 By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday approved the State Bar of Wisconsin’s petition seeking recognition of a special continuing legal education (CLE) credit for courses concerning cultural competency and reduction of bias. Attorneys must complete 30 hours of CLE every two years. The State Bar successfully argued that attorneys could credit up to six hours of cultural competency courses toward those 30 hours. “If a result is that one attorney in this state is more attuned to the marginalized communities in this state, that is good enough for me,” said Justice Jill Karofsky at the Supreme Court’s open conference on Wednesday about the proposed rule change. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz approved the State Bar’s petition. Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Brian Hagedorn opposed it. The court has a history with the issue. The State Bar sought a similar rule change in 2023. At that time, former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack joined with Ziegler, Grassl Bradley and Hagedorn to deny the State Bar’s petition. At Wednesday’s conference, Grassl Bradley called the new petition a thinly veiled “rebrand” and said education in cultural competency is “coercive.” In a heated statement of opposition, she accused the four justices approving the petition of “virtue signaling.” Grassl Bradley's comments suggested that the country was “thankfully” moving away from diversity, equity and inclusion education, as demonstrated by the results of the most recent election. In her concurrence to the 2023 decision, Grassl Bradley cited conservative political commentators to say that diversity, equity and inclusion education panders to identity politics and “poses a threat to republican self-government by corroding patriotic ties, fostering hatred, promoting cultural separatism, and demanding special treatment rather than equality under the law.” Hagedorn on Wednesday said that although cultural competency was “well intentioned,” he thinks such education is “wrong-headed and likely counterproductive.” He cited the actions of major corporations like Disney and Amazon to move away from diversity, equity, and inclusion education. Zeigler took issue with the fact that more than half of CLE credit hours could be satisfied by “nonsubstantive” education, in a state where attorneys from Wisconsin’s law schools do not have to take a bar exam. Six hourly credits are allowed for educational programs regarding mental wellness and another six are allowed for law practice management. The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty opposed the petition. In a letter to the court, WILL argued that “DEI training has been shown to increase bias,” citing a Harvard Law Review article, which in reality says “we’ve seen that companies get better results when they ease up on control tactics” and “people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy.” The new rule will not require that any CLE credits come from cultural competency training; it merely permits attorneys to obtain credits within the category. The court voted in favor of the State Bar’s petition without making the trainings mandatory. At least some, however, would have preferred a rule that required at least one hour of cultural competency education. During oral argument before the court’s open conference, Legal Action of Wisconsin attorney Jacob Haller expressed concern that only already interested attorneys would opt for the courses and that “a single mandatory course will help raise awareness.” Haller argued that such education is “the very least we can do” to reduce negative bias, calling the work “critical.” “For me this is the sermon on the mount,” said Walsh Bradley. Exactly when the new rule will take effect is not yet determined. It could have taken effect as soon as this summer, but discussion during open conference resulted in the justices’ agreement on a pause until the next cycle of CLE reporting turns over. Attorneys are to complete CLE requirements and file a report certifying attendance by January 31 every other year. The two-year cycle depends on the year of admission to the bar. A written order is expected before the end of the court’s 2024-2025 term, a condition on which Dallet predicated her vote.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach
A group of system-impacted individuals is building a coalition seeking to disrupt stagnation around criminal justice reform by using connection. Personal connection with legislators will be at the forefront. The group plans to build a relationship with every member of the Legislature, regardless of party or politics. Shannon Ross, founder and executive director of The Community, leads the effort. WJI recently sat down with Ross to talk about the coalition, its goals, and how they plan to achieve them. “As a society we should seek more collaboration,” said Ross. “There are (legislators) who genuinely agree with us,” he told WJI, “and maybe our goals are unpopular with their constituents, but we are going to find a way to connect with them … a way to help their constituents understand.” Coalitions are common among organizations, but this group intentionally includes individuals regardless of what other affiliations or professions they have. Ross hopes everyone involved will have the ability to act independently from positions that other organizations may take. Messaging will be central to the group’s success, Ross said. “We need big numbers,” he said. “We need a lot of engaged people to make this work.” The coalition includes individuals from all over Wisconsin. So far, everyone participating has engaged in policy work and two are already registered lobbyists—numbers the group hopes to expand, Ross said. While the current group members are mostly directly system-impacted individuals, Ross wants to avoid only engaging those who are system impacted. “We need everyone,” he said. Structurally, the coalition is intentionally built in opposition to the experience people have within the system, meaning there is no top-down hierarchy. It is organized from the middle outward, comprised solely of committees. While the group will have a “coalition coordinator,” no one individual will be a central figure. Ross does not anticipate winning that role. He hopes he will be able to fade into the background of coalition’s work. Ross says he was inspired by gridlock in the Legislature. He has observed “a consistent failure to get anything across the finish line that was something serious,” he told WJI. He hopes the group will be able to cross party lines and end what he described as “two decades without any real policy change.” Over the summer, the group participated in a retreat, speaking with Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Carl Ashley and former Department of Corrections secretary Kevin Carr, who left that job in 2024. While the group is still fleshing out all of its goals, Ross said he anticipates their short list will include capping supervision, and overturning truth in sentencing will be a long-term project. The coalition is still recruiting members. According to the Wisconsin Division of Community Correction year-end review, 18,909 people were on extended supervision at the end of December. Extended supervision can last decades, requiring adherence to 18 or more rules during all that time. People often find themselves back in custody for rule violations alone. In November 2024, 48% of people admitted to Wisconsin prisons were admitted solely due to revocation of supervision, regardless of whether an individual had new pending criminal charges; 16.6% of admissions were for revocations resulting from a new criminal sentence.  The City of Milwaukee's Judiciary and Legislation Committee on Monday, Jan. 13, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
Today, the Milwaukee Common Council’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee unanimously approved a legislative lobbying plan that includes amending state law to increase use of jail as punishment and to eliminate protections against jailing of the poor by municipal courts. The state legislative package approved by the committee Monday morning describes what city representatives should pursue with the Legislature in 2025 and 2026. That the committee would take up the package was announced late Friday. Wisconsin Justice Initiative, the ACLU of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Turners, and several individuals were denied the opportunity to speak about the package, despite appearing in person at the meeting on short notice. In explanation, Alderperson Mark Chambers, Jr. said the document was a “living file” and in theory subject to change. Alderperson Robert Bauman encouraged interested people and entities to reach out to their alderpeople individually. “It felt a bit like a cold shoulder on a 12-degree day,” said James Gramling, WJI board member and former municipal court judge, who attended the committee meeting. WJI and others specifically sought to address the legislative priority of amending state law to increase the use of jail to enforce municipal forfeitures. Many municipal judges have decreased the use of jail commitments to enforce municipal forfeitures, as such jail time is widely considered counterproductive and harmful to low-income individuals. The ACLU of Wisconsin recently released a report highlighting how carceral sanctions in Wisconsin’s municipal courts inherently criminalize poverty and result in racially disparate effects. The city's legislative priority would have its lobbyists pushing for statutes permitting municipal courts to impose jail time “as a penalty for individuals who have failed to appear in court and have accumulated more than 15 outstanding citations or owe $20,000 or more in unpaid fines.” But Wisconsin law already permits jail time for any unpaid monetary judgment ordered by a municipal court, not just after a certain dollar amount accumulates. Using jail as punishment for those with 15 or more citations, though, is new. Importantly, an alternative proposed change would eliminate protections that prevent poor defendants from jail time when they do not have the ability to pay. The city’s lobbying proposal seeks to “waive the requirements” of the statute that “limits the use of jail sentences in certain situations.” Those "certain situations" include when a defendant is deemed impoverished and lacks the ability to pay municipal court forfeitures, such as when a defendant receives public benefits. “The proposal to waive these requirements will essentially recreate debtor’s prisons—a torturous, outdated and unconstitutional relic openly forbidden by Congress in 1833 and condemned by everyone from Charles Dickens to Michelle Alexander,” Emilio De Torre, executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, told WJI. The state legislative package includes more than one hundred priorities, which its executive summary says are designed to “reflect Milwaukee’s unwavering commitment to a brighter future” and “shape Milwaukee’s development for years to come.” Bauman described the document as a “big wish list.” The committee unanimously adopted the legislative plan as proposed. It will go to the Milwaukee Common Council for approval before heading to the mayor’s desk.  By Margo Kirchner
Just eight of 38 circuit court judicial races in Wisconsin this spring are contested. Notably, not one of the six Milwaukee County judges up for election is challenged. Waukesha County and Jefferson County will be campaign hot spots, though, with two contested circuit court races each. St. Croix County will have a primary on Feb. 18, as three candidates vie for the seat that opened when Judge Edward Vlack chose not to run for reelection. The Wisconsin Elections Commission's Jan. 8 candidate tracking report indicates that James Jamie Johnson, Heather Amos, and Brian Smestad are preliminarily approved for the election. Candidates had until the end of the business on Jan. 7 to file their nomination papers and enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. The Jan. 8 report shows candidates who appear to have met the filing requirements, but submissions are still subject to challenge and await official approval by the commission. The commission is scheduled to meet on Jan. 14 to finalize the list of candidates. Provided that Cortney Iverson’s submitted signatures and required Statement of Economic Interests form are approved, Jefferson County Branch 2 also will have a primary on Feb. 18, with Jennifer Weber and Iverson taking on recently appointed Theresa Beck. The top two finishers in each primary will advance to the general election on April 1. Contested races with two candidates for the April 1 election:
Three of 16 court of appeals judges are up for reelection, none challenged: Mark Gundrum in District 2, Lisa Stark in District 3, and Jennifer Nashold in District 4. You’ve likely heard about the contested race for the open Wisconsin Supreme Court seat due to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s retirement. Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford have been campaigning for months and have been preliminarily approved for the election. No surprise additional candidate filed nomination papers by the deadline. Wisconsin Justice Initiative will ask all candidates in contested races to complete questionnaires about their work experience, judicial philosophy, and desire to be a judge. Look for their answers in the WJI blog in February and March. By Alexandria Staubach On Monday, Wisconsin’s 107th legislative session kicked off with the swearing in of 34 new members, 90% of whom are Democrats. This is the first legislative session impacted by the new district maps signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in early 2024, ending more than a decade of extreme partisan gerrymandering. Fifteen senators were sworn into office. Six are embarking on their first full term. Five of those six are women, all are Democrats, and two served in the Assembly last term. Thirty new members were sworn into the Assembly, 76% of them Democrats. The new session sees the narrowest advantage Republicans have held since 2011. The Senate includes 18 Republicans and 15 Democrats. The Assembly has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats. The two bodies got straight to work. The Assembly took its first action of consequence, sending to committee AJR 1, a proposed constitutional amendment requiring valid photo identification to vote in an election. If the resolution passes, it will be the proposed amendment’s second trip through the Legislature. If it passes quickly, it could then appear on the April election ballot. Both chambers voted on structure and schedules. In the Assembly, Rep. Kalan Haywood (D-Milwaukee) unsuccessfully nominated Rep. Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) for speaker, as an alternative to Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Vos has served in the role for more than a decade. Haywood suggested the Assembly ditch Vos because the chamber should not be “an experimental national right-wing Republican testing ground.” He encouraged his peers to abandon “the stagnation of the status quo.” “Compromise is what will lead to productivity and results,” he said. “We’ve strayed so far from Wisconsin’s long-standing tradition of transparent government with the current leadership,” said Haywood. Vos was ultimately elected with 52 votes of the possible 54 Republican votes. Afterward, Vos gave a speech that included predictions about what will occur during this legislative session. He anticipates a tax cut “focused on those who pay taxes in Wisconsin” and emphatically stated the money set aside from any such cut would not be spent by the treasury. He vowed not to create any new government programs because “socialism, in any form does not make us more free.” Vos also said he would demand “accountability and measurable results for any funding we provide.” He predicted that the newly created Assembly Committee on Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency would “lead the way” in innovating how government operates in the state. Ceremonies took place simultaneously at the Capitol in the two legislative chambers. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley administered the oath of office in the Assembly. District II Court of Appeals Judge Maria Lazar administered the oath of office in the Senate. Chief Justice Roberts decries defiance of judgments but fails to address his court's ethics issues1/2/2025 By Margo Kirchner
In his year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts discussed the increase in calls to defy court orders and opinions, but glaringly absent was any recognition of the role his own court’s ethical failings play in that dangerous trend. Roberts noted that after the Brown v. Board of Education case some state governors sought to defy desegregation orders, but the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations stood behind the judges, and for decades afterward even unpopular court decisions were followed. "Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected,” Roberts wrote. At least one commentator thinks Roberts aimed these comments at JD Vance. In just one paragraph near the end of his report did Roberts suggest that federal judges themselves play a part in the public’s willingness to abide by court orders, but he then tied judges’ duties to abiding by separation of powers principles. He made no mention of possible harm to the court’s authority related to justices’ failures to adopt enforceable ethics standards or publicly report gifts of luxury trips from wealthy individuals. Roberts wrote: “The federal courts must do their part to preserve the public’s confidence in our institutions. We judges must stay in our assigned areas of responsibility and do our level best to handle those responsibilities fairly. We do so by confining ourselves to live ‘cases or controversies’ and maintaining a healthy respect for the work of elected officials on behalf of the people they represent. I am confident that the judges . . . and the corresponding officials in the other branches will faithfully discharge their duties with an eye toward achieving the ‘successful cooperation’ essential to our Nation’s continued success.” Roberts’ report focused on judicial independence. He cited, in addition to defiance of court orders, three other “areas of illegitimate activity” that threaten judicial independence: violence against judges, intimidation of judges, and disinformation. In discussing recent violence against judges, he noted the murders of state judges in Wisconsin and Maryland in response to adverse rulings by those judges. In Wisconsin, retired Juneau County Circuit Judge John Roemer was murdered in 2022 at his home in New Lisbon by a man whom he had sentenced 17 years earlier. Roberts discussed attempts to intimidate judges through doxing (the publishing of addresses and phone numbers online) and, “regrettably,” statements by public officials suggesting bias by judges as the basis for court rulings. Roberts said he was grateful for the work of federal and state legislators to sponsor legislation to protect judges’ personal information and of marshals and other law enforcement officers to keep judges safe. In Wisconsin, three acts signed into law in March 2024 are aimed at protecting judges’ personal information and reducing intimidation of judges. Regarding disinformation, Roberts suggested increasing civic education on a national scale and taking protective measures against hostile foreign actors. 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.
"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.
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed