|
By Margo Kirchner As of Aug. 1, 2025, Brad Schimel will either be a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice or out of the Wisconsin judiciary. Schimel is currently a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, with a term ending July 31, 2025. On Dec. 19, he filed a “notification of noncandidacy,” confirming that he will not run for his Waukesha County seat as a back-up if he loses to Susan Crawford in the Supreme Court race. Schimel was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Scott Walker in late 2018, following Schimel’s loss to Josh Kaul in the November 2018 attorney general race. Schimel won election to a full six-year term in April 2019. Crawford is a Dane County Circuit Court judge with a term ending July 31, 2030. She won reelection in April 2024 to a six-year term. She had won a contested race for an open seat in the April 2018 election. If Crawford wins the Supreme Court race, Gov. Tony Evers will be able to appoint a replacement for her on the Dane County bench. Schimel and Crawford are running for an open seat on the Supreme Court. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced months ago that she would not run for reelection and confirmed that by filing her notification of noncandidacy on Dec. 13. Other judges who have filed notices of noncandidacy and created open seats for the April 2025 election:
Nomination papers and valid signatures for April 2025 judicial candidates are due Jan. 7.
0 Comments
"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: Douglas J. Hoffer
Appointed to: Eau Claire County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Phoenix (online), Madison, Wisconsin High School – Verona Area High, Verona, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2013-present – Deputy city attorney, Eau Claire, Wisconsin June 2010-September 2013 – Associate attorney, de la Mora & de la Mora, Elm Grove, 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 U.S. Supreme Court General character of practice: I work as an in-house attorney for the City of Eau Claire. This position involves a diverse general practice that provides legal advice to the city council as well as every city department. My practice includes litigation & appellate law, employment law, real estate development & land use law, municipal prosecution, election law, public records & open meetings law, ordinance drafting, contract drafting & negotiating, labor law, and various other areas of law. Describe typical clients: For the last 10 1/ 2 years I have exclusively represented the City of Eau Claire. Prior to joining the City of Eau Claire I worked in private practice where I served as the Assistant Village or Town Attorney for five communities, and represented private clients primarily in litigation and matters involving land use law. Number of cases tried to verdict: 100+ 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) Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131. ("Voters I") This case involved a civil lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty challenging both the constitutionality of tax incremental financing ("TIF"), and the standard of review for civil lawsuits challenging city council legislative determinations. I represented the City of Eau Claire in the circuit court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court in this case. In addition to being the primary writer on all briefs in this case, I also presented oral argument in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case had the potential to impact billions of dollars of economic development projects statewide. The State Bar of Wisconsin named the Wisconsin Supreme Court case, which was decided in the City of Eau Claire's favor, one of the 10 most important cases of 2018. I believe this was the first case the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty lost in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs in this case were the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Oral argument for the Plaintiffs was presented by Rick Esenberg. 2) Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019) (Amicus) The case examined the legality of warrantless blood draws of unconscious individuals arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. I wrote an amicus brief in this case in front of the United States Supreme Court. The parties argued the case should be resolved under the doctrine of implied consent. My amicus brief argued the Supreme Court should resolve the case under the doctrine of exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court resolved the case applying the exigent circumstances doctrine, and reached a decision similar to the result I advocated for in my brief. The State of Wisconsin was represented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Gerald Mitchell was represented by Andrew Hinkel. 3) Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2021 WI App 36, 960 N.W.2d 628 (Unpublished) ("Voters II") This case involved a civil lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty challenging the City of Eau Claire's use of tax incremental financing and arguing whether whether the common law statute of limitations applies to lawsuits challenging city council legislative determinations creating TIF districts. I succesfully represented the City of Eau Claire in front of the circuit court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The circuit court granted the City of Eau Claire's Motion to Dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. I was the primary author of all briefs and presented oral argument in front of the circuit court in this case. I believe this was the first case in which the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty lost at the Court of Appeals and did not file a Petition for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Rick Esenberg was the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in this case. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have worked on labor and employment matters before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). My practice involves serving as in-house counsel to the City of Eau Claire. I provide advice to the city council and all city departments in various areas of law. I have worked on labor matters before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and regularly refer matters for mediation or diversion. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Judge Sara Harless, Eau Claire Circuit Court, 2018 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Municipal Mutual Insurance Company, board of directors, 2021-present Group Health Cooperative of Eau Claire, board of directors, president, 2015-present Chippewa Valley Museum Foundation, board of directors, president, 2016-2022 American Cancer Society, State Leadership Board, 2017-2018 State Bar of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program Committee, 2013-2016 Brookfield Rotary, president and member, 2012-2013 Waukesha County Bar, Young Lawyers Division chair, 2010-2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In addition to the volunteer service mentioned elsewhere in this application I regularly provide pro bono work in the State Bar of Wisconsin's Wills for Heroes program, have served in various responsibilities for the last 10 years on my church's leadership councils, have spent countless hours volunteering for Scouting America, Junior Achievement, the Wisconsin high school mock trial tournament, and many other causes. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: There are a number of reasons why I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge. First, I believe service is an important way to demonstrate my gratitude. Second, I find public service fulfilling. Lastly, I believe my experience and temperament will allow me to do this important job well. Growing up my dream job was being an attorney, but that dream would not have occurred without the help I received along the way. I was a participant in the Head Start program. I received free lunches throughout my time in elementary, middle, and high school. I was 31 years old and had a family when I started law school, and received various government benefits that made law school attendance possible. Throughout my life I had teachers and others that made time to mentor me. I am grateful for all of these programs and all of the people that I have helped me in my life. Finding ways to serve others is an important way I can express gratitude for all that has been done for me. Serving others is not just about giving back, but is something I truly enjoy. My career in public service, and the extensive time I spend engaged in public service in my free time are not entirely altruistic. Instead, the choices I make to serve are also based on the fulfillment I feel in helping others. I believe I will find the work done as a circuit court judge personally fulfilling. The work of circuit court judges is often hard and thankless. I believe my experience and temperament will allow me to do this important job well. Good judges are tireless students of the law that have empathy for those appearing in front of them. The diverse nature of my legal practice, and the volume or articles I’ve written and presentations I’ve given demonstrate how much I enjoy studying the law. The extensive time I spend engaged in public service in my private life demonstrates how much I care about helping others. I’m excited about the opportunity to serve as a circuit court judge, and I believe I will do the job well. 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. A case that I believe had a significant negative impact on the people of Wisconsin is Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022 WI 64, 403 Wis. 2d 607, 976 N.W.2d 519. In Teigen the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Wisconsin law did not permit absentee-ballot drop boxes, and also did not permit a voter’s agent to return a voter’s absentee ballot. The Supreme Court’s final decision is not the only part of this case that negatively impacted the people of Wisconsin. While the case was pending, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided not to extend a stay of the circuit court decision. This case negatively impacted voter access, the administration of a fair election, and public confidence in the courts. The February 11, 2022 decision made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court not to extend the stay of the circuit court decision created confusion and turmoil for municipal clerks. Many communities without a spring primary sent out absentee ballots ahead of this decision and had to scramble to follow up with voters. The rules and procedures for the primary were different than the rules and procedures for the April election. Decisions had to be made reprinting ballots with different instructions (a choice that would impact some communities’ ability to meet other statutory deadlines). As the primary attorney in the Eau Claire City Attorney’s office that advises the municipal clerk on election law matters, I saw firsthand the disruption, confusion, and difficult choices this decision created for municipal clerks and other election officials. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s final decision in this case had similar negative impacts. The Court’s decision prohibiting voters from obtaining assistance from third parties in returning absentee ballots did not consider the impact of this decision. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin later permanently enjoined this portion of the decision because it violated the Voting Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently granted review on other issues addressed by this case. Voting is a fundamental right. Decisions that make it more difficult to exercise this right should carefully weigh the impact of such decisions on voters, the people charged with administering elections, and public confidence in the courts and other government institutions. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Among the many judges or justices I admire are former Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Janine Geske, and former Elm Grove Municipal Court Judge Tim Steinle. I admire Chief Justice Abrahamson for the intellectual rigor and clarity of her opinions. Chief Justice Abrahamson’s opinions always provided sufficient discussion and support so that a reader understood how she reached her decisions. By providing a clear understanding of how she reached her decisions, Chief Justice Abrahamson helped lower courts and litigants clearly understand what the law was. Her opinions’ clarity and intellectual rigor also helped lower courts and litigants understand how to apply her decisions when their cases involved factual differences. As an advocate that appeared in front of Chief Justice Abrahamson three times I was grateful for the glimpse her opinions provided into her understanding of the law. I admire Justice Geske for the important work she has done in promoting restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution. The growth in alternative dispute resolution has saved time, saved money, increased satisfaction in how cases are resolved, less damage to relationships between the parties and many other benefits. The growth in restorative justice has resulted in reduced post-traumatic stress for crime victims, reduced reoffending rates among offenders, and often better overall results. These results would not have been possible without Justice Geske’s efforts. I admire former Elm Grove Municipal Court Judge Tim Steinle because of the way he approached cases. Judge Steinle was very knowledgeable on litigation topics, was meticulously prepared, and always treated individuals in his court with respect. The professional way in which he attended to his duties, as well as the humanity he brought to the role had a profound impact on me as a young attorney. Additionally, Judge Steinle’s approach provided litigants with confidence that they had a fair opportunity to have their case heard. If given the opportunity to serve as a circuit court judge I would strive to emulate the qualities of Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice Geske, and Judge Steinle I described above. The proper role of a judge: Judges have a number of important responsibilities in overseeing the judicial process. First, judges ensure that cases are handled in a fair manner consistent with the law. Proceedings are fair when each side is provided a sufficient opportunity to make their case, decisions are based only on relevant facts, and the law is applied in a reasonable, consistent, and fair manner by a judge who has put in the necessary effort to understand the legal issues. When the law is clear judges apply the law even when a decision contradicts their own policy preferences. When the law is not clear judges must do their best to reach reasonable results consistent with the law. At the same time, judges must understand and consider the practical consequences of their decisions. Second, I strongly agree with President Obama’s opinion that good judges have empathy. This does not mean that judges should not be objective, or that judges can disregard clear legal mandates when they disagree with them. Instead, an empathetic judge understands that how they handle their responsibilities impacts real people, and their decisions reflect practical considerations. Good judges make sure that attorneys, litigants, jurors, and others involved in the judicial system understand how decisions were reached.  By Alexandria Staubach
Separation of powers issues continue to loom large in District 2 of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, where two judges claim that no branch of government has “unfettered authority to act as it or they please” but then affirm the Legislature’s wresting of power from the executive branch. On Dec. 19, Judges Maria S. Lazar and Shelly A. Grogan sided with the Legislature in ruling that all money collected by the Wisconsin Department of Justice shall be deposited into the state’s general fund for disbursement by the Legislature at its discretion. Judge Lisa S. Neubauer dissented. Previously, the DOJ held discretion over settlement funds for cases it prosecuted and was, in effect, permitted to retain some money it generated from the settlement of civil litigation. However, according to Lazar's majority opinion, “both the legislative and statutory history confirm that the legislature enacted the new statute to alter the prior practices of the attorney general and to expressly bolster its monetary control over state funds.” The same split panel recently upheld a law permitting the Legislature’s involvement in DOJ settlements. Both cases stemmed from interpretation and application of legislation hastily passed in a lame-duck session in late 2018 as Gov. Scott Walker left office, designed to give the Legislature more power before Gov. Tony Evers took over. Neubauer wrote in dissent that the majority failed to adhere to still valid Wisconsin law providing a carve-out for the DOJ to retain control over some funds it collects, such as attorneys’ fees and funds for investigation. Neubauer wrote that the statute at issue in the appeal provides that “funds will be credited to the general purpose revenues unless another law provides a different crediting direction,” and that subsections of another statute “provide such direction.” “To the extent this result is the product of imprecise word choice or other inadvertence on the legislature’s part, it is not our function to correct such an oversight,” wrote Neubauer. To arrive at its interpretation of the law, the majority “work(ed) backwards from a predetermined conclusion” and acted “antithetical to our statutory interpretation methodology,” said Neubauer.  Entry to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Dec. 17, 2024. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday voted to deny a rule change petition brought by Wisconsin Justice Initiative that sought to require municipal court judges to use professional interpreters in all municipal court proceedings. Although all justices said they believed the issue raised by WJI was important and one said she did not want to “kick the can down the road,” the court voted to refer the issue to the Wisconsin Judicial Council for its consideration, while acknowledging that the Judicial Council presently has no funding or staff. WJI’s proposed rule change would have eliminated the practice of municipal courts using a defendant's family member or friend, a police officer, Google Translate, or even other defendants present in the courtroom to interpret court proceedings for individuals who do not speak or understand English. A survey WJI conducted in August 2023 and presented to the justices during briefing showed that at initial appearances, a whopping 49% of municipal court judges who responded to the survey have defendants bring a friend or family member or use Google Translate to interpret courtroom proceedings. Even at evidentiary hearings and trials, which include testimony, 21% of municipal judges responding to the survey said they use a defendant’s friend or family member or Google Translate. Professional interpreters are currently required in municipal courts only for juveniles who meet poverty requirements. During argument on the petition Tuesday, the justices made much of the unknown scope of the problem, unknown costs associated with such a rule change, and competition with circuit courts for interpreters. While interpreters are already scarce in Wisconsin, WJI’s proposed rule mandated using such scarce resources in only very limited circumstances. WJI’s proposed rule change would have required “qualified interpreters,” meaning interpreters trained for court proceedings and who meet circuit court standards, only for evidentiary hearings and trials. Those occur in just a small percentage of the 400,000 to 450,000 municipal court cases per year—and under state statutes those qualified interpreters could appear by video or telephone. WJI attorney Parker White calculated on the fly during oral argument that such qualified interpreters would likely be needed in “less than 300 cases a year, spread over 219 courts throughout Wisconsin.” That means in less than 0.1% of municipal court cases. White and Evan Bondoc, both of the Foley & Lardner law firm, represented WJI in written briefs on the petition and oral arguments before the court. For the bulk of municipal court proceedings, municipal judges would have been allowed to use an audio or audio/visual service such as LanguageLine or Swits for interpreter services. “The vast majority would be satisfied by LanguageLine,” White told the court. According to several municipal judges, LanguageLine is simple and easy to use. WJI’s attorneys argued that it is also low cost, and the cost would be appropriate for the benefits gained by limited-English proficiency (LEP) defendants understanding their court proceedings. “Why don’t they just do that?” asked Chief Justice Annette Ziegler at the hearing. “Because it’s not required,” she then said, answering her own question. Seven organizations filed written comments supporting the petition. Five of them also appeared in person to argue their support: the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Judicare Legal Aid, the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, and the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance. Even the two organizations and one individual opposing the petition acknowledged the importance of the issue. “All parties agree that LEP individuals have a right to meaningfully participate in the proceedings brough against them,” said Bondoc during oral argument. Tim Muth, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, argued that the issue raised by WJI is “a question of fundamental fairness and due process.” Susan Lund of Legal Action Wisconsin stated that “in an era of mass incarceration, . . . if we cannot meet basic fairness standards, perhaps we are not utilizing the court system appropriately.” Megan Lee of Judicare, Nancy Cruz of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, and Fauzia Qureshi of the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance spoke in favor of the petition, highlighting the need for proper interpreter services in municipal courts. During oral arguments, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley expressed great concern for the western part of the state, noting that in some towns 50% of schoolchildren come from homes where English is not the primary language. She also highlighted large populations of individuals who do not speak English, work in agriculture, and commonly find themselves before municipal courts for operating without a license. But the court failed to find its way around the unknown costs and lack of precise data on the scope of the interpreter problem WJI presented. Justice Jill Karofsky asked repeatedly for “hard numbers,” which, because record keeping of the number of friends or family members used as interpreters is not required in municipal courts, were virtually impossible for WJI to cite. She asked Muth how to weigh the petition against the court system’s already strained interpreter resources. “There could be unintended consequences,” said Ziegler during the oral argument. At an open conference following the arguments, Justice Brian Hagedorn moved quickly to deny WJI’s petition. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley seconded the motion. She argued that the matter should be left for the Legislature to address. Ziegler said "there's nothing wrong with having interpreters in municipal court. Probably is a good thing." But she questioned whether it was feasible and said it was a matter for the Legislature. She later indicated her position that the petition should be denied outright. "I would do nothing further," Ziegler said. The court’s remaining justices, referred to as “the four” at one point by Grassl Bradley, wrestled with options other than denying the petition completely. Justice Janet Protasiewicz recognized that "there's an obvious need, and you look at people coming from all corners of the community to speak in favor of this." Nevertheless, she had concerns about unanswered questions and was "not in support of this today." She suggested sending the issue to a committee to review. Justice Rebecca Dallet said she did not want to deny the petition without referring the matter somewhere for additional review. Dallet recognized the importance of the problem raised by WJI and the desire for the court to do something about it. She suggested a rule recommending that municipal judges whenever possible use a professional interpreter service such as LanguageLine. "What can we do to maybe not solve the whole problem, but what can this court do? . . . Something lesser, that's still important, she said." Walsh Bradley discussed the history of the Judicial Council, its work regarding municipal courts in prior years, and its ability to recommend changes to both the Supreme Court and Legislature. Walsh Bradley said that if the court would not refer the matter to the Judicial Council she might vote to grant the petition. Karofsky said she did not like the feeling of “kicking this can down the road,” but she did not see granting or modifying WJI's proposed rule at this time. She at first hesitated sending the issue to the Judicial Council because it was unstaffed, the problem is complex, and the solution is unclear. In agreeing to a court referral she emphasized that she did not want to require the Judicial Council to take up the question but rather, as set forth in the council’s enabling statute, leave it to the council’s discretion. Hagedorn said that he wanted WJI, whose attorneys and representatives remained in the courtroom during the open conference, to know that the court indeed considers the issue of municipal court interpreters to be an important one. "I hope the petitioners understand . . . (that) we don’t think this is the right solution, but we appreciate that you raised the problem, and maybe we should see if there are other solutions to the problem," he said Following the court’s vote to deny the petition with a referral to the Judicial Council, White told WJI that he nevertheless was encouraged “to see all members of the Court recognize and grapple with the serious problems LEP individuals face in Wisconsin municipal courts today, even if we were disappointed with the Court's apparent disposition on the petition itself. Even the parties who spoke to oppose us uniformly acknowledged the need for some sort of action comparable to what we proposed. I'm hopeful our petition, and any forthcoming related work by the Judicial Council, will help close the gaps of due process and access to justice that hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites face today." Any action by the Judicial Council could take substantial time, as it has lacked staff since 2017, when it was defunded by the Supreme Court and Legislature. Legislation will take significant effort and substantial time as well. Nevertheless, WJI intends to continue pursuing the matter, whether with the Judicial Council, the Wisconsin Legislature, or the Supreme Court in a future revised petition. “We think everyone in municipal courts, not just indigent juveniles, deserves to understand the proceedings,” said WJI's Kirchner. “Access to justice requires at its heart that the person charged with a violation accurately communicate with the judge and at the very least understand the court proceedings,” she said. “We don’t have that with friends or family members—sometimes children—or even strangers in the courtroom interpreting,” Kirchner said. In municipal courts, where almost all defendants represent themselves, “add a language barrier and you have a double disadvantage,” she said. WJI Board Member Jim Gramling, a retired Milwaukee Municipal Court judge who was involved in WJI’s prosecution of the rule petition, stated that “if you accept, as you must, that municipal courts are a component of the state court system, you wouldn’t hesitate to require interpreters.” “Providing the means for basic understanding of legal proceedings is a requirement of having a court,” he said. A written order regarding the denial of the petition and referral is expected at some point in the future. The Judicial Council was created by statute in 1951 to study the rules of court practice and procedure and recommend changes to the Supreme Court and Legislature. Its 21 members come from all three branches of government, the state's two law schools, and the State Bar of Wisconsin. (Note: WJI Executive Director Margo Kirchner is a Judicial Council member representing the State Bar.) WJI extends many thanks to White and Bondoc and the Foley & Lardner law firm for their excellent pro bono representation of WJI in this matter.
By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee police encounters involving an officer’s use of force in 2023 hit an all-time high since the current metrics for evaluating incidents were adopted in 2013, with nearly 80% of those use-of-force incidents occurring against Black people. The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission shared the use-of-force data in an annual report presented at a meeting earlier this month. The Milwaukee Police Department recorded 2,285 incidents involving use of force in 2023. A total of 1,333 incidents involved the display or pointing of a firearm only, while an additional 952 involved “hands-on physical force or the discharge of a weapon” according to a presentation to the commission. An annual report a decade ago found 895 comparable uses of “hands-on” physical force or instances where a firearm was used. That number declined substantially in 2014, then remained generally constant until sharp drops in 2019 and 2020. The numbers rose significantly in 2021 and again in 2023, when incidents surpassed even 2013 numbers.  Slide shown by Barbara Cooley, research and policy analysist for the Fire and Police Commission, at the commission's Dec. 5 meeting, detailing those instances where physical force or the discharge of a weapon was involved over time. Black individuals accounted for 76% of all arrests and were the subjects of 80% of officers’ use of force. White individuals accounted for 10% of arrests and were the subject of 12% of the use of force incidents. According to current census data, Black and white Milwaukeeans command roughly equal shares of the city’s population. Per the report, a typical use-of-force encounter in 2023 involved a white male officer, 36 years old, with nine years of experience, on duty and in uniform. The person experiencing the use of force was typically unarmed, Black, male, 29 years old, and more likely than not resisting arrest.  Table taken from “An Analysis of Use of Force Incidents in the Milwaukee Police Department in 2023,” the annual report prepared for the commission by University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Steven G. Brandl.
MPD District 3 had the greatest share of use-of-force incidents, with 241 incidents—more than 50 incidents higher than the next district. District 3 also accounts for one of the largest shares of arrests annually (2,339 arrests), essentially tied with District 7 (2,343 arrests). District 3 has jurisdiction over the southern section of Milwaukee’s 53206 zip code. Although a 2019 University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee study found the claim that 53206 is the most incarcerated zip code in America to be exaggerated, that “should not obscure the reality that mass incarceration is an integral component in the ‘ecosystem’ of concentrated disadvantage that continues to weigh on this beleaguered neighborhood," the study said in its key findings. At last week’s commission meeting, Barbara Cooley, a research and policy analysist for the commission, noted the sunsetting of the requirement in the Sterling Brown settlement agreement that required officers to generate a detailed report for instances where they display or point a firearm. Because the requirement has ended, that data will not be included in tallies going forward. MPD Chief of Staff Heather Hough said the information would still be captured, just not included in annual reports like this one. Commissioner Dana World-Patterson noted that an officer pulling a gun is “threatening” and said it seemed like data the commission would like to have. World-Patterson asked Hough how the commission would see the data going forward, a question Hough could not answer. Despite the significant jump in numbers, questions about the report’s findings and for Hough were few. Commissioner Ramon Evans said, “it seems like we’re going backwards.” The annual report was prepared for the commission by University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Steven G. Brandl.  A panel at the Milwaukee Turners' Dec. 7, 2024, celebration of International Human Rights Day. L to R: Melody McCurtis of Metcalfe Park Community Bridges, UWM Professor Ted Lentz, WJI's Alexandria Staubach, and Pastor Walter Lanier. Photograph by Mel Bridges. On Saturday, the Milwaukee Turners hosted a forum at Turner Hall in honor of International Human Rights Day. International Human Rights Day is observed around the world on Dec. 10, recognizing the anniversary of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Milwaukee’s early celebration included comments from Mayor Cavalier Johnson, Milwaukee Equal Rights Commissioner Chair Tony Snell-Rodriguez, and Steve Watrous from the Milwaukee United Nations Association. Turners Executive Director Emilio De Torre opened the event saying “at home, people of the global majority are not safe in their own skin, and people are not allowed to love according to the dictates of their heart.” Johnson joined the opening remarks by recognizing that International Human Right Day presents an opportunity to reflect and consider how we can make Milwaukee a “more ethical and more inclusive city for the people who do and all the people who will call Milwaukee home.” Johnson recognized that historical injustices to human rights are easily identified in Milwaukee and that the much more difficult challenge is finding solutions to the problems we see. A panel addressed the international theme of “Equality—Reducing Inequalities and Advancing Human Rights.” The panel discussion was led by Pastor Walter Lanier. Panelists included Melody McCurtis, deputy director and lead community organizer for Metcalfe Park Community Bridges; University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Ted Lentz; and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Policy Analyst Alexandria Staubach. Discussion included housing issues, local and state legislation that might alleviate inequities in the criminal justice system, and research being conducted to make the criminal justice system more transparent in Milwaukee. Plausible solutions were offered by McCurtis, but the city’s recent attempt to pass the “Grow MKE Plan” is not one of them, she said. The plan recommends updates to Milwaukee’s zoning code to permit additional styles of housing in all Milwaukee neighborhoods. But McCurtis said the plan will permit “bad actors” and private interests to benefit from eminent domain, turning housing historically owned and occupied by community elders into short-term rentals. Over the summer, Community Bridges fought adoption of the plan, bussing more than 100 residents to a Common Council meeting to stop the plan's adoption and winning a six-month extension so those who will be directly impacted by the plan have an opportunity to weigh in. Lentz highlighted a data project that presents a broad overview of Milwaukee’s criminal justice legal landscape, analyzing patterns and trends in data collected by a variety of agencies, offices, and facilities that make up the system. The findings recognize racial disparities within the system and the need for data-informed, community engaged approaches for criminal system reform. Lentz’s project continues, with another analysis underway. His full report can be found here. Staubach discussed efforts to pass criminal justice reforms at the state level and the array of roadblocks Milwaukee faces regarding state politics. She highlighted the importance of WJI’s work at the local level, especially in municipal courts, and the need to zero in on what can be done through ordinances and the Milwaukee Common Council. “We have to recognize when we’ve gotten it wrong and do something different,” Staubach said regarding city-funded incentives for derelict landlords, which, in her opinion, line pockets and do little to expand the pool of affordable housing. “We need to change the way we legislate—from top down to bottom up, but it requires the people affected by laws to activate and engage with their local representatives,” she said. Snell-Rodriguez said he “anticipates a pull back of federal civil rights” and said it will be “be time for cities like Milwaukee to rise to the occasion.”  Note: this story was updated on Dec. 10 to include quotes from the petitioner's attorney. By Margo Kirchner Today, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge ordered the Milwaukee Municipal Court and its judges to comply with statutory requirements mandating electronic recordings of all hearings on motions to reopen or a defendant’s inability to pay a judgment due to poverty.  Borowski Judge David Borowski found that Milwaukee Municipal Court and its judges “have violated and very likely will continue to act in violation of their plain duties” regarding electronic recordings. He ordered Milwaukee Municipal Court within 90 days to “fully implement policies and procedures whereby an electronic recording shall be made of EVERY hearing in which (1) a decision is made as to a motion to reopen a case (regardless of whether said motion is made orally or in writing, regardless of the label or category assigned to said hearing, and regardless of the ultimate result of the hearing) and (2) a determination is made as to the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment due to poverty (regardless of the ultimate result of the hearing).” Borowski reserved the right to hold hearings every three to six months to monitor the municipal court’s compliance with the order. Borowski granted summary judgment and a request for a supervisory writ in favor of Lucianna Armour, a municipal court defendant who receives public benefits and is unable to pay the court’s judgments against her. Armour argued that Milwaukee Municipal Court regularly fails to follow proper procedures to record hearings, which could impede her rights on appeal. Armour is represented by Susan Lund and Sheila Sullivan of Legal Action of Wisconsin. State law requires that “(e)very proceeding” municipal courts in which testimony is taken under oath or affirmation, hearing on a motion to reopen, and hearing regarding whether a defendant is unable to pay a judgment because of poverty “shall be recorded by electronic means for purposes of appeal.” Recording is important because appeals of decisions on motions to reopen and inability to pay involve only a review of the municipal court’s record. Without a recording, there is little for the appellate court to review. "Properly recording hearings ensures that municipal court judges are transparent about and accountable for the basis of their decisions," Lund told Wisconsin Justice Initiative following Borowski's decision. Milwaukee Municipal Court argued that motions to reopen that are granted do not require a recording, because the defendant would have no appealable issue anyway. Borowski rejected that argument, writing that the “statute’s use of the word ‘every’ clearly operates to encompass all hearings and proceedings enumerated in the statue, depriving the municipal court of any discretion in determining which hearings on motions to reopen are required to be electronically recorded.” Borowski said the municipal court’s argument defied logic. “(T)he municipal court judge cannot and should not know before the hearing is held whether it will grant or deny a motion to reopen.” Further, either party could appeal a decision on the motion to reopen, and the recording must be made regardless of who wins the motion, he said. Armour’s evidence showed that during a three-month period in 2022, Milwaukee Municipal Court failed to record 42% of hearings on motions to reopen. Borowski found the municipal court’s “many excuses for not recording its hearings to be lacking” and that the municipal court judges “certainly do not get to decide which outcomes render a hearing on a motion to reopen worthy of being recorded.” Regarding the recording of poverty determinations, Borowski rejected the municipal court’s argument that the statutory recording requirement is limited to hearings that address solely a defendant’s ability to pay, not hearings in which ability to pay is part of a broader hearing or a defendant is automatically found unable to pay because of representation by a legal services organization, for instance. The statute “imposes a plain legal duty on Respondents to record every hearing in which a determination as to the defendant’s inability to pay the judgment due to poverty is made, regardless of whether such determination is the primary focus of the hearing,” Borowski wrote. Any determination in open court as to a defendant’s inability to pay is appealable and requires a recording, he said. Hearings that may not be called poverty hearings but discuss a defendant’s ability to pay are included in the recording requirement, Borowski said. Municipal court defendants who are put onto installment plans or whose judgments are stayed or extended “very likely engaged in some sort of discussion with the judge as to their ability to pay. One cannot know for sure, however, because Respondents decided not to make the proper electronic recordings.” Again, Borowski rejected the municipal court’s argument that hearings with outcomes favorable to a defendant need not be recorded: “Any argument that Respondents make which is based on the result of the hearing is necessarily illogical and ignores the fact that there is a plain duty to record.” Lund told WJI that discovery in the case revealed that despite the mandate for court recording of every hearing regarding ability to pay, "Milwaukee Municipal Court's three full-time judges recorded no more than 17 such hearings in the 43 months" before Armour filed her petition. "Milwaukee Municipal Court imposed over 6,500 warrants or driver's license suspensions as sanctions for nonpayment for every hearing it recorded on whether the defendant was unable to pay the judgment due to poverty," Lund said. "Judge Borowski’s decision confirms that Milwaukee Municipal Court’s current recording policies must be revised to comply with the law. This decision is especially important for municipal court defendants who seek to avoid warrants and driver's license suspensions caused by poverty—and the loss of jobs, housing, and income that often accompany those sanctions," Lund said.  Milwaukee Municipal Court, one of the courts issuing arrest warrants and writs of commitment for unpaid court forfeitures and fines, says a recent report by the ACLU of Wisconsin. By Alexandria Staubach
Warrants and civil commitments persist in municipal courts across the state of Wisconsin despite widespread investigation and advocacy against the practice, according to a report published last week by the ACLU of Wisconsin. Municipal courts are permitted by state law to employ “stay to pay” contracts. Under stay to pay, those with outstanding debts spend days in jail to satisfy their forfeiture. The maximum time of imprisonment is 90 days at a minimum rate of $50 per day. Jail time is being served for offenses like contributing to truancy, operating a vehicle without a license, non-registration of a motor vehicle, loud and unnecessary noise, and even a dog running at large, the report says. The use of such jail time is common in some courts. In Waukesha, for instance, 499 warrants were satisfied by defendants serving jail time between 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, other municipal courts do not use jail time to enforce nonpayment at all. The report describes two systems of justice: one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Those unable to pay court fines and forfeitures suffer extra penalties such as jail time. Effects of incarceration include missed wages, having to appear in court time and again to assert an ongoing inability to pay, and even loss of housing. To demonstrate the extent of possible outcomes, the report details the story of one grandmother who, after experiencing homelessness, lost a public housing opportunity because of outstanding municipal warrants for failure to pay. “Monetary sanctions trigger a long series of consequences and barriers to full societal integration for families who cannot pay, which are very different from the effects of monetary sanctions on those who can afford them” the report says. While there are legal protections for those who can demonstrate an inability to pay, having an attorney to enforce those rights is the exception rather than the norm. The report found racial inequities consistent with those well documented in the greater criminal justice system. The report shows the most significant impact to those in low-income communities of color, with 71% of warrants and 49% of commitments issued against Black defendants in Milwaukee Municipal Court between January 2023 and August 2024. In La Crosse County, where the Black population represents 1.8% of the total population, 33% of those incarcerated on municipal warrants were Black. Jailing those who fail to pay municipal forfeitures actually costs the municipality money. The jail that hosts such stay-to-pay contracts submits a bill to the municipal court that ordered the time. The report says this practice can cost a municipal court more in enforcement than a forfeiture was actually worth. The report’s recommendations include eliminating warrants and incarceration for failure to pay fines; removing old outstanding warrants, especially in jurisdictions that have stopped incarcerating people for failure to pay; appointing counsel at hearings concerning the ability to pay; and improving municipal court record keeping to make municipal court revenue generating practices more transparent. Wisconsin municipal courts generated more than $35 million in revenue in 2023, the report says. A 2018 report from the Wisconsin Director of State Courts and the National Center for State Courts also recommended reducing the use of incarceration for failure to pay municipal forfeitures. Dr. Emma Shakeshaft, the author of the ACLU of Wisconsin report, is a WJI board member.  By Alexandria Staubach
Today the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford’s 2022 decision siding with Attorney General Josh Kaul in a dispute about the separation of powers in litigation settlements. Judge Maria S. Lazar, a former Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, wrote for the District 2 appellate court. She was joined by Judge Shelly A. Grogan, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley. Both Lazar and Grogan list in their court biographies participation in the Federalist Society. Judge Lisa S. Neubauer dissented. Crawford is running to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley next year. Her opponent is Judge Brad Schimel, a former Republican state attorney general. Crawford ruled that the Legislature violated the Wisconsin Constitution when passing legislation that gave it veto power over some functions of the Department of Justice—specifically instances where prosecution by the DOJ will potentially result in a payment to the state. In reversing that decision, Lazar stated that “(n)o one branch—or official—stands above the others with unfettered authority to act as it pleases,” while granting the Legislature power to interfere in the administration of the DOJ, a part of the executive branch. The case challenged legislation that required the DOJ to seek approval from the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance to settle civil actions prosecuted by the office where the state will receive cash—a power that historically was the exclusive territory of the DOJ. The act was among several the Legislature hastily passed in late 2018 before Gov. Scott Walker left office. Lazar wrote that “there are some areas where our three branches of government share powers” and “(t)he statute at issue falls within those great borderlands of power.” The Legislature successfully argued that because money collected by the DOJ belongs to the state and because one of the Legislature’s powers is to appropriate state funds, it should have a say in settlement negotiations. As described by Lazar, the Legislature argued that the law in question “allows it to determine how the attorney general distributes settlement funds and to ensure that those funds are utilized for purposes designated by the legislature,” dismissing the DOJ’s argument that settlement in such actions constitutes a core executive power. “Given our conclusion that settlement of at least some cases . . . implicates the legislature’s power of the purse, we need not discuss this espoused public policy interest (separation of powers) further,” Lazar wrote. In dissent, Neubauer wrote that the majority decision “cannot be reconciled with Wisconsin’s separation of powers jurisprudence.” “Separation of powers principles exist in part to prevent one branch from intruding into another branch’s zone of exclusive authority,” she wrote. Allowing the Legislature to interfere in settlement negotiations “substantially interferes with the executive branch’s role” and improperly permits the Joint Finance Committee to serve as gatekeeper to a core executive function, Neubauer said. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed