Licensed in Illinois since 2001, according to ARDC, McEneely's campaign bio stresses her wide-ranging experience within the PD's office. Currently based in Skokie, McEneely has represented clients in the misdemeanor, domestic violence, mental health court, veterans court and felony trial rooms there.
In an email to FWIW, McEneely reported that her campaign had a successful first fundraiser on August 14, adding that her "campaign has over $150,000 on hand and we will begin our broader campaign which includes billboards and social media in the coming days."
A review of the ISBE website this morning confirms that a Notification of Self-Funding has been filed by the McEneely campaign -- meaning that caps are off in the race for the Larsen vacancy.
McEneely's campaign bio also notes that she has been active in her parish and in her children's school. She also has served on the board of the Children’s Heart Foundation of Illinois, according to her campaign bio. McEneely lives on Chicago's Northwest Side and is a graduate of the DePaul University College of Law.
Posts
14 comments:
Shock, surprise, dismay. She is running against a black guy countywide. White privilege is alive and well in Cook County. Go ahead and flush this one too, Jack. Perhaps a PD will win countywide this season. Perhaps more than 1. But not this one.
So who is going to run against Jill Rose Quinn, Kerry Maloney Laytin and Lynn Weaver-Boyle? I thought so. So I will. See you on St. Patrick’s Day 2020. If Silva, Ortiz and Fernandez can win countywide then so can me and the other mujeres.
Glad you have the money. We are going to make you spend it.
All of these white Irish-surnamed women running against black male candidates have identical websites (look at me and my family!) and presumably are being recruited by the same person. The “Make America White Again” angle is *so* offensive.
She's not running against just any "black guy."
Smith was the loser in the famous Associates tie vote.
Well qualified & respected with broad experience.
Silva never had an opponent. She slid into her position ... But, Irish women do seem to think they’re entitled to those positions. Soon, very soon, the Irish reign shall come to an end. Count on it.
Anon 8/25 @9:35 a.m. is seeing some sort of conspiracy here. S/he writes, "All of these white Irish-surnamed women running against black male candidates have identical websites (look at me and my family!) and presumably are being recruited by the same person."
Recruited? Really?
Listen up, Tovarich, there is no shortage of lawyers interested in running for judge in Cook County, Illinois. Sometimes people have to be recruited for LSC elections, or suburban school, park, or library boards. But never for judicial races. Never. It's harder sometimes, I think, to find lawyers who don't want to be judges.
Nobody "recruited" these persons. Far more likely that these individuals have known each other since law school and they have bided their time since, calculating that now is the time to act on those plans that they first discussed long ago (and many times since). I would guess that their websites are similar because they are using the same web consultant. Since they are working together, why not?
Anon continues, "The 'Make America White Again' angle is 'so' offensive." As indeed it would be, if such an angle were intended. Far more likely, however, that this is simply old-fashioned ethnic politics. It has worked in the past, it may work again. Judicial campaigns are almost always about individuals, not ideologies.
Regular FWIW readers know this, but this Anon, who perhaps hails from Minsk or Pinsk, may not understand that ethnic politics cuts in many different ways. In some circles an Irish surname will be a handicap. And Anon almost certainly doesn't know that gender identity frequently trumps ethnic identity, which is why, every now and again, a male will try and run with a female-sounding name. And why women with familiar-sounding Irish names, or, lately, familiar-sounding Hispanic names, have been so successful in down-ballot races.
There’s historical precedent for this—-in 1992 a bunch of female candidates coordinated their candidacies to all run for separate vacancies. It worked VERY well, but they had one big advantage: that was the Carol Moseley Braun primary, when there was a big female turnout in the aftermath of the Clarence Thomas hearings. Far too early to make assumptions about what will happen this time. Will be heavily dependent on the presidential primary situation in both parties.
Jack and Albert's comments overlook an important factor. Not only are these three women (Kent, McEneely, and Ryan) banking on their gender identity, but they are also banking on racial bias assisting their campaigns. It is unlikely it is simply a coincidence that the first three Caucasian women to announce they are opposing the sitting judges identified their opponents as the only three African American male judges. The reason certainly can't be a perceived lack of merit as two of the three were on the most recent "short list" for Associate Judgeships.
It is a legitimate question to ask the three candidates why they simultaneously chose to run against the African American male judges.
It is not to single out these three candidates as certainly there are more who have yet to publicly announce their candidacy or have at least disguised who their intended target(s) is. Nonetheless, these three candidates exemplify an issue that has been brewing now for a number of election cycles.
We all need to be concerned with how to address racial prejudices in elections and how to respond to candidates that attempt to take advantage of those racial prejudices.
Anon 8/29, thank you. Well said. I trust that this election season will hold several surprises for many of the candidates. And “tried and true” tactics that worked in the past might be the downfall for one or more of this trio and several others at all levels of the judicial ballot — supreme, appellate and circuit (sub and countywide).
The “name game” isn’t a one-trick pony any more. Those days are long gone. For instance, common African-American surnames (based on U.S. Census data) do nearly as well as Irish surnames countywide these days. Over the last ten elections the bumps per contest have averaged 10.1 and 11.7 points, respectively. And there appears to be a significant bump for Hispanic surnames as well, although there haven’t yet been enough of those for a proper measurement. Obviously some names in any category will do better than others...but in general it would be a big mistake for a candidate to rely on old name-based voting patterns that are no longer relevant.
That is an interesting observation by Albert about AA names becoming stronger. However, what do you mean by "some names in any category will do better than others?" I'm a little confused by that - can you give an example please?
Sure, look at the Irish names for example. Not every Irish name gets the same reaction. Two of the biggest negative outliers I've ever encountered (meaning the candidates underperformed expectations) had the surnames Luby and Brean. Those are Irish surnames but got none of the typical Irish bump. And then there are the Murphys, O'Malleys, etc.--the most common surnames, which often will do better than others.
OK that makes perfect sense. Good explanation, Albert.
Post a Comment