Seventy-seven of 78 retention judges rated qualified by Chicago Bar Association? Not so fast, my friend!

Updated 10/16/24

Another college football weekend in the books -- and, while Lee Corso was again absent from the ESPN College Game Day desk, when it comes to the CBA judicial retention evaluations, his famous catchphrase comes to mind....

Lee Corso Not So Fast GIFfrom Lee Corso GIFs

FWIW reported on October 3 (post updated October 4) that 77 of 78 Cook County judicial retention hopefuls had been rated qualified by the Chicago Bar Association. That total included Judges Shannon O’Malley and E. Kenneth Wright Jr.

This is no longer the case.

Now, and apparently since sometime on October 11, if you click on the CBA Judicial Voters Guid or the 21-page General Election Smart Guide that is linked from that page, you will see that the ratings for Judges O'Malley and Wright are listed as "pending."

Why?

On October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about O'Malley and Wright, "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, makes the case that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County.

The story notes that Wright has a condo in River North and a single-family home in Morgan Park, but that he has claimed a homeowners exemption since before he became a judge and, more recently, a senior citizen exemption, on a home in Joliet. O'Malley has an apartment in Schaumburg and a home in a Will County section of Aurora, according to the article. O'Malley or persons speaking on his behalf told Injustice Watch that he does not live with his wife in Aurora. But, the article continues,

When Injustice Watch telephoned his Aurora home on a recent afternoon, his wife answered and turned to her husband.

“Hey, Phil [the name by which Shanon O'Malley was formerly known], it’s the reporter,” she was heard saying.

In the background, O’Malley said: “Don’t tell her I live here.”

He declined to come to the phone.

The casual reader (FWIW must have some of these) may wonder why it is such a big deal where a judge lives.

The answer? It's a big deal because the Illinois Constituion sets certain, limited requirements for judicial service in Section 11 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution. This provides, in pertinent part (emphasis mine):

No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit which selects him.

Section 12(a) of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution states, in pertinent part, "A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions."

We don't have many objective means to measure judges. Temperament, certainly, but even scholarship and diligence and impartiality aren't really easy to quantify. (The judge who rules in your favor has all these sterling qualities, and more, in abundance... but the judge who rules against you? Maybe not so much.) Contrary to what some believe (I'm thinking of you, Injustice Watch) getting reversed isn't always necessarily an indication of judicial ineptitude. Appellate courts aren't infallible; they can be wrong, too. But we certainly can expect, and require, that judges will at least meet the bare constitutional requirements for holding the job.

And, yes, that a judge actually lives where he or she claims to live also goes to that individual's character and respect for the law.

These things are kind of important in a judge.

These things are so important that, when it was discovered that a judge lied about where he lived, falsely claiming to live in Cook County's 10th Judicial Subcircuit, in his parents' house, when in fact he and his family lived in the western suburbs, it was one of the bases cited by the Illinois Courts Commission in its decision removing that judge from the bench. See, In re Golniewicz, 02 CC 01, 4 Ill. Cts. Com. 9 (2004).

The Illinois Supreme Court later cited Golniewicz in Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011). Chris Ward wanted to run for judge in the 4th Subcircuit of the 12th Judicial Circuit (Will County). But, while he was a Will County resident, when he filed his nominating papers, he was not in fact a resident of the 4th Subcircuit. Therefore, the court held, that he was not eligible to have his name put on the ballot (241 Ill.2d at 412-12) (empahses in original):

Pursuant to section 12, eligibility for judicial office is therefore a prerequisite to running for that office. Under section 11, eligibility requires that one be a "resident of the unit which selects him" Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §11. While there may be contexts in which the language of article VI, section 11, is "arguably ambiguous" (Thies v. State Board of Elections, 124 Ill. 2d 317, 323, 529 N.E.2d 565, 124 Ill. Dec. 584 (1988)), the situation presented by this case is not among them. Giving sections 11 and 12 their plain and ordinary meaning, it is therefore clear that under our Constitution, candidates for the office of circuit, appellate or supreme court judge must be residents of the unit from which they seek election before they may cause their names to appear on the ballot for the primary election. See Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 514 n.3, 911 N.E.2d 979, 331 Ill. Dec. 749 (2009). If they are not residents, they are simply ineligible to run. If they attempt to run when they do not meet the constitutionally mandated residency requirement and manage to win the election, they will be subject to removal from office by the Illinois Courts Commission. In re Golniewicz, 4 Ill. Cts. Com 9, 39-40 (2004).

There is a third candidate on the retention ballot who ran into trouble for possibly fibbing about her place of residence: Beatriz Santiago was censured by the Illinois Courts Commission in 2016 for telling a mortgage lender that a home located just outside the 6th Subcircuit (from which she was elected) was in fact her primary residence, where she lived and where she intended to live, when it actually was not her primary residence. She had lived there before she ran for judge but, she said, she had moved back into the 6th Subcircuit, living with her folks, in order to be eligible to make the run. Her defense to a claim that she was consititutionally ineligible to serve as a judge in Cook County's 6th Subcircuit was that she was only guilty of bank fraud... and, she said, she didn't do that on purpose either. I think because the residency question had been thoroughly litigated before her election, and it had then been determined that she really had moved back in with her folks, the Courts Commission was willing to accept this explanation. (2016 FWIW coverage here.)

The point is, residency is a big deal. It is not just a matter of ratings; it is a potentially disqualifying, career-ending matter.

But first things first: There is a pending election and ratings to be determined.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has already amended it findings in light of the Injustice Watch article concerning Judges Wright and O'Malley.

In its findings with regard to Judge Wright, the Council stated, in pertinent part,

It was recently reported that Judge Wright claims a senior homestead tax exemption on a residence in Will County, Illinois, while maintaining residency in Cook County for purposes of meeting residency requirements to be a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Wright fully participated in the Alliance’s investigation process concerning this matter, and reported that he has corrected his tax exemption status.

Judge Wright's forthright handling of the matter, coupled with a strong history of professionalism on the bench, leads the Council to find him Qualified for retention.

On the other hand, with regard to Judge O'Malley, as FWIW has previously reported, the Council found him not qualified for retention, even before the question of residency was raised. On its website, the CCL now states that it "takes no position on the question of Judge O’Malley’s residency because we are recommending against his retention for judicial performance reasons."

What one bar association does with late-breaking news, such as the residency questions involving Judges Wright and O'Malley, should not be taken as a prediction of how others, including the Chicago Bar Association, will choose to respond.

It is an indication of the increasing influence of Injustice Watch that its news coverage prompts the reopening of bar association candidate evaluations. More, certainly, to come.