Milwaukee County judicial candidates Jones and Shelton discuss their judicial philosophies

By Gretchen Schuldt

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

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

​Question 4: Describe your judicial philosophy. 
​

Jones

Having practiced law for more than twenty-four years, in both the federal and state courts, and at trial and on appeal, I am far more experienced in the day-to-day aspects of litigation than I am with the ideals of any particular judicial philosophy. However, in two plus decades of litigating cases in New York and Wisconsin, I appeared in front of dozens and dozens of judges. I was in a position to observe how they handle all aspects of civil litigation, from pre-trial matters to discovery disputes, motion hearings, trials, and appellate proceedings. As a result, I was also able to observe what makes a judge a good judge, one litigants and their counsel respect and welcome the opportunity to appear before, regardless of the nature of their case.  

Good judges are always prepared, having taken the time to carefully review the parties’ submissions and to familiarize themselves with the issues presented. Good judges are open minded and ready to listen, but also in control of their courtroom, fair but firm with counsel, and decisive. Good judges absolutely do not make the proceedings in their courtroom about either themselves or the lawyers who appear in front of them. Good judges are respectful of the lawyers and parties who appear before them, recognizing how important every dispute at hand is to the litigants. Good judges are also equally respectful of the citizens who serve on juries in their courtrooms, valuing their time and the sacrifices they are making to fulfil (sic) their civic responsibilities.  

Litigants need to be able to rely on the fact that when they come before a judge – at any level of the federal or state judicial system – the law will be enforced and applied as the constitution, applicable legislation, or precedent dictates. This provides certainty and reliability to litigants, both of which are crucial to the role of the judiciary in our system of government. Good judges, regardless of their personal politics, see no dispute and no party who comes before them in political terms. Good judges are not result-oriented and instead handle each case based solely on the facts presented and the controlling law, be it constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or the common law, even if it leads to a result that they may find personally unsatisfactory.  
​
I am 100% committed to focusing on these qualities and ideals as a sitting judge.  In doing so, I believe I am able to ensure that the law is applied fairly, impartially, and equally to everyone in my courtroom, without exception. 

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

https://www.judgeandrewjones.com/

Shelton

My upbringing, life experiences and professional life have shaped my legal philosophy simply as to always do what is right. I see the U.S. Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.

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

https://www.sheltonforjudge.com/​

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

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