|
In La Crosse County, Joe Veenstra and Eric S. Sanford 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. Veenstra is an attorney at the Johns, Flaherty & Collins law firm in La Crosse and is a supplemental court commissioner in La Crosse County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. His resume is here. Sanford is a family court commissioner in La Crosse County Circuit Court and previously was an assistant district attorney in La Crosse County, a private practice attorney, and an assistant state public defender. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2011. 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.
0 Comments
In Racine County, Jamie M. McClendon challenges incumbent Jon Fredrickson in Branch 7. The election is April 1. McClendon is an attorney practicing at McClendon Law, LLC, and previously was a staff attorney in the State Public Defender's Office. She graduated from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law in 2007. Her resume is here. Fredrickson was appointed Racine County Circuit Court judge by Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 and then elected to a full term in 2019. He previously was an attorney at Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1999. 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. McClendon responded to WJI's questionnaire. Fredrickson did not. However, voters can find out more about him in this WJI blog post, which included portions of his application to Walker. Candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Why do you want to become a judge?
After my mother retired from the Army, she became a Teamsters member who worked in a factory for 30 years. We were a working-class family, but because of my mother’s hard work, my sister and I were able to follow our dreams. The dedication and values my mother instilled in me while I was growing up has had the biggest impact on my career. She taught me to do what is right, and to protect people who are the most vulnerable. I became the first in my family to go to college and then to law school. Once I passed the bar exam, I became an attorney at the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office in Racine County. My career as public defender is where the beliefs and values my mother instilled in me are exhibited the most. Many of the people that come through the criminal justice system are from a background of poverty and rely on public defenders to represent them. Public defenders have the difficult duty of speaking up for people others may overlook or ignore; and are integral in making sure our justice system is fair. Public defenders play an important role in protecting people’s rights. While public defender’s play an important role in fighting for people’s rights; judges ensure equal justice for everyone to prevent violations of people’s rights. Judges must have the strength to do what is right and not allow outside pressure to impact their decision. With this strength, should come an understanding on how judges’ decisions can impact those who are the most vulnerable in our community. Both my personal and professional experiences have guided me to stand up for what is right and I believe to my core that everyone deserves to be treated fairly in our justice system. This is why I became a lawyer, a public defender, and this is why I want to be a judge. 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. Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct 2484 (2019): The Wisconsin Supreme Court relied on this case when determining the limited role the judiciary has on redistricting legislative maps. The Court does not have power to intervene with redistricting when it comes to political parties. It must only review legislative maps to ensure they are in compliance with our constitution and statutes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed that the maps at the time were not constitutional based on the lack of “one person, one vote” due to a shift in the locations of the population according to the most recent consensus. They declined to be involved with the political question of the map being fairly drawn for a political party. This had a positive impact on Wisconsin because maps should be drawn to ensure everyone’s votes count. Describe your judicial philosophy. A judge should show judicial restraint and be reluctant in reinterpreting the law. She should respect our Constitution and not allow outside pressures impact their decisions. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. 1. 1st Degree Intentional Homicide-Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of a Firearm by a Felon, Misdemeanor Bail Jumping, Jurisdiction: Jury Trial: July 19, 2022 This was my first Intentional Homicide case that went to trial. The discovery was voluminous. Unlike the State, I did not have officers or other staff to help me review over 100 hours of surveillance videos and thousands of pages of reports and collected data. In addition, time was very limited due to my client’s request for a speedy trial that had to be held within 90 days of the demand. I also did not have co-counsel. I had to organize and review everything on my own to be ready for a speedy trial. By the time of trial, I was prepared to give the vigorous defense my client deserved. I was equipped to cross examine experts in DNA testing, cell phone data and tracking, medical records, and law enforcement. In the end, the jury found my client guilty on all counts. This case is significant to me because it shows how important it is that our justice system has competent and dedicated attorneys on both sides to be fair. 2. Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide, First Degree Reckless Endangering Safety, First Degree Reckless Endangering Safety-Causing Injury, Possession of a Firearm by a Felon: Jury Trial: March 3, 2020 From the start of this case, there was one concerning issue: the reliability of the eye witness identification. In reviewing the recording of the identifying witness’s statement to the police, it was clear that this witness was being treated more like a suspect than a potential victim. He was on probation and the officer had already requested an arrest warrant for him. Prior to trial, there were two hearings in which the key identifying witness had to provide testimony. One was at my client’s revocation hearing and the other was at a deposition hearing. At both hearings, the witness denied that my client was the shooter. At the revocation hearing, the ALJ did not find the witness’ identification credible and denied the department request for revocation. The State was aware that my client was not revoked and decided to continue to trial anyways. In addition to this witness, there was an alleged victim who was shot in the leg. She told the officer from the beginning of the investigation that she could identify the shooter. She said he was walking right towards her and she saw his face. When she was provided a photo line-up that included my client, she did not identify him as the shooter. She testified to the same at trial. This case was significant to me because I had to convince the jury that the identification of my client was unreliable because the identifying witness was susceptible to overwhelming pressure to name my client as the shooter. Ultimately, the jury found my client not guilty on all counts. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have been practicing in Racine County for 13 years. I have represented the people of Racine in over 1500 cases. These cases include juvenile court, criminal, family, civil commitments, and probation revocations. I have handled minor disorderly conduct cases all the way up to first degree homicide cases. 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. One of the biggest injustices I witnessed in the courtroom happened to my client. He was charged with another young man for a robbery. Both equally participated in this crime. However, that is where the similarities ended. The other guy had a personal issue with the victim and set up the robbery. He was smug and rude to the police when asked about his involvement. My client was helpful and provided information to the police. The State offered the other guy a lower charge, a probation recommendation, and expungement. My client was offered a charge that was not eligible for expungement and a prison recommendation. I provided the Court with as much information as I could about his upbringing and neglect as a child. I was hoping that, although the Court could not change the charge he pleaded to, she would at least give them the same sentence. She did not. Despite the victim's family’s support of my client, the judge sentenced him to prison. She sentenced the co-defendant to probation and granted his expungement. The only other difference between these two was their race. My client was black. The co-defendant was white. My response to this event was running for judge in Racine 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? A fair judge should be able to acknowledge any possible implicit or explicit bias within themselves. She should strive to prevent bias from interfering with her decision-making. Racine County deserves to have an independent judge that does not allow public pressure or politics to dictate the outcome of a case. I do think that a judge should recuse themselves from cases in which donors contributed to their campaign. I believe any amount of donations should be reviewed for any possible bias in deciding a case. 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.] True justice is defined by the preamble of the Code of Judicial Conduct: “[a] judge must be independent, fair and competent when they interpret and apply the laws to the facts and circumstances of the cases presented.” The judge’s role is to listen to both sides of a case and then interpret and apply the law to that case. One of the greatest obstacles a judge faces when trying to accomplish true justice is the volume of cases, especially in criminal court. I look to the two judges I admire, the Honorable John Jude and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for examples on how to effectively ensure that everyone is treated fairly and justly. Both judges are known for asking questions of the parties to get a better understanding of the presented case. They both seek to understand the people, the issues, and the arguments presented to make sure they will fashion an informed decision when applying the law.
