect it. I loved going to the courthouse every day and interacting with people from all socio-economic backgrounds, from clerks and bailiffs to prosecutors and judges and jurors and indigent clients. Leaving my job in Waukesha was difficult, but I knew I wanted to sharpen my legal skills. I learned to write and think through cases at the Milwaukee Appellate office. It was a tremendous opportunity. When I went to Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown in 2021, I was a much better writer and a much more confident attorney than when I arrived in 2016. In my years at GRGB, I’ve learned a lot about providing a thorough defense that leaves no stones unturned. I have worked on a variety of cases beyond criminal, and I have been given the opportunity to spend meaningful time on each case. I have also had the assistance of a fantastic support staff and the counsel of several attorneys with decades of experience. I’ve learned a lot from all of them. I want to be proud of the work that I do. I want the court to maintain its legitimacy and to protect the values I hold dear—e.g., voting rights, fair maps, strong public schools, people’s right to health care and privacy, a less vindictive criminal justice system—from encroachment by a legislature that seems determined to demean the state’s urban areas. I want my work to serve the people of Milwaukee County, and I know I can do a great job. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Before June 24, 2022, I would have said that Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were the U.S. Supreme Court cases that most severely impacted the people of Wisconsin in a negative manner. They gutted the two most powerful weapons of the Voting Rights Act: preclearance for new voting changes in jurisdictions that have historically suppressed the vote of minority groups (Shelby County) and the results test targeting voting legislation that produces discriminatory results (Brnovich). In between these two, SCOTUS passed on a great opportunity to fix Wisconsin’s gerrymandered maps in Gill v. Whitford, but it refused to consider UW Law School professor Bill Whitford’s strong argument that the map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Instead, it decided the case on the issue of standing. After June 24, 2022, the clear answer is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade, thereby allowing states to outlaw abortion. In Wisconsin, Dobbs may have activated Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban. For context, Zachary Taylor was president, and women were not permanently allowed to vote in Wisconsin until seventy years later. The questions and uncertainty around this issue led to a nearly 100% decrease in the number of legal abortions performed in the state following Dobbs. By all indications, people seeking abortions in Wisconsin have had to visit a surrounding state for abortions. Minnesota, which was not even admitted into the Union at the time Wisconsin legislators passed the abortion ban, has seen a 35% increase in abortions since Dobbs. As if that weren’t bad enough, Dobbs has called into question the entirety of the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence. Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, called for a reexamination of the right to birth control and same-sex marriage. He even suggested the ban on criminalizing same-sex sexual relations should be reconsidered. Such drastic measures would likely worsen the Court’s crisis of legitimacy and weaken its standing with the American people. It’s no surprise the dissenting opinion, jointly written by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, ended with a lamentation: “With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.” Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Republican presidents have appointed 19 of the last 25 SCOTUS justices. All but two have been staunchly conservative. Thus, the SCOTUS writing I have admired over the course of the past 50 years is in dissent. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg bore the burden most often in the nineties and early 2000’s. Justice Ginsburg described this responsibility as follows: Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, “My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.” But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Interview with Nina Totenberg (May 2, 2002). Justice Sotomayor has taken the role of the dissenter to heart, and I deeply admire her for that. She is a very persuasive writer, and she knows how to frame issues and highlight facts that are overlooked by the majority opinion. Through her dissents, she has been chronicling the right-ward slide of the court in a manner that will hopefully provide breadcrumbs for future societies looking for their way back. In Mullenix v. Luna, she called out an officer’s “rogue conduct” after he “fired six rounds in the dark at a car traveling 85 miles per hour … without any training in that tactic, against the wait order of his superior officer, and less than a second before the car hit spike strips deployed to stop it.” In Glossip v. Gross, which upheld the use of the sedative midazolam for lethal injections, she chastised the majority for “deferring to the District Court's decision to credit the scientifically unsupported and implausible testimony of a single expert witness; and second, by faulting petitioners for failing to satisfy the wholly novel requirement of proving the availability of an alternative means for their own executions.” In Utah v. Strieff, she recognized a reality that is often overlooked in police encounters, saying that “[a]lthough many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more.” Justice Sotomayor is writing directly to our moment, and I admire her for that. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has had a number of justices whom I deeply admire and respect, among them Justices Shirley Abrahamson, A.W. Bradley, and Louis Butler. However, it is Justice Rebecca Dallet that has started writing the kind of dissents that Justice Ginsburg advocated and Justice Sotomayor writes so well. In a recent dissent, she took apart a concurring opinion by Justice Hagedorn in which he argued in favor of originalism. She argued that the originalism proposed by Justice Hagedorn would undermine significant rights that most people take for granted, including the right to unsegregated education, same-sex marriage, and virtually all rights of women and racial minorities, as these rights would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify on originalist grounds. I admire these jurists for remaining singularly focused on justice, even when in the minority. The proper role of a judge: On a day-to-day basis, the proper role of the judge is to treat people with dignity and respect, to make orders in accordance with the law, and to explain his decisions on the record. In the aggregate, the proper role of a judge is to uphold the constitution, to enforce the normative values of his constituents, and to ensure the people’s liberties are protected from the impulsive whims of a counter- majoritarian and unrepresentative legislature. People need to know that large, powerful, civic institutions like the court are working on their behalf and are not held captive by dark money interest groups. To that end, the proper role of the judge who is confronted with a hastily written law that limits the rights and invades the privacy of the people of Wisconsin is to approach the law with skepticism. Whether the law limits the rights of pregnant people to have medical care or of LGBTQ+ people to live their lives without unnecessary interference by the state, a judge should be open to hearing challenges to any new law that severely restricts people’s rights and, when faced with a close call, should err on the side of protecting the liberty interest of those he presides over. I believe a judge should have an overarching goal when it comes to incarceration and the protection of the public. When the legislature abolished the parole board and instituted truth in sentencing, the courts were infused with a mandate to exercise additional control over the amount of time defendants spend in prison. I believe we need to send fewer people to prison, and we need their prison sentences to be shorter. Sending one person to prison disrupts multiple lives in the community, and we should be more careful about how we cause those disruptions. I believe that the certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than severe punishment, and I believe we will not heal the ills of society by incarcerating more people. There are competing interests at hand and no easy solutions. However, the proper role of the judge involves taking a position on these issues and being mindful of the court’s responsibility to exercise additional control over the amount of time defendants spend in prison. Finally, the proper role of the judge involves recognizing the inherent advantage that repeat players have and listening with empathy and humility. Many of the people who access the court are indigent and unrepresented. They are novices within the system, and they lack the communication skills and social signifiers to show the court that they are doing the best with what they have got. They deserve a judge who will listen to what they have to say. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|