Dane County's DAIS held an Oct. 1 rally for Domestic Violence Awareness Month. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A report released Thursday from Dane County’s Domestic Abuse Intervention Services (DAIS) found that Dane County judges grant restraining orders against perpetrators of intimate partner violence in 34% of cases. 

The report found that even when a judge grants a restraining order, it is often not for the amount of time requested by the victim — despite state law requiring that the order be for the length of time requested by the petitioner. 

State law allows judges to impose restraining orders on domestic abusers for up to four years in most cases, and up to 10 years when it can be proven the abuser is especially dangerous. But in a handful of cases, the report found, a judge granted restraining orders for only two years to allow a “cooling off period” for the people involved despite “serious lethality concerns testified to in the hearing.”

Kianna Hanson, the legal advocacy program manager at DAIS, said at an event announcing the report’s findings Thursday morning that the “cooling off period” is a myth and that judges should follow the law. 

“The fallacy of the cooling off period, which some judges have cited as a reason for choosing to grant an injunction from less time than the petitioner has requested, which in domestic abuse injunction goes against [state law],” Hanson said. “This mythology around domestic abuse cases is harmful because it suggests that domestic abuse could be the result of anger or not being able to control one’s emotion, when in reality, domestic violence is most often a conscious choice that is rooted in gaining power and control over one’s partner.”

The report was completed by a team from DAIS and other community organizations to observe more than 800 hearings in Dane County Circuit Court from April 2023 to April 2024. At the Thursday morning event, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky said the report was a step toward trying to make Wisconsin’s legal system a better place for everyone involved in it. 

“What if the legal system were different? What if the legal system were the vehicle for healing and for change?” she said. “What if people left the legal system in a better place than where they entered, and I mean all of us. I mean judges and attorneys and witnesses and court reporters and victims and defendants and plaintiffs and bailiffs and advocates. What if we left work every day feeling energized and satiated and nourished instead of stressed out, depressed and exhausted, and what if the legal system itself helped us get to a better place?” 

The report found that in the vast majority of injunction hearings, 87%, the victim seeking the restraining order was there pro se, meaning they were representing themself. Just 15% of petitioners had support in court from organizations such as DAIS, who have employees who serve as court advocates to help victims navigate the legal process (but aren’t attorneys and can’t provide legal advice). 

Representation from an attorney or support from a legal advocate vastly increased the chances of a restraining order being granted, the court found. When acting on their own, petitioners had injunctions granted in 29% of cases but when assisted by an attorney or advocate, injunctions were granted 62% of the time — meaning representation increased the chances of successfully obtaining a restraining order by 114%. 

Hanson told the Wisconsin Examiner after Thursday’s event that DAIS would be able to handle more restraining order cases under its legal advocacy program, saying that because the issuance of a restraining order can be a life-or-death decision for an abuse victim, the organization would prioritize those cases. 

Domestic abuse organizations across the state face critical funding pressures after a steep decline in federal money they receive hit this fall. Advocates have warned those funding cuts could strain resources for organizations like DAIS across the state. 

The report also notes a number of comments court observers saw judges make during hearings in these cases that were interpreted as minimizing abuse, treating people of color differently and misstating the law. 

One judge, according to the report, denied an injunction over harassment, stating that he was doing so “because unwanted touching, kissing, or harassing text messages demanding explicit photos is not sexual assault,” despite state law saying it is. 

The judges are quoted anonymously in the report but DAIS staff said at Thursday’s event that in the organization’s next version of the report, it will attribute the quotes. 

Dane County Judge Julie Genovese, in attendance at the event, said during a question and answer period that she doesn’t think naming the judges will be helpful — even though the comments were made on the record in open court. 

“I’d like to say on behalf of the judges, that it would be a very helpful thing for somebody to come and present to the judges at a judge’s meeting, rather than we’re going to just identify you on our next report, to come to the judges discuss with them what are the issues, offer the training or the resources, rather than just do it in this form,” Genovese said.

Former Dane County Judge James Troupis appears in court on Dec. 12. He faces felony forgery charges for his role in developing the 2020 false elector scheme to overturn the election results for Donald Trump. (Screenshot | WisEye)

Two former attorneys and a campaign staff member for President-elect Donald Trump made their initial appearance in Dane County Circuit Court Thursday in the felony cases against them for their roles in hatching the scheme to cast false Electoral College votes for Trump following the 2020 election. 

Of the three men charged, Michael Roman, James Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro, only Troupis appeared in court in person. The other two appeared over the phone. All three were granted signature bonds with the condition that they not have any contact with the ten Wisconsin Republicans who cast Electoral College votes for Trump in 2020. 

All three men face 11 counts of felony forgery. 

Multiple recounts, lawsuits and investigations have found that Trump lost the 2020 election in Wisconsin. Still, after that election, the three men worked to develop the plan that involved false slates of electors casting votes for Trump in Wisconsin and other states. The false slates of electors provided a pretext for  the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

After the hearing, Troupis called the charges “lawfare in all its despicable forms,” saying Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has “doubled down on a vicious strategy to destroy our very faith in the system of justice by using the courts for his own personal political game.”

On Wednesday, the voting rights focused firm Law Forward filed an ethics complaint against Troupis, a former Dane County Circuit Court judge, with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation. The grievance alleges that Troupis’ role in developing the fake elector scheme subverted the will of the people and violated state rules for attorney conduct. 

“Our democracy depends on attorneys adhering to their ethical obligations,” Jeff Mandell, President and General Counsel of Law Forward, said in a statement. “Troupis violated those obligations by advancing falsehoods, enabling fraud, and undermining the rule of law. This grievance seeks to hold him accountable and ensure that such abuses of the legal profession are never repeated.”

The three men are next scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 28.

A Dane County judge has rejected a request from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., shown here campaigning for president in Iowa in August 2023, to have his name removed from Wisconsin's presidential ballot in November. (Jay Waagmeester | Iowa Capital Dispatch)

A Dane County judge on Monday rejected a request from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to have his name removed from the presidential ballot in Wisconsin this November. 

An attorney for Kennedy said immediately after the decision that he plans to appeal. A separate case on the issue had already been separately filed with the more conservative District 2 Court of Appeals, which covers the suburban counties around Milwaukee. 

Dane County Judge Stephen Ehlke ruled that state law does not allow a candidate to withdraw from the presidential race once they file nomination papers. Ehlke said Kennedy was asking him to make an exception to the law for only him. 

“However, courts are required to apply the law as written, not as some party wishes it were written,” Ehlke said. 

Kennedy dropped out of the race in August, after he’d filed to get his name on the ballot in Wisconsin. After ending his campaign, Kennedy endorsed former President Donald Trump. Polls show that Kennedy’s candidacy likely pulled supporters from Trump. 

Last week in a similar case, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Kennedy’s name must be removed from the state’s ballots, causing a delay of up to two weeks. 

The Wisconsin Elections Commission previously ruled that Kennedy’s name must appear on the ballot, finding that if a candidate successfully files nomination papers to appear on the ballot, the only event that can cause the candidate’s removal is death. 

In Wisconsin, a ruling to take Kennedy’s name off the ballot would cause delays and added expenses to county clerks responsible for printing ballots. Ballots with his name on them have already been printed across the state because county clerks must get them in the hands of municipal clerks by Wednesday. The first absentee ballots for requests that clerks already have on file must be sent this week. 

If a candidate dies after ballots have been printed, the candidate’s name may be covered by a white sticker on the ballot. Kennedy’s attorneys pushed for his name to be similarly covered with stickers. 

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Kilpatrick said that the labor required to cover Kennedy’s name on ballots and the unknown effect the stickers would have on vote tabulating machines made that an impossible request that would also force clerks to miss state and federal deadlines.