"Girl I Guess Progressive Voter Guide" recommends "no" votes on six -- no, check that -- five Cook County retention judges

The "Girl I Guess" voter guides are the brainchild of @Stephanie_Skora who describes herself as a "Genderqueer Trans woman, Femme Lesbian, Jewish Mom Virgo, organizer, [and] speaker."

Ms. Skora has also become, in a very short time, quite influential in Cook County judicial races. In his post-primary analysis for FWIW, Dr. Albert J. Klumpp wrote:

One other relevant factor was the “Girl I Guess” progressive voter guide that has been a detectable presence in the two most recent November retention elections. It influenced roughly six percent of the vote. This is an impressive achievement for a single individual, but it was not part of any larger grassroots movement that was the primary cause of anyone’s victory or defeat.

Skora's opinions on Cook County judicial retention candidates are therefore newsworthy.

These may be found in the Guide itself, a Google doc, linked herein.

To find Ms. Skora's pungent commentaries on those candidates she deems unworthy of retention, one must scroll down the 46-page document quite a bit. The reader with time may find it illuminating to first read Ms. Skora's explanations of herself, her methods, methodologies, metrics, and priorities (pp. 3-7), but most FWIW will want to 'cut to the chase' and see who Ms. Skora rejects.

Those singled out are Anna Loftus, Alison C. Conlon, Daniel James Pierce, Ann Finley Collins, and Rossana Patricia Fernandez. Judge William H. Hooks was also initially targeted for a "no" vote, but Skora changed her mind.

Skora explains her choices in detail at pp. 39-41 of her Guide but, to summarize, Pierce and Collins are singled out on account of their failure to participate in the bar associations' review process. Pierce has since resigned; FWIW has not yet determined whether his name will appear on the ballot but, even if it does, and even if Pierce attracts sufficient "yes" votes, he can not "un-resign." Collins recently contacted FWIW to explain that she, too, had been planning to retire, which was why she did not submit to bar screening, but changed her mind at the last moment when she realized that personal financial considerations made retirement in 2022 inadviseable. Skora's current version of her Guide contains this "update" in regard to Collins:

Several people have reached out to me to express that Judge Collins is hardworking and should be retained. I’m including that in this update here because it’s important that folks are vouching for her as a Judge, including one individual who I’ve endorsed in a Judicial race before. But with little other information to work off of, I’m not able to change my endorsement based on her lack of participation in the Bar Association ratings. If anyone is able to tell me why she chose not to participate, that might sway things, but barring that information, I don’t have enough to change my mind.

Skora recommends that Anna Loftus be turned out of office because Loftus hired a law clerk with Trumpian views. FWIW has tracked down the apparent Facebook page of the person in question; if the screen grabs Skora includes with her "dish" were public posts, they have (unsurprisingly) been scrubbed. All of which begs the question of whether a public agency can, or should, be permitted to vet a job applicant's political leanings in making a hiring decision. Obviously, this was once permitted: For many years in Cook County, no one could get a public job without a letter from one's committeeman attesting to the applicant's bona fides generally and party loyalty specifically. This was called "patronage" -- and progressives used to hate it. But, I guess, times change.

Skora calls Rossana Patricia Fernandez a "complicated case." She writes:

According to all accounts, she’s a capable judge who knows the law, can do the work, and has held a number of impressive leadership positions throughout her career... and also according to the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, and an anonymous website where litigants and attorneys can review judges, she’s got some serious problems with her temperament, and has been reported as condescending and disrespectful to attorneys and litigants alike. Bar Associations are split on Fernandez because of her impressive qualifications, but I’m not inclined to give a break to a Judge who should treat people better from the bench. Vote NO.

For the record, the "anonymous website" referred to in Skora's "dish" regarding Fernandez is The Robing Room -- where, indeed, Fernandez comes in for a very poor rating... on the basis of three evaluations.

While it may seem otherwise from Skora's remarks, the Chicago Council of Lawyers did rate Fernandez "Qualified," although it did consider her case a "close call." Here is the complete text of the CCL's evaluation of Fernandez:

The Hon. Rossana P. Fernandez was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1997. She is currently assigned to the Domestic Relations Division in the Third Municipal District. She was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2015 and elected as a Circuit Court Judge in 2016. Previously, she had been a Partner at Sanchez and Daniels, where she handled personal injury litigation. She had also worked at Eannace Lowery & Meade as an Associate Attorney.

Judge Fernandez has extensive legal knowledge and ability. She is praised for her opinion writing skills. However, there are mixed reviews on the issue of temperament and court management. Many lawyers praised her ability to control a courtroom while being respectful. Others criticize her for being inflexible and rigid in managing her courtroom and applying courtroom procedures in Domestic Relations and Domestic Violence cases, which, they say sometimes leads to questionable outcomes. Many lawyers praise her temperament and how she addresses person in her courtroom. But many other respondents say she is sometimes rude to litigants and lawyers. Because of the wide disparity of views, Judge Fernandez’s evaluation presents a very close call. The reports of problems with Judge Fernandez’s handling of her call are credible and concerning. Ultimately, however, the Council credits reports that Judge Fernandez is a hardworking and caring judge who is capable of improvement. On balance, the Council finds her Qualified for retention.

Of the four Alliance bar groups that recommend "no" votes on Fernandez, the Decalogue Society, the Hellenic Bar Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, and Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC), only the ISBA publishes a narrative explaining its rating. That explanation may be found in this prior FWIW post.

That leaves Alison C. Conlon and William H. Hooks. Skora recommends voting against Judge Conlon because of an alleged relationship between the judge and a Sergeant in the Cook County's Sheriff's Office and what her apparent single "source in the Daley Center" says are the consequences that follow therefrom. I won't repeat the "dish" here, but commend the reader to p. 39 of the guide instead.

As to Hooks, Skora initially called him a misogynist, among other things. While noting the Chicago Council of Lawyer's praise for Judge Hooks for "calling out cops who lie on the stand," she initially opposed Hooks' retention because he was required to attend anger management training (which he was, in October 2018, though he was reinstated in January 2019).

Skora announced her change of heart about Hooks in this update:

A trusted source reached out to me with more context on Hooks’s anger management stint, and it very much changed my mind on this endorsement. Evidently, what went down is that Hooks called out a shitty, ex-cop judge for throwing out the cases against the cops who covered up the murder of Laquan McDonald in 2014. He called her a bitch and a bunch of other things, and she reported him to the presiding justice at the time, so he got sent to anger management classes! Holy shit! Throwing out cases against cops who covered up a murder for a disgraced former Mayor absolutely qualifies someone as a bitch, and Hooks has been on the side of victims of police violence for years internally to the courthouse.