The forthcoming Associate Judge selection and the limitations of judicial evaluations

First in a series.

Soon (as soon as next Monday, according to one tip I received) the Nominating Committee of the Circuit Court of Cook County will reconvene. The Nominating Committee's task is to pare the February 2017 list of 272 hopefuls into a 'short list' of 34 finalists for this year's class of 17 associate judges.

The Committee's job will be complicated by that fact that, among the current pool of 272 applicants (a few presumably have dropped out along the way, but that was the original number) are several judges sitting pursuant to appointment by the Illinois Supreme Court who were not successful candidates in the primary just concluded.

To be specific, there are 18 currently-sitting judges who were not successful candidates in last month's primary. Of these 18, two did not run, one was knocked off the ballot, and 15 ran and lost. And 16 of these 18 currently-sitting judges are also in the associate judge candidate pool.

[For the record, another 16 sitting judges won their primaries. But, of these, one was appointed to a vacancy that won't be on the ballot until 2020 (she was a candidate for a different vacancy at the time she was appointed) and another still has to face a Republican opponent in November.]

Neither inside information nor clairvoyance is required to predict that some of the 16 currently-sitting judges who, for one reason or another, did not win in the primary but who did apply for associate judge, will make the short list.

However, history suggests that not all of these 16 sitting judges will make the short list. It is at least possible that one of the 16 omitted from the short list may nevertheless secure election as a write-in. It has happened in the last two associate judge selections.

There is a reason. Some of the more conspiracy-minded in the audience will have several theories on this -- and, of course, I am obliged to admit that, with so many persons involved in the selection of associate judges, there can be many reasons for the success of recent write-in campaigns.

But I submit that one reason predominates: The successful write-ins persuaded their peers that they were already good judges. Most of the persons on the last two short lists -- and, very likely, most of the persons on the forthcoming short list as well -- could not make that claim. They could only point to their favorable bar evaluations.

In the last two associate judge selections, quite a few of the applicants were rated qualified or recommended by each and every reviewing bar group. All of the finalists were.

However, in a March 27 story on Injustice Watch ("Cook County judicial voters reject old habits, disfavor poorly rated candidates"), Mari Cohen and Olivia Stovicek quote former Circuit Court and Appellate Court Judge Warren Wolfson as saying, "Unless someone's been sitting as a judge, you don't really know how they’re going to behave."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an inherent weakness in the judicial evaluation process. However high the bar ratings, until a person dons the robe and does the job, it is by no means certain that the judicial aspirant will be a good judge.

The robe hangs heavier on some shoulders than others. 'Robe-itis' comes in many forms: Some perfectly nice people, pillars of their community, hail fellows well met, will become obnoxious little tyrants simply by putting on 'the dress.' Some diligent, hard-working lawyers morph into sloths after taking the oath. Others simply cannot make the transition from zealous advocate to neutral. Robe-itis sometimes strikes even those with stellar bar ratings.

The 34 persons appointed to the Cook County bench by the Illinois Supreme Court since the filing period closed for the 2016 primary have all had an opportunity to prove to their new peers that they are immune to robe-itis. They have been given a chance to show that they can do, and are doing, the job. And, from a management standpoint, it makes sense to keep a good employee 'in harness' rather than replace him or her with an untested rookie, however highly touted.

That is not to say that any of the sitting judges who may be left off the short list, or who are not successful write-ins, have been in any way 'bad' judges. There are an abundance of worthy candidates, and politics and personalities enter into the equation here as in any human endeavor. As it has sometimes done in the past, the Supreme Court may give some of these a second chance -- and these persons may be sincerely welcomed back by their colleagues.

But -- while we're waiting for white smoke from the big conference room on the 26th floor -- perhaps we can look further at the judicial evaluation process. I plan to do so in my next post.