Wisconsin Justice Initiative blog - Wisconsin Justice Initiative Inc.

Judicial elections roundup: results from around the state

4/8/2026

By Margo Kirchner

Just seven judicial races across Wisconsin were contested in yesterday's elections. You’ve likely already heard about Judge Chris Taylor winning the open Supreme Court seat over Judge Maria Lazar.

No Wisconsin Court of Appeals races were contested, so Judges Joe Donald and Rachel Graham were reelected to Districts 1 and 4 respectively, and newcomer Anthony LoCoco will join the appeals court in District 2.

What happened in the six contested circuit court races? Here are results from the unofficial reports posted online by the respective counties.

Dane County Branch 1: Recently appointed incumbent Ben Jones held off challenger Huma Ahsan, 55.7% to 43.9%.

Florence and Forest Counties: Robert A. Kennedy Jr., with 2,182 votes, defeated Alex Seifert, with 1,644 votes. Kennedy will succeed retiring Judge Leon Stenz.

Marathon County Branch 3: Michael D. Hughes defeated Douglas Bauman, 64.6% to 35.2%. Hughes will succeed retiring Judge LaMont Jacobson.

Washburn County: Incumbent Angeline Winton-Roe beat challenger Aaron Marcoux by 819 votes, 2,792 to 1,973.

Washington County Branch 2: Challenger Grant Scaife won against the incumbent, recently appointed Gordon Leech, 60.5% to 39.1%.

Wood County Branch 3: Recently appointed incumbent Emily Nolan-Plutchak held off challenger Elizabeth Gebert, winning by 659 votes, 9,588 to 8,929.

The election winners will start their new terms on Aug. 1, 2026.

Supreme Court debate includes reference to WJI's lawsuit challenging the 2020 Marsy's Law constitutional amendment

4/6/2026

By Margo Kirchner

In last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate debate, Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s legal challenge to the spring 2020 ballot question was the foundation for one of the final questions.

WISN 12 in Milwaukee held and broadcast the debate between Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar on April 2.

About 10 minutes before the end, WISN moderator Matt Smith asked Taylor why she had voted against the constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law when she was a state legislator. Taylor served in the Wisconsin Assembly prior to appointment as a circuit court judge in 2020.

After Taylor’s answer, discussing her constituents' concerns with the provision, Smith turned to Lazar. He asked her about Marsy’s Law as follows:

“Judge Lazar, critics have challenged the wording on the ballot as unclear and insufficient. The court, though, in a 6-1 ruling, disagreed with that. It has led to some questions, including new debates, about what information should be made public and when. Are there negative, unintended consequences to Marsy’s Law?”

Lazar first answered that the amendment “is a very good, strong law,” but admitted that “there are some issues that have come up” for the courts to decide.

“I think there are some points that will have to be addressed, but overall it has been astonishingly effective and important,” she said.

She attributed issues with the amendment to the drafters not knowing all the possible perspectives or effects. “It’s not like we have lawyers in our Legislature drafting most of these bills,” she said.

Though Smith did not name WJI or mention the caption of the court decision, his question referenced the lawsuit WJI brought in 2019 to challenge the Marsy’s Law ballot question. WJI argued that the ballot question not only failed to fully and fairly inform voters about the contents of the amendment but, in fact, misled them.

WJI argued that the ballot question failed to inform voters of the amendment’s reduction of rights of an accused. An accused's right to a fair trial, for instance, was deleted from the constitution.

The Supreme Court in 2023 ruled against WJI, six to one, on a ground that had not been raised by the state defendants and that two justices sprung on the parties at oral argument.

The decision gave the Legislature broad freedom to describe proposed amendments, regardless of voters being confused or misled by the ballot questions. Voters are not entitled to a fair explanation of what they are voting on.

Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the majority that the Wisconsin Constitution “does not require any substantive discussion of the amendment in the ballot question submitted to the people. No explanation or summary is constitutionally commanded.” A ballot question is deficient “only in the rare circumstance that the question is fundamentally counterfactual such that voters were not asked to approve the actual amendment,” he wrote.

Justice Rebecca Bradley concurred, saying that “(t)he constitutional purpose of a ballot question . . . is not to educate voters.”

“Voters are trusted to inform themselves,” she wrote.

A recent bill, AB 207, would have provided voters with significantly more information. Introduced by Republicans, it ended up with bipartisan support in the Assembly, where it passed out of committee with a unanimous vote in October 2025 and then passed the full Assembly in November.

The bill would have required the Legislature to draft a one-page disclosure notice for voters with the entire text of the actual proposed constitutional amendment (not just the ballot question), a plain language summary of existing law, and a plain language explanation of the effect of the proposed amendment. The disclosure notice would be published on the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s voter registration website for at least 30 days before an election, posted on each county clerk’s website, mailed with absentee ballots, and posted at the polls on election day.

Sponsor Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond du Lac) stated in written testimony in both chambers that “(n)o one likes to be at a disadvantage when asked to take a position on a crucial matter such as amending the state Constitution. Yet that is how we treat our voters when we present the voters with a referendum question on a ballot. This is unfair and unreasonable. We can and should do better.”

Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) stated in written testimony urging passage, “Ballot questions are not written to explain a proposal, they’re written to implement it.” He noted that the bill "strengthens voter trust through transparency and accuracy."

The Senate received the Assembly’s approved bill in November. However, the bill did not progress through the Senate’s Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs. The bill died when the Legislature adjourned in March 2026.

The Senate’s version of the bill, SB 205, received a hearing in that same committee in November 2025, but the committee failed to vote on it.

As for Lazar’s statement that the Legislature does not have lawyers drafting bills, in the case of the Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment, it might not have been drafted by people in Wisconsin at all.

Marsy’s Law has been the personal cause of Broadcom founder, billionaire, and later convicted drug felon Henry Nicholas III, following the tragic murder of his sister. Beginning with a Marsy’s Law constitutional amendment in California in 2008, he and his organizations have advocated for substantially similar amendments in at least 20 states.

Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin, LLC spent over $1.5 million from January 2017 through June 2019 lobbying the Legislature to approve the amendment and ballot question so the matter could be sent to voters in spring 2020.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar (L) and Chris Taylor (R) vie for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The election is tomorrow, Apr. 7.

Meet the candidates for Washburn County Circuit Court

3/20/2026

Candidates Aaron Marcoux and Angeline Winton-Roe vie for the seat on the Washburn County Circuit Court currently held by Winton-Roe. The election is April 7.

Marcoux is the Washburn County district attorney, having been appointed by Gov. Tony Evers in 2019 and elected to four-year terms in 2020 and 2024. Before then he was an assistant district attorney, and before that an assistant state public defender. He graduated from the University of Wyoming College of Law in 2010. A copy of his resume/CV is here.

Winton-Roe is the incumbent, having been appointed to the seat by Gov. Tony Evers in 2019 and elected to a six-year term in 2020. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about her is here. She previously was the elected Washburn County District Attorney; before that she worked in private practice and then as an assistant district attorney. She graduated from the William Mitchell College of Law (St. Paul, Minnesota) in 2008. A copy of her resume/CV 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.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.

Marcoux

Aaron Marcoux

Why do you want to become a judge?

I am seeking to serve as Washburn County Circuit Court Judge to continue serving our community and to help ensure our court operates with fairness, efficiency, and respect for everyone who enters the courtroom.

Early in life I saw firsthand the impact of what happens in a courtroom. As a child I witnessed the harm caused by domestic violence, but I also experienced the positive impact of the justice system when I was adopted just before my 11th birthday. Those experiences shaped my understanding that the court plays an important role in both protecting people and helping families move forward.

During college I became involved in student government, which strengthened my interest in law and public service. As my understanding of the world grew, so did my desire to help others through a career in the legal system.

For more than 15 years I have served the State of Wisconsin as both a public defender and a prosecutor. That experience has allowed me to work in courts across northern Wisconsin and to see how important fairness, consistency, and professionalism are to maintaining public trust.

I also believe strongly that the court belongs to the people it serves, not the individual sitting on the bench. A judge’s role is not about power or position, but about responsibility. The judge must apply the law fairly, listen carefully, and treat every person who enters the courtroom with dignity and respect.

Serving as judge would allow me to continue serving our community and bringing that commitment to the bench.

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.

One U.S. Supreme Court decision that has had a significant impact on elections nationwide, including in Wisconsin, is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In that case, the Supreme Court considered whether federal campaign finance laws could restrict political spending by corporations and other organizations. The Court ultimately held that the First Amendment protects independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and other entities, concluding that political spending is a form of protected speech.

The decision substantially changed the landscape of campaign finance in the United States by allowing independent groups to spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against political candidates, provided those expenditures are not coordinated with a campaign.

The effects of this decision became clear in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Harnessing the power of the Citizens United ruling, outside independent groups made it the most expensive judicial election in American history. Spending exceeded $100 million dollars with an estimated 60% coming from outside the State of Wisconsin. Spending on this single race was more than twice the amount spent on State Supreme Court races nationwide in 2000.

The effect of this decision on the people is significant. Wisconsin is one of a relatively small number of states where judges are elected by the public. That system reflects an important principle: the authority exercised by the judiciary ultimately comes from the people.

The fact that outside contributors spent more than the candidates themselves raise the question: If outside contributors in elections have more influence on the electors than the candidates themselves who will the candidates be serving once elected? And if this level of spending continues in judicial elections, then how will we maintain confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

Judicial philosophy generally involves two related questions: how a judge interprets the law and how a judge understands their role within our system of government.

First, when interpreting the law, judges must begin with the text of the constitution, statutes, and controlling case law. Words should be interpreted according to their plain and intended meaning at the time they were written. Courts should apply the law as it is written rather than rewriting or expanding it to achieve a preferred outcome.

Second, judges must respect the constitutional structure of government. Our system was intentionally designed with separate roles for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislature writes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the courts interpret and apply them to individual cases.

Because of this structure, a judge’s responsibility is not to create policy or substitute personal preferences for the law. Instead, the judge must apply the law faithfully and consistently while ensuring that the constitutional rights of all individuals are protected.

Ultimately, a judge’s role is to provide a fair and neutral forum where disputes are resolved according to the law and the facts presented in each case.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

Throughout my career I have handled many serious cases, but those involving the loss of human life have been among the most significant. I have both defended and prosecuted homicide cases. These cases are profound not only because a life has been lost, but because of the lasting impact on families and the broader community.

For the victim’s family, the loss is permanent and deeply personal. For the defendant, the stakes are equally significant because the consequences of the legal process will affect the remainder of their life. In these cases there are no real “winners.” The role of the justice system is to ensure the truth is presented, the law is applied fairly, and everyone involved is treated with dignity and respect.

Another significant case involved the prosecution of a former priest for child sexual assault that had occurred nearly thirty years earlier. The defendant had left the United States and lived overseas for many years. When he eventually returned to the United States for medical treatment, the case could proceed because the statute of limitations had been tolled while he was outside the jurisdiction.

The case required working closely with multiple victims who had carried the effects of the abuse for decades. Bringing the case forward presented evidentiary and logistical challenges due to the age of the allegations. However, the outcome provided many of the victims with a sense that their voices had finally been heard and that accountability had been achieved.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

For the past 15 years my legal career has focused primarily on criminal litigation in northern Wisconsin.

I began my career in 2010 as a Wisconsin State Public Defender representing individuals in Ashland, Bayfield, and Iron Counties. That role involved advising clients, litigating motions, conducting trials, and ensuring that constitutional rights were protected throughout the legal process.

In 2015 I joined the Sawyer County District Attorney’s Office as an Assistant District Attorney. In that role I prosecuted a wide range of criminal matters and worked closely with law enforcement, victims, and community partners.

In 2019 I was appointed Washburn County District Attorney and was subsequently elected to that position in 2020 and re-elected in 2024.

In addition to criminal prosecution and defense work, my experience has included civil and quasi-civil proceedings such as Child in Need of Protection or Services cases, juvenile matters, termination of parental rights cases, and sexually violent person civil commitment proceedings.

My career has also involved participation in treatment courts, including Drug Court and Veterans Court, which focus on addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior while maintaining accountability.

Regarding administrative proceedings I represented probationers in revocation proceedings within the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and review proceedings for individuals who have been placed in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services.

In Wyoming, I assisted in representing the State Departments of Health, Education, Family Services, and Transportation for Wyoming Attorney General’s Office. I also served as an extern law clerk for the Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court, where I conducted legal research, prepared memoranda, and assisted the court in reviewing legal arguments and case materials.

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.

Like many people, I experienced challenges early in life that shaped my perspective. These experiences ultimately influenced my path toward the legal profession.

One of my earliest memories occurred when I was about five years old. My two younger sisters were visiting their father overnight when he became intoxicated. My mother went to retrieve them, and because I was too young to stay home alone, I went with her. When we arrived, an argument began that eventually became physical.

Even as a young child, I instinctively tried to place myself between my mother and the abuse in an attempt to protect her. Given the difference in size, I was easily pushed aside and thrown against the wall. This process repeated several times. This experience, coupled with being the oldest child and the only male in the family left me feeling I had a duty to protect. First my family and eventually everyone I could.

A few years later, my mother met the man who would later become my father. I vividly remember another night when my sisters’ father attempted to break into our home while intoxicated. This time my father stood between him and our family. For the first time, I understood what it meant to have someone protecting us.

He later adopted me when I was eleven years old and helped create the stable family environment that allowed me to overcome those traumatic events moving forward in life with confidence and conviction.

The family destruction from divorce, effects of domestic violence and joys of adoption all happen to real people in the courtroom every day. The people enduring these realities are our neighbors and deserve dignity and respect when life brings them into a courtroom. They also deserve a court that understands its primary purpose is to serve them. A court that is unaffected by external pressures providing predictable and consistent outcomes.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of 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 recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including situations involving campaign contributions.

Judges are held to high ethical standards that require them not only to avoid actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. Public confidence in the judicial system depends on the knowledge that decisions are made based solely on the law and the facts of the case.

If a reasonable person could question whether a financial contribution created an obligation or influence, recusal may be appropriate to preserve confidence in the court’s neutrality.

At the same time, the rules governing campaign contributions and recusal standards are established through the legislative process and through judicial ethics rules. Judges must follow those standards as written. Although contribution limits may provide more stability to the election process, as a judge it would not be my role to set nor create those limits.

The goal should always be maintaining trust in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system.

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 generally defined as the impartial and proportional application of fairness focused on restoration and reconciliation. True justice aims to hold offenders accountable and provide safety for those involved while addressing the root cause(s) of the behavior.

One of the greatest challenges judges face is the limited number of tools available to address complex human problems. Courts typically rely on three primary options: financial penalties, probation, and incarceration. Each of these can serve an important purpose, but they are not always sufficient to address the root causes of behavior such as addiction, mental health challenges, or economic instability.

Another challenge is the limited availability of resources needed to support rehabilitation and prevention efforts. Evidence based approaches such as treatment courts, substance abuse programs, and other intervention strategies have shown positive results, but they depend heavily on community resources and cooperation among agencies.

As with most systemic issues in government, the first response needs to be more resources, but money in and of itself is not the cure. Northern Wisconsin communities need more addiction specialists, mental health providers and housing options. Community resources need to be pooled and coalitions strengthened. Experts from varying disciplines need to collaborate to identify and implement strategic community wide programs. The courts must be an active participant in the discussion to understand the needs of the community and be aware of available resources. Once informed, the courts can make decisions that protect public safety and promote accountability.

The goal of the court is to apply the law fairly while encouraging outcomes that strengthen the community and reduce future harm.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Voters should understand that a judicial election is not simply about choosing an individual. This election is about choosing how the court will serve the community.

I believe the authority exercised by the court ultimately comes from the people. The courtroom is a public institution designed to serve the community, not the individual sitting on the bench.

Throughout my life I have been guided by the idea of servant leadership. My father served more than thirty years in the Army and Army Reserve, and that example of service shaped my approach to both life and career. My older brother followed in his footsteps, allowing me to be the first person in my family to attend college. I worked my way through community college, university, and law school before beginning my legal career.

For more than fifteen years I have served the people of northern Wisconsin as a public defender, prosecutor and as an advocate for community health initiatives. Those experiences have given me a broad understanding of the justice system and the responsibility that comes with decisions made in the courtroom.

If elected, I will bring a commitment to fairness, efficiency, and respect to the Washburn County Circuit Court. I will approach the role with humility and a clear understanding that the court exists to serve the people of our community.

Winton-Roe

Angeline Winton-Roe

Why do you want to continue as a judge?

Serving as a judge is both a responsibility and a privilege. Every case that comes before the court represents something deeply important in someone’s life: their family, their safety, their livelihood, or their future. The role of a judge is to approach each matter with fairness, patience, and careful attention to the law and the facts.

I have sought to carry out this responsibility with humility and respect for the people of Washburn County. Our community expects a court that is steady, thoughtful, and impartial. My goal has always been to ensure that every person who appears in the courtroom knows they were heard, treated with dignity, and judged according to the law.

A community court must also be a place where people feel welcome, even during some of the most difficult moments in their lives. Many who come before the court are facing uncertainty, conflict, or hardship. Some arrive feeling overwhelmed, overlooked, or even forgotten. It is essential that the courtroom remain a place where every person, regardless of their circumstances, knows they will be treated fairly and respectfully, and that their voice is heard.

In my service as circuit court judge, maintaining stability and experience on the bench has been a priority. Courts serve the public best when decisions come from careful preparation and a close review of precedent, rather than outside pressures or shifting viewpoints. Detailed and accurate preparation, clear findings, and a fully developed record help ensure that decisions are transparent and capable of meaningful review when necessary. Judges must also remain mindful of the limits of their role and apply the law as written, leaving policy decisions to the legislative branch. A judge’s responsibility is to apply the law faithfully and consistently in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the State of Wisconsin.

Washburn County is a community where people know one another and care deeply about fairness and accountability. It is an honor to serve a community like this. I remain committed to ensuring that our court reflects the values of this community: fairness, respect, and equal justice under the law, and to upholding the integrity of the court for everyone who appears before it.

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.

One Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the past 25 years that I believe has had a lasting impact on trial courts is State v. Allen (2004), which clarified the standard governing post-conviction motions seeking an evidentiary hearing.

In that decision, the court explained that when a motion alleges specific, material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief, the circuit court must hold an evidentiary hearing. Conversely, if the motion is conclusory or fails to allege sufficient facts, often described as failing to provide the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” supporting the claim, the court may deny the motion without a hearing. This standard is particularly important in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which make up the majority of post-conviction motions and frequently serve as the gateway to a Machner hearing. From the perspective of a trial court, this guidance has proven especially valuable. Post-conviction motions often raise complex legal and factual questions that extend beyond the existing trial record. Judges must determine whether additional factual development is necessary before a claim can be properly resolved. The framework established in Allen serves an important gatekeeping function. It prevents courts from expending limited judicial resources on unsupported allegations while ensuring that potentially meritorious claims receive appropriate evidentiary consideration.

The decision also promotes clarity in the way post-conviction claims are presented. Attorneys are expected to articulate specific factual allegations and legal grounds for relief that satisfy the Allen standard. This encourages careful motion practice and provides trial courts with a clear structure for evaluating whether a hearing is necessary.

Clear and workable guidance from appellate courts is essential to the consistent administration of justice. When the law provides a structured framework for decision making, it helps ensure that similar cases are treated similarly across Wisconsin. That consistency promotes fairness, supports the efficient operation of the courts, and strengthens public confidence in the judicial system. Decisions such as Allen illustrate how appellate courts can provide practical direction that assists trial judges in resolving difficult legal issues while protecting the rights of the parties involved.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy is grounded in fairness, preparation, restraint, and respect for the rule of law. Every case that comes before the court represents something deeply important in someone’s life, and the responsibility of the court is to resolve those matters fairly and according to the law.

I believe the role of a judge is to listen carefully, apply the law faithfully, and ensure that proceedings are conducted with dignity and respect for everyone involved. People who come to court deserve to know that their concerns will be heard and that decisions will be based on the facts, the law, and the evidence properly admitted in court.

In my service as circuit court judge, I have focused on maintaining stability, preparation, and careful attention to the record. Courts function best when decisions come from thoughtful review of the law, precedent, and the record developed in the courtroom rather than outside pressure or shifting viewpoints. Careful preparation and deliberate consideration of the issues presented help ensure that rulings are grounded in established legal principles and consistent with the jurisprudence that guides Wisconsin courts.

Time and care are essential to the judicial process. Judges are often called upon to make difficult decisions that affect people’s lives, and those decisions must be made thoughtfully and deliberately. Taking the time to review the record, consider the applicable law, and articulate clear findings helps ensure that the parties understand the basis for the court’s decision and that the decision is capable of meaningful appellate review. Clear reasoning and a well-developed record also promote consistency across cases and help maintain public confidence in the fairness of the judicial system.

Judges must also remain mindful of the limits of their role. The responsibility of the court is to apply the law as written in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the State of Wisconsin, not to advance personal preferences or policy goals.

Washburn County is a community where people know one another and care deeply about fairness and accountability. I remain committed to ensuring that our court reflects those values and that every person who appears before the court is treated fairly and respectfully.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

One of the most significant cases I worked on as a prosecutor was a sexual assault case originally charged by my predecessor. The defendant was ultimately convicted at trial and sentenced to prison. What made the case particularly meaningful, however, was the legal path the case took to reach that outcome.

During the investigation, the defendant made an unsolicited confession in the presence of a law enforcement officer. The trial court ruled that the statement violated Miranda and suppressed the confession. Believing that decision was inconsistent with controlling precedent, our office sought reconsideration, which was denied. We then sought review from the Court of Appeals. The Court granted a stay and ultimately concluded that there had been no custodial interrogation and that the confession was voluntary.

That experience reinforced an important lesson about the judicial process. Courtrooms move quickly, decisions must often be made under pressure, and the law is not always simple. It underscored the importance of carefully reviewing both the law and the record and applying controlling precedent deliberately.

Another memorable case occurred early in my judicial career and involved a homicide trial assigned to me outside my county. The case required many weeks of pretrial litigation and motion hearings, followed by a two-week jury trial involving numerous witnesses, attorneys, jurors, court staff, and law enforcement officers.

Cases of this magnitude test the responsibilities of the court. As the presiding judge, my role was to ensure that the proceedings remained fair, to make careful rulings on the law, and to provide the jury with clear instructions so that the case could be decided solely on the evidence admitted in court and the applicable law.

Ultimately, the jury returned a guilty verdict. At sentencing, I applied the required legal factors and explained the basis for the sentence on the record. Careful findings and a clear record help ensure that decisions remain transparent and capable of meaningful appellate review.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

My legal career has provided experience across criminal litigation, civil matters, and administrative proceedings.

I began my career practicing family law and later worked in private practice representing individuals and families in a variety of legal matters. Family law cases often involve deeply personal and complex situations and require methodical preparation, thoughtful advocacy, and sensitivity to the significant impact court decisions can have on families and children.

During that period, I also served as a Guardian ad Litem representing the best interests of children in family court proceedings. That role required independent investigation, careful evaluation of evidence, and recommendations focused on the welfare of the child. It also required balancing competing perspectives while ensuring that the court received clear and reliable information on which to base its decisions.

My experience in criminal litigation comes primarily from my service as an Assistant District Attorney and later as District Attorney. In those roles, I handled cases from charging decisions through trial preparation and trial. Over the course of my time as a prosecutor, I worked on more than thirty trials over a one year period. That experience required close attention to constitutional protections, evidentiary rules, and the prosecutor’s responsibility to ensure that justice is done rather than simply to secure convictions.

My work has also involved administrative proceedings and matters requiring careful attention to statutory and procedural frameworks governing agency decision making.

Today, as a circuit court judge, I draw on those experiences daily. Having served as an advocate, a prosecutor, and now a judge, I have had the opportunity to see the justice system from several perspectives. Those experiences reinforce the importance of careful preparation, thorough review of the record, and respect for due process to ensure that cases are decided fairly and in accordance with the law. Concrete conclusions backed by a meticulous record also help ensure that decisions are transparent and capable of meaningful appellate review.

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.

My experience as both a prosecutor and a judge has shown me that doing the right thing in the courtroom is not always the easiest path. In many cases, the law must be applied under time pressure, with incomplete information, and in circumstances where there is an expectation that the process will move quickly. The responsibility of the court, however, is not speed. It is reaching a fair and lawful result based on the record and the applicable law.

In practice, that often requires slowing the process down rather than moving it along. Judges manage crowded calendars and significant caseloads, but the demands of the docket cannot take precedence over the obligation to carefully review the law and the facts before making a decision. Taking additional time to ask questions, clarify the record, or consider the legal basis for a ruling is sometimes necessary, even when it is inconvenient or unexpected by the parties.

One situation that illustrates this occurred while I was presiding over a criminal case in which both attorneys presented a negotiated plea agreement and expected the court to adopt their recommendation at sentencing. Based on the information initially presented, the court had only a limited understanding of the underlying facts, particularly because a presentence investigation had been waived.

Rather than proceed immediately to sentencing, I asked additional questions about the factual basis for the plea, the defendant’s background, and the reasoning behind the recommended sentence. I reviewed the available record more closely and considered whether the proposed outcome was consistent with the applicable legal factors.

After that review, I determined that the recommended disposition did not fully address the circumstances of the case and made an independent decision regarding sentencing. That decision was not what either party had requested, and it created some tension in the courtroom. However, it was necessary to ensure that the outcome was based on the law and the facts rather than the expectations of the parties.

Experiences like that reinforce the idea that judicial courage is often demonstrated in small, deliberate decisions. It is reflected in taking the time to build a complete record, asking necessary questions, and making independent determinations, even when doing so is difficult or unpopular.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Judicial impartiality is the foundation of public trust in the courts. Every person who appears before a court must have confidence that the case will be decided based on the law and the facts, not on relationships or campaign activity.

Wisconsin already has a framework that addresses this issue. Judges must follow the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Campaign contributions are also publicly disclosed, and litigants have the ability to raise concerns through motions for recusal when appropriate.

I support maintaining strong disclosure requirements and clear ethical standards that protect public confidence in the judiciary. At the same time, it is essential to recognize that judicial elections are part of Wisconsin’s constitutional structure. In smaller communities especially, many people who support a judicial campaign are also members of the community who may appear in court at some point in time.

For that reason, a system that requires automatic recusal solely based on lawful campaign contributions can create practical challenges and may unintentionally allow parties to manipulate which judge hears a case simply by making or soliciting contributions. Courts must guard against both actual bias and systems that invite strategic behavior.

In my view, the best approach is the one reflected in Wisconsin’s current framework: strong transparency, clear ethical rules, and case-by-case evaluation when a legitimate question about impartiality arises. Judges must always be willing to step aside when circumstances would lead a reasonable person to question their impartiality, consistent with both ethical standards and constitutional due process principles governing judicial recusal.

At the same time, judges have an obligation to carefully evaluate recusal requests and the surrounding circumstances. The integrity of the judicial process depends not only on avoiding actual bias, but also on ensuring that recusal decisions are grounded in law and principle rather than strategic advantage.

Ultimately, the goal is to preserve both judicial independence and public confidence in the fairness of the courts. Ethical standards, transparency in campaign finance, and a judge’s commitment to impartial decision making are all essential to maintaining that trust.

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,” as I understand it, means applying the law fairly, patiently, and impartially so that every person who enters the courtroom is heard, treated with dignity, and judged according to the facts and the law, not emotion, pressure, or outside influence.

One of the greatest challenges judges face in achieving that goal is the complexity of the cases that come before the court. Many matters involve difficult personal circumstances, family conflict, addiction, financial hardship, or mental health struggles. Judges must apply the law faithfully while recognizing that the decisions made in a courtroom often affect the lives of real people and families in very significant ways.

Another challenge is the limitation of resources available to the justice system. Courts rely on many partners, including law enforcement, attorneys, treatment providers, social services, and community organizations, to help address the underlying issues that often contribute to legal problems. When those resources are limited, the court’s ability to help move people toward stability and accountability can be more difficult.

A third challenge is maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. In today’s environment, there can be pressure from public opinion, politics, or social media commentary. Judges must remain disciplined in focusing only on the law and the evidence presented in the courtroom, even when outside voices are loud.

Addressing these challenges requires continued commitment to the principles that support a fair justice system. Courts must operate with transparency and respect for due process. Communities should continue investing in services that address the underlying causes of many cases, including treatment, rehabilitation, and support programs. Judges must remain committed to the ethical standards that require impartiality, patience, and careful attention to the law.

Justice is not about speed or satisfying every perspective. It is about a process that ensures fairness, accountability, and respect for the rule of law. When courts uphold those principles consistently, they move us closer to what I believe “true justice” should be.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Serving as a judge is both a responsibility and a privilege. Every day in court involves decisions that affect real people, families, and communities. Because of that, I believe the most important qualities a judge can bring to the bench are careful preparation, patience, respect for due process, and a commitment to listening.

The work of a judge often begins long before a hearing or trial takes place. Diligent preparation and close attention to the record are essential. Court decisions must be grounded in the law, the evidence presented, and a clear and accurate record of the proceedings. Taking the time to review the record carefully helps ensure that decisions are thoughtful, well-reasoned, and fair to everyone involved. . . . (Edited for length)

Equally important is listening. When people come to court, they deserve to know they will be heard. That means giving each party the opportunity to present their position and ensuring that proceedings are conducted with respect and fairness. A courtroom should be a place where individuals can trust that the process will be orderly, impartial, and guided by the rule of law.

Throughout my legal career, I have had the opportunity to serve the justice system in several roles. I worked in private practice and family law, served as a Guardian ad Litem representing the best interests of children, prosecuted cases as an Assistant District Attorney and District Attorney, and now serve as a circuit court judge. Each of those experiences has provided a different perspective on how the justice system functions and the responsibilities carried by those who participate in it.

Washburn County also has a long legal history in my family. In 1920, my great-grandfather, Eugene Ward Winton, graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School and returned home to practice law in Shell Lake. He later served the county as district attorney and county judge. His dedication to public service helped shape my own understanding of the responsibility that comes with serving in the law.

More than a century later, I was humbled to become the first woman elected to this bench. My commitment remains the same: to approach every case with preparation, to listen carefully, to protect due process, and to ensure that the record and the law guide every decision.

Public confidence in the courts is built one case at a time—through careful preparation, a complete record, and decisions grounded in the law and the facts.

Meet the candidates for Washington County Circuit Court

3/16/2026

In Washington County, incumbent Branch 2 Judge Gordon Leech is challenged by Grant Scaife. The election is April 7.

Leech was appointed to Washington County Circuit Court by Gov. Tony Evers in July 2025 and took his seat in August. He previously was a prosecutor in the Fond du Lac County District Attorney's Office. Before that he was in private practice and served as an attorney in the U.S. Marine Corps. He graduated from University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1990. His resume is here. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about him is here.

Scaife is a prosecutor in the Washington County District Attorney's Office. According to his campaign website, he previously was an assistant corporation counsel (meaning that he worked for and represented a county). He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 2016.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Leech responded to WJI's questionnaire. Scaife did not.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Gordon Leech

Why do you want to continue as a judge?

When Judge Muehlbauer announced his retirement, I felt ready for this role based on my 35 years of legal experience and my life experiences. I spoke to each of the sitting and retired judges in the county, and they all supported my decision to apply, which confirmed that I was qualified and ready to assume the responsibilities of this position.

Having now held this office for the majority of the past year, I know I enjoy the position and believe I am making fair and impartial decisions in the important matters brought to me in all the various case types we handle like criminal, civil claims, divorces, child support disputes, mental health commitments, probate and other matters.

I have been out in the community talking to people about my judicial philosophy, which is committed to keeping politics out of the courtroom, and everyone agrees that is important. I don’t see the same commitment from others. So I believe I have something unique and critical to offer the citizens of the county: judicial independence from political parties and special interests that would like to influence the courts.

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.

In 2023, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided State v. Johnson. This case has a significant impact on Wisconsin citizens because it appears to add a third plate to the scales of justice for the victims of crime.

Prior to the Johnson decision, it was common practice for criminal defendants to have access to a victim’s healthcare records because of a 1993 decision of the court in State v. Shiffra. This practice discouraged prosecution of crimes and inflicted emotional distress on victims.

The Johnson decision overruled Shiffra, positively protecting victims from incursions into their privately held healthcare records which helps remove some of the pressures on victims that had discouraged them in the past to prosecute their claims. At the same time, the decision negatively affects the rights of the accused to investigate their accusers in ways traditionally done to examine the truthfulness of the accusations.

The Johnson decision is recognized as one of the first cases decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressing whether victims had a legal status, known as “standing,” to enforce rights granted them under the constitutional amendment and enabling statutes known as Marcy’s Law. The court appeared to recognize that victims may have standing to exert rights under Marcy’s Law, although the court decided the case on other grounds.

The Johnson case is significant because the court overturned almost 30 years of precedent, showing that the court was willing to examine whether the earlier opinion was correctly decided, how workable the decision was when put into practice, and the change in degree of respect our society now gives to victims as demonstrated by the enactment of Marcy’s Law. The opinion essentially says that the Supreme Court believes that being old law alone isn’t enough to justify it and signals that victims may have standing to personally enforce the rights granted to them in Marcy’s Law.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

I follow the rule of law as given by the will of the people through our elected representatives and as interpreted by the higher courts. I recognize it is my duty to refrain from creating law on the bench. I treat parties fairly, without bias or favoritism, and I make decisions based on the law and the facts before me.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

As a prosecutor, I handled all levels of felony and misdemeanor cases. One of the last cases I handled was the trial of Timonthy Brown for 1st Degree Murder which I tried with DA Eric Toney to a successful verdict. There were many others too, in particular cases which had victims, that I was honored to be trusted with prosecuting.

But one of the most significant cases I handled was not a criminal case, but case involving the termination of parental rights of a parent that was absent, or abandoned, a child but was refusing to let the foster parents adopt the child. The child spent years living in the loving home of the foster parents. The father was absent in his life because he either chose to be absent or due to periods of incarceration. The child experienced psychological trauma when the father had what little contact he exercised. Just before the matter was scheduled to go to trial, the attorney in the DA’s office found he had a conflict and could not handle the trial. I volunteered, though I had no prior experience prosecuting this type of matter and was short on time. But it was a very important matter for the foster parents and the child.

The trial was a week long and had many contested issues both factually and legally. It was jury trial. Along with my co-counsel in the DA’s office, we secured a verdict and subsequent judgment in favor of the foster parents, clearing the way to adoption. However, the father appealed the decision all the way to the supreme court, and I continued to handle the matter through appeal. I was able to prevail in each level of appeal, and the foster parents were finally able to adopt the child.

I am proud to say that I helped this child get into a loving family that provided for him emotionally, spiritually, and financially. He finally found a home where he felt safe, secure and loved by his foster parents, and his greatest wish was for them to adopt him so that he did not need to fear losing them and could finally call them, forever, his parents.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

In my more than 35 years of legal experience, I have extensive and diverse experience handling criminal and civil litigation in trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative proceedings. I have handles matters in multiple state courts, federal courts, and military courts. I have also handled matters in federal, state and local administrative courts.

I started my career in the U.S. Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate. I was a military prosecutor, and our cases were tried in military courts. I also counseled and defended the Marine Corps in personnel matters that included discrimination and wrongful termination claims held in administrative forums like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Merit Systems Protection Board.

After my active duty in the Marine Corps, I entered the civil practice of law, counseling and representing employers and employees in various employment matters in state and federal courts. I also handled commercial litigation between businesses. I later represented people in consumer protection matters, which were litigated in state and federal courts, where I represented victims of financial schemes and prosecuted those that took advantage of them. I returned to criminal law more recently where initially I represented criminal defendants in state courts, which included taking on indigent clients on behalf of the State Public Defenders Office. Just before taking the bench in my current role, I was hired by District Attorney Eric Tony in Fond du Lac as an Assistant District Attorney prosecuting criminal offenses on behalf of the citizens of 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.

Most recently, applying for the appointment to the bench and running to retain my position is an instance where I am challenged and face opposition. Although this position is nonpartisan, partisan politics and politicians are attempting to influence the election with political overtones. I believe that partisan politics have no place in the election of a judge at any level and should not influence a judge’s decisions on the bench where the rule of law is to be applied.

When applying for this judicial position, I knew that I would likely face opposition just because I was appointed by a governor that is not popular with a significant population in this county. Knowing this would be a significant challenge, I chose to apply anyway because I wanted this position, felt I was well qualified and ready for it, and I didn’t want someone else to fill the position or worse, that it would be vacant for a year.

To overcome the opposition based on my appointment, I am talking to everyone of every political persuasion. I am consistently communicating my qualifications and judicial philosophy with the same message regardless of who I talk to. I emphasize my professional and life experiences and my commitment to keep politics out of the courtroom. I am not a member of a political party, I don’t campaign with a political party, and I don’t seek the endorsements of political parties or special interest groups.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Whether judges should be required to recuse him or herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election is a policy decision that is best left to will of the people through elected representatives. In my position as judge of the circuit court, I don’t take positions on political policies.

I do think that judges must be mindful of their own biases based on any type of contribution received as a candidate either in the form of money or intangible compensation like supporting endorsements which can be as beneficial as monetary donations. Judges and judicial candidates should not accept any contribution or support that will either compromise his or her ability to be fair and impartial or give the appearance that he or she cannot be fair or impartial. Significant financial donations or endorsements from political parties or special interest groups may be particularly troublesome to judicial integrity. It is a matter of maintaining the public’s confidence in our decisions. Everyone has the right to expect that their judge will apply the law without favor to anyone.

Our rules of judicial conduct already prohibit judges, among other things, from being a member of a political party, from campaigning with a political party, and require recusal where a judge has a conflict of interest or circumstances are such that it appears there is a conflict of interest. It is a rule that applies to me as a judge, and as such I fully honor it. If defined limits are placed on campaign contributions or other restrictions, I will also fully honor them as well.

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 for me as a trial court judge means following the law as written and interpreted by the higher courts and exercising any discretion within those bounds to find a fair and just result given the law and circumstances. It would not be true justice for me to impose as law my own belief of what the law ought to be rather than what it is. Otherwise, people would have no confidence in the courts because each court would have its own version of justice. We can’t keep the integrity of the courts in that manner.

If a law is undesireable, the people need to know about it and need to decide to change or eliminate it.

The obstacles to achieving true justice is our own limitations in recognizing our own biases and our own limitations on understanding. Political pressures on courts to decide cases consistent with a political agenda are also significant obstacles to any notion of true justice. To overcome these obstacles, we need judges with professional and life experience to guide them and judges committed to keeping politics and other special interests out of the decisions made in the courtroom and out of their campaigns.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Life experiences are another important factor for voters to consider when electing a judge.

When you need advice about an important decision, do you turn to someone who has no or little experience? No, we don’t. We turn to people who have relatable experiences to help us understand our situation and the pros and cons of the possible choices and outcomes. We generally correlate time and experience with wisdom. Having presided in many cases now, including civil, criminal, family and others, I can say that I value every gray hair I earned on my head to find what I believe is the right decision based on the law and within the boundaries of discretion we have as judges when making our decisions. We must strive for what is right under the law and what is right morally within the Judeo-Christian values in our community.

I have represented and stood with victims of crime, injured workers, people scammed for someone else’s profit, and for the State as well as defendants in criminal cases. I have lived a full life already having served our country in the Marines during the Gulf War and its aftermath, was married and divorced, happily remarried, raised 3 successful children, am helping my wife raise 3 teenagers, I’ve been a public servant, I’ve worked for businesses, and I’ve owned my own business. I lived in more than four states before moving to Washington County in 2004 to raise my 3 children here. I have remained in Wisconsin and in Washington County most of the years since.

These are just some of the experiences I bring with me to the courtroom. These life experiences along with my decades of legal experience give me the confidence to make fair, unbiased and just decisions for Washington County.

Sample opinions from this year's Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates

3/10/2026

By Alexandria Staubach

As Wisconsin prepares for a Supreme Court election between two appellate judges, examining judicial track records is helpful for understanding a candidate's potential impact on the high-court bench.

Past rulings can provide insight on how the candidates approach the cases before them, reason and interpret law to get to their decisions, and explain those decisions to lower courts and the public.

Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor vie for an open seat on the Supreme Court. The election is April 7.

Voters may be familiar with some of the high-profile roles each judge held before their appellate court positions. Taylor served as the public policy director for Planned Parenthood for a decade, held a seat in the Wisconsin Legislature, then became a Dane County Circuit Court judge. Lazar worked in private practice for business clients, had a high-profile position in then-Gov. Scott Walker’s Department of Justice, and then was a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge.

Voters are likely less familiar with the candidates’ tenures on the Court of the Appeals.

The work of the Court of the Appeals is inherently blander than the candidates’ lawyer or trial judge work, but it is likely much more representative of what they will encounter on the high court.

With 16 judges employed across four districts, the Court of Appeals resolves appeals covering every area of the law. Lazar sits in District 2 (comprising the counties surrounding Milwaukee County) and Taylor sits in District 4 (comprising Dane County and the southwest portion of the state). On average, a District 2 judge would resolve 185 cases in a year and a District 4 judge 132.

Unlike the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the appeals court rarely hears oral arguments, however.

Sparked by an audience question at a recent presentation by WJI about the election, WJI has examined a variety of appellate opinions authored by the two candidates and is providing a selection of them for voter information.

District 2 (Lazar) is the busier of the two jurisdictions and sometimes lands high-profile cases, such as those involving the Legislature or Wisconsin Department of Justice. District 4 (Taylor) is the next busiest appellate court and includes most appeals from Dane County Circuit Court.

For each judge we’ve included three opinions on which she was the lead author: one criminal case, one family law case, and one civil case. All but one are published cases. We could not find a recent published opinion by Lazar directly related to criminal law so have provided an unpublished opinion she authored.

Generally, published opinions are considered precedent and can be cited as controlling law for later cases, while unpublished authored opinions may be cited only for persuasive purposes.

Later this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral argument over another opinion Lazar authored regarding the use of state settlement funds.

Below we quote short excerpts from each case and link to the full opinions for those who want to review more of the candidates’ reasoning and writing. We have removed citations for ease of reading. Italics are WJI’s additions. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.

Court of Appeals opinions by Judge Maria Lazar

Wildwood Estate LLC v. Village of Summit — Civil
An individual’s “right to maintain control over his [or her] home, and to be free from governmental interference, is a private interest of historic and continuing importance.” The “valuable rights” associated with this interest include “the right of sale, the right of occupancy, the right to unrestricted use and enjoyment, and the right to receive rents.”

It is for this reason that municipalities may not pass zoning ordinances under the “guise of the police power” without following the procedural steps designed to protect citizens’ rights. Because the Ordinance changes the allowed uses of property and includes multiple indicia of traditional zoning ordinances, the circuit court correctly concluded that it was a zoning ordinance. And, as the circuit court noted, the Village’s passage of the Ordinance sidestepped the proper process to enact a zoning ordinance. We conclude that the Village did violate Wildwood’s procedural due process rights.

Danielson v. Danielson – Family law
The ultimate question is whether social security benefits expected for one spouse fall within the factors a trial court should consider in achieving an equitable marital property division. Clearly, the court is to consider the “contribution of each party to the marriage” and the salaries the spouses earned. The trial court should also look to the “economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits,” even if it determines not to divide them between the spouses.

Moreover, we conclude that social security benefits are “substantial assets not subject to division by the court” and count as “other factors [that] the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant.” Our supreme court has “repeatedly stated that ‘the aim of all statutory construction is to discern the intent of the legislature,’ and that a ‘cardinal rule in interpreting statutes’ is to favor a construction which will fulfill the purpose of the statute over a construction which defeats the manifest object of the act.”

State v. Baker – Criminal
The State charged (Ashley Rae) Baker with one count of carrying a concealed weapon without a license. Baker filed a motion to suppress the evidence, asserting that (Officer Michael) Moore did not have a legal basis to search her purse without a warrant. At the hearing on Baker’s motion, Moore was the sole witness. He testified to the facts above and stated that his search of the purse was based on the “totality of everything,” including his observation of Baker coming out of a house known for drug activity and the marijuana found in the vehicle. He expressed a concern for “the potential for any concealment of other items,” saying that “any time that someone gives us a breadcrumb” it could be “to deter finding the loaf of bread.” He further noted that he believed Baker may have had paraphernalia or drugs on her person or with her, because (in addition to the shake found throughout the vehicle) the marijuana found in the center console area “would have … been essentially under her left elbow” while she was in the front passenger seat.

….

…. Baker was seen leaving a house known for active drug activity after a ten-minute visit and was riding in a car that had marijuana and drug paraphernalia throughout, including approximately one half gram of marijuana and a marijuana grinder between her and the driver—“essentially under her left elbow.” We agree with the circuit court’s assessment that this evidence is sufficient to establish a “nexus between the defendant and the drugs in the car.” This is not a case of guilt by association—which could be said if, for example, the only marijuana found prior to the search of Baker’s purse had been the marijuana blunt in her companion’s pocket—but rather a case where Moore’s belief that Baker was committing the crime of possessing marijuana was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Court of Appeals opinions by Judge Chris Taylor

Hubbard v. Neuman – Civil
We reject Dr. (Carol) Neuman’s argument that it “would lead to absurd and unworkable results” if a physician who does not perform the procedure at issue has a duty to inform the patient about the availability, benefits, and risks of reasonable alternate treatment options. According to Dr. Neuman, this would result in discouraging “the intra-disciplinary communication and cooperation that is critically important to effective patient care.” For instance, Dr. Neuman asserts that, if this duty is not limited to the physician actually performing the surgery or procedure, then all family practitioners or primary care providers who ever refer a patient to a specialist could be liable if the referring physician fails to disclose the risks associated with the care or treatment provided by the specialist.

As explained above, the allegations in the complaint, and the reasonable inferences, assert that Dr. Neuman was (Melissa) Hubbard’s treating OB/GYN, had expertise as an OB/GYN in the treatment options for pelvic endometriosis, diagnosed Hubbard’s pelvic endometriosis, was actively involved in the planning and preparations for the removal of Hubbard’s ovaries during the February 2018 surgery, initially planned to perform the removal of Hubbard’s fallopian tubes, ovaries, and uterus during that surgery, and recommended that Dr. McGauley remove Hubbard’s ovaries. Recognizing that Hubbard has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that Dr. Neuman had a duty to inform Hubbard in this situation protects Hubbard’s ability “to intelligently exercise [her] right to consent or to refuse the treatment or procedure proposed.”

J.J.D. v. M.W. – Family law
To protect the rights of a parent in a TPR (termination of parental rights) case, if the parent seeks to admit to grounds supporting the termination, “[t]he circuit court must engage the parent in a colloquy to ensure that the plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” “This colloquy is governed by the requirements of WIS. STAT. § 48.422(7) and notions of due process.”

….

Our supreme court has identified additional colloquy requirements to protect a person’s parental rights. A circuit court must ensure that the parent is “informed of the statutory standard the court will apply at the second stage” of the TPR proceedings; that is, that the child’s best interest will govern. The court must also ensure that the parent understands potential outcomes of the second stage, though it is not required to “‘inform parents in detail of all potential outcomes.’” Rather, the court must determine that the parent understands that a termination of parental rights or dismissal of the TPR petition are two possibilities.

State v. Anderson – Criminal
The caution with which we are instructed to approach juvenile confessions is with good reason. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, “children ‘generally are less mature and responsible than adults,’” “lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them,” and “are more vulnerable or susceptible to … outside pressures.” As our supreme court has recognized, children are “more likely to want to please and believe police officers because they are authority figures” and “are incapable of fully realizing the consequences of their decisions.” Accordingly, the same police pressure that may not be coercive for an adult suspect may be coercive for a juvenile suspect.

Meet the candidates for Dane County Circuit Court

3/9/2026

Candidates Huma Ahsan and Ben Jones vie for the Branch 1 seat on the Dane County Circuit Court. The election is April 7.

Ahsan is an immigration law attorney and owner of Madison Immigration Law. She graduated from Stetson College of Law (Florida) in 1999. A copy of her resume/CV is here.

Jones is the incumbent, having been appointed to the seat by Gov. Tony Evers in 2025. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about him is here. He previously was a staff attorney, then chief legal counsel at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Jones graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2012. A copy of his resume/CV 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.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.

Huma Ahsan

Ben Jones

Huma Ahsan

Why do you want to become a judge?

I’m running for judge because justice is personal. Every person who stands before the court deserves a system that works for them, regardless of who they are.

The courtroom is not just where laws are interpreted. It is where lives are changed, where rights are affirmed or denied, and where the promise of fairness must become real. I’m running to ensure that the law serves all people, regardless of where they come from, how much money they have, what language they speak, their gender identity or sexual orientation.

I am running to preserve the third branch of local government, the courts. Our courts must remain in the hands of the people of Dane County. We are living in a chaotic and dangerous moment. Constitutional protections are weakening. People are being targeted for who they are and what they believe. Across this country, including in cities like Chicago and Minneapolis, we have seen federal force used against communities that dare to resist. Masked agents have detained people from streets, their homes, and even courtrooms, without due process, without counsel, without accountability.

This is exactly why Dane County needs experienced, steady, and courageous leadership on the bench.

I bring 25 years of legal experience and wisdom fighting for people who have too often been unseen and unheard by our justice system.

I am a fierce defender of individual rights, grounded in real-world experience, not theory. And I am deeply concerned by what we are witnessing nationally and locally. As the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly steps away from protecting individual liberties, local courts have become our last line of defense.

Judges must be prepared to protect due process, judicial independence, and the rule of law even when it is uncomfortable, even when it is hard and even when speaking up feels dangerous. I believe my experience, my judgment, and my lifelong commitment to justice makes me uniquely qualified to lead the court through this moment of profound legal and constitutional turmoil.

I am running to ensure that Dane County’s courts remain fair, independent, and firmly rooted in the local people they serve.

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.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 231 (2022), the United States Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent including Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and held for the first time that the United States Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. In the wake of that decision, Wisconsin plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that Wis. Stat. § 940.04(1) (2023–24), a statute dating back to 1849 that criminalizes the intentional destruction of an unborn child, does not ban abortion in Wisconsin.
In Kaul v. Urmanski, (2025 WI 32, 417 Wis.2d 257, 22 N.W.3d 740) the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state’s 1849 near-total abortion ban cannot be enforced. The Court concluded that this law had been impliedly repealed by later legislative enactments comprehensively regulating abortion. (id)

The case centered on whether the 1849 statute, adopted long before modern medical understanding and contemporary reproductive-health policy, could coexist with more recent laws, including a 1985 statute permitting abortion up to viability and detailed regulations governing consent, ultrasounds, waiting periods, and medication abortion. (Id.)

Significance of the Decision
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, (See id.) which returned abortion authority to the states, uncertainty arose over whether Wisconsin’s 1849 ban might be revived. Chaos ensued with regards to healthcare decisions for over half the population. Kaul removes that uncertainty. Abortion in Wisconsin remains governed by the existing statutory regime permitting abortions up to viability.

The ruling underscores a core interpretive principle: when later statutes conflict with earlier ones and cannot reasonably coexist, the later enactments control. The Court stressed that abortion policy ultimately rests with the legislature. If Wisconsin’s citizens or their representatives wish to change the law, that change must come through the democratic process, not judicial revival of outdated statutes.

In sum, Kaul clarifies that Wisconsin’s modern abortion framework governs today reinforcing legal stability and legislative primacy in shaping public policy. And this case is best summarized by Chief Justice Karofsky’s concurring opinion, “Under such restrictions women, children, and pregnant people are denied life-saving medical care while medical professionals are forced to sit idly at their bedsides, unable to do their jobs. Extreme abortion restrictions revive a time in our history driven by misogyny and racism, divorced from medical science; it is a world that must be left behind.”

Describe your judicial philosophy.

Serving as a Circuit Court judge means making decisions that profoundly affect individuals and families. I approach that responsibility with humility and a deep respect for the rule of law.

My judicial philosophy is practical and grounded in real-world experience. My life experiences have shaped my understanding that the people who come into our courts are often facing some of the most difficult moments of their lives. That perspective reminds me to treat every person with dignity and to listen carefully before making a decision.

At the same time, my role is not to legislate from the bench or impose personal views. My duty is to apply the law as written, follow precedent, and base my rulings on the facts presented in court. Being practical means understanding how decisions affect real people, but being a judge means ensuring those decisions are lawful and impartial.

I also strongly believe in transparency. Courts must be open, understandable, and accountable to the public they serve. When people understand how and why decisions are made, it strengthens trust in the judicial system. I am committed to clear reasoning on the record, and fair, consistent procedures so that everyone who appears before the court knows they were heard and treated fairly.

Ultimately, my philosophy is simple: apply the law faithfully, treat people with respect, and ensure our courts operate with integrity and transparency.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

Throughout my 25-year legal career, I have been guided by one core principle: the courts exist to serve people, especially those who are too often unseen and unheard.

Much of my work has been in family law, particularly during my time with Legal Assistance of North Dakota, where I represented survivors of domestic violence in divorces, custody disputes, and protection order proceedings. In one particularly significant case, I represented a mother who had endured years of coercive control and physical abuse. She had limited financial resources and faced an aggressive custody challenge from her abuser. Through careful preparation, collaboration with advocates, and clear presentation of evidence, we secured a long-term protection order, primary custody for the mother, and safe parenting conditions that protected the children. That case reinforced for me how life-changing it is when the legal system listens carefully and responds with fairness and courage. Over decades, I have handled hundreds of similar cases, always mindful that for my clients, these were not simply legal disputes; they were matters of safety, dignity, and survival. I was also able to secure over 85K in funding for these services through a VAWA (Violence Against Women’s Act) grant.

Another defining chapter of my career was the Minot Mobile Home litigation. When an out-of-state corporation purchased three of the five mobile home parks in our community, it attempted sweeping rent and deposit increases in violation of tenants’ statutory rights. Many of the residents were low-income families, seniors, and individuals living paycheck to paycheck. I organized residents and helped form the Minot Mobile Home Association to give them a unified voice. Representing hundreds of tenants, we pursued complex litigation against a well-financed corporate entity. The case drew significant public attention and ultimately resulted not only in relief for the tenants, but also in meaningful statutory reforms that strengthened protections for manufactured home residents statewide.

These cases reflect the heart of my professional life. Whether standing beside a domestic violence survivor in a courtroom or advocating for working families against powerful interests, my work has centered on ensuring equal access to justice. I believe now is the time to reaffirm that our courts belong to the people (not to those with the most power or resources) and I would bring that commitment to the bench every day.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

My personal and professional journey reflects a longstanding commitment to public service and to the fair, equal, and efficient administration of justice over the last 25 years.

As the Chief Justice of the Turtle Mountain Court of Appeals, I had the honor of leading the court through one of the most challenging periods in its history. When the courthouse was destroyed by fire, the community was suddenly without a central space for judicial proceedings. I led the effort to recruit and hire additional judges to address docket delays and reorganize court calendars so that litigants could continue to have their matters heard without disruption. I also spearheaded a collaboration with the local community college to publish all opinions of the Court of Appeals online, modernizing access to appellate decisions and enhancing public trust by making the court’s work readily available to the public.

Before serving on the bench, I worked as an attorney with Legal Assistance of North Dakota, where my commitment to public service was shaped by direct advocacy for vulnerable and underserved populations. In that role, I fought for individuals facing critical housing issues, including representing members of the Minot Mobile Home Association in complex disputes that threatened their homes. I also represented survivors of domestic violence in divorce, custody, and protection order matters. I met these survivors often at the most vulnerable moments of their lives. Standing with women and children who had endured sexual and domestic violence underscored for me the importance of our justice system and the necessity of ensuring that it serves everyone fairly and with compassion.

Currently, as the founder and lead attorney of Madison Immigration Law, I have continued to devote my skills to public-oriented legal service. My firm’s work centers on representing immigrants and their families navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law. I have guided clients through removal defense, asylum claims, family-based petitions, and naturalization, often in the face of fear, uncertainty, and life-altering consequences. This work requires not only legal expertise but cultural humility, empathy, and a steadfast commitment to due process for all.
Across each of these roles - as judge, advocate, and community partner; my actions have been driven by a core belief: that justice must be accessible, impartial, and responsive to the needs of all people.

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 most defining challenges of my life has been understanding what it feels like to be “the other” in a room. As the child of immigrants, I grew up navigating spaces where I was often different: culturally, economically, and socially. That experience shaped my resilience and my empathy. It taught me to listen carefully, to prepare thoroughly, and to stand confidently in my convictions even when I felt outnumbered or underestimated. Those lessons have guided me throughout my legal and judicial career.

A profound professional test came when I was appointed Chief Justice of the Turtle Mountain Court of Appeals following a devastating courthouse fire that disrupted court operations and left the appellate system in disarray. I stepped into leadership at a time of uncertainty, with a significant backlog of cases and no fully functioning appellate structure in place. The challenge was not only administrative, but institutional: restoring confidence in the appellate process.

I began by recruiting and appointing qualified appellate judges to reestablish a functioning panel. We worked methodically to reconstruct appellate procedures, prioritize pending matters, and ensure that cases were resolved fairly and efficiently. Clearing the backlog required discipline, collaboration, and steady leadership. It also required courage. I made difficult decisions, set new expectations, and moved forward despite limited resources and skepticism about how quickly the court could recover.

One of my most important reforms was increasing transparency. I implemented the regular publication of appellate decisions so that litigants and the broader community had meaningful access to the court’s reasoning. Transparency strengthens trust, and trust is essential to the legitimacy of any court.

That experience reaffirmed my belief that adversity can be an opportunity for principled leadership. Whether drawing on my personal experience as the child of immigrants or leading a court through institutional rebuilding, I have learned that courage in the judiciary means remaining steady, fair, and committed to justice; even in the most challenging circumstances.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Public confidence in the judiciary depends on the assurance that every case is decided fairly and impartially. I am open to considering thoughtful proposals to strengthen recusal rules for judges and justices, particularly where campaign contributions or independent expenditures could create an appearance of bias.

At the same time, recusal decisions must remain grounded in clear, workable standards. Judges have an existing ethical duty to step aside whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. If I were elected, I would continue to take that responsibility seriously. In every case, I evaluate the parties, the legal issues raised, and any potential conflicts. If I believe I cannot be fair and impartial for any reason, I will not remain on the case. The integrity of the court must always come before any personal or political consideration.

Ultimately, my commitment is straightforward: courts belong to the people, not to donors or powerful interests. If there is ever a legitimate question about my ability to be fair and impartial, I will err on the side of protecting the integrity and public trust in the judiciary.

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 in civil court (which is what Branch One court deals with) is not merely the correct application of law; it is the fair and equal administration of that law to every person who enters the courtroom. The greatest obstacle to that ideal is inequality.

When one party has vastly greater financial resources, access to experienced counsel, and the ability to prolong litigation, the imbalance can distort outcomes. Justice must never depend on who can afford to outlast the other. A court must guard against the reality that cost and delay can pressure deserving parties into surrendering valid claims.

Another obstacle is complexity. Our rules of civil procedure and evidence are essential to fairness and consistency, but they can also be daunting. For self-represented litigants especially, technical missteps can overshadow substantive merit. A system that is too difficult to navigate risks denying meaningful access to justice.

Delay itself is a serious barrier. When cases linger, memories fade, evidence becomes harder to obtain, and the emotional and financial toll deepens. Justice delayed can erode public confidence in the courts and in the rule of law.

There are also human limitations. Judges are entrusted with discretion to weigh credibility, interpret statutes, and apply precedent. With that responsibility comes the duty to recognize and guard against implicit bias, to remain patient, and to ensure that every party feels heard.

Finally, a judgment without enforcement is an empty promise. The civil justice system must provide not only decisions, but remedies that are practical and attainable.

As a judicial candidate, I believe our obligation is clear: to reduce these obstacles wherever the law permits through efficient case management, respectful treatment of all litigants, vigilance against imbalance, and unwavering commitment to impartiality. True justice is not automatic; it is achieved through discipline, fairness, and the daily work of earning the public’s trust.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Throughout my career, one theme has remained constant: I have represented people. Individuals who are too often unseen and unheard. This includes low-income families, domestic violence survivors, and tenants facing unlawful treatment. I have worked with a wide array of people as an attorney, as Chief Justice of the Turtle Mountain Court of Appeals, and as Deputy Director of the University of Wisconsin Law School’s Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center, where I worked alongside tribal nations to advance sovereignty and justice and mentor law students. As Legislative Attorney for the Ho-Chunk Nation, I helped develop laws designed to protect and empower the community. And for the past 15 years, as the owner and principal attorney at Madison Immigration Law, I have stood beside immigrants and their families as they navigate some of the most complex and high-stakes legal proceedings of their lives.

At every stage, I have fought for people, individuals, who have been unseen and unheard by the system. On the other hand, my opponent’s background has been to represent those governmental systems that can fail individuals. My opponent’s limited legal experience has largely centered on representing governmental bodies and institutions, such as the Department of Public Instruction, which has been embroiled in repeated controversies from failures to address teacher sexual misconduct, to requiring non-disclosure agreements tied to meetings about test scores. His governmental work reflects a bias toward defending the systems rather than the individuals who are sometimes oppressed by those systems.

Currently, the government already has lawyers. It has agencies, enforcement power, and vast institutional resources. It does not now need to stack the local court system as well.

The courts belong to the people. This judicial seat does not belong to any political structure, agency, or interest group. It belongs to the people of Dane County. They deserve a judge who understands what it means to stand alone in a courtroom without power or privilege and who will treat every person with dignity, fairness, and independence.

That is why I am asking every voter in Dane County for their vote and their voice on April 7th. Please go to www.humafor judge.com to find out more about my grassroots campaign.

Ben Jones

Why do you want to continue as a judge?

I have committed my professional life to public service. As a judge, I am able to fulfill that commitment by advancing justice and equity for the people of Dane County and Wisconsin, using the skills I have demonstrated and refined during my legal career. I am seeking election to the Dane County Circuit Court for a full term because I have the necessary ability, experience and temperament to continue defending our democracy and serving our community with fairness, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to protecting families and children.

I first realized how highly I value public service while representing school districts in private practice. Almost universally, every educator and professional I interacted with wanted to do their best to improve the lives of children and the broader community. I never had to question what motivated my school clients. By extension, I knew that my work to counsel schools served a greater public good.

My representation of school districts ultimately brought me to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) — first as legal counsel to then-State Superintendent Tony Evers, and then as chief legal counsel to two State Superintendents, Carolyn Stanford Taylor and Jill Underly. While at DPI, I successfully defended Superintendent Evers in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court when Governor Walker and Attorney General Schimel sought to silence him.

I’m deeply proud of my service at DPI. While leading their legal team, I fought to ensure that every child had a fair chance to succeed in school and that our education system protects all students, especially the most vulnerable. I helped develop legal frameworks that kept students learning during the pandemic while keeping educators safe. I successfully prosecuted and revoked the licenses of hundreds of teachers who engaged in immoral conduct that endangered students. And each day, I defended the rights of children and families when those rights were challenged.

I firmly believe I need to do as much as I can with the talent and opportunity I have been given, for the benefit of every single member of the Dane County community. Having earned the opportunity to serve Dane County as a judge, I now make decisions both large and small on a daily basis that advance justice and have a positive impact on Dane County and Wisconsin. I am running in this election to continue to do so for as long as I am able.

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.

One case that has had a tremendous negative impact on the people of Wisconsin is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. This case illustrates what happens when justices make decisions in a self-imposed, ideological, partisan vacuum, stripping out the nuance, context, and discipline necessary to render just decisions.

A majority of the Court in Dobbs decided to eliminate the constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade. They did so not based on sound legal principles, but based on their political desire to reach a particular outcome.

The Court in Roe and subsequent cases recognized that a state can regulate abortion in many ways, but a women’s right to choose prior to viability is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Roe Court came to that conclusion in large part because it considered the Constitutional impact on women’s lives and freedoms, how interference in the decision involves an extreme invasion of privacy, and that ultimately what is at stake is a woman’s control over her own body and medical care.

The Court’s analysis in Dobbs simply disregards that context and explicitly, and irrationally, favors what rich white men thought was “proper” in the 1700s and 1800s. That willful ignorance leads to the predictable consequences women across the country now experience. A state can impose its own mandate on a woman whose doctor detects severe birth defects in a not-yet-viable fetus, a woman who does not have the financial security to care for a child, a woman whose rape caused her pregnancy, or a woman who simply does not want to have a child. And the impacts are disproportionately severe on historically marginalized communities, particularly women of color.

The impact of this Court’s opinion will not stop at women’s reproductive rights. The Dobbs majority attempts to isolate the issue of abortion, because it supposedly involves a “profound moral question.” However, Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurrence reveals how thin the majority opinion’s assurance is by concluding the Due Process Clause does not secure “any substantive rights.” This threatens constitutional protections for privacy, marriage, and consensual relationships, which the public should no longer take for granted.

The Dobbs majority sacrificed the Constitution and the integrity of the Court in order to strip fundamental liberties from women. With a severe and immediate negative impact on Wisconsin women and their families that will be felt for years to come, Dobbs is a terrible decision.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy mirrors that of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor adheres to a “fidelity to the law,” while emphasizing that the law must be applied in its full historical and human context. For Justice Sotomayor, fidelity does not mean abstraction or sound bites, but an honest reckoning with how legal principles affect real people and communities. Her approach recognizes that constitutional interpretation cannot be divorced from the lived realities shaped by centuries of inequality.

For example, she explained in her dissent in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, confronting racial discrimination requires openness about race and an awareness of history, not willful blindness. This philosophy resonates with my own view that the fair administration of justice demands careful attention to context, precedent, and consequence, so that the law remains grounded, equitable, and responsive to the people it serves.

I am also a strong believer that rights and protections in the Wisconsin Constitution are not to be interpreted in lockstep with the U.S. Constitution. The Wisconsin Constitution may, and oftentimes does, provide greater rights to Wisconsin citizens than its federal counterpart. For example, Article X of the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees the right to a public education to all Wisconsin children; a right not recognized or interpreted at the federal level. Wisconsin citizens have the ability to assert this guarantee in court for a determination whether its government is currently fulfilling this promise, which is a powerful tool for holding the political system accountable.

Finally, a judge must above all be kind and treat everyone in their courtroom with dignity. Litigants appearing in court are there at maybe the most difficult or most consequential moment of their lives. Judges must strive to treat each case and participant with respect, making sure to prepare for cases and listen to the participants carefully, without prejudice or bias to make the most just decision possible. Each case, whether it involves a major constitutional question, a breach of contract, or any matter before the court must be handled with a judge’s absolute attention, diligence, and respect, to uphold the public’s trust and advance equitable justice for everyone.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

As attorney for then State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) Tony Evers and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), I was first chair in a case in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Koschkee v. Evers, 2018 WI 82. Petitioners, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, filed an original action petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the DPI and the SPI were required to comply with 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, known as the "REINS Act". After the petition was filed, Governor Scott Walker ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to represent the SPI and DPI. The DPI and SPI wished to argue the REINS Act was unconstitutional as applied to the SPI, but the DOJ disagreed and informed the SPI and DPI that the DOJ would advance its own, opposing opinion in front of the court on behalf of the SPI and DPI.

The DPI and SPI filed a motion to deny substitution of counsel and to disqualify the attorney general from appearing on behalf of the DPI and SPI, and the DOJ filed a cross-motion to strike myself and then Chief Legal Counsel Ryan Nilsestuen from the case. I drafted the brief in support of the motion and represented the SPI and DPI at oral argument.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with my argument and held that the SPI and DPI should be allowed counsel that would represent their position, recognizing there were ethical implications for attorneys that fail to represent the position of their client, and that allowing the attorney general to determine whether a different, duly-elected constitutional officer would be able to defend its authority in court would be problematic.

Once allowed to represent the SPI and DPI, I continued as primary counsel as the case proceeded. In accepting the original action petition, the Court implied it would likely overturn its prior case decided on identical facts in Coyne v. Walker, 2016 WI 38. While the court determined rulemaking authority was a legislative power that the legislature could constrain as it saw fit, the court upheld the scope of the SPI’s constitutionally-vested authority. It was an honor to prepare for and argue at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and to win, and it was an important affirmation of the people’s right to expect their elected officials to do their jobs.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

Prior to becoming a judge, I served as chief legal counsel for the Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Public Instruction (DPI). In that role, I supervised a staff of attorneys, investigators, and support staff within the DPI Office of Legal Services. I provided legal advice to the State Superintendent, appointed officers, directors and staff. I appeared for and represented the DPI in administrative hearings and, when necessary, circuit and appellate court. I drafted, reviewed, and interpreted proposed legislation and administrative rules. I also reviewed and adjudicated appeals submitted to the SPI, including expulsion decisions, pupil discrimination appeals, School District Boundary Appeal Board decisions, statutory waiver requests, and all other administrative appeals. Finally, I advised the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Department of Public Instruction (under three different Superintendents) on all areas of law applicable to a state educational agency.

Previously, I have represented clients in front of the Equal Rights and Unemployment Insurance Divisions of the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and in front of administrative law judges for appeals filed under Wis. Stat. s. 227.42. I have also represented clients under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In private practice, I also represented school districts and other local governmental units in collective bargaining and all areas of employment, municipal, and administrative law. I also represented clients in multiple mediations involving discrimination complaints, wage and insurance disputes, and contractual disputes.

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 representing DPI, there were a number of difficult challenges facing the children of Wisconsin and public education. Access to equitable services, the challenges of COVID-19, funding disparities… every day saw difficult legal questions with real practical consequences that required my full attention and analysis.

The most significant of these challenges came in the first days of the second Trump administration. Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration demanded that the DPI and every public school in Wisconsin provide a certified declaration to the Trump administration that it would no longer advance diversity, equity or inclusion in its programming. This was not a new law passed by the U.S. Congress, or even a set of administrative rules that had been developed through appropriate rulemaking requirements imposed on all federal agencies. Instead, it was simply a declaration by the Trump administration that in order to receive funds, public education would have to abandon programming meant to address racial disparities in education, meant to advance equitable outcomes, and meant to create environments where children of all backgrounds and characteristics can feel safe and welcomed.

The stakes of this demand were challenging for a number of reasons, including potentially losing hundreds of millions of dollars promised toward the education of Wisconsin children, versus abandoning a host of evidence-based strategies to advance equitable education. But what made this particularly challenging was that the Trump administration was imposing this threat outside the boundaries of the rule of law – without any discernible legal basis. So as an attorney, it was difficult to craft a legal response to the demand knowing that even the best legal arguments could not win the day.

Knowing this, I decided with my colleagues on a strategy to bring the public’s attention to exactly what was happening. In a series of letters, I laid out the choice that the administration was forcing on public education in Wisconsin, why there was no basis in law for that choice, and demanding answers as to how the administration could defend its demand. Again and again my letters were sent and made public, so that the people this conversation would impact, Wisconsin families, could see exactly what was happening. And in the end, the Trump administration lost in court and in the eyes of the public, ultimately withdrawing its demands.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Each instance in which the impartiality of a judge may be compromised, or may even appear to be compromised, requires careful and individual attention. While campaign contributions and endorsements of a judicial candidate do not automatically warrant judicial recusal under Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct, individual circumstances may still warrant recusal to ensure the public’s trust in a fair and impartial judiciary.

Ultimately, the judiciary draws its authority from the public’s trust in the decisions it makes. Going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, the ability to interpret the law and have the other two branches of government abide by those interpretations rests on a social contract that the individuals interpreting the law do so without bias or prejudice, and without adherence to any other objective than justice.

So when there are circumstances in which substantial support given to a judge creates an appearance of or actual bias, it is up to that judge to recuse themselves to ensure the public’s trust that decisions will be made based on an objective analysis of the law, rather than political promises or financial gain. What that level of support may be depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and one way or another a judge must clearly and openly explain their decision to recuse or not to recuse, so that the judge maintains the public trust or is held accountable by the public.

I share the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s concern that the current rules under which judges operate may be insufficient, and look forward to their upcoming consideration of a new and updated rule that may strengthen the recusal requirements Wisconsin judges face.

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, to me, is a fair and unbiased application of the law, considering the full context in which it’s applied. Achieving true justice is a constant challenge, and today’s political climate only heightens this struggle.

Our democratic society faces a serious threat to the rule of law, and this race is defined by three key obstacles: 1) confronting the Trump administration’s ongoing attack on the rule of law; 2) defending constitutional rights for all people; and 3) ensuring equitable access to justice, not just for the wealthy and privileged.

The central issue in this race is the Trump administration’s disregard for the law. From unlawfully invading homes to detaining people based on their race, this administration has shown a willingness to violate constitutional rights at every turn. The notion that it’s above the law is a direct challenge to democracy, bordering on autocracy. I have spoken out against these actions and will continue to do so, regardless of the outcome of this race.

When interpreting fundamental democratic rights, such as voting rights, privacy, and protections from discrimination, I will apply the law fearlessly and without bias. Even as federal interpretations may weaken protections for vulnerable populations, the Wisconsin Constitution allows us to uphold these rights independently, ensuring the protection of all citizens.

Increasing access to justice is also a top priority. The gap between those who can afford legal representation and those who cannot is vast, and it creates an unequal playing field. I make it a point to assist those without attorneys, within my ethical limits, and will advocate for increased legal aid for those who need it most.

In addition, I will work to address systemic inequities—whether biases, limitations on damages in medical malpractice cases, or broader issues of structural racism. I will use my position to identify and challenge these injustices, striving for true justice for everyone who walks into my courtroom.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

I would like voters to know what I believe makes a good judge, and that I have been and will continue to work toward that ideal every day I am allowed to serve. As a judge, I hope to interpret and apply the law as consistently, equitably, impartially, and fairly as possible. Doing so requires a commitment to public service, an appropriate temperament, objective decisionmaking, community engagement and accountability.

As a public servant, a judge must be humble, understanding that ego and pride only interfere with a judge’s obligation to the public. Similarly, a judge should have the appropriate temperament to be able to effectively communicate with counsel, the parties, jurors and witnesses, and to effectively consider all relevant information and deliver an appropriate disposition. This is particularly true when disputes involve matters of immense importance to the litigants, intense emotions and high stakes.

A judge must actively strive to be an objective decision maker, to ensure the judge’s decisions are equitable and advance justice. This requires effort and constant attention. As a judge, I am constantly working to identify bias in my own decisions and the judicial system as a whole, and working to develop systems, policies, and strategies to eliminate those biases.

A judge must also be an actively engaged member of their community, to best be able to understand the concerns and challenges members of that community face in their lives. Without that understanding of the community, it is easier to disregard the real impact that decisions have on members of that community. That connection allows for empathy, understanding, and better-informed decisions to advance justice.

Finally, a judge must be accountable. A judge should accept that they can be wrong, which allows a judge to maintain an open mind when hearing disputes and maintain the public’s confidence that the judiciary is committed to the rule of law, rather than the egos and pride of individual judges.

Meet the candidates for Wood County Circuit Court

2/27/2026

Candidates Elizabeth Gebert and Emily Nolan-Plutchak vie for the Branch 3 seat on the Wood County Circuit Court. The election is April 7.

Gebert is an assistant district attorney for Monroe County and Marathon County. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2009. A copy of her resume/CV is here.

Nolan-Plutchak is the incumbent, having been appointed to the seat by Gov. Tony Evers in 2025. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about her is here. She previously was an assistant state public defender and SPD attorney manager in Wisconsin Rapids. Nolan-Plutchak graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2005. A copy of her resume/CV 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.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.

Gebert

Elizabeth Gebert

Why do you want to become a judge?

I want to become a judge because the people of Wood County deserve a judge who has the experience and demeanor to take on this extraordinary responsibility and with more than 16 years working as a prosecutor, I am the right person for the job. A prosecutor is said to serve in a “quasi-judicial role,” in which one must exercise judgment and discretion every single day. Judges issues judgments, including final decisions and sentences, in civil and criminal matters. As a prosecutor, I similarly exercise my judgment on a daily basis. I receive referrals from law enforcement agencies and then decide how to proceed at every stage of the court process, from determining what charges to issue, through motion hearings and jury trial, all the way to what sentence to recommend. In my career, I have personally prosecuted thousands of cases, including representing the People of Wisconsin as the sole prosecutor in more than 30 felony and misdemeanor jury trials. I have also prosecuted civil cases, including Child in Need of Protection and Services and Termination of Parental Rights cases, at jury trial. With that wealth of experience, I am prepared to step onto the bench.

I, further, want to be a judge because I know that I have the ethical grounding necessary to issue decisions that reflect the values of the people of Wood County. My family, including my mother’s and husband’s sides, has been in Wood County for generations and with that background I am the right person to serve as judge here. I live in Biron with my husband, within walking distance of his parents, and I frequently engage with neighbors when we walk our beagle. My parents lived for years in Dexterville, in the neighborhood behind the root beer stand, and were active in the Pittsville Lions Club. When I graduated from law school, it was natural for me to move to Wisconsin Rapids and I was lucky to begin my career with my first full-time, permanent position in the Wood County District Attorney’s Office. There was a short period when my career took me away from Wood County for 6 years while I served as the District Attorney of Langlade County, with my husband and children remained living in Biron. I was, however, fortunate to return in 2022. Wood County is home and I am eager to serve as judge here.

Describe which US 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 Wisconsin Supreme Court case that had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin was State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, which was decided on May 16, 2023. In that case, the Court overturned Shiffra-Green, and ruled that it was unsound, unworkable, and undermined subsequent developments in the rights of crime victims.

The Shiffra-Green framework allowed for a circuit court judge to conduct an in camera inspection of a crime victim’s privileged mental health and other private records. As a prosecutor, for over 13 years, prior to Johnson, I had to explain to victims that the court would read all of their private treatment records and decide what was relevant to the criminal case. The material the judge deemed relevant would then be turned over to the defense. If the victim denied consent for the court to conduct this inspection, the criminal case could not be prosecuted. I watched as victims struggled with wanting their assailants prosecuted, while not wanting the judge to read through the most intimate details of their treatment records. I recognize that the Shiffra-Green court tried to strike a balance in allowing for the in camera inspection, rather than just ruling that the defense was entitled to any privileged records they requested, but even having a judge read such records felt like a violation to most, if not all, of the victims with whom I worked. Johnson overturned Shiffra-Green and gave victims their privacy back.

This decision has had a profound impact on crime victims, and thus, the people of Wisconsin. I am constantly aware that no person chooses to be a victim and the sad reality is that most people are shocked to find themselves in that position. Fortunately for any future victim, the Johnson decision has ensured that nobody will ever go through the violative Shiffra-Green framework.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy is that of judicial restraint. Judges, particularly circuit court judges, are not legislators or policymakers, but rather should read the law and then apply it to the facts of a case. The people elect individuals to the legislative branch to serve in the role of creating law. As a judge, I would adhere to this philosophy and not stray from the letter of the law.

I know that I will exercise such restraint because a prosecutor is in similar position and I have conducted myself in this fashion throughout my career. I have had experiences in which I have been asked to challenge the law by filing a case or motion to the court that is not grounded in the law, most often when a crime victim wants to see something more happen in their criminal case. It is a tough conversation to have with a crime victim, but I have explained that I don’t create the law, I am duty-bound to apply to the law to the circumstances of the case. I know that can be disappointing for a victim to hear. I believe that in explaining my role, the law, and my ethical obligations, I have been able to give them an understanding of why I made the decisions I made.

As judge, I will do the same thing, explaining my reasoning, which will be based in the law, even though it may be disappointing for the party advocating for judicial activism, rather than judicial restraint, to hear.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

One of the most significant cases I have prosecuted was a Possession of Child Pornography (Child Sexual Assault Material, AKA CSAM) case that resulted a jury verdict of guilty on all counts. Unfortunately, this offense is common and I have prosecuted many such cases over the years, but this one was particularly significant because it showed me the importance of preparation, attention to detail, and quick-thinking.

The investigation of the offenses was fairly straightforward, a cyber-tip that led to a search warrant where officers recovered a laptop that held thousands of images, videos and photographs, of CSAM. In preparation for trial, I worked with a Digital Forensics Expert to prepare exhibits and analyze the abundant, technical evidence on the laptop. Together, we prepared extensive exhibits that clarified and properly summarized the evidence. I then presented a methodical and efficient case, which simplified the complicated technical evidence.

During the trial, there were numerous spontaneous defense motions that sought to limit the evidence I could present to the jury, which we argued exhaustively. The court granted some of the motions, over my objections, but I persevered and nonetheless obtained guilty verdicts. This case showed me how important thorough preparation, advance study of possible challenges, and the ability to think and argue “on your feet” is during trial, the highest level of litigation. Since that trial, I have conducted dozens of additional jury trials, using the skills I honed in this case at jury trial.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

My experience as a litigator, primarily in criminal litigator, is one of tireless work to enforce the law in the court system, tirelessly advocating for the proper application of the laws of the State of Wisconsin and the United States Constitution, and argue against defense efforts to get the court to suppress evidence or dismiss the case. This experience has included more than 30 jury trials, innumerable court trials, dozens of evidentiary motions, hundreds of meetings with victims and witnesses, and daily court appearances in which I always strive to be the most ethical person in the courtroom. I regularly advocate for protection of the public, accountability for the defendant’s actions, and for the court to adopt my position on bonds, motions, and sentences.

As the prosecutor, I take the approach of holding individuals accountable for their actions, while also considering the circumstances surrounding the crime. If the case involves a first offender, the crime is a non-violent misdemeanor, and the victim (if there is one) supports some lenience, I generally recommend that the court grant that lenience. When the case involves violence, threatens public safety, or the defendant has a lengthy criminal record, I advocate for the court to take those factors into consideration and seek a harsher sentence. As a criminal litigator, I believe in being collegial with opposing counsel, professional in the courtroom, and not backing down to an improper challenge.

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.

I served as the Langlade County District Attorney starting with my, uncontested, election in November of 2016. When I ran for re-election in 2020, a former public defender who had recently become an Assistant District Attorney in a neighboring county, contested my election. In the months between the filing of nomination papers and the election, my opponent ran an aggressively negative campaign, disparaging me personally and professionally, in his speeches and ads. In response to this negative campaign, I ran a positive campaign. It took a lot of strength to rise above the noise and not get lost in defending myself against a cruel, unfair attack. In response to this challenge, I did not attack my opponent, but rather focused on my qualifications and gave the constituents reasons to vote for me. I prevailed by winning re-election at a rate of nearly 2-to-1.

It was challenging to withstand such a personal, negative attack. I relied upon my family, including my husband, children, parents, and sister, as well as my friends to comfort me. I went to church. I relaxed by reading, cooking, and playing my piano. I harnessed by resilience to keep me focused on what really mattered: The voters deserved to know who was the most qualified candidate and why they should vote for me, rather than being sidetracked by an irrelevant, negative campaign.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

I do not believe in a blanket rule requiring a judge to recuse him/herself from a case involving a campaign donor because judges are required to abide by strict ethical rules and regularly determine if their judgment is biased based extraneous factors, such as a personal or past professional relationship. Furthermore, I believe this would infringe on the potential donor’s First Amendment right to free speech, as the potential donor would be barred from contributing to a judge’s campaign if the potential donor did not want this automatic recusal to occur in the future.

On the surface, this rule may seem fair, but in practice it would possibly, and quite probably, stop a donor from having their case heard by a judge in the donor’s home county. When a judge recuses him/herself, the case is assigned to another judge in the judicial district, not in the original county of filing. Often, the subsequently appointed judge is from another county and new to the bench or the subsequent judge has experienced substitutions on their cases, and the judge is appointed because their caseload is light and they need to be assigned new cases. The result of such a required recusal would mean the potential donor would have their suit heard by a judge from another county, who the potential donor had no input on electing.

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 greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice are intentionally created within the structure of the system: While circuit court judges have a lot of discretion, their power is not boundless and they have to rule within the confines of the laws created by the legislature and the rulings of the higher courts, that is stare decisis.

This is the beauty of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, it ensures that the legislature carefully considers the laws they create and the judges appropriately apply them. In my experience, I have heard a judge say “I don’t agree with this law, but my opinion doesn’t matter.” That is the approach I will take as judge. Ultimately, the judge is one piece of the system that ensures true justice and it is a shared responsibility with the legislators and high court justices. I view these obstacles as positive boundaries within an excellent system of government and I do not think this system should change.

That being said, judges do have the ability to deliver true justice within these boundaries. The judge considers competing interests within the law and, on a case-by-case basis, assesses how to apply the laws. For example, the constitutional rights of the defendant versus the statutory and constitutional rights of a victim. Often these rights seem at odds and that is where the judge is most able to bring about true justice.

Nolan-Plutchak

Emily Nolan-Plutchak

Why do you want to continue as a judge?

My desire to continue serving as your judge stems from my commitment to our community. During the 18 years I have resided here, I have developed deep personal and professional connections to Wood County and its citizens. This is where I have chosen to work, live and raise my twin boys. I am involved in community, parent, school and sports booster clubs. I even started a “Preemie Mom Group,” which is dedicated to supporting moms who have had babies in the NICU and share the unique experience of raising preemies. On a professional level, I have been actively engaged in the Wood County legal community, fostering and embracing opportunities to create partnerships among law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, non-profits and schools. Wood County and its people have given much to me and my family, and serving as their judge is my way of giving something back to them.

Since taking the bench, I have tried to give back by improving people’s experiences in my courtroom. First, I have tried to provide more transparency to the legal process. Most people have had little to no experience with our court system. Appearing in court can be confusing, intimidating and sometimes frustrating. Since judges are the face of that system, I have tried to ensure the participants are informed of what to expect throughout the process. Taking a few extra minutes to explain how things work can make their experience less stressful. Likewise, when issuing decisions, I take time to not only give the outcome, but also explain my thought process and why i reached the decision i did. In doing so, even if the participants don’t agree with the decision, they can leave knowing they were heard, their arguments were considered and there was a rational basis for the decision.

During my time in the Public Defender’s office, and now as a judge, I have seen individuals struggling with addiction and/or mental health problems. Judges have traditionally played limited roles in addressing addiction or other issues which bring people into court. Judges need to embrace ways to move from a reactive, non-collaborative role, to one of leadership and support in solving these problems. This is especially true regarding Wood County’s Treatment Court. I have taken on that role in Wood County. Knowing the difference this approach can make in an individual’s life inspires me to serve.

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.

In my opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that has had the most significant impact on the people of Wisconsin and our entire county is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This decision effectively overruled both Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy as a personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which struck down Roe’s pregnancy trimester framework in favor of a fetal viability standard.

A woman’s right to have an abortion is one of the most polarizing social, political and legal issues in the history of our country. With potentially millions of unborn children’s lives at stake, the right to life advocates and abortion rights supporters could not be further apart in their views. Few people are undecided on the issue, but those who have taken a position are either morally and emotionally outraged or exultant about the decision.

One of the practical effects of Dobbs is that it shifted the authority to regulate abortions from the federal government to state governments. This shift prompted significant lobbying efforts from both sides which resulted in a flurry of new legislation as well as many new legal cases. One such case is Kaul v. Irmanski. This involved a statute passed by the Wisconsin legislature in 1849, which banned abortion. This law was subsequently nullified when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Roe decision in 1973. With the issuance of the Dobbs decision, pro-lifers argued the law, which had never been repealed, was again in effect. In 2022 Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul started an action which argued the old law could not be enforced because it had been overturned by virtue of the state legislature having passed numerous intervening abortion laws. Ultimately this action made its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which in 2025 held the 1849 abortion law was invalid as it had been impliedly repealed. The effect of the Kaul decision is that abortion is again legal in Wisconsin up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. It also ensures that this issue will live on and continue to be a significant point of contention throughout Wisconsin and our country.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

I believe judges should decide cases based solely upon the law and facts, without bias, prejudice, or outside influence. They should decide cases timely, fairly and efficiently, while treating all parties with dignity and respect. They should also prepare for proceedings diligently, listen intently and apply common sense in reaching decisions. These are the tenets of my judicial philosophy and what I strive to achieve as a judge.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

My client was charged with possession with intent of heroin(10 to 50 grams) party to a crime, possession with intent of cocaine (15 to 40·grams) party to a crime, and maintaining a drug trafficking place. My client had been using heroin since high school. She had post traumatic stress disorder due to being present when her friend was killed while attempting to buy drugs in Milwaukee. My client felt an immense amount of guilt about that and stayed perpetually high on opiates. My client had been allowing drug dealers to live in her home because they gave her free drugs as payment. My client was also sexually assaulted many times during this period. Her house had become a drug haven where people came to buy and use drugs. Law enforcement believed my client was the root of the problem. I was able to convince law enforcement that due to the trauma in her past life, she was being taken advantage of by drug dealers in the community and was, in actuality, not the problem. Because I was able to convince law enforcement that she had significant trauma law enforcement supported her getting in to drug treatment court. I was then able to convince the assistant district attorney that even though she had very significant charges that she should be given a chance. Law enforcement was skeptical that she was going to be able to complete the program but I believed if she got the proper treatment she could be successful. During drug treatment court she received the proper treatment for her dual mental health and substance use disorder diagnosis. She started taking classes at the local technical college, she had a drug free baby and was able to fix relationships that she had with her family that had been destroyed due to her substance use. She graduated from drug treatment court onDecember 15, 2021. The felonies that had been diverted into drug court were dismissed upon her graduation from drug court. Because of that, she has no felony convictions. She now lives in Waukesha, is raising her daughter and has received a diploma from technical college in cosmetology. She has been sober for 5 years. She has had no further interaction with the criminal justice system. This case was significant in Wood County because I was able to convince stakeholders involved in her case to look at her as a complete person and not just the crimes that she was charged with. She was then able to show them through her success that people with very serious traumatic pasts andvery serious substance use disorders can be successful if given the proper tools and treatment. Her success opened the door to the treatment court to many people who may have not been considered in the past due to the severity of their charges.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

During my time as an Assistant State Public Defender Attorney, I represented indigent adult and juvenile clients in criminal and civil cases in Wood County. From April of 2023 through July of 2025, I was the Local Attorney Manager in the Wisconsin Rapids Office, managing five attorneys, two support staff and one investigator. I handled misdemeanor and felony trial cases. I handled administrative hearings for probation revocation. I handled civil matters including guardianships, termination of parental rights cases and mental health commitments. I also represented juveniles in delinquency cases. Additionally,I served as adversary counsel for children in Children in Need of Protection and Services cases. In addition to hearings and depositions, my practice included significant trial work. During my career I have handled over 2,500 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.

In my role as the judge for Branch 3 of Wood County Circuit Court, I was presiding over a first degree homicide case. During the course of the trial it became apparent the prosecutor had failed to provide the defense attorney with discovery from the forensic pathologist. Upon learning of this, the defense attorney made a motion for a mistrial which if granted would require the case to be retried in front of a different jury. Judges normally try to avoid mistrials at all costs since they are expensive for the county, inconvenient to the parties, victims and their families, attorneys, jurors and court staff and often delay the imposition of justice. Sometimes the violation which serves as the basis for a mistrial motion can be corrected with a curative instruction or a temporary delay. Other violations are so fundamental to the defendant’s constitutional rights that they cannot be cured. With all this in mind, I felt a significant amount of pressure to make the correct decision. After researching the issue and consulting with a couple experienced judges whose opinion I respected, I granted the motion and declared a mistrial. Despite all the hardships a mistrial would create, they simply did not outweigh a person’s right to a fair trial. While it was a difficult decision, it was the correct one.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

All judges are governed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 60.06(4) prohibits a judge or judicial candidate from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions. They may however establish a committee to do so. SCR 60.04(7) provides that receipt of a lawful campaign contribution by the committee shall not, by itself warrant judicial recusal. In addition, SCR 60.04(4) states a judge should recuse him/herself in a proceeding if facts he/she knows or should know about would cause a person well informed about these ethics rules and the justice system to reasonably question the judges ability to be impartial.

Following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct, the mere receipt of a campaign contribution alone is not sufficient to cause a judge to recuse him/herself. Common sense tells us that not every contribution will be large enough to affect a judge’s impartiality. Therefore a blanket recusal requirement for every donation would be unrealistic. While the Supreme Court has not established a threshold amount requiring recusal, the Wisconsin Ethics Commission has imposed contribution limits for judicial races. In counties the size of Wood, individuals and PACs cannot contribute more than $2,000 to a candidate in a circuit court race. Following these rules, a judge should be allowed to receive up to that amount without requiring recusal.

However, if there are other circumstances, in addition to the contribution, which could lead an informed person to reasonably question whether those collective things could influence the judge’s impartiality, the judge should recuse him/herself.

The problem with these rules is that reasonable minds could legitimately differ on exactly when recusal is necessary. Unfortunately, the inability to identify every scenario which might require a recusal explains why the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been unable to provide more clarity to this issue.

That said, in any case before me where a party had contributed any money to my campaign, I would consider whether there were any other facts or circumstances which could affect my impartiality. After doing so, if I did not believe I could be impartial, I would recuse myself. Conversely, if I felt I could fairly hear the matter, I would nevertheless notify the parties of the donation and give them the opportunity to voice their positions. If there were no objections, I would remain on the case. If there was an objection I would recuse myself.

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]

In criminal cases, the greatest barrier to providing true justice in Wood County is the lack of defense attorneys. This is because, 1) there are fewer attorneys in Wood County than 20 years ago, 2) Not all of those attorneys practice criminal law., 3) Most defendants cannot afford private attorneys, which leaves only the State Public Defender’s Office (PD) to represent them, 4) There are not enough PDs to meet the demand for indigent defendants, 5) Once PD’s offices reach their maximum number of cases, they must find private attorneys who will take cases at the PD’s hourly rates, which are significantly discounted compared to their usual rates. Few private attorneys are willing to take on those cases at the discounted rates, 6) When this occurs, the case judges must try to find private attorneys to represent the defendants. As an inducement, the judges usually offer hourly rates higher than the PD’s office. (The county, not the state that is responsible for paying these fees.) Even then the courts are often unable to find attorneys either inside or outside the county who will take cases. Then the system starts to break down.

Without attorneys, defendants sometimes attempt to represent themselves. This places a significant burden on the judges to explain the process and what is expected of them. They must also ensure the defendants are being treated fairly by opposing counsel and that their rights are protected. While they can sometimes muddle through misdemeanor offenses, most judges are reluctant to proceed with felonies if the defendant is unrepresented. Extended delays occur, incarcerated defendants sit indefinitely and victims are further traumatized because justice delayed is justice denied.

The legislature has passed legislation which moderately raised the PD rates. That has helped, but not cured the problem. A representative for the state judiciary recently recommended to the legislature that a complete review of the PD’s office, including the standards defendants must meet to qualify for representation, and how it processes cases. In the end I believe more resources are necessary to ensure the system works, defendants’ rights are protected and true justice is available to everyone

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

I would like the voters to know that I have lived and worked in Wood County for the past 18 years. I am raising my family here. As such, I believe I have a good understanding of the people here, their beliefs and values. This familiarity has been very beneficial as I perform my duties as their judge. In contrast, my opponent has lived and/or worked in five different counties over the past 16 years. That is not a bad thing, but it begs the question, who knows, and is best equipped to serve, the people of Wood County.

I also think the voters should be aware that my opponent is married to another sitting judge in Wood County. While there is nothing wrong with that, if she were elected, it would create administrative and legal issues or conflicts which could undermine the efficiency and fairness of our court system. For example, if two of the four judges in Wood County are husband and wife, should they decide to go on vacation together, they will effectively shut down half the court system. The remaining two judges will have to carry the caseload in their absence. Likewise, if one spouse or the other is required to recuse themselves from a case, it would be inappropriate to allow the other to be assigned to pick up the case. Again, this would increase the burden on the remaining two judges. Finally, when it comes time for the judges to set courtroom policies or make decisions about how the court system should be run, is it advisable to have two judges from the same family (and two of the four votes) either control those decisions, or at the very least, have veto power over them?

Marquette University Law School poll shows that most voters not "tuned in" to Supreme Court race

2/25/2026

Picture of Marquette Law School's Derek Mosley and Charles Franklin

Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (left) and Marquette University Law School Poll Director Charles Franklin (right) at the recent poll results announcement on Feb. 25, 2026, at the law school. Photograph by Margo Kirchner.

By Margo Kirchner

The "punchline" of the latest Marquette University Law School Poll is that Wisconsin voters just have not "tuned into the races" this year, said poll director Dr. Charles Franklin at a lunch-time event at the law school today.

Two-thirds of registered voters participating in the latest poll are still undecided regarding both parties' primary candidates for governor and the Supreme Court race, said Franklin.

While the lack of interest in the partisan primary races could be explained by the length of time until they occur in the second half of the year, the nonpartisan Supreme Court election is less than six weeks away.

Franklin compared the public's awareness of last year's Supreme Court race to awareness of this year's race. In February 2025, 39% of registered voters polled had heard quite a bit about the April 2025 election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel. This year, just 6% of registered voters in the poll conducted between Feb. 11 and 19 reported having heard much about the Supreme Court race between Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar.

Out of likely voters, 15% reported a likely vote for Lazar, 22% reported a likely vote for Taylor, and 62% said they were undecided.

Similar percentages of respondents (23% as to Lazar and 21% as to Taylor) had no clear idea what the candidate stands for, while about 60% said they had not heard enough to know.

The poll report, which includes public opinion on candidates, elected officials, data centers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, online betting, and other topics, is available here.

When Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley asked Franklin how the public stands regarding data centers specifically, Franklin responded: "We don't like 'em."

The Supreme Court election is April 7. Franklin said he'll conduct another poll before then.

Meanwhile, for voters wanting to know more about the Supreme Court candidates:

Their answers to Wisconsin Justice Initiative's questionnaire are posted in the WJI blog here.
WJI is cohosting a candidate forum with Judge Maria Lazar at noon on Thursday, March 5, at the Milwaukee Bar Association, 747 N. Broadway, Milwaukee. The event is free and open to the public, no registration required.
Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education recorded a talk with Lazar on Feb. 17, with the recording available here.
The Lubar Center will conduct a similar program with Taylor on Wednesday, March 18, at 12:15 p.m. at the law school, 1215 W. Michigan, Milwaukee. The event is free and open to the public with registration here. A recording should be available on the Lubar Center's webpage following the event.
The candidates will participate in a debate at Marquette University Law School on Wednesday, March 25, 7 p.m., broadcast by Milwaukee's WISN 12.

Meet the candidates for Marathon County Circuit Court

2/22/2026

Candidates Douglas Bauman and Michael D. Hughes vie for the open Branch 3 seat on the Marathon County Circuit Court created by Judge LaMont Jacobson's decision not to run for reelection. The election is April 7.

Bauman is a court commissioner and staff attorney in the Marathon County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. A copy of his resume/CV is here.

Hughes is a partner at a Wauwau law firm. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2008. A copy of his resume/CV 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.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.

Douglas Bauman

Douglas Bauman

Why do you want to become a judge?

I have spent the last 24 years serving the people of Marathon County in the dual position of court commissioner and staff attorney. As such, becoming a judge is the best way to continue and expand my service to the community. It would also make my service more direct and comprehensive. In the position I hold now, I work on pieces of particular cases, but the ultimate decider is a judge. I want to become a judge in order to cut out the middleman. Becoming a judge would allow me to take the experience I’ve gained during my 28-year legal career, particularly the last 24 years at the circuit court, and apply it directly to the legal disputes that come before the court. It would also allow me to ensure that litigants have the opportunity to feel heard, and that they are treated with compassion and respect.

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 recent opinion with perhaps the greatest impact on the people of Wisconsin has been Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 opinion that overruled Roe and repealed constitutional limitations on abortion laws. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the Dobbs opinion should give you pause because of the reasoning it adopted. The majority opinion repeatedly asked whether the Constitution “confers” a right to obtain an abortion, but that is the wrong question. The Constitution is not a source of rights — it is a set of prescriptions and limitations that defines the scope of government power. Our rights do not come from the Constitution. In fact, it works the other way around: the Constitution comes from our rights. Our rights are inherent, inborn — endowed by our Creator, in the words of the Declaration of Independence. Those rights are why the founding generation was justified in casting off British rule and creating the Constitution in the first place. And the inherent nature of those rights is why the Ninth Amendment recognizes that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But the Dobbs majority took a much more limited view, and denied that any constitutional right to bodily autonomy can be said to limit abortion laws. In so doing, at least some members of the Court (particularly Justice Thomas) expressed a desire to review a whole slew of long-standing precedents that found a constitutional right to privacy, suggesting a willingness to allow more governmental invasion into the lives of the American people.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

The law is essentially an agreement that society makes. That agreement involves following the proper procedures, both in enacting legislation and in adjudicating disputes. So I believe it is vitally important for judges to show their work, and to explain the bases for their decisions. Doing so helps preserve the agreement on which the legal system depends.

I like the analogy that judges are umpires, calling balls and strikes. It’s an apt analogy in the sense that judges, like umpires, don’t make up the rules. But unlike umpires, judges have multiple layers of rules to consider. One layer is the legislation enacted by elected representatives and signed into law by the executive (the governor or the president). But underneath that layer is a more fundamental layer, the state and federal constitutions, which any legislation must follow. The law also has rules about how to resolve ambiguities and uncertainties, generally with the goal of doing justice. Justice is the goal, and laws are how we as a society try to get there.

So, when deciding a dispute before me, I am mindful of the law, but I am trying to do justice. I am also trying to approach the people before me with compassion. Some of those people are in court for the first time, and the courtroom can be a confusing place. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I do try to explain what I’m doing in a way that everyone can understand. I want everyone to feel like they were heard, that their position was considered, even if it was not adopted. And I want everyone to feel like they were treated fairly, even if they lost.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

Every case is important to the people involved in it, and many of the cases I routinely hear have the potential for serious consequences. But some cases present larger questions than others, and I understand that’s what this question is about. Two of the most significant cases I have been involved in were the criminal prosecutions of Dale and Leilani Neumann, whose daughter died of untreated diabetes because they prayed over her instead of seeking medical attention. The judge assigned to those cases, Judge Vincent Howard, asked me to research the constitutional challenges that the Neumanns raised to their prosecution, and he incorporated that research into his decisions. After reviewing case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, Wisconsin courts, and other jurisdictions, I concluded that prosecuting the Neumanns did not violate any of their constitutional rights.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

I have spent the vast majority of my career working for the court system, which means I have mostly not been an advocate. (Even when I was an advocate, I remember writing a brief and thinking that the position I was advocating should lose. That was part of what drew me to working for the court system.) But at various points, I have worked on both sides of the criminal justice system: on the defense side as part of a clinic in law school, and on the prosecution side as a special prosecutor during the then-district attorney’s maternity leave. And as a young associate attorney, I worked mostly on the defense side in civil cases. One case I still remember involved defending a homeowner who was sued under the state’s dog liability statute by a guest who tripped over a sleeping dog. That case, Alwin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, resulted in a published decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in March 2000, affirming that the homeowner was not liable.

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.

The most challenging situations I have experienced have been personal, not professional. I am twice-divorced, and both divorces were initially difficult to process. I handled them by leaning on friends and family, and reflecting on who I am as a person, and I believe that I am now a better person as a result. I draw on those experiences every time I hear a divorce case and every time I hear a request for a restraining order following a breakup. I know firsthand how difficult the end of a marriage can be, and the challenges for parenting that can result, so I try to help the parties navigate those difficulties so they can emerge, as I have, on the other side.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

The short answer is yes. As I wrote in answering a previous question, the law is an agreement that society has entered into, but that agreement breaks down when society has reasons to doubt that it is being upheld. Confidence in the legal system is undermined when people doubt the impartiality of the judge or justice making the decisions. Even the appearance of bias should be enough of a reason to recuse, for the sake of protecting public confidence in the judicial system. And deciding a case involving a person or company who made a sizable donation does create at least an appearance of bias. As for what constitutes a “sizable donation,” to some extent, I think that depends on the jurisdiction, just like the contribution limits do. I don’t think that the donation needs to be at the maximum contribution limit to create a basis for recusal, but I’m not sure exactly where the number should be — or even whether setting a particular number is a good idea, since it suggests that anything below that amount is not a problem.

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 greatest obstacles that judges face when trying to deliver true justice are probably those involving scarcity of resources. For instance, every week I see criminal defendants who are eligible for an attorney through the State Public Defender, but who are forced to wait for the SPD to find someone to appoint. Our local SPD office has been three positions short for months, and they have been further hampered by a shortage of attorneys in private practice who are willing to take appointments. This situation leads to delays, despite the constitutional provisions guaranteeing those defendants the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to due process, and the right to a speedy trial.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

My opponent is a fine person; personally, I like him. And if he were to win, it would be my job to help him succeed (as I would continue to be the staff attorney assisting all of the county’s judges). But, again, I would like to cut out the middleman. I want to be able to take the experience I’ve gained in my 24 years working on the bench and behind the scenes at the Marathon County Circuit Court and apply it directly to the legal issues that the people of Marathon County bring to court.

Michael D. Hughes

Michael D. Hughes

Why do you want to become a judge?

I am running for judge to strengthen and improve our courts and to put my courtroom experience, knowledge of the law, and commitment to this community to work for all the people of Marathon County. We must have a court system that is strong, fair, efficient, and which keeps our community safe. A key part of that system are judges. We need judges who are impartial and who will make decisions based on the law and the facts. We need judges who will treat everyone in the courtroom with respect. We need judges who are committed to serving with integrity.

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 Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s 2016 decision in State v. Lynch had a negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The decision did not help advance the law due to a divide in the Court. Additionally, many statements within the justices’ opinions reflect a stray from legal analysis and focused on unnecessary personal statements that should be beneath the integrity and institution of the Court.

In Lynch, the Court was tasked with determining whether to overrule the Shiffra/Green line of cases that (at that time) permitted a criminal defendant to, after making a fact-specific showing to the trial court, obtain a person’s privileged mental health treatment records. While much of the Court’s opinions in the decision focused on an analysis of the applicable legal issues, at times they strayed into unnecessarily personal mud-slinging.

At one point, a justice noted that “[t]o say the court of appeals took some liberties interpreting and applying [precedent] would be an understatement.” Another justice accused colleagues of demeaning other justices instead of focusing on the legal issues, and went so far as to state that the writing of fellow justices “evidence[d] a pattern of joint writing that is bottomed in a desire to injure rather than to inform.” Yet another justice characterized a fellow justice’s writing as akin to an episode of the Twilight Zone, where court procedure and precedent was guided by imagination and not the rule of law.

And after all of that unnecessary saber-rattling? The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that “[a]s a result of a divided court, the law remains as the court of appeals has articulated it.”

We need to trust the court system to resolve disputes by applying facts to the law. The public needs to know that decisions from the court are legally-sound and created in an environment of dignity and integrity. Conversely, when judicial decisions reflect partisanship or personal quarrels, our confidence in the stability of the courts is undermined. And when we cannot trust our courts to operate effectively, the public loses an important pillar of government.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

The legitimacy of our courts rests on the publics’ perception that they are fair and judges are impartial decision makers. Everyone should know they received a fair shake in court and that the outcome, which one party will probably dislike, is the product of an unbiased and transparent process. Judges have a key role to play in establishing and maintaining the legitimacy of our courts. My pledge to the people of Marathon County is to uphold the highest standards in applying the facts of a case to the laws, as they are written; to treat all before me with respect; to explain my decisions in clear and understandable language; and to ensure the rule of law – the idea that no one is above the law – is a reality in my courtroom. I am honored that a bi-partisan group of attorneys, judges, law enforcement personnel, and community leaders supports my candidacy precisely because they have trust and confidence in my ability and dedication to be an independent and impartial Judge.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

Due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality I cannot discuss cases in which I have served as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in any way that would identify a child or parent in those cases. I can say, however, that serving as a GAL have always been among my most significant and meaningful work as a lawyer. Attorneys reading these answers will know that GALs serve a special role in the family court system and that carrying out that role takes careful preparation and the sensitive age-appropriate treatment of often vulnerable children. My experience and success as a GAL were a labor of love and included meticulous investigation, creating an environment in which the child felt safe and able to share concerns and facts with me without fear of judgement. At the end of my investigation, my recommendations to the court were based on the statutory factors that helped identify the best interests of the child. And once that report was filed, unless the parties agreed to it, I would go into court to zealously advocate for the result that was, in my judgement, best for the child.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

In my nearly 20-year legal career, I have handled thousands of cases and appeared before dozens of judges. I have litigated cases in one-third of the 72 counties in this state. Throughout my legal career, I have handled a wide array of cases including criminal matters ranging from misdemeanors to Class A felonies. I have served as a Guardian ad Litem in family court, representing and advocating for the best interests of children. I have worked as a civil litigator, representing families in disputes against insurance companies. I have even served as a Comdemnation Commissioner, helping resolve issues where the State has taken property from landowners.

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.

I had a jury trial that was very emotional and challenging for a number of reasons. I handled the challenges by being thoughtful, calm, and patient. When we are challenged or facing adversity, staying calm and thinking-through the issues will always be more effective than trying to act out of haste. Jury trials can often be the source of challenges and adversity. The District Attorney who served as my opposing counsel in that trial is one of my strongest supporters. She has written the following describing why:

“I have had the opportunity to experience Attorney Michael Hughes as opposing counsel during an emotional criminal jury trial. I can say without a doubt, based on working with Michael during that litigation as well as the jury trial itself, that he possesses the unique qualities of character that make him especially well suited to the judiciary. As an attorney, Michael has, in my experience, embodied the sense of professionalism lauded by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said “Fight for the things that you care about. But do it in a way that will lead others to join you." To say that the case we litigated was challenging is an understatement, but Michael maintained patience, level-headedness, and always treated everyone with courtesy. Throughout, he remained dignified in demeanor and a respectful colleague. His reputation among others with and against whom he has practiced reflects this as well. I cannot recommend him enough for the bench, he would be a sound choice.”

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Wisconsin has some of the weakest recusal rules in the Country. I am pleased that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has indicated it will be holding public hearings on what could, should, or might be done to strengthen them. Proposals that would require recusal when a party in a case has contributed to a judge’s campaign are among the ideas that have been suggested. Until such time as new rules are put into place, I will faithfully and carefully adhere to the existing rules that govern a judge’s conduct and role.

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.]

Wisconsin’s criminal justice system faces real challenges: underfunding of our courts; a shortage of public defenders and private bar attorneys unable to take court appointments; and backlogs that delay justice for victims, witnesses, and defendants. Those are all obstacles to what I believe is a shared commitment among stakeholders in our court system to provide equal justice under the law to all who come into contact with our courts. Judges are leaders in our court system and in their local communities and as such, judges have a responsibility to work collaboratively and effectively in identifying and addressing issues that impede access to justice and undermine individual rights. Judges must be open to changes and best practices that improve how our courts function and how they are perceived by the public in these highly politicized and polarized times. That is why equal justice under the law must be our goal and judges must work tirelessly to demonstrate their ability and commitment to realizing that goal.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

I have broad and bi-partisan support within the legal community for my campaign to become Marathon County’s next Circuit Court Judge. I have been endorsed by judges who know best what this job entails. I have been endorsed by elected District Attorneys and dozens of lawyers, some of whom I have worked with and others who I have argued cases against. I have earned support from both sides of the aisle. What brings this diverse group of supporters together is that they trust me to apply the law fairly, and to make sound, impartial decisions as a judge.

Meet the candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court

2/18/2026

Current Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor vie for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court created by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley's retirement. The election is April 7.

Lazar is an appellate judge in District 2 (centered in Waukesha and composed of southeastern Wisconsin counties excluding Milwaukee County) and previously was a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge. She graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1989. A copy of her resume/CV is here.

Taylor is an appellate judge in District 4 (centered in Madison and composed of south central and southwestern Wisconsin counties) and previously was a Dane County Circuit Court judge. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1995. A copy of her resume/CV 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.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name.

Maria Lazar

Maria Lazar

Why do you want to become a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

I am running to serve as a Justice on the State Supreme Court to restore justice, independence, impartiality, and integrity to the courts and our highest court. I believe every case deserves a fair hearing, free from political influence or partisanship. I have grown increasingly concerned that judicial elections in Wisconsin have turned into bitter, partisan political campaigns where the qualifications and judicial experience of the candidates is ignored and special interest and political parties vie to seat their preferred justice. My home state of Wisconsin deserves better. It deserves a Justice who will remember that the sole purpose of the courts is interpret the Constitution and laws, not to legislate from the bench. The goal of justice is not to please any party, but to serve the people. That has how I have conducted myself for the more than eleven years I have served as a judge.

I have lived my entire professional career with the sole purpose to serve justice, to respect the laws, and to protect the rights of the people of my state. This is a race to restore to the Supreme Court that sense of fairness and integrity that appears to have faltered. People in Wisconsin deserve a court that they believe in and one that they know will operate fairly and without judicial activism. Every day that I enter my courthouse or place on my black robe, I remember that obligation – that I owe a solemn duty to the people who have elected me as their judge. I believe that I am the better candidate in this race, that I can administer justice for the people of this state, and that my determination and dedication to the law will continue to enhance my service.

The short answer to this question, is that I am running because I believe, in my heart, that this the right thing to do at this time – for me and my fellow Wisconsinites.

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.

Many times it is the little-known opinions that cause the most devastation. One of the most basic principles that underlies every person’s ability to prosper, to gain security and to pass that down to their children is the right to own private property and to keep that property out of the hands of a government that seeks take it away. The Fifth Amendment clearly provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The US Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2000) does precisely when it allowed a government to take private property to allow another private land-owner to develop a project after demolishing several homes.

As Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her dissent, this is an assault upon a bedrock principle that there has to be a public use otherwise the government will be able to take private property without any legitimate purpose. Allowing economic development to take precedence over private homeowners is to remove the phrase “for public use” from our Constitution. The majority in Kelo expands the concept of eminent domain and allows more powerful entities to expand their businesses at the expense of the common, ordinary landowner. This is such an intrusion into our basic rights to property that it should never have been permitted.

In addition, in the decades since the opinion was issued and after all the homes including that of Suzette Kelo were bulldozed, nothing has been built on the property. It remains vacant and has been described solely as a home to weeks, trees, and feral cats. The destruction of property rights is a bitter reminder that sometimes government actions hurt the little people.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

I am an originalist with a leaning towards textualism. I believe the Constitution is the rock to which our republic is anchored. That means the text of our law should always first be given the original public meaning that they had when they were drafted. The first, and best, source of interpretation is the words and phrases used by the legislature when it drafts our laws. Judges are not supposed to scrutinize documents in an effort to find a hidden intent by the drafters. We should consider the language of the text, and only when it is ambiguous, should we look further. First, we should look to the rest of the statute, its heading, and surrounding statutes. Then we can go to secondary sources such as dictionaries and other legal documents that were written at the same time. Our laws must have a fixed or settled meaning or we will invite uncertainty and leave the door open for judicial activism.

This is in line with the separation of powers doctrine. The rule of law is one of – if not the most basic – fundamental principles in our representative democracy. To ensure that the law is respected, a judge/justice must be independent of agendas, political persuasion, and bias. Judges must never align themselves with a political parties or special interest groups. To do so is to jeopardize the impartiality with which we must make our decisions.

The law must be a level playing field for all individuals regardless of their race, age, gender, nationality, sex, or political persuasion. Each party is entitled to respect and an opportunity to have a full and fair opportunity to present their case. I have never tilted a decision based upon who was the litigant. Justice must always be blind in that respect. Judges must strike the proper balance of deference to the law as written while still upholding our duties as one of the three branches of government.

In my eleven years as a judge, I have devoted myself to respecting that law while constantly striving to interpret the laws fairly so as to protect the rights and liberties of all people in my court. Underneath it all, my role is to impartially interpret the law to give it the proper effect.

The main attributes of a good justice who follows this philosophy is to have the ability to exercise fair, impartial, and legally based judgement.

Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judge.

The first case altered my path and lead me to the judiciary. The second was the largest civil matter I presided over when I first started as a circuit court judge. Neither case are well-known in the state, but both impacted my life and career as a judge.

In the first case, I represented the Department of Children and Families in a foster parent case (at the DOJ). A Dane County judge, on the record, told me that the law did not matter and declared an expired foster care license to be in effect; it allowed the foster parents to keep one sibling and give back the other—permanently separating these children. The stark refusal to accept and follow the clear statutory requirements, to adhere to the written law and to ignore legislative and agency directives and policies shook me to the core. That is not how I expect our judiciary to act. It also lead me to realize that I could and would do better. It was the reason that I ran for circuit court judge in my home county. It was the spark that made me realize that it is not enough to have legal experience, but that a judge must have more. A judge must have a deep respect for the law, must never act as an advocate for one side or the other and must never legislate from the bench by placing their views ahead of the law.

The second case I handled as a civil judge. It involved a $50 million bond transaction to a Native American tribe to establish a riverboat casino, hotel, and bed-and-breakfast. I heard the equitable or legal issues during a nine-day bench trial, and then there was to be a 7-week jury trial. After finding jurisdiction, under Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 236 Wis. 2d 384 (2000), I learned about tribal law and constitutions. In addition to my written decision, I made hundreds of rulings on various motions. I issued a 55-page written opinion concerning the legal issues of express or implied warranties, whether documents were void as ultra vires acts or invalid under the Tribal Constitution, and then the parties settled the other issues right before the jury trial.

It was an amazing case and confirmed my belief that I not only belonged on the bench, but that I would excel as a judge/justice.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

I practiced at a Milwaukee lawfirm for twenty years. The majority of my practice centered upon civil litigation (non-personal injury) in federal and state court. Our clients were middle-class business owners, private individuals, and some financial institutions. I also had a significant practice in bankruptcy law (representing creditors). In general civil litigation, I focused upon commercial litigation; I worked on real estate, contract, secured transactions, securities’ arbitration and non-competition cases to name but a few. I argued and prevailed in a matter before the State Supreme Court. I was also a Special Investigator for the Office of Lawyer Regulation for several years.

After joining the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I represented the state, its agencies and officers. I also handled several foster care placement challenges, several injunction hearings, and several Seventh Circuit appeals. In addition, I handled a variety of other litigation matters, many of which involved constitutional challenges. My only work on criminal matters was in the appellate courts.

I have represented private practice clients in administrative law proceedings (and arbitrations and mediations), and after joining the DOJ, I have advised agency clients and have worked on several administrative cases for several different Departments.

In both my private and public practice, I appeared frequently in court, arguing motions, conducting hearings, and in both bench and jury trials.

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 an associate at my lawfirm, I was asked by a client to falsify a document to be produced to the other side. I refused and went to my partners to explain what had happened and to insist that I no longer represent the client. I also asked that my name be removed from the signature blocks of all further proceedings. I believed that my participation or the inclusion of my name would indicate that I agreed with the lies suggested by the client. I was young enough in the practice that I wasn’t certain that they would believe me or, worse, that they would decide to fire me because I was standing up against a good client. I didn’t take a day (or night) to think about the right thing to do; I went straight to the senior partner and explained the situation. As I walked down the hallway to the partner’s office, all I thought about was how important it was to be able to respect myself the next day and how I couldn’t jeopardize my name, my reputation, and my career by just letting the fraud slip by. I also considered that I was the main wage-earner and that we had small children. But, that wasn’t a basis to just get-along. I recognized that I would possibly face criticism and it might be difficult to find another job if my partners decided to be vindictive. That didn’t happen.

Luckily, my partner not only believed me, but he allowed me to stop working on that matter. I tell young lawyers (and other students who I mentor) that there is nothing more important that their reputation—it is something you can never regain so it must be carefully protected. I explain that not even the fear of losing a position is enough to stop you from doing the right thing. And, that often they will find that they gain much more respect when they take a principled and honest stand. It is never an easy thing to do—but inherent in the concept of courage is that you stand up for yourself and your reputation by facing your fears.

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 have consistently advocated for standard rules that manage to address both the subjective and objective biases that judges may have when they are faced with such cases. The public deserves to have faith and trust in their courts and their ability to have their case heard by a judge that is free from bias as well as the appearance of impropriety.

Respecting the law, however, is not enough. My judicial oath—every judicial oath—requires that we act impartially and without respect to persons. While that sounds odd at first blush, it is actually a sound foundation requiring judges to not take into account who is in the courtroom, and to not weigh or consider the power, prestige, or financial heft of any party. But, rather to maintain a permanent level playing field and to ensure that all rights of all litigants garner the same respect.

The issue of recusal, and questions of contributions, however, is presently before the State Supreme Court in a petition that was filed by several retired judges. Therefore, I cannot opine further.

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.]

I don’t know that “true justice” can be defined. There are too many times that good people are hurt (both physically and monetarily) in circumstances where even restitution, penalties, prison time, or civil judgments simply cannot make up for the damage or destruction. How can there be true justice if someone is murdered, raped, or brought to the brink of despair? The obstacles before a judge include a failure to render full and complete recoveries, an inability to make someone whole, and the fact that some individuals live lives of quiet despair or lack any sense of social or familial stability which leads them to act in ways our society cannot stand. Even in the face of these obstacles, judges must make the difficult decisions, must protect every citizen and the society as a whole, and must provide some level of accountability and punishment for wrongs committed regardless of the underlying circumstances.

In addition, judges must be cognizant of their role in our government. We cannot fix all of society’s wrongs and we err when we try to set policy or legislate from the bench. A judge must not be too timid to declare and interpret the law, but also must not be an activist but, rather, must always act with appropriate judicial restraint. A judge must strike the proper balance of deference to the law as written while still ensuring that each branch of government stays within its zone of authority. It is the judiciary’s role to say what the law “is” not what we believe it should be. In fact, it is those decisions that run contrary to a judge’s own personal views that show we are administering justice.

As a judge, I endeavor to respect the law, to look for the meaning and intent of its drafters all the while honoring the rights and liberties of everyone who appears in front of me. It is in this way that I truly administer justice. I respect and always endeavor to uphold the Constitutions—state and federal—and strive to remember the oath I took as an attorney, an assistant attorney general and a judge to act fairly and impartially and without respect to persons. The law is paramount, for without it, our rights would be trampled and chaos would ensue. It is only in pursuing that vision of the blind-foldled lady justice that we can achieve justice.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

I have the legal and judicial background that makes me exceedingly qualified to be your next Justice. When I was an AAG, in a foster care case, I was devastated when a Dane County Judge told me that the law didn’t matter. Knowing I could do better, I ran for circuit judge in Waukesha County where I served seven years in many rotations, including Drug Treatment Court, and as presiding judge in two. I was elected to the Court of Appeals (District 2), where I have served for four years. My opponent spent two years on the criminal bench after her appointment and has been an appellate judge for three.

During my 11 years as a judge, I have faithfully applied the law to ensure justice for all parties. Unlike a politician, I have never (and will never) legislate from the bench. I have taught literacy to adults and served on community boards. I have been active in my church, my children’s schools, and I educate students, lawyers and judges about our judicial system.

I approach my judicial role with humility and an understanding that I am a part of one branch of government and that my role is only to say what the law is, not what I want it to be. I take my oath of office seriously. We swear to uphold the Constitutions and to administer justice “without respect to persons.” That means that a good judge/justice never looks at who is in front of them in the courtroom, or which side has a better lawyer, or a member of a political or social group. I discover the facts and then I apply the law as it is written and make a rational, reasonable decision without respect to persons.

I went to law school to give something back to my state and its citizens. I became a judge because I saw justice was being trampled upon and knew that I could do better. I am fair, independent, and impartial. Unlike my opponent, I have never been a member of a political party nor have I been appointed to any judicial position. It is critical to the people of my state that they elect a Justice who has the courage to stand against the winds of chaos, who will set aside all political biases and agendas, and will serve as a humble and faithful servant of the law.

Chris Taylor

Chris Taylor

Why do you want to become a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

It is so important that the people of Wisconsin have a strong State Supreme Court committed to protecting their rights and freedoms, our democracy, our state, and delivering justice to the people of Wisconsin in the fairest, most independent way possible. I have spent my thirty-year legal career as an attorney, legislator, and judge, using the law to improve people’s lives and our communities. I have worked to make sure that the people who appeared before me in the Circuit Court and in the Court of Appeals have a fair chance to present their cases, that their positions are carefully considered and that I apply the rule of law evenly, fairly and independently. Throughout my legal career, I’ve been focused on applying these core principles in the many capacities in which I have been fortunate to serve. I am running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to continue this work for the people of Wisconsin.

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.

Two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that have negatively transformed our country are Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Citizens United is a 2010 decision, in which the five-person majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on corporate and special interest spending in elections on the grounds that such restrictions violate the First Amendment rights of such entities. This case has contributed to the erosion of our democracy by allowing the rise of super PACs and massive increases in election spending by the most wealthy and powerful entities. These entities can raise and spend unlimited money in elections, giving them a supersized voice in our elections and drowning out the voices of average voters. Because of various legal loopholes, super PACs often coordinate with candidates and keep their funding sources secret.

Dobbs is another harmful case that overturned Roe v. Wade, rescinding each woman’s constitutional right to access abortion services regardless of where she lived. This decision was rooted in politics rather than based on robust constitutional grounds, and ignored almost 50 years of precedent. As a result of this decision, a woman’s right to make her own personal, private health care decisions depends on what state she lives in, rather than on a fundamental constitutional protection.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

I center my role as a judge on the principle of equal justice under the law. To me, this means that every litigant whose case I consider is entitled to being treated fairly, and to having their constitutional and legal rights protected. This principle also ensures that no individual or entity is above the law, and that the rule of law must apply to everyone, including the most privileged and powerful.

Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judge.

Two significant published cases I have authored as an appellate judge are Rise, Inc. v. Wisconsin Election Commission, 2024 WI App 48, 413 Wis. 2d 366, 11 N.W.3d 241, and Hubbard v. Neuman, 2024 WI App 22, 411 Wis. 2d 586, 5 N.W.2d 852.

Rise concerned setting a state-wide standard for municipal clerks in determining whether absentee ballot witnesses complied with a statutory address requirement that must be provided on an absentee ballot envelope. I affirmed the circuit court in concluding that as long as the address information provided by the absentee ballot witness identifies a place where the witness may be communicated with, the address requirement is satisfied. I reversed the circuit court in concluding that the determination of whether the address requirement has been satisfied is determined from the viewpoint of the municipal clerk, acting reasonably in discharging their duties, rather than from an objective person’s perspective as determined by the circuit court.

Hubbard concerned the scope of Wisconsin’s patient informed consent law in the context of a negligence claim in which a patient alleged that her ovaries had been surgically removed without her informed consent. My decision details the common law and statutory origins of Wisconsin’s informed consent law, and affirmed the circuit court’s decision that allowed the patient’s case to continue. My decision was affirmed by the Wisconsin Supreme court by a 5-2 majority.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

I spent many years practicing law in the civil arena, where I focused on family law. I represented regular people dealing with stressful family situations that required legal resolution. I also served as a Guardian Ad Litem and volunteer mediator. As the legal director at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, I advocated for policies that protected and facilitated access to health care, including the Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Act, which requires all hospital emergency rooms to tell sexual assault survivors about emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy and to dispense the contraception if requested. In the legislature, I introduced and advocated for over 250 bills and resolutions to expand access to affordable health care, protect clean drinking water and to provide economic support for working families.

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.

I had a complicated, lengthy and contentious homicide trial, which involved strong emotions for the families, friends and communities impacted and strong public sentiments. I focused on maintaining a calm and respectful courtroom, anchoring myself in the law and the sentencing factors I was required to consider, and in delivering a thoughtful, balanced and fair decision.

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?

Wisconsin's recusal rules require judges to evaluate each case individually to determine whether they can be fair and impartial. I take my recusal obligations very seriously and examine every case in front of me to ensure that I can fulfil my responsibilities and also ensure that the public has faith in the decisions I make. I am the only candidate in this race who supports holding a public hearing to solicit the public’s input in strengthening judicial recusal rules. Wisconsinites deserve to have faith and trust in their judicial system, and the judicial system needs the public’s trust to fulfill our duties.

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.]

To me, “true justice” occurs when litigants have access to affordable, quality legal services; when litigants have the ability to present their cases to a fair, impartial court; and when our courts have the resources and time to thoroughly consider the merits of each argument. And finally, true justice depends on strong community resources and support systems. These resources should help individuals address conduct which resulted in their contact with the legal system and skills to avoid conflict in the first place.

There are many obstacles to true justice. First, often the people involved in the judicial system have significant addiction and mental health issues. Community investment in these two areas could significantly decrease the volume of criminal charges and cases in our criminal justice system. There is also a need for more public funding for our prosecutors, state public defenders, and for affordable legal services, in both criminal and the civil arenas. Finally, we all need to invest more time in teaching our young people how to resolve disputes, without resorting violence or criminal behavior.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

The people of Wisconsin deserve a strong State Supreme Court that will stand up for them. I will be a justice for all Wisconsinites.

UA-70679481-2