|
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.
0 Comments
 The Wisconsin Constitution displayed in the State Capitol rotunda. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. 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. By Gretchen Schuldt The number of paroles granted last year was down 82% from a peak just three years earlier, Department of Corrections figures show. The number plummeted from 201 in 2020 to just 37 in 2023.  Source: Wisconsin Department of Corrections What happened?
“We’re trying to figure that out, too,” said Mark Rice, Transformation Justice Campaign coordinator at WISDOM. The nonprofit has long been active in criminal justice reform efforts. DOC did not respond to a request for reasons behind the decline. Inmates eligible for parole are those who were convicted of crimes that occurred before the state's 1999 truth-in sentencing laws took effect. Those laws eliminated parole. The drop seems part of reduced efforts to lower prison populations, Rice said. Gov. Evers and DOC Secretary Kevin Carr took steps to cut populations during the Covid pandemic but now “it’s back to business as usual,” Rice said. The number of parole-eligible inmates declines each year as more die or serve out their sentences, but the drop in grants also appears linked to Evers' 2019 hiring and then de facto dismissal in mid-2022 of Parole Commissioner Chair John Tate II. The rise and fall in grant numbers neatly matches the dates of Tate’s employment. The Republicans ran ads attacking Tate's use of parole to release incarcerated individuals, Rice said. “Some of it was total lies” and there were “a lot of attempts to dehumanize people,” he said. Tate’s Parole Commission, which granted parole to some serious offenders, brought Evers under heavy political pressure as he sought reelection in 2022. First Evers intervened in May 2022 to successfully request Tate to rescind a decision to parole convicted murderer Douglas Balsewicz, who stabbed his wife to death in front of their children. Less than a month later, in June, Tate was gone after Evers asked him to resign. He was replaced by former State Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who assumed office in January 2023. Parole grant numbers followed the events: there were 43 grants in the first quarter of 2022, before the Balsewicz controversy blew up; then 31 in the second quarter, as the drama unfolded and Evers requested Tate's resignation. The number of grants dropped after Tate left to 19 in the third quarter and 18 in the fourth, according to DOC figures. Meanwhile, those who were paroled during Tate's tenure generally are doing well and making positive contributions in their communities, Rice said. "No human being is irredeemable," he said. Evers ran on pledges to reduce the prison population, but he and Carr have not done what is within their power, including commuting sentences and granting more compassionate releases to seriously ill inmates, he said. In Wisconsin prisons, Rice said, "The problem isn't understaffing. It's overpopulation." Wisconsin Justice Initiative recently asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court, director of state courts, and members of the State Capitol and Executive Residence Board (SCERB), to display new artwork in the State Capitol courtroom to reflect diversity in the judiciary, bar, and public. SCERB is the state board that controls renovations and installations of fixtures, decorative items, and furnishings in the Capitol building. The Wisconsin Constitution and opinions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court apply to all Wisconsinites and shape the state's legal system and citizens’ rights. Yet the chamber in which the Supreme Court sits to interpret the state’s constitution and statutes reflects an outdated world that fails to include more than half of Wisconsin's population. None of the courtroom’s murals includes a woman, and the only people of color are defendants in a murder trial and some possibly mixed-race men as jurors. Of note, in that murder trial the judge's decision was based on his belief that the primary defendant, Chief Oshkosh, was not “an intelligent conscious being" under the law. All of the portraits and busts in the courtroom’s vestibule are of white men. This year marks the 150th anniversary of admission of the first woman, Lavinia Goodell, to law practice in Wisconsin. In its letters to SCERB and the court, WJI urged them to recognize the anniversary by adding to the vestibule walls portraits of the court’s female chief justices — Shirley Abrahamson, Patience Roggensack, and Annette Ziegler. WJI also asked SCERB and the court to commission two new busts for the vestibule or hearing room: one of a woman and one of a person of color. WJI suggested Goodell and William T. Green. Green was the first Black lawyer in Milwaukee and fought for civil rights through legislation, court cases, and community organizing. WJI published blog articles about Goodell and Green as part of its “Unsung Heroes” series about women and people of color who contributed to Wisconsin legal history but whose stories have not adequately been heard and acknowledged.
Supreme Court hearing room murals and vestibule. Photographs by Margo Kirchner.
In Winnebago County, Judge Teresa Basiliere is not running for reelection. Three candidates vie for the open seat, meaning there is a primary on Tuesday, Feb. 20. Eric R. Heywood, currently a Winnebago County Circuit Court commissioner and previously a public defender and prosecutor, received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. His resume is here. Michael D. Rust, currently a Winnebago County Circuit Court commissioner and previously a mediator and practicing attorney, received his law degree from Marquette University Law School in 2006. His curriculum vitae is here. LaKeisha D. Haase's State Bar of Wisconsin listing states that her employer is "HLG" and that she graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2011. 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 Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Heywood and Rust provided questionnaire responses. Their answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Haase did not answer WJI's questionnaire, but WJI's "Evers' judges" post about her is here. She was appointed to Winnebago Circuit Court in December 2020 but did not win reelection in 2022.
Two candidates are vying for a seat on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court bench. The seat in Branch 43 is open due to Judge Marshall Murray's decision not to run for re-election. The election is April 2, 2024. Candidate Rochelle Johnson-Bent (below left) is an attorney in the Milwaukee Public Schools system. Candidate Marisabel Cabrera (below right) is an elected Wisconsin Assembly representative and attorney at Cabrera Law Office. The candidates joined WJI in person on Jan. 31, 2024, to introduce themselves and answer questions from attendees. The event was held as a luncheon at Riverfront Pizzeria in Milwaukee, hence the imperfect visual quality and some background noise at times.  Only 10 of 56 circuit court races in Wisconsin this year are contested, and only two races require a primary.
Primaries will be held on Feb. 20 in Kenosha County, where William Michel and Heather Iverson take on recently appointed incumbent Frank Gagliardi, and Winnebago County, where Michael D. Rust, LaKeisha D. Haase, and Eric R. Heywood vie for the open seat created when Judge Teresa Basiliere filed notice that she would not run. The top two vote-getters in each contest will compete against each other in the Spring election on Apr. 2. Contested races with two candidates for the Apr. 2 Spring election:
Wisconsin Justice Initiative has asked all candidates in contested races to complete questionnaires. WJI will print the results verbatim (editing only for length) in the blog in the coming weeks. The two court of appeals judges up for election this year, Pedro Colon in District 1 and JoAnne Kloppenburg in District 4, are running unopposed. "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: Ann M. Peacock
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 2, 2023 (term ending July 31, 2024) (running unopposed for reelection in April 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Platteville High School – Whitefish Bay High, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2019-present – Unit director, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin March 2018-March 2019 – Deputy unit director, Wisconsin Department of Justice January 2009-present – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice September 2003-December 2008 – Associate, Foley & Lardner, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. District Court-Minnesota (admission pro hac vice) General character of practice: I have been a civil litigation attorney for 20 years. In that time, I have been lead counsel for hundreds of civil cases in state and federal courts. My litigation experience has involved all potential stages of a case. In my current role as Unit Director of DOJ's Civil Litigation Unit, I manage a 45-position unit with a high-volume caseload in a diverse range of practice areas, including civil rights, employment, eminent domain, administrative law, higher education law, torts, medical malpractice, subrogation, worker's compensation, and open government. Each year, the Civil Litigation Unit opens approximately 2,000 new matters, including approximately 850 court cases. In overseeing this work, I make strategic and efficient decisions in assigning and monitoring litigation of the matters. Describe typical clients: During my employment at Foley & Lardner, I focused on commercial litigation and employment law. My clients in those cases were typically businesses and employers. During my employment at DOJ, I have focused on civil rights, torts, and employment law. My clients in those cases are typically state agencies and state employees who have been sued for acts or omissions within the scope of their employment. Number of cases tried to verdict: I have tried approximately 20 jury trials to verdict. 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: Counts v. Schneider, et al., ED Wis. Case 2013-CV-0518 My role: Lead counsel for defendants Dates of involvement: 02/2014-08/2018 Brief description of involvement: I litigated the case from service of the complaint to jury verdict. Litigation included significant discovery, summary judgment filings, and pretrial filings. At trial, I conducted several witness examinations and gave the closing argument. Significance: This was a complex federal jury trial that included a dozen witnesses and sophisticated plaintiff’s counsel. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. Allgood v. Hert, et al., WD Wis. Case 2017-CV-0812, ED Wis. Case 2019-CV-0832 My role: Lead counsel for defendants Dates of involvement: 1/2018-03/2019 & 6/2019 Brief description of involvement: I litigated most of the case as the only defense counsel on the case. I was reassigned to the case just before trial. At trial, I conducted several witness examinations and gave the closing argument. Significance: There were several logistical challenges necessitating attorney reassignments and a last-minute change of venue. I volunteered to be lead trial counsel less than one month before trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. May v. Heschke, ED Wis. Case 2018-CV-1452 My role: Co-counsel for defendants Dates of involvement: 6/2021-7/2021 Brief description of involvement: At trial, I conducted several witness examinations and gave the closing argument. Significance: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the sole defendant. I used this trial as a training opportunity for a new Assistant Attorney General. He has since successfully served as lead trial counsel in at least five jury trials. This case was also significant because it was one of DOJ's first post-COVID trials and included logistical challenges. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have litigated employment law matters venued in the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Equal Rights Division and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In the last five years, I have worked with Wisconsin Department of Justice staff and state agencies to settle approximately 300 cases. As part of that work, I have participated in scores of mediations with magistrate judges and other mediators. 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: Western District of Wisconsin, Merit Selection Panel, June-July 2022 Wisconsin Judicial Council, Evidence and Civil Procedure Committee, 2016-2018 Western District of Wisconsin Bar Association, president, vice president and secretary, 2015-2018 Seventh Circuit Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Section 1983 Subcommittee, 2012-2017 Girl Scouts of Badgerland, product sales coordinator, 2014-present, and troop leader, 2014-2019 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: While in private practice from 2003-2008, I worked on cases for the Wisconsin Innocence Project. One major case I worked on was State v. Chaunte Ott. I started the Wisconsin Innocence Project investigation of the case while I was a law student in the fall of 2001. When new DNA evidence was disclosed to the Wisconsin Innocence Project in 2007, I assembled a team of attorneys at Foley & Lardner to work on the post-conviction motions as co-counsel with the Wisconsin Innocence Project. We filed briefs in the circuit court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. In December of 2008, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. Mr. Ott, who had been serving a life sentence for homicide, was released from prison and the District Attorney's office dropped the charges. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: It has been my privilege to serve the people of Wisconsin for the last 14 years, and my appointment as a judge would be a further extension of that service. I am passionate about making positive differences in the lives of others. In my current role, one of the ways I do that is by using fairness and compassion as guideposts in my interactions with clients, colleagues, and adversaries. However, my ability to make positive differences is necessarily constrained by the adversarial nature of litigation. I want to use my guideposts of fairness and compassion to their fullest potential, and I believe that service as a judge will allow me to do that. Another reason I am interested in being a judge is the intellectual challenge of learning different areas of law. While in private practice, I focused on commercial litigation and employment law. During my first ten years at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I focused on civil rights, torts, and employment law. In my current role as Unit Director of DOJ’s Civil Litigation Unit, I have expanded my legal knowledge and skillset to many other areas: eminent domain, administrative law, higher education law, medical malpractice, subrogation, worker's compensation, and open government. As a judge, I would embrace the opportunity to continue to learn new areas of law and to interact with more members of the legal community. 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. The case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. has negatively impacted the people of Wisconsin in innumerable ways. Many United States Supreme Court decisions have minimal impact on the day-to-day life of the general public. Dobbs is not one of them. I see the impact on physicians who cannot use the entirety of their training and expertise to treat their patients. I see the impact on friends who have endured compounded levels of trauma by being forced to carry non-viable pregnancies for several more weeks because of the overbooked schedules of medical providers across state lines. I see the impact on friends who are members of marginalized groups and are justifiably anxious about what other rights may be hanging on by the slimmest of margins. And I see the impact on my teenage daughter who wonders why women are suddenly unable to make their own medical decisions. The emotional, physical, and financial impacts of Dobbs will continue to be felt by a significant portion of Wisconsin’s population until we are again at a place where timely and comprehensive medical care is available to everyone, regardless of their gender. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Judge Barbara Crabb on several levels. I first met Judge Crabb when I interned in her chambers during my third year of law school. She is brilliant, kind, and down-to-earth. She was not elitist, but rather worked with her clerks as a team. When we drafted legal opinions, she took the time to provide constructive criticism that we could then use in future first drafts of opinions in similar cases. After finishing my internship, I took her lessons and put them into practice. Before her retirement, I was lucky enough to litigate dozens of cases in front of Judge Crabb. Her courtroom demeanor was second to none. She ran her court with efficiency, fairness, and patience. The legal analysis in her written decisions was both complex and clear. It was a privilege to work in Judge Crabb’s chambers and to appear before her as an attorney. I also admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Few of us currently practicing law can envision a time when the gender of a top graduate of a top tier law school precluded the graduate from easily securing a position upon graduation. Fortunately, Justice Ginsburg was persistent and her subsequent appellate work in the 1970s resulted in several groundbreaking victories for women’s rights. After her confirmation to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg continued to serve as a role model for aspiring attorneys and she continued to develop the law by authoring watershed opinions that extended women’s rights. Put simply, Justice Ginsburg was instrumental in laying a solid foundation for future generations of women. Without Justice Ginsburg and others like her, my daughters would not live in a world where they do not second-guess their ability to strive for any career of their choosing. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to render fair and impartial decisions after thoroughly reviewing the law and considering arguments of the litigants. Participants in the court system are often at one of the lowest points in their lives. Even if a litigant does not get the legal result they are seeking, litigants should feel seen and heard. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is at a critical juncture, it is imperative that judges take the time to listen and fully consider the import of the words they choose in both open court and written opinions. With respect to a judge’s role in presiding over hearings and trials, it is important for a judge to be prepared by reviewing applicable filings before the start of the hearing or trial. Preparation preserves finite court resources and leads to more robust legal analysis. A judge’s role during hearings and trials should be to maintain order and to ensure that only proper evidence is admitted. When rendering decisions in both court proceedings and written opinions, it is the judge’s role to consider the arguments of the parties, to interpret the law, and to apply the law to the facts of the case. In undertaking all of their judicial tasks and rendering impartial decisions, a judge should operate with fairness and compassion as guideposts. I will bring those guideposts to my service as a judge if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to the bench. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed