The Illinois Supreme Court today appointed Judge Robin D. Shoffner to an 8th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Candace J. Fabri. The appointment is effective this Friday, July 1, and runs until December 3, 2018.Judge Shoffner is currently sitting by Supreme Court appointment to the Williams vacancy in the 5th Subcircuit. In the March primary, Daryl Jones defeated Shoffner's bid to hold that vacancy. Shoffner was rated Qualified or Recommended by every Alliance bar association in the March primary; she also carried the Tribune's endorsement. However, neither Shoffner nor Jones was rated Qualified by the Chicago Bar Association (Jones having been automatically found Not Recommended because he "was an active member of the [CBA] Judicial Evaluation Committee at the beginning of this election year").
For those of you keeping score at home, Judge Shoffner's appointment today does not qualify as a "recall" to judicial service; Judge Shoffner's 5th Subcircuit appointment continued despite her loss in the March primary. Today's order means only that Judge Shoffner will be permitted to remain on the bench past the December 2016 expiration of her current appointment. In recent years, the Supreme Court has reappointed a number of judges -- not all of them, mind you, but some -- who came up short in a contested primary. Some of these reappointed judges (although again not all) have fared better with the voters when they next ran for election.
Posts
13 comments:
This judicial appointment gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling on many different levels. Just as an Andy Warhol work has a unique look, color, and feel, so does a Freeman appointment. I believe what we are witnessing is an appointment in the classic Freeman style. No press release. No blowing smoke. No deception. No circus.
Several years ago when Justice Freeman made the decision to appoint his law clerk to the bench, he did so without the assistence of a judicial selection committee. Incredibly, I guess he must have known where to look and how to make the phone call to his clerk all by himself; unlike Theis, who apparently needs her committee to help her vet and appoint her former law clerk. So thank you Justice Freeman for not putting hopeful judicial candidates through a lot of pointless work completing lengthy applications for a vacancy that none of them will be appointed to.
I am also pleased with the actual appointment of Judge Shoffner. Although, I do not know her, nor have I ever appeared before her, I have, however, appeared before too many judges that received perfect bar evaluations and have been totally disgusted with their temperament, demeanor, or total lack of understanding of the law or courtroom procedure. I have also appeared before several judges that were found universally unqualified / not recommended and I found them to be knowledgable, fair, and courteous. Bar evaluations are absolutely worthless in predicting suitability for the bench. I am glad Justice Freeman disregarded the CBA's opinion of Judge Shoffner in making this appointment.
Most likely many comments will follow complaining about "friends and family" and "insiders". I also have a problem when friends and family and insiders are appointed to the bench as well. But not in this case. While I do believe that Judge Shoffner is an insider, neither of her appointments were veiled in a deceptive process. There is little doubt as to the hows and whys Judge Shoffner has been twice appointed. She was first appointed because Justice Freeman wanted her on the bench and she was reappointed because Justice Freeman wanted her to keep her job. Period.
Contrast this to the Theis appointment of her former law clerk, Quish, or her earlier appointment of Conlon, who was actually serving on the Theis judicial selection committee. Theis simply did not just appoint them the same way Freeman appointed Shoffner. Each appointment was a dog and pony show. A circus. Then, inexplicably, Theis actually expects us to accept the premiss that her appointments of both of these "insiders" was the result of a fair and unbiased selection process; and that she was somehow removed from the process due to her committee's involvement. I find everything about the Theis process insulting and deceptive. Appointments such as those deserve condemnation, but not this appointment of Shoffner. Like it or not, the actual transparency of this appointment is refreshing.
Does she live in the 5th or the 8th? When does she have to move?
Another question - why haven't Richard Cooke & Evie de la Rosa (I'm sure there are others, but I know the 6th) been appointed to the vacancies they're taking over in December? There are no judges in those spots and they have been unopposed since the primary. Is this a state budget thing?
@Anon 6/30 2:42 p.m. -- One of my smart readers will correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that, under the Supreme Court's appointment power, a person may serve without regard to residency. I'm pretty sure this is the case because a number of examples come readily to mind.
