Jones and Shelton, Milwaukee County judicial candidates, address recusal and obstacles to justice

Election Day is April 2! Please vote!

Danielle Shelton and  Andrew Jones are competing for the Branch 40 judicial seat vacated by Rebecca Dallet when she was elected to the State Supreme Court in April 2018. Jones has held the seat since August, when he was appointed by former Gov. Scott Walker.

This is the only contested Milwaukee County judicial race this spring. Jones and Shelton agreed to answer a series of questions from WJI to better inform voters about the race.

This is the last entry in our series of questions we posed to the two candidates.

Question 9: 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? If not, why not. If so, why?

Question 10: What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

Question 11: Describe any other information you feel would be helpful to your application. 

Recusal: Existing ethical rules for judges do not require recusal based alone on lawful contributions. However, a judge must always observe all other applicable ethical rules in determining whether recusal may be necessary in a specific circumstance. In most situations, I believe these rules are sufficient to preserve both the independence of the judiciary and the interest in broad public participation in judicial campaigns. Nonetheless, I believe uniform recusal rules that appropriately account for major campaign contributions would have the significant benefit of adding to the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and, thus, deserve very strong consideration.

Justice: I believe that the issue of access to the courts for low-income and other underprivileged members of the community is among the most significant obstacles facing judges in handling cases that come before them. Our justice system is an adversarial system that depends on qualified counsel vigorously representing both sides of a dispute. Indeed, the Constitution guarantees the appointment of counsel to criminal defendants who cannot afford it on their own. I currently have a misdemeanor criminal calendar, and I often have defendants come before me who do not qualify for representation through the Public Defender’s Office but who face significant financial struggles in securing counsel to represent them. Often times, I see​ defendants who do not qualify for counsel through the Public Defender’s Officer consider proceeding pro se simply because they cannot afford to retain private counsel. In other courthouses throughout the state, even individuals who qualify for the appointment of counsel through the Public Defender’s Office often wait significant periods of time before counsel is appointed because outside attorneys are not prepared to accept the assignment due to restrictions on their compensation. On an individual basis, I necessarily proceed with caution when I am presented with a defendant who does not have counsel, allowing them enough time to secure counsel before allowing the case to proceed or, where appropriate, appointing counsel initially at the expense of Milwaukee County. On a system-wide basis, a much-needed debate about altering the financial structure with respect to court-appointed counsel is ongoing, and the resolution of that debate needs to remain a top priority. 

Other: NA

Jones' resume is here. Personal information, such as telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and the names of people not directly involved in the campaign have been redacted.

https://www.judgeandrewjones.com/  ​​

Recusal: Yes, I think that if someone spends massively to help elect a judge, the judge should strongly consider recusal. I don’t simply receiving contributions within the legal limits should trigger automatic recusal, but if someone is spending massively, such as on independent expenditures, it’s important to maintain the appearance of impartiality and that should trigger recusal.

Justice: Unconscious — or implicit — racial biases can taint judicial decision-making. Although I believe all of us, regardless of personal ideology or professional oath, are susceptible to such biases, Judges must consistently work to ensure that their personal biases and prejudices do not influence the outcome of a case. Judges must examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and ensure that that's not influencing the outcome. Judges have to recognize those feelings and put them aside. The system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial.

One of the strongest tools in combating bias is consciousness raising — making our unconscious associations conscious, and simply recognizing that bias can occur even among those of good intent. One way consciousness raising can happen is through developing collegial relationships with people from different communities. 


Other: My father was Black, and my mother was a White, Jewish woman. When I was 8 years old, my mother rented a flat on 42nd and Garfield in Milwaukee.  The very next day after we moved in, the landlady, Mrs. Becker, came and politely informed my mother that as she had not disclosed that she had Black children when she rented the flat, we had to move immediately.
 
This was in the early 1970s. It was clearly illegal, but also still common. It was a formative experience for me, and I have since passionately pursued justice all my life. I’d appreciate the vote of WJI members and supporters.

Shelton's resume is here. Personal information, such as telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and the names of people not directly involved in the campaign have been redacted.​

https://www.sheltonforjudge.com/​​​​​

We asked State Supreme Court candidates Brian Hagedorn and Lisa Neubauer to respond to our questionnaire, but neither obliged.

Hagedorn was profiled as part of our "Walker's Judges" series – you can read that here. ​​​​​