 By Margo Kirchner
The Wisconsin Elections Commission has denied ballot access to District 2 Court of Appeals candidate Christine Hansen because her declaration of candidacy form was notarized by her husband. The WEC this afternoon voted 5-1, with Commissioner Mark Thomsen casting the sole “no” vote. The vote invalidated Hansen’s declaration, which is required for being placed on the ballot. The deadline for filing a new one expired on Jan. 6, 2026. Hansen was one of just two candidates running for the open seat created by Judge Lisa Neubauer's retirement. The WEC’s decision leaves Anthony LoCoco unopposed. A Wisconsin statute provides that notarization of a record is “voidable” if made by a spouse or a notary who has a “direct beneficial interest” in the record. Hansen’s attorney, Chris Meuler, argued that the statute says “voidable,” not “automatically void,” and that the WEC could decide not to void the document. He argued that the WEC should look at the totality of the circumstances, including that all of the information required was on the form and that Hansen’s husband, better than anyone, knew the veracity of statements to which Hansen attested. Meuler also argued that until found void, Hansen’s declaration was still in effect and she should be allowed to correct it. The WEC’s vote essentially voided the notarization and did not allow for correction. The WEC excluded Christine Hansen from the ballot for failure to timely file a properly sworn declaration of candidacy as required by law. In explaining his position, Thomsen said that more than 1,400 voters want Hansen to be on the ballot, the challenge to the document was “hypertechnical,” and Hansen’s husband’s notarization of the document did not provide any monetary benefit to either spouse because she still would have to win the election. Commissioner Carrie Riepl noted that nonattorney notaries must take a test, which covers notary requirements. Attorneys can be notaries but do not have to take such a test, commissioners noted. They indicated that Hansen's husband is an attorney. Hansen’s declaration was challenged by Kyle Schroeder, a voter residing in Waukesha County. The WEC approved for the ballot all other candidates who timely filed their declarations of candidacy and nomination signatures.
0 Comments
 By Margo Kirchner
Just seven of 30 judicial spots up for election in April are contested. Declarations of candidacy and nomination signatures were due by the end of business on Jan. 6. Contested races include the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat Rebecca Grassl Bradley will vacate at the end of July 2026. Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria S. Lazar timely filed nomination papers with over 3,000 signatures each. Out of three Court of Appeals seats up for election, the only one up for grabs is the open seat from District 2. Judge Lisa Neubauer is retiring. Anthony LoCoco and Christine Hansen face off to replace her. Incumbents Joe Donald (District 1) and Rachel A. Graham (District 4) are not facing challengers. Just five circuit court races offer voters a choice of candidates. Two of those are open seats because the current judge chose not to run. Three involve challengers to recent appointees of Gov. Tony Evers. (Links below lead to WJI’s “Evers’ judges” posts on those appointees.) Just one race, in Dane County, will require a primary. Contested races:
WJI will be sending in-depth questionnaires to candidates in all contested races, asking them about their qualifications and judicial philosophy, cases they think are important, and why they want to be judge. Look for their answers in February and March blog posts. The primary election is Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026. The spring election is April 7, 2026.  By Margo Kirchner
At least seven judicial races are wide open for the April 2026 election. The most prominent races are for the Supreme Court seat currently filled by Justice Rebecca Bradley and the Court of Appeals District 2 seat currently held by Judge Lisa Neubauer. Sitting judges who are not running for reelection were to file a “notification of noncandidacy” by Dec. 26. Failure to file the notice on time does not prohibit the judge from dropping out, but it allows other candidates for that seat a little extra time to gather and file signatures and other required paperwork to run. Judges who have filed notices of noncandidacy for the April 2026 election:
Declarations of candidacy, campaign registration certificates, and nomination papers with valid signatures for 2026 judicial races are due no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 6. If a sitting judge fails to file the notice of noncandidacy and then fails to file the required candidacy documents by Jan. 6, the nomination deadline for others to qualify for that seat extends by 72 hours, to Friday, Jan. 9. Court of Appeals and Milwaukee County Circuit Court candidates must file at least 1,000 and up to 2,000 valid nomination signatures, while circuit candidates in other counties must file at least 200 and up to 400 valid signatures. Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates must file 2,000 to 4,000 valid signatures. The spring election is Tuesday, April 7, 2026. If a primary is necessary, it will be held on Feb. 17.
By Margo Kirchner Twelve judges will change assignments in Milwaukee County Circuit Court effective Aug. 1, 2025. Chief Judge Carl Ashley announced new assignments on March 31. Because of the court’s size, its 47 judges are separated into divisions to handle one type of case. Divisions include criminal felony, criminal misdemeanor, children, family, and civil, with specialties within some of the divisions. The court’s guidelines about rotations indicate that judicial rotations are based on a judge’s length of service in the present division and various judges’ requests, among other things. Judges who have served more than six years normally spend about four years in a division. Newer judges normally serve two to three years in a division and then are moved so they experience more areas of law. Assignments to small claims court are generally just one year unless the judge volunteers to remain. However, the chief judge makes the final assignment decisions based on the needs of the court as a whole and considerations such as a judge’s seniority, background, and expertise, plus stakeholder feedback. Assignments to problem-solving courts, such as drug-treatment court, take into account a judge’s additional specialized knowledge and training. Problem-solving courts include collaborative work and use of various interventions to treat defendants while still holding them accountable. Here are the announced 2025 rotations:   By Margo Kirchner
Just nine judicial races across Wisconsin were contested in yesterday's elections. Susan Crawford’s win in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, of course, made headlines in Wisconsin and nationally. But what happened in the other eight races, all in circuit court? Here are the results based on still-unofficial reports from the respective counties. The Marinette County and Racine County outcomes were quite close. Jefferson County Branch 1: Incumbent Will Gruber beat challenger John Jack Chavez almost 2-to-1 in the vote count. Jefferson County Branch 2: Incumbent Theresa Beck held off challenger Jennifer Weber, with only about 1,100 votes separating them. La Crosse County: Joe Veenstra edged out Eric Sanford for an open seat on the bench, with about 1,500 votes separating them. Marinette County: Incumbent Peggy Miller held off challenger DeShea Morrow, winning by just 138 votes out of almost 14,000 votes cast in that race. Racine County: Challenger Jamie McClendon beat incumbent Jon Frederickson by just 55 votes out of more than 60,000 votes cast in that race. St. Croix County: Brian T. Smestad prevailed over Heather M. Amos for an open seat, with a difference of about 2,750 votes. Waukesha County Branch 4: Challenger David Maas won against incumbent Bridget Schoenborn, 51.4% to 48.1%, with about 5,500 votes separating them. Waukesha County Branch 6: Zach Wittchow prevailed over former judge Fred Strampe, 57.9% to 41.7%, for the open seat currently held by Brad Schimel. By Alexandria Staubach Let’s talk about the other judicial races. While the Supreme Court race has garnered national attention and millions in spending, next week’s ballots also include 53 other judicial candidates. WJI’s blog is archived back to late 2015, and we’ve previously published information on most candidates. Whether it’s coverage of their written opinions, appointment applications to Gov. Evers and former Gov. Walker, or in the case of Lena Taylor coverage of their record in the Wisconsin Legislature, we’ve written something on everyone you’ll find below. Information about judicial candidates can be hard to find and old good information is better than no information. Even if you’ve got an uncontested race on your ticket, WJI encourages you to find your candidates below and check out our previous coverage of them! And of course we’ve written about Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel, too. Look for their names in the categories to the right. COURT OF APPEALS District 2 Mark Gundrum https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/gundrum-derided-settlement-to-end-inmate-abuse https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walking-faster-is-hot-pursuit-appeals-judge-says https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judge-gundrum-oks-language-state-rep-gundrum-proposed https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-strikes-down-seizure-overreach https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/state-appeals-court-strikes-down-wisconsin-diversity-aid-grant-program https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/illegal-questioning-taint-disappears-in-minutes-court-says https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-expands-allowable-owi-car-searches https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/racine-firm-improperly-discriminated-because-of-a-criminal-conviction-appeals-panel-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-reverses-brad-schimel-in-open-meetings-case https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/its-ok-to-lie-to-trick-cognitively-challenged-man-to-get-a-confession-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/15-year-old-waived-to-adult-court-forburglary https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/man-can-be-charged-as-adult-with-crimes-he-committed-at-9 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/once-again-most-judicial-races-lack-competitors https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-chides-kenosha-da-excludes-a-dozen-witnesses District 3 Lisa K Stark https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wow-there-are-limits-to-4th-amendment-loopholes https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-february-court-of-appeals-roundup https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-appeals-court-in-january-final-roundup https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/community-caretaker-search-claim-slapped-down-by-appeals-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/mowing-grass-does-not-require-diggers-hotline-call-appeals-panel-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/post-polygraph-interview-invalidates-confession-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/supreme-court-gets-juvenile-lifers-cases https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/juror-totally-clueless-was-not-confused-appeals-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-scales-of-justice-an-appeals-court-fish-story https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-reads-law-narrowly-denying-confidential-name-change-for-transgender-man https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-declines-to-adopt-new-exception-in-dog-sniff-case https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/police-improperly-prolonged-traffic-stop-to-investigate-for-drugs-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judge-showed-improper-bias-appeals-panel-says District 4 Jennifer Nashold https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/breach-of-plea-agreement-ineffective-assistance https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-court-uphold-surcharges-for-crimes-not-charged https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/probation-violations-end-criminal-record-expungement-chances-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/once-again-most-judicial-races-lack-competitors https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/state-court-of-appeals-punts-on-marsys-law https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/appeals-panel-rules-cars-marijuana-or-cdb-smell-did-not-justify-search-of-driver https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wisconsin-court-of-appeals-oks-resurrection-of-dismissed-conviction-in-impaired-driving-case https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/juneau-county-must-honor-nonprosecution-agreement-of-former-prosecutor-appeals-court-rules CONTESTED CIRCUIT COURT RACES Jefferson County Branch 1 Will Gruber (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-upholds-suppression-of-evidence-based-on-improper-seizure https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-jefferson-county-circuit-court-branch-1 John Jack Chavez https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-jefferson-county-circuit-court-branch-1 Jefferson County Branch 2 Theresa Beck https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-theresa-a-beck https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-jefferson-county-judicial-primary Jennifer L. Weber https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-jefferson-county-judicial-primary La Crosse County Joe Veenstra https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-la-crosse-county-circuit-court5900469 Eric Sanford https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-la-crosse-county-circuit-court5900469 Marinette County Peggy Miller (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-peggy-l-miller https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-marinette-county-circuit-court DeShea Morrow https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-marinette-county-circuit-court Racine County Jon Frederickson (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-jon-e-fredrickson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-racine-county-circuit-court3633505 Jamie McClendon https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-racine-county-circuit-court3633505 Waukesha County Branch 4 Bridget Schoenborn (incumbent) https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-bridget-j-schoenborn https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-4 David Maas https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-brad-d-schimel https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-4 Waukesha County Branch 6 Zach Wittchow https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-6 Fred Strampe https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-fred-strampe https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/meet-the-candidates-for-waukesha-county-circuit-court-branch-6 UNCONTESTED CIRCUIT COURT RACES Brown County Tammy Jo Hock https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/court-of-appeals-reads-law-narrowly-denying-confidential-name-change-for-transgender-man Samantha Wagner https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-samantha-s-wagner Crawford County Lukas Steiner https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-lukas-l-steiner Dane County Payal Khandhar https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-payal-khandhar Rhonda L. Lanford https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/case-challenging-recent-constitutional-amendments-continues https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-feb-3-2022 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/eau-claires-gabler-most-reversed-judge-in-2016 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/lawsuit-challenging-cash-bail-amendments-gets-hearing-in-dane-county-circuit-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/36-judges-call-for-defense-lawyer-pay-hikes https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-april-13-2022 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-july-18-2022 Eau Claire County Douglas Hoffer https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-douglas-j-hoffer Green County Jane Bucher https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-jane-e-bucher La Crosse County Ramona A. Gonzalez https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/the-february-court-of-appeals-roundup https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-daily-reads-for-june-1-2022 https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judges-ask-state-supreme-court-to-limit-juvenile-shackling Lafayette County Jenna Gill https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-jenna-gill https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/breach-of-plea-agreement-ineffective-assistance Milwaukee County John Remington https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-john-r-remington https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/a-significant-number-of-new-judges-in-milwaukee-county David Swanson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/ceasar-stinsons-widow-estate-win-open-records-appeal William Pocan https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/no-unemployment-benefits-for-worker-who-made-homophobic-remarks-appeals-court-rules https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/a-significant-number-of-new-judges-in-milwaukee-county https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/chief-judge-triggiano-reports-on-the-state-of-milwaukee-county-circuit-court Laura A. Crivello https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-laura-a-crivello https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wjis-alexandria-staubach-reports-for-jury-duty https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/state-supreme-court-accepting-comments-on-juvenile-shackling-petition https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judges-ask-state-supreme-court-to-limit-juvenile-shackling https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wji-other-organizations-back-rule-to-limit-juvenile-shackling-in-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/defendant-wins-a-habeas-hearing-seventh-circuit-blasts-state-courts-attorney-generals-office Danielle Shelton https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-win-gives-danielle-shelton-huge-boost-in-milwaukee-county-circuit-court-branch-40-win https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-county-judicial-candidates-jones-and-shelton-discuss-their-judicial-philosophies https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-county-sheriffs-video-policy-unreasonable-appeals-court-says https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/milwaukee-county-judicial-candidates-jones-shelton-on-best-supreme-court-decisions Lena Taylor https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-lena-c-taylor https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/video-january-2023-salon-with-candidates-for-milwaukee-municipal-court https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/majority-in-mba-lawyer-poll-say-kelly-taylor-not-qualified https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/lawmakers-seek-funding-for-a-42-million-juvenile-prison https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/bill-limiting-prosecutor-discretion-heads-to-governor-for-signature https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/lawmakers-disagree-on-scope-and-effect-of-revocation-bill https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/slavery-lives-on-in-wisconsin Ozaukee County Adam Gerol https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-adam-y-gerol Racine County Scott Craig https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/evers-judges-scott-p-craig Rock County Karl R. Hanson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/walkers-judges-karl-r-hanson https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/judge-ignores-court-of-appeals-sentences-on-dismissed-charge https://www.wjiinc.org/blog/wisconsin-court-of-appeals-oks-resurrection-of-dismissed-conviction-in-impaired-driving-case
In Jefferson County, Branch 1 incumbent Will Gruber is challenged by attorney John Jack A. Chavez. The election is April 1. Gruber was appointed to Jefferson County Circuit Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 and won election to a full term in 2019. He previously was the city attorney for Watertown, assistant corporation counsel for Dodge County, and an attorney in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2004. His resume is here. Chavez is an attorney at Chavez Law Office LLC in Lake Mills, Wisconsin. He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 1990. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Gruber responded to WJI's questionnaire. Chavez did not. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Will Gruber
Why do you want to retain your position as a judge? I have been a Circuit Court Judge in Branch 1 of Jefferson County since August 2018. I have tried or presided over 38 jury trials as a lawyer or judge. As a judge I have been assigned to hear and decide hundreds of cases across every subject matter and jurisdiction including criminal, civil, family, probate and juvenile law. I presided over the Alcohol and Drug Treatment Courts in 2023. I wish to retain my role as Circuit Court Judge because the work is deeply fulfilling and aligned with my aptitudes and commitment to ensuring fair play and due process in the courtroom. Personal satisfaction comes by way of service to others and the rule of law. The impacts of my decisions and actions are routinely experienced in direct, visible, and, therefore, rewarding ways. Rarely does a week go by where I am not left to reflect on the individual human impacts brought about by being called-up to further the protection of life and fundamental legal rights. The judge and the advocate make-up our adversarial legal system; neither role is fundamentally superior to the other. That being said, my basic strengths and broader interest in the system, as a whole, have always suited me for “calling balls and strikes” (not “pitching and hitting”). At the most basic level, the responsibility of a judge is to make sure others play by the rules. I believe that administering the law from a place of accountability requires that a judge impose the same demands on himself or herself. Not every candidate for judicial office demonstrates commitment to the “form” requirements of judicial office, particularly when it comes to personal behavior and civility. I have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to integrity and answerability. I view the judiciary as a stabilizing force in government and many of the basic operations of society, especially when it comes to furthering institutional integrity. Assuming this sort of responsibility as an occupation is profoundly motivating. After several years on the bench, my dedication to ensuring fairness and due process in our civil and criminal justice systems “feels” very much like a natural station in life. The motivation to do right by my oath comes easy and the calling to do this work is total and complete. There are no doubt a variety of fulfilling lines of work in the legal system, but for me, the daily work as a trial judge truly delivers on the desire for contribution and service. I enjoy going to a job where I am answerable only to the law and the people who have hired me to administer the law. Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why. Both Supreme Courts routinely hand down decisions of enormous legal impact. In selecting and elaborating on only one I place a premium on the recency of the opinion, scale of personal, individual human impact, and relevance to the work and concerns of our local criminal justice systems, parties and victims. I will refer to a case decided last summer by the U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Rahmi upholds the federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) that criminalizes the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Legally and practically this opinion confirmed the ability of the government to disarm violent persons. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined, based on earlier precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the “historic tradition” test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen) that since there was not a late 18th-century parallel to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the law was unconstitutional. In Rahmi, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the lower court was unduly exacting in comparing and contrasting early American law with the modern-day subject legislation. Essentially, the opinion provided that a historical analogue in the law, but not necessarily a “twin,” was necessary to survive Constitutional scrutiny. The Court determined that early American laws that disarmed “dangerous classes” of people, regardless of the form, function or motivation of the early legislation, were sufficiently similar to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). It is not an overstatement to suggest that the result in Rahmi is lifesaving. Domestic violence is, in my estimation, and consistent with my day-to-day experience as a judge, a public health crisis. I observe on an almost daily basis, the proportions of this form of violence. Prosecutors, law enforcement and judges have to be able to utilize laws that protect victims of domestic violence by disarming abusers. Those who have been found to have inflicted physical violence on another are legitimately disarmed by the government thanks to Rahmi. This is a decidedly important decision for victims of domestic violence. Describe your judicial philosophy. My judicial philosophy is simple: apply the laws of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitution and those passed by the legislature to the facts. The judicial branch applies and interprets the law – nothing more, nothing less. The work of the trial judge is directed almost exclusively to the “application” function of the judicial branch; interpreting on a grand scale is rarely occasioned at the circuit court; when it is, the circuit court’s interpretation is often subject to review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. As such, the circuit court’s primary function is “simply” administering the law as written. Many areas of the law are complex, but the essential role of the judiciary, and, especially the trial courts, is simple. The judicial branch is charged with being the most restrained branch of government. During my time on the bench, I have adhered to this essential precept. I am also recognized for my integrity, fairness and basic consideration for others. I actively listen to everyone who wants and deserves a voice in the courtroom. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. Both the criminal and civil justice systems serve vital functions in our society; however, as a circuit court judge, the most significant cases I have been involved in are prosecutions brought by the State on behalf of the public. These are often cases where the safety of many are made vulnerable by the behavior of a few. These are cases where there is a mandate, regardless of public appeal, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all, including the accused, are safeguarded. These are cases where our juries search for the truth and often deliver a result that leaves for the court the responsibility to ensure, among other considerations, that the community is protected. These are cases where I have done right by my obligation to ensure constitutional and statutory protections are safeguarded and, at the same time, the public is protected. It is not possible to cite only two specific cases of this character, but these are the most significant cases I am involved with as a judicial officer. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have practiced privately and as a government lawyer. I have represented individuals, businesses, non-profits and a variety of other interests. As an attorney I have worked for and represented a county and a city; as a circuit court judge, I am employed by the State of Wisconsin and answerable to the people of Jefferson County. I practiced generally in civil, family and probate for six years before government representation with Dodge County as an assistant corporation counsel. In this role, I represented and advised the County with focuses in guardianship, ordinance enforcement, mental health petitions, CHIPS cases, guardianship and protective placement matters. After this position, I was appointed City Attorney for the City of Watertown where I served as in-house counsel to the City and its departments and Common Council. This work involved advising and representing the City in a wide variety of legal and policy interests including local regulation, licensing, tax incremental financing and human resources. I was also responsible for the prosecution of all traffic and ordinance violations, including first offense impaired driving offenses. 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. Last spring I suffered a meniscus tear. This presented as a significant personal challenge. Daily, early morning running has been an anchoring and motivating force for me for very many years. It supports my mental clarity, general “down-regulation” and overall positive emotional responses. Identifying “courage” with the concept of resolution, helps me to describe the challenge as something that required several months of mental perseverance. I had to resolve to re-program my days with alternative times and forms of exercise. I also had to arrive at a core acceptance in denying myself (for several months) what amounted to a long-standing, single means of decompression. I came to learn that running was simply a habituated preference, but not the be all and end all exercise outlet… I continued to live by the other principles of good health and allowed the healing process to culminate on its own terms. 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 the recusal and disqualification requirements of Supreme Court Rules and state statute (Wisconsin SCR 60 and, in particular, SCR 60.04, and, Wis. Stat. § 757.19). I strongly support a judicial officer erring on the side of recusals or disqualification if there’s any doubt, whatsoever, as to whether she or he can sit for a case with the required neutrality, impartiality and fidelity to the law. This is the only right thing to do; this is what is demanded by those who come to court for fair and responsible disposition of cases. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define "true justice" as you see fit.] As of recent, the basic precept of judicial independence and the rule of law itself is commonly burdened by matters of personality and partisanship as well as other negative and distracting influences that have no place in the work of the judiciary. Judges owe it to themselves, individually, and to the institution as a whole, to be ever vigilant and defend against illicit pressures on their independence. I refuse to be involved in partisan enterprises and narratives that undermine the judicial independence. I believe all judicial officers are obligated to regularly call to mind the injunction to rule without fear or favor. Implicit or unconscious bias is its own unique and individualized impediment to furthering the end of the fair application of law. This sort of bias naturally goes along with the human condition. This is not a subject that should inspire debate or defensiveness. The threshold at the path to addressing this impact to impartiality is becoming aware of its reality. In recent years, it has become common to read instructions to juries that call attention to naturally occurring bias. It is just as vital for judicial officers to take seriously the problem of this type of partiality. The court system has taken meaningful steps to bring awareness to this challenge with mandatory judicial education. Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel vie for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court created by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's retirement. The election is April 1. Crawford is a trial judge on the Dane County Circuit Court. She graduated from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1994. Schimel is a trial judge on the Waukesha County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1990. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Crawford responded to WJI's questionnaire. Schimel did not. Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Susan Crawford
Why do you want to become a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? As a prosecutor, private-practice attorney, and now as a judge, I have always worked to protect the basic rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites under our laws and Constitution, and to use my legal training and experience to have a positive impact on people and communities. I have broad legal experience, including arguing before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in both criminal and civil cases. I know how important it is to have Wisconsin Supreme Court justices who are fair and impartial and who will reject efforts to politicize the Court and undermine our constitutional rights. Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why. The Court’s decision in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is particularly significant because it upheld the Wisconsin Constitution and our democratic principles. I agree with the majority's decision in this case, which found the state’s legislative maps unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, the legislature and the governor agreed to new maps that comply with the Wisconsin Constitution. Describe your judicial philosophy. My approach to judicial decision making is people-centered and grounded in common sense. I consider myself a pragmatist. I work hard to get the facts right and to apply the law fairly and impartially. In my view, our laws are tools to protect people. It’s important to consider the purposes of the law and how it will affect the parties when applying it. My goal is always to arrive at a fair and just result. Another core component to my judicial philosophy is how I treat people in my courtroom. I want everyone who enters my courtroom, whether or not they achieve the result they were seeking, to leave feeling they were heard, treated with respect, and got their day in court. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. As a judge, the most significant cases I have presided over involve children and families. In cases involving children in need of protection and services, I had the opportunity and privilege to reunite children with their families after the parents received court-ordered services to help them to overcome problems like mental health crises and drug addiction that had prevented them from caring for their children. As a lawyer, I litigated several high-profile public interest cases that broadly impacted the rights of Wisconsinites. One such case was Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad Schimel. Our team of lawyers successfully challenged an anti-abortion law that threatened doctors with the loss of their medical licenses for providing abortions to women. The law was found unconstitutional by the federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin and the decision was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. As a former prosecutor, government attorney, private-practice attorney, and now as a Circuit Court Judge, I’ve dedicated my entire career to upholding the law and protecting Wisconsinites under our laws and constitution. I started my career at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, where I prosecuted felony cases in the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, prosecuted health care fraud and abuse cases in circuit courts throughout the state, and and served as director of criminal appeals, the largest legal unit at the DOJ. As chief legal counsel in the office of Governor Jim Doyle, I oversaw the fair and equal enforcement and application of our laws throughout state government. Later in my career, as a civil litigator in private practice, I advocated for Wisconsinites from all walks of life, standing up for their rights in court. 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. When I was in high school, my dad, an engineer, was laid off from his job. It took some time for him to find another job in his highly technical field. As a result, my family went through some tough times financially. I did my part by financing my own college education. 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 am open to considering proposals to strengthen the recusal rules for judges and justices. As a judge, I make decisions on recusal after evaluating the parties and legal issues raised in the case. If I believe I am unable to be fair and impartial for any reason, I do not remain on the case. Just as I have in my current courtroom, I will look at every case that comes before me on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and make a determination as to whether it’s appropriate for me to sit on that case. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit.] The most significant obstacle is the lack of affordable legal services to people facing significant legal issues without representation. Although as a judge I take care to explain courtroom procedures to pro se litigants, many civil cases, including evictions, family court matters, and mortgage foreclosures involve complex legal issues that place unrepresented parties at a disadvantage. As a judge, I’ve seen firsthand how the lack of representation affects parties and the legal system. Low or no-cost legal representation or legal clinics, simplified court procedures and forms, and better access to quality legal research materials could help reduce these disadvantages. If elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I’ll advocate for increased resources to serve Wisconsinites fairly and effectively. To me, justice means that everyone who comes into my courtroom is treated fairly and with respect, regardless of the outcome. It’s about thoroughly examining all the facts, weighing the evidence impartially, and ensuring each party has an equal opportunity to be heard. Above all, it’s about upholding the law with fairness, transparency, and accountability. I want everyone who enters my courtroom to leave feeling they were treated with respect and got their day in court. Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote. My opponent, Brad Schimel, has spent his entire career as an extreme politician and has made it clear that he’s more interested in pushing a partisan, right-wing agenda than upholding the independence and impartiality of our courts. During his time as Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General, he defended Scott Walker’s attacks on workers’ rights and our basic freedoms—putting politics ahead of the people he was supposed to serve. As a former prosecutor, private-practice attorney, and now as a judge, I have spent my career focused on upholding our laws and Constitution, and fighting to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Wisconsinites. I am committed to fairness, impartiality, and ensuring that every person enters my courtroom, whether they win or lose, gets a fair shake. Brad Schimel has also shown a troubling willingness to prejudge cases before they even reach the bench. He’s openly condemned the recent ruling overturning portions of Act 10 and continues to defend Wisconsin’s outdated 1849 abortion ban as “valid.” That’s not how justice should work. If I have the honor of serving on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I will approach every case with an open mind—listening carefully to both sides, weighing the facts, and applying the law based on the Constitution and established precedent. That’s what fairness demands, and that’s what Wisconsinites deserve. In La Crosse County, Joe Veenstra and Eric S. Sanford vie for an open seat. The election is April 1. The candidates are listed in the order shown on the Wisconsin Elections Commission's candidate tracking form; the order does not in any way reflect a preference or endorsement by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which is nonpartisan. Veenstra is an attorney at the Johns, Flaherty & Collins law firm in La Crosse and is a supplemental court commissioner in La Crosse County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. His resume is here. Sanford is a family court commissioner in La Crosse County Circuit Court and previously was an assistant district attorney in La Crosse County, a private practice attorney, and an assistant state public defender. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2011. His resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions 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 Racine County, Jamie M. McClendon challenges incumbent Jon Fredrickson in Branch 7. The election is April 1. McClendon is an attorney practicing at McClendon Law, LLC, and previously was a staff attorney in the State Public Defender's Office. She graduated from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law in 2007. Her resume is here. Fredrickson was appointed Racine County Circuit Court judge by Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 and then elected to a full term in 2019. He previously was an attorney at Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1999. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. McClendon responded to WJI's questionnaire. Fredrickson did not. However, voters can find out more about him in this WJI blog post, which included portions of his application to Walker. Candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.  Why do you want to become a judge?
After my mother retired from the Army, she became a Teamsters member who worked in a factory for 30 years. We were a working-class family, but because of my mother’s hard work, my sister and I were able to follow our dreams. The dedication and values my mother instilled in me while I was growing up has had the biggest impact on my career. She taught me to do what is right, and to protect people who are the most vulnerable. I became the first in my family to go to college and then to law school. Once I passed the bar exam, I became an attorney at the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office in Racine County. My career as public defender is where the beliefs and values my mother instilled in me are exhibited the most. Many of the people that come through the criminal justice system are from a background of poverty and rely on public defenders to represent them. Public defenders have the difficult duty of speaking up for people others may overlook or ignore; and are integral in making sure our justice system is fair. Public defenders play an important role in protecting people’s rights. While public defender’s play an important role in fighting for people’s rights; judges ensure equal justice for everyone to prevent violations of people’s rights. Judges must have the strength to do what is right and not allow outside pressure to impact their decision. With this strength, should come an understanding on how judges’ decisions can impact those who are the most vulnerable in our community. Both my personal and professional experiences have guided me to stand up for what is right and I believe to my core that everyone deserves to be treated fairly in our justice system. This is why I became a lawyer, a public defender, and this is why I want to be a judge. Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why. Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct 2484 (2019): The Wisconsin Supreme Court relied on this case when determining the limited role the judiciary has on redistricting legislative maps. The Court does not have power to intervene with redistricting when it comes to political parties. It must only review legislative maps to ensure they are in compliance with our constitution and statutes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed that the maps at the time were not constitutional based on the lack of “one person, one vote” due to a shift in the locations of the population according to the most recent consensus. They declined to be involved with the political question of the map being fairly drawn for a political party. This had a positive impact on Wisconsin because maps should be drawn to ensure everyone’s votes count. Describe your judicial philosophy. A judge should show judicial restraint and be reluctant in reinterpreting the law. She should respect our Constitution and not allow outside pressures impact their decisions. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. 1. 1st Degree Intentional Homicide-Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of a Firearm by a Felon, Misdemeanor Bail Jumping, Jurisdiction: Jury Trial: July 19, 2022 This was my first Intentional Homicide case that went to trial. The discovery was voluminous. Unlike the State, I did not have officers or other staff to help me review over 100 hours of surveillance videos and thousands of pages of reports and collected data. In addition, time was very limited due to my client’s request for a speedy trial that had to be held within 90 days of the demand. I also did not have co-counsel. I had to organize and review everything on my own to be ready for a speedy trial. By the time of trial, I was prepared to give the vigorous defense my client deserved. I was equipped to cross examine experts in DNA testing, cell phone data and tracking, medical records, and law enforcement. In the end, the jury found my client guilty on all counts. This case is significant to me because it shows how important it is that our justice system has competent and dedicated attorneys on both sides to be fair. 2. Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide, First Degree Reckless Endangering Safety, First Degree Reckless Endangering Safety-Causing Injury, Possession of a Firearm by a Felon: Jury Trial: March 3, 2020 From the start of this case, there was one concerning issue: the reliability of the eye witness identification. In reviewing the recording of the identifying witness’s statement to the police, it was clear that this witness was being treated more like a suspect than a potential victim. He was on probation and the officer had already requested an arrest warrant for him. Prior to trial, there were two hearings in which the key identifying witness had to provide testimony. One was at my client’s revocation hearing and the other was at a deposition hearing. At both hearings, the witness denied that my client was the shooter. At the revocation hearing, the ALJ did not find the witness’ identification credible and denied the department request for revocation. The State was aware that my client was not revoked and decided to continue to trial anyways. In addition to this witness, there was an alleged victim who was shot in the leg. She told the officer from the beginning of the investigation that she could identify the shooter. She said he was walking right towards her and she saw his face. When she was provided a photo line-up that included my client, she did not identify him as the shooter. She testified to the same at trial. This case was significant to me because I had to convince the jury that the identification of my client was unreliable because the identifying witness was susceptible to overwhelming pressure to name my client as the shooter. Ultimately, the jury found my client not guilty on all counts. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have been practicing in Racine County for 13 years. I have represented the people of Racine in over 1500 cases. These cases include juvenile court, criminal, family, civil commitments, and probation revocations. I have handled minor disorderly conduct cases all the way up to first degree homicide cases. 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. One of the biggest injustices I witnessed in the courtroom happened to my client. He was charged with another young man for a robbery. Both equally participated in this crime. However, that is where the similarities ended. The other guy had a personal issue with the victim and set up the robbery. He was smug and rude to the police when asked about his involvement. My client was helpful and provided information to the police. The State offered the other guy a lower charge, a probation recommendation, and expungement. My client was offered a charge that was not eligible for expungement and a prison recommendation. I provided the Court with as much information as I could about his upbringing and neglect as a child. I was hoping that, although the Court could not change the charge he pleaded to, she would at least give them the same sentence. She did not. Despite the victim's family’s support of my client, the judge sentenced him to prison. She sentenced the co-defendant to probation and granted his expungement. The only other difference between these two was their race. My client was black. The co-defendant was white. My response to this event was running for judge in Racine County. 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? A fair judge should be able to acknowledge any possible implicit or explicit bias within themselves. She should strive to prevent bias from interfering with her decision-making. Racine County deserves to have an independent judge that does not allow public pressure or politics to dictate the outcome of a case. I do think that a judge should recuse themselves from cases in which donors contributed to their campaign. I believe any amount of donations should be reviewed for any possible bias in deciding a case. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit.] True justice is defined by the preamble of the Code of Judicial Conduct: “[a] judge must be independent, fair and competent when they interpret and apply the laws to the facts and circumstances of the cases presented.” The judge’s role is to listen to both sides of a case and then interpret and apply the law to that case. One of the greatest obstacles a judge faces when trying to accomplish true justice is the volume of cases, especially in criminal court. I look to the two judges I admire, the Honorable John Jude and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for examples on how to effectively ensure that everyone is treated fairly and justly. Both judges are known for asking questions of the parties to get a better understanding of the presented case. They both seek to understand the people, the issues, and the arguments presented to make sure they will fashion an informed decision when applying the law. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed