1. Philosophy

Please provide your judicial philosophy and an overview of your background as a practicing attorney. How has your experience prepared you to serve on the bench and uphold the law?

The guiding principles of my judicial philosophy are fairness, integrity, and respect. If elected, my responsibility will be to faithfully apply the law, treat every person who enters my courtroom with dignity, and ensure that every case is decided impartially based on the facts and the law. I believe public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on reaching the correct legal result, but also on ensuring that every person feels heard, respected, and confident that they received a fair process.

For nearly twenty years, I have served as both a part-time public defender and a private attorney. Throughout my career, I have represented clients in criminal, juvenile, child protection, and family law matters. My practice has taken me into courtrooms across the Tenth Judicial District, the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and throughout Minnesota. Over the course of my career, I estimate that I have represented clients in more than 10,000 cases, giving me extensive courtroom experience in contested hearings, court trials, jury trials, sentencings, and motion practice.

Representing so many individuals from different backgrounds and circumstances has reinforced an important lesson: every case is unique, and every person deserves to be treated with fairness and respect. My responsibility as an attorney has always been to know the law, prepare thoroughly, advocate ethically, and listen carefully to my clients—even when we disagreed. Those same qualities will guide me as a judge.

If elected, I will bring nearly two decades of courtroom experience to the bench from my very first day. I will approach every case with humility, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. My goal will be to ensure that every person who appears before me is treated fairly, that every decision is grounded in the law and the facts, and that the public can have confidence in the integrity and independence of our courts.
 

2. Equity

How will you actively work to eliminate sentencing bias and ensure equitable treatment for every individual, regardless of their race, socioeconomic status, or background?

For nearly twenty years, I have served as a part-time public defender representing individuals from every race, socioeconomic background, and walk of life. Public defenders do not choose their clients—we are appointed to represent anyone who qualifies for our services. That experience has taught me that every person deserves to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness, regardless of their background or the allegations against them.

As an advocate, part of my responsibility has been to identify and argue against unfair assumptions and sentencing disparities, ensuring that the court has a complete understanding of each client's individual circumstances. I have spent my career telling my clients' stories, highlighting both mitigating factors and the challenges they have faced, so that sentencing decisions are based on the individual rather than stereotypes or assumptions.

If elected, my role will be different. My responsibility will be to ensure that every person who appears before me receives equal treatment under the law. I will make decisions based on the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines—not on a person's race, socioeconomic status, or background. I will remain mindful of the possibility of implicit bias, carefully consider the unique circumstances of each case, and explain my decisions on the record so that the parties understand the legal basis for my rulings.

Fairness and respect are two of the cornerstones of my judicial philosophy. Every person who enters my courtroom should leave knowing they were heard, treated with dignity, and judged as an individual under the law. That commitment is essential to maintaining public confidence in the fairness and integrity of our judicial system.

3. Temperament

How do you demonstrate impartiality and judicial humility in your courtroom? What steps will you take to ensure court procedures are understandable to the public to foster greater trust?

Over the course of my career, I have made thousands of sentencing arguments, litigated hundreds of contested hearings and court trials, and handled dozens of jury trials, ranging from misdemeanor offenses to a multi-week serious felony trials. In addition to criminal matters, I have represented clients in juvenile, child protection, and family law cases. Those experiences have taken me into courtrooms across the Tenth Judicial District, the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and throughout Minnesota, giving me the opportunity to observe hundreds of judges with different judicial styles and approaches.

Those experiences have shaped my own philosophy about what makes an effective judge. Impartiality begins with treating every person who enters the courtroom with dignity and respect, regardless of the allegations they face or the position they hold. Judicial humility means recognizing that every case involves real people whose lives may be profoundly affected by the court's decisions. It requires listening carefully, keeping an open mind, applying the law faithfully, and never allowing ego or impatience to influence the proceedings.

I have seen judges who consistently model patience, professionalism, and respect, and I have seen judges whose demeanor undermines confidence in the judicial system. While I understand that attorneys may sometimes bear the brunt of a judge's frustration, I have always believed that litigants deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect. Throughout my career, I have not hesitated to advocate for my clients when I believed they were not being treated fairly. Those experiences have reinforced my commitment to maintaining a courtroom where every participant feels heard and respected.

I also believe that public confidence in the judiciary depends on people understanding what is happening in the courtroom. Whenever appropriate, I will explain court procedures, rulings, and expectations in plain language so that litigants, victims, jurors, and members of the public understand the process. While judges cannot give legal advice or advocate for either side, we can ensure that our proceedings are transparent, respectful, and accessible.

If elected, I will strive to maintain a courtroom that is professional, patient, and fair—one where every decision is based on the law and the facts, every person is treated with dignity, and the public can have confidence in both the process and the outcome.

4. Systemic Reform

What is your approach to using diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration within your judicial discretion? How do these tools factor into your approach to reducing recidivism for eligible defendants?

Throughout my career, the majority of my practice has involved representing individuals charged with felony offenses. That experience has required me to develop a thorough understanding of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, diversion programs, Drug Courts, Veterans Courts, pretrial release programs, and the many alternatives to incarceration that are available within our justice system. As an advocate, I have regularly evaluated whether these options were appropriate for my clients and argued for their use.

If elected, my role will be different. As a judge, my responsibility will be to apply the law impartially and determine, based on the facts of each case, whether a defendant is an appropriate candidate for alternatives to incarceration. These programs are valuable tools, but they may not be appropriate in every case. They should be reserved for eligible defendants when they promote accountability, rehabilitation, victim and community safety, and long-term compliance with the law.

One advantage I bring to the bench is that I already have a strong working knowledge of these programs and how they operate in practice. Through my work in Washington County, I have developed professional relationships with judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and treatment providers, and I have had many opportunities to discuss these programs and the policies that guide them. That familiarity will allow me to evaluate these options thoughtfully from my first day on the bench.

Reducing recidivism is an important goal of the criminal justice system, but it is not achieved through a single approach. When appropriate, diversion programs, specialty courts, treatment, and other evidence-based alternatives to incarceration can address the underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior while still holding defendants accountable. Used wisely and within the limits of judicial discretion, these tools can improve outcomes for individuals, enhance public safety, and strengthen confidence in the justice system.

5. Pretrial Release & Bail

What factors do you weigh in setting conditions of pretrial release? How do you think about the balance between ensuring court appearance and avoiding wealth-based detention?

As context, in my role as a PD, I have covered numerous “jail calendars” in Washington County over the years. The PDs office staffs that calendar every day, and the assigned attorney will represent every single Defendant on that calendar if they want us, regardless of whether they qualify for our services or want to use us going forward. Very often, that calendar will have 20+ clients on it for me to represent, all of whom I am meeting for the first time that day. After years of these appearances, I know the conditional release and bail policies of Washington County as well as our current judges.

I believe the premise of this question is somewhat flawed because it frames the primary tension as one between ensuring future court appearances and wealth-based detention. In Minnesota, that is not the only—or even the principal—consideration.

As outlined in Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 6.02, a court must order release without monetary bail unless it finds that release without conditions will not reasonably assure the defendant's appearance or will endanger public safety. In practice, the question judges face every day is how to balance the presumption of release with the need to protect the public and ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

From my experience in criminal court, the most significant issue is balancing public safety while a case is pending—which includes ensuring future court appearances—with the principle that a person's financial resources should not determine whether they remain in custody before trial. Monetary bail should not function as a mechanism for detaining individuals solely because they lack the ability to pay. Instead, courts should carefully evaluate whether nonfinancial conditions of release can adequately address risks to public safety and the likelihood of future court appearances, reserving monetary bail or detention only when authorized under the law and supported by the facts of the individual case.

For example, MN DWI laws require that on any DWI where the BAC exceeds 0.16, mandatory bail conditions must be imposed by the Court. Those conditions require that the Defendant either post $12,000.00 in bail or enroll in a program that provides daily alcohol monitoring to ensure sobriety. As far as public safety is concerned, I think there is a large disconnect with those two options.

In Washington County, we use the Soberlink device for alcohol monitoring which is a portable breath test that the Defendant has on them at all times. It goes off at randomly 4 times a day, and the Defendant is required to promptly provide a clean breath sample which is reported back to probation in real time. If they miss a test or test positive, a warrant automatically issues for their arrest.

The public safety being served by the Soberlink device is easy to see. However, wealthier Defendants can circumvent this by simply posting bail or bond in the amount of $12,000.00. If they post, they are exempt from testing while their case is pending.

This is not a policy of the Washington County bench. This is the law, as currently written, across the entire State of Minnesota that all judges must follow. However, I think it points out the larger conflict that I referenced above; public safety vs. wealth-based detention.

We have numerous tools at our disposal in Washington County that I believe can best protect public safety such as the Soberlink, pre-trial no contact orders monitored by GPS, firearm surrender orders on felonies and crimes of violence, and court-ordered chemical or mental health exams that probation monitors the compliance with. I believe that these tools better address public safety and can be applied on a case-by-case basis and structured for each case and each Defendant.

These tools are more effective than simply requiring high amounts of monetary bail which does not address public safety and instead causes inequitable rates of incarceration pending trial.

Finally, if a Defendant follows the conditional release requirements, they are active with the Washington County Probation Department and much likelier to appear for their court dates than inequitable, one-size-fits-all monetary bail.

This is an issue that I argue and litigate on a very regular basis, and if elected, it will be a focus for me. There are far more effective ways to balance public safety, returning for Court, and the Defendant’s rights, than just imposing high amounts of monetary bail across the board.

6. Accountability

Which safeguards for judicial independence and accountability do you support? Select all that apply:

☒ A clear recusal policy for cases involving campaign donors or political allies

☒ Public disclosure of campaign contributions above a set threshold

☒ Regular publication of case-processing / docket data

☒ Adherence to the state Code of Judicial Conduct beyond minimum requirements

☐ Other

Please explain your position on these safeguards, including how you will uphold constitutional rights and maintain institutional integrity against political overreach while serving on the bench.

An independent judiciary is essential to protecting constitutional rights and maintaining public confidence in our justice system. Judges must decide cases based solely on the facts, the law, and the Constitution—free from political influence, public pressure, or personal interests. If elected, that is the standard I will uphold every day.

I support reasonable safeguards that preserve judicial independence and protect the courts from political overreach. Those principles are reflected not only in the Code of Judicial Conduct but also in the way I have chosen to conduct my own campaign. My campaign is entirely nonpartisan. We will not affiliate with any political party or accept contributions from political parties or their political action committees.

Minnesota's judicial campaign rules also provide important protections to preserve impartiality. Judicial candidates are prohibited from personally soliciting campaign contributions or knowing the identities of contributors. I have carefully structured my campaign to honor both the letter and the spirit of those rules. I am completely firewalled from fundraising: I do not solicit contributions, I cannot access the campaign post office box where donations are received, I have no access to the campaign bank account, and I do not know—and will never know—the identities of those who contribute to my campaign.

Throughout my nearly twenty years as an attorney, I have taken my ethical obligations seriously. If elected, I will hold myself to the even higher standards required of a judge, always protecting the constitutional rights of every person who appears before me while safeguarding the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

On a personal level, I also appreciate the importance of judicial independence because I saw it firsthand. My father, David Waxse, served as a respected United States Magistrate Judge. Watching him carry out his duties with integrity, impartiality, and fidelity to the rule of law reinforced my belief that a judge's responsibility is to the Constitution and the law—not to politics, public opinion, or personal preference. If elected, I intend to follow that example.
 

7. Public Engagement

What specific steps will you take to proactively engage with the community to increase public understanding of court processes and the role of the judiciary in our daily lives?

Throughout my career as a part-time public defender, I have made it a priority to help people understand the court process and ensure they feel heard, even when navigating one of the most difficult experiences of their lives. If elected, I will continue that commitment to public service from the bench.

I am aware that the Washington County District Court already provides opportunities for public engagement through educational presentations and events such as Law Day, and I would actively participate in those efforts. I would also welcome invitations to speak with civic organizations, schools, and community groups about the role of the judiciary, the court process, and the importance of an independent and impartial judicial system.

On a more personal level, my son is entering fifth grade, and I have been an active volunteer in his school through the PTA, field trips, and other activities. One opportunity I would particularly enjoy is inviting students to observe court proceedings when appropriate and answering their questions about how the judicial system works. For many people, the courts can seem like the most distant and least understood branch of government. I believe judges have a responsibility to help demystify the judicial process while maintaining the impartiality required of the office.

By participating in community outreach, supporting educational programs, and being accessible to the public within the bounds of judicial ethics, I hope to foster greater understanding of our courts and strengthen public confidence in the judicial system.
 

8. Priorities & Vision

What are the three most important items you want voters to understand about your candidacy and your approach to the judiciary?

First, I have the experience to serve effectively from my first day on the bench. For nearly twenty years, I have represented clients in criminal, juvenile, child protection, and family law matters. I have handled thousands of hearings, dozens of jury trials, and represented individuals in more than 10,000 cases. That breadth of experience has given me a deep understanding of the law, courtroom procedure, and the responsibilities of a trial judge.

Second, my judicial philosophy is grounded in fairness, integrity, and respect. Every person who enters the courtroom deserves to be heard, treated with dignity, and judged impartially under the law. I believe that public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on judges reaching the correct legal result, but also on conducting proceedings in a manner that is professional, respectful, and transparent.

Finally, I understand that being a judge is a position of public trust. Judges do not serve political parties or special interests—they serve the law and the people of Minnesota. If elected, I will approach every case with humility, independence, and an unwavering commitment to applying the law fairly and impartially. My goal is that every person who leaves my courtroom, regardless of the outcome, will know they were heard, treated fairly, and that their case was decided according to the law.