|
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Diane L. Meulemans
Appointed to: Waupaca County Circuit Court Appointment date: Feb. 5, 2026, to a term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Master’s – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse High School – West Bend East, West Bend, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2014-present – Corporation counsel, Waupaca County July 2013-April 2014 – Corporation counsel, Green Lake County February 2007-July 2013 – Deputy corporation counsel, Marathon County December 2003-February 2007 – Assistant corporation counsel, Marathon County Bar and administrative memberships: Supreme Court of the United States State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Since 2003, my practice has been dedicated to providing legal representation to the County, its elected officials, and departments and to the public interest in service through the Office of Corporation Counsel. As Waupaca County Corporation Counsel, I provide legal services to the County Board of Supervisors on matters of governance, legislation, administrative home rule powers, and ethics. I serve as the Board's Parliamentarian. I provide legal guidance to the County’s Standing Committees. I respond to any legal matter that is required for the County’s successful functioning as a corporate body and a local government unit. Although there are constant themes, Counties require a breadth of legal knowledge across a wide variety of substantive legal areas: business aspects such as contracts and leases; real estate transactions including right-of-way acquisition; public records and open meetings laws; intergovernmental agreements; governance and legislative actions; and competitive bidding for procurement and public works to name a few. As a government attorney, I must also demonstrate the ability to communicate complex legal opinions in a manner that is understandable to the intended audience and relevant to the issue presented in order for sound decisions to be made. I provide written and oral legal opinions to my professional colleagues, including elected officials such as the Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk of Court, Register of Deeds, and County Clerk. I provide legal services for a County Board of Supervisors consisting of twenty-seven Supervisors. Legal services for the County Board include written opinions upon request of the County Board Chair, ethics guidance for individual Supervisors, and “real time” answers and information when legal or procedural questions arise during County Board or Standing Committee meetings. In addition, the Office of Corporation Counsel represents the County as Plaintiff in ordinance enforcement through citations and complex forfeiture actions, as Petitioner's Counsel to the Department of Human Services in Chapter 54 guardianship and Chapter 55 protective placement matters, and the interests of the public in Chapter 48 child welfare matters and Chapter 51 involuntary commitment matters. In Marathon and Green Lake County, I have also served as the Child Support Agency’s attorney focusing on matters under Chapter 767 Family Code to establish child support and non-financial orders, adjudicate paternity, review orders when appropriate, and enforce orders when payers are non-compliant. In Waupaca County, I am the Child Support Agency Administrator and must stay current with state policies and legislative changes and case law affecting Chapter 767. I have a wide substantive legal knowledge in civil matters affecting individuals and families in Waupaca County. As a prosecutor, I must adhere to the civil rules of procedure, discovery and pre-trial motions, and the rules of evidence as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. In all of my years in the Office of Corporation Counsel, I have maintained a successful working relationship with the District Attorney’s Office. The Corporation Counsel and the District Attorney often work in tandem with criminal law for Child Support Agency referrals for felony non-support criminal charges, in criminal mental health order to treat being converted to civil commitment orders, and in child welfare cases that have a parent also charged with the crime of child neglect or abuse. I have also developed positive working relationships with Waupaca County’s law enforcement jurisdictions. City and Village Police Department Officers and Sheriff’s Office Deputies frequently serve as fact witnesses in mental commitment and child welfare cases. I have appeared at countless “in custody” hearings where individuals make their initial appearance on criminal complaints or to quash a civil child support warrant or to have an allocution hearing on a Commitment Order for a contempt sanction. My day-to-day practice in Circuit Court has significant overlap with the criminal justice system. I am confident that I will be able to quickly expand my knowledge of the criminal code, and to properly ensure the rules of criminal procedure have been followed by the State and the Defendant as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. My knowledge of the rules of evidence will be foundational in this endeavor. A successful Corporation Counsel is well versed in civil and criminal law as the two areas frequently overlap and are engaged with legal partners, including the District Attorney and law enforcement personnel. I have accomplished both. Waupaca County does not have a County Administrator or Executive. Therefore, I am involved in county projects and decision making that are not fundamentally legal in nature. For example, I have been involved in a multi-year $35 million Courthouse remodel project that started in 2021. Construction is underway and the substantial completion date is July 2027. I have been fully involved in all aspects of the project, from the development of the Request for Proposals; managing competitive bidding awards; AIA contract negotiations with the architect and the construction management firm; and continued engagement with the project professionals to make sure the project is on time and on budget. At each stage of the project, legal services were provided and communicated to the County Board of Supervisors and the relevant Standing Committees for educated decisions to be made. On June 19, 2024, Waupaca County also endured a Network Interruption that affected county-wide systems and service delivery. I was called upon to lead the County through the cyber incident, working closely with outside counsel and its technical advisors, to guide the County Board in decision making regarding the possible compromise of County data, the resolution of the incident, and the restoration of County services. The County was back online on July 5, 2024 and required data breach notices met necessary federal and state timelines in December 2024 and January 2025. This incident demonstrates that although I can be prepared for the routine aspects of my legal duties and responsibilities, I must also demonstrate leadership, clear thinking, reasoned decision making, and an ability to communicate complex facts to others in a manner that is understandable and guides proper decision making in times of crisis and for which I had no prior experience. Throughout all of my practice experience, starting at Wisconsin Judicare in 2000, I have been asked to make legal decisions, at times in writing, but frequently orally and contemporaneously, when presented with a particular set of facts or situations. I am able to apply the situation presented to the appropriate law, make reasoned decisions founded in the law, and communicate the legal decision to the intended audience. The wealth of substantive legal knowledge I have gained over the course of my career has provided me with an excellent foundation to serve as a judge. The decision making and communication skills I have developed over my career are exactly the type of skills that will make me an effective judge. Describe typical clients: My clients are the citizens of Waupaca County, the County Board, its elected officials, and its Departments. Representing a body as a client can be challenging as individuals who are a part of the body may have competing interests or differing goals. It is always critical to effectively communicate the facts and the relevant law to be able to advise the body and to not be swayed by a particular point of view or outcome. As the Corporation Counsel, representing the County Board, I have undertaken significant legislative legal writing in Waupaca County through ordinance revisions, including repealing and replacing entire Chapters of the Code of Ordinances. I provide legal advice to the County’s elected officials and Department Heads regarding the Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings laws. I have experience in areas of the law that are frequently on the Circuit Court docket. My experience as a practitioner in these substantive areas is advantageous when called upon as a judge to make findings, rulings, and orders in these substantive areas. In these cases, I represent the interests of the public (Chapters 48 and 51), the Department of Human Services (Chapters 54 and 55), and the State of Wisconsin (Chapter 767). Most of these case types also have stringent timelines and notice requirements to uphold due process rights of individuals as liberty interests are affected. As a practitioner, I am principled in affording individuals all the process that the law provides both to maintain the integrity of the proceeding and to protect the individual’s rights. I will do the same as a judge. I also understand that a family law case will be “open” throughout a child’s minority and beyond. The judge may be called upon to enter orders affecting the family as facts and circumstances change for the case participants over time. It is critical for a judge to understand that families are dynamic and their need for court involvement may also evolve over time. I specialize in Chapter 54 guardianships, Chapter 55 protective placements, and Chapter 51 involuntary commitments. I have handled these matters for over twenty years. I have prosecuted child welfare cases and termination of parental rights cases under Chapter 48 for almost twenty years. I have expertise in sections of Chapter 767 Family Law that apply to the child support program, including Wis. Admin. Code DCF 150 Child Support Standard, because of my involvement with County Child Support Agencies since 2003. I am routinely in Circuit Court for these cases, requiring me to be prepared to present my case both factually and through legal argument. After over a decade in the position of Corporation Counsel, I can honestly say no one day is the same as any other, and I am always challenged to expand my practice areas to make certain the legal needs of the County are met. As a judge, I will be called upon to do the same to judiciously manage the proceedings before me. As a judge, I will not control the types of proceedings that come before me. However, my substantive legal experience and the routine work of the Corporation Counsel that constantly involves the challenge to provide legal answers for new legal questions presented will serve me well when in making decisions as a judge. 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: I have selected two cases that I have participated in to demonstrate the breadth of the legal skills in my service as Corporation Counsel. There is a case of state-wide significance and one of evolution of a case to ensure individual rights fit evolving circumstances. Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366. This case is significant in the common law evolution of Chapter 51 recommitment hearings under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am), a process that continues to the present day. Since the time K.E.K was in the trial court in 2018, Chapter 51 recommitment hearings, also called extension hearings, have been in both the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court on multiple issues related to the burden of proof required as to dangerousness of a person presently receiving treatment for mental health, the notice requirements to the individual, the ability to enter default orders, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the competency of the court to proceed if mandatory timelines are not followed. K.E.K. was in individual who was committed to a sixth month involuntary commitment order with an order for involuntary medication and treatment in 2017 after a jury trial under what is known colloquially as “the 5th Standard” in Waupaca County Case No. 17ME44. As the initial commitment period was set to expire, the County, representing the public interest pursuant Wis. Stat. sec. 51.20(4), petitioned for both orders to be extended on May 18, 2018. After a bench trial, K.E.K.’s commitment order and order for involuntary medication and treatment was extended for an additional twelve months. K.E.K. appealed the trial court’s order, arguing that the recommitment statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Waupaca County was represented by my office, including Assistant Corporation Counsel David G. Been. The presiding trial court judge was Judge Vicki L. Clussman. This case then went to the Court of Appeals (Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 389 Wis.2d 104, 2019 WI App 58) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court (Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366). K.E.K. was represented in the trial court by Assistant State Public Defender Kate Drury and on appeal by Appellate Public Defender Colleen G. Ball. I was involved in this process in trial preparation, reviewing and editing briefs, providing secondary legal research, and preparing for oral argument. The Supreme Court ruled in the County’s favor and upheld the constitutionality of the recommitment statute both facially and as applied. K.E.K. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court again alleging the statute was unconstitutional on its face and applied. See 142 S. Ct. 594. After being served notice of the Petition for Review in July 2021, I brought this case to its ultimate conclusion. First, I responded by notifying the United States Supreme Court that Waupaca County would not be filing a Brief in Opposition. The United States Supreme Court, however, directed Waupaca County to do so. I was admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States bar. I was assisted in assembling the Brief in Opposition by Kearney Law Office who also provided guidance on the procedures of filing in the Supreme Court and the internal workings of the Supreme Court. I contributed the fundamental legal knowledge of the practical and legal requirements of Chapter 51 recommitments cases and the individuals with mental illness who have exhibited dangerous behaviors in the community triggering the intervention of the court process, including applying the law to the facts and the stringent due process protections within the law, including strict timelines. Together we worked on the County’s legal analysis and argument. On October 27, 2021, I filed the Brief in Opposition in the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 6, 2021, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. 142 S. Ct. 594 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 369. The utilization of the recommitment statute as an integral tool to ensure individuals with mental illness whose condition places himself of herself in danger to self or others while residing in the community receive necessary treatment and medication to regain stability and safety in their lives. The legal work by the Waupaca County Office of Corporation Counsel has upheld the constitutionality of the statute that is significant in maintaining personal and community safety. To date, Waupaca County v. K.E.K., has a total of forty-six citing references on Westlaw, including twenty-two cases demonstrating its impact on jurisprudence related to Chapter 51 recommitment standard, but the standard of review required in finding a statute unconstitutional both facially and applied. Waupaca County’s Brief in Opposition is submitted as one of my writing samples. In the Matter of [redacted], Waupaca County Case No. 16-GN-15 I have been involved as Petitioner’s Counsel in this case since the filing of the guardianship petition on June 18, 2016, by Adult Protective Services Social Worker. The ward in this case is a young adult, born in 1996, who suffered a traumatic brain injury after a motorcycle accident. Presently the individual has a guardian of the person and a guardian of the estate first ordered in August 2016 and in October 2016 was ordered protectively placed. The case is assigned to Waupaca County Judge Troy L. Nielsen. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as his Guardian ad Litem: Attorneys Eric D. Hendrickson, Sean P. Donahue, Thomas J. Hart, and David William Franker. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as Adversary Counsel: Attorneys Joseph M. Norby, Karen L. Marone, Thomas W. Johnson, Theodore C. Johnson, Richard E. Bender, and Steven Edward Hendrix. This case is significant as it demonstrates the Court’s involvement in ensuring that an individual’s rights are retained and exercised with his then current capacities. It is not surprising that an individual recovers physically and cognitively from a traumatic brain injury. This ward’s recovery has been progressive, and the County has petitioned to have his rights restored as he has regained mental capacity to engage in decisions about his medical needs and his personal situation. The Determination and Order on Petition for Permanent Guardianship Due to Incompetency has been amended multiple times as warranted by the ward’s recovery. In April 2017, his right to obtain a fishing license was restored in full. In September 2018, his right to independently handle $100 per month at the discretion of the guardian was restored. In May 2019, a Petition was filed to restore rights that he may exercise with the consent of the guardian of the person: consent to marriage; apply for a license under Ch. 29, Wis. Stat. other than fishing; consent to sterilization; and consent to organ, tissue, or bone marrow donation. In addition, Petition requested that rights regarding his health decisions, educational and social services decisions, and educational and vocational placements, among other rights, be partially restored to the ward to exercise with approval of his guardian of the person. At this time, the ward stated he wanted to have a girlfriend and have an intimate relationship, intending to hopefully be married. The County arranged for the ward to be evaluated by a psychologist regarding the restoration of the above rights, and the ward’s cognitive ability related to the issue of sexual consent, both in consenting to his own actions and in recognizing his partner’s consent or lack of consent and making appropriate sexual intimacy decisions. The goal throughout this process was to have this ward experience life in a manner that was consistent with his cognitive abilities. In April 2020, the Order was amended to reflect the restoration of rights in the Petition for Modification. The psychologist offered his professional opinion that the ward did not have sufficient cognition and executive functioning regarding consent for sexual intimacy; however, the ward retains the right to marry if his guardian of the person also consents to the marriage granting him hope that he may marry in the future. The Order for Protective Placement continues to be reviewed on an annual basis as is required by statute. The ward most recently was evaluated again by an examiner of his choice on the continuing need for a guardian and the appropriateness of his current group home placement as the least restrictive setting. This case is significant to the ward and others under guardianship as it demonstrates that a case will have its own progression to mirror the recovery of the ward, who is the subject of the case. As Petitioner’s counsel, it is imperative to request the court to intervene in the least restrictive manner in the ward’s decision making. This case also demonstrates each Circuit Court decision and order has an impact on those who seek relief from the Court. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented the respective County Department of Human Services or Social Services in child welfare substantiation appeals under Chapter 48 in various State of Wisconsin Department of Administration hearings. I have represented the Waupaca County Planning and Zoning Office in appeals to the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment, a quasi-judicial body created by Wis. Stat. sec. 59.694. I have handled appeals to the Social Security Administration as a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As a Judicial Intern for Justice Prosser in 1999, I wrote three briefs for questions presented in cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. As a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare, I staffed a monthly walk-in free legal services clinic at the Wausau Salvation Army. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: n/a Previous runs for public office: n/a All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Hon. Scott M. Corbett, Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 6, 2021 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Waupaca County Bar Association, 2015-present Green Lake County Bar Association, president, 2014 Marathon County Bar Association, 2003-2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: The three internships identified in Question 10 generated tangible resources for use in pro bono or volunteer legal services situations. The Goldmark Internship award included a stipend; however, the others did not. Each internship provided an opportunity to establish templates and other foundational resources to assist and engage other attorneys that are providing pro bono legal services. These include the following deliverables: -Developed administrative, screening and procedural forms for the Family Law Assistance Center, a volunteer-based weekly walk-in clinic serving pro se family law litigants as a legal intern at the Center for Public Representation; -Wrote Constructing a Family Law Trial Level Brief When Domestic Violence is in the Record, a 130 page "template" brief for use by legal services attorneys, family law clinical programs, and pro bono attorneys state-wide for direct representation to low-income clients as a Goldmark Intern; and -Wrote a landlord-tenant resource guide with information, procedures, and contact persons to resolve untenantability issues in a seven-county region as an intern at Western Wisconsin Legal Services. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge as it is noble work worth doing. I will continue to serve the people of Wisconsin by using the foundational legal knowledge I have gained over the last twenty-two years in matters that affect individuals, families, and children and most significantly in issues related to the protection of children, the safety of our most vulnerable adults, and the resolution of family law matters. I want to work to enhance the safety of the people of Wisconsin by approaching criminal cases with a focus on offender accountability and victims’ rights. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by fairly responding to the judicial remedies requested by all who seek the circuit court to resolve matters affecting their lives, their livelihoods, and their communities. One of my fundamental truths is that each person in the courtroom has a significant role in the adversarial judicial system established by Wisconsin law and common law. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by providing respect to all who enter my courtroom until that individual engages in words or actions that as a consequence deprive her or him of my respect. Even so, all will be treated with diplomacy and decorum. I will demand the same of others who appear before me. For twenty-two years, I have spent nearly every working day engaged in the functioning of the county courthouse. I have a valuable understanding of the Courts’ partners, namely the Clerk of Courts and the Probate Office. I appreciate, support, and understand the important work of the District Attorney’s Office and her staff. I have lived the work of the Office of Corporation Counsel. I have a wealth of knowledge regarding Waupaca County’s operations, including the annual budget process and its implications on funding and personnel decisions that may impact the circuit court. I will use this knowledge to ensure the people of Wisconsin are served by a Circuit Court that is sound and able to perform the essential delivery of court services to those who seek it. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as Waupaca County Circuit Court Branch III because I want to stand up for the people of Wisconsin. 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. On behalf of the people of Wisconsin, I am troubled by the legal cases that have been filed to restrict voting rights. Therefore, I believe that one of several voter registration cases had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin: State ex. rel. Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2021 WI 32, 396 Wi.2d 391, 957 N.W.2d 208. The case was intended to force the Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge voter registration records based on demographic information provided through the ERIC voter database. The Circuit Court used both its power of Mandamus and Contempt of Court to force Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge the voter registration rolls. However, the holding in the case clarifies the responsibilities under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) to change the registration of electors who may have moved out of their municipality is solely given to the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners has a duty to act when they receive reliable and credible information that a registered elector has changed his or her residence to a location outside of the municipality. The case provided guidance that it is the responsibility of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners must send a letter regarding the move to the elector, and if the register elector does not respond within 30 days, the clerk of board of election commissioners shall change the elector’s registration form eligible to ineligible status. The Court held that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duties under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) regarding updating elector status based on change of residency information. As the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duty to update elector status, the lower court’s use of the writ of mandamus and contempt of court powers was misplaced. The case is significant as it demonstrates the Wisconsin Supreme Court using the plain language analysis of the actual words in the statute and applying the canon of statutory construction. In 2021, the decision provided a clear analytical approach to how the Court may examine the case cases brought before it. It is also significant that it demonstrates the power of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to withdraw language from the lower Court of Appeals decision where it declined to decide an issue that the Court of Appeals had decided, namely the writ of mandamus compelling the Wisconsin Election Commission to comply with § 6.50(3) and reversed the contempt order against the Wisconsin Election Commission. The case is positive because it prevented approximately 234,000 electors from being disenfranchised to vote, supports Wisconsin’s unique system of election administration based on local municipal control and oversight, and takes a broad step in ending voter suppression in the present day where elections are won by slim margins. The decision fundamentally supports the statutory duties of local officials in the electoral process. This provides legitimacy to the elections process for all who engage in the civic duty of voting. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Justice Ann Walsh Bradley because she has been a steadfast, consistent presence in her time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In addition, she is consistent in interactions with others when she is not on the bench and in the community for various events and engagements. I did not practice in Marathon County when Justice Bradley was in Circuit Court, Branch 3. I met her for the first time as a Judicial Intern for Justice David T. Prosser in 1999. Justice Bradley has consistently emphasized non-partisanship in the role of the judiciary, demonstrating independence and steadfastly applying the rule of law. She has advocated for transparency in governance, which as a Corporation Counsel has informed and directed the legal advice I provide to Waupaca County’s elected officials. Her opinions on open governance constantly serve as a polestar for me in my role as Corporation Counsel. Waupaca County was able to meet Justice Bradley and the entire Supreme Court in its Justice on Wheels visit to Waupaca County on October 10, 2022. Justice Bradley was, as always, engaging and effervescent in her love of the law and her work as a Justice. I also admire Judge Greg Grau (Reserve), former Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 4. On December 18, 2003, at 8:30 AM, I was administered the oath to serve as Assistant Corporation Counsel for Marathon County. At 8:40 AM, Corporation Counsel Thomas P. Finley told me I was going to handle the child support cases in Branch 4, said that I would be “just fine,” and we walked to court together. I had not been inside a courtroom for two years, having worked at the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups Elder Law Center from November 2001 to December 2003. In that moment, I was struggling to get a grasp on the facts of the cases and trying to be calm as I represented the State of Wisconsin by Marathon County Child Support Agency in ten different cases. As Judge Grau later told me at my “going away” party in Marathon County almost ten years later, I was “shaking like a leaf.” Then he laughed heartily. It was the only time he mentioned that day to me. Judge Grau was even in his temperament on the bench, and consistent in his findings and holdings. He was measured and thoughtful in entering his rulings. He also offered quips or sarcasm when he found humor or irony in a situation, showing his humanity. I admire Judge Grau as he demonstrated that it is possible to make tough decisions with empathy and humility. Finally, I admire Judge Grau as he made me want to be a better attorney by challenging me subtly and with support and guidance. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to walk the tightrope between expressing her humanity in the management of the daily docket and in understanding the gravity of the decisions and orders she makes. A judge is independent in her decision making, applying the rule of law with equity and fairness. It is not the job of the judge to re-write the law but to interpret the law as the Legislature enacted it. A judge is neutral in her approach to each case, listening carefully to all of the evidence and fairly deciding the proper weight it should be given if she is the trier of fact. A judge is responsible for the decorum of the courtroom, setting and demonstrating a high standard for all to follow; and to direct an end to behaviors that are unacceptable in the courtroom. A judge must stay current in the law, striving to continually educate herself on pending legislation, statutory amendments, and newly released cases. A judge must strive to have her decisions affirmed if they are appealed. A judge must not be complacent in her understanding of the law but constantly strive to enhance her understanding of the law and improve her skills in legal analysis. A judge is a role model for others, including supporting new attorneys as they develop their skills and advocacy in representing their clients with integrity. A judge is willing to share her knowledge and love of the law with community members, including children, who are interested in the courts and court procedures. Simply stated, a judge allows all voices to be heard. In my career in public service, I have demonstrated the actions and attributes required to fulfill the role of a proper judge. I am able to listen to the question presented, receive complete factual information on the issue at hand, apply a thorough understanding of relevant statutes and case law, and offer a legal conclusion. I have practiced in a manner that is attentive to the situations before me, and that delivers sound legal advice to all those who have sought my counsel.
0 Comments
Felicity Rose, vice president of criminal justice research and policy at FWD.us, joined WJI and more than 80 guests on May 14 to share her research on the staggering economic costs of incarceration for the family members of imprisoned individuals. The incarceration crisis extends far beyond prison and jail walls. Families with incarcerated loved ones face lost income, housing instability, and expenses that prevent them from climbing the economic ladder. Each year, those families lose or spend almost $350 billion combined for childcare, travel espenses, communications, and other costs. Not surprisingly, the economic burden falls more heavily on families of color. Young adults with parents or siblings in prison mortgage their futures, while seniors with children in prison spend what little they may have out of fixed incomes. Children are frequently harmed by having to move (or even becoming unhoused), experiencing their families broken apart, or facing harmful or discriminatory treatment by teachers or others based on the actions of a parent. Based in Oakland, California, Rose spearheaded reasearch behind FWD.us' report We Can't Afford It: Mass Incarceration and the Family Tax. She talked not only about what drives these many costs and on whom they fall, but also how to mitigate them. In particular, she looked at various steps our neighbor state Illinois recently took to reduce its prison population significantly. Rose's suggestions included amending Wisconsin's "Truth-in-Sentencing" laws to return to earned good-time credits in prisons, narrowing sentence enhancements that force people into harmful plea deals, and creating ways to get people who are successful off of probation faster. Transparency about the enormous costs of the carceral system also may help. She pointed to one jurisdiction where prosecutors are required to inform a sentencing judge about how much a requested sentence will cost the state. Attendees networked and chatted during a cocktail hour, followed by Felicity's thought-provoking presentation and an informative question-and-answer session. The event was held in Blue Ribbon Hall at Best Place, at the Historic Pabst Brewery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If you missed the event or want to watch Felicity's presentation again, click on the YouTube video link below. We apologize that the lighting in the video is not the best (we're not professional videographers). The content is excellent, though! To better see the PowerPoint slides from the event, click here. FWD.us' report is available here. Please share the video with those in the courts, other portions of the carceral system, Legislature, and local government whose actions impact the rates of incarceration in Wisconsin. Please share this video with concerned citizens who can use their voices to call for change and families members of those in custody. And please share this video with family members who support those in prison and their children.  A slide from Rose's presentation By Alexandria Staubach
Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order last month restoring a formal commutations process for the first time since Wisconsin enacted its Truth in Sentencing law in 1999, but the order’s effect is presently unclear. Critics of Evers’ order have been vocal, with Wisconsin Right Now claiming the order has “ended truth-in-sentencing in Wisconsin as we know it.” Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said in an interview that Evers’ “goal is to reduce the prison population by just letting people out of prison; that’s not what prison was designed for." A commutation reduces a criminal sentence, substituting a milder punishment for what was originally imposed. Commutations generally apply to people in custody. The conviction remains on one’s record, but the person may be released after a shortened term. The governor issues formal commutations, but in Wisconsin a parole board historically also had the power to shorten sentences. Truth in Sentencing for the most part eliminated parole in Wisconsin. In 1999, it was one of just 14 states that wholly abolished early release by discretion of a parole board. Before then, incarcerated individuals had the opportunity to petition a parole board for early release after completing a portion of their sentence, in proportion to the severity of the crime. Parole boards considered how incarcerated time was spent, the wishes of any victim, and the effect on the community. Legally, a governor’s power to commute sentences was not affected by Truth in Sentencing. The power remains in the Wisconsin Constitution. But since Truth in Sentencing was adopted, its use dropped. Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson was the last to commute a sentence, issuing seven commutations. He left office in early 2001. Regardless of political affiliation, no governor has issued any commutations since. Evers’ executive order created a Commutations Advisory Committee, which will be headed by Chief Legal Counsel Mel Barnes as chair. Barnes also oversees the Pardon Advisory Board. Cindy O’Donnell will serve as vice chair of the Commutations Advisory Committee. She previously served as deputy secretary of the Department of Corrections under Thompson, Gov. Scott McCallum, and Gov. Jim Doyle. O’Donnell serves on the Pardon Advisory Board as well. So, will the floodgates open? According to some, fears of a commutation flood are likely overblown. The executive order reinstating commutation may last only until Evers leaves office in early January 2027, as a new governor can order something different. What exactly can be done between the Advisory Board’s first meeting in June and the end of Evers’ tenure remains to be seen. Natalie Lewandowski, director of Milwaukee Justice Center’s Pardon and Expungement Clinic, told Wisconsin Justice Initiative that the executive order is “exciting in theory.” But she noted several unknowns and the tight timeline before Evers leaves office. MJC, through a network of volunteer attorneys, helps people prepare and file pardon and expungement applications. A pardon forgives an offense and excuses a person from criminal punishment. It often involves restoring civil rights as well. In practice, it typically applies to those who have served their sentences and some amount of time has passed afterward. Evers, for instance, requires an individual to have completed their sentence at least five years ago for pardon eligibility. While MJC is a listed resource in the governor’s executive order for those seeking commutation, the center has not worked with the prison population and does not currently have the infrastructure or budget to communicate with people who are incarcerated. Lewandowski said pardon applications typically take two years to process. How many applications the Commutations Advisory Board will be able to evaluate by the end of the year is a big question. “I think there are still a ton of unknowns, she said.” While Evers has issued more pardons than any of his predecessors, they are still difficult to obtain. And because of the five-year post-sentence-completion requirement, pardons do not directly reduce the prison population. At a pardon hearing last year, O’Donnell called pardons an “extraordinary measure” on more than one occasion, before seeming to question whether an individual who bought one ounce of marijuana 13 years previously, had had enough time pass between his conviction and his application, notwithstanding that the man had the support of the judge who initially sentenced him. WJI has previously sought how many applications the Pardon Advisory Board receives versus how many pardons are granted but was informed the board does not keep such records. Under the executive order, to qualify for a commutation one must have completed at least half the imposed sentence or at least 20 years of a life sentence, cannot be serving a term for a sex offense or be required to register as a sex offender (currently or upon release), cannot have any unresolved criminal charges in any jurisdiction, and must be free of incidents of violent misconduct within the last five years of the current term of incarceration. Notice must be made to the circuit court that imposed the sentence, the office of the district attorney that prosecuted the individual’s case, and any victim registered with the Office of Victim Services and Programs. Those persons can all provide feedback to the Commutations Advisory Board. The board must consider the application, victim impact, public safety and the interest of justice, the applicant’s prison conduct report, and personal growth including education, rehabilitative programs, treatment, and work history. The Community’s Shannon Ross has advocated for the resurrection of commutations with others over the years. He is working with the Justice Forward Coalition, a group of formerly incarcerated members working in community to improve the state’s criminal justice policy through strategic advocacy. Ross “None of us knew it was coming when it did,” said Ross on a call with WJI about the executive order. “We need to demonstrate success,” said Ross about both the applications and those who may have their sentences commuted. Justice Forward Coalition is working to fill gaps in the network of those who have helped with pardons and expungement. The group released a commutations guide for those who are currently incarcerated and is mobilizing volunteers to help review applications before they are formally submitted.  By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed the conviction of Kimberly Zapata, the former deputy director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission, who unsuccessfully urged the court to overturn her convictions for voter fraud and public-office misconduct, arguing she was a whistleblower. A unanimous jury convicted Zapata in March 2024. The charges included one count of felony misconduct in public office and three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement to obtain or vote an absentee ballot. Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Kori Ashley sentenced Zapata to nine months in jail, stayed in favor of 12 months of probation and 120 hours of community service. The opinion, written by Judge Sara Geenen and joined by Chief Judge Joseph Donald and Presiding Judge Pedro Colón, outlines Zapata’s scheme. Frustrated by the ease with which individuals could obtain absentee military ballots, Zapata requested three, one each for a fictitious Holly Jones, Holly Adams, and Holly Brandtjen. She assigned each a random home address in Milwaukee, Shorewood, and Menomonee Falls. She picked municipalities where she thought the clerks would not notice fraud. Then, using “WisVote”—a secure, employee-access, statewide voter registration database—Zapata retrieved the home address of “a state legislator because the legislator was the most vocal election fraud politician that she knew.” She had the absentee ballots mailed to the legislator. Clerks in all three municipalities mailed absentee ballots to the legislator’s address. Zapata presented a two-fold argument to the Court of Appeals. First, she contended that her conduct was not “for the purpose of obtaining” an absentee ballot because she intended that the absentee ballots be acquired by someone else. Second, she argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her of misconduct in public office because she was acting as a concerned private citizen demonstrating a loophole. Regarding whether Zapata generated the false ballots “for the purpose of obtaining” absentee ballots, Zapata argued that “obtaining” an absentee ballot meant physical possession. But the court agreed with the state that “obtaining” included constructive possession. “(B)y requesting the ballots, Zapata set off a series of actions she knew the ballots would be subjected to," Geenen wrote. While Zapata argued for a more rigid definition of “obtaining,” which is not defined by the statute, she “knew that by requesting the ballots, the ballots would be generated under the fake names that she provided” and “that the ballots, once generated per her request, would be sent to the address that she provided,” Geenen said. “Zapata controlled both the names under which the ballots would be generated and the destination to which those ballots would be sent.” Whether Zapata acted in her official capacity required “a material connection between the public official’s duties and powers and the forbidden act,” Geenen wrote. The court found such a connection. Zapata used her work laptop to request the ballots, her employee credentials to access the WisVote administrative website, and her administrative knowledge to target specific municipalities for sending ballots. All weighed against Zapata’s argument that she acted as a private citizen. “In our view, the State established a material connection between Zapata’s election fraud and the powers and duties inherent to her public office,” wrote Geenen. The court’s decision comes several weeks after another individual, Harry Wait, was convicted of fraud and identify theft after requesting ballots on behalf of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine Mayor Cory Mason in the same election cycle. Wait also purportedly sought to illuminate vulnerabilities in the voting system.  If you're reading this blog, you are very likely concerned about justice in Wisconsin, the country, and across the world. But you're probably also pretty busy. How do you choose which books about the justice system to read during your limited free time? In a new series of posts, Wisconsin Justice Initiative founder and former executive director Gretchen Schuldt will help you out. An avid reader, she returns to the blog with book reviews so you can decide what's of interest to you and worth your time. The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts, by Joan Biskupic. Basic Books, 421 pages, 2019. John Roberts always was a grind. When he was just 13, he wrote to the headmaster of La Lumiere boarding school, the Catholic institution Roberts wanted to attend for high school. “I’ve always wanted to stay ahead of the crowd, and I feel that the competition at La Lumiere will force me to work as hard as I can. …,” the future chief justice of the Supreme Court wrote. “I won’t be content to get a good job by getting a good education, I want to get the best job by getting the best education.” Roberts got into the elite Indiana school, worked hard, and graduated first in his class. He’s been at the top of things ever since, even becoming chief justice without ever serving a single day as an associate justice. Now he is using his seat on the high court to advance the powerful conservative legal movement that is changing American government and life. Biskupic, in her highly readable account that, thankfully, does not get stuck in the weeds of legal technicalities, portrays Roberts as a youth and young man who drove himself hard all the way through Harvard Law School and beyond. At La Lumiere, his roommate said, Roberts “would be physically exhausted at the end of each evening from studying.” As a Harvard undergrad, Biskupic writes, “He routinely stayed up past midnight, studying or writing papers until he was physically drained.” After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, where he served as managing editor of the prestigious law review, Roberts clerked with the respected federal appellate Judge Henry Friendly and the very conservative Associate Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, Roberts was thrilled. When Reagan gave his 1981 inaugural address, Roberts later said, “I felt he was speaking directly to me.” With the help of Friendly and Ken Starr, then chief-of-staff in the U.S. attorney general’s office, Roberts landed a job in Reagan’s Department of Justice. (Starr’s reputation had not yet been battered by his multi-pronged investigation into President Bill Clinton.) There, Biskupic writes, Roberts solidified his anti-affirmative action views and came to believe that giving minorities preference aimed at remediating past discrimination was simply unconstitutional. He also argued strongly in memos that the Voting Rights Act should be interpreted more narrowly than many in Congress wanted. Only discriminatory intent should be considered, he said; the effects of legislation and policies should not be factors. Such an effects test, he wrote, would create a right to “proportional racial representation” on governmental bodies at all levels. “That contention was untrue,” Biskupic says. Roberts lost that battle. The 1982 Voting Rights Act extension got through Congress and was signed by Reagan. It created an effects test provision. Roberts that same year moved to the White House counsel’s office, where he put in 70 to 80 hours a week, and then on to private practice, and then to the bench when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by president George W. Bush. Bush tapped him as chief justice of the Supreme Court in 2005. Since then, Roberts has built a consistently conservative record. He wrote the plurality decision in Parents Involved In Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), which struck down a tie-breaking racial factor in a school selection process. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts (in)famously wrote. His diligent, years-long work to weaken the Voting Rights Act met with partial success in 2013, when the Court, in Shelby County v Holder, struck down a key provision of the 1965 law designed to protect citizens’ right to vote regardless of race. Roberts authored the majority opinion in Shelby. (Most recently, in April of this year, Roberts joined the majority opinion in Louisiana v Callais, requiring that challengers under the Voting Rights Act provide proof that redistricting was done to deliberately provide minority voters with less opportunity because of their race and not for political considerations, such as partisan advantage. The Court, in effect, killed the effects test.) Roberts also voted with the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the decision finding that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to keep guns, even if those individuals are not connected to a militia. He concurred in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which overturned 1973’s Roe v Wade, the decision recognizing constitutional protection of abortion rights for women. He also joined the majority in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission (2010), a decision that cleared the way for much more corporate and outside money to flow into elections. He dissented in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which granted same-sex couples the right to marry. (Roberts also wrote the majority opinion in Trump v United States (2024), the decision giving presidents broad immunity for crimes they commit while in office. Biskupic’s book was published before that decision.) On the bench, Biskupic writes, “Roberts had demonstrated two overriding—and often conflicting—priorities. One was institutional. He wanted high public regard for the Court as an independent branch separate from the other two and cordoned off from politics. The other derived from his interest in changing the Court’s role in racial, religious, and other social dilemmas.” Roberts, despite his major role in the Court’s resetting of the country’s legal trajectory, does not appear to be particularly popular among his fellow justices and court staff. “Roberts was naturally reticent and guarded, which made his colleagues wary of his motives,” Biskupic writes. “The wariness extended to the staff in some chambers who derisively referred to Roberts as ‘King John,’ because of the control he tried to exert throughout the building.” “Away from the public spotlight, Roberts, too, could lapse into a mocking tone or be dismissive of a colleague’s argument,” Biskupic says. “He made no secret to friends that he found individual associate justices annoying, demanding, or arrogant.” One post-book-publication clue that Biskupic was correct in her read of Roberts’ low popularity came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who said in 2022 said that before Roberts’ reign, “We actually trusted each other. We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family, and we loved it.” That comment was widely seen as a direct shot at Roberts. Roberts, now 71, hasn’t given any signs that he expects to step down from the court soon. For the foreseeable future he may well remain where he is, at the top of the top Court, grinding away to the Right. Biskupic's book is a valuable guide to Roberts' legal and personal development and, without too much legal jargon, to the profound impacts he has had and continues to have on the country. The Chief can help the general reader better understand just what the heck is going on these days at the Supreme Court.
 By Alexandria Staubach A recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report highlights problems in Wisconsin’s criminal justice system ranging from the state’s continued place as a national leader in the disproportionate incarceration of people of color to expected increases in costs associated with the state’s prison population. The April report, entitled Cross Examination: A comprehensive view of Wisconsin's criminal justice system, shows persistent troubling trends and hopes to be a “baseline assessment of Wisconsin’s criminal justice landscape.” Much in the report will not surprise readers current with Wisconsin’s criminal justice system, but the report's statistics show the context and alarming depth of some issues. For instance, Black residents composed 5.9% of Wisconsin’s population in 2024 but accounted for nearly a quarter of all criminal complaint case filings. Black residents are concentrated in Milwaukee, with 52.9% of the state’s Black population even residing in a single Milwaukee zip code. And 18.6% of Wisconsinites had a substance use disorder in 2022-2023, ranking the state 15th nationally. WJI evaluated the report with one question in mind: if case filings are down, arrests are down, and the volume of people on community supervision is down, how does Wisconsin continue to incarcerate more people year over year? While the report does not answer this question directly, it shows changes in the state’s prion population that may be key. Overall crime has decreased, but the number of people incarcerated on long sentences for violent crime has increased, incarcerations for intoxicated driving have grown significantly, and charging of at least one felony offense has increased in frequency. The report says “these trends have contributed to Wisconsin’s prison and community supervision rates remaining high even as overall crime rates fell between 2019 and 2023.” Who Wisconsin is incarcerating has evolved over time. Report data showed a “greater than expected” increase in incidents of arrest for older adults and a decline for youth. The numbers suggest the increase in arrests for older adults is driven predominately by charges for those arrested for driving under the influence. Adults aged 50 and above accounted for 20.4% of intoxicated driving arrests, an outsized share of their otherwise much lower offense rate. Only 4.7% of total arrests are for individuals aged 60 and older, but total arrests for that age group increased by 24.8% from 2019, with a 56.4% increase for drug or substance abuse related offenses.  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum 2026 "Cross Examination" report, showing the increase in incarceration rate for older adults in Wisconsin since 2010. The report suggests that while Black Wisconsinites experience a large proportion of arrests, “it is possible that the deployment of law enforcement personnel to particular municipalities or neighborhoods of certain racial or ethic groups makes it so that crime committed by the individuals who live there is more easily detected.” Given Milwaukee’s relatively low clearance rates (27.9% for the Milwaukee Police Department versus 53.7% for all other agencies in Wisconsin), and that most of the state’s Black residents live there, raising clearance rates in the city might also affect the demographics of those arrested in the state. The report notes that MPD’s management of a larger population and its greater share of more violent crimes make a direct comparison of its clearance rate unproductive. Statewide, white individuals represented 81.4% of all arrests for driving under the influence, 63.9% of all theft offenses, and 66.2% of all drug/narcotic offenses. In Milwaukee, drug crimes (2.8%), fraud (1.8%), theft (1.7%), and driving under the influence (1.7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of arrests than statewide. Case filings, like arrests and crime more broadly, are down statewide. Declines in filings are also more pronounced in some demographics than others. In 2005, 102,679 cases were filed against white individuals. That decreased 40.9% to 60,695 in 2024. Meanwhile, case filings against Black individuals fell, but by a smaller margin: from 35,616 cases in 2005 to 25,682 in 2024 (a 27.9% drop). U.S. census data shows that Black individuals have made up roughly 5.6% of the state’s total population during this same time frame. The report attributes much of the decline in case filings to a drop in misdemeanor charges but highlights an increase in felony filings. The cases in which the most serious offense was bail jumping or escape saw significant growth from 2014 to 2024.  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum April 2026 "Cross Examination" report, showing changes in felony and misdemeanor case filings by type. Prison admissions are up for new sentences, but down for revocations of those on release. Prison admissions due to revocations (without a new sentence) still compose more than a quarter of all prison admissions but remain below levels seen prior to the pandemic, when Wisconsin’s prison population peaked. The report says this decline may be influenced by the Department of Corrections’ “Evidence-Based Response to Violations program,” though many remain skeptical of its efficacy. Admissions for revocations involving new charges, however, peaked in 2023. Prison admissions for intoxicated driving offenses increased dramatically, from 386 in 2000 to 1,314 in 2023. The community supervision population shrank moderately after 2019, but significant differences for demographic groups exist as shown in the chart below.  Graph from the Wisconsin Policy Forum's 2026 "Cross Examination" report, showing the rate of community supervision in 2023 for various demographic groups.  Lloyd Barbee at the Wisconsin Capitol in August 1964. Photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society. WHS Image 26539. By Amy Rabideau Silvers Three words—long used as the sign-off before his signature—sum up Lloyd Barbee’s goal throughout his life. Justice for All. Best known for his efforts to desegregate Milwaukee’s public schools, Barbee fought for justice on other fronts, too. He was an activist, attorney and state legislator, pushing for equal rights as human rights, arguing for fair housing and employment, women’s rights, gay rights, prison reform and much more. Fellow members of the state Assembly soon called him “the outrageous Mr. Barbee.” For Barbee, it would have been outrageous not to fight for justice. “Lloyd Barbee, a lawyer, a legislator, and an influential voice for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), led the modern civil rights movement in Wisconsin for many years,” according to a Wisconsin Lawyer article in 2004. It was written by Joseph A. Ranney, of Marquette Law School and its Adrian Schoone Fellow for the Study of Wisconsin Legal Institutions, and Maxine Aldridge White, now retired as chief judge for the state Court of Appeals. “Barbee’s gentle manner concealed an iron determination that served him and his cause well,” they continued. “Barbee occupies a unique place in Wisconsin legal history and civil rights history.” Others have agreed. “I don’t think Wisconsin has ever had a legislator as prolific and profound as Lloyd Barbee,” wrote U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore in the forward to Justice for All/Selected Writings of Lloyd A. Barbee. The book was edited by his daughter Daphne E. Barbee-Wooten, a civil rights lawyer, and published by the Wisconsin Historical Society Press in 2017. “He was a pioneering black legislator, a trailblazer, and a true coalition builder. … The truth is that we could really use a Lloyd Barbee today. But I like to think we can still learn from him, and can still fight like he did,” Moore wrote.
From Tennessee to Wisconsin Barbee’s story began in Memphis, Tennessee, as the third son of Earnest and Adelina Barbee. His father was first a carpenter and later a paperhanger and housepainter. His mother died of childbirth complications in 1926, only months after Lloyd’s birth in 1925. As a Black woman in the South, she did not have access to hospital care. His father would later tell how baby Lloyd was born with “a veil over his head,” said Barbee’s daughter, speaking in an interview with Wisconsin Justice Initiative. The rare occurrence of the amniotic sack on an infant’s body was taken as a sign that the child was destined to be an important person. In his later years, Barbee recalled the first time he heard the word justice and asking his father what it meant. He was then about 10 years old. “He told me it was what a person deserved or what his due was,” Barbee wrote. “It might be hard sometimes but also fair. That word and concept stuck with me.” Young Barbee joined the NAACP at 12, attending segregated schools in the Jim Crow South. He served in the Navy during World War II, from 1943 to 1946. He next earned an undergraduate degree at LeMoyne College, a historically Black college in Memphis. In 1949, Barbee came to Wisconsin to study law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was not the positive integrated experience he expected. Instead, he found what he later called the northern version of “moderate white” racism. “He faced racial discrimination at the Law School, by professors and fellow classmates, and dropped-out after his first year. Soon after, however, he re-enrolled and completed his degree in 1956,” according to an article by Christopher Lehman, writing for The Educator Collaborative Community. In those early years, as he struggled to earn a living, Barbee also worked as an attorney for the state’s Department of Labor, and on state and Madison human rights commissions. Early activism in Wisconsin While at the law school, Barbee began serving as president of the NAACP’s Madison chapter. In 1961, he began leading the state NAACP and was soon making headlines. “In 1961 he organized his first sit-in, a 13-day, round-the-clock vigil at the State Capitol rotunda in support of fair housing and equal opportunity legislation in Madison—the first demonstration of this type in the nation,” according to the Ranney-White article. Other leaders—notably state Assembly Rep. Isaac Coggs, Roy Wilkins, who led the national NAACP, and NAACP general counsel Robert Carter, who worked with Thurgood Marshall—encouraged Barbee to move to Milwaukee.  Barbee's house at 321 E. Meinecke Ave., Milwaukee, now on the National Register of Historic Places. Photograph by Margo Kirchner in November 2025. By 1963, he was calling Milwaukee home, and the family home became the base for both his legal practice and his activism. Barbee and others were aghast that a Polk County lake was named “N----- Heel Lake.” They won a partial victory with the U.S. Department of the Interior and its Geological Survey, getting the name changed to Freedom Lake. The name did not immediately change on state maps. While traveling to Beloit, Barbee and a cousin were refused service at a chili restaurant. A police officer eating at the counter said he did not know about the Wisconsin Accommodation Law and the district attorney did not pursue charges. When he wrote in protest of a Black face performance at Whitewater College, the College Board of Regents “declared that free speech was at issue and [that the] NAACP was asking for censorship, so on went the show,” Barbee recalled in Justice for All. He led a picket line the night of the performance, attracting often negative coverage, but the minstrel show was not held again. In 1968, he represented Black students at UW-Oshkosh who had been dismissed from the university after protesting for African American history courses. Barbee won a court order for their readmission on the grounds that their due process rights had been violated. Yet another campaign brought quick results. “We discovered that a district office of the Wisconsin Employment Service was utilizing an unmarked box on its application form as a code to designate the race of applicants and that they were accepting job orders from employers who stated racial preferences—they even solicited such preferences—all in violation of Wisconsin and federal law,” he wrote. “We succeeded in halting this practice within a week’s time at the local office and witnessed measures to end this practice throughout the state.”  Marc's Big Boy protest picketers in 1963. The personal was political for Lloyd Barbee, who organized the protest "when it refused to serve my brother Finn," wrote Daphne Barbee-Wooten in "Justice for All." Barbee is seen here, second from left. His law partner, Tom Jacobson, is the man with the pipe. Photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society. WHS Image 83435. What once was lost One effort was thwarted in those early years, only to make headlines nearly 60 years later. A University of Wisconsin press release announced the news: Law School alum Lloyd Barbee’s pursuit of justice reemerges in a long-lost film, now found “Lloyd Barbee ’56 was just a few years out of law school and the president of the local NAACP branch when he and two friends hatched a plan to use hidden cameras to document and expose housing discrimination in Madison,” it began. Barbee and Stuart Hanisch, with the UW Extension Bureau of Audio Visual Information, pitched the plan, and it was approved by the Board of Regents. Money for the project, including from the NAACP, was donated to the university. Their 1962 film documented incidents of discrimination as would-be tenants and buyers, Black and white, applied for housing before fair housing laws were passed. Black applicants were told that housing was no longer available. White applicants found willing landlords and listings. Some said the obvious out loud: “We don’t feel we can rent to colored people.” “I don’t want to have trouble with my neighbors.” “I can’t let you have it. Not in this neighborhood.” Those situations were not a revelation to people of color. An initial screening for university officials, however, brought a different reaction. The film was ordered banned and restricted, ostensibly over privacy concerns, something that prompted yet more controversy, protests and another team’s effort to reenact the documentary. Filmmaker Hanisch resigned from the university in protest. After Justice for All was published, Barbee-Wooten gave a talk at the university and was asked whatever happened to the documentary. She had tried to locate it without success. “I heard it was destroyed,” Barbee-Wooten said. Others, however, were curious and wanted to know more. It was found by Cat Phan, digital and media archivist with the university archives, stored away and held under restriction. “I didn’t understand why this was restricted,” Phan told Wisconsin Justice Initiative. “We looked at all the documents in the archives and ran it by the legal department. With secret cameras and hidden recording devices, they were capturing live interactions about housing discrimination. It was a pretty special film.” Ultimately, the decision was made to lift the restricted status. Barbee’s daughter was thrilled to see where the film had been kept for all those years. “When we got down to the stacks, the box had skull and cross bones on it,” she said. The word RESTRICTED was repeatedly stamped in red on the boxes. Kacie Lucchini Butcher, director of the university’s Center for Public History, was also involved, including with research and facilitating a restored version of the film. It made its premiere in 2021 during an online event sponsored by PBS Wisconsin, the Public History Project and the UW Archives. The film and discussion about it can be seen here. Barbee understood what the film meant: “Before the film was shot and suppressed, it was the rule, rather than the exception, for public officials, real estate dealers, and the news media to declare that Wisconsin had no problems whatever with racial discrimination in housing.”
Separate as unequal in education For Barbee, the issue of fair housing was intricately entwined with the need to integrate public schools. Milwaukee based its system on so-called neighborhood schools, but given the deeply segregated neighborhoods, the schools were deeply segregated, too. In 1958, years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Milwaukee began a program it called “intact busing.” Black students and teachers were bussed from overcrowded neighborhood schools to white schools—but remained segregated in separate classrooms and sometimes even at lunch, school assemblies and recess. In the early 1960s, Barbee led the NAACP’s challenge to the district to do better on integration, proposing a plan for selective bussing and a more equal racial balance in the schools. District leaders did not change direction. That led the NAACP to create what the community called Freedom Schools. By 1964, Barbee was organizing and leading an alliance of activists—the Milwaukee United School Integration Committee, known as MUSIC—demanding the end of de facto segregation. “If the Brown decision means anything,” declared Barbee, “it means that school segregation is unconstitutional wherever it exists, north or south.”  Lloyd Barbee walking out of the Milwaukee School Board meeting on Jan. 21, 1964. The board chairman had refused to let representatives of other civil rights groups answer questions on school segregation and claimed that Barbee, the state NAACP president, was issuing ultimatums. Photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society. WHS Image 5763. “On June 17, 1965, Barbee filed a federal lawsuit, Amos et al. v. Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee, charging the Milwaukee School Board with unconstitutionally maintaining racial segregation in its schools,” according to an article by the Wisconsin Historical Society. “From 1965 to 1976,” it continued, “Barbee spent thousands of hours on the case, often working alone against a battery of Milwaukee Public School lawyers.” After 10 years, another attorney, Irvin Charne, was appointed to assist Barbee in the case. The activist years were filled with both exhilarating times—meeting people like world champion boxer Muhammad Ali and Black Panthers co-founders Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale—and distressing times, Barbee-Wooten said. “How many teenage girls got to meet Huey P. Newton?” she said. “I was starstruck.” The family also experienced the violence of rocks thrown, broken windows, and a burglary in which books were ransacked and family pictures stolen. “We did get death threats a lot,” said Barbee’s daughter. She was maybe 12, playing dolls at home with a friend, when the phone rang. A man’s voice spewed ugly words. “He said he was coming over in 15 minutes to kill us,” she said. She and her friend hid under a bed. “My father said when people are threatened, they will make threats, but don’t be afraid,” Barbee-Wooten said. “As long as there was bigotry, he’d call it out. He was not afraid. It was almost as though that was his destiny.” Legal victories and realities “Finally, in January of 1976, federal Judge John Reynolds ruled that Milwaukee Public Schools were indeed segregated unlawfully, prompting the Wisconsin Legislature to enact a school integration program,” the historical society article stated. “Although Barbee won the case in 1976, he spent the next several years dealing with appeals, new trials, and work to enact a viable plan to desegregate the school system. Though not perfect, the court decision began to address schooling issues in Milwaukee.” School authorities “engage in practices with the intent and for the purpose of creating and maintaining a segregated school system, and . . . such practices had the effect of causing current conditions of racial imbalance in the Milwaukee Public Schools,” Reynolds wrote. “The Constitution does not guarantee one a quality education; it guarantees one an equal education, and the law in this country is that a segregated education that is mandated by school authorities is inherently unequal,” he said in his ruling. In 1978, he reaffirmed that decision. Barbee’s efforts next involved working with MPS to forge a plan for integration. “The whole system should be ordered to desegregate, root and branch,” Barbee said. “If we don’t do that, then we will have engaged in a paper victory.” “The plan finally approved by Reynolds called for limited busing to achieve greater racial balance in Milwaukee schools, funds for specialty schools to induce white suburban students to transfer to MPS,” according to the Ranney-White article. Barbee, who also served in the state Assembly during the long legal battle, convinced his fellow legislators to support what became the “Chapter 220” program. The integration program provided funds for suburban districts that accepted Black students from Milwaukee. Those early efforts found some success, with a substantial number of MPS schools becoming more racially balanced. That did not last. “White flight, the school choice program, and divisions in the black community dealt setbacks to his vision of a fully integrated society,” Ranney and White wrote in 2004. Under Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, the Chapter 220 program was phased out. The open enrollment program, which does not provide transportation, and vouchers have further complicated integration efforts. The current numbers reflect the stark reality of what is now considered hypersegregation. When Reynolds issued his ruling, the Milwaukee district had about 60% white students and about 34% Black students, The Milwaukee Journal reported in 1976. A state report for the 2024-25 school year found the district’s student population to be about 50% Black, 25% Hispanic or Latino, 10% Asian and 9% white. In his later years, Barbee acknowledged that Milwaukee schools were again segregated. The one positive: Contemporary issues do not have the stain of government-sponsored segregation. “I think my father had to file the lawsuit, because otherwise change would not have happened,” Barbee-Wooten said. “It accomplished a lot, not just for Milwaukee but for other school districts. It established that not just de jure segregation but de facto segregation was against the law,” she said, distinguishing between what was caused by laws and what was actually happening in practice. “He would be disappointed that not enough people care but it’s there on the books.” “I am not discouraged,” Barbee said. “I have seen more difficult times. We are not as well off as we could be, but we are better off than we were.” His legislative and later years Barbee was elected as a state representative in 1964, filling the vacancy left by Isaac Coggs. A couple bits of trivia are worth considering about his time in public office. It was not the first time Barbee went to work at the Capitol building. He earlier worked there as a janitor while a law student at UW. In addition, “he represented comedian Dick Gregory when he was arrested while protesting segregated schools and charged with disorderly conduct,” wrote Barbee-Wooten in the introduction to Justice for All. “My father had also been arrested for protesting segregated schools. Since he was a legislator at the time, he had immunity and could not be prosecuted.” Barbee served until 1977, the only African American legislator in the state Legislature for much of that time. In addition to his better-known civil rights efforts, the “outrageous Mr. Barbee” also introduced progressive bills to legalize marijuana, prostitution and abortion, disarm police officers, tax churches, and even decriminalize hitchhiking. He repeatedly introduced gay rights legislation and welcomed the support of new state Rep. David Clarenbach. In 1982, Wisconsin passed the first such legislation in the country.  Lloyd Barbee, far left, watches Gov. Patrick Lucey sign Wisconsin's Equal Rights Amendment into law in 1975. David Clarenbach, the subject of another WJI Unsung Heroes post, is seen on the far right. Photograph courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society. WHS Image 9430. Barbee went on to teach at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Africology Department from 1978 to 2000. He continued practicing law and activism until his death in 2002. He was 77. The Lloyd Barbee Montessori School was named in honor of the man who filed the famous lawsuit against the school district. The Lloyd A. Barbee House—the family home, a gathering site for activists and long his legal office—is now on the National Register of Historic Places and an official city and state landmark. What would he be doing today? “Well, he’d be 101,” his daughter said, with a laugh. “I think he’d be right out there, speaking if he could, marching and protesting, if he could. “I think he’d be extremely disappointed today in the U.S. isolation and the way the Constitution is being degraded, the administration going back to segregation, firing Black generals and women generals, erasing names from monuments. And in Congress. Congress has been asleep, walking zombies. “But he would be very happy to see, with the recent elections, five liberal women justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” she said. “He’d be thrilled about that.”
 Historical marker for Lloyd Barbee's house in Milwaukee. Photograph courtesy of Daphne Barbee-Wooten. This project is supported by grants from
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed