Voters face choices for appeals court

 

Greg Gill and Rick Cveykus vie for 3rd district court of appeals seat

On April 6, voters in the northern half of Wisconsin will be asked to choose between two candidates to fill a vacancy on the 3rd district court of appeals.

Candidates vying for the six-year term include current Outagamie circuit court judge Greg Gill and Wausau attorney Rick Cveykus. The nonpartisan position is part of a three-judge panel that reviews cases brought on appeal from the circuit court level.

Both Gill and Cveykus were interviewed by The Star News and the information below includes those interviews as well as biographical information from their campaigns.

Greg Gill, Jr.

Greg Gill earned his bachelor of arts from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his law degree from Marquette University. Gill began his legal career as an assistant district attorney for Outagamie County in 2003. He then served as a law clerk to the Honorable William C. Griesbach, United States District Court in Green Bay. He later was engaged in private practice at his family’s firm in Outagamie County. Gov. Scott Walker appointed Gill to the circuit court in September of 2011 and he was re-elected in 2018. His current term expires on July 31, 2024.

Gill said he loved being a trial court judge and loved interacting with people in the court and being able to affect individuals. He said the idea of running for court of appeals was not even on his radar until he was approached last summer by the other judges on the court about stepping up to fill the impending vacancy from judge Mark A. Seidl who is not running for reelection.

He said he was intrigued by the shift from being able to impact individual cases to that of helping to bring clarity to the law which will impact the whole state.

“It really appealed to me,” Gill said.

Gill says the appeals court is an error correcting court. “Every day, decisions are made by trial court judges,” he said, in some cases judges get things wrong.

Gill said the appeals court helps correct errors that may have occurred.

He compared the judicial system to a football game. He said the trial court judge is like the referees on the field who call penalties and the litigants are like the players and the coaches.

“Occasionally they don’t like the call and it goes to the replay booth. The court of appeals is the replay booth,” he said, explaining that the appeals court has the power to affirm, reverse or have something done over.

While appeals court was not a position he previously considered, he commented that in retrospect he has been preparing for it since his first day as a lawyer. He said when he started in the district attorney’s office he was good friends with a police officer and did a ride along to see what types of things law enforcement had to deal with as a way to make himself a better prosecutor. When he went to be a law clerk for Judge Greisbach, he said he honed his research and writing skills and studied the law in depth. After he was in private practice he gained an appreciation of working with clients, meeting deadlines and dealing with discovery and evidence issues. He said those experiences helped make him a better trial court judge and says his experience as a judge has helped prepare him to be on the appeals court.

Once of the challenges of appealing a court case is the time involved with no set limits for appeals courts to make decisions. Gill noted that even circuit court judges are bound by certain time constraints and said there is merit to a presumptive timeline for appeals court cases so that litigants are not kept hanging. However he would not want a hard rule because of the potential complexities of the individual cases. He noted that while the wheels of justice turn slowly they shouldn’t be going backward.

As far as judicial philosophy, Gill describes himself as a textualist and a “small c” conservative in reading and interpreting the law. “My job is to read the law as it is written and apply the common reading of the law to the question,” he said.

This isn’t always straightforward, he said sometimes meanings of the word may change over time or it is not clear. He said at these times, judges should look at what the original intent or the intent was at the time of writing.

Gill said judges must use care not to change or add onto what the law says. “Judges should not usurp the legislative lawmaking function, but simply apply the law,” he said.

He gives the example of the fourth amendment prohibition on illegal search and seizure. He said a room such as a library would clearly need a warrant to be searched. He said while there were no cellphones when the constitution was being written, looking at the modern technology, a cellphone may have as much information as a library and as such law enforcement would be required to have a warrant to search it and to be specific in what they are searching for.

He said it is possible to apply traditional expectations to modern circumstances if judges look at the intent and the origin of the law.

While oral arguments are common at the circuit court and at the supreme court level, they are rare at the appeals court level. Gill said he would like to see oral arguments used more at the appeals level as a way to expedite cases and get to the issues. “I think that is tremendously valuable,” he said.

Gill said he is grateful to be able to serve as a judge and that if elected he said everyone would have a fair opportunity in his court.

Rick Cveykus

Rick Cveykus is an attorney and community leader from Marathon County running for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in District III, which covers the northern half of the state.

Cveykus is currently managing partner at Cveykus Law in Wausau, where he has built a broad practice in criminal law, family law, and small claims.

He is heavily involved in the community, and is the former President of the Marathon County Bar and the Marathon County Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Cveykus is also a former member of the Board of Directors for Marathon Counseling and Residential Services. Cveykus volunteers his time as an attorney with Wills for Veterans and a Judge for the We the People Program and is an active member of the Marathon County Historical Society.

Cveykus has served as a Mock Trial coach at his alma mater D.C. Everest High School, Wausau West High School, and UW-Madison. Cveykus is also a lecturer at UW-Madison, teaching courses on Criminal Law, First Amendment and Constitutional Law.

As a first generation college graduate, Cveykus earned both an undergraduate degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctorate from UW-Madison. A proud Badger alum, Cveykus currently serves on the Board of Directors for the UW Alumni Wausau Chapter.

Cveykus is a fifth-generation Wisconsinite. His father James Cveykus Sr., a Vietnam veteran, was a union organizer for the International Association of Machinists. Cveykus mother’s family were all farmers, formerly running Weston Dairy. Cveykus lives in Wausau with his wife Rebekah, a public school teacher and member of Wisconsin Education Association Council.

Cveykus said he is running because he sees an opportunity to do something better. He said in the 14 years of practicing law on the front lines, he said he had gotten pretty good at what he does and that he thinks he could serve the district well as an appeals court judge and do things better than they are being done now.

When it comes to the timeliness of appeals court rulings, Cveykus said there should be time limits on decisions. He said when it comes to appeals, you have to have enough money to raise issues and be extremely patient as it takes a year to 18 months for decisions. “A lot of people are stuck in limbo,” he said.

Cveykus draws an example from his time teaching law students at UW-Madison. He said he found that if he used the same exam twice, the students would quickly find this out and find the previous exam. Now, he spends days going through cases and briefs for issues from the court of appeals. What he said he finds is that there will be a case where the brief will have four issues, two of which are absolutely fascinating. “They will find a reason to punt on the difficult issues,” Cveykus said of his frustration with the courts ignoring issues and instead ruling on incidentals.

Win, lose, or draw he said people should know their issues have been heard.

As far as timing of rulings, Cveykus said he would not support a set time, noting there should be a little leeway for some cases. “Eighteen months is ridiculous,” he said. One way he said the system could speed up would be if the current judges on the appeals court didn’t feel they had to stop working at 4:30 p.m.

“I don’t come from a legal family, my parents are farmers and union factory workers,” Cveykus said, noting that this background taught his work ethic and that you get the job done. Cveykus describes himself as a “dork” who would be taking these cases home because of his interest in them.

In describing his judicial philosophy, Cveykus draws a comparison between himself and his opponent, over interpreting what the law says. He said all judges should start at looking at what the law says. He said where it gets complicated is in cases where there are dichotomies. He gives the example of a case where the law states a person shall serve a minimum sentence for a crime, while another law states that people who complete a condition of a sentence shall be released. Cveykus said it is up to the judge to determine which of those “shalls” will be broken.

“That is when it becomes hard to be a judge,” Cveykus said. “You can’t go by the easy rule.”

He gives the example of the First Amendment and notes that true threats, fraud or obscenity are not protected speech despite that they are not spelled out in the statutes. He said those restrictions have been recognized since 1791.

Another area he used as an example was in the concept of misconduct in public office. He said the statutes do not include how to establish lawful authority. Cveykus said things get complicated and judges must follow the law and the constitution and respect precedent. He said judges should be deferential and not activist, but also must have their own ideas and seek fair and just outcomes.

As far as allowing more oral arguments at the appeals court level, Cveykus said he could see both sides. “There is a lot of value in written briefs,” he said. He said at that same time, it would help with clarity as the attorneys are talking past each other in their briefs rather than addressing the points. According to Cveykus one of the biggest issues at play in this race is the political independence of the judiciary. He noted that six years ago the judge who won the appeals court race spent $11,000 on the campaign. He compared this to Gill raising $160,000 so far in the campaign with large donations from partisan groups. “When candidates get $160,000, donors expect something back from that,” Cveykus said.

Cveykus said that rather than playing politics, judges are the checks on politics. He pledged that he would not be a partisan judge. “I am not going to be a Democrat judge,” he said.

“I don’t come from a legal family. My family has worked hard to get where they are” Cveykus said, adding that for 15 years he has practiced what he preached and that he strongly believes the courts should not have a political agenda.

Outagamie circuit court judge Greg Gill was in Medford on March 11 addressing members of the Taylor County Republican Party at their recent meeting. Gill is running for a seat on the third district court of appeals which covered the northern half of the state of Wisconsin.SUBMITTED