But, first, let's look at the criteria the CCL says it uses in candidate evaluations. Quoting now from the Council's own explanation of its evaluation methodology:
The criteria for the Council’s evaluations are whether the candidate has demonstrated the ability to serve on the relevant court in the following categories:The Council did not find any candidate "highly qualified" for the primary.
If a candidate has demonstrated the ability to perform the work required of a judge in all of these areas, the Council assigns a rating of "qualified." If a candidate has demonstrated excellence in most of these areas, the Council assigns a rating of "well qualified." If a candidate has demonstrated excellence in all of these areas, the Council assigns a rating of "highly qualified." If a candidate has not demonstrated that he or she meets all of the criteria evaluated by the Council, the Council assigns a rating of "not qualified."
- fairness, including sensitivity to diversity and bias
- legal knowledge and skills (competence)
- integrity
- experience
- diligence
- impartiality
- judicial temperament
- respect for the rule of law
- independence from political and institutional influences
- professional conduct
- character
- community service
* * *
The Council does not evaluate candidates based on their substantive views of political or social issues. Nor do we take into account the particular race in which a candidate is running or the candidates against whom a candidate is running. We apply a uniform standard for all countywide and subcircuit elections because judges elected through either method can be assigned to any judicial position in the Circuit Court.
Five candidates, all running in subcircuit races, were deemed "well qualified." These are Travis Richardson (2nd Subcircuit, Turner vacancy), Devlin Schoop (2nd Subcircuit, Valarie Turner vacancy), David R. Navarro (4th Subcircuit, Davy vacancy), Kent Delgado (6th Subcircuit, Chevere vacancy), and Scott Jay Frankel (11th Subcircuit (Kennedy vacancy).
As you read through the Council's narratives, you will note that some of these may not seem entirely 'up to date.'
There is a reason: The Council participates with the other members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening in the evaluation process. "In cases where the Alliance evaluated candidates within the past five years, the Alliance requested updated information, but did not investigate or interview candidates again for the March 2018 primary, instead relying on the earlier results." However, the Council does take into account 'late-breaking' developments as is reflected in at least one case in particular, as one pages through the narratives.
With regard to its "not qualified" rating, the Council states, "It should be noted that a lawyer might be performing well or even very well without being qualified to be a judge. A good lawyer may be unqualified to be a judge, for instance, because of a narrow range of prior experience, limited trial experience, or limited work doing legal research and writing. A lawyer may have the temperament and intelligence to be a judge without yet having worked in a position that would allow the candidate to demonstrate that capacity. Similarly, a candidate may have an outstanding resume but lack the temperament or patience to perform well as an even-handed or respectful judge. Accordingly, it should be recognized and expected that we will rate some good lawyers 'not qualified.'"
Posts
4 comments:
Also happy to see Bradley Trowbridge and Robert Harris as only Qualified candidates in their races. I like and admire them both.
John A. O'Meara's biography is insultingly incorrect. It fails to note that in 2016 he was appointed judge in Cook County, and is currently sitting on the bench. He should be listed as Honorable and his judicial appointment should also be noted. Something the voters should know.
Anon 2/27 @ 4:17 -- I haven't yet published the CCL's findings for Judge O'Meara; I hope to do so tonight. You were looking at the CCL website -- and what I'm about to repeat is there, too, but I highlighted it -- just for this sort of thing -- in the above post:
As you read through the Council's narratives, you will note that some of these may not seem entirely 'up to date.'
There is a reason: The Council participates with the other members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening in the evaluation process. "In cases where the Alliance evaluated candidates within the past five years, the Alliance requested updated information, but did not investigate or interview candidates again for the March 2018 primary, instead relying on the earlier results." However, the Council does take into account 'late-breaking' developments as is reflected in at least one case in particular, as one pages through the narratives.
Some persons who have been appointed since their most recent evaluation sought reevaluation; not all did. I would guess that Judge O'Meara did not -- I do not presume to speak for the CCL, but, in light of the quote I pulled from its report, I do not see any intentional insult here.
It has since been corrected. No ones claiming an intentional insult, but you would think that a judge appointed in 2016 would be noted, as those appointed afterwards in 2017 did not have the same issue.
Post a Comment