 Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (L) interviews Judge Brad Schimel (R) on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, at Marquette University Law School. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel told a crowd straight out that he’s an originalist and that the “judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest.” In seeming contradiction, he also said that a judge should keep an open mind until all evidence and arguments are in. The remarks were made at a “Get to Know” forum held Tuesday afternoon by the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School, hosted by Director Derek Mosley. A recording of the one-hour forum is available. Schimel, a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, is competing with Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford for an open seat on the Supreme Court created by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s retirement. Schimel said that running for the Supreme Court was not in his plans until the 2023 election campaign, during which time now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s comments while campaigning suggested in advance how she would rule. That campaign led him to run. Schimel said that “you have to commit as a jurist to have an open mind” and that “if you can’t make that commitment, you have no business putting that black robe on.” He said he would bring back objectivity: “no more prejudging stuff. Judges must set aside all the political noise to judge the cases before them, he said, adding “It’s liberating.” Originalism means the interpretation of a constitution or law in a way that jurists today believe the writers of the document meant when they wrote and passed it—in other words, its perceived original meaning. Three other Supreme Court justices have expressed their belief in originalism, meaning that Schimel's election to the court would make that a majority view. When pressed on originalism by an audience member who asked why Schimel thinks “the Founders had all this knowledge” that does not change over time, Schimel remarked that “the Constitution has to be an enduring document.” As for his judicial philosophy, in addition to being an originalist, he is a judicial conservative, which he said differs from a political conservative. He would “apply the law as written,” he said. He discussed how evictions are tough cases for him as a judge, but “it’s a contract” and “you don’t get to put your thumb on a scale,” he said. “It’s the law and you have to apply it.” An audience member asked Schimel what role he thought the government should have in a woman’s reproductive health. She prefaced her question with a statement that she is afraid of Schimel becoming justice because after she was the victim of a sexual assault, she feared an unplanned pregnancy. He responded that his children were unplanned pregnancies, which allowed his wife and him the ability to adopt them, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision put the decision in the hands of the people. “The body in control of this issue is the voters of Wisconsin,” he said, and told the woman he had no reason to fear him. “Judges and justices are disconnected” and do not make policy, he said in response to a question about lack of voter ability to change the law with “rigged” legislative districts. When asked about outside influence in the race to his benefit, in particular advertisement money and endorsements from Elon Musk, Schimel said he welcomed anyone who helps to get his message out but that he is “not running on anybody’s agenda.” “I can’t do anything to stop the money” coming in, he said. He referenced outside money supporting his opponent, too, from George Soros and the Illinois governor, and that “you can’t be for sale.” Schimel discussed his childhood and education, his work in a prosecutor clinic during law school, his first job in the district attorney’s office in Waukesha, and his eventual positions as district attorney, state attorney general, then judge. He said that “running for office is about making friends.” “I like that,” he added. Schimel’s term on the Waukesha County Circuit Court ends July 31, 2025, so if he loses the supreme court race he is out of the courts, which he noted at the forum. In response to Mosley’s questions about Schimel's proudest accomplishments, Schimel mentioned his work as DA in building a child advocacy center in Waukesha to help child victims and their families; his work as attorney general in developing a successful drug take-back program, an office of school safety, and a chaplain program for law enforcement; and as judge presiding over a drug treatment court. Treatment courts, which address underlying causes of crime and help those who are struggling to succeed, “are one of the best things we’ve ever done,” he said. Schimel noted that throughout his career he has learned that things are not black and white—most things are grey. He said that in criminal cases in the trial court the judge is the least powerful person in the room, as the prosecutor holds the power, until sentencing. When asked about what needs to change in the justice system, Schimel pointed to the need for more defense attorneys because defendants are waiting too long in custody awaiting appointment of counsel. He also would like people to pay more attention to the judicial system, especially by voting in the April judicial elections. An audience member asked how he reconciled wanting voters to pay attention with his prior statement that the judiciary by design is the weakest branch of government. Schimel said that the weakness comes from the Founders’ documents and that he saw no inconsistency in the statements. He did, however, indicate that the courts do have a role in deciding what executive powers are legitimate. Immediately following the event, a handful of reporters sought to talk with Schimel, but his campaign staffer said he was on a schedule and could not stay. The staffer said reporters should email him, but one reporter said he had tried that three times with no response from the staffer.
0 Comments
By Margo Kirchner
Voters in Jefferson County will not see a circuit court race on their primary ballots tomorrow, even though three candidates submitted a sufficient number of nomination signatures. Just prior to the printing of primary ballots, a judge ruled that candidate Cortney Iverson was not constitutionally eligible and struck her name from the ballot. Dane County Circuit Judge Stephen E. Ehlke found that Iverson has not been an attorney long enough to be elected judge in the spring 2025 elections. The Wisconsin Constitution provides that to be eligible for judicial office at the circuit court or higher levels, a person must be an attorney licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for at least five years “immediately prior to election or appointment.” Iverson was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in May 2020. She argued to the Wisconsin Elections Commission that because the term of office for circuit judge starts Aug. 1, she would meet the five-year requirement by the time she started the job. The Wisconsin Elections Commission certified her as a candidate even after challenges by the two other candidates in the race. Ehlke disagreed. He found that the key date for meeting the five-year requirement is the date of the election, and Iverson will have practiced for less than the required time on Feb. 18 (the primary) as well as April 1 (the general election). “Words and phrases are to be given their common and ordinary meaning and ‘election’ is, I think, a pretty well understood word no matter what dictionary you use . . . . It’s not assuming office, it’s the election,” he said during a hearing in the case. In his oral ruling, Ehlke found “there’s no question that this candidate is ineligible” and that Iverson “can’t cure that in any way, shape, or form because the five-year anniversary will occur in May after either the primary or the general election.” The “constitutional provision is quite clear that you have to have been licensed as an attorney for at least five years prior to the election. And election is either the primary or the general election in April. It is not when the person who has been elected then later assumes the office. Those are two distinct things,” he said. Ehlke ordered the elections commission to drop Iverson’s name and generate a new certified list of candidates for the primary and spring elections. He also barred the Jefferson County clerk from issuing any ballots to voters with Iverson’s name on it. Iverson sought to challenge Branch 2 incumbent Theresa Beck, who was recently appointed by Gov. Tony Evers. Jennifer Weber has been certified as a candidate to challenge Beck for Branch 2. Because just two candidates remain, they will appear on the April 1 ballot without a primary on Feb. 18. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy.  By Margo Kirchner
Just eight of 38 circuit court judicial races in Wisconsin this spring are contested. Notably, not one of the six Milwaukee County judges up for election is challenged. Waukesha County and Jefferson County will be campaign hot spots, though, with two contested circuit court races each. St. Croix County will have a primary on Feb. 18, as three candidates vie for the seat that opened when Judge Edward Vlack chose not to run for reelection. The Wisconsin Elections Commission's Jan. 8 candidate tracking report indicates that James Jamie Johnson, Heather Amos, and Brian Smestad are preliminarily approved for the election. Candidates had until the end of the business on Jan. 7 to file their nomination papers and enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. The Jan. 8 report shows candidates who appear to have met the filing requirements, but submissions are still subject to challenge and await official approval by the commission. The commission is scheduled to meet on Jan. 14 to finalize the list of candidates. Provided that Cortney Iverson’s submitted signatures and required Statement of Economic Interests form are approved, Jefferson County Branch 2 also will have a primary on Feb. 18, with Jennifer Weber and Iverson taking on recently appointed Theresa Beck. The top two finishers in each primary will advance to the general election on April 1. Contested races with two candidates for the April 1 election:
Three of 16 court of appeals judges are up for reelection, none challenged: Mark Gundrum in District 2, Lisa Stark in District 3, and Jennifer Nashold in District 4. You’ve likely heard about the contested race for the open Wisconsin Supreme Court seat due to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s retirement. Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford have been campaigning for months and have been preliminarily approved for the election. No surprise additional candidate filed nomination papers by the deadline. Wisconsin Justice Initiative will ask all candidates in contested races to complete questionnaires about their work experience, judicial philosophy, and desire to be a judge. Look for their answers in the WJI blog in February and March. By Margo Kirchner As of Aug. 1, 2025, Brad Schimel will either be a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice or out of the Wisconsin judiciary. Schimel is currently a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, with a term ending July 31, 2025. On Dec. 19, he filed a “notification of noncandidacy,” confirming that he will not run for his Waukesha County seat as a back-up if he loses to Susan Crawford in the Supreme Court race. Schimel was appointed to the bench by then-Gov. Scott Walker in late 2018, following Schimel’s loss to Josh Kaul in the November 2018 attorney general race. Schimel won election to a full six-year term in April 2019. Crawford is a Dane County Circuit Court judge with a term ending July 31, 2030. She won reelection in April 2024 to a six-year term. She had won a contested race for an open seat in the April 2018 election. If Crawford wins the Supreme Court race, Gov. Tony Evers will be able to appoint a replacement for her on the Dane County bench. Schimel and Crawford are running for an open seat on the Supreme Court. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced months ago that she would not run for reelection and confirmed that by filing her notification of noncandidacy on Dec. 13. Other judges who have filed notices of noncandidacy and created open seats for the April 2025 election:
Nomination papers and valid signatures for April 2025 judicial candidates are due Jan. 7.
 For those following WJI's candidate questionnaires or interested in judicial elections across the state, here are the results of yesterday's 10 contested races according to unofficial results posted online today:
In Racine County, Jessica Lynott challenges recently appointed incumbent Judge Toni L. Young for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2. Before her appointment as circuit judge, Young was the attorney manager for the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office in Janesville. She graduated from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School (formerly Thomas M. Cooley Law School) in 2005. Lynott is an assistant district attorney in the Racine County District Attorney's Office. She graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2003. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments Lynott's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Young indicated by email that she would answer WJI's questionnaire, but a response has not been received to date. (Update: On March 28, 2024, WJI published portions of Young's application for judicial appointment, available here.)  Why do you want to become a judge?
It has been my goal since I was young to work hard and become a Judge. As someone who has spent the past 20 years living, volunteering, raising children and working in the Racine Community, I recognize that I can better serve the community as a Judge. I plan to bring common sense to the bench and render community-focused justice. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is an important decision by the Supreme Court because it upheld private citizens’ rights to lawfully own/possess a gun, especially for self-defense at one’s home. This decision upheld rights under the Second Amendment, which is very important to me. Describe your judicial philosophy. My theme is Common Sense Justice. It is important that Judges follow the law and not act as activists from the bench. My theme encompasses my goal of running a fair and efficient courtroom. Showing respect to all parties and professionals involved in a case is a top priority. Because of my long-standing community involvement, I understand the needs and the resources within the Racine Community. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. I have an abundance of trial & motion work experience, as well as day-to-day courtroom experience, so picking only two is hard. As a prosecutor, my first homicide case will always be one of my more significant cases. It involved domestic abuse and child witnesses. Helping them navigate the process, working with them to prepare for trial and being able to deliver results that will keep them safe will always stay with me. Another case I’ve been involved in prosecuting include a homicide of a baby, in which I had to dive into the medical realm of Abusive Head Trauma and work with Experts to master the evidence. Other significant cases involve Sexual Assault of Children cases. The resiliency of my victims and their families always amazes me. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. After graduating from law school I practiced in the area of labor & employment law. I was able to gain experience dealing with State agencies as well as federal agencies (EEOC). I had experience advocating for both businesses and individuals, unions as well as working for a State agency. It was very interesting to see all sides. When I made the jump into criminal law as a prosecutor, I took the responsibility to represent the State of Wisconsin very seriously. While representing the State, I advocated for victims’ rights, public safety, and yes, even for defendants’ rights. My end goal is always getting a just and fair result. I’ve spent over seven years practicing in juvenile court, traffic & misdemeanor court and felony court, where I’ve handled cases relating to gun, drug and sensitive crimes. Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. Stepping in to protect a victim from their own mother is a recent example of how I faced a challenge and had to stand up for what is right and enlist the assistance of a Guardian Ad Litem. In my personal life, I’m currently dealing with a loved one who was diagnosed with cancer and having to deal with chemotherapy and up-coming surgeries on top of juggling my other responsibilities has been difficult. Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set? I support following the law and/or rules first and foremost. If there are ethical regulations that outline this matter, I would follow them. If situations in which there are no applicable rules, laws or regulations, then I support applying prudent judgement to situations in which a supporter or contributor was involved in a case before me and it truly depends on the level of the connection. Each situation would be handled on its own merits. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? One of the biggest challenges is having adequate resources to keep the system moving in an efficient manner. For example, in the criminal law arena, we are constantly short on defense attorneys to take on cases in which the defendants cannot afford to hire private counsel. One solution is to utilize technology to allow zoom appearances. Justice delayed is justice denied and that goes for both defendants as well as victims. Getting cases done in a timely fashion is one of my top concerns. In Columbia County, Roger L. Klopp challenges incumbent Judge Troy D. Cross for the Branch 3 position. The election is April 2. Cross was elected circuit judge in 2018 and previously was an assistant district attorney. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1998. Klopp is an attorney in private practice at Klopp Law Office in Lodi. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1989. His resume is here and an additional biography statement he submitted is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments Klopp's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Cross did not respond to WJI's request.  Roger Klopp
Why do you want to become a judge? I want to become a judge because I am a very fair person who is attentive to people's situations and would be able to address people's cases with a humanistic perspective. I ran for judge one other time in 1999 but came in third place. Since then, I have pondered running several times and I was encouraged by many people to run in this year's judicial race. Throughout my career as an attorney, I have represented many low income and middle-class people. I have also been on the board of directors at Legal Action of Wisconsin for over 30 years, and have been the organization’s treasurer, vice president and president of the board in the past. My work with this organization has educated me about the difficulties that the disadvantaged and disenfranchised have getting a fair hearing in the courtroom. Access to justice is one of the underpinnings of our country, and we must work harder to provide that access to all on an even playing field. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 has to be one of the worst US Supreme Court cases in the past 25 years. In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, in assailing corporate influence, prosecuted what at the time were called the great trusts vis a vis the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, breaking up the oil monopoly of the Rockefeller's and others. Roosevelt was strongly against corporate influence and control of politics. There was a long-term prohibition on corporate financing of political campaigns. This was due to the belief that corporate influence by way of financing campaigns would give the wealthy an unfair influence upon the political process and weaken the voices of common persons. The Citizens United case was a 5-4 decision which held that the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment prohibited the government from restricting campaign expenditures by corporations, non-profit organizations, labor unions, and other entities. It equated corporations the same rights due to citizens. A corporation is not a person. What has happened is that it allowed a never-ending spigot of corporate money to influence elections and weaken the voice of the common person. Citizens United has allowed corporations to essentially buy elections to the detriment of our populace. Describe your judicial philosophy. Currently there is a lot of debate over constitutional originalism versus the living document theory. A third theory, strict constructionism is also frequently cited. In studying law, and history I believe it is abundantly apparent that the founding fathers drafted a document which was to protect key principles while allowing the document fluidity to address changes in society, and how the law would react to those changes as our nation grew. The industrial revolution was beginning, factories which previously never existed were springing up. Textile, iron and steel mills, and other beginnings of great commerce were emerging while the document was being written. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. It did not contain the Bill of Rights which was later ratified in December of 1791. The constitution set up our governmental framework with three branches of government. It specifically allowed for the constitution to be amended by two thirds vote of the Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states. There was debate while the original document was being written and first proposed for ratification, that additions or amendments needed to be made in order to protect civil liberties. The founding fathers, through a great series of debates, agreed modifications needed to be made at the time of the ratification of the constitution, and the bill of rights followed. It was further acknowledged that additional amendments to the constitution may be necessary. I believe we need to interpret the constitution based on the general framework of the living document as applied to the facts at hand. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. From the thousands of cases where I have represented people, two cases which come to mind were both criminal law matters. There was an incident in Columbia County where an elderly woman was beaten by a group of gang wannabes as a way to gain admittance in a local branch of the Folk Gang, an affiliate of the Black Gangster Disciples. It was horrific crime and I had to advocate for a young man who had beaten this elderly woman for little or no reason. In doing so, I found out why this young man, who had been abandoned by his family and bounced from one couch to another, finally found a home in the gang structure. The gang then influenced him and others to burglarize and rob this woman, assaulting her in her sleep. The impression it left on me is that as a society, we need to do more for our children than we are currently doing. We need to make earlier interventions to reduce bad outcomes in the future. A second case was one of a young woman from Europe who was brought to America to be an au pair for a farm family where the mother had passed away. While driving home in the rain one night after meeting some friends, she crossed the center line, and was involved in an accident which resulted in the death of a passenger in an oncoming vehicle. I believe that there were political considerations made in the charging decision due to the deceased woman's connections in state government. My client wanted her side of the story to be heard. She believed in American justice and after the trial went to the jury, the court officer leaned over and wished my client good luck. The jury came back with a not guilty verdict. The jury foreman walked over to the defense table with tears in his eyes. My client was crying too, and he hugged her. He stated, “we had you in there”. It was evident that they felt she was unjustly accused. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I have extensive experience in criminal defense cases, having been one of my primary areas of practice for almost 35 years. I am in court on almost a daily basis and am certified by the State Public Defender for virtually all areas of criminal defense, along with juvenile representation, civil commitments, and protective placements. In the 1990s I had a broad-based general practice. I had a family law practice along with real estate, civil litigation, personal injury, small claims, landlord tenant, and employment law. Additionally, I did some bankruptcy work and federal criminal defense. I have represented many clients in probation revocations, which are administrative proceedings. While I was a law clerk, I also did grievance arbitration. In the mid 90's I represented a fellow who was fired from a nationwide trucking and delivery service company for little or no reason. The employment contract called for arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration case was held in Madison and the employer flew in its vice president and in home corporate counsel to Madison on a private jet. It was me and my client versus three more experienced lawyers, and the Vice President of the company. When we called our first witness (another employee of the company), the lead attorney spoke to the vice president of the company and then told the witness “you know this can affect your employment”, basically a threat to fire if he testified. I objected to the threat to a witness, and the arbitrator stated if there were further threats made it would be referred for prosecution for intimidation of a witness. After a day of testimony, the arbitrator closed the evidentiary portion of the hearing and said he would issue a written decision. When the decision came, we won. My client got basically everything we asked for in regard to damages and reinstatement. Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. In regard to being challenged and exhibiting courage in the face of adversity or opposition, you are describing what defense attorneys do on a daily basis. My practice at present is mostly public defender and court appointed criminal cases. The system is usually stacked against my clients, and many of them have little or nothing as far as resources, education, and money. Every day I try to figure out how to advocate for my clients and how to get them the fair hearings they deserve. Recently I had a criminal case where I raised the competency of my client. The client was suffering from severe mental illness. The client had a health issue, and the county should have filed a 51/15 mental commitment or a protective placement. The county instead tried to interplead into the criminal matter and gain an order for involuntary medical treatment of this person. I raised the impropriety of what was being done and stated what the proper procedure was. The court ruled against my client. I immediately filed for a stay, secured appellate counsel for my client, and eventually the appellate counsel won a stay of the involuntary administration of medication and medical care. A second case was filed with the same client and when involuntary administration of medicine was asked for by the state, the judge having recently been educated on the proper procedure by the court of appeals, agreed with my client's position and did not order involuntary administration of medication. Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set? Recusal of a judge in cases involving donors and indirect supporters is best addressed on a case by case basis, looking at the amount of the contribution, amount of support or assistance to a judicial campaign, and whether the judge was aware of the donation, support and amount of assistance. Normally recusal is not required for de minimus contributions and assistance. If the situation amounts to impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, the judge should consider recusal. Contribution amounts to judicial and other campaigns are set by law. If a contribution is in excess of that amount the excess should be returned if possible or donated to a permissible entity. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? The concept of true justice has historically been based upon a deist approach to justice with an omnipotent arbiter providing divine justice. What a circuit court judge does is much different than that. Circuit court judges are the first level of the courts in Wisconsin in most cases of significant matter. It's important to listen to the arguments of counsel as well as any testimony or evidence adduced in a case. A good judge should look at the litigant’s relative position in relation to each other, as well as considering their socio-economic background, assistance of counsel, and their apparent intelligence and competency. A judge is allowed to use common sense in fashioning its judgment within the parameters of the law. A circuit court judge is not allowed to craft the law or replace the current law in order to fashion a particular decision. All judges are bound by our oath of office, and decisions must be made within that context. However, when deciding or imposing a sentence, a judge must also be bound by his conscience in making sure that he or she is making the right decision, applying the law to the facts of the matter at hand. I pledge to do that. In Milwaukee County, Marisabel Cabrera and Rochelle Johnson-Bent vie for the open Branch 43 seat after Judge Marshall B. Murray chose not to run for reelection. Cabrera is a member of the Wisconsin Assembly and an attorney in private practice at Cabrera Law Office. She graduated from Michigan State University College of Law in 2002. Her resume is here. Johnson-Bent is an attorney and manager of procurement and risk management for the Milwaukee Public School District. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2010. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
In Sauk County, Nancy Thome and Blake J. Duren vie for an open seat after Judge Pat Barrett chose not to run for reelection. Thome is an attorney in private practice in Baraboo. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1994. Her resume is here. Duren is an attorney in private practice in Reedsburg. He graduated from the St. Louis University School of Law in 2010. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed