Department of Corrections battles with Division of Hearings and Appeals in Supreme Court argument4/2/2025  By Alexandria Staubach
A Department of Corrections lawsuit that could change evidentiary requirements in probation revocation hearings landed in the Supreme Court for oral arguments in late March. Whether and to what extent probationers maintain minimal rights to confrontation is at stake. The case concerns the overturning by the Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA) of an administrative law judge’s decision to revoke Keyo Sellers’ probation. Attorney Clayton Kawski represented the DOC at oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Attorney Elizabeth Pierson appeared on behalf of the DHA at the hearing. Attorney Daniel Drigot appeared on behalf of Sellers. The DHA is a quasi-judicial, independent entity within the Department of Administration that oversees a panel of administrative law judges, including those who preside over probation revocation hearings. In the DHA’s opinion, the judge had revoked Sellers’ probation on scant, inadmissible evidence. In June 2019, Sellers was placed on probation for a drug conviction. Almost three years later, the DOC initiated revocation proceedings after Sellers was charged with sexual assault and other violations. According to the allegations described in court filings, Sellers, while masked, sexually assaulted an unnamed victim, stole $30 from her, and returned to her home a week later as shown on home security footage. The victim could not identify him definitively, but both his probation officer and ex-wife identified him in the home security footage and made out-of-court statements. Sellers denied the sexual assault and trespass on the victim’s property. At the probation revocation proceedings, the ALJ considered Y-STR DNA evidence. Y-STR DNA evidence is inherently less specific that usual DNA evidence, as it compares DNA location on the Y chromosome exclusively. DNA collected from the victim after the sexual assault indicated that Sellers was among the one out of all 278 African American males, or one out of 389 African American males in Milwaukee, with a consistent profile. According to Kawski, the DOC declined to call the victim to testify at the revocation proceeding, and did not even ask her to testify, out of concern that testifying would “re-traumatize” her and because she could not definitively identify Sellers as her assailant. The ALJ presiding over the hearing believed that the Y-STR DNA evidence coupled with the out-of-court, “hearsay” statements of the probation officer and ex-wife were sufficient to find it more likely than not that Sellers committed the crimes and therefore revoked Sellers' probation. Sellers appealed the ALJ’s decision to DHA, which found that without testimony from the victim, the only credible evidence of non-consent to the trespass and sexual assault was inadmissible hearsay, which deprived Sellers of his constitutional right to confrontation. The DHA believed that the DOC’s decision not to call the victim as a witness was not due to any “difficulty, expense, or other barrier to obtaining live testimony,” as required under the legal standard of “good cause” for not calling her. The good-cause standard protects an individual’s limited right to confrontation in probation revocation cases. The revocation proceedings before the administrative law judge occurred separately from proceedings on the merits of the charges in court. Ultimately, Sellers was convicted at trial and sentenced to more than 30 years in prison. “So why are we here?” asked Justice Jill Karofsky about the appeal on the revocation matter. “He owes the state more time,” said Kawski. He added that the case in front of the Supreme Court was the only thing maintaining the DOC’s supervision of Sellers on the old drug case. Kawski also argued that the Supreme Court had not opined about the standard governing evidence at probation revocation hearings in more than a decade. “Without relying on the hearsay evidence of the victim, which (the administrative law judge) couldn’t do without violating Mr. Sellers’ constitutional rights, the rest of the allegations did not prove DOC’s allegations,” Pierson argued in response. “To show good cause . . . they have to show that there is a difficulty, expense, or other barrier and then that gets balanced against the constitutional rights of the accused,” said Pierson. Oral arguments focused heavily on the sufficiency of the evidence and whether the DOC had good cause for not calling the victim to testify at the revocation hearing. Chief Justice Ziegler and Justices Rebecca Dallet, Janet Protasiewicz and Jill Karofsky are all former prosecutors. Dallet and Karofsky said the “unfamiliar” DNA evidence probably cut against DOC. “You’re putting a lot of weight in the reliability of the proffered evidence,” Karofsky said to Kawski. However, she also remarked that avoiding re-traumatization of the victim “feels like that fits the exception” for good cause. Kawski repeatedly insisted on the sufficiency of the DNA evidence and said “the more reliable the evidence is, the less is necessary for the state to show.” Pierson said the DHA relied on the fact that the victim was never even asked to testify. “There was nothing to suggest that she was asked and declined,” Pierson said. “We need something more than DOC’s word,” she said. Pierson insisted that however the court applies the standard governing good cause, “it cannot be that low.” Drigot insisted at oral argument that the DOC was asking the court to create an exception for out-of-court statement use at probation revocation hearings that does not currently exist. A finding that good cause excused the DOC from calling or even asking the victim to testify would be “an opinion on whether that’s what the law should be, but not the rule right now,” said Drigot. The justices gave no hints on where they will land, though Justice Brian Hagedorn said he was “not convinced we need to change (the standard) in any way.”
