Let's start with what we know for sure:
The new subcircuit maps are now law: On Friday, January 7, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed HB3138 into law. It is now P.A. 102-0693.
Because the bill has been signed into law, we also know that §2f(d-5) has now been added to the Circuit Courts Act. This provision states:
All vacancies in circuit judgeships in the Circuit of Cook County, which are not allotted to Judicial Subcircuits 1 through 15 pursuant to subsection (c) of this Section, existing on or occurring on or after June 1, 2022 shall be allotted in numerical order to Judicial Subcircuits 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 until there are 11 resident judges to be elected from each of the those subcircuits (for a total of 55).
Let's move into what we think we know:
There are currently nine countywide judicial vacancies in Cook County. There may already be more, but that's what we know about now for sure.
Under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of P.A. 102-0693, these vacancies would have been filled in the forthcoming November election. The persons elected in November would take office on December 5, 2022.
Under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of P.A. 102-0693, any countywide judicial vacancies created (whether by death, retirement, or removal from office) on or before March 14, 2022 would also have been filled in the forthcoming November election. Filing for vacancies occurring on or before February 20 would have taken place between March 7 and 14; filing for vacancies occurring between February 21 and March 14 would have taken place between March 28 and April 4.
The Cook County Democratic Party slated nine persons for countywide vacancies this past December; it also anointed 11 hopefuls as alternates, ready-made, pre-slated candidates for any countywide vacancies that open up between now and March 14.
But the thing about vacancies existing now is that they will still be vacancies on June 1, 2022.
So will these vacancies, the ones that exist now, and any that come into existence between now and March 14, be filled by the 2022 election... or will they be divided up among the new subcircuits for the 2024 election? (Under P.A. 102-0693 no one will be elected from any of the new Cook County Judicial Subcircuits until 2024.)
I don't think for one millisecond that the drafters of the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022 meant or intended to dump the nine persons that the Cook County Democratic Party had slated or to deny any of the 11 named alternates from seeking any later-opening countywide vacancy that might have opened up.
However, given the plain language of §2f(d-5) of the Circuit Courts Act as amended by the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022, it would appear that this is exactly what happened.
Obviously, I must be wrong about this? Right?
It doesn't bear directly on the question posed above, but there have apparently been alarm bells sounded in official quarters about the unintended consequences of the hastily drawn up Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022. I produce herewith a screenshot from a Tweet from MarkMaxwellTV (and a link to the original Tweet that you will probably want to click on) in support of this contention:
I retweeted the above this morning, along with a plea for a peek at the memo referred to in Maxwell's story.
I won't hold my breath waiting to see it. I understand my position here. I'm not a political insider (obviously). I'm not seen as a professional journalist. I'm not even an election lawyer. I'm just an observer -- and a nobody nobody sent.
I certainly claim no particular inside information.
After reading my articles last week about HB3138 a retired Cook County judge wrote me to advise that I had miscounted the number of pre-1992 judges (elected City-only or Suburbs-only) still serving in Cook County. I'd said there were two; the judge pointed out three and, of course, the judge was correct. I checked.
In my defense, I've been following along on an ancient, badly faded photocopy of an order, purportedly signed by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Benjamin K. Miller, setting out the order (determined by lot) in which subcircuit vacancies would be filled. It has been accurate since at least 2010 when (in order) "A" vacancies were filled in Subcircuits 9, 3, 14 and 1. Next up on the lottery list were Subcircuits 13, 8, and 4 -- and these had "A" vacancies assigned for the 2012 election. Next on the list were Subcircuits 10 and 11; these had "A" vacancies in 2014. In 2016, "A" vacancies were filled in Subcircuits 6 and 12, just as the list predicted. That left three vacancies for Subcircuits 2, 7, and 15, respectively. No "A" vacancies were added in 2018, but Judge Alexander White's 2018 retirement led to the filling of an "A" vacancy in the 2nd Subcircuit in the 2020 election. That left two (7 and 15) on my list.
Which is the source of my apparent error. Or did someone skip a line once some time ago that hasn't yet been rectified?
I'll probably never know.
The point is, on this beat, I'm as useful and as accurate as the information I can scrounge. And, maybe, and perhaps even understandably, as the guy peering through the knothole in the fence, sometimes I miss stuff.
But this is what I'm seeing so far: Through an accident of drafting, Cook County's existing countywide judicial vacancies appear not likely to be filled in the 2022 election. Maybe this will be fixed. Maybe I've got it wrong. If someone explains why I'm wrong to me, I'll try and explain it to you, too.
SECTION 12. ELECTION AND RETENTION
ReplyDelete(a) Supreme, Appellate and Circuit Judges shall be
nominated at primary elections or by petition. Judges shall
be elected at general or judicial elections as the General
Assembly shall provide by law. A person eligible for the
office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as
a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or
judicial elections by submitting petitions. The General
Assembly shall prescribe by law the requirements for
petitions.
(b) The office of a Judge shall be vacant upon his
death, resignation, retirement, removal, or upon the
conclusion of his term without retention in office. Whenever
an additional Appellate or Circuit Judge is authorized by
law, the office shall be filled in the manner provided for
filling a vacancy in that office.
(c) A vacancy occurring in the office of Supreme,
Appellate or Circuit Judge shall be filled as the General
Assembly may provide by law. In the absence of a law,
vacancies may be filled by appointment by the Supreme Court.
A person appointed to fill a vacancy 60 or more days prior to
the next primary election to nominate Judges shall serve
until the vacancy is filled for a term at the next general or
judicial election. A person appointed to fill a vacancy less
than 60 days prior to the next primary election to nominate
Judges shall serve until the vacancy is filled at the second
general or judicial election following such appointment.
(d) Not less than six months before the general election
preceding the expiration of his term of office, a Supreme,
Appellate or Circuit Judge who has been elected to that
office may file in the office of the Secretary of State a
declaration of candidacy to succeed himself. The Secretary of
State, not less than 63 days before the election, shall
certify the Judge's candidacy to the proper election
officials. The names of Judges seeking retention shall be
submitted to the electors, separately and without party
designation, on the sole question whether each Judge shall be
retained in office for another term. The retention elections
shall be conducted at general elections in the appropriate
Judicial District, for Supreme and Appellate Judges, and in
the circuit for Circuit Judges. The affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the electors voting on the question shall
elect the Judge to the office for a term commencing on the
first Monday in December following his election.
(e) A law reducing the number of Appellate or Circuit
Judges shall be without prejudice to the right of the Judges
affected to seek retention in office. A reduction shall
become effective when a vacancy occurs in the affected unit.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Jack,
ReplyDeleteThe Illinois Supreme Court just issued an order (M.R.31114) reallocating vacancies into the new downstate subcircuits but the order left all other vacancies already certified for the 2022 election unchanged.
"This Order applies only to the specific judicial vacancies re-certified herein. The certifications of all other judicial vacancies for election in 2022 issued prior to the effective date of Public Act 102-0693 remain unchanged."
So special rules for Cook County? Those 9 countywide vacancies should be re-allotted on June 1, 2022, to the 16-20 subcircuits as required by PA102-693 and the Supreme Court should appoint judges to fill those new subcircuit vacancies until the 2024 election.
Anon 1/11/22 @2:25 p.m. -- Thanks. I saw that on CapitolFax (here's the link to the order so everyone else can follow along with us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure we're talking apples and apples here. As I understand it, the subcircuits in Lake County (which went from 6 to 12 under the new legislation) and Downstate (4 entirely new subcircuits in the 3rd Circuit) are being created for the 2022 election cycle. New judges will take those seats on December 5, 2022. The new Cook County subcircuits won't elect anyone until 2024.
So reallocation of vacancies in the 19th and 3rd Circuits has a different priority. And Cook County has a stand-alone provision, §2f(d-5) regarding how its new subcircuit vacancies will be populated. As I read it, the allocation is automatic and does not require a Supreme Court order -- but it does put the slated candidates for existing countywide vacancies in limbo at best -- and more likely, as near as I can tell, left without any offices to run for.
I'm happy to be wrong on this. I'm just trying to reconcile the language that's there with what I'm sure was a different intent.
If the Supreme Court fills a vacancy through appointment, then a Judgeship is not vacant. Per the constitution, the office of a Judge shall be vacant upon his death, resignation, retirement, removal, or upon the conclusion of his term without retention in office.
ReplyDeleteThe way to fix this is to ensure that all of the vacancies are filled by Supreme Court appointment prior to June 1st. Problem solved.
Jack I think the problem is even more convoluted. You suggest the vacancies that exist on June 1, 2022 would be filled in 2024. However, I think those vacancies can't be filled until December of 2026. The new subcircuit map does not take effect until December 2, 2024 which is when new judges would be sworn in from the 2024 General Election. That means judges could not be elected to fill in vacancies in the new subcircuits until December of 2026. I think the Supreme Court is concerned because it raises questions about when they would be able to appoint judges to the new subcircuits and when would those appointments expire?
ReplyDeleteROTATION: 5, 9, 3, 14, 1, 13, 8, 4, 10, 11, 6, 12, 2, 7, 15
ReplyDeleteThe Alexander White vacancy became an Additional A vacancy in the 2nd Subcircuit in the 2020 election won by Sondra Nicole Denmark.
Anon 1/11/22 @4:18 p.m. -- Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but seems to me that your position, though logical enough, is not supported by this language of the Illinois Constitution concerning the Supreme Court's power to fill vacancies by temporary appointment (Art. 6, §12(c)): "A person appointed to fill a vacancy 60 or more days prior to the next primary election to nominate Judges shall serve until the vacancy is filled for a term at the next general or judicial election." This suggests that a vacancy is not filled, even after the making of a temporary appointment, because it says the appointee can serve only until the vacancy is filled at the next election.
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt in my mind that the drafters of the Judicial Districting Act of 2022 were thinking along the lines you are. But a vacancy filled by temporary appointment is still a vacancy. That's why (for example) -- under the former law -- though Sanjay T. Tailor is temporarily appointed to the Cannon vacancy, the office that would be on the ballot for election is the vacancy of the Hon. Diane Gordon Cannon. If §2f(d-5) means what I think it does, that vacancy automatically ceases to exist on June 1, becoming instead Additional Judgeship "A" in the new 16th Judicial Subcircuit.
Which wouldn't solve the problem at all, at least not for those who hope to run for these countywide vacancies in the June primary.
tl;dnr.
ReplyDelete