|
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is. Asterisks indicate paragraphs deleted due to length of the answer.  Name: Tanner Brook Kilander
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Feb. 27, 2026, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin High School – Troy High, Troy, Idaho Recent legal employment: January 2016-present – Children’s Court intake attorney and SPD private bar, Kilander Legal Services, Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 2011-December 2015 – Assistant state public defender, Milwaukee Juvenile Division, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin January 2007-June 2011 – Children’s Court intake attorney and SPD private bar, Kilander Legal Services, Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2002-January 2007 – Kilander Legal Services, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: The nature of my practice long predates my law degree. When I was in 5th grade, my best friend didn't show up at school on a random Tuesday, and I never saw her again until we were nearly thirty. I didn't know it at the time, but she had been placed in foster care and would never return to her family or to our school. She lost everything - her family, her friends, her dog. This loss impacted me forever. Once I learned more about the child welfare system, I knew that I wanted to be a social worker. To help kids who were in unsafe situations, but also to help their families stay together so they didn't have to lose everyone they love the way my best friend had. When I got my degree in 1997, I immediately became a child protective services social worker. The two years I spent in that role taught me so much about humanity ... and it taught me that I loved the courtroom. As a social worker, I had all the responsibility to keep children safe, but very little power to advocate for what my families needed. I watched the lawyers file motions and argue in court to help my families, and I knew that's what I wanted to do. I left social work to attend law school in 1999, with my heart set on returning to Children's Court to represent parents in CHIPS cases. After several years managing the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic (see Question 32), I applied for and got the position I had always wanted - I secured a spot on the "Intake List" at the Vel Phillips Youth and Family Justice Center, commonly referred to as "Children's Court." This is a closed list of 35 attorneys, and we represent all of the parents in Milwaukee County whose children are taken away by Child Protective Services. I've been defending parents in CHIPS cases for a combined total of fifteen years, first from 2007 through 2011, and then resuming in 2016. During this time frame, I have also taken occasional cases as a guardian ad litem for children in CHIPS and guardianship matters. All of those cases are court appointments. In May of 2011, I went to work at the Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office as an Assistant State Public Defender. From 2011-2015, I worked as a staff attorney at the Milwaukee Juvenile office. There, I represented parents in Termination of Parental Rights cases at Children's Court, as well as youth in delinquency and CHIPS cases. I loved the delinquency work, this was an area I had not explored before, and remains an important part of my practice today. I returned to private practice January 1, 2016, reopening my solo practice, Kilander Legal Services. For nearly ten years, I have remained on the Intake List, and have continued to accept appointments from the State Public Defender for CHIPS youth, TPR parents, and youth in delinquency cases. Since 2022, I have also been representing children charged with homicide cases. Although my clients are children - as young as ten years old - they are charged as adults, and these cases are litigated in criminal court. Aside from one Lincoln County matter I am currently involved in, the entirety of my practice is in Milwaukee County. I have a high volume practice with frequent litigation. Though I am in court day in and day out, I have relatively limited experience with jury trials. (I believe I've had 7 juries reach verdict - 2 CHIPS and 5 TPR.) Most Children's Court cases don't have a jury right, and clients often waive jury in CHIPS cases so as to avoid lengthy delays. I frequently have court trials in CHIPS matters, averaging 2-3 per year for a total of approximately 25 in the past decade. Creative motions and out-of-court advocacy tend to be more effective tools to assist my clients in getting their children back quickly, and I take pride in my problem solving and hands-on approach. An effective CHIPS defense practice requires more than just litigation - it requires knowledge about the administrative codes governing DMCPS, the policies and standards CPS workers are supposed to follow, and a willingness to "remind" them through the use of team meetings and contempt motions when they have deviated from their required standards. In 2024, I added a new aspect to my CHIPS defense practice - a holistic defense team. I contract with several social workers (titled "Client Services Specialists," or "CSS") and paralegals to provide a more holistic approach to my child welfare and delinquency cases. My Client Services Specialists assist clients with the seemingly little things that become big barriers to getting their kids returned ... help navigating public transportation, public benefits, medical and educational advocacy, and sometimes just having someone to sit with them when they are meeting with a CPS worker. My CSS team assists my clients with the out-of-court things that I wish I had time to do. This has proven to be an incredibly effective approach - my clients' children are returning home faster and with less in-court litigation, staying home successfully, and ending their involvement with CPS with lasting tools to prevent future system involvement. I was the first person on our Intake List to implement a holistic approach, and other lawyers are now contracting with our workers as well, with similar results. In addition to my CHIPS defense work, nearly half of my current practice is defending children charged with delinquencies or adult offenses. I am one of a handful of Milwaukee County private bar lawyers certified to take high level felony delinquencies, as well as high level adult felonies. I currently represent three children charged as adults with homicide matters - two with first degree intentional homicides, one with first degree reckless homicide. I have delinquency trials regularly, and have a homicide jury trial coming up in February. I've litigated three reverse waivers in the past three years, and litigate waiver hearings on a regular basis. I have a high success rate in the delinquency trials and waivers. *** Finally, in addition to all of the above, I do make the time to provide pro bono assistance to people who need help. So far this year, I have represented a relative caregiver in a licensing denial, filed a name change for a trans youth that I coach at Beckum Stapleton, and assisted a former caregiver to appeal a no contact order in a TPR. Describe typical clients: My clients are members of my community. I have lived on the north side of Milwaukee for more than a decade, in the same zip codes my clients live in. Without exception, every client I have represented in private practice has been indigent, has qualified for court-appointed representation, or, in two unusual cases, has paid a dramatically reduced flat fee for my work. I choose not to represent clients who can afford the fees most private lawyers charge. Though I left the Public Defender's office in 2016, providing quality representation to clients who cannot afford to hire a lawyer remains my passion, and my commitment to my community. The vast majority of my clients are Black or Hispanic, reflective of the racial bias these systems are built upon. Many of my clients lack sufficient income to meet their basic needs. Many are unhoused, and are struggling with mental health challenges, food insecurity, unemployment and addiction. This is true of both my child clients and my adult clients. While I do spend most of my days in the courtroom, a large part of my practice involves sitting with people in their most difficult moments, helping to access community resources to meet their most basic needs, and helping people navigate the racist systems designed to incarcerate them and separate their families. *** Since early in my career, I have enjoyed working with clients some would describe as "difficult". I've represented a large percentage of the Deaf parents involved in the child welfare system in Milwaukee County, and I have learned so much through my work with the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community. Two of my seven jury trials were with the same Deaf mother, and each trial required the assistance of four ASL interpreters and four Deaf interpreters. The Public Defender's Office often reaches out to me when they have a particularly challenging client to find a lawyer for in a TPR or a delinquency, which is exactly how I wound up representing a ten year old and a twelve year old facing adult homicide charges. Every client is special, but I particularly appreciate the opportunity to work with people others shy away from, the most vulnerable clients prone to marginalization and discrimination by a society that finds them inconvenient, and clients who face unusual challenges. Number of cases tried to verdict: 7 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: *Please note, all client names due to the confidential nature of CHIPS and juvenile cases. If actual names are needed, please let me know and I am happy to provide them privately, in compliance with the applicable confidentiality statutes. Case #1: "Venus" (Milwaukee) My work with one particular client has shaped my path as a lawyer, and as a human being, more than any other client, case or legal issue. I met Venus in 2007, which was the same year I started on the Intake List in Milwaukee County. I was only five years out of law school, and less than a year into my courtroom experience. In 2007, when a new CHIPS case came in, the clerk would call for an intake attorney to come to court on the overhead pager, with absolutely no additional information about the case or the client. On this day in 2007, I was paged to come to Judge Glenn Yamahiro's courtroom for a new appointment. I hurried into the courtroom, where the deputy handed me a stack of paperwork that outlined the reasons for the child's removal from the parental home, and pointed me in the direction of a young woman sitting alone at counsel table. I reached out to shake her hand and introduced myself as her attorney, and asked her if I could have just a moment to read the summary page so I would be better able to help her. Her eyes were bloodshot and tearful, and she rocked back and forth in her seat. She let out a loud, angry sound, slapped my outstretched hand out of the air, snatched the paperwork out of my other hand and ripped it up. The deputy rushed over to us as I tried to calm this young woman, and he eventually retreated as she sat back in her seat and put her head in her hands. Judge Yamahiro explained to me that my client was Deaf, and that we would need to communicate by writing notes back and forth, because the only interpreter present was needed for the court proceedings. I had never met a Deaf person before. I had no idea in that moment, as I sat with a heartbroken, enraged client that I could not communicate with or help in any meaningful way, that Venus would teach me the most important lessons of my life. The communication challenges Venus faced became immediately obvious. The State gave an offer of proof, stating in open court that Venus’ infant son had been removed from her care because she lacked the knowledge to care for him, rattling off allegations of neglect. The ADA spoke for about a minute, while I frantically wrote down everything she said since I had no petition to refer to. With no ability to consult my client, I began to object to probable cause and preserve our other legal challenges. Before I could get a whole sentence out, Venus jumped out of her chair and began to scream a series of jumbled, nonsensical curse words, as she flipped the table and rushed toward the ADA. I did not realize at the time that it had taken the entire minute for the interpreter to convey enough of what the ADA had said for Venus to finally have a basic understanding of the allegations. Now the deputy restrained Venus, forcibly guiding her back to her chair as I pulled the table upright. It took several minutes before she was calm enough to proceed. When she did finally compose herself enough to sit down, sobbing violently into her hands, the Court went back on the record. Suddenly, a loud, forceful voice began screaming the same curse words Venus had shouted five minutes earlier. I quickly realized that the interpreter was repeating what Venus had said, complying with his interpreter's oath to accurately and completely interpret what Venus had said throughout the hearing. I will never forget the chaos of that moment, and what it taught me about language, compassion and patience. I represented Venus for the next fourteen years. . . . *** Venus was discriminated against more than any human being I have ever met. She is Deaf. She is Black. She is a woman. She is poor. She was raised in foster care. She has lived through horrifying trauma, and she is often angry and loud. Society has been unkind to Venus, and her trust was hard to earn and easy to lose. Venus taught me to listen. She taught me to break things down to a place where my clients can digest the information - even if it has to be one word at a time. Working with Venus for all of those years helped me to learn to navigate the most insurmountable challenges for every client in my career, because no matter how hard something appears to be for one of my clients, it is inevitably easier to solve than it was for Venus. Case #2. Reverse Waiver Matters: State vs. NMT (Milwaukee County); State vs. DC (Milwaukee County); State vs. JH (Lincoln County) These three children are my clients in unrelated homicide cases, but they share a common tragedy: all of these clients are children, and all of them are charged as adults, without any consideration of their development, health or welfare. NMT was charged with First Degree Intentional Homicide at age ten, and faces a mandatory life sentence. DC was charged with the same offense at age twelve, also facing a mandatory life sentence. JH was charged with First Degree Reckless Homicide at age 16, while placed in a correctional setting. Each of these boys were charged as adults pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 970.032 and 938.183, and I, along with co-counsel . . . have litigated Reverse Waivers for each of these children in the past two years. Wisconsin ranks among the worst states in the country with regard to its original adult jurisdiction laws, requiring children as young as ten who are alleged to have committed certain homicides to be charged as adults. Reverse Waiver is the only tool available for children to ask the Court to move their case to Juvenile Court, but the law pertaining to Reverse Waiver does not include any individualized assessment of the child, makes it nearly impossible for any child to prevail. *** Aside from the breathtaking gravity of fighting to help a child avoid a lifetime in prison, there are two reasons that these matters have been significant for me. The first is the information we have gathered and exposed in our effort to defend these children. One of the factors the child must prove to win a Reverse Waiver is "if convicted, the juvenile could not receive adequate treatment in the criminal justice system." (Wis. Stat. §970.032(2)(a)) As we prepared for these proceedings, we struggled to figure out how to present clear evidence of the elephant in the room - the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is critically understaffed and overcrowded, and access to "treatment" is all but a fallacy in our adult prisons at this time. Everyone knows this to be true, but who would provide credible testimony to that effect? Certainly not anyone from the DOC. *** The second reason these cases have been significant to me is the appellate work they have led me to do. As public-defender-appointed trial counsel, I am responsible for petitioning the Court of Appeals to hear an appeal of any non-final order. Reverse Waivers fall into the category of permissive appeals, and we lost the Reverse Waivers for NMT and DC within just a few weeks of each other. Attorney Cunningham, who had been my co-counsel throughout the litigation to date, was leaving her practice, so the petitions to the Court of Appeals were my responsibility. *** Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have litigated three appeals of child abuse and neglect findings before Administrative Law Judges in Milwaukee County since returning to private practice in 2016, and appealed one Kinship denial in the same timeframe. In 2024, I represented a relative caregiver in a foster home licensing revocation appeal as well. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Before starting law school in the fall of 1999, I had spent two years as an Ongoing Case Manager with the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. People's lives were in my young, inexperienced hands, and I spent all of my days in the homes and schools of the families I served, doing my best to make sure children were safe and families were healing. Transitioning to law school from that kind of hands-on work was unfulfilling and, frankly, boring. I was surprised and disappointed to find out that Marquette University Law School did not have any kind of community-based legal clinics or any other opportunities to work with people in need in the community. In search of something meaningful to do, I met two 3L students involved in the Public Interest Law Society who wanted to start a walk-in legal clinic in the community. By the time we met, the 3L students were both focused on graduation and running out of time to devote to this project, and my classmate Bridget and I were happy to try to move it forward. Over the next several years, Bridget and I worked hard to turn the legal clinic into a reality. Our vision was to have hours at a local community center, somewhere accessible to the community and to the law students, where people in need of free legal advice could walk in and be connected with volunteer law students and attorneys, who would sit down and provide as much help as possible in 15-20 minutes. This would include filling out forms, telling people where to go to file things, helping people navigate landlord/tenant issues, and a slew of other issues we could not have anticipated. By the late spring of my 3rd year of law school, in 2002, the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic (MVLC) opened its doors at a church on 4th and Brown Streets. We had connected with the Association for Women Lawyers, and put together a small steering committee of attorneys and students who would ultimately build the little clinic from the ground up. At first, we had more volunteers than clients, but that quickly changed as word got out. The clinic grew, and we were lucky enough to find a permanent space at the House of Peace, a Capuchin community center on 17th and Walnut. For the next five years, the majority of my legal work centered around staffing, operating, networking and recruiting for the MVLC. At that time, I was married with two small children at home, and was not the primary earner in the family. I had the time and the energy to devote to the clinic, and watching it grow was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. Our clinic hours grew busier and busier, and week by week we could see our help making a difference for our clients. Without ever setting foot in a courtroom, we were able to impact thousands of lives in a positive way. We also gave law students an opportunity to participate in real client interviews, while giving back to their community. The most interesting non-litigation legal work I ever did arose from the MVLC, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Hundreds of evacuees landed at the Tommy Thompson dormitory at State Fair, and I quickly realized that we needed to get on site. The steering committee leapt into action, putting together a clinic 5 days a week for 2 hours a day, staffing it with lawyers and students and filling in the shifts ourselves almost daily. The legal issues were unimaginable. The law was foreign, the people were in utter distress, and the atmosphere both devastating and hopeful. It was hard to know where to begin, and sometimes the most helpful thing we could do was listen. It was a frustrating, important project that I am so proud to have been a part of. In 2007, I became a single parent and needed to provide independently for my daughters, so I had to step back from my intensive volunteer involvement at the MVLC. I still staffed the clinic for a while, and stayed on the steering committee for as long as I could, but finally discontinued my involvement in about 2009. Today, the MVLC clinics continue to serve clients each week, free of charge, with multiple locations throughout the city. Since 2002, our little clinic has provided pro bono legal assistance to thousands in our community. Over the years, the MVLC has also opened a mobile clinic, as well as clinics that specialize in Immigration and Veteran issues. I will always look back with pride at the impact the MVLC has had in our community, as well as for the students at my alma mater. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered for Evan Goyke in his 2018 State Representative race, and his campaign for City Attorney in 2024. I handed out literature for Robyn Vining in 2020, and I believe in 2022 as well. I was briefly a volunteer for my former colleague, Paul Rifelj, in his campaign for Milwaukee County Circuit Court in April of 2016. If memory serves, my children and I handed out literature and signs for Hon. Laura Gramling Perez in her 2012-2013 campaign, as well as Obama for America in the 2008 and 2012 races. Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Janet Protasiewicz, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 2023 Milton Childs, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2020 Danielle Shelton, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 Brittany Grayson, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 Rebecca Kiefer, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 M. Joseph Donald, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 2016 Jean Kies, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2016 Paul Rifelj, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2016 Kristy Yang, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2017 Kristela Cervera, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Beckum Stapleton Little League, vice president of softball, board member, 2021-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Most of my pro bono legal work comes to me through my clients. I am only appointed to assist clients with the specific cases that bring them to Children's Court, but they are very often in need of additional assistance. I have helped various clients with probate, guardianship, family court matters, evictions, administrative law appeals and various tickets over the years. I would estimate that I assist 3-4 clients per year with collateral legal matters on a pro bono basis. I have also provided a number of Beckum Stapleton families with assistance on a pro bono basis since 2021. (See below.) Additionally, from September of 1999 through approximately August of 2009, I was a Student Volunteer, a Steering Committee Member and a Volunteer Attorney at the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic. Please refer to Question #25 for an in-depth description of the work I did at the MVLC. Non-legal Volunteer Service: I am an avid softball fan, and have played since I was big enough to hold a bat. All of my daughters have played softball since they were small. I coached their rec league teams at Tosa Fastpitch (2008-2016), and from 2017 through 2024, I was an assistant softball coach at Rufus King High School - I still make a guest appearance whenever I can. (My youngest daughter plays softball in high school now, so I am on a four year sabbatical from Rufus King so I can attend my daughter's games.) My youngest daughter particularly shares my love for softball. She is a talented pitcher who has been playing on competitive club teams since she was seven. She is bi-racial, and softball is not known for its diversity. Though she is often the best player on her team, she has frequently been bullied and socially excluded on her club teams - until we found Beckum Stapleton. Beckum Stapleton Little League is the oldest Negro-League based Little League in the country, having just celebrated its 60th year in 2024. My daughter had played tee-ball there when she was five, but they didn't have a girls' softball program at that time, so we moved on. However, in the winter of 2021, Beckum started the first softball program within the city of Milwaukee. My daughter signed up to play, and I immediately signed up to coach. The director welcomed us with open arms, and the girls on the team fell in love with the sport, and with each other. We had finally found a place that felt like home. Five years later, I have coached 18 teams at Beckum, and have helped our softball program grow from those first few players to over 150 players registered in 2025. I joined the board at Beckum Stapleton in 2022, and have served as the Vice President of Softball since 2024. I've secured grants to purchase our girls equipment and pay for training, and spend ten to fifteen hours per week volunteering at Beckum in the summer, plus at least five hours per week in the offseason. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I applied and interviewed for Gov. Evers' first judicial appointment in 2019. I'd wanted to be a judge since the day I applied to law school, and I put my heart and soul into preparing for the interview. I researched and studied, trying to guess what questions the committee might ask me about personal injury cases or torts - things I knew next to nothing about. I was a ball of nerves, and almost felt relieved when I wasn't selected. I really felt like I wasn't the kind of person who could be a judge, like there was some grandeur or refined presence that judges had to possess, and I am simply not that important or distinguished. In that moment, nearly seven years ago, I was grateful that the judicial selection committee and Gov. Evers saw that I was not judicial material, because I didn't think I was either. This conclusion, though flawed, fueled a renewed love for my work as an advocate. I knew I was a good lawyer, and I pushed myself harder - taking the hardest cases, saying yes to every difficult situation that came across my desk. I poured myself into helping my clients share their stories, fighting to keep their kids, fighting for their freedom. I gained confidence as a lawyer, and as a human being. I found new ways to connect with people during a global pandemic, and managed to find time to have fun with my kids at Beckum. During this time, I convinced myself that being a judge was a job for someone far more ... judicial ... and that I was born to fight injustice in the courtroom. I also detested the idea of becoming a cog in the fundamentally racist systems I had fought so hard against for so long. Over time, I've realized that I was wholeheartedly wrong about myself in 2019. I still don't know all the answers about commercial contracts and medical malpractice, but I know that I am exactly the kind of person who should be a judge. I've served this community in countless ways for nearly 30 years, and I'd always wanted to be a judge because I knew I would be fair and kind. Instead of fighting against injustice, I would be honored to have the opportunity to provide justice in a fair and equitable way. I'm proud of the lawyer I am, and even prouder of the person that I have become. I am still not important in the way my 2019 self believed a judge should be important, but I've realized that the judges I admire and respect most are not that kind of "important" either. They are humble, human, fair, compassionate and consciously, aggressively confront their biases. Those are all my strengths as a lawyer, and as a person, and I would love nothing more than to bring those to the bench. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a defining moment for my own family, and for millions of other families nationwide. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), parts of the ACA were challenged by 26 states, and the Court's 5-4 decision upheld the ACA. The legal issues in this case were quite technical, and the facts were not immediately relevant to most Americans, but the implications of this decision reached all corners of our society: affordable access to meaningful healthcare would remain a reality for all people. Not just the wealthy, not just the healthy. Not just families with children, not just the disabled or elderly. Everyone. I followed the ACA closely from its inception, not just because of the positive implications for my clients, but for my own benefit. When my husband and l divorced in 2008, I lost my health insurance. I had just started my solo practice, and was making a viable income doing work that I loved. [Redacted] After the birth of my third daughter in 2010, I made the difficult decision to pursue employment at the Wisconsin State Public Defender so I could get health insurance. I took a 40% pay cut, but had access to medical care. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled on Sebelius, the ACA saved my daughter’s life. Starting in 2012 [redactions] … The ACA gave me the opportunity to return to private practice without losing coverage, affording me the time and flexibility to advocate for my child [redactions] … Thousands upon thousands of people have stories just like mine, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Sebelius laid the foundation for the ACA to withstand relentless legal challenges. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: To me, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is the bravest, smartest judicial official of our time. The racial and gender-based barriers she faced to even get to the Supreme Court bench proved insurmountable for every Black woman before her - she was held to the highest standard in every possible way, far beyond most justices who make this journey. I simply cannot fathom the vitriol she faced, yet she forged ahead. Since swearing in as a Justice in 2022, Justice Jackson has taken a strong stance as the most liberal justice on the Court. She has a fiery commitment to justice, fairness and equity that is unprecedented, quickly emerging as one of the few leaders in this country who are not afraid of Donald Trump and his administration. Where her more liberal Supreme Court colleagues take a softer, pragmatic approach, Justice Jackson minces no words in decrying corruption, hate and the swift erosion of the separation of powers under the current administration. Her passion is not so consuming that it causes her to be short sighted, though. On November 9, 2025, she granted an administrative stay of the lower court's order to resume distribution of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, immediately halting SNAP benefits for millions. The internet exploded with criticism of this decision, many felt betrayed and shocked that Justice Jackson would let people go hungry. However, Justice Jackson knew that denying the stay would put the matter before the entirety of the Supreme Court immediately, giving the conservative Court a direct opportunity to do far greater damage to the program that so many depend on for their most basic needs. She chose a short term harm to delay or prevent long term catastrophe, in spite of how that decision might look on its face. She is not afraid to upset anyone, even her liberal colleagues and supporters, when she has difficult decisions to make. The law gave her the discretion to grant or to deny the stay, and she did what she could to protect our country's most vulnerable people within the bounds of the law. Locally, the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice I admire most is former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Justice Abrahamson's approach was one I aspire to achieve: she focused on the impact her decisions made on the actual human beings in her community. Not swayed by large corporations or political interests, Justice Abrahamson applied the law in a way that was fair, just and equal. She was humble, kind and engaging, whether she was talking with a student or a fellow Justice. I met her several times during my work with the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic, and was always in awe of her gentle, calm presence. Her impartial fairness and caring approach to life and the law are qualities I would most want to exemplify on the bench. Her balance and integrity shine through the opinions she wrote, and I'm grateful to have had the chance to meet her. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge seems to be a simple question. Of course, judges must fairly and impartially interpret the law, assess credibility and evidence, and carefully make decisions based on the law and the evidence before them. Some, like Chief Justice Roberts, suggest that being a judge is just like being an umpire - your job is just to call balls and strikes, nothing more. This is shortsighted. While I understand the temptation of such a simple analogy, nothing about the role of the judge is as simple as the role of the umpire. The umpire doesn't have to assess the credibility of the pitcher, doesn't have to interpret the intersection of nine different strike zones that might apply to one particular ball, and doesn't have to consider the safety of the fans when making a call. There is great discretion built into the role of the Circuit Court Judge, and this discretion is critical to consider when looking at the role of a judge. Ten different judges could interpret a law and its application to a set of facts ten different ways, and often still be within the bounds of their role as judge. Each judge brings their own experiences, background, areas of expertise and lack thereof, as well as their own biases and fears to the bench. For better or for worse, each judge brings to life the application of the law to the cases before them. These biases and fears have allowed for the mass incarceration of African American men, disproportionate sentences from race to race, and the permanent separation of countless families of color, particularly when poverty is also an issue. Judges sit in positions of great power, entrusted to make decisions about the lives and liberty of those who appear before them. Judges must consider their own biases and assumptions critically, and ensure that their views are not inadvertently (or, for some, quite openly) affecting the way they apply the law. It is unconstitutional for the law to discriminate against people based on race, class, gender, or other protected classes - yet Wisconsin consistently has the highest incarceration rate of Black individuals in the entire country. The law cannot require the Black men and women of Wisconsin to be incarcerated at twelve times the rate of white people, and it is indisputable that discretion and bias play a critical role in our statewide failure to correct the mass incarceration of Black and Latinx residents. Mass incarceration is just one measure of the racial inequities in our state, but the data regarding the separation of Black and Latinx families is just as bleak. Correcting the failures of those who came before us is a difficult task, but one that cannot be addressed until those making the decisions are willing to acknowledge that the work must be done.
0 Comments
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Nathan Petrashek
Appointed to: Court of Appeals District 1 Appointment date: Feb. 27, 2026, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Green Bay High School – Washington High, Two Rivers, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: June 2024-present – Adjunct professor of law, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 2021-present – Staff attorney, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Waukesha, Wisconsin August 2009-June 2021 – Law clerk, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Wausau, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am a central staff attorney at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. We are an appointed group of institutional attorneys providing judicial and legal assistance to the court as a whole. Our primary responsibility is to provide legal services equivalent to that of in-house counsel to judges and to the clerk of the court of appeals, allowing the court to efficiently and effectively process matters to resolution (typically via a written opinion or order). One important aspect of my practice is resolving a share of the approximately 19,000 motions filed annually in the court of appeals (2024 annual report). Nearly every order issued by the court has been prepared by a staff attorney, who performs the necessary research, consults with judges, and drafts and approves the orders that ultimately issue. As the volume might suggest, this work requires a reflexive knowledge of appellate procedure in civil, criminal, and other specialized contexts (e.g., termination of parental rights cases). Motions work requires careful scrutiny of dozens of daily filings encompassing every procedural aspect of an appeal, from the sufficiency of the notice of appeal to remittitur. As a staff attorney I also have primary drafting and research responsibility for a large portion of the district’s docket. Staff attorneys write, under judge supervision, the majority of each district’s per curiam and summary disposition opinions, which include matters covering nearly every practice area. As a result, staff attorneys have an extraordinary breadth of knowledge on a diverse set of legal topics. In addition to the above, I handle a share of the court’s no-merit appeals, petitions for leave to appeal, and writ petitions. No-merit appeals require staff attorneys to thoroughly examine the case record to fulfill the court’s constitutional responsibility to ascertain whether any issue of arguable merit exists for an appeal in cases with appointed counsel. Interlocutory appeals are granted only by leave of the court if certain criteria are met, and staff attorneys make recommendations on those matters to a judge panel. Writ petitions commence original actions in the court of appeals, typically seeking supervisory or habeas relief, and staff attorneys make recommendations as to whether such relief is appropriate or whether further procedural steps (e.g., remand for fact-finding) are necessary prior to resolving the petition. Describe typical clients: As a judicial officer, I do not have "clients" in the conventional sense, but my ethical and professional obligations are to the judges and institutional actors I counsel. I aim to provide them with accurate and insightful legal guidance to allow them to make fully informed and legally supported decisions. While my judicial work has touched on virtually every practice area and legal topic, I have extensive experience with appellate procedure, criminal procedure, and sexually violent person commitments under ch. 980. Number of cases tried to verdict: None List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: I offer below three significant cases in which I participated at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, with the caveat that much of my work in the judicial system occurs during the deliberative process and while producing judicial opinions. The three cases below are decisions for which I bore primary drafting responsibility, and I believe the final opinions are fair representations of my knowledge, skills and abilities. The final decisions are, of course, the work of the court as a whole, and while I am not at liberty to discuss the judges’ internal deliberations or thought processes, I am happy to discuss the issues presented by these cases and the final opinions. State v. Lee, Appeal No. 2019AP221-CR. This central issue in this case was one that, unfortunately, routinely occurs in the Wisconsin court system: a lack of available attorneys to represent indigent criminal defendants. Nhia Lee waited more than three months for counsel to be appointed on felony drug charges. As Lee repeatedly asked for counsel, the courts regularly found “good cause” to extend the ten-day time period for holding the preliminary hearing—the good cause being the fact that Lee did not yet have State Public Defender representation. When counsel was finally appointed, Lee sought to dismiss the criminal complaint because of the delay. This case was significant because it established that a prolonged failure by the State Public Defender to timely appoint counsel does not, standing alone, constitute good cause absent a more probing examination of the reasons for the delay and the efficacy of appointing counsel at county expense. Ultimately, the case against Lee was dismissed without prejudice, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review as improvidently granted after hearing oral argument. Murr v. Wisconsin, Appeal No. 2013AP2828. For decades prior to this case, parties had struggled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s regulatory Takings Clause jurisprudence, which required a comparison of the value that had been taken from the property by the pertinent government regulation with the value of the property that remained. But how is that remaining value to be ascertained? The so-called “denominator problem” was the often outcome-determinative question of how narrowly to define the total unit of property when measuring what the government regulation had confiscated. The problem presented itself in concrete terms in the Murr case, where two of the landowners’ lots were effectively merged by operation of a St. Croix County ordinance that forbade the lots’ separate sale or development. The landowners sought compensation for the lots’ singular treatment under the ordinance, alleging that the law accomplished a regulatory taking that deprived them of all or substantially all of the value of one of their lots. Analyzing the Murrs’ lots as a whole, the Court of Appeals decision held that no taking had occurred because the Murrs’ contiguous property sufficed as a single, buildable lot under the ordinance. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied a petition for review, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a majority opinion affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision on direct review, Justice Kennedy set forth a multi-factor approach for resolving denominator problems that will guide Takings Clause jurisprudence for the foreseeable future. Moran v. DOJ, Appeal No. 2018AP563. This case presented significant questions regarding the interpretation of Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm and whether certain aspects of the statute were preempted by federal law. Moran had been convicted of a felony in Virginia and had subsequently had his civil rights restored there. He had not, however, received a pardon for his crime, which is a statutory prerequisite to lawful possession in Wisconsin. Moran brought suit after the Wisconsin Department of Justice blocked his attempt to purchase a firearm in this state. Featuring a comparative analysis of the Governor’s pardon power under Wisconsin law with that of the pardon power in Virginia, the Court of Appeals upheld the denial, concluding that Moran could not lawfully possess a firearm under the pardon exception, the exception was not preempted by federal law, and the statute did not violate either the Full Faith and Credit Clause or Moran’s Second Amendment rights. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have not served as an advocate in administrative proceedings. However, in the appellate context, I regularly engage in review of administrative agency and municipal decisions. As a result, I have considerable knowledge of the administrative review process under Wis. Stat. ch. 227 and common law certiorari review. For examples of administrative review cases on which I had primary drafting responsibility, please see Oneida Seven Generations Corp. v. City of Green Bay . . . (reversing a city's decision to revoke a conditional use permit); and Bethards v. DWD . . . (upholding on ch. 227 review the equal rights division's interpretation of a whistleblower statute). Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In 2023 and 2024, the State Bar of Wisconsin's Legal Education Committee, on which I serve, developed a revised rules petition for the creation of Cultural Competency and Reduction of Bias training as a category of attorney CLE credits. The resulting rules petition I helped develop was approved by the State Bar Board of Governors, and on July 11, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued Final Order 24-04 granting the petition. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer, Susan Crawford for Wisconsin (2024) Volunteer, Pedro Colon for Milwaukee (2023) Volunteer, Ramos for Judge (2023) Volunteer, Anderson for Milwaukee (2023) Volunteer, Murray for Judge (2023) Volunteer, Amber for Milwaukee (2023) Volunteer, Fragoso for Judge (2023) Volunteer, Crowley for County Executive (2023) Volunteer, Goyke for Milwaukee (2022) Volunteer, Biden for President (2020) Volunteer, Fallone for Justice (2013) Campaign Staff, McCormick for Congress (2006) Volunteer, Bush for President (2004) Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Pedro Colon, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2023 David Crowley, Milwaukee County Executive, 2023 Raphael Ramos, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Anderson Gansner, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Jorge Fragoso, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Ronnie Murray, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Amber Raffeet August, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 2023 Evan Goyke, Milwaukee City Attorney, 2022 Ed Fallone, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2013 JoAnne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2011 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: City of Glendale, election inspector, 2024-Present American Constitution Society, member, 2023-Present American Bar Association, Council of Appellate Staff Attorneys , 2023-Present Milwaukee Bar Association, 2019-Present State Bar of Wisconsin, Appellate Practice Board, CLE Committee, 2009-Present Federalist Society, member, 2007-2009 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As a first-generation college student who had to navigate the complex world of post-secondary education on my own, I recognize the advantages enjoyed by students who have an experienced person to call on for career and educational advice. I'm honored to provide guidance through UW-Green Bay's Mentor Collective, which matches professionals with first-generation college students. I volunteer as an Election Inspector for the City of Glendale, working to ensure that all qualified individuals are empowered to exercise their right to vote. In the legal sphere, I serve on several State Bar of Wisconsin committees, including as a board member of the Appellate Practice Section where I help with the section's "Best Briefs" competition. I regularly serve as a brief grader and oral argument judge for various law school moot court activities and as a comment grading professor for the Marquette Law Review. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I feel called to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge because, like many residents, I am deeply concerned about the state of our justice system and the vibrancy of our democracy. More than at any other time in our recent history, the judiciary is an institution under stress from internal and external forces. Internally, the courts are strained by an ever-growing docket that imperils a judge’s ability to give any one particular case the attention it deserves. Longstanding inequities in the criminal justice system persist—among them delays in appointing counsel, lamentable conditions of confinement and well-documented sentencing disparities. And externally, the rule of law is under constant attack by political actors who seeks to trample on the independence of the third branch. In this moment, it is especially important for those with courage, tenacity, and skill to step up and face these challenges head on. As I explain in more detail below, the court of appeals offers a unique opportunity to showcase procedural fairness while educating the public about the crucial role of the courts in our society. I also want to continue the legacy of my many court mentors who have modeled exemplary judicial behavior during their service on the bench. Along the way, I hope to add my voice to the many already doing the hard work of pushing for changes that will improve justice outcomes for our neighbors. In short, I hope that I can do as a judge what I endeavor to do in every aspect of my life—leave things in a better place than I found them. In expressing these lofty goals, I do not intend to understate the importance of the day-to-day work of the court of appeals. I know perhaps better than any other candidate that while the title of court of appeals judge holds some glamour, any such pretense falls aways under the demands of the daily routine, which is filled with piles of briefs, hours of editing, and late nights of research. The work is challenging, yet it is work I love. I have committed my 16-year career to making sure that the court of appeals delivers opinions that are pragmatic, rational and legally sound, even in the many cases that do not receive much public scrutiny. My desire to serve is partly animated by my belief that my intellectual abilities, knowledge and skills are well-suited to the role of a court of appeals judge. Standards of appellate review are a conglomeration of doctrines and principles that control the work of the court of appeals, and I co-author one of the primary reference books on the topic. I have written well over 900 appellate court opinions on countless legal topics, and resolved hundreds of motions on matters of appellate procedure. Through it all, I have sought to promote the collegiality and collaboration that is so essential when working in panels with fellow judges. I believe I am uniquely situated to contribute to the development of the law and to the improvement of our justice system as a judge on the court of appeals. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. In terms of the negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, it would be hard to select any case other than Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). Under the guise of “return[ing] the issue of abortion to [state] legislative bodies,” id. at 289, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding constitutional freedom from government regulation that imposes an “undue burden” on the availability of pre-viability abortion services recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). To reach that conclusion, Dobbs cast aside principles of stare decisis and used a constitutionally dubious history-and-tradition approach that wholly excluded the views of the people most affected by the decision. See Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 250. In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, chaos followed. The Dobbs decision left the availability of reproductive healthcare services in Wisconsin governed by a patchwork of conflicting statutes, the oldest of which traced its lineage to just a year after statehood. (Footnote: Indeed, confusion has followed Wisconsin statutes regulating abortion almost since their inception, casting serious doubt on the Supreme Court’s reasoning that the matter is best left in the hands of state legislatures. See Foster v. State, 182 Wis. 298, 196 N.W. 233 (1923).) That statute, WIS. STAT. § 940.04(1), generally made it a crime to intentionally destroy the life of an unborn child. And despite many contradictory statutes enacted by the legislature in Roe’s wake, some state district attorneys, including a candidate for state attorney general, suggested that they would pursue prosecutions under that statute. Doctors were left in the lurch. When Dobbs came down, all abortion-related health care services in Wisconsin stopped. Medical professionals, fearing criminal liability, sharply circumscribed patient services, including for women facing complications in their pregnancies. Patients, too, were anguished to learn that they needed to endure substantial travel and costs to get reproductive healthcare that, just days or weeks earlier, had been routinely available. In Texas alone, patients were permanently injured and one nearly bled to death due to the unwillingness of medical providers to risk exposure to the state’s steep criminal penalties. The uncertainty created by Dobbs persisted in Wisconsin until the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Kaul v. Urmanski, 2025 WI 32, 417 Wis. 2d 257, 22 N.W.3d 740. Kaul reached the common-sense conclusion that the substantial legislative activity in the ensuing years “so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion.” Id., ¶10. The decision firmly establishing that the post-Roe statutory framework controls the availability of reproductive healthcare in Wisconsin had a significant positive impact on the people of this state. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The four women (if I might be permitted a fourth) I want to highlight here all personify the wisdom, intellect and judicial temperament that I hope to model on the bench: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and Judges Lisa Neubauer and Lisa Stark. The late Chief Justice Abrahamson deserves our admiration for many reasons, not the least of which was her perseverance in becoming the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s first female justice. Beyond that, I have always been awestruck by her clear, straightforward judicial thinking. At oral argument, her lines of questioning were always logical and insightful, serving both to elucidate the factors that she believed should resolve the case and to persuade her fellow Justices of the correctness of her reasoning. I was impressed with her ability to reduce even the most complex cases to core principles that guided her decision-making. Sandra Day O’Connor was also a trailblazer as the U.S. Supreme Court’s first female justice. I admired her as a moderating voice on the Court, navigating more extreme positions to find areas of compromise that would avoid the kind of tectonic shifts in the law that have become all too common—a laudable goal in light of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent trend toward issuing fractured opinions. For example, although Justice O’Connor joined the majority of justices in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), she was instrumental in foiling the more extreme “independent state legislature” theory advocated by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and others. She was an essential vote in Casey for reaffirming the central holding of Roe. After retirement, Justice O’Connor devoted herself to the cause of judicial independence and was famously critical of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). I respect and admire Justice O’Connor’s efforts to find compromise and, more broadly, her work to ensure that the judiciary remains an independent and impartial institution. Finally, I want to acknowledge two judges with whom I have worked closely over the past decade-plus. Judges Lisa Neubauer and Lisa Stark have both demonstrated incredible commitment to the cause of justice during their service on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Their tenures as Chief Judge and Deputy Chief Judge, respectively, brought a collegiality to the court that allowed judges to cast aside ego and focus on points of agreement in an effort to propagate public confidence in the judiciary. Their steady hand allowed the court to navigate an ever-growing docket, even as court resources remained stagnant. And of course, on the merits of their work, their intellect and keen sense for justice allowed them to showcase exemplary judicial decision-making and respect for the rule of law. I greatly miss working with Judge Stark on a daily basis (although we do still frequently engage on matters of judicial education), and while Judge Neubauer’s upcoming retirement is much deserved, her absence will be deeply felt in the institution of the courts. The proper role of a judge: “Judging is what you make it.” I’ve thought often about that remark by a mentor years ago. She had come to know perhaps hundreds of judges during her legal career, and her point was that the title of judge is only as remarkable as the person bearing it. Someone can act as a judge, in the sense that their decisions have the force of law, without actually doing the hard work of judging. The proper role of a judge encompasses more than just calling balls and strikes or making decisions. Even in the face of a high case volume, judges (especially those at the appellate level) are rarely performing a mechanical application of facts to law. Cases are usually appealed because they offer something new or different than is covered by the existing legal fabric. Such matters require curiosity, diligence and nuance to appreciate. This is challenging but necessary work if one is to meaningfully contribute to the development of the law. But a studious approach to cases is not enough. It is fundamentally the appeals court’s job to explain, in writing, what conclusion the court has reached and the factors that led to it. See WIS. STAT. § 752.41(1). The audience for these opinions can include the litigants and their attorneys, circuit court judges, the general public, and perhaps even the justices of higher courts. Writings that are imprecise, disorganized or underdeveloped have a high potential to sow confusion and discord among their audience. Any discussion of the proper role of a judge must include the judge as an effective educator. Like all communication, judging is a two-way street. Appellate judges are not merely conveyors of wisdom, speaking from on high. A judge must have a listener’s ear and a learner’s mind, allowing other stakeholders in the justice system to teach: attorneys of record who will explain areas of the law with which the judge may be unfamiliar; circuit court judges who must apply the court’s decisions; practitioners who can provide important feedback and reflection on the court’s work; and colleagues with whom the judge must collaborate so that the court speaks with a unified voice as often as possible. A judge in our system of government must be all of these things—inquisitive, enlightening, and receptive—but courageousness may be the most important trait of all, particularly in today’s political environment. In a prior application, I discussed the courage of the justices in Gillespie v. Palmer, 20 Wis. 544 (1866), to do what was fair and right even in the face of tremendous public skepticism and political opposition. A judge must be steadfast in their commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. This is the essence of judging: the willingness to adopt counter-majoritarian positions when justice and conscience demand it, and to explain and vigorously defend those decisions using law and logic. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Samuel T. Berg
Appointed to: Walworth County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 7, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Big Foot High, Walworth, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: October 2024-present – Associate attorney, Gardiner Koch Weisberg & Wrona, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin June 2020-October 2024 – Assistant district attorney, Walworth County District Attorney’s Office July 2016-June 2020 – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin August 2014-July 2016 – Law clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Hon. William C. Griesbach, Green Bay, Wisconsin May 2014-August 2014 – Associate attorney, Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Our law firm has over 50 practice areas and represents individuals and corporations in a diverse range of concentrations. The general character of our Lake Geneva office, where I primarily work, is a general practice setting, including civil litigation, criminal defense, probate and guardianship, personal injury, estate planning, real estate, business formation, contract review, and employment law. As a senior associate in this office, I handle all of these case types on a regular basis, I oversee the intake process and handle most new client meetings, and I manage 4-5 other attorneys. Describe typical clients: My firm's general practice setting means I represent diverse clients, including business owners, wealthy individual clients, condo and homeowners associations, white and blue collar clients, clients facing various criminal charges, and indigent clients in contingency fee cases. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 25 jury trials and numerous bench trials List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Gabriel Estrada; Walworth County . . . . This case was significant because the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, including multiple felonies, and the defendant was sentenced to multiple years in prison, even though the case was initially referred for a single misdemeanor charge. This case is representative of how I tried to prosecute domestic violence cases: by listening to the victim and, when I believed her and when she provided ample supporting documentation to corroborate her statements, by aggressively prosecuting the case to keep the victim safe and allow her to get out of the cycle of domestic violence. State v. Larry Mitchell; Walworth County . . . . This case was significant because it was my first criminal trial and my first trial as a prosecutor. I had to prepare two felony cases for trial that day, one of which had a recanting victim and one of which had a victim who was refusing to come to court. The case where the victim refused to come to court ended up proceeding that day and even without her participation, I was able to obtain a felony false imprisonment conviction. It is not ideal to try a case without the victim but I knew that the case would have to be dismissed if I did not do so, and I felt that trying the case was necessary to protect the victim and the public. Preparing for these two cases and trying this case showed me that as a prosecutor, I would have to work hard, understand the rules of evidence intimately, and figure out how to appeal to jurors' sense of justice. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an assistant attorney general in the civil litigation unit of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I handled certiorari actions in circuit court for judicial review of various administrative proceedings. However, my positions have not, to date, involved participating directly in administrative agency or commission proceedings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have handled numerous mediations in state and federal cases. At my current firm, I represent clients in real estate transactions and perform estate planning, contract drafting, and advising in a general counsel role. Previously, as an ADA and AAG, I advised law enforcement agencies, oversaw investigations, advised local district attorney's offices, and advised organizational clients such as the Department of Corrections. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered to help my former colleague, Walworth County District Attorney Zeke Wiedenfeld, with his campaign for re-election in 2024. My participation was limited to obtaining approximately 10-20 signatures from family and friends, which I did to help Zeke secure a place on the ballot. This was an uncontested election. Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: St. James the Less Academy, School Advisory Committee, 2024-present St. Francis de Sales School, School Advisory Committee, 2023-2024 St. Francis de Sales Parish, religious education teacher, 2022-present St. Thomas More Society of Madison, board member, 2019-2024 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: During law school, I volunteered at the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic at the House of Peace on 1702 W. Walnut St. in Milwaukee. We met with individuals who were typically indigent and who were facing all kinds of legal challenges, most commonly landlord-tenant/eviction issues. Our representation would be limited to one meeting per matter and would consist of providing preliminary advice, basic assistance drafting pleadings, and referrals to attorneys or agencies that could assist further. I also volunteered at the adult guardianship clinic at the law school. This involved going through training and then assisting individuals become guardians of adult wards in uncontested cases. We assisted the proposed guardians by helping them complete the necessary forms and navigate the guardianship process. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I am grateful to be considered for an appointment to the Walworth County Circuit Court and humbled to be in a position to apply at this stage in my career. I want to serve as a judge for the people of Wisconsin—and specifically, of the county where I grew up—because I believe I am uniquely qualified for the job and because I want to use my gifts in whatever way most enables me to promote the common good and make a difference in my community. I am uniquely qualified for the job because I have a broad range of legal experience. My legal experience includes substantial experience trying cases, which is crucial for a circuit court judge. I have tried numerous cases in state court, federal court, criminal court, civil court, on the plaintiff's side, and on the defense side. I have spent over four years exclusively practicing civil litigation and over four more years exclusively prosecuting criminal cases. In my current position, I continue to practice civil litigation and criminal law, as well as personal injury, probate and guardianship, and juvenile law. I also have significant experience in non-litigation matters including contract drafting, employment law, corporate law, estate planning, and real estate law. I have been fortunate to work in an unusually broad range of concentrations, and this has prepared me well for the role of a circuit court judge, particularly in Walworth County, where each judge handles all types of matters at the same time. In addition, I have a record of working well with others. I have been blessed to work under and be mentored by some exceptional lawyers and judges, including the Honorable John Franke (when I assisted him with his duties as the special prosecutor of an inquest), the Honorable Michael Brennan of the Seventh Circuit (when he was managing partner of Gass Weber Mullins in Milwaukee), the Honorable William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (as his law clerk), the Honorable Ann Peacock (when she was directing the Civil Litigation Unit at WDOJ), and, most recently, District Attorney Zeke Wiedenfeld and my current employer in private practice, Attorney Tom Gardiner. These mentors taught me not only how to practice law but also how to be a professional and how to work well with supervisors, colleagues, and people under my supervision. As I explain more below, an important part of a circuit court judge's role, particularly in a county of our relative size, is to be an administrator of the justice system, and such administrative duties necessarily require working well with others. For these reasons, I believe I have a unique skill set that would enable me to be successful on the Walworth County Circuit Court bench. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) and Kindschy v. Aish, 2024 WI 27 are two recent decisions that will have an overall positive impact on the people of Wisconsin. These cases each involved delineating the line between constitutionally protected speech and "true threats" which are beyond the scope of First Amendment protection. In Counterman, in an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who was prosecuted for stalking a woman online. In Kindschy, in an opinion written by Justice Dallet for a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court, the ruling was in favor of an anti-abortion protestor whose activities included singling out one clinic staff member and making statements that she believed to be threatening. These cases involve courts doing what courts do: reviewing difficult factual scenarios and making a ruling based on the law, even if it is in favor of an individual who has engaged in behavior that many find objectionable. These are not easy decisions, and this is an important area of law, as society continues to grapple with rising gun violence, online radicalization of various ideologies, and more aggressive enforcement and prosecution of hate speech by legislators and prosecutors of all political stripes. But these are instances in which our highest courts correctly came down in favor of the important principle of freedom of speech. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Judge William C. Griesbach and Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin because of their dedication to public service, their collegiality, and their commitment to doing what is right. Both men have been judges for nearly 30 years. Judge Griesbach is a former prosecutor and Judge Adelman is a former state senator. As Judge Griesbach's law clerk, I watched him come to work early, stay late, and come in on most Saturdays. Judge Adelman is also well known as a hardworking judge who reads everything and writes prolifically. These men showed me that there is no substitute for hard work in the legal profession. These judges also showed me the importance of mutual respect and collegiality. Reminiscent of the late Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, Judge Griesbach and Judge Adelman were appointed by presidents of different political parties, but they have a special working relationship and friendship. I saw firsthand that they did not always agree on certain issues, but they valued each other's opinions and debated each other openly, honestly, and respectfully. Finally, these judges are committed to doing what is right in the promotion of the common good. It is sometimes said that the role of a judge is to "call balls and strikes," and although that is true to a certain extent, Judge Griesbach and Judge Adelman showed me that compassion and conscience also have an inescapable role to play in the administration of justice. The proper role of a judge: A judge must administer justice by faithfully interpreting and applying the law as enacted by the legislative branch, by overseeing the conduct of the executive branch, and by enforcing the statutory and constitutional rights of all citizens. A judge must maintain impartiality in all matters and must treat with respect and courtesy all litigants, attorneys, and indeed all people they encounter in both their professional and personal lives. Such respect is required by virtue of the human dignity of every person, and such impartiality is required to maintain the public's utmost confidence in the integrity of the judiciary specifically and the rule of law in general. A judge must also be a leader of the justice system in which he or she serves. A judge should be active in the local bar and should assist and mentor attorneys, especially new attorneys, thereby enhancing the quality of legal representation for the public and guaranteeing the efficacy of the justice system for generations to come. Finally, being a judge requires humility and courage. Humility is needed to stay open-minded and to never stop learning and growing. Courage is needed to do what is right, especially when it is difficult. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Whitney A. Healy
Appointed to: Outagamie County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 7, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Valparaiso University Law School, Valparaiso, Indiana Undergraduate – Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa High School – Barneveld High, Barneveld, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2021-present – Civil litigation attorney, Habush, Habush & Rottier, Appleton, Wisconsin February 2020-April 2021 – Senior associate attorney, Sterling Law Offices, Madison, Wisconsin March 2019-September 2021 – Buyer’s agent, Realty Executives Cooper Spransy, Fitchburg, Wisconsin September 2015-March 2019 – Civil litigation attorney, Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: My current practice involves representing plaintiffs who have been physically, emotionally, or financially harmed due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another. Although I practice throughout the Fox Valley, the majority of my cases arise from or involve residents of Outagamie County. My caseload is primarily comprised of car accident-related cases, but I also handle premises and strict liability cases. In advocating for the injured party, I assist in recovering compensation for medical bills, lost wages, as well as pain and suffering. I currently have over 100 active files, with approximately 25% of them in litigation at any given time. Because I pride myself on providing individualized representation, this requires great attention to detail and a deep understanding of the nuances of each case. Describe typical clients: I have spent most of my legal career practicing on the plaintiff side of personal injury. During the first half of my career, I also focused on civil rights litigation, employment law, and family law. A unique aspect of my practice is that my clients come from diverse and varied backgrounds. I am privileged to have represented individuals of different races, genders, political affiliations, and socioeconomic statuses. I believe every person deserves justice and a fair opportunity. Accordingly, I have dedicated my career to serving individuals. As a personal injury attorney, I work with people who have been physically, emotionally, and financially impacted through no fault of their own. In civil rights litigation, I represented those whose constitutional rights were violated by government entities and public figures. In employment law, I represented individuals who were harassed, discriminated against, or wrongfully terminated. These clients were often afraid of retaliation, losing their livelihood, or being ostracized. Finally, as a family law practitioner, I represented individuals facing one of the most emotionally challenging transitions in their lives. Number of cases tried to verdict: 7 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Nick Solomon, et al. vs. John Cabot University, et al. … This case was brought after the murder of [redacted], a student at the University of Madison-Wisconsin who was studying abroad at John Cabot University ("JCU") in Rome, Italy. I was extensively involved in this case. Before bringing a complaint, I researched all I could about JCU, including its history, policies, procedures, and incorporation documents. During my research, I discovered that JCU had been plagued by student deaths year after year, which all occurred in a very similar fashion. Nevertheless, JCU never provided any warnings or even notice to any of the schools in the United States with which it contracted. After discovering that JCU was incorporated in Delaware, we knew we could bring a claim against it in the United States. Moreover, once I was able to locate the identities of prior victims, I reached out to their families to get more information on what occurred abroad that led to their deaths. The more victims I spoke with, the more it became clear that these deaths all occurred within blocks of the campus in a very similar manner. The interesting caveat to this was that most of the research I conducted was in Italian, so many of my findings required translation. This became even more troubling because the Italian newspapers would report on these deaths, but typically not the newspapers in the United States. Once we were prepared with this information, we filed a lawsuit against, primarily, John Cabot University. The litigation was long and grueling. We were met with several motions, including motions to dismiss and motions to transfer the case. We ultimately overcame all of those motions. In taking depositions of the JCU staff members abroad, we learned that they kept what they called a "death list", which included all of the students who had died similarly. Ultimately, the case settled for a confidential amount at mediation. This case was significant because it underscored the importance of fighting for justice even when it seems impossible. JCU was a bad actor that continued to minimize the tragedies that occurred on its campus, allowing it to continue profiting from its study abroad programs at the expense of the students. This was a time that justice prevailed even though it seemed impossible. [Redacted] et al. vs. St. Clare Hospital, et al.; Medical Malpractice Trial and Appeal … This case involved an 18-month-old child [redacted] who was deprived of oxygen for nearly ten minutes after the providers at St. Clare Hospital paralyzed [redacted] to intubate him, but could not work the Ambu bag to provide oxygen to [redacted] was ultimately left completely incapacitated and unable to ever lead a "normal" life. The trial was a 2-week trial against the treating provider, the respiratory therapist, and the hospital. After two weeks, the jury determined that there was no fault on behalf of any of the defendants. The verdict was shattering. On motions after verdict, the trial court reversed the jury's decision and awarded a new trial in favor of our client. Unfortunately, the decision fell outside of the 90-day window for the court's competency, and the case was forced to go up on appeal. My role in this case was to brief any necessary motions that arose before, during, and after the trial. This included the motions after the verdict and the motion that secured a new trial. I also had the opportunity to get to know the family personally and create the "Day in the Life" video for [redacted]. This case was personally significant in several respects. First, it was the first time in my career that I felt failed by the process. I was so confident that the facts and the law were on our side that I could not fathom that the jury would not find in our favor. It was a lesson in not taking the process for granted. Second, it reaffirmed to me the necessity of taking on tough cases without fear of the outcome. Medical malpractice cases in Wisconsin are incredibly difficult. They are expensive, time-consuming, and incredibly risky. However, holding others accountable is essential work and necessary for our communities. Finally, it was an important lesson in knowing the critical deadlines for all parties involved, including the court. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: During my tenure at Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs (formerly known as Gingras, Cates & Luebke), I devoted a significant part of my practice to employment law matters. Accordingly, I compiled, drafted, and contested employment cases for employees before the Department of Workforce Development. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). At Sterling Lawyers, I completed a 40-hour divorce and family mediation training through the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This included Wis. Stat. 767.405 training on domestic violence dynamics and its effects on victims. I applied this training while serving as a mediator in family law cases. As a civil litigator, I have extensive experience as an advocate in the mediation process. At both Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs and Habush, Habush & Rottier, I have served as a client advocate in countless mediations. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Susan M. Crawford, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2025 Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023 Judge Lisa S. Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2019 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Outagamie County Bar Association, Executive Committee, September 2021-present Wisconsin Association for Justice, Executive & Legislative Committee, Board of Directors, September 2015-present Legal Association for Women, Board of Directors and Meet & Mingle Chair, September 2018-April 2021 Dane County Bar Association, member, September 2015-April 2021 Robert J. Parins Legal Society of Northeast Wisconsin, member, August 2025-present The James E. Doyle American Inn of Court, member, September 2019-February 2020 American Association for Justice, member, September 2015-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: For the past three years, I have volunteered to serve on the Executive Committee of the Outagamie County Bar Association. I have also served on the Executive Committee, Legislative Committee, and Board of Directors for the Wisconsin Association for Justice for the past four consecutive years. Moreover, I served as Vice Chair of the Women's Caucus of the Wisconsin Association for Justice in 2019 and Chair of the Women's Caucus of the Wisconsin Association for Justice in 2020. All of these positions were volunteer positions. From 2018 to 2021, I volunteered to serve on the Board of Directors for the Legal Association for Women in Madison, WI. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: My desire to serve as a judge arises out of my commitment to justice, empathy, integrity, and the belief that the judiciary should reflect the diversity of the communities it serves. While the law provides the blueprint for justice, empathy and lived experiences allow a judge to understand the human element involved in every case. My experiences have taught me to listen intently, think critically, and consider different perspectives. I grew up in a very homogeneous area of the state, where the representation of my culture and background was limited, if not nonexistent. I recall taking tests and filling out the race and ethnicity question, having to check both “white, non-Hispanic” and “Hispanic” while being reminded that I was different from my peers. I can imagine being a litigant or an individual facing a crime or attempting to exercise legal rights and feeling like the only person in the room who is different from everyone else. I firmly believe that experiencing that feeling repeatedly throughout my life has allowed me to see things from a different, more empathetic perspective. I am better able to understand the thoughts and emotions of the person who is “different”. I know the importance of representation and how critical it is that the judiciary mirrors the people it exists to serve. However, I also understand that diversity is just one factor inhibiting one's access to the justice system. Litigants often face barriers due to the cost, complexity, statutory caps, and an overall lack of understanding of the legal system. As a public servant, it is a judge’s responsibility to ensure that the court remains open to every single member of the community who may need it. I want to be a judge to ensure that the citizens of Outagamie County have access to the justice system when necessary. Finally, I feel called to serve as a judge in Outagamie County to help protect and uphold the law, no matter how difficult. A judge is entrusted with the responsibility to interpret and apply the law impartially without conceding to public pressure, personal biases, or societal chaos. I aspire to be a judge who upholds the integrity of our judicial system at a time when that feels threatened. Ultimately, I believe deeply in our justice system and the good that it can do when it is run fairly, empathetically, and with integrity. Ultimately, I want to be a judge to put those principles into practice for the citizens of our state and those who look to Outagamie County for assistance in resolving disputes or deciding their liberties. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s holding in Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is undoubtedly one of the most profoundly impactful decisions in recent history. Just last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, reinstated ballot drop boxes across the state by overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Teigen was a case that led to a complete prohibition of drop boxes in Wisconsin. By overruling Teigen, the Court’s decision has had, and will continue to have, a profound positive effect on voter access and democratic participation in Wisconsin by making voting more accessible and by increasing confidence in the electoral process. In prior elections, voters who were elderly, disabled, or living in rural areas may have faced significant barriers in returning their ballots. Although mailing is still an option, it may not be reliable or trustworthy for some. The option of having a drop box instills additional confidence that their vote will, in fact, count. Moreover, Priorities USA reduces the risk of disenfranchisement. Unquestionably, limiting voters to mail-in ballots or hand delivery during business hours creates logistical challenges. Drop boxes offering around-the-clock access allow more votes to arrive on time and be counted. At a time when many states are facing growing restrictions on voter access, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is one that greatly benefits every single citizen of Wisconsin. It has not only expanded access to voting but also helped to restore faith in the electoral process. This is critical because it leads to greater participation, which in turn leads to a better-run democracy. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor In May 2009, the White House published a press release on Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor, describing her as “a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law.” The White House, Background on Judge Sonia Sotomayor (May 26, 2009), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/background-judge-sonia-sotomayor. At a time when powerful interests seem to be threatening the laws our country is founded on, my admiration for Justice Sotomayor, based on this alone, is especially poignant. However, I admire Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a multitude of reasons. I admire her for her perseverance and the manner in which she has served on the United States Supreme Court. My own identity aligns with Justice Sotomayor in that we are both the daughters of immigrants who are first-generation attorneys. Just like Justice Sotomayor, I also knew from a young age that I wanted to pursue a career in law. I felt compelled to help the underserved in any way possible. I believed I could best achieve this through my intellect and love of learning. Moreover, Justice Sotomayor is also known for empathetically and pragmatically looking at cases with an eye toward the human impact of the Court’s decisions. She balances respect for the law with respect for her fellow people. She has been recognized as emphasizing the importance of treating individuals with dignity and respect, regardless of one’s own views. I, too, firmly believe in treating everyone with respect, irrespective of our differences. I admire that she also embodies this same belief. Finally, I admire Justice Sotomayor because she remains undeterred by political affiliation. Having been first nominated by George H.W. Bush to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ultimately nominated by Barack Obama to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, I find her ability to cross party lines admirable. The very position of a judge is complete and total impartiality. A judge is meant to follow the law and do what is right, regardless of their individual beliefs. Unfortunately, that line seems to be increasingly blurred nationwide. If I were to have the honor of serving the citizens of Outagamie County on the judiciary, I would aspire to exemplify the characteristics of Justice Sotomayor. Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. I find Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. to be one of the most courageous judges in history. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Attorney Frank Johnson to serve on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Judge Johnson was only 37 years old at the time of his appointment to the federal bench and was the youngest sitting federal judge. At that time, he was faced with maintaining justice in the deep south during one of the most tumultuous periods in United States history. Within just one year of taking the bench, Judge Johnson decided Browder v. Gayle, holding that an Alabama statute permitting segregation on buses was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1961, Judge Johnson decided United States v. U.S. Klans, Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Inc. In that case, Judge Johnson stood firm on his belief that Goodwin J. Ruppenthal, the Chief of Police of the City of Montgomery, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment after he failed to take any of the usual precautionary measures to protect Freedom Riders. Because of Chief Ruppenthal’s inaction, the Freedom Riders were attacked by a mob of Klansmen upon their arrival in Montgomery. Throughout the next several years, Judge Johnson continued to encounter landmark cases in the civil rights movement, including Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, which was the first statewide desegregation order in Alabama, United States v. Alabama, which permitted black persons to vote so long as their application papers were equal to the least qualified white applicant accepted on voting rolls, and perhaps most famous was his decision in Williams v. Wallace, which prohibited authorities in Alabama from interfering with the Selma marches. Due to his unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equality, Judge Frank Johnson faced intense hostility. In 1963, his mother’s house in Montgomery was bombed. Governor George Wallace, a former classmate, called him a “integrating, carpetbagging, scalawagging, boldface liar.” Yet Johnson remained committed to the law, saying his “basic philosophy as a trial judge…is to follow the law and the facts without regard to the consequences.” I deeply admire Judge Frank Johnson as the epitome of doing the right thing despite difficulty. He maintained reason during unreasonable times. Because of judges like him, our society has made significant strides toward equality. Judge Johnson could have followed the status quo, but instead stood firm on constitutional principles when they were challenged most. The proper role of a judge: The role of a judge is rooted in public service. A judge serves the community and the legal system as a whole. In performing this service, a judge must preside with a commitment to fairness, humility, and integrity. A judge’s role extends beyond resolving disputes. A judge upholds the rule of law while treating individuals with dignity and respect. This applies to litigants, attorneys, jurors, witnesses, and even those observing the courtroom. The judge is ultimately a reflection of our civilized society when it is functioning at its best. To fulfill this duty, a judge must set aside personal interests and biases and instead prioritize doing the right thing and affirming that the courtroom serves the people above all else. A judge’s authority depends on the trust of the people rather than any power they may have been afforded. That trust is earned through impartiality, honesty, and veracity. It is a judge’s role to apply the law in a way that is uninfluenced by their personal beliefs, societal pressure, or political affiliation. This also requires accountability and courage to uphold the law, even when it may be unpopular. Ultimately, the judge’s role is to maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system by doing the right thing and protecting the ideals of justice. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Diane L. Meulemans
Appointed to: Waupaca County Circuit Court Appointment date: Feb. 5, 2026, to a term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Master’s – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse High School – West Bend East, West Bend, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2014-present – Corporation counsel, Waupaca County July 2013-April 2014 – Corporation counsel, Green Lake County February 2007-July 2013 – Deputy corporation counsel, Marathon County December 2003-February 2007 – Assistant corporation counsel, Marathon County Bar and administrative memberships: Supreme Court of the United States State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Since 2003, my practice has been dedicated to providing legal representation to the County, its elected officials, and departments and to the public interest in service through the Office of Corporation Counsel. As Waupaca County Corporation Counsel, I provide legal services to the County Board of Supervisors on matters of governance, legislation, administrative home rule powers, and ethics. I serve as the Board's Parliamentarian. I provide legal guidance to the County’s Standing Committees. I respond to any legal matter that is required for the County’s successful functioning as a corporate body and a local government unit. Although there are constant themes, Counties require a breadth of legal knowledge across a wide variety of substantive legal areas: business aspects such as contracts and leases; real estate transactions including right-of-way acquisition; public records and open meetings laws; intergovernmental agreements; governance and legislative actions; and competitive bidding for procurement and public works to name a few. As a government attorney, I must also demonstrate the ability to communicate complex legal opinions in a manner that is understandable to the intended audience and relevant to the issue presented in order for sound decisions to be made. I provide written and oral legal opinions to my professional colleagues, including elected officials such as the Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk of Court, Register of Deeds, and County Clerk. I provide legal services for a County Board of Supervisors consisting of twenty-seven Supervisors. Legal services for the County Board include written opinions upon request of the County Board Chair, ethics guidance for individual Supervisors, and “real time” answers and information when legal or procedural questions arise during County Board or Standing Committee meetings. In addition, the Office of Corporation Counsel represents the County as Plaintiff in ordinance enforcement through citations and complex forfeiture actions, as Petitioner's Counsel to the Department of Human Services in Chapter 54 guardianship and Chapter 55 protective placement matters, and the interests of the public in Chapter 48 child welfare matters and Chapter 51 involuntary commitment matters. In Marathon and Green Lake County, I have also served as the Child Support Agency’s attorney focusing on matters under Chapter 767 Family Code to establish child support and non-financial orders, adjudicate paternity, review orders when appropriate, and enforce orders when payers are non-compliant. In Waupaca County, I am the Child Support Agency Administrator and must stay current with state policies and legislative changes and case law affecting Chapter 767. I have a wide substantive legal knowledge in civil matters affecting individuals and families in Waupaca County. As a prosecutor, I must adhere to the civil rules of procedure, discovery and pre-trial motions, and the rules of evidence as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. In all of my years in the Office of Corporation Counsel, I have maintained a successful working relationship with the District Attorney’s Office. The Corporation Counsel and the District Attorney often work in tandem with criminal law for Child Support Agency referrals for felony non-support criminal charges, in criminal mental health order to treat being converted to civil commitment orders, and in child welfare cases that have a parent also charged with the crime of child neglect or abuse. I have also developed positive working relationships with Waupaca County’s law enforcement jurisdictions. City and Village Police Department Officers and Sheriff’s Office Deputies frequently serve as fact witnesses in mental commitment and child welfare cases. I have appeared at countless “in custody” hearings where individuals make their initial appearance on criminal complaints or to quash a civil child support warrant or to have an allocution hearing on a Commitment Order for a contempt sanction. My day-to-day practice in Circuit Court has significant overlap with the criminal justice system. I am confident that I will be able to quickly expand my knowledge of the criminal code, and to properly ensure the rules of criminal procedure have been followed by the State and the Defendant as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. My knowledge of the rules of evidence will be foundational in this endeavor. A successful Corporation Counsel is well versed in civil and criminal law as the two areas frequently overlap and are engaged with legal partners, including the District Attorney and law enforcement personnel. I have accomplished both. Waupaca County does not have a County Administrator or Executive. Therefore, I am involved in county projects and decision making that are not fundamentally legal in nature. For example, I have been involved in a multi-year $35 million Courthouse remodel project that started in 2021. Construction is underway and the substantial completion date is July 2027. I have been fully involved in all aspects of the project, from the development of the Request for Proposals; managing competitive bidding awards; AIA contract negotiations with the architect and the construction management firm; and continued engagement with the project professionals to make sure the project is on time and on budget. At each stage of the project, legal services were provided and communicated to the County Board of Supervisors and the relevant Standing Committees for educated decisions to be made. On June 19, 2024, Waupaca County also endured a Network Interruption that affected county-wide systems and service delivery. I was called upon to lead the County through the cyber incident, working closely with outside counsel and its technical advisors, to guide the County Board in decision making regarding the possible compromise of County data, the resolution of the incident, and the restoration of County services. The County was back online on July 5, 2024 and required data breach notices met necessary federal and state timelines in December 2024 and January 2025. This incident demonstrates that although I can be prepared for the routine aspects of my legal duties and responsibilities, I must also demonstrate leadership, clear thinking, reasoned decision making, and an ability to communicate complex facts to others in a manner that is understandable and guides proper decision making in times of crisis and for which I had no prior experience. Throughout all of my practice experience, starting at Wisconsin Judicare in 2000, I have been asked to make legal decisions, at times in writing, but frequently orally and contemporaneously, when presented with a particular set of facts or situations. I am able to apply the situation presented to the appropriate law, make reasoned decisions founded in the law, and communicate the legal decision to the intended audience. The wealth of substantive legal knowledge I have gained over the course of my career has provided me with an excellent foundation to serve as a judge. The decision making and communication skills I have developed over my career are exactly the type of skills that will make me an effective judge. Describe typical clients: My clients are the citizens of Waupaca County, the County Board, its elected officials, and its Departments. Representing a body as a client can be challenging as individuals who are a part of the body may have competing interests or differing goals. It is always critical to effectively communicate the facts and the relevant law to be able to advise the body and to not be swayed by a particular point of view or outcome. As the Corporation Counsel, representing the County Board, I have undertaken significant legislative legal writing in Waupaca County through ordinance revisions, including repealing and replacing entire Chapters of the Code of Ordinances. I provide legal advice to the County’s elected officials and Department Heads regarding the Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings laws. I have experience in areas of the law that are frequently on the Circuit Court docket. My experience as a practitioner in these substantive areas is advantageous when called upon as a judge to make findings, rulings, and orders in these substantive areas. In these cases, I represent the interests of the public (Chapters 48 and 51), the Department of Human Services (Chapters 54 and 55), and the State of Wisconsin (Chapter 767). Most of these case types also have stringent timelines and notice requirements to uphold due process rights of individuals as liberty interests are affected. As a practitioner, I am principled in affording individuals all the process that the law provides both to maintain the integrity of the proceeding and to protect the individual’s rights. I will do the same as a judge. I also understand that a family law case will be “open” throughout a child’s minority and beyond. The judge may be called upon to enter orders affecting the family as facts and circumstances change for the case participants over time. It is critical for a judge to understand that families are dynamic and their need for court involvement may also evolve over time. I specialize in Chapter 54 guardianships, Chapter 55 protective placements, and Chapter 51 involuntary commitments. I have handled these matters for over twenty years. I have prosecuted child welfare cases and termination of parental rights cases under Chapter 48 for almost twenty years. I have expertise in sections of Chapter 767 Family Law that apply to the child support program, including Wis. Admin. Code DCF 150 Child Support Standard, because of my involvement with County Child Support Agencies since 2003. I am routinely in Circuit Court for these cases, requiring me to be prepared to present my case both factually and through legal argument. After over a decade in the position of Corporation Counsel, I can honestly say no one day is the same as any other, and I am always challenged to expand my practice areas to make certain the legal needs of the County are met. As a judge, I will be called upon to do the same to judiciously manage the proceedings before me. As a judge, I will not control the types of proceedings that come before me. However, my substantive legal experience and the routine work of the Corporation Counsel that constantly involves the challenge to provide legal answers for new legal questions presented will serve me well when in making decisions as a judge. Number of cases tried to verdict: 6 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: I have selected two cases that I have participated in to demonstrate the breadth of the legal skills in my service as Corporation Counsel. There is a case of state-wide significance and one of evolution of a case to ensure individual rights fit evolving circumstances. Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366. This case is significant in the common law evolution of Chapter 51 recommitment hearings under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am), a process that continues to the present day. Since the time K.E.K was in the trial court in 2018, Chapter 51 recommitment hearings, also called extension hearings, have been in both the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court on multiple issues related to the burden of proof required as to dangerousness of a person presently receiving treatment for mental health, the notice requirements to the individual, the ability to enter default orders, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the competency of the court to proceed if mandatory timelines are not followed. K.E.K. was in individual who was committed to a sixth month involuntary commitment order with an order for involuntary medication and treatment in 2017 after a jury trial under what is known colloquially as “the 5th Standard” in Waupaca County Case No. 17ME44. As the initial commitment period was set to expire, the County, representing the public interest pursuant Wis. Stat. sec. 51.20(4), petitioned for both orders to be extended on May 18, 2018. After a bench trial, K.E.K.’s commitment order and order for involuntary medication and treatment was extended for an additional twelve months. K.E.K. appealed the trial court’s order, arguing that the recommitment statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Waupaca County was represented by my office, including Assistant Corporation Counsel David G. Been. The presiding trial court judge was Judge Vicki L. Clussman. This case then went to the Court of Appeals (Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 389 Wis.2d 104, 2019 WI App 58) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court (Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366). K.E.K. was represented in the trial court by Assistant State Public Defender Kate Drury and on appeal by Appellate Public Defender Colleen G. Ball. I was involved in this process in trial preparation, reviewing and editing briefs, providing secondary legal research, and preparing for oral argument. The Supreme Court ruled in the County’s favor and upheld the constitutionality of the recommitment statute both facially and as applied. K.E.K. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court again alleging the statute was unconstitutional on its face and applied. See 142 S. Ct. 594. After being served notice of the Petition for Review in July 2021, I brought this case to its ultimate conclusion. First, I responded by notifying the United States Supreme Court that Waupaca County would not be filing a Brief in Opposition. The United States Supreme Court, however, directed Waupaca County to do so. I was admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States bar. I was assisted in assembling the Brief in Opposition by Kearney Law Office who also provided guidance on the procedures of filing in the Supreme Court and the internal workings of the Supreme Court. I contributed the fundamental legal knowledge of the practical and legal requirements of Chapter 51 recommitments cases and the individuals with mental illness who have exhibited dangerous behaviors in the community triggering the intervention of the court process, including applying the law to the facts and the stringent due process protections within the law, including strict timelines. Together we worked on the County’s legal analysis and argument. On October 27, 2021, I filed the Brief in Opposition in the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 6, 2021, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. 142 S. Ct. 594 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 369. The utilization of the recommitment statute as an integral tool to ensure individuals with mental illness whose condition places himself of herself in danger to self or others while residing in the community receive necessary treatment and medication to regain stability and safety in their lives. The legal work by the Waupaca County Office of Corporation Counsel has upheld the constitutionality of the statute that is significant in maintaining personal and community safety. To date, Waupaca County v. K.E.K., has a total of forty-six citing references on Westlaw, including twenty-two cases demonstrating its impact on jurisprudence related to Chapter 51 recommitment standard, but the standard of review required in finding a statute unconstitutional both facially and applied. Waupaca County’s Brief in Opposition is submitted as one of my writing samples. In the Matter of [redacted], Waupaca County Case No. 16-GN-15 I have been involved as Petitioner’s Counsel in this case since the filing of the guardianship petition on June 18, 2016, by Adult Protective Services Social Worker. The ward in this case is a young adult, born in 1996, who suffered a traumatic brain injury after a motorcycle accident. Presently the individual has a guardian of the person and a guardian of the estate first ordered in August 2016 and in October 2016 was ordered protectively placed. The case is assigned to Waupaca County Judge Troy L. Nielsen. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as his Guardian ad Litem: Attorneys Eric D. Hendrickson, Sean P. Donahue, Thomas J. Hart, and David William Franker. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as Adversary Counsel: Attorneys Joseph M. Norby, Karen L. Marone, Thomas W. Johnson, Theodore C. Johnson, Richard E. Bender, and Steven Edward Hendrix. This case is significant as it demonstrates the Court’s involvement in ensuring that an individual’s rights are retained and exercised with his then current capacities. It is not surprising that an individual recovers physically and cognitively from a traumatic brain injury. This ward’s recovery has been progressive, and the County has petitioned to have his rights restored as he has regained mental capacity to engage in decisions about his medical needs and his personal situation. The Determination and Order on Petition for Permanent Guardianship Due to Incompetency has been amended multiple times as warranted by the ward’s recovery. In April 2017, his right to obtain a fishing license was restored in full. In September 2018, his right to independently handle $100 per month at the discretion of the guardian was restored. In May 2019, a Petition was filed to restore rights that he may exercise with the consent of the guardian of the person: consent to marriage; apply for a license under Ch. 29, Wis. Stat. other than fishing; consent to sterilization; and consent to organ, tissue, or bone marrow donation. In addition, Petition requested that rights regarding his health decisions, educational and social services decisions, and educational and vocational placements, among other rights, be partially restored to the ward to exercise with approval of his guardian of the person. At this time, the ward stated he wanted to have a girlfriend and have an intimate relationship, intending to hopefully be married. The County arranged for the ward to be evaluated by a psychologist regarding the restoration of the above rights, and the ward’s cognitive ability related to the issue of sexual consent, both in consenting to his own actions and in recognizing his partner’s consent or lack of consent and making appropriate sexual intimacy decisions. The goal throughout this process was to have this ward experience life in a manner that was consistent with his cognitive abilities. In April 2020, the Order was amended to reflect the restoration of rights in the Petition for Modification. The psychologist offered his professional opinion that the ward did not have sufficient cognition and executive functioning regarding consent for sexual intimacy; however, the ward retains the right to marry if his guardian of the person also consents to the marriage granting him hope that he may marry in the future. The Order for Protective Placement continues to be reviewed on an annual basis as is required by statute. The ward most recently was evaluated again by an examiner of his choice on the continuing need for a guardian and the appropriateness of his current group home placement as the least restrictive setting. This case is significant to the ward and others under guardianship as it demonstrates that a case will have its own progression to mirror the recovery of the ward, who is the subject of the case. As Petitioner’s counsel, it is imperative to request the court to intervene in the least restrictive manner in the ward’s decision making. This case also demonstrates each Circuit Court decision and order has an impact on those who seek relief from the Court. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented the respective County Department of Human Services or Social Services in child welfare substantiation appeals under Chapter 48 in various State of Wisconsin Department of Administration hearings. I have represented the Waupaca County Planning and Zoning Office in appeals to the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment, a quasi-judicial body created by Wis. Stat. sec. 59.694. I have handled appeals to the Social Security Administration as a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As a Judicial Intern for Justice Prosser in 1999, I wrote three briefs for questions presented in cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. As a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare, I staffed a monthly walk-in free legal services clinic at the Wausau Salvation Army. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: n/a Previous runs for public office: n/a All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Hon. Scott M. Corbett, Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 6, 2021 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Waupaca County Bar Association, 2015-present Green Lake County Bar Association, president, 2014 Marathon County Bar Association, 2003-2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: The three internships identified in Question 10 generated tangible resources for use in pro bono or volunteer legal services situations. The Goldmark Internship award included a stipend; however, the others did not. Each internship provided an opportunity to establish templates and other foundational resources to assist and engage other attorneys that are providing pro bono legal services. These include the following deliverables: -Developed administrative, screening and procedural forms for the Family Law Assistance Center, a volunteer-based weekly walk-in clinic serving pro se family law litigants as a legal intern at the Center for Public Representation; -Wrote Constructing a Family Law Trial Level Brief When Domestic Violence is in the Record, a 130 page "template" brief for use by legal services attorneys, family law clinical programs, and pro bono attorneys state-wide for direct representation to low-income clients as a Goldmark Intern; and -Wrote a landlord-tenant resource guide with information, procedures, and contact persons to resolve untenantability issues in a seven-county region as an intern at Western Wisconsin Legal Services. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge as it is noble work worth doing. I will continue to serve the people of Wisconsin by using the foundational legal knowledge I have gained over the last twenty-two years in matters that affect individuals, families, and children and most significantly in issues related to the protection of children, the safety of our most vulnerable adults, and the resolution of family law matters. I want to work to enhance the safety of the people of Wisconsin by approaching criminal cases with a focus on offender accountability and victims’ rights. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by fairly responding to the judicial remedies requested by all who seek the circuit court to resolve matters affecting their lives, their livelihoods, and their communities. One of my fundamental truths is that each person in the courtroom has a significant role in the adversarial judicial system established by Wisconsin law and common law. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by providing respect to all who enter my courtroom until that individual engages in words or actions that as a consequence deprive her or him of my respect. Even so, all will be treated with diplomacy and decorum. I will demand the same of others who appear before me. For twenty-two years, I have spent nearly every working day engaged in the functioning of the county courthouse. I have a valuable understanding of the Courts’ partners, namely the Clerk of Courts and the Probate Office. I appreciate, support, and understand the important work of the District Attorney’s Office and her staff. I have lived the work of the Office of Corporation Counsel. I have a wealth of knowledge regarding Waupaca County’s operations, including the annual budget process and its implications on funding and personnel decisions that may impact the circuit court. I will use this knowledge to ensure the people of Wisconsin are served by a Circuit Court that is sound and able to perform the essential delivery of court services to those who seek it. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as Waupaca County Circuit Court Branch III because I want to stand up for the people of Wisconsin. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. On behalf of the people of Wisconsin, I am troubled by the legal cases that have been filed to restrict voting rights. Therefore, I believe that one of several voter registration cases had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin: State ex. rel. Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2021 WI 32, 396 Wi.2d 391, 957 N.W.2d 208. The case was intended to force the Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge voter registration records based on demographic information provided through the ERIC voter database. The Circuit Court used both its power of Mandamus and Contempt of Court to force Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge the voter registration rolls. However, the holding in the case clarifies the responsibilities under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) to change the registration of electors who may have moved out of their municipality is solely given to the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners has a duty to act when they receive reliable and credible information that a registered elector has changed his or her residence to a location outside of the municipality. The case provided guidance that it is the responsibility of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners must send a letter regarding the move to the elector, and if the register elector does not respond within 30 days, the clerk of board of election commissioners shall change the elector’s registration form eligible to ineligible status. The Court held that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duties under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) regarding updating elector status based on change of residency information. As the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duty to update elector status, the lower court’s use of the writ of mandamus and contempt of court powers was misplaced. The case is significant as it demonstrates the Wisconsin Supreme Court using the plain language analysis of the actual words in the statute and applying the canon of statutory construction. In 2021, the decision provided a clear analytical approach to how the Court may examine the case cases brought before it. It is also significant that it demonstrates the power of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to withdraw language from the lower Court of Appeals decision where it declined to decide an issue that the Court of Appeals had decided, namely the writ of mandamus compelling the Wisconsin Election Commission to comply with § 6.50(3) and reversed the contempt order against the Wisconsin Election Commission. The case is positive because it prevented approximately 234,000 electors from being disenfranchised to vote, supports Wisconsin’s unique system of election administration based on local municipal control and oversight, and takes a broad step in ending voter suppression in the present day where elections are won by slim margins. The decision fundamentally supports the statutory duties of local officials in the electoral process. This provides legitimacy to the elections process for all who engage in the civic duty of voting. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Justice Ann Walsh Bradley because she has been a steadfast, consistent presence in her time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In addition, she is consistent in interactions with others when she is not on the bench and in the community for various events and engagements. I did not practice in Marathon County when Justice Bradley was in Circuit Court, Branch 3. I met her for the first time as a Judicial Intern for Justice David T. Prosser in 1999. Justice Bradley has consistently emphasized non-partisanship in the role of the judiciary, demonstrating independence and steadfastly applying the rule of law. She has advocated for transparency in governance, which as a Corporation Counsel has informed and directed the legal advice I provide to Waupaca County’s elected officials. Her opinions on open governance constantly serve as a polestar for me in my role as Corporation Counsel. Waupaca County was able to meet Justice Bradley and the entire Supreme Court in its Justice on Wheels visit to Waupaca County on October 10, 2022. Justice Bradley was, as always, engaging and effervescent in her love of the law and her work as a Justice. I also admire Judge Greg Grau (Reserve), former Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 4. On December 18, 2003, at 8:30 AM, I was administered the oath to serve as Assistant Corporation Counsel for Marathon County. At 8:40 AM, Corporation Counsel Thomas P. Finley told me I was going to handle the child support cases in Branch 4, said that I would be “just fine,” and we walked to court together. I had not been inside a courtroom for two years, having worked at the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups Elder Law Center from November 2001 to December 2003. In that moment, I was struggling to get a grasp on the facts of the cases and trying to be calm as I represented the State of Wisconsin by Marathon County Child Support Agency in ten different cases. As Judge Grau later told me at my “going away” party in Marathon County almost ten years later, I was “shaking like a leaf.” Then he laughed heartily. It was the only time he mentioned that day to me. Judge Grau was even in his temperament on the bench, and consistent in his findings and holdings. He was measured and thoughtful in entering his rulings. He also offered quips or sarcasm when he found humor or irony in a situation, showing his humanity. I admire Judge Grau as he demonstrated that it is possible to make tough decisions with empathy and humility. Finally, I admire Judge Grau as he made me want to be a better attorney by challenging me subtly and with support and guidance. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to walk the tightrope between expressing her humanity in the management of the daily docket and in understanding the gravity of the decisions and orders she makes. A judge is independent in her decision making, applying the rule of law with equity and fairness. It is not the job of the judge to re-write the law but to interpret the law as the Legislature enacted it. A judge is neutral in her approach to each case, listening carefully to all of the evidence and fairly deciding the proper weight it should be given if she is the trier of fact. A judge is responsible for the decorum of the courtroom, setting and demonstrating a high standard for all to follow; and to direct an end to behaviors that are unacceptable in the courtroom. A judge must stay current in the law, striving to continually educate herself on pending legislation, statutory amendments, and newly released cases. A judge must strive to have her decisions affirmed if they are appealed. A judge must not be complacent in her understanding of the law but constantly strive to enhance her understanding of the law and improve her skills in legal analysis. A judge is a role model for others, including supporting new attorneys as they develop their skills and advocacy in representing their clients with integrity. A judge is willing to share her knowledge and love of the law with community members, including children, who are interested in the courts and court procedures. Simply stated, a judge allows all voices to be heard. In my career in public service, I have demonstrated the actions and attributes required to fulfill the role of a proper judge. I am able to listen to the question presented, receive complete factual information on the issue at hand, apply a thorough understanding of relevant statutes and case law, and offer a legal conclusion. I have practiced in a manner that is attentive to the situations before me, and that delivers sound legal advice to all those who have sought my counsel. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: David O. Hughes
Appointed to: Kenosha County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 23, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan High School – Forest Hills Central, Forest Hills, Michigan Recent legal employment: June 2021-present – Supplemental court commissioner, Kenosha County Circuit Court July 2012-present – Attorney, Puntillo Camilli & Hughes, Kenosha, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I maintain a general civil practice that does not include family law or criminal law. My practice includes both litigation and transactional matters. In addition, I serve as a supplemental court commissioner for the Kenosha County Circuit Court. In that capacity, I cover proceedings in criminal intake court, family court, juvenile court, traffic court, and small claims court. Describe typical clients: My typical clients are individuals, families, small to medium businesses, local colleges, and regional financial institutions. I have focused on estate planning, probate administration, trust administration, commercial litigation, higher education, commercial and residential real property, and providing outside general counsel services. Number of cases tried to verdict: 3, not including small claims matters List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: From 2018 through 2020, I represented a married couple as lead counsel in a property damage claim against their neighbors and their neighbors' insurer in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. … The matter was significant both because it proceeded to a full jury trial and because private nuisance was the central claim. Public and private nuisance are notoriously complex legal questions. From 2020 through 2023, I defended a former homeowner as lead counsel against misrepresentation claims arising from my client's sale of a home in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. … The matter was significant because of its procedural complexity, which involved a plaintiff, defendant, and two intervening insurers, each of whom had a different interest in the action. It also entailed multiple summary judgment motions, one of which decisively resolved a complex question about the purchaser plaintiff’s insurer's subrogation rights in my client's favor. And while outside the seven-year scope of this question, I also defended a trio of beneficiaries as second counsel from 2012 through 2016 against claims that they improperly received assets that should have been distributed to the plaintiff beneficiaries in Racine County, Wisconsin. … The matter was significant because it represented my earliest exposure to probate, probate-adjacent litigation, and appeals. The court ultimately dismissed all of the claims against my clients for failing to state a claim and on summary judgment. I undertook the legal research and wrote the briefs that supported those dispositive motions. The plaintiff beneficiaries appealed both decisions. The court of appeals upheld both decisions on appeal. I undertook the legal research and wrote the briefs that defended those decisions on appeal. I also find this matter to be significant because it substantially informed the advice I would give to future estate planning. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have successfully represented clients in adversary proceedings before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, as well as investigations by the Division of Animal Health at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Division of Industry Services at the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I regularly represent clients in mediation, usually as ordered by a court in the context of ongoing litigation. In many instances, my clients have been able to resolve and settle their disputes as a result of mediation. I have also successfully represented a homeowner in a claim against a construction firm in binding arbitration before the Metropolitan Builders Association Construction Arbitration Board. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered in support of Angelina Gabriele's campaign for election to the Kenosha County Circuit Court in 2021. I was a member of Heather Iverson's campaign committee when she sought election to the Kenosha County Circuit Court in 2024. I was a member of Carli McNeill's campaign committee when she sought election as the Kenosha County District Attorney in 2024. Previous runs for public office: Not applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Judge Angelina Gabriele, Kenosha County Circuit Court - Branch 3, 2021 Judge Heather Iverson, Kenosha County Circuit Court - Branch 6, 2024 Carli McNeill, Kenosha County District Attorney, 2024 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Kenosha County Bar Association, including as president and director, February 2014-present Friends of the Kenosha Public Museum, including as president and director, May 2013-present Kenosha Public Museum Foundation, secretary and director, February 2015-present Visit Pleasant Prairie, director, February 2025-present Kenosha Housing Authority, treasurer and commissioner, July 2019-present Kenosha Courthouse Restoration Project. Blue Ribbon committee, July 2023-October 2024 Leadership Kenosha, participant, September 2012-May 2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have provided substantial volunteer service to Kenosha County since moving here after graduating from law school. As detailed in my answer to question 28, I have served on the boards of many different civic and charitable organizations. In that capacity, I have contributed countless volunteer hours. For example, I have organized and then volunteered at events sponsored by the Friends of the Kenosha Public Museums in support of the Kenosha Public Museums. I perform a similar function for almost every event sponsored by the Kenosha County Bar Association since I joined its board in 2014. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Despite (or perhaps because of) being the child and grandchild of attorneys who later became judges, I never wanted to be an attorney or a judge myself. When faced with the inevitable questions about my plans after college, I always answered that I planned to do anything but attend law school. A summer internship put flight to that answer. I spent a summer providing technical support to local law firm, where I found myself fascinated by the actual work that attorneys do. After graduating from law school, I still maintained that I had no interest in crossing the bar and taking the bench. I went to law school to be an attorney. That meant a career of examining, analyzing, and solving problems for clients. I have had the good fortune to develop a practice that has allowed me to grapple with those challenges. But an unexpected opportunity has tested and overwhelmed my professed judicial disinterest. In 2021, the Honorable Angelina Gabriele asked me to serve as a supplemental court commissioner in Kenosha County. I accepted her offer because I wanted to push myself to learn and apply law outside my normal civil practice. While presiding in family, juvenile, and criminal intake court has broadened my experience, I also discovered that I enjoy the freedom that accompanies the responsibility of presiding over the matters before me. When sitting on the bench, I do not have to build a legal argument in service of my client's interests. Instead, I survey and construct the available law according to my best interpretation of the applicable statutes, decisions, and legal principles. When sitting on the bench, I do not have to probe for support for any particular party's position. Instead, I sift through the facts presented, find the most important to the questions before me, then apply those facts to my interpretation of the applicable law. The process liberates me from the compromises that accompany advocacy. I want to serve as a judge because it will allow me to use that intellectual freedom to the benefit of the people of Wisconsin. But more important than any intellectual freedom is the opportunity to do justice by listening to the people of Wisconsin. When I sit on the bench, I do not see plaintiffs, defendants, petitioners, respondents, victims, or witnesses, but people who often find themselves enmeshed in a complex and unfamiliar system. Each has complaints, frustrations, and problems that bring them to court. Justice is not just a decision; justice is a process. That process requires more than the clinical application of law. No matter the decision, the people before me should know that I heard them and considered their case. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin because I can do justice by listening to them. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. I believe two recent cases have had a significant impact on the people of Wisconsin. The first is Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). In Carpenter, the FBI obtained cell site records from wireless carriers for a number of defendants accused of orchestrating robberies across Michigan and Ohio. The cell site records connected one particular defendant to the times and locations of several of the charged robberies. However, the FBI obtained the defendant's cell site records without a search warrant. The defendant argued that the warrantless seizure of their cell site records violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court's decision overturned the lower court decisions that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the defendant's cell site records and, in turn, held that acquiring those records required a warrant. While I applaud Carpenter’s holding, I find its reasoning to be even more important for the people of Wisconsin. First, the Court's decision bolstered the privacy-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as a protection against otherwise overwhelming and unavoidable surveillance. Second, and more importantly, Carpenter reexamined and narrowed the third-party doctrine. In doing so, the Court functionally recognized that modern life requires people to provide their data and records to third parties. Its decision allows the people of Wisconsin to participate in that life without forfeiting their right to be free from arbitrary searches and seizures. The second is Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Authority, 2023 WI 25, 406 Wis. 2d 439, 988 N.W.2d 627. In Banuelos, the plaintiff requested electronic copies of her medical records from the defendant pursuant to section 146.83 of the Wisconsin Statutes. That section describes the process by which health care providers must provide patients with access to their medical records and also allows health care providers to levy certain charges for providing copies of medical records. The defendant charged the plaintiff for her medical records and the plaintiff filed suit to challenge those charges. The defendant argued that the statute did not explicitly prohibit charging patients for electronic copies of their medical records, which meant that it could impose such charges. The plaintiff offered the opposite interpretation: the statute did not specifically allow health care providers to charge for electronic copies of patients' medical records, so the defendant had no authority to demand copying or production fees. The Court held that the statute's silence did not equal permission. Once again, I believe the specific holding of Banuelos matters less than its larger context. In Banuelos, the Court untangled an underappreciated corner of the Wisconsin Statutes, which accrued to the benefit of the people of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Statutes have lots of other underappreciated and unexamined corners that the people of Wisconsin regularly encounter. The Court's examination and interpretation of those statutes often provides the greatest practical and beneficial impact for the people of Wisconsin. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The first justice that I admire is Justice Elena Kagan, of the U.S. Supreme Court. I usually find common cause with her jurisprudence, especially her approach to statutory construction and her perspective on the necessity and benefits of the administrative state. But more importantly, Justice Kagan has a well-deserved reputation as the best legal writer on the Court. Her opinions eloquently distill intricate legal concepts into accessible explanations. And she does so without sacrificing nuance or eroding their inherent complexities. When I write to or speak with clients, I aspire to make myself as clear and as coherent as Justice Kagan's explanation of the fiendishly complex application of time to principal beneficiaries and derivative beneficiaries during the visa application process in Scialabba v. de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41, 46-56 (2014). The second judge that I admire is Judge David P. Wilk of the Kenosha County Circuit Court. Much of my litigation practice has occurred in the civil divisions of the Kenosha County. Judge Wilk has spent much of his tenure presiding over one of the two branches assigned to civil actions in Kenosha County. As such, I have had many opportunities to watch Judge Wilk manage his courtroom. Those observations have led me to admire Judge Wilk's temperament and composure. While he has high expectations of the attorneys that appear before him, he treats them as colleagues, not combatants. Judge Wilk allows attorneys the opportunity to advocate for their clients, while respectfully probing the strength of their arguments. As importantly, he accepts challenges to his initial impressions without rancor. When pro se parties appear before Judge Wilk, he keeps them to the narrow path where they can present evidence, argue their position, and tell their story while also abiding by the applicable rules of civil procedure and evidence, all without arousing their ire. And while just outside the scope of this question, I also admire both Professor Orin Kerr and Radley Balko. Professor Kerr, of Stanford Law School, focuses his much of his scholarship on the Fourth Amendment. In particular, he has frequently written about the Fourth Amendment's collision with emerging digital phenomena like GPS location data and cloud-based records. I do not agree with all of Professor Kerr's answers, but his writing asks important questions that the Fourth Amendment's text and case law do not immediately answer. Mr. Balko, formerly of the Washington Post, frequently writes about areas of the criminal justice system that are particularly susceptible to institutional abuse. His reporting has exposed me to the often unseen limitations of many criminal forensic techniques and the unintended consequences that can accompany the militarization of law enforcement. The proper role of a judge: During his confirmation hearings, future Chief Justice John Roberts famously quipped that "I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat." While I understand why Judge Roberts downplayed the judiciary's role in making law, I fundamentally disagree with his characterization. To extend Justice Robert's analogy, judges do not just call balls and strikes. They also decide the strike zone. I identified Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Authority, 2023 WI 25, 406 Wis. 2d 439, 988 N.W.2d 627, as a decision that has significantly benefited the people of Wisconsin because it illustrates this function. That case did not turn on a narrow reading of the statute, but on the Court's decision about how to read that statute. Expanding its gaze to examine the statute's context and legislative history allowed the Court to conclude that the statute's text did not license the defendant to charge additional fees. A judge's proper role is to interpret the law as enacted in statute and decided by precedent. But a judge must also recognize how their framing of the law can push their decision in a particular direction and use that framing as an opportunity to do justice. Second, a judge's role is to manage their courtroom with respect for the parties appearing before them. That respect takes two forms. First, a judge must remain humble and aware of their own limitations. Donning a black robe does not convey an unimpeachable knowledge of the law and relevant. A judge must know the law and understand the facts, but accept the possibility of their own error. Whether pro se or represented by an attorney, every party should have an opportunity to state their case and have their argument honestly considered. Second, a judge must balance that opportunity with regards for the time and burdens of the other parties in that matter or other matters on the calendar. A judge's role is also to oversee an efficient courtroom. Finally, I believe that the most underappreciated, but perhaps most important, role of a judge is to listen to the parties. In serving as a court commissioner, I have found that most parties, whether represented by counsel or pro se, want to know that someone has recognized the facts, feelings, and frustrations that brought them to court. It can be tempting to tune out the parties' emotions and focus on the outcome. But a judge should make the parties aware that they heard what they said and took it into account when rendering a decision. As importantly, a judge should do their best to help the parties understand the reasons for their decision and why it did, or did not, go in their favor. By listening to and acknowledging the parties, a judge helps preserve the legitimacy of their court and the legal system at large. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Owen Piotrowski
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 7, 2026, (effective Feb. 1, 2026) to term ending July 31, 2027. (Piotrowski was earlier appointed to a planned retirement vacancy in Branch 38 and then named to Branch 31 to fill the immediate vacancy created by resignation of Judge Hannah Dugan.) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Eau Clarie High School – Pacelli High, Stevens Point, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2014-present – Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. My practice is exclusively in the area of criminal prosecution. For the past several years, I have supervised a team of four Assistant District Attorneys and two Assistant Attorney Generals who are responsible for the prosecution of non-fatal shooting in Milwaukee County. Describe typical clients: I serve the people of Milwaukee County. Given the size of the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, I have served in a number of units prosecuting specific kinds of offenses: the domestic violence unit, the sensitive crimes unit, and the violent crimes unit. Number of cases tried to verdict: 63 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Xavier Sevilla, Milwaukee County case 22CF2693 This was a serious case that received significant media attention. As a 15 year old, Mr. Sevilla fired a gun during an ongoing dispute with another group of young people inside Mayfair Mall. Ultimately he shot 8 people inside the mall, four of whom had nothing to do with the ongoing dispute. The case began as a juvenile case and was waived into adult court only after the juvenile proceeding was appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I inherited this case shortly before the sentencing hearing when the prior ADA left my office for different employment. I had one week to familiarize myself with the case, communicate with victims, and make an appropriate sentencing argument. I succeeded in making an persuasive sentencing argument for an appropriate sentence without demonizing a defendant who was only 15 at the time he committed a mass shooting. State v. Kendall Love (22CF1689 and 22CF2000) and State v. Marvin Johnson (22CF1690 and 22CF1999) These cases involved two individuals who, acting together, shot two people around three hours apart in Milwaukee. In a nutshell, each defendant found a person they had a previous dispute with, hunted them down, ran up behind them, and repeatedly shot at their intended target. I charged the case, litigated the pretrial issues, and tried each defendant separately. Both defendants were convicted of a number of charges, including Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide. Both defendants had significant criminal records. In each case the Judge followed my recommendation for an appropriately significant sentence of 40 years of initial confinement. State v. Sanchez Wilson, Milwaukee County case 19CF1411 This was a horrific case in which Mr. Wilson sexually assaulted a young girl in the morning and then, during a shootout with her uncle later that day, shot the same girl he had assaulted. This was my case from the beginning: I met with the family at charging, handled the pretrial litigation, tried the case (securing convictions on all counts), handled the sentencing, and consulted with the Wisconsin DOJ on the appeal. This case sticks out to me as significant because of the severity and variety of the crimes committed. It involved a wide variety of evidence: forensic interviews of children, DNA evidence, ballistic evidence, and many others. Ultimately during cross examination the defendant admitted to shooting the young victim. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: My career has been spent prosecuting cases in Circuit Court, so I have never practiced before an administrative agency or commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). My career has been spent litigating criminal cases, so I do not have significant experience with arbitration or mediation. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have never held an official position in a political campaign, partisan or otherwise. I was publicly involved in and did some campaign work on a State Senate campaign in 2020. My father ran as the Democratic candidate for the 24th Senate District. I made some public appearances as part of the campaign and engaged in some fundraising. Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Historic Brewers Hill Association, April 2025-present Public office to which you were appointed or elected: Kenosha Housing Authority, appointed, July 2019-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney for the State of Wisconsin I cannot provide pro bono legal services. A few years ago I joined the Milwaukee Curling Club. The MCC is run mostly by club members volunteering their time, and I regularly volunteer at these events. My wife and I co-chaired/ chaired the MCC's end of year event for club members in the Spring of 2024 and 2025. I have also volunteered at Polish Fest for the last couple of years. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I have served the people of Milwaukee County as a prosecutor for over eleven years, and I believe that I can best continue to positively impact my community as a Circuit Court Judge. I have the courtroom experience, professional judgment, and empathy necessary to be a judge in a trial court. Circuit Court Judges are uniquely situated to positively affect their community. The Court system, whether in the criminal or civil context, is where we as a people resolve our disputes. Both parties advocate their positions, but ultimately the Judge makes the tough decisions. I have spent my time in the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office seeing how judges make those tough decisions every day. I have the courtroom experience to make the appropriate calls regarding evidence and the willingness to listen to the parties and make the right decision for the community. As a prosecutor I have served not only as a zealous advocate, but more importantly as a minister of justice. Acting in that role in Milwaukee County criminal courts presents unique challenges because of the volume of cases and the amount of information that needs to be processed. Throughout my career I have developed the ability to handle that volume without losing sight of the most important question in every case: is what I am doing the best thing for the community in this situation? Simply put, I love Milwaukee County. I am a lifelong Wisconsin resident who grew up in Stevens Point, then went to college in Eau Claire, and law school in Madison. But Milwaukee is where I have made my home. There's no place else I would rather be. and there is no better way I can serve my community than as a Circuit Court Judge. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court decision that had the biggest negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, and people across the United States, in my lifetime is Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (2010). For more than 100 years before that case was decided, there were some limits on independent expenditures by people and corporations. The U.S. Supreme Court obliterated those long held limits in Citizens United. The only potential beneficiaries of that decision are large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. Every Wisconsin resident has experienced firsthand the consequences of that decision. As a traditional political battleground State, Wisconsin residents are subjected, election after election, to ads run by Political Action Committees. These ads, as long as they aren't formally coordinated with a candidate, are entirely legal after Citizens United. This has changed the entire tenor of political discourse for the worse. As a Political Science student at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire between 2007 and 2011, I remember many debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of attack ads in political campaigns. Those debates feel like ancient history. Citizens United has turned political campaigns into a series of increasingly dishonest and vitriolic attacks on candidates, which has shunted actual political discussion to the side. Possibly worse, because PACs are allowed to run these ads technically "independently" of candidates and campaigns, it's unclear to people watching just who is responsible for spewing the lies and hatred common in ads these days. Virtually everyone in Wisconsin seems to agree that political discourse has degraded over the past ten years or so. Every dinner table at every family gathering across the State seems to include a lament about the way politics used to be. Citizens United is directly responsible for that degradation by allowing PACs to spend virtually unlimited amounts on blatantly dishonest and hateful advertising. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have been fortunate throughout my career to practice in front of many excellent Circuit Court Judges, two of whom have now been elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Rebecca Dallet is the current Judge or Justice who I admire most. Early in my career, while she was the Judge in Br. 40 of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, I was primarily assigned to her courtroom. At the time, she was assigned to a calendar of domestic violence cases. I was able to see firsthand how Justice Dallet conducted her courtroom. I was consistently struck by her ability to maintain firm control over her courtroom (and as anyone who has practiced in Milwaukee County in the domestic violence courts can attest, maintaining control over those chaotic calendars is one of the most difficult tasks a judge can face) while treating everyone with respect and dignity. I remember trying one particularly difficult case in Justice Dallet's court with a particularly difficult pro se defendant. She demonstrated tremendous patience with the defendant while holding me to a high standard. I have been impressed with Justice Dallet's work on the Supreme Court. She always held me to a high standard as a young lawyer, and she continued the hold prosecutors statewide to that same high standard in State v. Wayerski, 385 Wis. 2d 344 (2011). That case, arguably, expanded a prosecutor's obligation to uncover and disclose exculpatory information to the defense. I believe that prosecutors should be held to the highest standards, and I admire Justice Dallet's willingness to enforce that standard. As a historical figure, I have always admired former Chief Justice Earl Warren. I don't think that the impact of the decisions made by the Supreme Court can be overstated. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education Decision that abolished segregation in public schools may be the most significant civil rights decision in the history of the United States. It is also indicative of two things this I admire about Justice Warren. First, this was the controversial topic of the day, and Justice Warren managed to author a unanimous opinion on the topic. Obtaining that unanimity, rather than showing the public a divided judiciary, I believe contributes to the lasting impact of that decision. Second, Justice Warren considered social science research about the effects of segregation in reaching this decision. I believe that the most important quality that a Judge or Justice can display is a willingness to listen. Justice Warren, by engaging with and considering social science, opened the door for courts to consider a wider variety of information and reach better decisions. The proper role of a judge: I believe that a good judge serves three main functions. First, a good judge listens to the parties. Second, a good judge properly administers the rules of procedure. Third, a good judge makes substantive decisions on a case with the good of the community in mind. A judge needs to really listen to and engage with the parties in a case. When a party states their positions, I believe that a good judge considers it, and asks follow-up questions as needed. Listening is not a passive activity. This also means carefully considering the written submissions of the parties. This active listening is one of the things that I believe separates a lawyer's functions from a judge's function. A lawyer will zealously advocate for their positions. The judge must listen to the positions of both parties, sifts through the self-serving statements by both parties, and reach the appropriate legal decision. Second, a judge must accurately administer the rules of procedure. We have a justice system that runs on an adversarial model. The rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and rules of criminal procedure set the expectations of the parties. A judge must have a mastery of those rules so that the parties have a basis from which to litigate a case. I firmly believe that this does not involve splitting the proverbial baby; if a call on an evidentiary or procedural issue is close, a good judge considers all of the available information and makes a tough decision. Ultimately the system falls apart and becomes unpredictable if procedural rules are not applied accurately and consistently. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Emily Nolan-Plutchak
Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 9, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Madison West High, Madison, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2023-present – Local attorney manager for Wood and Adams counties, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin May 2007-present – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin State Public Defenders, Stevens Point, Wisconsin November 2006-May 2007 – Assistant public defender attorney, Missouri State Public Defender, St. Joseph, Missouri June 2005-November 2006 – Attorney, private practice, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am an Assistant State Public Defender Attorney, representing indigent adult and juvenile clients in criminal and civil cases.in Wood County. Since April of 2023, I have been the Local Attorney Manager in the Wisconsin Rapids Office, managing five attorneys, two support staff and one investigator. I handle misdemeanor and felony trial cases. I handle administrative hearings for probation revocation. I handle civil matters including guardianships, termination of parental rights cases and mental health commitments. I also represent juveniles in delinquency cases. Additionally, serve as adversary counsel for children in Children in Need of Protection and Services cases. In addition to hearings and depositions, my practice includes significant trial work. During my career I have handled over 2,500 cases. Describe typical clients: My clients, typically, are rural community members living in poverty many of whom have mental health issues and/or substance use disorders. My experience with their cases has been one of the reasons I have worked so diligently and collaboratively to create drug treatment programs, expand treatment options, and improve access to mental health services in the communities I serve. Number of cases tried to verdict: 18 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Adams County Case 24TP2 I represented the mother in a termination of parental rights and then represented her at jury trial (January 29 and January 30, 2025), I successfully argued that Adams County Health and Human Services did not make reasonable efforts to reunify my client with her child and did not make appropriate accommodations in working with my client. I successfully showed at trial that my client wasn't able to read, yet no one at Adams County Health and Human Services (HHS) read to her any of the-documents in her case. The jury found that HHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify my client with her child so there were no grounds to terminate her rights. This case was significant because my client was a teenage mother who had been failed by human services and the criminal justice system her entire life. Health and Human Services presumed because my client was incarcerated, young, and poor with a cognitive delay that she was not capable of parenting her child. The verdict forced Health and Human Services to actually provide services to my client so she has a chance at reunification with her child even though she is currently incarcerated. My client is now having visits with her child and is working with Health and Human Services to get the services that she needs to be successful. HHS is required to make appropriate accommodations so that she can be successful. She is looking forward to being released from prison and taking part in a year long Department of Corrections (DOC) program that helps people with mental health issues successfully transition in to society. Wood County Case 22CF388 My client was an 18 year old brown child, who was charged with attempted 1st degree intentional homicide for allegedly shooting a person in the head. This case contained a lot of video surveillance from the hotel where the incident happened. However, when the State provided me with the video, it was all in 30 second snippets. We had to piece together all the video in order to get an accurate picture of what happened in the middle of 'the night in that parking lot. Once we pieced all the video together, we discovered that there were witnesses present whom law enforcement never talked to. There was no indication on the video that the gun had been fired. Furthermore, the alleged victim did not speak English and law enforcement never utilized a translator when speaking to him. We had the video translated and the alleged victim told police that he had been hit, not shot. We then were able to hire an expert who opined that the alleged victim was never shot but rather it was likely he had been hit in the head with a beer bottle. This was a significant case because law enforcement clearly had tunnel vision. They saw a brown young man with a gun and made inferences that they could not back up with evidence. My client thought his life was over because he was brown and accused of attempted 1st degree intentional homicide. I was able to show him that even though the criminal justice system is often broken, that there are still people who will ensure that his rights are protected and there are people that will fight for him. On January 30, 2024 the case was dismissed by the District Attorney. Wood County Case 18CF191 My client was charged with possession with intent of heroin (10 to 50 grams) party to a crime, possession with intent of cocaine (15 to 40·grams) party to a crime, and maintaining a drug trafficking place. My client had been using heroin since high school. She had post traumatic stress disorder due to being present when her friend was killed while attempting to buy drugs in Milwaukee. My client felt an immense amount of guilt about that and stayed perpetually high on opiates. My client had been allowing drug dealers to live in her home because they gave her free drugs as payment. My client was also sexually assaulted many times during this period. Her house had become a drug haven where people came to buy and use drugs. Law enforcement believed my client was the root of the problem. I was able to convince law enforcement that due to the trauma in her past life, she was being taken advantage of by drug dealers in the community and was, in actuality, not the problem. Because I was able to convince law enforcement that she had significant trauma law enforcement supported her getting in to drug treatment court. I was then able to convince the assistant district attorney that even though she had very significant charges that she should be given a chance. Law enforcement was skeptical that she was going to be able to complete the program but I believed if she got the proper treatment she could be successful. During drug treatment court she received the proper treatment for her dual mental health and substance use disorder diagnosis. She started taking classes at the local technical college, she had a drug free baby and was able to fix relationships that she had with her family that had been destroyed due to her substance use. She graduated from drug treatment court on December 15, 2021. The felonies that had been diverted in to drug court were dismissed upon her graduation from drug court. Because of that, she has no felony convictions. She now lives in Waukesha, is raising her daughter and has received a diploma from technical college in cosmetology. She has been sober for 5 years. She has had no further interaction with the criminal justice system. This case was significant in Wood County because I was able to convince stakeholders involved in her case to look at her as a complete person and not just the crimes that she was charged with. She was then able to show them through her success that people with very serious traumatic pasts and very serious substance use disorders can be successful if given the proper tools and treatment. Her success opened the door to the treatment court to many people who may have not been considered in the past due to the severity of their charges. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have worked for the State Public Defender for 18 years. During this time I have represented countless clients at probation revocation hearings. These hearings utilize administrative codes and procedures. I defend people who are alleged to have violated their rules of supervision while on probation or extended supervision. I advocate for alternatives to revocation that the Department of Corrections may have overlooked. I also help find resources for my client so they can be successful on supervision. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). While I have not engaged in formal arbitration or mediation cases, I have worked closely in my revocation matters with the DOC to find alternatives to revocation. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: College Democrats at UWSP - 1999-2000, member College Democrats at UW-Madison - 2000-2002, member Tammy Baldwin for House of Representatives - 1999, volunteer Al Gore for President - 2000, volunteer Jim Doyle for Governor - 2003, volunteer Jim Doyle for Governor - 2008, volunteer Barack Obama for President - 2008, volunteer Barack Obama for President - 2012, volunteer Tammy Baldwin for Senate - 2013, volunteer Hillary Clinton for President - 2016, volunteer Joe Biden for President - 2020 & 2024, volunteer Kamala Harris for President - 2024, volunteer Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Portage County Bar Association, 2007-present Wood County Bar Association, 2007-present Wisconsin Association of Treatment Court Professionals, board member, 2012-2023; other roles including president, 2017-2019 Wood County Adult Drug Treatment Court, team member, 2007-present Wood County Drug Task Force, chair of Harm Reduction, 2017-2020 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Wisconsin Rapids Raptor's Youth Football League – Board Member of Wisconsin Rapids youth tackle football and cheerleading program. As a board member I helped with outreach, registration, planning, fundraising, scholarship, practice, games and planning of banquets. The league has been able to maintain low costs by parent participation, minimal registration costs, fundraising and providing scholarships for children who cannot afford the registration costs so that every child who wants to participate is able to participate. Grove Parent Group – Member of the Grove Elementary parent group which was dedicated to focusing on disparities in learning due to socio-economic, racial and cultural differences at Grove Elementary School. A focus of the group was providing support to parents who struggled at engagement with the school because of past negative experiences with the educational system. Three Bridges Recovery – Board member for recovery coach non-profit organization. Three Bridges started as a grass roots non-profit in Wood County and now has contracts for recovery coach services all over the state, Preemie Mom’s Group – Leader, and founder, of a group dedicated to supporting moms who gave birth prematurely, at 32 weeks or less. A focus of the group was moms supporting moms through the unique experience of parenting babies in the NICU. I have mentored numerous attorneys and several law school interns while I have been a State Public Defender. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: My desire to serve the people of Wood County and Wisconsin as a judge arises from my longstanding commitment to being part of collaborative efforts to improve the criminal justice system and my knowledge of the impact judges can have within the courthouse and throughout the larger community. During my 18 years as a public defender, I have seen individuals and families on some of the worst days of their lives. The vast majority of the people I represent struggle with addiction and/or mental health issues. Many of them have been victims of crimes and/or abuse themselves. The trauma they carry is another huge factor in why they end up in the criminal justice system. I am an optimist. I can imagine a world—although we are not there yet—in which people’s interaction with the criminal justice system leaves them in a better place than when they entered it. My extensive involvement in the treatment courts in Wood County and throughout the state gives me optimism. Judges have traditionally seen their role as limited in addressing addiction or other issues that bring people into court. To improve the system and the outcomes for the people who find themselves caught up in it, Judges must embrace ways to move from a reactive, non-collaborative way of doing things. Judges are crucial to a Treatment Court’s success. They must offer leadership, support, and work as part of a team to make treatment court as effective as possible. I have seen Judges do that. The difference that approach can make in an individual’s life and future inspires me to serve. My desire to serve also stems from my deep professional and personal connections to Wood County. I am actively engaged in the Wood County legal community, fostering and embracing opportunities to create partnerships among law enforcement, public defenders, prosecutors, non-profits, and schools. On a personal level, Wood County is where I have chosen to raise my bi-racial twin boys, who are now in middle school. I am involved in community, parent, school, and sports booster clubs, including starting a “Preemie Mom Group,” which is dedicated to supporting moms who have had babies in the NICU and the unique experience of parenting preemies. Judges must be connected to their local communities. They are seen as leaders in the legal community and as the public face of the justice system. As a Judge, I will be committed to serving the people of Wood County with the same integrity, compassion, professionalism, humility, focus on collaboration, and dedication to justice I have brought to my work as a public defender. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) The U.S. Supreme court case Crawford v Washington is a decision that had a huge impact In Wisconsin, and across the nation. In Crawford, the Supreme Court guaranteed individuals accused of a crime the right to confront their accusers. The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford marked a watershed moment in Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Crawford established that the admission of testimonial hearsay against a criminal defendant violates the Sixth Amendment unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford is an important decision because domestic violence prosecutions in the 1990s had worn away the rights of defendants to confront their accuser. In domestic violence prosecutions prosecutors were able to utilize hearsay testimony that had a mere “indicia of reliability” rather than requiring direct testimony that could be tested. In Crawford, the Court rejected the reliability-based standard set forth previously in Ohio v. Roberts, holding that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the procedural right of confrontation rather than a substantive reliability assessment. The Supreme Court noted that the reliability standard was vague and therefore could be manipulated to strip the defendants of their constitutional rights. This new standard limited prosecutorial reliance on out-of-court testimonial evidence. Importantly, it refocused Confrontation Clause analysis on procedural safeguards rather than judicial discretion, thereby reinforcing the adversarial process and due process protections. While Crawford applies nationally, its relevance is particularly acute in Wisconsin following the enactment of Marsy’s Law in 2020. The intersection of Crawford and Marsy’s Law underscores a conflict between protecting the rights of crime victims and preserving the due process rights of the accused. Marsy’s Law amended Wisconsin’s Constitution. It gave victims’ rights standing in criminal proceedings, including the right to refuse pretrial interviews or discovery requests to the defense. While the intent of Marsy’s Law is commendable, its broad and sometimes ambiguous language has generated significant legal uncertainty. Specifically, by granting victims the right to refuse to be interviewed or subject to discovery, the amendment intrudes on a defense’s access to exculpatory evidence and obstructs vigorous and effective pretrial investigation. In sum, for defense counsel in Wisconsin, Crawford has remained a powerful tool in safeguarding the integrity of the trial process and ensuring that testimonial evidence is subjected to adversarial testing. However, the expanded rights under Marsy’s Law have imposed new limits on traditional pretrial investigative avenues, thereby impeding the ability to effectively investigate and represent clients. As courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys work to navigate this evolving terrain, Crawford will continue to serve as a necessary constitutional check ensuring that even in a victim-centered system, the fundamental rights of the accused remain protected. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Judge James Mason, Wood County Circuit Court Judge Mason was widely respected not only for his legal acumen but also for his unwavering commitment to fairness, community service, and integrity on the bench. I admired Judge Mason’s professionalism and the care he took when making decisions. Judge Mason always explained to defendants why he was making the decisions he was which ensured both my clients and I felt heard by him. His courtroom was a place where litigants—whether represented or pro se—could feel confident that their case had been judged fairly. Beyond his work on the bench, Judge Mason served as a mentor to many younger attorneys and court officials in Wood County. His guidance extended beyond legal knowledge. He modeled how to uphold ethics, serve the public, and maintain humility in a position of authority. His leadership within the courthouse helped foster a culture of respect, learning, and dedication to public service Judge Mason leaves a legacy of thoughtful jurisprudence, professional humility, and genuine compassion for the people affected by the legal system. These qualities make him a figure worthy of lasting admiration. Judge Barbara Crabb, Western District of Wisconsin Judge Crabb was the first woman to serve as a federal judge in Wisconsin and she ruled in significant cases for equality, civil rights, and liberty. I admire her for her commitment to justice, constitutional integrity, and public service. I admire the tough cases that Judge Crabb made decisions on and her willingness to always follow the law and do the right thing, even when the decision would be a controversial one. Judge Crabb made decisions in many cases that were very impactful in Wisconsin. Judge Crabb struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage, declaring it unconstitutional and affirming the fundamental right to marry for all individuals. Judge Crabb also played a pivotal role in affirming the treaty rights of Native American tribes in Wisconsin. These decisions were instrumental in addressing historical injustices and promoting reconciliation. Additionally, Judge Crabb was instrumental in causing change at the notorious and horrific Supermax prison in Boscobel, WI. Judge Crabb is known for being clear and having a balanced and thorough analysis of the law. Her decisions often reflect a deep concern for civil liberties. Judge Crabb has often shown courage in her decisions based on the law, even when her decisions were unpopular or controversial. Judge Crabb is worthy of admiration for her lasting impact on Wisconsin. The proper role of a judge: Judges must decide cases based solely on the law and the facts presented, without bias, prejudice, or outside influence. They must be impartial. Over the course of my legal career, I have had the opportunity to observe and appear in front of many judges. All good judges share traits in common. They know the law. They maintain a professional courtroom environment where respect is extended to all participants, regardless of status. They work hard, with integrity and humility. Judges must respect due process and fairness. They must ensure that all parties receive a fair opportunity to be heard and that proceedings are conducted with respect for legal rights and procedures. Judges bring their values and experiences with them to their work as a judge. For example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who worked as a federal public defender, has highlighted the need for judges to make sure they are understood by all parties in a proceeding. Justice Jackson said, “One of the things I discovered very early on was how few of my clients really understood what had happened to them in the trial process. And so when I became a judge, I really focused on being clear." A judge’s decisions should be reasoned and articulated clearly, providing a basis for understanding and, if necessary, appeal. Judges are protectors of constitutional rights and the guardians of constitutional liberties. Judges must ensure that government power is exercised within legal bounds. And finally, by embodying integrity, competence, fairness, fealty to the rule of law, and respect for all who come before them, judges uphold public confidence in the judicial system. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Benjamin R. Jones
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 23, 2025, to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – John F. Kennedy High School, Bloomington, Minnesota Recent legal employment: April 2017-present – Chief legal counsel, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin June 2012-April 2017 – Associate attorney, Weld Riley, S.C., Eau Claire, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I currently serve as chief legal counsel for the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and Department of Public Instruction (DPI). In that role, I supervise a staff of attorneys, investigators, and support staff within the DPI Office of Legal Services. I provide legal advice to the State Superintendent, appointed officers, directors and staff in all areas of the law applicable to a large state agency. I appear for and represent the DPI in administrative hearings and, when necessary, circuit and appellate court. I draft, review, and interpret proposed legislation and administrative rules. I also review and adjudicate appeals submitted to the SPI, including expulsion decisions, pupil discrimination appeals, School District Boundary Appeal Board decisions, statutory waiver requests, and all other administrative appeals. Describe typical clients: My client is the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, led by the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction. In private practice, I specialized in school law and labor and employment law. My typical clients were local government agencies, including school districts, counties and municipalities, as well as large private employers. Number of cases tried to verdict: Numerous administrative hearings in private practice and on behalf of DPI. List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Koschkee v. Evers, 2018 WI 82; Koschkee v. Taylor, 2019 WI 76 Petitioners, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, filed an original action petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and the Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers (SPI) were required to comply with 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, known as the "REINS Act." The Act requires the governor to approve all administrative rules proposed by the SPI before promulgation. The SPI argued that Article X of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits any other officer from being in a superior position of authority in the supervision of public instruction, so that the governor cannot have veto authority over the SPI's proposed rules. I was primary counsel for the SPI and DPI from the time the original action petition was filed in November 2017 until the court's decision in 2019. After the petition was filed, Governor Scott Walker ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to represent the SPI and DPI. The SPI and DPI intended to argue the REINS Act was unconstitutional as applied to the SPI. But the DOJ disagreed and informed the SPI and DPI that the DOJ would advance the opinion of the Attorney General, arguing that the REINS Act was constitutional as applied. The DPI and SPI filed a motion to deny substitution of counsel and to disqualify the attorney general from appearing on behalf of the DPI and SPI. The DOJ filed a cross-motion to strike myself and then Chief Legal Counsel Ryan Nilsestuen from the case. I drafted the brief in support of the motion and represented the SPI and DPI at oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court held that the SPI and DPI must be allowed counsel that would represent their position, recognizing there were ethical implications for attorneys that fail to represent the position of their client, and that the Attorney General did not have power to act as a gatekeeper as to whether a constitutional officer could defend their authority in court. Following the court's decision, I continued as primary counsel as the case proceeded to a decision on the merits. In first accepting the original action petition, the court implied it was likely to overturn its prior case decided on identical facts in Coyne v. Walker, 2016 WI 38 . . . . However, while the court ultimately determined rulemaking authority was a legislative power that the legislature could constrain as it saw fit, the court upheld the superiority of the SPI's vested constitutional executive authority. As determined in Thompson v. Craney, 199 Wis. 2d 674 . . . the SPI remains in a superior position to all other officers in the supervision of public instruction. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented clients in front of the Equal Rights and Unemployment Insurance Divisions of the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and in front of administrative law judges for appeals filed under Wis. Stat. s. 227.42. I have also represented clients under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In private practice, I represented local governmental units in collective bargaining and all areas of employment, municipal, and administrative law. I have represented clients in multiple mediations involving discrimination complaints, wage and insurance disputes, and contractual disputes. I currently advise the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Department of Public Instruction on all areas of law applicable to a state educational agency. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None listed Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin School Attorneys Association, 2012-present National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification, 2017-present National Council of State Education Attorneys, 2017-present Chippewa Valley Society for Human Resource Management, director of Legal and Legislative Affairs, 2014-2017 American Red Cross Northwest Wisconsin, board member, 2014-2017 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In law school, I volunteered with the IRS Volunteer Tax Assistance program to offer free basic tax return preparation for low income tax filers. I also tutored middle school students in the Goodman Community Center while in law school. In private practice, I volunteered as the Director of Legal and Legislative Affairs for the Chippewa Valley Society for Human Resource Management and as a board member of the American Red Cross Northwest Wisconsin Chapter. Why I want to be a judge: I have committed my professional life to public service. As a judge, with the skills I have demonstrated and refined during my legal career, I will advance equity and justice for the people of Dane County and Wisconsin. I first realized how highly I value public service while representing school districts in private practice. Almost universally, every individual I interacted with in my representation of schools wanted to do their best to improve the lives of children and the broader community. By extension, I knew that my work to counsel schools served a greater public good. That focus on the public good drew me to leave private practice to represent the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). When I began working for then Superintendent Tony Evers in 2017, Wisconsin public education had been under assault for years. Superintendent Evers stood firm in his defense of Wisconsin public schools, the importance of advancing equity in education, and his belief that government played a necessary role in improving peoples’ lives. The legal issues that arose in that environment were novel, complex, and often high stakes. At one point, I successfully argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Superintendent Evers must be able to pick his own attorney to defend his office’s constitutional authority. Under these difficult circumstances, my work was and continues to be meaningful and rewarding knowing that the focus is on what is best for children and Wisconsin. As my commitment to public service has grown, so has my understanding of my strengths and competencies as an attorney. In my work as chief legal counsel, I advise the SPI and DPI on all areas of the law and within a broad range of contexts. On any given day, I may meet with our licensing team to discuss a teacher accused of sexual misconduct with a student, discuss with the deputy superintendent whether a school district provided a student with due process, strategize with the school voucher team to defend against accusations of improper rulemaking, or any number of unique legal issues. Each task requires diligent preparation, an ability to quickly identify relevant facts, a nuanced understanding of how the relevant law applies, an understanding of the SPI’s vision, and the anticipation of political ramifications. Above all other considerations, my work requires a deep understanding that my legal advice will have real-life impact on students, families, and their communities. To make sure that impact is equitable and positive, I am constantly vigilant for any prejudice or bias in my own work or the work of the DPI. For example, I have reformed the DPI’s teacher licensing and pupil nondiscrimination appeal processes to incorporate data, reduce subjectivity, and ensure these processes serve all children. My ability to quickly and completely distill relevant information and apply the law while actively working to eliminate bias and incorporate all relevant context into my decision making will make me an effective and impactful judge. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The case that had the most significant impact on the people of Wisconsin is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 213 L. Ed. 2d 545, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). This case illustrates the negative outcomes that result when justices adjudicate in a self-imposed vacuum, stripping out the nuance necessary to render reasoned and just decisions. A majority of the Court in Dobbs decided to eliminate the constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). The Court in Roe recognized that a state can regulate abortion in many ways, but a women’s right to choose prior to viability is where the Constitution limits state interference. The Roe Court came to that conclusion in large part because it considered the context of the procedure, how it impacts women’s lives and freedoms, how interference in the decision involves an extreme invasion of privacy, and that ultimately what is at stake is a woman’s control over her own body and medical care. The Court’s analysis in Dobbs simply disregards that context in favor of what white men thought was proper in the 1800s. That willful ignorance leads to the predictable consequences women across the country now experience. A state can impose its own choice on a woman whose doctor detects severe birth defects in a not-yet-viable fetus, a woman who does not have the financial security to care for a child, a woman whose rape caused her pregnancy, or a woman who simply does not want to have a child. And the impacts are disproportionately severe on historically marginalized communities, particularly women of color. The impact of this Court’s opinion will not stop at women’s reproductive rights. The Dobbs majority attempts to isolate the issue of abortion because it involves a “profound moral question.” In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas reveals how thin the majority opinion’s assurance is by concluding the Due Process Clause does not secure “any substantive rights.” This threatens constitutional protections for privacy, marriage, and consensual relationships, protections the public may no longer be able to take for granted. Dobbs also weakens stare decisis. The Roe decision stood for fifty years. Though the circumstances and rationale articulated by the Roe court remain as relevant today, Dobbs disregarded this precedent and severely undermined the integrity of the Court. If the composition of the Court is now what defines a fundamental constitutional right rather than precedent, then how is the Court any different than a legislative body? Does the Court now simply represent the political majority, rather than defend the constitutional rights of everyone, particularly those without the power to defend themselves? The Dobbs majority sacrificed the integrity of the Court in order to strip fundamental liberties from women. With a severe and immediate negative impact on Wisconsin women and their families that will continue to be felt for years to come, Dobbs is the worst decision for the people of Wisconsin in at least the past 25 years. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Sonia Sotomayor I admire Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her judicial philosophy. She has described her philosophy as “fidelity to the law”, which can mean different things to different people. To Sotomayor, that means that the law must be considered in context and as applied to real people. This can contrast with the approach of other justices. For example, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2007), Justice John Roberts asserts that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” This might make for a catchy sound bite, but it ignores the entire history of racism in this country and how it continues to shape modern institutions and society. Instead, “fidelity to the law” is better described by Justice Sotomayor, who said in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” 572 U.S. 291, 381, 134 S. Ct. 1623, 1676, 188 L. Ed. 2d 613 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). This philosophy guides my own approach to the law. The law should be considered within the full relevant history and context of American experience, so that it can serve real people. Ann Walsh Bradley I admire Ann Walsh Bradley for her preparation, insight, and judgment when applying the law. These qualities were apparent to me when I argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Justice Bradley asked meaningful, relevant questions that struck at the heart of the matter in question. She had clearly studied the briefs and understood the legal question in front of the court and the applicable facts, and had a nuanced understanding of the parties’ arguments. Beyond her own understanding, her questions and responses indicated an equal understanding of her colleagues’ opinions and concerns. She asked questions not just to confirm or announce her own thoughts, but to assist her colleagues’ understanding of the law. As an advocate, I felt understood and respected, which should be an objective of every judge or justice hearing a case. Richard Niess I admire former Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess for his ability to command a courtroom through a combination of attention, empathy, humor, and decisiveness. I interned for Judge Niess during law school and also argued a motion in front of Judge Niess while representing then Superintendent Tony Evers. Like Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Judge Niess was always well prepared, actively engaged with litigants to ensure they knew they were heard and understood, disarmed difficult conversations with dry – and appropriately restrained – humor, and was sincere in every word he said in court. As a judge, I hope to pattern my own demeanor and philosophy off of these esteemed and accomplished jurists. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is as a public servant. As a public servant, a judge should be humble, understanding that ego and pride only interfere with a judge’s obligation to the public. A humble judge is able to allow the attorneys in a case to educate the judge on the issues relevant to the case. Similarly, a judge should have the appropriate temperament to be able to effectively communicate with counsel, the parties, jurors and witnesses, and to effectively consider all relevant information and deliver an appropriate disposition. This is much easier said than done, particularly when disputes involve matters of immense importance to the litigants, intense emotions, high stakes, and an often long and difficult case history. I know how difficult these kinds of interactions can be, because I engage with them on a regular basis in my role with the Department of Public Instruction. I communicate with students who have been victims of sexual assault or grooming at the hands of teachers, families who are appealing an expulsion decision, and community members concerned with a school district’s adoption of a controversial new policy. These are all conversations that require patience, an even temperament, empathy, courtesy, active listening, and the ability to then clearly articulate how the law applies to those concerns. I am well tested and confident in my ability to effectively navigate these difficult conversations, including in a courtroom. A judge must actively strive to be an objective decision maker, to ensure the judge’s decisions are equitable and advance justice. This requires effort and constant attention. In my current representation, I am constantly examining my advice and decision making for bias, developing systems that reduce subjective analysis to reduce or eliminate that bias. In the same way, judges should examine the system of justice they are a part of to identify bias, and work to develop systems, policies, and strategies to eliminate those biases. A judge has to be aware they are a judge, both while on the bench and off. A judge is a high profile public figure and must represent the bench at all times. That judge must be committed to the independence and integrity of the bench, avoiding conflicts of interest, upholding the highest ethical expectations, ensuring the public’s confidence in the judge and the judiciary by extension. A judge must also be an actively engaged member of their community, to best be able to understand the concerns and challenges members of that community face in their lives. Without an understanding of the community, it is easier to disregard the real impact that decisions have on members of that community. That connection allows for empathy, understanding, and better- informed decisions to advance justice. Finally, a judge must be accountable. A judge should accept that they can be wrong, which allows a judge to maintain an open mind when hearing disputes and maintain the public’s confidence that the judiciary is committed to the rule of law, rather than the egos and pride of individual judges. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Stephanie R. Hilton
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: April 28, 2025, to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Superior High School – Blaine High School, Blaine, Minnesota Recent legal employment: August 2020-present – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin January 2019-August 2020 – Legislative director, Office of the Governor, Madison, Wisconsin May 2015-January 2019 – Assistant district attorney, Dane County District Attorney June 2014-April 2015 – Assistant District Attorney, La Crosse County District Attorney Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: Throughout my legal career, public service has been at the heart of my practice, and I continually seek opportunities to make my community better and serve my state. As an attorney, I have focused on criminal law, with a specialization in prosecuting domestic abuse and sexual assault offenses. Though my passion and expertise lies with sensitive crimes, I have prosecuted a wide range of cases from drunk driving to homicide. Describe typical clients: The people of Wisconsin have been my only client. As a prosecutor, I have a unique ethical obligation to seek justice for all Wisconsinites, both defendants and victims. Ensuring their constitutional and statutory rights are upheld has been a guiding principle in my career. Representing the state means working with victims from all backgrounds, many who face significant challenges participating in the criminal legal system, including risk to their personal safety. This obligation also means pursuing justice for defendants, whether by declining to issue charges, advocating for case dispositions focused on rehabilitation, or taking cases to trial when necessary. Ultimately, as a prosecutor, I pursue outcomes that enhance public safety, uphold the law, and provide justice for victims. Number of cases tried to verdict: 22 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Aidison Yang, Dane County Case 2023CF347 (Dane County Judge Ellen Berz): As co-counsel, I was one of two Assistant Attorneys General (AAG) representing the State throughout all proceedings. This prosecution resulted from a collaborative effort by the WI DOJ’s Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) team and multiple state and local agencies. This case involved a 2005 stranger sexual assault on a Madison bike path, which remained unsolved until a DNA match linked the defendant to the victim’s sexual assault kit. This case was significant to me because of the stakes for the victim. After waiting almost 20 years, the victim finally had answers and was able to gain some closure through the court process. Despite the compelling DNA evidence, clear facts, and the victim’s excellent memory, I understood the weight of my role: if I did not do my job well, the victim might never feel truly safe again, and the community could remain at risk. I was honored to be part of the team that carried the responsibility of securing justice for her. State v. Kevin McDowell, Dane County Case 2021CF306 (Dane County Judge David Conway): My co-counsel and I were the two AAGs for all stages of the proceedings. This prosecution resulted from a collaborative effort by the WI DOJ’s SAKI team and multiple state and local agencies. The case stemmed from a 2017 sexual assault in Madison where the Dane County DA’s Office did not initially issue charges. The defendant’s DNA from the 2017 victim’s sexual assault kit hit to a different victim’s sexual assault kit collected in 2008, which had been tested as part of SAKI. Further investigation revealed that at least seven other victims had reported being sexually assaulted by the defendant over a 20-year span. This was one of the most challenging cases of my career due to its complex pre-trial litigation, the significant vulnerabilities of the victim, and the broader public safety implications of the case. Pre-trial litigation included extensive motions involving private health records, rape shield protections, and other acts evidence, culminating in an appeal on the eve of trial regarding the admissibility of key evidence. Beyond its legal complexities, this case underscored the importance of testing sexual assault kits to identify serial offenders and connect criminal cases. It also highlighted how a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary approach to prosecuting sexual assault leads to better processes and outcomes for victims. I was honored to be part of the team that fought for justice in this case. State v. Stephan Burton, Dane County Case 2017CF1905 (Dane County Judge Susan Crawford): As the lead Assistant District Attorney (ADA), I represented the State of Wisconsin in all stages of the proceedings, with a colleague serving as co-counsel for trial. This defendant unlawfully entered a UW dormitory by following residents inside, then sexually assaulting two students by groping them while they slept in their beds. This prosecution was significant from a public safety perspective because the defendant had been convicted of nearly identical offenses five years earlier, showing his ongoing threat to women on campus. The case presented trial challenges due to its combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence included campus surveillance video showing the defendant entering and exiting the dormitory, victim testimony, and other acts evidence from the previous offense, admitted through pre-trial litigation. A key challenge was proving the defendant’s intent for sexual gratification, which the State relied on circumstantial evidence to establish, and it became a focal point of closing arguments for both sides. This case was particularly significant to me as it marked my final jury trial as an ADA in the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, in addition to its impact on community safety. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While most of my litigation experience is in trial courts, I have both professional and pro bono experience in administrative proceedings. As a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board, I serve on complaint screening panels alongside physicians. We review complaints and decide whether to open investigations. If a case proceeds, a Board member serves as a case advisor, reviewing evidence and consulting with agency attorneys to determine next steps. The full Board votes on these decisions and other regulatory matters. This role gave me significant experience with Wisconsin’s licensing framework, insight into medical malpractice, and a focus on patient safety. As a Dane County Assistant District Attorney, I represented the state in revocation hearings on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, particularly for offenders facing revocation due to new domestic violence or sexual assault charges. My role ensured a more victim-centered process in small but meaningful ways, such as creating physical distance between victims and defendants during these in-person hearings. These hearings also deepened my understanding of what defendants face when they are placed on probation. As a law student, I volunteered with the UW Law School’s Unemployment Appeals Clinic, advocating for individuals denied unemployment benefits. Growing up, our family occasionally relied on these benefits, so this work was deeply personal. I prepared claimants for hearings before administrative law judges, conducted direct and cross-examinations, and objected to improper evidence. I handled at least six hearings and saw first-hand how difficult and overwhelming the process was for pro se claimants. I was particularly proud to successfully appeal a case to the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, securing benefits for a claimant. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In my first year of practice, I served as a Law Clerk and Supplemental Court Commissioner for three judges in Oneida and Vilas Counties. I mediated over 200 small claims cases involving creditor/debtor disputes, landlord/tenant matters, real estate transactions, and contract disputes. This experience had a huge impact on me because I saw first-hand that for many litigants, these cases were anything but “small claims.” Most individuals being sued in small claims could not afford an attorney, and while many agreed they owed money, they couldn’t afford to pay the hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars without a payment plan. During mediation, I explained the relevant law and court process, adapting my approach in real time to ensure both parties understood their options. Mediation seemed less intimidating for pro se litigants and offered a pathway to resolving the dispute, ultimately reducing judicial caseload. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
While I have done my best to remember every campaign that I’ve held a position in, I may have inadvertently left out other progressive candidates that I’ve supported. Previous runs for public office: Not applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Jill Karofsky, Dane County Circuit Court, WI Supreme Court, 2017, 2020 Justice Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018 Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, 2011, 2016, 2018, 2024 Judge Susan Crawford, Dane County Circuit Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018, 2025 Judge Payal Khandhar, Dane County Circuit Court, 2024 Judge Diane Schlipper, Dane County Circuit Court, 2022 Judge Juan Colas, Dane County Circuit Court, 2021 Dr. Jill Underly, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2021, 2025 Nicki Vander Muelen, Madison Metropolitan School Board, 2023 Richelle Andrae, Dane County Board, 2019, 2024 Aaron Collins, Dane County Board, 2022 Melissa Ratcliff, Dane County Board, 2019, 2022 Kelly Danner, Dane County Board, 2018 Arvina Martin, Madison City Council, 2021 While I have done my best to remember every candidate, I may have inadvertently left out other progressive candidates that I’ve supported. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Medical Examining Board, public member, 2023-present JustDane, board member, co-secretary, 2023-present McKenzie Regional Workforce Center, board member, 2022-present Legal Association for Women, member, 2022-present Wisconsin State Attorneys Association, member, 2020-present Dane County Bar Association, member, 2020-present Association of State Prosecutors, board member, 2016-2019 Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, Board Member 2016-2019 UW Women in Criminal Justice Mentoring Program, member/volunteer, 2022-present Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc., board member and secretary, 2019-present Madison Teal Team, volunteer, 2018-present Madison Area Donor Milk Alliance, breast milk donor, 2023-2024 Women in Courts & Corrections, 2017-2021 Bethel Lutheran Church Women’s Choir, 2002-2010 Lakewood Gardens Condominium Association, board member, 2006-2007 University of Wisconsin-Superior Alumni Association, board member, 2004-2011 University of Wisconsin-Superior National Leadership Council, board member, 2004-2010 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney working for the State of Wisconsin, I cannot provide pro bono legal services. However, I have sought many volunteer opportunities to serve my community. Currently, I am a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board and serve on the Board of Directors for JustDane and Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc. While training for a career of public service law, I did significant pro bono work as a student. In 2023, I was appointed by Governor Evers to serve as a Public Member of the Medical Examining Board. Part of my responsibilities on the board are to review complaints and assist with decision-making. Through this work, I have gained valuable experience in Wisconsin’s licensing and regulatory framework and medical malpractice, and I’ve seen the importance of having non-physician perspectives, like mine, on the Board, particularly when we adjudicate sexual harassment and misconduct complaints. JustDane provides essential resources for rehabilitation, helping individuals reintegrate into society and reducing recidivism. As a Board member, I help deliver programs for individuals impacted by the criminal legal system. I collaborate with staff and other board members, including those with lived experience to empower individuals to rebuild their lives, ultimately strengthening the safety and well-being of our community. My family and I enjoy outdoor activities with our dogs, often hiking at Prairie Moraine County Park. After noticing the park’s restoration needs, I joined other volunteers to help found Prairie Moraine Friends, Inc. Our organization assists Dane County Parks staff in the preservation, restoration, and management of the park. We support the park’s conservation efforts through volunteer work and fundraising, such as the annual spring Dog Park Clean Up day and seasonal activities like spreading native seeds to help restore the prairie habitat. I am currently in my sixth year as Secretary of the Board. In recognition of my extensive pro bono legal work in law school, I was inducted into the UW Law School Pro Bono Society at graduation. In my third year, I advocated for individuals appealing the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s denial of benefits through the Unemployment Appeals Clinic. During an economically difficult time, being denied unemployment benefits was a significant setback for workers and their families. Even though I was still a lawyer in training, the claimants told me they really appreciated my assistance during the hearing so they didn’t have to fight the state alone. I am especially proud of successfully advocating a written appeal to the Labor and Industry Review Commission, securing many weeks of previously denied unemployment benefits. Through the UW Law School Remington Center’s Legal Assistance to Institutionalized Persons project, I worked with incarcerated individuals on various legal issues, traveling to state prisons with fellow students and our supervising attorney. One client seeking driver’s license reinstatement turned out to be eligible for parole but didn’t recognize his own rehabilitation. I researched and wrote a parole advocacy letter; though initially unsuccessful, he was released within two years. By framing his progress positively, I helped him see his own growth. This experience reinforced my belief in rehabilitation and the importance of seeing individuals beyond their past actions. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Now more than ever, we need judges who will follow the law and use it to protect people’s rights, not erode them. Our community needs leaders who reflect their values and shared life experiences—leaders who collaborate, problem-solve, and treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and respect. Throughout my career, I have been preparing—intentionally or not—for this role. As the first in my family to graduate from college, I understand firsthand the opportunities education can provide, beyond what I ever could have imagined. This experience instilled in me a deep commitment to using my knowledge and skills to give back and improve the lives of others. After eight years working in public policy, I attended law school to take my advocacy to the next level and expand my ability to make a difference in people’s lives. My progressive values have shaped my approach as a prosecutor, where I earned a reputation for standing up for the rights of defendants and victims, using my discretion for good, and engaging in fair and honest plea negotiations. I am committed to evidence-based responses to crime, not only because the law requires judges to first consider probation at sentencing, but because the evidence shows that increasing our prison population does not lead to safer communities. People expect the government to solve problems, and the courts play a crucial part within that process. When someone has to turn to the courts to resolve their dispute, they want to be heard and receive a fair resolution. I’ve spent my entire professional career collaborating across disciplines to solve complex problems. My ability to listen, think creatively and critically, and uphold fundamental fairness aligns well with the role of judge. My passion for public service and commitment to justice have driven every step of my career. My extensive jury trial experience and other legal expertise have prepared me for this position, but I also recognize the importance of continuous learning. I do not have experience in every area of the law, and I am eager to ask questions, expand my legal knowledge, and approach new challenges with humility. However, this role is about more than legal training—it requires real-world perspective. As a daughter, aunt, and now a mother, I’ve experienced some of life’s most beautiful and challenging moments. As a judge, I will bring not just legal knowledge, but also empathy, fairness, and a deep respect for the individuals and communities I serve. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), to overturn Roe v. Wade and end 50 years of precedent protecting a woman's constitutional right to an abortion will negatively impact Wisconsinites for generations. In Wisconsin, the Dobbs decision created immediate uncertainty due to the state's so-called "1849 abortion ban." Abortion care was halted. Eighteen months later, a circuit court ruled the ban didn't apply to consensual abortions, allowing this critical health care to resume, though the issue remains pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For my husband and me, the Dobbs decision was deeply personal—we were in the middle of infertility treatments when it was handed down. The journey was grueling … [redactions] We feel extremely fortunate that our story has a happy ending … [redactions] and our daughter was born in … [redactions] Infertility treatments forced us to make difficult medical and ethical decisions: selective reduction in the case of multiples, genetic testing, and the possibility of terminating for medical reasons. Dobbs made it clear how fragile our autonomy over these choices could be. As a woman who has experienced pregnancy and childbirth, I understand the profound physical changes the body goes through, risks, and the unpredictability of labor and delivery. I cannot fathom misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution to restrict the bodily autonomy of over half the population. Beyond the physical and emotional toll, the economic impact of having a child permanently alters the course of a woman's life. Dobbs was wrong on the law. Its consequences will be felt by Wisconsinites for generations. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson When I first met Chief Justice Abrahamson, I wasn’t a lawyer and had no plans to go to law school. However, because I was working in politics, I knew she was a trailblazer being both the first woman on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then becoming the first woman chief justice. But I had no understanding or appreciation for her legal brilliance and the contributions she had made, and would make, to the legal profession in our state and the country. In the early 2000s, I was working in the Wisconsin State Capitol as a legislative staffer. As a proud UW-Superior graduate, I always attended the reception at the end of Superior Days, which is an annual lobbying effort where local elected officials, business leaders, students, and other community members from the Superior area gather in Madison to lobby and bring awareness of the needs of the region. I met Chief Justice Abrahamson at the reception, and thought it was incredible that she would take time out of her busy schedule to not only attend, but also speak to the youth delegation and mingle with Superior Days participants in meaningful ways to learn about their lives and issues important to them. A few years later, while attending an event in northwest Wisconsin, I again saw Chief Justice Abrahamson as a guest speaker. She and her husband took time to chat with my aunt and me— not about law or politics, but about everyday life. I was struck again by her warmth and genuine interest in people. Watching her speak eloquently and then weave through the crowd, stopping to connect with local attendees, confirmed what I had observed at Superior Days: her engagement wasn’t for show but a reflection of her deep commitment to public service. It would have been easy and expected for her to give her speech and leave, but she stayed, listened, and learned. Her presence wasn’t just about leadership—it was about truly understanding the people she served. Through law school and my legal career, I’ve read and studied her decisions, developing a full appreciation for her legal acumen and scholarship. While I will never match Chief Justice Abrahamson’s intelligence and wit, as a judge I hope to emulate her commitment to engaging the public in the justice system, and being a champion for individual rights and equal justice under the law. Dane County Circuit Court Judge John Markson During my tenure as a Dane County Assistant District Attorney, prosecutors were assigned to specific criminal branches, appearing almost daily in front of the same judge. My first assignment was in Branch 1, Judge Markson’s courtroom. At the time, I had no idea how fortunate I was. As a newer prosecutor with a high-volume caseload of misdemeanor and traffic cases, I was overwhelmed. Although I had served as an ADA in La Crosse County for about a year before coming to Dane County, the pace and volume were so much greater. There was not enough time or experienced attorneys in the DA’s office to get any meaningful mentorship. However, Judge Markson’s courtroom was different. Judge Markson collaborated with his clerk, court reporter, and bailiff to run an efficient calendar. The day’s calendar could be a mile long, but I never felt rushed or that he was growing impatient with me or the other attorneys working through the calendar. Judge Markson’s calm demeanor and quiet sense of humor set everyone at ease, and helped make the constant churn of cases a little more manageable. Whether it was a joint sentencing recommendation or an argued sentence, he was fair to both sides, genuinely looked for the best in people, and always had hope that things would get better for the people who came through his courtroom. Two of the jury trials I had during that first year in the DA’s office were in Judge Markson’s courtroom. I had never tried an OWI case before and still had a lot to learn, not only about the area of the law, but also how to best present evidence to a jury. I sought Judge Markson’s feedback after both trials, and incorporated his insightful feedback to better my trial skills. One of the things I admired most about him as a judge was not these formal feedback sessions, but the legal and life lessons that were sprinkled in among the motion and plea hearings. In particular, he had a special talent for highlighting teachable moments in court, but doing so kindly and without publicly shaming anyone. Above all, Judge Markson had a seemingly magical ability to draw out the best in the attorneys appearing in his courtroom. The proper role of a judge: The role of a judge is to uphold and protect the rights of people, serve as a referee to ensure legal proceedings are fair, and remain engaged in their community. Now more than ever, judges must follow the law by upholding and enhancing the rights of individuals. Their role is to safeguard against government actions that infringe on rights without due process. Legal standards exist to ensure fairness and justice. Today, it seems like the legal system is facing unprecedented distrust. When people feel like the system is set up against them, they are less likely to accept judicial outcomes, even when the judge provides a well-reasoned analysis clearly supported by the law and the facts. Our democracy is built on core rights and values vested with the people. While working for the Governor, I was often reminded of this by a quote on the conference room ceiling: “The will of the people is the law of the land.” This served as a constant reminder of the immense honor and responsibility I had as part of the Governor’s team, advancing policies and programs that make life better for Wisconsinites. Having worked in each of the three branches of government, I deeply understand their distinct roles and the judiciary’s duty to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches. Judges must uphold this delicate balance of power that our country’s founders contemplated. With this responsibility in mind, a judge is a referee, ensuring that all parties adhere to the law and play fairly in the courtroom. Treating others with dignity and respect is essential in this role, whether interacting with attorneys, the people they represent, or unrepresented individuals. Fairness requires listening, applying the law to complex and often emotional facts, and holding parties accountable when they fail to follow the rules. People come to court during some of the most challenging times in their lives – facing criminal charges, custody disputes, or personal hardships. A judge’s fair-minded approach can help ensure the parties feel heard and valued in the process. Equally important is a commitment to impartiality and integrity, which reinforces public trust in our judicial system. I recognize the weight of this responsibility and would approach each case with a balanced, objective perspective. Judges are leaders in our community and should remain engaged beyond the courtroom. Legal decisions should not be made in isolation, disconnected from the real-life struggles people face and the consequences their decisions have on their neighbors’ lives. Attending events and staying informed about issues facing our community fosters a broader understanding of the issues before the court. As judge, I will uphold this commitment, ensuring both fairness in the courtroom and meaningful engagement in the Dane County community. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed