According to the Illinois State Board of Elections, there are currently 45 candidates seeking one of the 13 countywide vacancies in Cook County. Sixty-three other candidates are vying for one of the 20 Cook County subcircuit vacancies. Some of these hopefuls will withdraw, others may be removed from the ballot after challenges.
This surprises me.
Why? Well, though much has been made about the onerous requirement of 3,322 valid signatures to qualify as a countywide judicial candidate in next year's Democratic primary, there are 3.46 candidates for each countywide vacancy -- and only 3.15 candidates for each subcircuit vacancy. It takes only 1,000 signatures to qualify as a subcircuit candidate. One might think, therefore, that there would be more subcircuit candidates per vacancy than countywide candidates per vacancy. That does not seem to be the case this year.
Since challenges are coming for a number of these hopefuls (or, as one persistent, and usually unpublished, commenter keeps saying, "Winter is coming") these ratios may be different when the dust settles.
So I decided to look at recent history to compare candidate numbers.
According to the ISBE, there were 26 candidates seeking one of 10 countywide vacancies in the 2018 Primary -- 2.6 candidates per vacancy. Eighty-four candidates sought one of 29 subcircuit vacancies in 2018 -- 2.89 candidates per vacancy. Subcircuit filing requirements were the same in 2018 as in this cycle, but there were 3,758 signatures required to run countywide in the 2018 Democratic primary.
That's actually worse than this year.
Signature requirements were much less in 2016 -- there was a very low turnout in the 2014 general election; it took only 2,233 signatures to reach the Democratic primary ballot in 2016.
So... logically... there should have been lots more judicial candidates in 2016, at least countywide, right?
Wrong.
Only 25 candidates pursued 11 countywide vacancies in 2016, 2.27 candidates per vacancy. Fifty-six candidates sought 22 subcircuit vacancies in 2016, or 2.54 candidates per subcircuit vacancy.
It took 3,263 signatures to qualify for the Democratic primary as a countywide judicial candidate in Cook County in 2014. Only 21 candidates qualified as candidates for one of the 11 countywide vacancies that year, 1.91 candidates per vacancy. Forty-seven hopefuls sought one of 15 Cook County subcircuit vacancies that year, 3.13 candidates per vacancy.
In 2012, a countywide judicial candidate needed 2,403 signatures to qualify for the Democratic primary. Thirty-two candidates qualified to run for 11 countywide vacancies that year (2.91 candidates per vacancy), while 70 candidates filed for one of the 23 subcircuit vacancies (3.04 candidates per vacancy).
Signature requirements were usually lower in presidential primary years -- because requirements are based on the number of votes cast for the countywide Democratic judicial candidate receiving the highest number of votes in the preceding general election. In Illinois, as elsewhere, turnout is usually lower in non-presidential years than in presidential years. So the high number of signatures required this year is high compared to numbers required in 2016 and 2012, but this year's qualifying number is by no means unprecedented.
So, apparently, at least in recent history, just as in the numbers so far for 2020, there is no great difference in the number of countywide candidates per vacancy vis a vis the number of subcircuit candidates per vacancy. The largest discrepancy was in 2014, a year in which the Cook County Democratic Party did a remarkable job of staving off challengers to about half of its countywide ticket and carrying five of the six contested races.
Signature requirements do not seem to keep wannabes from entering countywide judicial contests.
Conversely, despite lower signature requirements, subcircuit vacancies are not more attractive to candidates than countywide ones. I do not know why this seems to be true. Do you?
3 days ago
Posts
6 comments:
All valid points. But your comments are data-driven, Jack. And alas, most of these candidates can't even be bothered to look at the board of elections website, let alone, consider data.
Is the 2020 course on "Obama Ballot Management 101" about to be convened? I thought that 2018's curriculum was so very entertaining. And where are all the women in the 8th Subcricuit? No Shoffner? No Karkula? Per capita, the 8th has more female lawyers than just about any other subcircuit. What's the deal?
CANDIDATES FINALLY FIGURED OUT THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO BE SLATED TO RUN ON A SLATE AND MAKE THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT MORE MANAGEABLE.
2020 did not have an onerous signature requirement. The only people who believed that were the people too lazy to get their own signatures. Too many lawyers are lazy. It is for that very reason that many want to become judges. Not all, but too many. Those are the same slugs who hire circulators to do all of the hard work. It is a safe plan in years where the signature requirement is low (2016), but dangerous when it is high (2018). In 2020 -- with 90 days to collect and the ability to collect large volumes when candidates are part of multiple-candidate slates (as many were) -- plenty of candidates will make the ballot without getting an objection. But if anyone relied entirely on paid circulators, well, you MIGHT have problems even if you spent the entire 90 days circulating. Oh, by the way, if you circulate for MULTIPLE vacancies, be certain not to mix-up your sheets and file your "Vacancy A" sheets for "Vacancy B." Who did that? Go find out for yourself, assuming you are not too lazy to do so.
Ballot positioning is biggest consideration countywide. Money is the bigger factor in a subcircuit. You can make a difference campaigning in a subcircuit.
Pardon my French, but how the hell was someone circulating petitions at Union Station on 12/3 for an undisclosed 10th sub vacancy that was not announced by BOE until the afternoon of 12/4.
It took two whole days for BOE to announce a late vacancy?
Petitions were printed and being circulated 36 hours before BOE announced the vacancy!
What a load of crap!
Post a Comment