Alan J. Borsuk has been the Law School’s senior fellow in law and public policy since fall 2009—call it 14 years. So, for a not wholly impertinent point, he has some time to go before replicating his 37 preceding years as a reporter and editor at the Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In any event, during his time with us, he has kept his hand in the newspaper with the occasional—nay, frequent—column on K–12 education policy and practice in this region. Why?
Borsuk’s recent piece in The Grade, a nationwide online platform focused on journalism about education, will tell you. Here’s a flavor (the introduction):
I crossed paths with a former member of the Milwaukee school board a while ago.
He had moved on from the school scene, but I was still writing about K-12 education, as I had across more than 50 years.
“Do you feel like you’re living ‘Groundhog Day’?” he asked me, referring to the movie in which the protagonist repeats the same day over and over.
“Yes. All the time,” I told him.
At that time, I often felt like I was writing pieces I’d written so many times before.
But I was still doing it.
Why? Because damn it, it’s important.
That’s why I’m still at it all these years later — and why I decided to make what might be my last big project as a journalist a multipart series on longstanding problems in how most schools teach kids to read.
Education coverage should be energetic and powerful. I hope that showed in the recent pieces I wrote about literacy. But I also know there is more I could and should do.
There is more all of us in education journalism could and should do.
As with Borsuk’s work more generally, the whole thing is well worth a read. Find it here.
I was asked recently by a reporter about judicial rotation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court (Judicial Rotation Explained by an Insider). It brought back any number of memories—from my first rotation as a new judge to the rotation decisions that, years later, I was required to make as chief judge. In my new role on the Marquette Law School faculty, I hope in this blog post to provide some additional insight on both the practice and theory of judicial rotation.
In 2004, Chief Judge Michael P. Sullivan assigned me, a newly appointed circuit court judge, to the children’s division. I was told that new judges were assigned either there or to the criminal misdemeanor division. Chief Judge Sullivan informed me that I would rotate to another division in three to four years, based on the local rules or practices.
When it came time to rotate to another division, I, along with several other colleagues, tried to convince the new chief judge, Kitty Brennan, that judges assigned to children’s court should have the option of permanently remaining in the division or, at least, staying much longer than the four-year maximum. We were convinced that judicial specialization—having judges who are permanently assigned and dedicated to children’s court—would ensure the making of consistent decisions in the best interests of children, families, and public safety. We even had national data to support our request.
Chief Judge Brennan was not convinced. Focusing on the local rules, she gave a perspective on the virtues of judicial rotation. She believed that it was not only good to experience other assignments but to meet new lawyers and litigants. Even so, she exercised her discretion, and allowed me to remain at children’s court for one more year to finish a project—an unprecedented fifth year.
Thereafter, Judge Jeffrey Kremers was appointed chief by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He assigned me to the misdemeanor division. where I presided over misdemeanor and felony domestic violence cases. The domestic violence courts were considered problem-solving courts. It was also an assignment where judges would preside over many jury trials, hear countless stories of intimate partner violence and child abuse, and repeatedly see graphic pictures of harm. I had discovered another reason for rotation, which I would also learn to be true in homicide and sexual assault assignments: Rotating judges to other “courts” (technically, other divisions in the same court) could be a salutary and welcomed change—not only for judges but for lawyers and litigants as well, I might add.
Four years later, I asked to rotate back to children’s court. I brought with me my better-honed judicial trial skills, knowledge of intimate partner violence and child abuse, and an understanding of the impact of trauma. I was more experienced this time and able to make more refined decisions for families. This broader range of knowledge and skills made me a better judge. It also supported my problem-solving court work in what we called Family Drug Treatment Court and Healthy Infant Court.
My final rotation was to the civil division. Truth be told, I didn’t ask to stay in the children’s division as I had requested so many years ago. I accepted Chief Judge Maxine White’s decision and her reasoning. In the civil division, I would be exposed to different legal issues, meet new lawyers, and use my skills in conflict resolution. It also turned out to help prepare me for my own later role as chief judge.
It was one thing to be rotated in and out of divisions but quite another thing to make rotation decisions. I became chief judge in February of 2020. Along with navigating the pandemic, I had to make significant decisions about rotation. Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 70.23 addresses the assignment of circuit judges. Subsection (3) states:
The chief judge of each judicial administrative district shall design a plan for the rotation of judicial assignments in multijudge circuits within the district. The plan for each district shall be on file with and have the approval of the chief justice or his or her designee and shall be supervised and maintained by the chief judge as part of the permanent scheme of judicial administration. In designing a rotation plan, the chief judge shall do all of the following: (a) Equalize the workload in an equitable manner considering any special circumstances in each circuit. (b) Assure general jurisdiction availability and competence of all judges in the circuit.
The Milwaukee County Circuit Court rotation plan is published in Local Rule 146. It weighs heavily in favor of giving relatively senior judges their choice of assignment when it is their turn to rotate. It limits service in a division to one four-year term, which means that at least one-quarter of the 47 judges in Milwaukee rotate annually, usually on August 1. There also are “interim” rotations. These occur when there is a vacancy after a judge retires or leaves the bench for other reasons that do not coincide with the annual rotation. The local rule prescribes the process for interim rotations as well. As you can imagine, when a judge leaves, it necessarily means other judges will likely have to move.
About four months before annual rotation, the chief judge asks those who have been in an assignment for three and four years to list their top three choices for rotation. Those choices include the divisions of children’s, family, criminal misdemeanor, criminal felony, and civil. There are also intra-division assignments that need to be taken into consideration. For instance, rotating to the felony division could mean an assignment to a general felony, drug treatment court, drugs, guns, or a homicide and sexual assault calendar.
As chief judge, I always met with my leadership team to make rotation decisions. As you can imagine, other judges, judicial staff, and even lawyers often weighed in, one way or another. Finalizing rotation was quite time-consuming and complicated. I was always grateful for the rotating judge who told me to assign him or her “wherever you need me the most.” I tried to make sure that judges had the skills, stamina, and competencies necessary for their assignments. I was also mindful of judges’ (and their staff’s) exposure to significant trauma stories, such as listening to litigants recount their victimization, looking at videos of exploited children, or seeing the aftermath of car crashes. And, as with my predecessors as chief judge, I exercised discretion to make rotation and interim vacancy assignments that were in the best interests of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
Judicial rotation has been around for more than 40 years. It gives judges in Milwaukee County an opportunity to experience different divisions, meet a wide variety of lawyers, and build different skills sets. It can also be a chance to take a much-needed break from presiding over particular kinds of difficult cases. Up-to-date Chief Judge Directives, including those related to rotation, can be found here.
New apartment construction in American cities tends toward large buildings with small units, leaving fewer new options for households with more than 2 members.
Complaintsabound about the lack of apartments suitable for a family with kids. In Milwaukee, I often hear questions like, “Who is going to live in these?” and “Where will families go?”
The truth is, even the robust growth of studio and 1-bedroom apartments has failed to meet the even more rapid rise in the number of these households. Over the past decade, the city of Milwaukee added around 9,300 1-person households versus about 2,200 new studio or 1-bedroom housing units.
Surely, not all these 1-person households will want to live in a small unit, but judging by current dwelling behavior, many clearly do. The growing gap between potential residents of small units and available inventory is larger than that for any other market segment.
Bigger buildings, smaller units
The next two graphs show annual construction statistics for the Midwest. In 2022, 63% of new apartment units came from buildings of at least 50 units, compared to just 21% in 2005. Apartment buildings with 2-4 units are hardly built anymore. They contributed just 1% of new apartments last year, down from 11% in 2005. Likewise, small apartment buildings with 5 to 9 units contributed 22% of new units in 2005 and just 4% in 2022.
As apartment buildings have grown larger, units have grown smaller by every measure. Seventy-eight percent of apartments built in 2005 contained at least 2 bedrooms, falling to 50% in 2022.
From 2000-2009, studio apartments made up about 1.5% of annual apartment construction. During the first three years of the 2020s, studios comprised 12.3% of new construction.
In 2005, 28% of new apartments were under 1,000 sq. ft. and 10% were 1,800 sq. ft. or larger. In 2022, 51% of new units were under 1,000 sq. ft. and just 2% were at least 1,800 sq. ft.
Growing demand for small units
Often, reasons for this dearth of “family-sized” apartments are given from the supply side. Zoning codes often make it hard to build the kinds of small apartment buildings that would fit in residential neighborhoods. Where room allows, bigger buildings are both more profitable. U.S. fire codes require large apartment buildings to be built around a central hallway. These “double-loaded” floor plans limit the number of multi-bedroom apartment units common elsewhere.
In cities like Milwaukee, there is also tremendous demand for small apartment units.
Even as Milwaukee’s population has fallen over the past 50 years, the number of households (or occupied housing units), has remained stable due to the growing number of people living by themselves.
Just over the past decade, the city added 9,300 1-person households and 1,500 2-person households, while losing 11,500 households with 3 or more members.
Milwaukee’s housing stock has, overall, not caught up to these changes.
Recent census estimates count about 87,000 single-member households in Milwaukee, compared with an available supply of 52,000 studio or 1-bedroom apartments.
In sharp contrast, Milwaukee holds 23,000 more 2-unit dwellings than 2-person households and 53,000 more 3-unit dwellings than 3-person households. Four-person households are closely matched to the number of 4-bedroom homes, and the number of households with 5 or more members (though shrinking) still outstrips the number of 5+ bedroom houses by about 16,000.
Of course, households do not match house sizes in the neat way those numbers suggest. Children in large families have always shared bedrooms and small households sometimes want more space. As I began writing this piece, I wondered if the relationship might run in reverse. Perhaps parents have less money to spend, and so wind up in smaller houses, while couples without children might be able to afford the largest houses.
As it turns out, this is not the case. Within the constraints of Milwaukee’s housing supply, people generally wind up choosing homes that closely match their household size.
The most common situation, involving 37% of households, is when the number of bedrooms exactly matches the number of residents. Another quarter of households have one extra bedroom. Fourteen percent have two extra bedrooms, and another 14% have 1 more person than they do bedrooms. Only 9% of households have at least two fewer bedrooms than people.
Forty percent of 1-person households live in either a studio or a 1-bedroom apartment. Another third live in a two-bedroom unit. The modal 2-person household lives in a 2-bedroom unit (41%), and just over half of 3-person households also live in a 3-bedroom home.
More of a mismatch exists for larger families, those with 4 or more members. Half of 4-member households live in a 3-bedroom house, a quarter have 4 or more bedrooms, and another quarter live somewhere with fewer than three.
Among households with 5 or more people, just 9% live in a house with 5 or more bedrooms, reflecting the lack of supply in this category. Large families are still the most likely group to live in one of these uncommonly large houses.
In a city like Milwaukee, with little available land for new construction, it comes as no surprise that most new construction is tailored to the only market segment with significant growth—adults without kids, usually living alone. Three-bedroom units abound, albeit primarily in aging housing stock.
The big challenge for builders and policymakers will be figuring out how to build enough smaller units that are appealing and affordable to the growing numbers single-member households. The large apartment buildings that dominate the current construction landscape are an important part of that. Milwaukee also needs to advance strategies like accessory dwelling units and corner quadplexes that accommodate shrinking household sizes in popular, already built-out residential neighborhoods.
Data Note
The Census Bureau does not publish a table counting households by members and bedrooms, so I computed this data from the most recent batch of census microdata. Due to limitations with the dataset, these statistics include Milwaukee County’s north shore suburbs.
Additional statistics are drawn from the 2017-21 American Community Survey, the 2008-12 ACS, decennial censuses from previous years, and the Survey on Construction.
Alan J. Borsuk has been the Law School’s senior fellow in law and public policy since fall 2009—call it 14 years. So, for a not wholly impertinent point, he has some time to go before replicating his 37 preceding years as a reporter and editor at the Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In any event, during his time with us, he has kept his hand in the newspaper with the occasional—nay, frequent—column on K–12 education policy and practice in this region. Why?
I was asked recently by a reporter about judicial rotation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court (
