Kathy Flanagan over 60% in updated City returns

It's 60.5% with 90.32% of the votes counted (1166 out of 1291 precincts)... but 60% + 1 is all that is required.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. has moved up in the latest numbers, but is still below 60% in City returns (59.18%). Ieshia Gray is at 58.78%, while Shannon O'Malley is at 55.09%.

These races may take a while to decide. All the other retention judges appear to be likely to be retained.

Continuing to look at retention races

Judges Kathy Flanagan, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., and Shannon O'Malley are still below the 60% threshhold in City results so far (now nearly three-quarters complete, with 73.66% of the votes counted).

The only other retention candidate falling below 60% in City returns is Ieshia Gray, with a 58.34% "Yes" vote. Her 64.41% favorable vote in suburban returns brings her combined favorable percentage, for now, to 61.94%.

There are a number of judges polling in the low 60s in City returns -- but 60% + 1 is what is required, and it makes no difference if a judge squeaks by with 61% or garners 81% -- that judge is retained either way.

No retention candidate has fallen below the 60% threshhold in suburban-only returns.

A first look at retention judge results

To be retained for a new term (10 years for Appellate Court justices, 6 years for Circuit Court judges), a retention candidate must receive a better than 60% "Yes" vote.

In this brief first look, we will focus on some judges who have been targeted for removal by bar associations or other groups.
With 68.55% of City votes reported, Judge Kathy M. Flanagan has fallen below the 60% threshhold, with a 59.67% "Yes" vote. She is polling much better in the suburbs, however, with a 67.12% favorable vote. Combining the numbers gives Flanagan a 64.8% "Yes" vote. But the suburban numbers are nearly complete, and there are many more City votes to come.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is also below 60% in City voting so far -- with a 58.66% "Yes" vote. He has a 65.48% favorable vote in the suburbs, however. Combined, he has a 62.8% "Yes" vote at this hour.

Judge Shannon O'Malley has only a 54.65% favorable vote in the City of Chicago; suburban voters were more generous, giving O'Malley a 63.79% "Yes" vote. But, combined, that translates to a razor-thin 60.24% "Yes" vote.

If City votes continue to break as they have so far, O'Malley certainly, and possibly Wright and Flannagan as well, may be in danger of losing their retention bids.

More to come.

deCastro defeats Glaub in the only contested countywide judicial race

Tien H. Glaub, the only Republican candidate to run for a countywide Circuit Court seat is down to Judge Pablo F. deCastro by 270,000 votes Citywide (with about two-thirds of the votes counted) and by another 210,000 or so votes, according to suburban tallies, with about 93% of the votes counted there.

The Illinois Supreme Court appointed deCastro to the countywide Flannery vacancy this past April. At the time, he had no Republican opponent. Glaub did not run in the Republican primary; she filed for the vacancy in June.

Democratic sweep in contested judicial subcircuit elections

With over 90% of the votes already counted, 90 minutes after the polls closed, it appears that the Democratic nominees in the four contested subcircuit elections have prevailed.

The closest race is in the 18th Subcircuit, but John Hock is ahead of Lynn Terese Palac by over 4,000 votes with 94% of the votes counted (136 of 144 precincts reporting):

The margins are even larger in the three 12th Subcircuit races, where Alon Stein appears to have bested Maria McCarthy, Frank J. Andreou holds a better-than-9,000 vote margin over Pamela Curran Smith, and James "Jack" Costello is up by more than 12,000 votes over Matthew Taylor:

Only five precincts are unaccounted for in this report from the Cook County Clerk's website.

Both the 12th and 18th Subcircuits are located entirely outside the City of Chicago.

BREAKING: CBA announces "Not Recommended" Rating for Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.

The Judicial Evaulation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association has announced that it has issued a "Not Recommended" rating on Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District. The explanation of the CBA's rating has just been posted to its website. FWIW reproduces it here:

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Wright was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1977 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Wright serves as the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District.

Judge Wright has a strong record of service and an impressive career as a Cook County judge for over 30 years. However, it was concerning to the Committee that a sitting Cook County judge has had a driver’s license for over 40 years that lists a Will County address and that he obtained a homeowner’s exemption on property he owns in Will County, attesting that it was his primary residence. While Judge Wright explained that these were innocent mistakes, the Committee is concerned that his failure to comply with basic law requiring him to update his driver’s license together with his application for a homeowner’s exemption in another county suggests an intent to secure unfair gain or advantage. Judge Wright also has taken inconsistent positions with regard to his primary residence, which raises diligence issues for the Panel. While we acknowledge that Judge Wright was apologetic and remorseful, for the above stated reasons we must find him “Not Recommended” for retention.

The CBA had previously recommended a "Yes" vote on Judge Wright's retention, but that rating was pulled after Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Wright and Judge Shannon O'Malley, "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, provided evidence suggesting that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County.

The Illinois State Bar Association also issued a "Not Recommended" rating regarding Judge Wright's retention following publication of the Injustice Watch story, stating, in pertinent part, "The [Judicial Evaluation] Committee has concerns regarding his level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues."

The Chicago Council of Lawyers also expressed concern about Judge Wright's residency, ultimately deciding to recommend him for retention anyway. The Council's evaluation stated, also in pertinent part:

It was recently reported that Judge Wright claims a senior homestead tax exemption on a residence in Will County, Illinois, while maintaining residency in Cook County for purposes of meeting residency requirements to be a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Wright fully participated in the Alliance’s investigation process concerning this matter, and reported that he has corrected his tax exemption status.

Judge Wright's forthright handling of the matter, coupled with a strong history of professionalism on the bench, leads the Council to find him Qualified for retention.

Some voters may wonder why it is such a big deal where a judge lives.

The answer? It is a big deal because the Illinois Constituion makes it a big deal. There is a residency requirement specified in Section 11 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution. This section provides, in pertinent part (emphasis mine):

No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit which selects him.

Section 12(a) of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution states, in pertinent part, "A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions."

Failure to abide by these provisions can disqualify a person from judicial service. For example, when it was discovered that a judge lied about where he lived, falsely claiming to live in Cook County's 10th Judicial Subcircuit, in his parents' house, when in fact he and his family lived in the western suburbs, the failure to comply with these constitutional requirements was one of the bases cited by the Illinois Courts Commission in its decision removing that judge from the bench. See, In re Golniewicz, 02 CC 01, 4 Ill. Cts. Com. 9 (2004).

