Fallone and Karofsky talk law and qualifications for Supreme Court; Kelly doesn't

Updated Feb. 12, 2020 to include link to Daniel Kelly's "Walker's judges" profile.

State Supreme Court candidate Jill Karofsky said she wants to defend the rights of all Wisconsin residents against right-wing efforts to roll them back; candidate Ed Fallone said he wants to bring a different type of experience and background to the Court, and incumbent Justice Daniel Kelly said nothing at all.
​
Fallone has been a law professor at Marquette University Law School since 1997. He has worked in private practice and has served in numerous community organizations. He received his law degree from Boston University and has served in different capacities in numerous community organizations. His full resume is here. 

Karofsky has been a Dane County Circuit Court since 2017. Before that, she served as executive director of the State Department of Justice's Office of Crime Victim Services. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School. She also has extensive community involvement. Her full resume is here.

The challengers will face off against Kelly in the Feb. 18 primary, and the top two vote getters will advance to the April 7 general election.
 
WJI asked each of the three candidates to answer a series of questions. Karofsky and Fallone responded; Kelly, appointed to his seat in 2016 by former Gov. Scott Walker, did not.

(WJI, though, on Feb. 12 posted information about Kelly in our "Walker's judges" series, which is based on candidates' judicial job applications. Kelly's profile is here.)

​The questionnaire was patterned after job applications used by  Gov. Tony Evers and Walker when they are considering judicial appointments.

The answers here are as the candidates submitted them. 

Fallone

Karofsky

Why do you want to be a justice?

I first ran for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2013, pledging to restore integrity to a Court beset by infighting and allegations of personal assault.  Many voters agreed with me, and I received over 360,000 votes.  Since then, partisan political fighting among the Justices has gotten worse, and judicial election campaigns for the Supreme Court now regularly descend into unfounded character attacks on the integrity of candidates.  This needs to stop.  So last March I became the very first candidate to announce that I was running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020.
 
I am running because the Justices serving on our Wisconsin Supreme Court reflect too narrow a set of legal experiences and too narrow a set of life experiences to truly represent all the people of Wisconsin.  With the retirement of Justice Shirley Abrahamson, the Court lost the perspective of a law professor who was a strong advocate for holding the political branches of our government accountable to the voters.  In the ten years since Justice Louis Butler left the bench, the Court has lacked a member who has substantial experience as a criminal defense attorney.  Significantly, the Court currently does not have a single member who has focused during their career on serving persons of modest means – such as working families and immigrants.  And there are currently no racial or ethnic minorities represented on our Court – we have no Justices of color.
      
A Court that openly engages in partisan political infighting is not serving the people of Wisconsin.  We need to return to an independent Court, and we need our elections to focus on the qualifications of the candidates and not attack ads.  And we won’t make the Supreme Court better by electing more Justices with the same narrow experience – trial judges who are former prosecutors.  The work of the Wisconsin Supreme Court extends far beyond the criminal law.
 
Every term, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides important cases involving our constitutional rights, the protection of the environment, the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities, business law, and contract interpretation.  The Court works better when it has a variety of types of Justices who bring experiences across a wider cross-section of legal practice.  As a Constitutional Law professor, an experienced criminal defense lawyer, someone who has represented giant Fortune 100 corporations as well as the owners of small family businesses, and a community leader who has helped working families and immigrants navigate our legal system, I will bring a broad base of knowledge to our state’s highest court.  In addition, I will be the first Latino Justice in our State’s history.  And I pledge to continue my fight to end the politicization of the Court and restore its former independence.

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 30 years and explain why you feel that way.

Obergefell v. Hodges recognized a constitutional right for same sex couples to enter into marriages recognized under state law. The majority reasoned that if the objective of marriage is to create stable relationships and self-sufficient families, then it makes no sense to deny equal access to marriage to same sex adults who are not related and who are willing to commit
themselves to a union. Because the individual interest in pursuing our own intimate relationships is high, the majority held that the state needed a good reason before it could deny that interest for some of the population but not for all of the population. I believe that the Obergefell decision is best understood as a strong statement in support of equal protection under the law, and a positive example of the judiciary can play in vindicating the rights of individuals.

Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 30 years and explain why you feel that way.
 
In my opinion, two of the worst United States Supreme Court decisions over the past thirty years are Citizens United v. FEC (extending Free Speech rights to corporations) and District of Columbia v. Heller (interpreting the Second Amendment right to bear arms).  It is appropriate to view the two cases together.  Both cases are example of the Justices slapping the ‘originalist’ label on a profoundly un-originalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Both are exercises in raw political power employed in order to accomplish conservative objectives.  Both ignore hundreds of years of understanding about the meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions, in favor of a meaning derived by taking the words of the Amendment out of context.  And both embrace interpretations of the constitutional Amendment at issue that are inconsistent with the meaning ascribed to that same language by the intellectual father of originalism, Robert Bork.  In the same way that modern scholars deride the ‘Lochner era’ as a misguided period in American Constitutional Law, I believe that future scholars and judges will recognize and reject the intellectual dishonesty of the ‘Heller era.’” I wrote a full length explanation of my opinion of these cases that is available at https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2010/03/federalism-free-markets-and-free-speech.

​Describe your judicial philosophy. 
 
I reject all broad theories of constitutional interpretation.  The law is derived from human experience, not from abstract theory.  As a Justice I would seek to advance three basic principles of justice.
 
First, it is the job of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to interpret the law in a way that preserves the fundamental ability of the people to govern ourselves.  A government’s written constitution is best understood as a machine that permits and perpetuates self-government by the people.  Court decisions that promote secrecy in government or that allow elected officials to insulate themselves from the voting power of the people only serve to undermine the ability of the people to self-govern – and allow the majority political party to entrench itself in power.
 
Second, the guiding principle of our system of justice is “equal treatment of all persons under the law.” Decisions that create special legal rules for special categories of politically connected people or decisions that carve out exceptions for narrow special interest groups violate this basic principle of equality. When the people see special interest groups getting special treatment, they lose faith in the integrity of the legal system.
 
Third, it is essential that the Wisconsin Supreme Court jealously guard the independence of the judicial branch.  Rules adopted by the Court that allow judges to sit on cases involving major campaign contributors cause people to question the independence of our judges -- it does not matter whether the contribution is made directly to the campaign or made separately on the judge’s behalf.  Instances where the Wisconsin Supreme Court reaches out on its own initiative, in order to expedite politically charged cases, create the impression that the members of the Court are taking sides in a partisan political debate.  I believe that the Court must do a better job of acting in ways that demonstrate its independence as an institution – especially at a time when the voters of our State are so divided on political issues.

Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
1. From 1988 through 1992, I represented Grumman Corporation (now Northrop Grumman Corporation), as an associate at the firm of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson.  Grumman manufactures carrier-based aircraft, including the F-14 fighter jet.
 
This representation involved a series of federal grand jury investigations, dubbed “Operation Ill Wind,” that to this day remains the largest government procurement fraud investigation in United States history.  When all of the investigations and trials concluded, over 90 government officials, corporate executives, and corporate entities had been convicted or had plead guilty as a result of Operation Ill Wind.
 
The federal grand jury investigation of Grumman Corporation focused on allegations that classified Department of Defense procurement documents, providing information on the anticipated weapons systems needs of the U.S. government, had been illegally obtained by our client.  In addition to the possible misuse of classified documents, the grand jury investigation of Grumman Corporation also included allegations of illegal kickbacks from vendors and possible violations of federal campaign finance laws.
 
The investigation of Grumman began in 1988, when federal agents executed search warrants at the homes of several company employees.  Eventually, the investigation led to the resignation of Grumman Chief Executive Officer John O’Brien and his guilty plea on charges of bank fraud.  The company itself was never indicted, but in 1993 it paid $20 million to settle criminal charges related to the investigation.
 
As part of my representation of Grumman Corporation, I flew regularly from Washington, D.C. to the federal courthouse on Long Island, where the grand jury was sitting.  I prepared grand jury witnesses for their testimony, accompanied them to the courthouse, and de-briefed them after their testimony.  I negotiated with the United States Attorney’s Office regarding the company’s response to subpoenas for the production of documents and witnesses.  I also had substantial responsibility for conducting an internal investigation into whether there was a factual basis for the government’s allegations.  This entailed interviewing employees throughout the Grumman hierarchy, reviewing relevant documentation, and drafting a report advising the client’s board of directors as to the risk of prosecution.  During this period, I reported personally to the General Counsel of Grumman, Tom Genovese, and, on occasion, to Chief Executive Officer Renso Caporali.
 
I subsequently developed a law school course, “Corporate Criminal Liability,” based on my experiences representing Grumman in this matter.
 
2. From 198 through 1999, I successfully represented the minority shareholder of a family business in a lawsuit alleging that the majority shareholders had forced her out of the business.  The plaintiff’s claims included breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty under Wisconsin law and claims of securities fraud under federal law.  This case set new precedent under Chapter 180.0744(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes concerning when and how an “independent person” should be appointed by the court to consider whether derivative litigation is in the best interests of the corporation.  I took over the representation of the client at a time when most of the client’s claims already had been dismissed by the court. Nonetheless, I successfully litigated the case and obtained an eight figure settlement in favor of my client.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. 
 
I have been a Constitutional Law professor at Marquette University Law School for almost three decades, training future judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers how to read and interpret the law.  My expertise on constitutional law has been recognized by prominent elected officials.  I advised Senator Herb Kohl on four United States Supreme Court nominations (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan).  In addition, when the Merrick Garland nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was blocked by the Senate, the Obama White House asked me to speak out against the obstruction at a nationwide press conference. 
 
Before joining the faculty at Marquette University Law School, I worked at the national law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, a firm that counted Martin Ginsburg (Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s late husband) and Sargent Shriver (former Democratic Party nominee for Vice President) among its partners.  I defended corporate clients during federal grand jury investigations and devoted approximately 50% of my time to white collar crime defense.  The remaining 50% of my practice was devoted to civil litigation in federal courts, primarily defending corporate clients in litigation alleging multi-million-dollar claims alleging securities fraud or shareholder derivative suits.  I handled all aspects of pretrial discovery and drafted successful dispositive motions.  I also drafted successful appellate briefs.  During this time period I also represented Salvadoran nationals on a pro bono basis in proceedings before Immigration Judges and the Board of immigration Appeals.  My broad experience practicing law at the highest level is what makes me an effective teacher in the classroom.
 
As a full-time law professor, the American Bar Association places limits on the number of hours that I can devote to outside legal work.  Within these limits, I have continued to practice law as an expert witness in multiple high-profile civil lawsuits.  In addition, I have practiced law as a solo practitioner in Wisconsin, representing minority shareholders in business lawsuits, including one case that set a new precedent under Wisconsin corporate law.  I also spent eight years Of Counsel at the Milwaukee law firm of Gonzalez, Saggio & Harlan, which at the time was one of the largest minority-owned law firms in the country.  At that firm, I specialized in representing corporate shareholders in civil litigation in Wisconsin state courts.
 
Because of my legal knowledge, I have been invited to speak on topics of constitutional law, federal law and Wisconsin law by many organizations including the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, the State Bar of Wisconsin, and the League of Women Voters, as well as numerous universities and law schools.  I have been quoted by national news sources including as The Guardian Newspaper, NBC News, The Nation and The Hill.  I am also regularly quoted by Wisconsin media, and I have been a regular contributor on legal and political topics to Wisconsin Public Radio.
 
I am proud of my many accomplishments during my legal career.  No other candidate in this race has a similar record of achievement.
 
Describe other relevant work experience that would assist you in your performance as a justice.  

In addition to being a tenured law professor at Marquette University Law School for over a quarter century, I have led numerous nonprofit organizations that seek to improve access to justice for people of modest means and organizations working to protect the civil rights of immigrant families.  My commitment to working families and the immigrant community comes from my own upbringing as the child of a father who was a public high school teacher and a mother who immigrated from Mexico.
 
I served as President of the Latino Community Center, which was nationally recognized for its anti-violence initiatives for at-risk youth in Milwaukee.  As President of Centro Legal, I led a nonprofit legal services organization that made lawyers affordable to middle class families who would otherwise go to the courthouse alone.  While a Trustee at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, I helped to establish a Legal Services for Immigrants program that helps immigrant families facing deportation.  As President of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association, I led the organization in opposing English-Only laws.  And as a Board Member of Voces de la Frontera Action, I served an organization focused on supporting public education, jobs that pay a living wage, and the civil rights of immigrants in our society.
   
I have also served as a volunteer mentor for Latina women professionals through a program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and have advocated on behalf of DREAMER students within the Marquette University administration.
 
I did all of this as a volunteer with no compensation.  This is how I have chosen to give back to my community over the course of my legal career, and it is a strong indication of the kind of Justice I will be.  I will ensure that the Wisconsin Supreme Court represents the interests of all Wisconsinites, and not just the powerful or politically connected.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?
 
No.
 
Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?
 
I have never been cited for any municipal offense, unless one counts speeding tickets (and it has been at least six years since I received a speeding ticket).  
 
Do you support requiring any justice to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election justice's? If not, why not. If so, why? What contribution limits would you set?
 
Recusal rules matter, because when judges are permitted to sit on cases involving major contributors to their campaign, it creates a perception of bias in the eyes of the public.  Whenever a litigant loses a case in circumstances where the opposing party has made a major contribution to the judge’s campaign, that litigant will always wonder whether the result in their case was based on the law or based on favoritism. Perceptions of bias are toxic to the justice system, even when actual bias does not exist or cannot be proven.
 
During my 2013 campaign for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I criticized the Wisconsin Supreme Court for adopting its current recusal rules.  Since 2013, I have continued to publicly call for changes to the judicial recusal rule. I spoke out at public forums in support of the petition filed to replace the rule by over 50 retired judges. I also worked with the organization Common Cause Wisconsin to educate the public about the issue, and I appeared in a video produced by Common Cause that advocates for reforming the rule. 
 
What, if anything, would you to improve the Judicial Commission?
 
The procedures for the Wisconsin Judicial Commission should be amended to explicitly provide for the appointment of one or more judges from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to consider the final disposition of a complaint in any circumstance where the Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court cannot constitute a quorum (i.e., the Justice Prosser situation).
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?  
 
While I fully support the election of judges in the Wisconsin legal system, this method of selecting our judges tends to favor judicial candidates who are personally wealthy or who are successful at raising money.  Many talented lawyers are discouraged from running for judicial positions due to the economic realities of running an election campaign.  I favor public financing of judicial elections in order to broaden the universe of judicial candidates and improve the quality of justice in our courts.
 
Describe any other information you feel would be helpful to your application. 
 
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is among the least diverse state supreme courts in our country, at a time when the racial and ethnic diversity of Wisconsin is increasing.  This disparity -- between the racial and ethnic make-up of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the growing diversity of the Wisconsin population as a whole -- undermines the community’s faith in the justice system.  In the words of former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Yvette McGee Brown, “The public’s perception of justice suffers . . . when the only people of color in a courthouse are in handcuffs.”  I would be proud to serve the people of Wisconsin as our state’s first Latino Supreme Court Justice. 

Why do you want to become a justice?

We need to get our state and our country back on track. Too many current justices see themselves as agents of conservative ideology and as agents of the Republican Party. I don’t hold with that point of view. We need leaders who will put our strong Wisconsin political tradition of independent and honest courts first.

I have strong Wisconsin values. I believe in our Progressive traditions of independent courts and nonpartisan local officials, strong public schools and infrastructure, protecting our beautiful natural resources, deep respect for workers and labor rights, and treating everyone with respect. Everyone deserves dignity as a human being, regardless of race, gender identity, ethnicity, first language, immigration status, or who they love.

It’s distressing to me that we live in a time when far-right political forces seek to roll back the advances in civil and human rights we’ve made in the last few generations. I want to continue to defend the rights of all Wisconsinites. I can best do that by becoming a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. 

Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 30 years and explain why you feel that way. 

I believe Paroline v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1710 (2014) is one of the best decisions of the past 30 years because in this case the U.S. Supreme Court modeled treating victims with sensitivity, dignity, and respect by showing empathy towards the victim, protecting her privacy, and instructing on the importance of restitution.

The victim in Paroline, identified as "Amy," was sexually assaulted by her uncle as a young girl. Compounding his crimes, her uncle also recorded and later disclosed pornographic images of her abuse on the Internet. Paroline was convicted for possessing two of these images as they were among the 150 to 300 total images of child pornography in his custody. Amy sought $3.4 million in restitution, under the federal statute that mandates full restitution to child pornography victims, arguing that everyone who possesses images of her is continuing to contribute to her injury and, consequently, each of them should be required to pay the full amount for her losses.

The Supreme Court ruled that Paroline was not responsible for the entire $3.4 million but he should have to pay his share of restitution and that amount must be enough to send the message that his part in the crime was not victimless. Although the court did not rule that Amy should receive the full $3.4 million from Paroline, the court's decision was exemplary in its treatment of Amy as a crime victim.

In the decision, the justices show compassion and sensitivity towards Amy. In demonstrating empathy for Amy, the court signals to all who read this case that Amy is a real person worthy of our attention and respect. Justice Kennedy summarized the impact of the crime on Amy: “The full extent of this victim’s suffering is hard to grasp. Her abuser took away her childhood, her self-conception of her innocence, and her freedom from the kind of nightmares and memories that most others will never know. These crimes were compounded by the distribution of images of her abuser’s horrific acts, which meant the wrongs inflicted upon her were in effect repeated; for she knew her humiliation and hurt were and would be renewed into the future as an ever-increasing number of wrongdoers witnessed the crimes committed against her.”

The court also protected the victim's right to privacy by allowing Amy to use a pseudonym rather than her real name. This will allow Amy to avoid further humiliation as she puts her life back together. Not all courts allow victims to remain anonymous. When victim identities are revealed along with graphic details of the crimes committed against them, it exacerbates the trauma they experience. In modeling the use of a pseudonym, the U.S. Supreme Court indicates to lower courts that this practice is not only acceptable, but preferred.

Lastly, the court fully embraced the importance of restitution as an important penological tool noting that restitution is effective in rehabilitating offenders because it forces them to concretely confront the harm they caused. 

Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 30 years and explain why you feel that way.

I can’t name just one, because I think our courts have gotten so far off track. I think the absolute worst case the Supreme Court decided recently was Citizens United. They clearly wanted to get to a result to open up more massive corporate spending in elections, and made a spurious First Amendment decision to get to that result. It has been a disaster, as judges are now acting more like politicians.

I also think the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently made a terrible decision in the Koschkee case, in which they reduced the power of agencies to promulgate administrative rules. This case is especially bad because it reverses a decision from just three years previous, just because the membership of the court changed, with Justice Kelly joining the court, and so the right-wing justices made a 180° reversal. Nothing had changed except the ideology of the judges deciding the case.

​There’s also a disturbing trend lately of Justice Kelly and his allies at WILL circumventing the judicial process and having the Supreme Court take cases directly, instead of letting them work their way first through a Circuit Court, then the Court of Appeals, and then to the WI Supreme Court. They are short-circuiting the process, preventing parties from having their day in court. Parties then can’t introduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and create a record. It’s what political activists do when they want to hide their goals, and it is unbecoming of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

​Describe your judicial philosophy. 

Here’s what Shirley Abrahamson says: “My judicial philosophy is to examine the facts, the law, and the precedent. You apply the facts to the law and the precedent as you understand them, and you reach a decision.”

Let me add to that: I believe everyone who walks into a courtroom should be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. I am committed to the rule of law, to an independent judiciary, and to applying the Constitution fairly and equitably to today’s world.

It’s important that I say that I reject the false talking point of “originalism” put forward by the Federalist Society and their partisan supporters, as they are often the most outcome-based jurists in the system. When I hear a judge say “apply the law as it is, not as I wish it to be,” I generally know they are likely to be the worst kind of activist judge, intending to implement a far-right-wing agenda.

I believe strongly that the judiciary is and should be independent of the partisan branches of government. We should apply the law and the constitution and do so without fear or favor. Right-wing and corporate special interests have unfortunately captured the judicial branch of Wisconsin government and we need to change that and restore the Progressive tradition of independent, non-partisan courts.

So here’s what is important. The courts play multiple key roles. First, we are a place to resolve disputes, although it would be better if fewer disputes came to court. Second, we resolve and address criminal behavior, and protect the rights of the accused. Third, our experience in both civil and criminal law can and should inform policy-makers so they can make better judgements about laws, statutes, administrative rules, and government programs. 

Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. 

Twenty years ago I worked on what was at first blush a false reporting case—although it turned out to be very different. On a strong police recommendation, as a prosecutor, I filed charges against a woman named Patty Murphy for supposedly lying about an assault. The police had documented 41 supposed lies by this victim. They were wrong. Patty really had been assaulted, and it was wrong to put Patty through the ordeal of arrest and charges. I apologized to her publicly, and I apologized to her privately, and then Patty and I went around the state and trained prosecutors to understand victims better so the mistake wouldn’t be repeated.

Now, Patty fully endorses me for a seat on the Supreme Court. The work Patty and I have done together has changed our judicial system, so that hopefully, in the future, other victims won’t have to go through what she did. And thankfully, the man who assaulted her was brought to justice and successfully prosecuted. 

In general, I am proud of making sure domestic violence offenders participate in Certified Domestic Violence Counseling. I have had offenders actually thank me for making them do it. Counseling really makes a difference in their lives and decreases recidivism. It keeps their loved ones safe, it keeps the offenders from going back to jail, and it stops intergenerational violence in its tracks.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

As a sitting judge in Dane County, my experience with the criminal justice system is extensive. I also preside over family, small claims, and injunction cases, for a total of about 1700 cases in a year. I see the effect of the law up close, when it has a direct impact on the people in front of me. I examine each case carefully and choose the most appropriate judgement for each. Sometimes incarceration is the most appropriate sentence. Other times I am able to send the offender to drug court or give a sentence of community service. My goal is always to balance the needs of the community with the rehabilitation of the offender.

Before being elected judge in 2017, I was the Executive Director of the Office of Crime Victim Services. This position brought me into contact with offenders and victims on a regular basis. I directed and managed the staff responsible for providing support to crime victims throughout Wisconsin. I also supervised the administration of over $40 million in state and federal grant funds designed to provide aid to crime victims, including grants provided by the Victims of Crime Act, Violence Against Women Act, Sexual Assault Victim Services Program, Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program and Children’s Justice Act.

In addition, during my time at the Wisconsin Department of Justice (2011-2017), I worked as the Wisconsin’s first statewide Violence Against Women prosecutor. I helped train and assist prosecutors all around Wisconsin, so they would be better able to prosecute cases where women were victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

At WisDOJ, I was also a strong advocate of U Visas. These are visas a victim of abuse or assault can receive, providing the victim helps prosecute the perpetrator. Many of the potential recipients of these visas were from Mexico and Central America. The visas can contribute to the strong working of our justice system by assisting in the prosecution of abusive behavior, protecting victims, and providing some stability in those victims’ lives. In my experience, there was a reluctance among some authorities to sign the visas. My work involved educating judges and prosecutors in the criminal justice system about the importance of these visas, and increase the number of visas granted.

As Director of Human Resources and Counsel at the National Conference of Bar Examiners (2005-2010), I managed the legal and human resources operations of the organization, identified and analyzed legal issues, assisted with litigation, and assured legal compliance.

From 1992 to 1999 I worked in the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, starting as an Assistant District Attorney, and later being promoted to Deputy District Attorney. My responsibilities included managing the misdemeanor and traffic units, and assisting in establishing prosecution policies in the areas of domestic violence and drunk driving. I also educated prosecutors, municipal and circuit court judges, law enforcement personnel, and probation and parole agents about issues relating to domestic violence, operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and abusive head trauma. 

Describe other relevant work experience that would assist you in your performance as a justice.

I have been a lawyer for almost 30 years. I served for almost two decades as a state and local prosecutor and crime victim advocate, focused on justice for crime victims, especially women and children. I prosecuted domestic violence, sexual assault, and served as Wisconsin’s first statewide Violence Against Women Resource Prosecutor. It was my honor to receive the “Outstanding Victim Advocate” Award from the Wisconsin Victim Witness Association, and the “Voices of Courage Award” from the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault. 

Frankly, as the only candidate in the race who has experience as a trial court judge, as a prosecutor, and as a victim advocate, I have the background Wisconsin voters are looking for. I’m the only candidate who has both significant criminal AND civil experience. Voters care about this experience and I’m the strongest candidate we could put forward to return this seat to the people.

As the only candidate in this race who has ever won an election, I have a track record of success that will carry over to the general election in April. Experience matters when running a campaign or considering the law. I’ve seen how the law affects real people in real situations. This makes me a better judge, makes me a better and more electable candidate, and will make me a better Supreme Court Justice. My opponents cannot say the same.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?

No.

Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur?

I have had two traffic citations. One was in 1983, and the other in 1994.

Do you support requiring any justice to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election justice's? If not, why not. If so, why? What contribution limits would you set?

I strongly believe we need a clearer and stronger recusal rule. We need to transparently develop a clear rule, utilizing public hearings, so parties know what behavior might trigger recusal, and so we can give the people of Wisconsin greater confidence that special interests are not rigging the judicial system for their own purposes.

My campaign is in large part about returning integrity to the court system. Our judges and justices should hold themselves to the highest standard when it comes to conflicts of interest. Decisions made by the Supreme Court should be made fairly and impartially based on the law. There should be no question as to whether a decision was made because of a campaign contribution from a particular individual or organization. We need a strong recusal rule, and the way to get there is an open and transparent process with public hearings.

Too many cases today seem to be pre-decided before any evidence is gathered or a single witness testifies, rather than fairly hearing out the parties and letting the process work. This empowers the Courts as a radical agent of right-wing change, and undermines the separation of powers, because legislators who’ve gained power through gerrymandering are not held accountable to follow the law or constitution. It’s time to change this.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has become too partisan, and too often it appears that the law is bent or broken to support a decision that is based on political partisanship. To counter this, we need to elect justices who have a proven track record of fairness and independence. As the candidate with the most experience and the only one who has been a trial court judge, my record of independence is clear. I will continue to be fair and impartial on the Supreme Court. 

What, if anything, would you to improve the Judicial Commission?

I believe the Judicial Commission is a very important body, and we should strengthen its ability to hold judges accountable. Right now it seems as if some judges, especially the justices on the Supreme Court, sit above the law. I think one critical component needs to be a stronger and clearer recusal rule, as I’ve discussed elsewhere in this questionnaire.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

Mandatory sentencing laws can be an obstacle. Every case is unique, and mandatory sentencing laws restrict the ability of judges to use their discretion and impose smart sentences without jeopardizing community safety. I always try to balance the needs of the victim and community with the rehabilitation requirements of the offender. There is a reason computers don’t decide punishment and rehabilitation; the task requires a trained judge to determine the most appropriate outcome.

Another large obstacle is prejudice. As a judge, it is my responsibility to not allow prejudice or discrimination to have any place in my courtroom. Even as a person who is aware of the existence of internalized prejudice, I must be continually examining my own motives, thoughts, and actions through the lens of an inherently prejudicial society. Each of us has our own unconscious judgements we make about an individual before even hearing a word from them, and it’s up to each of us to put these judgements aside and listen to the facts.

Describe any other information you feel would be helpful to your application.

The breadth and depth of my experience in the law far exceeds anyone else in the race. As a sitting judge, I heard about 1700 cases last year, ranging from family matters and small claims, to felony cases. The law directly affects the people in my courtroom, and it is my job to balance the weight of justice. With this experience comes the realization that our justice system can have a real impact on the lives of everyday people. Our laws are not just words in dusty books. They must be considered thoughtfully and in the context of each unique case.

We need to get our state and our country back on track. Too many current justices see themselves on one political team or another. I don’t hold with that point of view. We need leaders who will put our strong Wisconsin political tradition of independent and honest courts first. I have strong Wisconsin values. I believe in our Progressive traditions of independent courts and nonpartisan local officials, strong public schools and infrastructure, protecting our beautiful natural resources, and treating everyone with respect. Everyone deserves dignity as a human being, regardless of race, ethnicity, or documented status.

It’s distressing to me that we live in a time when far-right political forces seek to roll back the advances in civil rights we’ve made in the last few generations. I want to continue to defend the rights of all Wisconsinites. The response to my campaign has been strong and we are continuing to gain momentum. I have a large number of endorsements, including from former Governors Jim Doyle, Tony Earl, and Martin Schreiber, and Justice Rebecca Dallet. Dozens of state legislators have endorsed my campaign. I also have the support of a bipartisan group of many law enforcement officials, including sheriffs and district attorneys, more than 50 judges statewide, and community leaders and local elected officials from across the state. The organizations that have endorsed me so far include Women Lead, AFT 212, and IBEW State Conference.

I am running a professional statewide campaign, with full-time staff, consultants to help with media, polling, and fundraising, and a large network of friends and colleagues from being born and raised in Wisconsin and my many years in the profession. I have more than 130 volunteers who have been active in the campaign already, and hundreds more who have signed up to help as the campaign gets closer to election day. I am the only candidate in the race who has ever run a winning campaign before.

​The energy and momentum of this campaign will continue to grow through the primary and beyond. I would be honored and privileged to have the support of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative and its members as we work toward victory.