Monday, October 26, 2009

Bonnie McGrath campaign website up & running

I mentioned in this October 19 post that Bonnie McGrath, whom I know from our time together on the Board of Editors of the CBA Record was running for judge. McGrath now has a campaign website up and running. That's a link to her site in the preceding sentence; I've also added a link to the Sidebar.

In an email to FWIW, McGrath said, "during my campaign, I will be stressing my extensive background in pro bono service (from supervising a group of lawyers doing orders of protection for free for needy clients -- to representing young defendants after arrest who have difficulty getting representation), my deep links to the community vis a vis my board work, and my extensive legal writing and teaching."


Phil Krone said...

Its unfortunate that bar associations do not give sufficient weight to the kinds of experience Bonnie McGrath has had, including frankly, some of her own challenging life experiences. I know of no one who would make a better judge than Attorney McGrath.

Judge William Hooks is already an extremely qualified jurist. Fortunately for him, the bar associations give great credence to trial experience. I think we need to have judges with different backgrounds, but all of course having a knowledge of the law, common sense and integrity. Along with Hooks and McGrath I have special admiration for attorney Diann Marsalek. All three of these individuals reflect the excellence typified by Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, Appellate Court Justices Joseph Gordon and Joy Cunningham and Circuit Court Judges Marilyn Johnson and Joan Powell.

And I hope that these three get an opportunity to serve the people, either by election or appointment. Judge Hooks, by the way, has the highest bar ratings of any judicial candidate in Cook County running in any contest.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Krone,

Perhaps you would have a different opinion of Ms. McGrath is you were aware of her misconduct in preparing her petitions for this election.

The recent written opinion (keeping her on the ballot, but urging other gov't agencies to take action) states: "The behavior testified to is in direct contradiction of the requirements of the Election Code and the Notary Act, and it amounts to an intolerable duplicity on the part of the perpetrators [McGrath]. For this to be done by a candidate for judicial office is particularly shocking."

They added: Not terminating the candidacy should not be seen as, nor be taken as, excusing or minimizing the misconduct revealed in this case. We have done everything that we believe we are empowered by the law to do. Those organs of the government with farther-reaching powers may choose to terminate the candidacy, or to instruct us that we have the power to do so. Indeed, we fully expect that this matter will by pursued by those permanent agencies empowered to do so."

Yeah, that's just who need on the bench. If she isn't changing her name in one election, she's filing bogus petitions in another.

Anonymous said...

I notice that the comment is anonymous. I do not value the opinion of cowards. Two years ago I became aware of several judicial candidates who had the kind of errors on their petitions that would on the very face be subject to punishment. If I were an attorney I would have been obligated to report them to the the ARDC. But I'm not, so I didn't. I don't doubt that any candidate has bogus petitions and bogus signatures. Intent is important. And in the crazy time frame of filing petitions I am inclined to give a pass to candidates who are under so much pressure. Where the fraud is significant people should be tossed off, even tried and convicted, but my major thrust is to favor access to the ballot.

I never mind criticism, but only if its from someone who is not a coward.

Philip Steele Krone said...

The previous comment was posted by me, Phil Krone, and should not be anonymous. Otherwise I would also be a coward.