 For those following WJI's candidate questionnaires or interested in judicial elections across the state, here are the results of yesterday's 10 contested races according to unofficial results posted online today:
0 Comments
In Racine County, Jessica Lynott challenges recently appointed incumbent Judge Toni L. Young for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2. Before her appointment as circuit judge, Young was the attorney manager for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office in Janesville. She graduated from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School (formerly Thomas M. Cooley Law School) in 2005. Lynott is an assistant district attorney in the Racine County District Attorney's Office. She graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2003. 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 Lynott's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Young indicated by email that she would answer WJI's questionnaire, but a response has not been received to date. (Update: On March 28, 2024, WJI published portions of Young's application for judicial appointment, available here.)  Why do you want to become a judge?
It has been my goal since I was young to work hard and become a Judge. As someone who has spent the past 20 years living, volunteering, raising children and working in the Racine Community, I recognize that I can better serve the community as a Judge. I plan to bring common sense to the bench and render community-focused justice. 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. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is an important decision by the Supreme Court because it upheld private citizens’ rights to lawfully own/possess a gun, especially for self-defense at one’s home. This decision upheld rights under the Second Amendment, which is very important to me. Describe your judicial philosophy. My theme is Common Sense Justice. It is important that Judges follow the law and not act as activists from the bench. My theme encompasses my goal of running a fair and efficient courtroom. Showing respect to all parties and professionals involved in a case is a top priority. Because of my long-standing community involvement, I understand the needs and the resources within the Racine Community. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. I have an abundance of trial & motion work experience, as well as day-to-day courtroom experience, so picking only two is hard. As a prosecutor, my first homicide case will always be one of my more significant cases. It involved domestic abuse and child witnesses. Helping them navigate the process, working with them to prepare for trial and being able to deliver results that will keep them safe will always stay with me. Another case I’ve been involved in prosecuting include a homicide of a baby, in which I had to dive into the medical realm of Abusive Head Trauma and work with Experts to master the evidence. Other significant cases involve Sexual Assault of Children cases. The resiliency of my victims and their families always amazes me. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. After graduating from law school I practiced in the area of labor & employment law. I was able to gain experience dealing with State agencies as well as federal agencies (EEOC). I had experience advocating for both businesses and individuals, unions as well as working for a State agency. It was very interesting to see all sides. When I made the jump into criminal law as a prosecutor, I took the responsibility to represent the State of Wisconsin very seriously. While representing the State, I advocated for victims’ rights, public safety, and yes, even for defendants’ rights. My end goal is always getting a just and fair result. I’ve spent over seven years practicing in juvenile court, traffic & misdemeanor court and felony court, where I’ve handled cases relating to gun, drug and sensitive crimes. 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. Stepping in to protect a victim from their own mother is a recent example of how I faced a challenge and had to stand up for what is right and enlist the assistance of a Guardian Ad Litem. In my personal life, I’m currently dealing with a loved one who was diagnosed with cancer and having to deal with chemotherapy and up-coming surgeries on top of juggling my other responsibilities has been difficult. 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? I support following the law and/or rules first and foremost. If there are ethical regulations that outline this matter, I would follow them. If situations in which there are no applicable rules, laws or regulations, then I support applying prudent judgement to situations in which a supporter or contributor was involved in a case before me and it truly depends on the level of the connection. Each situation would be handled on its own merits. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? One of the biggest challenges is having adequate resources to keep the system moving in an efficient manner. For example, in the criminal law arena, we are constantly short on defense attorneys to take on cases in which the defendants cannot afford to hire private counsel. One solution is to utilize technology to allow zoom appearances. Justice delayed is justice denied and that goes for both defendants as well as victims. Getting cases done in a timely fashion is one of my top concerns. 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.
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.
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.
In La Crosse County, Candice C. M. Tlustosch is challenging incumbent Mark A. Huesmann for Circuit Court Branch 3. Huesmann was appointed to the court by Gov. Tony Evers in 2023. He was previously a municipal court judge, La Crosse County court commissioner, and practicing attorney. He received his law degree from the University of North Dakota School of Law in 1994. His resume is here. Tlustosch is a practicing attorney at Tlustosch Law Office. She was a La Crosse County judge in Branch 5 in 2015, appointed by Gov. Scott Walker. She did not win the next election and returned to private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2005. 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 Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
In Winnebago County, Judge Teresa Basiliere is not running for reelection. Three candidates vie for the open seat, meaning there is a primary on Tuesday, Feb. 20. Eric R. Heywood, currently a Winnebago County Circuit Court commissioner and previously a public defender and prosecutor, received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. His resume is here. Michael D. Rust, currently a Winnebago County Circuit Court commissioner and previously a mediator and practicing attorney, received his law degree from Marquette University Law School in 2006. His curriculum vitae is here. LaKeisha D. Haase's State Bar of Wisconsin listing states that her employer is "HLG" and that she graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2011. 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 Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Heywood and Rust provided questionnaire responses. Their answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Haase did not answer WJI's questionnaire, but WJI's "Evers' judges" post about her is here. She was appointed to Winnebago Circuit Court in December 2020 but did not win reelection in 2022.
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed