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:

• CBA recommends "yes" vote for 60 of 62 jurists seeking retention;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers finds eight jurists Well Qualified for retention, one Highly Qualified;
• ISBA releases narratives for its Cook County judicial retention ratings;
• Suburban Bar Coalition announces retention recommendations; and
• Final Alliance grids released this morning.

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."