Dr. Klumpp has analyzed various components that seem to provide advantages to judicial candidates in the voting booth. In the following table, adapted from a table sent to me by Dr. Klumpp (meaning that any errors are mine, not his), the "Evaluations/Endorsements" component refers to favorable evaluations by both the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers and a sweep of endorsements made by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. Note, too, that the 2010 figures apply to the nine contested countywide judicial contests in the Democratic Primary, including the three races for the Appellate Court.
|Top ballot position||4.3||8.2||7.2||7.8|
The analysis shows a dramatic fall-off in the advantage formerly enjoyed by female candidates. "Where did the gender vote go?" Klumpp asked in an email. He supplies a possible answer: "All in all, the results look like they came from an angry male electorate."
There are other factors that Dr. Klumpp tracks in his ongoing research into judicial elections. One factor that he tracks as influencing outcomes is campaign spending. This analysis takes longer to complete, however, because campaign spending disclosures are not yet complete. Dr. Klumpp believes that campaign spending is more influential in subcircuit elections than in the elections countywide but, in terms of these other factors, as a preliminary conclusion, Dr. Klumpp would agree that the same tendencies seen in countywide races this year seem to apply in the subcircuits as well.
Dr. Klumpp's most recent article on the subject of judicial elections is in the January 2010 issue of the CBA Record, "What Influences the Voters?"