|
In Marinette County, incumbent Peggy L. Miller is challenged by DeShea D. Morrow. The election is April 1. Miller was appointed Marinette County Circuit Court judge by Gov. Tony Evers in 2024. She previously was a court commissioner in Oconto County and in private practice. She graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2000. Her resume is here. Morrow is the Marinette County district attorney. She graduated from Oak Brook College of Law (Fresno/online) in 2001. 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. Miller responded to WJI's questionnaire. Morrow did not. Candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Peggy L. Miller Why do you want to retain your position as judge? I would like to retain my position as Judge because it is the best job in the world. I am able to use every skill I learned in law school on a daily basis. For me, the position of Circuit Court Judge, is the peak of my law career. I started my career in law as a legal secretary. While working full-time, it took me several years of part-time night classes to achieve an Associate degree as a Paralegal, and additional night classes to earn my Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice. While attending law school at Marquette University, I traveled more than four hours round trip each day and worked part-time teaching night classes in a Paralegal program. It was a long self-rewarding journey to become an attorney. While a practicing attorney, I furthered my education by completing certifications in several different alternative dispute resolution programs. After 19 years of private practice, I honed my writing, analyzation, speaking, negotiation and communication skills. These skills are paramount in dealing with the diverse citizens and many types of cases that I hear in my courtroom each day. Being a Judge is never boring. Every day is different from the day before, and the one after. Every day, I meet and interact with people from diverse cultural, racial, educational and financial backgrounds. Each legal matter I hear in a day can be from a different area of law. I have a desire to constantly learn new things, and every day I learn something new. The law is forever fluid, and therefore, it is necessary to keep my legal education relevant. This requirement to stay current in law related changes appeals to my love of constant education. I’ve always loved attending school, and teaching others about the law. Prior to obtaining the position as Circuit Court Judge, I served as Family Court Commissioner, Court Commissioner and Register in Probate for five years. This experience gave me five years of experience on the bench which was invaluable to becoming a Circuit Court Judge. I want to retain my position as Circuit Court Judge because I’m good at my job. I have more than five years of experience on the bench, and I want to have the ability to make good on the investment that the Marinette County citizens have already made in me. 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. Obergefill v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) U.S. Supreme Court decision which made same-sex marriage allowable in all states was, in my view, one of the most significant decisions made affecting the entire country. This is a case that purports to recognize human equality, no matter race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Not only did this case allow people of the same sex to legally marry, but it began a waterfall of cases to extend the rights beyond just marriage. While not all of the cases have yet been successful, one case has enhanced one important protection. In Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020) the Supreme Court expanded employment discrimination prohibitions to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender peoples. It remains to be seen how many changes the Obergefill decision will cause, but further anti-discrimination protections are likely. It is even possible that the Equality Act which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be passed which would prohibit legal discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in areas such as housing, education, lending and public accommodation. Describe your judicial philosophy. I would be described as a Judge that exercises Judicial Restraint and is a Strict Constructionist. At the Circuit Court level, I do not believe it is my job to make law, but to interpret the law that is written. However, it should be noted that two different people can read the same law or case and come away with different meanings. The law isn’t as black and white as some would believe. Persuasion and argument play a major role in interpretation. I also do not believe in reinterpretation of the Constitution at the Circuit Court level. If there is a need for me to interpret a Constitutional protection, I will look to precedent to guide me. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. As a Judge, my first jury trial involved two defendants being tried at the same time, for child incest. At one point I had granted the defense attorneys motions to sever the trials and try each defendant separately. While having concern for the victim testifying twice, I recognized that the victim wanted to maintain a relationship with one of the defendants, and I wanted to afford him the ability to testify in a different manner, if he chose. Additionally, I did not want one defendant’s trial to taint the other defendant’s trial by association. However, I later reversed my position as each defense counsel disclosed they were calling the other defendant as a witness. No longer was my reason for maintaining separate trials present, and I reversed my position to allow both defendants tried at the same time. The subject material was difficult to hear and the victim struggled with the adversarial questioning of the defense attorneys. After the verdicts, I spoke with the Jury. The jurors took their duty very seriously and read and re-read the jury instructions so they could unanimously reach a verdict. The jury deliberated for only a couple of hours, which was amazing as they had two defendants and five different criminal charges to consider. Several weeks later, I imposed sentences on both defendants. I spent a considerable amount of time preparing my sentence comments. I chose to impose sentences that were above the requests of the State and the defense counsel. This jury trial is significant to me for several reasons: this was my first jury trial ever in my career, the difficulty level increased with trying two defendants at one time, the subject matter was heart wrenching, and the local press was present (another first in my career). The second case which I would say is significant to me, is a case in which the defendant was involved in a motor vehicle hit and run death. The defendant accepted a plea. The difficulty came at sentencing. The courtroom was filled with people in support of both the dead victim and the defendant. The local newspapers were present and were taking pictures of the defendant during sentencing argument. The pre-sentence investigation report brought to light numerous social media statements made by the defendant while she was awaiting charging, plea hearing dates and sentencing. At sentencing, defense counsel attempted to present evidence and victim shame in an effort to support an argument for lesser sentence. I stopped the presentation of evidence and victim shaming with strong, but appropriate statements. I imposed a harsher sentence than requested by the prosecution and defense. This case was significant to me because of the level of emotion on both sides of the case. The victim’s family had lost a loved one and were horrified by the social media comments made by the defendant. The defendant is a very young girl, with young children and she will now be delivering another child while in prison. It was a tough case, with a tough decision to make, but as a Judge we don’t get to shy away from tough decisions. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. During my years in private practice, I represented clients in many areas of the law. Small claims, landlord tenant disputes, restraining orders, and all areas of family law. I represented the best interests of children and adults as a Guardian ad Litem in family placement, juvenile and guardianship matters. I represented clients in Department of Natural Resources administrative proceedings. I was appointed by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bankrutpcy Court to mediate foreclosure actions. I also acted as a child placement mediator for Kewaunee County, and performed private mediation services as requested by attorneys for various types of legal matters. 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. Maintaining my position as a Circuit Court Judge appointed by a Democratic Governor in a largely Republican County is one of the largest challenges I have encountered. I am not a politician. I have never run in an election. I am truly a non-partisan candidate in a non-partisan election, but in today’s political climate, my opponent who is Republican has a distinct advantage. My opponent’s prior stated party affiliation, along with the number of years she has been present in the community as the District Attorney enhances the adversity in my quest to be victorious in this contested election. My opponents listed endorsements range from my fellow current sitting judge to retired judges and most of the City and County law enforcement. Because I was appointed by a Democratic Governor, much of the public assume I am a Democrat. I’ve even been called a baby killer. I am facing this challenge by meeting as many people as I can. I attended every summer parade and picnic in the County, attended every Town Board meeting in the County, and speaking to civic organization memberships. I explain who I am and why it makes sense that I remain the Circuit Court Judge in Marinette. Additionally, I am working hard at being the best Circuit Court Judge I can be. I treat all litigants with empathy and respect, and strive to be efficient, effective, and fair. As a truly non-partisan candidate, I am free from any political influence both on and off the Bench. I have one job and one goal, to remain the Branch I, Circuit Court Judge in Marinette County. 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 believe there are different levels of inappropriate contributions depending on the level of Judge or Justice. Certainly $200 to a Circuit Court Judge has more impact than to a Supreme Court Justice. I believe a list of contributors for all levels of Judges is a necessary disclosure. I have chosen to not allow monetary contributors and be solely funded as I do not want to create conflicts. Conflicts at a County level can have substantial impact based on the number of available attorneys in the area. We have very few attorneys in Marinette County, and to lose the ability to hear cases of any attorney in a two Judge County because of campaign funding contributions could make conflict of interest resolution very difficult. I do have a few local attorneys who provide campaign strategy advise. When those attorneys are involved in a case before me, I disclose their involvement so all parties are aware, and anyone can request my recusal. In summary, no matter the level of contribution, I think disclosure is absolutely necessary. It would take a substantial amount of research and thought to setting levels of contribution that would create an automatic recusal. I don’t think one level for all counties would be appropriate based on population and size of the County. I also don’t think one amount for all types of judicial races would be appropriate. Certainly, the levels should be cognizant of the type of race, Circuit Court vs. Appellate Court vs. Supreme Court, and have relation to the population and area of coverage. 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.] I believe the greatest obstacle judges face are the lack of resources available to dispense justice on several levels. There are simply not enough criminal defense attorneys for the amount of indigent defendants. Defendants are waiting months for public defender appointments. There are not enough attorneys willing to take Dean appointments, so defendants who do not qualify for public defenders are waiting for months to obtain an attorney through a Dean appointment. The lack of attorneys is clogging the judicial calendars, and jails with defendants whose cases are delayed because of lack of representation. Treatment courts, such as mental health court, drug court, Veteran’s court are being discontinued because of the lack of resources within County budgets and personnel. We especially experience this discontinuation of treatment courts in rural and northern counties. This leaves us with putting these defendants through the same system that has a shortage of criminal defense attorneys and further clogs the justice system. We need incentives. We need to make it attractive for attorneys to take positions in rural and northern counties. Such as, school debt assistance and housing assistance. We need some type of funding program made available to counties that make it a priority to offer treatment courts, so that county personnel will be made available to take part in the treatment court programs. Once upon a time, large firms would have their newer associate attorneys work pro bono cases and public defender appointments or Dean appointments. This gave them invaluable experience before they began working with paying clients. Large firms have gotten away from having their young associates take these types of cases. If some incentive was given to large firms to return to this practice, we may have more attorneys available for the indigent. Finally, the law schools need to stop catering just to large cities and large law firms. I understand that a significant portion of their donations come from the large law firms, but that doesn’t stop the need in the rural and northern counties. The law schools should be working for the good of all, not just a select few based on the size of the donation. Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote. I have six years of experience on the Bench. Prior to taking the Bench in August, 2024, I served as the Court Commissioner, Family Court Commissioner and Register in Probate for Oconto County for the past five years. This is important information to the voters of Marinette County for a couple of reasons. If you are in private practice, or an attorney in public service, transitioning to the Bench takes time. It requires a shift in mindset. When you are a practicing attorney, you become well versed in an area of law, and you are accustomed to advocating from one side of a legal argument. As a judicial official you have to have knowledge in several areas of the law, and you must hear both sides of an argument and make an unbiased decision. Because I have been on the Bench for six years, I have already made this transition, thereby making me an efficient and effective Judge. Because I have been on the Bench for six years, I have minimal conflicts of interest, unlike a local practicing or local public service attorney. Imagine the number of contacts a local private or public service attorney has made during his/her career. Each one of those contacts, and the contacts of his/her office creates a conflict. It can take years for a local attorney, like a District Attorney, to get past the conflicts which have been created during his/her employment in the county. There is minimal need for recusal, substitutions and/or other judges to be brought in to hear my cases based on a conflict. Marinette County has already made an investment in me as their Judge during the last six months, why start all over with a new Judge. I want to make good on the investment that the Marinette County citizens have already made in me and continue to serve as the Branch I, Marinette County Circuit Court Judge.
0 Comments
 By Alexandria Staubach
Last week Governor Evers’ biennial budget made headlines for being both dead on arrival as far as Republicans are concerned, and for including a near 20% increase in spending for everything from education to PFAS contamination. Evers also called it “the most pro-kid budget in state history” during his Biennial Budget Message. But there is more to Evers’ budget than the Year of the Kid. Before the budget dropped, Evers laid out his comprehensive plan to overhaul the state’s prison network without building a new adult facility, contracting capacity instead of expanding it. The troubled Green Bay Correctional Institution would be shuttered. Stanley Correctional Institution would be converted to a maximum-security facility. Waupun Correctional Institution would be transformed into a “vocational village,” where incarcerated individuals would learn job skills. Juvenile institutions Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake would be reorganized to create Lincoln Correctional Institution for adults, while a new juvenile detention center would be built in Dane County. You can read more about that plan here. But that’s not all Evers envisions for the criminal justice system. He proposes noteworthy expansions of community supervision and changes within the criminal justice system to stem a “skyrocketing” prison population. In his budget, Evers highlighted that the state’s prison population is projected to reach over 24,000 individuals at the end of the 2025-2027 biennium. He recognized that “without meaningful reform” the state will continue to see “expensive population increases without a corresponding impact on outcome.” While the budget deals with several measures that have previously failed (like the legalization of marijuana), it includes some new reforms. The budget calls for the creation of an ombudsperson office within the Department of Corrections, a move those in the criminal justice space have long hoped for but had also hoped might take a slightly different form. The office would accept and investigate complaints regarding facilities, abuse, unfair acts, and violations of rights of persons in the care of the department. "Ombudsman" is a Swedish word meaning “representative of the people.” The role was intended to protect the rights of individuals against the abuse of royal power in 1800s Sweden," said Rebecca Aubart, executive director of Ladies of SCI, a nonpartisan collective of women with loved ones at Stanley Correctional Institution. "This office would not be a true Ombudsman office," Aubart told Wisconsin Justice Initiative. She and Ladies of SCI are advocating for an office that is separate from and independent of the DOC. The DOC already has the Institution Complaint Examiner (ICE), which currently manages oversight and is a part of DOC, Aubart said. "This would be ICE 2.0." "We are very encouraged that the governor has put together a plan to start making desperately needed changes in our state prisons, but it is not just up to him," Aubart said in reference to the roadblocks Evers' budget will face in the Legislature. Evers allocates more than $2 million for the project with 11 new employee positions. That $2 million allocation is just a drop in the department’s overall bucket, which according to The Wisconsin Policy Forum exceeds the national average and is more than in most neighboring states. While DOC spending is down over past years, the state has already allocated more than $1.7 billion for 2025. Evers’ proposal suggests a 14.9% increase in overall DOC spending in 2026. In addition to proposing closure of prisons and creation of the ombudsperson office, Evers wants to allocate more funds for the internal affairs office to “promptly complete cases and more quickly provide resolution to staff under investigation.” His budget recommends expansion of earned release programs and residential community alternatives to revocation (by 100 beds). Programs would include the DOC’s mother-young child program, which ACLU of Wisconsin litigation recently showed has been underused. Finally, Evers wants to transform the state’s Treatment, Alternative, and Diversion (TAD) program, which historically operated as a grant program, to persuade counties to offer alternatives to incarceration. Evers recommends moving the TAD program to the Director of State Courts’ Office. Instead of a grant program, funding for county participation would come from $70 million in annual funding for circuit court operations. Evers said these changes would ensure the program is offered statewide. Three full-time positions would be transferred from the Wisconsin Department of Justice to the Director of State Courts Office to help administer TAD programs at the counties. Evers’ DOC budget proposals for the DOC alone cover 126 pages. Hundreds more pages deal with courts, law enforcement, and other aspects of the criminal justice system. Here are just some of the additional budget recommendations Evers proposes:
In Waukesha County, Zach Wittchow and Fred Strampe vie for an open seat. The election is April 1. The candidates are listed in the order shown on the Wisconsin Elections Commission's candidate tracking form; the order does not in any way reflect a preference or endorsement by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which is nonpartisan. Wittchow is a prosecutor in the Waukesha County District Attorney's Office. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2014. Strampe is an attorney at Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen in Milwaukee. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1997. His resume is here. 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. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
 By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Supreme Court in mid-February heard oral arguments in four cases and issued numerous orders, including denial of a petition to skip the Wisconsin Court of Appeals regarding Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost’s decision invalidating part of the public union collective bargaining law known as Act 10. The Court heard arguments in two civil cases and two criminal cases. Here’s the recap. State v. Luis A. Ramirez The Supreme Court’s many former prosecutors grilled counsel for Luis Ramirez about what constitutes a permissible delay on the part of the state and court system. Jennifer Lohr, Ramirez’s attorney, responded that the delay in Ramirez’s case was four times the minimum for presumed prejudice against a defendant. “It is the government’s duty to keep the justice system moving,” Lohr argued. The Court of Appeals found that the state acted with “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The state offered explanations for its many adjournments. Its counsel, John D. Flynn, argued that Ramirez was incarcerated on another conviction while the case was pending and that he only ever asked for a speedy trial without the assistance of counsel. The bulk of the court’s questioning centered on the meager circuit court record when it was rescheduling trial dates, but there were also differing views about the duration of delays, even if the delays were explainable. On one hand, Justice Janet Protasiewicz recalled her time as a prosecutor and said that in Ramirez’s case “the facts seem relatively simple” and should not have required much preparation to take to trial. Justice Jill Karofsky, on the other hand, recalled her time on the bench to say “the state did exactly what it should do” and that “for everyone one of the continuances for trial, there is a reason for it.” “What prejudice did your client suffer?” asked Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley. “He was going to be in prison for a very long time, his liberty interest was not even implicated,” she said. Lohr argued that the sheer duration of delay was sufficient to demonstrate prejudice to Ramirez. Ramirez, who was serving a prison sentence, was charged with battery after allegedly assaulting a correctional officer. Over the following 46 months, Ramirez saw his trial rescheduled several times, for reasons that included a prosecutor’s retirement, a courthouse remodel, scheduling conflicts, and his own pro se motions. “Pro se” representation occurs when a defendant represents himself without counsel. Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voight had ruled that despite the many delays, Ramirez’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. Voight found that Ramirez’s motions, including for discovery and change of venue, were inconsistent with his expressed desire for a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals overruled Voight’s decision, stating that that while some of the delay was justified, the state acted in “cavalier disregard” for Ramirez’s right to a speedy trial. “What would you have us do with the words ‘cavalierly disregard’?” asked Justice Rebecca Dallet. “Cavalierly disregard them,” joked Karofsky in response. Dallet signaled where the court might land in its opinion, asking Flynn his thoughts on “something that was more like we focus on what the reasons for the delay are and we don’t require, as no case has required, that someone gave reasons for the length of time it took to reschedule the trial.” “I’d be perfectly happy with that,” said Flynn, smiling and then yielding the rest of his time on rebuttal. Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice The Wisconsin Court of Appeals over the summer upheld the denial of Scot Van Oudenhoven’s handgun purchase application based on a previous misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that was expunged under Wisconsin law. Van Oudenhoven then took his case to the Supreme Court. In oral arguments, justices grappled with every aspect of the case. Justices Janet Protasiewicz and Jill Karofsky were passionate in their concern over whether the underlying expungement was valid in the first place, revisiting time and again Van Oudenhoven’s date of birth and date of conviction. Current state law permits expungement of an offense with a penalty of six years or less if it was not a violent felony and the defendant was under age 25, had no prior felony record, and requested expungement at the time of sentencing. At the time of Van Oudenhoven’s conviction in 1994, the age was 21, said Karofsky. She pointed out that she was at that time a prosecutor for crimes of domestic violence. Justices and parties discussed how Van Oudenhoven was older than 21 at the time of conviction and did not request expungement at sentencing. “If it were an illegal expungement, is it void?” asked Karofsky at the outset of oral arguments. Justice Brian Hagedorn grappled with the different meanings of expungement among the 50 states. At issue was whether a federal statute permitting a defendant whose criminal record has been “expunged or set aside” to obtain a handgun, covers defendants who have had their criminal records expunged in Wisconsin. Attorney Brian P. Keenan from the Wisconsin Department of Justice opposed Van Oudenhoven’s petition. He emphasized that under federal law, “all effects” of conviction must be erased. In Wisconsin, expungement only affects the court and public’s record of the crime, he said. “Here it just means that the record has been removed from the court files,” Keenan argued. “The conviction itself has not actually been expunged from anything,” he said. The court grappled with what Congress intended when including expunged crimes in the law providing restoration of firearms rights. Hagedorn cited a variety of sources, including legal website Justia Law and Black’s Law Dictionary, to say that “expungement” means something different in effectively every state. “It makes imminent sense to me,” said Hagedorn, that the Legislature used expungement to mean however a state defines expungement, as the converse effect would be that the law is “absolutely irrelevant.” Justice Rebecca Dallet asked Keenan whether the DOJ’s best argument was whether “the plain text of the statute is that the conviction actually needs to be expunged.” Keenan replied “yes.” There appeared to be no consensus among the justices regarding whether and to what extent “expungement” under Wisconsin law has the same meaning as in the federal statute. Service Employees International Union Healthcare Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission Oral argument in this case concerned whether the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act applies to the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority (UWHCA) and gives its employees collective bargaining rights notwithstanding the public union collective bargaining law known as Act 10. UWHCA was originally included under the Peace Act in 1996, but was later removed. In a case brought by UW healthcare workers, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission and Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost concluded that the Legislature’s statutory changes in Act 10 reflected a clear intent to exclude UWHCA from the Peace Act, meaning that its employees no longer have collective bargaining rights. The Supreme Court took the case directly, bypassing the Court of Appeals. The justices and parties focused on legislative intent to include or exclude UW healthcare workers when it enacted Act 10, with a new twist: asking the Supreme Court to ignore what the Legislature may have intended at the time of enactment (originalism) and instead focusing on the plain language of the law. UW healthcare workers brought a previous case in federal court and were unsuccessful. This time, they argued that they should never have been covered by Act 10 because they are closer to private employees than public employees. “There is an element of all of this that I must confess feels a little bit like the emperor’s new clothes, where everyone has a firm grasp on reality until a new tailor comes to town and says I’m going make you a garment that only the most sophisticated people can see,” argued attorney James Goldschmidt on behalf of UWHCA, which opposed the employees’ petition. Hagedorn was vocal during oral arguments and from the start asserted that the employees’ interpretation of law was “contrary to what all our cases say, at least in the last 20 years.” Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley also voiced opposition, saying “what your argument is asking this court to do, is back track off at least two decades of recent precedent.” Justices Rebecca Dallet and Ann Walsh Bradley were more open to the argument, but even Walsh Bradley told the employees’ counsel that the “legislative history is so strong here that if applied here your clients lose.” State v. Carl Lee McAdory WJI has been following this case since the summer of 2023. The case finally made it to a hearing in the Supreme Court. In Carl Lee McAdory’s case, a Rock County Circuit Court judge disregarded an appeals court order for a new trial and instead sentenced McAdory on a charge that had previously been dismissed. Prior coverage is here and here. McAdory was charged with eighth-offense operating under the influence (OWI) and eighth-offense operating with a restricted controlled substance (RCS). Blood testing showed he had cocaine and marijuana in his system when arrested. A jury found him guilty on both counts. OWI requires a showing that drugs in McAdory's system impaired his driving. RCS law makes it illegal to drive with any detectable drug in the blood, whether or not it affects the person's driving ability. Because Wisconsin law says McAdory could only be sentenced on one of the counts arising from the same conduct, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the RCS charge. The court sentenced McAdory on the OWI count. Typically, when a court dismisses a count, it cannot be retried or revived. And in McAdory’s case there was no argument that the circuit court’s dismissal was without prejudice—a legal mechanism which would permit the count’s resurrection. McAdory appealed his OWI conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the state repeatedly misled the jury about what the state had to prove for conviction on the OWI charge. The appeals court remanded with an order for a new trial. However, McAdory did not get a new trial on remand. Instead, the prosecution asked Judge Karl Hanson to revive the dismissed RCS count and sentence McAdory on that charge, which Hanson did. During oral arguments in the Supreme Court, the justices and the state’s attorney wrestled with whether McAdory and other defendants could receive a windfall for what was characterized by the state as a mistake. The state could have asked the circuit court to dismiss the more difficult to prove OWI charge and for a sentence on the RCS charge. That could have avoided grounds for appeal, as McAdory’s appeal hinged on the state’s failure to prove the drugs his system in fact impaired his driving. The state is asking the court to “rescue it from strategic decision-making gone awry,” argued McAdory’s attorney, Olivia Garman. “While the parties disagree on just about everything in this case, there’s one thing we can agree on, that the procedural history that got us here should never happen again,” argued John W. Kellis on behalf of the state in asking the court for guidance in a muddy area of law. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Brian Hagedorn floated the idea of crafting an opinion that would instruct the lower court to dismiss one count, consistent with the statute, but without prejudice, which the law is currently silent about. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradly suggested entering convictions on both counts but sentencing on only one.  Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (L) interviews Judge Brad Schimel (R) on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, at Marquette University Law School. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel told a crowd straight out that he’s an originalist and that the “judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest.” In seeming contradiction, he also said that a judge should keep an open mind until all evidence and arguments are in. The remarks were made at a “Get to Know” forum held Tuesday afternoon by the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School, hosted by Director Derek Mosley. A recording of the one-hour forum is available. Schimel, a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, is competing with Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford for an open seat on the Supreme Court created by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s retirement. Schimel said that running for the Supreme Court was not in his plans until the 2023 election campaign, during which time now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s comments while campaigning suggested in advance how she would rule. That campaign led him to run. Schimel said that “you have to commit as a jurist to have an open mind” and that “if you can’t make that commitment, you have no business putting that black robe on.” He said he would bring back objectivity: “no more prejudging stuff. Judges must set aside all the political noise to judge the cases before them, he said, adding “It’s liberating.” Originalism means the interpretation of a constitution or law in a way that jurists today believe the writers of the document meant when they wrote and passed it—in other words, its perceived original meaning. Three other Supreme Court justices have expressed their belief in originalism, meaning that Schimel's election to the court would make that a majority view. When pressed on originalism by an audience member who asked why Schimel thinks “the Founders had all this knowledge” that does not change over time, Schimel remarked that “the Constitution has to be an enduring document.” As for his judicial philosophy, in addition to being an originalist, he is a judicial conservative, which he said differs from a political conservative. He would “apply the law as written,” he said. He discussed how evictions are tough cases for him as a judge, but “it’s a contract” and “you don’t get to put your thumb on a scale,” he said. “It’s the law and you have to apply it.” An audience member asked Schimel what role he thought the government should have in a woman’s reproductive health. She prefaced her question with a statement that she is afraid of Schimel becoming justice because after she was the victim of a sexual assault, she feared an unplanned pregnancy. He responded that his children were unplanned pregnancies, which allowed his wife and him the ability to adopt them, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision put the decision in the hands of the people. “The body in control of this issue is the voters of Wisconsin,” he said, and told the woman he had no reason to fear him. “Judges and justices are disconnected” and do not make policy, he said in response to a question about lack of voter ability to change the law with “rigged” legislative districts. When asked about outside influence in the race to his benefit, in particular advertisement money and endorsements from Elon Musk, Schimel said he welcomed anyone who helps to get his message out but that he is “not running on anybody’s agenda.” “I can’t do anything to stop the money” coming in, he said. He referenced outside money supporting his opponent, too, from George Soros and the Illinois governor, and that “you can’t be for sale.” Schimel discussed his childhood and education, his work in a prosecutor clinic during law school, his first job in the district attorney’s office in Waukesha, and his eventual positions as district attorney, state attorney general, then judge. He said that “running for office is about making friends.” “I like that,” he added. Schimel’s term on the Waukesha County Circuit Court ends July 31, 2025, so if he loses the supreme court race he is out of the courts, which he noted at the forum. In response to Mosley’s questions about Schimel's proudest accomplishments, Schimel mentioned his work as DA in building a child advocacy center in Waukesha to help child victims and their families; his work as attorney general in developing a successful drug take-back program, an office of school safety, and a chaplain program for law enforcement; and as judge presiding over a drug treatment court. Treatment courts, which address underlying causes of crime and help those who are struggling to succeed, “are one of the best things we’ve ever done,” he said. Schimel noted that throughout his career he has learned that things are not black and white—most things are grey. He said that in criminal cases in the trial court the judge is the least powerful person in the room, as the prosecutor holds the power, until sentencing. When asked about what needs to change in the justice system, Schimel pointed to the need for more defense attorneys because defendants are waiting too long in custody awaiting appointment of counsel. He also would like people to pay more attention to the judicial system, especially by voting in the April judicial elections. An audience member asked how he reconciled wanting voters to pay attention with his prior statement that the judiciary by design is the weakest branch of government. Schimel said that the weakness comes from the Founders’ documents and that he saw no inconsistency in the statements. He did, however, indicate that the courts do have a role in deciding what executive powers are legitimate. Immediately following the event, a handful of reporters sought to talk with Schimel, but his campaign staffer said he was on a schedule and could not stay. The staffer said reporters should email him, but one reporter said he had tried that three times with no response from the staffer.
By Margo Kirchner
Voters in Jefferson County will not see a circuit court race on their primary ballots tomorrow, even though three candidates submitted a sufficient number of nomination signatures. Just prior to the printing of primary ballots, a judge ruled that candidate Cortney Iverson was not constitutionally eligible and struck her name from the ballot. Dane County Circuit Judge Stephen E. Ehlke found that Iverson has not been an attorney long enough to be elected judge in the spring 2025 elections. The Wisconsin Constitution provides that to be eligible for judicial office at the circuit court or higher levels, a person must be an attorney licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for at least five years “immediately prior to election or appointment.” Iverson was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in May 2020. She argued to the Wisconsin Elections Commission that because the term of office for circuit judge starts Aug. 1, she would meet the five-year requirement by the time she started the job. The Wisconsin Elections Commission certified her as a candidate even after challenges by the two other candidates in the race. Ehlke disagreed. He found that the key date for meeting the five-year requirement is the date of the election, and Iverson will have practiced for less than the required time on Feb. 18 (the primary) as well as April 1 (the general election). “Words and phrases are to be given their common and ordinary meaning and ‘election’ is, I think, a pretty well understood word no matter what dictionary you use . . . . It’s not assuming office, it’s the election,” he said during a hearing in the case. In his oral ruling, Ehlke found “there’s no question that this candidate is ineligible” and that Iverson “can’t cure that in any way, shape, or form because the five-year anniversary will occur in May after either the primary or the general election.” The “constitutional provision is quite clear that you have to have been licensed as an attorney for at least five years prior to the election. And election is either the primary or the general election in April. It is not when the person who has been elected then later assumes the office. Those are two distinct things,” he said. Ehlke ordered the elections commission to drop Iverson’s name and generate a new certified list of candidates for the primary and spring elections. He also barred the Jefferson County clerk from issuing any ballots to voters with Iverson’s name on it. Iverson sought to challenge Branch 2 incumbent Theresa Beck, who was recently appointed by Gov. Tony Evers. Jennifer Weber has been certified as a candidate to challenge Beck for Branch 2. Because just two candidates remain, they will appear on the April 1 ballot without a primary on Feb. 18.  By Margo Kirchner
Twenty-three organizations took out a full-page advertisement in Wednesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for voters to protect the Wisconsin Constitution by rejecting a proposed amendment on April 1 ballots. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action joined the letter, together with other organizations committed to democracy and voter rights. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign spearheaded the group effort. “The fact that 23 organizations from across Wisconsin have come together on this issue speaks volumes," Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos told WJI following publication of the ad. "We may come from different backgrounds and areas of focus, but we are united in our commitment to protecting democracy and ensuring that our constitution serves the people—not political interests. This kind of broad, collective action is exactly what Wisconsin needs to push back against attempts to undermine our rights and instead build a government that truly represents all of us,” Ramos said. The April ballot question will ask voters to enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution the strict voter identification requirements that already are part of state statutory law. The letter first urges voters “to oppose this amendment and vote no, not just because of its content, but also because of the troubling precedent it sets” regarding the state’s most important governing document. “The Wisconsin Constitution is a foundational framework, meant to protect and reflect the shared values of our state. It is not, and should not be, a tool for political gamesmanship,” the organizations wrote. “Yet, in recent years, we have seen an alarming trend of constitutional amendments being rushed to the ballot—like a team coming to Lambeau Field and running a trick play on every down—to exploit the rules instead of respecting the spirit of the game. Our lawmakers, regardless of political party, should always create bills through meaningful public debate and bipartisan collaboration.” Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved by the Legislature during two consecutive legislative sessions. They then go to voters at an election the Legislature chooses. The April proposed amendment was quickly passed along party lines at the start of the current legislative session in January and placed on the first possible election date allowed by state statutes. The group letter also criticizes the content of the amendment itself. Wisconsin’s voter ID laws are some of the strictest in the nation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Placing them in the constitution will make it significantly more difficult to reverse course in the future. The amendment would affect voting rights for years and decades to come. “Amendments to the constitution should strengthen our democracy, solve real problems, and uplift all Wisconsinites—not erode democratic norms or serve narrow political interests. Unfortunately, the proposed voter ID amendment on the April ballot is another example of how our constitution is being used not to help but to hinder our interests,” the letter said. “(I)t risks creating more barriers for voters, especially for those who already face challenges in making their voices heard.” “(L)et us reject attempts to misuse our most sacred governing document for political advantage, staying true to the principles that make Wisconsin a model for effective, inclusive democracy,” the organizations wrote. The group asked legislators and readers to make Wisconsin “a state where our constitution is used to advance democracy, not undermine it. Inspired by the Wisconsin Idea, let us ensure our constitution and laws reflect the values and aspirations of all Wisconsinites, informed by fairness, research, and a commitment to the public good.” The writers pointed to Gov. Tony Evers’ recently proposed constitutional change to permit citizen-led amendments as a subject worthy of consideration, in comparison to the April proposed amendment. “We call on voters to reject amendments that limit their rights until they are empowered with the tools and power to advance their own reforms and champion amendments that truly strengthen our democracy,” they wrote. “Wisconsin deserves better. Let’s stop changing our constitution for political gain and start using it to make our state stronger, fairer, and more inclusive,” they concluded. By Alexandria Staubach Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 2 last week reversed Wisconsin Supreme Court hopeful and Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel’s decision siding with Elmbrook School Board leaders on open meeting violation allegations. Elmbrook School Board members Scott Wheeler and Jean Lambert face fines after the three-judge panel unanimously ruled in favor of plaintiff Leanne Wied.  Gundrum Presiding Judge Mark D. Gundrum wrote for the panel, joined by Judges Shelly A. Grogan and Maria S. Lazar.
The appeals court found that the school board operated under a “cloak of secrecy” in filling a vacant school board seat during COVID. Gundrum characterized the case as “an excellent example of the real-world impact of failing to adhere to open meetings law requirements.” In 2020, the school board sought to fill a vacancy during a meeting held by Zoom during the pandemic. Four candidates, including Mushir Hassan and Wied, vied for the job. During the meeting, Wheeler asked each board member to rank their first and second choices by email and send him their preferences. The email votes did not constitute formal votes but were intended to narrow the field, Wheeler said. According to Gundrum's opinion, no candidate received enough votes to be the first choice of four or more of the candidates. Nevertheless, Wheeler presented Hassan and Wied as the candidates for the board to consider. He did not announce or subsequently volunteer the results of the email vote. Ultimately the board was deadlocked three to three. Wheeler consistently voted for Hassan. On a third vote between Hassan and Wied, board member Glen Alliger, who had previously voted for Wied, switched his vote to Hassan. Before receiving all votes, Wheeler announced “We’ve got four votes for Mushir (Hassan) and two votes for Leanne (Wied),” which Wheeler said constituted a “consensus.” In fact, another member had also switched, but from Hassan to Wied, so the board was still deadlocked three to three. Wheeler then called for a formal vote, which Hassan won with five votes and one member abstaining. At no point were the results of any email votes read aloud or published in the online meeting to the entirety of the board or the public. Further, Wheeler never corrected the email vote tally, which after the meeting he characterized as an oversight. The actual numbers were disclosed only through subsequent open records requests, which produced the emails. Wied sued Wheeler and Lambert, alleging violations of the open meeting laws and another claim against the school district. Schimel sided with the defendants in circuit court. The court of appeals found that Schimel incorrectly removed Wied as the plaintiff because she had a “personal interest” in the case after having initiated a different suit against the district. Schimel also had found that Wheeler and Lambert’s actions did not constitute an “intent to hide something.” In reversing, the appeals court wrote that “Board members sharing their preferences with Wheeler in a manner that hid the same from the public and other board members was concealment that was initiated and invited by board president Wheeler.” Gundrum wrote that “the secrecy of Wheeler’s process allowed him to erroneously announce his own preferred candidate, Hassan, as having received four email preferences to advance for the subsequent up-or-down vote, and no one was in a position—at the time when it mattered, as opposed to after Hassan had already been selected, voted on, and seated as a new board member—to monitor the process.” Wheeler and Lambert remain on the Elmbrook school board with terms expiring in April 2026 and April 2027, respectively. Hassan's term ended in 2024. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy. "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: Samantha S. Wagner
Appointed to: Brown County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 28, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri Undergraduate – University of San Diego, San Diego, California High School – Juan Diego Catholic High, Draper, Utah Recent legal employment: October 2012-present – Lead assistant corporation counsel, Brown County, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: As the Lead Assistant Corporation Counsel for Brown County, I am responsible for all child welfare cases in Brown County, including cases for children in need of protection or services, juvenile guardianships, termination of parental rights, and administrative substantiation appeal hearings. I supervise another attorney who assists in these cases as well as a shared paralegal. My office is in the Brown County Human Services building so I often have employees stopping by for an opinion on a wide range of topics including economic support issues, juvenile justice concerns, open records requests, and civil rights issues. On top of these responsibilities I am the HIPAA compliance officer for Brown County, which includes ensuring compliance at our Community Treatment Center, Public Heath Department, jail health services unit, employee benefits, and community programs offering health related services. Lastly, I chair the committee for supervised release placements under Chapter 980, and locate statutorily compliant placements while providing the public notice and an opportunity to participate in our committee meetings. Describe typical clients: As an attorney for Brown County, I could offer legal advice to or represent any of the over 1,600 employees. The focus throughout my career has been in the Human Services field, focusing on representing employees and handling legal matters in the Children, Youth and Families Unit, Economic Support Unit, Community Programs, Public Health, and the Community Treatment Center, including the inpatient psychiatric hospital. I have also provided legal advice to employees that work with Criminal Justice Services and work within the courthouse. However, in any case for a Petition for Protection or Services, I represent the public so my client is not an individual person, yet what the public would expect me to do in any given situation in accordance with the law. Throughout my time with Brown County there have been many employees that have come and gone, and I have learned how each employee operates in order to not only provide them the best advice, but to also make sure they feel heard. Most of the employees are in high stress job and do not always need a legal answer, but need support. I am the longest tenured attorney in my office by over four years, and given my length of service have the historical knowledge that is helpful with each of the employees I advise. Number of cases tried to verdict: Jury trial, 8 cases; bench trial, 19 cases 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: In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for each of these four children. . . . As the CHIPS prosecutor it was my decision to file each of these petitions after receiving a referral from child protection for court jurisdiction due to concerns of physical abuse and inappropriate discipline being utilized in the home by the step-father to three of the children, father to [redacted]. It was determined that the step-father was having these children kneel in the corner on rice and forcing them to kneel in the corner for large periods of time as punishment. He was also whipping each of the children with a belt on a regular basis. The oldest child suffered from a seizure disorder and it was found that during an episode, the step-father kicked her in the abdomen and dragged her across the floor to her corner by her hair. The mother was aware of the abuse in the home, but was frequently at work. This case was open pending adjudication from August 27, 2021, to May 30, 2023, due to COVID scheduling, a maternity leave for one of the attorneys, and calendaring. While pending trial, there was also a companion criminal case for the father handled by the Brown County District Attorney’s Office. The bond in that case prevented him from having contact with any of the children. The mother chose to remain living with the father, which in turn prevented any of the children from ever being able to return home. One child went to live with his mother in another county, one child aged out of foster care, and the other two children are now under guardianships. This case is significant to me because in the end, after 21 months of the case pending for trial, I settled the case by allowing the mothers of the children to sign petitions requesting jurisdiction and placement of the children, primarily because they could not return under a criminal bond condition to their original family residence. By resolving the case in this nature, the abusive step-father was not held accountable in the CHIPS case, but the matter resolved short of a trial. I did this because I knew that the children would have to testify in the criminal case, and I did not want to put the children through the trauma of testifying in court with a jury present on more than one occasion. Also present would have been the abusive father, or step-father, who they had not seen in years. In handling the case this way I felt like I put aside some of my beliefs in accountability, yet did so knowing the outcome would be the same as if there was a trial. I had to consistently remind myself of the end goal for these children and to determine the route that would be least traumatic for the children. This is the way that many cases can be handled – knowing where you want to end up in a case, and then plan your route to get there. In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for this child and acted as the attorney for Brown County Human Services in the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case and subsequent appeal. . . . In 2014, I filed a CHIPS case for a young boy, [redacted]. The case was referred to me by child protection for sexual abuse to the child by his father, and neglect by his mother due to concerns with alcohol abuse. Throughout this CHIPS case there were many external factors that impacted the CHIPS case from progressing forward. The father was originally charged with the sexual abuse and those charges were subsequently dismissed. This impacted the type of sex offender treatment he could participate in, which is turn interrupted the agency’s ability to move forward in contact. The mother continued to not work towards her sobriety and would waiver in her beliefs that the abuse was occurring. The child was suffering significant trauma responses that manifested in both emotional and physical ailments requiring medical attention. In October 2015 I filed a motion to suspended the father’s visits by court order prior to the Dispositional Order being entered, which was granted. The Dispositional Order was entered and after some time a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case was filed. I did not handle this particular case, but the court terminated the father’s rights. The mother had passed away while the TPR was pending. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision given the order suspending the visits was done prior to the Dispositional Order and therefore did not apply to the grounds used against the father. I then resumed the CHIPS Case. I immediately got back into court and filed to suspend the father’s visitation again because none of the concerns from the first order were rectified. This was a bit more challenging as now the father was in prison for an unrelated matter, but his conditions were crafted to essentially put the ball in his court on whether he wanted to participate. The second TPR case was filed and again the court granted the TPR. I then handled the second round of appeals, and the decision was upheld making this child eligible for adoption eight years after his original removal. I attended the adoption hearing on August 24, 2022, and it was by far one of the biggest celebrations in the courthouse that I have attended. This case is significant to me for a number of reasons but primarily because it is the epitome of perseverance. There were numerous child protection workers, attorneys, and judges on these files, but I was the one who was there upon initial removal and there at adoption day. It is important to understand that mistakes or oversights are going to be made, but when those are acknowledged you must pivot and move forward. I still see this now young man in the community and we catch up from time to time. He is thriving and doing well, and it reminds me to continue working hard even when you may stumble back, there is always a way forward. Supervised Release Committee and Brown County Case 21CV58 As the chair of the supervised release committee created under Chapter 980, I was the primary point of contact in this lawsuit against Brown County and others. . . . The case and all committee actives took place in January to May 2021. The supervised release committee was created so that when an individual being released under Wis. Stat. § 980.08 they are returned to their county of residence for placement, and not just any statutorily appropriate residence around the state. This committee contains representatives from different agencies. The primary responsibility of the committee is to locate residences that meet statutory criteria within the county and identify those properties and the landlord to the Department of Health Services (DHS) when an individual is granted supervised release. I have done a number of these over the years, and complications in the process can be increased when a new residence has to be located. There are also some individuals who may have additional criteria depending on their victims. In January 2021 the committee was tasked to find a residence with additional criteria that no children could live in adjacent properties. A residence in New Franken was located and purchased by a landlord. The committee was immediately contacted by a neighbor who was very involved with the Boy Scouts and used a portion of their property for Boy Scout storage. There was one meeting where approximately 50 members of the Boy Scouts, including children, came and talk to the committee about the use of the property and that the residence next door should not be used to house these types of individuals. The committee ultimately decided that the use of the property did not rise to the level to exclude the property and sent the residence to DHS as a potential option. Recommendations were made that extra safeguards could be put in place given the possible use next door by the Boy Scouts to retrieve their items from storage. The circuit court then approved the placement and release plan for the individual, and the property became occupied. This was a significant experience to me because not only did I have to act as chair of the meeting and listen to each member of the public speak, I had to remain impartial and consider every fact being presented and then review it in conjunction with the statutory requirements. While my personal feelings may have been different from my professional, there is a balancing of interests that must happen. The individual to be released had served his time, a court had approved his release, and it was not my job to place additional, non-statutory, barriers in the way. At every attempt I tried to educate the public about the supervised release program and ensure that every precaution was being recommended, but the right decision was made. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: In my current role I am responsible for providing legal advice and assisting in any civil rights complaints or grievances made against an employee that escalates outside of the internal county policy. For example, I handled a claim with the US Office for Civil Rights claiming that a foster care rate was unfairly set based on race. After presenting the agency with all of the information requested and argument as to why the rate was set a certain way, separate and apart from the foster parent's race, it was determine the county's actions were appropriate. I have handled other civil rights claims or employee grievances with the Department of Children and Families and Division of Safety and Professional Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Apart from my work in child welfare, I am also the HIPAA Compliance Officer for Brown County and the Chair of the Supervised Release Committee. As HIPAA Compliance officer, I am responsible to ensure compliance with all County HIPAA policies with state and federal law, develop employee training, investigate potential breach incidents, and ensure the county's technical safeguards are in compliance. As the chair of the Supervised Release Committee, it is my role to locate properties that meet requirements for Chapter 980 offenders ordered to supervised release. I also provide public notice and run the committee meetings following open meeting and open records requirements. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: NA Previous runs for public office: NA All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: NA Professional or civic and charitable organizations: GRACE (Green Bay Area Catholic Education) Board of Trustees, trustee, June 2024-present 2025 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts Planning Committee, member, June 2024-present Wisconsin Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, president, April 2018-present American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, State Chapters Committee, member, April 2018-present National Association on Counsel for Children, member, June 2023-present State Bar Mock Trial, Brown County, co-site coordinator, January 2021-present Brown County Bar Association Board, vice president, board member, January 2021-present CASA Presents Fundraiser Planning Committee, member, 2023-present Women’s Fund, Powerful Event, committee and volunteer member, 2023-present St. Norbert College Parish, Finance Council, Board Member, August 2020-present Willow Tree Child Advocacy Center, River Cruise Volunteer, 2022-present Notre Dame of De Pere Elementary, school volunteer, 2022-present 2021 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts, planning committee member, 2020-2021 St. John the Evangelist Homeless Shelter, Green Bay, WI, Community Leadership Counsel, 2014-2016 Helping Hands, Thika, Kenya, volunteer, January 2009 Youth Works, Cairo, IL and Rosebud, SD, volunteer and chaperone, July 2008, July 2009 Gus Macker 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament, Wausau, WI, volunteer, June 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Southern Sudanese Community Center, San Diego, CA, volunteer, August 2007-May 2008 International Rescue Committee, San Diego, CA, volunteer, January-May 2006 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As a government employee I do not have the same opportunities as other attorneys to represent clients pro bono and assist them through the legal process. Instead, I have taken the opportunities afforded to me to train and educate the community about the child welfare system. Whether that is through trainings at child welfare conferences or with CASA, or through speaking with foster parents to understand the process, I believe that education is the best method to have the information disseminated throughout the community. Breaking down common misconceptions of the legal system has been something I have tried to highlight not only in presentations I've made, but in all of the volunteer programs I have been involved in. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the citizens of Wisconsin, but more importantly the community of Brown County as the next Brown County Circuit Court Judge because I have spent the last 12 years working in this community. I have been involved in almost every aspect of the legal system seen in the courthouse. As the attorney prosecuting child welfare cases for the county, I am in the courtroom every day, practicing primarily in civil litigation. However, so often these same parents are also facing criminal charges, small claims cases, family law matters, or evictions. I am continuously working with cases where I may not be directly involved, but these other cases have tremendous importance in the case I am prosecuting. In the last three years I have been involved in the creation of Brown County's Family Recovery Court, which allows for parents with CHIPS cases, and possible criminal cases, to be heard under a treatment court model. This approach allows the Court to service the family as a whole. Working through this process has given me an appreciation for the judicial system, but also for efficiency. This is one of the reasons I want to be a Judge - to allow for efficiency in our court system and for each individual who steps in my courtroom to have their concerns or cases resolved in a thorough manner. Too many times I have had parents work hard to have their children returned to their care, to only then be sentenced and unavailable due to their incarceration. By looking at each party on a case in a wholistic manner, the court system can achieve their intended purpose no matter the case or cause. Apart from criminal cases, many people come to the courthouse on their own, and usually for the first time. They are often nervous or unsure how to proceed. They are also likely facing some of the hardest times of their lives, and this is important to remember and be cognizant of in each and every case. I have worked to honor this throughout my entire career and it is an approach I want to bring to the bench. I want to continue serving my community while trying to make some of the changes to allow the Brown County courts to evolve with our growing and ever changing community. Brown County is changing and I want to be part of that change. This community deserves someone on the bench who wants to constantly improve, constantly learn, and constantly question arguments made in order to make the best decisions possible. 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 State of Wisconsin has eleven federally recognized tribes within its borders, as well as a large number of Native American residents who belong to other tribes across the country. In 2023 these tribal members waited to see the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in the United State Supreme Court decision for Haaland v. Brackeen. At question was the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which provides additional protections to Indian families after the historical removal of Indian children from their family homes and placement in boarding schools in the 19th and 20th centuries. The case itself did not just incorporate theories of ICWA and specific child welfare practices, but included analysis by the Supreme Court of the Indian Commerce Clause and anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. The Petitioners were contesting the constitutionality of the ICWA and the additional requirements the federal government required of each state to treat children subject to ICWA to a higher standard than another children. The Supreme Court found ICWA to be constitutional under the Indian Commerce Clause, because this legislation does not just include the trading of goods, but also includes the government’s involvement with many different Indian affairs. To simplify the determination as to the anti-commandeering clause, since ICWA applies to any parties in a case subject to ICWA, not just the state, there is not a constitutional issue. The Court did decline due to lack of standing to analyze the challenges to enforcement of ICWA placement preferences, specifically an equal protection claim. In practice, this would have been the most impactful analysis in providing guidance for the application of ICWA in Wisconsin’s legal system. Throughout the majority opinion and in the oral arguments, the practice of ICWA and the child welfare system, was not the primary focus. By not addressing this issue, and arguably one that could have fractured the current Supreme Court, the door has been left open for future challenges. Regardless this decision was a win for the people of Wisconsin given the large Native American population, and specifically important for Brown County given the interactions the Oneida Nation and Menominee Tribe. These interactions are not only with cases subject to ICWA, but all interactions with state and local government and these sovereign Indian nations. Th findings in Brackeen only solidified the rights that Native American tribes possess to have their seat at the table. It confirms the continued practice of recognizing tribes as a sovereign entity, and in Wisconsin with a high population of Native American residents, this is very impactful. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have had the opportunity to practice in front of a number of judges throughout my legal career. One of these judges is the retired Honorable William M. Atkinson, who served Brown County from 1991 to 2019 and remains serving as a reserve judge. I met Judge Atkinson when he served on the juvenile rotation about five years into my career. I was astonished at how he was able to bring practicality to the bench and make decisions in a way that made sense to every one present. It was not that everyone appreciated his decisions, but you could not argue with the logic in his analysis. His interpretation of the law also incorporated an unseen sensibility. He allowed for parties to make their record, but only when the arguments were productive and relevant. He was respectful of parties’ time and it was clear he knew the gravity of his decisions. He did not waiver or delay in his decisions and his approach to the bench is something admired by many who entered his courtroom, even if they were unsuccessful in their cases. While not a traditional western judge, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a commissioner and the chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is someone I greatly admire. After apartheid in South Africa the government searched for a way to respond to the human rights violations that had been committed by both the government during apartheid and those activists who challenged them. Archbishop Tutu approached this commission not only for accountability but to mend the fractures within his community, focusing on confession, forgiveness and restitution. When I was studying in South Africa and went to Robben Island, which was used as a prison during apartheid. I spoke with a former inmate, and now tour guide, who had witnessed Archbishop Tutu during his work on the commission. What I remember the most from this conversation was this man explaining the patience Archbishop Tutu had and the shared emotional response he had for both those seeking forgiveness and from those who were victims. This practice should be incorporated in courtrooms today, by understanding that when individuals are involved in the justice system, they are real people, with real emotions attached and should be treated with respect, regardless of why they are there. Lastly, I admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Most people admire her for strong will and solid conviction, but I admire her as a female in a male dominated field. She was able to find success in all areas of her life. Everyone is familiar with her as a Justice, but my admiration comes in her ability to find the balance. Even as a law student she was a mother of a young child and focused on the work when needed but then gave her child, and eventual children, the love and attention they deserved. Her practice of the law and her commitment to family is something any working parent, especially a mother, should admire. The proper role of a judge: On the surface, the role of a judge is to be a fair and impartial individual in the community who has the unique role to hear multiple sides of an issue, apply the correct standard of law, and come to a just solution. However, a judge’s job in practice is so much more. In a courtroom the judge is the one person who is able to have no motive, no preconceived notion, is able to listen carefully to all participants, question the positions and then make a sound decision. Any decision made by the judge significantly impact every aspect of a person’s life, no matter the case, and that duty should not be taken lightly. A judge should make sure everyone is heard and that all of the information is provided to make the best decision possible in every case. No judge should be afraid to ask questions and remain inquisitive about the issues being presented. A judge is not the expert on every case they hear, but as the evaluator of fact, they should try and understand every applicable aspect of a case. A judge is also a member in the community who can make decisions on behalf of every member of society. The decisions a judge makes in the courtroom where the law may not be as straightforward should be a reflection of societal expectations. As a public servant I am very aware that with every decision made, there will always be someone who is not satisfied. But if the decision is made based in the law and incorporating community expectations then the decision is sound. Providing the explanation of how you came to your decision is a practice that every judge should have and employ in their courtroom. The importance of a good record cannot be understated. Not only does it provide for individuals in the courtroom to gain an understanding of the court’s decision, but preserves that decision and rationale for any appellate use. Lastly a judge’s role is to uphold the law and ensure that each community member’s rights are respected and protected. The American judicial system provides these protections but they are only as good as their enforcement. Even if it means that a case may be dismissed on procedural defect or there is a substantial change in the outcome of a case, an individual’s rights under the law and constitution are paramount. It is the role of a judge, and of the legal system as a whole, to make sure that the law is implemented fairly and justly. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed