|
"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.
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: 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. "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: Gordon R. Leech
Appointed to: Washington County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 11, 2025 (effective Aug. 8), to a term ending July 31, 2026 Education: Law School – University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Undergraduate – Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania High School – Franklin Regional, Munysville, Pennsylvania Recent legal employment: September 2022-present – Prosecutor, assistant district attorney, State of Wisconsin, Fond du Lac County District Attorney’s Office July 2010-September 2022 – Leech Law Office, West Bend, Wisconsin July 2009-July 2010 – Rose & deJong, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 2005-June 2009 – Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin Military service: U.S. Marine Corps, active duty 1992-1995 serving as Judge Advocate (trial counsel and base labor counsel); active reserve 1998-1999; highest rank Major Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. Supreme Court Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (lapsed) Pennsylvania Bar (lapsed) Florida Bar (lapsed) General character of practice: Current: Prosecution of criminal offenses in the circuit court. Formerly practice principally included criminal defense, consumer law litigation and employment law litigation. I’ve represented a clients in workers compensation benefit claims and social security disability claims during the first four years I practiced in Wisconsin. I have also represented people in ch. 13 bankruptcies. For about 2 years in Florida, I worked in an insurance defense firm handling liability and coverage claims. Describe typical clients: Currently representing the State of Wisconsin and its citizens. Formerly specialized in criminal defense on direct retainers, court appointments and State Public Defender appointments. Also represented people in employment and consumer litigation. Number of cases tried to verdict: approx. 35 JT (jury trials), many more administrative and court 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: Termination of Parental Rights case (closed proceedings). This case was both a trial and an appeal. I was Lead Trial Counsel and sole counsel for the state on appeal. Fond du Lac County Circuit Court. … Five-day trial in 2023 followed by an appeal. Another ADA and I took over the prosecuting this case after our Juvenile Prosecutor determined he had a conflict just prior to trial. The case was significant because the child was placed with foster parents who provided a stable, loving home, and had been for several years while the sole parent contesting the termination had been incarcerated until recently. The child and foster parents had a close bond, the foster parents were going to adopt, and the evidence showed that the child experienced significant emotional distress when the contesting parent was in contact with him. The foster parents had the child for years, waiting for the TPR to be prosecuted and finalized so they could finalize the adoption, which the child strongly wanted. The case was important to all involved. For me, it was my first TPR matter as a prosecutor. The significant legal issue involved a novel question of whether the incarcerated parent should be relived of the requirements he failed to satisfy while incarcerated when he committed the crime causing his incarceration on the very day the conditions of return were imposed on him. One of the conditions included not to commit any crimes. The facts of this case had not been addressed directly by appellate decisions. We won the trial and subsequent request to terminate parental rights. The contesting parent appealed. I handled the appeal alone, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The SCOW denied the petition for review. The foster parents were then able to finalize the adoption, and the child is living with them now as one of their own. State v. Orlando Daniel; Trial Counsel for the State; Fond du Lac County Circuit Court … May 27-28, 2025. Prosecuting a domestic violence case where the victim waited until testifying to recant her complaint entirely. The defendant was charged with drugs, possessing a firearm as a felon, going armed while intoxicated, and first degree reckless endangering safety of the victim by pointing a loaded firearm at her head repeatedly. The case was significant because the defendant posed a significant threat to the victim and public at large with his actions and the related involvement of firearms and drugs. The victim's recanting testimony jeopardized the entire case. The case was significant to try. It was challenging as a trial attorney to impeach the victim, who was the state's primary witness, and convince the jury that her prior statements were the truth. Keeping calm despite an antagonistic witness and focusing on the rules of evidence, logic and persuasive arguments, I was able to prevail. It was important to stop the cycle of violence against the victim and preventing harm to others in the future. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: Revocation of probation hearings and appeals as defense counsel in many cases from 2018-2022. Litigated many cases before the Equal Rights Division from 2004 to 2018, unemployment, and workers compensation benefit claims and appeals. I’ve also litigated federal admin courts to include the EEOC, Social Security Disability, and Merit Systems Protection Board. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Formerly certified mediator by Fla. Bar and conducted mediation sessions as the mediator in Wisconsin. I’ve participated as attorney to a party in many mediations over the years, probably over 150, in Florida and Wisconsin. I have also handled arbitration claims for stock brokers and for consumers in automotive lemon law claims. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Professional or civic and charitable organizations: ABLE (Audio & Braille Literacy Enhancement), member, board of directors, approximately 2007-2008 National Association of Consumer Advocates, peer group leader, 2016 Wisconsin Bar Civil Rights & Liberties Law Section, chair and board member, 2010-2013 Wisconsin Bar Labor & Employment Law Section, board member, 2011-2014 Florida Chapter of National Employment Lawyers Association, president and other roles, 2002-2005 Florida Bar Labor & Employment Law Certification Review Course, co-chair, 2004 Northboro Home Owners Association, president, approximately 1998 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Volunteer Lawyers Project, gave multiple seminars for volunteer lawyers taking cases in areas typically not served, and I also consulted with an took many consumer related cases on referral as a volunteer lawyer to the project 2010-2018. I accepted appointments in criminal matters at reduced rates through the State Public Defender. There are also many times that I waived my fees or gave a reduced fee to low income clients in consumer and employment matters. I volunteered for several years in mock court competitions in S. Florida as a judge and again in Washington County, WI for high school competitions. For several years I gave presentations on the law and a career in law with Junior Achievement. I spent many days volunteering with my children’s activities to support them in hockey, football and ballet events by working concession stands, announcing games, time and score keeper, and setup/tear down for events. I also volunteer with school events for my soon-to-be step children who are still in middle and high school for various activities. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge because I believe my varied life and professional experiences will help guide me to apply the rule of law as given by higher courts to the facts of the cases presented and arrive at fair and equitable decisions whether that be a criminal case, a family dispute, a civil suit or other matter. I grew up in a very close, middle-class family with three sisters. We typically did not have more than a paycheck to live on. In my own adult life, we had times when money was scarce and times of plenty. College was something l earned, working and finding ways to pay for it on my own. I am a father of three adult children now, all having graduated college in the past six years. I have lived through the experience of a broken marriage and divorce with their mother. I have now learned again what it means to love and be loved once more as I will be married later this year when I will become a stepfather to my fiancé’s three children. I learned about service and teamwork in the Marine Corps. As a lawyer, I have represented many diverse clients in many diverse situations. My clients included businesses in commercial disputes. I have represented people that lost jobs, large sums of money or credit due to wrongful acts of others. Some of my clients were denied medical treatment and benefit claims after being injured at work. I have counseled prospective clients out of lawsuits when I did not see that legal relief was available. I started my career as a prosecutor, then later in life represented people in defense of criminal charges, and I have since returned to representing the people of Wisconsin as a prosecutor—arguably one the best jobs one can have as a trial attorney. I have come to know people at their best and worst, as I have come to know myself from these experiences. With these experiences, I will listen to the people putting their trust in the court; I will judge their disputes fairly; I will treat them with respect; and I will uphold the integrity of the office in which I serve with the highest personal moral standards and work ethic. This is the type of judge I have always most respected regardless of the outcome. People may disagree with the result in a case but accept it because they believe it was a decision free of bias and deliberately made based on the court's understanding of the law. Wisconsin rightfully expects that kind of person in the judiciary, and I believe I can be that 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. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39. This case has a significant impact on the people in Wisconsin because it positively impacted the rights of victims of crime by protecting them from incursions into their privately held healthcare records which historically had a negative effect on victims of crime both discouraging prosecution and inflicting emotional distress. At the same time, it negatively affected the rights of those accused of crime to investigate their accusers in ways traditionally done to attack the veracity of the accusations and credibility of the accuser. The decision is recognized as one of the first cases decided by the SCOW to address the rights of victims under the constitutional amendment and enabling statutes for Marcy's law. However, the court appeared to recognize that victims may have standing to exert rights under Marcy's Law, the court did not decide the standing issue. Instead, the court overruled State v. Shijfra with which courts and parties have wrangled since 1993 when the court said a victim's healthcare records could be subject to discovery by a criminal defendant using an in camera review process. Although the case overturns almost 30 years of precedent, the court was willing to examine whether the earlier opinion was correctly decided, how workable the decision was when put into practice, and the change in respect given to victim's of crime as illustrated in the enactment of the constitutional amendment with Marcy's Law. The opinion is significant in part because it says being old law alone isn't good enough to justify keeping it and signals that victims may have standing to enforce the rights stated in Marcy's law. It seems to shift some of the weight on the scales of justice to a third plate, that of the victim. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Sandra Giernoth, Washington County Circuit Court. Judge Giernoth is smart, direct, and holds attorneys accountable to the standard she clearly sets for herself. She does not show favoritism to either party. She is always prepared and runs her calendar efficiently. If you respect her preparation, intelligence and time, she respects yours. She also took over the Drug Treatment Program in Washington County. Judge Martens's work before her and now her efforts have helped make that one of the most effect treatment programs I have seen in the courts where I have practiced. I aspire to gain the respect she has as a jurist and would look to her as a mentor and role model. Judge William Sosnay, Milwaukee Circuit Court. Early in my career, I appeared before Judge Sosnay as local counsel on behalf of the firm where I worked. It was for a 3-week jury trial involving the death of man from mesothelioma. It was complicated as it was long. Lead counsel was from another jurisdiction, and suffice it to say they played a little rough where he came from. Judge Sosnay was clearly frustrated with lead counsel throughout the case, but he never let on to the jury. He always maintained his calm, professional demeanor. He made his frustrations known and laid out his expectations clearly. Any criticism always occurred in chambers. He was more than patient throughout and never showed anyone disrespect even when he was disrespected. I continued to appear before him in other cases and always left feeling glad to have him as the judge. His judicial demeanor left a great impression on me. I enjoyed practicing in his court knowing that he would be fair to the parties and I always felt respected. If given the opportunity, I hope people will feel the same way in my courtroom. Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court. I admire Justice Roberts for his integrity. He has put judicial restraint and respect for precedent above politics of the day. Regardless of affiliation or agreement with the result, having the courage to decide issues based on these principles honors what I believe is the proper role of the court. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is primarily to uphold the integrity of the office. The integrity of the office for a trial court is upheld by following the rule of law as given by the higher courts, refraining from legislating from the bench, being free of personal or political influence, and maintaining decorum in the courtroom. A judge must know the law, whether from prior experience or by learning it when knowledge is lacking. A judge must recognize personal prejudices and biases and then understand how these may play a part in the judge's own decision-making to avoid letting them influence judicial decisions. Listening to the parties, witnesses, lawyers, and other participants in the process is also necessary, and communicating decisions in a way that shows the judge has listened and understood the parties even if the judge didn't agree with them. A judge should also treat people with respect, ensure that the parties treat each other with respect, and ensure that the parties also treat the office with respect. Being a judge is a privilege ultimately given by the people. The focus should be on the office, not the person. A judge's role should be to honor the office by example, living according to the values of the community the judge serves, acting with dignity and maintaining a high moral character consistent with the judicial code of ethics. A judge must respect the office as much as the judge expects others to do. "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.  Photo by Lesa Ann Molitor from the Spooner Advocate. Name: Angeline E. Winton
Appointed to: Washburn County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 13, 2019 (elected in April 2020 to term ending 2026) Education: Law School – William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire High School – Hayward High, Hayward, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2017-present – District attorney, Washburn County January 2009-December 2016 – Half-time shared assistant district attorney for both Burnett and Washburn counties October 2008-December 2016 – Self-employed attorney, Angeline E. Winton, Attorney at Law, Hayward, Wisconsin October 2008-December 2016 – Associate, Winton Law Offices, Hayward, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Court, Hayward, Wisconsin General character of practice: Since January of 2017, I have served Washburn County as full time District Attorney. Focusing solely on criminal matters, my days are spent reviewing police reports, making charging decisions, attending Drug Court when scheduled, meeting with victims, reviewing files and/or meeting with defendants and defense attorneys to discuss settlement. Additionally, a significant part of my time is spent meeting with victims, preparing for contested hearings, writing legal briefs, appearing on behalf of the State in bond hearings, initial appearances, preliminary hearings, motion hearings, sentencing hearings, preparing for trial and trying jury trial cases. From January 2009 to the end of December 2016, I served both Washburn County and Burnett County in the capacity as their half-time shared Assistant District Attorney. The other half of my time was spent running a successful private practice in Hayward, Wisconsin, working in the family firm alongside my father, Ward Wm. Winton. In this capacity I handled a wide variety of civil matters and municipal prosecutions as Municipal Attorney for the Village of Siren in Burnett County and the Village of Birchwood in Sawyer County. Describe typical clients: Although not clients per se, as District Attorney I serve the people of Washburn County, and take that responsibility extremely seriously. With an overarching goal of protecting the community, I encourage rehabilitation of amenable, low-risk offenders such as with treatment of those struggling with drug addictions. When time allows, I have an open door policy and encourage victims, citizens and other interested parties to meet with me and share any special concerns they may have, or to provide me with information they believe is crucial to my role as District Attorney. Until December of 2016, my civil private practice focused primarily on real estate, estate planning, guardian ad litem work, probate and family law. My typical clients were honest, hardworking people who simply needed someone to guide them through the often confusing steps of the legal process. Number of cases tried to verdict: At least 25 jury trials and countless court trials. List up to five significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Brandon Scherz: Washburn County Case 16CF92/WI Court of Appeals Case 17AF730 This was a case that was initially charged by my predecessor, Thomas H. Frost as Second Degree Sexual Assault. When I took office in January of 2017, this case was set for trial on April 20, 2017. Before trial, I filed a motion in limine indicating that I intended to use the defendant's confessions. On April 13, 2017, after a Miranda/Goodchild hearing on March 15, 2017, the Honorable Judge Eugene D. Harrington rendered his oral ruling, suppressing the defendant's confessions. One of the hardest things I have had to do in my career is explain to the rape victim in this case that, in order to seek justice on her behalf, I needed to delay her case and fight to correct the Circuit Court's clear error in suppressing defendant's admissions. The victim was extremely reluctant as she wanted the stress of the trial to be over with, and we both knew seeking an appeal would mean many months of delay. Ultimately she found the strength to agree that a continuation was necessary to achieve justice in her case, After lengthy discussions with the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office, in anticipation of the court's ruling, on April 13. 2017, I requested a continuance of the trial pending an interlocutory appeal. The Circuit Court denied that request and the Attorney General's Office sought and received an immediate stay of the Circuit Court proceedings on April 17, 2017, three days before the trial was to commence. On December 28, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's ruling and remanded the case back for further proceedings. The State filed a substitution of the Honorable Eugene D. Harrington and the Honorable John P. Anderson was assigned to the case. On March 14, 2018, a Petition for Review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was denied. With the defendant's confessions reinstated, the case proceeded to trial on 11/28/20l8. At trial, the case focused on the use of force. After consulting with the victim, 1 asked the court to include a lesser included instruction for Third Degree Sexual Assault. The defendant was then convicted by a jury of his peers of Third Degree Sexual Assault, Possession of THC, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. The victim was extremely happy with the outcome and this was one of my most satisfying days as District Attorney. After asking the victim to have faith in me and faith in the criminal justice system, she was ecstatic and told me she was so happy that I was her DA. Shockingly, the Presentence Investigation came back with a probation recommendation. With the assistance of the victim's heartfelt victim impact statement, the State was able to convince the Honorable John P. Anderson that prison, rather than probation, was the appropriate response to Mr. Scherz' admitted rape of the victim. On February 6, 2019, Brandon Scherz was sentenced to five years imprisonment, bifurcated as two years of initial confinement, followed by three years of extended supervision. This was a significant case in my career. I was happy to see, after the long battle through the Circuit Court, that the system worked and the Court of Appeals carefully, fairly and impartially applied the law to the facts and reinstated the defendant's confession, thereby helping me attain justice for the victim. State v. Kelly Daniels: Washburn County Case 17CF89 This case involved three controlled methamphetamine buys from Kelly Daniels in February of 2017. After a lengthy 2 day jury trial in bitterly cold weather, Ms. Daniels was convicted on all three delivery counts. During trial, I played the audio from one of the controlled buys. Having had the audio transcribed in advance, I was able to let the jury read along while listening to Ms. Daniel's voice as she sold methamphetamine to the confidential informant. I believe this played a significant role in the outcome of the case. After she was convicted, although I argued the severity of Ms. Daniel's actions warranted a prison sentence, she ultimately received only an imposed and stayed prison term. Despite the sentence, many in the community took notice that prosecution of this case was a priority for my office. It is my hope that other drug dealers like Ms. Daniels will consider how vigorously my office prosecuted this case and will give a second thought before moving their operations into Washburn County. State v. Steven Stone: Washburn County Circuit Court Case 14CF'88 This was an interesting case. Steven Stone was charged with Count I - OWI-5th, Count 2- Operating After Revocation and Count 3, PAC-5th. My involvement first began when, as assistant district attorney, I second-chaired the jury trial on January 22, 2015 with then District Attorney Thomas H. Frost. During District Attorney Frost's direct questioning of Deputy Josh Christman, Mr. Frost unintentionally provoked a mistrial when Deputy Christman commented on the defendant's prior OWI-4th conviction in violation of the trial court's pretrial ruling. After a ruling from the Court of Appeals, the State was permitted to retry the case. Although I was only working one day per week at that time for Washburn County in my capacity as Assistant District Attorney, when asked by District Attorney Frost, I agreed to retry the case alone. I did so on October 5, 20I6 and successfully obtained convictions on all three counts. Although I didn't handle the sentencing, I understand that the defendant was ultimately placed on probation and ordered to serve 330 days conditional jail time on Count I, OW1-5th, consecutive to 120 days conditional jail time on Count 2, OAR. Winton’s application included discussion of two additional cases, which WJI has not included due to length. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: For approximately a year prior to being elected District Attorney in 2017, I was appointed to serve as Sawyer County's Condemnation Commissioner. During my tenure I was never called upon to serve but stood ready to do so. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). From 2008 to 2016, in my civil practice, I handled a variety of real estate matters and estate planning cases which focused primarily on drafting documents and advising clients, rather than litigation. During this time, as guardian ad litem in family law cases, I also frequently engaged in informal mediation with the parties in an attempt to reach a result consistent with the best interests of the children. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Since approximately 2000, I have volunteered to various degrees either by making phone calls, door-knocking, etc. for each U.S. presidential democratic party campaign. Prior to going to law school in 2005, for approximately a year I served as the President of the Sawyer County Democratic Party in Hayward, Wisconsin. Previous runs for public office: Washburn County District Attorney, elected November 2016 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Chief Judge Lisa Neubauer, in 2018 and 2019 for April 2019 Supreme Court election Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky, in 2019 for April 2020 Supreme Court election Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Washburn, Sawyer & Rusk Tri-County Bar Association, 2008-present, president 2011 Spooner Lions Club, volunteer, 2015-present Spooner Rodeo Committee, volunteer-Rodeo, 2015-present Northwoods Humane Society, volunteer, sporadically from 2001-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I volunteer for various organizations in my community when able but due to the nature of my restricted duties as District Attorney, I do not have significant pro bono legal work. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I have served the citizens of Washburn County as a prosecutor for over ten years, yet now feel called upon to serve as Washburn County's next judge. I am not tendering this application for purposes of career advancement because as for me, becoming a judge has not always been a lifelong goal. Indeed, I firmly believe the decision to become a judge should be less about a person's career aspirations and ego, and more about that person's proven track record of service to their community, their fairness and dedication, their work ethic, and their continued study of the law. I feel compelled to apply for judge because the citizens of Wisconsin deserve a hardworking, honest judge who will not become complacent, but who will recommit each day to serving her community. I was born in Washburn County and have spent most of my adult life living and working here. This is the place I call home and this is the place where I intend to live the rest of my life. I grew up in a family which encouraged a life of service. Guided by that encouragement, I have been honored to serve as District Attorney. I want to continue to serve the people of Washburn County as their judge because I want to help strengthen my community and pledge to work tirelessly, within the proper judicial bounds, to do so. 1 am concerned with the limited resources available to young people in our community and how, as a result, those who cannot get a good job, or pursue higher education, often become entangled with drugs and alcohol. I care deeply about my community and I am concerned with the rise in crime due to the spike in methamphetamine and opioid addictions. As District Attorney, I have worked excessively long hours, at night and on weekends, to keep up with the ever-expanding caseload, which is largely attributable to the spike in methamphetamine and opioids flowing through our county. As District Attorney, I have paid special attention to vigorously prosecuting child pornography cases, property crimes, sexual assaults and drug-related offenses. As a result, I have had approximately twenty jury trials in the last two and half years. I am honored to work hard to do the right thing. I am honored by the faith that Washburn County residents have already placed in me to elect me as their District Attorney. l want to serve Washburn County as their judge with that same dedication. As judge, I believe a strong message must be sent to those who intentionally seek to harm our communities. However, I will also continue to support and encourage educational programs, mentorships and treatment courts, such as the Washburn County Drug Court for low risk, first time offenders. Serving as a member of Drug Court for over the last three years has given me the unique perspective to see how earnestly community members struggle with addiction and how very essential such programs are to the survival of our communities. 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 my opinion, United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013) has had the greatest positive impact on our democracy in the last 25 years. Many, if not all of us, have been affected by U.S. v. Windsor. Although many of us are not members of a same-sex partnership, the odds are that we know someone, work with someone or love someone who is. Society has come a long way in terms of acceptance since 2013, due in large part to U.S. v. Windsor. Separate yet unequal. The Defense of Marriage Act (hereafter DOMA), embodied that philosophy. DOMA was passed in the rnid-1990s, as States were just considering same sex partnerships. The very title of DOMA made clear the federal government's outright distain for same sex partnerships and Congress's fear that if granted equality, these couples would forever tarnish the sanctity of marriage. To discourage the taboo "choice", DOMA denied same sex couples significant governmental benefits by refusing to recognize civil unions as legitimate "marriages" in the eyes of the federal government. Everything changed in 2013 with U.S. v. Windsor. In 2007 Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Ontario, Canada and their home state of New York recognized their union. Two short years later, however, Thea Spyer died leaving Windsor as sole beneficiary of her estate. Windsor attempted to claim the surviving spouse federal estate tax exemption but was barred by doing so by DOMA which specifically excluded same-sex partners from the act's definition of "spouse" and "marriage." As a result of her choice of a same-sex spouse, Windsor inherited her wife's estate but paid costly in estate taxes. Ultimately Windsor filed suit, claiming the DOMA violated her 5th Amendment Equal Protection Rights. In 2013 Justice Kennedy authored the majority's decision ruling DOMA unconstitutional, indicating; "The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States." U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 770, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013). "It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect." Id., 570 U.S. 744, 747. Windsor is so significant because it shows how, even decades after the civil rights era, the judiciary can apply traditional legal analysis to properly render significant change in our modern world. By doing so, the United States Supreme Court restored faith to many in our democracy who had been previously disenfranchised for the simple reason of whom they chose to love. Undeniably, there are still parts of the country where people cannot bring themselves to put aside their prejudice and accept others. However, since U.S. v. Windsor, acceptance for same-sex couples has begun to flow like a tidal wave. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Three circuit court judges that 1 have observed over the course of my career and whom I admire greatly are former Burnett County Judge Kenneth Kutz, Bayfield County Judge John P. Anderson and Sawyer County Judge John M. Yackel. These Judges have diverse personalities, yet all possess many qualities I admire. I had the most exposure as a young lawyer before the Honorable Kenneth Kutz when he was the Burnett County Circuit Court Judge and I was serving part time as Burnett County's Assistant District Attorney from 2009 to 2016. Judge Kutz impressed me each time I appeared before him because of his great depth of legal knowledge and his remarkably calm and patient temperament. I cannot recall more than once or twice over the seven years I appeared before him when Judge Kutz ever had to raise his voice to command the respect of those in his courtroom. Judge Kutz remains one of the most respected Judges in our area not only because he is a scholar of the law, but also because he has the unique ability to render decisions and even impose harsh sentences by educating those before him and inspiring them, instead of using his power and authority to be disrespectful or disparaging. Judge Yackel is yet another judge whom l greatly admire. I first encountered Judge Yackel when he served as Sawyer County's Assistant District Attorney. In that role, he and I interacted frequently when I served as guardian ad litem in Children In Need of Protection or Services cases. When Judge Yackel took the bench in Sawyer County, he brought with him many qualities that had served him well as a prosecutor. For example, as a prosecutor John Yackel possessed a unique ability to cut to the heart of a dispute and assist others to put aside their petty differences so as to focus what was really important, such as the best interests of the child. He retains that ability now as Judge. It is also evident from watching Judge Yackel that he cares passionately about Northwestern Wisconsin. While always being fair to each side, once an offender is convicted, Judge Yackel frequently takes a strong stance against those who seek to harm his community. Finally, I greatly admire Bayfield County Judge John Anderson. Like Judge Yackel, Judge Anderson quickly analyzes a situation and focuses on the issue at the heart of whatever conflict is before him. It is my firm impression that Judge Anderson isn't swayed by private interests and is more concerned with doing what is right than what is popular. Judge Anderson uses his authority to change people's lives, often through brutal honestly in an attempt to help them realize the error of their ways. All three have unique personalities and divergent theories about how best to administer justice. The common characteristics that each possess, and which I greatly admire, however, is their tireless work ethics and their genuine desire to administer justice fairly so as improve their communities. The proper role of a judge: Over the course of my career I have seen that the legal system functions the most smoothly, provides the most just outcomes, and inspires the most public confidence, when each party and their attorneys zealously advocate for their positions and the judge functions as a neutral and detached magistrate, weighing the facts with the law and rendering a fair and impartial decision. Many times, over the course of my career I have seen the system work and I have seen the system fail. The proper role of a judge is to first and foremost be well-educated and well-informed. No matter how well-meaning, a judge cannot function efficiently if she doesn't take her job extremely seriously, prepare for her cases, have strong attention to detail, and possess a firm understanding of the law. A judge should not be complacent. The proper role of a judge is to never stop learning and never assume, just because they are wearing the black robe, that they are automatically the most informed person. A good judge should have a strong personality so as to maintain order and command authority but should also be patient. Over the course of my career I have seen justice delivered in many forms. Many times a judge can administer justice simply by allowing a party to feel as though they were respected and given an opportunity to be heard. "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: Reyna Morales
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 21, 2020 (elected in April 2021 to term ending in 2027) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York High School – Uniondale High, Uniondale, New York Recent legal employment: June 1997-present – Attorney, Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: During my tenure with the State Public Defender, "SPD", I have handled thousands of cases, with a myriad of legal issues. I have had the opportunity to represent individuals in many different settings, ranging from informal diversions to extensive trials. I have experience handling juvenile, chips, guardianship, mental commitments, TPR's, misdemeanor and all level of felony cases. I never shy away from complex legal issues and I am willing to research and invest as much time as needed so that clients are zealously represented. Throughout my career I have had bench trials as well as jury trials in cases ranging from traffic matters to high profile homicides. Describe typical clients: The majority of my clientele consists of individuals who have extremely complicated lives. The vast majority of my clients come from socially marginalized communities and have had to deal with economic disadvantages all of their lives. I current represent individuals charged with serious felonies including armed robberies, sexual assaults, and homicides. I provide advice on a daily basis to clients who face life altering consequences as a result of their involvement in the criminal justice system. I have specialized in complex homicide cases focusing both in mental health issues as well as abusive head trauma litigation. I specialize in jury selection and in connecting with jury panels. Number of cases tried to verdict: 40+ 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 of Wisconsin v. Kervin Pierce - Milwaukee County Case #2017CF5844 I was the defense attorney for Mr. Kervin Pierce from 12/26/2017 through 12/07/2018. My client suffers from Schizophrenia, at the time of the incident Mr. Pierce had yet to be diagnosed with this serious mental illness which unraveled his life to the point where he killed his mother and attempted to kill his brother. I along with my defense team presented the case to a jury panel who agreed with our defense and we received a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty By Reason of Mental Decease or Defect. As a result of this case I was the first Latina in Wisconsin to be awarded the Hanson Memorial Advocate Prize by The Wisconsin Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers. State of Wisconsin v. Jason Tilley - Milwaukee County Case #2018CF1047 I was the defense attorney for Mr. Tilley from 03/14/2018 through 02/12/2019. My client suffers from cyclical schizoaffective disorder. This disorder led to Mr. Tilley believing the "illuminati" was giving him commands and his mind unraveled to where he killed his landlord over a $30.00 increase in rent. Mr. Tilley had a checkered past with both State and Federal System by the time he became my client. On the date of the incident Mr. Tilley killed his landlord, disposed of his landlords car, and went to check in with his federal probation agent before reporting to work where he was arrested without incident. Mr. Tilley's case is significant as he had been interviewed by several members of my office before I was assigned to represent him. I had a very short interaction with him before raising competency in front of the Court. Mr. Tilley underwent treatment at Mendota Mental Health Institute and after months of treatment he was deemed competent to stand trial. A special plea was entered and two court appointed doctors agreed and supported the special plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect. State of Wisconsin v. Annette Morales-Rodriguez - Milwaukee County Case 2011CF4871 I along with attorney Debra Patterson represented Ms. Morales-Rodriguez from 04/18/2012 through 12/13/2012. Ms. Morales-Rodriguez was accused of the homicide of a pregnant woman and slicing out her full-term fetus, killing both the mother and child. Ms. Morales-Rodriguez only spoke Spanish. As a native speaker I was able to use my skills both in knowledge of the law and a second language to support my client while at the same time respecting all those involved in the process. We argued several complex motions and represented Ms. Morales-Rodriguez through trial. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: n/a Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As a defense attorney I am in the unusual role of having to mediate between the different parties involved in the criminal justice system. In my position, success in most cases can only be achieved through negotiation and mediation with Judges, Prosecutors, and Clients. I have presided over mediation tournaments at Marquette Law School. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Participated in the Official Second tier Caucus on 5/1/2016 for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to nominate Ann Jacobs to be a delegate for the 2016 presidential convention. Previous runs for public office: [No answer given] All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: David Feiss, Circuit Court Judge, 2014 Martin “Joe” Donald, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 2016 Martin “Joe” Donald, State Appellate Court Judge, 2019 Jean Kies, Circuit Court Judge, 2016 Thomas J McAdams, Circuit Court Judge, 2016 Janet C Protasiewicz, Circuit Court Judge, 2014 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, board of directors, 2018-present Felmers O. Chaney Advocacy Board, board member, 2019-present Marquette University Law School Alumni Association, board member, 2010-2018 MUHS-Mother’s Guild, Hospitality Team, 2020-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: [No answer given] Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I grew up in Guatemala in the middle of a civil war and was able to come to the United States in my teens. I was the first in my family to graduate from college in the United States and the first to go to Law School. I have the ability to communicate with, and work along with others with a clear understanding of the different roles we all hold in the judicial system. I want to use my life experience as a bi-cultural individual to serve the people of my community. Throughout my career I have worked with underprivileged individuals and have noticed the difference in their demeanor when they have a sense of belonging. I want to use my life experiences, knowledge, and background to have an active role in the judiciary. I understand the importance of diversity in the bench and I have learned throughout my career how important it is for underprivileged individuals to see other people of color in active roles in the court system so they feel heard. I have had to assist clients with the difficult decision as to which cases to take to trial and which cases require a resolution where they are exposed to a lengthy sentence in the prison system. I have met people at their best and worst and I have had the privilege to stand beside them waiting for the judge to deliver a sentence that will impact the rest of their life. In representing individuals I understand the great power a judge has in the life of others and the impact following the law can have in the community. In exercising this role, all you can do is to try and understand the issue before you and then decide it in the best way you know how. 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 belong to the immigration specialty group in my office. I participated in the Leadership project where I prepared a presentation to our agency on the critical issues raised on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (20210) Padilla has had great impact in how cases are handled in our office. Padilla brought to light the need for collaborative representation in cases where the consequence of a criminal conviction could result in the deportation and ultimate exile of a client to a foreign land. I alongside other attorneys in our office created a screening form to ensure proper representation of individuals who need a specialized immigration assessment. I participated in panel discussions and training of others both at a CLE put together by WHLA and at the annual SPD conference on the duties of counsel and the need to properly advise clients of the devastating collateral consequences in criminal matters which must be taken into consideration both by prosecutors and defense counsel alike Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I had the opportunity to meet Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. The idea of interacting with someone as brilliant as Justice Abrahamson was intimidating, however she had the ability to listen to you and make you feel as the only person in a crowded ballroom. Justice Abrahamson gave me one of the best experiences in my legal career by letting me know that she loved the law and that family is important. I had the opportunity to attend a live argument and Justice Abrahamson's questions showed she had taken the time to be prepared and treated all those involved with a level of respect which had a calming effect on a lawyer that needed reassurance in the middle of a tough oral argument. Justice Abrahamson was the first woman to be appointed as Chief Justice to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I often read her decisions and it is clear from her writings the profound respect she has for the law and the application of law to all those involved in the judicial system and the vast repercussions of her decisions. Sonia Sotomayor - United States Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor is a true inspiration and a pioneer in the legal system. She is the first Latina to be appointed to the highest court in the United States. Justice Sotomayor has an impressive legal background with experience as a prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Justice Sotomayor's credentials have been recognized by both republican and democratic presidents. Justice Sotomayor was originally appointed to the bench by President Clinton. Before her appointment to the Supreme Court by President Obama, she had been appointed to the appellate bench by President George H.W. Bush. Justice Sotomayor is the only current justice with experience as a trial judge. The proper role of a judge: Judges have a privileged position in society. The most important role of a judge is to always be aware of the law's impact on society and everyday life. A judge must probe factual and legal details when deciding legal matters in order to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law requires a judge to be thoughtful and consistent when applying the law to cases and facts on a consistent basis. "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: Gregory J. Jerabek
Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 15, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point High School – Roncalli High, Manitowoc, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2005-present – Attorney-Shareholder, Nash Law Group S.C. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I have a general practice which includes, or at times has included: criminal defense, municipal prosecution, civil litigation, personal injury litigation, collections, probate, estate planning, real estate transactions, bankruptcy, guardianships, guardian ad litem appointments, family law, termination of parental rights , CHIPS, employment discrimination/harassment, unemployment, social security disability, appeals, and juvenile law. Describe typical clients: My clients have come from diverse backgrounds. I do not believe that I have “specialized” in one area of law or another, or in any particular type of client. I provide a wide-range of practice areas which as allowed me to provide practical solutions across several areas of the law to a complete spectrum of clients. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 30 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: The interest of C.J.O., Wood County Case . . . In 2020, I was the lawyer for a mother and her husband who wanted to adopt his 10-year-old stepson. Despite not having any semblance of a relationship with the child, the natural father contested the termination of his rights and subsequent adoption. This case stands out as significant to me for several reasons. First, it was one of the first jury trials held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selecting a jury and trying a case while masked presented a unique set of challenges. Second, due to the pandemic, the case was delayed beyond time limits, obviously for good cause; however, despite cause, the added strain that this put on my clients makes the case stand out. Third, the jury returned with a verdict finding grounds to terminate in under fifteen minutes, which makes the case a significant moment in my career. IN RE THE MATTER OF DISCIPTINARY ACTION BY THE CITY OF NEKOOSA AGAINST MARK KANE Nekoosa Ambulance Disciplinary Hearing . . . In October of 2020, I was appointed by the City of Nekoosa to act as an Impartial Hearing Officer to review the decision of Nekoosa Ambulance Service in demoting Mark Kane from a Lieutenant position following an allegation of sexual harassment. A hearing was held on November 18, 2020. This was significant as it was my first experience as an impartial hearing officer. I was careful to construct a solid record, advised the appellant of his right to have counsel present as well as advising the appellant that as the hearing officer, I could not act on his behalf. I issued a written decision (attached as a writing sample to this application) approximately three weeks following the hearing. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have had in excess of 50 unemployment and sexual harassment proceedings during my career to Wisconsin Administrative Law Judges, for both employees and employers. In every case, I have acted as the lawyer from initial contact through any appeal. I have also had Social Security disability hearings on behalf of applicants whose applications were previously denied. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have participated in countless mediations, some as representation for the parties, but several as the mediator in both family law/placement matters, as well as civil litigation. As a mediator, I have been successful in resolving every case in which I was involved. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered for the judicial campaigns of both Timothy Gebert (Wood County) and Jeffrey Wisnicky (Kewaunee County). Previous runs for public office: Kewaunee County District Attorney, 2004, received approximately 44% of vote All public offices to which you were appointed or elected: Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, appointed, 2010-2017 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Timothy S. Gebert, Wood Country Circuit Court Judge, 2023 Jeffrey R. Wisnicky, Kewaunee County Circuit Court Judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wood County Crime Stoppers, secretary, 2019-present United Way of South Wood and Adams County, board of directors, 2007-2012 Boys & Girls Club of the Wisconsin Rapids Area, board of directors, 2006-2008, 2014-2017; president 2017-2018 Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, 2010-2017; president 2015-2017 Howe Elementary PTC, president, 2016-2017 Wood County Bar Association, president, 2009-2014 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have filed several bankruptcy cases on a pro bono basis and I routinely waive associated fees for serving as a Guardian ad Litem in adoption cases (child and adult). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I believe that the opportunity to serve as a judge is a profound privilege and have worked the entirety of my twenty-year career intentionally gaining the broad-based experience necessary to effectively and meaningfully serve. I submit my application, not for personal financial gain or a desire to be addressed as "your honor", but to serve the people of Wood County Wisconsin with integrity and intention. Except for my time in law school, I have lived my life in Wisconsin. Born in small-town Wisconsin to loving, humble, hard-working parents, I developed a strong sense of community, founded on the principles of morality, honesty, strong work ethic, and accountability. I strive to utilize this strong foundation in my daily life and work. I am proud of who I am, but not too prideful to admit my mistakes, then to address and learn from them. I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to do the same, including litigants in the criminal justice system, without being summarily branded irredeemable. I believe that this sense of responsibility toward humanity, in concert with a strong sense of practicality, will allow me to best serve the families of Wood County. For example: placement matters often become more about who "wins", ignoring the reality that there is no winner when parents fight over a child, rather than what is in the best interest of the child. In these situations, my intent is to foster the collaborative efforts necessary to limit the exposure of children to high conflict placement situations. Though it is impractical to outline a multitude of examples, I re-emphasize my global desire to serve in a way that provides a positive and lasting impact on my community. I believe that, given my background and intentions, my greatest opportunity to do so is as a judge. In this role, my dedication will be to the application of law, with efficient, practical, and direct administration of justice. 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. There is no doubt that most, if not all, Wisconsinites place great value on family. Because of this core value, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Michels v. Lyons (In re A.A.L.), 2019 WI 57, has had a significant positive and negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, expanding rights for parents, and curtailing them for grandparents. For many years I routinely handled grandparent visitation cases, both on behalf of petitioning grandparents and responding parents. In many of these cases, the matter was routine, and grandparents were usually given some dedicated time with their grandchildren. Although the time was usually quite limited, the relationship would be preserved, and the child would have the benefit of another source of trusted care. In Michels v. Lyons, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a petitioning grandparent is required to overcome the presumption in favor of a fit parent's placement decisions with clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest. This changed the burden of proof in grandparent visitation cases and likely altered the routine nature of grandparent visitation petitions permanently. I have tremendous respect for Justice Dallett's majority opinion, and the constitutional analysis of the precedent on this issue is thorough and on point. I would agree that the several grandparent visitation statutes are constitutional on their face but are unconstitutional as applied in Michels v. Lyons. Given the fundamental liberty interest at stake (a parent's right to raise their children), the higher clear and convincing standard is appropriate. I also agree, as Justice Dallett wrote, that "[a] circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a fit parent, even if it disagrees with the parent's decision." 2019 WI 57 ¶ 37. This decision ultimately gives parents more authority to dictate who may or may not have contact with their children. In most of the grandparent visitation cases I handled, the parent(s) of the child had legitimate concerns for wanting to limit the grandparents contact with the child. In those cases, a parent should decide what is best for their child without interference from the courts. However, there are some cases where a fit parent cuts off a loving and supportive grandparent simply out of spite, which tragically can have a negative consequence on not only the grandparents, but more importantly, the child. Fortunately, circuit courts are left with the discretion of what evidence is clear and convincing to overcome the presumption set forth in Michels v. Lyons. So long as a judge can appreciate that their opinion about the parent's decision is not part of the analysis, it is possible to still find that grandparent visitation, despite the objections of a parent, is still in the child's best interest. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: First is retired Wood County Circuit Court Judge, James Mason. I spent the first six years of my practice routinely appearing in front of Judge Mason. His cordialness to the bar, sense of importance ascribed to every case, and attention to case details, were remarkable. Judge Mason afforded the smallest of matters, such as traffic or small claims, the same time and dedication he provided to the most serious. Judge Mason impressed upon me that the court's time was not his time, rather it was the litigant's, and time was never wasted when being utilized to obtain the relevant facts necessary to render a decision in accordance with the law. In my years of practice, his attention to rendering a thoughtful decision based on the law, without injecting opinion, has been unparalleled. Judge Mason exemplified what I believe a circuit court judge ought to be. Second is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who I consider to be one of the founders of our modern understanding of free speech. I, as he, believe that freedom of speech is our most important fundamental liberty interest and is also the most often attacked. These attacks often come in the form of outcries that speech constitutes violence or hate, or in the form of books banned from schools in the name of opinion and public protection. I see these issues as an assault on free speech, which is ultimately harmful to the whole of society. I try to impress upon and exemplify, to my children and stepchildren, the importance of the free exchange of ideas, even in cases where a vast majority of people would find the ideas offensive or hurtful. When any speech is suppressed, we are all chained to that suppression. Justice Brandeis detailed it best when he wrote, "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears . . . if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." The proper role of a judge: A judge should ensure the efficient and thorough adjudication of the court system, providing every case timely due consideration, yet efficiently and effectively respecting the schedule and those it impacts. Efficient administration, recognition, and respect assist in maintaining the people's confidence in the judicial system. As exemplified by Judge James Mason, cordial treatment of all parties and their counsel is foundational to a respected courtroom. A judge should help ensure that both represented and unrepresented individuals receive fair treatment under the law. To a judge, it may just be another small claims case, a minor dispute over placement time, or a bond modification hearing, but to the parties, it may be the most significant aspect of their life. Therefore, all cases and parties should be treated with respect and given the time they deserve. A judge should follow the rule of law without deference to opinion or emotion. Every judge has personal experiences that may influence their decisions, but strict adherence to the law limits the risk of unpredictable decisions which do not conform to the law. A judge should be truly neutral and impartial and never let any personal bias overcome the need to be consistent. A judge should act as a safeguard against violations of an individual's rights, but also rule with deference to the State's level of interest, victims of offenses, and the need to protect the public. Careful considerations must be made in every case but balanced against the need for consistency by the judiciary. A judge should be respectful of the fact that his or her job is to ensure that the law is applied as written and intended, not as they see fit in a particular case. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy. "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: Samantha S. Wagner
Appointed to: Brown County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 28, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri Undergraduate – University of San Diego, San Diego, California High School – Juan Diego Catholic High, Draper, Utah Recent legal employment: October 2012-present – Lead assistant corporation counsel, Brown County, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: As the Lead Assistant Corporation Counsel for Brown County, I am responsible for all child welfare cases in Brown County, including cases for children in need of protection or services, juvenile guardianships, termination of parental rights, and administrative substantiation appeal hearings. I supervise another attorney who assists in these cases as well as a shared paralegal. My office is in the Brown County Human Services building so I often have employees stopping by for an opinion on a wide range of topics including economic support issues, juvenile justice concerns, open records requests, and civil rights issues. On top of these responsibilities I am the HIPAA compliance officer for Brown County, which includes ensuring compliance at our Community Treatment Center, Public Heath Department, jail health services unit, employee benefits, and community programs offering health related services. Lastly, I chair the committee for supervised release placements under Chapter 980, and locate statutorily compliant placements while providing the public notice and an opportunity to participate in our committee meetings. Describe typical clients: As an attorney for Brown County, I could offer legal advice to or represent any of the over 1,600 employees. The focus throughout my career has been in the Human Services field, focusing on representing employees and handling legal matters in the Children, Youth and Families Unit, Economic Support Unit, Community Programs, Public Health, and the Community Treatment Center, including the inpatient psychiatric hospital. I have also provided legal advice to employees that work with Criminal Justice Services and work within the courthouse. However, in any case for a Petition for Protection or Services, I represent the public so my client is not an individual person, yet what the public would expect me to do in any given situation in accordance with the law. Throughout my time with Brown County there have been many employees that have come and gone, and I have learned how each employee operates in order to not only provide them the best advice, but to also make sure they feel heard. Most of the employees are in high stress job and do not always need a legal answer, but need support. I am the longest tenured attorney in my office by over four years, and given my length of service have the historical knowledge that is helpful with each of the employees I advise. Number of cases tried to verdict: Jury trial, 8 cases; bench trial, 19 cases 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: In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for each of these four children. . . . As the CHIPS prosecutor it was my decision to file each of these petitions after receiving a referral from child protection for court jurisdiction due to concerns of physical abuse and inappropriate discipline being utilized in the home by the step-father to three of the children, father to [redacted]. It was determined that the step-father was having these children kneel in the corner on rice and forcing them to kneel in the corner for large periods of time as punishment. He was also whipping each of the children with a belt on a regular basis. The oldest child suffered from a seizure disorder and it was found that during an episode, the step-father kicked her in the abdomen and dragged her across the floor to her corner by her hair. The mother was aware of the abuse in the home, but was frequently at work. This case was open pending adjudication from August 27, 2021, to May 30, 2023, due to COVID scheduling, a maternity leave for one of the attorneys, and calendaring. While pending trial, there was also a companion criminal case for the father handled by the Brown County District Attorney’s Office. The bond in that case prevented him from having contact with any of the children. The mother chose to remain living with the father, which in turn prevented any of the children from ever being able to return home. One child went to live with his mother in another county, one child aged out of foster care, and the other two children are now under guardianships. This case is significant to me because in the end, after 21 months of the case pending for trial, I settled the case by allowing the mothers of the children to sign petitions requesting jurisdiction and placement of the children, primarily because they could not return under a criminal bond condition to their original family residence. By resolving the case in this nature, the abusive step-father was not held accountable in the CHIPS case, but the matter resolved short of a trial. I did this because I knew that the children would have to testify in the criminal case, and I did not want to put the children through the trauma of testifying in court with a jury present on more than one occasion. Also present would have been the abusive father, or step-father, who they had not seen in years. In handling the case this way I felt like I put aside some of my beliefs in accountability, yet did so knowing the outcome would be the same as if there was a trial. I had to consistently remind myself of the end goal for these children and to determine the route that would be least traumatic for the children. This is the way that many cases can be handled – knowing where you want to end up in a case, and then plan your route to get there. In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for this child and acted as the attorney for Brown County Human Services in the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case and subsequent appeal. . . . In 2014, I filed a CHIPS case for a young boy, [redacted]. The case was referred to me by child protection for sexual abuse to the child by his father, and neglect by his mother due to concerns with alcohol abuse. Throughout this CHIPS case there were many external factors that impacted the CHIPS case from progressing forward. The father was originally charged with the sexual abuse and those charges were subsequently dismissed. This impacted the type of sex offender treatment he could participate in, which is turn interrupted the agency’s ability to move forward in contact. The mother continued to not work towards her sobriety and would waiver in her beliefs that the abuse was occurring. The child was suffering significant trauma responses that manifested in both emotional and physical ailments requiring medical attention. In October 2015 I filed a motion to suspended the father’s visits by court order prior to the Dispositional Order being entered, which was granted. The Dispositional Order was entered and after some time a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case was filed. I did not handle this particular case, but the court terminated the father’s rights. The mother had passed away while the TPR was pending. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision given the order suspending the visits was done prior to the Dispositional Order and therefore did not apply to the grounds used against the father. I then resumed the CHIPS Case. I immediately got back into court and filed to suspend the father’s visitation again because none of the concerns from the first order were rectified. This was a bit more challenging as now the father was in prison for an unrelated matter, but his conditions were crafted to essentially put the ball in his court on whether he wanted to participate. The second TPR case was filed and again the court granted the TPR. I then handled the second round of appeals, and the decision was upheld making this child eligible for adoption eight years after his original removal. I attended the adoption hearing on August 24, 2022, and it was by far one of the biggest celebrations in the courthouse that I have attended. This case is significant to me for a number of reasons but primarily because it is the epitome of perseverance. There were numerous child protection workers, attorneys, and judges on these files, but I was the one who was there upon initial removal and there at adoption day. It is important to understand that mistakes or oversights are going to be made, but when those are acknowledged you must pivot and move forward. I still see this now young man in the community and we catch up from time to time. He is thriving and doing well, and it reminds me to continue working hard even when you may stumble back, there is always a way forward. Supervised Release Committee and Brown County Case 21CV58 As the chair of the supervised release committee created under Chapter 980, I was the primary point of contact in this lawsuit against Brown County and others. . . . The case and all committee actives took place in January to May 2021. The supervised release committee was created so that when an individual being released under Wis. Stat. § 980.08 they are returned to their county of residence for placement, and not just any statutorily appropriate residence around the state. This committee contains representatives from different agencies. The primary responsibility of the committee is to locate residences that meet statutory criteria within the county and identify those properties and the landlord to the Department of Health Services (DHS) when an individual is granted supervised release. I have done a number of these over the years, and complications in the process can be increased when a new residence has to be located. There are also some individuals who may have additional criteria depending on their victims. In January 2021 the committee was tasked to find a residence with additional criteria that no children could live in adjacent properties. A residence in New Franken was located and purchased by a landlord. The committee was immediately contacted by a neighbor who was very involved with the Boy Scouts and used a portion of their property for Boy Scout storage. There was one meeting where approximately 50 members of the Boy Scouts, including children, came and talk to the committee about the use of the property and that the residence next door should not be used to house these types of individuals. The committee ultimately decided that the use of the property did not rise to the level to exclude the property and sent the residence to DHS as a potential option. Recommendations were made that extra safeguards could be put in place given the possible use next door by the Boy Scouts to retrieve their items from storage. The circuit court then approved the placement and release plan for the individual, and the property became occupied. This was a significant experience to me because not only did I have to act as chair of the meeting and listen to each member of the public speak, I had to remain impartial and consider every fact being presented and then review it in conjunction with the statutory requirements. While my personal feelings may have been different from my professional, there is a balancing of interests that must happen. The individual to be released had served his time, a court had approved his release, and it was not my job to place additional, non-statutory, barriers in the way. At every attempt I tried to educate the public about the supervised release program and ensure that every precaution was being recommended, but the right decision was made. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: In my current role I am responsible for providing legal advice and assisting in any civil rights complaints or grievances made against an employee that escalates outside of the internal county policy. For example, I handled a claim with the US Office for Civil Rights claiming that a foster care rate was unfairly set based on race. After presenting the agency with all of the information requested and argument as to why the rate was set a certain way, separate and apart from the foster parent's race, it was determine the county's actions were appropriate. I have handled other civil rights claims or employee grievances with the Department of Children and Families and Division of Safety and Professional Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Apart from my work in child welfare, I am also the HIPAA Compliance Officer for Brown County and the Chair of the Supervised Release Committee. As HIPAA Compliance officer, I am responsible to ensure compliance with all County HIPAA policies with state and federal law, develop employee training, investigate potential breach incidents, and ensure the county's technical safeguards are in compliance. As the chair of the Supervised Release Committee, it is my role to locate properties that meet requirements for Chapter 980 offenders ordered to supervised release. I also provide public notice and run the committee meetings following open meeting and open records requirements. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: NA Previous runs for public office: NA All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: NA Professional or civic and charitable organizations: GRACE (Green Bay Area Catholic Education) Board of Trustees, trustee, June 2024-present 2025 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts Planning Committee, member, June 2024-present Wisconsin Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, president, April 2018-present American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, State Chapters Committee, member, April 2018-present National Association on Counsel for Children, member, June 2023-present State Bar Mock Trial, Brown County, co-site coordinator, January 2021-present Brown County Bar Association Board, vice president, board member, January 2021-present CASA Presents Fundraiser Planning Committee, member, 2023-present Women’s Fund, Powerful Event, committee and volunteer member, 2023-present St. Norbert College Parish, Finance Council, Board Member, August 2020-present Willow Tree Child Advocacy Center, River Cruise Volunteer, 2022-present Notre Dame of De Pere Elementary, school volunteer, 2022-present 2021 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts, planning committee member, 2020-2021 St. John the Evangelist Homeless Shelter, Green Bay, WI, Community Leadership Counsel, 2014-2016 Helping Hands, Thika, Kenya, volunteer, January 2009 Youth Works, Cairo, IL and Rosebud, SD, volunteer and chaperone, July 2008, July 2009 Gus Macker 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament, Wausau, WI, volunteer, June 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Southern Sudanese Community Center, San Diego, CA, volunteer, August 2007-May 2008 International Rescue Committee, San Diego, CA, volunteer, January-May 2006 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As a government employee I do not have the same opportunities as other attorneys to represent clients pro bono and assist them through the legal process. Instead, I have taken the opportunities afforded to me to train and educate the community about the child welfare system. Whether that is through trainings at child welfare conferences or with CASA, or through speaking with foster parents to understand the process, I believe that education is the best method to have the information disseminated throughout the community. Breaking down common misconceptions of the legal system has been something I have tried to highlight not only in presentations I've made, but in all of the volunteer programs I have been involved in. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the citizens of Wisconsin, but more importantly the community of Brown County as the next Brown County Circuit Court Judge because I have spent the last 12 years working in this community. I have been involved in almost every aspect of the legal system seen in the courthouse. As the attorney prosecuting child welfare cases for the county, I am in the courtroom every day, practicing primarily in civil litigation. However, so often these same parents are also facing criminal charges, small claims cases, family law matters, or evictions. I am continuously working with cases where I may not be directly involved, but these other cases have tremendous importance in the case I am prosecuting. In the last three years I have been involved in the creation of Brown County's Family Recovery Court, which allows for parents with CHIPS cases, and possible criminal cases, to be heard under a treatment court model. This approach allows the Court to service the family as a whole. Working through this process has given me an appreciation for the judicial system, but also for efficiency. This is one of the reasons I want to be a Judge - to allow for efficiency in our court system and for each individual who steps in my courtroom to have their concerns or cases resolved in a thorough manner. Too many times I have had parents work hard to have their children returned to their care, to only then be sentenced and unavailable due to their incarceration. By looking at each party on a case in a wholistic manner, the court system can achieve their intended purpose no matter the case or cause. Apart from criminal cases, many people come to the courthouse on their own, and usually for the first time. They are often nervous or unsure how to proceed. They are also likely facing some of the hardest times of their lives, and this is important to remember and be cognizant of in each and every case. I have worked to honor this throughout my entire career and it is an approach I want to bring to the bench. I want to continue serving my community while trying to make some of the changes to allow the Brown County courts to evolve with our growing and ever changing community. Brown County is changing and I want to be part of that change. This community deserves someone on the bench who wants to constantly improve, constantly learn, and constantly question arguments made in order to make the best decisions possible. 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 State of Wisconsin has eleven federally recognized tribes within its borders, as well as a large number of Native American residents who belong to other tribes across the country. In 2023 these tribal members waited to see the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in the United State Supreme Court decision for Haaland v. Brackeen. At question was the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which provides additional protections to Indian families after the historical removal of Indian children from their family homes and placement in boarding schools in the 19th and 20th centuries. The case itself did not just incorporate theories of ICWA and specific child welfare practices, but included analysis by the Supreme Court of the Indian Commerce Clause and anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. The Petitioners were contesting the constitutionality of the ICWA and the additional requirements the federal government required of each state to treat children subject to ICWA to a higher standard than another children. The Supreme Court found ICWA to be constitutional under the Indian Commerce Clause, because this legislation does not just include the trading of goods, but also includes the government’s involvement with many different Indian affairs. To simplify the determination as to the anti-commandeering clause, since ICWA applies to any parties in a case subject to ICWA, not just the state, there is not a constitutional issue. The Court did decline due to lack of standing to analyze the challenges to enforcement of ICWA placement preferences, specifically an equal protection claim. In practice, this would have been the most impactful analysis in providing guidance for the application of ICWA in Wisconsin’s legal system. Throughout the majority opinion and in the oral arguments, the practice of ICWA and the child welfare system, was not the primary focus. By not addressing this issue, and arguably one that could have fractured the current Supreme Court, the door has been left open for future challenges. Regardless this decision was a win for the people of Wisconsin given the large Native American population, and specifically important for Brown County given the interactions the Oneida Nation and Menominee Tribe. These interactions are not only with cases subject to ICWA, but all interactions with state and local government and these sovereign Indian nations. Th findings in Brackeen only solidified the rights that Native American tribes possess to have their seat at the table. It confirms the continued practice of recognizing tribes as a sovereign entity, and in Wisconsin with a high population of Native American residents, this is very impactful. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have had the opportunity to practice in front of a number of judges throughout my legal career. One of these judges is the retired Honorable William M. Atkinson, who served Brown County from 1991 to 2019 and remains serving as a reserve judge. I met Judge Atkinson when he served on the juvenile rotation about five years into my career. I was astonished at how he was able to bring practicality to the bench and make decisions in a way that made sense to every one present. It was not that everyone appreciated his decisions, but you could not argue with the logic in his analysis. His interpretation of the law also incorporated an unseen sensibility. He allowed for parties to make their record, but only when the arguments were productive and relevant. He was respectful of parties’ time and it was clear he knew the gravity of his decisions. He did not waiver or delay in his decisions and his approach to the bench is something admired by many who entered his courtroom, even if they were unsuccessful in their cases. While not a traditional western judge, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a commissioner and the chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is someone I greatly admire. After apartheid in South Africa the government searched for a way to respond to the human rights violations that had been committed by both the government during apartheid and those activists who challenged them. Archbishop Tutu approached this commission not only for accountability but to mend the fractures within his community, focusing on confession, forgiveness and restitution. When I was studying in South Africa and went to Robben Island, which was used as a prison during apartheid. I spoke with a former inmate, and now tour guide, who had witnessed Archbishop Tutu during his work on the commission. What I remember the most from this conversation was this man explaining the patience Archbishop Tutu had and the shared emotional response he had for both those seeking forgiveness and from those who were victims. This practice should be incorporated in courtrooms today, by understanding that when individuals are involved in the justice system, they are real people, with real emotions attached and should be treated with respect, regardless of why they are there. Lastly, I admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Most people admire her for strong will and solid conviction, but I admire her as a female in a male dominated field. She was able to find success in all areas of her life. Everyone is familiar with her as a Justice, but my admiration comes in her ability to find the balance. Even as a law student she was a mother of a young child and focused on the work when needed but then gave her child, and eventual children, the love and attention they deserved. Her practice of the law and her commitment to family is something any working parent, especially a mother, should admire. The proper role of a judge: On the surface, the role of a judge is to be a fair and impartial individual in the community who has the unique role to hear multiple sides of an issue, apply the correct standard of law, and come to a just solution. However, a judge’s job in practice is so much more. In a courtroom the judge is the one person who is able to have no motive, no preconceived notion, is able to listen carefully to all participants, question the positions and then make a sound decision. Any decision made by the judge significantly impact every aspect of a person’s life, no matter the case, and that duty should not be taken lightly. A judge should make sure everyone is heard and that all of the information is provided to make the best decision possible in every case. No judge should be afraid to ask questions and remain inquisitive about the issues being presented. A judge is not the expert on every case they hear, but as the evaluator of fact, they should try and understand every applicable aspect of a case. A judge is also a member in the community who can make decisions on behalf of every member of society. The decisions a judge makes in the courtroom where the law may not be as straightforward should be a reflection of societal expectations. As a public servant I am very aware that with every decision made, there will always be someone who is not satisfied. But if the decision is made based in the law and incorporating community expectations then the decision is sound. Providing the explanation of how you came to your decision is a practice that every judge should have and employ in their courtroom. The importance of a good record cannot be understated. Not only does it provide for individuals in the courtroom to gain an understanding of the court’s decision, but preserves that decision and rationale for any appellate use. Lastly a judge’s role is to uphold the law and ensure that each community member’s rights are respected and protected. The American judicial system provides these protections but they are only as good as their enforcement. Even if it means that a case may be dismissed on procedural defect or there is a substantial change in the outcome of a case, an individual’s rights under the law and constitution are paramount. It is the role of a judge, and of the legal system as a whole, to make sure that the law is implemented fairly and justly. "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: Lukas L. Steiner
Appointed to: Crawford County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh High School – Potosi High, Potosi, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2020-present – District attorney, Crawford County, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin January 2016-December 2019 – Attorney, McNamara, Reinicke, Vogelsberg & Helmke, Lancaster, Wisconsin January 2011-December 2015 – Attorney, Kopp McKichan, LLP, Platteville, Wisconsin August 2010-December 2010 – Attorney, Law Office of Attorney Luke Steiner, Platteville, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am presently the Crawford County District Attorney, and being the only lawyer in the office, I handle the prosecution of all criminal and most traffic violations in the county. I also prosecute nearly all government-related juvenile matters, in the county, including delinquency and CHIPS/JIPS cases. Describe typical clients: My current "clients" are the people of Crawford County, and I try to take care to remember that I work for everyone, and not let myself get sucked into the trap of focusing my efforts to appease law enforcement officials or our county's social workers, who investigate the cases that I prosecute. They do good work, and they are good folks, but they, like all of us, have their own agendas and viewpoints. I feel it is important, in this position, to try to identify and address the diverse concerns and perspectives of my constituents. Often, I must do that in the abstract, so a general sense of empathy and objectivity is required. I specialized, in my general practice, prior to becoming District Attorney, largely in criminal defense, so I feel I have a very strong foundational basis for competently handling criminal cases. I also practiced fairly extensively in family law, handling divorces and custody/placement disputes. My experience, in that area is recent enough, that I feel comfortable with my general competence in that area, as well. Number of cases tried to verdict: Appoximately 20-25, by jury trial. Approximately 100, by court trial. 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: In October, 2023, as Crawford County District Attorney, I prosecuted a felony impaired-driving case that involved a Defendant, who was found asleep, alone, in the driver's seat of his vehicle, on a country road, late at night. Judge Lynn Rider presided, and Attorney Daniel M. Key represented the Defendant. The case-in-chief was unremarkable, and went as one might expect, under these circumstances. The case became more remarkable, when the Defendant chose to testify, and claimed that he stopped on the country road and drank a large amount of liquor, while stopped. In my case-in-chief, I called the alcohol analyst, from the State Laboratory of Hygiene, and introduced the blood-alcohol test results. In response to the Defendant's testimony, I recalled the analyst, in rebuttal, and went through a "blood-alcohol curve" analysis to demonstrate that the Defendant's claim, specifically as to the amount, and time, that he claimed to have drunk the alcohol, was inconsistent with the reported test result. This trial was significant because it forced me to quickly assess the Defendant's claim against the evidence already introduced, and to adapt to address that unexpected testimony. I had experience with "blood-alcohol curve" evidence, as a defense attorney, and I was able to put that experience to use, more clearly and seamlessly than might have expected. The jury's verdict resulted in a conviction. In February, 2022, I prosecuted, and tried, domestic battery charges involving a reluctant victim. Again, Judge Rider presided, and the Defendant was represented by Attorney Jeffrey W. Erickson. Despite my, and my victim-witness coordinator's, best efforts, we were unable to convince the complaining victim to participate in pretrial preparation. The suspicion of spousal intimidation was historically documented, at least generally. I was well aware that the victim was reluctant to testify, but the evidence that the victim was assaulted was relatively clear. My direct examination was difficult, but I was able, using the recorded evidence, e.g., recorded statements and photographs, to tease out a basic recitation of particulars the assault. I believe that I did so with sufficient tact, that the victim's reluctance to testify noticeably waned during the course of my examination. That experience, itself, taught me several lessons, but is not primarily why this case was significant. On cross examination, the victim contradicted, in most material respects, the testimony the victim gave, on direct. The victim even went so far as to testify that the testimony, offered on direct, was untrue. I did my best to rehabilitate, on re-direct, and rested the State's case with a sense that the jury could “see the forest for the trees.” The Defendant chose to testify, and he admitted that he assaulted a bystander, for which he was also charged; however, with respect to that charge, the Defendant claimed self-defense. In his direct testimony, he did not testify to any facts relating to the assault of the reluctant victim. In my cross-examination, I fixated on the self-defense claim, and chose not to explicitly press the Defendant on his basic claim that he did not engage in assault of the reluctant victim. In addition to the fact that he offered no testimony regarding the reluctant victim's assault, I thought that the extent to which the reluctant victim's contradictory testimony had been addressed was adequate to support the argument that his unspoken claim that he did not assault the reluctant victim should be disbelieved. This case's primary significance arose in the context of closing arguments. In my closing, I addressed the Defendant's claim of self-defense, as best I could, and then I made the mistake of addressing his lack of testimony about the reluctant victim's assault, by essentially saying that if I were accused of such an assault, and I didn't do it, I would have so testified. The jury convicted, on the reluctant victim's assault, and acquitted on the charge, to which the Defendant claimed self-defense. My rash comment, in my closing argument, was made without objection, and led to an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, which ultimately laid bare my folly. Had I simply questioned the Defendant about the particulars of the reluctant victim's assault, I could have commented on his responses; however, because I neglected to do so, and made the flippant comment I did, I had to concede that I improperly commented on a matter to which the Defendant had not testified. I conceded not only my error, but also my error's import, and agreed to the case being reopened, and the conviction being vacated. The ultimate significance of this case is that it demonstrates the care one must take to not let one's frustration cloud one's focus and judgment. I let my frustration, with the context in which testimony was introduced, control the manner in which I commented on that testimony, in a way that I would not have, had I taken more care to let my frustration pass, and been more diligent in my focus on the rules of evidence, as opposed to the particulars of the case and the trial. I have found, over the years, that I am a person who learns as much, and often more, from my failures and follies than from my successes. This case was a good example of that. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have not done much, except for administrative review hearings in the context of defending clients accused of impaired driving, as well as a few probation revocation hearings, for private clients, prior to becoming District Attorney. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Most of my experience, prior to becoming District attorney, strictly involved litigation, as most of my clients did not have the resources to attempt both arbitration/mediation, as well as litigation, in the event of unsuccessful alternative efforts. I did infrequently counsel divorce clients in mediation. I acted as local counsel in a single instance of formal mediation of a civil dispute, with former-judge Patrick Fiedler, acting as the mediator. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have only participated in my own campaign, for my present term, as District Attorney. I ran unopposed, in 2020, so I did not engage in much of what would be considered campaign activities. To the extent campaign activities were conducted, I did them all. Previous runs for public office: District Attorney – Crawford County, elected November 2020 Public offices to which you were appointed or elected: District Attorney – Crawford County, appointed and then elected, January 2020-present All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Have you ever been party to a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff or a defendant? Shortly after my admission to the bar, circa 2010, I was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, in Winnebago County, for my drunken part in an altercation with my then-wife, and her sister. I took, and continue to take, full responsibility for my disorderly, irresponsible, and regrettable behavior. I entered into, and completed, a diversion agreement that involved participating in counseling, for several months. As a result, the case was dismissed, without entry of a conviction. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Grant County Bar Association, president, 2014-2015 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In my practice, prior to becoming District Attorney, I did not engage in what I would consider formal pro bono work, but I often took clients and represented them, as their circumstance dictated, knowing, from the outset of engagement, that I would be compensated less than fully. To the dismay of some of the partners, at the firms for which I worked, I never fully embraced the practice of law as a business-person, and never lost the, too-often youthful, idealism of law as a means to help people, more than as a means to build financial stability or accumulate wealth. I never considered the size of a client's fee-deposit/retainer, in determining the scope, or extent, of the services I provided them. Early in my tenure as District Attorney, colleagues would ask how I liked the position, and I often offered that I enjoyed, inter alia, not having to track my hours and being able to disregard the financial aspects of a private legal practice. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin, and specifically, the people of Crawford County, as a judge, because I believe they deserve a judge who cares about their community. I first made Crawford County my home, when I began my appointment as District Attorney in January, 2020. Honestly, I was slightly apprehensive about moving to Crawford County because, in the surrounding area, including neighboring Grant County, where I was raised and had practiced law for the preceding 9 years, Crawford County was often, mostly jokingly, derided as being a less refined or sophisticated place. I have found those, again mostly, though not entirely, facetious derisions to be well off-base. My neighbors and contemporaries, here, are amongst the best people with whom one might hope to associate. I aim to be, hopefully as judge, a fixture in the Crawford County community for the rest of my career. To the extent that some of the specific quarrels with Crawford County’s criminal justice culture had merit, I have worked hard with local authorities to correct and improve the deficiencies I’ve encountered. It would be disingenuous of me to disclaim my own ambition as a basis for my desire to become a judge. A judge is, I believe, close to the pinnacle of this profession. I have studied and practiced the law earnestly for essentially my entire adult life, and I am motivated and aspirational, by nature. As District Attorney, for nearly the past 5 years, I have become acquainted with the local legal community, and as such, I believe that I am well, and perhaps uniquely, suited to foster a manner of continuity that I believe will be helpful to the continued function of our court system. To this point, I have been a member of Crawford County’s Treatment Court Program, which was in its relative infancy when I became District Attorney. The program has grown, during my involvement, and I am pleased to say that it is in a more robust, functional, and productive state than it was when I first became involved. That said, treatment courts are a relatively new, and unquestionably delicate, institution. I believe that a transition of my role, in that program, will facilitate the program’s endurance and growth. Most of all, I want to become the judge in Crawford County because I have a deep sense of commitment to the law as a societal bedrock. I am confident in the breadth and depth of my legal knowledge, as a foundation for the rigors of running the only circuit court in the county. I feel a sense of obligation, to both the law and to this community, and I welcome the challenge of fostering the continuation of, and improvement to, a fair and just system legal system here. 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. Though it has, perhaps, become a cliché, in response to similar questions, I believe that Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), has, of any case issued in the past 25 years, had the most significantly deleterious impact on the manner in which elections are conducted, and even the manner in which elected offices have, subsequently, come to be executed. I take little issue with the decision, on its basic merits; however, its import is undeniable. The rapid expansion of spending on all manner of elections, in the wake of Citizens United, has impacted the political and social discourse, in this State, and this country, to an extent that I don’t expect was fully anticipated. In that regard, I believe it serves as a solemn reminder that judicial decisions often reach far past the interests of the litigants before a particular court. While judges certainly have a duty to decide the cases before them, I believe it also important that judges and justices give earnest consideration, to the fullest extent possible, to how their decisions might play out, in the real world. I believe that to be a commentary endorsing judicial restraint, rather than activism. The most recent contest for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court serves as an example. In the race for that seat, over $50 million was spent, in total, including over $20 million, by the candidates, themselves, a sum more than quadrupling the spending, by candidates, in the preceding election*. The influence of the often unclear sources of these expenditures is readily apparent. In that election, candidates, in ways, and to an extent, not previously seen, disregarded the long-standing principle of restraint in expressing opinions, and positions, on matters before, or likely to come before, the court. This has, in my estimation, eroded some of the foundational integrity of our courts. I firmly believe that those seeking, or seated on, courts have a duty to avoid even the appearance of having pre-judged any matter that jurist might be called upon to decide. While I recognize that contemporary funding of these races encourages, and in some respects even seems to mandate, broadcasting such explicit positions, I feel that those seeking judicial positions have a duty and obligation to refrain from succumbing to the temptation that has arisen from Citizens United. The positions subsequently taken, and proliferated, by PACs were, I think, easily conceived and expected; however, it is unfortunate that the same response now seems to be the norm for candidates. As to the contemporary manner in which elected offices are executed, Citizens United has led to far too many legislators, executives, and thankfully, to a lesser extent, judges, seemingly engaging in constant politicking, rather than simply performing the duties of the offices they hold. There is no simple remedy to the present state of affairs, short of significant campaign finance reform. That being unlikely, the proper path forward may simply be a renewed, and perhaps redoubled, commitment to basic principles of integrity that are consistent with the foundations of our governmental institutions. *See, e.g., “Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Cost Record $51M,” at https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-2023/7390-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-cost-record-51m, (last accessed 5/27/24). Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Three of the judges I most admire include the three, before whom, I have most regularly appeared: recently retired, Judge Robert P. Van de Hey, Judge Craig R. Day, and Judge Lynn M. Rider. I count myself lucky to have been able to practice before such competent and prudent judges. By presiding over the vast majority of the cases I’ve handled, they have each played a role in my continued development as a lawyer and as a man. Each has done so in different ways. I am sincerely humbled that each of them so willingly endorsed my application to the bench. Judge Van de Hey had been on the bench for over 10 years when I first began my regular practice in his courtroom. I was initially, and continued to be, throughout my career, impressed at his expansive legal knowledge. He represented, and indeed he was, a judge who was never confused, or flummoxed, by even the most esoteric legal particularities. I have now practiced law for just slightly longer that J. Van de Hey had, when he was first appointed to the bench, and, throughout my career, I have considered his apparent expertise in all substantive areas of the law as an aspirational exemplar. Judge Van de Hey had a notably calm and reserved demeanor, on the bench, that I always found impressive, and which he always maintained, even when the proceedings before him occasionally became abnormally contentious or disordered. Judge Day is, frankly, the judge who I believe has most impacted my development as an attorney. He has done so by being a judge who clearly conveys his simple, and basic, expectation that lawyers, practicing in his court, do so efficiently and proficiently. I have often heard fellow lawyers complain, of Judge Day, as intimidating and overbearing, often, in terms that decorum demands I not repeat, here. I have never found that to be my impression, of him. He demands lawyers be prepared, concise, competent, and respectful – all qualities that good lawyers should aspire to possess, in abundance. Judge Day is also a thoughtful, intelligent, and eloquent man, and he takes care to explain his decisions, from the bench, clearly and comprehensively. That benefits the parties and the lawyers who practice in his court. I have a great deal of respect for Judge Rider, and I have a somewhat unique relationship with her, in large part due to the fact that I practice, in her court, nearly every day that she holds court. We have a unique professional relationship, being the lone judge and sole prosecutor, in a small county. We have worked together in Crawford County’s Treatment Court, as equals, which I believe is to her significant credit. Apart from her fairness and competence, I most respect Judge Rider’s compassion and empathy. She regularly make clear that she cares about the litigants, in her court, apart from the circumstances that brought them there. I try to emulate those qualities in my current practice, and hope to do so from her bench. The proper role of a judge: It may be a bit trite, but I believe, a judge is a shepherd of the law. In performing the, perhaps, primary task of hearing and deciding cases, a judge has a duty, above all, to fidelity to the law. A judge has a duty of impartiality and an obligation to ensure justice and fairness for the litigants who appear in that judge’s courtroom just as importantly, but only, in turn, to his duty to the law. Judges certainly have the authority, and in some instances, the obligation, even, to creatively apply the law to cases the judge hears; however, a judge must take care to never stray too far from the law’s strictures, in the judge’s endeavor to see that justice is done. A judge must be a willing and eager scholar. Our law is so voluminous, and ever-changing, that, as judge, one must accept that an adequate understanding requires continuous study. A judge cannot become complacent in his, or her, own grasp of the laws, procedural and substantive. In this regard, a judge must also be humble and willing to accept the law’s application, in various controversies, that may be presented in creative and perhaps novel ways. A judge must carefully entertain the law’s application, as may be suggested by litigants, while gauging the application against that judge’s own base of knowledge. A judge has an obligation to oversee, and direct, the procedural application of the law. That duty may be no more true, or expansive, as it is in a single-judge county. This requires a judge to supervise the conduct and performance of the court’s clerks and staff. I have gleaned that this is a delicate undertaking, and as such, a judge must be understanding of the personalities involved. A judge must be a leader, and set the tone, so to speak, for the entire legal community, in that judge’s jurisdiction. I have found that my own style of leadership, is by example. That requires integrity in a judge’s personal, as well as his professional dealings. A judge must set expectations for all who work and transact in the judge’s court, if that court is to function as designed. I firmly believe that a judge can, and should, play a significant role in the development of the members of the bar. Judges can do so by setting clear expectations and demanding quality work, through preparedness, professionalism, and candor. A judge must be patient, calm, and reserved, even under circumstances where the judge’s clear expectations are not met. This is perhaps most true in a judge’s dealings with unrepresented litigants. A judge has an obligation to promote free access to the court and, when dealing with unrepresented parties, a duty to help them navigate the complicated legal process. Judges can, and must, do this without giving advice or hinting at prejudgment. Finally, a judge must be a bastion of integrity. Particularly in a small community, like Crawford County, the judge never ceases to exist in his professional capacity. "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: Douglas J. Hoffer
Appointed to: Eau Claire County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Phoenix (online), Madison, Wisconsin High School – Verona Area High, Verona, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2013-present – Deputy city attorney, Eau Claire, Wisconsin June 2010-September 2013 – Associate attorney, de la Mora & de la Mora, Elm Grove, 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 U.S. Supreme Court General character of practice: I work as an in-house attorney for the City of Eau Claire. This position involves a diverse general practice that provides legal advice to the city council as well as every city department. My practice includes litigation & appellate law, employment law, real estate development & land use law, municipal prosecution, election law, public records & open meetings law, ordinance drafting, contract drafting & negotiating, labor law, and various other areas of law. Describe typical clients: For the last 10 1/ 2 years I have exclusively represented the City of Eau Claire. Prior to joining the City of Eau Claire I worked in private practice where I served as the Assistant Village or Town Attorney for five communities, and represented private clients primarily in litigation and matters involving land use law. Number of cases tried to verdict: 100+ 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: 1) Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131. ("Voters I") This case involved a civil lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty challenging both the constitutionality of tax incremental financing ("TIF"), and the standard of review for civil lawsuits challenging city council legislative determinations. I represented the City of Eau Claire in the circuit court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court in this case. In addition to being the primary writer on all briefs in this case, I also presented oral argument in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case had the potential to impact billions of dollars of economic development projects statewide. The State Bar of Wisconsin named the Wisconsin Supreme Court case, which was decided in the City of Eau Claire's favor, one of the 10 most important cases of 2018. I believe this was the first case the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty lost in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs in this case were the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Oral argument for the Plaintiffs was presented by Rick Esenberg. 2) Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019) (Amicus) The case examined the legality of warrantless blood draws of unconscious individuals arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. I wrote an amicus brief in this case in front of the United States Supreme Court. The parties argued the case should be resolved under the doctrine of implied consent. My amicus brief argued the Supreme Court should resolve the case under the doctrine of exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court resolved the case applying the exigent circumstances doctrine, and reached a decision similar to the result I advocated for in my brief. The State of Wisconsin was represented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Gerald Mitchell was represented by Andrew Hinkel. 3) Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2021 WI App 36, 960 N.W.2d 628 (Unpublished) ("Voters II") This case involved a civil lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty challenging the City of Eau Claire's use of tax incremental financing and arguing whether whether the common law statute of limitations applies to lawsuits challenging city council legislative determinations creating TIF districts. I succesfully represented the City of Eau Claire in front of the circuit court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The circuit court granted the City of Eau Claire's Motion to Dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. I was the primary author of all briefs and presented oral argument in front of the circuit court in this case. I believe this was the first case in which the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty lost at the Court of Appeals and did not file a Petition for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Rick Esenberg was the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in this case. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have worked on labor and employment matters before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). My practice involves serving as in-house counsel to the City of Eau Claire. I provide advice to the city council and all city departments in various areas of law. I have worked on labor matters before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and regularly refer matters for mediation or diversion. 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 Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Judge Sara Harless, Eau Claire Circuit Court, 2018 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Municipal Mutual Insurance Company, board of directors, 2021-present Group Health Cooperative of Eau Claire, board of directors, president, 2015-present Chippewa Valley Museum Foundation, board of directors, president, 2016-2022 American Cancer Society, State Leadership Board, 2017-2018 State Bar of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program Committee, 2013-2016 Brookfield Rotary, president and member, 2012-2013 Waukesha County Bar, Young Lawyers Division chair, 2010-2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In addition to the volunteer service mentioned elsewhere in this application I regularly provide pro bono work in the State Bar of Wisconsin's Wills for Heroes program, have served in various responsibilities for the last 10 years on my church's leadership councils, have spent countless hours volunteering for Scouting America, Junior Achievement, the Wisconsin high school mock trial tournament, and many other causes. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: There are a number of reasons why I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge. First, I believe service is an important way to demonstrate my gratitude. Second, I find public service fulfilling. Lastly, I believe my experience and temperament will allow me to do this important job well. Growing up my dream job was being an attorney, but that dream would not have occurred without the help I received along the way. I was a participant in the Head Start program. I received free lunches throughout my time in elementary, middle, and high school. I was 31 years old and had a family when I started law school, and received various government benefits that made law school attendance possible. Throughout my life I had teachers and others that made time to mentor me. I am grateful for all of these programs and all of the people that I have helped me in my life. Finding ways to serve others is an important way I can express gratitude for all that has been done for me. Serving others is not just about giving back, but is something I truly enjoy. My career in public service, and the extensive time I spend engaged in public service in my free time are not entirely altruistic. Instead, the choices I make to serve are also based on the fulfillment I feel in helping others. I believe I will find the work done as a circuit court judge personally fulfilling. The work of circuit court judges is often hard and thankless. I believe my experience and temperament will allow me to do this important job well. Good judges are tireless students of the law that have empathy for those appearing in front of them. The diverse nature of my legal practice, and the volume or articles I’ve written and presentations I’ve given demonstrate how much I enjoy studying the law. The extensive time I spend engaged in public service in my private life demonstrates how much I care about helping others. I’m excited about the opportunity to serve as a circuit court judge, and I believe I will do the job well. 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. A case that I believe had a significant negative impact on the people of Wisconsin is Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022 WI 64, 403 Wis. 2d 607, 976 N.W.2d 519. In Teigen the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Wisconsin law did not permit absentee-ballot drop boxes, and also did not permit a voter’s agent to return a voter’s absentee ballot. The Supreme Court’s final decision is not the only part of this case that negatively impacted the people of Wisconsin. While the case was pending, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided not to extend a stay of the circuit court decision. This case negatively impacted voter access, the administration of a fair election, and public confidence in the courts. The February 11, 2022 decision made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court not to extend the stay of the circuit court decision created confusion and turmoil for municipal clerks. Many communities without a spring primary sent out absentee ballots ahead of this decision and had to scramble to follow up with voters. The rules and procedures for the primary were different than the rules and procedures for the April election. Decisions had to be made reprinting ballots with different instructions (a choice that would impact some communities’ ability to meet other statutory deadlines). As the primary attorney in the Eau Claire City Attorney’s office that advises the municipal clerk on election law matters, I saw firsthand the disruption, confusion, and difficult choices this decision created for municipal clerks and other election officials. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s final decision in this case had similar negative impacts. The Court’s decision prohibiting voters from obtaining assistance from third parties in returning absentee ballots did not consider the impact of this decision. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin later permanently enjoined this portion of the decision because it violated the Voting Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently granted review on other issues addressed by this case. Voting is a fundamental right. Decisions that make it more difficult to exercise this right should carefully weigh the impact of such decisions on voters, the people charged with administering elections, and public confidence in the courts and other government institutions. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Among the many judges or justices I admire are former Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Janine Geske, and former Elm Grove Municipal Court Judge Tim Steinle. I admire Chief Justice Abrahamson for the intellectual rigor and clarity of her opinions. Chief Justice Abrahamson’s opinions always provided sufficient discussion and support so that a reader understood how she reached her decisions. By providing a clear understanding of how she reached her decisions, Chief Justice Abrahamson helped lower courts and litigants clearly understand what the law was. Her opinions’ clarity and intellectual rigor also helped lower courts and litigants understand how to apply her decisions when their cases involved factual differences. As an advocate that appeared in front of Chief Justice Abrahamson three times I was grateful for the glimpse her opinions provided into her understanding of the law. I admire Justice Geske for the important work she has done in promoting restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution. The growth in alternative dispute resolution has saved time, saved money, increased satisfaction in how cases are resolved, less damage to relationships between the parties and many other benefits. The growth in restorative justice has resulted in reduced post-traumatic stress for crime victims, reduced reoffending rates among offenders, and often better overall results. These results would not have been possible without Justice Geske’s efforts. I admire former Elm Grove Municipal Court Judge Tim Steinle because of the way he approached cases. Judge Steinle was very knowledgeable on litigation topics, was meticulously prepared, and always treated individuals in his court with respect. The professional way in which he attended to his duties, as well as the humanity he brought to the role had a profound impact on me as a young attorney. Additionally, Judge Steinle’s approach provided litigants with confidence that they had a fair opportunity to have their case heard. If given the opportunity to serve as a circuit court judge I would strive to emulate the qualities of Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice Geske, and Judge Steinle I described above. The proper role of a judge: Judges have a number of important responsibilities in overseeing the judicial process. First, judges ensure that cases are handled in a fair manner consistent with the law. Proceedings are fair when each side is provided a sufficient opportunity to make their case, decisions are based only on relevant facts, and the law is applied in a reasonable, consistent, and fair manner by a judge who has put in the necessary effort to understand the legal issues. When the law is clear judges apply the law even when a decision contradicts their own policy preferences. When the law is not clear judges must do their best to reach reasonable results consistent with the law. At the same time, judges must understand and consider the practical consequences of their decisions. Second, I strongly agree with President Obama’s opinion that good judges have empathy. This does not mean that judges should not be objective, or that judges can disregard clear legal mandates when they disagree with them. Instead, an empathetic judge understands that how they handle their responsibilities impacts real people, and their decisions reflect practical considerations. Good judges make sure that attorneys, litigants, jurors, and others involved in the judicial system understand how decisions were reached. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed