Campaign Statement — Loudenslager for Wisconsin Court of Appeals
In a speech before graduates of the University of Wisconsin Law School nearly one hundred fifty years ago, Edward George Ryan, who would go on to serve as chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, said, “The question will arise, and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine. Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?” The struggle for which shall ultimately govern society — the sentiment of the public at large or, rather, the predilections of monied interests — continues to this day. It is in this context that I have decided to run for a judgeship on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals — District 3.
Monied Interests Target Judicial Campaigns in Wisconsin
Since 2007, monied interests have targeted judicial campaigns in Wisconsin with impunity — especially those for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. For example, in the 2019 general election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, each candidate raised more than $1.5 million. And this phenomenon is not confined to Wisconsin’s highest court — local judicial elections for county circuit court can also involve candidates raising and spending thousands of dollars. As a result, a judicial candidate’s merit does not necessarily prevail in an election — as the candidate’s merit is filtered through and distorted by private monied interests. A candidate who does ultimately succeed in a judicial election will then likely be influenced — unconsciously or not — by those contributions. It is no surprise then, that judicial candidates in Wisconsin, representing diverse jurisprudential views — ostensibly running for nonpartisan judicial positions — now receive assistance from partisan political parties, or give speeches before members of partisan political parties, such as at the state Democratic Party convention and state Republican Party convention. Clearly, monied interests have had a deleterious effect on the independence of Wisconsin’s judiciary over the past decade.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s Criminal Justice System Deteriorates
While monied interests targeted judicial campaigns in Wisconsin over the past decade, the state’s criminal justice system observed its own situation continue to deteriorate.
Much too often across the country prosecutors are overworked and underpaid, handling more cases than legal experts suggest they can handle in a competent manner. In Wisconsin, experts say there is a shortage of prosecutors — and this appears to especially be so in Dane County, which has roughly the same amount of prosecutors as it did in the 1980s and, consequently, seems to be causing problems there. However, Dane County is no outlier, as many other counties, such as Racine County, also struggle with providing adequate prosecutorial staffing. And numerous prosecutors in Wisconsin find themselves underpaid, requiring some to work a second job just to make ends meet.
Significantly, legal scholars note that excessive prosecutorial caseloads are commonplace, many times resulting in “longer sentences for less culpable offenders, longer delays in the dismissal of charges against the innocent, [and] fewer disclosures of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors.” And excessive prosecutorial caseloads do not just negatively affect the rights of criminal defendants — they also negatively affect the rights of crime victims to be treated with dignity by state prosecutors. For example, more than half of Wisconsin’s counties in 2017 on average failed to comply with state guidelines providing that prosecutors should make charging decisions in sexual assault cases within three weeks after police refer such cases to them, according to an investigation conducted by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
Problems with the country’s criminal justice system aren’t isolated to prosecutors either. For example, a 2004 American Bar Association report documented how many public defenders — like their prosecutorial counterparts — are overworked and underpaid. In such an environment, public defenders are unable to perform their legal duties in a competent manner. For example, a 2014 study conducted by RubinBrown showed that Missouri public defenders spent an average of two hours working on a misdemeanor case, even though an average of twelve hours was required to provide competent representation.
In Wisconsin, the problem of public defenders being both underpaid and overworked extends to private attorneys who are appointed by the state public defender’s office to represent indigent defendants. Until recently, these appointed attorneys received $40 per hour, which was the lowest compensation in the nation and was not even enough to reasonably cover an attorney’s overhead in the long-run. And the effects can be seen reverberating through the system in different ways, such as the lack of investigators hired by private attorneys appointed by the state public defender’s office, when appropriate to do so, and county circuit courts themselves appointing counsel for indigent defendants at county expense, due to the shortage of criminal attorneys for indigent defendants.
Who Am I?
In 1989, I was born in Columbus, Wisconsin. A few years later, my family and I moved to Antigo, Wisconsin. Growing up, I enjoyed reading books and playing sports, including playing basketball and football. During my senior year of high school, I was the starting offensive left-tackle on the varsity football team.
After graduating from Antigo High School, I attended Northern Michigan University, where I double majored in economics and political science, with an emphasis in pre-law. During college, I was a representative in student government (ASNMU) where, among other things, I advocated for the creation of a student-run credit union and for the then-judicial branch of student government — the All Student Judiciary, which also adjudicated alleged violations of the university’s student code — to engage in “concrete judicial review” of student governmental action. Later, I introduced legislation to create the ASNMU Constitutional Judiciary which, unlike the All Student Judiciary, would not adjudicate alleged violations of the university’s student code and would instead focus solely on questions of constitutionality under the ASNMU Constitution. My initial efforts eventually culminated in the creation of the ASNMU Judiciary.
Not only was I involved in student government while in college, I also was an opinion columnist, and eventually opinion editor, for the school’s student newspaper, The North Wind. Among other topics I discussed during that time, I wrote about how there are more than enough lawyers for the affluent in this country — but not close to enough lawyers to help those who are among the most economically disadvantaged and vulnerable.
Additionally, I founded the NMU Student Defense Office, a student organization that defended students who requested administrative hearings to challenge university allegations pending against them, including allegations relating to disorderly conduct and possession of controlled substances. Before graduation, I received the 2012 NMU Political Science Outstanding Graduating Senior award.
After graduating magna cum laude from NMU, I attended the University of Wisconsin Law School. During law school, I was an opinion columnist for The Badger Herald, and a managing editor for the Wisconsin Law Review. Additionally, during my third year of law school, I served as an intern to then-Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Shirley Abrahamson — where I primarily wrote bench memoranda analyzing cases and briefs — and then as an extern at the Criminal Appeals Unit of the Wisconsin Department of Justice — where I primarily conducted research and wrote legal memoranda on criminal law issues.
After graduating from law school, I was a judicial law clerk at the Sauk County Circuit Court for Judge James Evenson, Judge Guy Reynolds, and Judge Michael Screnock. I subsequently served one term as a judicial law clerk for Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Mark A. Seidl in Wausau, Wisconsin.
After completing these judicial clerkships, I searched for permanent employment as an attorney. During this search, I filed an administrative rule petition and accompanying memorandum with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reform the illegal and intrusive process Wisconsin utilized when evaluating prospective lawyers’ character and fitness to practice law — a process which contravened federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. As I explained separately in a blogpost at the time, the impetus for filing the petition was my personal and negative experience of being required to describe my treated mental disorders, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder, to state board of bar examiners — solely on the basis of my status of having mental disorders, and without regard to how those mental disorders actually affected my ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner. After filing the petition, the state board of bar examiners removed the intrusive questions and, as my memorandum implicitly suggested, focused instead on a prospective lawyer’s conduct, rather than a prospective lawyer’s mental health status, when evaluating his or her character and fitness to practice law.
After succeeding in changing Wisconsin’s illegal process of evaluating prospective lawyers’ character and fitness to practice law, I served as a staff attorney at the Dane County Circuit Court for Judge William Hanrahan, Judge Ellen Berz, Judge Everett Mitchell, and Judge John Hyland. During that time period, I testified before the Dane County Board of Supervisors’ Public Protection and Judiciary Committee about inadequate staffing levels — not only at the Dane County Circuit Court, but throughout the Wisconsin court system as a whole. After serving as a staff attorney at the Dane County Circuit Court, I subsequently started a solo law practice, specializing in criminal defense and appellate law.
Why I’m Running for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals
In Wisconsin, judicial campaigns are too often dominated by monied interests — and this has two disastrous effects on the public-at-large. First, it has the effect of filtering and distorting a judicial candidate’s merit, falsely equating money, fundraising wherewithal, and political connections with judicial acumen. Second, it likely has the effect of influencing a judicial candidate’s future decisions, whether unconsciously or not.
Unlike most judicial campaigns in Wisconsin, my campaign will explicitly remove the filtering and distorting influence of monied interests by accepting no outside funds — and I will impose an $800 limitation with regard to my own financial contributions to the campaign. Additionally, my campaign will not receive assistance from partisan political parties, nor will it associate itself with partisan political parties. Doing so will ensure that I will be an impartial judge who is not beholden to private or partisan interests.
Not only will my judicial campaign eschew outside contributions and affiliation with partisan political parties, I’m highly qualified for the position. Having spent the majority of my legal career as a lawyer working for the Wisconsin judiciary, I have the necessary experience, competence, and temperament to serve as a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. And when combined with my internship at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have experience assisting judges and justices at all three state court levels in Wisconsin, providing me with indispensable knowledge about how the state court system as a whole operates that will inform the performance of my duties as a judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Furthermore, I will advocate for more staffing and judicial resources at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. As a report completed in 2001 indicates, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is in significant need of more staffing and judicial resources. And while monied interests have targeted judicial campaigns in Wisconsin with lavish campaign contributions and independent expenditures, the state’s criminal justice system continues to deteriorate, with a lack of adequate funding for both prosecutors and public defenders — not to mention the state court system as a whole.
Campaign Promises
First, unlike most judicial campaigns in Wisconsin, including those for county circuit court, I will accept no outside funds to finance my judicial campaign — and I will impose an $800 limitation with regard to my own financial contributions to the campaign. Doing so will ensure that I will be an impartial judge who is not beholden to private interests.
Second, I will neither formally accept nor collect endorsements from others — whether from newspapers, nonprofit organizations, lawyers, or even judges. A judge is required to be impartial and independent when deciding cases. Formally accepting or collecting endorsements, by its very nature, creates tension with this fundamental duty to be impartial and independent.
Third, as a judge, I will strive to improve court administration at the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. More specifically, I will advocate for immediate implementation of the recommendations contained in the October 2001 report conducted by the National Center for State Courts about caseflow management in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, including the addition of more staff attorneys, law clerks and, with regard to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals — District 3, the report’s implicit recommendation for the addition of a new judgeship. Additionally, given the passage of time since the 2001 report, I will push for the commission of a new independent study to provide an update on caseflow management in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Furthermore, given that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is a fast-paced, high-volume court and, according to the 2001 report, is also in significant need of more staffing and judicial resources, I would explore the increased use of sanctions in cases where attorneys egregiously violate the Wisconsin Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the imposition of a penalty or costs on counsel (through the use of orders to show cause), dismissal of the party’s appeal, and summary reversal.
Finally, and most fundamental, when deciding cases as a judge, I will follow the law — regardless of my personal views. And when appropriate, I will write separate opinions expressing my disagreement with my colleagues’ interpretation of the law. As former United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens once said, “If you disagree you should say so. . . . I just feel I have an obligation to expose my views to the public.”
