Candidates Douglas Bauman and Michael D. Hughes vie for the open Branch 3 seat on the Marathon County Circuit Court created by Judge LaMont Jacobson’s decision not to run for reelection. The election is April 7.

Bauman is a court commissioner and staff attorney in the Marathon County Circuit Court. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1998. A copy of his resume/CV is here.

Hughes is a partner at a Wauwau law firm. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2008. A copy of his resume/CV 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.

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. The candidates are presented alphabetically by last name. 

Picture
Douglas Bauman
​​Douglas Bauman

Why do you want to become a judge? 

I have spent the last 24 years serving the people of Marathon County in the dual position of court commissioner and staff attorney. As such, becoming a judge is the best way to continue and expand my service to the community. It would also make my service more direct and comprehensive. In the position I hold now, I work on pieces of particular cases, but the ultimate decider is a judge. I want to become a judge in order to cut out the middleman. Becoming a judge would allow me to take the experience I’ve gained during my 28-year legal career, particularly the last 24 years at the circuit court, and apply it directly to the legal disputes that come before the court. It would also allow me to ensure that litigants have the opportunity to feel heard, and that they are treated with compassion and respect. 

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.

The recent opinion with perhaps the greatest impact on the people of Wisconsin has been Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 opinion that overruled Roe and repealed constitutional limitations on abortion laws. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the Dobbs opinion should give you pause because of the reasoning it adopted. The majority opinion repeatedly asked whether the Constitution “confers” a right to obtain an abortion, but that is the wrong question. The Constitution is not a source of rights — it is a set of prescriptions and limitations that defines the scope of government power. Our rights do not come from the Constitution. In fact, it works the other way around: the Constitution comes from our rights. Our rights are inherent, inborn — endowed by our Creator, in the words of the Declaration of Independence. Those rights are why the founding generation was justified in casting off British rule and creating the Constitution in the first place. And the inherent nature of those rights is why the Ninth Amendment recognizes that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But the Dobbs majority took a much more limited view, and denied that any constitutional right to bodily autonomy can be said to limit abortion laws. In so doing, at least some members of the Court (particularly Justice Thomas) expressed a desire to review a whole slew of long-standing precedents that found a constitutional right to privacy, suggesting a willingness to allow more governmental invasion into the lives of the American people.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

The law is essentially an agreement that society makes. That agreement involves following the proper procedures, both in enacting legislation and in adjudicating disputes. So I believe it is vitally important for judges to show their work, and to explain the bases for their decisions. Doing so helps preserve the agreement on which the legal system depends.

I like the analogy that judges are umpires, calling balls and strikes. It’s an apt analogy in the sense that judges, like umpires, don’t make up the rules. But unlike umpires, judges have multiple layers of rules to consider. One layer is the legislation enacted by elected representatives and signed into law by the executive (the governor or the president). But underneath that layer is a more fundamental layer, the state and federal constitutions, which any legislation must follow. The law also has rules about how to resolve ambiguities and uncertainties, generally with the goal of doing justice. Justice is the goal, and laws are how we as a society try to get there. 

So, when deciding a dispute before me, I am mindful of the law, but I am trying to do justice. I am also trying to approach the people before me with compassion. Some of those people are in court for the first time, and the courtroom can be a confusing place. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I do try to explain what I’m doing in a way that everyone can understand. I want everyone to feel like they were heard, that their position was considered, even if it was not adopted. And I want everyone to feel like they were treated fairly, even if they lost. 

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

Every case is important to the people involved in it, and many of the cases I routinely hear have the potential for serious consequences. But some cases present larger questions than others, and I understand that’s what this question is about. Two of the most significant cases I have been involved in were the criminal prosecutions of Dale and Leilani Neumann, whose daughter died of untreated diabetes because they prayed over her instead of seeking medical attention. The judge assigned to those cases, Judge Vincent Howard, asked me to research the constitutional challenges that the Neumanns raised to their prosecution, and he incorporated that research into his decisions. After reviewing case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, Wisconsin courts, and other jurisdictions, I concluded that prosecuting the Neumanns did not violate any of their constitutional rights.

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

I have spent the vast majority of my career working for the court system, which means I have mostly not been an advocate. (Even when I was an advocate, I remember writing a brief and thinking that the position I was advocating should lose. That was part of what drew me to working for the court system.) But at various points, I have worked on both sides of the criminal justice system: on the defense side as part of a clinic in law school, and on the prosecution side as a special prosecutor during the then-district attorney’s maternity leave. And as a young associate attorney, I worked mostly on the defense side in civil cases. One case I still remember involved defending a homeowner who was sued under the state’s dog liability statute by a guest who tripped over a sleeping dog. That case, Alwin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, resulted in a published decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in March 2000, affirming that the homeowner was not liable.

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. 

The most challenging situations I have experienced have been personal, not professional. I am twice-divorced, and both divorces were initially difficult to process. I handled them by leaning on friends and family, and reflecting on who I am as a person, and I believe that I am now a better person as a result. I draw on those experiences every time I hear a divorce case and every time I hear a request for a restraining order following a breakup. I know firsthand how difficult the end of a marriage can be, and the challenges for parenting that can result, so I try to help the parties navigate those difficulties so they can emerge, as I have, on the other side.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

The short answer is yes. As I wrote in answering a previous question, the law is an agreement that society has entered into, but that agreement breaks down when society has reasons to doubt that it is being upheld. Confidence in the legal system is undermined when people doubt the impartiality of the judge or justice making the decisions. Even the appearance of bias should be enough of a reason to recuse, for the sake of protecting public confidence in the judicial system. And deciding a case involving a person or company who made a sizable donation does create at least an appearance of bias. As for what constitutes a “sizable donation,” to some extent, I think that depends on the jurisdiction, just like the contribution limits do. I don’t think that the donation needs to be at the maximum contribution limit to create a basis for recusal, but I’m not sure exactly where the number should be — or even whether setting a particular number is a good idea, since it suggests that anything below that amount is not a problem. 

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.]

The greatest obstacles that judges face when trying to deliver true justice are probably those involving scarcity of resources. For instance, every week I see criminal defendants who are eligible for an attorney through the State Public Defender, but who are forced to wait for the SPD to find someone to appoint. Our local SPD office has been three positions short for months, and they have been further hampered by a shortage of attorneys in private practice who are willing to take appointments. This situation leads to delays, despite the constitutional provisions guaranteeing those defendants the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to due process, and the right to a speedy trial.

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

My opponent is a fine person; personally, I like him. And if he were to win, it would be my job to help him succeed (as I would continue to be the staff attorney assisting all of the county’s judges). But, again, I would like to cut out the middleman. I want to be able to take the experience I’ve gained in my 24 years working on the bench and behind the scenes at the Marathon County Circuit Court and apply it directly to the legal issues that the people of Marathon County bring to court. 
Picture
Michael D. Hughes
​Michael D. Hughes

Why do you want to become a judge? 
 
I am running for judge to strengthen and improve our courts and to put my courtroom experience, knowledge of the law, and commitment to this community to work for all the people of Marathon County. We must have a court system that is strong, fair, efficient, and which keeps our community safe. A key part of that system are judges. We need judges who are impartial and who will make decisions based on the law and the facts. We need judges who will treat everyone in the courtroom with respect. We need judges who are committed to serving with integrity.
 
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.
 
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s 2016 decision in State v. Lynch had a negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The decision did not help advance the law due to a divide in the Court. Additionally, many statements within the justices’ opinions reflect a stray from legal analysis and focused on unnecessary personal statements that should be beneath the integrity and institution of the Court.
 
In Lynch, the Court was tasked with determining whether to overrule the Shiffra/Green line of cases that (at that time) permitted a criminal defendant to, after making a fact-specific showing to the trial court, obtain a person’s privileged mental health treatment records. While much of the Court’s opinions in the decision focused on an analysis of the applicable legal issues, at times they strayed into unnecessarily personal mud-slinging.
 
At one point, a justice noted that “[t]o say the court of appeals took some liberties interpreting and applying [precedent] would be an understatement.” Another justice accused colleagues of demeaning other justices instead of focusing on the legal issues, and went so far as to state that the writing of fellow justices “evidence[d] a pattern of joint writing that is bottomed in a desire to injure rather than to inform.” Yet another justice characterized a fellow justice’s writing as akin to an episode of the Twilight Zone, where court procedure and precedent was guided by imagination and not the rule of law.
 
And after all of that unnecessary saber-rattling? The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that “[a]s a result of a divided court, the law remains as the court of appeals has articulated it.” 
 
We need to trust the court system to resolve disputes by applying facts to the law. The public needs to know that decisions from the court are legally-sound and created in an environment of dignity and integrity. Conversely, when judicial decisions reflect partisanship or personal quarrels, our confidence in the stability of the courts is undermined. And when we cannot trust our courts to operate effectively, the public loses an important pillar of government.
 
Describe your judicial philosophy. 
 
The legitimacy of our courts rests on the publics’ perception that they are fair and judges are impartial decision makers. Everyone should know they received a fair shake in court and that the outcome, which one party will probably dislike, is the product of an unbiased and transparent process. Judges have a key role to play in establishing and maintaining the legitimacy of our courts. My pledge to the people of Marathon County is to uphold the highest standards in applying the facts of a case to the laws, as they are written; to treat all before me with respect; to explain my decisions in clear and understandable language; and to ensure the rule of law – the idea that no one is above the law – is a reality in my courtroom. I am honored that a bi-partisan group of attorneys, judges, law enforcement personnel, and community leaders supports my candidacy precisely because they have trust and confidence in my ability and dedication to be an independent and impartial Judge.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.
 
Due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality I cannot discuss cases in which I have served as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in any way that would identify a child or parent in those cases. I can say, however, that serving as a GAL have always been among my most significant and meaningful work as a lawyer. Attorneys reading these answers will know that GALs serve a special role in the family court system and that carrying out that role takes careful preparation and the sensitive age-appropriate treatment of often vulnerable children. My experience and success as a GAL were a labor of love and included meticulous investigation, creating an environment in which the child felt safe and able to share concerns and facts with me without fear of judgement. At the end of my investigation, my recommendations to the court were based on the statutory factors that helped identify the best interests of the child. And once that report was filed, unless the parties agreed to it, I would go into court to zealously advocate for the result that was, in my judgement, best for the child. 
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.
 
In my nearly 20-year legal career, I have handled thousands of cases and appeared before dozens of judges. I have litigated cases in one-third of the 72 counties in this state. Throughout my legal career, I have handled a wide array of cases including criminal matters ranging from misdemeanors to Class A felonies. I have served as a Guardian ad Litem in family court, representing and advocating for the best interests of children. I have worked as a civil litigator, representing families in disputes against insurance companies. I have even served as a Comdemnation Commissioner, helping resolve issues where the State has taken property from landowners.
 
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.
 
I had a jury trial that was very emotional and challenging for a number of reasons. I handled the challenges by being thoughtful, calm, and patient. When we are challenged or facing adversity, staying calm and thinking-through the issues will always be more effective than trying to act out of haste. Jury trials can often be the source of challenges and adversity. The District Attorney who served as my opposing counsel in that trial is one of my strongest supporters. She has written the following describing why:
 
“I have had the opportunity to experience Attorney Michael Hughes as opposing counsel during an emotional criminal jury trial. I can say without a doubt, based on working with Michael during that litigation as well as the jury trial itself, that he possesses the unique qualities of character that make him especially well suited to the judiciary. As an attorney, Michael has, in my experience, embodied the sense of professionalism lauded by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said “Fight for the things that you care about. But do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” To say that the case we litigated was challenging is an understatement, but Michael maintained patience, level-headedness, and always treated everyone with courtesy. Throughout, he remained dignified in demeanor and a respectful colleague. His reputation among others with and against whom he has practiced reflects this as well. I cannot recommend him enough for the bench, he would be a sound choice.”
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?
 
Wisconsin has some of the weakest recusal rules in the Country. I am pleased that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has indicated it will be holding public hearings on what could, should, or might be done to strengthen them. Proposals that would require recusal when a party in a case has contributed to a judge’s campaign are among the ideas that have been suggested. Until such time as new rules are put into place, I will faithfully and carefully adhere to the existing rules that govern a judge’s conduct and role. 
 
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.] 
 
Wisconsin’s criminal justice system faces real challenges: underfunding of our courts; a shortage of public defenders and private bar attorneys unable to take court appointments; and backlogs that delay justice for victims, witnesses, and defendants. Those are all obstacles to what I believe is a shared commitment among stakeholders in our court system to provide equal justice under the law to all who come into contact with our courts. Judges are leaders in our court system and in their local communities and as such, judges have a responsibility to work collaboratively and effectively in identifying and addressing issues that impede access to justice and undermine individual rights. Judges must be open to changes and best practices that improve how our courts function and how they are perceived by the public in these highly politicized and polarized times. That is why equal justice under the law must be our goal and judges must work tirelessly to demonstrate their ability and commitment to realizing that goal. 
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

I have broad and bi-partisan support within the legal community for my campaign to become Marathon County’s next Circuit Court Judge. I have been endorsed by judges who know best what this job entails. I have been endorsed by elected District Attorneys and dozens of lawyers, some of whom I have worked with and others who I have argued cases against. I have earned support from both sides of the aisle. What brings this diverse group of supporters together is that they trust me to apply the law fairly, and to make sound, impartial decisions as a judge.