Wednesday, October 07, 2020

On the judicial retention ballot the default vote is "yes"

Updated October 15, 2020
Updated October 13, 2020
Updated October 8, 2020

Judicial retention elections seem strange to many voters. The two elected justices of the Illinois Appellate Court and the 60 Circuit Court judges (which is really 59 and may be 58 or even 57, depending on how you count) who are up for retention in Cook County this year do not run against anyone; each candidate's name is on the ballot in the form of a question that comes down to this: Should Judge X remain a judge? Or should Judge X look for work elsewhere come December?

If Judge X receives at least a 60% "yes" vote, he or she keeps the job.

Past results suggest that all of the judges in the current class have excellent prospects for success in this retention election. While one judge was removed from office in 2018 (with a "yes" vote of only 52.16%), that was the first time that any retention judge had lost in Cook County since 1990 -- when seven judges were removed (and one of those judges removed from office was simultaneously elected to the Appellate Court).

But that does not mean that judges have no reason to be nervous. In a normal year roughly two out of 10 voters will mark "no" on every single judge, no matter how qualified. In the 2018 retention election, for example, now-Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and Appellate Court Justice Margaret Stanton McBride recieved a "yes" vote of just more than 81%. Among Circuit Court judges seeking retention in 2018, eight, all female, broke the 80% barrier: Marcia Maras (80.05%), Carol Howard (80.65%), Mary Colleen Roberts (80.41%), Diane M. Shelley (80.57%), Erica M. Reddick (80.12%), Elizabeth Mary Hayes (81.48%), Kimberly D. Lewis (81.14%), and Cynthia Ramirez (81.03%) -- but not by much. Everyone else finished with a "yes" vote of less than 80%.

While you are no doubt sick of hearing this, still it must be said that 2020 is not a normal year. Persons can spend days, literally, lingering over mail-in ballots. Will these voters work their way all the way down the ballot? Will they be more kindly disposed towards the retention judges -- or less?

I've gotten all sorts of would-be comments from angry persons castigating judges for not working during this Never Ending Year of Pandemic. Some bench trials have resumed... or is that re-zoomed? But there are no jury trials. Some of those stuffing my comment queue would blame 'lazy' judges for this... but, even if we were to start asking jurors to come in again, would they? Some, presumably, but not all. And would lawyers really like to place their clients' fates in the hands of those reckless enough to come in? The ones who show up might well be the least inclined to wear masks...or otherwise follow instructions.

There may be some judges who could have done, and who could be doing, more during these unprecedented times. There are goldbrickers in any occupation. But, just as in the economy at large, not everyone with the desire to work has had the opportunity. That's not their fault. But some voters will express their frustration with the slackened pace of the justice system by punishing the retention judges.

Even in a normal year, Second City Cop seldom misses an opportunity to urge its readers to vote "no" on all retention judges, nor are they the only ones who would put the "no" in NOvember. Those inclined to 'throw the rascals out' will vote the retention ballot no matter what.

Can we safely assume that the just-say-nay voters will number no more than 20 or 25% of the retention voters this year? As a lot of people learned first-hand with their IRAs in recent years, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.

While some clearly fantasize about the prospect, the wholesale removal of judges in Cook County would not be in the best interests of the public.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. Some, certainly, are better than others. However, with the exception of Judge Mauricio Araujo (who has resigned) and Judge Patricia Manila Martin (who said she was resigning), all of the judges on the 2020 retention ballot are recommended by at least some of the many bar associations that screen judicial candidates; the vast majority have been recommended by each each and every one of the bar groups. Here's a linked list of the posts I've put up about the bar association ratings:

More information about Cook County judges on the retention ballot is available on the 2020 Cook County Retention Judges Website. Injustice Watch offers this interactive guide to the retention ballot. The Chicago Tribune has announced its retention endorsements. The Chicago Sun-Times has run a couple of editorials about retention races. The IVI-IPO has also offered guidance on retention races. I'll be putting up more posts about who has endorsed whom as that information becomes available to me.

I mean to express no opinion here about whether any particular judge should or should not be retained -- as you can see from consulting the various sources of information about the candidates, reasonable people can differ as to who is qualified and who is not -- but I do submit that the default vote on the judicial retention ballot, in the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, should be "yes."

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Jack,
Suck up to these sociopaths all you want, but they will never make you an associate judge. Vote No!

Anonymous said...

Leyhane,

You are crazy. Do they have those ballots for days? Sure. But it takes longer to complete the paper ballot than to touch a computer screen. Angry voters will make the effort. The cream puff “yes” voters who you are clearly trying to push to help your judge buddies won’t go there. But the pitchfork crowd sure will. Bye bye Mahoney! Adios Anna!

Anonymous said...

I am not angry per se. But I only voted to retain about 10 of these people. My logic is simple: the judges have this Code of Silence. They go along to get along and never push for true reforms that help the public. They are the most highly paid public servants who could truly care less for the public. So I voted to retain the ones who really put in the work and effort. But the slugs, the sloffs and the marginally competent who play the old wink and nod with the Bar Associations and Evans, they got big fat "NO's." The bar ratings are a joke. More of the same quid pro quo. The BWLA and CCBA don't mess with certain white judges in exchange for the ISBA and CBA leaving certain black judges alone. The rest of us pay the price, both figuratively and literally, because rotten slugs are retained until they die or retire. And hey Flannery, if I have another one of your minions tell me that they have no plan for how to resume trials, I am going to take that Zoom recording and send it to Injustice Watch. Retire already.

Vote NO!

Mad As Hell And I Ain't Gonna Take It Anymore

Albert said...

Maricopa County, Arizona has retention ballots that are almost as long as ours these days, and since 2004 their election agency has reported separate subtotals for early votes (the vast majority of which are by mail). I’ve been keeping up on those numbers, and have found very little difference between the early voters and election day voters. The participation-versus-dropoff rates are almost identical, and the approval rates from early voters are slightly but not meaningfully higher than that of election day voters. Kind of surprising but it’s been consistent in every election.
Unfortunately the city and county agencies here don’t report those figures so we won’t know if the same holds for Cook County voters.

Anonymous said...

Says who? The default is NO.

Anonymous said...

No.

Anonymous said...

Maricopa County isn't Cook County circa 2020. NO! NO! NO!

Anonymous said...

This is a mutiny. No...No...No... all 62 times.

Anonymous said...

The natives are restless, but will enough vote no?

Anonymous said...

You are a shameless boot-licking apologist for these loafing judges, Leyhane. Vote NO. Bet you won’t post this comment.

Jack Leyhane said...

Good morning, Anon 10/20 at 5:51 a.m.

I hope you feel better after you have your morning coffee.

Meanwhile, what did I win?