|
"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. Bold type within italicized answers comes from the original 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: Toni L. Young
Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 30, 2023, to term ending July 31, 2024 (running on April 2, 2024 ballot for a six-year term) Education: Law School – Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan (now Western Michigan University Cooley Law School) Undergraduate – Grambling State University, Grambling, Louisiana High School – Armijo High, Fairfield, California Recent legal employment: October 2009-February 2014 – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin March 2014-February 2015 – Judicial clerk, State of Hawaii Judiciary, Wailuku, Hawaii March 2015-April 2016 – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin April 2016-January 2020 – Staff attorney, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Janesville region, Wisconsin February 2020-present – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin May 2021-present – Local attorney manager, Janesville region (Rock, Green and Lafayette counties), Wisconsin State Public Defender Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: (No answer) Describe typical clients: In my criminal practice I represent the client that has been marginalized, disenfranchised, or just simply abandoned. It is my goal to provide clients with fervent representation. I listen to my clients and advocate for them to reach the goals that we set together. I intentionally seek to represent clients that have had attorneys that have withdrawn from their cases. Until recently, I never in my eleven year career withdrew from a case (with the exception of a forced withdrawal due to conflict or when a client has asked me to withdrawn). The instances of when a client has asked me to withdraw are roughly about 10 clients. In most, if not all, of those cases the client asked me to reinstate my representation after the withdrawal. I have worked on over 800 cases. To date, I have only withdrawn from one case in eleven years of practice. I also work as a Guardian ad Litem. In my role as Guardian ad Litem I have many responsibilities. Injunctions/TROs: As GAL I Interview all parties to determine if there is merit to the Petition and I report my findings that to the Court. Child Welfare Cases (Adoption, Chips, TPRs): As GAL I have an understanding of ICWA and WICWA and apply the Law Accordingly. I work with various agencies to achieve permanency goals for the child. I advocate for timely permanence for the child(ren) that I represent as GAL. Absent a compelling reason or circumstance, if a child is out of home 15 or the most recent 22 months, following through on the presumption that exists that the agency and state must file for termination of parental rights; I investigate, write and state my report on the record with my recommendation to the court to assist with final Court orders for permanency goals. As GAL, there is an expectation that I be prepared for trial or to litigate contested matters and proceed accordingly with an understanding of the rules of evidence and trial procedure. Guardianships, Protective Placement of an Adult: As GAL I review paperwork associated with the WARD'S case (Petition for Guardianship and Petition for Protective Placement, Statement of Act(s), Examining Physician or Psychologist's Report, Comprehensive Evaluation, Healthcare and other advanced directives, etc.); I send written notices to the WARD, I speak with the WARD and explain the WARD'S rights to him or her, I read the Petition and Physician's report to the WARD. I draft a report for the court inclusive of my impressions and opinions. I consider the "least restrictive” means for placement consistent with the needs of the Ward. I gather additional documentation as needed, such as, additional medical records. I interview the Proposed Guardian (and standby guardians) to determine their fitness. I prepare written reports and call witnesses when the hearing is conducted. Number of cases tried to verdict: 6 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State of WI v. HC 2016CM0753 (Kenosha County) My client was charged with Ct. 1 Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse, Repeater: and Ct. 2 Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse, Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Repeater. Although the two charges were Class B misdemeanors, due to the enhancers, my client was facing a tremendous amount of Prison time. Further, he was on supervision for Strangulation Suffocation with a repeater enhancer for which he was facing a revocation hearing. There was video of the altercation. The claim by the state was that my client had a knife and was being threatening and causing a disturbance. This was the classic story of he said she said. There were several flaws and inconsistencies in the complaining witness' statement. The criminal complaint stated that the officer reviewed a video provided by the complaining witness and he substantiated her claim of what happened during the altercation. I watched the video, reviewed the witness statements, our investigator interviewed the parties involved. I did not believe that the video captured what the complaining witness stated, nor was I able to understand why the officer stated that the incident occurred as the complaining witness described-- the video did not match her narration. The reason this case is significant is that a Jury was asked to decide my client's guilt or innocence. Not the police and certainly not the complaining witness. After hearing two sides of the same story with the truth somewhere in the middle, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on both counts, which subsequently resulted in my client not being revoked and not being sentenced to Jail; he was released from jail within a few days of his trial. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: During my employment with the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office, I have represented over 75 defendants that were facing revocation of their probation or extended supervision. During these hearings I examined witnesses both on direct and on cross examination. I am experienced with practicing according to the Division of Hearings and Appeals Wis. Statutes. 35.9, specifically Chapter HA 2 and HA 3. I am well versed in the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections Manual-- Chapter 10 entitled "Revocation. I am equally versed in the Resource Handbook for Community Supervision Revocation Hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I am a certified mediator. I worked as a student intern while in Law School as a mediator for civil matters. Since practicing law, I have mediated several family matters prior to my employment with the Public Defender's office. While working for the Public Defender's office, I suspended my mediation practice. Having returned to private practice, I am working to expand my mediation practice to include both family matters and CHIPS and Terminating Parental Rights (TPR) matters. I have an upcoming mediation for a TPR. As a mediator, I serve as a neutral third party to facilitate the discussion surrounding a dispute. I firmly believe that alternative dispute resolution, both mediation and arbitration, are exceptional vehicles by which to give civil litigants a resolution to their dispute. Mediation is generally voluntary therefore litigants are more likely to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome when parties negotiate their own settlement. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Angela Cunningham, 2021 Judicial Race, Kenosha County Circuit Court Branch 6 (Kitchen cabinet member) Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Jodi Meier, Kenosha County judge, 2016 Angela Cunningham, Kenosha County judge, 2020 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Alpha Kappa Alpha, 1991-current, including committee work on human trafficking Rotary, 2008-2010 Racine County Bar Association, 2010-2013, 2020 Milwaukee County Bar Association, 2010-2016, including Modest Means committee Wisconsin State Bar Association, 2015-2016, including Modest Means committee Wisconsin Association of Mediators, 2020 NAACP, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2020, including Legal Redress committee Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I developed a Mock Trial program for one of the local neighborhood centers, John Bryant Community Center. The young girls that I worked with would likely never have been chosen for the statewide Mock Trial program. Not because they were not smart enough, but because they did not have the contacts or connections that other students may have had. I exposed them to a legal career in the law. The participants wrote their own fact pattern for the mock trial, which allowed them to exercise their writing skills. Most importantly they "played" all of the characters in the fact pattern, which I believe encouraged development of public speaking skills. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a Judge in Kenosha County because our judicial system is under attack. Since I was a very young girl, I've admired our judicial system. No matter the infirmity we suffer or the kinks in the armor, our judicial system still remains the best system in theory. In practice however, we are tattered and torn and broken. There are many reasons for the malfunctioning of our system. I realize I am just one person and if appointed I would not be able to address a fragmented system alone. Being aligned with other Judges that are seeking to ratify the wrongs in our Judicial System in Kenosha County would lead to a restorative outcome. I'm reminded of what is sure to be one of the most notable quotes of our time, a statement by President Barack Obama, "Whatever you do won’t be enough, try anyway." Justice reform begins with one, then two, then fifteen, then hundreds; I'm elated that Governor Evers is working tirelessly to recalibrate our judicial system through Judicial appointments in favor of the people that it is called to serve. I'm reminded of something that renowned Attorney Bryan Stevenson stated, "the opposite of poor is not rich, it is justice." I want to be a Judge so that I may serve the citizens of Kenosha County in effort to standardize and attune our judiciary to its greatness—a greatness defined by a justice system that is impartial and equitable in practice and not just in theory. 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. Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 590 U.S. (2020) The Bostock case was recently decided in June 2020. Essentially, in each case, an employer fired employees simply for being homosexual or transgender. Gerald Bostock, an employee with Clayton County, started participating in a gay recreational softball league. His actions were deemed to be "conduct unbecoming a county employee," and he was subsequently fired. Donald Zarda worked for Altitude Express in New York, he mentioned that he was gay and was fired a few days later. Aimee Stephens presented as a man when she was interviewed and hired, she was fired after telling her employer that she was "going to begin to live and work as a woman." Each employee sued their employers for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with various legal strategies in pursuit of a decision by the Court that their Employer discriminated against them on the basis of sex. In Gerald Bostock's case the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay, the Court went on to say, "therefore the Bostock case could be dismissed as a matter of law." The US Supreme got this one right Holding: "An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. (a) Title VII makes it "unlawful... for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Justice Gorsuch (delivered the opinion of the Court), joined by Justices: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting were Justices: Thomas, Kavanaugh and Alito. The most notable words in the opinion are ''Only written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefits." Too much is left to subjective interpretation when we try to resolve what the "intent" of the drafters meant. Adhering to the written word of law disqualifies a more subjective interpretation that comes from trying to figure out the drafter's 'intent." The examine what "discriminate" meant in 1964 and concluded (sadly) that it roughly means what it means today "to make a difference in treatment or favor." It would be an extraordinary society when we get to the point when that word is a vague memory and people struggle to define it, when it becomes an "urban legend," or an archaic term like "adverse possession." The Supreme Court in Bostock did an amazing job at analyzing and observing that "the people are entitled to rely on the law as written, without fearing that courts might disregard it plain terms." Having the correct balance on the bench ensures the rise of spirited debates; it is essential to getting to equitable results. This case is important to the citizens of Wisconsin because it is another guidepost for what is discriminatory practice. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The three Judges/ Justice that I admire the most are: Judge David Bastianelli (Kenosha County, Branch 1, Retired), Judge Jon Fredrickson (Racine County, Branch 7, 2018-Present, and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren (United States Supreme Court 1953-1969). Judge Bastianelli is a Judge that I would pattern myself after. He is a superior example of who and what a Judge should be. His demeanor was steady, he ruled with an even hand and he was well versed in the law. He was extremely stern in a stoic way and fair. He understood the most complex issues of law; he listened intently and allowed attorneys for make their legal arguments. He was never afraid to admonish an attorney for what were inequitable practices before his court. He did not prefer one side of the "v" over the other. He allowed adversaries in court to be just that without taking sides; he refrained from being a "two against one" kind of Judge. I respect him most for his command of the law. It was astonishing to me how brilliant he was while balancing equity. There were some Attorneys or Parties that felt he sentenced too harshly. His rulings ALWAYS made sense to me; likely because he explained his rulings impeccably. His courtroom was maintained competently and efficiently. I distinctly remember getting into a verbal battle with Judge Bastianelli, he allowed me my row; but the moment he told me to "knock it off Counsel." I knew to contain myself. My colleagues mentioned that they thought I was going to keep going and ultimately end up being held in contempt. I have such a great respect for the bench and in particular Judge Bastianelli that when he ended my pontification I knew that it was time to stop talking; he allowed me enough time to speak on the record and he allowed me to do so with enough indignation to zealously represent my client.. Neither of us ever crossed the line of disrespect. My most memorable interaction with Judge Bastianelli is when he called me to his chambers to say to me what will likely be the most cherished comment that anyone will say to me. He told me "You should consider being a Judge." He went on to explain why, and he provided me with brief guidance and mentorship. His deep booming voice coming down from on high was never filled with blustering or nonsense, it was always rooted in equity and the law. I have the highest respect for his rulings from the bench. Judge Fredrickson is a Judge that I hold in high regard. I find him to be empathetic and patient. He is always prepared for court and basis his rulings on pr per procedures, statute and/ or case law. People are facing the most difficult times in their lives when they go before a Judge. He always finds a way to leave them with their dignity even when he is ruling against their personal interest(s) or position(s). He seems to be very aware of various demographics and their individual experiences. He interacts within the case and the issues at hand from a level of sensitivity that is very intentional. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren had the characteristics of what we now call "progressive." When I think about Justice Warren, I am reminded that we are remiss as Attorneys (and Judges) when we coward and shy away from making the very difficult and equitable decisions, and instead align with what is prevalent unjust choices: oppressing the already disenfranchised. He could have a lived a life very comfortably situated behind his privilege. Instead he was a trailblazer; he was an innovator of change. He was the Chief Justice and wrote the majority decisions many landmark cases such as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which as you know banned segregation in public schools; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requiring that criminal defendants be informed of their right to remain silent and to be represented by a lawyer; and Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage. The decisions he wrote in these cases were life altering but it is sobering to read the dissents in these cases as well. It is a reminder that without Judges and Justices like Warren, we are left with the dissent that could very easily (and has) become the majority in these types of cases that seek to abridge the rights of the poor and minorities. I admire Justice Warren for forging forward with an ideology that was very unpopular with his contemporaries. The proper role of a judge: A Judge has a multifaceted role. A Judge's role is tantamount to a referee. Not to diminish the sanctity of the Judiciary, but it is a great analogy. Webster defines referee as "(noun) an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play." The proper role of a Judge is to listen to the evidence, make appropriate rulings during the course of a trial or proceeding, and issue legally sound decisions and orders of the court. A Judge in Circuit Court has to preside over a hotchpotch of cases ranging from Family, to Criminal Misdemeanors and Felonies and everything in between such as guardianships, CHIPS/TPR, Juvenile, and an assortment of Civil cases. Judges are also presented with affidavits upon which a warrant is being sought by law enforcement. It is the role of the Judge to review an affidavit with discernment to ensure that the privacy rights of a citizen are not being abridged based on mere conjecture; there must be articulable facts and the Judge holds law enforcement to that standard. Judges, at times are called upon to vote for the use of implements such as the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. The assessment determines the scale of an offense committed by a juvenile; for instance if a child has committed a technical violation or status offense, such as running away or truancy, they may fall below a certain score on the assessment and they will avoid jail as a result of their score. This tool is being successfully used in Milwaukee and LaCrosse. The Judges in Racine County voted against implementing the tool; however. there were three judges that did vote for the use of the tool. The three judges were not enough to carry the vote to majority. Months after the vote [redacted] committed suicide in a jail cell in 2017. It is reported that she was arrested for running away from home, it is always reported that she had been a victim of human trafficking. While in jail, she committed suicide. I believe if the Judges in Racine were called to vote now—after this tragic event, they would have likely vote in a different manner; or at the very least, a balance in who is voting will change the outcome. The position of a Judge is not a role that should be taken lightly or seen as a novelty or something to brag about — or be treated as an opportunity to berate attorneys and citizens. I think the very challenging job of having to permanently affect a person's life should be done so unpretentiously and with grave and solemn care. A Judge should read every document and pleading that comes across their desk with discernment, prudence, and with a spirit of equity. "Equity considers done that which ought be done" quoting Maxims of Equity.
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: Jorge R. Fragoso
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 18, 2023, effective Nov. 4, 2023 (term ending July 31, 2024) (running unopposed in April 2024 election) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana High School – Homer Hanna High, Brownsville, Texas Recent legal employment: April 2021-present – Defense attorney, Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, Milwaukee, Wisconsin September 2016-March 2021 – Appellate attorney, defense, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Milwaukee, Wisconsin January 2012-September 2016 – Trial attorney, defense, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Waukesha, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Illinois State Bar General character of practice: I am an attorney in a well-regarded, mid-sized law firm founded over fifty years ago. I predominantly practice criminal law. My practice is evenly divided between trial and appellate cases, though I sometimes practice in other fields as well, including white collar defense, investigations by the Wisc. Dept. of Children and Families, Title IX, restraining orders, etc. Before joining GRGB, I spent almost five years as an appellate attorney for the Public Defender's Office, where I handled criminal appeals, as well as juvenile cases, CHIPS cases, protective placements, and termination of parental rights cases. I began my career as a trial attorney with the SPD in Waukesha County, where I worked for four years. I represented adults in criminal prosecutions, and I was a member of the drug and alcohol courts. Describe typical clients: I represent people who work hard to pay my legal fees. These people are often blue collar workers who are looking for the best defense they can afford. Before that, I defended indigent clients for nearly a decade. About 20-25% of my clients have been native Spanish speakers with little to no English language skills. I have specialized in cases involving research, writing, and litigation, including at the trial and appellate level. Number of cases tried to verdict: One as lead counsel, four total 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: My first argument before the Supreme Court happened on November 5, 2018, mere weeks after my first daughter was born. It was a challenging case that had been assigned to an experienced attorney shortly after I transferred to the appellate division of SPD. I was appointed as co-counsel so I could observe him and learn about juvenile cases, but he moved out of state shortly after I joined the case and I took on the case myself. The case—a state’s appeal from a decision by Judge T. Christopher Dee—was complicated. It involved the reinstatement of a juvenile delinquency proceeding after a juvenile had been found not competent and his JIPS case had lapsed. . . . (T)he decision, written by Justice Rebecca Dallet, was handed down on March 7, 2019. The decision was unanimous and was not in our favor. This case taught me a lot about a narrow area of the law, but more importantly, it made me realize that I could take on a difficult case, figure it out on my own, and become so familiar with the material that I could represent my client in front of the state’s highest court, even though it was the first juvenile case I had ever worked on. In February 2021, I was on the verge of winning a postconviction motion hearing in the courtroom of Judge Janet Protasiewicz. The case was almost 10 years old at that point, and my client had been in custody for its entirety. He was due to be released three years later. By then, this case had gone up to the court of appeals and back two times. We won the appeal the second time it went up, and Judge Brash remanded the case for a Machner hearing. The hearing went well, and it seemed clear the defense was headed for victory. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Protasiewicz brought us into chambers to let us know that she would be granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial unless we were willing to come to an agreement on the case. The state’s prosecutor . . . refused to make an offer that did not involve a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence, so my client was left to choose between risking a trial that could result in adding at least 13 years to his current sentence or waiting out the remainder of his sentence. He chose the latter, and after fighting the case consistently for ten years, he withdrew his postconviction motion. This case stands out to me as an example of the power of the prosecution. My client probably had a good chance of winning a trial, but when faced with the possibility of spending an additional ten years in prison, he chose not to take that chance. In February of 2022, I argued a motion to dismiss before Commissioner Daniel Rieck in Waukesha County. The state’s prosecutor . . . filed a long complaint on behalf of a wealthy family claiming that the house my client was gifted by the family’s deceased patriarch was obtained fraudulently. They claimed that she had tricked him into buying her a house and that he was too old to make that kind of decision with his own money. What stood out to me about that case was the way in which my client talked about the deceased man. She seemed to be the only one that saw him as a full and flawed person rather than just a benefactor with a high net worth. She had spent a lot of time with him before he passed away, and even though he was difficult at times and she was made to suffer by his family, she was very fond of him. She was also someone who had struggled with money her entire life. She was eccentric and did not live in the county. The man’s family was wealthy and well-established in the county. The commissioner really went out on a limb finding that the state had not borne its burden and dismissing the case. In May of 2022, Judge Bohren agreed and affirmed the judgment of dismissal on de novo review. The case was officially dismissed, and the dismissals were not appealed. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: For the most part, my experience in adversary proceedings before an administrative agency involves the revocation of supervision for clients convicted of criminal offenses. I have represented a client before the Dep't. of Children and Families, and I appealed a pro bono case in which a couple of prisoners challenged the restitution garnishment policies Dep't. of Corrections. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Most of my non-litigation legal experience involves negotiating with prosecutors. I have also appeared at medical licensing hearings and represented clients during an SEC investigation, a Title IX investigation, and an investigation by the Dep't. of Children and Families. I've worked on drug and alcohol courts and volunteered with the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic. In law school, I helped interview inmates at an ICE immigration detention center. 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: n/a Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Milwaukee Young Lawyers Association, member, 2021-present Milwaukee County Bar Association, member, 2020-present Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, member, 2019-2022 Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic, volunteer, 2017-2022 Big Brothers, Big Sisters, volunteer, 2015-2016, 2021-2023 Waukesha County Bar, member, 2015-2016,2021-2023 Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, member, 2012-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I wrote the Respondent's Brief in Victor Ortiz, Jr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2020AP1394 and Jacquese Harrell, Sr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2020AP1601. Ortiz and Harrell were granted relief in the circuit court, and the state, by the Department of Corrections, appealed. The court of appeals reached out to Attorney Jason Luczak to brief the issue on behalf of the respondents, and he accepted the pro bono appointment. I was the lead writer of the briefs. We won in the court of appeals, and the state did not seek review by the Supreme Court. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Milwaukee County because I know that I can do an excellent job. I have over ten years of experience at the trial and appellate level, which has uniquely prepared to serve as judge. I want to be part of a court that treats people with dignity and works on behalf of the people it serves. Because of my formative experiences, I am well-positioned to do this. I have always been motivated to stand up for marginalized people. I was raised in Matamoros, Mexico, a mid-sized city on the border with South Texas where extreme poverty is ever-present. I spent the first five years of my school-aged life crossing the border every day to attend a Catholic school in Brownsville, Texas. I was raised in a Catholicism molded by the precepts of liberation theology and Catholic Social Teaching that had spread throughout Latin America. During the pandemic, a retired teacher from my former school regularly carted books across the border to hold classes for asylum-seeking children. That is the type of role model I had growing up. I moved to Brownsville at age 8 and enrolled in public school. The freshman class of my public high school had over 1,100 students, but only 500 of us graduated. I left Brownsville to attend the University of Notre Dame, but I did not lose sight of how privileged I was to graduate and be able to attend a good school. At Notre Dame, I became involved with the Center for Social Concerns, and through them, the Center for the Homeless, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, and the Catholic Worker House. These experiences involved close contact with marginalized groups, and they informed my views. Working as a public defender was the culmination of these experiences. Every day presented an opportunity to show people respect and dignity where they may not expect it. I loved going to the courthouse every day and interacting with people from all socio-economic backgrounds, from clerks and bailiffs to prosecutors and judges and jurors and indigent clients. Leaving my job in Waukesha was difficult, but I knew I wanted to sharpen my legal skills. I learned to write and think through cases at the Milwaukee Appellate office. It was a tremendous opportunity. When I went to Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown in 2021, I was a much better writer and a much more confident attorney than when I arrived in 2016. In my years at GRGB, I’ve learned a lot about providing a thorough defense that leaves no stones unturned. I have worked on a variety of cases beyond criminal, and I have been given the opportunity to spend meaningful time on each case. I have also had the assistance of a fantastic support staff and the counsel of several attorneys with decades of experience. I’ve learned a lot from all of them. I want to be proud of the work that I do. I want the court to maintain its legitimacy and to protect the values I hold dear—e.g., voting rights, fair maps, strong public schools, people’s right to health care and privacy, a less vindictive criminal justice system—from encroachment by a legislature that seems determined to demean the state’s urban areas. I want my work to serve the people of Milwaukee County, and I know I can do a great job. 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. Before June 24, 2022, I would have said that Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were the U.S. Supreme Court cases that most severely impacted the people of Wisconsin in a negative manner. They gutted the two most powerful weapons of the Voting Rights Act: preclearance for new voting changes in jurisdictions that have historically suppressed the vote of minority groups (Shelby County) and the results test targeting voting legislation that produces discriminatory results (Brnovich). In between these two, SCOTUS passed on a great opportunity to fix Wisconsin’s gerrymandered maps in Gill v. Whitford, but it refused to consider UW Law School professor Bill Whitford’s strong argument that the map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Instead, it decided the case on the issue of standing. After June 24, 2022, the clear answer is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade, thereby allowing states to outlaw abortion. In Wisconsin, Dobbs may have activated Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban. For context, Zachary Taylor was president, and women were not permanently allowed to vote in Wisconsin until seventy years later. The questions and uncertainty around this issue led to a nearly 100% decrease in the number of legal abortions performed in the state following Dobbs. By all indications, people seeking abortions in Wisconsin have had to visit a surrounding state for abortions. Minnesota, which was not even admitted into the Union at the time Wisconsin legislators passed the abortion ban, has seen a 35% increase in abortions since Dobbs. As if that weren’t bad enough, Dobbs has called into question the entirety of the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence. Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, called for a reexamination of the right to birth control and same-sex marriage. He even suggested the ban on criminalizing same-sex sexual relations should be reconsidered. Such drastic measures would likely worsen the Court’s crisis of legitimacy and weaken its standing with the American people. It’s no surprise the dissenting opinion, jointly written by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, ended with a lamentation: “With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.” Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Republican presidents have appointed 19 of the last 25 SCOTUS justices. All but two have been staunchly conservative. Thus, the SCOTUS writing I have admired over the course of the past 50 years is in dissent. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg bore the burden most often in the nineties and early 2000’s. Justice Ginsburg described this responsibility as follows: Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, “My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.” But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Interview with Nina Totenberg (May 2, 2002). Justice Sotomayor has taken the role of the dissenter to heart, and I deeply admire her for that. She is a very persuasive writer, and she knows how to frame issues and highlight facts that are overlooked by the majority opinion. Through her dissents, she has been chronicling the right-ward slide of the court in a manner that will hopefully provide breadcrumbs for future societies looking for their way back. In Mullenix v. Luna, she called out an officer’s “rogue conduct” after he “fired six rounds in the dark at a car traveling 85 miles per hour … without any training in that tactic, against the wait order of his superior officer, and less than a second before the car hit spike strips deployed to stop it.” In Glossip v. Gross, which upheld the use of the sedative midazolam for lethal injections, she chastised the majority for “deferring to the District Court's decision to credit the scientifically unsupported and implausible testimony of a single expert witness; and second, by faulting petitioners for failing to satisfy the wholly novel requirement of proving the availability of an alternative means for their own executions.” In Utah v. Strieff, she recognized a reality that is often overlooked in police encounters, saying that “[a]lthough many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more.” Justice Sotomayor is writing directly to our moment, and I admire her for that. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has had a number of justices whom I deeply admire and respect, among them Justices Shirley Abrahamson, A.W. Bradley, and Louis Butler. However, it is Justice Rebecca Dallet that has started writing the kind of dissents that Justice Ginsburg advocated and Justice Sotomayor writes so well. In a recent dissent, she took apart a concurring opinion by Justice Hagedorn in which he argued in favor of originalism. She argued that the originalism proposed by Justice Hagedorn would undermine significant rights that most people take for granted, including the right to unsegregated education, same-sex marriage, and virtually all rights of women and racial minorities, as these rights would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify on originalist grounds. I admire these jurists for remaining singularly focused on justice, even when in the minority. The proper role of a judge: On a day-to-day basis, the proper role of the judge is to treat people with dignity and respect, to make orders in accordance with the law, and to explain his decisions on the record. In the aggregate, the proper role of a judge is to uphold the constitution, to enforce the normative values of his constituents, and to ensure the people’s liberties are protected from the impulsive whims of a counter- majoritarian and unrepresentative legislature. People need to know that large, powerful, civic institutions like the court are working on their behalf and are not held captive by dark money interest groups. To that end, the proper role of the judge who is confronted with a hastily written law that limits the rights and invades the privacy of the people of Wisconsin is to approach the law with skepticism. Whether the law limits the rights of pregnant people to have medical care or of LGBTQ+ people to live their lives without unnecessary interference by the state, a judge should be open to hearing challenges to any new law that severely restricts people’s rights and, when faced with a close call, should err on the side of protecting the liberty interest of those he presides over. I believe a judge should have an overarching goal when it comes to incarceration and the protection of the public. When the legislature abolished the parole board and instituted truth in sentencing, the courts were infused with a mandate to exercise additional control over the amount of time defendants spend in prison. I believe we need to send fewer people to prison, and we need their prison sentences to be shorter. Sending one person to prison disrupts multiple lives in the community, and we should be more careful about how we cause those disruptions. I believe that the certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than severe punishment, and I believe we will not heal the ills of society by incarcerating more people. There are competing interests at hand and no easy solutions. However, the proper role of the judge involves taking a position on these issues and being mindful of the court’s responsibility to exercise additional control over the amount of time defendants spend in prison. Finally, the proper role of the judge involves recognizing the inherent advantage that repeat players have and listening with empathy and humility. Many of the people who access the court are indigent and unrepresented. They are novices within the system, and they lack the communication skills and social signifiers to show the court that they are doing the best with what they have got. They deserve a judge who will listen to what they have to say. "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: Ann M. Peacock
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 2, 2023 (term ending July 31, 2024) (running unopposed for reelection in April 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Platteville High School – Whitefish Bay High, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2019-present – Unit director, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin March 2018-March 2019 – Deputy unit director, Wisconsin Department of Justice January 2009-present – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice September 2003-December 2008 – Associate, Foley & Lardner, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. District Court-Minnesota (admission pro hac vice) General character of practice: I have been a civil litigation attorney for 20 years. In that time, I have been lead counsel for hundreds of civil cases in state and federal courts. My litigation experience has involved all potential stages of a case. In my current role as Unit Director of DOJ's Civil Litigation Unit, I manage a 45-position unit with a high-volume caseload in a diverse range of practice areas, including civil rights, employment, eminent domain, administrative law, higher education law, torts, medical malpractice, subrogation, worker's compensation, and open government. Each year, the Civil Litigation Unit opens approximately 2,000 new matters, including approximately 850 court cases. In overseeing this work, I make strategic and efficient decisions in assigning and monitoring litigation of the matters. Describe typical clients: During my employment at Foley & Lardner, I focused on commercial litigation and employment law. My clients in those cases were typically businesses and employers. During my employment at DOJ, I have focused on civil rights, torts, and employment law. My clients in those cases are typically state agencies and state employees who have been sued for acts or omissions within the scope of their employment. Number of cases tried to verdict: I have tried approximately 20 jury trials to verdict. 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: Counts v. Schneider, et al., ED Wis. Case 2013-CV-0518 My role: Lead counsel for defendants Dates of involvement: 02/2014-08/2018 Brief description of involvement: I litigated the case from service of the complaint to jury verdict. Litigation included significant discovery, summary judgment filings, and pretrial filings. At trial, I conducted several witness examinations and gave the closing argument. Significance: This was a complex federal jury trial that included a dozen witnesses and sophisticated plaintiff’s counsel. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. Allgood v. Hert, et al., WD Wis. Case 2017-CV-0812, ED Wis. Case 2019-CV-0832 My role: Lead counsel for defendants Dates of involvement: 1/2018-03/2019 & 6/2019 Brief description of involvement: I litigated most of the case as the only defense counsel on the case. I was reassigned to the case just before trial. At trial, I conducted several witness examinations and gave the closing argument. Significance: There were several logistical challenges necessitating attorney reassignments and a last-minute change of venue. I volunteered to be lead trial counsel less than one month before trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. May v. Heschke, ED Wis. Case 2018-CV-1452 My role: Co-counsel for defendants Dates of involvement: 6/2021-7/2021 Brief description of involvement: At trial, I conducted several witness examinations and gave the closing argument. Significance: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the sole defendant. I used this trial as a training opportunity for a new Assistant Attorney General. He has since successfully served as lead trial counsel in at least five jury trials. This case was also significant because it was one of DOJ's first post-COVID trials and included logistical challenges. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have litigated employment law matters venued in the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Equal Rights Division and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In the last five years, I have worked with Wisconsin Department of Justice staff and state agencies to settle approximately 300 cases. As part of that work, I have participated in scores of mediations with magistrate judges and other mediators. 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: n/a Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Western District of Wisconsin, Merit Selection Panel, June-July 2022 Wisconsin Judicial Council, Evidence and Civil Procedure Committee, 2016-2018 Western District of Wisconsin Bar Association, president, vice president and secretary, 2015-2018 Seventh Circuit Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Section 1983 Subcommittee, 2012-2017 Girl Scouts of Badgerland, product sales coordinator, 2014-present, and troop leader, 2014-2019 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: While in private practice from 2003-2008, I worked on cases for the Wisconsin Innocence Project. One major case I worked on was State v. Chaunte Ott. I started the Wisconsin Innocence Project investigation of the case while I was a law student in the fall of 2001. When new DNA evidence was disclosed to the Wisconsin Innocence Project in 2007, I assembled a team of attorneys at Foley & Lardner to work on the post-conviction motions as co-counsel with the Wisconsin Innocence Project. We filed briefs in the circuit court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. In December of 2008, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. Mr. Ott, who had been serving a life sentence for homicide, was released from prison and the District Attorney's office dropped the charges. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: It has been my privilege to serve the people of Wisconsin for the last 14 years, and my appointment as a judge would be a further extension of that service. I am passionate about making positive differences in the lives of others. In my current role, one of the ways I do that is by using fairness and compassion as guideposts in my interactions with clients, colleagues, and adversaries. However, my ability to make positive differences is necessarily constrained by the adversarial nature of litigation. I want to use my guideposts of fairness and compassion to their fullest potential, and I believe that service as a judge will allow me to do that. Another reason I am interested in being a judge is the intellectual challenge of learning different areas of law. While in private practice, I focused on commercial litigation and employment law. During my first ten years at the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I focused on civil rights, torts, and employment law. In my current role as Unit Director of DOJ’s Civil Litigation Unit, I have expanded my legal knowledge and skillset to many other areas: eminent domain, administrative law, higher education law, medical malpractice, subrogation, worker's compensation, and open government. As a judge, I would embrace the opportunity to continue to learn new areas of law and to interact with more members of the legal community. 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 of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. has negatively impacted the people of Wisconsin in innumerable ways. Many United States Supreme Court decisions have minimal impact on the day-to-day life of the general public. Dobbs is not one of them. I see the impact on physicians who cannot use the entirety of their training and expertise to treat their patients. I see the impact on friends who have endured compounded levels of trauma by being forced to carry non-viable pregnancies for several more weeks because of the overbooked schedules of medical providers across state lines. I see the impact on friends who are members of marginalized groups and are justifiably anxious about what other rights may be hanging on by the slimmest of margins. And I see the impact on my teenage daughter who wonders why women are suddenly unable to make their own medical decisions. The emotional, physical, and financial impacts of Dobbs will continue to be felt by a significant portion of Wisconsin’s population until we are again at a place where timely and comprehensive medical care is available to everyone, regardless of their gender. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Judge Barbara Crabb on several levels. I first met Judge Crabb when I interned in her chambers during my third year of law school. She is brilliant, kind, and down-to-earth. She was not elitist, but rather worked with her clerks as a team. When we drafted legal opinions, she took the time to provide constructive criticism that we could then use in future first drafts of opinions in similar cases. After finishing my internship, I took her lessons and put them into practice. Before her retirement, I was lucky enough to litigate dozens of cases in front of Judge Crabb. Her courtroom demeanor was second to none. She ran her court with efficiency, fairness, and patience. The legal analysis in her written decisions was both complex and clear. It was a privilege to work in Judge Crabb’s chambers and to appear before her as an attorney. I also admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Few of us currently practicing law can envision a time when the gender of a top graduate of a top tier law school precluded the graduate from easily securing a position upon graduation. Fortunately, Justice Ginsburg was persistent and her subsequent appellate work in the 1970s resulted in several groundbreaking victories for women’s rights. After her confirmation to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg continued to serve as a role model for aspiring attorneys and she continued to develop the law by authoring watershed opinions that extended women’s rights. Put simply, Justice Ginsburg was instrumental in laying a solid foundation for future generations of women. Without Justice Ginsburg and others like her, my daughters would not live in a world where they do not second-guess their ability to strive for any career of their choosing. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to render fair and impartial decisions after thoroughly reviewing the law and considering arguments of the litigants. Participants in the court system are often at one of the lowest points in their lives. Even if a litigant does not get the legal result they are seeking, litigants should feel seen and heard. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is at a critical juncture, it is imperative that judges take the time to listen and fully consider the import of the words they choose in both open court and written opinions. With respect to a judge’s role in presiding over hearings and trials, it is important for a judge to be prepared by reviewing applicable filings before the start of the hearing or trial. Preparation preserves finite court resources and leads to more robust legal analysis. A judge’s role during hearings and trials should be to maintain order and to ensure that only proper evidence is admitted. When rendering decisions in both court proceedings and written opinions, it is the judge’s role to consider the arguments of the parties, to interpret the law, and to apply the law to the facts of the case. In undertaking all of their judicial tasks and rendering impartial decisions, a judge should operate with fairness and compassion as guideposts. I will bring those guideposts to my service as a judge if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to the bench. "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: Mark G. Schroeder
Appointed to: Outagamie Country Circuit Court Appointment date: March 19, 2021 (elected to a six-year term on April 5, 2022) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Associate – Mid-State Technical College, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin High School – Lincoln High, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: May 2014-present – Family Court commissioner, Outagamie County, Appleton, Wisconsin March 2011-May 2014 – Assistant corporation counsel, Outagamie County March 2003-May 2011 – Assistant district attorney, Outagamie County Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Immediately after law school my practice was primarily civil litigation in nature while I worked with a firm then called Coyn Niess Schultz Becker & Bauer in Madison. That firm specialized in insurance defense in personal injury, medical malpractice, and worker's compensation cases. While there I also represented a few clients who were plaintiffs in personal injury cases and contractual disputes on an occasional basis as those cases came into the firm. I left that practice in part due to a desire to move into a criminal legal practice and in part due to my own experiences working in an industrial setting where coworkers were injured and on one occasion killed and my resulting personal discomfort with defending woker compensation cases. I spent a little less than nine years in criminal practice as a trial prosecutor, maintaining a primarily felony caseload for all but the first few months of that period. I spent two of those years as a sensitive crimes prosecutor working on sexual assault and child abuse trials and the balance prosecuting violent or weapons related offenses. During that time frame I participated in somewhere between 40 and 50 jury trials and was in court nearly every day. In 2011, I took a position in the Outgamie County Corporation Counsel's office, where my practice consisted of representing the County in civil litigation, mental health commitments, guardianships, child support enforcement, collections, while providing legal advice to the County Executive, the Sheriff and various county officials. During that time I was in court nearly every day. I also appeared on behalf of the County in both the Court of Appeals and on one occasion before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Since 2014, I have served as Family Court Commissioner. I preside over family law cases, civil injunctions, small claims actions, guardianships and mental health commitments. In the past seven years I have presided over thousands of contested post judgment family law hearings and evidentiary hearings in civil injunction cases. Describe typical clients: My typical clients have ranged from insurance companies and their insured parties during my civil practice early in my career to the State of Wisconsin and Outagamie County during my years in the public sector. As a prosecutor I had frequent contact with victims of crimes, and while they were not my clients, I did often represent interests that mirrored theirs as I represented the interests of the State of Wisconsin. My areas of specialization have changed over the years as I moved into different practice areas. As a prosecutor I initially specialized in sensitive crimes prosecution and then violent and weapons related offenses, as well as conspiracy cases related to violent or weapons related offenses. While I was in the Corporations Counsel's office with Outagamie County, I specialized in mental health committment cases both at the trial level and on appeal before the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I also advised county officials in municipal law issues. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 45 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: Mental commitment of Melanie L. – 12AP99, 2013 WI 67 - Court of Appeals Dist. III, Wisconsin Supreme Court …. While I was not involved at the Circuit Court hearing, I handled the case befor the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The issue on appeal was whether the County had met its burden of proof regarding the involuntary medication order at a hearing to extend an existing commitment. I drafted appellate briefs before the Court of Appeals without upheld the involuntary medication order. I also drafted briefs before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and appeared for oral argument on February 26th, 2013. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals on a 4-3 vote and attempted to clarify the evidence necessary and the evidentiary standard trial courts should apply in determining whether to issue an involuntary medication order. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the involuntary medication order. That case, and its progeny, have helped clarify for counties and committed persons the circumstances in which medication may be involuntarily administered. This cases is routinely cited by counsel and courts since it was issued and was relied upon by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as recently as October 2020. Diane M. Stumph vs. Oneida Tribe – Outagamie Case No.: 15CV1036…. This case was a harassment injunction petition brought by Ms. Stumph against the Oneida Tribe as a corporate entity, specific agencies for the Tribe including its Police Department, its Zoning Department, as well as individual officials with the Tribe including zoning officers and police officers. While harassment injunction cases are extremely significant to the litigants themselves they are rarely complex or significant from a legal perspective. In this instance, however, the Petitioner sought to enjoing the Tribe and officials of the Tribe from engaging in activities they were otherwise authorized to engage in on the allegation that the Petitioner, while she owned property within the bounds of the Oneida Reservation, was not a tribal member and was therefore not subject to tribal regulations. The case continued over multiple hearings and required repeated rulings on summary judgment motions brought on grounds ranging from procedural jurisdictional defects to sovereign immunity. It also ultimately involved analyses of whether the Tribe had unintentionally waived its sovereign immunity defense, whether Petitioner had modified the ownership structure of her business specifically to avoid regulation by the Tribe, and if so, whether that action was timely and effective for that purpose, and whether the specific officials named individually were acting in a personal or official capacity during their interactions with the Petitioner. Over the course of multiple hearings the cases against individual Respondents were dismissed on varied grounds on jurisdictional defects, summary judgment at the close of Petitioner's case, and then ultimately on my conclusion that the Tribe had not waived its sovereign immunity, that it had the authority to issue zoning orders against the Petitioner's business property, and that the individuals named were acting in their official capacities rather than as individuals. My decisions were upheld on appeal. Mental commitment of Michael H. – 2013AP1638, 2014 WI 127.… I represented Outagamie County before the trial court and the Court of Appeals in this matter which again went on for review before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Court in this matter attempted to clarify the evidence required for a person to be found "dangerous" pursuant to Wis. Stat. s. 51.20, and area of law it continues to attempt to develop and clarify as recently as this year. I prepared and submitted briefs for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals which then upheld the decision of the trial court. While the case was pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court I began preparing briefs for that Court. I was appointed Family Court Commissioner before the briefs were finalized and filed and the case was taken over by a colleague in the Corporation Counsel's office. Over the course of the next few months I consulted with co-counsel on a repeated basis as he revised the briefs I had begun preparing and in anticipation of oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Court ultimately upheld the trial court and Court of Appeals. This case continues to be cited by courts and counsel on issues of dangerousness in mental commitment cases. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While in civil practice early in my career I appeared before Administrative Law Judges in worker's compensation cases on several occasions from 2002 - 2003. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I participated in court ordered mediation sessions related to ongoing civil litigation involving Brown County during a period where I was employed by their Corporation Counsel's office in 2008 before returning to criminal practice in Outagamie County. As Family Court Commissioner in Outagamie County, I serve as the department head and supervisor of the Family Court Services office with the county, which administers and conduct mediation processes in family law actions. During my time in the Outagamie County Corporation Counsels office I participated in various non-litigation legal activities including advising county officials, employees and in the negotiation and administration of Intergovernmental Agreements, parliamentarian work for the County Board, and appearing before administrative boards and agencies related to the County's involvement in Intergovernmental Agreements. 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: Jeff Froehlich, Calumet County judge, 2012 Edmund Jelinski, Winnebago County judge, 2011 Edmund Jelinski, Waupaca County judge, 2014 Carey Reed, Calumet County judge, 2021 Greg Gill Jr., Court of Appeals, 2021 Christian Gossett, Winnebago County district attorney, 2006 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Family Court Commissioner’s Association, 2014-present, including as president Family Law Section Board-State Bar of Wisconsin, 2016-present, board member and Legislative Committee member Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I manage a free legal clinic for unrepresented family law litigants in Outagamie County. As part of that work recruit and attempt to retain attorneys and paralegals for the clinic, schedule clinic sessions, reserve meeting space and perform other administrative duties for the clinic. In addition, my service on the Family Law Section Board includes meetings and work on weekends and off hours, including written and occasionally in person testimony before the legislature since 2016. Why I want to be a judge: I went to law school with the intent to work as a public servant. At one point I intended to work as a prosecutor for my entire career but when life intervened, I looked for other ways to help and serve the people in my community with the skills I’ve been given. While I am not an Outagamie County native, I have resided there for a period of 18 years and come to see it as my home, and I believe my life experiences provide commonalities with the people of various parts of my adopted home county. Like the residents of the various Outagamie County townships, I grew up in the country and lived in farm country as a child, bailing hay and picking apples for spending money as a teenager. Since 2003 I’ve lived in Appleton, the County’s largest city, near the same city park where residents come to use the public pool in Summer and sled down hills in Winter. After high school I attended a tech school not unlike Fox Valley Technical College in Appleton, and I worked swing shift in a plant for a few years afterwards to support my family, not unlike what many Outagamie County residents have done for generations in places like Kimberly and Kaukana. While I am now an attorney and a Family Court Commissioner, I believe those life experiences, provide me with experiential insights into the lives of those that come into my courtroom every day, and that insight would serve me well as a judge. It has been my great honor to serve the people of Outagamie County for the past 18 years in various ways, and it would be a culmination of decisions I made all those years ago to continue that service on the Circuit Court bench. I believe my legal experience in various areas of the law leaves me well qualified to serve the county well as a judge in ensuring access to the court system and a fair and impartial application of the law to those cases that come before me, consistent with the manner in which I preside over hearings as Family Court Commissioner. 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. While there are many cases that come to mind that I’ve relied upon and come to value as I studied and practiced law since 2002, the case I’ve chosen was a source of joy for many in Wisconsin when it was decided, including for close friends of mine whose commitment to each other was affirmed as a function of their constitutional rights in April 2015. Obergefell v. Hodges 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), relying and expanding on the legal principles underpinning the decision in United States v. Windsor 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), ruled unconstitutional any ban on same sex marriage that remained in the United States. My observation of the impacts of that decision come second hand, but it deeply affected people that I care about and others all across the State of Wisconsin. In 2010 my wife and I attended the wedding of one of our dearest friends whom we have known since our days in High School in central Wisconsin. There was a ceremony at a place of worship, a dinner and a reception, similar to the dozens of weddings I’d attended before. Unlike those weddings, this ceremony, while incredibly significant to our friend and his new husband, was legally meaningless. In the wake of the ceremony, I gave advice to my friend and his husband about legal documents they could execute to try to capture some of the same benefits that legally married couples enjoyed by the mere existence of their marriage. They took some of that advice, but ignored some as well, deeming it too troublesome or expensive to pursue further. Within a few years the issue of same sex marriage and the constitutionality of its prohibition were percolating before the United States Supreme Court first in Windsor and later in Obergefell. There were conversations between my friends and I about which way the Obergefell decision would fall in 2015, and it became obvious to me that while this committed couple did not need the affirmation of others to give their marriage meaning to themselves, there was a fear that came with knowing that the legal validity and recognition of that commitment could be reversed by political forces outside their control. Obergefell ended all of that, and the day it was released became a day of celebration for our friends. As Family Court Commissioner I have had the opportunity to preside over many marriages in my courtroom since same sex marriage became legal in Wisconsin on October 6th, 2014. By sheer numbers, most of the couples who marry in my courtroom could have married long before that date, and for them Obergefell might have little meaning, but for those who could not Obergefell meant they never had to worry whether a move to another state or the next election cycle would render their marriage a legal nullity again. It’s for that reason that I’ve chosen to Obergefell v. Hodges as a case that brought significant positive impact for many in the State of Wisconsin. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I’ll start with Judge Richard Niess, who recently retired from the bench in Dane County after 16 years. I worked for Judge Niess when I first graduated from law school and learned quite a bit from him in that time. When he was appointed to the bench by then Governor Doyle in 2004 I was already living and working in Outagamie County and didn’t practice in front of him. As luck would have it, Judge Niess seemed to repeatedly end up on cases that gained statewide attention and over the years made rulings on topics such as voter ID laws, the need for special elections, the constitutionality of laws passed in a lame duck session in 2018, and massive open records requests brought against state agencies, sometimes by state legislators. Judge Niess handled these cases efficiently and, even knowing appeal was inevitable, issued decisions that were both prompt and well developed. I followed his career from afar based on my experience working in the firm he led after graduation and recognized his voice in his writing. His thinking was incisive and his good humor was evident both in and out of court. Over the years he spoke about how he saw the work of the judiciary that have helped me think more clearly about the manner in which I do my work as a Commissioner: “Just because you believe a lawyer is being unreasonable doesn’t mean that they don’t have a viewpoint that you should consider.” In Family Court the emotional nature of the topics involved are such that it’s not unusual for parties or their attorneys to become heated during the course of their arguments in hearings, and once that occurs it would be easy discount the possibility that aspects of their arguments could be soundly based in fact or law. Reflecting on what he’d say to new judges as he neared retirement, Judge Niess said “the most important thing for these judges to keep in mind is that they are trustees of rule of law,” Niess said. “They are fiduciaries to the public for whom they serve.” This is what I try to make the focus of my work as a Commissioner and what I try to remind myself of when the conduct I see in my courtroom starts to try my patience. When I was a new Associate Attorney in his firm long ago there were a lot of things I tried to emulate in the way Judge Niess practiced law, and, though he was somewhat surprised to hear it when we spoke before his retirement, I found myself doing the same when I became a Commissioner in 2014 and in the years since. The second person I’ll speak about is Justice Thurgood Marshall. As a history major with an interest in law, I spent a good portion of my undergraduate years studying legal history in the context of broader cultural and political history. During those years I, like many, came to admire and be continually amazed by the life and work of Justice Marshall. The impact of his work as an attorney fighting against segregation in schools and elsewhere are both obvious and profound, but his work as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court continued his work as an attorney in recognition of the equal protection clause as more than mere words, but as a fundamental mechanism for limiting attempts by governmental entities to restrict the individual liberties of the people they were intended to serve. I do not agree with all of the legal arguments and analysis that Justice Marshal in his opinions for the court or his masterfully written dissents, but I admire his reason, his legal acumen, his dedication and passion for his point of view and the power of the law to serve as a check on governmental infringement on life and liberty and a guarantor of the rights of the people. The proper role of a judge: It’s a judge’s duty to ensure access to the legal system, to provide litigants with the opportunity to be heard, and to apply the law while maintaining an impartial demeanor at all times. In preparing for this process I consulted with a number of attorneys and others whom I have met in my professional capacity and take great pride in the number of times I’ve been told over the last few weeks that they are unaware what political party, by way of example, I might tend to support with my votes. This demonstrates, I hope, the pains I have taken to maintain that impartial demeanor and exercise restraint in my comments from the bench and in my life since I was appointed Family Court Commissioner in 2014. Additionally, through my supervision of a volunteer legal clinic in Outagamie County and the Self Help Center to assist unrepresented litigants I have tried to fulfill a jurist’s duty to ensure access to the legal system during my time as a Family Court Commissioner. I believe that it is the duty of a judge to exercise restraint in the application of the law and precedent to the cases that come before them instead of taking those cases as an opportunity to try to upend existing law merely because it conflicts with my personal opinion or beliefs. These principles should be and will be the primary directives of my work as a judge should I have the privilege of serving the people of Outagamie County in that capacity. Those directives, however, only go so far, which is something I’ve come to realize over the course of my legal career. In many areas of the law statutory authority and precedent provides factors for judicial officers to weigh, but little or no instruction as to how they should be weighed against each other. An example of that is Wisconsin Statute Ch. 767.41, which lists the factors a court should consider in resolving disputes over custody and placement of a minor child and directs judicial officers to resolve them in the child’s best interests. In doing so, the law provides the judicial officer with a destination, the “best interests” of the child and tells it what categories of facts to consider, but the map on how to get to that destination remains blank. Inevitably, a judge must in those moments utilize their judgment to traverse the space between the legal factors the court must consider to the legal “destination” the law provides. A judge cannot hope for universal approval, but they can and must demonstrate clearly how the law is being applied to limit the chances that the litigants, or the general public, will view the legal process as arbitrary exercises based on the personal beliefs of a randomly selected jurist. "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. Grammar mistakes and 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: Martha J. Milanowski
Appointed to: Vilas County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 1, 2021 (elected to a six-year term on April 5, 2022) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Whitefish Bay High, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2017-present – Vilas County district attorney, Vilas County, Wisconsin September 2000-December 2016 – Vilas County corporation Counsel, Vilas County, Wisconsin January 2000-August 2000 – Tribal attorney, Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Watersmeet, Michigan May 1998-December 1999 – Associate attorney, Johnson and Houlihan, S.C., Rhinelander, Wisconsin Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin State Bar of Michigan (lapsed) General character of practice: As District Attorney, I prosecute violations of state criminal laws, county ordinances, delinquency matters, various referrals from State agencies and also open meetings violations. I work with victims of crime and supervise a staff of five (one assistant prosecutor, three legal secretaries and one victim witness coordinator). My office recieves referrals from five different law enforcement agencies (Lac du Flambeau Police Department, Vilas County Sheriff, Eagle River Police Department, Wisconsin State Patrol and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). I am a member of the Zaagiibagaa Healing to Wellness Court, a diversion court and collaboration between the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and Vilas County Circuit Court, which meets weekly in Lac du Flambeau. Describe typical clients: I've been in the public sector for the majority of my career. Most recently I've focused on criminal prosecution. Before being elected as Vilas County District Attorney, I handled Vilas County's legal matters for over 16 years (legal counsel to the County Board and all its departments, child protective services cases, guardianships, mental and drug/alcohol commitments, zoning, child support). I worked for the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians for just eight months in the year 2000 as their attorney (I left for a more stable position closer to home), where I provided legal counsel to the Tribal Council/Tribal government and practiced in their Tribal Court. Finally, as a young lawyer I spent almost two years as an associate with a civil litigation firm where I worked for three partners assisting them with research, depositions, arguing motions and preparing for trials. Number of cases tried to verdict: 5 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: Vilas County v. Accola, 13CV152, 2014AP2688 This was a zoning enforcement case in which the Court of Appeals upheld the Circuit Court's decision that short-term rentals of single-family dwelling units located in a single-family residential zoning district (R-1) were unambiguously prohibited under the terms of the County's zoning ordinance. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review. With the vast number of lake homes in Vilas County that also serve as second homes, the ability to rent was, and remains today, a contentious and important issue. The R-1 district is the County's most restrictive in terms of uses permitted and was the district in which the defendants' large lake home was located. Defendants were renting their home weekly, neighbors complained, the enforcement action followed. After many depositions and a motion for summary judgment, the County prevailed. It was a victory for local government and for property owners who value the residential character of their neighborhoods. However, it also provided a framework for the County to create additional zoning districts that allow certain types of rentals in a residential area, which was in my opinion a very appropriate response to this litigation. State v. Kyle Austin, 18CF15 Vilas County Circuit Court This case involved a knifing that occurred at a bar in Vilas County. I was the prosecutor on the case, which was ultimately tried to a jury. The victim intervened in a fight late one night at a bar (where many were drinking alcohol, however victim was not). Victim was stabbed by the defendant and almost lost his eye sight. My victim witness coordinator and I spent much time with the victim while the case was pending and we ended up getting a split verdict (not guilty of the substantial battery, guilty of disorderly conduct). This was my second jury trial as DA, the first one with a victim. The jury found that the defendant was justified in using self defense against the unarmed victim (as to the substantial battery). While I knew the risks associated with going to trial and had regularly talked about this with our victim, we put on the best case we could and had to trust the jury to get it right. While it was disappointing, I went away knowing that I did the best I could and that this is how the justice system is supposed to work; our victim was grateful for the effort and and for closure (he was also compensated by the Crime Victim Compensation Office for his injuries thankfully). State v. Jeremiah Solis, 17CF235 Vilas County Circuit Court In this case, the defendant, a 19 year old man with little criminal history, was convicted of Homicide by Negligent Handling of a Dangerous Weapon. I handled the case from charging decision through sentencing. The victim was also a 19 year old man, a son and brother. He was shot over Labor Day weekend in 2017 in Eagle River at an apartment where he had been hanging out with some friends, one of which was the defendant who decided to bring his newly purchased hand gun to show off. The group had been smoking marijuana that evening. The case was resolved by plea agreement, and the defendant was given an imposed and stayed prison sentence and put on probation with a year in jail (I was capped at recommending only what the presentence investigation recommended, which was exactly that). From charging decision through sentencing, this case challenged me, given the tragic and completely avoidable loss of life, and the fact that the victim's parents were hoping for the maximum sentence. On the opposite side of the courtroom we had a defendant's family who was hoping for leniency, and a defendant who never intended to kill his friend but made a horrible decision that night. I was subject to much criticism throughout the case, on both sides (not altogether uncommon for a DA). I received a thank you card from the victim's mother on Mother's Day the year following her son's death; I keep that card on my work bulletin board as a reminder of the important work we do on behalf of victims. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: In my first position as an associate attorney I represented employees in workers compensation hearings/appeals, and as Corporation Counsel I represented Vilas County in unemployment compensation hearings and harrassment/discrimination hearings before the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Prior to Act 10 Vilas County had five unions, all of which had contracts. I was involved in both arbitrations and mediations as the County's legal counsel in matters of union negotiations/bargaining and grievances. I also was involved in mediations when I was in private practice as an associate with Johnson & Houlihan, as they would try to resolve many of their cases through mediation (personal injury). Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A Previous runs for public office: Vilas County Corporation Counsel, appointed, September 2000-December 2016 Vilas County District Attorney, elected 2016 and 2020 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Eric Toney, Wisconsin Attorney General, 2021 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Tri-County Bar Association, June 1998-present; CLE organizer, 1999 North Woods Land Trust, founding board member, 2001-2004 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have been a member of St. Peter the Fisherman Parish in Eagle River for over 20 years, and during that time I have served on their parish council including serving as council president and have also volunteered as a catechist and led a committee to create policy on safe and sacred environments. Throughout that time I have been a reader and a musician (both cantor and pianist/violinist/violist) and I volunteer at community events through the parish's social outreach committee. I also volunteered as a youth soccer and baseball coach during my kids' elementary school years and for the past 10 years. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Applying for this judicial appointment is not a decision I take lightly. I am only in the first year of my second term as Vilas County District Attorney and in many ways I feel I have so much more to accomplish. However, timing is not something one can always control and after much careful consideration I have decided to throw my hat into the mix. After dedicating the majority of my career to serving the citizens of Vilas County, becoming the judge of my County would be an honor and an opportunity to serve Vilas County citizens in a way that requires the highest level of lawyering - having the final say when difficult decisions have to be made. A judge holds the responsibility to impart justice each and every day and her decisions not only affect individuals in sometimes life-altering ways, they affect the community as a whole. My 23 years of legal practice have led me to the point where I am ready to serve in that role. Those who know me, both professionally and personally, know that I am understanding, fair, and committed to serving the good of the community. If appointed, I will use my extensive legal and life experience to make decisions that follow the law and promote justice in the court in the county I first called home in 1992 and have remained in since, other than my three years in law school. As corporation counsel for Vilas County, I was involved in many Chapter 51 civil commitments involving mental health, drug and alcohol struggles. That background can only assist me further given the interplay of these issues in many of the cases that come before the court, both in civil and criminal actions. The Court needs to address the underlying issues that contribute to many individuals finding themselves before the court, and incarceration is often not the solution. With two judges, Vilas County could look to establishing a Circuit Court-attached diversion court to further effectively address some of these issues, something that has not achievable in this one-judge county. I would work toward that effort. My experience in both civil and criminal court will lend itself well if I am to take the bench, and my legal and analytical skills along with a strong work ethic will make me a quick and eager study in the few areas of the law in which I have not practiced. As District Attorney, I advocate for the community and public safety, seeking justice in each and every case. As a judge I would be the final gatekeeper of justice, holding the responsibility to follow the law and impact the lives of all who come into contact with the Court, maintaining impartiality all the while. Throughout my career, I have always been an active listener, to my clients in private practice, to the County Board members and department heads, to victims, law enforcement officers, defense attorneys and citizens. I have always tried to proceed in whatever I'm doing by following the law and trying to achieve a just result, problem solving and in the case of criminal cases by achieving justice for the community as whole. As a Vilas County Circuit Court judge, I could continue in that fashion, using my good judgment, fairness and integrity in imparting justice from the bench. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 WI 99, had a significant impact on the people of Wisconsin, and depending on who you ask, the decision was both celebrated and chastised. As legal counsel for a county government at the time of Act 10 and the subsequent litigation that it brought about, I watched this case closely as it had significant ramifications on both staff, HR management and County government in general. This was a divisive and controversial decision that upheld then Governor Walker's legislation regarding public sector unions and collective bargaining. The decision created incredible tension throughout the State, tension that was already present in 2011 at the time the legislation was enacted. Teachers and other government employees no longer had collective bargaining and public employers had to quickly react to put into place work rules and policy that had been handled for years by union contracts. This decision was the culmination of a legislative act that tore apart co-workers, families and governments. Proponents of the decision highlight savings that will be realized by governments and taxpayers, however those same governments, including schools and local governments, have now seen challenges associated with employee retention and recruitment due at least in part to the loss of bargaining agreement protections. With the Court upholding Act 10 in its entirety, collective bargaining in the public sector, other than for law enforcement, is tenuous at best, unless it comes back legislatively in the future. By putting an end to the legal challenges to Act 10, the finality of the decision will have a lasting impact on Wisconsin citizens. It greatly changed the landscape for public sector employees and employers alike, and it has strongly changed the conversation in the private sector as well. Ultimately it will have raised more important issues that it resolved. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Shirley Abrahamson Shirley Abrahamson became Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court when I began my second year of law school. Having led the Court until April 2015, she became a role model for me throughout the first decade and a half of my legal career. She was appointed to the Supreme Court when I was six years old so I really cannot remember a time when she was not on the court. It was of course unfortunate to see the end of her service coincide with increased divisiveness and the controversy and subsequent litigation on how the Chief Justice is selected, however that in no way affects the overall impact of her service, her dedication to the law, her energy and enthusiasm, and her leadership on the Court. To serve as a justice for over 40 years exemplifies public service; as a public servant myself, I am very inspired by her career, her contribution, and the fact that she never stopped giving 100% as she got older and entered a third, then 4th decade on the court. She made herself accessible to law students, by teaching an occasional course at the law school. And from what I have read, she did not highlight the fact that she was the first woman justice on the court, she just saw herself as the new justice. Fast forward 45 years and it is no longer uncommon to see women on the court; they now make up the majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She wrote of her judicial philosophy as simply "to examine the facts, the law, and the precedent. You apply the facts to the law and the precedent as you understand them, and you reach a decision." She broke down the complexity of what she did into a very basic, common sense approach. She used that approach in the hundreds of opinions and dissents she authored. She believed in an independent judiciary. She also worked to establish court-related volunteer programs to make the courts more accessible to people and brought high school students into the court to see their operations firsthand. Justice Abrahamson kept her intellectual and physical stamina past an age that many of us would have long since retired. She was essentially relentless with her dedication to the bench, to the law, and to making sure people's rights were protected during her service on the Court. A family member of mine who works at American Players Theater in Spring Green would see Justice Abrahamson at that theater from time to time, attending shows at their outdoor venue. One time she caught the eye of the justice and said that Justice Abrahamson noticed and then winked and smiled right back at her. She truly connected with people, both on the bench and off. Justice N. Patrick Crooks While I never knew Justice Crooks personally, my dad grew up with him and his siblings in Green Bay during the 1950s. When I was in law school, he was running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court; I learned more about him during that time due to my dad's friendship with him. I then had the opportunity to watch him while he served on the State Supreme Court. I came to greatly admire him, his general demeanor, how he became more moderate on the Court, not always predictable, and how his swing vote impacted many of the Court's decisions. When I was admitted to the Bar back in June of 1998, my dad was by my side and moved for my admission separate from the group of students being sworn in. When he did so, Justice Crooks, who was right in front of us, waved his hand and said, nonchalantly, "Hi Ralph," as if we were at a friendly small gathering between friends. That experience made the Court real to me. While Justice Crooks certainly got involved in some controversial matters during his tenure on the Court, his overall service as a justice remains admirable to me. He struck me as somewhat of a peacemaker, maintaining impartiality and striving to apply the law to the facts. The proper role of a judge: At the beginning of each day, a judge comes to work with the potential of making life-altering decisions and the opportunity to make a difference in a person's or a community's life. Ultimately, the judge makes difficult decisions when all other avenues to resolve a dispute have failed. A judge must follow the law, apply the facts to the law, and render his or her decision. At the same time, a judge must maintain decorum in the courtroom, treat all participants in the court system with respect, be fair and administer justice without partiality. When an individual comes into court, they should expect nothing less. Judges may have to reign in an attorney from time to time and must figure out ways to run their court efficiently. In court trials the judge herself must assess evidence presented, while in jury trials they ensure that the case is being conducted following the rules of the court and the rules of evidence and that the jury determines the facts. A judge must be an active listener but must also know when to move a matter along to maintain judicial efficiency. When pronouncing sentence in a criminal case, a judge must fashion a sentence that addresses the proper factors, taking into consideration the statement of the victim, the defense, the State, and using his or her discretion in such a way that promotes the goals of rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, protecting the public, and imposing the appropriate punishment. In turn the hope is that defendants will not find themselves in criminal court going forward but will ultimately return to being productive members of the community. A judge should have reverence for the rule of law and treating people fairly; each case that comes before the Court should be afforded proper attention and respect, from a small claims case to a homicide. Above all, a judge should strive to have all parties, even those who lose, leave the court knowing the rationale for the decision and confident that every effort was made to do justice. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Grammar mistakes and 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: Pedro A. Colón
Appointed to: Wisconsin Court of Appeals-District I Appointment date: June 20, 2023 (effective Nov. 18, 2023, to a term ending July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin High School – St. Thomas More High, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2010-present – Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge January 1999-September 2010 – State representative, 8th District, Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 2007-March 2008 – Attorney, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 1998-June 2007 – Partner, Baxter, O’Meara, Leair, & Colon, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: Prior to my appointment by Governor Jim Doyle in 2010 to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, I was a state legislator for over a decade. During my time in the legislature, I also practiced law representing clients in civil litigation, criminal defense, and employment litigation. Describe typical clients: My clients were typically corporations and individuals in tort and employment litigation. I also represented families purchasing homes and businesses in the Spanish-speaking community. Number of cases tried to verdict: 60-70 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: Since joining the judiciary in 2010, I have served on four judicial rotations, each lasting at least three years. I have presided over various courts, including Children's Court, Small Claims, and General Felony. Currently, I am completing my rotation on the Civil Division, where I serve as Presiding Judge. Every case that comes before my court holds significance. I have endeavored to ensure that both my staff and I present ourselves in a way that is productive and understanding of the difficulties associated with litigation. During COVID-19, the calendar remained working and constant and, along with my colleagues, we were able to keep the courthouse open to litigants. I have recently tried 15 cases in the Civil Division in an effort to reduce the COVID-19 backlog of cases. When in the felony division, I approached the sentencing of defendants in my felony cases with great care, ensuring a thorough understanding of the guiding principles mandated by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that our state's prison population has doubled compared to our neighboring state of Minnesota since the passage of truth-in-sentencing laws by the legislature. In this context, sentencing becomes the most impactful proceeding in criminal courts as it has a significant impact, not only on victims and families, but more broadly on our communities that continue to spend increasing amounts of money on prisons while other important community needs remain stagnant. While at Children’s Court, in termination of parental rights cases where strict limits for decisions are imposed, I provided written decisions that explained my findings after a comprehensive examination of the case record. For probate cases and Chapter 51 commitment cases, I ensured that the County met its evidentiary burden in each instance. When handling Small Claims, I strove to give the parties the most extensive hearing possible. Recognizing that many litigants do not have the benefit of legal representation, I took extra care to explain the court's decision in a manner that they could comprehend, assuring them that the court had provided them with the fairest hearing possible. I am currently the Presiding Judge in the Civil Division. Under typical circumstances, the presiding judge of the division must manage the caseload, new developments in the law and provide procedural consistency to litigants. However, COVID-19 made the presiding judge’s task much more demanding as we faced a backlog of cases, a shortage of court reporters, a shortage of law clerks and the ever changing COVID-19 safety protocols. I endeavored to keep our division focused and, as of now, most of the calendars no longer have a backlog, we expect legal clerks and court clerks to be fully staffed by August (2023). Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have experience representing clients in cases before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division based on age and race discrimination. I have also represented clients before the Social Security Benefits Appeal Board and Board of Zoning for license requests and appeals. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As a judge, I mediated a significant case involving tax assessments by one the municipalities in Milwaukee County. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have been a candidate for office in six partisan and five non-partisan races. Prior to my appointment to the bench, I served in a volunteer capacity on several partisan and non-partisan campaigns for state and local offices. Since becoming a judge, I have remained actively involved in non-partisan state and local races. Previous runs for public office: State representative, District 8, elected 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 Milwaukee County Circuit Court, elected 2011, 2017 and 2023 Milwaukee city attorney, defeated 2008 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Janet Protsiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023 Justice Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Ed Fallone, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Judge Lisa Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2019 Justice Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018 Judge Joe Donald, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016 Alderman Jose Perez, Milwaukee Common Council, 2016, 2020 Alderwoman JoCasta Zamarippa, Milwaukee Common Council, 2020 Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee Mayor, 2016, 2020 County Executive Chris Abele, Milwaukee County Executive, 2016 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: United Community Center, board member, 2012-2021 Divine Savior Holy Angels, board member, 2015-2020 Greater Milwaukee Foundation, board member and co-chair, 2016-present Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, board member and former president, 1997-present American Constitution Society, Wisconsin Chapter B, 2018-present Wisconsin Bar Association, member, 1994-present Milwaukee Trial Judges, board member, 2010-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have participated in many pro-bono cases over my career, particularly in the Latino community, primarily assisting immigrant and Spanish-speaking clients. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: For nearly 25 years, I have served our community: first as a state legislator, then as a Circuit Court Judge. The Court of Appeals plays a crucial role in reviewing cases, ensuring the Constitutional guarantees that in turn define our most significant values as a free and democratic society. I harbor a deep interest in ensuring Constitutional rights for our citizens and a passion for justice. The Court of Appeals allows me to decide cases of precedential value to litigants, lawyers and our community. My legislative and judicial work, coupled with my life experiences, will enable me to interpret the law with a broader lens, ultimately aiding me in deciding the disputes that come before the court. Currently, Wisconsinites appear deeply divided along partisan political lines. These divisions are increasingly brought before the courts for interpretation and decision-making. I firmly believe that applying a traditionalist approach to the Constitutional interpretation of law strengthens our democracy. For the better part of the last 20 years, ideologies such as "Originalism" or "Strict Constructionism" have steered a movement where judges increasingly constrain the courts' constitutional mandate under the guise of historical interpretation. Dispute resolution is now guided less by our shared experiences and more by rigidly applied rhetoric. The parties and the public rely on our courts to provide guidance for peacefully resolving disputes and to abide by laws that are clear and reflect our daily lives. An independent judiciary can only be as effective as the unbiased review provided by non-partisan courts. I am confident that I can contribute to the robust analysis of issues that come before the court. I aspire to serve as an Appeals Court judge because I aim to adjudicate cases impartially, ensuring that the scope of the litigation adheres to precedents set by both the U.S. and Wisconsin Supreme Courts and laws enacted by legislative bodies. This commitment in turn requires the courts to reconcile the current progression of human and scientific understanding and current precedent. The intentions of the Constitutional framers, to the extent we can discern them, are one of the factors, along with science and human development that drive our understanding 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. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Vincent v. Voight, 236 Wis. 2d 588, authored by Justice Crooks, held that “Wisconsin students have a fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. An equal opportunity for a sound basic education is one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.” (Para. 8.) For the first time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized that every Wisconsin child has an equal right to a good education and that the Court will exercise its review authority to mandate that the legislature comply with the Constitutional mandate requiring equal funding between school districts and a free and sound education to every child. This decision exemplifies the struggle for courts to balance the co-equal power structure the Constitution demands. As explained in footnote 2, compliance with state constitutional mandates requires the Court to interpret compliance by the legislature and as such, the Court found that constitutional questions are a “justiciable issue.” Justice Abrahamson’s concurrence/dissent explains a “fundamental principle” of state constitutional law is that the Wisconsin Constitution, in contrast with the U.S. Constitution, is not a grant of, but a limitation upon, legislative power” Id. at para 94, fn. 1. As such, it requires that the Court review legislative mandate informed by compliance of the rights guaranteed in the State Constitution. Without footnote 2, minimal compliance would pass constitutional muster and truncate the court’s efforts to maintain its co-equal function with the legislative and executive branches. In contrast to the positive significance to the balance of power exercised in the Court’s decision in Vincent v. Voight, the decision in League of Women Voters v. Tony Evers, 2019 WI 75, narrows the scope of its review and gives complete deference to the legislature to interpret constitutional requirements holding that “extraordinary sessions do not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the text of our constitution directs the Legislature to meet at times as “provided by law.” The Court reached its holding without regard to legislative practice in our state and omitted consideration of other legislative mandates inconsistent with its conclusion. As Justice Dallet points out in her dissent: Under the majority opinion's reading of Article IV, Section 11, the words "at such time" and "unless" become superfluous because the Legislature could meet at any time. … A continuous two-year session would also render meaningless several other laws which distinguish between days that the Legislature is in session and days when it is not. The majority opinion fails to logically explain how a continuous two-year session comports with the constitutional mandate to meet at "such time as shall be provided by law." Id., at para. 48 (citations omitted). This majority opinion posits a deep reliance on legislative deference often without due regard to the customary and reasonable interpretation of legislative customs and other laws. This form of analysis surrenders the court’s most significant role in our democracy; ensuring that constitutional mandates are robustly adhered to. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Shirley Abrahamson was and remains one of the most significant figures on our Supreme Court. She professionalized our court system by ensuring a judicial education system that focuses on Wisconsin law competencies. She brought technology to the courts. She respected the separation of powers by properly seeking funding for the judiciary. She made it clear that the Court is not a partisan forum for result-oriented analysis, but an independent reviewer of the lower court’s authority and final arbiter of constitutional rights. All of her opinions give clear guidance to lower courts. I admire the late Justice N. Patrick Crooks for his tolerance and total commitment to fairness. He is, to me, the gold standard of decency. In Vincent v. Voight, his reasoning is as tempered as it is progressive. He set a clear and strong precedent while respecting the other branches of government. Justice Crooks served on the Brown County Circuit Court for many years prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice and had a deep personal understanding of the demands placed on circuit judges in daily administration of justice. Federal Judge Lynn Adelman is one of the most articulate and clear thinking judges presently in our courts. In Frank v. Walker, Case 11-CV-0922, after a thorough trial, he granted a permanent injunction of the Act 23 requirements for voter identification. Judge Adelman reviewed the evidence without omitting any facts and proceeded to fully flesh the factual underpinnings advanced by the proponents of voter identification requirements. To date, Judge Adelman’s decision in Frank v. Walker is the most accurate account of voting and voting rights laws as they played out in Milwaukee. Although the Seventh Circuit overturned his decision, it created an archival record of how voter ID requirements played out to ultimately undermine voter participation. More recently he has turned his attention to the over-utilization of prisons as a consequence of the truth-in-sentencing laws. The Adverse Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing on Wisconsin’s Efforts to deal with Low-Level Drug Offenders, Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol 47 No. 3. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to be thorough, prepared, and to allow the parties to present their arguments, if those arguments are founded in facts that have been adversarially tested and soundly guided by evidentiary requirements. A judge's principal role is to safeguard the court's constitutional role, an area where all three co-equal branches of state government share power and authority in accordance with the Wisconsin Constitution. This is indeed "a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation" (Vincent v. Voight, 286 Wis. 2d 588, Para. 2, fn. 2). While courts should not seek to create controversies where there are none, they must make sound decisions when necessary. "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. Grammar mistakes and 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: Ronnie V. Murray II
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 20, 2023 (effective Nov. 19, 2023, to term ending July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Whitewater High School – Edgewood High, Madison, Wisconsin (earlier Madison West High) Recent legal employment: March 2015-present – Associate federal defender, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 2012-March 2015 – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Green Bay, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I represent criminal defendants in federal court at both trial and appellate level. I also represent clients in supervised release revocation matters. Describe typical clients: My practice is exclusively criminal defense, though clients are quite diverse. My practice requires particular specialization in constitutional law, including the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments and I am likewise specialized in trial and pretrial motions practice. Beyond legal specialization, my practice requires strategic mitigation work, theory development and narrative formulation, in addition to relationship management and rapport building with clients and other stakeholders. Number of cases tried to verdict: 11 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 United States v. Walker, 931 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2019), I argued that my client's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender should be vacated due to a Sixth Amendment violation. Justice Amy Coney Barret authored the opinion granting vacatur, which has now been cited numerous times as support for employing a categorical approach when comparing state statutes to federally-defined offenses. I was trial and appellate counsel in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and in the Seventh Circuit. In United States v. Wade, 962 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2020), I argued that my client's conviction for impersonating an officer should be overturned for failing to require proof of fraudulent intent at trial. Although the appeal did not prevail, the Seventh Circuit pattern jury instruction was modified in response to this case to include intent as an element, thereby heightening the burden of proof required for conviction under that statute. I was trial and appellate counsel in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Seventh Circuit. In United States v. Brown, 459 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (E.D. Wis. 2020), I argued that the jury's guilty verdict for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a bank robbery should be overturned because the firearm was left in the vehicle during the robbery. Notwithstanding the "nearly insurmountable" burden, the trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal on that count, thereby relieving my client of exposure to a mandatory minimum, consecutive sentence. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As a state public defender, I represented clients in supervision revocation hearings before an administrative law judge. As a law student, I handled an unemployment benefit appeal case and appeared before an administrative law judge. Also as a law student, I participated with a senior attorney in administrative driver's license revocation hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). N/A 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: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: May 2018-present: Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association, Executive Committee, treasurer 2020-present: Milwaukee Bar Association, Diversity Clerkship Selection Committee Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I regularly volunteer to speak at youth events and programs at the federal courthouse, including career panels and informational sessions regarding internship or mentor programs. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – Criminal justice reform is my passion. I entered the legal field to stem the tide of mass incarceration we are currently engulfed in. In the United States, we imprison more of our citizens than any other country in the world, and the racial disparities in Wisconsin rank among the nation’s highest. Milwaukee County in particular has one of the highest incarceration rates for black males. A determination to address these disparities has led me to practice criminal defense, and now to seek this judicial appointment. Although a county judge cannot correct all the ills facing his or her community, I would have the opportunity to positively affect more lives from the bench than I do as a defense attorney. I believe being smart on crime is preferable to merely being “tough,” even though the latter may be more politically expedient. Over-incarceration is harmful to communities and does not make the public safer. Upholding the constitutional rights of our citizens is just as important as promoting public safety, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I would seek to achieve both from the bench. I believe Wisconsin needs more judges from diverse backgrounds, particularly with criminal defense experience. Many judges are former prosecutors; few come from the defense table. I think we need more balance on the bench—people from both sides of the spectrum. Judges routinely make decisions that affect the lives of many people, and representing criminal defendants affords a degree of perspective that can contribute to more measured judgment in adjudicating cases and imposing sentences. My experience representing a diverse array of Wisconsin’s citizens will help inform my decisions as a judge. I believe that I would grow well into this position and would be an asset to Milwaukee County’s residents. 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 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, the Supreme Court rendered the federal sentencing guidelines advisory in its landmark 2005 decision. Before then, the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, and federal judges had little discretion in determining an appropriate sentence for offenders who appeared before them. The impact on sentencing practice in the Eastern District of Wisconsin has been remarkable. Before Booker, our judges had almost no discretion to make an independent judgment about a particular sentence. Now, our district ranks among those with the highest rates of downward sentencing variances. In other words, because of Booker our judges are now able to impose far more reasonable sentences, and they do. While the fraction of Wisconsin’s population directly affected by federal sentencing practice in this district might be small, the impact on those affected can be life changing. Having seen first-hand the effects of this decision, I would rank it among the most important for Wisconsin’s citizens over the last 25 years. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Thurgood Marshal From successfully arguing the case of Brown v. Board of Education, to becoming the nation’s first black Supreme Court member, Justice Marshal was a pioneering trailblazer whom I’ve looked up to for some time. His record speaks of a person committed to fighting for the rights of “little guy,” which I’ve hoped to emulate as my career has progressed. I have always been impressed by the justice’s resilience, determination and intellect. He took the fights that mattered and didn’t back down, even where the odds were against him, and he was hugely successful. It is difficult for me to imagine a more impressive legal career than that of Justice Marshal, and I can only hope for a fraction of his success. The Honorable Everett Mitchell I attended law school with Mr. Mitchell, who is now a Dane County circuit court judge. He was a prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office when I interned with the public defender in Madison, and I had the opportunity to work a case with him. He was fair and reasonable, and it was obvious that he genuinely cared about the defendants he charged. When I learned that he’d become a judge, I knew Dane County would be lucky to have him. Mr. Mitchell has set an example that I hope to follow. To me, he represents achievement in the face of significant adversity and affirmation of the notion that, no matter where you came from, you can overcome your circumstances. Moreover, I admire his commitment to public service and community involvement in the city where I was raised (Madison). I hope to substantially model my career after his. The proper role of a judge: I believe the primary role of a judge is to adjudicate disputed issues fairly, impartially and according to applicable law. The judge sets the tone and decorum of the proceedings. A judge should inspire confidence in the judicial process and treat its litigants with respect and dignity. A judge should ensure that each party appearing before the court has a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Judges should be excellent listeners and agile thinkers. Judges should be open-minded and humble because they carry a great responsibility and wield significant power. A judge also should be principled and willing to make tough decisions that may not be popular. "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. Grammar mistakes and 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: Mark A. Huesmann
Appointed to: La Crosse County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 6, 2023 (effective July 31, 2023, to a term ending July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee High School – Sheboygan Falls High, Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: April 2020-present – Municipal court judge, Coulee Region Joint Municipal Court, Onalaska, Wisconsin August 2013-present – Teaching professor, business law, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse January 1996-present – Attorney/owner, Huesmann Law Office, LLC, (earlier Huesmann Law Office, S.C.), Holmen, Wisconsin Military service: I enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1986. I completed ROTC in college and was commissioned in 1990. I was mobilized for a year in 2003 (Fort McCoy) and was deployed to Afghanistan and other areas in the Middle East in 2010-2011. I retired as a lieutenant colonel in July, 2014. Discharge: Honorable. Highest Award Received: Bronze Star Medal. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Minnesota State Bar (voluntarily lapsed in 2013) General character of practice: I am a general practice trial attorney and have tried civil and criminal cases in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Practice areas include, but are not limited to: criminal defense, civil litigation, family law, trusts and estates, guardianship, bankruptcy, real estate, and business law. Describe typical clients: I practice in a small town and clients have run the gamut from public defender appointments to business planning and consultation. My law practice is general and the client base is broad and diverse. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 18-20 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: Portage County Case 19-CF-259 – The incident occurred in 2012 and the defendant was charged with 2nd Degree Sexual Assault in 2019. This case is significant as it was charged under the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) project. It presented the intersection of complicated issues related to race, sexual assault, and delayed prosecution. The defendant was a Black man accused of raping a white woman in a rural Wisconsin county. I represented the defendant (through SPD) for three years and filed significant pretrial motions. Two weeks prior to the August 2022 trial date, significant conflict developed with the client and I had to withdraw as counsel. The SPD appointed new counsel and defendant was finally acquitted in April, 2023. The successor defense attorney (Gary Kryshak) credited my pretrial work on the case with defendant's ultimate acquittal. Coulee Region Joint Municipal Court – As municipal judge, our court encountered a difficult 13-year-old juvenile … with a disturbing pattern of behavior. Between March - December 2021 [redacted] accumulated 12 different citations some of which involved threats of violence related to knives and guns. The juvenile demonstrated a complete disregard for law enforcement, failed to show for mandatory court dates, and had numerous open citations. I view municipal court as an early intervention tool for juveniles and my goal is to identify at-risk children and connect them to services in the community. This cannot be accomplished when neither the juvenile nor the parents show for court. The enforcement mechanisms through municipal court are few and limited. Through research, I discovered that circuit court sanctions can be used for juveniles who continue to violate municipal court orders. Accordingly, I petitioned the circuit court to impose additional sanctions such as juvenile detention or electronic home monitoring. This had never been done in La Crosse County, but I obtained the support of the court to proceed with that course of action. This approach allowed all concerned to develop a compliance plan for [redacted] I learned that sometimes a judge should explore different avenues for problem solving. In the Matter of R.M. (Attorneys Mark A. Huesmann and Michael J. Cohen), Great Lakes Cheese, Inc. GLC (Attorney Erik Eisenmann), and Holmen Cheese, LLC (Attorney Robert E. Shumaker) – This is not a case where a lawsuit was filed. It involved an employee (R.M., a food scientist) who left GLC in 2021 to work for a competitor, Holmen Cheese. The employee did not have a non-compete, but the former company threatened litigation based on the idea the former employee might reveal or use proprietary information in the new job. I had been teaching about non-competes and circumstances surrounding those for years. This case presented interesting facts. Eventually, we employed a subject matter expert as co-counsel (Cohen) and the case resolved favorably for the client. The matter took months to resolve, and it raised a host of possibilities for causes of action from both the employee, the gaining employer, and the former employer. It was significant being part of a group of attorneys engaging in the problem-solving process and using informal ADR to resolve a complex problem that appeared destined for expensive litigation. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented clients in worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, probation revocation, and Social Security disability hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have officiated approximately 70 wedding ceremonies. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I managed Judge Todd W. Bjerke's first judicial campaign in 2007 in which an incumbent judge was defeated. Previous runs for public office and appointments: Coulee Region Joint Municipal Court judge, elected 2020 La Crosse County Court commissioner, appointed 2013 La Crosse County Board, defeated 2003 Holmen School Board, elected 2002 and 2005 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Judge Janet Protasiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023 (financial support) Professional or civic and charitable organizations: 2002-2008 and 2018-present – Holmen Area Foundation, board member and past president 2022-present – Study Committee on Policing, committee member 2010-2019 – La Crosse Area Veteran Mentor Program, legal counsel and board member Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Study Committee on Policing. One of 18 members appointed by the La Crosse County Board of Supervisors to study issues and make recommendations related to policing in the county. Appointed in 2022 and work is ongoing. I served as legal counsel for the La Crosse Area Veteran Mentor Program and that work included obtaining 501(c)(3) status for the same. Between 2000-2002 I was one of two La Crosse Regional High School Mock Trial coordinators overseeing the annual tournament. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge — My parents grew up in Germany under the Nazi regime and Adolph Hitler. They immigrated to America in the mid-1950s. I was raised in a small town in rural Wisconsin. My parents could not afford to send me to college, so 1 joined the Army and the GI Bill helped me get an education. My parents saw the worst of government, and I saw the best of it. My parents escaped a system of oppression and inequality so I could have better opportunities. This background informs who l am. A fair and impartial system of justice is the last line of defense from totalitarianism. This idea was inculcated in me from a young age. I want to become a judge to ensure that everyone - regardless of their station in life - receives dignity and respect as well as equality and equity. I have worn different hats thus far in my career: municipal judge, court commissioner, lawyer, soldier, academic, and business owner. I have been privileged to meet people from many different, walks of life. The people I have met all want and demand the same thing - a system of justice that encourages accountability and positive outcomes for society. I want to help achieve those goals. My work with families going through trauma - whether in the context of family law, criminal defense, or juveniles appearing before the municipal court, has provided me with a deeper understanding of the human condition. I have seen the positive and transformative effects of properly addressing the crises surrounding mental health and addiction. I believe in the approach of treatment courts. Focusing on these areas ensures accountability for offenders and considers the impacts on victims. I was a founding member of our Veterans' Court Initiative, which resulted in the creation of the La Crosse Area Veteran Mentor Program and then the La Crosse Area Veterans Court. We are taking greater strides in Wisconsin towards addressing these issues. But significant disparities still exist in our legal system for the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color members of our community, those who identify as LGBTQIA, and how victims of crime are treated. I embrace these positive changes toward fundamental fairness and equality, and 1 want to further that work by serving the people of La Crosse County and the State of Wisconsin as a circuit court judge. As a general practice attorney, I have enjoyed diverse experiences in the law. That background has greatly aided my work as a municipal court judge. I am intellectually curious and would enjoy the challenges of being a circuit court judge. I have spent a lifetime helping people and want to continue that service to my community and the State. 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 of Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 2018) has had a negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Mayo upheld a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases and reversed a Court of Appeals decision that found the cap "unconstitutional on its face because it ... impos[es] an unfair and illogical burden only on catastrophically injured patients, thus denying them the equal protection of the laws." With its decision in Mayo, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 284 Wis. 2d 573, 2005 WL 125, 701 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. 2005). The issue of 1egislative caps on non-economic damages has a history stretching back to 1975. Since that time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has weighed in twice and may revisit the issue a third time. The upshot is whether statutory caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases violates equal protection laws. The issue could be resolved if the legislature would simply allow juries to determine the appropriate amount of damages in medical malpractice cases. We impanel juries for civil cases under the Seventh Amendment. Those juries have two primary purposes: determine questions of liability and establish the appropriate level of damages for that liability. Regulating how much a jury can award under the Mayo scenario represents a usurpation and unwarranted intrusion into the powers of the judicial branch and raises a host of Constitutional questions. America has been trending towards corralling more people into binding arbitration and then limiting damages when those litigants can actually access the courts. It represents a concerted effort to diminish the power of a jury to hold bad and wealthy actors accountable and Mayo is illustrative in that regard. The case has other, far-reaching impacts as it established the rational basis standard would henceforth be used for analyzing the constitutionality of government legislation under similar challenges. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson. While a law student at the University of North Dakota, the Law Women’s Caucus brought Chief Justice Abrahamson to speak at the annual Helen Hamilton Day recognition. Being one of the most recognized progressive female jurists in the nation, this was particularly noteworthy and important as North Dakota was and remains a conservative state. Her presentation and question and answer session impressed an entire room of young, future lawyers. Chief Justice Abrahamson's life accomplishments preceded her. Her address to the law school was remarkable and served to inspire the work I would do as an attorney. Eleven years later I had the privilege of appearing before her as I argued a case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. State v. Haines, 261 Wis.2d 139, 2003 WI 39, 661 N.W.2d 72 (2003). I met her several times since law school. Chief Justice Abrahamson was erudite, her legal reasoning was inciteful, and she was inspirational. Judge Todd W. Bjerke. Judge Bjerke has been a trusted friend and mentor for my entire legal career. We began our relationship as adversaries: he was an assistant district attorney, and 1 was a defense attorney. He was the consummate professional prosecutor and approached his work with an even hand and firm grasp of the facts and law. That personal and professional respect led to me managing his first successful judicial campaign and we defeated an incumbent judge. Judge Bjerke's deliberative approach and his willingness to consider all viewpoints was very evident to me during his judicial campaign. He has brought those same attributes to the bench. I was appointed as one of his court commissioners at his investiture. Judge Bjerke and I are both veterans and share a passion for helping troubled veterans involved with the court system. This led to us working together in forming the Veterans' Court Initiative, which resulted in the creation of the La Crosse Area Veteran Mentor Program and the La Crosse Area Veterans Court. While attorneys and parties might not always agree with his decisions, they leave the courtroom understanding his reasoning and methodology. Judge Bjerke takes pains to ensure everyone receives careful and thoughtful treatment. I will emulate that approach. He is a considerate man with the highest degree of personal and professional integrity. The proper role of a judge: Perhaps the most important and proper role of a judge is to listen. Early in my career, a more experienced attorney asked if I wrote out all my questions for a witness. l did. She told me not to do that and said, “When you write out the questions, the focus will be more on making sure you are checking those questions off the list, and you are not really listening to what the witness says. Have an outline or jot some notes and as you ask the questions, you are more attuned to what the witness is saying, and everything then revolves around those answers.” That advice was instructive. but also got to a deeper point: good listening is an art that must be practiced diligently. Some of the most consequential work by a judge is evaluating what is said in the courtroom. Lives depend on the judge receiving that information, properly. What makes an effective judge is personal restraint. Much is presented and your job is to sift and winnow. A judge must apply as much objectivity as possible to things and avoid the tendency toward subjective conclusions. Therefore listening - and a good dash of humility - is vital. It takes discipline and self-regulation. Being a judge is not just about making decisions - it also brings the power of possibilities. It is about marshaling the resources and opening doors that can only be done through a court order. Whether that is treatment, tools for intervention, or using punishment as deterrence, this is within the proper purview of a judge. No other position in our society allows for that sort of gatekeeping, authority, and allocation of assets. The public is best served by a judge understanding how to properly utilize this host of options. "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: Anderson M. Gansner
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois Undergraduate – Pomona College, Claremont, California High School – Madison West High, Madison, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: November 2013-present – Associate federal defender, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin October 2010-October 2013 – Associate, Gass Turek LLC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Colorado State Bar (currently inactive) Illinois State Bar (currently inactive) General character of practice: I serve as an associate federal defender, representing indigent people in federal criminal cases. My organization does not have divisions, so I handle all types of cases at all levels. I defend clients in many drug, gun, and robbery cases, but also work on child pornography, human trafficking, arson, criminal immigration, postal theft, and mail, wire, and bank fraud cases. To give a few examples, I defended a businessman who lied to his bank about the collateral for a loan, a brain-damaged young woman who robbed several taxi drivers and faced a 31-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and a married father of two who shined a laser pointer at an FBI surveillance plane. Substantively, I build relationships with my clients and their families, analyze discovery, investigate cases, research case law and my clients' backgrounds, study relevant current events and social science, negotiate with prosecutors, litigate pretrial motions, argue at sentencing and detention hearings, try cases, write appellate briefs and sentencing memos, assist clients in revocation proceedings, and seek post-sentencing relief. Describe typical clients: My typical clients are young, low-income men of color from urban Milwaukee. Most do not have a high school education and struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, developmental disorders, or trauma history. I have developed expertise in firearms and fraud cases, sentencing advocacy, and post-sentencing litigation. In 2019, I began helping clients convicted of crack cocaine offenses in the 1990s and 2000s and medically vulnerable clients seek early release from prison. Number of cases tried to verdict: 5 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: United States v. Randy Johnson, Case No. 14-cr-25 (E.D. Wis. 2014; Randa, J.). Along with my colleague Juval Scott, I defended Randy Johnson from February 2014 until October 2018. … Mr. Johnson had been sitting in an SUV with four family members and friends outside a liquor store. The SUV was running with its lights on, and the driver, Mr. Johnson's older sister, had just gone inside the store. But she had stopped the SUV a few feet too close to the nearest crosswalk, a loading zone under state law. Four police officers in two cars drove by, saw the SUV for a few seconds, then blocked it in with their squad cars. All four officers ran to the car, opened its doors, shined flashlights in the occupants' faces, and ordered them to put their hands in the air. The officers claimed they did all this to investigate a possible parking infraction. After officers found a gun on the floor of the SUV, Mr. Johnson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. We moved to suppress, alleging that the police didn't watch the SUV long enough to reasonably suspect that it was illegally parked instead of properly loading or unloading. In addition, we argued that a parking violation is too trivial an offense to justify such a forceful seizure. We lost in the district court and again on appeal, but the Seventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc, which it hardly ever does. At the en banc argument, we thought we had enough votes to prevail. But after Judge Posner retired, the Seventh Circuit ruled against us, again. We filed for certiorari in the Supreme Court, but the petition was ultimately denied. I filed the pretrial motions, examined the officers at a pretrial hearing, represented Mr. Johnson at sentencing, wrote his appellate briefs and the petition for rehearing en banc, argued his case on appeal, and worked on his cert. petition. As far as its significance, we have all stopped in loading zones. No one should be forcefully seized by multiple officers simply for doing that. The stop also occurred in Milwaukee's 53206 neighborhood. Everyone in the car was Black; none of the police officers were. Thus the dissenting Seventh Circuit judges noted that police would never act this way in a wealthier, Whiter area. The case received some media attention, with commentators calling it a case of "parking while black." Although I remain disappointed in the result, I haven't seen a case since where officers conducted similar stops for parking infractions. I hope that the case helped discourage that behavior. United States v. Trulunda Stenson, Case No. 16-cr-48 (E.D. Wis.; Pepper, J.). I represented Ms. Stenson from March 2016 to November 2017. … The government claimed my client had filed false tax returns: some for paying clients and others using stolen personal information. Trial lasted a week. We showed that other people had used Ms. Stenson's home to file and prepare false tax returns, and that no one had seen her prepare or submit the majority of the charged returns. Yet the jury found Ms. Stenson guilty on all counts. At her two-hour sentencing, the government asked for 54 months in prison, we asked for 25, and the court imposed 30, just six over the 24-month minimum. I was lead counsel at trial and sentencing. Ms. Stenson has since been released from prison. The case is significant because of the length of the trial, the complexity of the trial and sentencing issues, the impact the case had on me (showing how imperfect our legal system can be), and the impact it had on my client. United States v. Dexter Anderson, Case No. 03-cr-261 (E.D. Wis.; Griesbach, J.). I represented Mr. Anderson from March to June of 2019. … Mr. Anderson was convicted of running a crack cocaine conspiracy in 2003 and 2004. By the time I met him, he had been in custody for 15 years. [Details redacted] I came in to help him with requesting a reduced sentence under the First Step Act: a December 2018 criminal justice reform bill. One of the Act's provisions allows for some defendants who were convicted of crack offenses to return to court and ask for lower sentences. Mr. Anderson had a long history as a pro se litigant, felt that his original case had gone poorly, and didn't trust me at first. At a hearing in Green Bay, where over a dozen of his family members drove up from Milwaukee, the court reduced his sentence from 25 years to time served, cutting several years off of his sentence. A few days later, his sisters threw him a birthday party at the Benihana in downtown Milwaukee. . . . This case was significant because of the impact it had on Mr. Anderson and his family and because it was the first contested First Step Act resentencing hearing in my district. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While in private practice, I represented pro bono a single mother sued by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF). DCF claimed that my client had received excess childcare benefits—money that had gone directly to her children's daycare providers—and was demanding that she pay back tens of thousands of dollars, more than twice her annual income, even though the overpayment was not my client’s fault. Rather, DCF had misclassified her job. I met with my client several times, filed motions to dismiss DCF’s case, and represented her at a hearing before an administrative law judge where I presented her and several other witnesses. The ALJ ruled against us, we appealed, and the state dropped the case, due to a legal issue that I had raised in one of our motions to dismiss. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). While in civil practice, I participated in several mediations, with each one ultimately leading to a settlement. These included a contractual dispute between a health insurer and a subcontractor, and the negotiated buyout of a local small business. I have also worked on several commercial arbitration cases—in commercial construction disputes and a financial services matter—taking depositions, reviewing discovery, and drafting pleadings. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Deb Andraca and Emily Siegrist state assembly campaigns, 2020 Volunteer for Biden/Harris presidential campaign, 2020 Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Menasha Corporation Foundation, board member, 2010-2015 Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association, member, 2013-present Milwaukee Bar Association, member, 2014-present Friends of Estabrook Park, member, 2019-present Friends of the Shorewood Public Library, member, 2019-present National Association for the Public Defense, member, 2020-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Beyond the DCF case described above, while in private practice I represented pro bono a young woman in a direct appeal of a robbery conviction where we challenged her sentence. While in law school, I voluntereed at the Bluhm Legal Clinic in Chicago, where I helped draft a civil complaint on behalf of a wrongfully convicted man who had been tortured into confessing by Chicago police. That case later settled for $5.5 million. Also working at the Bluhm Legal Clinic, I drafted and argued a successful motion to suppress that led to the dismissal of charges against a mentally ill man who was being retried for robbery. He had been convicted of stealing 50 cents and an adult bookstore token from a homeless man, and had already spent a decade in prison. See Brown v. Stemes, 304 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2002). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Because I care about the people in my community. I became a lawyer and a federal defender because I knew that our legal system doesn’t always live up to its ideals. The wealthy get one type of justice, while the poor get another; cases take years to resolve, leaving defendants, victims, and the injured unheard and confused; and judges regularly impose long prison sentences without considering their efficacy and their personal and financial toll. Many see the system as rigged and broken. They believe that the court system doesn’t care about and can’t address their problems. As a public defender in the federal courts, I fight this perception by giving my clients the best defense possible. I do this by listening to and learning from them, showing them that I care about their lives and problems, and doing whatever I can to help them. But at the end of the day, I am just a defense attorney. So I am applying to serve as a judge because I want to do more. I want to bring the same attention, care, and consideration that I strive to bring as a federal defender to judging. Although judges can’t pass budget bills or make charging decisions, they do have enormous discretion. As a judge I will use that discretion to help my community. In criminal matters, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee in particular, lies at the center of our country’s mass incarceration problem. So our judges have to do things differently. I will sentence defendants in the most cost-effective, sensible, and humane way. I will move cases forward to give victims certainty and to stop defendants from pleading guilty because they can’t get a trial date or make bail. I will fight against unnecessary revocations by keeping probationers in my court. And I will work to create meaningful interactions between victims and defendants, in effort to foster peace, closure, and understanding. In civil matters, I will offer to mediate my cases, hold early discovery conferences to prevent abusive practices, and move cases forward promptly to reduce the parties’ costs. My overarching goal will be to show the people who come to my court that someone cares about them and their problems. I will do that by issuing timely, thoughtful, and accessible rulings, of course. But I will also show that by treating everyone in my courtroom with compassion and courtesy. As this question suggests, judges are public servants. I want to spend the rest of my life in service to the community, helping make it safer, fairer, and more unified. And I believe that I can do that best by serving as a 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 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), upholding most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The decision’s main holding—that the individual mandate qualified as a tax and was thus constitutional—grabbed most of the headlines. But a second portion, dealing with Medicaid, was just as important. The ACA expanded Medicaid to millions, by making more people eligible and covering almost all of the expansion’s cost. Each state operates their own Medicaid program, and the law gave states an easy choice. They could either accept the additional funding and cover more people as required, or they could reject the new funding and lose all federal Medicaid funding. But several states wished to keep their current Medicaid funding while turning down the expansion. So they sued, claiming that this choice was impermissibly coercive. And the Supreme Court agreed. Legally, this was unprecedented. In prior decisions, like South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the Court had discussed whether an optional federal program might come with such strong incentives that it interfered with the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. But the Court had never found a program meeting these criteria. What’s more, Congress has always attached strings to money it gives to states. And Congress certainly had the power to repeal Medicaid and then replace it with an entirely new program. Nonetheless, since Medicaid comprises a large chunk of every state’s budget, the Court held that the expansion provision was too impactful and thus too coercive. This decision has had serious consequences. Given the ability to refuse the Medicaid expansion, many states did. Studies estimate that nearly two million Americans don’t have health insurance as a result. Prior to the pandemic, more than 100,000 Wisconsin residents did not have access to Badgercare because the state rejected the Medicaid expansion. See Louise Norris, Wisconsin and the ACA's Medicaid expansion, Healthinsurance.org (June 14, 2020). The state instead gives money to help these residents buy insurance on the state’s ACA exchange. Id. Yet this has driven up the cost of all plans sold on the exchange. See Aditi P. Sen & Thomas DeLeire, Medicaid Expansion In Wisconsin Would Lower Premiums For Those With Private Insurance, Health Affairs (June 6, 2019). And not all of the affected residents ultimately buy insurance on the exchange, meaning that this policy choice, enabled by the Supreme Court’s decision, has resulted in thousands of low-income Wisconsin residents not having health insurance. These uninsured residents may not seek treatment when they should. This leads to worse health outcomes. To be blunt, the uninsured live less healthy, more painful lives and die sooner. When they do seek treatment, they typically can’t afford it, so hospitals pass along or swallow those costs. This leads to higher bills for those with insurance and to hospitals closing or cutting back in poor areas. Plus, since the federal government would pay more of the state’s Medicaid costs if Wisconsin accepted the expansion, not doing so costs the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A recent estimate noted that expanding Medicaid would bring in $1.6 billion in federal funding over the next two years. Refusing this funding leads to higher taxes and takes money away from other state functions. In short, the Medicaid portion of the Sebelius decision has had an enormous negative impact on the people in our state. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Many judges reach the right results. But the judges I admire most reach the right results and do so in the right way. They are unerringly careful with the facts, go out of their way to treat the parties and their arguments with respect, and issue clear, timely, thoughtful decisions. One judge who embodies this is the Seventh Circuit’s Ilana Rovner. She is a career public servant and a legal pioneer. Judge Rovner was the first female supervisor in the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, just the second female federal judge in Illinois, and the first woman on the Seventh Circuit. She and her parents were Jewish refugees who fled Latvia shortly before the Nazis invaded. Many of her relatives who stayed behind died in the Holocaust. But beyond her inspiring life, Judge Rovner is always kind and thoughtful and has a generous sense of humor. She asks questions respectfully, sincerely thanks the parties, and issues careful, thorough decisions. Judge Rovner has explained that she values the work that attorneys do and that she has “a lot of love” for her colleagues and for everyone in her courtroom. That comes through. Another judge I deeply respect is Pamela Pepper of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I have appeared in front of her dozens of times and had a week-long trial in her court. While I would run my courtroom differently and I don’t always agree with her decisions, Judge Pepper goes out of her way to explain herself, to treat attorneys with courtesy, and to connect with my clients. Judge Pepper is also willing to take risks. For instance, she is perhaps the only federal judge in Milwaukee who will impose a sentence below the parties’ joint recommendation. She has a tremendous work ethic, is eager to listen and to learn, and has no problem admitting that she doesn’t understand an argument and asking for clarification. These are traits that one must have to be an outstanding judge. Because Judge Pepper is so humble and considerate, jurors, attorneys, and parties appreciate and respect her. Like Judge Rovner, she broke glass ceilings as the district’s first female district judge and first female chief judge. Finally, I went to several trainings on trauma before the pandemic. Presenters explained how prevalent trauma is, especially in Milwaukee, and how going to court can trigger a person with a trauma history, preventing them from understanding and participating in court. The presenters then listed some ways that attorneys and judges can help de-stress traumatized individuals. As I listened to these suggestions, I realized that Judge Pepper already followed them. This shows how much thought and care she puts into her work. I can’t be a trailblazer like Judge Rovner and Judge Pepper, at least not in the same way. But in terms of how I will act in court and how I will treat others, they are exactly the type of judges I will emulate. The proper role of a judge: As far as a judge’s core duties, a judge has to effectively learn, reason, and explain. Learning requires curiosity and diligence in each case, the crucial skill of listening—to the parties’ arguments, to witnesses—and the willingness to ask questions. Next, a judge has to reason fairly and effectively: applying the law to the facts without bias or prejudice. Then a judge has to explain decisions in a clear and accessible way. This allows the parties, the public, and any reviewing court to understand why a judge made a particular decision. On top of this, a judge must have courage. Sometimes the just result is not what the parties want or what might play well in the newspaper. A judge must be willing to stick their neck out in order to do what’s right. But the job is not just about getting and explaining the right result. What the judge does along the way matters. Interacting with a judge in court is likely the closest anyone ever gets to an elected official. And people come to court because they have problems they can’t resolve, often ones that are humiliating or intensely stressful. The way a judge treats people shows either that our government cares about people and their problems, or that it doesn’t. So to do the job well, a judge has to model concern, consideration, and empathy. This doesn’t mean giving the parties or attorneys free rein. Being considerate means respecting the time of everyone in court. A judge must be an efficient and creative courtroom manager, finding ways to maximize meaningful interactions and minimize delays and unneeded process. Also, judges should always search for ways to improve themselves and the court system. This requires questioning established customs and for judges to take hard, regular looks at themselves. A judge has to fight against complacency, has to stay up on changes in the law and procedure, and has to be willing to try new approaches. Finally, a judge must be accountable and accessible to the community outside of court. A judge should meet regularly with community groups and bar organizations, as well as the attorneys who practice in the judge’s court, not just to answer questions, but to learn and to understand how the judge can improve. This exposes a judge to new facts and ideas, helps the community understand the law and the legal system, and builds trust. "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: Amber Raffeet August
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Dominican High School, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: August 2022-present – Assistant Family Court commissioner, Milwaukee County February 2018-July 2022 – Staff attorney, Guardian ad Litem Division, Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee May 2015-February 2018 – Immigration and family law attorney, RISE Law Center, project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin May 2013-May 2015 – Associate attorney, Grzeca Law Group, S.C., Madison office for Milwaukee firm Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) General character of practice: I am currently an Assistant Family Court Commissioner in Milwaukee County. Prior to my appointment, as a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division of the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I represented the legal best interest of children from indigent families in Milwaukee County in family law proceedings such as divorce, paternity and child abuse restraining orders. As a guardian ad litem, I performed investigations for the Court and made recommendations as to legal custody and physical placement or in the context of a restraining order, recommendations related to its granting or not. My position required me to interact with many different individuals such as parents, grandparents, teachers etc. and also many different agencies, such as Child Protective Services (CPS), law enforcement and therapists' offices. This position required me to wear many different hats and to be extremely responsive to the Court and the families I worked with, versatile and creative in solutions that lead to the best outcome for the children whose interest I represented. Prior to my position at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I was an immigration and family law attorney at RISE Law Center. At RISE, I provided pro bono and low bono representation to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence in family court proceedings, immigration cases and restraining order hearings throughout the State of Wisconsin. Because I was both an immigration and family law attorney, I had a special focus on cases that involved an overlap of immigration proceedings and processes and Family Court. RISE Law Center is a project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin which also allowed me to include policy and other initiatives related to domestic violence in my practice. Describe typical clients: Currently, I am an Assistant Family Court Commissioner. Prior to my appointment, I was a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee where I represented the legal best interest of children from indigent families in Milwaukee County. As such, I did not have "clients" per se, but rather represented the children's best interest in family law proceedings, including restraining orders. The children in the cases where I was a guardian ad litem were very diverse culturally, racially and ethnically. They came from all different parts of Milwaukee County and had different needs such as special educational needs or mental health service needs. I saw each child as unique and worked diligently to represent their interests and assisted the Court officials in making orders related to legal custody and physical placement that supported the children's safety and well-being. The parties in my guardian ad litem cases were also indigent and typically one or both of the parties was a self-represented litigant. Through my practice, I became very adept at communicating and working with self-represented members of the community. In my previous position at RISE Law Center, I represented survivors of violence in their family law and immigration proceedings. These clients were women and men typically leaving abusive relationships or situations who were from all over the world and from all different walks of life. In terms of specialized areas, I specialized in guardian ad litem/family law practice, immigration law with a special emphasis on humanitarian immigration cases, cases that have both family law and immigration law implications and issues related to domestic violence. I also am fluent in written and spoken Spanish and was able to communicate with parents, clients, and children in both English and Spanish. Many of my cases involved Spanish speaking individuals. 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: All of the approximately 30 cases that I tried to verdict as an attorney were bench trials in family law proceedings in Milwaukee County Circuit Court such as contested paternity actions, divorces or child abuse restraining orders. I am extremely proud of the work that I completed in these cases as a guardian ad litem and believe that through my dedication, positive results have occurred in the wellbeing and best interest of the children I served and represented. I am also proud of the work I continue to do as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner presiding over family actions and domestic abuse and harassment injunction hearings. The Court decisions in these cases have all had a significant impact on the individual families and children involved. I would be more than happy to discuss more about these proceedings verbally, however, I want to make sure that I protect the confidentiality and interest of the minor children that I served as guardian ad litem and individuals I continue to serve as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner and because of that am only providing the few details listed above in written form. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an immigration attorney, I mostly focused on family based immigration cases and humanitarian immigration cases; however, I did also assist in cases in Immigration Court. When the federal government opened the family detention facilities in Artesia, New Mexico in 2014, I traveled with a group of volunteer attorneys from Madison to provide pro bono representation to women and children who were detained at the facilities. While there, I mostly represented the families in bond proceedings where I was arguing to the immigration judges who were being broadcast in remotely from other states such as Colorado, why the families should be released and trying to obtain a reasonable bond for them to post. These were adversary proceedings where the assistant chief counsels were arguing very strenuously for the families to remain detained. I was able to successfully argue multiple bond cases and help families be released from detention to continue to process their asylum cases and claims outside of ICE custody. Beyond that trip, I also assisted in immigration cases at both Grzeca Law Group and RISE Law Center that had administrative agency components and aspects that involved immigration court proceedings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In April of 2018, I received my certification in Family Mediation from the University of WisconsinMilwaukee School of Continuing Education. In my current role, I cannot formally lead mediations; however, I use the skills from that mediation certification in conjunction with multiple years of working with individuals in high stress situations to resolve many contentious family law cases in front of me as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner. I am proud to say that I excel at helping parties to reach resolutions that allow me to fulfill my duties as a Court official, while at the same time helping to preserve the overall fair functioning of the Family Court system for all interested parties. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Judge Danielle Shelton’s campaign for Milwaukee County judge, 2019 Previous runs for public office: Not Applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Danielle Shelton, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2019 Brittany Grayson, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2019, 2020 Kori Ashley, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2021 Ana Berrios-Schroeder, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), member and roles including president, 2014-present. Wisconsin Law Foundation, fellow, Spring 2022-present Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners' Association, member, Fall 2022-present Leander J. Foley Jr. Society of Family Lawyers, member, Fall 2022-present State Bar of Wisconsin, Board of Governors, Executive Committee member and other roles, July 2021-July 2022 Women In Focus, Inc., member, Fall 2014-Spring 2021 Community Immigration Law Center, board of directors, 2015-2018 State Bar of Wisconsin, G. Lane Ware Leadership Academy, 2016-2017 Dane County Bar Association, Law for the Public Committee, 2013-2018 Latino Professionals Association of Greater Madison, member, 2014-2018 Latino Chamber of Commerce of Dane County, member, 2014-2018 American Immigration Lawyers Association, member, 2013-2018 Milwaukee Bar Association, member, February 2018-December 2018; September 2021-present Law Alliance, 2017-2018 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL) Through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), I established and volunteered with the WAAL Pathfinders Legal Clinic where volunteer attorneys met with at risk youth at Pathfinders Milwaukee to provide pro bono limited legal services. I also established and continue to run WAAL's annual Halloween costume drive where WAAL in conjunction with other Dane County organizations provide requested costumes to the homeless children at the YWCA Madison in their shelter, Third Street program (mothers and children under the age of 5) and Empower Home program (mothers and children escaping domestic violence). Since I joined the board of directors of WAAL in 2017, I have assisted in the planning and execution of our annual VelanDale Scholarship Event where AfricanAmerican students from the University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette University Law School are awarded scholarships to further their law school education. WAAL held its 30th Annual VelanDale Scholarship event virtually on September 23, 2021, and as President-Elect I served as the chair of the event. This event is named after the civil rights icons Vel and Dale Phillips. Women In Focus. Inc. While in Women In Focus, Inc., I frequently participated in the group's literacy program that provided monthly activities and books for the mothers and children at the YWCA Madison. I also established a series of Little Free Libraries throughout the North Side of Madison to encourage children's reading. I was the literacy committee chair from 2016-2018 for Women In Focus. Lastly, Women In Focus' largest annual event is the "I Have a Dream Ball" where the organization raises money for scholarships for students of color in Dane County to pursue a college education. I participated.in the planning and organizing of that event from 2014 to 2021. To date, Women In Focus, Inc. has awarded over $500,000 in scholarships to students of color in Dane County. Community Immigration Law Center I was a member of the Community Immigration Law Center's board of directors from 2015-2018. Even before joining the board, I was an active volunteer providing pro bono legal services to individuals at CILC's weekly immigration clinics starting in 2014. I also assisted in grant writing, scheduling and recruiting volunteers for the clinics and any other assistance the organization needed. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge; I have dedicated my law career to helping to better the lives of others in my community. Being a Circuit Court Judge would be an extension of that work because so many in the Milwaukee community struggle with poverty and other systemic challenges that bring them into contact with the court system. As an Assistant Family Court Commissioner, strive to treat everyone in my courtroom as someone who deserves dignity and respect regardless of their circumstances as they seek access to justice. I would continue this approach as a Circuit Court Judge. These values were instilled in me early in my life growing up in the city of Milwaukee and I believe it is important to remember that the people in our courtrooms are not just names on a docket sheet; they are our neighbors, coworkers, and fellow citizens. While those of us who work at the courthouse may be used to seeing these individuals on their worst day, I think it is important to remember that we cannot know their whole story—their struggles (such as mental illness or drug addiction or just a series of rough breaks) and their successes. I believe that this viewpoint—which I have honed through years of public interest practice and through my current position as a Court Commissioner—is vital to being a good judge. While I know it may not always be possible, it is my goal in every case to try to see each individual as their whole person. This would include the good and the bad, the strengths and the weaknesses. I think it is important that judicial officials continue to take a holistic view of individuals in cases and my experiences leading up to this point make me extremely good at this task. Through my work representing survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault at RISE Law Center, I saw people at their most vulnerable and scared. I was able to support them and recognize that they were more than just their most traumatic experiences. This is similar to decisions I make as a Court Commissioner and would make as a Circuit Court Judge when deciding how to best protect members of the community or victims of crimes. Judges must be willing to try and see the whole person, to discern what is needed and to have the courage to act decisively. In my previous position as a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I honed my ability to connect with diverse clientele and to make them feel comfortable while they are going through difficult circumstances in the Court system. Finally, as the Immediate past president of the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), I think it is vitally important that our community members of color have decision makers that look like them—not only because it enhances the fairness and legitimacy of our judicial proceedings, but also because it can inspire others to see pathways toward access and opportunity they may not have previously imagined. 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 cannot think of a single case that has had more of an immediate impact—in terms of moving us closer to a more fair and just society—than United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. This is the landmark ruling that legalized same sex marriage throughout the United States, ending decades of contentious and often hate-filled debates over the humanity of fellow LGBTQ+ citizens. This historic ruling impacted many people in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the United States in a positive way. Countless individuals, who were previously denied the ability to marry and receive the same protections as heterosexual couples, were now able to celebrate their relationships and their unions the same way as everyone else. That summer, we were all provided tangible proof of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line—that while the arc of the universe is long, it bends inexorably towards justice. Wisconsinites everywhere were treated to beautiful scenes of long-delayed weddings—now safely removed from the threat of legal annulment—at courthouses, churches and, in true Wisconsin fashion, at barns and tailgate parties, throughout our state. Beyond the impact on the LGBTQ+ community in our state generally, this case is of particular importance to me as an ally because I have several family and friends that were then able to access marriage and I was able to witness their joy and happiness on the day this decision came down and afterwards. In addition, this decision also is important to me personally because it reminds me of the legal authority which affirms my family’s blended history—the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. I am bi-racial. My father is African-American and my mother is Caucasian, and they began their relationship in 1970—only a few short years after their type of union was legalized throughout the United States (although, in credit to Wisconsin, we were one of the minority of states to not have so-called anti-miscegenation laws on our books). Cases like Loving and Windsor remind me of the tremendous impact that each judge and justice can have on everyone else in the community and just how important it is to allow others the ability to live their true lives and be their true selves regardless of who they love. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: As a woman of color and the first person in my family to become a lawyer, the judge and justice I admire both demonstrate a series of “firsts.” They are powerful icons for women and women of color specifically. The first Judge that I admire is Vel Phillips. Judge Phillips was the first in so many areas in Wisconsin. She was the first African-American woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the first African-American judge in the State of Wisconsin and the first female judge in Milwaukee County. Beyond her trailblazing “firsts,” I also greatly admire her dedication to the law and to social justice and civil rights. While on the bench and off, Vel Phillips dedicated her life to civil rights causes and uplifting the community. I admire her dedication despite her frequent challenges—such as when she was appointed as a Judge in Milwaukee County but then lost her election afterwards. I also draw inspiration from her willingness to fight structural forces, such as her fight for fair housing and civil rights in Milwaukee. She believed wholeheartedly in the pursuit of equal rights and the use of the law to assist in that fight. I also admire her because she understood that as someone moves ahead in life, it is important to continue to lift others. Even with all her successes, she remained dedicated to her community, in particular the community of color in Wisconsin, and continued to support the public through her various roles and by assisting in providing opportunities to others. One of those opportunities where her legacy lives on is through the establishment of the VelanDale Scholarship Program through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), a scholarship for which I served as program chair in 2021 and continue to support through my role as immediate past president of the WAAL board. I also greatly admire Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Just like Vel Phillips, Justice Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She is the first Latina United States Supreme Court Justice and was, at the time she was confirmed, only the 3rd female attorney since our nation’s founding to rise to the level of the Supreme Court. She is not afraid to be open and honest about her own biography and the inevitable influence of her identity and her history in how she looks at and contextualizes the world around her. Despite harsh criticism during her confirmation process, Justice Sotomayor refused to back down from a vision of judging which acknowledges that judges are people first and foremost. She clearly believes that both the law and those who administer it should be approachable and accountable to other members in our society and is unafraid to use her voice, influence and decision making to support those beliefs. She has become revered in legal circles and the broader culture for her impassioned dissents, proving that she is unafraid to courageously follow through on her understanding of this country’s fundamental legal guarantees, especially its obligation to do justice to all citizens, regardless of identity. The proper role of a judge: Being a judge is a difficult role that requires the trier of fact to address many things in order to accomplish their goals. A judge must be fair and scrupulously monitor for any personal biases, even unconscious ones, they may be bringing to the bench. This allows a judge to ensure that their rulings are meeting the high ideals set by our system, which demands unbiased justice. By rigorously self-policing and doing everything possible to demonstrate fairness and integrity, the ideal judge gives the essential appearance of neutrality and fairness to other actors in the judicial system. A judge’s role is also to work diligently to process each case and continue to support the larger judicial system to promote judicial efficiency and allow individuals their days in Court as efficiently as possible. Especially in counties like Milwaukee County where each judicial calendar is extremely full, it can be difficult to accomplish the goal of efficiency while also providing sufficient attention to each individual case. Despite that difficulty, it is the role of a judge to make sure those who are coming in front of them all receive the same level of attention and care for their cases and each case’s unique set of facts. In this role, a judge must make decisions that not only help the individual litigants in front of them reach a just resolution in their case, but also instill confidence in the judicial system for the general public as a whole. Our system guarantees the right of public access to judicial proceedings, consistent with our overall democratic ideals. As a result, judges must act consistent with the trust they have been given. Finally, the role of a judge is to acknowledge that the individuals in front of them are people. They are more than their faults and failings; they are individuals who are often struggling with navigating the often complex and daunting legal system. A judge must treat all those that come in front of them with dignity and respect. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed