Babcock posts campaign valedictory

James E. Babock, Jr. has posted a "final letter" on his website, expressing his thanks to friends and supporters in his recent unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for the Ryan vacancy in the 13th Subcircuit, offering some observations about events during the campaign and venturing some suggestions for improvement of the election process in the future.

Babcock provides his perspective on the Daily Herald's coverage in this and prior campaigns. An excerpt:

[The Daily Herald's] influence in judicial races became noticed in an article printed on the eve of the 2006 primary wherein it printed an article based on innuendo about Marty Kelly who was the only candidate with a “Qualified” rating from the Chicago Bar Association. It is apparent that the article was not researched. Had the reporter researched it, he would have noticed that the CBA’s evaluation terminology is “Not Recommended”, “Qualified” and “Highly Qualified.” Here is an excerpt of the article:

Judicial candidate ratings in question. Andrew Schroedter, Daily Herald Staff Writer. Republican judicial candidate Martin C. Kelley received a “recommended” rating from the Chicago Bar Association. Jill C. Marisie and Cary J. Collins, Kelley’s fellow candidates in the GOP primary for the Cook County Circuit Court 13th judicial subcircuit were “not recommended.” Kelly, however, is a former investigator for the Chicago Bar Association’s judicial evaluation committee, the same panel that rates judicial candidates. He resigned from the committee when he decided to run for the seat….

The insinuation was that Kelley received the recommendation because of his prior service on the committee -- and that his opponents were somehow disadvantaged by this. Quoth Babcock, "Attorneys volunteer as investigators and it is a time consuming and important task. Each investigation requires calling attorneys and judges listed on a candidate’s application which in some cases may be 28 pages long and preparing an investigative report for the 18 member committee to review for the candidate interview. Those that participate in the process probably spend at least 40 volunteer hours per application. The allegation was baseless, the damage was done with no time to react, and the question remains, 'Who was the source?'" (Babcock does not have an answer to the question -- but his opinion, clearly, is that Kelley's candidacy was damaged, perhaps fatally, by the article: Jill C. Marisie won the nomination and was elected without opposition in November 2006.)

Regular readers of this blog will have seen comments on some prior posts suggesting that this rating or that was personally or politically motivated. There are going to be instances where reasonable people can disagree on ratings -- there are numerous instances just in this past campaign where bar associations, reviewing the same materials on the same candidate, arrived at different opinions. However, I submit that the people of Cook County owe a debt of gratitude to these anonymous evaluators. Lawyers looking for opportunities for pro bono service would be well advised to volunteer to help out on the judicial evaluation committee of the bar association of their choice -- even if, and maybe particularly if, that service inspires the lawyer to someday run judicial office for himself or herself.

Babcock's essay also notes how, just before this primary, the Daily Herald chose to print a table showing only three of the bar associations' candidate evaluations. Here is a copy of that table (click to enlarge):

Babcock makes the point that, in choosing to list the recommendations of only three of the bar associations, and even in the brief description of the three bar associations contained in the table, the Daily Herald was indeed editorializing -- even if it didn't make its own formal endorsements.

If you see any other election post-mortems, leave a comment or send an email to this blog.