Justice Cunningham announces application process for three Circuit Court vacancies

Supreme Court Justice Joy V. Cunningham has announced an application process for three Circuit Court vacancies, one countywide, and one each in the 1st and 13th Subcircuits.

The countywide vacancy was created by the retirement of Judge Mary Ellen Coghlan (vacant effective September 1, 2024). The 1st subcircuit vacancy was created by the election of Judge Carl A. Walker to the Illinois Appellate Court. The 13th Subcircuit vacancy was created by the retirement of Judge Shannon P. O’Malley. (Yes, Judge O'Malley was defeated for retention, but he chose to retire as of November 30, before his term expired.)

The Supreme Court's press release about this new application process notes that applicants will be screened by Justice Cunningham's new screening committee.

Applications for any of these vacancies can be downloaded from this page of the Supreme Court website. Completed applications must be submitted electronically. The deadline for filing for any of these three vacancies is 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 21, 2025.

The persons appointed to fill the vacancies will serve until the first Monday in December following the November 2026 election.

To be eligible for consideration for appointment, the applicant must be a lawyer in good standing, licensed to practice law in Illinois, and a resident of the county or subcircuit at the time of the appointment.

CBA's Barristers Big Band at Andy's Jazz Club on December 30

The Chicago Bar Association's Barristers Big Band will perform at Andy's Jazz Club, 11 E. Hubbard Street, on Monday, December 30, at 6:00 and 8:15 p.m.

Reservations (available at the Andy's Jazz Club website) are required; the shows tend to sell out in advance.

Tickets now on sale for CBA's Bar to the Future

Drive your DeLorean over to the Studebaker Theater, 410 S. Michigan Ave., for the Chicago Bar Association's 101st Annual Bar Show, Bar to the Future.

The Wednesday, January 8 performance is billed as a preview/dress rehearsal. The curtain rises at 7:00 p.m. for that performance, at 7:30 p.m. for the Friday, January 10 show, and at 2:00 p.m. for the matinee finale on Saturday, January 11. Tickets and pricing for every show is available at this link.

Linda Sackey appointed to countywide Hooks vacancy

Justice P. Scott Neville and the Illinois Supreme Court have announced the appointment of Linda Sackey to the countywide vacancy created by the recent retirement of Judge William H. Hooks.

The appointment is effective January 24, 2025 and terminates December 7, 2026.

Sackey was admitted to practice in Illinois in 2006, according to ARDC. She currently serves as a Judicial Clerk to Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis.

The press release issued by the Supreme Court in connection with this appointment, notes that Sackey began her legal career as a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She then worked as an associate at Mayer Brown LLP for five years. From 2013 to 2018 Sackey was an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Appeals Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. She also served as an adjunct professor at The John Marshall Law School (now University of Illinois Chicago School of Law) in 2016. Sackey has been with Justice Theis since 2019.

Sackey has been active in several bar associations, including the Cook County Bar Association, the Women's Bar Association of Illinois, and the Black Women Lawyers’ Association. She has served as a member of the Board of Directors of both the CCBA and the Appellate Lawyers Association, according to the Supreme Court's press release.

Wake and funeral arrangements announced for retired Appellate Court Justice Thomas J. O'Brien

Retired Appellate Court Justice Thomas J. O'Brien passed away this past Saturday at the age of 92. First elected to the Circuit Court in 1976, O'Brien concluded his judicial career on the Appellate Court, serving pursuant to Supreme Court appointment from 1994 to 1995.

O'Brien will be waked this coming Monday, December 16, from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m., at Glueckert Funeral Home, 1520 N. Arlington Heights Rd, Arlington Heights. The funeral Mass will be celebrated on Tuesday, December 17, at 10:30 a.m., at St. Alphonsus Liguori Church, 411 N. Wheeling, Prospect Heights. There will be additional visitation at the church from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning.

O'Brien's daughter Carol and I worked together on the Loyola Phoenix back in the day. The Phoenix even endorsed O'Brien's successful 1976 judicial campaign. Granted, the endorsement was probably not dispositive....

Although I suppose it looks rather presumptuous in print, my legal career sort of 'tracked' O'Brien's judicial career. As a newly-minted lawyer, I appeared in front of him when he was hearing Municipal jury motions on the 13th floor of the Daley Center. O'Brien was soon promoted to the Law Division Motion Court... and I, also more seasoned, was soon arguing motions before him regularly there.

Many lawyers may remember that Judge O'Brien used to have a binder with him on the bench, chock full of citaitons that he would toss out while deciding substantive motions at their first hearing. I wasn't the only one writing these down while waiting for my case to be called. It was not then the custom to automatically give 28 days to respond and 14 days to reply; Judge O'Brien would decide if a particular motion merited this special setting.

I had a number of these contested motions, usually on behalf of insurance company clients. Judge O'Brien was no fan of insurance companies. So when these afternoon hearings took place, I knew how they were going to turn out as soon as O'Brien took the bench. If he was cheerful and complimentary -- praising the brief I'd written, for example -- I knew I was certain to lose. On the other hand, if he came out looking slightly pained, maybe a little upset, I knew I had a shot. Judge O'Brien may not have liked my clients, but he followed the law; he looked -- he looked carefully -- to see if the law gave him an 'out' -- but he went, if not always willingly, where the law led.

No one can ask more than that from any judge.

And if I lost -- when I lost, as I often did -- Judge O'Brien always had an explanation. A reason. A flaw in my logic. An error in the procedure followed by the insurer on this occasion. Something. I have never yet met a client who was satisfied with a loss, but the ability to provide a cogent, plausible explanation for a disappointing result sure helped.

I appeared before O'Brien at least once when he was on the Appellate Court. I had a great theory, I thought. The way I saw it, all I needed was in Section I of my brief. I laid it out before the panel at oral argument... and, quite full of myself, said something like, "if you accept this, I can stop right here." Justice O'Brien punctured my balloon, but in a nice way: "No," he said, "why don't you go on?" (I won that one... just not on my pet theory.)

But I will end this reminiscence with one more Motion Court story. Opposing counsel and I were arguing a discovery motion, and like Grant after the Battle of Spottsylvania Courthouse, I was prepared to fight it out on this line if it took all summer. My opponent was similarly inclined. After we'd both spouted quite a bit, Judge O'Brien cut us off. He reminded us that the courtroom was full and that he couldn't inconvenience everyone else while waiting for us to finish beating each other up. He directed us to the jury box, saying he would give us a full hearing at the end of the call -- not that half hour motion call, we understood that instantly -- but after the last motion of the morning -- probably about noon.

Of course, I would like to think that I was the good guy here, but there's only a 50-50 chance. Eventually, though, one of us leaned over to the other and said -- quietly -- very quietly, so as not to incur any further judicial displeasure -- "I guess we're being kept after school." Whichever one of us said it, it broke the ice, and we'd soon worked out an agreed order.

Still, we waited. We both realized that premature presentation of our overdue agreement would not be kindly received.

At the very, very, very end of the call, Judge O'Brien called us back up. We informed him of our peace treaty. He beamed. "I was hoping you would do that."

There are judges who are well-versed in the law. There are judges who are good presiders, skilled at handling a roomful of quarrelling, querulous lawyers. It's the rare judge who are strong in both areas. Such was Judge O'Brien. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Photo courtesy of the O'Brien family

Chief Justice Theis announces process for filling 11th Subcircuit vacancy

Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis has announced that applications will be accepted for a temporary appointment to an 11th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Mary Colleen Roberts.

