"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. Bold type within italicized answers comes from the original 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: Toni L. Young Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 30, 2023, to term ending July 31, 2024 (running on April 2, 2024 ballot for a six-year term) Education: Law School – Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan (now Western Michigan University Cooley Law School) Undergraduate – Grambling State University, Grambling, Louisiana High School – Armijo High, Fairfield, California Recent legal employment: October 2009-February 2014 – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin March 2014-February 2015 – Judicial clerk, State of Hawaii Judiciary, Wailuku, Hawaii March 2015-April 2016 – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin April 2016-January 2020 – Staff attorney, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Janesville region, Wisconsin February 2020-present – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin May 2021-present – Local attorney manager, Janesville region (Rock, Green and Lafayette counties), Wisconsin State Public Defender Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: (No answer) Describe typical clients: In my criminal practice I represent the client that has been marginalized, disenfranchised, or just simply abandoned. It is my goal to provide clients with fervent representation. I listen to my clients and advocate for them to reach the goals that we set together. I intentionally seek to represent clients that have had attorneys that have withdrawn from their cases. Until recently, I never in my eleven year career withdrew from a case (with the exception of a forced withdrawal due to conflict or when a client has asked me to withdrawn). The instances of when a client has asked me to withdraw are roughly about 10 clients. In most, if not all, of those cases the client asked me to reinstate my representation after the withdrawal. I have worked on over 800 cases. To date, I have only withdrawn from one case in eleven years of practice. I also work as a Guardian ad Litem. In my role as Guardian ad Litem I have many responsibilities. Injunctions/TROs: As GAL I Interview all parties to determine if there is merit to the Petition and I report my findings that to the Court. Child Welfare Cases (Adoption, Chips, TPRs): As GAL I have an understanding of ICWA and WICWA and apply the Law Accordingly. I work with various agencies to achieve permanency goals for the child. I advocate for timely permanence for the child(ren) that I represent as GAL. Absent a compelling reason or circumstance, if a child is out of home 15 or the most recent 22 months, following through on the presumption that exists that the agency and state must file for termination of parental rights; I investigate, write and state my report on the record with my recommendation to the court to assist with final Court orders for permanency goals. As GAL, there is an expectation that I be prepared for trial or to litigate contested matters and proceed accordingly with an understanding of the rules of evidence and trial procedure. Guardianships, Protective Placement of an Adult: As GAL I review paperwork associated with the WARD'S case (Petition for Guardianship and Petition for Protective Placement, Statement of Act(s), Examining Physician or Psychologist's Report, Comprehensive Evaluation, Healthcare and other advanced directives, etc.); I send written notices to the WARD, I speak with the WARD and explain the WARD'S rights to him or her, I read the Petition and Physician's report to the WARD. I draft a report for the court inclusive of my impressions and opinions. I consider the "least restrictive” means for placement consistent with the needs of the Ward. I gather additional documentation as needed, such as, additional medical records. I interview the Proposed Guardian (and standby guardians) to determine their fitness. I prepare written reports and call witnesses when the hearing is conducted. Number of cases tried to verdict: 6 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: State of WI v. HC 2016CM0753 (Kenosha County) My client was charged with Ct. 1 Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse, Repeater: and Ct. 2 Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse, Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Repeater. Although the two charges were Class B misdemeanors, due to the enhancers, my client was facing a tremendous amount of Prison time. Further, he was on supervision for Strangulation Suffocation with a repeater enhancer for which he was facing a revocation hearing. There was video of the altercation. The claim by the state was that my client had a knife and was being threatening and causing a disturbance. This was the classic story of he said she said. There were several flaws and inconsistencies in the complaining witness' statement. The criminal complaint stated that the officer reviewed a video provided by the complaining witness and he substantiated her claim of what happened during the altercation. I watched the video, reviewed the witness statements, our investigator interviewed the parties involved. I did not believe that the video captured what the complaining witness stated, nor was I able to understand why the officer stated that the incident occurred as the complaining witness described-- the video did not match her narration. The reason this case is significant is that a Jury was asked to decide my client's guilt or innocence. Not the police and certainly not the complaining witness. After hearing two sides of the same story with the truth somewhere in the middle, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on both counts, which subsequently resulted in my client not being revoked and not being sentenced to Jail; he was released from jail within a few days of his trial. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: During my employment with the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office, I have represented over 75 defendants that were facing revocation of their probation or extended supervision. During these hearings I examined witnesses both on direct and on cross examination. I am experienced with practicing according to the Division of Hearings and Appeals Wis. Statutes. 35.9, specifically Chapter HA 2 and HA 3. I am well versed in the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections Manual-- Chapter 10 entitled "Revocation. I am equally versed in the Resource Handbook for Community Supervision Revocation Hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I am a certified mediator. I worked as a student intern while in Law School as a mediator for civil matters. Since practicing law, I have mediated several family matters prior to my employment with the Public Defender's office. While working for the Public Defender's office, I suspended my mediation practice. Having returned to private practice, I am working to expand my mediation practice to include both family matters and CHIPS and Terminating Parental Rights (TPR) matters. I have an upcoming mediation for a TPR. As a mediator, I serve as a neutral third party to facilitate the discussion surrounding a dispute. I firmly believe that alternative dispute resolution, both mediation and arbitration, are exceptional vehicles by which to give civil litigants a resolution to their dispute. Mediation is generally voluntary therefore litigants are more likely to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome when parties negotiate their own settlement. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Angela Cunningham, 2021 Judicial Race, Kenosha County Circuit Court Branch 6 (Kitchen cabinet member) Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Jodi Meier, Kenosha County judge, 2016 Angela Cunningham, Kenosha County judge, 2020 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Alpha Kappa Alpha, 1991-current, including committee work on human trafficking Rotary, 2008-2010 Racine County Bar Association, 2010-2013, 2020 Milwaukee County Bar Association, 2010-2016, including Modest Means committee Wisconsin State Bar Association, 2015-2016, including Modest Means committee Wisconsin Association of Mediators, 2020 NAACP, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2020, including Legal Redress committee Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I developed a Mock Trial program for one of the local neighborhood centers, John Bryant Community Center. The young girls that I worked with would likely never have been chosen for the statewide Mock Trial program. Not because they were not smart enough, but because they did not have the contacts or connections that other students may have had. I exposed them to a legal career in the law. The participants wrote their own fact pattern for the mock trial, which allowed them to exercise their writing skills. Most importantly they "played" all of the characters in the fact pattern, which I believe encouraged development of public speaking skills. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a Judge in Kenosha County because our judicial system is under attack. Since I was a very young girl, I've admired our judicial system. No matter the infirmity we suffer or the kinks in the armor, our judicial system still remains the best system in theory. In practice however, we are tattered and torn and broken. There are many reasons for the malfunctioning of our system. I realize I am just one person and if appointed I would not be able to address a fragmented system alone. Being aligned with other Judges that are seeking to ratify the wrongs in our Judicial System in Kenosha County would lead to a restorative outcome. I'm reminded of what is sure to be one of the most notable quotes of our time, a statement by President Barack Obama, "Whatever you do won’t be enough, try anyway." Justice reform begins with one, then two, then fifteen, then hundreds; I'm elated that Governor Evers is working tirelessly to recalibrate our judicial system through Judicial appointments in favor of the people that it is called to serve. I'm reminded of something that renowned Attorney Bryan Stevenson stated, "the opposite of poor is not rich, it is justice." I want to be a Judge so that I may serve the citizens of Kenosha County in effort to standardize and attune our judiciary to its greatness—a greatness defined by a justice system that is impartial and equitable in practice and not just in theory. 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. Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 590 U.S. (2020) The Bostock case was recently decided in June 2020. Essentially, in each case, an employer fired employees simply for being homosexual or transgender. Gerald Bostock, an employee with Clayton County, started participating in a gay recreational softball league. His actions were deemed to be "conduct unbecoming a county employee," and he was subsequently fired. Donald Zarda worked for Altitude Express in New York, he mentioned that he was gay and was fired a few days later. Aimee Stephens presented as a man when she was interviewed and hired, she was fired after telling her employer that she was "going to begin to live and work as a woman." Each employee sued their employers for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with various legal strategies in pursuit of a decision by the Court that their Employer discriminated against them on the basis of sex. In Gerald Bostock's case the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay, the Court went on to say, "therefore the Bostock case could be dismissed as a matter of law." The US Supreme got this one right Holding: "An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. (a) Title VII makes it "unlawful... for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Justice Gorsuch (delivered the opinion of the Court), joined by Justices: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting were Justices: Thomas, Kavanaugh and Alito. The most notable words in the opinion are ''Only written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefits." Too much is left to subjective interpretation when we try to resolve what the "intent" of the drafters meant. Adhering to the written word of law disqualifies a more subjective interpretation that comes from trying to figure out the drafter's 'intent." The examine what "discriminate" meant in 1964 and concluded (sadly) that it roughly means what it means today "to make a difference in treatment or favor." It would be an extraordinary society when we get to the point when that word is a vague memory and people struggle to define it, when it becomes an "urban legend," or an archaic term like "adverse possession." The Supreme Court in Bostock did an amazing job at analyzing and observing that "the people are entitled to rely on the law as written, without fearing that courts might disregard it plain terms." Having the correct balance on the bench ensures the rise of spirited debates; it is essential to getting to equitable results. This case is important to the citizens of Wisconsin because it is another guidepost for what is discriminatory practice. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The three Judges/ Justice that I admire the most are: Judge David Bastianelli (Kenosha County, Branch 1, Retired), Judge Jon Fredrickson (Racine County, Branch 7, 2018-Present, and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren (United States Supreme Court 1953-1969). Judge Bastianelli is a Judge that I would pattern myself after. He is a superior example of who and what a Judge should be. His demeanor was steady, he ruled with an even hand and he was well versed in the law. He was extremely stern in a stoic way and fair. He understood the most complex issues of law; he listened intently and allowed attorneys for make their legal arguments. He was never afraid to admonish an attorney for what were inequitable practices before his court. He did not prefer one side of the "v" over the other. He allowed adversaries in court to be just that without taking sides; he refrained from being a "two against one" kind of Judge. I respect him most for his command of the law. It was astonishing to me how brilliant he was while balancing equity. There were some Attorneys or Parties that felt he sentenced too harshly. His rulings ALWAYS made sense to me; likely because he explained his rulings impeccably. His courtroom was maintained competently and efficiently. I distinctly remember getting into a verbal battle with Judge Bastianelli, he allowed me my row; but the moment he told me to "knock it off Counsel." I knew to contain myself. My colleagues mentioned that they thought I was going to keep going and ultimately end up being held in contempt. I have such a great respect for the bench and in particular Judge Bastianelli that when he ended my pontification I knew that it was time to stop talking; he allowed me enough time to speak on the record and he allowed me to do so with enough indignation to zealously represent my client.. Neither of us ever crossed the line of disrespect. My most memorable interaction with Judge Bastianelli is when he called me to his chambers to say to me what will likely be the most cherished comment that anyone will say to me. He told me "You should consider being a Judge." He went on to explain why, and he provided me with brief guidance and mentorship. His deep booming voice coming down from on high was never filled with blustering or nonsense, it was always rooted in equity and the law. I have the highest respect for his rulings from the bench. Judge Fredrickson is a Judge that I hold in high regard. I find him to be empathetic and patient. He is always prepared for court and basis his rulings on pr per procedures, statute and/ or case law. People are facing the most difficult times in their lives when they go before a Judge. He always finds a way to leave them with their dignity even when he is ruling against their personal interest(s) or position(s). He seems to be very aware of various demographics and their individual experiences. He interacts within the case and the issues at hand from a level of sensitivity that is very intentional. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren had the characteristics of what we now call "progressive." When I think about Justice Warren, I am reminded that we are remiss as Attorneys (and Judges) when we coward and shy away from making the very difficult and equitable decisions, and instead align with what is prevalent unjust choices: oppressing the already disenfranchised. He could have a lived a life very comfortably situated behind his privilege. Instead he was a trailblazer; he was an innovator of change. He was the Chief Justice and wrote the majority decisions many landmark cases such as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which as you know banned segregation in public schools; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requiring that criminal defendants be informed of their right to remain silent and to be represented by a lawyer; and Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage. The decisions he wrote in these cases were life altering but it is sobering to read the dissents in these cases as well. It is a reminder that without Judges and Justices like Warren, we are left with the dissent that could very easily (and has) become the majority in these types of cases that seek to abridge the rights of the poor and minorities. I admire Justice Warren for forging forward with an ideology that was very unpopular with his contemporaries. The proper role of a judge: A Judge has a multifaceted role. A Judge's role is tantamount to a referee. Not to diminish the sanctity of the Judiciary, but it is a great analogy. Webster defines referee as "(noun) an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play." The proper role of a Judge is to listen to the evidence, make appropriate rulings during the course of a trial or proceeding, and issue legally sound decisions and orders of the court. A Judge in Circuit Court has to preside over a hotchpotch of cases ranging from Family, to Criminal Misdemeanors and Felonies and everything in between such as guardianships, CHIPS/TPR, Juvenile, and an assortment of Civil cases. Judges are also presented with affidavits upon which a warrant is being sought by law enforcement. It is the role of the Judge to review an affidavit with discernment to ensure that the privacy rights of a citizen are not being abridged based on mere conjecture; there must be articulable facts and the Judge holds law enforcement to that standard. Judges, at times are called upon to vote for the use of implements such as the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. The assessment determines the scale of an offense committed by a juvenile; for instance if a child has committed a technical violation or status offense, such as running away or truancy, they may fall below a certain score on the assessment and they will avoid jail as a result of their score. This tool is being successfully used in Milwaukee and LaCrosse. The Judges in Racine County voted against implementing the tool; however. there were three judges that did vote for the use of the tool. The three judges were not enough to carry the vote to majority. Months after the vote [redacted] committed suicide in a jail cell in 2017. It is reported that she was arrested for running away from home, it is always reported that she had been a victim of human trafficking. While in jail, she committed suicide. I believe if the Judges in Racine were called to vote now—after this tragic event, they would have likely vote in a different manner; or at the very least, a balance in who is voting will change the outcome. The position of a Judge is not a role that should be taken lightly or seen as a novelty or something to brag about — or be treated as an opportunity to berate attorneys and citizens. I think the very challenging job of having to permanently affect a person's life should be done so unpretentiously and with grave and solemn care. A Judge should read every document and pleading that comes across their desk with discernment, prudence, and with a spirit of equity. "Equity considers done that which ought be done" quoting Maxims of Equity.
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt
Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday signed a bill allowing Wisconsin judges to take court action against people or businesses that post on the internet publicly available judicial officers’ personal information without the judges’ consent. Even their marital statuses could be off limits. Generally, under the First Amendment, governments cannot tell people what information they can or cannot post or share. But this law gives individual judges the private right of action to have the information removed from the Internet. Judges from around the state supported the bill in public testimony, as they did the other two bills in the three-bill package. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said the law was patterned after similar protections for federal judges and judges in other states. The governor signed all three bills in the package, including a constitutionally questionable bill, Assembly Bill 965 (now Act 234), that prohibits even peaceful demonstrations near a judge’s residence if the demonstrators are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. WJI covered that bill here. The third approved bill, Assembly Bill 967 (now Act 236), exempts judicial security forms from public records disclosures. The forms are used to create security plans for judges. The internet prohibition, Assembly Bill 966 (now Act 235), requires “all persons, businesses, and associations” to “refrain from publicly posting or displaying on the Internet publicly available content that includes the personal information of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's immediate family,” according to the Legislative Reference Bureau summary of the measure. The law singles out data brokers as being included in the prohibitions. Individual judges would have to request nondisclosure, and that request would be good for 10 years. The law allows those judges to request the personal information be removed from the internet and gives the posting party 10 days to comply. Judges could seek an injunction or declaratory relief from a fellow judge if violations occur. If the filing judge wins the case, the posting person or entity “responsible for the violation shall be required to pay the judicial officer's costs and reasonable attorney fees,” the law says. Prevailing respondents in those cases would not be guaranteed the same financial compensation. The posting party would be required to “ensure that the judicial officer's personal information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association; and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed,” the law says. The law prohibits the sharing of information "through any medium" after a judge requests nondisclosure unless the information is voluntarily posted by the judge or immediate family member or if the judge requests the information be shared. “Publicly available content” is defined in the law as any document or record “that provides information or that serves as a document or record maintained, controlled, or in the possession of a government agency that may be obtained by any person or entity, from the Internet, from the government agency upon request either free of charge or for a fee, or in response to a public records request.” An exception would be made for information voluntarily posted on the internet by judges themselves, information the judges consent to have released, or information received legally from a federal or state government source. Immediate family members could release personal information about themselves. The government may step in under some circumstances. The legislation makes it a felony to post information if it is done to create or increase a threat to the health and safety of the judge or immediate family or if injury or death "is a natural and probably consequence" of posting the information, according to the law. Also under new law, candidates for judicial office or circulating or signing nomination papers would not have to list their names and addresses. Instead, they would file a confidential certification of residency with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The protections apply to Supreme Court justices or former justices; municipal, circuit, tribal, reserve, and appellate judges and former judges; and court commissioners and former court commissioners. “Immediate family” is defined in the law as a judicial officer's spouse; a child of the judicial officer or of the judicial officer's spouse, including a foster child or an adult child living with the judicial officer; a parent of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's spouse; or any other person who resides at the judicial officer's residence. Personal information, as defined in the law, includes a home address; home or personal mobile telephone number; personal email address; Social Security number; driver's license number; federal tax identification number or state tax identification number; bank account or credit or debit card information; license plate number or other unique identifiers of vehicles regularly used by a judicial officer or a family member; identification of minor children; a full date of birth; employment location, including the name or address of an employer and employment schedules; and marital status. Employment information does not include information about employment by a government agency. In Racine County, Jessica Lynott challenges recently appointed incumbent Judge Toni L. Young for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2. Before her appointment as circuit judge, Young was the attorney manager for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office in Janesville. She graduated from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School (formerly Thomas M. Cooley Law School) in 2005. Lynott is an assistant district attorney in the Racine County District Attorney's Office. She graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2003. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments Lynott's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Young indicated by email that she would answer WJI's questionnaire, but a response has not been received to date. (Update: On March 28, 2024, WJI published portions of Young's application for judicial appointment, available here.) Why do you want to become a judge? It has been my goal since I was young to work hard and become a Judge. As someone who has spent the past 20 years living, volunteering, raising children and working in the Racine Community, I recognize that I can better serve the community as a Judge. I plan to bring common sense to the bench and render community-focused justice. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is an important decision by the Supreme Court because it upheld private citizens’ rights to lawfully own/possess a gun, especially for self-defense at one’s home. This decision upheld rights under the Second Amendment, which is very important to me. Describe your judicial philosophy. My theme is Common Sense Justice. It is important that Judges follow the law and not act as activists from the bench. My theme encompasses my goal of running a fair and efficient courtroom. Showing respect to all parties and professionals involved in a case is a top priority. Because of my long-standing community involvement, I understand the needs and the resources within the Racine Community. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. I have an abundance of trial & motion work experience, as well as day-to-day courtroom experience, so picking only two is hard. As a prosecutor, my first homicide case will always be one of my more significant cases. It involved domestic abuse and child witnesses. Helping them navigate the process, working with them to prepare for trial and being able to deliver results that will keep them safe will always stay with me. Another case I’ve been involved in prosecuting include a homicide of a baby, in which I had to dive into the medical realm of Abusive Head Trauma and work with Experts to master the evidence. Other significant cases involve Sexual Assault of Children cases. The resiliency of my victims and their families always amazes me. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. After graduating from law school I practiced in the area of labor & employment law. I was able to gain experience dealing with State agencies as well as federal agencies (EEOC). I had experience advocating for both businesses and individuals, unions as well as working for a State agency. It was very interesting to see all sides. When I made the jump into criminal law as a prosecutor, I took the responsibility to represent the State of Wisconsin very seriously. While representing the State, I advocated for victims’ rights, public safety, and yes, even for defendants’ rights. My end goal is always getting a just and fair result. I’ve spent over seven years practicing in juvenile court, traffic & misdemeanor court and felony court, where I’ve handled cases relating to gun, drug and sensitive crimes. 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. Stepping in to protect a victim from their own mother is a recent example of how I faced a challenge and had to stand up for what is right and enlist the assistance of a Guardian Ad Litem. In my personal life, I’m currently dealing with a loved one who was diagnosed with cancer and having to deal with chemotherapy and up-coming surgeries on top of juggling my other responsibilities has been difficult. Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set? I support following the law and/or rules first and foremost. If there are ethical regulations that outline this matter, I would follow them. If situations in which there are no applicable rules, laws or regulations, then I support applying prudent judgement to situations in which a supporter or contributor was involved in a case before me and it truly depends on the level of the connection. Each situation would be handled on its own merits. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? One of the biggest challenges is having adequate resources to keep the system moving in an efficient manner. For example, in the criminal law arena, we are constantly short on defense attorneys to take on cases in which the defendants cannot afford to hire private counsel. One solution is to utilize technology to allow zoom appearances. Justice delayed is justice denied and that goes for both defendants as well as victims. Getting cases done in a timely fashion is one of my top concerns. City of Milwaukee voters will see on their ballots a contested race for city attorney. Evan Goyke challenges incumbent Tearman Spencer. The election is on April 2. Goyke is a representative in the Wisconsin Assembly. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2009. Spencer was elected as city attorney in 2020. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2003. 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 Goyke's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Spencer did not respond to WJI's request. Evan Goyke Why do you want to become Milwaukee City Attorney? I’ve seen firsthand how the City Attorney’s office can help improve the quality of life for Milwaukee residents. That is only possible if the office is functioning properly. I bring a skill set and vision to the office that can restore the culture and trust inside and outside of the office, return to a standard of excellence, and proactively address real world issues in our city. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. While I wish I were writing about a different case, I think I have to select, as the worst U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Citizens United devastated the American political system. It’s impossible to quantify the extent of the damage. In Wisconsin, the money that has been allowed to enter our political races has resulted, in part, in a near decade of one party control. I’ve experienced this firsthand during my tenure in the State Legislature and know our state’s inability to experience meaningful progress in areas deeply important to me have their roots in the flawed political process Citizens United has empowered. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were professionally involved. State v. Moore, 2015 WI 54 I was co-counsel for Mr. Moore and briefed and helped argue the pretrial litigation that was the subject of the State Supreme Court case. Mr. Moore was interrogated by law enforcement and as co-counsel for his defense, I helped challenge the admissibility of the interrogation. Juvenile interrogations should be audio or visually recorded and portions of Mr. Moore’s interrogation were done without recording and a subsequent recording was made in secret by law enforcement. The State Supreme Court ruled wrongly that the interrogation was admissible against Mr. Moore. Bank of New York Mellon v. Carson, 2015 WI 15 While I was not counsel on the Carson case, it was one that I followed closely and was inspiration for and useful during multiple legislative sessions working on mortgage foreclosure legislation. Carson involved so called “zombie foreclosures,” where lenders never sold properties after receiving a foreclosure judgment. This meant the previous homeowners, many of whom no longer lived in the home, remained legally responsible for property taxes and the condition of the property. Carson was a big victory and helped create additional legislation improving the sheriff sale process for mortgage foreclosures. Carson remains an inspiration to me today as I look toward focusing on housing and housing quality as City Attorney. The City Attorney’s Office wrote as an Amicus in Carson. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and/or administrative proceedings. My litigation experience is in the criminal justice system. I worked as a trial attorney in the Office of the State Public Defender in Milwaukee County and handled all levels of criminal defense litigation, including administrative hearings. During my time in the State Legislature I have been actively involved in writing laws, or trying to block bad laws, that make changes to how criminal and civil cases are tried in Wisconsin. 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. Throughout my elected career I have had to make difficult decisions in the face of opposition. I handle these instances through research, balancing each side of the argument, listening to those directly impacted, and making the best decision possible. I can think of many instances working to reform the criminal justice system within a legislature hostile to the idea, where I pushed for compromise rejected by both the right and left wings of the major political parties. This was particularly the case working to reform Wisconsin’s juvenile justice system, where one party rejected doing anything and the other pushed against plans that did not do enough. Those were difficult, long days/months/years, but I stayed committed to the process I’ve outlined and it ultimately was a positive, meaningful effort for the issues being advanced. What are the greatest obstacles to delivering true justice for the citizens of Milwaukee that you anticipate? What can or should be done about them? I think the greatest barrier to true justice in Milwaukee, as I define it, is poverty. I don’t mean temporary poverty, I mean the generational, segregated, deep poverty that strips hope and opportunity from a person or a community. I say this because I define true justice as an equal opportunity for each person to reach their potential and live a happy, healthy life as they desire. That definition falls well outside just a legal context of justice. I plan to use the power of the City Attorney’s office to work alongside, listen to, and support community organizations, community leaders, and residents to address the challenges that allow generational poverty to persist. I plan to focus on tangible progress at the neighborhood level. I expect many barriers, as change is difficult. I plan to stay committed to residents and local stakeholders and to not allowing opponents, especially those outside our community to distract from solving the issues presented. I plan to be relentless in these pursuits until we achieve meaningful progress. In Columbia County, Roger L. Klopp challenges incumbent Judge Troy D. Cross for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2. Cross was elected circuit judge in 2018 and previously was an assistant district attorney. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1998. Klopp is an attorney in private practice at Klopp Law Office in Lodi. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1989. His resume is here and an additional biography statement he submitted 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 Klopp's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Cross did not respond to WJI's request. Roger Klopp Why do you want to become a judge? I want to become a judge because I am a very fair person who is attentive to people's situations and would be able to address people's cases with a humanistic perspective. I ran for judge one other time in 1999 but came in third place. Since then, I have pondered running several times and I was encouraged by many people to run in this year's judicial race. Throughout my career as an attorney, I have represented many low income and middle-class people. I have also been on the board of directors at Legal Action of Wisconsin for over 30 years, and have been the organization’s treasurer, vice president and president of the board in the past. My work with this organization has educated me about the difficulties that the disadvantaged and disenfranchised have getting a fair hearing in the courtroom. Access to justice is one of the underpinnings of our country, and we must work harder to provide that access to all on an even playing field. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 has to be one of the worst US Supreme Court cases in the past 25 years. In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, in assailing corporate influence, prosecuted what at the time were called the great trusts vis a vis the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, breaking up the oil monopoly of the Rockefeller's and others. Roosevelt was strongly against corporate influence and control of politics. There was a long-term prohibition on corporate financing of political campaigns. This was due to the belief that corporate influence by way of financing campaigns would give the wealthy an unfair influence upon the political process and weaken the voices of common persons. The Citizens United case was a 5-4 decision which held that the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment prohibited the government from restricting campaign expenditures by corporations, non-profit organizations, labor unions, and other entities. It equated corporations the same rights due to citizens. A corporation is not a person. What has happened is that it allowed a never-ending spigot of corporate money to influence elections and weaken the voice of the common person. Citizens United has allowed corporations to essentially buy elections to the detriment of our populace. Describe your judicial philosophy. Currently there is a lot of debate over constitutional originalism versus the living document theory. A third theory, strict constructionism is also frequently cited. In studying law, and history I believe it is abundantly apparent that the founding fathers drafted a document which was to protect key principles while allowing the document fluidity to address changes in society, and how the law would react to those changes as our nation grew. The industrial revolution was beginning, factories which previously never existed were springing up. Textile, iron and steel mills, and other beginnings of great commerce were emerging while the document was being written. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It did not contain the Bill of Rights which was later ratified in December of 1791. The constitution set up our governmental framework with three branches of government. It specifically allowed for the constitution to be amended by two thirds vote of the Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states. There was debate while the original document was being written and first proposed for ratification, that additions or amendments needed to be made in order to protect civil liberties. The founding fathers, through a great series of debates, agreed modifications needed to be made at the time of the ratification of the constitution, and the bill of rights followed. It was further acknowledged that additional amendments to the constitution may be necessary. I believe we need to interpret the constitution based on the general framework of the living document as applied to the facts at hand. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. From the thousands of cases where I have represented people, two cases which come to mind were both criminal law matters. There was an incident in Columbia County where an elderly woman was beaten by a group of gang wannabes as a way to gain admittance in a local branch of the Folk Gang, an affiliate of the Black Gangster Disciples. It was horrific crime and I had to advocate for a young man who had beaten this elderly woman for little or no reason. In doing so, I found out why this young man, who had been abandoned by his family and bounced from one couch to another, finally found a home in the gang structure. The gang then influenced him and others to burglarize and rob this woman, assaulting her in her sleep. The impression it left on me is that as a society, we need to do more for our children than we are currently doing. We need to make earlier interventions to reduce bad outcomes in the future. A second case was one of a young woman from Europe who was brought to America to be an au pair for a farm family where the mother had passed away. While driving home in the rain one night after meeting some friends, she crossed the center line, and was involved in an accident which resulted in the death of a passenger in an oncoming vehicle. I believe that there were political considerations made in the charging decision due to the deceased woman's connections in state government. My client wanted her side of the story to be heard. She believed in American justice and after the trial went to the jury, the court officer leaned over and wished my client good luck. The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. The jury foreman walked over to the defense table with tears in his eyes. My client was crying too, and he hugged her. He stated, “we had you in there”. It was evident that they felt she was unjustly accused. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have extensive experience in criminal defense cases, having been one of my primary areas of practice for almost 35 years. I am in court on almost a daily basis and am certified by the State Public Defender for virtually all areas of criminal defense, along with juvenile representation, civil commitments, and protective placements. In the 1990s I had a broad-based general practice. I had a family law practice along with real estate, civil litigation, personal injury, small claims, landlord tenant, and employment law. Additionally, I did some bankruptcy work and federal criminal defense. I have represented many clients in probation revocations, which are administrative proceedings. While I was a law clerk, I also did grievance arbitration. In the mid 90's I represented a fellow who was fired from a nationwide trucking and delivery service company for little or no reason. The employment contract called for arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration case was held in Madison and the employer flew in its vice president and in home corporate counsel to Madison on a private jet. It was me and my client versus three more experienced lawyers, and the Vice President of the company. When we called our first witness (another employee of the company), the lead attorney spoke to the vice president of the company and then told the witness “you know this can affect your employment”, basically a threat to fire if he testified. I objected to the threat to a witness, and the arbitrator stated if there were further threats made it would be referred for prosecution for intimidation of a witness. After a day of testimony, the arbitrator closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and said he would issue a written decision. When the decision came, we won. My client got basically everything we asked for in regard to damages and reinstatement. 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. In regard to being challenged and exhibiting courage in the face of adversity or opposition, you are describing what defense attorneys do on a daily basis. My practice at present is mostly public defender and court appointed criminal cases. The system is usually stacked against my clients, and many of them have little or nothing as far as resources, education, and money. Every day I try to figure out how to advocate for my clients and how to get them the fair hearings they deserve. Recently I had a criminal case where I raised the competency of my client. The client was suffering from severe mental illness. The client had a health issue, and the county should have filed a 51/15 mental commitment or a protective placement. The county instead tried to interplead into the criminal matter and gain an order for involuntary medical treatment of this person. I raised the impropriety of what was being done and stated what the proper procedure was. The court ruled against my client. I immediately filed for a stay, secured appellate counsel for my client, and eventually the appellate counsel won a stay of the involuntary administration of medication and medical care. A second case was filed with the same client and when involuntary administration of medicine was asked for by the state, the judge having recently been educated on the proper procedure by the court of appeals, agreed with my client's position and did not order involuntary administration of medication. 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? Recusal of a judge in cases involving donors and indirect supporters is best addressed on a case by case basis, looking at the amount of the contribution, amount of support or assistance to a judicial campaign, and whether the judge was aware of the donation, support and amount of assistance. Normally recusal is not required for de minimus contributions and assistance. If the situation amounts to impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, the judge should consider recusal. Contribution amounts to judicial and other campaigns are set by law. If a contribution is in excess of that amount the excess should be returned if possible or donated to a permissible entity. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? The concept of true justice has historically been based upon a deist approach to justice with an omnipotent arbiter providing divine justice. What a circuit court judge does is much different than that. Circuit court judges are the first level of the courts in Wisconsin in most cases of significant matter. It's important to listen to the arguments of counsel as well as any testimony or evidence adduced in a case. A good judge should look at the litigant’s relative position in relation to each other, as well as considering their socio-economic background, assistance of counsel, and their apparent intelligence and competency. A judge is allowed to use common sense in fashioning its judgment within the parameters of the law. A circuit court judge is not allowed to craft the law or replace the current law in order to fashion a particular decision. All judges are bound by our oath of office, and decisions must be made within that context. However, when deciding or imposing a sentence, a judge must also be bound by his conscience in making sure that he or she is making the right decision, applying the law to the facts of the matter at hand. I pledge to do that. In Milwaukee County, Marisabel Cabrera and Rochelle Johnson-Bent vie for the open Branch 43 seat after Judge Marshall B. Murray chose not to run for reelection. Cabrera is a member of the Wisconsin Assembly and an attorney in private practice at Cabrera Law Office. She graduated from Michigan State University College of Law in 2002. Her resume is here. Johnson-Bent is an attorney and manager of procurement and risk management for the Milwaukee Public School District. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Gretchen Schuldt
A Milwaukee County judge acted with “apparent antipathy” toward a state law designed to protect businesses from unfair treatment when he ruled the law did not apply to a contract between Milwaukee Municipal Court and JusticePoint, a nonprofit that provides services to indigent defendants, the organization alleges in an appeals brief. Circuit Judge J.D. Watts “disregarded the factual record, made unsupported factual findings, and erroneously interpreted and applied the law to find that the relationship between JusticePoint and the City does not qualify as a dealership under the WFDL,” attorneys Jeffrey Mandel, Erin K. Deeley, and Rachel E. Snyder wrote on behalf of JusticePoint. The WFDL is the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the 50-year-old statute designed to protect businesses from unfair and arbitrary actions by entities issuing contracts. The appeal seeks reversal of Watts’ ruling, a remand to circuit court, and a temporary injunction while the case is litigated there. JusticePoint qualifies for WFDL protection and the city must show that it met certain requirements in ending the contract, they wrote. The city must show it had good cause to end the relationship, that it issued proper notice, and that it provided JusticePoint an opportunity to correct any performance problems. “The city admits to making no effort to comply with any of these three requirements, relying instead on a ‘convenience’ clause as its sole justification for terminating JusticePoint’s contract,” they wrote. “This is patently insufficient under the WFDL.” JusticePoint’s agreement to provide Milwaukee Court Alternatives Program (MCAP) services was terminated at the behest of two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges without explanation, under a “convenience” clause that allows the city to end a contract for any reason with 10 days' notice. The city notified JusticePoint of the termination in May 2023, giving the organization until mid-July to finish its work. Municipal Court officials did not name any successor provider program and said the court would seek bids sometime in the future. That meant that without JusticePoint, Municipal Court defendants would lose the assistance the organization provides for completing community service requirements, handling inability-to-pay forfeiture cases, or finding various social services. JusticePoint sued over the termination, alleging that it violated the WFDL, and Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan temporarily placed the contract cancellation on hold. Watts took over the case after that, ruling against JusticePoint after an October hearing on the matter. The city contended that, applied to a municipality, the WFDL should protect only businesses with a profit motive or a business offering, to protect public procurement law, the JusticePoint lawyers said. “Its concern was not a concrete one in this instance but an abstract fear of a potential slippery slope,” they said. The city also argued that applying the WFDL would lead the city to violate competitive procurement regulations, but “admitted this might be an illusory issue because it ‘may be accurate’ to say that the instant case has no bearing on procurement regulations.“ “Though the city maintained its consistent agreement that JusticePoint distributes city MCAP Services, the trial court at numerous points attempted to steer the city into making arguments contrary to that position — and inconsistent with the factual record,” they said. Minutes after the October hearing ended, the attorneys wrote, Watts “presented a single-spaced, 11-page written decision that disregarded the city’s arguments and the undisputed factual record, concluding instead that: 1) the relationship between JusticePoint and the City was not a dealership protected under the WFDL because JusticePoint was distributing its own, rather than the City’s, services; and 2) there could be no community of interest between the parties in the absence of a ‘joint undertaking’ and shared profitability.” Watts then prompted the city to seek dismissal of the entire case, which he granted, they said. Appellate Judge M. Joseph Donald issued a stay pending appeal, maintaining the suspension of the contract termination. At the trial court level, Watts “made a series of legal errors in applying the law to the undisputed facts of this case, fundamentally narrowing the purview of the WFDL in contravention of both statutory text and binding precedent,” the JusticePoint attorneys said. Watts held, for example, that the “WFDL cannot apply outside of conventional franchise-franchisee, profit-driven, commercial relationships,” an error appellate courts have consistently warned against, they wrote. “To the contrary, JusticePoint’s delivery of services on behalf of the City fits soundly in the ambit of the WFDL under the uncontested facts before this Court,” they said. The nonprofit qualifies for protection under the law because it has an agreement with the city, distributes