The Illinois Supreme Court later cited Golniewicz in Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011). Chris Ward wanted to run for judge in the 4th Subcircuit of the 12th Judicial Circuit (Will County). But, while he was a Will County resident, when he filed his nominating papers, he was not in fact a resident of the 4th Subcircuit. Therefore, the court held, that he was not eligible to have his name put on the ballot (241 Ill.2d at 412-12) (empahses in original):

Pursuant to section 12, eligibility for judicial office is therefore a prerequisite to running for that office. Under section 11, eligibility requires that one be a "resident of the unit which selects him" Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §11. While there may be contexts in which the language of article VI, section 11, is "arguably ambiguous" (Thies v. State Board of Elections, 124 Ill. 2d 317, 323, 529 N.E.2d 565, 124 Ill. Dec. 584 (1988)), the situation presented by this case is not among them. Giving sections 11 and 12 their plain and ordinary meaning, it is therefore clear that under our 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. See Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 514 n.3, 911 N.E.2d 979, 331 Ill. Dec. 749 (2009). If they are not residents, they are simply ineligible to run. If they attempt to run when they do not meet the constitutionally mandated residency requirement and manage to win the election, they will be subject to removal from office by the Illinois Courts Commission. In re Golniewicz, 4 Ill. Cts. Com 9, 39-40 (2004).

In addition to the ISBA and, now, the CBA, Judge Wright has also been found Not Recommended for retention by LAGBAC, Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association.

On the other hand, at last report, in addition to the Chicago Council of Lawyers, the following members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening did recommend a "Yes" vote for Judge Wright: the Arab American Bar Association, the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area, the Black Men Lawyers’ Association, the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, the Cook County Bar Association, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois, the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois.

Resources for Cook County judicial voters

Bumped up for greater visibility and revised 11/4

Cook County voters will have a say in the election of five new judges this November, one countywide, three in the north suburban 12th subciruit, and one in the suburban 18th subcircuit. (Scroll down for links on specific contested races.)

Technically, there are many more Cook County judicial vacancies that will be filled when the results of this election are certified, but there are no contests for any of these vacancies. All of these, including a new jusitice of the Illinois Supreme Court and four justices of the Illinois Appellate Court, were chosen by voters in the Democratic Primary in March and are now running unopposed.

But Cook County judicial voters do get to determine whether 78 local jurists get to remain on the bench. Two Appellate Court justices are seeking new 10-year terms and 76 Circuit Court judges are asking voters to retain them for new 6-year terms. (Well... 75, actually, but there are 76 names on the ballot. Let's not confuse things more than we have to.)

That's a lot of judges.

Voters may glaze over, just a bit, at the 'bedsheet ballot' for retention judges. If you are one of these, allow me to let you in on a deep, dark secret: We lawyers tend to glaze over on the retention ballot, too.

Here's why: The busiest lawyer will not have appeared before every retention judge. Our lawyers, our judges, and our courts are too specialized in Cook County for that to ever happen. And even if the busiest lawyer has appeared before many, he or she will have appeared before some on too few occasions to form any reasonable opinion of those judges' fitness for another term.

To responsibly exercise our franchise, even us lawyers need help. We rely on our brothers and sisters on the many bar association Judicial Evaluation Committees to gather information and form opinions on those judges we do not ourselves know.

The Chicago Bar Association and the 13 bar groups that together comprise the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening conduct separate investigations on retention judges, including contacting attorneys that the judges have identified as appearing before them. The Alliance groups conduct joint investigations and hearings, but each bar group forms, and expresses, its own opinion about each judge. Some bar groups provide written explanations of their findings; most do not. While the bar groups consider the same information, not all always reach the same conclusions about the merits of particular judges.

Thus, particularly where there are differences of opinion among the bar groups, lawyers, just like non-lawyer voters, have to make up their own minds.

And lawyers, just like everyone else, have to cast about for other sources of information that may be persuasive. (Gosh, I hope I won't get in trouble with the Guild for spilling these secrets....)

One type of resource that a lot of us rely on -- besides asking our friends who have practices that bring them before judges we don't usually get to see -- or the Retention Judges' own website -- are the opinions of non-lawyers that spend a lot of time in courtrooms -- think police and reporters.

This doesn't mean we necessarily agree with what these worthies may think -- I am certain that some people scour the FOP endorsements carefully to make sure they don't accidentally vote for someone that the police union likes. On the other hand, other people may carefully consider the Girl, I Guess Guide to make certain that they don't vote for someone that the guide endorses. People are often contrary critters. (And what happens when the FOP and the Girl, I Guess Guide agree that a particular candidate is good... or bad... is there any danger of explosion?)

The interactive Injustice Watch Check Your Judges Guide is a valuable and increasingly influential resource for voters -- lawyers included -- seeking information in judicial elections. This year, just as the bar groups were releasing, or about to release, their retention candidate evaluations, On October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Judges Shannon O'Malley and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, makes the case that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County. (My column about the controversy is here, if you're interested.)

The story threw a monkey wrench into the plans of the various JECs. The CBA pulled its initial favorable ratings of Wright and O'Malley; it has since issued a negative rating on O'Malley (story to come). The Injustice Watch disclosures were cited in the narrative evaluations issued by the Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Illinois State (links follow).

Injustice Watch is not the only publication regularly covering the courts. The focus of CWBChicago's reporting is also on the criminal courts.

This year, for the first time, CWBChicago made a specific endorsement in a retention race (asking for a 'no' vote on the retention of Judge Carol Howard). Voters may find this collection of CWBChicago articles helpful in evaluating other judges on the retention ballot.

Now here's where things get a bit circular. Injustice Watch reports all the bar ratings. FWIW reports all the bar ratings. VoteForJudges.org reports all the bar ratings. We all link to each other. Charlie Meyerson's Chicago Public Square Voter Guide Guide (not a typo - it's a guide to voter guides) also links to bar recommendations, Injustice Watch, and Girl, I Guess.

Visit some or all of these to reassure yourself that you've got all the relevant and available information... but, in addition, check out these prior FWIW posts which you may also find useful:

Prior FWIW articles on the 2024 Retention Election:

• Seventy-seven of 78 Cook County jurists recommended for retention by the Chicago Bar Association (but, see also, CBA reconsiders O'Malley rating; Wright rating still "Pending" as of Saturday, Nov. 2 and BREAKING: CBA announces "Not Recommended" Rating for Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.);
• Chicago Council of Lawyers finds 12 Cook County jurists Well Qualified for retention;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers finds four Cook County judges "Not Qualified" for retention;
• ISBA releases narrative explanations of its ratings of Cook County judicial retention candidates;
• A small change in the Alliance retention grids from yesterday....; and
• On the judicial retention ballot, the default vote should be "yes".

Prior FWIW articles on 2024 contested Cook County judicial races

• Organizing the Data: Countywide Flannery vacancy;
• Organizing the Data: 18th Subcircuit - Converted from Associate Judgeship of Linn;
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Dickler vacancy;
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Quinn vacancy; and
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Schleifer vacancy.

Why you might want to consider voting the ballot from the bottom up

Yes, I know: All eyes are supposed to be on Pennsylvania now, and Michigan, and Nevada and North Carolina, too. Maybe even Iowa and Arizona. I don't know who could actually keep their eyes on all those widely-scattered places, all at the same time. Marty Feldman perhaps?

But, as a practical matter, the person ultimately elected as POTUS will have far less actual influence in most of our lives than the persons we are about to elect (or retain) as judges, or the persons we will elect to the General Assembly or as members of the Chicago School Board.

Look at it this way: You will probably never get invited to a State Dinner at the White House, but you may get a speeding ticket. One of your wayward relations may get pinched for vandalism. Someone may fall on your sidewalk and sue you; you will certainly pay property taxes. That was why the late Avy Meyers used to say it was so important to pay attention to the races at the bottom of the ballot, to the point of voting the ballot from the bottom up. I suggest this idea is equally valid today as it was in Avy's lifetime.

I've recently read and re-Tweeted a couple of long threads on X about "subsidiarity," a nice 25-cent word that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines as "a principle in social organization holding that functions which are performed effectively by subordinate or local organizations belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization." In other words, it is a principle which suggests that decision making is best done on the most local level possible. Apparently (and maybe all of you knew this already, but I didn't) "subsidiarity" has a long, important history in Catholic social teaching, too.

There weren't many Catholics in America at the time of the Revolution, but the patriots' rallying cry of "No Taxation Without Representation" sounds to me like an application of this principle of subsidiarity: Each of the Colonies had their own legislatures to raise revenues for local needs; but the Colonies objected vociferously, and, ultimately, violently, to decisions about their defense and boundaries and obligations being made in London where the Colonists had only lobbyists to advance their interests. (Ben Franklin worked in London for many years as an agent of several Colonies, for example.)

And, if decisions are best taken at the most local level possible, voters should naturally be more concerned with their local leaders that with those who would strut and fret upon the national stage. That sounds suspiciously like what Avy Meyers used to say and, of course, Avy wasn't Catholic either.

If we were more focused on selecting the best possible candidates on the local level, maybe we'd have better candidates to choose from at higher rungs on the cursus honorum as well.

I can dream, can't I?

CBA Symphony Orchestra & Chorus concert set for November 9

The Chicago Bar Association Symphony Orchestra & Chorus will present two pieces in concert next Saturday evening, November 9, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., at St. James Cathedral, 65 E. Huron St.

The first of these will be the "Requiem in D Minor," by 19th Century Brazilian composer José Maurício Nunes Garcia. Stephen Blackwelder, the Director of the Chicago Bar Association Chorus, will conduct. Featured vocal soloists are Kristina Bachrach, soprano; Leah Dexter, mezzo; Klaus Georg, tenor; and Bill McMurray, baritone.

The second piece will be Dvorak's Symphony No. 8. Jennifer Huang, the CBASO Music Director, will conduct.

Tickets for the concert are $15 each; students 18 or younger or law students will be admitted for $10 each. Tickets are available at this Eventbrite link (note that there is a service charge for tickets). Tickets will also be available at the door on the evening of the performance. These will cost $20 each, for adults, and $15 each for qualifying students.

CBA reconsiders O'Malley rating; Wright rating still "Pending" as of Saturday, Nov. 2

By now, everyone who regularly follows Cook County judicial elections knows that, on October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Judges Shannon O'Malley and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, makes the case that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County. (My column about the controversy is here, if you haven't already read it.)

That phrase -- "everyone who regularly follows" -- translates, I realize, to only a small percentage of the electorate. The Injustice Watch story got significant coverage beyond our little "Everyone Who Regularly Follows" community, thanks to that publication's partnerships with other, broader-based outlets like the Chicago Sun-Times (which republished the story).

For us here in the EWRF community, the story about the Injustice Watch article was the impact of that article on the just-released or just-about-to-be-released ratings of the Chicago Bar Association and the 13-member Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening.

That's a difficult story to properly report because judicial candidate evaluations are confidential -- and should be confidential. We can report when a rating is 'pulled' or when a rating is changed or, when as happened here, two bar associations that release narrative explanations of all their retention judge ratings, the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, refer to the Injustice Watch reporting in their evaluations.

For what it's worth, after consideration of the residency issues raised by Injustice Watch, the ISBA and CCL reached different conclusions about whether Judge Wright should be retained. The Council recommends a "Yes" vote on Judge Wright, stating, in pertinent part:

It was recently reported that Judge Wright claims a senior homestead tax exemption on a residence in Will County, Illinois, while maintaining residency in Cook County for purposes of meeting residency requirements to be a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Wright fully participated in the Alliance’s investigation process concerning this matter, and reported that he has corrected his tax exemption status.

Judge Wright's forthright handling of the matter, coupled with a strong history of professionalism on the bench, leads the Council to find him Qualified for retention.

On the other hand, the ISBA recommends a "No" vote on Judge Wright, stating, again in pertinent part, "The [Judicial Evaluation] Committee has concerns regarding his level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues."

Both the Council and the ISBA issued negative evaluations regarding Judge O'Malley's retention; the Injustice Watch report is not specifically mentioned in either of their narratives. On its website, however, the CCL that it "takes no position on the question of Judge O’Malley’s residency because we are recommending against his retention for judicial performance reasons."

The Chicago Bar Association had issued "Yes" recommendations for both O'Malley and Wright just as the Injustice Watch story was breaking. Soon after the Injustice Watch story was published, the CBA ratings on Wright and O'Malley were pulled. Visitors to the CBA website -- e.g. prospective voters seeking the guidance of the oldest, and, arguably, the most broadly based local bar group -- would find that the ratings for O'Malley and Wright had been changed to "PENDING."

The CBA's rating on O'Malley was updated over a week ago. Now the CBA recommends a "No" vote on O'Malley and, as it did with the only other negative recommendation it has so far given on a retention judge, issued an explanation of its finding. This is the CBA's explanation on O'Malley:

Judge Shannon O’Malley has been found “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge O’Malley was admitted to practice law in 1992. He was in private practice prior to becoming a Judge in 2018 and being assigned to the First Municipal District. In May 2019, Judge O’Malley was transferred to the Child Protection Division where he currently presides.

Judge O’Malley did not seem to understand the seriousness of the issues raised by the Committee, answering with flip responses. Judge O’Malley blamed others for his assertion, for tax purposes, that his principal residence is in Will County while, for election purposes, saying he resides in Cook County. His responses to the Committee’s questions were short, vague, and evasive. The Committee found Judge O’Malley’s credibility severely lacking and his integrity highly questionable. His prior criminal history and sheer number of ARDC complaints are also very concerning. Significant concerns were also raised regarding Judge O’Malley’s lack of knowledge of the law, diligence, case and courtroom management, and legal ability. While the Committee appreciated his candor about his lack of excellence, he seems satisfied to be “not bad.” These reasons resulted in Judge O’Malley’s “Not Recommended” finding.

