“That led me to the Dept. of Public Instruction, full of educators and social workers who are there to do the right thing for kids,” Jones said. “I was hired when Tony Evers was state superintendent. And then I was general counsel for Carolyn Stanford Taylor and Dr. Underly. And again, I never had to concern myself with what our goal was, what our objective was. The mission was always clear. Do what is best for Wisconsin’s kids.”

Doing what’s best for Wisconsin’s students wasn’t easy as Democrats and Republicans clashed over the role DPI.

“Brad Schimmel, the attorney general, tried to make it difficult for the Dept. of Public Instruction to maintain its autonomy and authority over public instruction,” Jones said. “My first year, I was arguing in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court against the attorney general’s office over some of those issues. And then, COVID happened and we had to figure out as a department how to keep schools open, how to modify regulations to keep schools open, but also keep people safe.”

And then the battle became national in scope as the second Trump administration took office in January 2025.

“There were these decrees that you must abandon any effort with regard to diversity, equity and inclusion or you are going to lose your all of your federal funding,” Jones recalled. “We, as a department, wrote a series of letters back to the Dept. of Education saying, ‘What is your legal basis for doing this? Why are you doing this? Tell us what your justification is?’ Eventually, they backed down, at least with that effort. Any efforts to diversify or to address, especially in Wisconsin, the racial disparities and outcomes for education are extreme. Some of the worst, if not the worst, in the country. Any efforts to target that specifically, would be labeled as against the Trump administration and ironically, would reduce funding for public education.”

And it was these legal battles, along with the day-to-day legal work of DPI that jones feels prepared him to sit on the bench.

“That experience, fighting those large battles between the state and the federal government, between DPI and the other branches in the Wisconsin government, holding the line on constitutional rights for kids and the constitutional authority that the state superintendent has to supervise public instruction, those big separation of power issues matters and prepared me to defend the rule of law and the separation of powers in the constitution on the bench along with all of the day-to-day nuts and bolts legal work. It’s given me a broad-base of legal experience with matters both big and small that really helps me now in the position that I am in.”

For Jones, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy.

“It’s an agreement between people and the community to solve problems based on pre-written rules rather than who can shout the loudest or who can carry the biggest stick or who has the most raw power,” Jones emphasized. “And so, the rule of law — as I just defined it — has been a cornerstone, a keystone, to American democracy and society for hundreds of years. We don’t always get everything right. And the laws change and evolve. And some are unconstitutional and the Constitution changes. But at least everyone can agree that the rule of law is paramount to how we organize ourselves.”

Jones feels that the rule of law is under attack.

“The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional or as beyond the power of the president to unilaterally issue tariffs under the law that the president was using,” Jones said about the Trump administration unilaterally imposing tariffs. “Immediately, he turns around and throws a temper-tantrum and talks about how the Supreme Court is not correct and it was a terrible decision. And he attacks the group that everyone has agreed is the final say on the law. And he has no respect for that decision. There are a number of federal and state judges appointed by all different kinds of political affiliations — even Trump appointed judges — who are all saying what is happening with the federal government is beyond the rule of law, without respect to the rule of law. The orders that are not being followed by federal district court and without a court system that is respected and is able to say, ‘Here is how the law applies to the facts,’ what we are left with is just raw power. And that isn’t going to benefit anyone except those who have access to that raw power, whether it is people with guns or people with the loudest voices or any of those things. It’s a fundamental threat to democracy in America when the rule of law is ignored or contradicted directly.”

While the circuit courts do no directly deal with immigration issues — that is handled in federal courts — the ICE immigration raids have impacted the local legal system.

“The circuit courts can play a role in how they exercise their discretion to try to protect people’s access to the legal system and the functioning of the legal system,” Jones said. “So one straightforward example is there have been problems across the country with a person being required for one reason or another to report to a circuit court for a routine matter, for a family law matter, for a misdemeanor. And a court needs to make sure that those people show up and provide testimony. But what show up means isn’t necessarily in person in front of a judge. It could mean appear by Zoom to give your testimony, appear remotely. That’s a simple tool to say, ‘You have reasons why you can’t come to court. You have fear for your personal liberty. We’re going to accommodate that by allowing a Zoom appearance.’ In my court, we have Zoom fairly routinely for matters that don’t require someone to be in person. Scheduling a routine procedural issue, when requested, I will allow a witness to appear remotely if there is cause and if that cause is fear for immigration enforcement, then I am going to grant that.”

It has been well-documented that there are racial disparities in Wisconsin’s criminal justice system. While Jones can’t control what happens in the criminal justice system, he does have control over what happens in his courtroom.

“Making sure that the Fourth Amendment is applied correctly is the most direct way to try to address some of those disparities that you are talking about,” Jones said. “I think there is case law in Wisconsin about having justification to conduct a search. Whether or not law enforcement can rely on the neighborhood there or labeling the neighborhood as a high drug trafficking area can be an easy way to say, ‘Hey, this is a place where there are a lot of minorities or a lot of low socio-economic status individuals,’ is going to have a lower Fourth Amendment protection than other places. And that kind of argument should be looked at with a magnifying glass to say, ‘What’s really happening here? Is this probable cause? Is this reasonable suspicion? Or is this an excuse to go harass a neighborhood.’ That’s not the kind of thing that I have seen come across my court desk. But it is certainly something that I am watching for and prepared for. I am currently in a civil rotation, so I’m not processing a lot of criminal cases. But we do sign search warrants. That’s another area where a judge can make sure that people’s rights are being protected regardless of race or socio-economic status, just to make sure our law enforcement is applying a narrowly-tailored probable cause to limit searches and seizures to what is appropriate.”

And Jones is very deliberate in ensuring that any biases that me have influence the judicial process.

“It starts with being very diligent so that I am not making a decision and then using the law to justify that decision,” Jones said. “But instead, starting with the facts, applying the law in a neutral and objective way and then getting to whatever result that the law demands. I think there could be a temptation in any kind of decision-making to say, ‘This is the decision I want, now I am going to justify it.’ That is not how the law is intended to work. And so, in doing that process, while along the way making sure that I’m trying to make conscious any unconscious biases so that they don’t influence my decision along the way is what I do to be as fair and impartial as possible.”

Jones is concerned about the inequities of legal counsel and its impact on court outcomes and the administration of justice.

“One of the issues that has stood out to me in my time as a judge is the disparities in access to justice, specifically access to attorneys,” Jones said. “In a civil rotation, there is no guarantee to a free attorney, an appointed attorney. The difference in people’s ability to navigate the justice system and achieve an outcome that they are looking for, between people who have an attorney and don’t have an attorney, is massive. I am frustrated just seeing the people’s ability to navigate the legal system and get justice is often dependent on their socio-economic status. Can you afford an attorney? Can you not afford an attorney? That’s going to impact your ability to obtain justice. In another way, access to justice is dependent on how much money you make. And that is frustrating to see. It’s frustrating that our legal system has led to that result. I’ve tried just in the time that people have started listening to me during this campaign to bring attention to that specific issue and if I continue to serve and be able to comment on these issues, I think that is a need here and everywhere across the country. I know there is a shortage of attorneys in Wisconsin right now, especially in rural areas. And trying to find folks representation when they need it so they can access the justice system appropriately should be a major goal of society in general.”

The lack of legal representation can have an impact on children and what is their best interest.

“Even in the civil world, I’m hearing family cases where someone might lose access to their kids and they don’t get an attorney appointed to them as a matter of right,” Jones said. “These are not small issues or issues just about money — not to say issues about money are even small. You could lose your business or lose your livelihood or have to declare bankruptcy. And to not be able to be on an equal footing with someone who has an attorney is unequal. As a judge I try to do what I can, but I cannot be an advocate. I can explain the legal process and take time and care to try to help litigants understand what I am doing and what I am looking for, but without an attorney, the legal process is complicated. And it’s not easy in the best of circumstances. And to go in blind without counsel, it shouldn’t be that way.”

How Jones approaches the law and the people who appear before him was molded when he got in trouble as a kid. He and some friends had toilet pappered some people’s houses and Jones got caught. His father meted out justice.

“He calmly set me down on the couch and proceeded to talk through what I had done and what he and my mom were going to do about it,” Jones recalled. “There was no anger, no real describing personal failure. He just said, ‘What you did wasn’t just light vandalism in the neighborhood. You lied to your mom and I. We’re going to punish you for lying to us. You put yourself at risk and we didn’t know where you were.’ He calmly laid out all of the reasons why I was going to be grounded for three weeks. And at the end of that, I said, ‘That was fair. That was right. I’m not super excited to be grounded for three weeks. But I earned those three weeks.’ I would go to school with my co-conspirators. We would compare what each one got. One got a weekend. And I said, ‘That doesn’t seem like enough.’ I felt my parents’ decision was the right decision.”

And so Jones tries to mete out justice with understanding as well.

“I want people when I make a decision — I’m not going to convince people every time. People are going to disagree with me — I want to strive for people agreeing with me,” Jones said. “I am able to articulate the law, apply it to the facts and in as clearly a way as possible so that the litigants come away with some sense of, ‘I got my chance to tell the judge what happened. He listened to me. He applied the law fairly. And the outcome may not be what I wanted or maybe it is. But at least it was a fair application of the rule of law. And that’s what justice means for me.”

With the rule of law under attack, Jones feels that people need to get engaged beyond in societal institutions and processes beyond voting for circuit court judge.

“What I want people to know is that these times aren’t normal from a bigger, broader perspective, for the rule of law perspective in that the way that we have organized our society is all made up,” Jones said. “It’s all based on one agreement after another and handshakes and social contracts and norms and values that have survived at least this long as a society. And in order for that to continue, everyone has to invest in that in ways big and small including my voting, including my paying attention to the school board races and school board decisions and Dane County board decisions and what the governor stands for, what is the Supreme Court doing. It’s just paying attention and contributing and investing in ways big and small to that set of rules. Again, it’s all made up and it’s only worth what the community puts into it. And now more than ever, there needs to be more investment.”

Within the confines of the law, Judge Ben Jones seeks to promote equitable outcomes for all people regardless of their socio-economic status. On April 7^th, Dane County voters will decide  whether he will continue to do so.