The headline here has the main story: The CBA has recommended retention for 77 of the 78 Cook County jurists seeking new terms. That number includes both of the Appellate Court justices seeking retention, as well as 75 out of the 76 Circuit Court judges seeking new six-year terms. The only judge not recommended for retention was Judge Lisa Ann Marino.
The CBA JEC has released the following explanation of its rating regarding Judge Marino:
Judge Lisa Marino has been found “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court. Judge Marino was admitted to practice in 1988 and was elected as a judge in 2012. She has been sitting in the First Municipal District, Housing Section, since 2016. Significant concerns about Judge Marino’s knowledge of the law, temperament, and diligence resulted in the “Not Recommended” finding.The CBA did not recommend Marino for retention in 2018; as in 2024, in 2018 Marino was the only retention judge receiving a 'not recommended' rating from the CBA. Marino's biography on the Cook County Retention Judges website correctly notes that the CBA did rate Marino qualified when she was elected to the bench in 2012.
The CBA no longer explains its reasons for rating retention judges qualified.
The CBA "Judge Smart" Guide also discloses the CBA's rating for Republican countywide candidate Tien H. Glaub. (Glaub was not a candidate in the Republican primary and was not therefore not evaluated at that time.) But Glaub did file for associate judge in 2021, and the CBA did issue an unfavorable rating then. That rating was not changed for this election:
Pursuant to section 34, rule 27.4 of The Chicago Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee’s Governing Resolution, The Executive Committee has voted that Tien H. Glaub’s prior finding of NOT RECOMMENDED shall stand.FWIW has not yet done an Organizing the Data post on the now-contested countywide Flannery vacancy, pending the release of all bar evaluations of Glaub's candidacy.
Voters can read the CBA's evaluations for all candidates on the November ballot, but with the exception of the race for the Flannery vacancy and four suburban subcircuit races, all judicial elections on the November ballot in Cook County are uncontested.
FWIW has published Organizing the Data posts in those four subcircuit races. These posts contain the CBA's explanation of its ratings of the competing candidates. These posts may be found at these links:
Posts
2 comments:
The bigger headline here is your comment that the CBA “no longer” explains its retention ratings. As in, this is a permanent change in policy…? If that’s correct then it’s shocking—a 200-person evaluation committee that can’t or won’t provide the public with the reasons for its decisions. Yes most of the explanations for incumbent judges tended to be similar and repetitive, but they served the larger issues of transparency and public confidence.
For nearly a century the CBA was the leader in informing the public about the legal community’s views on judicial candidates. But this would move them a long way towards all of the little demographic bars that are entirely opaque about the criteria and reasoning behind their ratings.
As a researcher I don’t advocate for or against anybody doing anything, so it’s no skin off my nose either way. But this change just bolsters the idea that bar associations really aren’t all that concerned with whether the electorate listens to them or not. For everyone who grumbles about the Injustice Watches and Girl I Guesses grabbing more and more attention in judicial elections, well it ain’t rocket science.
Thank you. I agree 200%.
barbarak3ys@gmail.com
Post a Comment