0 Comments
 By Margo Kirchner
Just nine judicial races across Wisconsin were contested in yesterday's elections. Susan Crawford’s win in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race of course made headlines in Wisconsin and nationally. But what happened in the other eight races, all in circuit court? Here are the results based on still-unofficial reports from the respective counties. The Marinette County and Racine County outcomes were quite close. Jefferson County Branch 1: Incumbent Will Gruber beat challenger John Jack Chavez almost two to one in the vote count. Jefferson County Branch 2: Incumbent Theresa Beck held off challenger Jennifer Weber, with only about 1,100 votes separating them. La Crosse County: Joe Veenstra edged out Eric Sanford for an open seat on the bench, with about 1,500 votes separating them. Marinette County: Incumbent Peggy Miller held off challenger DeShea Morrow, winning by just 138 votes out of almost 14,000 votes cast in that race. Racine County: Challenger Jamie McClendon beat incumbent Jon Frederickson by just 55 votes out of more than 60,000 votes cast in that race. St. Croix County: Brian T. Smestad prevailed over Heather M. Amos for an open seat, with a difference of about 2,750 votes. Waukesha County Branch 4: Challenger David Maas won against incumbent Bridget Schoenborn, 51.4% to 48.1%, with about 5,500 votes separating them. Waukesha County Branch 6: Zach Wittchow prevailed over former judge Fred Strampe, 57.9% to 41.7%, for the open seat currently held by Brad Schimel. By Margo Kirchner As reported by WJI in its "Walker's judges" post on Brad Schimel and by various reporters in late 2018, no formal written application from Schimel appears to exist regarding his 2018 appointment as Waukesha County Circuit Court judge. But even outside of a formal application, written records regarding his appointment are scarce. A recent public records request by Wisconsin Justice Initiative sought copies of Schimel's application and the applications of all finalists for the position. The documents provided by the governor's office in response contained no written application from Schimel but did contain his recommendations of four others for the position. WJI's public records request also asked the governor's office for copies of any records, including emails and other correspondence, between Schimel and then-Gov. Scott Walker or his staff regarding the appointment. WJI received one page of records in response to that portion of its requests, with just the few lines of text messages shown in the image below. Paul Connell was the deputy attorney general under Schimel and Katie Ignatowski was Walker's chief legal counsel in November 2018.  That's it. That appears to be the whole written record preceding Schimel's judicial appointment.
Schimel had lost his statewide reelection campaign for attorney general on Nov. 6, 2018. Walker announced Schimel's appointment as judge on Nov. 20, 2018. By Alexandria Staubach Let’s talk about the other judicial races. While the Supreme Court race has garnered national attention and millions in spending, next week’s ballots also include 53 other judicial candidates. WJI’s blog is archived back to late 2015, and we’ve previously published information on most candidates. Whether it’s coverage of their written opinions, appointment applications to Gov. Evers and former Gov. Walker, or in the case of Lena Taylor coverage of their record in the Wisconsin Legislature, we’ve written something on everyone you’ll find below. Information about judicial candidates can be hard to find and old good information is better than no information. Even if you’ve got an uncontested race on your ticket, WJI encourages you to find your candidates below and check out our previous coverage of them! And of course we’ve written about Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel, too. Look for their names in the categories to the right. COURT OF APPEALS District 2 Mark Gundrum https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/gundrum-derided-settlement-to-end-inmate-abuse https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walking-faster-is-hot-pursuit-appeals-judge-says https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judge-gundrum-oks-language-state-rep-gundrum-proposed https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-strikes-down-seizure-overreach https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/state-appeals-court-strikes-down-wisconsin-diversity-aid-grant-program https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/illegal-questioning-taint-disappears-in-minutes-court-says https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-expands-allowable-owi-car-searches https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/racine-firm-improperly-discriminated-because-of-a-criminal-conviction-appeals-panel-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-reverses-brad-schimel-in-open-meetings-case https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/its-ok-to-lie-to-trick-cognitively-challenged-man-to-get-a-confession-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/15-year-old-waived-to-adult-court-forburglary https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/man-can-be-charged-as-adult-with-crimes-he-committed-at-9 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/once-again-most-judicial-races-lack-competitors https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-chides-kenosha-da-excludes-a-dozen-witnesses District 3 Lisa K Stark https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wow-there-are-limits-to-4th-amendment-loopholes https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-february-court-of-appeals-roundup https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-appeals-court-in-january-final-roundup https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/community-caretaker-search-claim-slapped-down-by-appeals-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/mowing-grass-does-not-require-diggers-hotline-call-appeals-panel-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/post-polygraph-interview-invalidates-confession-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/supreme-court-gets-juvenile-lifers-cases https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/juror-totally-clueless-was-not-confused-appeals-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-scales-of-justice-an-appeals-court-fish-story https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-reads-law-narrowly-denying-confidential-name-change-for-transgender-man https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-declines-to-adopt-new-exception-in-dog-sniff-case https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/police-improperly-prolonged-traffic-stop-to-investigate-for-drugs-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judge-showed-improper-bias-appeals-panel-says District 4 Jennifer Nashold https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/breach-of-plea-agreement-ineffective-assistance https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-uphold-surcharges-for-crimes-not-charged https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/probation-violations-end-criminal-record-expungement-chances-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/once-again-most-judicial-races-lack-competitors https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/state-court-of-appeals-punts-on-marsys-law https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-panel-rules-cars-marijuana-or-cdb-smell-did-not-justify-search-of-driver https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wisconsin-court-of-appeals-oks-resurrection-of-dismissed-conviction-in-impaired-driving-case https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/juneau-county-must-honor-nonprosecution-agreement-of-former-prosecutor-appeals-court-rules CONTESTED CIRCUIT COURT RACES Jefferson County Branch 1 Will Gruber (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-upholds-suppression-of-evidence-based-on-improper-seizure https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-jefferson-county-circuit-court-branch-1 John Jack Chavez https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-jefferson-county-circuit-court-branch-1 Jefferson County Branch 2 Theresa Beck https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-theresa-a-beck https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-jefferson-county-judicial-primary Jennifer L. Weber https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-jefferson-county-judicial-primary La Crosse County Joe Veenstra https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-la-crosse-county-circuit-court5900469 Eric Sanford https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-la-crosse-county-circuit-court5900469 Marinette County Peggy Miller (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-peggy-l-miller https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-marinette-county-circuit-court DeShea Morrow https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-marinette-county-circuit-court Racine County Jon Frederickson (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-jon-e-fredrickson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-racine-county-circuit-court3633505 Jamie McClendon https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-racine-county-circuit-court3633505 Waukesha County Branch 4 Bridget Schoenborn (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-bridget-j-schoenborn https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-4 David Maas https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-brad-d-schimel https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-4 Waukesha County Branch 6 Zach Wittchow https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-6 Fred Strampe https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-fred-strampe https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-6 UNCONTESTED CIRCUIT COURT RACES Brown County Tammy Jo Hock https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-reads-law-narrowly-denying-confidential-name-change-for-transgender-man Samantha Wagner https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-samantha-s-wagner Crawford County Lukas Steiner https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-lukas-l-steiner Dane County Payal Khandhar https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-payal-khandhar Rhonda L. Lanford https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/case-challenging-recent-constitutional-amendments-continues https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-feb-3-2022 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/eau-claires-gabler-most-reversed-judge-in-2016 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/lawsuit-challenging-cash-bail-amendments-gets-hearing-in-dane-county-circuit-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/36-judges-call-for-defense-lawyer-pay-hikes https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-april-13-2022 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-july-18-2022 Eau Claire County Douglas Hoffer https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-douglas-j-hoffer Green County Jane Bucher https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-jane-e-bucher La Crosse County Ramona A. Gonzalez https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-february-court-of-appeals-roundup https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-june-1-2022 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judges-ask-state-supreme-court-to-limit-juvenile-shackling Lafayette County Jenna Gill https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-jenna-gill https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/breach-of-plea-agreement-ineffective-assistance Milwaukee County John Remington https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-john-r-remington https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/a-significant-number-of-new-judges-in-milwaukee-county David Swanson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/ceasar-stinsons-widow-estate-win-open-records-appeal William Pocan https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/no-unemployment-benefits-for-worker-who-made-homophobic-remarks-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/a-significant-number-of-new-judges-in-milwaukee-county https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/chief-judge-triggiano-reports-on-the-state-of-milwaukee-county-circuit-court Laura A. Crivello https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-laura-a-crivello https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-alexandria-staubach-reports-for-jury-duty https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/state-supreme-court-accepting-comments-on-juvenile-shackling-petition https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judges-ask-state-supreme-court-to-limit-juvenile-shackling https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wji-other-organizations-back-rule-to-limit-juvenile-shackling-in-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/defendant-wins-a-habeas-hearing-seventh-circuit-blasts-state-courts-attorney-generals-office Danielle Shelton https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-win-gives-danielle-shelton-huge-boost-in-milwaukee-county-circuit-court-branch-40-win https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-county-judicial-candidates-jones-and-shelton-discuss-their-judicial-philosophies https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-county-sheriffs-video-policy-unreasonable-appeals-court-says https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-county-judicial-candidates-jones-shelton-on-best-supreme-court-decisions Lena Taylor https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-lena-c-taylor https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/video-january-2023-salon-with-candidates-for-milwaukee-municipal-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/majority-in-mba-lawyer-poll-say-kelly-taylor-not-qualified https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/lawmakers-seek-funding-for-a-42-million-juvenile-prison https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/bill-limiting-prosecutor-discretion-heads-to-governor-for-signature https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/lawmakers-disagree-on-scope-and-effect-of-revocation-bill https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/slavery-lives-on-in-wisconsin Ozaukee County Adam Gerol https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-adam-y-gerol Racine County Scott Craig https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-scott-p-craig Rock County Karl R. Hanson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-karl-r-hanson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judge-ignores-court-of-appeals-sentences-on-dismissed-charge https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wisconsin-court-of-appeals-oks-resurrection-of-dismissed-conviction-in-impaired-driving-case
"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: Gregory J. Jerabek
Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 15, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point High School – Roncalli High, Manitowoc, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2005-present – Attorney-Shareholder, Nash Law Group S.C. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I have a general practice which includes, or at times has included: criminal defense, municipal prosecution, civil litigation, personal injury litigation, collections, probate, estate planning, real estate transactions, bankruptcy, guardianships, guardian ad litem appointments, family law, termination of parental rights , CHIPS, employment discrimination/harassment, unemployment, social security disability, appeals, and juvenile law. Describe typical clients: My clients have come from diverse backgrounds. I do not believe that I have “specialized” in one area of law or another, or in any particular type of client. I provide a wide-range of practice areas which as allowed me to provide practical solutions across several areas of the law to a complete spectrum of clients. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 30 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: The interest of C.J.O., Wood County Case . . . In 2020, I was the lawyer for a mother and her husband who wanted to adopt his 10-year-old stepson. Despite not having any semblance of a relationship with the child, the natural father contested the termination of his rights and subsequent adoption. This case stands out as significant to me for several reasons. First, it was one of the first jury trials held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selecting a jury and trying a case while masked presented a unique set of challenges. Second, due to the pandemic, the case was delayed beyond time limits, obviously for good cause; however, despite cause, the added strain that this put on my clients makes the case stand out. Third, the jury returned with a verdict finding grounds to terminate in under fifteen minutes, which makes the case a significant moment in my career. IN RE THE MATTER OF DISCIPTINARY ACTION BY THE CITY OF NEKOOSA AGAINST MARK KANE Nekoosa Ambulance Disciplinary Hearing . . . In October of 2020, I was appointed by the City of Nekoosa to act as an Impartial Hearing Officer to review the decision of Nekoosa Ambulance Service in demoting Mark Kane from a Lieutenant position following an allegation of sexual harassment. A hearing was held on November 18, 2020. This was significant as it was my first experience as an impartial hearing officer. I was careful to construct a solid record, advised the appellant of his right to have counsel present as well as advising the appellant that as the hearing officer, I could not act on his behalf. I issued a written decision (attached as a writing sample to this application) approximately three weeks following the hearing. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have had in excess of 50 unemployment and sexual harassment proceedings during my career to Wisconsin Administrative Law Judges, for both employees and employers. In every case, I have acted as the lawyer from initial contact through any appeal. I have also had Social Security disability hearings on behalf of applicants whose applications were previously denied. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have participated in countless mediations, some as representation for the parties, but several as the mediator in both family law/placement matters, as well as civil litigation. As a mediator, I have been successful in resolving every case in which I was involved. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered for the judicial campaigns of both Timothy Gebert (Wood County) and Jeffrey Wisnicky (Kewaunee County). Previous runs for public office: Kewaunee County District Attorney, 2004, received approximately 44% of vote All public offices to which you were appointed or elected: Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, appointed, 2010-2017 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Timothy S. Gebert, Wood Country Circuit Court Judge, 2023 Jeffrey R. Wisnicky, Kewaunee County Circuit Court Judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wood County Crime Stoppers, secretary, 2019-present United Way of South Wood and Adams County, board of directors, 2007-2012 Boys & Girls Club of the Wisconsin Rapids Area, board of directors, 2006-2008, 2014-2017; president 2017-2018 Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, 2010-2017; president 2015-2017 Howe Elementary PTC, president, 2016-2017 Wood County Bar Association, president, 2009-2014 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have filed several bankruptcy cases on a pro bono basis and I routinely waive associated fees for serving as a Guardian ad Litem in adoption cases (child and adult). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I believe that the opportunity to serve as a judge is a profound privilege and have worked the entirety of my twenty-year career intentionally gaining the broad-based experience necessary to effectively and meaningfully serve. I submit my application, not for personal financial gain or a desire to be addressed as "your honor", but to serve the people of Wood County Wisconsin with integrity and intention. Except for my time in law school, I have lived my life in Wisconsin. Born in small-town Wisconsin to loving, humble, hard-working parents, I developed a strong sense of community, founded on the principles of morality, honesty, strong work ethic, and accountability. I strive to utilize this strong foundation in my daily life and work. I am proud of who I am, but not too prideful to admit my mistakes, then to address and learn from them. I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to do the same, including litigants in the criminal justice system, without being summarily branded irredeemable. I believe that this sense of responsibility toward humanity, in concert with a strong sense of practicality, will allow me to best serve the families of Wood County. For example: placement matters often become more about who "wins", ignoring the reality that there is no winner when parents fight over a child, rather than what is in the best interest of the child. In these situations, my intent is to foster the collaborative efforts necessary to limit the exposure of children to high conflict placement situations. Though it is impractical to outline a multitude of examples, I re-emphasize my global desire to serve in a way that provides a positive and lasting impact on my community. I believe that, given my background and intentions, my greatest opportunity to do so is as a judge. In this role, my dedication will be to the application of law, with efficient, practical, and direct administration of justice. 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. There is no doubt that most, if not all, Wisconsinites place great value on family. Because of this core value, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Michels v. Lyons (In re A.A.L.), 2019 WI 57, has had a significant positive and negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, expanding rights for parents, and curtailing them for grandparents. For many years I routinely handled grandparent visitation cases, both on behalf of petitioning grandparents and responding parents. In many of these cases, the matter was routine, and grandparents were usually given some dedicated time with their grandchildren. Although the time was usually quite limited, the relationship would be preserved, and the child would have the benefit of another source of trusted care. In Michels v. Lyons, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a petitioning grandparent is required to overcome the presumption in favor of a fit parent's placement decisions with clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest. This changed the burden of proof in grandparent visitation cases and likely altered the routine nature of grandparent visitation petitions permanently. I have tremendous respect for Justice Dallett's majority opinion, and the constitutional analysis of the precedent on this issue is thorough and on point. I would agree that the several grandparent visitation statutes are constitutional on their face but are unconstitutional as applied in Michels v. Lyons. Given the fundamental liberty interest at stake (a parent's right to raise their children), the higher clear and convincing standard is appropriate. I also agree, as Justice Dallett wrote, that "[a] circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a fit parent, even if it disagrees with the parent's decision." 2019 WI 57 ¶ 37. This decision ultimately gives parents more authority to dictate who may or may not have contact with their children. In most of the grandparent visitation cases I handled, the parent(s) of the child had legitimate concerns for wanting to limit the grandparents contact with the child. In those cases, a parent should decide what is best for their child without interference from the courts. However, there are some cases where a fit parent cuts off a loving and supportive grandparent simply out of spite, which tragically can have a negative consequence on not only the grandparents, but more importantly, the child. Fortunately, circuit courts are left with the discretion of what evidence is clear and convincing to overcome the presumption set forth in Michels v. Lyons. So long as a judge can appreciate that their opinion about the parent's decision is not part of the analysis, it is possible to still find that grandparent visitation, despite the objections of a parent, is still in the child's best interest. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: First is retired Wood County Circuit Court Judge, James Mason. I spent the first six years of my practice routinely appearing in front of Judge Mason. His cordialness to the bar, sense of importance ascribed to every case, and attention to case details, were remarkable. Judge Mason afforded the smallest of matters, such as traffic or small claims, the same time and dedication he provided to the most serious. Judge Mason impressed upon me that the court's time was not his time, rather it was the litigant's, and time was never wasted when being utilized to obtain the relevant facts necessary to render a decision in accordance with the law. In my years of practice, his attention to rendering a thoughtful decision based on the law, without injecting opinion, has been unparalleled. Judge Mason exemplified what I believe a circuit court judge ought to be. Second is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who I consider to be one of the founders of our modern understanding of free speech. I, as he, believe that freedom of speech is our most important fundamental liberty interest and is also the most often attacked. These attacks often come in the form of outcries that speech constitutes violence or hate, or in the form of books banned from schools in the name of opinion and public protection. I see these issues as an assault on free speech, which is ultimately harmful to the whole of society. I try to impress upon and exemplify, to my children and stepchildren, the importance of the free exchange of ideas, even in cases where a vast majority of people would find the ideas offensive or hurtful. When any speech is suppressed, we are all chained to that suppression. Justice Brandeis detailed it best when he wrote, "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears . . . if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." The proper role of a judge: A judge should ensure the efficient and thorough adjudication of the court system, providing every case timely due consideration, yet efficiently and effectively respecting the schedule and those it impacts. Efficient administration, recognition, and respect assist in maintaining the people's confidence in the judicial system. As exemplified by Judge James Mason, cordial treatment of all parties and their counsel is foundational to a respected courtroom. A judge should help ensure that both represented and unrepresented individuals receive fair treatment under the law. To a judge, it may just be another small claims case, a minor dispute over placement time, or a bond modification hearing, but to the parties, it may be the most significant aspect of their life. Therefore, all cases and parties should be treated with respect and given the time they deserve. A judge should follow the rule of law without deference to opinion or emotion. Every judge has personal experiences that may influence their decisions, but strict adherence to the law limits the risk of unpredictable decisions which do not conform to the law. A judge should be truly neutral and impartial and never let any personal bias overcome the need to be consistent. A judge should act as a safeguard against violations of an individual's rights, but also rule with deference to the State's level of interest, victims of offenses, and the need to protect the public. Careful considerations must be made in every case but balanced against the need for consistency by the judiciary. A judge should be respectful of the fact that his or her job is to ensure that the law is applied as written and intended, not as they see fit in a particular case. By Alexandria Staubach
The Supreme Court recently voted 4-3 to increase an annual assessment on Wisconsin attorneys that funds civil legal services for those who cannot pay. A $50 public interest legal services assessment has been on the books since 2005 as part of annual fees for Wisconsin attorneys. The assessment will increase to $75 for two years then to $100. Retied Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Richard Sankovitz spoke on behalf of the petitioners, eight legal service providers or supporters, at a March 13 hearing on the request for the increase. He stressed that a steady stream of revenue to those providing free or reduce cost civil legal services is essential to continuity of service. The reliability of the funds from the attorney assessment is one of its essential features, especially in a landscape where groups otherwise rely on discretionary grants that vary from year to year, he said. At least 3,000 people are aided by the funds from the assessment each year, Sankovitz said. He described how the funding provides direct legal services for individuals on matters ranging from access medical care coverage to temporary restraining orders for domestic violence victims. There was near unanimous agreement in the Supreme Court hearing room that the Legislature should be doing more to support legal services for those who cannot afford attorneys. But the Legislature has appropriated funds only once in the assessment’s 20-year history, Sankovitz said. At the recent hearing, as in 2005, some justices questioned whether such a fee is constitutional. At oral arguments, Justice Brian Hagedorn said he was “sympathetic to the idea that this is an unconstitutional tax.” “What limits are there on our power to raise funds?” he asked. Hagedorn also expressed concerns that some of the nonprofits that receive funds provided from the assessment may have ideological stances that attorneys disagree with. Are we not “asking attorneys to subsidize work they may not agree with?” he asked. “There is no stopping point,” said Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley. She said she was sympathetic to the cause because her family could not afford needed civil legal services when she was young. But “we went without,” she said. At the justices’ open conference following oral arguments, Justice Janet Protasiewicz moved to adopt the measure. The assessment will address “a pressing need,” she said. A court majority then determined that in the absence of Legislative funding it was appropriate to continue the assessment and approve the increase. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was the only current justice on the bench when the rule was originally adopted in 2005. She said she was voting for the measure because the bench and bar have “an ethical obligation” to ensure “the quality of legal representation.” While Chief Justice Annette Zeigler ultimately voted against the petition, she said “on a personal level I can’t say I am disappointed that these services will continue to be funded.” Wisconsin Justice Initiative submitted written support of the petition to increase the assessment, and WJI Board member James Gramling spoke on behalf of WJI at the hearing on the petition. Gramling said “the pro bono efforts that are made by members of the State Bar are huge, but they are not enough to address the need.” In its letter, WJI highlighted that legal representation “assists the court by streamlining proceedings, providing otherwise pro se litigants with explanations of procedures and law, reducing the need for law clerks and judges to conduct research, and getting to the heart of a case and to judgment more quickly.” Many other organizations and individuals shared WJI’s support for the petition in writing or at the hearing. Waukesha Circuit Court Judge William Domina, who had testified against the introduction of the assessment in 2005, appeared at the hearing now in support. He said that in his 40 years as a Wisconsin attorney and 15 years on the bench he has observed both “an increase in demand” and an “increase in the self-represented.” Domina urged the court to consider “that costs have increased over time and ours will as well.” In written submissions on the petition for the fee increase, only one writer, an attorney, opposed the measure, while 33 supported it. Another entity, the State Bar of Wisconsin, submitted a response that did not take a “binary position” entirely for or against the petition. Instead, the State Bar presented the results of a survey of its 18,000 members. The survey, to which roughly 17% of Wisconsin attorneys responded, showed that 65% opposed the increase. “(A)s an organization representing Members with divided opinions on this subject,” though, the State Bar also presented in its written submission some of the arguments its members expressed for and against. State Bar President Ryan Billings appeared at the hearing on the petition as well and highlighted the views of State Bar members opposing the petition. He said that funding civil legal services was the right to thing to do but that it was a “question of what is the appropriate mechanism.” Billings, and the court’s more conservative justices, thought funding for civil legal services was the responsibility of the Legislature.  By Margo Kirchner The April 1 ballot presents voters with yet another bad proposed constitutional amendment. Here’s what to know about it and why you should vote “no.” First, here’s a quick summary of general guidelines for ballot questions on proposed constitutional amendments. For a more in-depth discussion of these general guidelines, see this blog post from last year.
Now, on to this particular ballot question and proposed amendment. The question reads: “Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?” The actual amendment limits the types of acceptable photo identification to those that are issued by:
The amendment adds that the Legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification and exceptions to the requirement under the constitutional provision. It also includes a provision that a qualified elector unable to present valid photographic identification on election day must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot that can be counted if the elector presents a valid photographic ID within the time and at the place set by the Legislature. Note that the ID must be valid and photographic, whether presented at the time of voting or later to cure a provisional ballot. No expired licenses would be constitutionally acceptable. No social security cards or nonphotographic IDs would be constitutionally acceptable. This proposed amendment passed along party lines in at the start of the current legislative session. All 54 Republican Assembly representatives voted in favor, while all 45 Democratic Assembly representatives voted against. In the Senate, 17 Republicans voted in favor, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Don’t fall for messaging that makes you fear voter fraud. There is no need for this amendment. It is based on a contrived issue and already covered by a statute. Proponents of the amendment pull out an unsubstantiated mantra about election integrity and preventing fraud. Sponsor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), for instance, said in written testimony that “Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement has been widely successful in preserving election integrity and ensuring that citizens are confident that the ballots cast are legitimate.” But voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. A study by The Washington Post and cited by the Brennan Center in this report found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation fraud in more than 1 billion votes nationwide over a 14-years period. Doing the math, that’s 0.0000031% of the time. Another study, conducted as part of an investigative project centered in the Arizona State University journalism school found just 10 cases of voter impersonation nationwide from 2000 to 2012. "With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters," the reporters wrote. In addition, the voter ID law already exists in a Wisconsin statute, and according to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and National Conference of State Legislatures it’s one of the strictest in the nation because the ID has to be photographic and valid. Per the LRB, although 36 states request or require voters to present some form of identification to vote, in most states photographic ID is not required or else there is a procedure to allow voters without an ID to vote. Not so here. An important point to consider regarding this proposed amendment: because of the voter ID law already in place, the people who can’t get acceptable identification cards will not be able to vote on it. Please consider voting ”no” on their behalf. There is no reasonable purpose for this provision to be added to the Wisconsin Constitution . . . unless one is worried that the law could change someday. Statements by certain Republican legislators indicate that cementing the voter ID law in place against future attacks in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially if Susan Crawford should win this election, is the real reason for the proposed constitutional amendment. The voter ID law cannot violate the state constitution if it’s itself part of that constitution. Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote in written testimony supporting the proposed amendment that “Democratic activists on social media are openly asking someone to challenge Wisconsin’s Voter ID law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court” and that he was “not willing to risk a Wisconsin Supreme Court unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution declaring Voter ID laws unconstitutional.” The Ballotpedia website has reported Rep. Bob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) as saying: “For clarification, photo ID is already required by Wisconsin State Statute. But a ‘yes’ vote would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to include this requirement, which will further protect the integrity of the voting system from our leftist-activist WI Supreme Court.” In addition, placing the voter ID law in the constitution protects it against change should the Legislature someday flip to the Democrats. Amending the state constitution is a years-long process that takes substantial effort. Amending or repealing a statute is far easier. The state constitution should not be changed for political reasons from a document guaranteeing rights to one that restricts rights, especially when a statute already is in place, the purported problem is nonexistent, and some voters will be denied the ability to vote. Disenfranchisement is more prevalent than voter impersonation fraud, though difficult to measure. John Johnson from the Marquette University Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education recently conducted an analysis of Wisconsin population and driver’s license data to arrive at an estimate that somewhere between zero and 6% of adult Wisconsin residents lack a Department of Motor Vehicles photographic ID card. That translates into up to about 290,000 individuals, Johnson said. He found that young adults not enrolled in college and adults living in poverty are the two groups most likely negatively impacted by the voter photo ID requirement. In written testimony opposing the proposed amendment, the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources wrote that “(o)lder voters who lack an acceptable photo ID for voting may not have the availability, financial resources, or mobility to obtain the necessary ID; those who are rural or low-income may face significant barriers obtaining the needed documentation.” All Voting is Local Action wrote that “(e)nshrining voter ID in Wisconsin's constitution risks disenfranchising voters, especially marginalized groups, addresses nonexistent voter fraud, and diverts focus from real issues. Existing laws work—this amendment adds barriers and harms democracy.” In his written statement of support of the proposed amendment, Wanggaard asserted that “(c)ontrary to claims made when Voter ID was passed, the law has not resulted in voter suppression. In fact, voter participation has increased since being implemented in 2014.” But he cited no authority for the assertion and ignored the possibility that voter participation increased because of the contentious elections in 2016, 2020, 2023, and 2024, and that it would have increased more (and possibly resulted in different outcomes) had the voter ID law not been in effect. Numerous organizations have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment, with several signing a joint letter published as a full-page advertisement in the Journal Sentinel in February. This is the third round of proposed amendments in the last 12 months targeting the state constitution’s suffrage provisions. Here's the full text of the proposed amendment: Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this section. (2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law. The following lists are based on the entities that registered in favor or against the proposed amendment during its second round through the Legislature or signed the joint letter that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The list is not meant to reflect all entities that may support or oppose the proposed amendment.
By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently found that a state statute and corresponding grant program for immigrants and students of color are unconstitutional. The Higher Educational Aid Board Minority and Undergraduate Retention Program offers grants from $25 to $2500 per year to Black, Native American, and Hispanic students plus immigrants from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam admitted to the United States after 1975.  Gundrum Presiding Judge Mark Gundrum wrote the lengthy opinion, joined by Judges Shelly A. Grogan and Maria S. Lazar in District 2. The decision upheld the ruling of former Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge William F. Hue.
In finding the program unlawful, the appeals court relied almost exclusively on a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) holding that race-based affirmative action college admissions programs violate the equal protection clause. Gundrum spent 10 of the 53 pages of the opinion reiterating the high court’s decision. “With the grant program, the legislature did not simply enact another financial aid program for all financially needy students; rather, it specifically and intentionally targeted students who were members of certain racial, national origin, ancestry and alienage groups,” Gundrum said. The program has been in existence since 1985. The Higher Educational Aid Board said the program was designed to keep the diverse recipients from dropping out because of financial hardship—a national phenomenon that persists today. The appeals court rejected the argument that addressing such an issue could be a “compelling state interest” as required by the legal standard for race-based laws. When asked at oral argument whether the board had “'any case law support that says improving retention and graduation rates for certain minority groups but not others is a compelling state interest,'” the board’s counsel said they hoped “'this court issues the first opinion.'” “That is a big ask,” wrote Gundrum. The appeals court found that the board “failed to show that improving retention/graduation rates of students in the preferred racial, national origin, ancestry and alienage groups at Wisconsin private and technical colleges or mitigating the disparity in those rates between students in the preferred groups and students in nonpreferred groups constitutes a compelling government interest.” Gundrum quoted the U.S. Supreme Court, adding his own emphasis, saying that “’no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” In Jefferson County, Branch 1 incumbent Will Gruber is challenged by attorney John Jack A. Chavez. The election is April 1. Gruber was appointed to Jefferson County Circuit Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 and won election to a full term in 2019. He previously was the city attorney for Watertown, assistant corporation counsel for Dodge County, and an attorney in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2004. His resume is here. Chavez is an attorney at Chavez Law Office LLC in Lake Mills, Wisconsin. He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 1990. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Gruber responded to WJI's questionnaire. Chavez did not. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Will Gruber
Why do you want to retain your position as a judge? I have been a Circuit Court Judge in Branch 1 of Jefferson County since August 2018. I have tried or presided over 38 jury trials as a lawyer or judge. As a judge I have been assigned to hear and decide hundreds of cases across every subject matter and jurisdiction including criminal, civil, family, probate and juvenile law. I presided over the Alcohol and Drug Treatment Courts in 2023. I wish to retain my role as Circuit Court Judge because the work is deeply fulfilling and aligned with my aptitudes and commitment to ensuring fair play and due process in the courtroom. Personal satisfaction comes by way of service to others and the rule of law. The impacts of my decisions and actions are routinely experienced in direct, visible, and, therefore, rewarding ways. Rarely does a week go by where I am not left to reflect on the individual human impacts brought about by being called-up to further the protection of life and fundamental legal rights. The judge and the advocate make-up our adversarial legal system; neither role is fundamentally superior to the other. That being said, my basic strengths and broader interest in the system, as a whole, have always suited me for “calling balls and strikes” (not “pitching and hitting”). At the most basic level, the responsibility of a judge is to make sure others play by the rules. I believe that administering the law from a place of accountability requires that a judge impose the same demands on himself or herself. Not every candidate for judicial office demonstrates commitment to the “form” requirements of judicial office, particularly when it comes to personal behavior and civility. I have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to integrity and answerability. I view the judiciary as a stabilizing force in government and many of the basic operations of society, especially when it comes to furthering institutional integrity. Assuming this sort of responsibility as an occupation is profoundly motivating. After several years on the bench, my dedication to ensuring fairness and due process in our civil and criminal justice systems “feels” very much like a natural station in life. The motivation to do right by my oath comes easy and the calling to do this work is total and complete. There are no doubt a variety of fulfilling lines of work in the legal system, but for me, the daily work as a trial judge truly delivers on the desire for contribution and service. I enjoy going to a job where I am answerable only to the law and the people who have hired me to administer the law. Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why. Both Supreme Courts routinely hand down decisions of enormous legal impact. In selecting and elaborating on only one I place a premium on the recency of the opinion, scale of personal, individual human impact, and relevance to the work and concerns of our local criminal justice systems, parties and victims. I will refer to a case decided last summer by the U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Rahmi upholds the federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) that criminalizes the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Legally and practically this opinion confirmed the ability of the government to disarm violent persons. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined, based on earlier precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the “historic tradition” test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen) that since there was not a late 18th-century parallel to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the law was unconstitutional. In Rahmi, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the lower court was unduly exacting in comparing and contrasting early American law with the modern-day subject legislation. Essentially, the opinion provided that a historical analogue in the law, but not necessarily a “twin,” was necessary to survive Constitutional scrutiny. The Court determined that early American laws that disarmed “dangerous classes” of people, regardless of the form, function or motivation of the early legislation, were sufficiently similar to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). It is not an overstatement to suggest that the result in Rahmi is lifesaving. Domestic violence is, in my estimation, and consistent with my day-to-day experience as a judge, a public health crisis. I observe on an almost daily basis, the proportions of this form of violence. Prosecutors, law enforcement and judges have to be able to utilize laws that protect victims of domestic violence by disarming abusers. Those who have been found to have inflicted physical violence on another are legitimately disarmed by the government thanks to Rahmi. This is a decidedly important decision for victims of domestic violence. Describe your judicial philosophy. My judicial philosophy is simple: apply the laws of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitution and those passed by the legislature to the facts. The judicial branch applies and interprets the law – nothing more, nothing less. The work of the trial judge is directed almost exclusively to the “application” function of the judicial branch; interpreting on a grand scale is rarely occasioned at the circuit court; when it is, the circuit court’s interpretation is often subject to review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. As such, the circuit court’s primary function is “simply” administering the law as written. Many areas of the law are complex, but the essential role of the judiciary, and, especially the trial courts, is simple. The judicial branch is charged with being the most restrained branch of government. During my time on the bench, I have adhered to this essential precept. I am also recognized for my integrity, fairness and basic consideration for others. I actively listen to everyone who wants and deserves a voice in the courtroom. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. Both the criminal and civil justice systems serve vital functions in our society; however, as a circuit court judge, the most significant cases I have been involved in are prosecutions brought by the State on behalf of the public. These are often cases where the safety of many are made vulnerable by the behavior of a few. These are cases where there is a mandate, regardless of public appeal, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all, including the accused, are safeguarded. These are cases where our juries search for the truth and often deliver a result that leaves for the court the responsibility to ensure, among other considerations, that the community is protected. These are cases where I have done right by my obligation to ensure constitutional and statutory protections are safeguarded and, at the same time, the public is protected. It is not possible to cite only two specific cases of this character, but these are the most significant cases I am involved with as a judicial officer. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have practiced privately and as a government lawyer. I have represented individuals, businesses, non-profits and a variety of other interests. As an attorney I have worked for and represented a county and a city; as a circuit court judge, I am employed by the State of Wisconsin and answerable to the people of Jefferson County. I practiced generally in civil, family and probate for six years before government representation with Dodge County as an assistant corporation counsel. In this role, I represented and advised the County with focuses in guardianship, ordinance enforcement, mental health petitions, CHIPS cases, guardianship and protective placement matters. After this position, I was appointed City Attorney for the City of Watertown where I served as in-house counsel to the City and its departments and Common Council. This work involved advising and representing the City in a wide variety of legal and policy interests including local regulation, licensing, tax incremental financing and human resources. I was also responsible for the prosecution of all traffic and ordinance violations, including first offense impaired driving offenses. Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. Last spring I suffered a meniscus tear. This presented as a significant personal challenge. Daily, early morning running has been an anchoring and motivating force for me for very many years. It supports my mental clarity, general “down-regulation” and overall positive emotional responses. Identifying “courage” with the concept of resolution, helps me to describe the challenge as something that required several months of mental perseverance. I had to resolve to re-program my days with alternative times and forms of exercise. I also had to arrive at a core acceptance in denying myself (for several months) what amounted to a long-standing, single means of decompression. I came to learn that running was simply a habituated preference, but not the be all and end all exercise outlet… I continued to live by the other principles of good health and allowed the healing process to culminate on its own terms. Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set? I support the recusal and disqualification requirements of Supreme Court Rules and state statute (Wisconsin SCR 60 and, in particular, SCR 60.04, and, Wis. Stat. § 757.19). I strongly support a judicial officer erring on the side of recusals or disqualification if there’s any doubt, whatsoever, as to whether she or he can sit for a case with the required neutrality, impartiality and fidelity to the law. This is the only right thing to do; this is what is demanded by those who come to court for fair and responsible disposition of cases. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define "true justice" as you see fit.] As of recent, the basic precept of judicial independence and the rule of law itself is commonly burdened by matters of personality and partisanship as well as other negative and distracting influences that have no place in the work of the judiciary. Judges owe it to themselves, individually, and to the institution as a whole, to be ever vigilant and defend against illicit pressures on their independence. I refuse to be involved in partisan enterprises and narratives that undermine the judicial independence. I believe all judicial officers are obligated to regularly call to mind the injunction to rule without fear or favor. Implicit or unconscious bias is its own unique and individualized impediment to furthering the end of the fair application of law. This sort of bias naturally goes along with the human condition. This is not a subject that should inspire debate or defensiveness. The threshold at the path to addressing this impact to impartiality is becoming aware of its reality. In recent years, it has become common to read instructions to juries that call attention to naturally occurring bias. It is just as vital for judicial officers to take seriously the problem of this type of partiality. The court system has taken meaningful steps to bring awareness to this challenge with mandatory judicial education. By Margo Kirchner Comments by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley made in the spin following the candidate debate between Judges Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel make one wonder about civility at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Flanked at a podium by former Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, Grassl Bradley referred to four of her fellow justices as “colleagues,” but her remarks were not collegial. Grassl Bradley called the actions of the four more liberal justices, who now frequently form the majority in decisions, “tyranny.” She claimed that the four are acting politically to deprive the people of their rights and legislative representation. Not once has the new majority ruled against the Democratic governor or attorney general, Grassl Bradley said. She claimed that the conservative majority, to the contrary, did not act politically when they held the power. Grassl Bradley’s fellow justices were in the crowd as she criticized them.
Various rules of judicial conduct and attorney ethics touch on civility and respect for judges:
Regardless of whether Grassl Bradley’s comments crossed any line or rule, such public criticism of fellow justices outside of the context of written decisions was remarkable. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed