Meet the candidates for La Crosse County Circuit Court

In La Crosse County, Candice C. M. Tlustosch is challenging incumbent Mark A. Huesmann for Circuit Court Branch 3.

Huesmann was appointed to the court by Gov. Tony Evers in 2023. He was previously a municipal court judge, La Crosse County court commissioner, and practicing attorney. He received his law degree from the University of North Dakota School of Law in 1994. His resume is here. 

Tlustosch is a practicing attorney at Tlustosch Law Office. She was a La Crosse County judge in Branch 5 in 2015, appointed by Gov. Scott Walker. She did not win the next election and returned to private practice. She received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2005. Her resume is here.

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

The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Huesmann

Mark Huesmann

Why do you want to become (or retain your position as) a judge?
​
My parents grew up in Germany under the Nazis regime and Adolph Hitler. They immigrated to America in the mid-1950s. I was raised in a small town in rural Wisconsin. My parents could not afford to send me to college, so I joined the Army and the GI Bill helped me get an education. My parents saw the worst of government, and I saw the best of it. My parents escaped a system of oppression and inequality so I could have better opportunities. This background informs who I am. A fair and impartial system of justice is the last line of defense from totalitarianism. This idea was inculcated in me from a young age. I want to continue as a judge to ensure that everyone – regardless of their station in life – receives dignity and respect as well as equality and equity.

I have worn different hats thus far in my career: circuit court judge, municipal judge, court commissioner, lawyer, soldier, academic, and business owner. I have been privileged to meet people from different walks of life. The people I have met all want and demand the same thing – a system of justice that encourages accountability and positive outcomes for society. I want to continue achieving those goals.

My work with families going through trauma – whether in the context of family law, criminal defense, or juveniles appearing in circuit court, has provided me with a deeper understanding of the human condition. I have seen the positive and transformative effects of properly addressing the crises surrounding mental health and addiction. I believe in the approach of treatment courts. Focusing on these areas ensures accountability for offenders and considers the impacts on victims. I was one of the founders of the Veterans Court Initiative, which resulted in the creation of the La Crosse Area Veteran Mentor Program and the La Crosse Area Veterans Court, which I now lead as judge. We are taking greater strides in Wisconsin towards addressing these issues. But significant disparities still exist in our legal system for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color members of our community, those who identify as LGBTQIA, and how victims of crime are treated. I embrace these positive changes toward fundamental fairness and equality, and I want to further that work by continuing as a circuit court judge.

As a general practice attorney, I enjoyed diverse experiences in the law. That background has greatly aided my work as a circuit court judge. I am intellectually curious and enjoy the challenges of my current position.

I have spent a lifetime helping people and want to continue that service to my community and the State.
 
Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.
 
The case of Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 2018) has had a negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Mayo upheld a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases and reversed a Court of Appeals decision that found the cap “unconstitutional on its face because it…impos(es) an unfair and illogical burden only on catastrophically injured patients, thus denying them the equal protection of the laws.” With its decision in Mayo, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 284 Wis. 2d 573, 2005 WI 125, 701 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. 2005).

The issue of legislative caps on non-economic damages has a history stretching back to 1975. Since that time, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has weighed in twice and may revisit the issue a third time. The upshot is whether statutory caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases violates equal protection laws. The issue could be resolved if the legislature would simply allow juries to determine the appropriate amount of damages in medical malpractice cases.

We impanel juries for civil cases under the Seventh Amendment. Those juries have two primary purposes: determine questions of liability and establish the appropriate level of damages for that liability.

Regulating how much a jury can award under the Mayo scenario represents a usurpation and unwarranted intrusion into the powers of the judicial branch and raises a host of Constitutional questions. America has been trending towards corralling more people into binding arbitration and then limiting damages when those litigants can actually access the courts. It represents a concerted effort to diminish the power of jury to hold bad and wealthy actors accountable and Mayo is illustrative in that regard.

The case has other, far-reaching impacts as it established the rational basis standard would henceforth be used for analyzing the constitutionality of governmental legislation under similar challenges.

Describe your judicial philosophy.
 
I see the role of judge as having the power of possibilities. It is about marshaling resources and opening doors that can only be done through a court order. Whether that involves treatment, tools for intervention, or using punishment as a deterrence, this is within the proper purview of a judge. No other position in our society allows for that sort of gatekeeping, authority, and allocation of assets. The public is best served by a judge understanding how to properly utilize this host of options. My goal is to elicit positive change in those who appear before the court, which can help victims to overcome the trauma of an event, defendants to avoid recidivism, or the public to see justice and equity have been accomplished.

Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
Names and Dates will not be used. Within the past few years, I represented a Black man accused of 2nd Degree Sexual Assault. The case was significant as it was charged under the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) project. It presented the intersection of complicated issues related to race, sexual assault, and delayed prosecution. The defendant was a Black man accused of raping a white woman in a rural Wisconsin county. I filed significant pretrial motions. Two weeks prior to the trial, significant conflict developed with the client and I had to withdraw as counsel. Several months later, the successor attorney obtained an acquittal and credited my pretrial work on the case with achieving that verdict.

Names and Dates will not be used. As municipal judge, our court encountered a difficult 13-year-old juvenile with a disturbing pattern of behavior. In a nine-month period, the juvenile accumulated 12 different citations, some which involved threats of violence related to knives and guns. The juvenile demonstrated a complete disregard for law enforcement, failed to show for mandatory court dates, and had numerous open citations. I view municipal court as an early intervention tool for juveniles and my goal was to identify at-risk children and connect them to services in the community. This cannot be accomplished when neither the juvenile nor the parents show up for court. The enforcement mechanisms through municipal court are few and limited. Through research, I discovered that circuit court sanctions can be used for juveniles who continue to violate municipal court orders. Accordingly, I petitioned the circuit court to impose additional sanctions such as juvenile detention or electronic home monitoring. This had never been done in La Crosse County, but obtained the support of the court to proceed with that course of action. This approach allowed all concerned to develop a compliance plan for the juvenile. I learned that sometimes a judge should explore different avenues for problem solving.

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

I have done jury trials, both civil and criminal, in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Civil litigation included personal injury, contracts and business disputes, real estate, and construction disputes. Criminal law trials covered everything from disorderly conduct to homicide. I have represented clients in worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, probation revocation, and Social Security disability hearings. I have also advocated for many people as a guardian ad litem, to ensure their rights are upheld and their dignity is maintained.
 
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.

As an Army lieutenant colonel, I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2011 and worked as a Ground Liaison Officer (GLO). The GLO translates the ground units’ intent into action in the air. My job was to collect information regarding upcoming ground operations, gather the latest intelligence regarding combatant activity, develop complex mapping products and targeting packages, and then brief the pilots multiple times each day on their close air support missions. It was challenging work with no margin for error. Life and death decisions had to be made quickly under intense time pressure. It was the hardest thing I ever did.
 
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?

Judicial campaigns are expensive. Many people may contribute to a candidate to help defray the costs of the campaign. Many of these people will likely be family and friends. The rules of recusal would require a judge to recuse himself from cases or matters involving family and friends, so any campaign contributions would be a moot issue. Others who contribute to a judicial campaign may have other motives, and if a contribution is a significant amount, judges should recuse themselves from the matter at hand. Nominal contributions would be deemed de minimus and should not result in recusal. Any time a person appears who has contributed to a campaign could be addressed on the record to see if waiver of recusal would be appropriate. Judicial candidates must guard against accepting any amount of money where it creates a sense of expected loyalty or the appearance of the same.
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

Two things: Scarcity, availability of resources and community perception.

The onset of COVID laid bare the significant shortfalls regarding resources to address mental health concerns. We still face a shortage of adequate and available services to address mental health and substance abuse issues. It’s not just about the money – as a society we need to encourage more people to pursue those careers as these problems will not lessen in the coming years. People struggling with mental health crises or substance abuse issues cannot do it alone. We need more resources to help them.
​
Too many in our society view the court system as a binary thing: you go to court and there is a winner or a loser. Much of our work is finding solutions to complicated problems. That doesn't always lend itself well to defining a winner or loser. There is no winner in a divorce case, but maybe winning today is finding a resolution that provides harmony and reduces the conflict impacting the parties and their children. There is no winner when a child is abused, but maybe tonight that child is safe because we didn’t stand idly by and intervened. There is no winner when we convict someone of drug offenses, but maybe winning today is that person struggling with addiction is now under supervision and we provide other tools for intervention to get them sober, so they don’t reoffend again. And maybe this time that intervention saves them from dying of an overdose which has become too common in our community. All of this requires a team approach: court staff, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, social workers, attorneys, and others. Even in an adversarial system, the goal is to bring justice. While that may have different meanings and outcomes depending on the case, the intentions are nonetheless good. We must keep educating the public about the fact that true justice is on a continuum.

Tlustosch

Candice Tlustosch​

Why do you want to become (or retain your position as) a judge? 
 
I enjoy working as a lawyer, and especially value running my own law practice. The freedom to control my own client selection, workload, and practice management has been incredibly fulfilling after years of hard work. However, the opportunity to once again serve as a La Crosse County Circuit Court Judge offers even greater fulfillment with the ability to provide a level playing field and resolve tough issues rather than advocate for one party. I look forward to bringing a common sense balance of compassion and fairness to the judiciary.
 
Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.
 
One of the best Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years is Coulee Catholic Schools vs. LIRC, 2009 WI 88, 320 Wis.2d 275, 768 N.W.2d 868 (2009). In Coulee, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that the Freedom of Conscience Clauses in the Wisconsin Constitution precluded an employment discrimination claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act for employees whose positions are important and closely linked to the religious mission of a religious organization.
 
The significance of this case is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court analyzed the Freedom of Conscience Clause using the methodology of State ex. rel. Kalal v Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W. 2d 110 (2004). Kalal instructs courts to focus on the plain meaning of the text and refrain from using extrinsic sources such as legislative intent and history. Historically, the Kalal methodology applied only to statutory interpretation and not constitutional interpretation. In Coulee, however, the Court removed historical and legislative analysis as unnecessary to statutory interpretation. For the people of Wisconsin, this means that they can rely on the law to be interpreted as written, rather than as interpreted by the presiding agency.     
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

Judges should focus on the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution, statutes, administrative codes and ordinances. Judges should refrain from analyzing legislative intent or legislative history as that intent and history is unreliable and frequently fashioned by lobbyists and other interested persons to make it appear that the legislature is adopting their views. Analysis of legislative intent and history is often a subterfuge for judicial intent and results oriented decisions. Judges should exercise judicial modesty and not substitute personal predilections for that of the duly elected legislature. Modesty notwithstanding, judges should certainly not abdicate responsibility from keeping an activist legislature in check if it oversteps its bounds by infringing on Constitutional rights.
 
As a judge, I have and will look at each party individually. I will apply the law equally to all parties regardless of background, cultural or economic circumstances. As a judge I have done and will do what the law requires even when I do not like the result. 
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
I was the third guardian ad litem appointed to a case that had been pending for seven years. The difficulty in this case was that the children had been placed with foster parents for so long that by the time of trial, the children had a very strong bond with their foster parents and reunification was difficult in spite of their mother's significant improvements. This case was significant in my career because of the deep concern I held for these children and their ultimate wellbeing, and how frequently my own position was not in line with the County's position. 

More recently, I was defense counsel in a case that involved possession of a firearm by a felon. This case was significant because of the positive growth I saw in my client over the pendency of the case, the seriousness of the client’s illegal possession of the weapon even though it was not used in the commission of any other crime, and the circumstances that led law enforcement to discover the weapon in my client’s home.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
I have been working in general practice since graduation from law school, which has exposed me to an extremely wide variety of legal fields. Initially, my career focused largely on business, real estate and tax matters, but gradually shifted toward more trial practice as I took on more civil litigation, then family and criminal cases. My practice still focuses largely on family law and criminal defense, but I also handle significant amounts of estate planning, guardian ad litem work, and business formation. 

The trajectory of my career has given me a wide range of trial practice, from bench trials to jury trials, along with evidentiary and non-evidentiary hearings. Workers compensation, probation revocation, and traffic cases have also exposed me to administrative procedures, and my wide client base has provided me with excellent client control and relatability.

My judicial position further broadened my experience, as I was able to provide an impartial forum to hear both sides of all types of cases, and presided through multiple intake cycles. Since the end of my previous judicial term, I have continued to handle a wide variety of cases in my general practice to meet the needs of a broad population base. 
 
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.
 
During my previous judicial term, I presided over a jury trial as the Branch V Circuit Court Judge in which the defendant faced very serious charges. I was required to make very difficult and unpopular evidentiary rulings when it became apparent that the prosecuting attorney was eliciting testimony from a prosecution witness regarding multiple pieces of evidence that had not been disclosed to the defense. My ruling was challenged and questioned, but I worked hard to consult available resources and thought through my decision prior to making my ruling. Because my decision was both careful and prompt, I was able to balance the rights of both the defense and the prosecution, and ensure that both parties understood I would ensure a level playing field.
 
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?
 
The Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct (SCR 60.04(7)) specifically addresses campaign contributions and endorsements received by judges, and has been thoughtfully analyzed and applied in Wisconsin since statehood. While campaign contributions by potential litigants may initially arouse suspicion, prohibiting contributions and endorsements, or requiring recusal from cases involving supporters, would imply that the non-partisan judiciary is incapable of remaining impartial and unbiased on any issue involving personal connection or experience. Instead, continuing to allow contributions which must be publicly reported allows broad participation by all citizens. Supporters are often proud to contribute to a candidate, and public reporting of these contributions is available to all future litigants. Conversely, mandatory recusal of contributors or endorsers runs the risk of an increase in anonymous donations and reduced transparency in the election process. Litigants who wish to avoid a particular magistrate could do so simply by contributing nominal financial or public support.  Therefore, while I support the current contribution limits, I do not believe that requiring recusal from cases involving judicial supporters would accomplish the intended goal. 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?  
 
Our community is plagued with illegal drug use, gun violence, and homelessness. Citizens are frustrated and confused by repeat offenders, pardons, and bond, while the accused remain innocent until proven guilty. Whether an individual is accused or convicted of a crime, they often face unemployment. Without a job, they cannot afford to support themselves or their families, and mental health issues and life management skills become even more difficult to address. When faced with homelessness and starvation, even people who have done the hard work to overcome a previous addiction can feel hopeless and turn to selling drugs out of desperation. The same sense of desperation is often present in the gun violence that has our whole nation arguing over the right to bear arms. Judges are bound by the laws passed by the legislators duly elected by the citizens of Wisconsin, so by the time these issues arrive in a courtroom, a judge’s role is primarily reactive to what has already happened rather than prospective toward what might occur. This can be frustrating for participants and citizens alike, but I have spent my practice working closely with offender populations and believe that the solution requires a balance between services that addresses the root cause of each offender’s needs and the appropriate punishment under each circumstance. 
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
I have been working hard in the La Crosse area and surrounding counties for the last two decades to develop extensive legal knowledge in a wide variety of practice areas across multiple jurisdictions. I have spent the past two decades running my own law firm in addition to my previous La Crosse County judicial term in 2015 where I also presided over La Crosse County’s domestic violence treatment court. This collective experience has given me the opportunity to know and understand the people behind the cases I handle, as well as the challenges of running a business and managing a family. I will work tirelessly to uphold the rule of law and to ensure public safety while protecting the legal rights of all.