In Waukesha County, incumbent Circuit Judge Fred Strampe is challenged by Attorney Cody Horlacher. ​Election day is April 4. Absentee and early voting are underway.

Strampe received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School. Gov. Tony Evers appointed him to the bench in November 2022. Prior to his appointment, he was an attorney at the Borgelt, Powell, Peterson and Frauen law firm.

Horlacher received his law degree from Marquette University Law School. His Wisconsin Bar listing indicates that he works for Horlacher Law LLC.

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

Strampe answered WJI's questionnaire, and his answers are printed as submitted, without editing. Horlacher did not respond to the questionnaire.

​FRED STRAMPE

Why do you want to become a judge?
I currently serve the people of Waukesha County as a Judge in Branch 7 of the Waukesha Circuit Court. Each day in my courtroom, I enforce the Rule of Law in a way that is equitable and leaves all parties understanding that the process was fair.

I began my professional life serving our Country and I want to continue my professional life serving the people of Waukesha County and Wisconsin. As a young man, I was prepared for the rewards and challenges of serving as a junior officer in the Army. My 25 years as a litigator prepared for the rewards and challenges of serving as a Circuit Court Judge. The mission of my alma matter, The United States Military Academy, is to “develop leaders of character for a lifetime of service to the Country.” By serving as a Circuit Court Judge, I am continuing my service to our State and our Country.

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way.
I believe Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc, 509 U.S. 579, (1993), which was adopted in Wisconsin by Sec. 907.02(1), Wis. Stats., and Siefert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, has a great impact on the people of Wisconsin, even if few people know about it. When Wisconsin adopted the Daubert Standard, a great deal of authority was transferred from the Jury to the Circuit Court Judge. Under Daubert, the Circuit Court must determine if an expert’s opinions are reliable. While the Court repeatedly indicates that the Circuit Court is not taking the place of a Jury, a party whose case is dismissed because their expert was ruled unreliable will certainly disagree. Although Daubert and Seifert list numerous factors the Court can consider, the Siefert Court stated, “the trial court may consider some, all, or none of the factors.” Siefert, Para 64. The Siefert Court explains that the Trial Court should not accept expert testimony just because the expert is qualified. Seifert, Para 75. However, the Court goes on to explain that the reliability standard can be satisfied by the witness’s “personal knowledge and experience.” Siefert, Para 78. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ends its analysis by deciding that a Circuit Courts decision to admit, or exclude, expert testimony will only be reversed if the Circuit Court abused its discretion. Seifert, Para. 93.

The standard adopted in Seifert gives the Circuit Court tremendous power in any case that requires expert testimony. In many cases, at least one party will have a reason to challenge the other side’s expert. Once challenged, the Circuit Court can exclude the testimony based on “all, some, or none,” of the relevant factors identified in Daubert and Siefert. If there is a plausible reason to exclude the evidence, the Circuit Court’s decision will survive appeal.

Because of the broad authority Circuit Court Judges have, to exclude or admit expert testimony, the selection of Judges may be more important than the people of Wisconsin know. The significant power granted to the Circuit Court relating to expert testimony could have a positive or negative effect on the people of Wisconsin. Many citizens of Wisconsin do not know the Circuit Court has this much control over expert testimony. Because of this, Circuit Court Judges must carefully analyze any challenges to expert testimony. Expert testimony should be excluded when the testimony is clearly unreliable. If expert testimony is excluded, the Circuit Court should make a record explaining why the testimony was excluded, so the people of Wisconsin understand why the expert was not allowed to testify.

Describe your judicial philosophy.
Our system of government only works if we have strong, independent, and impartial Judges committed to the rule of law. Circuit Court Judges must be fair and impartial without preconceived agendas or goals.

Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
Local Government Property Insurance Fund (“LGPIF”) v. Lexington Insurance Company
I represented LGPIF. This case involved a fire that occurred at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in July of 2013. LGPIF insured Milwaukee County and determined that the fire was a covered loss. LGPIF paid over 17.4 million dollars for this loss and sought to recover a portion of this amount from its reinsurer, Lexington. Lexington refused to pay the loss claiming the damages were the result of an electrical failure, which was not a covered loss. LGPIF filed suit to recover the reinsurance benefits contained in the insurance policy issued by Lexington. Along with Co-counsel Barbara O’Brien, I was responsible for all written discovery, expert retention, depositions, and pre-trial motions. My involvement focused on the damages sustained at the courthouse and the competing expert opinions regarding the cause of the loss and the resulting damage. The matter settled just before trial.

Holder et. al. v. Fraser Shipyards
I represented Capstan Corporation, the owner of Fraser Shipyards. This matter involved four related cases with 70 plaintiffs. All the plaintiffs were shipyard workers at Fraser Shipyards in Superior, WI. They were exposed to hazardous levels of lead while preforming work on the HERBERT C. JACKSON, a great lakes freighter owned by Interlake Steamship Company. While each worker had different alleged injuries, most of the workers claimed traumatic brain injuries resulting in memory and processing problems, along with some physical injuries from the lead exposure. Plaintiffs claimed that Fraser Shipyard, Capstan and Interlake knew that lead paint on the vessel would be disturbed by Fraser's work and took no preventative measures to protect the workers. I took over the representation of Capstan a few months before the Holder case was set for trial. I was responsible for investigating the loss, written discovery, depositions, expert retention, procedural motions, discovery motions, motions in limine and pre-trial submissions. The Holden case settled less than one week before trial was set to begin. The other three cases settled after significant discovery.

Stuart v. Mortle
I represented Mortle Trucking. Mortle performed snow and ice removal services at the clinic where Ms. Stuart's Doctor worked. Ms. Stuart slipped and fell in the clinic's parking lot after a snow event. She sued Mortle and the property owners claiming that the parking lot was negligently maintained. Ms. Stuart claimed significant back injuries from the fall. She had over $400,000 in past medicare expenses and claimed over $500,000 for future medical expenses. Additionally, Ms. Stuart had a 20 year history of back issues. In December, 2021, the case was tried by Judge Chris Foley in Milwaukee County. After a five day trial, the jury concluded that Mortle was not negligent.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
My legal practice was focused on civil litigation. I appeared in Circuit Courts throughout Wisconsin and the Eastern and Western District Courts. I handled all phases of civil litigation from the initial pleading through trial. The majority of my time was spent on investigations, depositions, document analysis, discovery, settlement discussions and pre-trial motions. My legal specialty was trial practice. I also had extensive experience with claims at assisted living facilities, insurance coverage issues and product liability claims, along with most types of personal injury cases, with an emphasis on traumatic brain injuries.

As part of my work for Assisted Living Facilities and Day Care providers, I handled several cases involving the Division of Hearings and Appeals. These appeals involved orders to close a facility, revocation of licensing, need for a plan of correction, and requests to reduce fines. I participated in pre-hearings and scheduling/status conferences with Administrative Law Judges.

I mediated hundreds of cases all over the State of Wisconsin and represented parties in arbitrations approximately 15-20 times. I was also appointed by the defense as an Arbitrator approximately 10 times. None of these cases proceeded to a full arbitration.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?
No

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? What contribution limits would you set?
Wisconsin has some of the weakest recusal rules in the nation. I support strengthening those rules in an open, transparent process. The judicial code states that “a judge must recuse himself or herself whenever the facts and circumstances the judge knows or reasonably should know raises reasonable question of the judge's ability to act impartially.” Judges should consider the appearance of bias in cases in which significant donors to their campaigns are involved.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?
Significant shortages of prosecutors, public defenders, and private bar attorneys willing to take on public defender cases are causing delays which have a negative impact on everyone in the Criminal Justice System including victims, families, and defendants.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
​My opponent is a former State legislator who is unqualified to be a judge. According to CCAP, he has handled exactly one case in Circuit Courts. He signed a letter to then VP Mike Pence on January 5, calling for the disruption of the transition of power, citing unfounded claims of election irregularities. He has been endorsed by the most extreme anti-choice groups in Wisconsin, one of which opposes contraception and would ban abortions without exceptions. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Daniel Kelly was ranked "not qualified" by 74% attorneys who had an opinion,  while 86% said his opponent, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz, was "qualified," according to a Milwaukee Bar Association poll. 

Kelly was rated "qualified" by just 26% of respondents who had an opinion; Protasiewicz was rated "not qualified" by 14%.

The MBA surveys its members about Milwaukee County judicial candidates every year before the spring election. Members are asked whether candidates are qualified or not qualified. Members also may respond that they have no opinion. 

The table below shows poll results among all the candidates for judicial seats from participating attorneys who expressed an opinion.

All of the races for the Milwaukee County Circuit Court bench are uncontested. No candidate in those races received a "qualified" rating below 80%.

In the District I Court of Appeals race, which encompasses Milwaukee County, 90% of respondents considered Bill Brash qualified, while 67% said challenger Sara Geenen was qualified.

In the Milwaukee Municipal Court elections, incumbent Branch 3 Judge Phil Chavez does not have an opponent. For Branch 2, Molly Gena, managing attorney for Legal Action of Wisconsin's Milwaukee office, is running against Lena C. Taylor, a state senator, for an open seat.  In that race, 95% of respondents with an opinion said Gena was qualified, while just 27% said Taylor was qualified.

In Sheboygan County, Judge Daniel Borowski is not running for reelection. Cassandra Van Gompel and George Limbeck vie for the open seat.

​Election day is April 4. Absentee and early voting are underway.

Van Gompel, a local attorney manager with the State Public Defender, received her law degree from Marquette University Law School. Her resume is here.

Limbeck, an attorney with Limbeck Law Office, received his law degree from Washington University School of Law (St. Louis). His resume is here.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Van Gompel provided her resume and responded to the full questionnaire. Limbeck provided his resume and responded to part of the questionnaire. WJI has reached out to him again to obtain a complete response and will revise this post if he submits it.

In the race for Hales Corners municipal judge, Ian J. Thomson is challenging incumbent Jennine Sonntag. Election Day is April 4.

Thomson, an attorney at Gray & Associates in New Berlin, received his law degree from Marquette University Law School. His resume is here.

Sonntag, an attorney and contract administration leader at GE Healthcare in Wauwatosa and Hales Corners municipal judge since 2011, received her law degree from Marquette University Law School. Her resume is here.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The answers are presented here as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Two candidates are vying for a seat on the Milwaukee Municipal Court bench. The election is April 4, 2023.

Candidate Lena Taylor is an attorney and elected state senator. Candidate Molly Gena is the managing attorney at Legal Action of Wisconsin, a nonprofit law firm providing free legal services in civil cases to those who meet certain low-income requirements.

Gena (on the viewer's left) and Taylor (on the viewer's right) joined WJI in person on January 25 to introduce themselves and answer questions from attendees. 

Notes: Taylor had a prior engagement that, when combined with snow that day, caused her to enter the event a few minutes after it started. The event was held as a luncheon at Riverfront Pizzeria in Milwaukee, hence the imperfect visual quality and some background noise at times.

Attorney Molly Gena and Attorney and Sen. Lena Taylor are running for the Milwaukee Municipal Court seat being vacated by Derek Mosley, who left the bench for a position at Marquette University Law School.

Election Day is Tuesday, April 4.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. Taylor did not respond to the questionnaire. Gena responded, and her answers are printed here as submitted. 

The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Gena, managing attorney at Legal Action of Wisconsin, received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her resume is here.

Taylor, a state senator, received her law degree from the Southern Illinois University School of Law, according to the State Bar of Wisconsin's online attorney directory. 

The two candidates participated in a candidate forum held by Wisconsin Justice Initiative on January 25, 2023. Watch the video.

​Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
I am running for Milwaukee Municipal Judge because I have dedicated my career to public service, and I want to continue to serve Milwaukee as its next judge. I have been a civil legal aid attorney for over 15 years, providing free legal services to those who cannot afford an attorney in Milwaukee Municipal Court and all over Wisconsin. I have seen firsthand the barriers too many people face when seeking justice. I whole-heartedly believe that the judicial process needs to be easier for people to access and understand, and that judges, as stewards of the court, are responsible for promoting access and ensuring the court’s positive impact on the community as a whole.  
 
Representing clients in the municipal court for over 15 years, I know how much impact the court has on people and the community. Although municipal court cases are not criminal cases, they still have serious consequences. They may show up on criminal background checks. They are often used to deny housing and employment. Most frequently, when someone misses the deadline to pay a fine, the municipal court automatically issues arrest warrants or driver’s license suspensions until they pay. The serious implications that these cases have on people’s lives deserve thoughtful and deliberate consideration.
 
I will not punish people simply because they cannot afford to pay tickets. People living in poverty should not face harsher consequences for the same violations as those who have the means to pay their fines. Instead, for those who cannot afford their tickets, I will look to alternatives like community service, affordable payment plans, fine reductions, and the tax refund intercept program. I would use these alternatives based on each individual situation. This will allow me to spend more time handling serious violations like the dangerous reckless driving that plagues Milwaukee streets. In those more serious traffic-safety cases, the behavior of the driver will drive the severity of the consequence rather than their financial circumstance.
 
I have been a champion for racial justice and racial equity throughout my entire career. Punishing people who cannot pay their tickets with warrants and driver’s license suspensions has disproportionately affected people of color. It has been shown to be an ineffective debt collection device that further harms our community. I would be intentional about addressing racial disparities and encourage the city attorneys, law enforcement officers, and others in the system to do the same.
 
Courts can hold people accountable without punishing them just for being poor. I will focus on reducing the court’s reliance on default judgments and punishments to adopt a more individualized approach to cases that considers the circumstances of each individual who comes before me. This means adjudicating cases in a timely manner and working on systemic changes to make the court more efficient, ensuring justice and fairness and accessibility while enhancing public safety. The court can ensure that violators of the law are held responsible, while also allowing them to work, support their family, and contribute to the community.

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way.
 
I think Bank of New York Mellon v. Shirley Carson (2015) was an excellent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that had significant ramifications for the City of Milwaukee. This case dealt with “zombie foreclosures” or abandoned properties that have been in foreclosure for a long time. The bank had obtained a judgment of foreclosure against a homeowner but then did not immediately sell the property, letting it languish for over 16 months. The house remained in Ms. Carson’s name, though she moved out when she thought she no longer owned it. The house was subsequently vandalized and in disarray. Ms. Carson received multiple building code violations and was ordered to pay about $1,800 in fines even though she was not living there. She learned she still owned the home when she received the tickets. She was an elderly widow, and she went to Legal Action of Wisconsin for help. They filed a motion to amend the judgment to find the home was abandoned and order the bank to sell the property. The circuit court denied the motion, and it was eventually appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once a property is declared abandoned, the bank must follow through and sell the property within a reasonable amount of time.
 
The decision was important for homeowners, because “zombie foreclosures'' were common in Milwaukee. It also was important in preventing crime and blight in the city. The decision was applauded by city officials, including the mayor of Milwaukee. However, it also has major significance for me because I was fortunate to be able to watch my friend and colleague argue the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Watching her argue one of our non-profit civil legal aid law firm’s cases and then win it was incredibly exciting and inspiring. While I am certainly biased, it was argued and written exceptionally well. It encouraged me to continue as a public interest law attorney. When I first started as a baby lawyer other lawyers in court would ask me what I do and where I work. When I told them that I was a civil legal aid lawyer, I would sometimes hear, “That’s nice, but when are you going to get a real job?” I did not settle for my job because I could not get a corporate firm job. This is the work that I went to law school to do. I believe that representation at a non-profit law firm is every bit as important, technically demanding, and fulfilling as any other practice, and our law firm’s work in this case was affirmation of that belief. The outstanding oral and written advocacy in this case resulted in a unanimous decision that reminded the legal community that civil legal aid attorneys are real lawyers too. 
 
Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way.
 
The recent Supreme Court of the United States decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center continues to plague our country. It denies women their fundamental rights. I do not need to rehash the painful holding, ramifications, or completely wrong analysis, but it has been gut-wrenching to watch the clinics in Wisconsin have to stop providing essential medical services in response to such a flawed decision. While the opinion does not directly affect cases in Milwaukee Municipal Court, it is tragic and will cause women to lose their lives.

Describe your judicial philosophy. 
 
My judicial philosophy centers around two principal concepts: access to justice and equal justice. The administration of justice is an unheralded, but critical role of any judge and in a people’s court like the municipal court, it is even more essential that it be handled with access to justice and equal justice in mind.
 
I believe that a judge should ensure and promote access to justice by being transparent and accountable, and by championing ideals like a right to counsel in civil cases as well as criminal. The court should be open to innovation and developing new initiatives to promote access, such as the community court programs, and willing to allow litigants to appear in court as walk-ins without scheduled appearances.
 
A municipal court judge should strive to ensure equal justice through every aspect of how they administer the law. That begins, at a base level, by treating everyone fairly and with dignity and respect, while still holding people accountable and protecting public safety. Furthermore, patience is critical. I understand that there may be some people in court who are facing trauma, mental illness, or homelessness and may not have the resources to navigate the legal system. It is imperative for judges to clearly and effectively communicate to ensure that they understand their rights, the consequences of municipal convictions, and the legal process. Equal justice can be further advanced by providing litigants with increased access to resources that can better their situation, helping to reduce recidivism and improving the odds of their court case ultimately bettering them individually and as part of the community.

Finally, I believe that municipal courts are not a fundraising apparatus and they are not debt collectors. The function of the municipal court is not to bring in revenue but to administer justice, and to adjudicate city ordinance violation cases.
 
Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. 

I sued the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) to help reinstate my client’s driver’s license that had been revoked for 14 years and fixed a flawed agency practice. His license was revoked after he defaulted on a court-ordered payment plan related to a minor accident. I negotiated with the attorney for the creditor to obtain another payment plan and lift the suspension so he could get to work. We submitted the payment plan to the DOT, but the DOT did not approve it because they had a rule at the time that drivers who defaulted on a court-ordered payment plan were never eligible for another payment plan. I sued the DOT on my client’s behalf in a Chapter 227 petition for judicial review in Milwaukee County Circuit Court and argued that the DOT’s decision was contrary to state law which clearly allowed for a second payment plan. Eventually, the Assistant Attorney General agreed that the DOT would reinstate my client’s driver’s license and promulgate an administrative rule on payment plans for these types of suspensions and give our law firm an opportunity to comment on the language of the rule prior to the public comment. We settled the circuit court case and I submitted written comments and testified about the proposed rule which directly cited my case. The DOT agreed with me and the rule stated they would start permitting an unlimited number of payment plans. This is significant for low-income drivers because at the time the suspensions for an unpaid damage judgment were 20 years long. Payment plans allow drivers to get their licenses back while making payments to the creditor.
 
In another case, I represented a client in attempting to lift their driver’s license suspensions for failure to pay minor traffic tickets in Milwaukee Municipal Court. She had to take two buses to get to work. The court had a policy that litigants could get one payment plan and if they defaulted, they had to pay 30% of the total amount of the tickets in order to lift the driver’s license suspensions. For my client, that was $118 that she did not have. I filed a motion for a payment plan citing the poverty protections in the statutes. The judge denied my motion and my motion to reconsider. I then filed an appeal in circuit court, a notable fact because only about 5% of defendants in the municipal court have attorneys and few appeals of municipal court decisions are filed. The circuit court judge agreed and held that because the municipal court judge did make a finding that she was unable to pay due to poverty (which they had to make because she was receiving food stamps), they acted contrary to the law which required them to lift her driver’s license suspensions. The case was reversed and remanded to the municipal court and we continued to file motions in municipal courts throughout the state to force judges to follow the law and the specific poverty protections within it.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.   
 
I do not have much criminal litigation experience. At the UW Law School, I participated in the Innocence Project and I worked on the Audrey Edmunds case in Dane County in which we filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. My professor argued the case, but I did draft the affidavits for our expert witnesses and collaborated on the strategy and arguments. I have also represented a couple of clients on criminal Operating After Revocation cases in assisting them with efforts to obtain their driver’s licenses.
 
I have much more civil litigation experience. I have represented clients in over 45 different municipal courts in the state and over 20 circuit courts. I have represented clients in traffic tickets, civil ordinances, and parking tickets in municipal courts. I have also defended clients in evictions, money judgment and consumer cases in both small and large claims. I have filed a few appeals. Most of my work has been motion practice, poverty hearings, evidentiary hearings and brief writing.
 
I have also represented clients in administrative proceedings in hearings in front of both the DOT and the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee. I have appealed some of those decisions to circuit court as well.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur? 

NO
 
Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?

NO
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?
 
I think the biggest problem is that the system itself is not fair and accessible for everyone. There are systemic barriers in our justice system, especially for people of color, low-income families, and other marginalized communities.
 
Many people have a hard time understanding and using the legal system. This is especially true for people who are not fluent in English or who do not have enough money to hire a lawyer. Additionally, the bureaucracy involved in seeking justice can be overwhelming or difficult to navigate. And for many, the hours that courts typically operate conflict with working hours that they are not able or cannot afford to miss. Everyone deserves equal access to our justice system.
 
Overall, addressing the obstacles to justice requires a multifaceted and systemic approach, including addressing bias and discrimination, increasing access to justice, and addressing the underlying social and economic issues that contribute to inequality in the justice system.

If elected, I plan to take a number of actions to help remove some of these barriers to justice. I plan to minimize automatic judgments and defaults whenever possible, and consider all of the circumstances in the cases that come before me. Additionally, I will continue the court’s practice of holding court in the community and in the evenings.

For most of my career and practice in the Milwaukee Municipal Court, everyone had the ability to “walk-in” to the court to be heard. This means that they could come in without a scheduled time post-judgment to ask for a payment plan or community service. Milwaukee Municipal Court is one of only two full-time municipal courts in the state, and walk-ins are essential to make the court accessible and fair. However, that practice stopped in 2020 with the pandemic, and the court has not brought it back. Walk-in court is essential for a people’s court, so they can be heard and resolve their tickets quickly. The circuit court allows walk-ins on civil tickets, and that practice needs to be restored in the municipal court, and I plan on doing just that. 
 
Finally, we are experiencing a reckless driving epidemic in the city that is at the forefront of everyone’s minds. However, instead of focusing on traffic safety, Milwaukee Municipal Court instead orders tens of thousands of driver’s license suspensions per year to collect debt. I would reserve driver's license suspensions for serious and harmful driving behavior so that the court, police, and DMV can focus their resources on safety violations. This would ensure that courts do more good than harm in our community. One of my top priorities as judge will be significantly reducing the time between when someone is issued a reckless driving ticket, and the time that they are in court to face potential penalties, so we can get the most dangerous drivers off the street and held accountable sooner. And in less serious cases, I would utilize evidence-based solutions and alternatives to fines and suspensions, like ordering drivers to attend traffic safety courses. 
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
As I have said, I would discontinue certain debt collection tools/sanctions for failure to pay tickets, such as driver’s license suspensions or commitments to jail. I have seen through my 15 years representing countless clients in municipal court that these are ineffective at coercing payment and actually have the opposite effect. Suspending driver’s licenses and jailing people keeps them from being able to get to work, making it even less likely for them to be able to pay tickets. Municipalities spend more to jail defendants than what is collected in payments. Those who can pay do pay their tickets, and those that cannot just end up stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty if they lose their licenses or go to jail for not paying minor municipal tickets. I would increase the use of community service (which still holds people accountable and benefits the community), reasonable payment plans, and lower fines. Fines should be proportional to one’s ability to pay, and payment plans must also be reasonable for the individual litigant. Furthermore, the law requires courts to lift driver’s license suspensions and warrants for anyone that cannot pay due to poverty. The majority of those who do pay are statutorily unable to pay due to poverty because they are on public assistance such as W-2, SSI or food stamps or qualify for a public defender of civil legal attorney. It is a waste of court and law enforcement resources to suspend or issue warrants in the first place.
 
The overwhelming majority (75-80%) of cases in Milwaukee Municipal Court are default judgments. This means that the litigants, or people facing penalties, do not appear in court and a judgment is automatically entered against them. Most of the time an appearance is not required, and most litigants do not see the value in coming to court. These cases are automated in the system and once the judgment is entered, they are given 60 days to pay. I would review not only the tickets in which the litigants appear in court, but every single case. Before entering a default judgment, I would review the citations to ensure that the judgment is warranted under the circumstances. 
 
Individual consideration of the cases and the underlying behavior on a case-by-case basis is not limited to traffic, but would be applied throughout my courtroom. As a result, my court would be able to hold slumlords accountable in a fashion like reckless drivers. I have had clients who own their houses and are on a fixed income and need help making repairs to their homes who are being punished more severely than slumlords because of their inability to pay the fines. I would give homeowners time to address those issues and provide them with resources to assist them with those repairs. And I would dismiss or reduce tickets once they have fixed the problems. I would consider raising fines for slumlords who own and rent out multiple properties with terrible living conditions where their tenants have no recourse.

The primary is coming up on Tuesday, February 21. (There's a statewide primary for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, too. You can learn about the Supreme Court primary candidates here.)

Wisconsin Justice Initiative asked each of the Oneida County Circuit Court candidates to answer a series of questions. Candidates Burns and Fugle responded, and their answers are presented here as submitted. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Burns, the incumbent, received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her resume is here. 

Fugle is Oneida County corporation counsel. He received his law degree from Marquette University. His resume is here.

Schiek did not respond to the questionnaire.

The primary election is coming up on Tuesday, February 21. There's a statewide primary for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as Justice Patience Roggensack is not seeking reelection.

Wisconsin Justice Initiative asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. One candidate responded, and her answers are printed here as submitted. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

​The responding candidate, Janet Protasiewicz, is a trial judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. 

Candidate Everett Mitchell is a trial judge on the Dane County Circuit Court. You can view his April 2022 presentation at a WJI Salon on the topic of juvenile justice here.

Candidate Jennifer Dorow is a trial judge on the Waukesha County Circuit Court. You can read the "Walker's judges" profile of her, which WJI published in 2016 based on Dorow's 2011 application for her judicial appointment by then-Gov. Scott Walker, here. WJI's post on Dorow has been linked to or cited recently by other publications, including The New York Times and Urban Milwaukee.

Candidate Daniel Kelly is a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. After losing his election campaign in 2020, he served as a senior fellow at the Institute for Reforming Government. You can read the "Walker's judges" profile of him, which WJI published in 2020 based on Kelly's 2016 application for his judicial appointment by Walker, here.​

Why do you want to become a justice? 

I have found service as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge extremely fulfilling. It is intellectually stimulating, allows me to learn about many aspects of the law I was not exposed to as a prosecutor, and fulfills my commitment to public service.

I am running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, because I feel it is my duty to serve and I cannot sit back and watch right-wing extremists manipulate the law for political benefit and destroy the reputation of our once truly nonpartisan court. There are so many issues that will come before the court that will have a real impact on the lives of people in Wisconsin, that I feel compelled to devote my energy and talents so I can help ensure the court is fairly administering justice to protect the rights of all the people. I believe I possess the depth of legal experience, life experience, judgment, judicial demeanor, and values to be a just and effective Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way. 

Obergefell v. Hodges is one of the best Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that all same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marry by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a monumental decision because the Court deemed the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects. This was a huge victory for LGBTQIA+ individuals who have faced decades of discrimination and have been fighting tirelessly for civil rights. This win affirmed that all Americans should be regarded equally and moved the United States toward being a more fair and just society.

Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way. 

The 2022 SCOTUS decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is one of the worst decisions in modern times. It stripped women of their right to determine their own health decisions, within the well-reasoned personal rights and limitations established in Roe for women to access abortion services legally. It threw to the States, after 50 years, the ability to determine rights on a state-by-state basis, resulting immediately in a patchwork of rights, the limitation of medical resources for women based upon where they lived, and the re-animation of the 1849 Wisconsin abortion ban that is now being challenged by the Attorney General and Governor. It failed to recognize the right of privacy in the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as case law on privacy rights, which lays the groundwork for attacking a host of other privacy rights. The concurring opinion of Justice Thomas made it clear that marriage equality, birth control, and sodomy laws are the next rights to be challenged. Although he found exception for interracial marriage, which would have negatively impacted him personally, this issue is also based upon the same theories as the other privacy cases. This decision was extreme, did not respect precedent, did not tailor a narrow holding on the facts of the particular case, and was a radical stripping of an established right for over half the population of this country. As the challenge to the Wisconsin law will be heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I cannot prejudge the merits of that case. I can say that the decision in Dobbs, which took away reproductive rights instead of expanding them, laid a road map for stripping more rights in the future by analogy, and was wrongly decided in my opinion.

Describe your judicial philosophy. 

My judicial philosophy is that every person deserves to walk into our courtrooms and demand justice, and not feel like the thumb is on the scale against them. I believe in upholding our constitution and defending our hard-earned rights. I believe in the simple credo of “do justice.” My philosophy is founded in the Constitution of the United States and the State of Wisconsin.

Being a judge involves examining facts, applying the law, and making sure the legal protections are observed. Those who interact with the judicial system need to know they are seen, heard, and treated with fairness and respect. A judge must never lose sight of the impact of the legal system on victims, witnesses, law enforcement, and those accused of crimes. All persons before the court deserve respect for their rights, protection of their safety, justice and restitution for harms suffered, and offenders need rehabilitation opportunities to make them better citizens.

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

During my 26 years as a Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney, I spent many years in the Juvenile Division, where I prosecuted termination of parental rights (TPR) cases, where family reunification was not viable and there was an adoptive resource available. One such case was State of Wisconsin v. Margaret H., which was a TPR case involving two young brothers, where I was the prosecutor, representing the State of Wisconsin in the trial before the Circuit Court.

In this case, it was the grandparent who was not an adoptive resource, but wanted the TPR to be denied. The State’s positions allied with that of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), who was the attorney appointed for the children in this matter to protect their best interests. The GAL filed an appeal of the Circuit Court denial of termination of parental rights, based upon a minimal family relationship the children had with the grandmother. I joined the GAL in that appeal process, where the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and the grandparent appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I filed a brief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, which supported the position of the GAL. I argued before the WSC, as well as filing the appeal briefs, and the State and GAL prevailed, when the WSC affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to overturn the Circuit Court and grant the TPR, so these boys could be adopted and have a stable and safe future. That was a difficult case, but extremely gratifying. 

As a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, I have handled homicides and sexual assault cases. One of the most difficult was State of Wisconsin v. Dariaz Higgins, Milwaukee County Case Number 2019CF001050. The defendant snatched his 2-year old daughter, concealing her whereabouts from her mother, resulting in the family frantically searching for the young child. The defendant contacted the mother, to lure her into meeting him to get the child back. When the mother and her friend went to meet him in Milwaukee County, he shot and killed the 24-year-old mother and seriously wounded the mother’s friend. The little girl’s body was later found dead in Minnesota. He was prosecuted in Milwaukee County for First Degree Intentional Homicide, Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide, and First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety. While this did not proceed to trial, because he pled guilty to the two most serious charges, the horrendous nature of this case and the issues at sentencing made this case significant in my career. I sentenced him to life without parole, which was the only appropriate sentence in this matter. This was only a small measure of justice for his crimes, because these lives could never be made the same and these families could never be made whole, when nothing could bring back this child or her mother.

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

In my long life and career, I have witnessed many injustices in and outside of court. What stays with me is the impact of abuse and neglect on children, which I dealt with as a prosecutor on CHIPS cases, and later as a judge on abuse cases. I think this injustice strikes at the heart of the community. In court as a prosecutor, I could advocate for children’s safety and the punishment of those who abused them. As a judge, I tried to fashion remedies that take into respect the particular facts of the case and the impact of abuse that makes a victim child more likely to suffer as an adult from poverty, lack of education, substance abuse, and mental health concerns. As a person outside of the courtroom, I have volunteered with at-risk teens and mentored groups to support women to try and break this cycle and make our community healthier. We are a country of privilege and wealth, so I have endeavored to use the privileges I have enjoyed in a stable family and faith community to give back to my community. That was why when I became an attorney, went into public service, and became a judge.

I believe respect for persons before the bench, whether they be litigants, attorneys, or court staff, is essential to modeling equity. The behavior of a judge is reflected in how the court staff interacts with the public. I have an open and welcoming courtroom. Small things, like asking someone what they want to be called, or scheduling around someone’s work or daycare needs when possible, can really make a difference in the atmosphere of the courtroom. I also make every effort to show litigants that they are seen, heard, and respected. On the Wisconsin Supreme Court, though there are no litigants appearing, I would use the same people skills to build bridges with my colleagues, because having respectful relationships is conducive to getting others to listen to your viewpoint, which results in a more equitable outcome.

Describe other relevant work experience that would assist you in your performance as a justice.

Before being elected to the bench, I served more than 25 years as Assistant District Attorney, where I prosecuted serious crimes and protected families. I have been elected to the bench twice without opposition. I currently serve in Family Court and have also presided over homicide, sexual assault, misdemeanor, domestic violence, and drug courts. I earned my bachelor’s degree at UW Milwaukee and my law degree at Marquette University, where I later served as an Adjunct Professor of Law.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?

N/A

Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur? 

N/A
 
Do you support requiring any justice 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? What contribution limits would you set?

It is important to have a strong, clear recusal rule. I believe this should be developed through public hearings, and an open and transparent process, so that all actors are aware of what might trigger a recusal. This would help to restore greater confidence in judges. People should have increased confidence that special interests are not rigging the judicial system for their own political agendas.

What, if anything, would you do to improve the judicial commission?

The judicial commission operates with too much secrecy, is too staff-driven, and is not effective as a body to hold bad-acting judges accountable. I would support a review of its policies and procedures and support public hearings to advance this discussion and create a more effective mechanism to hold judges accountable.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? 

The funding for the court system statewide is insufficient. The lack of public defenders, and now even prosecutors, available to take cases, especially in more rural counties, delays the court process, impacting not only offenders who may be in custody, but victims and witnesses involved in a case. If an offender is out of custody awaiting trial, there are insufficient resources for pretrial supervision, such as electronic monitoring, that can provide the offender with rehabilitative interventions pretrial, but also protect the public from new offenses while the accused is on bail status. One great resource in Milwaukee County is the Milwaukee Justice Center, but its funding is not sufficient. There are not enough programs available for drug and alcohol counseling, batterers intervention, parenting classes, job training, etc., which aid in not only rehabilitating those convicted, but in allowing those charged to avail themselves of alternative dispositions to conviction and incarceration.

For example, when I was a judge in Domestic Violence Court, it was common to order violence counseling and parenting classes, not only at sentencing, but also as conditions of Deferred Prosecution Agreements. Sometimes, the accused would even start this programming while the case was pending, to show good faith and get a more favorable outcome, or to get a No Contact Order with the intimate partner victim lifted or modified to allow non-violent contact. In my current assignment in Family Court handling divorces, I have encountered persons who completed these extensive programs through the criminal process, but they are not “certified” for application in the family courts. I believe rigid adherence wastes vital system resources and frustrates the purpose of improving people’s lives and futures, which is counterproductive to treatment and rehabilitation. The additional deficiencies in the system include the lack of court reporters, court clerks, prosecutors, and court interpreters; the system being overburdened results in justice being delayed. 

This was exacerbated during the pandemic, where the courts being unable to conduct trials for more than a year resulted in a tremendous backlog of cases, while the accused sometimes remained in custody without being convicted, where victims or witnesses became uncooperative or felt out of contact, or those out of custody without services and supervision were not being rehabilitated, or were financially impacted by being unable to gain employment with an open case and could get into more trouble. So, in short, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has to vigorously advocate to the legislature for more resources for the whole system, so that society is safer, justice is swifter, and rehabilitation is a focus to build stronger families and communities in the future.

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

Dan Kelly and Jennifer Dorow are cut from the same cloth. Both are right-wing partisans that will do what is in the best interest of their party and right-wing extremists. They were both selected by Scott Walker to reflect his political goals and the interests of the Republican Party. We can’t afford to let either one of them sit on our state's highest court. Judge Dorow has presided in the trial court of a far less populous county than I have, and her level of experience does not match my own. While she has received sudden fame from a tragic high-profile homicide case, I spent years litigating many tragic sexual assault and homicide cases, day after day, without live broadcast or extended television interviews. Former Justice Kelly was appointed by Walker to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to finish the term of a conservative justice who stepped down even though he had absolutely no experience as a trial court judge, but plenty of political connections. In 2020, Kelly faced the voters four years later, with record special interest group spending and the endorsement of then President Trump. The voters of Wisconsin resoundingly defeated Kelly by electing Justice Jill Karofsky to a 10-year term on the Court.

I believe that my temperament and ability to work well with people of all social and political backgrounds is a strength I can bring to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I want to restore faith in the Supreme Court so that the Court is not a partisan political body, but one that upholds and applies the law and Constitution.

The primary election is coming up on Tuesday, February 21. There's a statewide primary for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, too.

Wisconsin Justice Initiative asked each of the Grant County Circuit Court candidates to answer a series of questions. Two candidates responded, and their answers are presented here as submitted. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Lisa A. Riniker is the Grant County district attorney. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School. 

Jeffrey W. Erickson is a criminal defense attorney in the office of the State Public Defender. He, too, received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School. His resume is here.

Candidate Jennifer Day did not respond to the questionnaire.

As its March Salon, Wisconsin Justice Initiative held a virtual candidate forum regarding the race for a seat on the Court of Appeals District II. Incumbent Judge Lori Kornblum discussed her background and answered questions from attendees. Here's the video from the event.

Wisconsin's courts of appeals have only 16 judges total, divided into four districts. District II is headquartered in Waukesha.  Citizens in the following 12 counties choose its judges: Calumet, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago. Voters statewide should care about this race, however, as the court's decisions have statewide impact. 

WJI is a nonpartisan nonprofit that takes no position regarding candidates in this or any election. WJI held the Salon and publishes this video for voter education purposes. Kornblum's opponent, Waukesha Circuit Court Judge Maria Lazar, was invited to participate in this event but did not attend.

Election day is Tuesday, April 5.