Applications are available at this page of the Illinois Supreme Court's website. The deadline for completion and return of the application is 4:00 p.m. on January 3, 2025. The application must be returned electronically and as a single document. (Note that, in a story posted earlier today, the deadline for applications to three vacancies being filled by Justice Cunningham was 5:00 p.m., not 4:00 p.m. That's not a typo; each justice can set such deadlines or groundrules as he or she sees fit.)
This appointment, once made, will expire on December 7, 2026. To remain in office, the successful applicant would have to run for, and win, election to this seat in the 2026 election.

Applicants for this vacancy must be lawyers, licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois, and residents of the 11th Subcircuit.

Roberts was first elected to this 11th Subcircuit seat in 2006.

The Supreme Court's press release announcing the application process is available at this link (note that, at press time, the link worked in Chrome, but not in Firefox).

Justice Cunningham announces appointment process for three subcircuit vacancies

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Joy V. Cunninghman has announced that applications for temporary appointments to three subcircuit vacancies will be accepted until December 23 at 5:00 p.m.

The vacancies to be filled are those created by the retirements of Judge Thomas W. Murphy (3rd Subcircuit) and Associate Judge Callie L. Baird (her vacancy being assigned to the 16th Subcircuit) and by the appointment of Associate Judge John A. Fairman to the 15th Subcircuit vacancy to which he has since been elected (this last vacancy being assigned to the 19th Subcircuit).

Applicants for these positions will be screened by Justice Cunningham's recently announced Judicial Selection Committee. Applications can be downloaded from this page of the Supreme Court website.

The persons appointed to fill these vacancies will serve until the first Monday in December following the November 2026 election. Successful applicants would have to run for, and win, these seats in the 2026 election.

To be eligible for consideration for appointment, the applicant must be a lawyer in good standing, licensed to practice law in Illinois, and a resident of the Subcircuit at the time of appointment.

The Court's press release announcing these vacancies is available here.

CBA condemns threats against Judge Thomas Nowinski

The Chicago Bar Association has issued a statement condemning threats made against Judge Thomas Nowinski.

The statement, posted to X, states in pertinent part, "Regardless of one's views on the merits of any judicial decisions, threatening judges and their families is not acceptable in our society under any circumstances. Threats made against those we have appointed or elected to administer the rule of law undermine our democracy and judicial independence and must be denounced by our community and responded to by law enforcement to ensure the protection of our judges and court personnel."

The threats referred to in the CBA's statement were reported in this Chicago Sun-Times story by Andy Grimm and Sophie Sherry and this CWBChicago story by Tim Hecke.

FWIW readers are presumably well aware of the tragedies underlying this controversy; for those who may not be fully up to date, this November 24 CWBChicago report by Tim Hecke provides helpful background.

CWBChicago, for one, is reporting that the Office of the Chief Judge is "investigating to determine whether any employee failed to follow policies and procedures" in these cases. I don't pretend to know what these investigations will reveal, or what they should determine.

I suspect, however, that there will be blame enough to go around: whether it will, or should, rest on the judge, or the State's Attorney's Office, or on the "court official responsible for providing pretrial assessments for judges to consider," or on some combination of these, or in what proportion, is not something I can calcuate or predict. I don't know Judge Nowinski personally; I don't believe we've ever met in person. But I would be astounded, whatever the investigations may reveal, if he were not profoundly affected by the two cases where persons he did not detain went on to murder persons they'd previously threatened.

But the impulse to blame the judge for these tragedies should not result in threats to the judge's safety. Clairvoyance has never been a prerequisite for judicial service; that this judge has not been blessed with second sight should not alone be disqualifying. Judge Nowinski would not have been the first judge to imagine that electronic monitoring devices are blessed with properties that they really don't have. According to CWB Chicago:

[Chief Judge Timothy C.] Evans has a history of overstating the real-world capabilities of the GPS-based system.

Speaking to the Union League Club in January 2022, Evans described the domestic violence GPS system and the electronic no-go zones around the victim that the accused is not supposed to enter.

“And also, we can contact the victim,” Evans continued. “And we can say, ‘Madam victim, the potential perpetrator is outside of Macy’s right now on the Washington [Street] side, and if you have to leave, please go out the Randolph side, don’t go out the Washington side. He’s in a zone that he shouldn’t be in, but we want to tell you so you can avoid getting attacked.’”

In reality, an individual with knowledge of the system says, humans do not regularly monitor individual GPS zone violations in real-time and they described real-time, personalized intelligence warnings like the one Evans described at Macy’s as “Fantasyland.”

If the Chief Judge believes that electronic monitoring devices are equipped with these fantastic, but fictitious properties, it might not be so surprising that some of his subordinates might also believe similar things. Even if they shouldn't. There are, moreover, some judges who apparantly cling to the charming, but dangerous, belief that Orders of Protection are bulletproof, a belief based perhaps, at least in part, on their own ingrained obedience to following court orders, to the point that they can't imagine that anyone else might not feel so constrained.

But I am not here to pile on judges: The best judge is constrained by the record before him or her, namely, the evidence provided by the witnesses, the arguments of counsel, and the reports of court agencies. And, of course, most importantly, the text of the law itself constrains courts. Judges are required to follow the law. It is always easy to blame the judge when a terrible consequence follows from a judicial decision, and blame may often be justified. But sometimes the terrible consequence might be the logical result of a judge applying a bad law.

I do not pretend to know whether the laws applicable in these cases should be considered to be part of the problem. I never practiced criminal law. But I am wary of politicians, including those who have a vested interest in a statute, or group of statutes, because they supported those statutes in the first instance, saying that the judge alone should wear the jacket in any given case.

Wake and funeral arrangements announced for Mike McGowan

A lot of current and former Cook County judges will remember Mike McGowan, if only from their new judge orientations. Mike concluded his public career some years ago now, working as the technology guru in the Office of the Chief Judge. He was brought into that position by former Chief Judge Donald P. O'Connell; he remained in that position for a number of years after Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans succeeded O'Connell.

There was a time, and it was not that long ago dear Millennial and Zoomer readers, that having someone testify at a trial from a remote location was a really big deal, and making that happen when it needed to, was one of the things that Mike did in that job.

I knew Mike for well over 40 years, since he was a freshman at Loyola University. We roomed together for a time before I got married. We stood up to each other's weddings. He and his wife Sheri are godparents to my son Joe, and as much an aunt and uncle to all of my children as if they were blood kin. Some years ago he made me promise that, if he died before I did, I would not tell any stories that would embarrass him.

But he might allow me to tell this one on the grounds that FWIW readers, especially those who remember Mike, may think it amusing: Mike began his public career in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office. In the 1980s the Clerk's computer operations were located in CL25, below the Daley Center. Mike rose quickly through the ranks in that office, starting (if I recall the title correctly) as a burster. By the time Clerk Morgan Finley was indicted, Mike was sufficiently senior that he became the person designated to furnish the U.S. attorneys with whatever information that might be required. Mike did not undertake this task with a view to helping or hurting anyone. He did it because he was assigned. He was a creature of duty, determined to do that which he was supposed to do as promptly and efficiently as possible. Mike expected to be called as a prosecution witness at trial to authenticate the records produced, and he thought he'd developed a friendly rapport with the AUSAs who would put him on the stand.

He called me as soon as he could after he got away from the Dirksen Building. "Lawyers are SCUM!" he thundered. Apparently the federal prosecutor who called him did not want any juror to think well of any public employee, lest some of that good feeling transfer to Mr. Finley, and when he grilled Mike, Mike truly felt betrayed.

Mike's anger on that occasion, though both justified and understandable, was entirely out of character. Generally, he knew everyone. He remembered everyone he met. More importantly, that one little incident excepted, he got along with everyone. He was a connector person, an important part of a thousand groups. Think Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon, but from the South Side instead. Mike was always an organizer, bringing people together. In trying to put this remembrance together I naturally wanted a proper portrait-like photo. But Mike was almost always pictured in group shots -- with family, with friends, with fellow volunteers at the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH), or the New Hope Food Pantry, or (more recently) the Global Albinism Alliance. It was from the Alliance that I had to grab the photo here.

Mike was one of those people the BGA never mention when they carp about public pensioners: He didn't 'double dip.' He earned his pension, and with the freedom that this gave him, devoted a productive retirement to the betterment of persons with albinism. Only illness and, now, death could deter him from these pursuits.

The wake for Mike McGowan is set for Friday, November 29, from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m., at Gibbons Family Funeral Home, 5917 W. Irving Park. The funeral Mass will be Saturday, November 30, at 10:00 a.m. at Immaculate Conception Church, 7211 W. Talcott. Internment will be at Union Ridge Cemetery, 6700 W. Higgins. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Global Albinism Alliance.

A rose by any other name? Name change statute in for some big changes

HB 5164 has passed the House and, having been reported out of the Senate Executive Committee on a party line vote, stands on the cusp of passage in the Senate, set for its Third Reading as of November 20.

The bill would significantly alter Article XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/21-101 et seq.

As a practical matter, subject to certain statutory exceptions, a person could always seek a name change from our courts. If one keeps the new name long enough (three years, though married women may face additional hurdles), one may even be elected to the Circuit Court bench. (A name change for a judicial candidate, however, as we have seen recently, carries with it no guarantee of judicial retention.)

Courts have typically denied name change petitions if there was a suspicion that the person seeking the name change was doing so to avoid creditors: If the real reason John Smith wants to change his name to Sam Jones is to avoid collection proceedings brought by Messrs. MasterCard and Visa, what Smith is inviting the court to do is to become a co-conspirator in his attempted fraud on his creditors. Courts don't like that. Courts aren't supposed to like that. We don't want our courts to aid and abet fraudsters.

For this reason, Section 21-103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has provided that notice be made by publication of any proposed name change. There were certain exceptions to the publication provision provided for under the existing law, but Section 15 of HB 5164 would repeal the publication requirement entirely. MasterCard and Visa won't have even the possibility of knowing, now, if John Smith is trying to change his name to avoid paying his bills.

Well, you say, MasterCard and Visa don't need publication. Our biggest banks know more about us generally, and probably about John Smith in particular, than we care to think about. But what about Harry and Harriet Homemaker, senior citizen bungalow owners, who hire Joe Doaks to build a back porch on their home? Joe takes their substantial down payment and disappears, filing to change his name along the way. They, or their lawyer, may not see the publication notice in the Law Bulletin. But at least there would be a chance.

Publication serves a purpose.

Admittedly, in the present age, where print media seems to be dying, a published notice may not be as effective as it once was. If someone has a better alternative, contact your state legislator immediately. But abandoning publication altogether is going to have unintended, and unfortunate, consequences.

The reason HB 5164 proposes to do away with publication is because it will erect still another roadblock (a wall, if you will) against federal enforcement of immigration laws.

This is consistent with the language of new Section 21-103.8. In the current version of HB 5164, this section provides (emphasis supplied):

(a) A petitioner may file a request to have the petitioner's court file impounded by filing a statement, verified under oath as provided under Section 1-109 of this Code, that the person believes that public disclosure would be a hardship and have a negative impact on the person's health or safety to include, but not be limited to, that the person is transgender, an adoptee, a survivor of domestic or intimate partner abuse, a survivor of gender-based violence, a survivor of human trafficking, a refugee, a person who has been granted special immigrant status by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, a person who has survived reparative or conversion therapy, or a person who has been granted asylum in this country. The petitioner may attach to the statement any supporting documents including relevant court orders, although self attestation shall suffice as acceptable documentation.

(b) If the petitioner files a statement attesting that disclosure of the petitioner's address would put the petitioner or any member of the petitioner's family or household at risk or reveal the confidential address of a shelter for domestic violence victims, that address may be omitted from all documents filed with the court, and the petitioner may designate an alternative address for service.

The revisions to the statute do retain provisions requiring notice to the local prosecutor and the Illinois State Police (see, Sec. 21-102.5), so that persons charged with crimes, or registered sex offenders, at least those convicted in Illinois courts, can not elude the consequences of their crimes by simply changing their names.

I assume that all readers of FWIW will have their own, well-formed opinions about immigration policy, both long-term and in recent years, and I have never immersed myself sufficiently in the minutiae of federalism to offer any expert opinion about which state efforts to evade federal law may be permissible and which may amount to nullification of the kind that I thought, as a history major and armchair historian, we had done away with as a result of the Civil War. However, it is clearly the intent of the drafters of this revision to the name change statute to frustrate the efforts of the Orange Man Bad and his incoming administration's efforts to enforce a particular view of the immigration statutes.

But what will be the consequences in other areas of the abandonment of a stutory publication requirement? Will that encourage fraud? Will our courts be made complicit? Is the temporary frustration of immigration enforcement in some cases worth the other changes unleashed by HB 5164?

Every law has consequences. In theory, that's why we make laws, to have the consequences the legislature desires. Most (and maybe all) laws have unintended consequences as well. Sometimes the consequences may not be intended... but they seem pretty darn obvious.

Tickets available at the door for tonight's SWBA Installation Dinner

If you're looking for something to do tonight, and if the currently falling snow stays pre-shoveled as promised, the Southwest Bar Association is holding its installation dinner, starting at 5:00 p.m., at Zachary's Grill, 13415 S. Ridgeland Ave, Palos Heights.

Tickets are $100 each and may be purchased at the door. If you prefer to pay in advance, tickets remain available on a PayPal link via the SWBA website.

Illinois State Bar Association seeks awards nominations

The Illinois State Bar Association is soliciting nominations for a host of awards -- not all of which, by their terms, are 'career achievement' awards meant as solace for someone sailing off into the sunset. Some are specifically limited to mere youngsters -- well, persons under 37, anyway -- and other awards may be given to persons with less than 10 years' experience at the bar. There is even an award especially for law students.

The ISBA is accepting nominations for each of these awards from now until March 3.

What follows is a list of all ISBA awards for which nominations are being sought, along with a brief description of the award as supplied by the ISBA. The linked awards title will take the reader to a more complete description of the award, including additional eligibility requirements, and a nomination form, for those inclined to make one. Some links will give interested persons lists of past award winners. All have email contacts (different email contacts) for any remaining questions about any of these awards:

Austin Fleming Newsletter Editors Award
This award honors outstanding editors or past editors of Association newsletters. It is based on the concept of meritorious service to the Association (at least 10 years as editor or co-editor) and is not necessarily to be given every year.

The Carole K. Bellows Women of Influence Award
This award honors up to two individuals each year that have helped to raise awareness of the unmet legal needs of women, advocated for action on women’s issues, or have promoted involvement by women in the legal community. An award may be given to an individual with more than 10 years' experience and another to an individual with fewer than 10 years' of experience.

Civics Education Award
The Committee on Law-Related Education has established “ISBA Civics Education Award” designed to annually honor up to three individuals who have helped educate the public about civics, especially our legal system.

CLE Achievement Award
This award honors individual ISBA members who are under age 37 and/ or admitted to practice under 7 years who have made notable contributions to ISBA continuing legal education. The award recognizes the recipient’s overall involvement in ISBA’s CLE programming, as well as the potential for future leadership in that area. It is not necessarily presented every year.

CLE Distinguished Service Award
This award honors individual ISBA members who have made outstanding contributions to ISBA continuing legal education. The award does not recognize a single program, but the meritorious work of the recipient over a substantial period of time. It is not necessarily presented every year.

Community Leadership Award
Given by the ISBA's Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), this award recognizes individuals for efforts to foster understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their issues of concern.

Diversity Leadership Award
This award recognizes long standing, continuing and exceptional commitment by an individual or an organization to the critical importance of diversity within the Illinois legal community, its judiciary and within the Illinois State Bar Association.

Elmer Gertz Human & Civil Rights Award
The Gertz Award is meant to honor the often-unsung heroes of the legal community who have shown a continued commitment to preserve and advance human rights.

John C. McAndrews Pro Bono Service Award
The award is named in memory of Rock Island attorney John McAndrews, who chaired the ISBA Committee on Delivery of Legal Services, and is awarded to individual lawyers, law firms and corporate law departments, and bar associations for providing free legal services to the income eligible in Illinois or expanding the availability of legal services to the income eligible in Illinois.

Joseph R. Bartylak Memorial Legal Services Award
This award is named in memory of legal services attorney Joseph R. Bartylak to annually honor his extraordinary commitment and dedication to civil legal services and his outstanding service to Illinois' vulnerable and low-income population. It may be awarded to persons with more than 10 years' experience and to persons with less than 10 years' experience who have provided the highest caliber of compassionate legal representation and outstanding service to Illinois’ vulnerable and low-income population.

Law Student Division Public Service Award
Awarded annually to a law student participating in activities that enhance professional responsibility and provide service to the public. The award is based on extracurricular accomplishments and service related activities during the law school career. A finalist will be selected from each accredited law school affiliated with the ISBA Law Student Division from which qualified nominees are submitted. The final award recipient will be chosen from these finalists.

Excellence in Legal Education Award
The Committee on Legal Education, Admissions and Competence has established "The Excellence on Legal Education Award" designed to annually honor a law school program that emphasizes real world skill for students.

Law Enforcement Award
The Law Enforcement Award was created to recognize sworn law enforcement officers for conduct that promotes justice and to distinguish those individuals whose service to the public brings honor and respect to the entire criminal justice system. The award is given sparingly to recognize those who truly excel in the field of law enforcement.

Matthew Maloney Tradition of Excellence Award
This award is named in memory of Princeton attorney Matthew Maloney, who was a past chair of the ISBA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Section Council and is awarded to individual lawyers who are in a general solo or small firm practice. A nominee must be a member of the Illinois State Bar Association and have been in practice for a minimum of 20 years.

Roz Kaplan Government Service Award
The Roz Kaplan Government Service Award honors government attorneys whose dedication and service have made a difference. The Award recognizes attorneys who, like Roz Kaplan, dedicate their careers to government service.

Richard H. Teas Legislative Support Award
In memory of Richard H. Teas, a long-time member of the ISBA Trusts and Estates Section Council, who contributed hours of his own time in analyzing, drafting, and testifying on legislation. Awarded to acknowledge ISBA members' meritorious service provided in support of ISBA's legislative efforts in the Illinois General Assembly. Only ISBA members are eligible for this award, and nominations must be made by an ISBA member in good standing.

Young Lawyer of The Year Award
The ISBA Young Lawyers Division recognizes two outstanding young lawyers – one practicing outside Cook County and one within – at an awards luncheon. Award recipients must be members in good standing of the Illinois State Bar Association and have not yet reached age 36.

Board of Governors Award
The award recognizes lawyers for exemplary service to the profession and/or the Association and nonlawyers for especially meritorious deeds or service that significantly advance the administration of justice or the goals of the profession or the Association. No more than three of these awards may be given in any year.

Dr. Klumpp takes a first look at the Cook County judicial retention results

FWIW is once again pleased to present a Guest Post by Albert J. Klumpp, a PhD in public policy analysis with a national reputation for expertise on judicial races, the author of several scholarly works analyzing judicial elections, and a generous and frequent contributor to FWIW for many years.

by Albert J. Klumpp

Official results and ward/township breakdowns are still weeks away. But with an unexpected free day, I crunched through the available unofficial vote totals to provide FWIW with my usual analysis of Cook County’s judicial retention voting in this month’s election.

Nationally, it was another good year for retention candidates. A total of 704 state court judges sought retention in noncompetitive votes in seventeen U.S. states, including 29 supreme court justices and 78 intermediate appellate justices. Pending some unreported results in Kansas, it appears that 702 of the candidates were retained.

Besides Shannon O’Malley in Cook County, the only other removal occurred in Oklahoma. Three supreme court justices who were appointed by Democratic governors came under attack by a right-wing organization funded by large amounts of dark money and apparently with the implicit support of the state’s Republican governor. One justice was narrowly removed and the others were narrowly retained.

Here at home, voter turnout based on numbers reported so far was 66.1 percent countywide. This was the lowest turnout for a presidential election since 1996. Voters were presented with the longest judicial retention ballot in the county’s history: 78 names, nosing out the 77-name 2000 ballot. As for what those voters did with it:

• Participation on the retention ballot, based on the median number of votes cast for circuit court judges, was 68.6 percent. While higher than the county’s long-term average, the figure is lower than in the last three elections, and likely indicates that the surge of voter interest that peaked participation in 2018 and 2020 will return to a more long-term typical level, as it did after the Operation Greylord years and as is typical for surge events in retention jurisdictions.


• The baseline approval rate across the entire group of judges was 74.1 percent, marginally lower than the 75.7 percent average for the previous ten elections.


• Female names saw an advantage of 2.0 percentage points relative to male names. Irish names and for Black names (based on U.S. Census data) saw advantages of 1.3 and 2.1 points, respectively. There was no statistically detectable advantage for Hispanic names, which has been typical in Cook County in recent years.


• The combined effect of ratings from all of the local bar associations appears to have been roughly 13.9 percentage points. Splitting this estimate up among the different bars is unusually difficult for this election, but there are indications that the smaller bars beyond the CBA, ISBA and CCL had more of an impact than in any previous election.


• As for the newer, more politically oriented information sources: The Girl I Guess guide captured an estimated 4.8 percent of the vote, while the information printed in the Chicago Votes! young voters guide captured an estimated 3.3 percent. The latter is of particular interest, because it simply flagged every judge who had been flagged by Injustice Watch in its own voter guide—which does not provide vote recommendations—based on “a negative review or…negative controversy.” To the extent that this represents the most likely decision strategy for a voter using only the Injustice Watch guide, then the Chicago Votes! measurement also includes the direct impact of the Injustice Watch guide (as opposed to its indirect impact on other sources).

In the aggregate, an estimated 22.1 percent of the retention electorate used some source of information in their voting. This compares with estimates of 32.8 percent in 2018, 31.9 percent in 2020, and 22.2 percent in 2022. The noticeable change in 2022 and its recurrence this month is definitely the most significant aspect of the two elections, and deserves a closer look.

The above chart shows the spreads between the highest and lowest approval rates on each retention ballot since 1982, for both the city of Chicago and its Cook County suburbs. These spreads are a reasonably accurate proxy for the proportion of each electorate that used information from some source to cast a mixture of yes and no retention votes.

Historically it was always the suburbs that led the city in information use. For instance, in 1988, a presidential year and the peak year of electoral interest in Operation Greylord, more than 61 percent of the roughly 234,000 voters who used newspaper or bar ratings in their voting were suburban voters. This year, however, in a similar election—presidential year, higher-than-normal interest—more than 63 percent of the roughly 315,000 information-using voters were city voters.

What explains this sudden change? Three related factors. One, the county’s major print media (Tribune, Sun-Times, suburban Daily Herald), which always an impacted the suburbs more than the city, offered almost nothing to voters in either election after many years of providing their own recommendations, or bar ratings, or both. (The only exception was more than 3200 words of commentary in the November 3 Chicago Tribune covering every individual judge, but with nothing to distill all of that verbiage down to simple vote recommendations.)

Two, information about retention candidates has become more complicated. My research on judicial voting has consistently found that when it comes to voter information, simplicity is fundamentally important, and that the more complicated information becomes, the less likely voters are to use it. Complexity was particularly noticeable this year in testing various likely word combinations of Google searches on mobile devices. That is, searches that suburban voters would be likely to run in order to replace newspaper guidance. Two years ago, relatively simple pages from bar associations came up as top search results. This year, those pages were pushed farther down by more complicated sites from media outlets such as WTTW and WMAQ, pages that attempted to present larger volumes of information with far less clarity.

And third, the new information sources that have emerged in recent cycles have remained consistent compared to newspapers, and at least so far have found and maintained audiences. These audiences have consistently been 70 percent or more city voters.

The bottom line of all this, and the reason why this development is so important: if information use in the suburbs on November 5 had matched that of the city, as many as 100,000 votes would have been affected and the number of removals would have been at least three, and possibly four or five, instead of one.

When official ward and township numbers are released, we’ll be able to explore this in more detail. For now I’ll just add the usual disclaimer that the estimates cited above are just that—estimates—with margins of error. But all are considered statistically significant, and most very highly so.

FWIW now fishing for readers on Bluesky Social

I stopped being an early adapter of technology many years ago when I bought what would today be described as a tablet, but one loaded with Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing ver. 1.0.

It was going to replace my yellow pad for taking notes -- just to cite one example, client-ready deposition summaries would now just be a simple matter of editing my notes, or so I thought -- and it was going to be Paradise.

As the use of 'Microsoft' and 'ver. 1.0' in the same sentence will suggest to most rational people with a little common sense and any experience of technology at all, the experiment failed. Miserably. I can't say it was Paradise Lost, because Paradise was never attained. Nor were any of the hoped-for benefits.

But I'll save the details of that scarring experience for a sad chapter in the book I'm supposed to be writing.

Suffice to say, for the present, that I didn't jump to create a Bluesky account as soon as it became publicly available. Rather, I hung back, watching the farewell to X posts piling up on X and Facebook, and starting to worry that I might be losing potential readers here on FWIW because they would no longer see my posts on X promoting each new FWIW post.

I spend far too much time on X as it is, sifting through the muck and mire for kernels of apparently accurate information... or just looking for craziness (and usually finding it). So the last thing I want to do is dive into X's new competitor... I am terrified that I might start comparing how things are presented on Bluesky vis a vis how the same topics are presented on X and who is saying what where (and whether they are saying different things on differnt platforms) and I'll squander my remaining vision and forfeit untold hours of whatever years I have remaining in the process....

But I've done it anyway. I have today joined Bluesky. I will try and avoid getting sucked in... and probably fail there, too.

If you wish, however, you can follow me on Bluesky @jackleyhane@bsky.social.

Yes, that's not a very imaginative handle.

Meanwhile, I also remain on X at the equally unimaginative @jackleyhane.

Tickets now on sale for Illinois Latino Judges Association Holiday Party

Tickets are now on sale for the Illinois Latino Judges Association Holiday Party.

The event is set for Thursday, December 12, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., at Mi Tierra Restaurante, 2528 S. Kedzie. Tickets are $80 each (law students will be admitted for $40 apiece) if purchased in advance. Tickets are $100 each if purchased at the door.

To buy tickets, use the QR code in the graphic above, or visit this page of the ILJA website.

Not every comment left in the queue is equally perspicacious

In a post last Friday I hope I gave due credit to the anonymous reader who helped me understand how and where detainee votes at the Cook County Jail were counted in the recent election.

But not all comments submitted to FWIW are equally good. Some are just flat-out misinformation. Take this one for instance (which I am printing only here):

Leaving the judges retention vote blank counts as a “yes” vote. This is cook county, corruption is baked into the cake!

I'm not sure where our local corruption is baked. Probably not by elves in hollow trees. In back rooms, perhaps, or in vehicles with tinted windows, or while walking briskly and furtively down windblown streets. In any event, our local corruption is presumably baked as far away as possible, whenever possible, from hidden recording equipment or persons wearing wires.

But leave that aside for a moment.

It is the first part of the proffered comment that is flat-out wrong: Leaving a retention judge blank on the ballot (voting neither 'yes' nor 'no') does not constitute a 'yes' vote. If anything, failing to vote in a retention race enhances the power of voters who say 'no' to all judges.

Assume a million voters come out for a general election. All things being equal some 15-20% of these will vote 'no' on every retention judge on the ballot -- for our purposes, let's round it up to 20%... or 200,000 votes.

If all the million voters vote on every judge, and all the voters who do not reflexively say nay to all vote 'yes,' then every judge wins retention comfortably, with 80%.

But, usually, there's a dropoff as one goes down the ballot.

This year, in some places, some voters left the presidential ballot blank, too, choosing to vote only in races further down the ballot. But, normally, if 1,000,000 come out, these all vote for the high-profile races at the top of the ballot and some lose interest moving down. If 200,000 bypass a particular retention race, that leaves 600,000 'yes' votes and that constant 200,000 'no' vote lump. The judge is still retained... but with only a 75% 'yes' vote. If 300,000 voters bypass a race, that leaves only 500,000 'yes' votes and the judge's margin slips to 71% or thereabouts. If 400,000 voters skip the race, the judge is down to 67%. If half skip the race, leaving only 300,000 'yes' votes, the judge is right at the fatal 60% line... and, if we're being technical, the judge in this example is not retained, failing to obtain the necessary 60% plus 1.

And no retention judge gets everybody (except the 'just say no' crowd) to say 'yes.' In addition to the 'just say no' crowd, every judge will attract some 'no' votes because he or she has done the job, even if he or she has done the job well: People will still be mad about the guilty findings on traffic tickets, or that the spouse got more in the divorce than the voter thought appropriate. Jealous former law partners, persons whose relatives went to jail, persons who thought the judge was too soft on the person who mugged the voter's relative.... Some judges will have run afoul of one or more evaluating bar groups. The scenarios are endless, and so is the retention judge's angst... at least until the tallied votes seem safely in the judge's favor.

But do not be deceived, Dear Voter: Passing by a retention judge's race does not count as a 'yes' vote.

CCBA Barristers Holiday Soirée set for December 12 in Hyde Park

The Cook County Bar Association holiday party will be held on Thursday, December 12, from 5:30 to 10:30 p.m., at The Penthouse Hyde Park, 5107 S. Blackstone Ave., on the 17th floor.

Regular admission tickets for this event are $125 each; VIP tickets cost $150 apiece. Sponsorships are available:

• Friend of the CCBA - $1,000
  includes two General Admission tickets, recognition on all Holiday Fundraiser marketing materials, including emails, newsletters, website acknowledgement, and access to the VIP Suite,


• Gold Sponsor - $2,000
  includes two General Admission tickets, access to the VIP Suite, recognition with name & logo on all Holiday Fundraiser marketing materials, including emails, newsletters, and website acknowledgement,


• Platinum Spon sor - $3,000
  includes two VIP tickets, access to the VIP Suite, recognition with name & logo on all Holiday Fundraiser marketing materials, including emails, newsletters, and website acknowledgement.

There are also $4,000 food and beverage sponsorships. For all tickets and sponsorships, visit this eventnoire.com page.

Too good to be entirely true: Cook County Jail detainees did not support Trump (or the retention judges) as much as we thought...

The news that President-Elect Donald Trump got a plurality of the votes cast in the precinct wherein the Cook County Jail is located got a lot of traction. FWIW jumped on the bandwagon, too, running a piece about that and then (staying on brand) looking at the judicial retention results reported in that precinct.

That's a map of the 19th precinct of the 24th Ward at the top of this piece. And it does indeed contain the Cook County Jail. But the boundaries are not coextensive.

My second look at this story was prompted by a question left in the comment queue. Last Friday night a sharp-eyed reader asked, "Hmm. Don't jail detainees vote absentee out of their home ward/suburb, therefore their totals would be included in those totals and not the 19th precinct of the 24th Ward???"

I didn't publish the comment until today, as I was preparing this article.

I didn't publish the comment because I didn't know the answer. I knew detainees voted from the jail. I knew Injustice Watch made a point of distributing its voter guide at the jail.

But that didn't answer the question. Sophia Ansari, Director of Public Relations and Communications for the Cook County Sheriff, explained that the FWIW reader had the gist of it: Ansari wrote FWIW that "individuals in custody vote based on their home addresses. One thing to clarify is that individuals in custody who are registered to vote in Cook County are voting in person, as the jail is an early voting polling place." So those votes would not have been counted in the 19th Precinct of the 24th Ward.

Moreover, Max Bever, the Director of Communications for the Chicago Board of Elections, confirmed that the Election Day polling place for the 19th Precinct of the 24th Ward is at Spry School, located on South Marshall Blvd. -- not in the jail. Jail detainees would not have been voting at the school.

But it is not entirely fake news: Bever told FWIW in an email, "1,479 Chicago voters [cast] a ballot from Cook County Jail for the November 5, 2024 General Election." The jail was an early voting site, and, according to Bever, there were "two weekends of Early Voting for Pre-Trial Detainees, held on Saturday, October 19; Sunday, October 20; Saturday, October 26; and Sunday, October 27." But 416 of the detainees "used Same Day Registration," Bever said, "which often indicates they used the jail as their address to vote." Therefore, Bever concluded, "it would be more accurate to say that some Pre-Trial Detainees’ ballots would be cast within the 19th Precinct of the 24th Ward, while other voters were previously registered elsewhere, or could provide proof of ID for an address outside the precinct for registration."

So the story is still that Trump carried the precinct in which Cook County Jail is located... but most of the votes counted there were not cast by detainees.... The story is not quite as intriguing as it may have first seemed.

Hat Tip to the Anonymous FWIW reader (why are they always anonymous?) who gently nudged me down the path of enlightenment.

O'Malley falls further behind in latest numbers

All retention judges, with one exception, seem to have won new terms in the November election. Judge Shannon O'Malley is the sole exception. In the latest updates released by the Cook County Clerk and the Chicago Board of Elections, O'Malley's percentage has dropped below 59%. A judge must win better than 60% "Yes" votes (typically phrased as 60% + 1) in order to be retained.

In the most recent update available online from the CBOE, O'Malley has 362,961 "Yes" votes out of a total of 675,437 votes cast in his retention race. That translates to only a 53.74% "Yes" rate, down from the 54.64% "Yes" rate FWIW reported a couple of days ago.

O'Malley continues to have more "Yes" votes in the Cook County suburbs (463,292 in the latest update) and a higher favorable percentage of 62.85% -- but this number is down from the 63.28% favorable percentage O'Malley had in the update we reported earlier in the week.

When the vote totals are aggregated O'Malley now has 826,253 "Yes" votes out of a total of 1,412,579 votes counted in his race. Taken together, O'Malley has only a 58.49% "Yes" vote, down from 59.18% earlier this week.

Although the City and County have both added votes to the totals reported in the O'Malley retention race, the City has not publicly updated the outstanding ballot figures since November 10. At that time there were still 47,664 VBM ballots returned, but not yet counted, and another 6,100 provisional votes yet to be examined. The County's numbers, updated today, show only 1,635 uncounted VBM ballots actually received (a increase of roughly 500 over the total FWIW reported earlier this week) -- and 27 provisional ballots remaining (none were reported in FWIW's last update).

Both the City and County report large numbers of VBM ballots sent out but not returned. The City states that 38,208 VBM ballots were sent out but not yet returned; the County reports 48,602, down from 51,987 in FWIW's last published update. Tempus fugit. Most of these votes, 10 days out from Election Day, are likely not coming back.

PRBA Pack the Pantry on Saturday, November 23

I would guess that most FWIW readers have plenty to be thankful for, at Thanksgiving and throughout the year. Not everyone does.

But, especially at this time of year, there are tangible ways to express your thanks for the bounties that you enjoy, and do some good in the process. The Puerto Rican Bar Association is providing one such opportunity at its Pack the Pantry event on Saturday, November 23, starting at 8:30 a.m.

Not able to pack and stack groceries? Got football tickets elsewhere for that Saturday? The PRBA offers sponsorship opportunities as well -- the sponsorship levels are described in the poster above and (so they tell me) the Rorschach tests labeled PayPal and Zelle above will allow you to accomplish your donation, perhaps without even putting down your phone.

Alternatively, you could seek more information, and possibly even obtain a physical address to which an old-fashioned negotiable instrument might be sent by regular post, by emailing prbalawil@gmail.com.

Shannon O'Malley below 60% in latest vote count update

The trend had been positive for Judge Shannon O'Malley, but it is no longer so: As of the most recent updates available, O'Malley has fallen below the 60% threshold required for retention.

Voters in the City of Chicago have apparently sealed O'Malley's fate: In the most recent update available online, O'Malley has 357,290 "Yes" votes out of a total of 653,861 votes cast in his retention race. That translates to only a 54.64% "Yes" rate.

O'Malley has more "Yes" votes in the Cook County suburbs (457,050 in the latest update) and a higher favorable percentage of 63.28%... but when the vote totals are aggregated O'Malley has only 814,340 "Yes" votes out of a total of 1,376,091 votes cast in his race. Taken together, O'Malley has only a 59.18% "Yes" vote -- insufficient, at this point, for his retention bid to succeed.

The City says there are still 47,664 VBM ballots returned, but not yet counted, and another 6,100 provisional votes yet to be examined. Those figures date to Sunday. The County's numbers, updated as of yesterday, show only 1,128 uncounted VBM ballots actually received -- and no provisional ballots remaining.

Both the City and County report large numbers of VBM ballots sent but not received. The City states that 38,208 VBM ballots were sent out but not yet returned; the County reports 51,987 such ballots. A week after the polls close, it becomes increasingly likely that many, if indeed not most, of these are never coming back.

Given these figures, it seems likely that O'Malley will not be retained. He is over 11,000 votes shy, at this point, of a 60% favorable vote at this point. Three out of four of the remaining ballots actually received would have to break his way for him to claw back to the 60% mark. Given that most of the remaining ballots actually received appear to be from the City, where Judge O'Malley has fared worst so far, that seems unlikely. Time will tell.

Illinois Latino Judges Association Holiday Party is set for December 12

The election is pretty much over... so it must be holiday season party time. The Illinois Latino Judges Association wants you to know about theirs.

Mark your calendars now.

More will be said about this... soon.

Trump won the Cook County Jail vote. How do you think the judges fared there?

I got the story from Rich Miller's Capitol Fax. He got it from a Threads post by chi_urbanist. Here's the graphic:

Quoting Miller now, "Trump won the 19th Precinct in the 24th Ward 594-572 (49%-47%), with 47 people voting for RFK, Jr. Four years ago, Joe Biden won that precinct with 96 percent of the vote, to Trump’s 3."

Why? Who knows? Maybe, as the saying goes, game recognizes game.

Be honest, now: You did not see that coming, did you?

Neither did I.

But it got me wondering: What did the jail population think of the judges on the retention ballot?

My hypothesis, going in, was that prisoners might have little love for the judges who will preside over their cases. I rather expected, in fact, that the detainees might agree -- on this one point at least -- with some of the police officers who put them there. Remember, Second City Cop always recommends a "No" vote on every retention judge.

What would you guess?

I'll pause here while you think about it... scroll down when you're ready... and no cheating!

.

.

.

.

.

.

As it turns out, if the fate of the retention judges was decided by the inmates' votes alone, only 23 out of the 75 Circuit Court judges for whom votes were actually counted would have been retained. Both of the Appellate Court justices would have been retained.

I was a little surprised that prisoners would give better than 60% "Yes" votes to so many. I don't know that I could be so generous were I incarcerated.

And the lowest favorable vote was just below 50% -- 49.95% for a female judge married to a former CPD lieutenant -- meaning that, in every case but that one, more than half the inmates voted to approve each and every judge for a new term.

Now the high was only 67%, and I'm sure some might think that this vote must be for someone sitting in the Criminal Division with a turn-'em-all-loose reputation, right? But, in actual fact, the judge who got the most favorable rating from the jail inmates is assigned to the Domestic Relations Division at the Daley Center. Sixteen of the 23 judges getting better than 60% "Yes" votes out of the jail precinct were female.

In the one contested countywide judicial vote, inmates chose Democratic candidate Pablo deCastro over Republican Tien H. Glaub by a margin of 72.2 to 27.8%.

I don't pretend to be able to discern any 'big picture' statement from these returns. Don't jump to conclusions, perhaps, but that's not very original. Maybe someone else can explain....

Michael Zink appointed to 20th Subcircuit vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court today appointed Michael Zink to a 20th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Judge David E. Haracz.

Zink's appointment is effective December 6 and terminates on December 7, 2026.

Licensed to practice law in Illinois since 2004, according to ARDC, Zink is a partner in the firm of Starr, Bejgiert, Zink & Rowells. The Supreme Court's press release announcing the appointment is here.

Zink was a candidate for a 20th Subcircuit vacancy in the March primary.

This 20th Subcircuit vacancy was one of the five vacancies announced by Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis this past September.

Supreme Court names D’Anthony (Tony) Thedford to countywide vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court today appointed D’Anthony (Tony) Thedford to the countywide vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Paul Karkula. The appointment is effective December 2 and terminates on December 7, 2026.

Licensed to practice in Illinois since 1997, according to ARDC, Thedford has been working for the firm of Thedford Garber Law LLC. According to a Supreme Court press release announcing his appointment, Thedford began his legal career as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender. He set up his own practice, the Law Office of Tony Thedford, P.C., in 2005. He has been with Thedford Garber Law LLC since 2016.

Thedford has not previously been a candidate for judicial office in Cook County. He is a former is a board member of the Illinois Prison Project, a former board member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a former President of the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, according to the Supreme Court's announcement.

The Karkula vacancy was one of the five vacancies announced by Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis this past September.

A couple of other updates on retention returns

Nothing world-shaking here, but some may find this 'inside baseball' stuff of interest:

I'm reporting tonight that all 78 jurists on the Cook County retention ballot were retained, with the possible exception of Judge Shannon O'Malley, who is right at the 60% mark, just above or just below, with every update.

And there will be several more updates from the election authorities before the results are certified. But there are a couple of other stories, too:

Judge Ieshia Gray is the only other retention judge polling below 60% in this evening's City returns... but she is not very far below the mark, at 59.65%, and her suburban percentage, 64.51%, is more than sufficient to offset the City deficit.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is painfully close to the 60% mark in this evening's City numbers (60.01%) but he, too, is the beneficiary of better numbers in the suburbs (65.55%).

And, of course, I keep saying 78 jurists on the retention ballot -- and there were, if you counted -- but that's not entirely correct. Celia Gamrath was on the retention ballot, but she is no longer on the Circuit Court bench. She was an unopposed candidate for the Appellate Court this past Tuesday, and she was appointed to the Appellate Court by the Supreme Court, effective September 6.

It is not unheard of for a judge seeking election to the Appellate Court to remain on the retention ballot, too. We lawyers are a risk-averse bunch. And there was that time, quite a few years back now, where a judge got elected to the Appellate Court and lost his Circuit Court retention bid. But Gamrath's case was different, in that, by taking the Appellate Court appointment, she left the Circuit Court behind. The Supreme Court even included Gamrath's 8th Subcircuit vacancy in its recent announcement of vacancies to be filled.

Only one retention judge in jeopardy... but how much does it matter?

Judge Shannon O'Malley's retention bid is still uncertain at this hour, but he is the only retention judge in jeopardy. All other judges on the ballot Tuesday appear to have been retained.

O'Malley is in count-every-vote territory, as he teeters perilously close to the 60% + 1 threshhold.

A couple of quick snapshots: Yesterday afternoon, O'Malley was under the mark, with 59.97% of the votes then counted, 778,061 "Yes" votes out of a total of 1,297,398 votes in re O'Malley. This afternoon, Frank Calabrese supplied updated figures, showing that O'Malley had edged up slightly, with 785,165 "Yes" votes out of a new total of 1,308,805 votes. That translates to 59.99%. But there's no rounding in retention races. Calabrese calculated that O'Malley was 118 votes down.

There are new numbers this evening. O'Malley has been above the water line in the suburban numbers right along:

But O'Malley's numbers have hovered around 55% in City returns, and these latest numbers are consistent:

The new total is 1,317,063, and O'Malley now has 790,461 "Yes" votes, translating to 60.02%.

Which, ordinarily, would have to be good news for Judge O'Malley. Granted,there are still votes to be counted. The Chicago Board of Elections tweeted out tonight that there are 91,340 uncounted ballots. I don't know the current County numbers. But the trend would appear, for the moment, to be O'Malley's friend.

But does it really matter that much? Injustice Watch has reported that Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans has referred Judges O'Malley and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. to the Judicial Inquiry Board because of the Injustice Watch report last month, questioning whether these judges actually live in Cook County:

On Wednesday, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans took the rare step of referring two judges for investigations before the Judicial Inquiry Board. We reported in October both judges claimed homeowner property tax exemptions on homes in Will County. https://t.co/qdofQITs26

— Injustice Watch (@injusticewatch) November 7, 2024

I suspect that, long before the reported referral, JIB was already keenly aware of the residency questions raised by Injustice Watch. While the JIB investigation process is confidential, and will remain confidential unless and until JIB brings charges against either judge before the Illinois Courts Commission, the Injustice Watch report itself and the subsequent revelations by bar groups scrambling to investigate this real-life October surprise, create very troubling questions about whether O'Malley or Wright are in fact eligible for judicial service in Cook County.

In other words, O'Malley could win retention... and still lose his job.

I don't know all the facts. I don't know where Judge O'Malley or Judge Wright actually lived, whatever public records may have shown. I don't know what either may try to prove, or argue, or raise. If charges are brought against either or both of them, I don't know what the Courts Commission might do.

However, under the unusual circumstances here, checking every update seems kind of beside the point. FWIW will check in on this again. But whether O'Malley stays over 60% is not necessarily the main story here.

Kathy Flanagan over 60% in updated City returns

It's 60.5% with 90.32% of the votes counted (1166 out of 1291 precincts)... but 60% + 1 is all that is required.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. has moved up in the latest numbers, but is still below 60% in City returns (59.18%). Ieshia Gray is at 58.78%, while Shannon O'Malley is at 55.09%.

These races may take a while to decide. All the other retention judges appear to be likely to be retained.

Continuing to look at retention races

Judges Kathy Flanagan, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., and Shannon O'Malley are still below the 60% threshhold in City results so far (now nearly three-quarters complete, with 73.66% of the votes counted).

The only other retention candidate falling below 60% in City returns is Ieshia Gray, with a 58.34% "Yes" vote. Her 64.41% favorable vote in suburban returns brings her combined favorable percentage, for now, to 61.94%.

There are a number of judges polling in the low 60s in City returns -- but 60% + 1 is what is required, and it makes no difference if a judge squeaks by with 61% or garners 81% -- that judge is retained either way.

No retention candidate has fallen below the 60% threshhold in suburban-only returns.

A first look at retention judge results

To be retained for a new term (10 years for Appellate Court justices, 6 years for Circuit Court judges), a retention candidate must receive a better than 60% "Yes" vote.

In this brief first look, we will focus on some judges who have been targeted for removal by bar associations or other groups.
With 68.55% of City votes reported, Judge Kathy M. Flanagan has fallen below the 60% threshhold, with a 59.67% "Yes" vote. She is polling much better in the suburbs, however, with a 67.12% favorable vote. Combining the numbers gives Flanagan a 64.8% "Yes" vote. But the suburban numbers are nearly complete, and there are many more City votes to come.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is also below 60% in City voting so far -- with a 58.66% "Yes" vote. He has a 65.48% favorable vote in the suburbs, however. Combined, he has a 62.8% "Yes" vote at this hour.

Judge Shannon O'Malley has only a 54.65% favorable vote in the City of Chicago; suburban voters were more generous, giving O'Malley a 63.79% "Yes" vote. But, combined, that translates to a razor-thin 60.24% "Yes" vote.

If City votes continue to break as they have so far, O'Malley certainly, and possibly Wright and Flannagan as well, may be in danger of losing their retention bids.

More to come.

deCastro defeats Glaub in the only contested countywide judicial race

Tien H. Glaub, the only Republican candidate to run for a countywide Circuit Court seat is down to Judge Pablo F. deCastro by 270,000 votes Citywide (with about two-thirds of the votes counted) and by another 210,000 or so votes, according to suburban tallies, with about 93% of the votes counted there.

The Illinois Supreme Court appointed deCastro to the countywide Flannery vacancy this past April. At the time, he had no Republican opponent. Glaub did not run in the Republican primary; she filed for the vacancy in June.

Democratic sweep in contested judicial subcircuit elections

With over 90% of the votes already counted, 90 minutes after the polls closed, it appears that the Democratic nominees in the four contested subcircuit elections have prevailed.

The closest race is in the 18th Subcircuit, but John Hock is ahead of Lynn Terese Palac by over 4,000 votes with 94% of the votes counted (136 of 144 precincts reporting):

The margins are even larger in the three 12th Subcircuit races, where Alon Stein appears to have bested Maria McCarthy, Frank J. Andreou holds a better-than-9,000 vote margin over Pamela Curran Smith, and James "Jack" Costello is up by more than 12,000 votes over Matthew Taylor:

Only five precincts are unaccounted for in this report from the Cook County Clerk's website.

Both the 12th and 18th Subcircuits are located entirely outside the City of Chicago.

BREAKING: CBA announces "Not Recommended" Rating for Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.

The Judicial Evaulation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association has announced that it has issued a "Not Recommended" rating on Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District. The explanation of the CBA's rating has just been posted to its website. FWIW reproduces it here:

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Wright was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1977 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Wright serves as the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District.

Judge Wright has a strong record of service and an impressive career as a Cook County judge for over 30 years. However, it was concerning to the Committee that a sitting Cook County judge has had a driver’s license for over 40 years that lists a Will County address and that he obtained a homeowner’s exemption on property he owns in Will County, attesting that it was his primary residence. While Judge Wright explained that these were innocent mistakes, the Committee is concerned that his failure to comply with basic law requiring him to update his driver’s license together with his application for a homeowner’s exemption in another county suggests an intent to secure unfair gain or advantage. Judge Wright also has taken inconsistent positions with regard to his primary residence, which raises diligence issues for the Panel. While we acknowledge that Judge Wright was apologetic and remorseful, for the above stated reasons we must find him “Not Recommended” for retention.

The CBA had previously recommended a "Yes" vote on Judge Wright's retention, but that rating was pulled after Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Wright and Judge Shannon O'Malley, "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, provided evidence suggesting that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County.

The Illinois State Bar Association also issued a "Not Recommended" rating regarding Judge Wright's retention following publication of the Injustice Watch story, stating, in pertinent part, "The [Judicial Evaluation] Committee has concerns regarding his level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues."

The Chicago Council of Lawyers also expressed concern about Judge Wright's residency, ultimately deciding to recommend him for retention anyway. The Council's evaluation stated, also in pertinent part:

It was recently reported that Judge Wright claims a senior homestead tax exemption on a residence in Will County, Illinois, while maintaining residency in Cook County for purposes of meeting residency requirements to be a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Wright fully participated in the Alliance’s investigation process concerning this matter, and reported that he has corrected his tax exemption status.

Judge Wright's forthright handling of the matter, coupled with a strong history of professionalism on the bench, leads the Council to find him Qualified for retention.

Some voters may wonder why it is such a big deal where a judge lives.

The answer? It is a big deal because the Illinois Constituion makes it a big deal. There is a residency requirement specified in Section 11 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution. This section provides, in pertinent part (emphasis mine):

No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit which selects him.

Section 12(a) of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution states, in pertinent part, "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."

Failure to abide by these provisions can disqualify a person from judicial service. For example, when it was discovered that a judge lied about where he lived, falsely claiming to live in Cook County's 10th Judicial Subcircuit, in his parents' house, when in fact he and his family lived in the western suburbs, the failure to comply with these constitutional requirements was one of the bases cited by the Illinois Courts Commission in its decision removing that judge from the bench. See, In re Golniewicz, 02 CC 01, 4 Ill. Cts. Com. 9 (2004).

The Illinois Supreme Court later cited Golniewicz in Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011). Chris Ward wanted to run for judge in the 4th Subcircuit of the 12th Judicial Circuit (Will County). But, while he was a Will County resident, when he filed his nominating papers, he was not in fact a resident of the 4th Subcircuit. Therefore, the court held, that he was not eligible to have his name put on the ballot (241 Ill.2d at 412-12) (empahses in original):

Pursuant to section 12, eligibility for judicial office is therefore a prerequisite to running for that office. Under section 11, eligibility requires that one be a "resident of the unit which selects him" Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §11. While there may be contexts in which the language of article VI, section 11, is "arguably ambiguous" (Thies v. State Board of Elections, 124 Ill. 2d 317, 323, 529 N.E.2d 565, 124 Ill. Dec. 584 (1988)), the situation presented by this case is not among them. Giving sections 11 and 12 their plain and ordinary meaning, it is therefore clear that under our Constitution, candidates for the office of circuit, appellate or supreme court judge must be residents of the unit from which they seek election before they may cause their names to appear on the ballot for the primary election. See Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 514 n.3, 911 N.E.2d 979, 331 Ill. Dec. 749 (2009). If they are not residents, they are simply ineligible to run. If they attempt to run when they do not meet the constitutionally mandated residency requirement and manage to win the election, they will be subject to removal from office by the Illinois Courts Commission. In re Golniewicz, 4 Ill. Cts. Com 9, 39-40 (2004).

In addition to the ISBA and, now, the CBA, Judge Wright has also been found Not Recommended for retention by LAGBAC, Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association.

On the other hand, at last report, in addition to the Chicago Council of Lawyers, the following members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening did recommend a "Yes" vote for Judge Wright: the Arab American Bar Association, the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area, the Black Men Lawyers’ Association, the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, the Cook County Bar Association, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois, the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois.