Just an aside to the voting public: There is no "super no" option on the actual retention ballot -- even if you vote by mail.
However, the authors of the Girl, I Guess Guide do offer explanations for their "super no" recommendations, and only for these highly negative exhortations, and we will come to these in a moment.
First, though, for those who may not be familiar with this increasingly influential online publication, let me quote from the authors' description of the guide (emphasis in original):
Girl, I Guess is Jewish, Black, queer, trans, nerdy and dedicated to helping members of our community navigate a confusing ballot and identify the most progressive candidates. We also recommend you consult with progressive / radical organizers in your community, especially queer, trans, Black, and Brown folks!The authors of the guide are Stephanie Skora, "a grouchy Jewish trans dyke, and an anarchist with a political science degree," and Raeghn Draper, "a pro-labor, queer, Black, non-binary babe who is bisexual only because they like the flag colors better than the ones for the pansexual flag." While both are involved with every race and endorsement covered in the guide, they have divided the coverage up and written separately about specific races. For example, Skora apparently prepared each of the "super no" explanations.
The Girl, I Guess Guide's retention coverage starts at p. 55 (of 65). It begins by throwing a bouquet in the direction of the Injustice Watch Judicial Voter Guide.
The Girl, I Guess guide does more than simply praise the "snappy coverage" of Injustice Watch; it clearly relies on it as well: Every judge with a "notable controversy" cited in the Injustice Watch guide received a negative recommendation from Girl, I Guess guide, including all four of the judges receiving a "super no."
But Girl, I Guess also recommends "no" votes on several judges who did not have 'notable controversies' according to Injustice Watch. Girl, I Guess offers four additional criteria by which it makes recommendations in judicial races (pp. 65-66):
Bar ratings are only now starting to come out. The Chicago Bar Association ratings just came out last week; the Chicago Council of Lawyers released their ratings tonight (story to come). The Girl, I Guess Google doc may yet be amended as ratings trickle in.
- Are you a cop?
- Are you sketchy, suspicious, or have you done bad/controversial things in the past?
- Are you a dumbass?
- Do Bar Associations think that you’re qualified?
With that caveat, here is what the Girl, I Guess guide says with regard to its "super no" statements (pp. 56-57) (links and emphases as in original):
E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.Most of the above links in the Girl, I Guess narratives are to Injustice Watch, the Sun-Times, or the Tribune. But, with regard to Judge Slattery Boyle, there is also link to an ISBA News article from 2012. Slattery Boyle was comfortably retained in that election, as the linked story confirms, but, as Skora states, Slattery Boyle did have a fairly close call in 2018.
The Dish:
Wright, Jr, who is 83 years old and running for retention for another 6-year term is unfortunately also a shady and unscrupulous character. He’s one of two Judges who was caught by the crack reporting team at Injustice Watch as claiming a Homestead Exemption on his property taxes outside of Cook County. For those of you, dear reader, who are not in the know about the ins and outs of Cook County property tax exemptions, a Homestead Exemption is the most common kind of homeowner tax exemption taken in Illinois, usable only on the owner’s principal dwelling place, meaning the place that they live the majority of the time. Wright, Jr. has claimed a homestead exemption on a property in Joliet (which sits in Will County) since 1978, and a Senior Homestead Exemption since 2018. Whoopsie! Illinois state law requires judges to live in the District that they represent, which Wright Jr. clearly does not. Vote NO on this judge who has been lying to Cook County voters for the 30 years that he’s been on the bench.
Mary Margaret Brosnahan
The Dish:
Brosnahan is a complete non-starter for Girl, I Guess for violating three of our four Judicial Evaluation Criteria (Bar Association Ratings pending for the fourth!) by being married to a cop with 43 allegations against him who’s already cost the City $9 million in misconduct settlements. Eww. She’s also had two murder cases reversed and determined unfair due to the “cumulative effect” of Brosnahan’s errors which impacted the “trustworthiness of the judicial process,” which sounds both sketchy and dumb to me. Vote NO on Brosnahan.
Maura Slattery Boyle
The Dish:
Slattery Boyle is a machine nepo baby, and was sent to the bench in 2000 on the back of a Daley endorsement. Bridgeport, am I right? Her rulings have been reversed at least 46 times during her tenure, she and her husband apparently don’t pay their taxes, and the City has sued her several times over building code violations. Whoof. Slattery Boyle barely won retention last time we covered her in 2018, and we’ve gotta hope that she doesn’t make it this time because Cook County has had quite enough of her. Vote NO.
Shannon O'Malley
The Dish:
O’Malley may not be a Libertarian (as far as we know), but he’s going to be this year’s Silly Name Caucus inductee for nomenclature-related shenanigans that loyal Girl, I Guess readers haven’t seen since the days of Benjamin Adam Winderweedle. According to Injustice Watch, O’Malley changed his name and party in 2018 (after running unsuccessfully for judge in two different Counties and Cook County State’s Attorney in 2004) to Shannon O’Malley from Phillip Spiwak. He claimed it was to honor a recently-passed mentor, but observers and reporters agreed that it was a naked attempt to improve his electoral chances, as it’s a well-known fact that Irish names do better on Cook County Judicial ballots, albeit only slightly. Well, apparently, it worked! O’Malley was elected in 2018 in his first electoral attempt since his name change. This would be just dumb and funny enough to maybe slide by with a disgruntled YES, but O’Malley unfortunately is also the second judges to find himself on the wrong side of the “she doesn’t even go here” scandal, with property tax exemption records also listing a Homestead Exemption for him in Will County. O’Malley claims that his wife lives in Will County by herself while he lives in Schaumburg, but… come on, man. It’s a judge’s duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and this doesn’t pass the sniff test.
On top of all of this, I had multiple attorneys reach out to me who have tried cases in front of O’Malley, questioning in several ways his command of the law as it relates to Child Protection and Family Law cases, and noting his poor temperament in the courtroom. Vote NO.
Although Girl, I Guess does not explain its other "no" recommendations, the bases of at least a few of these be reasonably determined without resorting to speculation. For example, Judge Colleen Reardon Daly is married to an ex-Chicago Police lieutenant, , according to Injustice Watch. That is obviously a major problem for Girl, I Guess.
Injustice Watch noted that Judge Michael Tully Mullen "ruled that police officers could have serious disciplinary cases heard by arbitrators instead of the Chicago Police Board," a very unpopular ruling among anti-police activists. Non-lawyers (and the authors of the Girl, I Guess guide are not lawyers) may not always fully appreciate that judicial ethics require judges to follow the law without regard to "public clamor or fear of criticism" and "without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question."
Given the "super no" recommendations given to two judges whose current residence is apparently in question, the reason behind the negative recommendation on Judge Beatriz Santiago is likewise apparent: Judge Santiago was accused of putting a mortgage on a home that she owned, outside the 6th Subcircuit from which she'd only just been elected, and claiming, in the mortgage documents, that this home was her principal residence. If that home actually was her principal residence at the time she applied for the mortgage, she might have been removed from office. As it was, the Courts Commission chose merely to censure her. (FWIW analysis of the Courts Commission's 2016 decision in Judge Santiago's case is here.)
Posts
2 comments:
While a proponent of free speech, I find it interesting that this blog can get its own article on your page. Much of what the Girl’s authors cite is a regurgitation of other publications, nothing new or more informative.
More concerning are the simply Yeses or Nos without explanation. For example, their blog has a No for a Judge who has all positive bar ratings for retention and did for the election 6 years ago. This Judge is also the past President of LAGBAC and the current President of the AIJ (lgbtq+ bar association and lgbtq+ judges association for those who are unaware).
The fact that the authors simply say No without an explanation speaks volumes about their agenda and lack of expertise. At least the bar associations that publish qualifications without a recommendation are comprised of attorneys who are part of the Alliance of Bar Associations that rely on an investigation.
Girls may say and publish whatever they wish, however, you giving them this forum only makes it more difficult for qualified judges to be retained. Isn’t that what your other posts advocate?
Anon 10/14 @1:11 -- I appreciate your position.
However, Girl, I Guess has had an appreciable impact on judicial elections since before I found out about it... and that influence has grown with each election.
I don't think I've had anything to do with that. I suspect that most people who visit FWIW are not overly familiar with, or, if familiar with, overly influenced by Girl, I Guess.
There's news value, in my judgment, in letting people know about a phenomenon that is taking place, and gathering steam, outside their usual notice. There could be some 'observer effect' in my publishing an article about Girl, I Guess... but I don't really think I'm providing sufficient oxygen to further fan that publication's flames.
You had one other statement I wanted to address. You wrote, "The fact that the authors simply say No without an explanation speaks volumes about their agenda and lack of expertise. At least the bar associations that publish qualifications without a recommendation are comprised of attorneys who are part of the Alliance of Bar Associations that rely on an investigation."
Um. Of the 14 bar groups (13 in the Alliance + the CBA) that provide evaluations, most just say 'yes' or 'no,' without explanation. You obviously know, and respect, the investigative process that the bar groups use... which is why you are more prepared to accept the bars' recommendations over those of Girl, I Guess... but most voters won't have that inside knowledge.
Moreover, the Girl, I Guess authors do not just offer 'yeses' or 'nos.' As I reported in my post, the Girl, I Guess authors explain what they consider important in evaluating a judge. Some people will think their rubric entirely appropriate; others may find it risible. But, because it is here on FWIW with everything elese I can find, voters can compare what they say, and why, and evaluate for themselves whether their recommendations should be influential.
Post a Comment