Endorsements vs. evaluations

How do you decide who to vote for?

In a small town, you may know all the candidates, and your opinions may be informed by things other than the "issues" -- oh, sure, John Smith. Devoted family man? You see his wife at church... but John? Never! He is seen, though, all the time, out at that dive on the outskirts of town, where all the shady people go and think no one knows they're there. Never mind how I know about it.... I'd never vote for that fat hyocrite! However, while Chicago may be the world's largest small town, chances are you don't actually know everyone on your sample ballot.

In another era, in our fair city, your vote might have been swayed by your precinct capatin. Maybe he was young, sweaty and uncomfortable in a dark suit, with a certain desperate, haunted air -- hey, his job was on the line here! -- or maybe he was freshly shaved, even in the early evening; sharply dressed and well-pressed; and (on the surface at least) supremely confident... and he did get you that extra garbage can you needed... or help your kid out when he got that speeding ticket.... Tip O'Neill did say that all politics is local. Of course, Tip has been gone for a long time now. And when's the last time you actually saw a precinct captain?

So... how do you decide to vote for in modern age? Do you "consult with progressive / radical organizers" as suggested by Girl, I Guess?

Perhaps I should be ashamed about this, perhaps not, but I don't really know any "radical organizers." And wouldn't 'radical organizer' be something of an oxymoron anyway? Aren't true radicals expected to be hostile toward all authority and, therefore, toward effective organization as well?

But I suspect Ms. Skora (of Girl, I Guess) is probably right on the money: People who want to vote responsibly, and who find they don't know all the candidates personally, will seek out persons with whom they feel some affinity or identification, and seek instruction from them. I suspect that's just old-fashioned human nature at work.

Which brings us to judicial elections, which is why you're here, presumably (although if you're from the Pulitzer Committee or the MacArthur Foundation, you're welcome to stay, too). You may want to sift through the judicial candidates' evaluations and endorsements in order to make informed choices in contested primary races.

The first thing you need to understand is that "endorsements" and "evaluations" in judicial elections are not the same thing.

To begin with, an endorsement is a recommendation from some person or group that you vote for a particular candidate. Not so with evaluations (also frequently referred to as "ratings"). Consider this statement issued by the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening with their "grids": "Judicial candidates are rated by the Alliance members based on detailed information supplied by candidates, a background check by trained lawyers/investigators, and interviews of each candidate. Ratings reflect the Alliance's opinion of whether candidates have the necessary qualifications for judicial service or ascension to a higher office and are not a reflection of the candidates' abilities as lawyers or judges." (The Chicago Council of Lawyers expands on the mechanics of this process at pp. 2-4 of this document.)

Each Alliance member works from the same investigation, the same substantial candidate materials (think of these as the end product of a serious examination of conscience, but with case citations and names and addresses and phone numbers and emails, and in chronological order as well), and the same candidate interview. But, though they start with the same raw material, each Alliance member evaluates candidates according to its own criteria. Every individual evaluator may have differing opinions on what qualities may produce the best judges: Trial work may be of greatest import to this one, scholarship for another, analagous experience (such as service as an arbitrator or hearing officer) for a third. The proof of this is found in the fact that sometime Alliance members differ about a given candidate's qualifications. Reasonsable people can sometimes differ.

The Chicago Bar Association process is separate, but similar: Extensive materials must be provided by the candidate (not necessarily the same materials as sought by the Alliance, though there is extensive overlap, and typically not in the same order anyway -- large scale 'copy and paste' from one application to another is simply not an option), and there is a separate investigation and candidate interview process.

Many people have had the uncomfortable experience of soliciting recommendations whether, as a student, for a scholarship or, later, as an adult, for a new job. Judicial aspirants seeking peer review by the Alliance or by the CBA have to provide a number of references and some of these are of that same type (if I give them your name, could you say something nice about me?) -- but only some.

Judicial candidates also have to supply adversary references. Put yourself, dear voter, in the shoes of the judicial aspirant: It would be easy for you to include your opponent in the case you settled before it went to the jury and you and opposing counsel sang Kumbaya in the judge's chambers while she signed the dismissal order... but lawyers know that sort of thing never really happens. So, instead, you have to include the name and address of the woman who wrote in her reply brief that your response was devoid of logic, reasoning, and any arguably competent authority supporting your wholly untenable position. And you have to provide name and contact information for the judge who agreed with her, too, and give the case title to prompt the judge's memory. And you have to provide the name and address of that guy who stormed out of the courtroom after the verdict in your favor, muttering darkly about your character, leaving you to deal with his frightened associate going forward.

Of course, in most cases, win or lose, settled or dismissed, the person on the other side was just trying to do his or her job, just as you were trying to do yours. Mostly you got along well enough, or seemed to. Lots of times, your opponent may hardly remember you -- even though you were literally sweating blood adding that name to your disclosure because, as part of that examination of conscience we were talking about earlier, you remembered him once having to call you back three times before you returned his call....

For non-lawyers (and perhaps for some lawyers, too, who may not have stopped to think about it), it may be startling to realize that most judicial hopefuls voluntarily submit to the peer screening process and willingly supply most of the rope with which they may be hanged.

And there's always the possibility that one of these adversary references might say something untrue about you....

Early on in my fruitless, but generation-long efforts to ascend to the bench, I had occasion to share an elevator in the Daley Center with an older lawyer on my adversary list. We had settled our matter, amicably enough, I thought, so I did not entirely lose my composure when he told me that he'd been contacted by a bar association investigator.

"Don't worry, kid," he said, to me and to the rest of the strangers on the crowded elevator, "I laid it on thick for that investigator. I said you were brilliant, the living incarnation of Cardozo and Learned Hand" -- it was a wonder no one on the elevator was killed, or at least seriously injured, the way my head swelled up so rapidly -- and I was still gasping and groping for words appropriate to convey the full extent of my eternal gratitude -- when, after a pause for effect, he plunged in the dagger -- "yeah, I lied through my teeth for you, kid" -- and, again, it was a wonder that no one on the elevator was killed or injured as my swollen head so rapidly decompressed -- "but I figure it this way: If you ever did get elected, you'd be so bad that you'd probably never get out of Traffic Court or, if you ever did get out, it would take you so long that I'd be safely retired and, either way, I'd never have to put up with you again on a case."

I know that elevator ride must have ended, because I'm here now 30 years later, give or take, but I couldn't tell you how. Except that he laughed. And his laugh sounded like the braying of a donkey. But I was the ass....

I have heard complaints in recent years that the bar groups are not as thorough as they may once have been in contacting references, adversary, judicial, or otherwise. But there's no way to verify this. The judicial evaluation process is highly confidential, as it really has to be if there is to be any expectation of candor from the persons contacted. So some of the complaints about incomplete investigations may be true, and some may be sour grapes, but there is, and can be, no way to address individual complaints.

The Alliance and CBA screening processes are not perfect; no human process is. Of course, during the dozen years or so when I was rated Highly Qualified by the Illinois State Bar Association and Qualified or Recommended by every other bar group, I thought the screening process was pretty darn close. Later, when the ISBA completely changed its mind, I was more willing to admit that some reforms might be helpful... proving with certainty only that I am quite human.

The point here is that there's an awful lot that goes into those deceptively simple-looking Rs or Qs. And once you know that, dear voter, you may or may not find bar evaluations a more important resource than you did before.

I can't speak from personal experience about endorsements.

I suspect there are as many reasons why different groups offer endorsements as there are different groups offering endorsements.

But what I can do is not report any endorsements here on FWIW made by a politician or union or community group unless I can report all the Cook County judicial endorsements made by said politician, union, or community group. It's frustrating for some candidates... but I have my reasons. For one thing, as I've mentioned recently, I recall one time where I finally got hold of a union's complete endorsement list... and several candidates were surprised (and disappointed) to learn that said union had endorsed every candidate in some races.

I'm doing a fair amount of digging and, this year at least, finding more confirmation of endorsements than I have in the past. And I'm putting up that information as fast as I am able.

The thing I find of greatest value with endorsements -- and perhaps you, the voter, may find valuable too -- are those endorsements of one candidate from groups that ordinarily oppose one another.

I think it speaks highly of a candidate's reputation for fairness if opposing groups agree on nothing excpet that Sally Jones or John Smith would make a fine judge.

As lawyers, we all want judges who will rule in our favor all the time. This is impossible, of course, unless criminal statutes are violated and ethical considerations flouted. So we will gladly settle for a judge who will follow the law with as much tact, and sympathy, as the law allows. Groups that make endorsements want judges who would be favorable to their particular interests on all occasions, too, and it is just as unrealistic (and almost certainly illegal) to expect that this might happen. So groups that make endorsements should, like practicing lawyers, look to candidates who are fair and who will impartially weigh the merits in all cases, and follow the law even when it is (and it is sometimes) inconvenient or uncomforatble so to do.

In our increasingly polarized society, that can be a tall order. I mentioned Girl, I Guess earlier on here. In making one endorsement in a countywide race, the authors said they would pull it in a moment if that candidate 'accepted' an endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police. (You might not have been able to tell... but Girl, I Guess is not particularly enamored of our local constabulary.) I have bad news for Ms. Skora et al., which I'll be posting shortly. If they maintained the endorsement, despite inadvertently agreeing with the FOP, that would be a good example of how candidates with a good reputation for fairness can bring organizations with different views to find common ground, if only for that limited purpose.

But the bottom line is this: Evaluations and endorsements are tools for you, the voter, to use. It is up to you to decide how much weight to give any particular evaluation or endorsement.

All the evaluations and endorsements that I can verify (along with links to any candidate statements published here on FWIW) will be included in the Organizing the Data posts that will somehow go up here on FWIW between now and March 19.