Mosaics with symbols of legislation, justice, and government from the interior of the Capitol dome in Madison, Wisconsin. Photographs by Margo Kirchner By Alexandria Staubach
The Assembly’s Committee on the Judiciary held a public hearing this week on five bills, all of which seek to make the criminal legal system more punitive. In a perplexing move, legislators again introduced a bill that limits prosecutorial discretion in dismissing and amending charges for certain offenses and offering deferred prosecutions for a list of crimes. The new bill is AB-66. A similar bill made its way through the Legislature late last session but Gov. Tony Evers vetoed it. Multiple law enforcement association representatives appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to testify in favor of the bill. Considerable frustration was directed at dismissals, specifically in Milwaukee. Alexander Ayala, president of Milwaukee’s police association union said, “if it’s not put nicely, in a nice case, with all the evidence and everything, they just get dismissed,” regarding cases that include charges for felon in possession of a weapon. The charge is used as a “bargaining chip,” said Ayala, who shared concerns about rearresting the same individuals on multiple occasions. “If a case isn’t gift wrapped and perfectly presented, some people aren’t willing to put in a little extra effort,” said James Olson, testifying in support of the measure for the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association. When asked why he thought so many gun cases were being dismissed, Olson first said he wouldn’t speculate, but then said he has heard “prosecutorial discretion or everybody deserves another chance.” The proposed new law would not be limited to cases involving possession of a weapon after felony conviction. Even misdemeanor acts of domestic abuse and violations of temporary restraining orders would be implicated. Including those misdemeanor cases in the bill causes concern for Christian Gossett, a 23-year veteran prosecutor in Winnebago County. Gossett testified that domestic violence victims often recant their testimony. He worried that having to tell a judge and the defense all the problems with their case in open court, as the proposed new law would require, would not help anyone. “If you’re coaching a football team and you had to go tell the coach on the other team what you’re going to do, you will lose all the time,” said Gossett. “This is not manageable for prosecutors.” He highlighted the diversion work being done in his office’s domestic violence unit, which he said has a recidivism rate of just 3.9% at three years postconviction. By contrast he said traditionally 60-65% of individuals convicted of a domestic violence crime who go through the system will reoffend in 5 years. Gossett was the only person to testify in person against the bill. ACLU of Wisconsin’s executive director of advocacy, Amanda Merkwae, submitted written testimony opposing the bill. “There are a multitude of reasons why a charge may be dismissed or amended by a prosecutor, including the innocence of an individual charged with a crime, insufficient evidence for a charge to stand, or constitutional concerns with police action,” wrote Merkwae. She cautioned that “AB-66 will exacerbate the downstream social and economic harms of overcriminalization to individuals, families, and communities.” The committee also heard testimony on AB-85 at Tuesday’s hearing. That bill would require the Department of Corrections to recommend revoking a person’s probation, parole, or extended supervision for merely being charged with (not convicted of) a new crime. Revocations already make up the majority of new incarcerations in Wisconsin. In 2024, 60% of new prison admissions were for revocation, according to records published by the DOC. There were more than 8,000 revocation incarcerations in 2024 alone. Under the current scheme, an administrative law judge decides whether an individual charged with a new offense gets revoked following charges for a new offense, but revocation must first be recommended by the DOC. “It may come as a surprise, but a convicted criminal on community supervision is not immediately revoked if they’re charged with another crime,” said Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), the lead sponsor of both bills. In his testimony to the committee, Jacobson said 6,280 individuals who were charged with new offenses were not revoked in 2019. Without defining the cost, Jacobson argued that the price of this recidivism is high if we consider case load costs across law enforcement and the resources of the courts. However, Jacobson failed to recognize that the average cost to incarcerate an individual now exceeds $65,000 at Waupun Correctional Institution (a maximum-security facility) and $46,000 at Fox Lake Correctional Institution (a medium-security facility), per the DOC’s 2024 end-of-year reports. “A person who has been charged with a crime while on release has violated that promise of good behavior” said the bill’s cosponsor, Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield). Olson reiterated Hutton’s point, saying “I don’t know how many chances we need to keep giving people.” Sean Wilson of Dream.org spoke in opposition to the bill. “Discretion is essential to justice,” he said, adding that the legislation undermines the presumption of innocence and would “exacerbate inequalities.” Wilson cited the need for wrap-around services to promote success in reentry instead of another mechanism to ensnare people in the justice system. “The Department of Corrections already recommends revocation in the majority of cases,” Wilson said. “To add another layer where you’re mandating what they’re already doing doesn’t make sense.” Wilson called the bill a “waste of paper.” The committee also discussed:
In Waukesha County, David Maas challenges incumbent Bridget Schoenborn in Branch 4. The election is April 1. Maas is a prosecutor in the Fond du Lac County District Attorney's Office and before that was an assistant attorney general at the Wisconsin Department of Justice. He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. His resume is here. Schoenborn was appointed Waukesha County Circuit Court judge by Gov. Tony Evers in 2024. She previously was a federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. She graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 2004. 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. Maas responded to WJI's questionnaire. Schoenborn did not. However, voters can find out more about her in this WJI blog post, which included portions of her application to the governor. Candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Why do you want to become a judge?
My desire to be a judge stems from my extensive experience as a prosecutor and my deep commitment to justice and the rule of law. First, I believe in the fundamental promise of our legal system – that every person who enters a courtroom deserves fairness, due process, and justice. I have had the benefit of practicing in front of dozens of judges across the state as an Assistant District Attorney and Assistant Attorney General over the past 25+ years. In those courtrooms, I saw firsthand the judicial demeanor and conduct that worked well, and the attitudes that did not. A judge should be punctual, prepared, knowledgeable, impartial, respectful, and ethical. A judge, particularly in Waukesha, should not be afraid of a large caseload and a high-pressure environment. My years as a prosecutor have prepared me well for this role by exposing me on an almost daily basis to this environment. I am not afraid of working hard, making tough calls, and always acting ethically. I know how to manage a huge calendar of cases, and I would run an efficient courtroom. Second, I have worked closely with law enforcement, victims, and defense attorneys, giving me a balanced perspective on the real-world impact of judicial decisions. I have seen the emotional toll the system takes on victims, and I recognize the importance of ensuring defendants’ rights. Even though I spent this time as an advocate for the people of Wisconsin, I have always strived to do what is right because of the immense power I have as a prosecutor. It is a responsibility I never take lightly. While handling thousands of cases, I feel like I have consistently built a proper perspective to best litigate and resolve cases. Giving up my advocacy role will be the most difficult part in this transition, but I know I will retain proper perspective and judgment. Third, my expertise with digital evidence and adherence to the 4th Amendment is greatly needed on the bench in Wisconsin. In years past, digital evidence was used primarily in internet crimes and child pornography cases. It has now become important evidence in almost all criminal prosecutions and many civil cases. I have seen a vast discrepancy in experience among judges when it comes to digital evidence. I embraced my role helping fellow prosecutors in this area, and I could do the same for my judicial colleagues. I would be the best fit for this greatly needed unique role as a trainer, consultant, and colleague. I have always embraced the responsibilities that I have as a prosecutor, and I would similarly embrace my responsibilities as a judge. I know I would be a fair and impartial umpire, calling balls and strikes as the arbiter of facts and law. My career has prepared me for this next step in service to my community. I would be honored to serve the citizens of Waukesha County as a member of the bench. 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. I am choosing Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018) for this question. Carpenter represents a few positives and a few negatives and signals the direction I think the United States Supreme Court will continue to travel when and if it decides another important 4th Amendment digital evidence case. First, a negative. Carpenter was a 2018 decision based upon 2011 fact pattern. By the time the decision was released, the technology involved was almost obsolete. The cell site location information of Carpenter had been surpassed by GPS and other location tracking with exponentially better accuracy. The amount of our personal data available commercially and to the government is greater by many factors. This decision shows the inability of the Supreme Court to keep up with changes in technology and puts the onus on the circuit courts to apply 4th Amendment requirements as technology changes and the government’s reach extends, without the benefit of legal precedence or legislation. A positive takeaway from Carpenter is that the Supreme Court recognized our right to privacy in our movements and our data, at least to a point. Read with Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Supreme Court acknowledged that cell phones, and the data contained therein or in the cloud, are just different than other traditional targets of government search and seizure. The decision rightly requires the government to act in accordance with the 4th Amendment by obtaining a search warrant for location data, even though it is turned over to and kept by third parties. The government cannot take shortcuts in accessing this data. The Supreme Court was correct to reason that this cell phone data is qualitatively different such that it deserves a new classification of records, although it remains unclear what the extension of this special treatment will be. Carpenter also gives standing to the individual to challenge search and seizure of this data. Given the ubiquitous nature of cell phones and the expansive availability of consumer data which tracks our location every minute of every day, even when our phones are “off,” courts will continue to be confronted with the challenge of weighing police access to third party records for investigative purposes against a citizen’s right to be free of not just government surveillance but also commercial surveillance. This decision is important for both privacy rights and the government’s access to records. Carpenter requires courts to continue balancing the individual’s right to privacy in ways not seen before and be aware that “voluntary” commercial surveillance must not equate to government access to private records. A court must also appreciate the vast amounts of data accessible via warrants and ensure that the warrants are only approved if they are limited in scope and particularity. Describe your judicial philosophy. Judges should serve the community in a way that encourages confidence in the legal system. Inherent in this approach is the necessity to afford all who appear respect and due consideration, applying the law and weighing the facts presented in a fair and impartial manner. I am guided by the Preamble of SCR 60: “Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.” The first part of this sentence, relating to an independent and fair judiciary, is reiterated in the subsequent SCR 60 rules. First and foremost, I would be a fair and impartial jurist. While I am to ensure the rights of defendants, victims, plaintiffs, and other parties are preserved and respected, I do not advocate on their behalf. I weigh arguments, assess cases, and make rulings unaffected by bias, prejudice, or passion. If parties are to respect the judiciary, this is crucial. Of equal importance is the second part of the Preamble’s opening: “…interpret and apply the laws that govern us.” The judiciary must be separate from the executive and legislative branches. As a judge, I do not make laws. I cannot interpret laws to suit my personal beliefs. I must only apply the law as written. If a higher court has already rendered an opinion on a particular law, then that legal precedent must also be respected. I would not serve the people of Waukesha by making my own laws. I also subscribe to the judicial philosophy of Originalism. I’ve worked with enough high-tech Constitutional issues to know that technological advancements are making the application of strict textualism extremely difficult. Originalism allows for an understanding and interpretation of the Constitution’s text as meant by the framers. It does not allow for judicial activism or changing laws based on the whims of current trends. Regarding the “competent” adjective in the Preamble, my experience in practicing before many judges across the state has afforded me the opportunity to see what works well and what doesn’t when running a courtroom. Three consistent themes emerged from the well-run courts: preparedness, efficiency, and respect. A judge should be prepared for arguments by being familiar with the issues of a case. That preparedness is necessary to question the litigants and to make informed rulings. If the judge runs an efficient courtroom by being punctual and keeping a well-maintained calendar, the litigants will be better served. Of equal importance, in service to the citizens who rely on the court system, a judge should extend respect to all who appear before him/her. Litigants look to the legal system for justice and conflict resolution. The judge is the face of that system. Trust or faith in the system is lost if the judge is unable to uphold these high standards of conduct. I will be an honorable representative of the system. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. State v. Eddie Tipton, State v. Robert Rhodes, Dane County Case Nos. 16CF2604, 16CF2605. As lead Cyber Crime prosecutor at the Department of Justice, I represented Wisconsin’s interests in the multi-state lottery fraud perpetrated by Eddie Tipton and his best friend Robert Rhodes. Tipton was a programmer and security expert at the Multi-State Lottery Association in Iowa. He was responsible for creating the software for the random number generator computers used to pick lottery numbers. By installing malicious code into the machines, he was able to predict winning lottery numbers on certain days of the year. In December 2007, Rhodes purchased the winning ticket for the December 29, 2007, WI Megabucks Lottery game worth $2,000,000 by using pre-selected numbers provided by Tipton. Tipton and his conspirators, including his brother, were also responsible for fraudulent lottery wins for millions of dollars in Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Coordination between Iowa, Colorado, and Wisconsin was essential to complete the investigation. The machines used in the Wisconsin lottery were recovered and forensically analyzed, and Tipton's code was cracked. I led the entire case from investigation to sentencing, working closely with the Iowa Attorney General to discover the criminal pattern, flip witnesses, and break up the conspiracy. Rhodes pled guilty in Wisconsin and provided testimony against Tipton. Tipton then pled guilty in both Wisconsin and Iowa. The case was the subject of a New York Times Magazine article: Reid Forgrave, The Man Who Cracked the Lottery, New York Times Magazine, May 3, 2018. This case was significant because of the scope of the criminal conspiracy, the amount of loss involved, the technical expertise required to understand the scheme, and, most importantly, the fact that our DOJ team, working with the Wisconsin Lottery, was integral in discovering and stopping the criminal enterprise. State v. Daniel Steffen, Polk County Case No. 21CF67. Steffen, a former Polk and Burnett County prosecutor, was convicted of three counts of Representations Depicting Nudity on April 27, 2023, after a jury trial. Steffen, while an ADA in Burnett County, had an ongoing sexual relationship with a female defendant who was on a deferred prosecution agreement prosecuted by Steffen and his office. The Division of Criminal Investigation got its initial tip and began investigating Steffen for misconduct in early 2020. I drafted multiple warrants for communications and location records and gave advice to our agents throughout the course of the investigation. Upon execution of the final warrants in Steffen's home, investigators discovered videos of Steffen engaged in sex with the female defendant, made without her knowledge. Investigators also uncovered a similar video with a second victim. I first-chaired the trial with one of our junior AAGs. The case was significant because of the extensive warrant work done during the multi-year investigation, my close involvement with the agents in putting the pieces of the communication and location records together, and the impact on the profession of prosecuting an ADA who was exploiting his office for personal gain in arguably the most abusive way possible. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. During law school, I was an in-house legal clerk for a national insurance agency. My casework and legal research focused on insurance defense issues. I also clerked at a civil law firm for one semester before joining the firm as an associate for a year. That civil practice involved contract, employment, and personal injury work. Those cases were in circuit court and small claims. Since October 1999, I have been a Wisconsin prosecutor, practicing almost exclusively criminal cases in state circuit courts. I have handled thousands of cases and tried well over 100 jury trials. Early on in my career, my experience was in domestic violence, general felony, gun, felony drug, and violent felony cases. I also spent one year prosecuting termination of parental rights cases, which share many aspects with civil litigation proceedings. As an Assistant Attorney General for 15 years, I prosecuted election fraud, public corruption, felony drug, homicide, and Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) cases. I developed a specialization in ICAC cases and became the lead ICAC resource prosecutor in Wisconsin. I also prosecuted Sexually Violent Persons Commitment cases and then supervised that team. Those cases are quasi-criminal/civil and are litigated in circuit courts. For the past 19 months, I have been an Assistant District Attorney in Fond du Lac County. I have a general criminal caseload, with cases ranging from simple misdemeanors to complex felonies and homicides. I have litigated a handful of criminal appeals cases throughout the course of my career. 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. One of the most challenging aspects of my career as a prosecutor has been handling internet crimes against children (ICAC) cases. These cases are uniquely difficult – not just because of the legal complexities involved, but because of the emotional and psychological toll they take on everyone involved, from investigators to prosecutors to judges. Adversity comes in many forms. First, there is the vicarious trauma – repeatedly reviewing graphic evidence, listening to victims' statements, and working alongside law enforcement officers and analysts who themselves struggle with the weight of these cases. The risk of burnout is high, yet walking away is not an option when justice for vulnerable children is on the line. To manage this, I remained committed to the mission while also implementing safeguards – encouraging peer support, seeking mental health resources, and ensuring that my team and I had the resilience to continue this work effectively. Another challenge was facing judges (or other prosecutors) who were reluctant to impose mandatory minimum sentences for offenders who preyed on children. Some viewed these crimes as less severe than hands-on offenses, failing to grasp the profound harm caused by the creation and distribution of child exploitation material. In those cases, I had to stand firm, advocating forcefully for victims and educating the court on the long-term impact of these crimes. I presented expert testimony, victim impact statements, and legal arguments that underscored why these sentences were necessary – not just as punishment, but as protection for other children at risk. I also successfully defended the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s mandatory minimum sentence for these crimes around the State, and the briefs I developed were used by prosecutors when facing similar motions. Despite the emotional and legal challenges, I never wavered in my commitment to holding offenders accountable. True courage in this work means showing up every day, fighting for justice despite the toll it takes, and ensuring that the most vulnerable members of our society – children – receive the protection they deserve. 