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.”