 The Milwaukee Common Council meeting on July 31, 2026. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission candidate Jordan Morales failed to obtain enough votes for confirmation at a Milwaukee Common Council meeting this morning after some alders shared concerns about his seeming complacency with the status quo. The confirmation failed in a 6-6 tie with three alders abstaining. The surprising vote comes after Morales was recommended by the Common Council’s Public Safety Committee last week. Morales, who has been an activist regarding the city’s reckless driving problem, had hoped to focus on what he called “quality of life” issues if appointed to the FPC. Alderwoman Marina Dimitrijevic voiced the strongest opposition at today’s meeting, saying that “in this moment” the FPC has “incredibly important work that it must provide.” Dimitrijevic said that with a state legislature “meddling in local affairs” and concern that MPD is the largest and fastest growing item in the city’s budget, she was looking at nominees through a “different lens.” “I am looking for extra oversight, extra independence and diversity of thought,” she said before casting her “no” vote. The city needs “an FPC that is not OK with the status quo, that is going to demand answers.” Alderman Alex Brower said that the city needed FPC commissioners who will advocate for an accountable police department. He added, “I don’t think we’re there yet,” and “I just don’t agree with the applicant enough.” Common Council President José Pérez said he shared Dimitrijevic’s and Brower’s concerns. Dimitrijevic, Brower, Pérez, Robert Bauman, Lamont Westmoreland, and DiAndre Jackson voted against confirmation. Andrea Pratt, Sharlen Moore, Larresa Taylor, Peter Burgelis, Scott Spiker, and Russell Stamper voted in favor. Mark Chambers Jr., JoCasta Zamarripa, and Milele Coggs abstained from the vote. Though it would not have changed the outcome, Zamarripa unsuccessfully asked later in the hearing for unanimous consent to change from abstention to “no.” Nothing good comes from abstention,” she said. Call response times and proactive policing would have been a priority for Morales, who told the Public Safety Committee last week that he felt most violent crime concerns “very few Milwaukeeans.” Also, his neighbors on the lower east side are “not talking about stop and frisk that much,” he said. At a time when police pursuits remain heavy on the Common Council’s mind, Morales told the committee last week that officers should be given wider latitude in chases. He said he would like to see MPD explore the use of more aggressive tactics like the PIT maneuver to stop fleeing suspects. A PIT maneuver (Precision Immobilization Technique or Pursuit Intervention Technique) is a tactical driving method used by law enforcement to force a fleeing vehicle to abruptly turn 180 degrees, causing it to spin out, stall, and come to a stop. “It would be extremely demoralizing for me as a city resident to see someone commit a crime or do something and all they have to do to get away from that crime is flee from the police and them not being able to pursue,” said Morales at last week’s committee hearing. Morales said he viewed such tactics as a “force multiplier” but would ask himself, “is this the right time and are the people ready?” before moving for that style of intervention in policing. Morales did not speak at today’s Common Council meeting. But some of his prior comments seem out of step with Dimitrijevic’s budgetary concerns. When questioned previously on how he would attack the need to hire more police under Act 12, Morales said the FPC would need more funding for recruitment, citing a national shortage of people interested in policing as a profession. Morales said the problem is especially pronounced in “municipalities like Milwaukee, which are tightly strapped for cash with regard to officer salaries.” In November, the Common Council approved tens of millions in additional spending to increase officer salaries.
0 Comments
Milwaukee mayor asks residents to weigh in on budget cuts as MPD's share of expenditures swells7/28/2026  By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee is again facing a nearly $100 million gap between what it wants to fund and the cash it will have in the coming year. Despite the shortfall, the Milwaukee Police Department’s budget is likely to significantly increase. Proposed areas for cuts include election operations and civic engagement, library hours, sanitation and street maintenance. Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson is seeking input from city residents as his office works to close the $96 million gap. The city has posted a survey asking residents to make difficult decisions about where spending should be cut and what services should be protected. Fire and police could see cuts, but trimming in those areas is not always legal. Any cuts to policing or fire and emergency medical response must come from unsworn staff and equipment purchases under state law. Under the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2023 shared-revenue legislation, known as Act 12, Milwaukee’s police and fire departments must maintain their 2023 numbers and grow both forces by 2034. While Milwaukee’s whole budget is closer to $2 billion, only $685 million of that amount is subject to some discretion according to a video released by the mayor in support of the survey. “That’s what funds our roads, libraries, health services, public works, fire and police,” says Johnson. Johnson says other portions are self-supporting, restricted, or allocated for specific debt and pension obligations. For 2026, nearly half the discretionary amount went to MPD, with an allocation totaling more than $310 million, just shy of the department’s $313 million request. While the 2027 budget won’t be finalized until October, MPD and all other city departments made their respective requests in May. MPD is now asking for an unprecedented $345,822,092. Some of that increase is nonnegotiable, and not just because the force can’t shrink. Last year, the Milwaukee Common Council voted 10-1 on a new contract with the officers’ unions—the Milwaukee Police Association and Milwaukee Police Supervisors Association. Long-stalled negotiations meant the Milwaukee Police Association’s four-year deal was retroactive and will again expire in December. The supervisors’ agreement, covering Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman and other top brass, expires in December 2027. Alders Marina Dimitrijevic, Milele Coggs, JoCasta Zamarripa, and Sharlen Moore abstained from the contract vote. At a Nov. 25, 2025, Common Council meeting, the abstaining alders warned of potential budget constraints, as the contract effectively gave a 15% pay increase across the board, with some top brass receiving a more than 25% bump in pay. A Legislative Reference Bureau memo estimated the new contract would cost the city $51 million in additional pay and pension costs alone and did not account for the 5% increase in sworn officers required by Act 12, who have not been hired yet. The new contract also put Norman among the highest-paid city employees. His salary exceeds that of the mayor, municipal judges, and city attorney. Past budgets show that Norman’s pay has grown significantly since 2023, when his salary was $147,336. That number jumped to $151,785 in 2024, and $182,927 in 2025. Under the new contract, Norman was paid $243,000 in 2026, and he will receive $250,290 in 2027. The budget for the mayor’s salary in 2026 is $169,437.  Screenshot of Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson's short video about the 2027 budget gap and survey. Click on photo to go to the video and survey.  Milwaukee County's Aaron Hertzberg speaking at WJI's Salon on July 15, 2026, at Turner Hall in Milwaukee. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. Aaron Hertzberg, Milwaukee County’s Executive Director of Administrative Services, spoke at Wisconsin Justice Initiative's July 15 Salon about plans to replace Milwaukee County’s 100‑year‑old Public Safety Building. Hertzberg and Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Carl Ashley spearhead the Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex project, aimed at replacing the Safety Building with a modern, efficient, and safe justice center. The design of the Safety Building creates public safety risks, as jurors, victims and their families, and defendants all use the same hallways. Encounters between defendants and jurors can result in mistrials that delay case resolution, while encounters between victims and defendants can create tense situations. Lack of space for attorneys to meet with their clients or for prosecutors to meet with victims or witnesses is an issue as well. Meanwhile, the age and condition of the building will result in hundreds of millions of dollars spent on emergency repairs and deferred maintenance if the building is not replaced. In addition to creating safer and better court spaces and offices for several court services, the project as currently envisioned would open up MacArthur Square to public use once again and create a glass-fronted entrance to the historic courthouse on the east side of the building. Hertzberg's slides from the presentation, found below, provide key information and conceptual drawings for the public. Additional information about the project, including a video in English and Spanish, can be found on the Investing in Justice - Courthouse Complex website.  Derek Mosley (L) and Charles Franklin discussing recent poll results on July 22, 2026, at Marquette Law School. Photograph by Erik Reinthaler. By Erik Reinthaler
WJI Intern Growing opposition to proposed data centers, persistent concerns about the cost of living, and renewed public opinion on Act 10 were among the findings in the latest Marquette University Law School Poll, released Wednesday. The latest poll gathered information from 838 Wisconsin registered voters from July 8-16. Poll Director Charles Franklin presented the survey results at an event hosted by Derek Mosley, director of the law school’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Inflation and the cost of living remained voters' top concern, with 42% of respondents identifying it as the state's most important issue. Immigration and border security followed at 13%, and health insurance at 9%. Crime, an issue high on the list of voter concerns during the 2022 midterm election year, ranked low among voters' current priorities, with just 3% of respondents identifying crime in their community as the state's most important issue. "The economic issues are really at the top of people's minds," Franklin said. "It's not just one issue—it's this sort of cluster of things that are connected to the cost of living and affordability." The survey found that 76% of registered voters believe the costs of data centers outweigh their benefits, up from 69% in March and 55% in October 2025. (The October 2025 question was specific to a Microsoft data center.) Opposition increased across Republicans, Democrats, and independents. Just 22% of respondents said the benefits outweigh the costs. Despite those views, only 5% of respondents identified data centers as the state's most important issue. Franklin said the findings raise "an interesting question" about why widespread opposition to data centers has not translated into the issue becoming a major voting priority. "Given how many people have turned out at planning commission meetings and city council meetings to oppose data centers, and this lopsided 76% opposed to them, it doesn't look like it's really the biggest motivator for voting this time," he said. Mosley joked that opposition to data centers appeared to be "something we can all agree on." "Oh yeah," Franklin replied. "It's nice that we can agree on being against something." The poll also revisited Wisconsin's Act 10, which in 2011 terminated most collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. The poll asked respondents whether the act should be repealed and collective bargaining rights restored for public employees. A slim majority of registered voters, 53%, favored repealing the law, while 46% said it should remain in place. Franklin noted that the question had not been asked in several years and was worded differently than in previous Marquette polls, making direct comparisons difficult. Although not discussed by Franklin, poll results posted online show that approval of the Wisconsin Supreme Court rose from 46% in March to 50% in July; 38% of respondents currently disapprove of the court. The Supreme Court has maintained a positive net approval rating in every Marquette Poll since the question was first asked in 2023. By Erik Reinthaler
WJI Intern The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued three decisions at the end of June addressing different aspects of Wisconsin's laws concerning mental health involuntary commitment and treatment. The cases--State v. N.K.B., Outagamie County v. M.J.B., and Waukesha County v. R.D.T.—involved involuntary medication, statutory deadlines in civil commitment proceedings, and appeals from expired recommitment orders. Although the cases arose in different contexts, each turned on the same question: how the statutory framework applies when procedures governing competency proceedings or involuntary commitments are challenged. In State v. N.K.B., the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered whether a circuit court could order involuntary commitment and medication under one set of statutes after a defendant had been committed under another. Wisconsin law establishes separate procedures for restoring a defendant's competency in a criminal case and for civilly committing someone because they are mentally ill and dangerous. The dispute centered on whether those procedures could be used interchangeably. N.K.B. had been found incompetent to stand trial and committed for competency restoration. After initially authorizing medication to restore competency for the criminal case, the circuit court later relied on a different statutory provision to continue ordering medication based on finding N.K.B. to be dangerous. The Supreme Court concluded that Wisconsin law did not authorize that approach. Although both the competency statutes for criminal cases and Wisconsin's civil commitment laws allow involuntary medication in certain circumstances, the court said the sets of statutes address different situations and establish separate procedures. A commitment for competency restoration does not give a court authority to order medication under the dangerousness provisions that apply in civil commitment cases, the high court said. Courts must use the statutory process the Legislature established for the specific type of proceeding before ordering involuntary medication. Outagamie County v. M.J.B. concerned the county’s violation of a statutory deadline and whether such a violation automatically invalidates an involuntary commitment. Wisconsin law generally requires two mental health professionals to evaluate an individual and provide written reports to counsel at least 48 hours before the final civil commitment hearing. In M.J.B.'s case, an examiner completed the required report on time but defense counsel did not receive access to the report before the 48-hour deadline because of the Labor Day weekend. M.J.B. argued that the missed deadline deprived the circuit court of competency to proceed and required the commitment order to be vacated. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the statutory deadline must be followed but rejected the argument that every violation requires reversal. Instead, it found that a commitment order should be vacated only if the delay affected the individual's substantial rights. In M.J.B.’s case, the county did not rely on the late report, the examiner who prepared it did not testify, and the delayed disclosure did not prejudice M.J.B’s ability to challenge the commitment. As a result, the error was harmless, the court said, affirming the commitment order. In Waukesha County v. R.D.T., the Supreme Court addressed whether a person may continue appealing an involuntary recommitment order after it has expired and, if so, whether alleged evidentiary errors in R.D.T.’s case required the order to be vacated. “Recommitment” means a court-ordered extension of an earlier commitment period. The county argued that R.D.T.’s appeal had to be dismissed because the recommitment order had expired. The justices disagreed, explaining that an expired recommitment order may continue to carry significant legal consequences, such as potential liability for the cost of care received during the recommitment and the effect on a future petition to restore firearm rights. Because vacating the order could affect those continuing consequences, the appeal was not moot. R.D.T. also argued that the circuit court improperly admitted hearsay evidence when ordering recommitment. The Supreme Court determined that any error, if it occurred, was harmless. Other, unobjected-to testimony independently supported the finding that R.D.T. met the standard for recommitment. Thus, the court affirmed the recommitment order. "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: Nathan Petrashek
Appointed to: Court of Appeals District 1 Appointment date: Feb. 27, 2026, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Green Bay High School – Washington High, Two Rivers, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: June 2024-present – Adjunct professor of law, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 2021-present – Staff attorney, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Waukesha, Wisconsin August 2009-June 2021 – Law clerk, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Wausau, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am a central staff attorney at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. We are an appointed group of institutional attorneys providing judicial and legal assistance to the court as a whole. Our primary responsibility is to provide legal services equivalent to that of in-house counsel to judges and to the clerk of the court of appeals, allowing the court to efficiently and effectively process matters to resolution (typically via a written opinion or order). One important aspect of my practice is resolving a share of the approximately 19,000 motions filed annually in the court of appeals (2024 annual report). Nearly every order issued by the court has been prepared by a staff attorney, who performs the necessary research, consults with judges, and drafts and approves the orders that ultimately issue. As the volume might suggest, this work requires a reflexive knowledge of appellate procedure in civil, criminal, and other specialized contexts (e.g., termination of parental rights cases). Motions work requires careful scrutiny of dozens of daily filings encompassing every procedural aspect of an appeal, from the sufficiency of the notice of appeal to remittitur. As a staff attorney I also have primary drafting and research responsibility for a large portion of the district’s docket. Staff attorneys write, under judge supervision, the majority of each district’s per curiam and summary disposition opinions, which include matters covering nearly every practice area. As a result, staff attorneys have an extraordinary breadth of knowledge on a diverse set of legal topics. In addition to the above, I handle a share of the court’s no-merit appeals, petitions for leave to appeal, and writ petitions. No-merit appeals require staff attorneys to thoroughly examine the case record to fulfill the court’s constitutional responsibility to ascertain whether any issue of arguable merit exists for an appeal in cases with appointed counsel. Interlocutory appeals are granted only by leave of the court if certain criteria are met, and staff attorneys make recommendations on those matters to a judge panel. Writ petitions commence original actions in the court of appeals, typically seeking supervisory or habeas relief, and staff attorneys make recommendations as to whether such relief is appropriate or whether further procedural steps (e.g., remand for fact-finding) are necessary prior to resolving the petition. Describe typical clients: As a judicial officer, I do not have "clients" in the conventional sense, but my ethical and professional obligations are to the judges and institutional actors I counsel. I aim to provide them with accurate and insightful legal guidance to allow them to make fully informed and legally supported decisions. While my judicial work has touched on virtually every practice area and legal topic, I have extensive experience with appellate procedure, criminal procedure, and sexually violent person commitments under ch. 980. Number of cases tried to verdict: None 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 offer below three significant cases in which I participated at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, with the caveat that much of my work in the judicial system occurs during the deliberative process and while producing judicial opinions. The three cases below are decisions for which I bore primary drafting responsibility, and I believe the final opinions are fair representations of my knowledge, skills and abilities. The final decisions are, of course, the work of the court as a whole, and while I am not at liberty to discuss the judges’ internal deliberations or thought processes, I am happy to discuss the issues presented by these cases and the final opinions. State v. Lee, Appeal No. 2019AP221-CR. This central issue in this case was one that, unfortunately, routinely occurs in the Wisconsin court system: a lack of available attorneys to represent indigent criminal defendants. Nhia Lee waited more than three months for counsel to be appointed on felony drug charges. As Lee repeatedly asked for counsel, the courts regularly found “good cause” to extend the ten-day time period for holding the preliminary hearing—the good cause being the fact that Lee did not yet have State Public Defender representation. When counsel was finally appointed, Lee sought to dismiss the criminal complaint because of the delay. This case was significant because it established that a prolonged failure by the State Public Defender to timely appoint counsel does not, standing alone, constitute good cause absent a more probing examination of the reasons for the delay and the efficacy of appointing counsel at county expense. Ultimately, the case against Lee was dismissed without prejudice, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review as improvidently granted after hearing oral argument. Murr v. Wisconsin, Appeal No. 2013AP2828. For decades prior to this case, parties had struggled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s regulatory Takings Clause jurisprudence, which required a comparison of the value that had been taken from the property by the pertinent government regulation with the value of the property that remained. But how is that remaining value to be ascertained? The so-called “denominator problem” was the often outcome-determinative question of how narrowly to define the total unit of property when measuring what the government regulation had confiscated. The problem presented itself in concrete terms in the Murr case, where two of the landowners’ lots were effectively merged by operation of a St. Croix County ordinance that forbade the lots’ separate sale or development. The landowners sought compensation for the lots’ singular treatment under the ordinance, alleging that the law accomplished a regulatory taking that deprived them of all or substantially all of the value of one of their lots. Analyzing the Murrs’ lots as a whole, the Court of Appeals decision held that no taking had occurred because the Murrs’ contiguous property sufficed as a single, buildable lot under the ordinance. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition for review, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a majority opinion affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision on direct review, Justice Kennedy set forth a multi-factor approach for resolving denominator problems that will guide Takings Clause jurisprudence for the foreseeable future. Moran v. DOJ, Appeal No. 2018AP563. This case presented significant questions regarding the interpretation of Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm and whether certain aspects of the statute were preempted by federal law. Moran had been convicted of a felony in Virginia and had subsequently had his civil rights restored there. He had not, however, received a pardon for his crime, which is a statutory prerequisite to lawful possession in Wisconsin. Moran brought suit after the Wisconsin Department of Justice blocked his attempt to purchase a firearm in this state. Featuring a comparative analysis of the Governor’s pardon power under Wisconsin law with that of the pardon power in Virginia, the Court of Appeals upheld the denial, concluding that Moran could not lawfully possess a firearm under the pardon exception, the exception was not preempted by federal law, and the statute did not violate either the Full Faith and Credit Clause or Moran’s Second Amendment rights. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have not served as an advocate in administrative proceedings. However, in the appellate context, I regularly engage in review of administrative agency and municipal decisions. As a result, I have considerable knowledge of the administrative review process under Wis. Stat. ch. 227 and common law certiorari review. For examples of administrative review cases on which I had primary drafting responsibility, please see Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay . . . (reversing a city's decision to revoke a conditional use permit); and Bethards v. DWD . . . (upholding on ch. 227 review the equal rights division's interpretation of a whistleblower statute). Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In 2023 and 2024, the State Bar of Wisconsin's Legal Education Committee, on which I serve, developed a revised rules petition for the creation of Cultural Competency and Reduction of Bias training as a category of attorney CLE credits. The resulting rules petition I helped develop was approved by the State Bar Board of Governors, and on July 11, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued Final Order 24-04 granting the petition. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer, Susan Crawford for Wisconsin (2024) Volunteer, Pedro Colon for Milwaukee (2023) Volunteer, Ramos for Judge (2023) Volunteer, Anderson for Milwaukee (2023) Volunteer, Murray for Judge (2023) Volunteer, Amber for Milwaukee (2023) Volunteer, Fragoso for Judge (2023) Volunteer, Crowley for County Executive (2023) Volunteer, Goyke for Milwaukee (2022) Volunteer, Biden for President (2020) Volunteer, Fallone for Justice (2013) Campaign Staff, McCormick for Congress (2006) Volunteer, Bush for President (2004) Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Pedro Colon, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2023 David Crowley, Milwaukee County Executive, 2023 Raphael Ramos, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Anderson Gansner, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Jorge Fragoso, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Ronnie Murray, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Amber Raffeet August, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Evan Goyke, Milwaukee City Attorney, 2022 Ed Fallone, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2013 JoAnne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2011 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: City of Glendale, election inspector, 2024-Present American Constitution Society, member, 2023-Present American Bar Association, Council of Appellate Staff Attorneys , 2023-Present Milwaukee Bar Association, 2019-Present State Bar of Wisconsin, Appellate Practice Board, CLE Committee, 2009-Present Federalist Society, member, 2007-2009 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As a first-generation college student who had to navigate the complex world of post-secondary education on my own, I recognize the advantages enjoyed by students who have an experienced person to call on for career and educational advice. I'm honored to provide guidance through UW-Green Bay's Mentor Collective, which matches professionals with first-generation college students. I volunteer as an Election Inspector for the City of Glendale, working to ensure that all qualified individuals are empowered to exercise their right to vote. In the legal sphere, I serve on several State Bar of Wisconsin committees, including as a board member of the Appellate Practice Section where I help with the section's "Best Briefs" competition. I regularly serve as a brief grader and oral argument judge for various law school moot court activities and as a comment grading professor for the Marquette Law Review. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I feel called to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge because, like many residents, I am deeply concerned about the state of our justice system and the vibrancy of our democracy. More than at any other time in our recent history, the judiciary is an institution under stress from internal and external forces. Internally, the courts are strained by an ever-growing docket that imperils a judge’s ability to give any one particular case the attention it deserves. Longstanding inequities in the criminal justice system persist—among them delays in appointing counsel, lamentable conditions of confinement and well-documented sentencing disparities. And externally, the rule of law is under constant attack by political actors who seeks to trample on the independence of the third branch. In this moment, it is especially important for those with courage, tenacity, and skill to step up and face these challenges head on. As I explain in more detail below, the court of appeals offers a unique opportunity to showcase procedural fairness while educating the public about the crucial role of the courts in our society. I also want to continue the legacy of my many court mentors who have modeled exemplary judicial behavior during their service on the bench. Along the way, I hope to add my voice to the many already doing the hard work of pushing for changes that will improve justice outcomes for our neighbors. In short, I hope that I can do as a judge what I endeavor to do in every aspect of my life—leave things in a better place than I found them. In expressing these lofty goals, I do not intend to understate the importance of the day-to-day work of the court of appeals. I know perhaps better than any other candidate that while the title of court of appeals judge holds some glamour, any such pretense falls aways under the demands of the daily routine, which is filled with piles of briefs, hours of editing, and late nights of research. The work is challenging, yet it is work I love. I have committed my 16-year career to making sure that the court of appeals delivers opinions that are pragmatic, rational and legally sound, even in the many cases that do not receive much public scrutiny. My desire to serve is partly animated by my belief that my intellectual abilities, knowledge and skills are well-suited to the role of a court of appeals judge. Standards of appellate review are a conglomeration of doctrines and principles that control the work of the court of appeals, and I co-author one of the primary reference books on the topic. I have written well over 900 appellate court opinions on countless legal topics, and resolved hundreds of motions on matters of appellate procedure. Through it all, I have sought to promote the collegiality and collaboration that is so essential when working in panels with fellow judges. I believe I am uniquely situated to contribute to the development of the law and to the improvement of our justice system as a judge on the court of appeals. 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. In terms of the negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, it would be hard to select any case other than Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). Under the guise of “return[ing] the issue of abortion to [state] legislative bodies,” id. at 289, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding constitutional freedom from government regulation that imposes an “undue burden” on the availability of pre-viability abortion services recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). To reach that conclusion, Dobbs cast aside principles of stare decisis and used a constitutionally dubious history-and-tradition approach that wholly excluded the views of the people most affected by the decision. See Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 250. In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, chaos followed. The Dobbs decision left the availability of reproductive healthcare services in Wisconsin governed by a patchwork of conflicting statutes, the oldest of which traced its lineage to just a year after statehood. (Footnote: Indeed, confusion has followed Wisconsin statutes regulating abortion almost since their inception, casting serious doubt on the Supreme Court’s reasoning that the matter is best left in the hands of state legislatures. See Foster v. State, 182 Wis. 298, 196 N.W. 233 (1923).) That statute, WIS. STAT. § 940.04(1), generally made it a crime to intentionally destroy the life of an unborn child. And despite many contradictory statutes enacted by the legislature in Roe’s wake, some state district attorneys, including a candidate for state attorney general, suggested that they would pursue prosecutions under that statute. Doctors were left in the lurch. When Dobbs came down, all abortion-related health care services in Wisconsin stopped. Medical professionals, fearing criminal liability, sharply circumscribed patient services, including for women facing complications in their pregnancies. Patients, too, were anguished to learn that they needed to endure substantial travel and costs to get reproductive healthcare that, just days or weeks earlier, had been routinely available. In Texas alone, patients were permanently injured and one nearly bled to death due to the unwillingness of medical providers to risk exposure to the state’s steep criminal penalties. The uncertainty created by Dobbs persisted in Wisconsin until the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Kaul v. Urmanski, 2025 WI 32, 417 Wis. 2d 257, 22 N.W.3d 740. Kaul reached the common-sense conclusion that the substantial legislative activity in the ensuing years “so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion.” Id., ¶10. The decision firmly establishing that the post-Roe statutory framework controls the availability of reproductive healthcare in Wisconsin had a significant positive impact on the people of this state. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The four women (if I might be permitted a fourth) I want to highlight here all personify the wisdom, intellect and judicial temperament that I hope to model on the bench: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and Judges Lisa Neubauer and Lisa Stark. The late Chief Justice Abrahamson deserves our admiration for many reasons, not the least of which was her perseverance in becoming the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s first female justice. Beyond that, I have always been awestruck by her clear, straightforward judicial thinking. At oral argument, her lines of questioning were always logical and insightful, serving both to elucidate the factors that she believed should resolve the case and to persuade her fellow Justices of the correctness of her reasoning. I was impressed with her ability to reduce even the most complex cases to core principles that guided her decision-making. Sandra Day O’Connor was also a trailblazer as the U.S. Supreme Court’s first female justice. I admired her as a moderating voice on the Court, navigating more extreme positions to find areas of compromise that would avoid the kind of tectonic shifts in the law that have become all too common—a laudable goal in light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent trend toward issuing fractured opinions. For example, although Justice O’Connor joined the majority of justices in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), she was instrumental in foiling the more extreme “independent state legislature” theory advocated by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and others. She was an essential vote in Casey for reaffirming the central holding of Roe. After retirement, Justice O’Connor devoted herself to the cause of judicial independence and was famously critical of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). I respect and admire Justice O’Connor’s efforts to find compromise and, more broadly, her work to ensure that the judiciary remains an independent and impartial institution. Finally, I want to acknowledge two judges with whom I have worked closely over the past decade-plus. Judges Lisa Neubauer and Lisa Stark have both demonstrated incredible commitment to the cause of justice during their service on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Their tenures as Chief Judge and Deputy Chief Judge, respectively, brought a collegiality to the court that allowed judges to cast aside ego and focus on points of agreement in an effort to propagate public confidence in the judiciary. Their steady hand allowed the court to navigate an ever-growing docket, even as court resources remained stagnant. And of course, on the merits of their work, their intellect and keen sense for justice allowed them to showcase exemplary judicial decision-making and respect for the rule of law. I greatly miss working with Judge Stark on a daily basis (although we do still frequently engage on matters of judicial education), and while Judge Neubauer’s upcoming retirement is much deserved, her absence will be deeply felt in the institution of the courts. The proper role of a judge: “Judging is what you make it.” I’ve thought often about that remark by a mentor years ago. She had come to know perhaps hundreds of judges during her legal career, and her point was that the title of judge is only as remarkable as the person bearing it. Someone can act as a judge, in the sense that their decisions have the force of law, without actually doing the hard work of judging. The proper role of a judge encompasses more than just calling balls and strikes or making decisions. Even in the face of a high case volume, judges (especially those at the appellate level) are rarely performing a mechanical application of facts to law. Cases are usually appealed because they offer something new or different than is covered by the existing legal fabric. Such matters require curiosity, diligence and nuance to appreciate. This is challenging but necessary work if one is to meaningfully contribute to the development of the law. But a studious approach to cases is not enough. It is fundamentally the appeals court’s job to explain, in writing, what conclusion the court has reached and the factors that led to it. See WIS. STAT. § 752.41(1). The audience for these opinions can include the litigants and their attorneys, circuit court judges, the general public, and perhaps even the justices of higher courts. Writings that are imprecise, disorganized or underdeveloped have a high potential to sow confusion and discord among their audience. Any discussion of the proper role of a judge must include the judge as an effective educator. Like all communication, judging is a two-way street. Appellate judges are not merely conveyors of wisdom, speaking from on high. A judge must have a listener’s ear and a learner’s mind, allowing other stakeholders in the justice system to teach: attorneys of record who will explain areas of the law with which the judge may be unfamiliar; circuit court judges who must apply the court’s decisions; practitioners who can provide important feedback and reflection on the court’s work; and colleagues with whom the judge must collaborate so that the court speaks with a unified voice as often as possible. A judge in our system of government must be all of these things—inquisitive, enlightening, and receptive—but courageousness may be the most important trait of all, particularly in today’s political environment. In a prior application, I discussed the courage of the justices in Gillespie v. Palmer, 20 Wis. 544 (1866), to do what was fair and right even in the face of tremendous public skepticism and political opposition. A judge must be steadfast in their commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. This is the essence of judging: the willingness to adopt counter-majoritarian positions when justice and conscience demand it, and to explain and vigorously defend those decisions using law and logic.  Milwaukee Municipal Court entrance in January 2023. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. 1By Alexandria Staubach
Nearly a year after Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge David Borowski found Milwaukee Municipal Court in contempt for failing to record indigency hearings as ordered, the municipal court has agreed to record all hearings for seven years. The agreement is part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a client of Legal Action of Wisconsin, alleging that the municipal court failed to comply with statutory obligations to record certain hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Paul R. Van Grunsven approved the settlement agreement last month. In December 2024, Borowski had ordered the municipal court to record certain proceedings, including hearings regarding poverty or motions to reopen, as required by law. When the municipal court failed to comply, Borowski found the municipal court in contempt, saying the lower court had made “insufficient attempts” to comply with his December 2024 order to record indigency hearings. Legal Action Attorney Susan Lund provided evidence that between May 5–19, 2025, the municipal court had held 54 hearings in which indigency was relevant, but recorded less than half. Borowski called the lower court’s failure to comply “egregious” and threatened it with a $1,000-per-day fine for any further failure to comply. He also ordered the municipal court to pay all reasonable fees for Legal Action in its fight to enforce compliance. Legal Action claimed $73,225 in attorneys’ fees in a subsequent motion. Milwaukee Municipal Court disputed the court’s rulings along the way, including filing an appeal of Borowski’s contempt finding. The settlement agreement was signed by City Attorney Evan Goyke and Legal Action’s Lund. In the agreement, the municipal court agreed to drop its appeal of the contempt finding and Legal Action agreed to supervise the municipal court’s compliance with recording laws moving forward. The settlement agreement gives little discretion to the municipal court: It must record all hearings, whether required by law or not, for at least seven years—though the recording is called “voluntary.” The court can terminate the agreement before then only if the Legislature updates relevant statutes. After seven years the court can apply for termination with court approval. Per the agreement, the city will pay Legal Action $4,999.99 for attorney’s fees. The parties also agreed that 60 days prior to any termination motion the municipal court must make itself available to “meet and confer” with Legal Action for the nonprofit law firm to determine whether it would join in the termination motion. Any notice to Legal Action of a termination motion “shall demonstrate” how the municipal court “will ensure substantial compliance” with statutory requirements. If termination is ultimately pursued, the agreement sets the standard for a circuit court judge to determine whether the municipal court has demonstrated adequate compliance mechanisms exist to ensure substantial compliance with statutory recording requirements. If not, “the Circuit Court shall deny the motion.” The agreement includes a provision for Legal Action to review three weeks’ worth of municipal court recordings in the first six months after termination and for the circuit court, on the request of Legal Action, to hold a hearing to review whether the municipal court has maintained substantial compliance. Should records demonstrate at that time that the municipal court failed to record more than 10% of the hearings as required by law, the municipal court “shall be ordered to resume its agreement to voluntarily record all hearings,” for at least another year and pay Legal Action reasonable attorney fees. The municipal court would then have to wait another year before filing a new motion to terminate the agreement. Meanwhile, during the seven years of the settlement agreement, if Legal Action of Wisconsin believes the municipal court is in violation and notifies the court of an issue, the municipal court would get 60 days to either dispute the violation charge or cure. Take action now and spread the word: VoteRiders helps Wisconsinites overcome voting barriers7/13/2026 Wisconsin has important elections coming up on Aug. 11 (primary) and Nov. 3 (general), with strict photographic identification requirements in place by law. Now is the time to make sure you, your family members, friends, and even acquaintances have a valid ID for voting. Check your own documents and let others know about the services VoteRiders provides for those who need help obtaining an acceptable voting ID.  By Erik Reinthaler WJI Intern Although for many eligible Wisconsin voters bringing photo identification to the polls is simply another step in the voting process, for others, obtaining the identification now required by law can be a significant obstacle to casting a ballot. VoteRiders is a valuable resource for overcoming that barrier. Spread the word. The VoteRiders nonprofit provides free, one-on-one assistance to eligible voters who need help obtaining identification or supporting documents. Wisconsin is one of the organization's eight priority states because of its long-standing voter ID law. Assistance includes helping people navigate the necessary processes, getting them rides to where they need to go, and even paying for government documents. Every voter's situation is different, and VoteRiders tailors its assistance accordingly. "We provide 100% free resources to people in order to get their ID or other underlying documents, like a birth certificate or Social Security card, cover transportation by getting them round-trip rides through rideshares, things like that," Wisconsin State Director Jake Spence told Wisconsin Justice Initiative in a recent interview. Spence works with voters facing ID obstacles every day. One of the biggest misconceptions, Spence told WJI, is that obtaining an acceptable voter ID is straightforward. In reality, replacing identification can become far more complicated than many people expect. For example, Spence said, ordinary life events can suddenly leave eligible voters without the identification they need. "We've had flooding in Milwaukee, and people are like, 'Oh yeah, I lost my birth certificate in the flood. I just moved to a new place like six months before the flood and hadn't updated my ID yet, so my ID no longer has my current address.'" Replacing lost identification often brings unexpected costs. "IDs don't grow on trees, so they do have to get paid for,” he said. “The voters don't pay anything…We will take care of all those costs," Spence said. “Folks think, 'Oh, I lost my ID. It's not a big deal. I can afford that.' But not everybody is in the same situation, and then when you couple that fact with the fact that we have this voter ID law, I mean, very clearly, some people are being pushed aside and are unable to cast a ballot, even if they want to, because they may be facing these monetary barriers or these bureaucratic barriers." Those are precisely the hurdles VoteRiders aims to eliminate. The burden falls unevenly Although anyone can lose an ID, Spence said the burden of replacing one is not shared equally. According to a national survey fielded in the fall of 2023 by VoteRiders, in partnership with the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Public Wise, an estimated 34.5 million voting-age U.S. citizens either lack a driver's license or state-issued ID, or they have one that does not reflect their current name or address. The survey also found that communities of color are disproportionately affected by these barriers. Although comparable Wisconsin estimates are unavailable, Spence said he sees the same patterns across the state. "It tends to be a lot of the marginalized communities,” he said. Those communities include Black and brown voters, Indigenous voters, young voters, students, voters with disabilities, newly naturalized citizens, and transgender and nonbinary voters. He said name changes, disabilities, and other individual circumstances can create additional challenges to securing acceptable voter identification. Students face unique obstacles because not every Wisconsin college issues student IDs that automatically satisfy the state's voting requirements. "Some of our largest institutions like UW-Madison don't offer that as the regular ID," Spence said. "A lot of places will allow you to get that voting-compliant ID ... but students are unaware of that information." Spence said that ID barriers disproportionately affect younger voters, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 29. He believes a lack of public awareness is one of the biggest reasons why. “These things aren't really taught to people. They're not taught in schools. And so, every year there's new people turning 18 and becoming new voters that just don't know, don't understand." Even when voters understand what they need, obtaining the necessary documents can still be difficult. Spence said the biggest barriers are often not the cost of replacement documents themselves but the transportation expenses and bureaucratic hurdles involved in obtaining them. "I think it's, again, really easy for folks to think, 'OK, this isn't such a big deal. But when you break it down to a person-by-person level, people have all kinds of stuff going on in their lives," he said. People experiencing homelessness often face those challenges even more acutely. "I've seen a lot of folks in homeless shelters. And unfortunately, those aren't always the most secure places,” Spence told WJI. “I've heard a lot of people talking about, 'OK, somebody went into my wallet and stole my ID or stole my Social Security card, things like that.' And that's just something that some folks are exposed to and have more risk around than other people." Much of VoteRiders' work happens through partnerships with homeless shelters, schools, community organizations, and nonprofits across Wisconsin. Rather than expecting voters to travel to VoteRiders, the organization tries to take its resources to places more convenient for the people who need the help. Removing the barriers Spence urges voters to call or text VoteRiders' helpline (866-432-8683) or visit voteriders.org as soon as they realize they may not have acceptable identification. VoteRiders staff determine what documents or assistance each voter needs and guide them through the process. Some voters can resolve the issue in minutes with VoteRiders’ help. "Let's say it's a situation where somebody lost their ID and they just need a renewal. I can go online on DMV's website, get that taken care of, get you that printout receipt that has the picture of the ID on it that says this must be accepted for voting purposes, and I can print that out for you in five minutes also." Other voters may wait weeks for replacement documents from another state. While organizations like VoteRiders can help voters navigate the process, Spence said the best time to make sure everything is in order is well before Election Day. "As soon as you're starting to think about, 'Oh, there's an election coming up,' start thinking about the ID. It's never too soon." Not everyone who contacts VoteRiders is planning to vote, and that is OK. People can still use the nonprofit’s expertise. Many people first seek help because they need government-issued identification to obtain housing or access other services. "I work with people who've told me, 'I don't plan to vote. I don't care, but I need this ID to get into this housing program,'” Spence said. “We will help you today.” Often, helping one person leads others to seek assistance as well. One woman Spence met at a Milwaukee shelter called about a month after receiving help obtaining an ID. She said her son needed an ID as well and wondered whether VoteRiders could help him. "Absolutely, sure, let's get connected,” Spence said. A few months later she called again, saying her brother-in-law and his son needed help as well. "You can see the ripple effect of, you know, helping one person actually led them to remember the help we provided, to talk to other people, to ask them if they had the ID that they needed. And that was just such a perfect story to hear,” Spence said. Preparing before election day Spence encourages Wisconsin voters to check their registration before every election, particularly if they recently moved or have not voted in some time. He recommended using MyVote.wi.gov to verify registration, request an absentee ballot, view upcoming ballot information, and find the polling place. He encourages readers to check whether friends and family have the identification they need and to let them know that VoteRiders provides free help. Notwithstanding Wisconsin's voter ID law, many of the barriers voters face can be overcome with enough time and assistance, Spence said. For anyone who believes obtaining an acceptable voter ID is out of reach, Spence offered a simple message: "We're here to support you. We believe in you. We want to make sure that your voice is heard. This democracy only works if everybody is participating." BEFORE YOU VOTE: A WISCONSIN VOTER ID CHECKLIST Taking a few minutes now can help you avoid problems at the polls.
 Alexandria Staubach By Alexandria Staubach WJI received a report in late June from controversial nonprofit Enough is Enough about reckless driving cases in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, highlighting significant differences in judges’ sentencing patterns. The court watch group, which was the subject of an open letter to the Milwaukee County judiciary last year, advocates against reckless driving and for “stronger measures to protect our communities,” according to its website. “ENE” was founded after the death of Erin Morgensen, who was killed as a bystander to a crash involving the police and a fleeing suspect. While ENE’s court watch program and the reports it produces are objectively laudable citizen efforts to provide oversight and affect a chronic public safety issue in Milwaukee, the group has an agenda, and they have a perspective that is evolving with experience. ENE wrote in an earlier report that it wanted to see a reduction in the number of cases with sentences less than the state’s recommendation. “No probation for repeat felons” or defendants who commit new crimes while awaiting adjudication, it says in the latest report. Metrics tracked by the group include the tendency of judges to offer more lenient sentences than those recommended by the prosecutor and the number of relevant cases the group observed in each courtroom. The report then rates the judges on their tendency to impose less or more lenient sentences than what an assistant district attorney recommends in a given courtroom. ADAs, like judciary, are not monoliths. They have past experiences, sometimes with defendants or judges, which inform their recommendations. They have varying degrees of personal experience with certain types of crimes. And they have a lot of discretion. I know this, having lived this, practicing as an ADA in Colorado before coming to Wisconsin. Measuring judges against compliance with ADA recommendations isn’t exactly an independent variable. It’s always possible the ADA recommendation isn’t the right thing. That said, an imperfect measure isn’t a meaningless measure, and some things in the report are worth considering, especially because we can’t escape the fact that the criminal justice system’s backbone is individual discretion. ADA discretion in charging and prosecuting crimes, offering pleas, and recommending sentences butts up against a defense attorney’s obligation to obtain the best possible outcome for their client, irrespective of guilt. But all of that is pinned against the judiciary’s ultimate discretion in sentencing. In Wisconsin, a trial judge is free to impose any legal sentence, whether the parties have come to terms in a plea deal or the defendant is convicted at trial. While that power is common, it’s not universal across states. Every defendant’s and victim’s experience is shaped by these forces and everyone practicing in the criminal justice space knows them to be true, but rarely do we take the time to quantify judges’ sentencing discretion, to measure it in action, or think about what it means for the people affected. I think ENE accidentally did. In ENE’s most recent reporting period from November 2025 through April 2026, the group observed 10 judges handling cases involving reckless driving. Judges Jorge Fragoso and Jack Dávila had the highest volume of observed cases. While a small majority (six of 10) of the observed judges imposed more lenient sentences than recommended by the ADA, Fragoso, who handled 55 cases, did so 56% of the time and Dávila, who handled 49 cases, did so 76% of the time. In ENE’s recent report it seems like the group’s takeaway is that Dávila was the second most lenient sentencer, after Judge Katie Kegel, who saw just eight relevant cases but imposed a more lenient sentence than the ADA’s recommendation 88% of the time. Kegel, it should be noted, also runs the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and Gun Court. According to a defense attorney WJI contacted, she is less likely to see ENE-tracked charges without another charge present in the case, while Dávila deals with general crimes. In the same reporting period, Judges William Sosnay (10 cases) and Rebecca Keifer (17 cases) operated at the opposite end of the spectrum, never imposing a sentence more lenient than what was requested by the ADA, according to ENE. The value, morality, or correctness of the more or less lenient sentencing practices isn’t really the issue to me. It’s the effect the disparity in sentencing has on a case—the sense that everyone around the judge is playing the odds, in part predicated on what type of sentence they think the defendant may get. I’ve seen, and WJI has reported on, other ENE reports. It’s easy to gloss over what seems like a significant disparity and even easier to label the judges as merely more lenient or harsh, especially if you’re not convinced incarceration affects crime or is the ultimate deterrent. But it caught my attention this time, because I experienced these inconsistencies during the same reporting period. What always seemed like a simple fact of practice—that some judges are more lenient, that some ADA’s are harsher, that some defense attorneys are less reasonable—feels different when it is happening to you. In June of 2025, my husband was biking to work when he was hit by a vehicle driver who ran a red light and then fled the scene. The perpetrator’s reckless driving caused great bodily harm and by all accounts should have taken my husband’s life, though he miraculously survived. In May, the case against the perpetrator was dismissed without prejudice after the Milwaukee Police Department failed to locate and the district attorney’s office failed to personally serve a subpoena on a witness deemed essential for trial. Another witness seemed to suddenly lose their memory the weekend before they were set to take the stand. But before we knew these witnesses wouldn’t appear for trial, and before we knew the ADA would make the choice to dismiss the case without them, we were asked as victims to consider plea offers that were probationary in nature—some more harsh from the ADA, some more lenient from the defense attorney. This wasn’t because anyone thought mowing down someone on a bike and fleeing the scene merited such a plea. It wasn’t because the ADA questioned the defendant’s guilt. And it wasn’t just because the case was imperfect. We were told it was because of the judge’s sentencing record. The judge’s reputation is consistent with the ENE data. The judge was known to impose probation even in aggravated situations, so even if a trial resulted in conviction, we were warned not to expect incarceration. It’s impossible to say whether I would have advocated for incarceration. In an ideal world, all my family would really like is to keep the defendant from ever driving again. But that’s not a sentence the court can impose, and it’s also not the point. The sense that incarceration was totally off the table didn’t just seem to affect the plea; it seemed to affect the defense attorney’s expectations regardless of his client’s guilt or innocence. It seemed to affect the value of taking the case to trial. And it definitely impacted our perception of the criminal justice system in Milwaukee. The idea that practices from courtroom to courtroom, and indeed outcomes for similar misconduct, depend so much on what judge you randomly pull is tiresome in an already emotionally exhausting system. It makes one question the credibility of a system that purports to strive for impartiality and what we’re told is equal access to justice. We were never naive about the possible outcomes (including dismissal). It took a lot to even have the case investigated. I always anticipated the impact of ADA discretion on the case, and I understand that defense attorneys have an obligation to zealously protect their clients, but I honestly didn’t foresee the impact of judicial discretion in sentencing. Frankly, there was less of it in the jurisdiction where I practiced. I feel like we’ve accepted that balance in an elected judiciary includes some judges who sentence severely and some judges who don’t. But unlike in the Legislature, where a 50/50 split results in inaction for everyone, or a conservative majority results in conservative policies for everyone, a split across courts means that what you can expect from a sentence as a defendant, defense attorney, prosecutor or victim depends more on judicial disposition and less on individual conduct or the law. Overall, according to ENE’s report, sentences are tending more toward ADA recommendations since ENE began its court watch program in June 2024, with judges adopting more lenient sentences 52% of the time as compared to 72% of the time. While I don’t think ADA recommendations are a particularly telling metric, and we really don’t know how more or less lenient the sentencing is, I do know the lack of consistency across courtrooms is a tough pill to swallow when it’s happening. There’s a litany of criticisms that can be levied against the criminal justice system. And my sense, whether you agree with how things are currently structured or not, is that our courtrooms really are full of people trying very hard to do the right thing. Nevertheless, for a victim (and I assume for a defendant as well), the reality of disparate outcomes feels like a game. Who can get what from whom, with less focus on what’s right for the community, you, and whatever justice really means. In its report, ENE “recognizes the challenging responsibility judges face in balancing the unique facts of each case, the circumstances of the defendant, and the interests of justice.” The group acknowledges sentencing efforts by judges like “including educational sentencing components such as victim-impact essays and attendance at vehicular homicide hearings, which help offenders better understand the real-world consequences of reckless driving.” I recognize these challenges, too, and I recognize that we elect our judges (though many are appointed first) for their discretion, but I do wonder if we’ve lost some of the plot. To be clear, I think judicial discretion is a good thing. I think sentences tailored to individual defendants are a good thing. But if sentencing need only be “consistent and proportionate” within the confines of an individual courtroom, it may be worth questioning what those words really mean.
"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: Samuel T. Berg
Appointed to: Walworth County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 7, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Big Foot High, Walworth, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: October 2024-present – Associate attorney, Gardiner Koch Weisberg & Wrona, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin June 2020-October 2024 – Assistant district attorney, Walworth County District Attorney’s Office July 2016-June 2020 – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin August 2014-July 2016 – Law clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Hon. William C. Griesbach, Green Bay, Wisconsin May 2014-August 2014 – Associate attorney, Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Our law firm has over 50 practice areas and represents individuals and corporations in a diverse range of concentrations. The general character of our Lake Geneva office, where I primarily work, is a general practice setting, including civil litigation, criminal defense, probate and guardianship, personal injury, estate planning, real estate, business formation, contract review, and employment law. As a senior associate in this office, I handle all of these case types on a regular basis, I oversee the intake process and handle most new client meetings, and I manage 4-5 other attorneys. Describe typical clients: My firm's general practice setting means I represent diverse clients, including business owners, wealthy individual clients, condo and homeowners associations, white and blue collar clients, clients facing various criminal charges, and indigent clients in contingency fee cases. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 25 jury trials and numerous bench trials List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Gabriel Estrada; Walworth County . . . . This case was significant because the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, including multiple felonies, and the defendant was sentenced to multiple years in prison, even though the case was initially referred for a single misdemeanor charge. This case is representative of how I tried to prosecute domestic violence cases: by listening to the victim and, when I believed her and when she provided ample supporting documentation to corroborate her statements, by aggressively prosecuting the case to keep the victim safe and allow her to get out of the cycle of domestic violence. State v. Larry Mitchell; Walworth County . . . . This case was significant because it was my first criminal trial and my first trial as a prosecutor. I had to prepare two felony cases for trial that day, one of which had a recanting victim and one of which had a victim who was refusing to come to court. The case where the victim refused to come to court ended up proceeding that day and even without her participation, I was able to obtain a felony false imprisonment conviction. It is not ideal to try a case without the victim but I knew that the case would have to be dismissed if I did not do so, and I felt that trying the case was necessary to protect the victim and the public. Preparing for these two cases and trying this case showed me that as a prosecutor, I would have to work hard, understand the rules of evidence intimately, and figure out how to appeal to jurors' sense of justice. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an assistant attorney general in the civil litigation unit of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I handled certiorari actions in circuit court for judicial review of various administrative proceedings. However, my positions have not, to date, involved participating directly in administrative agency or commission proceedings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have handled numerous mediations in state and federal cases. At my current firm, I represent clients in real estate transactions and perform estate planning, contract drafting, and advising in a general counsel role. Previously, as an ADA and AAG, I advised law enforcement agencies, oversaw investigations, advised local district attorney's offices, and advised organizational clients such as the Department of Corrections. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered to help my former colleague, Walworth County District Attorney Zeke Wiedenfeld, with his campaign for re-election in 2024. My participation was limited to obtaining approximately 10-20 signatures from family and friends, which I did to help Zeke secure a place on the ballot. This was an uncontested election. Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: St. James the Less Academy, School Advisory Committee, 2024-present St. Francis de Sales School, School Advisory Committee, 2023-2024 St. Francis de Sales Parish, religious education teacher, 2022-present St. Thomas More Society of Madison, board member, 2019-2024 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: During law school, I volunteered at the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic at the House of Peace on 1702 W. Walnut St. in Milwaukee. We met with individuals who were typically indigent and who were facing all kinds of legal challenges, most commonly landlord-tenant/eviction issues. Our representation would be limited to one meeting per matter and would consist of providing preliminary advice, basic assistance drafting pleadings, and referrals to attorneys or agencies that could assist further. I also volunteered at the adult guardianship clinic at the law school. This involved going through training and then assisting individuals become guardians of adult wards in uncontested cases. We assisted the proposed guardians by helping them complete the necessary forms and navigate the guardianship process. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I am grateful to be considered for an appointment to the Walworth County Circuit Court and humbled to be in a position to apply at this stage in my career. I want to serve as a judge for the people of Wisconsin—and specifically, of the county where I grew up—because I believe I am uniquely qualified for the job and because I want to use my gifts in whatever way most enables me to promote the common good and make a difference in my community. I am uniquely qualified for the job because I have a broad range of legal experience. My legal experience includes substantial experience trying cases, which is crucial for a circuit court judge. I have tried numerous cases in state court, federal court, criminal court, civil court, on the plaintiff's side, and on the defense side. I have spent over four years exclusively practicing civil litigation and over four more years exclusively prosecuting criminal cases. In my current position, I continue to practice civil litigation and criminal law, as well as personal injury, probate and guardianship, and juvenile law. I also have significant experience in non-litigation matters including contract drafting, employment law, corporate law, estate planning, and real estate law. I have been fortunate to work in an unusually broad range of concentrations, and this has prepared me well for the role of a circuit court judge, particularly in Walworth County, where each judge handles all types of matters at the same time. In addition, I have a record of working well with others. I have been blessed to work under and be mentored by some exceptional lawyers and judges, including the Honorable John Franke (when I assisted him with his duties as the special prosecutor of an inquest), the Honorable Michael Brennan of the Seventh Circuit (when he was managing partner of Gass Weber Mullins in Milwaukee), the Honorable William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (as his law clerk), the Honorable Ann Peacock (when she was directing the Civil Litigation Unit at WDOJ), and, most recently, District Attorney Zeke Wiedenfeld and my current employer in private practice, Attorney Tom Gardiner. These mentors taught me not only how to practice law but also how to be a professional and how to work well with supervisors, colleagues, and people under my supervision. As I explain more below, an important part of a circuit court judge's role, particularly in a county of our relative size, is to be an administrator of the justice system, and such administrative duties necessarily require working well with others. For these reasons, I believe I have a unique skill set that would enable me to be successful on the Walworth County Circuit Court bench. 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. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) and Kindschy v. Aish, 2024 WI 27 are two recent decisions that will have an overall positive impact on the people of Wisconsin. These cases each involved delineating the line between constitutionally protected speech and "true threats" which are beyond the scope of First Amendment protection. In Counterman, in an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who was prosecuted for stalking a woman online. In Kindschy, in an opinion written by Justice Dallet for a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court, the ruling was in favor of an anti-abortion protestor whose activities included singling out one clinic staff member and making statements that she believed to be threatening. These cases involve courts doing what courts do: reviewing difficult factual scenarios and making a ruling based on the law, even if it is in favor of an individual who has engaged in behavior that many find objectionable. These are not easy decisions, and this is an important area of law, as society continues to grapple with rising gun violence, online radicalization of various ideologies, and more aggressive enforcement and prosecution of hate speech by legislators and prosecutors of all political stripes. But these are instances in which our highest courts correctly came down in favor of the important principle of freedom of speech. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Judge William C. Griesbach and Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin because of their dedication to public service, their collegiality, and their commitment to doing what is right. Both men have been judges for nearly 30 years. Judge Griesbach is a former prosecutor and Judge Adelman is a former state senator. As Judge Griesbach's law clerk, I watched him come to work early, stay late, and come in on most Saturdays. Judge Adelman is also well known as a hardworking judge who reads everything and writes prolifically. These men showed me that there is no substitute for hard work in the legal profession. These judges also showed me the importance of mutual respect and collegiality. Reminiscent of the late Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, Judge Griesbach and Judge Adelman were appointed by presidents of different political parties, but they have a special working relationship and friendship. I saw firsthand that they did not always agree on certain issues, but they valued each other's opinions and debated each other openly, honestly, and respectfully. Finally, these judges are committed to doing what is right in the promotion of the common good. It is sometimes said that the role of a judge is to "call balls and strikes," and although that is true to a certain extent, Judge Griesbach and Judge Adelman showed me that compassion and conscience also have an inescapable role to play in the administration of justice. The proper role of a judge: A judge must administer justice by faithfully interpreting and applying the law as enacted by the legislative branch, by overseeing the conduct of the executive branch, and by enforcing the statutory and constitutional rights of all citizens. A judge must maintain impartiality in all matters and must treat with respect and courtesy all litigants, attorneys, and indeed all people they encounter in both their professional and personal lives. Such respect is required by virtue of the human dignity of every person, and such impartiality is required to maintain the public's utmost confidence in the integrity of the judiciary specifically and the rule of law in general. A judge must also be a leader of the justice system in which he or she serves. A judge should be active in the local bar and should assist and mentor attorneys, especially new attorneys, thereby enhancing the quality of legal representation for the public and guaranteeing the efficacy of the justice system for generations to come. Finally, being a judge requires humility and courage. Humility is needed to stay open-minded and to never stop learning and growing. Courage is needed to do what is right, especially when it is difficult. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed