Araujo resigns... now what?

In a story first posted to Injustice Watch on Tuesday, September 29, and updated last evening, John Seasly reports that Judge Mauricio Araujo has submitted his resignation from the judiciary, effective Monday, October 5.

The resignation follows Araujo's hearing before the Illiois Courts Commission this past Monday and Tuesday.

At the hearing, according to Seasly's post and Marc Karlinsky's September 30 article for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), the Commission announced that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Araujo had engaged in a pattern of inappropriate and harassing behavior toward women. The Commission had set an October 7 hearing for the purpose of determining what sanction to impose.

Araujo apparantly took the hint.

Meanwhile, Araujo's resignation may leave the Cook County Democratic Party in something of a predicament.

Pursuant to its bylaw adopted for the 2018 election cycle, abandoning its long-standing tradition of automatically endorsing every judge for retention, the Democratic Party Central Committee voted to withhold its retention endorsement from Araujo and Judge Michael P. Toomin, the Presiding Judge of Juvenile Justice Division.

That would be the same Judge Toomin who was assigned the task of determining whether a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the handling of the Jussie Smollet case by Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, a former Chief of Staff for Cook County Board President -- and Cook County Democratic Party Chair -- Toni Preckwinkle. The same Judge Toomin who ruled that a special prosecutor would be appointed -- an appointment which resulted in new charges as to Mr. Smollett. Ms. Foxx was not charged, but she and her office received some embarassing publicity as a result of the special prosecutor's investigation.

Some in the media claimed that the decision to withhold the Party's endorsement from Judge Toomin was in retaliation for his agreeing to appoint a special proseutor in the Smollett matter. The Democratic Party has adamantly denied any connection (the complete report of the Party's Judicial Retention Committee concerning Toomin is reproduced in the post linked above).

The Judicial Accountability PAC has likewise chosen to oppose the retention of Judges Araujo and Toomin (click here for Injustice Watch coverage of JAPAC's announcement).

For JAPAC, and perhaps for the Cook County Democratic Party as well, Araujo provided a useful fig-leaf for the campaign to unseat Toomin. The allegations against Araujo, which the Courts Commission found "clear and convincing," were reprehensible. He was an obvious target. And, as JAPAC President Brendan Shiller told Injustice Watch, "We just didn’t think we could be credible if we didn’t add [Araujo]."

But, for JAPAC at least, the real target was and is Toomin -- as this graphic from the JAPAC website shows:

The Democratic Party's brief against Judge Toomin did not publicly fault him for making a specific decision with which the County Board President might have disagreed, such as invalidating or "overruling" an ordinance passed by the Board. Rather, the Party charged only that Judge Toomin "is obstructing efforts at reforming the Juvenile Justice courts and pursues an outdated approach to juvenile justice."

This graphic, on the other hand, is explicit: Make a decision we don't like and we will come after you. With such an attitude, who needs appellate courts?

I was initially confused by a statement released by Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans on September 15, immediately after the Party decided to dump Toomin:

“At this time, as the general public, quite appropriately, prepares for the November 3 election by reviewing the qualifications and performance of many of our judges, it is important to remember that people who take the oath to be a Cook County Circuit Court judge are ethically bound to be independent in their rulings, free from fear or favor.

“They take an oath to ‘support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois.’ Independence does not mean judges are independent of the Constitution from which they derive their power or independent of the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

“I believe that the vast majority of the judges who have served in the Cook County Circuit Court during my tenure as chief judge have served with a sense of respect and awe for the seriousness of their calling and have performed their duties impartially, free of inappropriate influences. It is also important to remember that legal results we wish were different are often, nevertheless, good legal decisions.”

The statement from Judge Evans seemed, at the time, to be, at best, a rather tepid defense of judicial independence generally, and not any kind of a statement in support of Judge Toomin at all, except perhaps for its coincidental timing. The statement seemed especially weak at a time when other officials and media outlets were expressly decrying the Party's seeming retailiation for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case.

But I get it now. Jussie Smollett is, and always was, a sideshow. A distraction. The campaign against Toomin is simply an exercise in political power and an attack on judicial independence. Any judicial independence. And the Araujo fig-leaf has been stripped away.