Tuesday, November 06, 2012

It looks like all retention judges survive

I'm focusing tonight on three judges who were targeted for defeat by the Chicago Tribune and the vast majority of bar associations (all of the bar associations in the case of Judge Hill-Veal, who chose not to participate in the screening process). In past elections, judges similarly situated tended to run behind their brother and sister judges seeking retention. If these judges prevail, then all the retention judges are likely to prevail.

With roughly 80% of the votes counted, City and suburbs, Judge Pamela Hill-Veal is polling a 62.73% favorable vote. Judge Gloria Chevere has received a 62.75% favorable vote and Judge Cynthia Brim has received a 63.02% favorable vote.

Updating: With over 95% of the vote counted in both the City and suburbs, all three judges seem sure to be retained, with Judges Brim and Chevere both at slightly over a 63% favorable result, with Judge Brim getting just under 63%.


Bardo said...

That's too bad. I was hoping at least Brim would be dismissed after her tirade and suspension. It will be interesting to see the results of the hearing on the battery charges she faces. That hearing is, of course, tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

I just looked and Hill-Veal had only 59.7% with all precincts reporting. It looks like there's going to be a new judge in 1102.

Jack Leyhane said...

Anon 8:25a.m. -- You're looking at the Cook County Clerk's website, showing the suburban only results. In suburban voting, Judge Hill-Veal received 388,763 "yes" votes and 262,415 "no" votes -- that's the 59.7% number you saw.

However, in City voting, Judge Hill-Veal got 372,366 more "yes" votes and 187,296 "no" votes, a 66.53% favorable rating.

Combined, these figures come out to a 62.8% "yes" percentage. Judge Hill-Veal was retained in office.

Anonymous said...

oh well.

BountyHunter said...

As someone (nonlawyer) who read the Judicial Performance Commission reviews of all the judges up for retention and looked at the table provided by the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, I am very disappointed. I had hoped that at the very least, the judges rated subpar & exposed in various media outlets would be jettisoned from office.

I wonder what can be done to inform the public about judicial corruption so that rubbish judges can be kicked off the bench. I think television media needs to step up, but so many people watch cable news now.

I'm really grateful that my scary civics teacher made such a huge deal about voting for judges in my 6th grade civics class.

Anonymous said...

This is very disappointing. I'm not even sure what/who I am most disappointed with about ALL judges being retained.

Albert said...

Actually there was a significant uptick this time in the number of people who used bar or newspaper information in their retention voting. Based on the unofficial results, it's roughly 160,000--more than in any election since 1992. And looking at retention results from around the country, this may not be unique to Cook County. Don't know yet if this is just a one-time blip or if something longer-term is going on; will have to dig into it more deeply. But if the Sun-Times hadn't completely bailed on making endorsements, it's possible that three judges would have been removed.

By the way, I've checked nearly the entire country (except Kansas, Idaho and downstate Illinois) and have not found any removals out of the more than 600 judges who ran for retention this year.

Anonymous said...

I agree there needs to be a reform on how long these judges at least stay in the various divisions i think 4 years for each div. till its time to vote again to much corruption I've witnessed at our circuit courts. And none of these judges are on 26th & California imagine that.