The problem of the faithless alternates?

After posting yesterday's story on the Cook County Democratic Party's demand for a loyalty pledge from all prospective countywide candidates, I heard from a Cook County Democratic Party committeeperson who suggested that a motivation for this new demand was that three persons who were slated as alternates for the 2020 election cycle ran against the Party -- and that at least one of these participated in "detailed and sensitive strategy sessions with other members of the slate" (as might be expected of an alternate) before making a run.

I can't speak to whether someone sat in on 'strategy sessions' before making a run, but I can look at my archives and see which slated alternates did or did not run against the Party.

For the 2020 primary, the Cook County Democratic Party selected 10 alternates for potential countywide vacancies.

That's a huge number. In a typical election cycle one or two late vacancies may occur -- and there were none in 2020 -- but never, ever 10.

In theory, being selected as an alternate is good because if a vacancy does occur, the next alternate in line is, if you will, pre-slated. Where there is a realistic chance at winding up being an actual, slated candidate, it may make abundant sense to wait. The first in line would have a good chance of getting on the ballot. Case in point: Vacancies opened up for the first three of the eight alternates selected in the 2018 election cycle and all three ultimately won (two were unopposed).

But being the 10th alternate? That may be the political equivalent of a participation trophy.

With that background in mind, let's take a look at the 10 alternates selected for the 2020 election cycle and what happened to them since:

1. Thomas Nowinski. Did not run against the Party. The fifth alternate in 2018, Nowinski jumped to the head of the line in 2020 because the 2018 alternate ahead of him -- an appointed judge who had to seek election to stay on the bench -- chose to run in a subcircuit. Nowinski appeared for the Party's pre-slating meeting.


2. Travis Richardson. Did not run against the Party. A former appointed judge, Richardson did not appear for the Party's pre-slating meeting.


3. Cristin McDonald Duffy. Ran against the Party for a countywide vacancy. She didn't win, but neither did the slated candidate.


4. Eric Sauceda. Did not run against the Party. Selected as an associate judge this past September.


5. Yolanda Sayre. Did not run against the Party. She did do a little fundraising to give her a leg up on 2022. And she did appear for pre-slating.


6. Frank Andreou. Did not run against the Party. Selected as an associate judge in December 2019.


7. Joseph Chico. Ran against the party for a countywide vacancy. And lost. The Party's slated candidate won.


8. Diane Marie Pezanoski. Did not run against the Party. Selected an associate judge in December 2019.


9. Amanda Pillsbury. Ran against the Party for a countywide vacancy. And lost. To the Party's slated candidate.


10. Ashonta Rice. Did not run against the Party. Did appear for pre-slating in October.

So as my committeeperson source reported, three of the 10 alternates from 2020 did run against the Party. But all three lost.

Which doesn't say much for the value of those "detailed and sensitive strategy sessions with other members of the slate."

And the Party won two of the three races in which an alternate made a challenge -- a .667 batting average -- which was exactly how the Party fared as a whole in all contested countywide judicial races in 2020.

No harm, no foul?

Of the 10 alternates, three have likely forfeited consideration from the slatemakers, at least for the immediate future, on account of their failed 2020 bids for the bench. One may not be running this time. Three more have since become associate judges and may be considered 'off the market.'

That leaves three or possibly four (attendance at the Pre-Slating meeting is not required in order for someone to seek slating) looking to have their loyalty rewarded by receiving a spot next week.

But how many spots are actually open?

Therein lies the pitfall of patience. While the alternates are biding their time, new candidates continue to emerge. The Supreme Court fills many countywide vacancies before slating (at this point, I know of two unfilled countywide vacancies) and the Court's appointees (though not automatically slated) often wind up slated.

There may be more vacancies than I know about. There often are. But can there ever be enough?

And, if there aren't, what is the value of "loyalty" here?

But let's step back a bit: If the problem motivating the loyalty pledge is faithless alternates, why is only one subparagraph (¶3(c)) of the two-page document) devoted to this alleged problem? A "problem" which involves alternates running and losing.

With all due respect to my committeeman source -- who has, of course, asked not to be named -- there must be something more behind this written loyalty pledge than alternates who refuse to stay sidelined.

In his Sun-Times column yesterday, Mark Brown says he was told "the loyalty pledge requirement was enacted because of frustration by party leaders with the large number of judicial candidates especially who seek the party’s backing and then run without it, often successfully."

But nothing in the pledge prohibits a candidate neither endorsed nor named as an alternate from running against the Party. Nor could it.

Brown also quotes candidates and consultants who denouce the pledge as 'bullying' and something "out of the Communist Party playbook."

Brief aside here: Brown actually gets to quote people. By actual name. By contrast, almost anyone who communicates with me starts out with "this is off the record" or "keep my name out of this" or "you didn't hear this from me." Of course, none of the people Brown actually quotes are lawyers. Even if they are involved with judicial campaigns.

There is still the question of whether the pledge potentially puts a judicial candidate on the wrong side of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As I reported yesterday, the Party insists that it does not. Others say differently. But I am still endeavoring to find someone who will speak for the record.

Stay tuned.