Meet the candidates for La Crosse County Circuit Court

In La Crosse County, Joe Veenstra and Eric S. Sanford vie for an open seat. The election is April 1.

The candidates are listed in the order shown on the Wisconsin Elections Commission's candidate tracking form; the order does not in any way reflect a preference or endorsement by Wisconsin Justice Initiative, which is nonpartisan.

Veenstra is an attorney at the Johns, Flaherty & Collins law firm in La Crosse and is a supplemental court commissioner in La Crosse County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. His resume is here.

Sanford is a family court commissioner in La Crosse County Circuit Court and previously was an assistant district attorney in La Crosse County, a private practice attorney, and an assistant state public defender. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2011. His resume is here.

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.

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

​

Joe Veenstra

Why do you want to become a judge?

This has been the most common question I have received since I began campaigning.

I have been a Supplemental Court Commissioner for 17 years and a litigator for 25 years. As such, I feel comfortable in the role and believe I have the temperament and judgment to do a great job while also enjoying it. I believe my experience as an attorney and court commissioner would allow me to hit the ground running to provide a steady and fair hand as soon as I take the bench.

I believe my volunteer work in the community, my 25 years of experience as a private attorney with Johns, Flaherty & Collins, S.C., and 17 years of experience as a Court Commissioner have given me a good perspective and judgment. I recognize the need for public safety and accountability combined with the use of evidence-based services, supervision, and practices to decrease recidivism. I also enjoy doing things that are of service to our community.

My broad legal experience as a private attorney managing a wide variety of cases – including criminal, personal injury, real estate, insurance disputes, banking, probate disputes, family disputes, restraining orders, child protection, guardianships and mental commitments, agency reviews and other types of cases has given me the ability to take the bench and ask the right questions, do the necessary legal research, and provide fair process and just outcomes in all contexts. I look forward to the intellectual challenge of being a circuit court judge of general jurisdiction presiding over a vast array of different and challenging legal issues and claims.

I believe the constitutional role for our independent judiciary has arguably never been more important. The rule of law and respect for our co-equal branches of government are integral to the maintenance of our society, and if given the chance, it would be my duty to assume this role to do a small part to protect these vital interests.

I believe in equal justice under the law, including learning about and utilizing practices and methods to enhance our judicial system so it provides due process and fairness to all involved: parties, witnesses, those accused of crimes, victims, jurors, attorneys, the free press, clerks and citizens. Providing equal justice includes engaging in active listening, providing a fair process for folks in our diverse community, ensuring that all people have equal justice and a genuine opportunity to be heard. Making these efforts will be fulfilling.

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

I think the easy answer is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned existing Supreme Court precedent (Roe v. Wade), to hold that a Mississippi law outlawing abortion after 15 weeks was constitutional. The decision has resulted in patchwork of state laws across the country and some confusion about what rights exist for women, doctors and hospitals and clinics. This was obviously a very controversial decision, and it has created doubts about the principle of stare decisis as well as the constitutional underpinnings for privacy rights and bodily autonomy.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My basic judicial philosophy as a trial court judge would be to strictly follow the law while acting as a neutral arbiter for those presenting claims. I would aim to provide a fair and equitable process to those bringing and defending claims by engaging in active listening, thoroughly reading all the relevant filings, researching the statutes and caselaw when necessary to ascertain how the law should apply to the facts, and to render a reasoned and sound decision based on the facts and law.

When there is ambiguity as to the law, I believe a trial court should attempt to ascertain how similar binding caselaw would view the question presented to provide an answer, and, if necessary, looking to legislative history or other sources for assistance in determining the appropriate ruling.

In the context of criminal sentencing, I think a court should balance accountability for the crime and harm caused it and the need for public safety with the character of the defendant and the possibility of rehabilitative programs that might exist to reduce recidivism, provide accountability to those harmed, and promote basic fairness given the factual context.
​
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or judicial officer.

I have litigated two cases that went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so the easy answer would be those two cases (State v. Iverson and Olson v. Farrar), which created law in the State of Wisconsin. However, the cases that were of most import to me were two in which I think the interests of justice were ultimately served after difficult litigation.

The first was a personal injury case (Brudos v. Wisconsin Mutual Ins. Co.) in which I represented a man who was severely injured in a motorcycle accident caused by someone who was drinking and driving. In the trial court, the insurance company prevailed in arguing that a “drive other cars” exclusion in an insurance policy prevented coverage for driver involved in the accident. Respectfully, I did not think the trial court ruling was sound, and we appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the case and remanded it for trial. It ultimately settled after further litigation and court-ordered mediation.

The second case (Gage Corporation v. Tamareed Company) was a dispute between two businesses over whether a multi-million dollar agency fee was owed arising out of a failed construction job in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We made the tactical decision to sue the Saudia Arabian company in Monroe County, Wisconsin, seeking a declaratory ruling that no agency fee was owed. We had to serve the company in Saudi Arabia, which is not a signator to the Hague Convention on Service of Process. This required us to research the common law method for serving a foreign business entity. After months of litigation and motion hearings, we had 5 days of jury trial. Mid-trial, we learned of emails that had not been turned over when requested, which proved to be very important to our case. The jury returned a verdict holding that our client was not liable for the agency fee. The Saudi company appealed to the Court of Appeals, where we again prevailed. The company then filed a Petition for Review asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, which we argued was unnecessary, and the court agreed with us, thereby ending the litigation once and for all. This case was professionally satisfying because it was extremely hard fought and the stakes were very high.

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

When people ask me to describe my practice, I often tell them I am a “glorified country lawyer.” I started practicing law in La Crosse without any clients, so I handled pretty much any case that came through the door. I represented people who were the subject of mental commitment and guardianship proceedings. I represented people accused of crimes. I did subrogation work for large insurance companies. I represented both landlords and tenants in rental disputes. I represented clients in administrative hearings regarding unemployment compensation, equal and civil rights claims, worker’s compensation, and professional licensing disputes. I successfully represented a client in what was I believe was the first administrative hearing involving the attempted revocation of a childcare license in La Crosse County. I have represented individuals and businesses in a variety of types of civil litigation (both plaintiff and defendant work) involving car accidents, property disputes, commercial disputes, insurance, and other business disputes. I have represented police and lawyers in administrative cases and trials. I have represented clients in many civil and criminal jury and court trials. I also have done appellate litigation, including arguing two cases in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

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

Relatively early in my career, I was representing a client who was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor sexual assault. I filed a motion to exempt him from the sex offender registry, because he fit the statutory standards for the exemption. Unbeknownst to me, the presiding judge was ill, so a reserve judge was presiding over the hearing. The plea and sentencing went as was expected; however, when I raised the motion to exempt my client from the registry, the judge stood up and started leaving the courtroom before I even made any argument and said “denied” as he opened the door and left the courtroom. I was stunned, but asked the court reporter and district attorney to stay, and I made a record without the judge being present.

Later, I filed a motion for reconsideration, and a different reserve judge reversed the denial after hearing argument.

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 a judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Generally speaking, I support the idea of a rule requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources of value to a judge’s election. I believe for “indirect supporters” it may be difficult to determine who is involved in the indirect support due to some of the issues relating to anonymity for donors to third-party groups that arose out of the Citizens United decision. For direct supporters, I believe a threshold of perhaps any contribution greater than $1,000 for a trial court judge might be a reasonable proposal. For appellate judges, perhaps a threshold of $5,000 might be reasonable. I would be open to hearing others’ opinions as to any threshold and/or how to create a reasonable rule for indirect supporters.

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.]

I think a definition of “true justice” might be legal proceedings in which all parties who participate believe they had an opportunity to be heard, obtained an explanation and reasoned basis for the ruling that is made in their dispute, and understand why the conclusion was reached, even if they might disagree with it. I think one of the main obstacles judges face is pro se litigants who do not understand how to obtain and present evidence or the law that relates to their legal concern. A related but similar problem is the lack of attorneys for indigent criminal defendants whose cases are therefore significantly delayed to the detriment of both the accused and victims. This is a very challenging issue due to budgetary restraints and a lack of attorneys who are willing and able to do this difficult work at a reduced hourly rate. In that regard, one idea I was recently discussing with a judge was the creation of regional conflict offices for each Judicial District in the state, allowing public defender attorneys in those offices to take conflict cases in a variety of counties. This is probably a legislative fix, but it is something I believe might help. Another option might be to raise the hourly rate for private attorneys who are willing to accept Class A-C Felony cases.

Provide any information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Answer: Please visit my website at www.joeveenstra4judge.com or contact me at [email protected] if you have any particular questions. Thank you!

---

​















Eric S. Sanford

​​​Why do you want to become a judge?
​
I want to become a judge because my career has been dedicated to ensuring justice is applied fairly, firmly, and with integrity. My experience as a prosecutor, public defender, private attorney, and Family Court Commissioner has given me a well-rounded understanding of the legal system from all perspectives. I know that being a judge is more than just applying the law it’s about ensuring fairness, maintaining public trust, and making decisions that have a real impact on individuals and the community.

Serving as a Family Court Commissioner has reinforced my commitment to impartiality, respect, and problem-solving in the courtroom. I believe in upholding the rule of law while recognizing the real-life consequences of judicial decisions. Beyond my legal experience, my role as a husband and father gives me a personal stake in the well-being of our community.

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.

One of the most impactful U.S. Supreme Court decisions for Wisconsin in the past 25 years is National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius (2012). This case examined key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, particularly the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. While the Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax, it ruled that the federal government could not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold existing funding.

For Wisconsin, this decision was significant because it allowed state leaders to decide whether to expand Medicaid rather than being mandated by federal law. It reinforced the principle that while the federal government can encourage state participation in programs, it cannot impose overly coercive conditions that undermine state autonomy. This ruling helped define the balance of power between state and federal governments, ensuring that Wisconsin and other states maintain control over major policy decisions affecting their residents.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy is rooted in fairness, integrity, and upholding the rule of law. I believe a judge must apply the law as written, without bias or personal agenda, while ensuring that every person who enters the courtroom is treated with dignity and respect. Justice should be firm but fair, with a focus on accountability and due process.

A judge must not only be knowledgeable but also possess the right temperament. Be patient, thoughtful, and open-minded while making difficult decisions that affect individuals, families, and the community.

I believe in a court system that balances the need for public safety with rehabilitation to reduce recidivism. The law should be applied consistently, but justice is not one-size-fits-all. Each case deserves careful consideration based on the facts and the law. My role as a judge is to ensure that justice is served fairly, impartially, and with the highest ethical standards.

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

This is a difficult question to answer given the breadth of my career. A significant case as a defense attorney differs greatly from one as a prosecutor, and the meaning of "significant" took on an entirely new dimension when I began ruling on family law matters involving children and deeply emotional disputes. However, these are a few cases that continue to stand out to me.

One case involved prosecuting a child sexual assault case where the victims were young, making the investigation and trial preparation extremely complex. In this case the children disclosed abuse by a trusted adult, leading to several sensitive and thorough forensic interviews. I worked closely with law enforcement to build a strong case while minimizing trauma for the victim.

Given the amazing upfront work done by law enforcement in securing both physical evidence and rock-solid disclosures, combined with the results of voluminous forensic materials tested, the defendant elected to plead guilty. The amount of preparation that went into the sentencing ensured those children will never have to worry about that defendant again.
 
Another significant case involved an extremely contentious child custody and placement dispute with allegations of historic domestic violence and substance abuse. Both parents sought primary placement, requiring a careful balance of the child’s best interests and safety concerns. After multiple hearings and the consideration of a guardian ad litem's recommendations, ultimately, primary placement was awarded to the more stable parent. However, following a lengthy course of testing and supervised placement we have been able to get the other parent some significant time with the children and been able to create a space for their relationships to flourish.

I am happy to report that this case now has both parents having meaningful contact with their children and co-parenting as if they have been doing it for years. Arguably, one of the better feelings I have had as a decision maker was learning this couple was co-parenting with a focus on their children and off their prior lived issues as a couple.

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

I have extensive experience in criminal litigation, having prosecuted and defended over 2,500 cases. As a prosecutor, I worked in the Sensitive Crimes Unit and handled complex cases involving domestic violence and crimes against children, working closely with law enforcement and community stakeholders to ensure justice while balancing public safety. As a public defender and private attorney, I vigorously defended clients, ensuring their constitutional rights were protected and that they received fair treatment under the law.

I have ruled on more than 150 injunction requests and presided over 300 family law and paternity cases as a Family Court Commissioner. My approach to civil litigation emphasizes problem-solving, fairness, and adherence to the law while recognizing the profound impact these cases have on individuals and families.

My experience in administrative proceedings includes representing and prosecuting defendants in revocation hearings before an administrative law judge. Additionally, I served as a small claims mediator which provided me with valuable experience in alternative dispute resolution, reinforcing my commitment to fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings.

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.

In late 2018 and early 2019, I faced a period of profound personal and professional transition, some of the most challenging moments of my life. At the time, I was managing a remote office for a successful private practice, balancing the demands of running a law firm with my growing responsibilities at home. In December, my first child was born, marking an incredible milestone in my personal life. However, just as I embraced fatherhood, I was confronted with devastating news, my business partner and father was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The following months were filled with emotional highs and lows. I cherished the time I had left to discuss the law with my father, knowing those conversations were growing fewer. At the same time, I began reflecting on my career and how I could make a greater impact on my community. I realized that transitioning to prosecution would allow me to play a more direct role in ensuring a safer future for my children and my community. The decision to leave private practice was not easy, but it was necessary. I embraced the change with conviction, knowing it was the right path forward and I have never looked back.

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?

For me, the appearance of impartiality is paramount, my campaign is entirely funded by myself and my family. Judicial integrity and impartiality are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the courts.

While I strongly believe that judges must avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of bias, mandatory recusal in every case involving a donor or indirect supporter is overly broad and impractical. However, if a contribution is significant enough to raise legitimate concerns about impartiality, recusal should absolutely be considered.

This campaign experience has made me realize the significant costs of running for circuit court judge and where candidates secure funding. Knowing what I do now, if I were a practicing attorney, I would find it difficult to accept a close decision if I knew the opposing party had made a large financial contribution to the elected judge.

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.]
​
Barriers to Access

Many individuals in the legal system face obstacles such as lack of legal representation and economic hardship. Those without resources may struggle to navigate the courts effectively.

Judges should ensure that all parties, particularly self-represented and indigent litigants, understand the legal process and have access to available resources, such as legal aid and mediation services. Courts should continue expanding treatment courts, which address underlying issues such as addiction or mental health concerns while being mindful of public safety. 

Maintaining Public Trust and Impartiality

The judiciary depends on public confidence. If people perceive that judges are politically biased or influenced by external pressures, trust in the system erodes.

Judges must uphold the highest ethical standards, ensuring transparency in their rulings and decision-making. They should engage with the community in appropriate ways educating the public about the legal system while maintaining judicial independence.

I define true justice as the fair, impartial, and consistent application of the law while considering the real-world impact of judicial decisions. It means ensuring due process, protecting individual rights, and making decisions that uphold both legal principles and the well-being of the community.

True justice requires more than just legal knowledge, it demands fairness, empathy, and a commitment to ensuring the law serves everyone equally. Judges must constantly work to remove obstacles that prevent justice from being fully realized in their courtrooms.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

As voters consider their choice for La Crosse County Circuit Judge, I want them to know that I bring a deep commitment to fairness, integrity, and public service. My legal career has been dedicated to ensuring that justice is applied fairly and consistently and that the community is safer because of the decision I have made. My diverse experience as a prosecutor, public defender, private attorney, and Family Court Commissioner has given me a comprehensive understanding of the law from all sides.

I have handled thousands of cases, from serious criminal offenses to complex family law disputes, always striving to balance the rule of law with the real-life impact of judicial decisions. I understand that a judge’s role is not just about making rulings but about ensuring that every person in the courtroom is treated with dignity and respect, no matter their circumstances.

Beyond my legal career, I am a husband and father, and I care deeply about the safety and well-being of our community. I believe the courts should protect victims, hold offenders accountable, and ensure that justice is accessible to everyone. If elected, I will approach every case with an open mind, apply the law fairly, and work to maintain the public’s trust in our judicial system.

I would be honored to earn your vote on April 1st and serve La Crosse County as its next Circuit Court Judge.

---