The Tribune begins its judicial endorsements

The Tribune's first round of judicial endorsements are now online (these will appear in newsprint in the Sunday editions). These are endorsements for the Appellate Court and the contested countywide vacancies only; subcircuit endorsements are supposed to follow on Monday.

I assume that the Tribune wants its opinions shared, so I take the liberty of reproducing the editorial here. When you read it, see if you can discern a theme. I think I do. We'll reconvene on the other side of this:

Let's begin by acknowledging that Illinois' system for electing judges is deeply flawed. Money and politics have an enormous influence on the courts, particularly in Cook County.

Many of the shortcomings of this system are evident on the March 18 primary ballot.

Voters have no choice in five of the 11 countywide races for Cook County Circuit Court and one of three races in the county for the Illinois Appellate Court. In those races, the Democratic Party's slated candidates are unopposed. Republicans fielded no candidates in any of the countywide races, so a win in the Democratic primary guarantees election in November.

Some candidates are highly qualified for the job, some are simply loyal Democrats, and some are quite unprepared lawyers who hope an appealing ballot name will get them a cushy job on the bench. How can voters tell them apart? Local bar groups perform an enormous public service by screening and rating judicial candidates. The Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers do particularly thorough evaluations.

Those evaluations factor significantly in the Tribune's endorsements, along with information provided by the candidates and interviews we conduct with judges and attorneys who have experience with the candidates.

Here are our recommendations in contested countywide races. Choices in Cook County subcircuit races will appear on Monday and choices in collar county judicial races will appear later in the week.

Illinois Appellate Court

Gordon vacancy: Here's a side-splitter. Appellate Judge Sheldon Harris' campaign mailer says he wants reforms "that stop insider deals" on judicial appointments. We recall when he ran for judge in 2002. His kids donated $50,000 to Lisa Madigan's campaign for attorney general right around the time that Harris won Democratic Party slating and Michael Madigan sent 20 political aides to help Harris' campaign. Harris lost that race, but he got appointed to a vacancy on the Circuit Court and then appointed to the Appellate Court. He has spent more than a decade on the bench without ever winning an election, courtesy of his connections on the Illinois Supreme Court.

Judge Freddrenna Lyle was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2011 after serving 13 years as a Chicago alderman. We were critical of her tenure on the City Council, but she's winning a lot of praise for her tenure in traffic court, managing a high-volume courtroom. She has 30 years of broad experience as an attorney and the Chicago Bar Association found her qualified for the Appellate Court. Judge Susan Kennedy Sullivan was found not qualified by the CBA. Our endorsement goes to Lyle.

Steele vacancy: Judge John B. Simon has an outstanding reputation and is the easy choice over Judge Sharon Oden Johnson, who was not recommended by major bar groups. Simon was appointed to the Appellate Court in 2012 after 45 years as a government and private attorney. He's described by his peers as a "superb litigator," and plays a constructive role in oral arguments as an appellate judge, according to the Chicago Council of Lawyers. Simon is endorsed.

Cook County Circuit Court

Arnold vacancy: Our choice is Bridget Anne Mitchell, who has extensive experience in personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death cases and wins enthusiastic praise for her work ethic and demeanor. Judge Alfred M. Swanson has solid credentials as well. Mitchell is endorsed.

Connors vacancy: Judge Peter Vilkelis is a good fit for his current assignment in the child protection division of the juvenile court, having served as a prosecutor in juvenile court early in his career. He then spent 21 years in private practice, concentrating on criminal defense, before his appointment to the bench in 2011. Kristal Rivers has a far narrower range of experience. She's an assistant Illinois attorney general, handling commitments of sexually violent persons. Vilkelis is endorsed.

McDonald vacancy: Attorney Linda Mastandrea is a gold medal paralympian in wheelchair track who wins applause for her advocacy work on behalf of disabled clients. She also works as a hearing officer for several state and local agencies. The Chicago Bar Association found her qualified for the Circuit Court, and we'll second that. The Council of Lawyers worries that Mastandrea lacks experience in complex litigation. That concern was no barrier to her opponent, Judge Cynthia Cobbs, who was tapped for the bench in 2011 by Supreme Court Justice Charles Freeman, for whom she had worked as a law clerk. Cobbs was running the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts at the time, and didn't even live in Cook County. Mastandrea is endorsed.

Neville vacancy: Patricia Susan Spratt is a resource and mentor to other attorneys. She's on the Illinois Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Responsibility and has written a book on the topic. She's praised for her legal ability and courtroom experience and was found well qualified by the Council of Lawyers. William B. Raines has an interesting range of experience that includes brief stints as a cop and prosecutor before his admission to the bar in 1993. Carolyn Joan Gallagher is a respected solo practitioner who also teaches legal writing. Major bar associations say Mary Alice Melchor, inspector general to the clerk of the Circuit Court, is not ready to be a judge. Spratt is endorsed.

Reyes vacancy: Diana Rosario, an attorney for Chicago's Department of Family and Support Services, is the choice over Stephen J. Feldman, whose practice is built on criminal defense, DUI and traffic cases.

Hill-Veal vacancy: Judge Andrea Michele Buford was chosen for the bench by Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis, who has an expert, bipartisan committee screen candidates. Buford was an excellent pick. She served as a hearing officer for the Illinois State Board of Education and the Department of Human Services and as a commissioner for the Illinois Court of Claims She has been active in pro bono and community service causes and is praised for being diligent and well prepared. James Patrick Crawley is an accomplished personal injury litigator. Kelly Maloney Kachmarik was not recommended by major bar associations.

Did you notice a theme?

The newspaper does not appear to view appointment by the Supreme Court as a particular advantage. FWIW readers may recall that the Tribune has been critical of Supreme Court appointments in the past (see, for example, "Tribune complains about judicial reappointments").

The Tribune chose not to endorse appointed Judges Harris, Swanson and Cobbs. In the cases of Judges Harris and Cobbs, the Tribune made a point of mentioning their appointments. Judge Peter Vilkelis was endorsed, despite having been appointed twice by the Supreme Court. His appointments were not mentioned. But, then, he was also endorsed by the Tribune in 2012.

Justice John B. Simon also received the paper's endorsement. The Tribune's reference to his appointment to the Appellate Court in 2012 was, at best, neutral. Judge Andrea Michele Buford's appointment to the bench was actually mentioned favorably but, then, as the Tribune noted, Judge Buford's appointment was made after screening by an "expert, bipartisan committee" set up by Justice Theis. (Justice Theis announced the formation of that committee in February 2013.) This suggests that the Tribune's concern is not with appointments as such -- that would be a strange position from a newspaper which has so often editorialized in favor of 'merit selection' -- as it is with the way in which appointments are made.

Nothing in these remarks is meant to express my personal opinion as to the wisdom or folly of any of the Tribune's choices to date. I don't make endorsements here; I don't take sides. But I think readers may find it helpful to keep the Tribune's disagreements with the Supreme Court in mind in evaluating the paper's opinions for themselves.