Friday, October 16, 2020

Livestream today at 3:00 p.m. -- "Improving the Bench: Importance of Judical Quality and Diversity in Cook County"

Updated October 19, 2020 to note that this presentation was recorded and can be watched online at your convenience.

Today's program is the second of three planned forums planned by the Collaboration for Justice, a partnership of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and Chicago Appleseed.

Organizers have provided this description of the reasons and purposes of today's event:

A high-quality judiciary - the foundation of equitable and effective courts - relies on public oversight of the performance of sitting judges. In Cook County, some judges are elected by the public on a countywide or precinct (“Subcircuit”) basis; others - Associate Judges - are peer-elected by a majority of sitting judges after an application process. Associate Judges submit applications to the Illinois Supreme Court at the end of their four-year term in order to be retained, whereas Circuit and Subcircuit judges must campaign for reelection every six years (for all three types of judges, nearly all who run for retention are retained).

In 2013, a Chicago Appleseed analysis of the 397 sitting judges in Cook County suggested that the Associate judge process was leading to a higher-quality, more diverse judiciary than did the public election process, but more recent findings show no real difference in the racial composition of judges - regardless of whether they are appointed or elected. In order to make informed ballot decisions, the public must have access to transparent and objective reports of individuals judges’ histories, behaviors, and practices. Join us as we discuss the importance of voting for judges and speak with legal experts, journalists, and civic organizers about strategies to improve and diversify - in more than just a representative way - the Cook County bench.

Just a little clarification here: Associate judges do not ordinarily have four year terms when initially chosen. Per Illinois Supreme Court Rule 39(a)(1), the terms of all associate judges across the state expire "on June 30th of every fourth year subsequent to 1975 [presently June 30, 2023], regardless of the date on which any judge is appointed." Associate judges seeking to remain in office do not apply to the Supreme Court; rather, they must submit, per Rule 39(c)(1), "a request for reappointment with the chief judge of the circuit at least three months but not more than six months before the expiration of his or her term." The chief judge certifies the names of the candidates seeking retention to the Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, and the Director prepares and distributes a retention ballot to each circuit judge in that circuit (Rule 39(c)(2)). An associate judge must secure "yes" votes from three-fifths of the circuit judges voting in order to be reappointed (Rule 39(c)(3)).

Also, the distinction between subcircuit and circuit judges evaporates at retention time: All face the entire county electorate.

In any event, Mari Cohen, an Assistant Editor of Jewish Currents and an author for South Side Weekly, will be the moderator for today's program.

Panelists will include Stevie Valles and Jen Dean, the Executive Director and Co-Deputy Director, respectively, of Chicago Votes; former Judge Travis Richardson; Rick Tulsky, a Co-Founder of Injustice Watch; and Malcolm Rich and Elizabeth Monkus, the Executive Director and Development and Access to Justice Program Coordinator for Chicago Appleseed. (Rich is also the Executive Director of the Chicago Council of Lawyers.)

Here's the link for the program.

8 comments:

  1. 2022 and 2024 are the years to correct the ridiculous number of subpar judges elected out of the 2016 and 2018 election cycles.

    JAPAC

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a joke. And some of Richardson’s comments wreak of sexism, sour grapes or both.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nobody cares about the opinions of any of these people. They can't make you a judge or influence the opinions of anyone who can. Lots of opinion with no action.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Former Judge Richardson needs some help. I mean, really, the guy still hasn't gotten over losing twice. Move forward, big guy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 10/18 at 1:08 p.m. --

    I think the word you were going for here was "reek" not "wreak."

    And to both Anon 10/18 at 1:08 p.m. and Anon 10/19 at 12:55 p.m. --

    While I don't agree with everything former Judge Richardson had to say, in the portion of his comments that I believe Anon 10/18 refers to as sexist, he actually said that an individual woman might be less sensitive in a given case than an individual man -- he was noting the fact that some people may make voting decisions based on gender alone, thinking that all women would be more sensitive and understanding than all men. So he was pointing out, and objecting to, a sexist thought pattern.

    If both of you felt that that particular comment and/or that some of his other comments had the whiff of sour grapes -- well, I can appreciate how disappointed he must be. If he weren't at least somewhat disillusioned, given just what I've observed of his electoral experiences, I'd be surprised. Perhaps you both are so fortunate that you have never known disappointment yourself. That's wonderful for you, Anons, and I rejoice for you. But cut some slack for the rest of us sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the author meant "wreak."

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Wreak" means to cause a large amount of harm or damage -- to 'wreak havoc' -- or to inflict -- as in to 'wreak vengeance' -- whereas "reek" means to smell bad. Which is why I thought the author of the comment meant to use "reek," not "wreak." But, of course, I can't know that for sure. You may be right.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are once again permitted on this blog but, for crying out loud, please be civil. Comment moderation remains in effect. The management reserves its right to refuse to publish comments.