A recurring complaint about endorsements

FWIW will report endorsements in Cook County judicial races -- when these can be verified.

But there's a catch: I won't report that the Butchers, Bakers and Candlestick Makers' Union has endorsed Candidate Smith unless I can find out who else, if anyone, that said organization has endorsed from among the ranks of judicial candidates. Candidate Smith is always thrilled to receive that coveted endorsement, and often shares the happy news with yours truly -- but Candidate Smith generally doesn't know who else has received the nod from the BBCM. And, though I inquire, the BBCM typically does not respond.

So far, in this election season, I've reported the endorsements made by the Chicago Federation of Labor -- and that's about it.

I've got documentation from a few more groups and posts about these endorsements will be rolled out in due course.

But... seriously... why would a group that goes to the trouble to make an endorsement in a contested judicial primary not want to publicize it? Presumably an organization endorses someone because it believes that the candidate would, if elected, be friendly or helpful in some way to the endorsing organization. So why not tell the world that this candidate is worthy of support?

I suppose that one answer to that question should be obvious, even to a naif like myself: If the Butchers, Bakers and Candlestick Makers like someone, there will be those who automatically refuse to support that someone because of that support.

Case in point: I just got hold of the endorsements made for the upcoming primary by the Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7. Some readers will be interested in, though perhaps not swayed by, the FOP's guidance in these matters. But there will also be some FWIW readers who are so reflexively anti-police that they will vote against any candidate supported by the FOP.

That cuts both ways, of course. In the last election cycle, a 10th Subcircuit candidate advertised the support of both then-45th Ward Ald. John Arena and the FOP -- at a time when Arena was making complaints to Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountabilty (COPA) about social media posts made by police officers and firefighters. Second City Cop, the resolutely unofficial police blog, pitched a fit about it -- and things got a little high schoolish -- there was a question of who dumped who first -- but the upshot was that the candidate was scrubbed from Arena's palm cards. I wrote about it at the time. (The candidate went on to win anyway.)

The point I tried to make then -- and will try to make again here -- is that any successful political campaign requires the construction of a winning coalition.

In the law, coalitions might be considered analogous to joint ventures, not partnerships: temporary alliances for a limited, specific purpose. The components of the judicial candidate's coalition need agree only that Smith or Jones would make a fine judge; they need never again agree on anything else. Coalitions may become permanent alliances, but the judicial candidate can not worry about that: If the coalition coalesces, just once, on Primary Day, it will have served the judicial candidate's purpose.

Building a successful coalition is almost certainly harder for a judicial candidate than for other types of political candidates: A judicial candidate can not promise to do anything for anyone. Supreme Court Rule 67A(3)(d)(i) expressly prohibits a judicial candidate from making "statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues within cases that are likely to come before the court." What a judicial candidate can do is to cultivate a reputation for fairness and integrity so as to earn the trust and support of persons who would not otherwise agree on the color of the sky.

And then I wake up....