On the judicial retention ballot, the default vote should be "yes"

In most elections, supporters of a candidate who wins 59% of the vote will use words like "landslide" to describe their favorite's splendid victory. "Landslides" are routinely declared when a candidate gets a significantly smaller percentage of votes.

In Illinois judicial retention elections, a judge who receives a 59% favorable vote has to look for a new job come the first Monday in December.

To remain in office, a judge must receive a better-than-60% "yes" vote (often expressed as 60% + 1). Historically, most Cook County judges have little trouble surpassing this minimum requirement, high as it may seem.

Indeed, for several consecutive elections (from 1992 until 2018) all Cook County judges won retention. In 2018 one judge was targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party (which historically had always supported all retention judges, even those first elected as *gasp* Republicans) -- and the targeted candidate lost. In 2020, the Party targeted a veteran judge and two judges in "judges' jail." One of the judges in judges' jail quit before the election; the other lost. The targeted veteran judge survived. In 2022, all the judges on the retention ballot won new terms.

So even the occasional judge who has incurred the wrath of powerful politicians or 'community activists' can survive on the retention ballot. And most judges do their necessary work unnoticed, safely out the politicians' reach.

But this rosy prospectus is darkened by the fact that, in any given retention election, 15 to 20% of the Cook County electorate reaching the retention ballot will vote "no" on every single judge. Every single judge -- no matter how universally praised by the bar associations -- no matter how highly praised by the press, dead tree or online -- no matter how mellifluous their surnames -- will get a "no" vote from 15 or 20 of every 100 voters. Second City Cop always urges voters to vote 'no' on every judge on the retention ballot.

In the 2022 retention election, for example, no judge reached an 80% yes vote (Judge Sophia Hall got the highest 'yes' vote -- at 79.24%. A few judges got more than 78%. Many judges were below 70%. (Source.) In 2020, only five judges (all female) secured more than an 80% "yes" vote -- and none of them got 81%.

So retention judges can count on a definite "no" vote from roughly 1 in 5 voters, no matter how what. (Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that some of them get a little squirrely at this time; if there are retention judges among your personal acquaintance, be understanding.)

Why do some judges perform less well than others?

Well... this is where bar association evaluations and media notoriety and special-interest groups like "Girl, I Guess" come into play. A judge who runs afoul of the bar groups, or has unfavorable press, will draw more negative votes than his or her better-regarded peers. Experts like Dr. Albert J. Klumpp will be able to quantify which groups had the most influence, but only after the fact. But the effects of unfavorable bar evaluations and negative recommendations from other groups are real, and they do depress the "yes" votes for retention candidates to a greater or lesser extent.

And then there are the selective "no" votes: Lawyers will vote against judges who did not (in the lawyers' subjective view) treat them, or their clients, with the respect they considered due. Some may vote on the basis of 'sour grapes' -- that judge ruled against me, so I will vote 'no' on that judge. And ordinary people, too: "No" on the judge who dinged them on the speeding ticket, "no" on the judge who handled the divorce, "no" on the judge who put the voter's relative in jail, "no" on the judge who didn't jail that trouble-making kid down the street. Any time a judge makes a decision, someone is likely to be upset. And, yet, a judge's job is to make decisions.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. Some smarter than others, some nicer than others, some perhaps a bit more diligent than others, too. FWIW does not make endorsements on individual candidates.

But I will make this suggestion: In the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, I submit that the default vote for any judge on the judicial retention ballot should be "yes."

Now... what constitutes a good reason? That, Dear Reader, is up to you.