city services, and shares a community of interest with the city, they said. While the city effectively conceded that JusticePoint distributed city services, Watts found differently, ruling that JusticePoint was distributing its own services. Watts found it dispositive that the city “ ‘did not have the services’ themselves and . . . Municipal Court defendants do not directly pay JusticePoint for the MCAP Services those defendants receive,” the lawyers wrote. The law does not require that, however, they said. It simply requires that a dealer sell or distribute the grantor’s — in this case the city’s — goods or services. “If WFDL protection applied only if JusticePoint was selling city services, the agency could charge a penny meeting Watts’ “atextual, invented requirement” but not making JusticePoint profitable or defraying city expenses for MCAP services, they said. Watts’ misinterpretation also would effectively block charitable nonprofits from WFDL protection if they provide services free of charge for recipients, they wrote. Watts also misread the law’s “community of interest” provision to require JusticePoint to maintain a commercial business enterprise receiving revenue and setting prices, the JusticePoint attorneys said. Under state Supreme Court precedent, a community of interest exists when there is continuing financial interest and interdependence, they said. A “ ‘continuing financial interest’ contemplates a ‘shared financial interest in the operation of the dealership or the marketing of a good or service,’ while ‘interdependence' is the ‘degree to which the dealer and grantor cooperate, coordinate their activities and share common goals in their business relationship,’ ” they wrote. Watts also “arbitrarily rejected the uncontested factual record” to find that there was "no coordination of activities” between the city and the nonprofit. He found that JusticePoint’s investments in staff and computer programming infrastructure needed to run its program were not substantial compared to its overall expenses, despite there being no evidence of overall expenses offered, the lawyers said. While JusticePoint does not charge clients for its services, it saves the city money and has a financially interdependent relationship with the city, they wrote. The city’s own goal for the program, as stated in its most recent request for proposals to operate the program, is to “ ‘ultimately reduce Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility and House of Correction populations and reduce the associated cost to the City of housing these offenders.’ “ The agency also works closely with Municipal Court and other city officials in its program operations, they said. In Sauk County, Nancy Thome and Blake J. Duren vie for an open seat after Judge Pat Barrett chose not to run for reelection. Thome is an attorney in private practice in Baraboo. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1994. Her resume is here. Duren is an attorney in private practice in Reedsburg. He graduated from the St. Louis University School of Law in 2010. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
In Oneida County, Michael Fugle and Mary M. Sowinski vie for an open seat after Judge Michael H. Bloom chose not to run for reelection. Fugle is corporation counsel for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel and in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2002. His resume is here. Sowinski is an assistant district attorney for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel in Vilas County and an assistant DA in Milwaukee County as well as in private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Gretchen Schuldt Judges from around the state are supporting a bill that would outlaw protests at their homes, but a constitutional law professor says the measure raises First Amendment concerns. The bill would prohibit people from demonstrating near a judge’s residence if they are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. The word “near” is used but not defined in the legislation, Assembly Bill 965 / Senate Bill 926. A chart showing the sponsors of the measure is at the bottom of this post. Ed Fallone, a constitutional law professor at Marquette University, said in an interview that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment generally does not allow a group to exist in a protected “bubble” denied to others. The bill would create such exclusive protections, he said. That amendment protects freedoms of speech and religion and the rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Those offering testimony in favor of the bill included state Supreme Court Justice Annette K. Ziegler and judges from St. Croix County, the District II Court of Appeals, Juneau County, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Dunn County, Sauk County, Fond du Lac County, Washburn County, Dodge County, Racine County, Sheboygan County, Clark County, Sheboygan County, Ozaukee County, Outagamie County, Brown County, Chippewa County, Waukesha County, Brown County, Dane County, Calumet County, Barron County, Manitowoc County, Monroe County, Door County, Milwaukee County, and Rusk County. The State Bar of Wisconsin also offered testimony in support. The bill is one of three about judges and their security concerns. Judges' written testimony on the three-bill package included discussion of security for their families and them; incidents they had experienced personally; and the June 2022 murder of retired Juneau County Judge John Roemer by a man Roemer sentenced years earlier. In some instances, multiple judges from the same county signed on to testimony in support of the bill, raising potential conflict-of-interest issues if the measure becomes law and the judges are asked to rule on related cases. The Assembly’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee recommended passage of the bill, 13-2, with Reps. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) opposed. The full Assembly approved the measure without a roll call vote. The Senate’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee recommended approval on a 5-1 vote, with State Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) opposed. The bill is pending before the full Senate. In her written testimony to the Assembly committee, Ziegler said that “Judges should not be threatened with acts of violence from people or groups who want to intimidate or harm us, push a cause, subvert the rule of law, or control the outcome of a case. That is a basic tenet of Judicial independence.” The bill is modeled on a federal statute, she said. The Wisconsin bill, unlike the federal statute, “removes the prohibition …against picketing, parading or demonstrating at, in, or near a building housing a court,” Ziegler wrote. The federal law, adopted in 1950, prohibits the same type of picketing of federal judges’ residences as the Wisconsin bill would ban. It also has raised recent First Amendment questions, especially after protests in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning abortion rights. Allowing courthouse picketing, which judges can easily avoid entirely, is not enough, Fallone said. “One of the aspects of your free speech right is to be heard by the person you’re expressing your opinion to,” he said. While he sympathizes with judges seeking to reduce the stress levels of their jobs, Fallone said, protections such as those proposed should be limited to specific judges in response to specific events or threats. If judges deserve special security considerations, those protections could well spread to other protest targets, thus further limiting the scope of the First Amendment, he said. Bill Sponsors
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|