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? Impartiality is a core requirement for any judge when presiding over a case. If the judge cannot be an impartial determiner of the facts and applier of the law, then that judge cannot rule on the case. Campaign contributions could potentially result in a judge, in certain circumstances, determining that he/she can no longer be impartial. The Wisconsin Statutes and Code of Judicial Conduct both provide guidance for when a judge can no longer preside over a case. The statutes focus more on a judge’s financial interest in the outcome of that case, while the ethical rules require recusal when the judge makes public statements about the issues in a case or there is reason to question the judge’s ability to remain impartial. Any analysis under these rules, though, must be on a case-by-case basis. I cannot prejudge one way or the other whether a contribution from a donor or indirect supporter would create a conflict. I can promise that I would take this issue seriously and would analyze any potential conflict if it arises. I owe that to the litigants, the public, and the judiciary. As for contribution limits, that is not for a judge to say. I abide by the laws as written and passed by the Legislature, and the rules imposed by the government entities empowered to pass those regulations. If those rules and statutes are Constitutional, they should be respected. 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.] “True justice” in its purest form can only be delivered by God. A judge cannot know what is in a person’s heart or mind. Judges will always be limited by imperfect knowledge, the facts presented to the judge, and the constraints of the law. But to deliver the best justice possible, a judge must ensure that all individuals, whether victim, defendant, litigant, or other party, receive fair and impartial treatment under the law as written. This requires a consistent application of legal principles, commitment to due process, impartiality, and humility. For example, when sentencing a defendant, a judge must consider the seriousness of the offense, the character of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. Where a jury must only evaluate the defendant’s actions in the present, a judge must assess character (an examination of past behavior) and risk to the public (an estimation of future conduct). A judge can only use the evidence and arguments presented to him/her in evaluating these sentencing factors. No judge can see into the soul of a defendant when assessing character, nor can a judge exactly measure a defendant’s risk of recidivism or a desire to change. The range of punishment is defined by the laws written by the Legislature. To mitigate these challenges, judges must approach their role with impartiality, humility and a reverence to the law. If a judge is acting within the law, the judge is not affected by public sentiment or outside influence. If a judge is acting with impartiality and humility, the judge is not affected by bias, prejudice, anger, or other outside perceptions. Judges must give careful consideration to all decisions made in court and ground all decisions in the law and the Constitution. A judge should treat litigants fairly and respectfully and allow them to be heard. Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote. Throughout my prosecution career, I have worked very closely with many prosecutors and law enforcement officers. I have also spent much of my career training prosecutors, law enforcement, and judges and both the state and national levels. Because of this background, I have earned the trust of many officials who know my commitment to public safety and protection of the law. For example, I have the endorsement of Judge Brad Schimel, the former Waukesha District Attorney and Wisconsin Attorney General. He trusts that I will be an exceptional representative for the people of Waukesha County. I also have the endorsements of other District Attorneys like Eric Toney (Fond du Lac), Barry Braatz (Washington), and Sue Opper (Waukesha, retired). They know the contributions I have made to public safety over the past 25 years and trust that I will continue that on the bench. I am also honored to have the endorsement of law enforcement, too. The Waukesha County Police Chiefs’ Association, the Waukesha Deputy Sheriffs Labor Union, and the Milwaukee Police Association all endorse me. Having worked closely with many of these brave men and women over my career, it means a lot to have their trust now. They have made me the choice of law enforcement in this race.  Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley interviews Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford at Marquette University Law School on Feb. 28, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford would not hint at what her position on pending cases would be if elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but she wasn’t shy about a body of professional work that demonstrates her values. Crawford told a packed house at Marquette University Law School on Friday that during her tenure as a civil litigator she represented the League of Women Voters, physicians at Planned Parenthood Wisconsin, and educators fighting Act 10, the law that largely gutted collective bargaining for public employees in the state. Crawford also highlighted her work as an administrator in Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources in Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration. She said those fights on behalf of her civil clients led her to the judiciary in 2018. She often found success in circuit court, but then the Supreme Court “would ask questions that were not based on the law” and that “really (got) into political questions.” Crawford’s remarks occurred during a “Get to Know You” forum moderated by Derek Mosley, director of the law school’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. A recording of the forum can be found here. Crawford called out her opponent, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, when saying she thinks “it’s really important to adhere to the judicial code and not comment on pending cases.” She accused Schimel of openly saying “there’s nothing wrong with” Wisconsin’s 1849 law on abortion. She said she has “really refrained” from taking any stance on pending litigation and skirted an audience question asking her position on the decline of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the federal level and the potential for litigation in that area. “It’s going to be up to the parties and the lawyers to decide if there is a state court role to play,” she said, calling the courts “reactive not proactive.” Crawford described her judicial philosophy as “pragmatism,” which she said allows her to “apply the laws to protect the people of the state.” Schimel claimed originalism as his judicial philosophy at a Lubar Center forum last week. Originalism is the view that a constitution or law should be interpreted by today’s jurists in a way they think the writers of the document intended; they act like historians to give the words their perceived original meaning. Three other Supreme Court justices claim originalism, meaning that Schimel's election to the court would make it the majority view. Crawford said that to her, “originalism is a starting point for analysis,” but asking “why was this law enacted” and considering its application over time informs her views. This “gives you a much deeper understanding,” said Crawford. Crawford’s civil litigation experience is coupled with a long career working in various roles for Doyle, when he was attorney general and then governor. “I always said, ‘yes sir, I will take up this new challenge,” said Crawford about her time working for Doyle. Notwithstanding that government work, Crawford told the audience that she was “not running on a partisan agenda.” No matter the issue, she promised the crowd, she will evaluate any evidence, listen to argument, perform her own legal research, and consult with her colleagues prior to rendering every decision if she’s elected. A prospective colleague, Justice Rebecca Dallet, listened from the front row. Th audience asked Crawford about donations from George Soros and J.B Pritzker, the former donating $1 million and the latter donating $500,000 to the state Democratic Party, which passed the money along to Crawford’s campaign. Crawford largely dodged the question about contributions to her own campaign but took the opportunity to say Schimel was taking Elon Musk’s money with obvious strings attached. “Elon Musk is entering the race” and “openly saying he wants Schimel on the court to advance Trump’s agenda,” said Crawford. “I never thought I would be fighting with the world’s richest man for justice in Wisconsin,” she laughed. An audience member questioned Crawford about an accusation that her election could result in a decision that would generate two U.S. House seats, based on Crawford’s appearance at a donor event earlier this year. Crawford said she did attend a video call for the group Focus on Democracy but that she never discussed congressional maps nor took any questions related to them. About congressional maps, “I have never taken a position publicly or privately and don’t know what my position would be,” she said. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed