Is McDonald eligible for judgeship?
Photo 
Tom McDonald
JANESVILLE — State election officials are unsure whether Rock County judge candidate Tom McDonald has been a lawyer long enough to be seated as judge if he wins the April 3 election.
McDonald believes that he has.
Reid Magney, spokesman for the state's Government Accountability Board, said his office isn't sure.
"It's a question that may have to be resolved if he (McDonald) is elected," Magney said.
"At this point, it's a campaign issue and not a legal issue," Magney said.
If McDonald were to win, "It's possible that someone could file a challenge to his qualifications, and it would have to be resolved at that point," Magney said.
The question to be resolved: Is a person considered elected on election night or when he or she is certified as the winner?
The Wisconsin Constitution sets out criteria for attorneys who seek judgeships.
It reads: "To be eligible for the office of supreme court justice or judge of any court of record, a person must be an attorney licensed to practice law in this state and have been so licensed for 5 years immediately prior to election or appointment."
McDonald was sworn in as an attorney April 18, 2007, which is 15 days short of five years from the April 3 election.
McDonald said he closely read state statutes before he decided to run because he knew the criteria might become an issue. He researched but could not find any case law on the topic, he said.
"I certainly wouldn't want an election to happen and then not be eligible for office," McDonald said.
"What the constitution doesn't do is define election and what it means to be elected," McDonald said. "I can't imagine this issue has come up very much."
McDonald said he used common sense in reading the statutes, noting that election results are unofficial until the canvassing process is finished and other deadlines are met. For example, residents are given a certain amount of time to challenge an election before it is certified.
The certification process would take more than the 15 days he needs to meet the five-year criteria, he said.
"That's why even though it is not specifically defined, I think a lot of it is just common sense," McDonald said.
McDonald said he did not get an opinion from the board before he decided to run.
Magney agreed there is nothing definitive in Wisconsin statutes that answers whether a candidate must qualify by election day or when an election is certified.
If McDonald wins, any challenge would have to be resolved after the election, Magney said. He was not sure whether that would be resolved by his office, the attorney general's office or the courts.
The person who knows the answer to that question was out of the office Thursday, Magney said.
Feb 5, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
I known him since he was a teenager and have always liked him. But I think he's a little inexperienced for such a position and I think the voters will agree.
Feb 5, 2012 at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Innocence4, I just read the other comment you posted where you dragged down all the other candidates for judge, yet you support the one candidate who is willfully skirting election law to be one to clean up corruption? How does THAT work?
Feb 2, 2012 at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tom McDonald may be young, yet he is wise beyond his years. Electing Tom McDonald for Rock County Judge is just what we need to clean up the corruption going on at the Rock County Courthouse. Too much bias and ex-parte communication has gone on for too long. Tom is honest and has integrity.
Jan 28, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
All I know is if Marcia is writing about it and it is even slightly negative then I am on the other side.
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Only a Lawyer can be Judge? That is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Anyway, we will get a longer run out of the younger guy here. And, we wont have to worry about him sleeping on the job as some older Judges were known to do.
Jan 28, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just let him run.
Jan 28, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
sounds to me like the Gazette is paying more attention to McDonald and largely ignoring all other candidates to the point of exclusion...where are the articles about the other candidates? why is there focus on just one candidate?
Jan 28, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
I would be very surprised if he won, personally I don't believe 5 years as a licensed attorney is enough experience to become a judge. The other candidates are much more qualified. McDonald was the first candidate I cut from the list.
Jan 28, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Leave it to a lawyer. Seems you are short 15 days. Seems simple to me.
Also leave it to government to "figure it out LATER" Why figure it out now- that would be silly.
The only thing that would make of difference is when you would be "inducted"
I agree though the date should be when we vote for you April 3rd.
Jan 28, 2012 at 6:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anyway one looks at this issue, it's going to be a hard one to JUDGE. Perhaps, we need to seek an opinion from Gableman or Prosser or one of their associated law firms in order to get an UNBIASED JUDGEMENT. What do you think?
Jan 27, 2012 at 11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
One last statement ...The day of election is the day the electorate casts their vote. That's the day each voter declares their choice, not three days later when they are tallied or two weeks later when they are deemed official or two months later when the winner is sworn in. All candidates therefore must be constitutionally qualified for that particular office on that election day in the eyes of the law and voters, regardless of when actual votes are counted or the day the judge-elect is sworn in. Election Day would be the same as appointment day, not necessarily the same day they are sworn in. The passage from the Wisconsin Constitution contains no language regarding any relationship of the 5-year requirement to swear-in. I'm surprised the GAB gave such a poor and open ended answer to this question.
Jan 27, 2012 at 10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
But poobah, this is an election issue. Not whether he is eligible to be sworn in, but whether he is eligible for election for this particular office. I believe, and this is strictly my interpretation, that a statute that establishes qualifications exists for the protection of the electorate, and that without the GAB enforcing the statute, they are saying anyone can be placed on the ballot without restriction and if they win, let court challenges sort it out. Again, just my opinion, I think the GAB is shirking their duty. No offense intended toward the candidate.
Jan 27, 2012 at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Age of office restrictions for most offices, such as federal offices, generally specify the age that must be attained prior to being SWORN in to that office. There is about a 60 day gap between our federal elections and the assumption of office. On the circuit court (county) level, that is an even longer period of time -- from April 3rd until August 1st if I'm not mistaken. In this particular case, the candidate would have been licensed for at least 5 years by the time of investiture (assuming that is August 1). The Constitution is very vague on the age qualification and does not define "election." I can't see any court denying this candidate the judgeship. Unless there was a very clear violation of the Constitution or statutes, the courts do not take lightly the task of overturning the will of the people.
Jan 27, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
In the end, it's gonna be a moot issue anyway.
Jan 27, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
For more information on this story and my response you can click on the link to my facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1...
Jan 27, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
oops I meant to write ... "voting for him will be casting votes for a person who does NOT meet the 5 year requirement"
Jan 27, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Since this is an "election" issue and not a legal issue the term election is key to the Constitutional language. If his name is on the ballot, those voting for him will be casting votes for a person who does meet the 5 year requirement prior to election. The "election" day is the day chosen for all candidates to meet that criteria, even those who have no chance in being elected. The GAB is flubbing it by allowing his name to appear on the election ballot.
Jan 27, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
For some reason the Gazette doesn't like this guy. Someone must be related to or have ties to another canidate. Sure are showing thier bias. You would think this was fox news considering how slanted they are. If not the teachers than Mcdonald I guess.
Jan 27, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
The media doing what it does best, smear tactics.
They should present the facts and accomplishments of the candidates, and leave it to the people.
Jan 27, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why is the Gazette always attacking this guy? I am not for, or against him. Just wondering!
Jan 27, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
You don't need to be a judge to be a Supreme Court Justice, despite what the Bar Association might have you believe. No reason, then, why McDonald can't be a judge.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.