City of Milwaukee voters will see on their ballots a contested race for city attorney. Evan Goyke challenges incumbent Tearman Spencer. The election is on April 2. Goyke is a representative in the Wisconsin Assembly. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2009. Spencer was elected as city attorney in 2020. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2003. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments Goyke's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Spencer did not respond to WJI's request. Evan Goyke Why do you want to become Milwaukee City Attorney? I’ve seen firsthand how the City Attorney’s office can help improve the quality of life for Milwaukee residents. That is only possible if the office is functioning properly. I bring a skill set and vision to the office that can restore the culture and trust inside and outside of the office, return to a standard of excellence, and proactively address real world issues in our city. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. While I wish I were writing about a different case, I think I have to select, as the worst U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Citizens United devastated the American political system. It’s impossible to quantify the extent of the damage. In Wisconsin, the money that has been allowed to enter our political races has resulted, in part, in a near decade of one party control. I’ve experienced this firsthand during my tenure in the State Legislature and know our state’s inability to experience meaningful progress in areas deeply important to me have their roots in the flawed political process Citizens United has empowered. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were professionally involved. State v. Moore, 2015 WI 54 I was co-counsel for Mr. Moore and briefed and helped argue the pretrial litigation that was the subject of the State Supreme Court case. Mr. Moore was interrogated by law enforcement and as co-counsel for his defense, I helped challenge the admissibility of the interrogation. Juvenile interrogations should be audio or visually recorded and portions of Mr. Moore’s interrogation were done without recording and a subsequent recording was made in secret by law enforcement. The State Supreme Court ruled wrongly that the interrogation was admissible against Mr. Moore. Bank of New York Mellon v. Carson, 2015 WI 15 While I was not counsel on the Carson case, it was one that I followed closely and was inspiration for and useful during multiple legislative sessions working on mortgage foreclosure legislation. Carson involved so called “zombie foreclosures,” where lenders never sold properties after receiving a foreclosure judgment. This meant the previous homeowners, many of whom no longer lived in the home, remained legally responsible for property taxes and the condition of the property. Carson was a big victory and helped create additional legislation improving the sheriff sale process for mortgage foreclosures. Carson remains an inspiration to me today as I look toward focusing on housing and housing quality as City Attorney. The City Attorney’s Office wrote as an Amicus in Carson. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and/or administrative proceedings. My litigation experience is in the criminal justice system. I worked as a trial attorney in the Office of the State Public Defender in Milwaukee County and handled all levels of criminal defense litigation, including administrative hearings. During my time in the State Legislature I have been actively involved in writing laws, or trying to block bad laws, that make changes to how criminal and civil cases are tried in Wisconsin. Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. Throughout my elected career I have had to make difficult decisions in the face of opposition. I handle these instances through research, balancing each side of the argument, listening to those directly impacted, and making the best decision possible. I can think of many instances working to reform the criminal justice system within a legislature hostile to the idea, where I pushed for compromise rejected by both the right and left wings of the major political parties. This was particularly the case working to reform Wisconsin’s juvenile justice system, where one party rejected doing anything and the other pushed against plans that did not do enough. Those were difficult, long days/months/years, but I stayed committed to the process I’ve outlined and it ultimately was a positive, meaningful effort for the issues being advanced. What are the greatest obstacles to delivering true justice for the citizens of Milwaukee that you anticipate? What can or should be done about them? I think the greatest barrier to true justice in Milwaukee, as I define it, is poverty. I don’t mean temporary poverty, I mean the generational, segregated, deep poverty that strips hope and opportunity from a person or a community. I say this because I define true justice as an equal opportunity for each person to reach their potential and live a happy, healthy life as they desire. That definition falls well outside just a legal context of justice. I plan to use the power of the City Attorney’s office to work alongside, listen to, and support community organizations, community leaders, and residents to address the challenges that allow generational poverty to persist. I plan to focus on tangible progress at the neighborhood level. I expect many barriers, as change is difficult. I plan to stay committed to residents and local stakeholders and to not allowing opponents, especially those outside our community to distract from solving the issues presented. I plan to be relentless in these pursuits until we achieve meaningful progress.
0 Comments
In Columbia County, Roger L. Klopp challenges incumbent Judge Troy D. Cross for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2. Cross was elected circuit judge in 2018 and previously was an assistant district attorney. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1998. Klopp is an attorney in private practice at Klopp Law Office in Lodi. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1989. His resume is here and an additional biography statement he submitted is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments Klopp's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Cross did not respond to WJI's request. Roger Klopp Why do you want to become a judge? I want to become a judge because I am a very fair person who is attentive to people's situations and would be able to address people's cases with a humanistic perspective. I ran for judge one other time in 1999 but came in third place. Since then, I have pondered running several times and I was encouraged by many people to run in this year's judicial race. Throughout my career as an attorney, I have represented many low income and middle-class people. I have also been on the board of directors at Legal Action of Wisconsin for over 30 years, and have been the organization’s treasurer, vice president and president of the board in the past. My work with this organization has educated me about the difficulties that the disadvantaged and disenfranchised have getting a fair hearing in the courtroom. Access to justice is one of the underpinnings of our country, and we must work harder to provide that access to all on an even playing field. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 has to be one of the worst US Supreme Court cases in the past 25 years. In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, in assailing corporate influence, prosecuted what at the time were called the great trusts vis a vis the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, breaking up the oil monopoly of the Rockefeller's and others. Roosevelt was strongly against corporate influence and control of politics. There was a long-term prohibition on corporate financing of political campaigns. This was due to the belief that corporate influence by way of financing campaigns would give the wealthy an unfair influence upon the political process and weaken the voices of common persons. The Citizens United case was a 5-4 decision which held that the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment prohibited the government from restricting campaign expenditures by corporations, non-profit organizations, labor unions, and other entities. It equated corporations the same rights due to citizens. A corporation is not a person. What has happened is that it allowed a never-ending spigot of corporate money to influence elections and weaken the voice of the common person. Citizens United has allowed corporations to essentially buy elections to the detriment of our populace. Describe your judicial philosophy. Currently there is a lot of debate over constitutional originalism versus the living document theory. A third theory, strict constructionism is also frequently cited. In studying law, and history I believe it is abundantly apparent that the founding fathers drafted a document which was to protect key principles while allowing the document fluidity to address changes in society, and how the law would react to those changes as our nation grew. The industrial revolution was beginning, factories which previously never existed were springing up. Textile, iron and steel mills, and other beginnings of great commerce were emerging while the document was being written. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It did not contain the Bill of Rights which was later ratified in December of 1791. The constitution set up our governmental framework with three branches of government. It specifically allowed for the constitution to be amended by two thirds vote of the Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states. There was debate while the original document was being written and first proposed for ratification, that additions or amendments needed to be made in order to protect civil liberties. The founding fathers, through a great series of debates, agreed modifications needed to be made at the time of the ratification of the constitution, and the bill of rights followed. It was further acknowledged that additional amendments to the constitution may be necessary. I believe we need to interpret the constitution based on the general framework of the living document as applied to the facts at hand. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. From the thousands of cases where I have represented people, two cases which come to mind were both criminal law matters. There was an incident in Columbia County where an elderly woman was beaten by a group of gang wannabes as a way to gain admittance in a local branch of the Folk Gang, an affiliate of the Black Gangster Disciples. It was horrific crime and I had to advocate for a young man who had beaten this elderly woman for little or no reason. In doing so, I found out why this young man, who had been abandoned by his family and bounced from one couch to another, finally found a home in the gang structure. The gang then influenced him and others to burglarize and rob this woman, assaulting her in her sleep. The impression it left on me is that as a society, we need to do more for our children than we are currently doing. We need to make earlier interventions to reduce bad outcomes in the future. A second case was one of a young woman from Europe who was brought to America to be an au pair for a farm family where the mother had passed away. While driving home in the rain one night after meeting some friends, she crossed the center line, and was involved in an accident which resulted in the death of a passenger in an oncoming vehicle. I believe that there were political considerations made in the charging decision due to the deceased woman's connections in state government. My client wanted her side of the story to be heard. She believed in American justice and after the trial went to the jury, the court officer leaned over and wished my client good luck. The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. The jury foreman walked over to the defense table with tears in his eyes. My client was crying too, and he hugged her. He stated, “we had you in there”. It was evident that they felt she was unjustly accused. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have extensive experience in criminal defense cases, having been one of my primary areas of practice for almost 35 years. I am in court on almost a daily basis and am certified by the State Public Defender for virtually all areas of criminal defense, along with juvenile representation, civil commitments, and protective placements. In the 1990s I had a broad-based general practice. I had a family law practice along with real estate, civil litigation, personal injury, small claims, landlord tenant, and employment law. Additionally, I did some bankruptcy work and federal criminal defense. I have represented many clients in probation revocations, which are administrative proceedings. While I was a law clerk, I also did grievance arbitration. In the mid 90's I represented a fellow who was fired from a nationwide trucking and delivery service company for little or no reason. The employment contract called for arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration case was held in Madison and the employer flew in its vice president and in home corporate counsel to Madison on a private jet. It was me and my client versus three more experienced lawyers, and the Vice President of the company. When we called our first witness (another employee of the company), the lead attorney spoke to the vice president of the company and then told the witness “you know this can affect your employment”, basically a threat to fire if he testified. I objected to the threat to a witness, and the arbitrator stated if there were further threats made it would be referred for prosecution for intimidation of a witness. After a day of testimony, the arbitrator closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and said he would issue a written decision. When the decision came, we won. My client got basically everything we asked for in regard to damages and reinstatement. Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. In regard to being challenged and exhibiting courage in the face of adversity or opposition, you are describing what defense attorneys do on a daily basis. My practice at present is mostly public defender and court appointed criminal cases. The system is usually stacked against my clients, and many of them have little or nothing as far as resources, education, and money. Every day I try to figure out how to advocate for my clients and how to get them the fair hearings they deserve. Recently I had a criminal case where I raised the competency of my client. The client was suffering from severe mental illness. The client had a health issue, and the county should have filed a 51/15 mental commitment or a protective placement. The county instead tried to interplead into the criminal matter and gain an order for involuntary medical treatment of this person. I raised the impropriety of what was being done and stated what the proper procedure was. The court ruled against my client. I immediately filed for a stay, secured appellate counsel for my client, and eventually the appellate counsel won a stay of the involuntary administration of medication and medical care. A second case was filed with the same client and when involuntary administration of medicine was asked for by the state, the judge having recently been educated on the proper procedure by the court of appeals, agreed with my client's position and did not order involuntary administration of medication. Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set? Recusal of a judge in cases involving donors and indirect supporters is best addressed on a case by case basis, looking at the amount of the contribution, amount of support or assistance to a judicial campaign, and whether the judge was aware of the donation, support and amount of assistance. Normally recusal is not required for de minimus contributions and assistance. If the situation amounts to impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, the judge should consider recusal. Contribution amounts to judicial and other campaigns are set by law. If a contribution is in excess of that amount the excess should be returned if possible or donated to a permissible entity. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? The concept of true justice has historically been based upon a deist approach to justice with an omnipotent arbiter providing divine justice. What a circuit court judge does is much different than that. Circuit court judges are the first level of the courts in Wisconsin in most cases of significant matter. It's important to listen to the arguments of counsel as well as any testimony or evidence adduced in a case. A good judge should look at the litigant’s relative position in relation to each other, as well as considering their socio-economic background, assistance of counsel, and their apparent intelligence and competency. A judge is allowed to use common sense in fashioning its judgment within the parameters of the law. A circuit court judge is not allowed to craft the law or replace the current law in order to fashion a particular decision. All judges are bound by our oath of office, and decisions must be made within that context. However, when deciding or imposing a sentence, a judge must also be bound by his conscience in making sure that he or she is making the right decision, applying the law to the facts of the matter at hand. I pledge to do that. In Milwaukee County, Marisabel Cabrera and Rochelle Johnson-Bent vie for the open Branch 43 seat after Judge Marshall B. Murray chose not to run for reelection. Cabrera is a member of the Wisconsin Assembly and an attorney in private practice at Cabrera Law Office. She graduated from Michigan State University College of Law in 2002. Her resume is here. Johnson-Bent is an attorney and manager of procurement and risk management for the Milwaukee Public School District. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Gretchen Schuldt
A Milwaukee County judge acted with “apparent antipathy” toward a state law designed to protect businesses from unfair treatment when he ruled the law did not apply to a contract between Milwaukee Municipal Court and JusticePoint, a nonprofit that provides services to indigent defendants, the organization alleges in an appeals brief. Circuit Judge J.D. Watts “disregarded the factual record, made unsupported factual findings, and erroneously interpreted and applied the law to find that the relationship between JusticePoint and the City does not qualify as a dealership under the WFDL,” attorneys Jeffrey Mandel, Erin K. Deeley, and Rachel E. Snyder wrote on behalf of JusticePoint. The WFDL is the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the 50-year-old statute designed to protect businesses from unfair and arbitrary actions by entities issuing contracts. The appeal seeks reversal of Watts’ ruling, a remand to circuit court, and a temporary injunction while the case is litigated there. JusticePoint qualifies for WFDL protection and the city must show that it met certain requirements in ending the contract, they wrote. The city must show it had good cause to end the relationship, that it issued proper notice, and that it provided JusticePoint an opportunity to correct any performance problems. “The city admits to making no effort to comply with any of these three requirements, relying instead on a ‘convenience’ clause as its sole justification for terminating JusticePoint’s contract,” they wrote. “This is patently insufficient under the WFDL.” JusticePoint’s agreement to provide Milwaukee Court Alternatives Program (MCAP) services was terminated at the behest of two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges without explanation, under a “convenience” clause that allows the city to end a contract for any reason with 10 days' notice. The city notified JusticePoint of the termination in May 2023, giving the organization until mid-July to finish its work. Municipal Court officials did not name any successor provider program and said the court would seek bids sometime in the future. That meant that without JusticePoint, Municipal Court defendants would lose the assistance the organization provides for completing community service requirements, handling inability-to-pay forfeiture cases, or finding various social services. JusticePoint sued over the termination, alleging that it violated the WFDL, and Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan temporarily placed the contract cancellation on hold. Watts took over the case after that, ruling against JusticePoint after an October hearing on the matter. The city contended that, applied to a municipality, the WFDL should protect only businesses with a profit motive or a business offering, to protect public procurement law, the JusticePoint lawyers said. “Its concern was not a concrete one in this instance but an abstract fear of a potential slippery slope,” they said. The city also argued that applying the WFDL would lead the city to violate competitive procurement regulations, but “admitted this might be an illusory issue because it ‘may be accurate’ to say that the instant case has no bearing on procurement regulations.“ “Though the city maintained its consistent agreement that JusticePoint distributes city MCAP Services, the trial court at numerous points attempted to steer the city into making arguments contrary to that position — and inconsistent with the factual record,” they said. Minutes after the October hearing ended, the attorneys wrote, Watts “presented a single-spaced, 11-page written decision that disregarded the city’s arguments and the undisputed factual record, concluding instead that: 1) the relationship between JusticePoint and the City was not a dealership protected under the WFDL because JusticePoint was distributing its own, rather than the City’s, services; and 2) there could be no community of interest between the parties in the absence of a ‘joint undertaking’ and shared profitability.” Watts then prompted the city to seek dismissal of the entire case, which he granted, they said. Appellate Judge M. Joseph Donald issued a stay pending appeal, maintaining the suspension of the contract termination. At the trial court level, Watts “made a series of legal errors in applying the law to the undisputed facts of this case, fundamentally narrowing the purview of the WFDL in contravention of both statutory text and binding precedent,” the JusticePoint attorneys said. Watts held, for example, that the “WFDL cannot apply outside of conventional franchise-franchisee, profit-driven, commercial relationships,” an error appellate courts have consistently warned against, they wrote. “To the contrary, JusticePoint’s delivery of services on behalf of the City fits soundly in the ambit of the WFDL under the uncontested facts before this Court,” they said. The nonprofit qualifies for protection under the law because it has an agreement with the city, distributes city services, and shares a community of interest with the city, they said. While the city effectively conceded that JusticePoint distributed city services, Watts found differently, ruling that JusticePoint was distributing its own services. Watts found it dispositive that the city “ ‘did not have the services’ themselves and . . . Municipal Court defendants do not directly pay JusticePoint for the MCAP Services those defendants receive,” the lawyers wrote. The law does not require that, however, they said. It simply requires that a dealer sell or distribute the grantor’s — in this case the city’s — goods or services. “If WFDL protection applied only if JusticePoint was selling city services, the agency could charge a penny meeting Watts’ “atextual, invented requirement” but not making JusticePoint profitable or defraying city expenses for MCAP services, they said. Watts’ misinterpretation also would effectively block charitable nonprofits from WFDL protection if they provide services free of charge for recipients, they wrote. Watts also misread the law’s “community of interest” provision to require JusticePoint to maintain a commercial business enterprise receiving revenue and setting prices, the JusticePoint attorneys said. Under state Supreme Court precedent, a community of interest exists when there is continuing financial interest and interdependence, they said. A “ ‘continuing financial interest’ contemplates a ‘shared financial interest in the operation of the dealership or the marketing of a good or service,’ while ‘interdependence' is the ‘degree to which the dealer and grantor cooperate, coordinate their activities and share common goals in their business relationship,’ ” they wrote. Watts also “arbitrarily rejected the uncontested factual record” to find that there was "no coordination of activities” between the city and the nonprofit. He found that JusticePoint’s investments in staff and computer programming infrastructure needed to run its program were not substantial compared to its overall expenses, despite there being no evidence of overall expenses offered, the lawyers said. While JusticePoint does not charge clients for its services, it saves the city money and has a financially interdependent relationship with the city, they wrote. The city’s own goal for the program, as stated in its most recent request for proposals to operate the program, is to “ ‘ultimately reduce Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility and House of Correction populations and reduce the associated cost to the City of housing these offenders.’ “ The agency also works closely with Municipal Court and other city officials in its program operations, they said. In Sauk County, Nancy Thome and Blake J. Duren vie for an open seat after Judge Pat Barrett chose not to run for reelection. Thome is an attorney in private practice in Baraboo. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1994. Her resume is here. Duren is an attorney in private practice in Reedsburg. He graduated from the St. Louis University School of Law in 2010. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
In Oneida County, Michael Fugle and Mary M. Sowinski vie for an open seat after Judge Michael H. Bloom chose not to run for reelection. Fugle is corporation counsel for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel and in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2002. His resume is here. Sowinski is an assistant district attorney for Oneida County and previously worked as assistant corporation counsel in Vilas County and an assistant DA in Milwaukee County as well as in private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Gretchen Schuldt Judges from around the state are supporting a bill that would outlaw protests at their homes, but a constitutional law professor says the measure raises First Amendment concerns. The bill would prohibit people from demonstrating near a judge’s residence if they are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. The word “near” is used but not defined in the legislation, Assembly Bill 965 / Senate Bill 926. A chart showing the sponsors of the measure is at the bottom of this post. Ed Fallone, a constitutional law professor at Marquette University, said in an interview that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment generally does not allow a group to exist in a protected “bubble” denied to others. The bill would create such exclusive protections, he said. That amendment protects freedoms of speech and religion and the rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Those offering testimony in favor of the bill included state Supreme Court Justice Annette K. Ziegler and judges from St. Croix County, the District II Court of Appeals, Juneau County, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Dunn County, Sauk County, Fond du Lac County, Washburn County, Dodge County, Racine County, Sheboygan County, Clark County, Sheboygan County, Ozaukee County, Outagamie County, Brown County, Chippewa County, Waukesha County, Brown County, Dane County, Calumet County, Barron County, Manitowoc County, Monroe County, Door County, Milwaukee County, and Rusk County. The State Bar of Wisconsin also offered testimony in support. The bill is one of three about judges and their security concerns. Judges' written testimony on the three-bill package included discussion of security for their families and them; incidents they had experienced personally; and the June 2022 murder of retired Juneau County Judge John Roemer by a man Roemer sentenced years earlier. In some instances, multiple judges from the same county signed on to testimony in support of the bill, raising potential conflict-of-interest issues if the measure becomes law and the judges are asked to rule on related cases. The Assembly’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee recommended passage of the bill, 13-2, with Reps. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) opposed. The full Assembly approved the measure without a roll call vote. The Senate’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee recommended approval on a 5-1 vote, with State Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) opposed. The bill is pending before the full Senate. In her written testimony to the Assembly committee, Ziegler said that “Judges should not be threatened with acts of violence from people or groups who want to intimidate or harm us, push a cause, subvert the rule of law, or control the outcome of a case. That is a basic tenet of Judicial independence.” The bill is modeled on a federal statute, she said. The Wisconsin bill, unlike the federal statute, “removes the prohibition …against picketing, parading or demonstrating at, in, or near a building housing a court,” Ziegler wrote. The federal law, adopted in 1950, prohibits the same type of picketing of federal judges’ residences as the Wisconsin bill would ban. It also has raised recent First Amendment questions, especially after protests in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning abortion rights. Allowing courthouse picketing, which judges can easily avoid entirely, is not enough, Fallone said. “One of the aspects of your free speech right is to be heard by the person you’re expressing your opinion to,” he said. While he sympathizes with judges seeking to reduce the stress levels of their jobs, Fallone said, protections such as those proposed should be limited to specific judges in response to specific events or threats. If judges deserve special security considerations, those protections could well spread to other protest targets, thus further limiting the scope of the First Amendment, he said. Bill Sponsors
In Walworth County, Estee E. Scholtz and Peter M. Navis vie for an open seat after Judge Phillip A. Koss chose not to run for reelection. Scholtz is the deputy corporation counsel for Walworth County and previously worked as an assistant district attorney in Walworth and Milwaukee counties. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2009. Her resume is here. Navis is a judicial court commissioner in Walworth County. He previously was an assistant corporation counsel for Walworth and Dodge counties and an attorney in private practice. He graduated from Hamline University School of Law (St. Paul, Minnesota) in 2007. His resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without insertion of “(sic)” for errors and without editing except as to length (answers are limited to 500 words).
In Door County, Brett Reetz and Jennifer Moeller vie for an open seat after Judge D. Todd Ehlers chose not to run for reelection. Reetz has been a self-employed trial lawyer since graduation from DePaul University Law School in 1992. His CV is here. Moeller has been a Door County court commissioner since 2011 and before then worked in private practice. She received her law degree from Marquette University Law School in 1994. Her bio is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
By Alexandria Staubach
Wisconsin voters in April will see two referendum questions focused on perceived voting issues. Senate Joint Resolution 78 passed the Legislature in November and will appear on the April 2 ballot as two questions about amending the state constitution. If approved by a majority of voters, the amendments would enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution bans on private funding for election administration and the involvement of third parties in elections. The proposed amendments passed the Senate and Assembly along party lines. They passed in two successive legislative sessions as required by the state constitution’s amendment process. Constitutional amendment resolutions avoid the governor. They go directly from the Legislature to voters for approval. Rather than creating statutes, which can be changed more easily if they cause problems later, the laws become part of the document underlying all of Wisconsin's government and laws. Republican legislators introduced the resolution in response to grant money supplied by the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to various election offices around the country during the 2020 election cycle to alleviate the burden of COVID-19 related costs. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and tech billionaire, supplied more than $400 million to CTCL. As a result, the funds have been referred to as “Zuckerbucks.” The first question addresses those Zuckerbucks: “Use of private funds in election administration. Shall section 7 (1) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that private donations and grants may not be applied for, accepted, expended, or used in connection with the conduct of any primary, election, or referendum?” A “yes” vote will place in the state constitution a prohibition on any level of government in the state applying for or accepting nongovernmental funds or equipment for election administration. Currently, Wisconsin law does not restrict the Wisconsin Election Commission or municipalities from accepting grants or other private money to facilitate the administration of an election. The second question addresses the involvement of outside people in elections: “Election officials. Shall section 7 (2) of article III of the constitution be created to provide that only election officials designated by law may perform tasks in the conduct of primaries, elections, and referendums?” Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Green Bay) testified about this proposed amendment to Senate and Assembly committees in October 2023. He stated that a stipulation of the CTCL grant money required third-party oversight from Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, who then worked for the nonprofit National Vote at Home Institute. According to Wimberger, Rubenstein “orchestrated the fall election and acted as a city clerk would act, though paid by CTCL, including managing staff and having access to ballots.” Wimberger’s assertion was part of the larger tent of theories undermining Wisconsin’s 2020 election results. It was debunked by Green Bay’s city attorney, who after investigation said the city was “allowed, but not required, to receive advisory services from persons knowledgeable in various areas of election administration” and that although Rubenstein provided “best practice support” he “had no decision-making authority.” Rubenstein also provided best-practice support in Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Wauwatosa and West Allis. In at least the case of Green Bay, he was hired directly by the city. Current statutory law already provides that elections are administered only by “election officials” and defines an election official as “an individual who is charged with any duties relating to the conduct of an election.” A “yes” vote on question 2 will put the restrictions permitting only election officials designated by law to administer elections into the state constitution. Elections officials include a municipal clerk, who is responsible for conducting elections in a municipality; a chief election inspector and election inspectors, or poll workers, who staff polling places on election day; election registration officials, who carry out registration duties on election day; special voting deputies, who are appointed by the municipal clerk to carry out absentee voting at qualified retirement homes; greeters, who acknowledge voters and assist in answering questions about the polling place but may not participate in any election inspector duties unless acting as a substitute; and tabulators, who aid election inspectors in counting and tallying votes after polls close. All such election officials are required to take and file an oath and record set amounts of training for every term they serve. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|