 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.
0 Comments
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.  By Margo Kirchner The April 1 ballot presents voters with yet another bad proposed constitutional amendment. Here’s what to know about it and why you should vote “no.” First, here’s a quick summary of general guidelines for ballot questions on proposed constitutional amendments. For a more in-depth discussion of these general guidelines, see this blog post from last year.
Now, on to this particular ballot question and proposed amendment. The question reads: “Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?” The actual amendment limits the types of acceptable photo identification to those that are issued by:
The amendment adds that the Legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification and exceptions to the requirement under the constitutional provision. It also includes a provision that a qualified elector unable to present valid photographic identification on election day must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot that can be counted if the elector presents a valid photographic ID within the time and at the place set by the Legislature. Note that the ID must be valid and photographic, whether presented at the time of voting or later to cure a provisional ballot. No expired licenses would be constitutionally acceptable. No social security cards or nonphotographic IDs would be constitutionally acceptable. This proposed amendment passed along party lines in at the start of the current legislative session. All 54 Republican Assembly representatives voted in favor, while all 45 Democratic Assembly representatives voted against. In the Senate, 17 Republicans voted in favor, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Don’t fall for messaging that makes you fear voter fraud. There is no need for this amendment. It is based on a contrived issue and already covered by a statute. Proponents of the amendment pull out an unsubstantiated mantra about election integrity and preventing fraud. Sponsor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), for instance, said in written testimony that “Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement has been widely successful in preserving election integrity and ensuring that citizens are confident that the ballots cast are legitimate.” But voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. A study by The Washington Post and cited by the Brennan Center in this report found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation fraud in more than 1 billion votes nationwide over a 14-years period. Doing the math, that’s 0.0000031% of the time. Another study, conducted as part of an investigative project centered in the Arizona State University journalism school found just 10 cases of voter impersonation nationwide from 2000 to 2012. "With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters," the reporters wrote. In addition, the voter ID law already exists in a Wisconsin statute, and according to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and National Conference of State Legislatures it’s one of the strictest in the nation because the ID has to be photographic and valid. Per the LRB, although 36 states request or require voters to present some form of identification to vote, in most states photographic ID is not required or else there is a procedure to allow voters without an ID to vote. Not so here. An important point to consider regarding this proposed amendment: because of the voter ID law already in place, the people who can’t get acceptable identification cards will not be able to vote on it. Please consider voting ”no” on their behalf. There is no reasonable purpose for this provision to be added to the Wisconsin Constitution . . . unless one is worried that the law could change someday. Statements by certain Republican legislators indicate that cementing the voter ID law in place against future attacks in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially if Susan Crawford should win this election, is the real reason for the proposed constitutional amendment. The voter ID law cannot violate the state constitution if it’s itself part of that constitution. Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote in written testimony supporting the proposed amendment that “Democratic activists on social media are openly asking someone to challenge Wisconsin’s Voter ID law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court” and that he was “not willing to risk a Wisconsin Supreme Court unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution declaring Voter ID laws unconstitutional.” The Ballotpedia website has reported Rep. Bob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) as saying: “For clarification, photo ID is already required by Wisconsin State Statute. But a ‘yes’ vote would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to include this requirement, which will further protect the integrity of the voting system from our leftist-activist WI Supreme Court.” In addition, placing the voter ID law in the constitution protects it against change should the Legislature someday flip to the Democrats. Amending the state constitution is a years-long process that takes substantial effort. Amending or repealing a statute is far easier. The state constitution should not be changed for political reasons from a document guaranteeing rights to one that restricts rights, especially when a statute already is in place, the purported problem is nonexistent, and some voters will be denied the ability to vote. Disenfranchisement is more prevalent than voter impersonation fraud, though difficult to measure. John Johnson from the Marquette University Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education recently conducted an analysis of Wisconsin population and driver’s license data to arrive at an estimate that somewhere between zero and 6% of adult Wisconsin residents lack a Department of Motor Vehicles photographic ID card. That translates into up to about 290,000 individuals, Johnson said. He found that young adults not enrolled in college and adults living in poverty are the two groups most likely negatively impacted by the voter photo ID requirement. In written testimony opposing the proposed amendment, the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources wrote that “(o)lder voters who lack an acceptable photo ID for voting may not have the availability, financial resources, or mobility to obtain the necessary ID; those who are rural or low-income may face significant barriers obtaining the needed documentation.” All Voting is Local Action wrote that “(e)nshrining voter ID in Wisconsin's constitution risks disenfranchising voters, especially marginalized groups, addresses nonexistent voter fraud, and diverts focus from real issues. Existing laws work—this amendment adds barriers and harms democracy.” In his written statement of support of the proposed amendment, Wanggaard asserted that “(c)ontrary to claims made when Voter ID was passed, the law has not resulted in voter suppression. In fact, voter participation has increased since being implemented in 2014.” But he cited no authority for the assertion and ignored the possibility that voter participation increased because of the contentious elections in 2016, 2020, 2023, and 2024, and that it would have increased more (and possibly resulted in different outcomes) had the voter ID law not been in effect. Numerous organizations have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment, with several signing a joint letter published as a full-page advertisement in the Journal Sentinel in February. This is the third round of proposed amendments in the last 12 months targeting the state constitution’s suffrage provisions. Here's the full text of the proposed amendment: Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this section. (2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law. The following lists are based on the entities that registered in favor or against the proposed amendment during its second round through the Legislature or signed the joint letter that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The list is not meant to reflect all entities that may support or oppose the proposed amendment.
 Lubar Center Director Derek Mosley (L) interviews Judge Brad Schimel (R) on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025, at Marquette University Law School. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Margo Kirchner Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel told a crowd straight out that he’s an originalist and that the “judicial branch was always intended to be the weakest.” In seeming contradiction, he also said that a judge should keep an open mind until all evidence and arguments are in. The remarks were made at a “Get to Know” forum held Tuesday afternoon by the Lubar Center at Marquette University Law School, hosted by Director Derek Mosley. A recording of the one-hour forum is available. Schimel, a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge, is competing with Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford for an open seat on the Supreme Court created by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s retirement. Schimel said that running for the Supreme Court was not in his plans until the 2023 election campaign, during which time now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s comments while campaigning suggested in advance how she would rule. That campaign led him to run. Schimel said that “you have to commit as a jurist to have an open mind” and that “if you can’t make that commitment, you have no business putting that black robe on.” He said he would bring back objectivity: “no more prejudging stuff. Judges must set aside all the political noise to judge the cases before them, he said, adding “It’s liberating.” Originalism means the interpretation of a constitution or law in a way that jurists today believe the writers of the document meant when they wrote and passed it—in other words, its perceived original meaning. Three other Supreme Court justices have expressed their belief in originalism, meaning that Schimel's election to the court would make that a majority view. When pressed on originalism by an audience member who asked why Schimel thinks “the Founders had all this knowledge” that does not change over time, Schimel remarked that “the Constitution has to be an enduring document.” As for his judicial philosophy, in addition to being an originalist, he is a judicial conservative, which he said differs from a political conservative. He would “apply the law as written,” he said. He discussed how evictions are tough cases for him as a judge, but “it’s a contract” and “you don’t get to put your thumb on a scale,” he said. “It’s the law and you have to apply it.” An audience member asked Schimel what role he thought the government should have in a woman’s reproductive health. She prefaced her question with a statement that she is afraid of Schimel becoming justice because after she was the victim of a sexual assault, she feared an unplanned pregnancy. He responded that his children were unplanned pregnancies, which allowed his wife and him the ability to adopt them, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision put the decision in the hands of the people. “The body in control of this issue is the voters of Wisconsin,” he said, and told the woman he had no reason to fear him. “Judges and justices are disconnected” and do not make policy, he said in response to a question about lack of voter ability to change the law with “rigged” legislative districts. When asked about outside influence in the race to his benefit, in particular advertisement money and endorsements from Elon Musk, Schimel said he welcomed anyone who helps to get his message out but that he is “not running on anybody’s agenda.” “I can’t do anything to stop the money” coming in, he said. He referenced outside money supporting his opponent, too, from George Soros and the Illinois governor, and that “you can’t be for sale.” Schimel discussed his childhood and education, his work in a prosecutor clinic during law school, his first job in the district attorney’s office in Waukesha, and his eventual positions as district attorney, state attorney general, then judge. He said that “running for office is about making friends.” “I like that,” he added. Schimel’s term on the Waukesha County Circuit Court ends July 31, 2025, so if he loses the supreme court race he is out of the courts, which he noted at the forum. In response to Mosley’s questions about Schimel's proudest accomplishments, Schimel mentioned his work as DA in building a child advocacy center in Waukesha to help child victims and their families; his work as attorney general in developing a successful drug take-back program, an office of school safety, and a chaplain program for law enforcement; and as judge presiding over a drug treatment court. Treatment courts, which address underlying causes of crime and help those who are struggling to succeed, “are one of the best things we’ve ever done,” he said. Schimel noted that throughout his career he has learned that things are not black and white—most things are grey. He said that in criminal cases in the trial court the judge is the least powerful person in the room, as the prosecutor holds the power, until sentencing. When asked about what needs to change in the justice system, Schimel pointed to the need for more defense attorneys because defendants are waiting too long in custody awaiting appointment of counsel. He also would like people to pay more attention to the judicial system, especially by voting in the April judicial elections. An audience member asked how he reconciled wanting voters to pay attention with his prior statement that the judiciary by design is the weakest branch of government. Schimel said that the weakness comes from the Founders’ documents and that he saw no inconsistency in the statements. He did, however, indicate that the courts do have a role in deciding what executive powers are legitimate. Immediately following the event, a handful of reporters sought to talk with Schimel, but his campaign staffer said he was on a schedule and could not stay. The staffer said reporters should email him, but one reporter said he had tried that three times with no response from the staffer.
By Margo Kirchner
Voters in Jefferson County will not see a circuit court race on their primary ballots tomorrow, even though three candidates submitted a sufficient number of nomination signatures. Just prior to the printing of primary ballots, a judge ruled that candidate Cortney Iverson was not constitutionally eligible and struck her name from the ballot. Dane County Circuit Judge Stephen E. Ehlke found that Iverson has not been an attorney long enough to be elected judge in the spring 2025 elections. The Wisconsin Constitution provides that to be eligible for judicial office at the circuit court or higher levels, a person must be an attorney licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for at least five years “immediately prior to election or appointment.” Iverson was admitted to practice in Wisconsin in May 2020. She argued to the Wisconsin Elections Commission that because the term of office for circuit judge starts Aug. 1, she would meet the five-year requirement by the time she started the job. The Wisconsin Elections Commission certified her as a candidate even after challenges by the two other candidates in the race. Ehlke disagreed. He found that the key date for meeting the five-year requirement is the date of the election, and Iverson will have practiced for less than the required time on Feb. 18 (the primary) as well as April 1 (the general election). “Words and phrases are to be given their common and ordinary meaning and ‘election’ is, I think, a pretty well understood word no matter what dictionary you use . . . . It’s not assuming office, it’s the election,” he said during a hearing in the case. In his oral ruling, Ehlke found “there’s no question that this candidate is ineligible” and that Iverson “can’t cure that in any way, shape, or form because the five-year anniversary will occur in May after either the primary or the general election.” The “constitutional provision is quite clear that you have to have been licensed as an attorney for at least five years prior to the election. And election is either the primary or the general election in April. It is not when the person who has been elected then later assumes the office. Those are two distinct things,” he said. Ehlke ordered the elections commission to drop Iverson’s name and generate a new certified list of candidates for the primary and spring elections. He also barred the Jefferson County clerk from issuing any ballots to voters with Iverson’s name on it. Iverson sought to challenge Branch 2 incumbent Theresa Beck, who was recently appointed by Gov. Tony Evers. Jennifer Weber has been certified as a candidate to challenge Beck for Branch 2. Because just two candidates remain, they will appear on the April 1 ballot without a primary on Feb. 18.  By Margo Kirchner
Twenty-three organizations took out a full-page advertisement in Wednesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for voters to protect the Wisconsin Constitution by rejecting a proposed amendment on April 1 ballots. Wisconsin Justice Initiative and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Action joined the letter, together with other organizations committed to democracy and voter rights. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign spearheaded the group effort. “The fact that 23 organizations from across Wisconsin have come together on this issue speaks volumes," Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Nick Ramos told WJI following publication of the ad. "We may come from different backgrounds and areas of focus, but we are united in our commitment to protecting democracy and ensuring that our constitution serves the people—not political interests. This kind of broad, collective action is exactly what Wisconsin needs to push back against attempts to undermine our rights and instead build a government that truly represents all of us,” Ramos said. The April ballot question will ask voters to enshrine in the Wisconsin Constitution the strict voter identification requirements that already are part of state statutory law. The letter first urges voters “to oppose this amendment and vote no, not just because of its content, but also because of the troubling precedent it sets” regarding the state’s most important governing document. “The Wisconsin Constitution is a foundational framework, meant to protect and reflect the shared values of our state. It is not, and should not be, a tool for political gamesmanship,” the organizations wrote. “Yet, in recent years, we have seen an alarming trend of constitutional amendments being rushed to the ballot—like a team coming to Lambeau Field and running a trick play on every down—to exploit the rules instead of respecting the spirit of the game. Our lawmakers, regardless of political party, should always create bills through meaningful public debate and bipartisan collaboration.” Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved by the Legislature during two consecutive legislative sessions. They then go to voters at an election the Legislature chooses. The April proposed amendment was quickly passed along party lines at the start of the current legislative session in January and placed on the first possible election date allowed by state statutes. The group letter also criticizes the content of the amendment itself. Wisconsin’s voter ID laws are some of the strictest in the nation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Placing them in the constitution will make it significantly more difficult to reverse course in the future. The amendment would affect voting rights for years and decades to come. “Amendments to the constitution should strengthen our democracy, solve real problems, and uplift all Wisconsinites—not erode democratic norms or serve narrow political interests. Unfortunately, the proposed voter ID amendment on the April ballot is another example of how our constitution is being used not to help but to hinder our interests,” the letter said. “(I)t risks creating more barriers for voters, especially for those who already face challenges in making their voices heard.” “(L)et us reject attempts to misuse our most sacred governing document for political advantage, staying true to the principles that make Wisconsin a model for effective, inclusive democracy,” the organizations wrote. The group asked legislators and readers to make Wisconsin “a state where our constitution is used to advance democracy, not undermine it. Inspired by the Wisconsin Idea, let us ensure our constitution and laws reflect the values and aspirations of all Wisconsinites, informed by fairness, research, and a commitment to the public good.” The writers pointed to Gov. Tony Evers’ recently proposed constitutional change to permit citizen-led amendments as a subject worthy of consideration, in comparison to the April proposed amendment. “We call on voters to reject amendments that limit their rights until they are empowered with the tools and power to advance their own reforms and champion amendments that truly strengthen our democracy,” they wrote. “Wisconsin deserves better. Let’s stop changing our constitution for political gain and start using it to make our state stronger, fairer, and more inclusive,” they concluded. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed