Meet the candidates for Walworth County Circuit Court

In Walworth County, Estee E. Scholtz and Peter M. Navis vie for an open seat after Judge Phillip A. Koss chose not to run for reelection.

Scholtz is the deputy corporation counsel for Walworth County and previously worked as an assistant district attorney in Walworth and Milwaukee counties. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2009. Her resume is here.

Navis is a judicial court commissioner in Walworth County. He previously was an assistant corporation counsel for Walworth and Dodge counties and an attorney in private practice. He graduated from Hamline University School of Law (St. Paul, Minnesota) in 2007. His 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 the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. 

The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without insertion of “(sic)” for errors and without editing except as to length (answers are limited to 500 words).

Scholtz

​Estee Scholtz

Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
The judiciary is a place of honor, integrity and impartiality, which are all qualities that I’ve strived to exhibit as a prosecutor and child welfare attorney. My career long experience in public service representing the interests of the public in some of society’s toughest cases has prepared me make decisions in an informed and judicious manner based only upon the law and evidence. I truly enjoy the courtroom and the creativity that lawyers can use to advocate for their clients. I want to continue the current efforts started by our judicial system to bring the county back on track after the pandemic. I’ve taken the oath of office as a Special Prosecutor in the Walworth County District Attorney’s Office, as an Assistant District Attorney for the State of Wisconsin and most recently as a Police Commissioner for my township. I would take the Judicial Oath of Office, to uphold and defend the constitution, to heart.
 
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.
 
A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court case stands out to me because it advances the rights of victims and exemplifies the significance of our Wisconsin Constitution and a Court's duty to uphold the Constitution. In State v. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned prior precedent from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals which allowed a defendant to request an in-camera review of a victim’s privileged patient-therapist treatment records.    
 
Pivotal to the WI Supreme Court’s decision to overturn prior law was the Marsy’s Law Amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution in 2020 to guarantee crime victims the rights to be treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, sensitivity, and fairness, to privacy, and to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process and in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded to the accused.  See Wis. Const. Art. I sec. 9m(2).  
 
With rising mental health awareness, more individuals receive therapeutic intentions. The Johnson case explained that the prior law had a chilling effect on access to therapeutic services. Since our State Constitution now recognizes a victim’s right to have privacy in their mental health treatment as a constitutional guarantee, victims have a better opportunity to heal from trauma.
 
As an individual who has asked children to testify in court who were victimized by their parents or a peer, as a mother of three children with lives ahead of them in an uncertain world, and as a citizen interested in an efficient judicial system, this the Johnson decision is as step forward for Wisconsin. 
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 

Though I recognize there are certain methods of how a Court can interpret the law before the law is applied to the facts before the Court, I don’t yet have one specific philosophy that that I will follow. A Circuit Court does not make law. Instead, it is bound by statutes and the precedent of higher courts. When confronted with a lack of clarity in the law, especially on an individual’s liberty interests, a constitutionally conservative view is appropriate. I also believe Judges should generally exercise a minimalistic approach and ensure it is acting within its Constitutional authority. Once, I asked a Court to exercise its inherent authority to find that a child could be placed with an unlicensed “like-kin” relative so that a child did not have to enter foster care, which the Court granted. I am pleased to see that the legislature is considering expanding the definition of “like-kin” in the current session (SB 520) for the best interests of children.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. 
 
In 2014, as a prosecutor, I obtained an adjudication for second degree sexual assault of a child in a trial that involved eliciting testimony from a girl who was sexually assaulted in a restroom by a male peer. There was a trace amount of Y-chromosome DNA on a piece of evidence. Expert testimony from both sides weighed in on the persuasiveness of the DNA to the fact finder. In most circumstances, parents are allowed in a courtroom while their child testifies. However, due to the order in which I needed to present the witnesses, and a sequestration order requested by the defense, I asked the mother how she felt about her daughter testifying without her (the mother) in the courtroom. With tears of uncertainty, she took both of my hands and asked, “who will protect her if I am not in there?” I told her that I would do everything in my power to do just that. When the Court found that I had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, I looked back at the victim’s mother and knew that the case would impact the direction my legal career would take.
 
My other case is significant for a far different reason. Like the many individuals who mentored me a student, a young attorney, and a new supervising attorney, I’ve felt it my duty to mentor others along the way. Though the facts of the case were reasonably straightforward, it is the role that I played as the supervising attorney to a third-year law student as he handled his first trial that made this case so significant. Any case has its weaknesses, so I assisted in preparing the student to address them. The most valuable lessons I taught him is the importance of courtroom theatre and how to use what is around you to best present the evidence in the case. In this hit and run case, the defendant claimed to have a lack of knowledge that the vehicles collided. I suggested the law student slam a book on counsel table and ask the witnesses if the sound of the collision was louder or softer than what was heard in the courtroom. The demonstration worked wonders because how do you, otherwise, articulate a loud sound without hearing it? This case helped the law student understand that zealous advocacy also requires creativity with demonstrative evidence. 
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
I have nearly 16 years of litigation experience. I conducted my first jury trial as a law student intern in the Walworth County District Attorney’s office, obtaining a conviction for operating while intoxicated with a .07 BAC after using retrograde extrapolation. My legal career started in criminal law as a prosecutor handling felony drug matters. I quickly moved up to handle sensitive crimes including criminal child physical abuse and neglect cases, civil child welfare cases (Children in Need of Protection or Services) and juvenile sexual assault delinquency cases. I had a defendant yell out, “I’m guilty” during a preliminary hearing that I was handling on a domestic violence case when his former girlfriend took the stand and started to explain how the defendant was strangling her. I also prosecuted general crimes, domestic violence, and traffic offenses while also mentoring other law students, like other prosecutors had done for me years before. Led by my passion for child welfare law, my career transitioned to civil law when I joined the Office of Corporation Counsel. There I also learned and advocated for the interests of the public in guardianship and mental commitment cases and became involved with contracts and other civile matters. My administrative law experience consists of foster care licensing revocations, caregiver substantiation appeals, independent hearings for a personnel matter and currently, a federal administrative appeal on behalf of a Walworth County Department. I have also prevailed in all six cases that I have litigated at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
  
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 2021, a large national bank with a very reputable legal team brought a civil action against Walworth County in federal court. I decided to handle the matter myself to save taxpayers the costs of hiring outside legal counsel to defend the action. I worked diligently on a persuasive brief and created my own informal team network of attorneys representing other counties in similar actions across the nation. Though I won at district court on a motion to dismiss, the matter was appealed. I stayed on this appeal and personally conducted oral argument at the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This case was challenging because it was outside of my standard caseload, my federal litigation experience at that time was limited, and the plaintiff has unlimited resources. Despite these challenges, I delivered zealous advocacy and a good outcome for my client by committing myself to extensive research on the issues which had a nationwide impact on the legal landscape of property rights. This case expanded my skill set and offered me a once in a life time opportunity to conduct oral argument in a federal court.
 
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 contribution limit for a Circuit Court judge is $2,000 are reasonable. I also agree with the Code of Judicial Conduct 60.04(7) which states that a judge is not required to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on a campaign contribution. Attorneys who practice regularly in a judicial district have first-hand knowledge of a person’s qualifications for judge and a contribution merely helps than candidate’s campaign efforts. Though a judge is not required to recuse, there could be many instances where I would want to avoid an appearance of bias to protect the integrity of the case. In those instances, I would recuse myself and ask that another judge preside over the matter. I will abide by the other provisions of Rule 60.04 in evaluating my own recusal decisions. 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?
 
The biggest obstacle that I see with delivering justice is time. Due process must be afforded time for it to be guaranteed. However, cases that take years to resolve because of unnecessary delays within the system, such as a delay caused by lack of counsel, or that get further delayed by manipulation of the system by the parties themselves, frustrate me. As cases age, evidence becomes stale, witnesses move on with their lives, and memories can fade. Time is especially a problem when considering children whose lives are impacted exponentially by delays. A judge must balance case types to ensure that victim cases and cases that impact permanency for children are given priority in the docket. When I started as a child welfare prosecutor in Walworth County, the Court only reviewed a child’s permanency once per year. I advocated to have every permanency plan reviewed by a Court; a change that was quickly adopted as standard procedure, as it was in the best interests of children. If I am elected, requests for continuances and adjournments will require a just reason and such requests will be limited to what is necessary, not convenient.
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.
 
I am a lifelong member of Walworth County and a first-generation college graduate. I have trusted judgment and community values. A judge should be a leader and innovator and I have a track record of both. I’ve participated in ride-alongs with law enforcement and completed internships from within the walls of a Wisconsin state prison to the Chambers of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I serve as a police commissioner for my township and have supported Veterans as an active member of the American Legion Auxiliary for years. I believe kids deserve our utmost investment and opportunity to thrive. In 2018, the Tree House Child and Family Center selected me as a recipient of a Service Award for my creativity in multidisciplinary teams and for my dedication to the Sensitive Crimes Response Team Protocol revisions. I’ve earned the trust of numerous law enforcement officers, social workers, teachers, farmers, parents, Veterans and small business owners through my passion for public service and strong work ethic. Earning the trust of the voters in this election is the priority of my campaign.   

Navis

Peter Navis

Why do you want to become a judge?
 
In both my personal and professional life, my guiding principle is to serve those around me. Throughout my 16 years in the legal profession, I have consistently and increasingly sought to serve more people in the court system and to serve them in a deeper way. 
 
In my first five years as an attorney, I represented individual clients in criminal cases, family disputes, civil litigation, and other areas of the law. As a new attorney, I was actually in court perhaps less than ten hours a week and was hired by a new client a couple of times a week.
 
I moved to public service as an Assistant Corporation Counsel first in Dodge County in 2012 and then Walworth County in 2015. In those positions, I served the public by protecting some of the most vulnerable in our communities: children and adults with disabilities or mental illness. The law provides for ways to protect these members of our communities both with public services and with court procedures. It was a privilege to be involved in both avenues and to see the impact my work and the work of others involved had in protecting the vulnerable and in supporting their families. The number of people I served during these years, including the families, is in the thousands.
 
In 2021, I sought appointment as Judicial Court Commissioner because it offered a greater and deeper reach to serve the people of Walworth County. The four judges of Walworth County unanimously appointed me to the position in part because of my demonstrated commitment to serving those in the court system, which they saw every day in their courtrooms for more than six years. In my current position, I preside over nearly every type of case: criminal cases, family matters, juvenile cases, injunction hearings, small claims trials, and other matters. Most of my time is spent in the courtroom and I have presided over more cases in the nearly three years in this position than I appeared in as an attorney in the prior 14 years. For many people in these cases, their first experience with the court system is my courtroom. I have the responsibility to make that experience fair and understandable so when they leave, they can trust that the court system works — even if they did not get the outcome they were hoping for.
 
The opportunity to be a Judge for the people of Walworth County means to take what I have been doing as the Judicial Court Commissioner and expanding it to its furthest reach. There are certain legal proceedings and decisions that only a judge can make, including presiding over jury trials. Because a judge’s decision is, in most cases, the final word, the responsibility of service to the parties and the community in general is a heavy burden. I want that responsibility of service because I understand its weight and because I have demonstrated that I am ready for it.
 
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.
 
Do it the right way, not the easy way. I have used this phrase throughout my life and especially in my professional career. There is constant pressure to do things the easy way because it’s less stressful, less complicated, less expensive, etc. The problem with the easy way is that people can get hurt.
 
Unfortunately, that pressure to do things the easy way exists in the court system. It is the responsibility of each attorney to guard against that, but the buck stops with the judge. The pressure is especially strong in cases involving the vulnerable, such as guardianship and mental health commitment cases.
 
One case involving the pressure to do things the easy way is In the Matter of the Mental Commitment of Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 333 Wis. 2d 740, 798 N.W.2d 707. In 2012, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously declared that doing things the easy way is not acceptable. Now, the Court did not use that exact language, but it is certainly the underlying rationale. Looking at the details of the case and the Court’s analysis reveals this rationale.
 
Helen E.F. was an individual diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease and was unable to keep herself safe. The county where she resided had two court procedures they could choose from to get her the help she needed: guardianship and protective placement or a mental health commitment. Without getting too much into the weeds on these two options, there are some similarities but also some key differences. As relevant to the case, the main difference was that a mental health commitment involved less complicated court procedures and would provide an easier avenue to move Helen between her nursing home and psychiatric facilities. The county pursued this route, rather than filing for a guardianship and protective placement.
 
The Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that the county failed to properly consider Helen’s condition. The proper question, according to the Court, was whether Helen’s condition was treatable or not, as defined under the law. The Court determined that her condition was not treatable and, therefore, the county erred in pursuing a mental health commitment; the law required that they file for guardianship and protective placement. Had Helen remained under the commitment, she would not have received the services and care she needed and may have actually received treatment that was not appropriate or safe for her.
 
In the Matter of the Mental Commitment of Helen E.F. stands as a reminder that when the court system falls into the easy way, a person can get hurt, whether that be physical harm, the loss of rights, or other harm. The case serves as a call to attorneys and, more importantly, judges to be vigilant and do things the right way, even when it might be inconvenient or complicated.
  
Describe your judicial philosophy.
 
I believe that judicial philosophy is more than just a label like “originalist,” “activist,” “textualist,” etc. Those labels often fail to capture a judge’s true philosophy, which can be seen not merely in what the judge says about how they decide cases, but in how they actually decide cases. Thus, while I will describe my judicial philosophy, that is, the underlying ideas, beliefs, and values that shape how I decide cases, I will state unequivocally that what I describe below is exactly how I decide cases, which can be readily observed by anyone who sits and watches in my courtroom.
 
I seek justice and the truth in my courtroom. To get there, I am guided by many values, but chief among them are fairness, responsibility, and integrity.
 
Fairness means that everyone who comes into my courtroom is treated impartially and without discrimination. That applies to parties, witnesses, victims, attorneys, and members of the public. Everyone is equal before the law and treated with respect.
 
Responsibility means that everyone who comes into my courtroom, including me, does what they are supposed to do and accepts the consequences of their actions. Attorneys have a responsibility to be prepared and advocate for their clients. Witnesses have a responsibility to tell the truth. Members of the public have a responsibility to be respectful to the Court and others in the courtroom. I have a responsibility to decide the case based upon the facts and the law, not what I feel.
 
Integrity means I say what I mean and mean what I say. Everyone who comes into my courtroom must know they can trust me. Trust is vital to the court system and trust is built through integrity. 
 
How can justice be achieved if I am unfair and biased? How can the truth be discerned if attorneys are not prepared or I make a decision based on my feelings? How can anyone know if justice and the truth prevailed if there is no trust due to lack of integrity?
 
Putting these values into practice is not easy, but it is the right way. I am constantly monitoring myself and the courtroom to ensure that fairness, responsibility, and integrity are not compromised. Do this the right way results in justice and the truth prevailing. 
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
The one case I was involved in as an attorney that stands out for its significance was a case involving a dying mother and her two children, who were in their teens. When the parents of the mother contacted me, they had accepted that their daughter had just days left to live and were worried about what would happen to their grandchildren. The children’s father lived in another state and despite the fact that he had almost no contact with his children over the years, he had recently told the grandparents that once their daughter passed away, he was coming to Wisconsin to take his kids. The grandparents wanted their grandchildren to remain in Wisconsin and to live with them. That way, they could stay in the school district they had been in their whole lives, keep their friends, and continue in their sports and other activities.
 
We filed petitions for guardianship of the children to request that the grandparents be appointed as guardians of the grandchildren instead of their father. While the case was pending, the mother passed away. Under the law, the father was entitled to custody unless we could show a compelling reason why he should not be allowed to have that custody. Essentially, we were required to prove that he was either unfit as a parent, or that he had persistently neglected his parental duties, or that there was some similar extraordinary circumstances such that giving the father custody would seriously affect the welfare of the children. Only if we could prove that would the judge then consider whether it was in the best interests of the children to have their grandparents be appointed as the guardians.
 
After the long hearing, the judge ruled in our favor and appointed the grandparents as the guardians. I can still picture the faces of the grandparents and the children. As they hugged each other, their faces revealed joy, relief, and grief. The tear-filled “Thank you,” from the grandfather as he hugged his grandchildren said it all.
 
One case that I have been involved in as the Judicial Court Commissioner that stands out for its significance is a harassment injunction case. The petitioner, who is a college student, alleged that after she broke up with her boyfriend, one of her roommates, who was a friend of the boyfriend, threatened her to the point where she felt unsafe and moved out of the apartment. The roommate stated that while he was upset about the break up, he denied that he made any threats. After listening to the testimony, I ordered an injunction and prohibited the respondent from harassing or intimidating the petitioner and prohibiting him from having contact with her.
 
These two cases did not generate press coverage, nor did they result in legislative changes or some other noteworthy outcome. Rather the significance of these cases comes from impact the outcome of the case had on the parties. . . . 

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
Until I became the Judicial Court Commissioner, my career was spent, at various times, in representing clients in criminal cases, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. When I was in private practice, I regularly appeared in court in criminal cases, including jury trials. As part of my practice at that time, I also represented clients in civil litigation, including contract disputes and personal injury cases. I also advocated for clients in unemployment compensation, zoning, and tax matters in administrative proceedings. During those years, I drafted pleadings and motions, argued evidentiary issues, and handled numerous bench and jury trials. 
 
After entering the public sector as an Assistant Corporation Counsel, my experience in civil litigation and administrative proceedings increased and I became quite familiar with the rules of civil procedure, discovery, and evidentiary issues. As a result of the my knowledge of the law and procedure, I was successful in every jury trial I had. Although I no longer handled criminal litigation, I prosecuted traffic violations, including several fatal accident cases. I was successful in securing convictions on those serious matters.
 
Now as Judicial Court Commissioner, I no longer serve as an advocate in cases, but every week I preside over numerous criminal and civil cases. I also hear cases involving family, child support, and juvenile concerns.  I have the responsibility to evaluate evidence presented, rule on motions of evidence and procedure, and decide cases.
  
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.
 
When I was an Assistant Corporation Counsel for Walworth County, one of my primary responsibilities was to appear on behalf of the County in guardianship cases. When I first started in 2015, I noticed that the Court was not ordering the guardian to file an Inventory in most cases. An Inventory is required under the law and the guardian must report the income and assets of the ward. One of the purposes of the Inventory is to encourage transparency and reduce the risk of the guardian misusing the ward’s money and property. By not ordering the Inventory, the Court was putting the ward at risk for financial loss.
 
Just a few months into my position, at the end of a guardianship hearing, the judge asked each of the attorneys present if there was anything else. I told the judge that I had observed that Inventories were not often ordered in guardianship cases, but the statute requires them to be ordered in all cases. The judge responded saying that the Court had discretion on whether to order the Inventory. I responded that the statute did give the Court discretion on whether to require annual accountings, but that the statute required the Inventory. The judge ordered the Inventory. While that was a difficult situation, given that I was still new to the county and its court system, it was not the most difficult situation related to this issue.
 
A couple of days later, my supervisor wanted to talk to me about what happened in court. I was told that I should not have challenged the judge like that in open court and that I should have handled the issue informally, outside of court. I could have accepted that and moved on, but I could not in good conscience stay silent in light of the risk to the ward. I stated that the law requires the Inventory and that as the attorney appearing on behalf of the public’s interest in these cases, I believed it was in the public’s interest to make sure that these cases were done the right way, rather than the easy way. I added that if the judge forgot to order the Inventory in future cases, I would continue to remind the judge.
 
This situation directly tested my “do it the right way, not the easy way,” motto. It would have been easy, as the new attorney to the county, to stay silent in court. It would have been easy to accept my supervisor’s word of caution and let the issue go. But the easy way would have put wards at risk of financial loss. So I did what was right. 
 
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?
 
Presently, there is a specific ethical rule that requires a judge to recuse under certain circumstances. Under the rule, contributions to the judge’s campaign are not an automatic basis for recusal, but may be a factor in the decision whether to recuse.
 
In my years serving as a court commissioner for the judges, I am bound by this rule and bear the responsibility for determining whether there is  conflict of interest that justifies recusal. I have taken that responsibility seriously and have made sure that I have not presided over a case that I should not have. I have done that by asking myself a simple question: Would someone question my integrity if I preside over this case?
 
The heart of the ethical rule is that if the facts and circumstances raise a reasonable question of the judge’s ability to act impartially, then the judge must recuse. Under the current rule, if a particular contribution from a particular donor raises a reasonable question of the judge’s ability to act impartially, then the judge must recuse. I believe that this is a fair rule.
 
Requiring recusal on cases involving any donor to the judge’s campaign runs the risk of (1) causing potential litigants to preemptively exclude a judge from hearing their case merely by donating a couple of dollars to the campaign, (2) increasing anonymous donations and reducing transparency in the campaign process, and (3) suggesting that a judge, who is required to be impartial, cannot figure out how to be impartial when someone supported their campaign. 
 
Recusal is important to ensure the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary, but requiring recusal in all cases involving any donor would likely undermine the public’s trust.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?
 
There are two major obstacles to justice: the lack of time and the lack of resources. In my time as Judicial Court Commissioner, I have directly experienced the challenges in delivering justice when there is not enough time to address the problem or when the resources that would help achieve justice are not available.
 
I handle all of the criminal traffic cases, except for trials and sentencing after conviction. I have two hours available each week to hear about 40-50 cases (new cases plus ongoing cases), which works out to three minutes or less for each case. The time pressure to move through each case quickly with little regard for the defendant themselves is ever present. 
 
Some solutions, like funding another court commissioner position or the District Attorney’s Office charging fewer cases are not realistic and are out of my control. I can control my time management and responsibility. I set the example for the attorneys to be on time and be prepared. I make sure to ask the defendants, if they do not have an attorney, if they have any questions. I have found that by giving the defendant an opportunity to clarify something, it avoids complications later in the case.
 
Sometimes, the lack of resources is a barrier to justice. These resources may include having legal representation, access to mental health treatment, or simply having easily understandable information about court processes. The lack of resources may appear in any case, whether a criminal case, family and juvenile matters, civil litigation, and other areas of the law. In my position, I handle all of the small claims case from start to finish, except for eviction and return of property trials. In 2023, we had over 1,500 small claims cases, in most of which there was either one or no attorneys involved. Most parties have no familiarity with the court system. The lack of legal representation and lack of familiarity with the court system sometimes means that a party makes a mistake in the process and loses a case not because the facts and law led to that outcome, but because of the mistake. That is not justice.
 
The solution to the lack of resources is complicated because many solutions, like increases in funding for legal services or encouraging more young people to pursue careers in the health care industry, are out of my control. What I can control is learning about what resources may be available in a particular situation and understanding how and when those resources may serve in delivering justice. I am active in creating solutions as demonstrated in my roles with the OWI Treatment Court team, Walworth County Drug and Alcohol Coalition, and other organizations within Walworth County and across the state. I am also in the early stages of looking to create a Veterans Treatment Court in Walworth County. . . .