However, if Judge Shoffner were (theoretically) to try and hold the 8th Subcircuit seat in the next primary, she would have to move to that subcircuit and establish residency before attempting to get on the ballot. See, Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011) (a person wishing to run for judge must first be "eligible" for that office before that person can get his or her name on the ballot; under the Illinois Constitution, candidates for the office of circuit, appellate or supreme court judge must be residents of the unit from which they seek election before they may cause their names to appear on the ballot for the primary election).
@Anon 2:42 - That is the million dollar (or should I say million peso) question. Historically, hispanics lag far behind whites and African Americans in the number of appointments they have received from the Supreme Court. At one period, over 100 appointments were made without appointing a single hispanic. Many will even recall that after the 2014 Primary elections many unopposed candidates "started their judicial careers early" by receiving an appointment to the vacancy they won. Neither Diana Rosario or Maritza Martinez were appointed to the open vacancies they both won. Why? Both 2016 6th subcircuit winners have positive ratings from all of the bar associations. So it is not a budget thing. It is a hispanic thing. We need a hispanic on the Supreme Court.
I have no problem with Justice Freeman appointing anyone he likes but I disagree that Judge Shoffner was a good choice. She was appointed once. It was up to her to keep her job by winning her election. She did not do that. She was rejected by the voters. That should be the end of her judgeship unless she is able to get herself back on the bench. One appointment is more than most will ever receive. Two appointments are absurd. Justice Freeman should have given someone else a chance.
If I am not mistaken this is the first vacancy in the 8th since 2012. This will be a very expensive campaign.
@Anon 7/5 12:50 p.m. -- You are correct that four vacancies were filled in the 8th in 2012, none in 2014, 2016 or (for that matter) in 2010. There was a single vacancy filled in the 8th Subcircuit in 2008.
As to the race here being very expensive... could be. Depends on who runs, don't you think?
No matter what, a black candidate will have a hard time winning in the 8th sub circuit. Race still matters and I know the readers do not want to hear it. It won't be about racism but race. Black lady who reads speaking the truth and the reality.
Judge Shoffner may not even move into the 8th and run. Another vacancy may open in the 5th or she may even run countywide. But where she runs should not be the focus. The focus should be why the Supreme Court continues to undermine the intent of the voters. Judges are not just voted into office; they are also voted out of office. Shoffner was voted out of office, and if the CBA investigation is to be believed, for very good reason.
Two losers, Martin and Heneghan, were made Associate Judges. Now Shoffer, another loser, is being kept on the Cook County payroll until December, 2018. I guess she is following in the footsteps of her esteemed judicial colleague, Judge Lyle, who I believe was also appointed from two or three different subcircuits before the law of averages worked in her favor and she finally won an election.
This is just the start. There are several more Judges that were voted out of office by the people of Cook County in the last primary. Any guess which loser (number four) will be given an appointment by the Supreme Court?
Quick Question. Can Mikva keep her seat in the 8th, seek retention, after being appointed to the Appellate Court?
Quick Answer @Anon 7/6 11:57 a.m.: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: The Supreme Court assigned Judge Mikva to the Appellate Court; it did not appoint her to a vacancy. One quarter of our First District Justices sit by assignment. The order entered by the Supreme Court relieves Judge Mikva of her duties on the Circuit Court during her service on the Appellate Court -- but she officially remains a Circuit Court Judge for other, administrative purposes (e.g., she is up for retention this year).
"Losing an election" is a phrase that is relative. Many contested races have qualified candidates. One person gets more votes than the other. Just because "A" loses doesn't mean that "A" is not qualified to sit in another spot. Chances are that the 'loser' was also vetted so to speak. This black lady who reads this great blog understands the point of giving somebody else a chance. Like the qualified nobody that nobody sent. Many of the "winners" are cherry picked by the insiders who take $40K to slate, while the aldermen and committeemen back somebody else--for an additional "price", of course. But one thing I will say over and over and that is the CBAs ratings can be problematic and they have the history to prove it especially against black candidates. It's not racism but race. Truth and reality from this side.
Post a Comment