 Entrance to the committee room at Milwaukee City Hall, where the Committee on Public Safety and Health met on Oct. 29, 2024. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach Two noteworthy items appeared on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting of the Milwaukee Common Council’s Committee on Public Safety and Health. One was discussed: mental health services for Milwaukee Police Department officers and encounters with the public where mental health crisis is an issue. One was postponed: MPD changes following the murder of Bobbie Lou Schoeffling, killed by the man she reported as an abuser. The mental health agenda item was raised by Alder Larissa Taylor, who said she was prompted to investigate MPD’s policies by this summer’s fatal police shooting of Sonya Massey, in neighboring Illinois. The Illinois police shooting involved Massey’s mental health, and the responding officer was charged with murder. Conspicuously rescheduled was communication from MPD regarding improvements to policies, training, and practices in the wake of Schoeffling’s death. Schoeffling was murdered by her ex-boyfriend two weeks after her complaints at the District 3 police station were dismissed by an officer. The interaction was recorded by police station cameras, and the officer was recorded calling Schoeffling foul names after she left the building, as documented in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation last spring. The committee’s mental health discussion included an explanation of the department’s policies and procedures to address officer well-being, presented by Heather Hough, MPD chief of staff, and Inspector Eric Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer said mental health is a question of "officer resilience." According to Hough, the department offers “robust wellness services” for officers and staff. “We don’t want our officers to have compassion fatigue," she said. Both Hough and Pfeiffer described a sea change in the years since the department mandated mental health services in “certain situations.” Those services created a “culture shift,” said Hough, and officers are now more “willing to sign up because they recognize that it helps.” Hough and Pfeiffer also discussed police encounters with those experiencing mental health crises. Pfeiffer reported that since 2020 the department typically has dealt with between 7,000 and 8,000 mental health service calls per year. More than 44% of those calls do not result in detention or any significant action by MPD, while 21% result in detention despite efforts to “hopefully provide voluntary options for folks,” Pfeiffer said.  MPD graphic presented at the Oct. 29, 2024, committee meeting. MPD Standard Operating Procedure 160 governs officer encounters with those experiencing mental health crisis. The SOP includes several resources available to officers who encounter those experiencing a mental health crisis. For example, the Crisis Assessment Response Team, or “CART,” pairs an officer with a mental health clinician to respond to calls. The CART team is available to officers from 8 a.m. to midnight and has responded to 1,900 calls this year, Pfeiffer said. He added that the team has had just one use of force incident since it deployed in 2013. Pfeiffer and Hough also discussed MPD’s adoption of the ABLE Project (Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement), a Georgetown Law Center program designed to “prepare officers to successfully intervene to prevent harm and to create a law enforcement culture that supports peer intervention.” Pfeiffer said MPD trains its officers to use peer pressure to deescalate and encourage positive encounters. Officers are expected to “say something if they see something.” Hough said MPD Chief Jeffrey Norman considers the training when he evaluates whether to discipline an officer. When an officer witnesses a questionable or unreasonable use of force, Norman asks himself whether it was pre- or post-ABLE, Hough said.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach Ruben Gaona is ushering in an era of reimagined reentry services, led by the formerly incarcerated and aided by technology and a willingness to meet those returning to the community where they are. Gaona, a U.S. Navy veteran, served eight years in federal prison. Out since 2017, he knows personally the challenges of people transitioning out of incarceration.  Gaona WJI recently talked with Gaona about his two initiatives: The Way Out, a tech start-up and “fair chance” employment platform, and My Way Out, a reentry service provider.
Gaona described The Way Out as a blind dating app between individuals with a criminal history and those willing to hire them. On the employee end, the platform creates a cloaked applicant profile that leaves out all identifying information—“things that can introduce bias,” Gaona said. The employers only see qualifications—education, training, experience—and an individual’s criminal history. Because of the cloaking, an applicant can be honest without being unnecessarily public about their criminal convictions. On the employer end, the app lists job requirements, pay, and location while cloaking the company. Gaona said this permits the employer to be fully transparent and up front about what convictions are disqualifying and to participate anonymously. “Employers can shop for what they’re willing to accept” and “you’ll never have a bank get matched with someone who’s got a conviction for bank robbery.” Gaona and business partner Eli Rivers founded The Way Out following the pandemic, while Gaona was attending the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The platform is live in Wisconsin, and Gaona hopes he’ll be able to expand the market. He is considering opening it up to veterans, who face some of the same challenges as the formerly incarcerated when they reenter the civilian world. More recently, Gaona’s focus has shifted toward the nonprofit My Way Out, which he founded in 2021. While working with The Way Out, Gaona keyed into a need to provide support services. “I wanted to help people sustain the employment opportunities we were helping them find,” he said. My Way Out has served approximately 1,000 clients since 2021. Its services vary based on the client. “Instead of creating something prepackaged, we focus on the individual and what the individual thinks they need,” Gaona said. Some things are recurring, however, with housing, employment, and transportation always at the top of the list. The organization has no physical office. The staff, who are not case workers or case managers, but rather “reentry partners,” go to the individual. “All of our work is on the ground,” Gaona said. My Way Out initially found clients through advertisements in a newsletter sent by The Community to men and women inside Wisconsin’s prisons. After that, clients came to the organization by word of mouth. “Social workers even reach out now,” said Gaona. Individuals scheduled for release or recently released fill out an onboarding application, identifying what support services they need. “We focus on three at time,” said Gaona. “Then we can scale up. Once you’re with us, we’re always with you.” Housing is the most consistent need, Gaona said. “How different does reentry look when you don’t have to worry about where you’re going to lay your head, especially in a state where seven to six months are cold?” Although housing has been difficult, it is also one way Gaona sees My Way Out growing. Earlier this year My Way Out secured a small grant from United Way and used it to pay the first three months of rent for clients. He hopes to expand that aspect of services. WJI asked Gaona about data supporting the effectiveness of his methods. Although My Way Out has significant volume in Milwaukee, “the tracking will take time,” he said. “The next three years will shed a lot of light.” But he believes that expanded access to housing will have a significant impact—that by addressing housing first, they’ll significantly disrupt recidivism. He’s not alone in that thought. "Housing first" is a homeless assistance approach that prioritizes permanent residence without preconditions and has greatly reduced chronic homelessness in Milwaukee over the last decade. Conor Williams, facilitator of the Milwaukee Reentry Council, told WJI that he, too, is a strong proponent of applying the housing first model to reentry. The council works to improve reentry outcomes and reduce incarceration. Nothing about the My Way Out program is court mandated, but Gaona has worked with the court system to make sure clients get credit with the court for his programming. In some cases that credit can affect the duration of supervision. "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: Payal Khandhar
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: June 17, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – York Community High, Elmhurst, Illinois Recent legal employment: May 2016-present – Attorney/owner, Jasti & Khandhar, Madison, Wisconsin April 2012-May 2016 – Assistant state public defender, Madison, Wisconsin August 2009-April 2012 – Assistant state public defender, Spooner, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: My practice is primarily state and federal criminal defense. Half, to two-thirds of my cases are appointments through the State or Federal Public Defender's Offices. Since 2018 I have also conducted Supplemental Hearings as a Supplement Court Commissioner for Dane County Branch 7. Describe typical clients: My clients are predominantly young, indigent, and have many obstacles in their lives. I have developed a reputation of working well with individuals deemed to be 'difficult clients.' Most commonly, I receive referrals for individuals who struggle with mental illness and those who are distrustful of the system. Number of cases tried to verdict: 17 to verdict; 2 as second chair; 1 as standby counsel 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 not included case names or case numbers per the advice of Ethics Counsel for the State Bar of Wisconsin. Dane County Case Judge Julie Genovese Assistant District Attorney Paul Humphrey I was appointed to this case in July of 2021 through the Criminal Defense Project. It was a fraud case with complicated financial and medical issues. This case was outside of my area of expertise, but as part of the Criminal Defense Project you are expected to take all cases appointed to you. My client had multiple previous attorneys who withdrew from the case. I was appointed as the sole attorney on the case, and I tried it alone. Ultimately, in September of 2022 we had a four day jury trial. After five hours of deliberation, the jury found my client not guilty of all charges. This was my first jury trial after COVID. It also required the cross-examination of numerous medical experts. The discovery included extensive financial and medical records. After not trying cases during COVID, starting with such a complicated case was overwhelming and intimidating. I worked hard to give my client the best possible chance of success at trial. Even before the verdict, my client thanked me because my hours of dedication to his case were evident during every part of the trial. Dane County Case Judge Jill Karofsky Assistant District Attorney Matthew Moeser and Assistant District Attorney Tracy McMiller I was appointed to represent my client in October of 2018 for his federal charges and ultimately took over his state cases in January of 2019 when he was dissatisfied with his state attorney. I tried the state case alone in April of 2019. I was very nervous at the beginning of this trial because we did not have many facts in our favor. Regardless, my client wanted a trial and deserved to have the best possible trial given the facts. Everything was contested in this trial. Very few decisions went in our favor. Many of the alleged offenses were captured on surveillance video or discussed over recorded jail calls. Given the circumstances, I had to be creative in presenting my client's defense in a way that incorporated all of the bad facts, but still supported not guilty verdicts. Ultimately, the jury deliberated for five and a half hours (over two days) before returning guilty verdicts on seven of the nine charges The fact that the jury took so long to deliberate confirmed that I had presented a strong defense for my client, despite the evidence not being in our favor. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I regularly represent clients in contested revocation hearings before the Division of Hearings and Appeals. Over the last 15 years, I would estimate that I have had approximately 60 contested revocation hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation): None Previous runs for public office: None listed Public offices to which you were appointed or elected: November 2018-present – appointed supplemental court commissioner, Madison, Wisconsin Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Treasurer - Campaign to Elect Diane Schlipper for Dane County Circuit Judge, Branch 3 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Diane Schlipper, Dane County Circuit Court judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, board of directors, September 2019-present ARC Community Services, board of directors, April 2024-present WACDL, member, July 2016-present DCCDLA, member, March 2017-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: JustDane JustDane is a non-profit agency that assists justice impacted individuals, and focuses on systematic change, to create a just and equitable community. I served on the JustDane (formerly known as Madison area Urban Ministries) Board of Directors from 2003 - 2009 and again from 2016 to 2023. For the last five years I was the Board President. I helped lead the organization through strategic planning as well as a name change. Merit Selection Panel for the Reappointment of the Part-Time Magistrate Judge I served on the Merit Selection Panel that ultimately recommended Magistrate Judge Peter Oppeneer for reappointment in the Western District of Wisconsin. I was appointed to this committee by Chief Judge James D. Peterson in July of 2021. Madison Metropolitan School District From March of 2017 to October 2018 I served on the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) ad hoc Education Resource Officer (ERO) Committee where we reevaluated the Madison Police Department's (MPD) contract with MMSD. This contract places MPD Officers in each of the four major MMSD High Schools. This was a contentious and time consuming committee. Tipping the Scales Since Spring of 2021, once a year, I co-teach a lesson on racial profiling to East High School students in the Dane County Courthouse as part of the Tipping the Scales Program. The purpose of this program is expose high school student to a diverse set of lawyers that are otherwise underrepresented in the field. Before beginning the lesson, we share our paths to becoming lawyers and educate the students about the importance of diversity in the legal system. Red Caboose Day Care Center From the Fall of 2013 to the Fall of 2018 I served on the Health, Nutrition, and Safety Committee to help ensure healthy meals and a safe environment for the children at the daycare. From the Fall of 2011 to the Fall of 2016 I also served on the Personnel Committee helping the agency update and rewrite personnel policies and job descriptions. I periodically volunteer with Legal Action at their Expungement Clinics. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Although I have been an attorney for fourteen years, I have spent the last twenty years committed to creating a just and equitable community. I started my journey as a case manager in a residential facility, supervising women released from prison. This was my first exposure to the justice system. Working alongside the Department of Corrections and the Bureau of Prisons, I gained an understanding of the complexity in balancing the needs of formerly incarcerated people against the needs of the community to which they returned. I built on that experience as a neighborhood-based case worker, assisting low-income families to stabilize their housing. I was fortunate to have these experiences before I began law school. They allowed me to envision the real-life consequences of what was otherwise presented as theoretical legal concepts in a classroom. I continued to engage with the community during law school, acting as the community service liaison for a student organization. This background gave me a solid foundation for my first legal job as an Assistant State Public Defender. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I practiced indigent defense where I advocated for justice and equity one case at a time. Eventually, I left the Public Defender’s Office to dedicate more time to each case. Regardless, most of my work in private practice is still indigent defense. The flexibility of private practice allows me to increase my volunteer work to address broader issues of justice and equity. Additionally, as a private practitioner, I have taken on the roles of supplemental court commissioner and guardian ad litem. These different roles balanced and broadened my concept of justice. As a circuit court judge, I will have an opportunity to incorporate all my experiences to make just and equitable decisions. It will be a continuation of my commitment to the community. Circuit Court Judge would be the next step in my career dedicated to serving 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. Within the last few years alone, there have been life changing court decisions that will have widespread impact on the people of Wisconsin. Although by comparison State v. Lickes, 394 Wis. 2d 161 (2021), may not seem significant to some, it is the case that has impacted the greatest number of my young clients with criminal convictions. In Lickes, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that (1) a violation of a Department of Corrections (DOC) imposed condition of probation, not just a court ordered condition of probation, is sufficient to deny an individual expungement; and (2) if an individual violates a DOC imposed condition of probation, the Circuit Court does not have the discretion to find that the individual otherwise successfully completed their sentence for the purpose of expungement. The purpose of probation is to allow an individual to learn and grow while being safely monitored in the community. Individuals are placed on probation after taking responsibility and pleading guilty to criminal charges, so there is no doubt that they previously struggled to follow the rules. With young defendants, their charges are often the result of immaturity, impulsivity, the influence of negative peers, substance use disorder, undiagnosed mental health issues, trauma, or other factors that do not immediately go away simply by being placed on probation. As such, it should come as no surprise that many continue to struggle while they are supervised, and may continue to make poor choices while on their road to becoming law abiding adults. While on supervision, if the poor choice does not require revocation, it should be used an opportunity to learn with the guidance and monitoring of the DOC. If an individual can learn from their mistakes and still make forward progress, they should not lose the option for expungement. Taking away the opportunity for expungement with any rules violation makes expungement unattainable to most, if not all my clients. If the community would not otherwise be harmed, and it is in the best interest of the individual who has otherwise successfully completed their sentence, demanding perfection is an unnecessary and impossible standard to impose upon a young person. Prior to Lickes, I commonly negotiated a recommendation for expungement as part of a plea agreement. Although the requirements for expungement in Wisconsin were already far more stringent than most other jurisdictions, expungement after completing a sentence was still a possibility for many of my young clients. After Lickes, I no longer emphasize the value of expungement. Although I want to believe my clients can be successful on probation, it is unlikely that any young person who is already in the criminal justice system can complete years of probation without a single rules violation. And now, because of Lickes, the record of their youthful mistakes will continue to remain public. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg There are many reasons to admire Justice Ginsburg – her legal acumen, her professional accomplishments, and her forward thinking on social justice issues. In addition to all these attributes, above all, I admire her lifelong ability to maintain true to her beliefs in the face of opposition. Often, throughout my life, I have been one of few women of color in the room. In professional settings, it is common for me to be the only woman of color. Because my experiences have been different than many of my professional colleagues, at times my perspective and my opinions are also different. When you are the only person in the room in your demographic, and you hold a different opinion, it takes a lot of courage to share that opinion. It is sometimes easier to convince yourself that your opinion must be wrong, or holds less value. Justice Ginsburg was one of very few women in her law school. She was one of very few women law professors. For much of her service, she was one of just two women on the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Ginsburg spent most of her career being the only woman in the room. And yet she had the courage to maintain her position and express her opinions. Although in recent years she became famous for dissenting against the majority opinion, I can only imagine how difficult it was early in her career. Fortunately for us all, Justice Ginsburg remained true to her beliefs. And for that, I admire her courage. Dane County Judge John Markson and Burnett County Judge Kenneth Kutz I have had the privilege of appearing in front of both Judge Markson and Judge Kutz numerous times. Although they are different judges in many ways, they share common traits that I admire as an individual and as an advocate. Both judges treated every individual in the courtroom with respect. Regardless of your role in the case, when either judge spoke to you, you felt valued and heard. Both judges had a calm demeanor, no matter how litigious the case. This set the tone for their courtrooms, impacting how court staff and attorneys treated each other. Both Judge Markson and Judge Kutz had the ability to impose lengthy prison sentences on defendants convicted of committing serious crimes while still treating them with dignity. They acknowledged that defendants could commit terrible offenses and still not inherently be bad people. I have never heard either Judge Markson or Judge Kutz raise their voice, or say anything to humiliate or degrade a defendant. Among the dozens of judges I have practiced in front of over fifteen years, Judge Markson and Judge Kutz distinguish themselves as judges who embody the qualities of an excellent judge. The proper role of a judge: Fundamentally, a judge’s role is as a neutral and impartial decision maker. All judges make decisions, but how a judge conducts hearings, reviews filings, and comes to a decision can vary wildly as anyone who has practiced in front of different judges can attest to. The proper role of a judge is as a patient listener. Parties deserve the opportunity to be heard. The best judges listen, ask thoughtful questions, are transparent with their concerns, and communicate their decisions clearly. They are aware of their own gaps in knowledge, and bridge those gaps with hard work and intelligence. The proper role of a judge is to treat all parties with dignity and respect. I know firsthand that parties that leave the courtroom feeling like they were heard, and treated respectfully, are more willing to accept a decision even if a judge rules against them. Maintaining this culture within a courtroom also encourages all parties to treat each other accordingly. A judge should also be open-minded in making their decisions. Judges earn their role as a decision maker because of their education and experience. Unfortunately, judges sometimes presume that because they have been chosen to be the decision maker, they must have all the right answers. The proper role of a judge is to continue to educate themselves about the areas in which they preside, and be open to being educated by the parties about the case in front of them. A judge’s role is also to make decisions in a timely matter. Unquestionably, cases have an enormous impact on the named parties. What is often less visible, but equally important, is how those decisions impact the family of those parties, their employers, the community, and so on. Even if a decision is not in an individual’s favor, deciding in a timely manner allows the parties to cope with the outcome, and move on with their lives. Ultimately, the proper role of a judge is to strive to achieve justice with each case they preside over. By Alexandria Staubach WJI and a coalition of groups are working to get the word out: If you have a felony conviction and you’re “off paper,” you can vote. Wisconsin restores voting eligibility when someone is “off paper,” meaning after full completion of all portions of a sentence, including incarceration, supervision, and payment of all fines, fees, and restitution. In Milwaukee, the League of Women Voters, Souls to the Polls, and EXPO (Ex-incarcerated Persons Organizing) lead efforts to educate and register eligible voters with felony records. Disenfranchisement upon felony conviction is nothing new. Its history extends back to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and Southern Reconstruction. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses (laws allowing old activities to persist despite new laws) have largely been disavowed among the 50 states, but felony disenfranchisement remains. Christal Arroyo Roman of Milwaukee lost her right to vote because of conviction and incarceration, but has been off paper since 2020. Arroyo Roman, who serves on the WJI board, is now a paralegal, Marquette University student, and criminal justice organizer. In an interview with WJI, Arroyo Roman said that voting in 2020’s election “felt liberating.” For so long she felt her voice was suppressed. Prior to incarceration, she thought that politicians did not care about her community, so she did not vote. When she went to prison and felt the “laws and legislation that were being enacted against [her],” she became aware of the importance of voting. “Even if I feel like my community isn’t being heard, it feels good to have a voice,” she said. Arroyo Roman highlighted that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) wants formerly incarcerated people to participate in pro-social behaviors like paying taxes. “If the government wants us to participate, we should be able to vote,” she said. Maine, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico do not participate in felony disenfranchisement. But some form of felony disenfranchisement persists in 48 states, according to the federal government website vote.gov. Twenty-four states permit a person to vote immediately after release from prison, and 13 states may preclude one from voting even after full completion of a sentence. Wisconsin and 11 other states fall in the middle, restoring eligibility to vote after full completion of the terms of a sentence and being “restored to civil rights.” According to the Wisconsin Legislative Council, the Wisconsin Legislature constitutionally “may enact laws excluding a person who has been convicted of a felony from voting until he or she is restored to civil rights,” and the law “precludes permanent felony disenfranchisement but does not define or describe what constitutes restoration of civil rights.” By statute, a convicted individual must sign a DOC form acknowledging that they may not vote. DOC is required by law to transmit to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on a continuous basis, a list of each living person who has been convicted of a felony and is ineligible to vote, plus the date on which DOC anticipates the person’s voting rights will be restored. The commission then forwards that list of ineligible people to municipal clerks. Clerks are responsible for notifying each person on the list in their municipalities that their voter registration is inactive until the person is eligible to vote again. Restoration under Wisconsin law occurs automatically upon completion of the terms of any sentence imposed, the Legislative Council says. No separate hearing or procedure occurs; no signed document from any entity is required or provided to prove restoration of the vote. Once a person is off paper, the person must re-register to cast a ballot. The DOC is required to inform an individual when their sentence is complete, civil rights have been restored, and they can vote, says the Legislative Council. An election clerk may nevertheless believe that someone with a felony record is ineligible to vote. In that case, the clerk must allow the person to cast a ballot. The ballot will then be marked for closer inspection, which could lead to a challenge. After an election, each election clerk generates and forwards a list of all persons who voted in their county to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The commission then checks that list against the information provided by DOC. The commission may refer any instance of voting by a disenfranchised person to the district attorney for prosecution in the county where the ballot was cast. Despite the lackluster framework around restoration of voting rights, providing false information on a voter registration form is a class I felony, as is voting in an election when one is not qualified. In recent years, organizations including EXPO, Wisdom, ACLU of Wisconsin, Project Return, Wisconsin Voices, Justified Anger (Madison), and Just Leadership USA, developed a package of legislation that sought to “Unlock the Vote.” The bill package addressed issues from prison gerrymandering (counting those in prison as residents of the prison location rather than as residents of their communities before incarceration) to restoring the right to vote to people who are out of prison yet still on supervision. The bills were introduced in 2022 by Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), who earlier this year left the Legislature after appointment as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. The bills were referred to legislative committees but did not reach committee votes. The bills were not reintroduced in the next legislative session.   The entrance to Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David Borowski's courtroom on Oct. 16, 2024. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
Milwaukee’s municipal judges are under legal fire for their alleged failure to record poverty hearings. At a summary judgment hearing this morning, attorneys for Legal Action of Wisconsin and the City of Milwaukee argued over whether Milwaukee Municipal Court judges are violating a legal obligation to record hearings concerning defendants' poverty. People who meet certain poverty standards by law are not to be sanctioned with confinement to jail or driver's license suspension for nonpayment of municipal tickets. A statute requires that a "hearing regarding whether the defendant is unable to pay the judgment because of poverty . . . in a municipal court shall be recorded by electronic means for purposes of appeal." Legal Action contended at the hearing that the municipal court has the obligation to record poverty hearings, which its judges routinely fail to meet. The city said Legal Action exaggerates the obligation to record, making a mountain out of a molehill, in its words. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge David Borowski took the motion under advisement, meaning he will decide it at a later date. He said he plans to issue a written opinion by the end of the year. Legal Action filed the case on behalf of Lucinda Armour, who has unpaid fines in Milwaukee Municipal Court. According to the complaint, if Armour cannot pay those fines, she will be subject to sanctions, including possible arrest and suspension of her driver’s license. Armour's hearings before the municipal court were not recorded, and she was not found to meet poverty standards. She asks for a new determination of her ability to pay her fines and says she cannot effectively appeal the municipal court’s decision without a record of its proceedings in her case. Deputy City Attorney Naomi Sanders Gehling argued that Armour suffered no real harm because cases that are appealed in which no recording exists will result in a dismissal or remand for a new hearing. “The ultimate sanction is on the city when we fail to record,” said Sanders. If there’s no record, “you don’t have to worry about it,” she said. According to Legal Action attorney Susan Lund, the failure to record is an irreparable harm under Wisconsin law, a bell that cannot be unrung. Lund argued that “to say remand is an adequate remedy is inaccurate.” Individuals should not be made to start their cases over because the court does not want to record a hearing, Lund argued. It is a significant inconvenience for the average person, based on Legal Action's experience with impoverished clients. Legal Action is also seeking a writ of supervision, which would put the municipal court under the watch of the circuit court (where recording is the rule). “It seems to me the city’s argument is ‘we’re not doing it because we don’t want to do it,’” Borowski said. “Why not just do it instead of litigating or arguing statutory compliance?” he asked. According to the complaint and today's court arguments, since February 2020 the municipal court failed to record hearings in at least 23 similar cases in which inability to pay was at issue. Sanders said failures to record are simultaneously in error and overblown. “I think what is shown is that the court is full of people who are people and that there is no intention to violate the law,” Sanders said. The city took the position that there is "no inherent value to the recording.” According to documents referenced at the hearing, the municipal court records an average of just five cases per year in which indigency is at issue, but there are more than 30,000 cases with outstanding warrants. Borowski noted concern with those numbers. “If I were to get a citation and somehow I forgot to pay it, I pay it and am done with it,” said Borowski. He asked the city attorneys, “if you can’t pay the citation upfront and you’re looking at these consequences, then wouldn’t you record the hearing?” Lund argued that given the number of outstanding warrants, there are likely hundreds or thousands of cases in which hearings are not being recorded. Sanders took issue with that point, saying “there is a difference between not wanting to pay something and being indigent.” By Amy Rabideau Silvers Before she was a name on streets and buildings, Vel Phillips was a young woman who became a lawyer and public official, all in the interest of equal rights and justice. She also became a long list of firsts.  Vel Phillips was recognized as a distinguished alumna at the University of Wisconsin in 2013. Photograph courtesy of University Communications. Phillips was the first Black woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin law school. Only five years later, she was the first woman—and first Black person—elected to the Milwaukee Common Council. Later she would be the first woman judge in Milwaukee County and the first Black person to serve in Wisconsin’s judiciary. Then she became the first Black person elected to statewide office in Wisconsin. That is the stuff of resumes and history books, but it does not really tell the story of Vel Phillips and what she experienced along the way. She was born Velvalea Hartence Rodgers in Milwaukee, the first name in honor of an aunt. Her father, Russell Rodgers, was then a garage worker, and her mother, Thelma Payne Rodgers, a homemaker. They became the parents of three daughters. “Women of that era were still given few choices—teacher, nurse,” said Michael Phillips, Vel’s son, in an interview with Wisconsin Justice Initiative. “You do anything that you can do,” Thelma told their daughters. Young Vel graduated from North Division High School, struggling for the chance to take college prep classes and be on the forensics teams. She never forgot how teachers and counselors told her such things would be of no use to Black students. A national Elks Club oratorical contest proved to be her ticket to college. She won first place and that award helped her get to Howard University, a renowned historically Black college in Washington, D.C. She graduated and was back in Milwaukee when she met W. Dale Phillips at a party. He had served in World War II and used the G.I. Bill to attend the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They quickly eloped—on their third date—but kept the marriage secret until a church wedding about a year later. She encouraged him to consider becoming a lawyer. He agreed and headed back to Madison as a law student, while she studied at the Milwaukee Teachers College, now the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Then came her own epiphany. “I want to be a lawyer, too,” she decided, according to their son, attorney Michael Phillips. She followed her husband to Madison, graduating from law school in 1951, the year after he graduated. Even for university students—and even in Madison—race was a factor. They moved out of their privately-owned apartment in protest after white neighbors circulated a petition against allowing other African Americans to move in. “That was quite a shattering experience, and it spoiled it for me,” she said, speaking in “Dream Big Dreams,” a Wisconsin Public Television documentary that first aired in 2015.
The politics of race and sex The couple opened a law firm in Milwaukee. She encouraged him to run for office, but he thought she should be the candidate. She first tried for a seat on the Milwaukee School Board, losing that bid in 1953. Three years later, she ran for the Milwaukee Common Council, in part with money her husband had saved to buy her a mink coat. “So I said to him, ‘Dale, I’d rather run than have a mink coat,’” she said in an interview with Milwaukee Magazine. At a time when few women successfully ran for office, she changed her legal name to the less-obviously-feminine Vel R. Phillips—and deliberately did not include a photo on campaign literature for that first council race. Phillips won but found she was no more welcome than at their first Madison apartment. It was 1956 and the white men of the Common Council did not think the person they called “Madame Alderman” belonged, including in the only restroom in the council chambers. “I always knock before I enter,” she said. “There will be more of us in the future.” For the record, Phillips was also the first pregnant council member. She gave birth to son Dale the summer after the spring election. Phillips proved to be the council representative for more than her aldermanic district. “I was alone in many ways,” Phillips said in one interview. “I had the burden of representing every African American in the city. No matter where they lived, I was their alderman and they called me—if they had their electricity turned off, if they needed a job, if they wanted a streetlight repaired, whatever. “They felt close to me. What could I say to them? I’m not your alderman? I couldn’t say that.” The battle for fair housing While campaigning door-to-door and then as an alderman, Phillips heard the horror stories about inadequate housing and discrimination, and saw how many Black residents struggled to find a decent place to live. “Not only were people segregated, but there were problems with sometimes electricity, sometimes not, sometimes water, sometimes not,” son Michael said. “Fair housing became her issue.” In 1962, Phillips introduced an open housing ordinance. She introduced it every 90 days for seven years. And when the open housing marches began, she joined them, helping to lead marchers with Father James Groppi, the NAACP and its Youth Council to Milwaukee’s segregated white neighborhoods. Mobs screamed abuse. “They dumped urine on us and rotten eggs,” she recalled. “I was afraid.” Phillips was among those arrested for curfew violations at a protest rally. Mayor Henry Maier was furious at her activism. “Henry gave me such a hard time,” Phillips said. “He’d call me into his office and ream me out and swear and say, ‘Don’t you know what you’re doing is making me pay on the south side?’ “He’d tell me, ‘What you need is a good whipping,’” she said. Others struggled, at least more politely, to understand. “I remember a nice white man who asked me during the open housing marches, ‘What is it you people want?” Phillips said. “I said, ‘My dear man, the same things you want. A place to live, green grass, a white picket fence, a place to go to work and good schools for our children.’” In 1967, the council finally passed a far weaker version of an open housing ordinance. She vehemently opposed it. “Thanks for nothing,” Phillips then said. “You are very much too late and very much too little.” But the political tides, both national and local, were shifting. Congress passed the Fair Housing Act of 1968, just days after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. “Later that month, the Common Council, with several new members, including a second African-American, passed, by a 15-4 vote, a housing discrimination bill that had been strengthened by an amendment by Ms. Phillips,” according to an obituary for her in The New York Times.  Vel Phillips with the Milwaukee NAACP Youth Council. Photograph courtesy of Michael Phillips. Party politics and influence Early on, Phillips also became involved in Democratic Party politics, elected as a national committeewoman in 1958. Two years later, she was re-elected and named to the platform committee. “She had conversations with John F. Kennedy and he admitted he didn’t really know any Black people,” Michael said of his mother, who supported Kennedy early in his campaign. “It was that admission that helped fuel some of my mom’s trust, that a white man would say that.” Kennedy became the party’s nominee for president. The civil rights plank became a matter of debate, with Florida Sen. Spessard L. Holland arguing that southern delegations opposed “government-enforced social equality.” Phillips spoke directly to that. “How, Senator, can you expect the nations of the world to respect us if we take a weak position on enforcing equality for all our citizens?” she declared, according to an Associated Press report. “Winning isn’t nearly so important as doing the right thing,” Phillips said. Her arguments helped win the day and a strong civil rights platform for the party she loved. “It was my mom’s influence on John Kennedy that helped cement his resolve to adopt a civil rights platform,” Michael said. “And it changed our country.” For her part, Phillips proudly called herself a “yellow-dog Democrat,” playing on the old saying that she would vote for a yellow dog before voting for a Republican. Along the way, Phillips had conversations with two more presidents—Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter. She heard King give his “I Have a Dream” speech and spoke frequently with him as he led protests across the country. “I can’t tell you how many times I picked up the phone and heard it was Martin Luther King,” said Michael. “He’d say, ‘Is Vel there?’ and ‘Get your mom.’ Martin called the house once a week maybe. In the late ’70s, Jimmy Carter called the house a lot, too.” Those were moments and relationships she cherished even more with the passage of time.  Vel Phillips with John F. Kennedy. Photograph courtesy of Michael Phillips. And yet more roles In 1971, Alderwoman Phillips got a new job. Gov. Patrick Lucey appointed her to children’s court for Milwaukee County. She served until the election, when she lost her bid for a full term. The next few years were filled with law practice, teaching and her own gentle brand of agitating for change. In 1978, she ran for secretary of state, becoming the first Black person to win statewide office. By 1981, there were other headlines. Phillips was reprimanded by the state ethics board and ordered to repay $8,000 related to work expenses and fees for speeches. She lost a primary challenge when she ran for re-election. “I never felt I did anything wrong,” she said many years later in the Milwaukee Magazine interview. In ways large and small, she remained a trusted friend to many in the Milwaukee community and beyond. “I miss her,” said Maxine White, now chief judge of the state Court of Appeals. “I miss her a lot.” White recalled first meeting Phillips in the 1970s. “I was a supervisor with the Social Security administration,” White told WJI. “She was a guest speaker at the office for Women’s History Month. We were not lawyers—we were processing Social Security claims—and she made us feel what we did was important.” Later Phillips became a mentor and a friend. White saw first-hand how people in all kinds of situations came to Phillips for advice. She remembers how her friend would listen and what she would say. “Well, let me give some thought to that. I’ll call you back.” “Do you really care what they think? It’s what you think.” “You can do this. Just take your time, just break it down and figure out what you need to do.” “If you don’t try, you’ll never know.” “They were life lessons, Vel lessons,” White said. “She was the go-to person if someone wanted to pursue anything, not just law. She would encourage young men, businesswomen, white and Black.” Margo Kirchner, now WJI executive director, remembers the day a defendant in federal court delayed accepting a plea deal. “He talked it over with his attorney but also needed to talk to Vel Phillips before accepting the plea,” she said. “She was a force in the community for so many years.”  Hon. Maxine White, now chief judge of the state Court of Appeals, proudly keeps a portrait of mentor Vel Phillips. Photograph courtesy of Maxine White. A legacy of caring In her later years, even as she grew increasingly frail, Phillips still spoke out for what she believed. She died April 17, 2018. She was 95. “She was always moving beyond boundaries and moving to bring people together,” James Hall Jr., long a civil rights attorney in Milwaukee, told the State Bar of Wisconsin’s WisBar News after Phillips' death. (Hall died early in 2024.) “She had a fundamental sense of fairness, justice, and equality,” he said. “And she felt strongly enough to make that her life’s work. “All of our lives would be very different” without Vel Phillips, Hall said. “If there was an issue related housing, jobs, women’s rights, or education, she would be there,” said Hall. “She would be up front and prepared to speak to it, to move the agenda forward. She would let her voice be heard.” It was what she said anyone—and everyone—could do. “This was a movement,” she once said at a commemorative event, “and a movement requires you and you and you. You can’t have a movement without the people.” Phillips is remembered in ways both poignant and powerful. The young woman whose neighbors did not want her in their Madison housing lived to see a university residence hall named in her honor. The judge who did not get elected to her own term now has her name on the Vel R. Phillips Juvenile Justice Center. The girl who was told she didn’t need advanced placement classes grew up to start the Vel Phillips Foundation, providing minority scholarships and awards for social justice work. Other scholarships include the VelanDale scholarships through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers. Schools, too, are named in her honor, including the newly renamed Vel R. Phillips Memorial High School in Madison. And now there is a statue. The advocate and activist who stood for equal rights has a permanent spot on the state Capitol grounds, the first statue of any person of color there. Dedicated this summer, the statue shows Vel Phillips sitting, accessible to all, and asking a question. “What have you done, today, that’s good?” says the inscription, quoting her words. The statue is really more than a monument to one woman, said Michael Phillips. “It is a beacon of hope and a call to action,” he said. “It serves as a potent reminder that we all can shatter barriers and champion the values she lived by.” His grandmother told Vel and her sisters “they could do anything or be anything they wanted.” “I would encourage young people to listen to elder voices in the community,” Michael said. “And look at my mom as a person who listened to those voices and as an example of what a young person can do when she has support.”  A UW residence hall was named in Vel Phillips' honor. Photograph courtesy of University of Wisconsin Law School.  The Vel Phillips statue on the Wisconsin Capitol grounds. Photograph by Margo Kirchner.  This project is supported by grants from   "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: Jon Richards
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 21, 2020 (elected 2021 to term ending Aug. 1, 2027) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Lawrence University, Appleton, Wisconsin High School – Waukesha North High School, Waukesha, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: November 2015-present – Attorney and partner, Ziino, Germanotta, Knoll & Christensen, Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2012-November 2015 – Attorney and shareholder, Richards Law Office, S.C., no longer operating January 1999-December 2014 – State representative, Wisconsin State Assembly January 2012-August 2012 – Attorney, Walny Legal Group, LLC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin September 2009-November 2011 – Attorney, Offices of Emmanuel Mamalakis, S.C., Wauwatosa, Wisconsin April 2002-August 2009 – Attorney, Jeffrey S. Hynes & Associates, S.C., Elm Grove, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: Wisconsin Supreme Court Federal Courts (unspecified) General character of practice: I am a partner in a general practice law firm. My firm has been operating for nearly 70 years and our client base is a broad range of people, some from families who have worked with our firm for many years. I enjoy the challenge of effectively addressing the variety of matters my clients bring to me. I manage my own clients and am, in the vast majority of cases, solely responsible for handling their matters. My practice involves a great deal of interaction with clients, the drafting and review of complex documents, formulating strategies for estate plans and business transactions, litigation and carrying out of negotiations on behalf of my clients. When my clients are involved disputes, I have represented them in the courts, in front of administrative agencies, in arbitrations and in informal negotiations. As one example of my work, two years ago I was the lead attorney representing the seller of a successful, heavily-regulated business with several employees which he had operated for more than three decades. After much negotiation and successful procurement of government approvals, we completed the sale and allowed my client to retire. In another recent matter, I successfully worked with clients to create and obtain IRS recognition for a non-profit organization that uses contributions from the United States to fund the construction and operation of a series of children's homes in Kenya. I also recently worked with a family to handle the affairs of a woman who died, suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving a son. I regularly take on pro bono matters. In my pro bono work I have handled evictions, probate matters, municipal citations, non-profit law, real estate matters, election law and policy projects. In addition to my traditional legal work, I am the director of a multi-disciplinary coalition that is helping to address the opioid crisis and protect Lake Michigan through the safe disposal of unused medicine. Describe typical clients: My clients come from a broad cross-section of society - some far more financially sound, emotionally stable and familiar with the legal system than others. While some of my clients engage me to help them with the legal issues involved with expanding their business, others engage me when they are deeply in debt or when they are being evicted. I have represented plaintiffs in personal injury actions. I have drafted complex estate plans and marital property agreements for affluent clients and drafted simple wills for people with no close relatives and few worldly possessions. I have represented for-profit companies, to handle a wide range of business and corporate governance matters, and non-profit organizations. My practice areas are business counselling including contract negotiations and the buying and selling of businesses, real estate, estate planning, probate administration, landlord-tenant work, family law, disability law, non-profit law and representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. I have also practiced elections law and have helped with several efforts to ensure that voters are able to cast their votes without unlawful interference. Number of cases tried to verdict: Over my career, the vast majority of my cases have settled before a complete trial to a verdict. I have tried five cases to a verdict. 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: 1. GTO Stucco & Designs, LLC v. Brookfield Ventures, LLC. Milwaukee County Case Number 18 CV 6964. I represented the plaintiff which was seeking payment for work it had performed. The case was significant because of its relative complexity. It involved several fact and expert witnesses, the application of construction law, the enforcement of a mandatory arbitration clause in the parties' agreement, and the application of arbitration rules to our dispute. Through my own investigation and cultivation of a strong expert witness, we developed a convincing set of facts and legal theories which produced a positive outcome for my client: a good settlement one day before arbitration was to begin. 2. Divall Midland Associates Limited Partnership II v. Kathleen Buck. Ozaukee County Case Number 2019 SC 226. I represented the defendant who was recovering from a stroke. My client asserted that her lease had been wrongfully terminated and that her possessions and car had been unlawfully discarded by the landlord while my client was still in an assisted care facility. The case was challenging because my client had communication challenges due to her stroke, the law was tilted heavily in the landlord's favor, and new facts continually came to light. I was able to overcome those challenges, the landlord dismissed the eviction action they had filed and I was able to resolve the case to my client's satisfaction. 3. Eagle View Manor v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals Case No. ML-19-0152. I represented the petitioner, the operator of a nursing home that was disputing violations issued against by the Department of Health Services. The case was extremely fact-intensive and involved a significant amount fact gathering, applying those facts to the statutes and administrative rules governing nursing homes and several long and detailed meetings with counsel for the Department of Health Services to challenge their findings, argue the law and address their concerns. We were able to address the department's concerns, they granted the relief my client requested and my client dismissed the appeal. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have served as the sole attorney representing clients in adversary proceedings before administrative law judges (ALJs) for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS). I have also represented clients before municipal licensing committees. My cases before DWD ALJs concerned a.) determining the appropriate party responsible for the workers compensation obligations for a particular set of employees, b.) whether people who work for my clients should be considered independent contractors or employees and c.) whether my client owed unemployment benefits to a terminated employee. In cases before the DHS ALJ I represented the owner of a nursing home to resolve citations issued against properties it owns. Before municipal licensing committees, I have represented clients who were transferring their business license from one party to another or who were seeking to renew their licenses under challenging circumstances. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have engaged in several forums to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration. I successfully completed mediation or arbitration in each matter in which I participated. I have successfully arbitrated personal injury cases, disputes over the ownership interests in a company, and disputes over property interests when a couple ended their relationship. Last year, I successfully petitioned the court to compel arbitration to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause in a construction contract. On the eve of the arbitration we settled the case. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Milwaukee County Election Counsel for Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 09/2014 to 11/2014 Treasurer, Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, 2004-2008 Volunteer on many campaigns for President, United States Senate, United States Congress, Mayor, State Assembly and State Senate All offices to which you were appointed or elected: State representative, elected, January 1999-December 2014 Supplemental court commissioner, appointed, June 2017-present Community special prosecutor, appointed, November 2011-April 2012 Previous runs for public office: Attorney general, defeated in August 2014 primary State representative, won elections 1998-2012 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Over the years I have endorsed many people for judicial or non-partisan offices. Below is a representative list of those I have endorsed. Jill Karofsky, Supreme Court justice, 2019 Brett Blomme, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 Rebecca Kiefer, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 Chris Larson, Milwaukee County executive, 2019 Tom Barrett, Milwaukee mayor, 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004 Jo Casta Zamarripa, Milwaukee alder, 2019 Marina Dimitrijevich, Milwaukee alder, 2019 Lisa Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2017 Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2016 Danielle Shelton, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2018 Hannah Dugan, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2016 Kritsi Yang, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2017 Laura Gramling Perez, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2015 Gwen Connelly, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2015 David Feiss, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2014 Joe Donald, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2015 Carolina Stark, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2012 Mark Sanders, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2011 Chris Abele, Milwaukee County executive, 2012 Louis Butler, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2007 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: American Constitution Society, board member, Milwaukee chapter, 2016-present Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Milwaukee, mentor to my 'little brother,' 2007-2019 Woodlands School, Inc., trustee and committee member, 2019-present Take Back My Meds, MKE, coalition director, September 2015-present Milwaukee County Substance Abuse and Prevention Coalition, member, 2016-present Medical Society of Milwaukee County, board member, 2015-2018 Brady Street Area Association, board member, 2000-2019 Immanuel Presbyterian Church, board member, trustee and Sunday school teacher, assorted dates from 2015-present Wisconsin Center District, board member, 2009-2011 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: My pro bono legal work has included work for clients of LOTUS Legal Clinic, the clients of which are survivors of human trafficking. I have helped them with real estate and probate matters. Another aspect of my work with LOTUS is strengthening the Wisconsin statute that makes it possible for survivors of human trafficking to clear certain convictions from their criminal records that resulted from them being coerced by their traffickers. I have worked with prosecutors, judges and legislators to develop such a statute that can be workable and effective. I have also represented tenants who were being evicted from their apartments or whose property was unlawfully taken by their landlord after the tenant left the premises. I have successfully represented those clients and have had their eviction actions dismissed in Milwaukee and Ozaukee counties. I was a 'big brother', through the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, for 12 years. We started when my 'little brother' was eight years old and he is now 20 and a father. I have learned a great deal from him and his family and I hope he learned a little from me. Life for my little brother is not, and has never been, easy. My little brother's circumstances were constantly changing. His family moved roughly every year, he had his possessions stolen more than once, and he experienced trauma several times. School was difficult. He is a kind, compassionate young man who likes to take care of others and loves animals. We continue to explore options for him to continue his education and improve his opportunities to make a living. My little brother knows he can come to me anytime, and I check in with him as well. Now that he is a young father he is working to provide for his daughter. His care for her and his commitment are wonderful. For several recent general elections I have served as a volunteer attorney on the Milwaukee Election Protection Team for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. I have monitored polling locations in the City of Milwaukee to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast their vote and have their vote counted. Finally, I have worked with the students in my Sunday school class to serve meals to homeless women and their families at the Cathedral Center in downtown Milwaukee and have helped pack meals for the homeless through the Larry Under the Bridge homeless meal program. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to be a judge because I care deeply about Milwaukee County and about the quality and integrity of the courts. I have the experience, temperament, and skill to be a judge who will apply the law accurately and fairly, run their court room efficiently and work to improve a justice system serving the needs of a diverse community where the scales of justice are often woefully unbalanced. My wide-ranging practice over nearly 25 years as an attorney has given me real-world knowledge about how various areas of the law impact people. Even when matters I worked on did not involve large dollar amounts, they almost always involved some of the largest transactions, most important decisions and most consequential moments for my clients. I would bring to the bench a deep understanding of how economics and power shape the issues raised to the court and the behavior of people appearing before the court. I have treated each client of mine with courtesy and respect and believe, whether people are at their best or at their worst, they still have rights that the justice system must honor. As a judge I would treat the people who come before me with that same level of courtesy and respect. I understand the need for judges to be impartial and to provide well-researched, reasoned, consistent and timely decisions that correctly apply the law and take into account the equities of a case. My sixteen years as a state legislator representing Milwaukee gave me invaluable training in dealing with a wide range of people fairly, effectively addressing complex social issues and creating lasting and positive change. I respect and understand what goes into making a law and the vital role of the courts in accurately and consistently interpreting and applying the laws passed by the elected representatives of the people. I believe judges need to be collaborative partners in efforts to make the justice system more accessible, more transparent and more equitable. Judges need to actively seek more knowledge about the forces shaping our society and resulting in matters before the court. I have led several initiatives to bring people together in Milwaukee County to create change. I worked with victims of gun violence and law enforcement officials to attempt to pass a law requiring background checks for gun purchases. I worked with judges in Milwaukee County Children's Court, the Office of the Public Defender, the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, the City of Milwaukee Office of Violence Prevention and community leaders to lay the groundwork for what became a comprehensive violence prevention plan for the city of Milwaukee modeled on best practices in other cities. I am currently working on an initiative with LOTUS Legal Clinic to address how the law treats survivors of human trafficking. I want to be a judge who will work for reform in our justice system. I want to bring my experience, passion for the community and work-ethic to the work of being a judge. 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. I believe that Citizens United v. FEC (2010) has dramatically changed how politics works in our country for the worse. The ruling gave corporations the power to purchase advertising and otherwise participate in elections. It also held that corporations and unions can spend virtually unlimited sums to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. Justice Stevens predicted in his dissent the decision "will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process." His prediction has been borne out. After Citizens United, other Supreme Court decisions opened the door to new regulations and laws regarding money and the elections system that benefit corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens. The resulting 'super PACs' and 'dark money' nonprofit organizations have created enormous opportunities for corporations to spend money influencing the political process with ever-diminishing transparency. In the 2014 U.S. Senate elections, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, outside spending more than doubled since 2010. In 2018, that figure more than doubled again. Also in 2018, the majority of outside spending on elections came either from dark money nonprofit organizations or groups receiving funding from those organizations. As money has poured into the election system in exponentially higher amounts the voices of ordinary citizens have increasingly been drowned out, the political power of the already rich and powerful has become stronger, and cynicism and division in our political system has grown markedly. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's League of Women Voters, et al. v. Walker, et al. (2014) decision hurt our democracy by upholding Wisconsin's voter identification law that makes voting more difficult for many Wisconsin residents. As Justice Abrahamson wrote in her dissent, "Without any evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in Wisconsin, the voting restrictions the [Court approved gave] Wisconsin the most restrictive voting laws in America." I have seen first-hand, as an attorney monitoring elections in Milwaukee County and as a City of Milwaukee poll worker, the delays, frustration and embarrassment the voter identification law causes. Some citizens who show up to the polls are turned away because they did not have the paperwork required by the new law that would allow them to vote. I believe the restrictive voter identification law upheld by the court was a principal reason why 41,000 fewer people voted in the City of Milwaukee in the 2016 general election, when the law was in place, than in the 2012 general election, when the law was not in place. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's commitment to civil rights, her life-long quest for people to be treated equally under the law and the scholarship, gift for language and common sense she brings to her decisions and dissents. Instead of seeing the law as abstract and untouched by the lives of real people, she brings the real-world experience of litigants into her decisions. Her powerful dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), in which a woman was denied the ability to be paid the same as her male counterparts, called for Congress to address an improper interpretation of the law at issue. That call compelled Congress to take action and pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I admire her belief, as she once stated in an interview, that the Constitution "has broad themes that were meant to grow with an evolving society" and is not a document meant only to govern the world as it existed in the 1780s. For example, with regard to the 14th Amendment, she clarified that gender equality is a constitutional right in United States v. Virginia (I996). Her dissent in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) argued that in analyzing the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment "[a]ctions designed to burden groups long denied full citizenship stature are not sensibly ranked with measures taken to hasten the day when entrenched discrimination and its aftereffects have been extirpated." I admire former Justice Shirley Abrahamson for her scholarship, for how she has stressed the importance of an independent court, for her work ethic, and for her focus on individual rights. I agree with her view that the Wisconsin constitution guarantees rights to individuals that are in addition to the rights provided by the United States constitution. I also admire her view, similar to Justice Ginsburg, that the law must evolve to meet the changing the needs of society. In these days when the judiciary is under attack, I admire her call for judicial independence. I admire her eagerness to learn how the courts operate in the lives of people who never appear before the Supreme Court, even serving for a short time to hear cases in Milwaukee County Small Claims Court. Finally, I admire her call for more transparency in the courts and leading the fight to allow cameras in the court. I admire Court of Appeals Judge Joe Donald for his leadership and commitment to the rights of people who appear before the court. As a Circuit Court Judge, he took on challenging leadership assignments, having served twice as the presiding judge in Milwaukee County Children's Court. In being the driving force to establish drug courts in Milwaukee County he has been an effective champion for innovation in the courts. He has consistently championed upholding the rights of individuals who appear before the courts, with a focus on procedural jurisprudence and on ensuring that investigations are done in a consistent and fair manner. The proper role of a judge: The overarching role of a judge is to dispense justice by interpreting and applying the law accurately, even-handedly and in a manner that best serves the community. A judge must ensure that the rights guaranteed to parties under the Constitution, especially due process rights, are protected. Where possible, it is important to set litigants up for success. For example, where addiction is the root cause of behavior that has brought a person before the court, requiring participation in a drug treatment program as part of a sentence. A judge must read through the pleadings and other parts of the case file and give all parties a chance to be heard. A judge must conduct trials in an even-handed manner and allow each side to present their case within the bounds of the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. After each party has presented their case, the judge must interpret and apply the law, keeping up-to-date with recent developments. Interpretation requires carefully reading not only the laws and court decisions that bear on the matter, it also involves weighing the equities of a case to apply the law fairly and consistently. An important part of being a judge is reaching decisions. Even in difficult cases where the law or equities are not clear, a judge owes the people coming before them the ability to make decisions in an efficient manner. A judge should ensure that when a decision is made the person on the receiving end of the sentence or judgment has participated in the decision and not just had the decision thrust upon them. A judge bears a special responsibility to the community to be engaged in efforts to improve the justice system and the operation of the courts. Where possible, a judge should seek a deeper understanding of forces shaping society and actively work to find practical ways to apply that understanding to their work as a judge within the bounds of the law. A judge should also strive to make the courts and the justice system, to the extent possible, open and accessible to the public, especially to pro se litigants. For example, on the doors to his chambers, former judge Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Charles Kahn, posted a sign stating, "Welcome! This is an open and public courtroom! Please walk in." Former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael Dwyer worked to make procedures in family court easy to understand for pro se litigants. A judge should work to reduce the intimidation and confusion many people feel when approaching the courts.  By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin Justice Initiative and its sibling organization Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action urge you to vote “no” on the November statewide ballot referendum question. The election is less than a month away, and absentee ballots are already out. Once again, Wisconsin voters are asked to approve an amendment to the state’s constitution. The proposed amendment appears to make a seemingly innocuous change, but one that could actually have significant effects. The referendum question reads as follows: “Eligibility to vote. Shall section 1 of article III of the constitution, which deals with suffrage, be amended to provide that only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum?” At best, the proposed amendment is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, it eliminates a guarantee of voting to U.S. citizens and unnecessarily opens Pandora’s box, permitting more restrictive voter identification laws and regulations. The current language in Article III of the state constitution (emphasis added) guarantees the right to vote: “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” The proposed amendment would eliminate that guarantee and turn the constitutional provision into a restriction on who can vote. The above provision would be changed to read (emphasis added): “Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.” Noncitizen voting is not an issue in Wisconsin. The federal government in 1996 enacted a law prohibiting noncitizen voting in national federal elections, and Wisconsin and its municipalities have not conferred voting rights on noncitizens. In an interview with WJI, professor Atiba Ellis, a nationally noted voting rights scholar at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, confirmed that noncitizen voting should not be issue in this election, as national laws already restrict voting at the federal level to citizens. Some municipalities in other states have permitted noncitizen voting in local elections. Takoma Park, Maryland, for instance, has permitted noncitizen voting in local elections for 30 years. The number of noncitizens voters there is small: 347 registered noncitizen voters, 72 of whom cast ballots in a 2017 election. Frederick, Maryland, recently became the largest municipality in that state to permit noncitizen voting. New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., also have permitted some noncitizen voting. Santa Ana, California, will vote on a measure this November to permit noncitizen voting in local elections. Very little written testimony exists at all in the legislative record regarding this proposed constitutional amendment, and none points to any instance of noncitizen voting in Wisconsin. Notwithstanding that in his written testimony supporting the amendment sponsor Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) called noncitizen voting “a real issue,” he pointed to no instances of noncitizen voting in Wisconsin. He instead refenced only the legally permitted noncitizen voting in Maryland and possible noncitizen voting in Washington, D.C., as a basis for the Wisconsin proposed constitutional amendment. “Article III is one of the provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution that protects the fundamental right to vote. There is no need to amend it,” Chris Donahoe, staff counsel at Law Forward, told WJI. So why here? And why now? Ellis suggests that history may be repeating itself. “Before the early 20th century, citizenship wasn’t treated as that strict of a requirement for voting,” he said. “It was the rise of the nativist movement of the early 1900s, as we saw waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, when noncitizen voting became an issue.” Then, mass migration and concerns about the American working class becoming more diverse tilted toward populist politics, and states began to pass legislative amendments to limit voting to citizens, he said. “One way of reading this amendment is to stir up the specter of noncitizen voting following that patten of attempting to malign social and political interests that were sympathetic to noncitizens,” Ellis told WJI. Ellis noted a potential harm of the proposed change, as the new language may “frustrate someone from voting who might otherwise be permitted to vote.” Bans on noncitizen voting are increasing. Six states (Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio) have adopted the same or a similar amendment. The same or similar amendment is also on the ballot in seven other states (Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina) this November. According to a recent article in The Guardian, Republicans nationwide are trying to make concerns about alleged noncitizen voting a focal point of this election, notwithstanding little to no evidence of noncitizen voting being a problem. Meanwhile, they are ensnaring citizens in their attempts to purge noncitizens from voting rolls, forcing voters to prove their citizenship. The proposed constitutional amendment passed the Legislature in November 2023 along party lines: 21 Republicans for and 10 Democrats against in the Senate, 60 Republicans for and 34 Democrats against in the Assembly. Wisconsin’s Legislature has offered seven proposed constitutional amendments just since the spring of 2023. More than a decade ago Wisconsin joined other states with heavily restrictive voter ID laws, which have already made it more difficult for U.S. citizens, let alone noncitizens, to vote. Some things voters should keep in mind regarding constitutional amendment ballot questions:
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed