I started moaning about this last November.
I was (and remain) distressed by the fact that so few candidates came forward to seek election to the bench in Cook County. No less an authority than Dr. Albert J. Klumpp, a PhD in public policy analysis with a national reputation for his expertise on judicial races, said I was late (as usual) in figuring out the trend. He wrote, in a comment, "I made this very point four years ago in the CBA Record--that the number of canididates per judicial vacancy has been dropping substantially over the years. In the 1990s there were 4.7 candidates per vacancy; in the 2000s there were 4.0, and in the 2010s there were 2.9. What we're seeing here is just more of the same trend. I don't claim to know what's causing it, but somebody had better start looking into it because we're nearing the point where unqualified people can help themselves to judgeships just by putting their names in."
A couple of readers added comments that the judicial pension today is not as sweet as it was back in the day. Which is absolutely, objectively true. Just the other day, I was talking to a friend who mentioned that a recently-elected judge of his acquaintance told him he was never going to retire: The Tier 2 pension benefits just weren't worth it, he said.
Gosh.
In the private sector, for most people, pensions went the way of the dodo by the mid-1980s. Tier 2 not enough? Really? For a lot of us, any pension would be more pension than we are ever going to get.
Maybe the pension benefits do factor in, somehow.
But it occurred to me that there may be a bigger picture here.
I'd been nursing a hypothesis for some time now, but I didn't want to mention anything until the final numbers were in.
But I think it's fair to compare now. These numbers are from the ISBE website. Let's look at total numbers of candidates, statewide, in presidential primary years:
There's a drop-off in candidate numbers that Tier 2 judicial pensions alone cannot explain.
- 2000 - Total number of primary candidates... 1236
- 2004 - Total number of primary candidates... 1584
- 2008 - Total number of primary candidates... 1657
- 2012 - Total number of primary candidates... 1278
- 2016 - Total number of primary candidates... 1755
- 2020 - Total number of primary candidates... 1221
- 2024 - Total number of primary candidates... 909
Something's broken here. And not just in judicial elections. What do you think it is? How do you think we can fix this?
I'll hang up now and listen for your answers.
Try to give me comments I won't have to flush.
Mr. L, here's a take, but whether you buy it or not is another story:
ReplyDeleteUsing 2000's 1236 candidates as a baseline, in 2004 it was +348 candidates. In 2008 it was +421; in 2012 it was +42; in 2016 it was +519; in 2020 it was -15, and in 2024 it is -327 candidates.
Even with Cook Co. being staunchly Dem, there appears to be a sudden drop in candidates. Could some potential candidates have decided they do not want to deal with the increasingly liberalized laws and courts, having recognized the harms caused by those changes, and the likelihood of continued headaches making the job not worth it? Or perhaps it has become too expensive to run a normal campaign over time?
Otherwise a longer-look comparison might be in order to identify the "cycle" of judicial candidacies; perhaps the ebb and flow over a longer timespan would show similar peaks and valleys?
While I do not claim to have all of the reasons as to why there are fewer judicial candidates, there are a few reasons that clearly have had an impact on the number of candidates running each cycle:
ReplyDelete1. The Cook County Democratic Party discourages competition. Candidates that submit themselves to slating must pledge that they will not run against a slated candidate or help a non-slated candidate in their campaigns. An unsuccessful candidate that ran against the party will be effectively a persona non-grata with the party unless there are remedial actions taken (and a significant amount of time has passed) since the attempted run. Those that are not endorsed by the party better hope that they have the ability to self-fund or have an independent source of campaign cash to compete against the resources of Cook County's political establishment. All of these issues make running against the party a difficult endeavor.
2. Running for judge has become increasingly cost prohibitive. As noted in point 1 above, not being slated by the party hurts a candidate's ability to raise funds for their race. That means that in all likelihood, most of the money going into a candidate's campaign account will be their own money. How many candidates have the amount of money needed laying around to put into their campaigns (especially those without party support). Many candidates may decide that it is worth keeping that money towards retirement or college expenses for their kids rather than taking on candidates being supported by the party apparatus.
3. Lack of reliable consultants. Most judicial candidates are political novices. There are so many political consultants that are happy to drain a judicial candidates' campaign account with no real tangible result benefitting the candidate. Many candidates cannot do it alone, but they cannot trust many of the consultants out there. It id easier to sit on the sidelines.
4. Empty promises. One of the tactics that politicos use to dissuade candidates from running for office is to make promises that they have no intention on keeping. How many times has a candidate heard "if you sit this one out, you will have my support next time". How many times have candidates been burned by heeding the advice of self serving politicians only to have some reason come up why that politician will not be able to "support you next time" after all.
5. Tier 2 Pensions. Many candidates come from the CCSAO or the CCPDO or some other government entity. While the judicial salary may be better than their current rate of pay, it may be more lucrative for an enterprising government attorney to stay in their current position so as to build their Tier 1 pension.
This was written quickly so I apologize for any grammatical or typographical errors. These were just my quick thoughts on the topic.
some may shy away because of the astounding cost of a campaign
ReplyDeleteThe number of applicants for Associate Judge has also gone down. Prior rounds have received 200-300 applications. This round, currently pending, only drew 81 applications.
ReplyDeleteI think it comes down to a few things:
ReplyDelete1) Cost - If you're in a contested race, you're looking at $50,000+ minimum to run a credible campaign. For a position that pays well, but ultimately may not have the ROI to justify that expenditure. Therefore, I think that candidates have to have some additional motivation to be a judge before making that commitment.
2) T2 Pension - Mr. Leyhane is right that some pension is better than most people get, but the T2 pension is really poor. Circuit Judges make about 233K per year. But the T2 pension is based on a salary maximum that is this year only 138K. With the maximum annuity of 60% after 20 years, today that would be around 82K. Or about 35% of their last salary. Now that maximum salary range increases a bit each year but remains significantly lower than the judges salary. By contrast, the government attorneys who make up a large proportion of those running for judge, have the Tier 1 benefits which even with a much lower salary can still give a much larger pension.
3) The need to be politically active - The need to consistently attend political and bar events for several years can be draining financially and personally.
The point about the associate judge numbers is excellent...and reminded me that I wanted to get historical numbers on AJ applicants. It's a good control group when considering how the elective process is affecting things. Will try to dig those up.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be very interesting to disaggregate the data to see if there are any differences over time between the number of candidates in County-wide versus the number in subcircuit races. My hypothesis is that the number of candidates in subcircuit races over time has not dropped off as precipitously as the number of candidates in County-wide races. I say that also as someone who waged and won a County-wide race for the Circuit Court.
ReplyDeleteI've thought a lot about this as well. I thought the Injustice Watch story on the low numbers was well researched and brought in a lot of diverse points of view.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted in the story, I do think 2023 was (and I say this as a staunch Democrat) just not a time that people were particularly enthused with politics and political campaigns. In 2008 we had the Obama excitement and momentum. In 2018 and 2020 the anti-Trump energy, particularly among women candidates and activists. This past year was just a different vibe, a bit of a malaise, with politics seeming generally less hopeful and more unpleasant. It was not a year that had people jumping out of their seats to run. And I think this was borne out by the small number of candidates running statewide for ANY office - not just Judge.
Impossible to say, in politics, which factor of many is the most important. Other factors are, of course, the party slating all sitting Judges, mostly women and people of color, who all have good bar ratings. Fewer candidates would want to run against this group. The larger number of subcircuits spreading candidates out more was a factor in reducing the number of competitive races. Certainly there was some confusion about the process among potential candidates in the wake of the brand new 20 subcircuit environment.
I would also say, the bar ratings have become so important and so widely recognized (its very easy for voters to find them now and vote accordingly) that perhaps candidates who will not have ratings realize this and choose not to run; knowing that their prospects are not great.
I do feel like the days when someone without bar ratings could just throw their name on the ballot, hope for the best (perhaps with the benefit of a good ballot name), and win are probably over. Perhaps candidates are recognizing that -- that the process of winning is more involved than it was in the past -- and some choosing not to run.
I am not certain about the nuances or the impact of the pensions. However, I do feel in some of the more affluent areas of the county, from the perspective of lawyers who can already afford the high cost of living there, the salary/pension of a Judge may not be as appealing as it once was. Though, on the positive side, this may mean that people are running for the public service aspect more so than the financial aspect.
That's my two cents - thanks for allowing me to rant on this particular topic!
-Sean