 By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee Municipal Court has been held in contempt for its failure to comply with an order directing it to record hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David L. Borowski on Monday found that Milwaukee Municipal Court (MMC) made “insufficient attempts” to comply with his December 2024 order instructing MMC to record certain proceedings as required by municipal court procedural law. Borowski admonished MMC for its failure to comply with his order, calling the violations “egregious,” especially given MMC’s special position as a court charged with enforcing law. He said the failure to comply was “exacerbated by the fact that the only burden imposed on MCC to record during a hearing, is for someone to simply press ‘record.’” Borowski said the facts demonstrated conduct that was “so consistently lacking and preposterous” that MMC’s failure to comply exceeds the intentionality standard for contempt and “might very well be a knowing—and intentional—disregard of this court’s orders.” Saying that MMC was "clearly only capable of following" the statute requiring recording of certain hearings by being forced to record everything, Borowski ordered MMC "to RECORD ALL COURT HEARINGS moving forward." (Caps in original.) Borowski sanctioned MMC with a fine of $1,000 per day if it fails to comply with the new order requiring recording of all hearings, but gave the court 14 days before fines would start. He also ordered MMC to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees of Legal Action of Wisconsin for counsel's efforts since December 2024 to force compliance. Since December, Borowski has rejected as insufficient two policies proffered by MMC. In April, Borowski set forth an exact list of hearings that MMC must record. At that time, Borowski told the municipal court to develop a new policy that “must explicitly require electronic recording of ALL of the following”:
In Monday’s order, Borowski laid out how despite MMC’s failed attempts to develop a policy, it has still been subject to his order to record the enumerated hearings. Nevertheless, MMC persists in failing to record them. Petitioner’s attorney Susan Lund sought proof of compliance after the December order. In the documents MMC provided to show its response, Lund found that between May 5 and May 19 MMC held 54 hearings where a defendant’s indigency was relevant and thus required recording. MMC recorded fewer than half of those hearings. MMC “has admitted they have the capacity to record EVERY hearing that they hold, with the only inconveniences involved in doing so being, charitably, hitting a ‘record’ button, and uncharitably, more easily being held accountable for the content of their hearings,” wrote Borowski. "Respondents, by their conduct following this court's December summary judgment order, have shown what is at least a complete inability to follow, if not a calculated disregard, for this court's orders," he wrote. Wisconsin law defines contempt of court as intentional disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court. Because of judicial rotations, Judge Paul Van Grunsven will decide the exact amount of attorney's fees MMC will owe Legal Action of Wisconsin.
0 Comments
 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 Alexandria Staubach It is difficult to find two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges on the bench doing work visible to the public. That is Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s conclusion after visiting the court several times from November 2024 through last week. Specifically in branches 1 and 3, the lights may be on but often no one is home. The reasons could include a combination of a 77% drop in case load since 2018 and the two judges continuing to hold court virtually, even post-pandemic. Cases filed in the court have declined from a peak of nearly 86,000 total filings in 2018 to less than 24,000 in 2024. WJI staff visiting Milwaukee Municipal Court found that in contrast to visits to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, there was never a line to get in, and the waiting room was generally empty. While the municipal court officially begins at 8:30 a.m., Branch 3, assigned to Presiding Judge Phil Chavez, was often locked, closed, with the lights off sometimes as early as 9:00 a.m. In Branch 1, assigned to Judge Valarie Hill, WJI staff often found the same thing: the door locked with nothing happening inside. When these judges were on the bench, they consistently appeared virtually by Zoom. WJI never observed Hill or Chavez physically present in the courthouse. Branch 2 Judge Molly Gena generally appears in person, hearing cases from the bench in her courtroom, even when defendants have elected to appear virtually. During the pandemic, the court adopted a policy that permitted virtual appearances, and it seems Hill and Chavez never came back to court. They appear virtually for everything from initial appearances to trials. Whether based on a formal policy of the court or merely the desires of Hill and Chavez, it is often only the defendant and bailiff in the courtroom, and sometimes a clerk. The judge appears on screen. Observers must attend in person. There is no public facing forum for the public to join or view hearings by Zoom or live streaming.  Presiding Judge Phil Chavez on the bench (on Zoom) on June 6, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. While virtual appearances provide a convenient means to deal with citations for individuals without reliable transportation, who struggle with childcare, or who might have to take significant time off from work to go downtown, it is unclear what benefit is conveyed to the general public for the judges to be out of the courtroom. Milwaukee County Circuit Court also permitted virtual appearances during the pandemic but has generally returned to in-person proceedings with a judge on the bench. Much about Milwaukee Municipal Court procedure changed due to the pandemic and continues that way. For example, a defendant in 2019 could walk into Milwaukee Municipal Court and expect to resolve an outstanding case, whether or not they were officially on the court’s docket. The court’s website still reflects that walk-ins are suspended and will “remain suspended until further notice.” In October of 2024, when the court’s website indicated that walk-in appearances were suspended, WJI asked the court whether it was possible to walk in and resolve a case. A court services assistant said “Milwaukee Municipal Court is not doing walk-ins for court. You can appear at the reception window and fill out any forms needed regarding your case, they will be submitted to the Judge and the Judge will correspond accordingly.” However, people have not stopped coming to the court with the expectation that they can resolve their cases. WJI spoke last week with Corina Wage, owner of CJ’s Pub. She came in to pay an old citation. “They told me ‘no,’” Wage said, adding “that I have to reopen my case on paper.” What Wage did not know is that Chavez was present in his courtroom, albeit virtually, poised to finish a docket before 10:00 a.m. The court’s current policy is that one must have an appointment to come to court. The website reflects the following method to schedule defendants: “The date of your first court appearance is written on your citation (ticket), summons or complaint. The Court conducts hearings virtually and in person. Prior to the court date, you will receive a letter with steps to register. You MUST register in advance and notify the Court if you will appear virtually or in person.” Meanwhile, the municipal court docket has shrunk. The year-end total of filed cases for 2024 was 23,698, while the total in 2018 was 85,984. The year before the pandemic, total charges filed were just under 60,000, and the court returned to approximately that number in 2022. But case numbers have dropped substantially since then.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. The decrease in case load is consistent with a Wisconsin Policy Forum report issued earlier this year that showed dramatic decreases in overall Milwaukee Police Department arrests for more serious matters, “proactive” policing, and citations for driving offenses.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. While the court’s docket has decreased, its judges’ pay has increased. Milwaukee’s three municipal judges were each paid $133,049.02 in 2015. They now make $153,006.62 annually. Then as now, they are among the highest paid elected city officials. Their pay is exceeded only by that for the mayor ($169,436.28) and city attorney ($169,436.02).
 Judge Valarie Hill on the bench (on Zoom) on May 9, 2025, at 9:28 a.m. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach.
 By Alexandria Staubach After a loss in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals by service provider JusticePoint, Milwaukee’s municipal court diversion program seems poised to sunset, despite strong community support for the program and a two-year court battle to keep it going. JusticePoint has long facilitated the Municipal Court Alternatives Program, helping those who cannot afford to pay Milwaukee municipal tickets complete community service options and connecting defendants with housing resources and drug and alcohol treatment. JusticePoint provided such services for four decades, but Milwaukee Municipal Court notified JusticePoint in spring 2023 that it was terminating the contract under a “convenience” clause. JusticePoint fought the termination under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. It initially won a temporary restraining order continuing services, but then lost on the merits in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. A stay from the Court of Appeals kept the court alternatives program in place during JusticePoint’s appeal. JusticePoint lost that appeal last month. The appeals court decision hinged on whether JusticePoint distributed its own services or instead provided services on behalf of the city.  White Chief Judge Maxine White authored the opinion, joined by Judges Pedro Colón and Sara Geenen.
JusticePoint argued that it was distributing services on behalf of the city. If so, the fair dealership law would have raised the city’s obligations for termination of the JusticePoint contract and required “good cause, proper notice, and an opportunity to cure,” White wrote. However, the appeals court found that the contract between JusticePoint and the city “appears to be a typical vendor-vendee relationship,” and “JusticePoint was selling and distributing its own services.” Thus, “the circuit court properly dismissed JusticePoint’s complaint and denied Justice Point’s request for an injunction,” White wrote. "As it has been since the beginning, our primary interest is to ensure that these services remain available to the residents of Milwaukee. If nothing else, our lawsuit has kept these services in place for the past two years," said Edward Gordon, chief operating officer of JusticePoint, in an email to WJI last week. The city argued that applying the fair dealership law to the JusticePoint contract would “effectively swallow public procurement law” and “would make it nearly impossible for a government entity to ever terminate a contract that it determines is no longer serving the public good,” according to the appeals court decision. The city attorney’s office represented Milwaukee Municipal Court in the lawsuit. “We applaud the Court of Appeals affirmation of the Circuit Court in their holding that no dealership relationship existed in the city’s contracting for services with JusticePoint. Such a precedent would be harmful to Milwaukee—and all local governments—and limit the ability to provide the very type of innovative, community-based programming that’s needed,” City Attorney Evan Goyke told WJI yesterday. “The city has always acknowledged the importance of programming and alternative resolutions for eligible individuals in the Municipal Court system,” Goyke said. Concerns remain about who or what will replace the alternatives program if it now sunsets. WJI board member Jim Gramling, who served as a Milwaukee Municipal Court judge for 21 years before retirement, filed a “friend of the court” brief in the JusticePoint appeal. "A significant percentage of defendants coming through the court live in poverty or struggle with addictions or mental health challenges," he told WJI this week. "Nearly 95% of the defendants proceed without an attorney.” Gramling said he was unaware of any provider ready to step in to replace JusticePoint. “Without the services provided by MCAP, those defendants are destined to be ground up in the system,” he said. When the city first attempted to terminate the JusticePoint contract in 2023, WJI asked then-chief court administrator Sheldyn Himle whether services would continue with a different provider. At the time, Himle responded that “Milwaukee Municipal Court’s intervention/alternatives program will continue, just not with the current vendor.” WJI reached out to current Milwaukee Municipal Court chief administrator Tea Norfolk following the court of appeals decision. She declined to comment on when or whether services would resume with another provider. Wisconsin Justice Initiative presented its second annual "Advocate for Justice Award" to Parker White and Evan Bondoc of the Foley & Lardner law firm. White and Bondoc represented WJI pro bono regarding a 2024 rule petition in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to increase the use of professional interpreters in municipal courts statewide. White and Bondoc provided excellent representation, and the award acknowledges their skill, effort, and dedication in advocating for needed change. Executive Director Margo Kirchner presented the award at WJI's May 14 fundraiser at Turner Hall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. For more than a year, White and Bondoc managed meetings, drafted a proposed new rule and well-reasoned briefs, and provided solid and insightful counsel. This past December they argued WJI's rule change petition before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Although the court did not agree with WJI's proposed new rule and denied the petition, every justice said that the issue was an important one, and the court referred the issue to the Wisconsin Judicial Council for further study. Since the rule petition ended, work to improve municipal court interpreter services continues, and White and Bondoc continue to provide strategic advice. By Alexandria Staubach
Milwaukee Municipal Court continues to dodge its obligation to record hearings by proposing an insufficient new policy in response to a court order. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David Borowski rejected the municipal court’s proffered new policy but clarified some of the municipal court’s responsibilities. Borowski held in December 2024 that the municipal court and its judges had consistently failed to comply with statutorily imposed recording requirements for hearings on motions to reopen as well as hearings addressing a defendant’s ability to pay. Such hearings must be recorded so an appellate court can review them. Borowski placed the municipal court under his supervision and ordered the municipal court to comply within 90 days. He reserved the right to hold hearings every three to six months to monitor compliance. Over the years, Milwaukee Municipal Court developed several different categories of hearings and limited recordings to only what it called “indigency hearings,” even though judges regularly took up a defendant’s ability to pay in other hearings as well. Borowski found in December that names of court proceedings are an invention of Milwaukee Municipal Court and the court could not avoid recording requirements through its naming system. He ordered the municipal court to “fully implement” policies and procedures to electronically record every hearing in which “(1) a decision is made as to a motion to reopen a case (regardless of whether said motion is made orally or in writing, regardless of the label or category assigned to said hearing, and regardless of the ultimate result of the hearing) and (2) a determination is made as to the defendant’s ability to pay a judgment due to poverty (regardless of the ultimate result of the hearing).” In March 2025, Milwaukee Municipal Court submitted to Borowski a plan that purported to bring it into compliance but failed to address key components of his December order. The policy Milwaukee Municipal Court submitted again only applied to “indigency hearings.” Further, it shifted the burden of recording from the municipal court to the court’s bailiffs and said the municipal court would no longer grant “motions to reopen based on pleadings alone but rather schedule a hearing,” as a result of Borowski’s decision. Milwaukee Municipal Court sought clarification from Borowski because it thought his December decision was “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation,” asking Borowski to point out the “specific circumstances requiring a hearing in open court” that would trigger the recording requirement. Last week, Borowski found that the proposed policy Milwaukee Municipal Court presented “lacks sufficient clarity to ensure compliance with the Court’s Decision and Order.” He directed the municipal court to develop a new policy that “must explicitly require electronic recording of ALL of the following”:
The new order forbids the municipal court from placing the obligation of recording on bailiffs. “Court staff may be responsible for turning on the recorder, but the policy and procedure must clarify that any recording must be made at the direction of the judge,” Borowski wrote. Milwaukee Municipal Court has 14 days to develop a new policy, Borowski said. Borowski noted that nothing in his December order requires Milwaukee Municipal Court to hold a hearing on a written motion or when a judge would otherwise dispose of a matter by written order. “Judge Borowski’s April 21, 2025 order is very clear guidance to any municipal court that is still unsure which hearings must be electronically recorded,” said Susan Lund, attorney for the plaintiff who brought the case challenging Milwaukee Municipal Court’s recording procedures.  The City of Milwaukee's Judiciary and Legislation Committee on Monday, Jan. 13, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
Today, the Milwaukee Common Council’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee unanimously approved a legislative lobbying plan that includes amending state law to increase use of jail as punishment and to eliminate protections against jailing of the poor by municipal courts. The state legislative package approved by the committee Monday morning describes what city representatives should pursue with the Legislature in 2025 and 2026. That the committee would take up the package was announced late Friday. Wisconsin Justice Initiative, the ACLU of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Turners, and several individuals were denied the opportunity to speak about the package, despite appearing in person at the meeting on short notice. In explanation, Alderperson Mark Chambers, Jr. said the document was a “living file” and in theory subject to change. Alderperson Robert Bauman encouraged interested people and entities to reach out to their alderpeople individually. “It felt a bit like a cold shoulder on a 12-degree day,” said James Gramling, WJI board member and former municipal court judge, who attended the committee meeting. WJI and others specifically sought to address the legislative priority of amending state law to increase the use of jail to enforce municipal forfeitures. Many municipal judges have decreased the use of jail commitments to enforce municipal forfeitures, as such jail time is widely considered counterproductive and harmful to low-income individuals. The ACLU of Wisconsin recently released a report highlighting how carceral sanctions in Wisconsin’s municipal courts inherently criminalize poverty and result in racially disparate effects. The city's legislative priority would have its lobbyists pushing for statutes permitting municipal courts to impose jail time “as a penalty for individuals who have failed to appear in court and have accumulated more than 15 outstanding citations or owe $20,000 or more in unpaid fines.” But Wisconsin law already permits jail time for any unpaid monetary judgment ordered by a municipal court, not just after a certain dollar amount accumulates. Using jail as punishment for those with 15 or more citations, though, is new. Importantly, an alternative proposed change would eliminate protections that prevent poor defendants from jail time when they do not have the ability to pay. The city’s lobbying proposal seeks to “waive