Brett Blomme

Why do you want to be a judge?

We have a mass incarceration crisis in our state.  My platform adopts the ACLU “Smart Justice” reforms that aims to decrease the state’s incarcerated population by 50% by 2024.  Nothing in our broken criminal justice system will change if we continue to elect the same type of people judges.  We need to start electing judges who represent diverse experiences.  I have served as attorney with the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s office.  Milwaukee County does not need another former prosecutor serving as a judge.  We need more openly LGBTQ+ leaders in the judiciary.  If elected, I will be only the second openly gay male judge in the entire state.  I am a leader in Milwaukee’s LGBTQ+ community. 

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way.

Roper v. Simmons; 543 U.S. 551 (2005), was one of the best United States Supreme Court cases in recent memory.  The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that it is unconstitutional for juveniles to be subjected to the death penalty for any crimes that occurred prior to reaching 18 years of age.  Likening the practice to executing mentally handicap person as outlined in ​Atkins v. Virginia; 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the court held that the execution of juvenile offenders was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteen Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Even though Wisconsin law does not endorse the use of the death penalty in any criminal proceeding, this case still has very significant ramifications for juvenile offenders in Wisconsin.  This case helps shape the understanding of how the judicial system should treat this demographic of offenders.  The majority cited scientific data regarding the characteristics of adolescents – vulnerability to peer pressure, impulsivity, lack of self-control, lack of temporal perspective and susceptibility to coercion and false confessions.

This decision, I believe, endorses the ability of the Wisconsin Judicial system to use this type of scientific data across all aspects of the juvenile delinquency system.  We have even seen recent legislative efforts here in Wisconsin to codify the prohibition of prosecuting juvenile offenders in the adult criminal system.  I believe this case helped paved the way for these types of legislative movements.  Therefore, this is one of the most significant cases in recent history.

Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty ​years and explain why you feel that way.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is the worst decided case in recent memory.  Many progressives believe this case, which provides a basis for companies to discriminate against woman, could extend to other vulnerable populations and have dangerous consequences for LGBTQ+ communities, immigrant communities, communities of color and others.  It is a very dangerous case.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

The proper role of a judge is to represent the judicial branch of government as the neutral arbitrator of conflict in society.  This is achieved by ensuring that the court is fair and impartial, by allowing all parties’ arguments are heard and considered and by ensuring the production of high quality, well thought out decisions while maintaining high efficiency that moves cases along the judicial process in a timely manner. 
 
First, judges should be fair and impartial.  This is achieved through transparency from the bench.  Within confidentiality limitations, I will work diligently to make certain that the Court is open and accessible to the public.  I will ensure we are providing materials that lay out the criteria and process to pro-se parties and members of the public.  Fairness and impartiality are also achieved by judges conducting themselves as reputable community leaders.  I believe members of the legal community have an obligation to be active and engaged in the civic conversation about building a strong community. 

Next, judges should have a commitment ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to present their arguments to the Court.  I will actively listen to all parties’ legal arguments.  I will make legal findings based on the intended application of the law.  Equally important to ensuring that parties and attorneys feel they have had ample opportunity to present their argument is ensuring the Court operates within its intended function.  The duty of the circuit court is to apply and uphold the rule of law and not create new law by inaccurate or inappropriate interpretations. 
 
Finally, judges should produce quality, well-thought out decisions and rulings and move cases along in timely manner.  Preparation is the key to ensuring that judges produce quality oral and written rulings.  As a judge, I would prepare by staying abreast of the most recent changes in the areas of the law and by familiarizing myself with the pleadings and other parts of the case file.  Efficiency is achieved by working with court staff to continually seek to assess and alter internal procedures. 

Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.​

State v. Bunch – Rock County Case #13CF706 -- Mr. Bunch was Charged with 2 counts of Armed Robbery.  He and his co-defendant set up Facebook ads to sell a computer and then robbed the victims, threatening the use of a weapon.  I was the defense attorney in the case, representing Mr. Bunch. 

State v. Young – Rock County Case #13CF477 & 13CF1311 – Mr. Young was charged with multiple Class C felonies.  I was the defense attorney on the case, representing Mr. Young.   

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and admin-
istrative proceedings.​

My most recent experience was my service as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Madison.  In this role, I prosecuted violations of the City’s ordinance code and traffic violations.  I represented the City in court trials, jury trials, pre-trial conferences, and motion hearings.  I also served as an Assistant State Public Defender in varies counties across Wisconsin.  I represented indigent criminal defendants, juveniles subject to CHIPS or delinquency and individuals facing revocation of probation and/or extended supervision. Through this experience I gained extensive experience representing clients at courtroom hearings including several jury trials and court trials.​

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When ​did the incident(s) occur?

N/A

Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s)​ occur?

N/A

Do you support requiring any justice 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? What contribution limits would you set?​

As judge, I will adhere to the recusal standard in SCR 60.04(4) and will evaluate each circumstance on a case by case basis.  I am not in a position to answer such a hypothetical question.  It is certainly possible that I will have a person bias towards a donor to my campaign that will affect my ability to be impartial.  Should this come up, I will evaluate the specific circumstances.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?​

The biggest obstacle to delivering true justice is the tendency of the judiciary to become insulated and disconnected from the community.  As a judge, I will be committed to staying connected to all parts of our community by attending community meetings and continually educating myself on the good work of our non-profit partners whose work corresponds with the work of the criminal justice system.  As judge, I will not be afraid to stand in the hot kitchen and take the heat for unpopular, but correct, decisions.  We need to stop making decisions in our criminal justice system based on fear and start using facts.

Describe any other information you feel would be helpful.

I have dedicated my career to giving a voice to the voiceless and advocating for may marginalized communities.  I am running for Milwaukee County Circuit Court because Milwaukee deserves to have someone that represents the diverse values of our community.  I am running for Judge because nothing in our broken justice system will change unless we change who we elect as judges.​

           Zach Whitney

​Why do you want to be a judge?

I care deeply about our community and the integrity of our courts. Milwaukee is my home, and it is where my wife, Madeline, and I have chosen to raise our two children, Harvey and Frankie, both students at Milwaukee Public Schools. We live in the Jackson Park neighborhood. We love our parks and the wide array of cultural attractions Milwaukee has to offer. We are fully vested in the city and in investing in Milwaukee’s future.

To that end, I’ve been striving for justice in the Milwaukee County Circuit Courts for over fifteen years. I spent eight years as a Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney, where I focused on prosecuting gun violence and domestic violence. I witnessed how violence tears families and neighborhoods apart. It was hard, emotional work, which shaped my commitment to justice. It is a public service of which I'm proud. It helped me understand that our judicial system can only work when both sides are represented equally and diligently.

Like others attempting to provide for their families, my time serving Milwaukee County was cut short by Act 10, which compelled me to leave public service. Since entering private practice, I've focused on commercial and business litigation. For the last eight years, I've been privileged to represent a wide variety of clients, including many small businesses. It's been an honor to help "main street" navigate the complexities of our civil court system.

​My background as a trial attorney is vast and my knowledge of our courts is deep. I'm running for Branch 5 of the Circuit Court because the people of Milwaukee County deserve to have my insight and progressive voice on the bench. Milwaukee County residents have the right to elect a member of our community, who has the experience, commitment to justice, and work ethic, to serve as our judge. The people of Milwaukee County also have the right to vote for someone who is choosing to reside with his family in this community, thereby contributing to Milwaukee County’s future. I will be a strong voice for the reforms we so deeply need in our criminal justice system. 

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way.
​
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), Chief Justice John Roberts gave one of the most important decisions of the last thirty years. This was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) centering on the requirement for most Americans to have health insurance (the “individual mandate”).

The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional right of the power of Congress and its taxing authority, by a vote of 5-4.

It was argued that the passage of the individual mandate was a use of Congress' Commerce Clause powers. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, disagreed, stating that the Commerce Clause was not a valid defense of the legislation. Yet, the Chief Justice served as the swing vote to uphold the ACA by alternative means: Congress’ taxing authority.

This was one of the best opinions in recent decades for three reasons. First, it showed that the Supreme Court respects the will of Congress as a duly elected representative body of the United States citizenry and, therefore, the Court will attempt to uphold, rather than strike-down, acts of Congress.

Second, the opinion shows that the Court is an independent branch of government with independent voices. It would have been easy for Chief Justice Roberts to default to partisan tendencies and scrap the ACA, but he did his job through his oath and worked to find a reason to uphold the ACA. That cannot be understated.

​Third, this was the beginning of an era of Chief Justice Roberts making attempts to show that the Court is a nonpartisan institution and not a political arm of either the legislative or executive branch. This effort has intensified in more recent years, but it was one of the most visible efforts, by a Chief Justice nonetheless, to depoliticize the Court as a whole. 

​Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty ​years and explain why you feel that way.

In 2015, former Justice Antonin Scalia delivered a dissent saying the majority decision in Obergefell
v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), was a "threat to American democracy." With the majority, the
Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause and Free Exercise
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Scalia’s dissent was one of the worst opinions in the last thirty
years by a Supreme Court Justice.

Scalia stated, "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-
coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” He believed that the majority decision
was a “constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine.” There have been several instances in which he has been a party, where the “unelected committee of nine” has made a decision that fundamentally took away the rights of local governments to rule and govern themselves. His opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which held that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia (contrary to the plain language of the Second Amendment) comes to mind. In Heller, Scalia authored the opinion that struck down Washington D.C.’s efforts to pass reasonable gun control measures. It is with great irony then that in Obergefell Scalia claimed that the majority decision robbed the
American people of the most fundamental liberty found in the Constitution - the freedom to govern
themselves.

Particularly where the rights of minorities are under attack, protection of rights cannot be left to the
states or local governing authorities. Same-sex couples had no legal rights and were treated as
second-class citizens in our nation until the Court took action to proclaim that everyone is equal, and
shall be treated as such.

Scalia’s opinion is one of the worst in the last thirty years because it displays a lack of societal evolution. He stated that the right to marriage was not in the Constitution and, therefore, should not
be recognized for protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is deeply troubling that such a
grand lack of compassion was expressed in an opinion from our highest court.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy is founded on the principle of equality and justice. To my core, I have a progressive ideology which leads me to have compassion for those around me and those who are less fortunate.

I feel that society creates a system where some people are placed in an immediate advantage, and others an immediate disadvantage. While decisions of the individual are always theirs and theirs alone, we must never forget that we are all human and therefore make decisions that we regret and that are not reflective of our true character. 

There is no excuse to break the law, but we must be aware of the reasoning and rationale for why someone commits any given act. If someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving baby, should they be incarcerated? Obviously, this is a simplistic hypothetical designed to foster near universal sympathy for the offender. But the broader point is that the criminal justice system is not a solution to poverty. Nor does incarceration cure addiction or mental illness. 

We need more people serving on the bench who recognize such truths and that can empathize with people at a human level. We can’t keep throwing the book at offenders in a futile attempt to rectify societal problems. Instead, we need major reforms to our criminal justice system. We need to stop locking up people for using drugs. Not only is it expensive for the taxpayers in the short term, it is immoral to tear apart families. Moreover, in the long term we pay dearly for the harm caused to our neighborhoods as a result of the endless cycle of incarceration to which many residents are subjected.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of black male incarceration in the country according to a report
prepared several years ago by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Wisconsin also has well over
twice the number inmates in its state prison system as Minnesota, despite having nearly identical
populations and demographics. These are serious problems. It will take efforts from all branches of
government—the courts included—to fashion solutions.

In a nutshell, my judicial philosophy is that we can do better, and we must do better. As a circuit court
judge, I will have the utmost compassion for those who stand before me and I will do what I can to fashion sentences that are fair and just, and which take the longterm wellbeing of our community into
consideration.

Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.​

State v. Thames, 366 Wis. 2d 807, 874 N.W.2d 346 (Ct. App. 2015) (unpublished). As a Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney, I directed and a multi-agency investigation into an elaborate homicide conspiracy. The case centered on the efforts of a major narcotics dealer to kill one of the State’s witnesses against him. The primary defendant engaged other members of his drug distribution network in the conspiracy through coded messages he sent from jail via telephone and US mail. This was one of many cases I prosecuted where witnesses’ lives depended on the legal outcome; if the primary defendant were found not guilty, extreme violence would be inevitable. Investigating law enforcement officers were concerned for the safety of witnesses and themselves. Our efforts were successful; seven co-conspirators were convicted of various offenses including the primary defendant, who was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit first degree intentional homicide, possession with intent to deliver large quantities of heroin and cocaine, and multiple firearms offenses.

State v. Prescott, 2012 WI App 136, 345 Wis. 2d 313, 825 N.W.2d 515. While I prosecuted many shootings as an Assistant District Attorney, this one is very memorable. The victim was a 12 year old from St. Louis who was visiting her aunt in Milwaukee. She was enjoying a warm summer night in July with various family members on her aunt’s porch when, inexplicably, she was shot three times, including once in her chest. The defendant apparently mistook her aunt’s house for another house he intended to target, believing it belonging to a rival gang member. The evidence was slim at first. After another prosecutor declined to issue charges, MPD reassigned the case to two detectives familiar with the neighborhood. I was assigned to prosecute the offense if and when there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. For months I worked closely with the detectives gathering evidence, securing the testimony of defendant’s fellow gang members, and amassing forensic and demonstrative evidence. The jury ultimately convicted the defendant for shooting the child. As for the child, by the time of the trial she had fully recovered from her wounds physically. It brought all of us who worked on the case great joy seeing her physically healthy and, by all outward signs, going about her life as a typical 13 year old (her age at the time of trial). To this day, however, I am deeply concerned about the ongoing effects to her phycological wellbeing likely caused by the trauma. There are, unfortunately, far too many people in our community traumatized by violence.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and admin-
istrative proceedings.​

For eight years (2004-2012) I practiced in criminal litigation as a Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney. My time in the District Attorney’s Office was primarily divided between prosecuting domestic violence and gun violence.

For the last eight years (2012-2020) I have practiced in civil litigation at Kohner, Mann & Kailas, S.C., where I am currently a shareholder. My practice largely involves commercial disputes between business. I represent clients in both federal and state court. I appear most frequently in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, followed by the courts of nearby counties. Last year, for example, I presented trials in Waukesha and Jefferson Counties.

As a Law Clerk for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals I gained experienced with administrative proceedings. In that capacity, I assisted with the Court’s review of administrative decisions, such as direct appeals from the Board of Immigration Review, which at the time comprised a surprisingly large share of the Court’s docket.  

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When ​did the incident(s) occur?

I plead guilty to the misdemeanor crime of consuming alcohol under the legal age (I was 20 years old at the time of the offense) in Delaware Municipal Court in Delaware, Ohio, on October 17, 1994, case no 94CRB01359. I was fined $200 and was taxed costs of an additional $65, which makes it, by far, the most expensive Blatz beer I ever consumed.

Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s)​ occur?

No.

Do you support requiring any justice 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? What contribution limits would you set?

Yes, recusal should be mandatory under the law. There can be no true justice in our system when the system is perceived as being rigged by conflicts of interest or corruption.

One thing that needs to change is the rule that judicial candidates cannot directly solicit (ask with their own voice) funds for their campaign. The rule may sound good on paper because it gives the illusion that the candidates are not seeking money, which would inhibit their decision making in the future. In practice, however, the rule is silly because all campaigns need money.

If money is being solicited, it should be the candidate asking directly, in their own words and their own voice, to make it clear that they are requesting a political contribution to attain elected office.

The real limit on contributions should be from dark money organizations, not individuals. Especially regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court, candidates should not be legally allowed to accept money from political action committees where the identities of the true contributors are not disclosed. United States Supreme Court precedent does not prohibit such a rule, even under the Court’s expansive interpretation of free speech.

Any judge, and any justice, should have the integrity to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest. If a party standing before them did not give money, but their spouse did, that’s enough for a conflict to exist.

This is not merely an issue of integrity and justice; it is what’s good for our democracy. We cannot sit idly by and watch our institutions erode. We have to take action to reinforce them and make them stronger. Our rules, like any house we build, eventually begin to decay. It’s up to us to fix them and make them stronger than they were before.

​What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

A judge’s reach is limited. Judges cannot correct the ills of society and cannot change the hardships the person before them has faced, which are almost certainly intertwined with why the person is before the court. Judges need to see beyond the offense, and to the person. Everyone has good and bad moments, and all humans are prone to mistakes. The people who find themselves before a judge in criminal court are generally at a low point in their lives. This truth needs to be recognized when fashioning sentences. While also respecting victims’ rights and ensuring the safety of our communities, judges need to see that the person who stands before the court today likely has, with the proper resources, the capacity to be a productive member of our community tomorrow.

Describe any other information you feel would be helpful​.

NA