Would anyone seriously call Pritzker's margin over Bailey a squeaker? A close call? A cliffhanger?
Maybe "landslide" would be used only by those with a rooting interest -- but it does not seem at all hyperbolic to say that Gov. Pritzker enjoyed a "comfortable" or "double-digit" margin over State Sen. Bailey, at 54.2% to 43.1%. The election had been called by every major news outlet before the election judges had a chance to get home.
But if J.B. Pritzker were a Cook County judge seeking retention, he would have been kicked out of office with "only" a 54.2% favorable vote.
It was a Democratic sweep last night in Illinois, but outside of races for Cook County offices where the Republicans cobbled together a ticket only after the primary, very few winners got 60% of the vote. If 60% + 1 were the standard, every lopsided Democratic statewide winner, not just Pritzker, would have gone down to defeat.
But, just as sure as sunrise, there will be those who lament that the judicial retention standard is too lenient, a virtual guarantee of lifetime employment for those fortunate enough to serve in the judiciary.
But, in reality, it's darned hard for a candidate to get the approval of more than six out of every 10 voters. It's an achievement. Just look at the numbers.
Your comparing apples with oranges because in a retention election, your only opponent is yourself. It's really only a referendum on whether people like your "ballot name" or you suddenly become notorious in the news. And notoriety in the news is not a problem if, again, you have a good ballot name. Just ask Judge McHugh who won close to 80% after she undeniably gave her car keys to a(nother?) drunk judge who proceeded to crash it into a parked car. While the Sun-Times said she had to answer for it, all she did was deflect by claiming she didn't refuse to answer questions by the police. Whether her account is ENTIRELY accurate is anyone's guess. But after the initial 48-72 news cycle, everyone lost interest and she crept back into obscurity. Then her ballot name save her.
ReplyDeleteNow that we have seen that Bar Associations can target a judge (Fernandez being this cycle's easy target), the 2024 Retention Class better watch out.
Meanwhile, if I am D. Renee Jackson or Daryl Jones or any other member of the 80% Retention Club, I would be giving serious consideration for a run for the Appellate Court. You have the name and the countywide voters clearly like you. Hell, even McHugh or Gallagher or Ramos should give it serious consideration.
Sincerely,
"Telling It Like It Is"
Don't be so angry. It was a good and fair election and the people voted.
ReplyDeleteOr you could just run.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else get the sense that Maya and Injustice Watch are desperate to be perceived relevant? It seems like they push the same tired narratives to the same misinformed but highly opinionated idiots called voters every season with the not-so subtle desire to see one or more judges toppled at retention. If that happens, then somehow IW perceives or insinuates it has done good. Just another outlet with an agenda. No better than the clowns we elect judge every cycle.
ReplyDeleteI think Justice Gallagher has a nice ring to it. Justice Jackson too.
ReplyDeleteI do not know the legislative history of the 60% rule, so I may have this totally wrong. However, given Illinois political history, was it set to keep one party's judges OFF the bench for lengthy periods? The Dems would want the Republican judges gone, so even if one got on the bench, by the next election they'd be unretained. Or was it a check on the electorate itself, by setting such a high bar to removal that even bad judges of one party or the other would remain on the bench? Otherwise the 60% rule seems 'arbitrary and capricious'; surprised some candidate's lawyer never challenged it on that basis.
ReplyDeleteWe prefer Justices Ramos and DeLaRosa.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10/10 7:29:00 PM -- Originally, when retention elections began in Illinois (through the amended judicial article to the state constitution that took effect in 1964), it was a 50% requirement. Then during the debates about the new constitution in 1970, some legislators wanted to raise the requirement to two-thirds because no judges had been removed up to that point and the approval rates had been so high. The 60% level was a compromise that ended up getting adopted. It wasn't done for partisanship reasons.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes it was subsequently challenged--by a Cook County judge named David Lefkovitz who became the first Illinois judge to lose (in 1974 59.8%). He failed. The case is Lefkovits v. State Bd. of Elections, 424 U.S. 901 (1975).