Evers' judges: Toni L. Young

​"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.​ Bold type within italicized answers comes from the original 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: Toni L. Young
 
Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Nov. 30, 2023, to term ending July 31, 2024 (running on April 2, 2024 ballot for a six-year term)
 
Education:
Law School – Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan (now Western Michigan University Cooley Law School)
Undergraduate – Grambling State University, Grambling, Louisiana
High School – Armijo High, Fairfield, California
 
Recent legal employment:
October 2009-February 2014 – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin
March 2014-February 2015 – Judicial clerk, State of Hawaii Judiciary, Wailuku, Hawaii
March 2015-April 2016 – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin
April 2016-January 2020 – Staff attorney, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Janesville region, Wisconsin
February 2020-present – Attorney, private practice, Racine, Wisconsin
May 2021-present – Local attorney manager, Janesville region (Rock, Green and Lafayette counties), Wisconsin State Public Defender
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice: (No answer)
 
Describe typical clients:
In my criminal practice I represent the client that has been marginalized, disenfranchised, or just simply abandoned. It is my goal to provide clients with fervent representation. I listen to my clients and advocate for them to reach the goals that we set together. I intentionally seek to represent clients that have had attorneys that have withdrawn from their cases. Until recently, I never in my eleven year career withdrew from a case (with the exception of a forced withdrawal due to conflict or when a client has asked me to withdrawn). The instances of when a client has asked me to withdraw are roughly about 10 clients. In most, if not all, of those cases the client asked me to reinstate my representation after the withdrawal. I have worked on over 800 cases. To date, I have only withdrawn from one case in eleven years of practice. I also work as a Guardian ad Litem. In my role as Guardian ad Litem I have many responsibilities. Injunctions/TROs: As GAL I Interview all parties to determine if there is merit to the Petition and I report my findings that to the Court. Child Welfare Cases (Adoption, Chips, TPRs): As GAL I have an understanding of ICWA and WICWA and apply the Law Accordingly. I work with various agencies to achieve permanency goals for the child. I advocate for timely permanence for the child(ren) that I represent as GAL. Absent a compelling reason or circumstance, if a child is out of home 15 or the most recent 22 months, following through on the presumption that exists that the agency and state must file for termination of parental rights; I investigate, write and state my report on the record with my recommendation to the court to assist with final Court orders for permanency goals. As GAL, there is an expectation that I be prepared for trial or to litigate contested matters and proceed accordingly with an understanding of the rules of evidence and trial procedure. Guardianships, Protective Placement of an Adult: As GAL I review paperwork associated with the WARD'S case (Petition for Guardianship and Petition for Protective Placement, Statement of Act(s), Examining Physician or Psychologist's Report, Comprehensive Evaluation, Healthcare and other advanced directives, etc.); I send written notices to the WARD, I speak with the WARD and explain the WARD'S rights to him or her, I read the Petition and Physician's report to the WARD. I draft a report for the court inclusive of my impressions and opinions. I consider the "least restrictive” means for placement consistent with the needs of the Ward. I gather additional documentation as needed, such as, additional medical records. I interview the Proposed Guardian (and standby guardians) to determine their fitness. I prepare written reports and call witnesses when the hearing is conducted.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: 6
 
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:
State of WI v. HC 2016CM0753 (Kenosha County)
My client was charged with Ct. 1 Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse, Repeater: and Ct. 2 Disorderly Conduct, Domestic Abuse, Use of a Dangerous Weapon, Repeater. Although the two charges were Class B misdemeanors, due to the enhancers, my client was facing a tremendous amount of Prison time. Further, he was on supervision for Strangulation Suffocation with a repeater enhancer for which he was facing a revocation hearing. There was video of the altercation. The claim by the state was that my client had a knife and was being threatening and causing a disturbance. This was the classic story of he said she said. There were several flaws and inconsistencies in the complaining witness' statement. The criminal complaint stated that the officer reviewed a video provided by the complaining witness and he substantiated her claim of what happened during the altercation. I watched the video, reviewed the witness statements, our investigator interviewed the parties involved. I did not believe that the video captured what the complaining witness stated, nor was I able to understand why the officer stated that the incident occurred as the complaining witness described-- the video did not match her narration. The reason this case is significant is that a Jury was asked to decide my client's guilt or innocence. Not the police and certainly not the complaining witness. After hearing two sides of the same story with the truth somewhere in the middle, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on both counts, which subsequently resulted in my client not being revoked and not being sentenced to Jail; he was released from jail within a few days of his trial.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
During my employment with the Wisconsin State Public Defenders Office, I have represented over 75 defendants that were facing revocation of their probation or extended supervision. During these hearings I examined witnesses both on direct and on cross­ examination. I am experienced with practicing according to the Division of Hearings and Appeals Wis. Statutes. 35.9, specifically Chapter HA 2 and HA 3. I am well versed in the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections Manual-- Chapter 10 entitled "Revocation. I am equally versed in the Resource Handbook for Community Supervision Revocation Hearings.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
I am a certified mediator. I worked as a student intern while in Law School as a mediator for civil matters. Since practicing law, I have mediated several family matters prior to my employment with the Public Defender's office. While working for the Public Defender's office, I suspended my mediation practice. Having returned to private practice, I am working to expand my mediation practice to include both family matters and CHIPS and Terminating Parental Rights (TPR) matters. I have an upcoming mediation for a TPR. As a mediator, I serve as a neutral third party to facilitate the discussion surrounding a dispute. I firmly believe that alternative dispute resolution, both mediation and arbitration, are exceptional vehicles by which to give civil litigants a resolution to their dispute. Mediation is generally voluntary therefore litigants are more likely to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome when parties negotiate their own settlement.
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Angela Cunningham, 2021 Judicial Race, Kenosha County Circuit Court Branch 6 (Kitchen cabinet member)
 
Previous runs for public office: None
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Jodi Meier, Kenosha County judge, 2016
Angela Cunningham, Kenosha County judge, 2020
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Alpha Kappa Alpha, 1991-current, including committee work on human trafficking
Rotary, 2008-2010
Racine County Bar Association, 2010-2013, 2020
Milwaukee County Bar Association, 2010-2016, including Modest Means committee
Wisconsin State Bar Association, 2015-2016, including Modest Means committee
Wisconsin Association of Mediators, 2020
NAACP, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2020, including Legal Redress committee
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
I developed a Mock Trial program for one of the local neighborhood centers, John Bryant Community Center. The young girls that I worked with would likely never have been chosen for the statewide Mock Trial program. Not because they were not smart enough, but because they did not have the contacts or connections that other students may have had. I exposed them to a legal career in the law. The participants wrote their own fact pattern for the mock trial, which allowed them to exercise their writing skills. Most importantly they "played" all of the characters in the fact pattern, which I believe encouraged development of public speaking skills.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge:
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a Judge in Kenosha County because our judicial system is under attack. Since I was a very young girl, I've admired our judicial system. No matter the infirmity we suffer or the kinks in the armor, our judicial system still remains the best system in theory. In practice however, we are tattered and torn and broken. There are many reasons for the malfunctioning of our system. I realize I am just one person and if appointed I would not be able to address a fragmented system alone. Being aligned with other Judges that are seeking to ratify the wrongs in our Judicial System in Kenosha County would lead to a restorative outcome. I'm reminded of what is sure to be one of the most notable quotes of our time, a statement by President Barack Obama, "Whatever you do won’t be enough, try anyway." Justice reform begins with one, then two, then fifteen, then hundreds; I'm elated that Governor Evers is working tirelessly to recalibrate our judicial system through Judicial appointments in favor of the people that it is called to serve. I'm reminded of something that renowned Attorney Bryan Stevenson stated, "the opposite of poor is not rich, it is justice." I want to be a Judge so that I may serve the citizens of Kenosha County in effort to standardize and attune our judiciary to its greatness—a greatness defined by a justice system that is impartial and equitable in practice and not just in theory.
 
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.
Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 590 U.S. (2020)
The Bostock case was recently decided in June 2020. Essentially, in each case, an employer fired employees simply for being homosexual or transgender. Gerald Bostock, an employee with Clayton County, started participating in a gay recreational softball league. His actions were deemed to be "conduct unbecoming a county employee," and he was subsequently fired. Donald Zarda worked for Altitude Express in New York, he mentioned that he was gay and was fired a few days later. Aimee Stephens presented as a man when she was interviewed and hired, she was fired after telling her employer that she was "going to begin to live and work as a woman." Each employee sued their employers for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with various legal strategies in pursuit of a decision by the Court that their Employer discriminated against them on the basis of sex. In Gerald Bostock's case the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay, the Court went on to say, "therefore the Bostock case could be dismissed as a matter of law." The US Supreme got this one right Holding: "An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. (a) Title VII makes it "unlawful... for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Justice Gorsuch (delivered the opinion of the Court), joined by Justices: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting were Justices: Thomas, Kavanaugh and Alito. The most notable words in the opinion are ''Only written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefits." Too much is left to subjective interpretation when we try to resolve what the "intent" of the drafters meant. Adhering to the written word of law disqualifies a more subjective interpretation that comes from trying to figure out the drafter's 'intent." The examine what "discriminate" meant in 1964 and concluded (sadly) that it roughly means what it means today "to make a difference in treatment or favor." It would be an extraordinary society when we get to the point when that word is a vague memory and people struggle to define it, when it becomes an "urban legend," or an archaic term like "adverse possession." The Supreme Court in Bostock did an amazing job at analyzing and observing that "the people are entitled to rely on the law as written, without fearing that courts might disregard it plain terms." 

Having the correct balance on the bench ensures the rise of spirited debates; it is essential to getting to equitable results. This case is important to the citizens of Wisconsin because it is another guidepost for what is discriminatory practice.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
The three Judges/ Justice that I admire the most are: Judge David Bastianelli (Kenosha County, Branch 1, Retired), Judge Jon Fredrickson (Racine County, Branch 7, 2018-Present, and Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren (United States Supreme Court 1953-1969).
 
Judge Bastianelli is a Judge that I would pattern myself after. He is a superior example of who and what a Judge should be. His demeanor was steady, he ruled with an even hand and he was well versed in the law. He was extremely stern in a stoic way and fair. He understood the most complex issues of law; he listened intently and allowed attorneys for make their legal arguments. He was never afraid to admonish an attorney for what were inequitable practices before his court. He did not prefer one side of the "v" over the other. He allowed adversaries in court to be just that without taking sides; he refrained from being a "two against one" kind of Judge. I respect him most for his command of the law. It was astonishing to me how brilliant he was while balancing equity. There were some Attorneys or Parties that felt he sentenced too harshly. His rulings ALWAYS made sense to me; likely because he explained his rulings impeccably. His courtroom was maintained competently and efficiently. I distinctly remember getting into a verbal battle with Judge Bastianelli, he allowed me my row; but the moment he told me to "knock it off Counsel." I knew to contain myself. My colleagues mentioned that they thought I was going to keep going and ultimately end up being held in contempt. I have such a great respect for the bench and in particular Judge Bastianelli that when he ended my pontification I knew that it was time to stop talking; he allowed me enough time to speak on the record and he allowed me to do so with enough indignation to zealously represent my client.. Neither of us ever crossed the line of disrespect. My most memorable interaction with Judge Bastianelli is when he called me to his chambers to say to me what will likely be the most cherished comment that anyone will say to me. He told me "You should consider being a Judge." He went on to explain why, and he provided me with brief guidance and mentorship. His deep booming voice coming down from on high was never filled with blustering or nonsense, it was always rooted in equity and the law. I have the highest respect for his rulings from the bench.
 
Judge Fredrickson is a Judge that I hold in high regard. I find him to be empathetic and patient. He is always prepared for court and basis his rulings on pr per procedures, statute and/ or case law. People are facing the most difficult times in their lives when they go before a Judge. He always finds a way to leave them with their dignity even when he is ruling against their personal interest(s) or position(s). He seems to be very aware of various demographics and their individual experiences. He interacts within the case and the issues at hand from a level of sensitivity that is very intentional.
 
Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren had the characteristics of what we now call "progressive." When I think about Justice Warren, I am reminded that we are remiss as Attorneys (and Judges) when we coward and shy away from making the very difficult and equitable decisions, and instead align with what is prevalent unjust choices: oppressing the already disenfranchised. He could have a lived a life very comfortably situated behind his privilege. Instead he was a trailblazer; he was an innovator of change. He was the Chief Justice and wrote the majority decisions many landmark cases such as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which as you know banned segregation in public schools; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requiring that criminal defendants be informed of their right to remain silent and to be represented by a lawyer; and Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage. The decisions he wrote in these cases were life altering but it is sobering to read the dissents in these cases as well. It is a reminder that without Judges and Justices like Warren, we are left with the dissent that could very easily (and has) become the majority in these types of cases that seek to abridge the rights of the poor and minorities. I admire Justice Warren for forging forward with an ideology that was very unpopular with his contemporaries.
 
The proper role of a judge:
A Judge has a multifaceted role. A Judge's role is tantamount to a referee. Not to diminish the sanctity of the Judiciary, but it is a great analogy. Webster defines referee as "(noun) an official who watches a game or match closely to ensure that the rules are adhered to and (in some sports) to arbitrate on matters arising from the play." The proper role of a Judge is to listen to the evidence, make appropriate rulings during the course of a trial or proceeding, and issue legally sound decisions and orders of the court. A Judge in Circuit Court has to preside over a hotchpotch of cases ranging from Family, to Criminal Misdemeanors and Felonies and everything in between such as guardianships, CHIPS/TPR, Juvenile, and an assortment of Civil cases. Judges are also presented with affidavits upon which a warrant is being sought by law enforcement. It is the role of the Judge to review an affidavit with discernment to ensure that the privacy rights of a citizen are not being abridged based on mere conjecture; there must be articulable facts and the Judge holds law enforcement to that standard. Judges, at times are called upon to vote for the use of implements such as the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. The assessment determines the scale of an offense committed by a juvenile; for instance if a child has committed a technical violation or status offense, such as running away or truancy, they may fall below a certain score on the assessment and they will avoid jail as a result of their score. This tool is being successfully used in Milwaukee and LaCrosse. The Judges in Racine County voted against implementing the tool; however. there were three judges that did vote for the use of the tool. The three judges were not enough to carry the vote to majority. Months after the vote [redacted] committed suicide in a jail cell in 2017. It is reported that she was arrested for running away from home, it is always reported that she had been a victim of human trafficking. While in jail, she committed suicide. I believe if the Judges in Racine were called to vote now—after this tragic event, they would have likely vote in a different manner; or at the very least, a balance in who is voting will change the outcome. The position of a Judge is not a role that should be taken lightly or seen as a novelty or something to brag about — or be treated as an opportunity to berate attorneys and citizens. I think the very challenging job of having to permanently affect a person's life should be done so unpretentiously and with grave and solemn care. A Judge should read every document and pleading that comes across their desk with discernment, prudence, and with a spirit of equity. "Equity considers done that which ought be done" quoting Maxims of Equity.

---