EVERS’ JUDGES: SCOTT P. CRAIG

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

Name: Scott P. Craig
 
Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Jan. 22, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025
 
Education:
Law School – St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, Texas
Undergraduate – University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
​High School – William Howard Taft High, San Antonio, Texas
Special Education Certificate – NTEC (Quincy University), Oak Creek, Wisconsin (Quincy, Ill.)
 
Recent legal employment:
June 2020-present – Deputy Family Court commissioner, Racine County, Racine, Wisconsin
January 2017-December 2017 – Adjunct professor, Gateway Technical College, Kenosha, Wisconsin
January 2016-June 2020 – Lawyer/Guardian ad Litem, Law Offices of Scott P. Craig, LLC, Racine, Wisconsin
August 2007-January 2016 – Special Education teacher, Racine Unified School District, Racine, Wisconsin
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
My practice was primarily Guardian ad Litem (GAL) work for Racine County. In addition to that, I did family and school representation, limited scope representation, and mediation.
 
Describe typical clients:
I represented the best interest as a GAL of children, minor parents, and persons deemed incompetent. Otherwise, it was a parent in a paternity, child facing school discipline, child in an IEP meeting, or parties in a mediation.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: As GAL-participated in 30+ bench trials
 
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:
As a GAL, I participated in a child abuse injunction trial that eventually led into a dispute over custody and placement. Essentially, the mother was attempting to alienate the father from their child. The trial lasted over a year due to a myriad of factors. In the end, the recommendation I had initially made of the injunction being denied. The judge was The Honorable Faye Flancher, Mother's attorney was Greg Hodhal, and Father had Attorney Rod Koening.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: N/A
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
Towards the end of my private practice I began building my mediation practice. My focus was couples who needed help with paperwork to start and complete their divorce.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Volunteered at President Obama's campaign stop in Racine – approx. 2008.
 
Previous runs for public office: N/A
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Racine County Bar Association, member, approx. 2018-2020
Racine Family Bar Association, member, 2020-present
Wisconsin African American Lawyers, member, approx. 2016-2018
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
Marquette Legal Clinic - House of Peace: Provided legal advice and completed paperwork for parties - family, guardianship, small claims, and landlord/tenant issues. (approx. 3 years)
 
Marquette Legal Clinic - Milwaukee Justice Center: Provided legal advice and completed paperwork for parties - family issues (approx. 6 months)
 
Legal Action Volunteer: Provided legal advice on consumer issues. (approx. 6 months)
 
Racine Literacy Counsel - Tutor (approx. 1 - 1.5 years)
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge:
Since being in Racine I have had the honor of working with students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Horlick High School is full of educators who are committed to welfare of the students and the community. I am proud to count myself among that group. We helped students with academics, decision-making skills, goal setting, and overcoming adversity. We made a difference in the lives of children and the future of Racine.
 
When I got to Racine, I found a church family that showed me what service looks like. It was at that church that sparked my desire to be a servant. I served in and out of the church to help those in the community and those in need. We opened up our doors to our most vulnerable and eventually, that would be the spark that started the Hospitality Center here in Racine. I am forever grateful to be a part of that.
 
After teaching, I was blessed with the opportunity to serve as a Guardian ad Litem for Racine’s most vulnerable population, children in the middle of custody battles, guardianships, and CHIPs actions. Through dedication and hard work, I was able to make a positive impact on the lives of children. For me, this act of service was about ensuring the future of this community is as safe as possible.
 
It has been an honor for the last three and half years to serve the people of Racine County as a Deputy Family Court Commissioner, and I wish to continue my service by being appointed to Branch 4 in Racine County. I wish to continue my service because the State of Wisconsin and the County of Racine have given me far more than I could ever hope to give in return.
 
I spent the first half of my life in Texas, but it is the second half of my life in Racine that has been my biggest blessing. Wisconsin has given me a home, a family, and a sense of community. I am committed to Racine County and its residents. I wish to give back to the community that has given me so much.
 
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.
A case that had a significant negative impact on the people of Wisconsin is Citizens United v. FEC. In this case, the US Supreme Court held that super PACs and corporations can spend an unlimited amount on elections. Historically, restrictions were in place to prevent corruption. The Court in Citizens United, felt unlimited spending by corporations and super PACs is permissible and avoids corruptions so long as they do not work with the campaign. Also, super PACs do not have to disclose the identities of the contributors. Prior to this ruling, PACs were allowed to donate a limited amount of money to a campaign.
 
Citizens United concentrates political speech in the hands of the wealthiest individuals. It takes away from the concept of one person, one vote. It shifts the balance further away from voter and places the power in the hands of a select few. The voice of everyday citizens is drowned out by the chorus of money flowing into the political landscape.
 
Wisconsin is a swing state, so it is one of the states that see some of the greatest influence from Citizens United. The voters are inundated with ads and mailers from these super PACs. The voters do not know who is behind the ads and mailers they receive. It could be wealthy individuals with agendas that differ from everyday working people. It could even be from foreign country seeking to undermine our democracy or the safety of our community.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Thurgood Marshall has had the biggest impact on my legal journey. It started when I was in grade school. I read a biography about Thurgood Marshall. I am not sure at the time I read the book, I knew what a judge was, but the one thing I did know was that I wanted to be like him. I was not sure the route but I knew I wanted to be a judge. Moreover, he even sparked a dream of being on the Supreme Court.
 
I was drawn to his handling cases that mattered and transforming the lives of people. I wanted to be like him and make a positive impact in the community. From the book, I got a sense of his strength and his character. It was also easy to admire his being the first person of color to serve on the Supreme Court, and his ability to do it with grace and dignity.
 
The other judge I admire is a much lesser known judge, but no less significant in my life, my childhood priest. Father Phil Stevenson began his life prior to entering the priesthood as a lawyer. He took up the family business as a young man and it was in the military that he served as a judge. By the time he came to my church, his legal career was but a distant memory.
 
I always admired Father Phil and in many ways looked up to him. He was a man of strength, charisma, character, and devotion. When I told him of my desire to be a judge, he told me I would need to go to law school. He then told me he went to the University of Texas at Austin. It was then and there that I decided that I was going to UT. When senior year came around, I applied to UT and began the path towards the judiciary and the path Father Phil sparked in me.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts in a fair and impartial manner. A judge must be fair. A judge should not enter into a case with their mind up about the potential outcome.
 
I saw the need of impartiality while working as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL). It is a unique position, because the GAL speaks with both parties. Once, a mother come in for an interview and she was quite compelling. The father came in a few days later and had a much different account of the events, but Father had evidence that disproved the veracity of Mother’s claims. I walked away with a greater sense of the importance of remaining neutral until all the facts and evidence have been presented. It can be very tempting at first blush to form an opinion, but a judge must remain open to hearing both sides before forming an opinion. While on the bench as a Deputy Family Court Commissioner, I always remain open to hearing from both sides before rendering a decision.
 
A judge should apply the law to the facts. A judge should make a decision independent of desired results or partisan pressure. Judges should be able to make decisions that may not align with their personal beliefs.
As a parent, I can understand the desire of parents to determine with whom their children spend time. Nevertheless, as a Court Commissioner, I order third party visitation when the petitioner has met the standards set out in 767.43. I do not try to make their circumstances fit my personal beliefs. I simply apply the law to the facts.
The judge is to be a good communicator - listening and speaking. It is the job of the judge to make sure everyone has had an opportunity to be heard. Even though it may be the twentieth case the judge hears that day, it is the first time the parties have had an opportunity to be heard. They have waited, they have worried, and they have prayed for this moment. It is a significant moment to the parties and should be treated accordingly. I never lose sight of that when I am on the bench.
 
With the rise of pro se parties, good communication is even more crucial. Lawyers and judges throw around terms of art that go over the heads of the parties. While on the bench, I take the time to explain a term or procedure. Even after an explanation, I will ask if anyone seeks further clarity. Court can be bewildering and intimidating and the judge has a duty to make it as accessible as possible.
 
A judge is to maintain the decorum of the courtroom. Fairness, impartiality, and good communication are all in vain if the judge cannot maintain order in the courtroom. Parties often come to court during some of the worst times of their lives and may not always comport themselves. The judge must set the expectations of courtroom behavior. The judge must admonish when necessary but must be open to offering grace when someone was not at their best. For nearly a decade, I had stellar classroom management and maintained the decorum of my classroom. I take that same approach and sensibility when keeping the decorum of my hearing room.
 

---