The reference to "prior criminal history and sheer number of ARDC complaints" in Judge O'Malley's evaluation is very concerning for me, inasmuch as I can find no indication that Judge O'Malley has ever been disciplined by the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission or that he is the subject of any pending disciplinary proceedings stemming from his time in private practice. Nor do I find reference in my archives, or in an (admittedly not exhaustive) online search today, to any prior criminal proceedings regarding Judge O'Malley under that name or the name by which he was formerly known, Phillip Spiwak.

Though I never served as a judge, I did subject myself to bar association screenings on several occasions over many years in my futile efforts to become a judge. From that experience, I can state that prospective judges are required to report disciplinary episodes in their past that may not have resulted in any public discipline. We also must sign consent forms, allowing the bar groups access to ARDC records concerning matters that never became a matter of public charges -- you know, just in case we 'forgot' to mention something. This is because ARDC proceedings are confidential unless and until public charges are brought, so this is the only way bar evaluators can get the full disciplinary picture. I assume judges seeking retention are expected to make similar disclosures.

I also understand that criminal defense attorneys in private practice, as Spiwak was before his name change and ascension to the bench, draw a disproportionate number of disciplinary complaints that the ARDC finds unfounded or insufficient to pursue. So, without context or explanation, but as an almost gratuitous aside, this is not the sort of thing I would expect to find in a JEC finding ever. The residency allegations alone are sufficient, and substantive, and, if true, disqualifying. So it concerns me that these other vague, unexplained references were included.

But -- put all that aside -- I have been 'sitting' on the CBA's new statement regarding Judge O'Malley for some days now, expecting that it would be shortly followed, for better or worse, by a new statement regarding Judge Wright. But here is a screenshot of the CBA's website taken this morning (just after 10:30 a.m.):

This is written on Saturday, November 2. Although it may seem like it will never get here, Election Day is this coming Tuesday, November 5. What help or hindrance the CBA's recommendation may be for Judge Wright at this stage diminishes with each passing hour.

When the CBA issues any statement, I will have it here as soon as possible.

A small change in the Alliance retention grids from yesterday....

A small change, yes, but to a retention judge this close to Election Day, an important one.

The updated grids issued by the 13-member Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening will follow in a minute, but for those who'd rather not squint, I can save you some trouble: The Black Men Lawyers’ Association has withdrawn its recommendation that voters vote 'No' on the question of whether Judge Lisa Ann Marino should be retained... and replaced it with a 'not evaluated through no fault of the candidate' rating.

Readers will hopefully remember, from past grid posts, that some Alliance groups, for specific judges, have recommended neither (Y)es nor (N)o. A couple of these squares have a symbol "¹" instead of a Y or N. That means that the particular group was unable to complete its evaluation of that candidate through no fault of the candidate. It is a little odd that the BMLA thought it had completed its evaluation of Judge Marino, only to decide, after announcing a negative recommendation, that it really had not been able to complete its evaluation after all. Readers must understand, however, that each Alliance member has its own rules and criteria for evaluating candidates, some perhaps more formal than others. The BMLA, like most bar groups, does not issue narrative explanations of its ratings -- and no bar association that I know of issues any sort of explanation as to how or why it determined that it was unable to complete its evaluation.

What we can do report the change when it is made, which we have done.

There will be more changes to the Alliance grid: There are also a few squares that are simply empty -- blank. That means that an evaluation of that candidate has not yet been released by the group in question. Election Day is this coming Tuesday.

With that preface, then, herewith the most recently updated Alliance grids. Click on the grid if necessary, to clarify or enlarge the image:

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association, Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area, Black Men Lawyers’ Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Cook County Bar Association, Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois, Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, Illinois State Bar Association, Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association, and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois, working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

Updated Alliance retention grids now available

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial screening has released updated 'grids' showing the members' varying recommendations on jurists seeking retention in this year's general election.

As you look at the grids, reproduced below, you will note that some groups, for specific judges, have recommended neither (Y)es nor (N)o. A couple of these squares have a symbol "¹" instead of a Y or N. That means that the particular group was unable to complete an evaluation of that candidate through no fault of the candidate. There are also a few squares that are simply empty -- blank. That means that an evaluation of that candidate has not yet been released by the group in question.

With that preface, then, herewith the updated Alliance grids. Click on the grid if necessary, to clarify or enlarge the image:

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association, Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area, Black Men Lawyers’ Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Cook County Bar Association, Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois, Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, Illinois State Bar Association, Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association, and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois, working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

CBA to host Nov. 7 reception celebrating 3rd Annual Civic Education Appreciation Awards

The Chicago Bar Association will honor its 2024 Lawyers in the Classroom honorees at a reception on Thursday, November 7, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., at the CBA Building, 321 S. Plymouth Ct.

The honorees and the schools where the honorees have volunteered are:

• Baker Hostetler - Skinner North Classical


• Cook County State's Attorney's Office - Markham - Prairie Hills Junior High


• Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. - Barton Elementary

There is no charge to attend this reception, but reservations are required. Click on www.chicagobar.org/LICawards to register.

Prospective attendees are warned, of course, that the sponsors are hoping to encourage more attorneys to participate in, or otherwise support, the Lawyers in the Classroom Program. I didn't really need to mention that, did I?

There's a question we must ask as we endure another overlong Election Season: Why?

Whoever does the X-posting for the Illinois State Board of Elections (@illinoissbe) does a really good job. If you follow me on X (f/k/a Twitter) you will see that, in recent days, I have been regularly retweeting ISBE elction posts. This one for instance:

The election is just around the corner—12 days to go! 📅 Check out these important deadlines to ensure your voice is counted. Every vote matters! 🗳️ #ElectionReady #election2024 pic.twitter.com/UqsomZpeqI

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 24, 2024

Or this one:

Prepare to be patient—this election may take days to determine. Some states count mail-in ballots after Election Day, and around half allow voters to fix issues post-election. Don't forget the 'Red Mirage/Blue Shift'—results can shift dramatically as mail-in ballots are counted. pic.twitter.com/JX7yqtkCgV

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 24, 2024

Or this one:

Curious about how the news declares a winner before official results? 🗳️ They look at historical data, mail-in voting trends, and exit polls to make educated guesses! Remember, results aren't official until certified! 📊 #ElectionAnalysis #VoteWisely pic.twitter.com/TqInd5BpdW

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 16, 2024

Or, finally, this last example (promise, there are more):

The election results you see on the news and the election authority's website on the night of the election are not official. Keep in mind that the results displayed on these sites are unofficial and may be updated until official results are certified on December 2, 2024. pic.twitter.com/cSIRdAceeZ

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 10, 2024

A couple of things to keep in mind looking at these posts, particularly the three immediately above: First, the ISBE is not wrong. Under the laws currently in effect, it is going to take some time to collect and count all the votes cast in this general election. Second, the ISBE is not responsible for these laws. The General Assembly is. The ISBE and the many local election authorities (in Cook County, we have the Cook County Clerk, who is responsible for the suburban elections, and the Chicago Board of Elections) are charged with implementing the laws and effectuating the intent of the legislature.

Because of our laws, Election Day has morphed into Election Season:

The ISBE has posted information about how election officials are supposed to maintain the integrity of the process. Here are a couple of illustrative posts:

Election judges are on the lookout! 🗳️ They receive a roster of voters who have voted early or requested mail-in ballots to ensure fair play. If you have a mail-in ballot but want to vote in person, don’t forget to hand it over at the polling place first! #ElectionIntegrity pic.twitter.com/3KBUB8gvX2

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 10, 2024

Interested in learning more about how the voting process works? Explore trusted resources like your state election office or local officials to get the facts. Let’s empower ourselves to vote confidently! #NationalVoterEducationWeek #election2024 pic.twitter.com/mRgF2ILpzF

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 10, 2024

Engaging in mail-in voting fraud is illegal and also involves a complicated series of actions, such as intercepting ballots and forging signatures. Election officials have robust measures in place to protect the integrity of the voting process, making such fraud nearly impossible pic.twitter.com/jVuApa5Per

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 11, 2024

But questions about election integrity will arise when the results aren't (and can't) be known for a long time after the polls close. We should know who won and who lost within hours after the polls close... and we won't. It is entirely appropriate for the election authorities to try and educate, and reassure, the public about the many safeguards in place. It is also a losing battle... and not just in Illinois, where we have all heard stories of election shenanigans (some of them quite amusing) since we were little children. And I say this fully believing that elections here are much better run, and much more fairly run, than they were some decades ago.

So I applaud the education efforts of the election authorities. I appreciate them. But there will be suspicions and rumors no matter what. These will smolder in some corners of the Internet -- and every hour's worth of delay in getting results operates as oxygen, increasing the risk that these rumors and suspicions will burst into flame.

So now I have a question: Why is this necessary? Why is it necessary to have such a long, drawn-out election season, particularly one that may not end, as a practical matter, for as much as a week or more after the polls close?

Section 17-15(a) of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, "Any person entitled to vote at a general or special election or at any election at which propositions are submitted to a popular vote in this State, shall, on the day of such election, be entitled to absent himself from any services or employment in which he is then engaged or employed, for a period of 2 hours between the time of opening and closing the polls; and such voter shall not because of so absenting himself be liable to any penalty...."

There are a few conditions that apply: The voter must ask in advance. The employer can specify when, during the shift, the voter can go. But the employer can not dock the voter for voting.

And, of course, on Election Day, the polls open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 7:00 p.m. -- and all those standing in line when the clock strikes 7:00 are also permitted to vote. So most people should be able to vote on Election Day, before or after work. That much should be obvious.

On the other hand, those of us who have lived here all our lives remember how L trains once developed technical difficulties during the evening rush on a mayoral election day, but only trains headed in certain areas of the City.

And some people work in professions where long days are the norm: Health professionals, perhaps, or firefighters. Maybe not all police officers on most shifts, but detectives can often get tied up for unexpectedly long times. It happens to lawyers sometimes, too.

For all of these and more, some form of early voting might make sense. But more than a month? Now, as a practical matter, our early voting in Cook County starts later than that and opens up to more sites only gradually. Voting in each of Chicago's 50 wards did not start until October 21. That's 15 days for wide early voting, not counting Election Day.

Doesn't that seem like about 8-10 days too many? Surely a motivated person, even though busy and working in a time-demanding occupation, should be able to find an hour or two to go vote in the week before Election Day, right?

And provision is made -- and should be made -- for hospitalized persons and persons who are housebound.

Persons living overseas have until October 28 to request a ballot. Why? Would people overseas not know that there's an election upcoming in the United States? (And, if there were possible, should those people really be voting here?)

Time is ticking! ⏰ Don't miss your chance to request a vote by mail ballot. The deadline is next Thursday, October 31st! Get yours here: https://t.co/dLJBLNDBrN 🗳️ #VoteByMail #Election2024 #MakeYourVoiceHeard pic.twitter.com/T1ymuIXCpG

— Illinois SBE (@illinoissbe) October 25, 2024

People right here in Illinois can wait until October 31 to request a vote by mail ballot.

Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you thusly: The problem is not VBM per se. The problem is that large numbers of VBM ballots will come in after the polls close since they can be mailed up to and including on Election Day. Anyone who might request a VBM ballot today could also take themselves to an early voting site.

If I were proposing policy, I'd suggest that VBM ballots must be returned, postmarked seven days before Election Day (this year, by October 29). That way, the vast majority of VBM ballots would be in place, ready to be counted, when the polls close on Election Night.

The outcome of the national election -- for instance -- for good or for ill -- would be known on Election Night.

As it should be.

But that's not the way it will work this year. Or for the foreseeable future.

The response to any proposal to curb this expansion of voting season is that any reforms amount to "voter suppression." But why? The burden of persuasion should rest on those who wish to drag out the election, despite the rumors and innuendoes and fear-mongering that arise when the polls have been closed for several hours and the result is still uncertain.

But don't blame the election authorities for the forthcoming uncertainty. The election authorities are doing the best they can with the terrible laws our legislators have given them.

We should demand better, here and around the country.

Organizing the Data: Countywide Flannery vacancy

There are only five judicial vacancies on the Cook County ballot this November in which voters have any choice whatsoever. All of the other races were decided in the March Democratic primary. Four of the contested races are in the 12th and 18th Subcircuits. This post looks at the candidates for the only contested countywide vacancy.

We didn't know that this would be a contested vacancy during the primary season. The Republican candidate was appointed by the Republican party and filed paperwork on June 3. There were no objections filed against the candidate.

Candidates are listed in punch number order. This year, that means the Democratic candidate is listed before the Republican candidate.

This post may be updated with new, additional, or corrected information, as it becomes available.

One final note: Each candidate may have endorsements from persons or groups not shown below. These are typically found on the candidate's websites. FWIW only publishes endorsements that it can independently verify.

Pablo F. deCastro - #76

Campaign Website

Pablo F. deCastro: In his own words

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Pursuant to section 34 of The Chicago Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee’s Governing Resolution, The Executive Committee has voted to issue a “Qualified” rating for Pablo F. DeCastro’s current Circuit Court Judge candidacy.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Pablo F. deCastro was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1994. Since 2012, he has been a solo practitioner in the Law offices of Pablo deCastro, where he focuses on criminal defense. He also handled criminal defense cases as a partner at Rascia and deCastro (2007-2012) and as an associate attorney at Serpico, Novelle, Petrosino and Rascia (2000-2012). Previously (1994-2000), he had been an Assistant Public Defender in the Office of the Cook County Public Defender. He is a member of numerous bar associations and legal societies, including the American Bar Association, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Criminal Justice Act Panel, and the Northern District of Illinois Criminal Justice Act Panel, where he serves on the Attorney Selection Panel.

Mr. deCastro is considered to have good legal ability and to be a zealous advocate for his clients. He is praised for his temperament and is active in pro bono matters. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Mr. Pablo deCastro has been licensed since 1994. Since 2012 he has been a sole practitioner focusing on criminal defense. From 1994-2000 he was an assistant public defender, and before opening his own practice he was in the private sector also focusing on criminal defense. He has substantial criminal jury trial experience and civil bench trials as well as federal experience. He teaches at the University of Chicago Law School Intensive Trial Practice program, is a member of several bar associations, and currently serves on the Panel Attorney Selection Committee for the Federal Defender’s Office Panel Attorney Program.

Respondents generally described him as being very smart and capable, a zealous advocate who knows the rules of evidence. He is known to be very committed to diversity, professional and calm. ISBA finds Pablo F. deCastro qualified to be elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Men Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Qaulified

Chicago's LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC): Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Federation of Labor
AMVOTE PAC
Teamsters Joint Council No. 25
Teamsters Local 700
IBEW Local 134
IUOE Local 399
Girl, I Guess
Personal PAC

------------------------------------------------------

Tien H. Glaub - #76

Campaign Website


The Chicago Bar Association says:

Pursuant to section 34, rule 27.4 of The Chicago Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee’s Governing Resolution, The Executive Committee has voted that Tien H. Glaub’s prior finding of NOT RECOMMENDED shall stand.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Tien H. Glaub did not participate in the judicial evaluation. The Council finds her Not Recommended

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Not Recommended

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Not Recommended

Black Men Lawyers' Association: Not Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Not Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Not Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Not Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

Chicago's LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC): Not Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

ISBA releases narrative explanations of its ratings of Cook County judicial retention candidates

The Illinois State Bar Association has published explanations for its ratings of Cook County judicial retention candidates on the Cook County Judicial Evaluations page of its website. You'll have to scroll down through the mostly uncontested races for judicial vacancies to reach them, but all of them, positive and negative alike, are there.

The ISBA has recommended a 'yes' vote for 73 of the Cook County jurists seeking retention this year. Five Circuit Court judges, however, were not recommended. In this post we will look at these five and what the ISBA had to say about each of them. In ballot order, then, the ISBA has recommended 'no' votes as to:

Kathy M. Flanagan

Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1979. She was elected to the circuit court in 1988 and has been retained five times since. In November of 2023 she was named Acting Presiding Judge of the Law Division. She has been assigned to the Law Division – Motions Section since 1992 and in 2011 was named a supervising judge in that section. Prior to her election she had been in private practice. She has been a panelist on legal matters and has spoken to law students.

Attorneys complimented her legal knowledge and ability, and described her as impartial, diligent and punctual. A majority, however, raised concerns about her temperament and demeanor, stating they had seen her act unprofessionally, impatiently and temperamentally. The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge Kathy M. Flanagan not qualified for retention to the Circuit Court of Cook County for the 2024 General Election.

E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.

Hon. E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1977. He was both appointed and elected to the circuit court in 1994 and has been retained four times. Prior to his assignment, he had been in private practice. Since 2003 he has served as the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District in charge of both civil and criminal courtrooms. Prior to this assignment he had served in Probate and First Municipal. He has been a speaker on legal topics to community groups, the Illinois Judges Association and other bar groups; he has also written for the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association. He is a past president of the Chicago Bar Association and has continued to be a committee member. He has been a Board of Governors and Assembly member for the Illinois State Bar Association, and a committee chair for the Illinois Judges Association. In addition, he sits on Supreme Court committees and is an editorial board member for the CBA Record and is a past president for the Center for Conflict Resolution.

Attorneys praised his legal knowledge and ability, especially given the demands of his administrative duties. He is a patient demeanor, is diligent and fair. The Committee has concerns regarding his level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues. The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. not qualified for retention to the Circuit Court of Cook County for the 2024 General Election.

Lisa Ann Marino

Hon. Lisa Ann Marino was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1988. She was elected to the circuit court in 2012 and retained in 2018. She is currently assigned to the First Municipal District – Housing Section with a dual assignment in the Foreclosure Section of the Chancery Division. Prior to her election, she had been a private practitioner handling real estate matters, and as an assistant state’s attorney. She is the Vice President of the Illinois Italian American Judges Association and has served on committees for the Justinian Society, and is also a member of other bar associations and judicial groups. She has received a number of awards including the Gerald L. Sbarboro Leadership in Mentoring Awards from the Justinian Society in 2011 and the Joseph Cardinal Bernardin Humanitarian Award from the Joint Civil Committee of Italian Americans in 2017.

Attorneys reported that she treats all parties equally and appears to be sensitive to diversity issues. A majority did raise concerns over her courtroom management skills and with the extent of her legal knowledge and ability. The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge Lisa Ann Marino not qualified for retention to the Circuit Court of Cook County for the 2024 General Election.

Ieshia Gray

Hon. Ieshia Gray was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2002. She was elected to the circuit court in 2018. Since December 2021 she has been assigned to the Sixth Municipal District (Markham) where she primarily presides over civil protection orders, after prior assignment hearing civil matters in the Fourth Municipal District (Maywood) and in Traffic. In July of 2024, she was also appointed the presiding judge of the Sauk Village Restorative Justice Community Court and is also helping establish a mediation program for cases involving civil protection orders. Prior to her election she had been an assistant public defender. She has been a speaker and panelist for the Illinois Judicial College and for the Illinois State Bar Association and is a member of various bar and judicial organizations.

Most attorneys contacted during the investigation stated that she had good legal knowledge and ability and is sensitive to diversity and the best interests of children. A majority, however, did have concerns over her temperament, diligence and work ethic. The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge Ieshia Gray not qualified for retention to the Circuit Court of Cook County for the 2024 General Election.

Shannon O'Malley

Hon. Shannon Phillip O’Malley was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1992. He was elected to the circuit court in 2018 and has been assigned to Child Protection since 2019. Prior to his election, he was a private practitioner with a general practice, at first under the name Philip Spiwak, then under the name Shannon O’Malley after a name change in 2012. He has served on a committee for the Illinois Judges Association, is a member of various bar and judicial groups, and reports supporting local community groups.

Attorneys praised his temperament and described him as respectful to all parties. They gave mixed reports on his legal knowledge, with some stating it was adequate but not great, and others describing it as inadequate. The also raised concerns over his courtroom management skills, which, at time, causes cases to be delayed for long periods of time. The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge Shannon O’Malley not qualified for retention to the Circuit Court of Cook County for the 2024 General Election.

A first look at the Alliance retention grids

The grids aren't done yet -- as you look at the grids below you will see a number of asterisks. These show where evaluations are still pending. Updates will be posted when available.

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association, Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area, Black Men Lawyers’ Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Cook County Bar Association, Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois, Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, Illinois State Bar Association, Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association, and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois, working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

DSF scholarship deadline is October 31

The Diversity Scholarship Foundation has announced that all applications for its annual scholarships must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 31.

Individuals who receive scholarships must attend the DSF Unity Award Gala (date to be determined, but probably in January 2025) or forfeit the award.

All rules and regulations regarding the DSF scholarships can be found at this page of the DSF website.

The DSF has also announced that, in the Spring of 2025, it will partner with the Public Interest Law Initiative to provide a paid internship for a for a deserving law student. The application period for this internship began today, October 15. Application forms and pertinent information regarding this opportunity can be found on the PILI website at pili.org/apply.

While, presumably, most FWIW readers are no longer personally concerned with scholarships or internships, readers may know persons, perhaps in their own households, who might or should be interested. Be advised accordingly.

FOP recommends 'no' vote for 10 Cook County jurists seeking retention

Updated 10/15/24 and 10/21/24 to provide corrected FOP list

The Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7 has made its endorsements for the November election. The entire endorsement list appears as a pop-up on top of the front page of the FOP website.

The FOP has made endorsements in many... but not all... Cook County judicial retention races. To be specific, the FOP has encouraged 'yes' votes for 46 of the 78 jurists on the ballot, 'no' votes for 10, and makes no mention of the 22 other judges seeking retention.

Those drawing negative recommendations from the union representing the Chicago Police rank and file are Appellate Justice David W. Ellis and Circuit Court Judges Carol M. Howard, Ramon Ocasio III, Erica L. Reddick, John H. Ehrlich, Michael Tully Mullen, Peter Michael Gonzalez, Lindsay Huge, James "Jamie" Shapiro, and Arthur Wesley Willis.

By making this list, Judge Mullen earns a unique distinction -- the FOP urges a vote against him, as do the authors of the strongly anti-police Girl, I Guess voters guide. (Question No. 1 in the Girl, I Guess criteria for evaluating judicial candidates is "Are you a cop?") I have no inside information on this, but I strongly suspect that drawing a negative recommendation from these diametically opposed groups is not a distinction that Judge Mullen would have voluntarily sought.

In the post linked in the preceding paragraph, I suggested that the basis of the negative Girl, I Guess recommendation came, at least in part, from Judge Mullen's ruling in a case involving the FOP. Injustice Watch made mention of this case in its summary regarding Judge Mullen:

Mullen has presided over an ongoing legal battle between the city of Chicago and the Fraternal Order of Police over whether most serious Chicago police disciplinary cases can be decided through closed-door arbitration. In March, he ruled that police officers could have serious disciplinary cases heard by arbitrators instead of the Chicago Police Board, but those hearings needed to be open to the public. The city and union have yet to agree on a new structure for arbitration hearings.

In 2017, Mullen dismissed a case brought by former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn calling for the Chicago Board of Education to be transformed into an elected body rather than a body appointed by the mayor. Mullen ruled that mayoral control of the board does not violate the voting rights of Chicago residents.

Girl, I Guess may have been upset by the second cited ruling, too; we can't know for certain because Girl, I Guess did not explain any of its ratings, positive or negative, except for four 'super nos.' Of course, the FOP does not explain its ratings of judicial candidates either. But I will go out on a limb here and guess that the FOP was not overly concerned with the school board ruling cited by Injustice Watch.

I venture no opinion about the merits of Judge Mullen's ruling. But I will suggest that, in general, being a good judge doesn't mean making everyone happy (except, perhaps, in adoption cases) or even making one side happy and one side sad. Sometimes following where the law leads, as the Code of Judicial Conduct requires, 'unswayed by public clamor or fear of criticism' (Rule 2.4), and "without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question" (Rule 2.2, comment [2]), may leave everyone unhappy. It happens.

Without further preface, then, herewith the FOP's judicial endorsements (initially taken from the pages of its October newsletter, but, as a reader pointed out after this article first appeared, there was a discrepancy between the newsletter and the pop-up on the FOP website, a couple of pages from the pop-up have now been substituted):

Chicago Votes Voters Guide tracks Injustice Watch evaluations of retention hopefuls

What is Chicago Votes, you ask?

It descirbes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans."

The group's "About Us" page elaborates:

We bring together young, driven Chicagoans who are ready to get their hands dirty and learn the grassroots basics of our democracy. Want to learn how to organize large-scale volunteer events (we got ya!), oversee a massive voter registration drive (you bet!), throw an awesome panel/debate/conference (who doesn’t?) We’re committed to educating, training, and empowering the next generation of Chicagoans and have designed our programs to act as springboards for young leaders to enter the life of political and public service.

The group touts its voter registration drives at Cook County Jail (registering over 5,000 new voters) and lobbying to make Cook County Jail the "first jail in the country to become a polling place during the 2020 Illinois Primary Elections." Scroll down on that same web page to find that Chicago Votes and the Illinois Alliance for Reentry & Justice have launched a court watching program, "sending community members inside Cook County Criminal Court to watch judges and collect data on bias and misconduct."

And what is the Illinois Alliance for Reentry & Justice, you ask? According to its webpage, the ILARJ is "accelerating the transformative realignment of power and accountability to reimagine and remake justice through the collective work of the community centering lived experience with participatory democracy models toward an abolitionist future."

Anyway, Chicago Votes has weighed in with a 28-page voters guide; that's the cover depicted above. It isn't easy to find on the Chicago Votes website; at least, it wasn't easy for me.

Then again, I may not be in the target demographic for the Chicago Votes folks (namely, "young people committed to dismantling systems that don’t serve us & reimagining new ones").

The judicial commentary is on pp. 21 and 22 of the guide. The retention judges information is on p. 22 (click to enlarge):

You will note the QR code linking to the Injustice Watch Cook County Judicial Elections Guide. While the Chicago Votes guide contains a typo or two, and does not accurately state the supermajority required for retention judges to keep their positions, it does list in red every judge who had any controversy, according to Injustice Watch, stating, "The judges highlighted in red either received a negative review or are marked for a negative controversy by Injustice Watch."

At least for those at whom the Chicago Votes guide is directed, this treatment presumably will lessen the 'yes' votes for the judges thus identified. It certainly appears to magnify the effect or impact of Injustice Watch.

Seventy-seven of 78 retention judges rated qualified by Chicago Bar Association? Not so fast, my friend!

Updated 10/16/24

Another college football weekend in the books -- and, while Lee Corso was again absent from the ESPN College Game Day desk, when it comes to the CBA judicial retention evaluations, his famous catchphrase comes to mind....

Lee Corso Not So Fast GIFfrom Lee Corso GIFs

FWIW reported on October 3 (post updated October 4) that 77 of 78 Cook County judicial retention hopefuls had been rated qualified by the Chicago Bar Association. That total included Judges Shannon O’Malley and E. Kenneth Wright Jr.

This is no longer the case.

Now, and apparently since sometime on October 11, if you click on the CBA Judicial Voters Guid or the 21-page General Election Smart Guide that is linked from that page, you will see that the ratings for Judges O'Malley and Wright are listed as "pending."

Why?

On October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about O'Malley and Wright, "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, makes the case that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County.

The story notes that Wright has a condo in River North and a single-family home in Morgan Park, but that he has claimed a homeowners exemption since before he became a judge and, more recently, a senior citizen exemption, on a home in Joliet. O'Malley has an apartment in Schaumburg and a home in a Will County section of Aurora, according to the article. O'Malley or persons speaking on his behalf told Injustice Watch that he does not live with his wife in Aurora. But, the article continues,

When Injustice Watch telephoned his Aurora home on a recent afternoon, his wife answered and turned to her husband.

“Hey, Phil [the name by which Shanon O'Malley was formerly known], it’s the reporter,” she was heard saying.

In the background, O’Malley said: “Don’t tell her I live here.”

He declined to come to the phone.

The casual reader (FWIW must have some of these) may wonder why it is such a big deal where a judge lives.

The answer? It's a big deal because the Illinois Constituion sets certain, limited requirements for judicial service in Section 11 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution. This provides, in pertinent part (emphasis mine):

No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit which selects him.

Section 12(a) of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution states, in pertinent part, "A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions."

We don't have many objective means to measure judges. Temperament, certainly, but even scholarship and diligence and impartiality aren't really easy to quantify. (The judge who rules in your favor has all these sterling qualities, and more, in abundance... but the judge who rules against you? Maybe not so much.) Contrary to what some believe (I'm thinking of you, Injustice Watch) getting reversed isn't always necessarily an indication of judicial ineptitude. Appellate courts aren't infallible; they can be wrong, too. But we certainly can expect, and require, that judges will at least meet the bare constitutional requirements for holding the job.

And, yes, that a judge actually lives where he or she claims to live also goes to that individual's character and respect for the law.

These things are kind of important in a judge.

These things are so important that, when it was discovered that a judge lied about where he lived, falsely claiming to live in Cook County's 10th Judicial Subcircuit, in his parents' house, when in fact he and his family lived in the western suburbs, it was one of the bases cited by the Illinois Courts Commission in its decision removing that judge from the bench. See, In re Golniewicz, 02 CC 01, 4 Ill. Cts. Com. 9 (2004).

The Illinois Supreme Court later cited Golniewicz in Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011). Chris Ward wanted to run for judge in the 4th Subcircuit of the 12th Judicial Circuit (Will County). But, while he was a Will County resident, when he filed his nominating papers, he was not in fact a resident of the 4th Subcircuit. Therefore, the court held, that he was not eligible to have his name put on the ballot (241 Ill.2d at 412-12) (empahses in original):

Pursuant to section 12, eligibility for judicial office is therefore a prerequisite to running for that office. Under section 11, eligibility requires that one be a "resident of the unit which selects him" Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §11. While there may be contexts in which the language of article VI, section 11, is "arguably ambiguous" (Thies v. State Board of Elections, 124 Ill. 2d 317, 323, 529 N.E.2d 565, 124 Ill. Dec. 584 (1988)), the situation presented by this case is not among them. Giving sections 11 and 12 their plain and ordinary meaning, it is therefore clear that under our 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. See Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 514 n.3, 911 N.E.2d 979, 331 Ill. Dec. 749 (2009). If they are not residents, they are simply ineligible to run. If they attempt to run when they do not meet the constitutionally mandated residency requirement and manage to win the election, they will be subject to removal from office by the Illinois Courts Commission. In re Golniewicz, 4 Ill. Cts. Com 9, 39-40 (2004).

There is a third candidate on the retention ballot who ran into trouble for possibly fibbing about her place of residence: Beatriz Santiago was censured by the Illinois Courts Commission in 2016 for telling a mortgage lender that a home located just outside the 6th Subcircuit (from which she was elected) was in fact her primary residence, where she lived and where she intended to live, when it actually was not her primary residence. She had lived there before she ran for judge but, she said, she had moved back into the 6th Subcircuit, living with her folks, in order to be eligible to make the run. Her defense to a claim that she was consititutionally ineligible to serve as a judge in Cook County's 6th Subcircuit was that she was only guilty of bank fraud... and, she said, she didn't do that on purpose either. I think because the residency question had been thoroughly litigated before her election, and it had then been determined that she really had moved back in with her folks, the Courts Commission was willing to accept this explanation. (2016 FWIW coverage here.)

The point is, residency is a big deal. It is not just a matter of ratings; it is a potentially disqualifying, career-ending matter.

But first things first: There is a pending election and ratings to be determined.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has already amended it findings in light of the Injustice Watch article concerning Judges Wright and O'Malley.

In its findings with regard to Judge Wright, the Council stated, in pertinent part,

It was recently reported that Judge Wright claims a senior homestead tax exemption on a residence in Will County, Illinois, while maintaining residency in Cook County for purposes of meeting residency requirements to be a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Wright fully participated in the Alliance’s investigation process concerning this matter, and reported that he has corrected his tax exemption status.

Judge Wright's forthright handling of the matter, coupled with a strong history of professionalism on the bench, leads the Council to find him Qualified for retention.

On the other hand, with regard to Judge O'Malley, as FWIW has previously reported, the Council found him not qualified for retention, even before the question of residency was raised. On its website, the CCL now states that it "takes no position on the question of Judge O’Malley’s residency because we are recommending against his retention for judicial performance reasons."

What one bar association does with late-breaking news, such as the residency questions involving Judges Wright and O'Malley, should not be taken as a prediction of how others, including the Chicago Bar Association, will choose to respond.

It is an indication of the increasing influence of Injustice Watch that its news coverage prompts the reopening of bar association candidate evaluations. More, certainly, to come.