Evers' judges: Pedro A. Colón

"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications.
 
Italics indicate direct quotes from the application.​ Grammar mistakes and typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.

Name: Pedro A. Colón
 
Appointed to: Wisconsin Court of Appeals-District I
 
Appointment date: June 20, 2023 (effective Nov. 18, 2023, to a term ending July 31, 2024)
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Undergraduate – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
High School – St. Thomas More High, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
September 2010-present – Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge
January 1999-September 2010 – State representative, 8th District, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
June 2007-March 2008 – Attorney, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 1998-June 2007 – Partner, Baxter, O’Meara, Leair, & Colon, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin  
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
Prior to my appointment by Governor Jim Doyle in 2010 to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, I was a state legislator for over a decade. During my time in the legislature, I also practiced law representing clients in civil litigation, criminal defense, and employment litigation.
 
Describe typical clients:
My clients were typically corporations and individuals in tort and employment litigation. I also represented families purchasing homes and businesses in the Spanish-speaking community.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: 60-70
 
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
 
Since joining the judiciary in 2010, I have served on four judicial rotations, each lasting at least three years. I have presided over various courts, including Children's Court, Small Claims, and General Felony. Currently, I am completing my rotation on the Civil Division, where I serve as Presiding Judge.
 
Every case that comes before my court holds significance. I have endeavored to ensure that both my staff and I present ourselves in a way that is productive and understanding of the difficulties associated with litigation. During COVID-19, the calendar remained working and constant and, along with my colleagues, we were able to keep the courthouse open to litigants. I have recently tried 15 cases in the Civil Division in an effort to reduce the COVID-19 backlog of cases.
 
When in the felony division, I approached the sentencing of defendants in my felony cases with great care, ensuring a thorough understanding of the guiding principles mandated by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that our state's prison population has doubled compared to our neighboring state of Minnesota since the passage of truth-in-sentencing laws by the legislature. In this context, sentencing becomes the most impactful proceeding in criminal courts as it has a significant impact, not only on victims and families, but more broadly on our communities that continue to spend increasing amounts of money on prisons while other important community needs remain stagnant.
 
While at Children’s Court, in termination of parental rights cases where strict limits for decisions are imposed, I provided written decisions that explained my findings after a comprehensive examination of the case record. For probate cases and Chapter 51 commitment cases, I ensured that the County met its evidentiary burden in each instance.
 
When handling Small Claims, I strove to give the parties the most extensive hearing possible. Recognizing that many litigants do not have the benefit of legal representation, I took extra care to explain the court's decision in a manner that they could comprehend, assuring them that the court had provided them with the fairest hearing possible.
 
I am currently the Presiding Judge in the Civil Division. Under typical circumstances, the presiding judge of the division must manage the caseload, new developments in the law and provide procedural consistency to litigants. However, COVID-19 made the presiding judge’s task much more demanding as we faced a backlog of cases, a shortage of court reporters, a shortage of law clerks and the ever changing COVID-19 safety protocols. I endeavored to keep our division focused and, as of now, most of the calendars no longer have a backlog, we expect legal clerks and court clerks to be fully staffed by August (2023).
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I have experience representing clients in cases before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division based on age and race discrimination. I have also represented clients before the Social Security Benefits Appeal Board and Board of Zoning for license requests and appeals.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
As a judge, I mediated a significant case involving tax assessments by one the municipalities in Milwaukee County.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
I have been a candidate for office in six partisan and five non-partisan races. Prior to my appointment to the bench, I served in a volunteer capacity on several partisan and non-partisan campaigns for state and local offices. Since becoming a judge, I have remained actively involved in non-partisan state and local races.
 
Previous runs for public office:
State representative, District 8, elected 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006
Milwaukee County Circuit Court, elected 2011, 2017 and 2023
Milwaukee city attorney, defeated 2008
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Justice Janet Protsiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023
Justice Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020
Ed Fallone, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020
Judge Lisa Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2019
Justice Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018
Judge Joe Donald, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016
Alderman Jose Perez, Milwaukee Common Council, 2016, 2020
Alderwoman JoCasta Zamarippa, Milwaukee Common Council, 2020
Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee Mayor, 2016, 2020
County Executive Chris Abele, Milwaukee County Executive, 2016
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
United Community Center, board member, 2012-2021
Divine Savior Holy Angels, board member, 2015-2020
Greater Milwaukee Foundation, board member and co-chair, 2016-present
Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, board member and former president, 1997-present
American Constitution Society, Wisconsin Chapter B, 2018-present
Wisconsin Bar Association, member, 1994-present
Milwaukee Trial Judges, board member, 2010-present
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
I have participated in many pro-bono cases over my career, particularly in the Latino community, primarily assisting immigrant and Spanish-speaking clients.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge: 
For nearly 25 years, I have served our community: first as a state legislator, then as a Circuit Court Judge. The Court of Appeals plays a crucial role in reviewing cases, ensuring the Constitutional guarantees that in turn define our most significant values as a free and democratic society. I harbor a deep interest in ensuring Constitutional rights for our citizens and a passion for justice. The Court of Appeals allows me to decide cases of precedential value to litigants, lawyers and our community. My legislative and judicial work, coupled with my life experiences, will enable me to interpret the law with a broader lens, ultimately aiding me in deciding the disputes that come before the court.
 
Currently, Wisconsinites appear deeply divided along partisan political lines. These divisions are increasingly brought before the courts for interpretation and decision-making. I firmly believe that applying a traditionalist approach to the Constitutional interpretation of law strengthens our democracy. For the better part of the last 20 years, ideologies such as "Originalism" or "Strict Constructionism" have steered a movement where judges increasingly constrain the courts' constitutional mandate under the guise of historical interpretation. Dispute resolution is now guided less by our shared experiences and more by rigidly applied rhetoric. The parties and the public rely on our courts to provide guidance for peacefully resolving disputes and to abide by laws that are clear and reflect our daily lives. An independent judiciary can only be as effective as the unbiased review provided by non-partisan courts. I am confident that I can contribute to the robust analysis of issues that come before the court.
 
I aspire to serve as an Appeals Court judge because I aim to adjudicate cases impartially, ensuring that the scope of the litigation adheres to precedents set by both the U.S. and Wisconsin Supreme Courts and laws enacted by legislative bodies. This commitment in turn requires the courts to reconcile the current progression of human and scientific understanding and current precedent. The intentions of the Constitutional framers, to the extent we can discern them, are one of the factors, along with science and human development that drive our understanding of justice.
 
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Vincent v. Voight, 236 Wis. 2d 588, authored by Justice Crooks, held that “Wisconsin students have a fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. An equal opportunity for a sound basic education is one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.” (Para. 8.) For the first time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized that every Wisconsin child has an equal right to a good education and that the Court will exercise its review authority to mandate that the legislature comply with the Constitutional mandate requiring equal funding between school districts and a free and sound education to every child. This decision exemplifies the struggle for courts to balance the co-equal power structure the Constitution demands.
 
As explained in footnote 2, compliance with state constitutional mandates requires the Court to interpret compliance by the legislature and as such, the Court found that constitutional questions are a “justiciable issue.” Justice Abrahamson’s concurrence/dissent explains a “fundamental principle” of state constitutional law is that the Wisconsin Constitution, in contrast with the U.S. Constitution, is not a grant of, but a limitation upon, legislative power” Id. at para 94, fn. 1. As such, it requires that the Court review legislative mandate informed by compliance of the rights guaranteed in the State Constitution. Without footnote 2, minimal compliance would pass constitutional muster and truncate the court’s efforts to maintain its co-equal function with the legislative and executive branches.
 
In contrast to the positive significance to the balance of power exercised in the Court’s decision in Vincent v. Voight, the decision in League of Women Voters v. Tony Evers, 2019 WI 75, narrows the scope of its review and gives complete deference to the legislature to interpret constitutional requirements holding that “extraordinary sessions do not violate the Wisconsin Constitution because the text of our constitution directs the Legislature to meet at times as “provided by law.” The Court reached its holding without regard to legislative practice in our state and omitted consideration of other legislative mandates inconsistent with its conclusion. As Justice Dallet points out in her dissent:
 
Under the majority opinion's reading of Article IV, Section 11, the words "at such time" and "unless" become superfluous because the Legislature could meet at any time. … A continuous two-year session would also render meaningless several other laws which distinguish between days that the Legislature is in session and days when it is not. The majority opinion fails to logically explain how a continuous two-year session comports with the constitutional mandate to meet at "such time as shall be provided by law."
 
Id., at para. 48 (citations omitted).
 
This majority opinion posits a deep reliance on legislative deference often without due regard to the customary and reasonable interpretation of legislative customs and other laws. This form of analysis surrenders the court’s most significant role in our democracy; ensuring that constitutional mandates are robustly adhered to.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Justice Shirley Abrahamson was and remains one of the most significant figures on our Supreme Court. She professionalized our court system by ensuring a judicial education system that focuses on Wisconsin law competencies. She brought technology to the courts. She respected the separation of powers by properly seeking funding for the judiciary. She made it clear that the Court is not a partisan forum for result-oriented analysis, but an independent reviewer of the lower court’s authority and final arbiter of constitutional rights. All of her opinions give clear guidance to lower courts.
 
I admire the late Justice N. Patrick Crooks for his tolerance and total commitment to fairness. He is, to me, the gold standard of decency. In Vincent v. Voight, his reasoning is as tempered as it is progressive. He set a clear and strong precedent while respecting the other branches of government. Justice Crooks served on the Brown County Circuit Court for many years prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice and had a deep personal understanding of the demands placed on circuit judges in daily administration of justice.
 
Federal Judge Lynn Adelman is one of the most articulate and clear thinking judges presently in our courts. In Frank v. Walker, Case 11-CV-0922, after a thorough trial, he granted a permanent injunction of the Act 23 requirements for voter identification. Judge Adelman reviewed the evidence without omitting any facts and proceeded to fully flesh the factual underpinnings advanced by the proponents of voter identification requirements. To date, Judge Adelman’s decision in Frank v. Walker is the most accurate account of voting and voting rights laws as they played out in Milwaukee. Although the Seventh Circuit overturned his decision, it created an archival record of how voter ID requirements played out to ultimately undermine voter participation. More recently he has turned his attention to the over-utilization of prisons as a consequence of the truth-in-sentencing laws. The Adverse Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing on Wisconsin’s Efforts to deal with Low-Level Drug Offenders, Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol 47 No. 3.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a judge is to be thorough, prepared, and to allow the parties to present their arguments, if those arguments are founded in facts that have been adversarially tested and soundly guided by evidentiary requirements. A judge's principal role is to safeguard the court's constitutional role, an area where all three co-equal branches of state government share power and authority in accordance with the Wisconsin Constitution. This is indeed "a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation" (Vincent v. Voight, 286 Wis. 2d 588, Para. 2, fn. 2). While courts should not seek to create controversies where there are none, they must make sound decisions when necessary.

---