Meet the candidates for Jefferson County Circuit Court Branch 1

In Jefferson County, Branch 1 incumbent Will Gruber is challenged by attorney John Jack A. Chavez. The election is April 1.

Gruber was appointed to Jefferson County Circuit Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 and won election to a full term in 2019. He previously was the city attorney for Watertown, assistant corporation counsel for Dodge County, and an attorney in private practice. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2004. His resume is here.

Chavez is an attorney at Chavez Law Office LLC in Lake Mills, Wisconsin. He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 1990.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Gruber responded to WJI's questionnaire. Chavez did not. 

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Will Gruber

​Why do you want to retain your position as a judge?

I have been a Circuit Court Judge in Branch 1 of Jefferson County since August 2018. I have tried or presided over 38 jury trials as a lawyer or judge. As a judge I have been assigned to hear and decide hundreds of cases across every subject matter and jurisdiction including criminal, civil, family, probate and juvenile law. I presided over the Alcohol and Drug Treatment Courts in 2023. I wish to retain my role as Circuit Court Judge because the work is deeply fulfilling and aligned with my aptitudes and commitment to ensuring fair play and due process in the courtroom. Personal satisfaction comes by way of service to others and the rule of law. The impacts of my decisions and actions are routinely experienced in direct, visible, and, therefore, rewarding ways. Rarely does a week go by where I am not left to reflect on the individual human impacts brought about by being called-up to further the protection of life and fundamental legal rights.

The judge and the advocate make-up our adversarial legal system; neither role is fundamentally superior to the other. That being said, my basic strengths and broader interest in the system, as a whole, have always suited me for “calling balls and strikes” (not “pitching and hitting”). At the most basic level, the responsibility of a judge is to make sure others play by the rules. I believe that administering the law from a place of accountability requires that a judge impose the same demands on himself or herself. Not every candidate for judicial office demonstrates commitment to the “form” requirements of judicial office, particularly when it comes to personal behavior and civility. I have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to integrity and answerability. I view the judiciary as a stabilizing force in government and many of the basic operations of society, especially when it comes to furthering institutional integrity. Assuming this sort of responsibility as an occupation is profoundly motivating.

After several years on the bench, my dedication to ensuring fairness and due process in our civil and criminal justice systems “feels” very much like a natural station in life. The motivation to do right by my oath comes easy and the calling to do this work is total and complete. There are no doubt a variety of fulfilling lines of work in the legal system, but for me, the daily work as a trial judge truly delivers on the desire for contribution and service. I enjoy going to a job where I am answerable only to the law and the people who have hired me to administer the law.

Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why.

Both Supreme Courts routinely hand down decisions of enormous legal impact. In selecting and elaborating on only one I place a premium on the recency of the opinion, scale of personal, individual human impact, and relevance to the work and concerns of our local criminal justice systems, parties and victims. I will refer to a case decided last summer by the U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Rahmi upholds the federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) that criminalizes the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Legally and practically this opinion confirmed the ability of the government to disarm violent persons. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined, based on earlier precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the “historic tradition” test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen) that since there was not a late 18th-century parallel to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the law was unconstitutional. In Rahmi, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the lower court was unduly exacting in comparing and contrasting early American law with the modern-day subject legislation. Essentially, the opinion provided that a historical analogue in the law, but not necessarily a “twin,” was necessary to survive Constitutional scrutiny. The Court determined that early American laws that disarmed “dangerous classes” of people, regardless of the form, function or motivation of the early legislation, were sufficiently similar to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

It is not an overstatement to suggest that the result in Rahmi is lifesaving. Domestic violence is, in my estimation, and consistent with my day-to-day experience as a judge, a public health crisis. I observe on an almost daily basis, the proportions of this form of violence. Prosecutors, law enforcement and judges have to be able to utilize laws that protect victims of domestic violence by disarming abusers. Those who have been found to have inflicted physical violence on another are legitimately disarmed by the government thanks to Rahmi. This is a decidedly important decision for victims of domestic violence.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy is simple: apply the laws of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitution and those passed by the legislature to the facts. The judicial branch applies and interprets the law – nothing more, nothing less. The work of the trial judge is directed almost exclusively to the “application” function of the judicial branch; interpreting on a grand scale is rarely occasioned at the circuit court; when it is, the circuit court’s interpretation is often subject to review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. As such, the circuit court’s primary function is “simply” administering the law as written. Many areas of the law are complex, but the essential role of the judiciary, and, especially the trial courts, is simple. The judicial branch is charged with being the most restrained branch of government. During my time on the bench, I have adhered to this essential precept. I am also recognized for my integrity, fairness and basic consideration for others. I actively listen to everyone who wants and deserves a voice in the courtroom.

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

Both the criminal and civil justice systems serve vital functions in our society; however, as a circuit court judge, the most significant cases I have been involved in are prosecutions brought by the State on behalf of the public. These are often cases where the safety of many are made vulnerable by the behavior of a few. These are cases where there is a mandate, regardless of public appeal, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all, including the accused, are safeguarded. These are cases where our juries search for the truth and often deliver a result that leaves for the court the responsibility to ensure, among other considerations, that the community is protected. These are cases where I have done right by my obligation to ensure constitutional and statutory protections are safeguarded and, at the same time, the public is protected. It is not possible to cite only two specific cases of this character, but these are the most significant cases I am involved with as a judicial officer. 

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

I have practiced privately and as a government lawyer. I have represented individuals, businesses, non-profits and a variety of other interests. As an attorney I have worked for and represented a county and a city; as a circuit court judge, I am employed by the State of Wisconsin and answerable to the people of Jefferson County. I practiced generally in civil, family and probate for six years before government representation with Dodge County as an assistant corporation counsel. In this role, I represented and advised the County with focuses in guardianship, ordinance enforcement, mental health petitions, CHIPS cases, guardianship and protective placement matters. After this position, I was appointed City Attorney for the City of Watertown where I served as in-house counsel to the City and its departments and Common Council. This work involved advising and representing the City in a wide variety of legal and policy interests including local regulation, licensing, tax incremental financing and human resources. I was also responsible for the prosecution of all traffic and ordinance violations, including first offense impaired driving offenses.

Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

Last spring I suffered a meniscus tear. This presented as a significant personal challenge. Daily, early morning running has been an anchoring and motivating force for me for very many years. It supports my mental clarity, general “down-regulation” and overall positive emotional responses. Identifying “courage” with the concept of resolution, helps me to describe the challenge as something that required several months of mental perseverance. I had to resolve to re-program my days with alternative times and forms of exercise. I also had to arrive at a core acceptance in denying myself (for several months) what amounted to a long-standing, single means of decompression. I came to learn that running was simply a habituated preference, but not the be all and end all exercise outlet… I continued to live by the other principles of good health and allowed the healing process to culminate on its own terms.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge 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, and what contribution limits would you set?

I support the recusal and disqualification requirements of Supreme Court Rules and state statute (Wisconsin SCR 60 and, in particular, SCR 60.04, and, Wis. Stat. § 757.19). I strongly support a judicial officer erring on the side of recusals or disqualification if there’s any doubt, whatsoever, as to whether she or he can sit for a case with the required neutrality, impartiality and fidelity to the law. This is the only right thing to do; this is what is demanded by those who come to court for fair and responsible disposition of cases.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define "true justice" as you see fit.]

As of recent, the basic precept of judicial independence and the rule of law itself is commonly burdened by matters of personality and partisanship as well as other negative and distracting influences that have no place in the work of the judiciary. Judges owe it to themselves, individually, and to the institution as a whole, to be ever vigilant and defend against illicit pressures on their independence. I refuse to be involved in partisan enterprises and narratives that undermine the judicial independence. I believe all judicial officers are obligated to regularly call to mind the injunction to rule without fear or favor.

Implicit or unconscious bias is its own unique and individualized impediment to furthering the end of the fair application of law. This sort of bias naturally goes along with the human condition. This is not a subject that should inspire debate or defensiveness. The threshold at the path to addressing this impact to impartiality is becoming aware of its reality. In recent years, it has become common to read instructions to juries that call attention to naturally occurring bias. It is just as vital for judicial officers to take seriously the problem of this type of partiality. The court system has taken meaningful steps to bring awareness to this challenge with mandatory judicial education.

---