the requirements” of the statute that “limits the use of jail sentences in certain situations.” Those "certain situations" include when a defendant is deemed impoverished and lacks the ability to pay municipal court forfeitures, such as when a defendant receives public benefits. “The proposal to waive these requirements will essentially recreate debtor’s prisons—a torturous, outdated and unconstitutional relic openly forbidden by Congress in 1833 and condemned by everyone from Charles Dickens to Michelle Alexander,” Emilio De Torre, executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, told WJI. The state legislative package includes more than one hundred priorities, which its executive summary says are designed to “reflect Milwaukee’s unwavering commitment to a brighter future” and “shape Milwaukee’s development for years to come.” Bauman described the document as a “big wish list.” The committee unanimously adopted the legislative plan as proposed. It will go to the Milwaukee Common Council for approval before heading to the mayor’s desk.  Entry to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Dec. 17, 2024. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday voted to deny a rule change petition brought by Wisconsin Justice Initiative that sought to require municipal court judges to use professional interpreters in all municipal court proceedings. Although all justices said they believed the issue raised by WJI was important and one said she did not want to “kick the can down the road,” the court voted to refer the issue to the Wisconsin Judicial Council for its consideration, while acknowledging that the Judicial Council presently has no funding or staff. WJI’s proposed rule change would have eliminated the practice of municipal courts using a defendant's family member or friend, a police officer, Google Translate, or even other defendants present in the courtroom to interpret court proceedings for individuals who do not speak or understand English. A survey WJI conducted in August 2023 and presented to the justices during briefing showed that at initial appearances, a whopping 49% of municipal court judges who responded to the survey have defendants bring a friend or family member or use Google Translate to interpret courtroom proceedings. Even at evidentiary hearings and trials, which include testimony, 21% of municipal judges responding to the survey said they use a defendant’s friend or family member or Google Translate. Professional interpreters are currently required in municipal courts only for juveniles who meet poverty requirements. During argument on the petition Tuesday, the justices made much of the unknown scope of the problem, unknown costs associated with such a rule change, and competition with circuit courts for interpreters. While interpreters are already scarce in Wisconsin, WJI’s proposed rule mandated using such scarce resources in only very limited circumstances. WJI’s proposed rule change would have required “qualified interpreters,” meaning interpreters trained for court proceedings and who meet circuit court standards, only for evidentiary hearings and trials. Those occur in just a small percentage of the 400,000 to 450,000 municipal court cases per year—and under state statutes those qualified interpreters could appear by video or telephone. WJI attorney Parker White calculated on the fly during oral argument that such qualified interpreters would likely be needed in “less than 300 cases a year, spread over 219 courts throughout Wisconsin.” That means in less than 0.1% of municipal court cases. White and Evan Bondoc, both of the Foley & Lardner law firm, represented WJI in written briefs on the petition and oral arguments before the court. For the bulk of municipal court proceedings, municipal judges would have been allowed to use an audio or audio/visual service such as LanguageLine or Swits for interpreter services. “The vast majority would be satisfied by LanguageLine,” White told the court. According to several municipal judges, LanguageLine is simple and easy to use. WJI’s attorneys argued that it is also low cost, and the cost would be appropriate for the benefits gained by limited-English proficiency (LEP) defendants understanding their court proceedings. “Why don’t they just do that?” asked Chief Justice Annette Ziegler at the hearing. “Because it’s not required,” she then said, answering her own question. Seven organizations filed written comments supporting the petition. Five of them also appeared in person to argue their support: the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Judicare Legal Aid, the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, and the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance. Even the two organizations and one individual opposing the petition acknowledged the importance of the issue. “All parties agree that LEP individuals have a right to meaningfully participate in the proceedings brough against them,” said Bondoc during oral argument. Tim Muth, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, argued that the issue raised by WJI is “a question of fundamental fairness and due process.” Susan Lund of Legal Action Wisconsin stated that “in an era of mass incarceration, . . . if we cannot meet basic fairness standards, perhaps we are not utilizing the court system appropriately.” Megan Lee of Judicare, Nancy Cruz of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, and Fauzia Qureshi of the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance spoke in favor of the petition, highlighting the need for proper interpreter services in municipal courts. During oral arguments, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley expressed great concern for the western part of the state, noting that in some towns 50% of schoolchildren come from homes where English is not the primary language. She also highlighted large populations of individuals who do not speak English, work in agriculture, and commonly find themselves before municipal courts for operating without a license. But the court failed to find its way around the unknown costs and lack of precise data on the scope of the interpreter problem WJI presented. Justice Jill Karofsky asked repeatedly for “hard numbers,” which, because record keeping of the number of friends or family members used as interpreters is not required in municipal courts, were virtually impossible for WJI to cite. She asked Muth how to weigh the petition against the court system’s already strained interpreter resources. “There could be unintended consequences,” said Ziegler during the oral argument. At an open conference following the arguments, Justice Brian Hagedorn moved quickly to deny WJI’s petition. Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley seconded the motion. She argued that the matter should be left for the Legislature to address. Ziegler said "there's nothing wrong with having interpreters in municipal court. Probably is a good thing." But she questioned whether it was feasible and said it was a matter for the Legislature. She later indicated her position that the petition should be denied outright. "I would do nothing further," Ziegler said. The court’s remaining justices, referred to as “the four” at one point by Grassl Bradley, wrestled with options other than denying the petition completely. Justice Janet Protasiewicz recognized that "there's an obvious need, and you look at people coming from all corners of the community to speak in favor of this." Nevertheless, she had concerns about unanswered questions and was "not in support of this today." She suggested sending the issue to a committee to review. Justice Rebecca Dallet said she did not want to deny the petition without referring the matter somewhere for additional review. Dallet recognized the importance of the problem raised by WJI and the desire for the court to do something about it. She suggested a rule recommending that municipal judges whenever possible use a professional interpreter service such as LanguageLine. "What can we do to maybe not solve the whole problem, but what can this court do? . . . Something lesser, that's still important, she said." Walsh Bradley discussed the history of the Judicial Council, its work regarding municipal courts in prior years, and its ability to recommend changes to both the Supreme Court and Legislature. Walsh Bradley said that if the court would not refer the matter to the Judicial Council she might vote to grant the petition. Karofsky said she did not like the feeling of “kicking this can down the road,” but she did not see granting or modifying WJI's proposed rule at this time. She at first hesitated sending the issue to the Judicial Council because it was unstaffed, the problem is complex, and the solution is unclear. In agreeing to a court referral she emphasized that she did not want to require the Judicial Council to take up the question but rather, as set forth in the council’s enabling statute, leave it to the council’s discretion. Hagedorn said that he wanted WJI, whose attorneys and representatives remained in the courtroom during the open conference, to know that the court indeed considers the issue of municipal court interpreters to be an important one. "I hope the petitioners understand . . . (that) we don’t think this is the right solution, but we appreciate that you raised the problem, and maybe we should see if there are other solutions to the problem," he said Following the court’s vote to deny the petition with a referral to the Judicial Council, White told WJI that he nevertheless was encouraged “to see all members of the Court recognize and grapple with the serious problems LEP individuals face in Wisconsin municipal courts today, even if we were disappointed with the Court's apparent disposition on the petition itself. Even the parties who spoke to oppose us uniformly acknowledged the need for some sort of action comparable to what we proposed. I'm hopeful our petition, and any forthcoming related work by the Judicial Council, will help close the gaps of due process and access to justice that hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites face today." Any action by the Judicial Council could take substantial time, as it has lacked staff since 2017, when it was defunded by the Supreme Court and Legislature. Legislation will take significant effort and substantial time as well. Nevertheless, WJI intends to continue pursuing the matter, whether with the Judicial Council, the Wisconsin Legislature, or the Supreme Court in a future revised petition. “We think everyone in municipal courts, not just indigent juveniles, deserves to understand the proceedings,” said WJI's Kirchner. “Access to justice requires at its heart that the person charged with a violation accurately communicate with the judge and at the very least understand the court proceedings,” she said. “We don’t have that with friends or family members—sometimes children—or even strangers in the courtroom interpreting,” Kirchner said. In municipal courts, where almost all defendants represent themselves, “add a language barrier and you have a double disadvantage,” she said. WJI Board Member Jim Gramling, a retired Milwaukee Municipal Court judge who was involved in WJI’s prosecution of the rule petition, stated that “if you accept, as you must, that municipal courts are a component of the state court system, you wouldn’t hesitate to require interpreters.” “Providing the means for basic understanding of legal proceedings is a requirement of having a court,” he said. A written order regarding the denial of the petition and referral is expected at some point in the future. The Judicial Council was created by statute in 1951 to study the rules of court practice and procedure and recommend changes to the Supreme Court and Legislature. Its 21 members come from all three branches of government, the state's two law schools, and the State Bar of Wisconsin. (Note: WJI Executive Director Margo Kirchner is a Judicial Council member representing the State Bar.) WJI extends many thanks to White and Bondoc and the Foley & Lardner law firm for their excellent pro bono representation of WJI in this matter.
 Milwaukee Municipal Court, one of the courts issuing arrest warrants and writs of commitment for unpaid court forfeitures and fines, says a recent report by the ACLU of Wisconsin. By Alexandria Staubach
Warrants and civil commitments persist in municipal courts across the state of Wisconsin despite widespread investigation and advocacy against the practice, according to a report published last week by the ACLU of Wisconsin. Municipal courts are permitted by state law to employ “stay to pay” contracts. Under stay to pay, those with outstanding debts spend days in jail to satisfy their forfeiture. The maximum time of imprisonment is 90 days at a minimum rate of $50 per day. Jail time is being served for offenses like contributing to truancy, operating a vehicle without a license, non-registration of a motor vehicle, loud and unnecessary noise, and even a dog running at large, the report says. The use of such jail time is common in some courts. In Waukesha, for instance, 499 warrants were satisfied by defendants serving jail time between 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, other municipal courts do not use jail time to enforce nonpayment at all. The report describes two systems of justice: one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Those unable to pay court fines and forfeitures suffer extra penalties such as jail time. Effects of incarceration include missed wages, having to appear in court time and again to assert an ongoing inability to pay, and even loss of housing. To demonstrate the extent of possible outcomes, the report details the story of one grandmother who, after experiencing homelessness, lost a public housing opportunity because of outstanding municipal warrants for failure to pay. “Monetary sanctions trigger a long series of consequences and barriers to full societal integration for families who cannot pay, which are very different from the effects of monetary sanctions on those who can afford them” the report says. While there are legal protections for those who can demonstrate an inability to pay, having an attorney to enforce those rights is the exception rather than the norm. The report found racial inequities consistent with those well documented in the greater criminal justice system. The report shows the most significant impact to those in low-income communities of color, with 71% of warrants and 49% of commitments issued against Black defendants in Milwaukee Municipal Court between January 2023 and August 2024. In La Crosse County, where the Black population represents 1.8% of the total population, 33% of those incarcerated on municipal warrants were Black. Jailing those who fail to pay municipal forfeitures actually costs the municipality money. The jail that hosts such stay-to-pay contracts submits a bill to the municipal court that ordered the time. The report says this practice can cost a municipal court more in enforcement than a forfeiture was actually worth. The report’s recommendations include eliminating warrants and incarceration for failure to pay fines; removing old outstanding warrants, especially in jurisdictions that have stopped incarcerating people for failure to pay; appointing counsel at hearings concerning the ability to pay; and improving municipal court record keeping to make municipal court revenue generating practices more transparent. Wisconsin municipal courts generated more than $35 million in revenue in 2023, the report says. A 2018 report from the Wisconsin Director of State Courts and the National Center for State Courts also recommended reducing the use of incarceration for failure to pay municipal forfeitures. Dr. Emma Shakeshaft, the author of the ACLU of Wisconsin report, is a WJI board member. This afternoon WJI petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require trained interpreters in municipal court proceedings involving low-English-proficiency (LEP) individuals.
WJI’s proposed new rule of procedure would bring municipal courts more in line with circuit courts, which are required to use “qualified” interpreters in proceedings involving LEP individuals. Qualified interpreters must meet certain requirements regarding their capabilities and accuracy. The current rule requires qualified interpreters in municipal courts only in matters involving juveniles. Otherwise, municipal judges are allowed to ask a party to bring a friend or family member—sometimes even a minor child—to court to interpret legal proceedings. “I’ve even seen a judge ask the gallery—the defendants awaiting their own cases to be called—if anyone spoke Spanish and could interpret proceedings when a woman did not bring someone with her to court,” said WJI Executive Director Margo Kirchner. The proposed new rule for municipal courts tracks the circuit court rule, with a major difference. The proposed rule divides proceedings into 1) evidentiary hearings that involve testimony and 2) other proceedings. Qualified interpreters would be required for all evidentiary hearings, including trials. In other proceedings, such as initial appearances or status conferences, the municipal court could use a telephonic, video, or computerized service approved by the director of state courts. Interpretation of legal proceedings by untrained friends, family members, or strangers would no longer be permitted. WJI wrote in its brief supporting the petition that “LEP individuals in Wisconsin today are not receiving proper access to qualified interpreters in municipal court proceedings.” Family members and friends acting as interpreters may not be proficient in the languages being used and may have conflicts of interest. “Even assuming they are proficient, these individuals almost certainly lack professional training as interpreters, let alone the specialized legal training necessary for properly interpreting court proceedings,” WJI wrote. “The ability to understand the words of the judge and the opposing party during a legal proceeding is a crucial element of due process. Without the help of a qualified interpreter, LEP individuals cannot meaningfully participate in their own legal proceedings This deprivation of due process rights has serious legal and practical consequences,” WJI wrote. WJI added that holding proceedings without providing qualified interpreters may also amount to national origin discrimination. “Very few defendants in Wisconsin's municipal courts have attorneys. This problem is compounded for those who do not understand the language being spoken in the courtroom,” said WJI board member and former Milwaukee Municipal Judge Jim Gramling about the need for the petition. “Municipal courts handle drunk driving cases, building and health code violations, charges of disorderly conduct, vandalism, marijuana possession, assault and battery. Forfeitures can reach into the thousands of dollars. Defendants in these cases deserve full interpreter services,” Gramling said. “Every court in Wisconsin, by law, must provide full interpreter services for defendants with one exception—the 230 municipal courts which handle over 400,000 cases every year,” Gramling said. “Municipal courts fly under the radar for the public and media, but that is where many people interact with the court system. As we say in our brief, municipal court cases involve real charges and real consequences," Kirchner said. “Those charged with offenses in municipal court, just as in circuit court, should be able to understand what is said and argue their case to the judge with accurate interpretation.” The petition is part of WJI’s broader effort to improve municipal court outcomes for defendants, especially low-income and minority individuals. “Since 2016, WJI has educated the public about municipal courts, monitored municipal court proceedings, and advocated for an end to jail and driver’s license suspension in response to unpaid municipal court forfeitures,” said Kirchner. “While monitoring municipal courts, we saw the frequent use of friends and family members when interpreters were needed,” said Kirchner. WJI has published public education information to help defendants understand municipal court proceedings. The materials include a Spanish-language video and pocket guide. Under the proposed rule, interpreters would be provided at municipal expense. WJI argues that the cost is reasonable and necessary in light of the important interests at stake. WJI awaits review of the petition by the Supreme Court. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed