 By Margo Kirchner
The Wisconsin Elections Commission has denied ballot access to District 2 Court of Appeals candidate Christine Hansen because her declaration of candidacy form was notarized by her husband. The WEC this afternoon voted 5-1, with Commissioner Mark Thomsen casting the sole “no” vote. The vote invalidated Hansen’s declaration, which is required for being placed on the ballot. The deadline for filing a new one expired on Jan. 6, 2026. Hansen was one of just two candidates running for the open seat created by Judge Lisa Neubauer's retirement. The WEC’s decision leaves Anthony LoCoco unopposed. A Wisconsin statute provides that notarization of a record is “voidable” if made by a spouse or a notary who has a “direct beneficial interest” in the record. Hansen’s attorney, Chris Meuler, argued that the statute says “voidable,” not “automatically void,” and that the WEC could decide not to void the document. He argued that the WEC should look at the totality of the circumstances, including that all of the information required was on the form and that Hansen’s husband, better than anyone, knew the veracity of statements to which Hansen attested. Meuler also argued that until found void, Hansen’s declaration was still in effect and she should be allowed to correct it. The WEC’s vote essentially voided the notarization and did not allow for correction. The WEC excluded Christine Hansen from the ballot for failure to timely file a properly sworn declaration of candidacy as required by law. In explaining his position, Thomsen said that more than 1,400 voters want Hansen to be on the ballot, the challenge to the document was “hypertechnical,” and Hansen’s husband’s notarization of the document did not provide any monetary benefit to either spouse because she still would have to win the election. Commissioner Carrie Riepl noted that nonattorney notaries must take a test, which covers notary requirements. Attorneys can be notaries but do not have to take such a test, commissioners noted. They indicated that Hansen's husband is an attorney. Hansen’s declaration was challenged by Kyle Schroeder, a voter residing in Waukesha County. The WEC approved for the ballot all other candidates who timely filed their declarations of candidacy and nomination signatures.
0 Comments
 By Margo Kirchner
Just seven of 30 judicial spots up for election in April are contested. Declarations of candidacy and nomination signatures were due by the end of business on Jan. 6. Contested races include the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat Rebecca Grassl Bradley will vacate at the end of July 2026. Court of Appeals Judges Chris Taylor and Maria S. Lazar timely filed nomination papers with over 3,000 signatures each. Out of three Court of Appeals seats up for election, the only one up for grabs is the open seat from District 2. Judge Lisa Neubauer is retiring. Anthony LoCoco and Christine Hansen face off to replace her. Incumbents Joe Donald (District 1) and Rachel A. Graham (District 4) are not facing challengers. Just five circuit court races offer voters a choice of candidates. Two of those are open seats because the current judge chose not to run. Three involve challengers to recent appointees of Gov. Tony Evers. (Links below lead to WJI’s “Evers’ judges” posts on those appointees.) Just one race, in Dane County, will require a primary. Contested races:
WJI will be sending in-depth questionnaires to candidates in all contested races, asking them about their qualifications and judicial philosophy, cases they think are important, and why they want to be judge. Look for their answers in February and March blog posts. The primary election is Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026. The spring election is April 7, 2026.  The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Assembly's Committee on Corrections on Jan. 7 will hear two bills relating to hygiene products for those in state and county custody. WJI supports and urges passage of both bills. The humane treatment of incarcerated individuals is at the core of Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s mission. Everyone in the government’s custody deserves the ability to care for their bodies, ensuring dignity and promoting the Department of Correction’s administrative rules regarding hygiene. The DOC cannot reasonably require good personal hygiene without providing the basic tools. The bills being heard, AB741 and AB736, move Wisconsin closer to humane treatment of those in custody. AB741 would require the DOC and county jails to provide at least two types of each personal hygiene product on a list in the proposed legislation, including deodorant, antiperspirant, shampoo and conditioner, various soaps and lotions, toothpaste and floss, and shaving cream. The products cannot be sold at more than 125% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. In addition, at least two varieties of culturally sensitive personal hygiene products such as shampoo, conditioner, and natural hair oil must be provided for different hair types, at no more than 100% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. The bill also requires the DOC or jail to provide each person in their care with a monthly personal hygiene stipend of $25 to purchase personal hygiene products from the commissary. The bill provides the funding to DOC to cover the stipends. WJI has submitted written testimony in favor of the bill. In November 2024, WJI spoke to an individual at Green Bay Correctional Institution who shared that base pay at GBCI is a mere five cents per hour, someone earning a degree makes 12 cents an hour, and the highest paying positions pay 42 cents an hour. The canteen at a DOC institution is a monopoly. Incarcerated persons cannot price shop. AB 741 first limits the cost of hygiene products to prevent price gouging, yet the merchant still makes its profit. The $25 monthly stipend helps the individual in custody afford those products without spending a week or more of pay. The requirement that facilities provide culturally sensitive products for different physical attributes is important for the people held in DOC care and in jails, many of whom are minority individuals. AB736 would requires the DOC and jails to provide free of charge to anyone in custody with an active menstrual cycle at least three brands of tampons in a variety of absorbencies, three brands of menstrual pads in various absorbencies, and one brand of reusable menstrual cup. The facility would also have to provide a means to sanitize inmate menstrual cups as needed. In WJI's view, AB736 should be regarded as critical legislation for women in the care of the DOC and in jails. As noted above with AB741, hygiene products in prisons are exorbitantly expensive, yet menstrual products are a basic necessity for a woman’s health and dignity. Last year, before DOC renegotiated its canteen contract, a box of tampons cost $2.61 for a pack of eight. That is $0.33 for a single tampon. They came in one size. For those unfamiliar, menstruating women often need at least five tampons per day. That number may double for perimenopausal women, who often experience irregular periods with very heavy blood flow and may need more, larger-flow menstrual products. The Mayo Clinic website recommends changing tampons every four to eight hours. Incarcerated women may spend hours working to afford these products, to hopefully keep blood and discharge from leaking and staining their clothes, which they must also pay to wash. For those who have never experienced a period, imagine working several hours or days to afford toilet paper. Placing feminine hygiene products behind a paywall asks women to choose between safe and hygienic products and homemade alternatives that are unsanitary and may cause infection. If insufficient menstrual products are provided, women may even leave tampons in place for many hours, risking toxic shock syndrome. A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. In November 2025, the Prison Policy Initiative released an analysis of prison rules and sanctions that demonstrates how the carceral system punishes women for menstruating—a physiological process over which they have no control. Rules that govern movement limit access to bathrooms, showers, and laundry services. Rules that govern contraband limit access to tissue paper and its proper disposal or punish women for sharing or trading menstrual products or keeping adequate supplies on hand. PPI identified that in Wisconsin, menstruating women may be disciplined under rules regarding damage to state property (if blood stains affect state-owned items), unauthorized transfer of property or possession of contraband regarding menstrual supplies, poor personal hygiene, and refusal to work or go to school.
As stated by PPI, “(t)here is no ‘safety and security’ interest in denying people the basic sanitary products they need to manage normal bodily functions.” The United Nations Human Rights Council in 2024 underscored that countries have the “responsibility to ensure the full realization of all human rights, including those relating to menstrual hygiene, and must take steps . . . to respond fully to menstrual hygiene and other health care-related needs by all appropriate means, including in particular through the adoption of relevant legislative measures.” A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. WJI has submitted written testimony of the bill. AB741 is sponsored by 19 Democratic Assembly members and four Democratic senators, but no Republicans—yet it has received a hearing in the Republican-controlled committee. AB736 is sponsored by 27 Democratic Assembly members and just one Republican Assembly member, but that Republican, Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), happens to be the chair of the committee. AB736 is sponsored by nine Democratic senators as well. The Committee on Corrections consists of six Republicans and three Democrats.  By Margo Kirchner
At least seven judicial races are wide open for the April 2026 election. The most prominent races are for the Supreme Court seat currently filled by Justice Rebecca Bradley and the Court of Appeals District 2 seat currently held by Judge Lisa Neubauer. Sitting judges who are not running for reelection were to file a “notification of noncandidacy” by Dec. 26. Failure to file the notice on time does not prohibit the judge from dropping out, but it allows other candidates for that seat a little extra time to gather and file signatures and other required paperwork to run. Judges who have filed notices of noncandidacy for the April 2026 election:
Declarations of candidacy, campaign registration certificates, and nomination papers with valid signatures for 2026 judicial races are due no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 6. If a sitting judge fails to file the notice of noncandidacy and then fails to file the required candidacy documents by Jan. 6, the nomination deadline for others to qualify for that seat extends by 72 hours, to Friday, Jan. 9. Court of Appeals and Milwaukee County Circuit Court candidates must file at least 1,000 and up to 2,000 valid nomination signatures, while circuit candidates in other counties must file at least 200 and up to 400 valid signatures. Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates must file 2,000 to 4,000 valid signatures. The spring election is Tuesday, April 7, 2026. If a primary is necessary, it will be held on Feb. 17. By Margo Kirchner
The administrative warrant held by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers for the arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz at the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18, 2025, was simply a form signed by an ICE agent. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Supervisor Anthony Nimtz testified on Monday during the trial of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan that he signed the Flores-Ruiz administrative warrant, known as an I-200, on April 17. Dugan is charged with interfering with ICE agents’ arrest of Flores-Ruiz at the county courthouse on April 18. The type of warrant ICE officers held is an issue in the case. Nimtz acknowledged during his testimony that ICE officers did not have a type of warrant that allowed them to enter nonpublic areas but instead had the I-200 signed by Nimtz. He added that Milwaukee County officers are directed to not let ICE make arrests in nonpublic portions of the county courthouse. He said that arrests in a courthouse avoid safety risks for ICE officers, as subjects have been screened for weapons when entering the building. According to Nimtz and the copy of the Flores-Ruiz warrant shown in court, an I-200 warrant commands an ICE officer to take the individual into custody for removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Nimtz testified that Flores-Ruiz met two characteristics of ICE policy for arrest: public safety issues and having reentered the country illegally after removal. Noncitizen Flores-Ruiz had previously been ordered to leave the country on Jan. 15, 2013. Nimtz acknowledged that whether a prior order of removal like Flores-Ruiz’s 2013 order is to be reinstated is also up to ICE officers. They can issue warrants of removal—or orders of deportation—using a form known as an I-205. On cross-examination by Dugan's attorney, Nicole Masnica, Nimtz admitted that ICE arrests could use arrest warrants issued by federal judges or administrative law judges, but in Flores-Ruiz’s case the warrant was one signed by him as an ICE supervisor. A field operations worksheet (FOW) about Flores-Ruiz signed by Nimtz on April 17 and shown to the jury on Monday included Flores-Ruiz’s address. Nimtz agreed that the type of warrant he issued could not be used to go into someone’s home. Nimtz acknowledged an error in the FOW paperwork, which directs notice to the police department where an ICE arrest will take place. The FOW for Flores-Ruiz noted district 2, which is on the southside of Milwaukee, rather than district 1 where the county courthouse is located or even district 3 where Ruiz lived. Nimtz said he did not notice the error at the time. Nor did he make sure he had an accurate understanding of the charges in Flores-Ruiz's Milwaukee County court case when he signed the FOW and I-200. Nimtz said that at the time he signed the documents he thought Flores-Ruiz had pending charges for strangulation or suffocation. Nimtz found out only later that the actual charges against Flores-Ruiz were misdemeanor battery charges. He acknowledged on cross-examination that safety protections for ICE officers regarding courthouse arrests would still exist if ICE officers waited to arrest a subject when the subject is leaving the building.  By Margo Kirchner
After Wisconsin Justice Initiative identified some improper charges for documents issued by judges in Wisconsin’s eastern district federal court, Chief Judge Pamela Pepper indicated that all judges in the district have been notified and they “will take (these issues) into consideration.” Federal district judges have broad discretion over whether the public is charged for obtaining copies of the orders and decisions they issue. Documents filed in federal district court cases are available to the public through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or “PACER,” system, though generally not for free. For most documents, the system charges 10 cents per page, with a cap at $3.00. Judicial opinions are an exception. Per the fee schedule for PACER, no fees are to be charged for access to “judicial opinions.” That term has been defined as “any document issued by a judge or judges of the court, sitting in that capacity, that sets forth a reasoned explanation for a court’s decision.” Responsibility for determining which documents meet this definition rests with the authoring judge and should be made at the time the document is filed. The judge or staff member when filing an order or decision in the court record indicates whether the document meets the definition. Over several years, WJI staff have incurred charges for certain documents that a reasonable person would think were judicial opinions. Most judicial opinions have been free, as expected, yet charges for judicial opinions occurred often enough to merit raising the issue with the court. WJI wrote to Pepper and the interim clerk of court in July 2025, stating that the categorization of a document as a written opinion “has a large effect on public access and affordability for those monitoring federal cases. Even though documents over 30 pages are capped at $3.00, . . . PACER charges quickly add up," especially for those monitoring cases with extensive dockets and lengthy briefs and opinions. “Improper categorization of judicial opinions may decrease the public’s confidence in the court’s fairness and transparency and cause needless frustration with the court,” WJI wrote. “The public should not be paying for documents that should be free. Such costs impact the openness of the courts and the ability of the public to monitor them.” In litigation brought by a PACER user several years ago challenging his payment for certain judicial opinions, a federal judge in Florida wrote that the authoring judge has the “absolute authority” to decide what court documents constitute judicial opinions. Thus, members of the public seem to have no recourse regarding a court’s failure to categorize a document as a free judicial opinion. WJI asked that the Eastern District’s judges and clerk of court be vigilant in making sure any order filed by a judge is assessed for being a “judicial opinion,” that the chief judge and clerk of court review procedures to ensure that judicial opinions are properly coded in the docketing system, and that court staff are adequately trained on how to docket judicial opinions to make them free to the public. WJI also queried whether the district has a procedure for the public to report improperly docketed judicial opinions in the PACER system and ask for them to be recategorized so they are free to the public. WJI indicated its preference for a default rule “that everything signed by a judge and entered into the case docket should be docketed as a judicial opinion. We argue that anything signed by a judge, plus all court minutes, qualify as judicial or written opinions and should be docketed as such.” Minutes in particular may escape the attention of staff as being judicial opinions. However, the minutes of some judges are quite detailed and contain “reasoned explanation” for the court’s decision, which WJI argues results in them meeting the definition of judicial decisions. “Plus, even for minutes that do not contain reasoned explanations, in light of open court and public access requirements and policies, all minutes should be free to the public.“ Pepper replied that she had shared WJI’s letter with all magistrate and district judges in the Eastern District and that, as noted above, the judges will take WJI’s concerns “into consideration.” WJI argues that a judge should always exercise his or her discretion to grant broader free PACER access, so if there is ever a question about the categorization of a signed document, it should be categorized as a judicial opinion. Have you been charged for a judicial opinion in PACER from the Eastern District or Western District of Wisconsin? If so, please let us know. By Margo Kirchner
Gov. Tony Evers just vetoed a bill that would have required the Department of Corrections to recommend revocation if a person on extended supervision, parole, or probation is charged with a new crime. In his veto message, Evers wrote that he objected "to the unfunded mandate that such revocation would impose on the Department of Corrections, which would move Wisconsin in the wrong direction on criminal justice reform without improving public safety. This bill is estimated to have a fiscal impact of more than $330 million in just the first two years and hundreds of millions of dollars in unknown, ongoing costs to state taxpayers in the years to follow. This significant price tag does not include construction costs to build additional state correctional facilities, which would likely be needed, or take into account the fiscal impact on local governments. This fiscal impact is particularly untenable on the heels of the legislature significantly underfunding existing operations at the Department of Corrections in the most recent state budget." Evers wrote that "Wisconsin should be investing in data-driven, evidence-based programming that addresses barriers to reentry, enhances educational and vocational opportunities for individuals who will be released after completing their sentence, and provides treatment for mental health and substance use issues, which will help to reduce recidivism and save taxpayer money while improving public safety." Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action wrote to Evers on Wednesday, urging him to veto the bill, AB 85. Currently, the DOC has discretion to pursue revocation when a person on release is charged with a new crime. Revocations are then decided by administrative law judges, rather than sentencing judges. AB 85 would have taken away the DOC’s discretion and required that the department recommend revocation, even though new charges are based only on probable cause and could later be dropped or defeated at trial. The Assembly passed AB 85 in March along party lines with the exception of cross-over votes by one representative from each side. The Senate passed the bill in June along party lines. The bill was sent to Evers yesterday. As of today, Wisconsin holds 23,346 people in prison. The most recent available number of people on probation or parole, from May 31, is 63,420. Estimates indicated that if the bill became law, more than 4,600 additional people would end up in Wisconsin prisons each year, with a price tag of $250 million annually once the additional population was in place. In written testimony in the Legislature, even the Badger State Sheriffs’ Association and Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association questioned the bill, expressing concern about its cost and impact on jails and prisons. WJI and WJI Action's letter to the governor said that “the bill turns the long-standing American concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head. The bill would require that a person on supervision is presumed guilty of a violation of the terms of release merely upon accusations of other, as yet unproved, conduct, which are made on only probable cause.” Further, WJI and WJI Action wrote, “individuals on supervision or parole already face overwhelming odds against making it to the finish line. . . . People on release face a long list of behavior controlled by the DOC, and for more than a decade, the Department of Corrections has failed to develop rules and guidance implementing 2013 Wisconsin Act 196 to provide those on release with guidance.” As WJI reported recently, Act 196 calls for DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. WJI and WJI Action pointed out that Wisconsin’s prisons are already at capacity and that this bill sends that number higher, at great fiscal and societal cost. The organizations also questioned the removal of discretion from the DOC. Minister Roy Rogers, executive director of The Onesimus Group Milwaukee and a WJI board member with personal experience in the justice system, had this to say about the bill: "Assembly Bill 85—though cloaked in the language of accountability—is, in truth, a reactionary measure. It weakens due process, disrespects the discretion of our criminal justice professionals, and burdens our communities with costly, ineffective incarceration." "Out of the 6,280 individuals charged with new crimes while under supervision in 2019, we must ask: how many of those charges ended in actual convictions? According to the Department of Corrections and the Badger Institute, more than half did not. Yet this bill would treat every charge as though it were already a conviction—punishing men and women based solely on an accusation." "That’s not justice," he told WJI. "That’s preemptive punishment—a direct threat to the constitutional principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' . . . Charges can stem from false accusations, mistaken identity, or insufficient evidence. And in historically over-policed, marginalized communities, we know all too well that it doesn't take much to find yourself charged." Rogers, too, noted that the bill stripped discretion from DOC agents and administrative law judges, who "weigh the severity of the violation, the individual's risk level, and history. That’s what smart justice looks like. AB 85 would remove all that wisdom and replace it with a blunt, one-size-fits-all mandate—rooted in fear, not facts." "Public safety is essential," Rogers told WJI. "But AB 85 did not offer real safety—it offered mass disruption under the guise of accountability. We cannot incarcerate our way into healthy neighborhoods. We need wiser strategies that reduce harm, restore people, and invest in transformation."  By Margo Kirchner
Though many who pay municipal tickets do not realize it, they are funding myriad government operations that may have little to do with their conduct. Municipal tickets for violations like speeding, illegal turns, or disorderly conduct include a "deposit" amount, which the defendant can pay to avoid going to court or which the judge may impose after a finding of guilt. That deposit amount starts with a base forfeiture number, to which are added at least four extra charges. For some violations, the total amount due far exceeds the initial base amount for the offense. Take, for instance, a ticket with a base forfeiture amount of $10, for conduct such as a signal violation by a bicyclist or electric scooter rider. By statute, the municipal court must add a penalty assessment of 26% ($2.60), which goes to the Wisconsin Department of Justice to fund law enforcement training. Next comes a $13 crime lab and drug law enforcement surcharge, and then a $10 jail surcharge. The former flows through the Wisconsin Department of Administration to fund equipment and operations in the state crime laboratory and activities relating to drug law enforcement and DNA evidence. The latter, as its name suggests, goes to the county to pay for physical improvements and educational and medical services in the jail. That the bicyclist's signal violation has nothing to do with the crime lab, drug enforcement, or DNA evidence doesn't matter. Nor does the fact that municipal offenses result in forfeitures, not jail time, as the penalty. The surcharges are added to almost every ticket. Only a few offenses, such as failure to wear a seat belt or failure to carry proof of vehicle insurance, escape the extra surcharges. Then the municipal court tacks on its own costs from $15 to $38. Most of that goes to the municipality, but $5 of the court costs go to the Wisconsin Department of Administration for the state's general fund. Municipalities can set their own court cost amount within the statutory range. Presumably the money helps fund municipal court operations. A bill introduced earlier this summer in both houses of the Legislature (AB 320/SB333) would raise the range for municipal court costs to between $42 and $51, meaning that the lowest end of the range would exceed today’s highest permitted court costs charge and the deposit amounts on municipal tickets would rise statewide. The bills were referred to committees and await hearings. Assuming court costs at the current maximum, after all the extra charges: that $10 ticket costs the defendant $73.60—more than seven times the initial base amount. A common ticket for speeding up to 15 MPH above the limit starts at $30, resulting in a total deposit amount of $98.80—more than three times the initial base amount. Base forfeiture amounts of $50 and $100 become $124 and $187 respectively. A $150 base forfeiture amount becomes $250, while a $200 base forfeiture amount becomes $313. Things get even more expensive for those found guilty of a reckless driving or intoxicated driving offense. Those tickets generally start with a base forfeiture amount of $150 to $300. But then there’s a $535 “driver improvement surcharge” and a $75 “safe ride program surcharge.” Thus, a base amount of $250 becomes $986. The driver improvement surcharge is split between the state and county for mental health, disability, alcoholism, and drug abuse services. The safe ride program surcharge goes toward funding free rides home from Wisconsin Tavern League bars. If the judge orders installation of an ignition interlock device, another fee of $50 for the county gets tacked on. The base forfeiture amounts for traffic offenses are set statewide. For nontraffic offenses, the municipal court sets the deposit amount within a range approved by the municipality. At sentencing, though, the municipal judge could still impose any amount within the approved range. In other words, the deposit amount is a guideline for those paying their tickets, but the judge could go up or down in the end. Yet, even with all the added fees in municipal courts, tickets there cost less than in circuit courts, where there's another surcharge to fund the justice information system and court support services. A speeding ticket charged in circuit court with a $50 base amount (for speeding up to 15 MPH over the limit) costs $200.50. In early 2023, WJI called on Gov. Tony Evers to use the state’s budget surplus to eliminate or reduce court fees and surcharges because of their negative impact on the poor. WJI asked the governor to look specifically at the surcharges unrelated to the specific case at issue. In other words, drop the crime lab fee in cases that do not involve crime lab work, etc. WJI argued that at the very least, court fees and surcharges should be redirected to support the underfunded state court system rather than other parts of government. As this year’s legislative bills suggest, proposals continue to seek an increase, rather than a decrease, in the various fees and surcharges.
By Margo Kirchner Twelve judges will change assignments in Milwaukee County Circuit Court effective Aug. 1, 2025. Chief Judge Carl Ashley announced new assignments on March 31. Because of the court’s size, its 47 judges are separated into divisions to handle one type of case. Divisions include criminal felony, criminal misdemeanor, children, family, and civil, with specialties within some of the divisions. The court’s guidelines about rotations indicate that judicial rotations are based on a judge’s length of service in the present division and various judges’ requests, among other things. Judges who have served more than six years normally spend about four years in a division. Newer judges normally serve two to three years in a division and then are moved so they experience more areas of law. Assignments to small claims court are generally just one year unless the judge volunteers to remain. However, the chief judge makes the final assignment decisions based on the needs of the court as a whole and considerations such as a judge’s seniority, background, and expertise, plus stakeholder feedback. Assignments to problem-solving courts, such as drug-treatment court, take into account a judge’s additional specialized knowledge and training. Problem-solving courts include collaborative work and use of various interventions to treat defendants while still holding them accountable. Here are the announced 2025 rotations:   By Margo Kirchner
Just nine judicial races across Wisconsin were contested in yesterday's elections. Susan Crawford’s win in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, of course, made headlines in Wisconsin and nationally. But what happened in the other eight races, all in circuit court? Here are the results based on still-unofficial reports from the respective counties. The Marinette County and Racine County outcomes were quite close. Jefferson County Branch 1: Incumbent Will Gruber beat challenger John Jack Chavez almost 2-to-1 in the vote count. Jefferson County Branch 2: Incumbent Theresa Beck held off challenger Jennifer Weber, with only about 1,100 votes separating them. La Crosse County: Joe Veenstra edged out Eric Sanford for an open seat on the bench, with about 1,500 votes separating them. Marinette County: Incumbent Peggy Miller held off challenger DeShea Morrow, winning by just 138 votes out of almost 14,000 votes cast in that race. Racine County: Challenger Jamie McClendon beat incumbent Jon Frederickson by just 55 votes out of more than 60,000 votes cast in that race. St. Croix County: Brian T. Smestad prevailed over Heather M. Amos for an open seat, with a difference of about 2,750 votes. Waukesha County Branch 4: Challenger David Maas won against incumbent Bridget Schoenborn, 51.4% to 48.1%, with about 5,500 votes separating them. Waukesha County Branch 6: Zach Wittchow prevailed over former judge Fred Strampe, 57.9% to 41.7%, for the open seat currently held by Brad Schimel. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed