Wake and funeral arrangements announced for Mike McGowan

A lot of current and former Cook County judges will remember Mike McGowan, if only from their new judge orientations. Mike concluded his public career some years ago now, working as the technology guru in the Office of the Chief Judge. He was brought into that position by former Chief Judge Donald P. O'Connell; he remained in that position for a number of years after Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans succeeded O'Connell.

There was a time, and it was not that long ago dear Millennial and Zoomer readers, that having someone testify at a trial from a remote location was a really big deal, and making that happen when it needed to, was one of the things that Mike did in that job.

I knew Mike for well over 40 years, since he was a freshman at Loyola University. We roomed together for a time before I got married. We stood up to each other's weddings. He and his wife Sheri are godparents to my son Joe, and as much an aunt and uncle to all of my children as if they were blood kin. Some years ago he made me promise that, if he died before I did, I would not tell any stories that would embarrass him.

But he might allow me to tell this one on the grounds that FWIW readers, especially those who remember Mike, may think it amusing: Mike began his public career in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office. In the 1980s the Clerk's computer operations were located in CL25, below the Daley Center. Mike rose quickly through the ranks in that office, starting (if I recall the title correctly) as a burster. By the time Clerk Morgan Finley was indicted, Mike was sufficiently senior that he became the person designated to furnish the U.S. attorneys with whatever information that might be required. Mike did not undertake this task with a view to helping or hurting anyone. He did it because he was assigned. He was a creature of duty, determined to do that which he was supposed to do as promptly and efficiently as possible. Mike expected to be called as a prosecution witness at trial to authenticate the records produced, and he thought he'd developed a friendly rapport with the AUSAs who would put him on the stand.

He called me as soon as he could after he got away from the Dirksen Building. "Lawyers are SCUM!" he thundered. Apparently the federal prosecutor who called him did not want any juror to think well of any public employee, lest some of that good feeling transfer to Mr. Finley, and when he grilled Mike, Mike truly felt betrayed.

Mike's anger on that occasion, though both justified and understandable, was entirely out of character. Generally, he knew everyone. He remembered everyone he met. More importantly, that one little incident excepted, he got along with everyone. He was a connector person, an important part of a thousand groups. Think Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon, but from the South Side instead. Mike was always an organizer, bringing people together. In trying to put this remembrance together I naturally wanted a proper portrait-like photo. But Mike was almost always pictured in group shots -- with family, with friends, with fellow volunteers at the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH), or the New Hope Food Pantry, or (more recently) the Global Albinism Alliance. It was from the Alliance that I had to grab the photo here.

Mike was one of those people the BGA never mention when they carp about public pensioners: He didn't 'double dip.' He earned his pension, and with the freedom that this gave him, devoted a productive retirement to the betterment of persons with albinism. Only illness and, now, death could deter him from these pursuits.

The wake for Mike McGowan is set for Friday, November 29, from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m., at Gibbons Family Funeral Home, 5917 W. Irving Park. The funeral Mass will be Saturday, November 30, at 10:00 a.m. at Immaculate Conception Church, 7211 W. Talcott. Internment will be at Union Ridge Cemetery, 6700 W. Higgins. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Global Albinism Alliance.

A rose by any other name? Name change statute in for some big changes

HB 5164 has passed the House and, having been reported out of the Senate Executive Committee on a party line vote, stands on the cusp of passage in the Senate, set for its Third Reading as of November 20.

The bill would significantly alter Article XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/21-101 et seq.

As a practical matter, subject to certain statutory exceptions, a person could always seek a name change from our courts. If one keeps the new name long enough (three years, though married women may face additional hurdles), one may even be elected to the Circuit Court bench. (A name change for a judicial candidate, however, as we have seen recently, carries with it no guarantee of judicial retention.)

Courts have typically denied name change petitions if there was a suspicion that the person seeking the name change was doing so to avoid creditors: If the real reason John Smith wants to change his name to Sam Jones is to avoid collection proceedings brought by Messrs. MasterCard and Visa, what Smith is inviting the court to do is to become a co-conspirator in his attempted fraud on his creditors. Courts don't like that. Courts aren't supposed to like that. We don't want our courts to aid and abet fraudsters.

For this reason, Section 21-103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has provided that notice be made by publication of any proposed name change. There were certain exceptions to the publication provision provided for under the existing law, but Section 15 of HB 5164 would repeal the publication requirement entirely. MasterCard and Visa won't have even the possibility of knowing, now, if John Smith is trying to change his name to avoid paying his bills.

Well, you say, MasterCard and Visa don't need publication. Our biggest banks know more about us generally, and probably about John Smith in particular, than we care to think about. But what about Harry and Harriet Homemaker, senior citizen bungalow owners, who hire Joe Doaks to build a back porch on their home? Joe takes their substantial down payment and disappears, filing to change his name along the way. They, or their lawyer, may not see the publication notice in the Law Bulletin. But at least there would be a chance.

Publication serves a purpose.

Admittedly, in the present age, where print media seems to be dying, a published notice may not be as effective as it once was. If someone has a better alternative, contact your state legislator immediately. But abandoning publication altogether is going to have unintended, and unfortunate, consequences.

The reason HB 5164 proposes to do away with publication is because it will erect still another roadblock (a wall, if you will) against federal enforcement of immigration laws.

This is consistent with the language of new Section 21-103.8. In the current version of HB 5164, this section provides (emphasis supplied):

(a) A petitioner may file a request to have the petitioner's court file impounded by filing a statement, verified under oath as provided under Section 1-109 of this Code, that the person believes that public disclosure would be a hardship and have a negative impact on the person's health or safety to include, but not be limited to, that the person is transgender, an adoptee, a survivor of domestic or intimate partner abuse, a survivor of gender-based violence, a survivor of human trafficking, a refugee, a person who has been granted special immigrant status by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, a person who has survived reparative or conversion therapy, or a person who has been granted asylum in this country. The petitioner may attach to the statement any supporting documents including relevant court orders, although self attestation shall suffice as acceptable documentation.

(b) If the petitioner files a statement attesting that disclosure of the petitioner's address would put the petitioner or any member of the petitioner's family or household at risk or reveal the confidential address of a shelter for domestic violence victims, that address may be omitted from all documents filed with the court, and the petitioner may designate an alternative address for service.

The revisions to the statute do retain provisions requiring notice to the local prosecutor and the Illinois State Police (see, Sec. 21-102.5), so that persons charged with crimes, or registered sex offenders, at least those convicted in Illinois courts, can not elude the consequences of their crimes by simply changing their names.

I assume that all readers of FWIW will have their own, well-formed opinions about immigration policy, both long-term and in recent years, and I have never immersed myself sufficiently in the minutiae of federalism to offer any expert opinion about which state efforts to evade federal law may be permissible and which may amount to nullification of the kind that I thought, as a history major and armchair historian, we had done away with as a result of the Civil War. However, it is clearly the intent of the drafters of this revision to the name change statute to frustrate the efforts of the Orange Man Bad and his incoming administration's efforts to enforce a particular view of the immigration statutes.

But what will be the consequences in other areas of the abandonment of a stutory publication requirement? Will that encourage fraud? Will our courts be made complicit? Is the temporary frustration of immigration enforcement in some cases worth the other changes unleashed by HB 5164?

Every law has consequences. In theory, that's why we make laws, to have the consequences the legislature desires. Most (and maybe all) laws have unintended consequences as well. Sometimes the consequences may not be intended... but they seem pretty darn obvious.

Tickets available at the door for tonight's SWBA Installation Dinner

If you're looking for something to do tonight, and if the currently falling snow stays pre-shoveled as promised, the Southwest Bar Association is holding its installation dinner, starting at 5:00 p.m., at Zachary's Grill, 13415 S. Ridgeland Ave, Palos Heights.

Tickets are $100 each and may be purchased at the door. If you prefer to pay in advance, tickets remain available on a PayPal link via the SWBA website.

Illinois State Bar Association seeks awards nominations

The Illinois State Bar Association is soliciting nominations for a host of awards -- not all of which, by their terms, are 'career achievement' awards meant as solace for someone sailing off into the sunset. Some are specifically limited to mere youngsters -- well, persons under 37, anyway -- and other awards may be given to persons with less than 10 years' experience at the bar. There is even an award especially for law students.

The ISBA is accepting nominations for each of these awards from now until March 3.

What follows is a list of all ISBA awards for which nominations are being sought, along with a brief description of the award as supplied by the ISBA. The linked awards title will take the reader to a more complete description of the award, including additional eligibility requirements, and a nomination form, for those inclined to make one. Some links will give interested persons lists of past award winners. All have email contacts (different email contacts) for any remaining questions about any of these awards:

Austin Fleming Newsletter Editors Award
This award honors outstanding editors or past editors of Association newsletters. It is based on the concept of meritorious service to the Association (at least 10 years as editor or co-editor) and is not necessarily to be given every year.

The Carole K. Bellows Women of Influence Award
This award honors up to two individuals each year that have helped to raise awareness of the unmet legal needs of women, advocated for action on women’s issues, or have promoted involvement by women in the legal community. An award may be given to an individual with more than 10 years' experience and another to an individual with fewer than 10 years' of experience.

Civics Education Award
The Committee on Law-Related Education has established “ISBA Civics Education Award” designed to annually honor up to three individuals who have helped educate the public about civics, especially our legal system.

CLE Achievement Award
This award honors individual ISBA members who are under age 37 and/ or admitted to practice under 7 years who have made notable contributions to ISBA continuing legal education. The award recognizes the recipient’s overall involvement in ISBA’s CLE programming, as well as the potential for future leadership in that area. It is not necessarily presented every year.

CLE Distinguished Service Award
This award honors individual ISBA members who have made outstanding contributions to ISBA continuing legal education. The award does not recognize a single program, but the meritorious work of the recipient over a substantial period of time. It is not necessarily presented every year.

Community Leadership Award
Given by the ISBA's Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), this award recognizes individuals for efforts to foster understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their issues of concern.

Diversity Leadership Award
This award recognizes long standing, continuing and exceptional commitment by an individual or an organization to the critical importance of diversity within the Illinois legal community, its judiciary and within the Illinois State Bar Association.

Elmer Gertz Human & Civil Rights Award
The Gertz Award is meant to honor the often-unsung heroes of the legal community who have shown a continued commitment to preserve and advance human rights.

John C. McAndrews Pro Bono Service Award
The award is named in memory of Rock Island attorney John McAndrews, who chaired the ISBA Committee on Delivery of Legal Services, and is awarded to individual lawyers, law firms and corporate law departments, and bar associations for providing free legal services to the income eligible in Illinois or expanding the availability of legal services to the income eligible in Illinois.

Joseph R. Bartylak Memorial Legal Services Award
This award is named in memory of legal services attorney Joseph R. Bartylak to annually honor his extraordinary commitment and dedication to civil legal services and his outstanding service to Illinois' vulnerable and low-income population. It may be awarded to persons with more than 10 years' experience and to persons with less than 10 years' experience who have provided the highest caliber of compassionate legal representation and outstanding service to Illinois’ vulnerable and low-income population.

Law Student Division Public Service Award
Awarded annually to a law student participating in activities that enhance professional responsibility and provide service to the public. The award is based on extracurricular accomplishments and service related activities during the law school career. A finalist will be selected from each accredited law school affiliated with the ISBA Law Student Division from which qualified nominees are submitted. The final award recipient will be chosen from these finalists.

Excellence in Legal Education Award
The Committee on Legal Education, Admissions and Competence has established "The Excellence on Legal Education Award" designed to annually honor a law school program that emphasizes real world skill for students.

Law Enforcement Award
The Law Enforcement Award was created to recognize sworn law enforcement officers for conduct that promotes justice and to distinguish those individuals whose service to the public brings honor and respect to the entire criminal justice system. The award is given sparingly to recognize those who truly excel in the field of law enforcement.

Matthew Maloney Tradition of Excellence Award
This award is named in memory of Princeton attorney Matthew Maloney, who was a past chair of the ISBA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Section Council and is awarded to individual lawyers who are in a general solo or small firm practice. A nominee must be a member of the Illinois State Bar Association and have been in practice for a minimum of 20 years.

Roz Kaplan Government Service Award
The Roz Kaplan Government Service Award honors government attorneys whose dedication and service have made a difference. The Award recognizes attorneys who, like Roz Kaplan, dedicate their careers to government service.

Richard H. Teas Legislative Support Award
In memory of Richard H. Teas, a long-time member of the ISBA Trusts and Estates Section Council, who contributed hours of his own time in analyzing, drafting, and testifying on legislation. Awarded to acknowledge ISBA members' meritorious service provided in support of ISBA's legislative efforts in the Illinois General Assembly. Only ISBA members are eligible for this award, and nominations must be made by an ISBA member in good standing.

Young Lawyer of The Year Award
The ISBA Young Lawyers Division recognizes two outstanding young lawyers – one practicing outside Cook County and one within – at an awards luncheon. Award recipients must be members in good standing of the Illinois State Bar Association and have not yet reached age 36.

Board of Governors Award
The award recognizes lawyers for exemplary service to the profession and/or the Association and nonlawyers for especially meritorious deeds or service that significantly advance the administration of justice or the goals of the profession or the Association. No more than three of these awards may be given in any year.

Dr. Klumpp takes a first look at the Cook County judicial retention results

FWIW is once again pleased to present a Guest Post by Albert J. Klumpp, a PhD in public policy analysis with a national reputation for expertise on judicial races, the author of several scholarly works analyzing judicial elections, and a generous and frequent contributor to FWIW for many years.

by Albert J. Klumpp

Official results and ward/township breakdowns are still weeks away. But with an unexpected free day, I crunched through the available unofficial vote totals to provide FWIW with my usual analysis of Cook County’s judicial retention voting in this month’s election.

Nationally, it was another good year for retention candidates. A total of 704 state court judges sought retention in noncompetitive votes in seventeen U.S. states, including 29 supreme court justices and 78 intermediate appellate justices. Pending some unreported results in Kansas, it appears that 702 of the candidates were retained.

Besides Shannon O’Malley in Cook County, the only other removal occurred in Oklahoma. Three supreme court justices who were appointed by Democratic governors came under attack by a right-wing organization funded by large amounts of dark money and apparently with the implicit support of the state’s Republican governor. One justice was narrowly removed and the others were narrowly retained.

Here at home, voter turnout based on numbers reported so far was 66.1 percent countywide. This was the lowest turnout for a presidential election since 1996. Voters were presented with the longest judicial retention ballot in the county’s history: 78 names, nosing out the 77-name 2000 ballot. As for what those voters did with it:

• Participation on the retention ballot, based on the median number of votes cast for circuit court judges, was 68.6 percent. While higher than the county’s long-term average, the figure is lower than in the last three elections, and likely indicates that the surge of voter interest that peaked participation in 2018 and 2020 will return to a more long-term typical level, as it did after the Operation Greylord years and as is typical for surge events in retention jurisdictions.


• The baseline approval rate across the entire group of judges was 74.1 percent, marginally lower than the 75.7 percent average for the previous ten elections.


• Female names saw an advantage of 2.0 percentage points relative to male names. Irish names and for Black names (based on U.S. Census data) saw advantages of 1.3 and 2.1 points, respectively. There was no statistically detectable advantage for Hispanic names, which has been typical in Cook County in recent years.


• The combined effect of ratings from all of the local bar associations appears to have been roughly 13.9 percentage points. Splitting this estimate up among the different bars is unusually difficult for this election, but there are indications that the smaller bars beyond the CBA, ISBA and CCL had more of an impact than in any previous election.


• As for the newer, more politically oriented information sources: The Girl I Guess guide captured an estimated 4.8 percent of the vote, while the information printed in the Chicago Votes! young voters guide captured an estimated 3.3 percent. The latter is of particular interest, because it simply flagged every judge who had been flagged by Injustice Watch in its own voter guide—which does not provide vote recommendations—based on “a negative review or…negative controversy.” To the extent that this represents the most likely decision strategy for a voter using only the Injustice Watch guide, then the Chicago Votes! measurement also includes the direct impact of the Injustice Watch guide (as opposed to its indirect impact on other sources).

In the aggregate, an estimated 22.1 percent of the retention electorate used some source of information in their voting. This compares with estimates of 32.8 percent in 2018, 31.9 percent in 2020, and 22.2 percent in 2022. The noticeable change in 2022 and its recurrence this month is definitely the most significant aspect of the two elections, and deserves a closer look.

The above chart shows the spreads between the highest and lowest approval rates on each retention ballot since 1982, for both the city of Chicago and its Cook County suburbs. These spreads are a reasonably accurate proxy for the proportion of each electorate that used information from some source to cast a mixture of yes and no retention votes.

Historically it was always the suburbs that led the city in information use. For instance, in 1988, a presidential year and the peak year of electoral interest in Operation Greylord, more than 61 percent of the roughly 234,000 voters who used newspaper or bar ratings in their voting were suburban voters. This year, however, in a similar election—presidential year, higher-than-normal interest—more than 63 percent of the roughly 315,000 information-using voters were city voters.

What explains this sudden change? Three related factors. One, the county’s major print media (Tribune, Sun-Times, suburban Daily Herald), which always an impacted the suburbs more than the city, offered almost nothing to voters in either election after many years of providing their own recommendations, or bar ratings, or both. (The only exception was more than 3200 words of commentary in the November 3 Chicago Tribune covering every individual judge, but with nothing to distill all of that verbiage down to simple vote recommendations.)

Two, information about retention candidates has become more complicated. My research on judicial voting has consistently found that when it comes to voter information, simplicity is fundamentally important, and that the more complicated information becomes, the less likely voters are to use it. Complexity was particularly noticeable this year in testing various likely word combinations of Google searches on mobile devices. That is, searches that suburban voters would be likely to run in order to replace newspaper guidance. Two years ago, relatively simple pages from bar associations came up as top search results. This year, those pages were pushed farther down by more complicated sites from media outlets such as WTTW and WMAQ, pages that attempted to present larger volumes of information with far less clarity.

And third, the new information sources that have emerged in recent cycles have remained consistent compared to newspapers, and at least so far have found and maintained audiences. These audiences have consistently been 70 percent or more city voters.

The bottom line of all this, and the reason why this development is so important: if information use in the suburbs on November 5 had matched that of the city, as many as 100,000 votes would have been affected and the number of removals would have been at least three, and possibly four or five, instead of one.

When official ward and township numbers are released, we’ll be able to explore this in more detail. For now I’ll just add the usual disclaimer that the estimates cited above are just that—estimates—with margins of error. But all are considered statistically significant, and most very highly so.

FWIW now fishing for readers on Bluesky Social

I stopped being an early adapter of technology many years ago when I bought what would today be described as a tablet, but one loaded with Microsoft Windows for Pen Computing ver. 1.0.

It was going to replace my yellow pad for taking notes -- just to cite one example, client-ready deposition summaries would now just be a simple matter of editing my notes, or so I thought -- and it was going to be Paradise.

As the use of 'Microsoft' and 'ver. 1.0' in the same sentence will suggest to most rational people with a little common sense and any experience of technology at all, the experiment failed. Miserably. I can't say it was Paradise Lost, because Paradise was never attained. Nor were any of the hoped-for benefits.

But I'll save the details of that scarring experience for a sad chapter in the book I'm supposed to be writing.

Suffice to say, for the present, that I didn't jump to create a Bluesky account as soon as it became publicly available. Rather, I hung back, watching the farewell to X posts piling up on X and Facebook, and starting to worry that I might be losing potential readers here on FWIW because they would no longer see my posts on X promoting each new FWIW post.

I spend far too much time on X as it is, sifting through the muck and mire for kernels of apparently accurate information... or just looking for craziness (and usually finding it). So the last thing I want to do is dive into X's new competitor... I am terrified that I might start comparing how things are presented on Bluesky vis a vis how the same topics are presented on X and who is saying what where (and whether they are saying different things on differnt platforms) and I'll squander my remaining vision and forfeit untold hours of whatever years I have remaining in the process....

But I've done it anyway. I have today joined Bluesky. I will try and avoid getting sucked in... and probably fail there, too.

If you wish, however, you can follow me on Bluesky @jackleyhane@bsky.social.

Yes, that's not a very imaginative handle.

Meanwhile, I also remain on X at the equally unimaginative @jackleyhane.

Tickets now on sale for Illinois Latino Judges Association Holiday Party

Tickets are now on sale for the Illinois Latino Judges Association Holiday Party.

The event is set for Thursday, December 12, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., at Mi Tierra Restaurante, 2528 S. Kedzie. Tickets are $80 each (law students will be admitted for $40 apiece) if purchased in advance. Tickets are $100 each if purchased at the door.

To buy tickets, use the QR code in the graphic above, or visit this page of the ILJA website.

Not every comment left in the queue is equally perspicacious

In a post last Friday I hope I gave due credit to the anonymous reader who helped me understand how and where detainee votes at the Cook County Jail were counted in the recent election.

But not all comments submitted to FWIW are equally good. Some are just flat-out misinformation. Take this one for instance (which I am printing only here):

Leaving the judges retention vote blank counts as a “yes” vote. This is cook county, corruption is baked into the cake!

I'm not sure where our local corruption is baked. Probably not by elves in hollow trees. In back rooms, perhaps, or in vehicles with tinted windows, or while walking briskly and furtively down windblown streets. In any event, our local corruption is presumably baked as far away as possible, whenever possible, from hidden recording equipment or persons wearing wires.

But leave that aside for a moment.

It is the first part of the proffered comment that is flat-out wrong: Leaving a retention judge blank on the ballot (voting neither 'yes' nor 'no') does not constitute a 'yes' vote. If anything, failing to vote in a retention race enhances the power of voters who say 'no' to all judges.

Assume a million voters come out for a general election. All things being equal some 15-20% of these will vote 'no' on every retention judge on the ballot -- for our purposes, let's round it up to 20%... or 200,000 votes.

If all the million voters vote on every judge, and all the voters who do not reflexively say nay to all vote 'yes,' then every judge wins retention comfortably, with 80%.

But, usually, there's a dropoff as one goes down the ballot.

This year, in some places, some voters left the presidential ballot blank, too, choosing to vote only in races further down the ballot. But, normally, if 1,000,000 come out, these all vote for the high-profile races at the top of the ballot and some lose interest moving down. If 200,000 bypass a particular retention race, that leaves 600,000 'yes' votes and that constant 200,000 'no' vote lump. The judge is still retained... but with only a 75% 'yes' vote. If 300,000 voters bypass a race, that leaves only 500,000 'yes' votes and the judge's margin slips to 71% or thereabouts. If 400,000 voters skip the race, the judge is down to 67%. If half skip the race, leaving only 300,000 'yes' votes, the judge is right at the fatal 60% line... and, if we're being technical, the judge in this example is not retained, failing to obtain the necessary 60% plus 1.

And no retention judge gets everybody (except the 'just say no' crowd) to say 'yes.' In addition to the 'just say no' crowd, every judge will attract some 'no' votes because he or she has done the job, even if he or she has done the job well: People will still be mad about the guilty findings on traffic tickets, or that the spouse got more in the divorce than the voter thought appropriate. Jealous former law partners, persons whose relatives went to jail, persons who thought the judge was too soft on the person who mugged the voter's relative.... Some judges will have run afoul of one or more evaluating bar groups. The scenarios are endless, and so is the retention judge's angst... at least until the tallied votes seem safely in the judge's favor.

But do not be deceived, Dear Voter: Passing by a retention judge's race does not count as a 'yes' vote.

CCBA Barristers Holiday Soirée set for December 12 in Hyde Park

The Cook County Bar Association holiday party will be held on Thursday, December 12, from 5:30 to 10:30 p.m., at The Penthouse Hyde Park, 5107 S. Blackstone Ave., on the 17th floor.

Regular admission tickets for this event are $125 each; VIP tickets cost $150 apiece. Sponsorships are available:

• Friend of the CCBA - $1,000
  includes two General Admission tickets, recognition on all Holiday Fundraiser marketing materials, including emails, newsletters, website acknowledgement, and access to the VIP Suite,


• Gold Sponsor - $2,000
  includes two General Admission tickets, access to the VIP Suite, recognition with name & logo on all Holiday Fundraiser marketing materials, including emails, newsletters, and website acknowledgement,


• Platinum Spon sor - $3,000
  includes two VIP tickets, access to the VIP Suite, recognition with name & logo on all Holiday Fundraiser marketing materials, including emails, newsletters, and website acknowledgement.

There are also $4,000 food and beverage sponsorships. For all tickets and sponsorships, visit this eventnoire.com page.

Too good to be entirely true: Cook County Jail detainees did not support Trump (or the retention judges) as much as we thought...

The news that President-Elect Donald Trump got a plurality of the votes cast in the precinct wherein the Cook County Jail is located got a lot of traction. FWIW jumped on the bandwagon, too, running a piece about that and then (staying on brand) looking at the judicial retention results reported in that precinct.

That's a map of the 19th precinct of the 24th Ward at the top of this piece. And it does indeed contain the Cook County Jail. But the boundaries are not coextensive.

My second look at this story was prompted by a question left in the comment queue. Last Friday night a sharp-eyed reader asked, "Hmm. Don't jail detainees vote absentee out of their home ward/suburb, therefore their totals would be included in those totals and not the 19th precinct of the 24th Ward???"

I didn't publish the comment until today, as I was preparing this article.

I didn't publish the comment because I didn't know the answer. I knew detainees voted from the jail. I knew Injustice Watch made a point of distributing its voter guide at the jail.

But that didn't answer the question. Sophia Ansari, Director of Public Relations and Communications for the Cook County Sheriff, explained that the FWIW reader had the gist of it: Ansari wrote FWIW that "individuals in custody vote based on their home addresses. One thing to clarify is that individuals in custody who are registered to vote in Cook County are voting in person, as the jail is an early voting polling place." So those votes would not have been counted in the 19th Precinct of the 24th Ward.

Moreover, Max Bever, the Director of Communications for the Chicago Board of Elections, confirmed that the Election Day polling place for the 19th Precinct of the 24th Ward is at Spry School, located on South Marshall Blvd. -- not in the jail. Jail detainees would not have been voting at the school.

But it is not entirely fake news: Bever told FWIW in an email, "1,479 Chicago voters [cast] a ballot from Cook County Jail for the November 5, 2024 General Election." The jail was an early voting site, and, according to Bever, there were "two weekends of Early Voting for Pre-Trial Detainees, held on Saturday, October 19; Sunday, October 20; Saturday, October 26; and Sunday, October 27." But 416 of the detainees "used Same Day Registration," Bever said, "which often indicates they used the jail as their address to vote." Therefore, Bever concluded, "it would be more accurate to say that some Pre-Trial Detainees’ ballots would be cast within the 19th Precinct of the 24th Ward, while other voters were previously registered elsewhere, or could provide proof of ID for an address outside the precinct for registration."

So the story is still that Trump carried the precinct in which Cook County Jail is located... but most of the votes counted there were not cast by detainees.... The story is not quite as intriguing as it may have first seemed.

Hat Tip to the Anonymous FWIW reader (why are they always anonymous?) who gently nudged me down the path of enlightenment.

O'Malley falls further behind in latest numbers

All retention judges, with one exception, seem to have won new terms in the November election. Judge Shannon O'Malley is the sole exception. In the latest updates released by the Cook County Clerk and the Chicago Board of Elections, O'Malley's percentage has dropped below 59%. A judge must win better than 60% "Yes" votes (typically phrased as 60% + 1) in order to be retained.

In the most recent update available online from the CBOE, O'Malley has 362,961 "Yes" votes out of a total of 675,437 votes cast in his retention race. That translates to only a 53.74% "Yes" rate, down from the 54.64% "Yes" rate FWIW reported a couple of days ago.

O'Malley continues to have more "Yes" votes in the Cook County suburbs (463,292 in the latest update) and a higher favorable percentage of 62.85% -- but this number is down from the 63.28% favorable percentage O'Malley had in the update we reported earlier in the week.

When the vote totals are aggregated O'Malley now has 826,253 "Yes" votes out of a total of 1,412,579 votes counted in his race. Taken together, O'Malley has only a 58.49% "Yes" vote, down from 59.18% earlier this week.

Although the City and County have both added votes to the totals reported in the O'Malley retention race, the City has not publicly updated the outstanding ballot figures since November 10. At that time there were still 47,664 VBM ballots returned, but not yet counted, and another 6,100 provisional votes yet to be examined. The County's numbers, updated today, show only 1,635 uncounted VBM ballots actually received (a increase of roughly 500 over the total FWIW reported earlier this week) -- and 27 provisional ballots remaining (none were reported in FWIW's last update).

Both the City and County report large numbers of VBM ballots sent out but not returned. The City states that 38,208 VBM ballots were sent out but not yet returned; the County reports 48,602, down from 51,987 in FWIW's last published update. Tempus fugit. Most of these votes, 10 days out from Election Day, are likely not coming back.

PRBA Pack the Pantry on Saturday, November 23

I would guess that most FWIW readers have plenty to be thankful for, at Thanksgiving and throughout the year. Not everyone does.

But, especially at this time of year, there are tangible ways to express your thanks for the bounties that you enjoy, and do some good in the process. The Puerto Rican Bar Association is providing one such opportunity at its Pack the Pantry event on Saturday, November 23, starting at 8:30 a.m.

Not able to pack and stack groceries? Got football tickets elsewhere for that Saturday? The PRBA offers sponsorship opportunities as well -- the sponsorship levels are described in the poster above and (so they tell me) the Rorschach tests labeled PayPal and Zelle above will allow you to accomplish your donation, perhaps without even putting down your phone.

Alternatively, you could seek more information, and possibly even obtain a physical address to which an old-fashioned negotiable instrument might be sent by regular post, by emailing prbalawil@gmail.com.

Shannon O'Malley below 60% in latest vote count update

The trend had been positive for Judge Shannon O'Malley, but it is no longer so: As of the most recent updates available, O'Malley has fallen below the 60% threshold required for retention.

Voters in the City of Chicago have apparently sealed O'Malley's fate: In the most recent update available online, O'Malley has 357,290 "Yes" votes out of a total of 653,861 votes cast in his retention race. That translates to only a 54.64% "Yes" rate.

O'Malley has more "Yes" votes in the Cook County suburbs (457,050 in the latest update) and a higher favorable percentage of 63.28%... but when the vote totals are aggregated O'Malley has only 814,340 "Yes" votes out of a total of 1,376,091 votes cast in his race. Taken together, O'Malley has only a 59.18% "Yes" vote -- insufficient, at this point, for his retention bid to succeed.

The City says there are still 47,664 VBM ballots returned, but not yet counted, and another 6,100 provisional votes yet to be examined. Those figures date to Sunday. The County's numbers, updated as of yesterday, show only 1,128 uncounted VBM ballots actually received -- and no provisional ballots remaining.

Both the City and County report large numbers of VBM ballots sent but not received. The City states that 38,208 VBM ballots were sent out but not yet returned; the County reports 51,987 such ballots. A week after the polls close, it becomes increasingly likely that many, if indeed not most, of these are never coming back.

Given these figures, it seems likely that O'Malley will not be retained. He is over 11,000 votes shy, at this point, of a 60% favorable vote at this point. Three out of four of the remaining ballots actually received would have to break his way for him to claw back to the 60% mark. Given that most of the remaining ballots actually received appear to be from the City, where Judge O'Malley has fared worst so far, that seems unlikely. Time will tell.

Illinois Latino Judges Association Holiday Party is set for December 12

The election is pretty much over... so it must be holiday season party time. The Illinois Latino Judges Association wants you to know about theirs.

Mark your calendars now.

More will be said about this... soon.

Trump won the Cook County Jail vote. How do you think the judges fared there?

I got the story from Rich Miller's Capitol Fax. He got it from a Threads post by chi_urbanist. Here's the graphic:

Quoting Miller now, "Trump won the 19th Precinct in the 24th Ward 594-572 (49%-47%), with 47 people voting for RFK, Jr. Four years ago, Joe Biden won that precinct with 96 percent of the vote, to Trump’s 3."

Why? Who knows? Maybe, as the saying goes, game recognizes game.

Be honest, now: You did not see that coming, did you?

Neither did I.

But it got me wondering: What did the jail population think of the judges on the retention ballot?

My hypothesis, going in, was that prisoners might have little love for the judges who will preside over their cases. I rather expected, in fact, that the detainees might agree -- on this one point at least -- with some of the police officers who put them there. Remember, Second City Cop always recommends a "No" vote on every retention judge.

What would you guess?

I'll pause here while you think about it... scroll down when you're ready... and no cheating!

.

.

.

.

.

.

As it turns out, if the fate of the retention judges was decided by the inmates' votes alone, only 23 out of the 75 Circuit Court judges for whom votes were actually counted would have been retained. Both of the Appellate Court justices would have been retained.

I was a little surprised that prisoners would give better than 60% "Yes" votes to so many. I don't know that I could be so generous were I incarcerated.

And the lowest favorable vote was just below 50% -- 49.95% for a female judge married to a former CPD lieutenant -- meaning that, in every case but that one, more than half the inmates voted to approve each and every judge for a new term.

Now the high was only 67%, and I'm sure some might think that this vote must be for someone sitting in the Criminal Division with a turn-'em-all-loose reputation, right? But, in actual fact, the judge who got the most favorable rating from the jail inmates is assigned to the Domestic Relations Division at the Daley Center. Sixteen of the 23 judges getting better than 60% "Yes" votes out of the jail precinct were female.

In the one contested countywide judicial vote, inmates chose Democratic candidate Pablo deCastro over Republican Tien H. Glaub by a margin of 72.2 to 27.8%.

I don't pretend to be able to discern any 'big picture' statement from these returns. Don't jump to conclusions, perhaps, but that's not very original. Maybe someone else can explain....

Michael Zink appointed to 20th Subcircuit vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court today appointed Michael Zink to a 20th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Judge David E. Haracz.

Zink's appointment is effective December 6 and terminates on December 7, 2026.

Licensed to practice law in Illinois since 2004, according to ARDC, Zink is a partner in the firm of Starr, Bejgiert, Zink & Rowells. The Supreme Court's press release announcing the appointment is here.

Zink was a candidate for a 20th Subcircuit vacancy in the March primary.

This 20th Subcircuit vacancy was one of the five vacancies announced by Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis this past September.

Supreme Court names D’Anthony (Tony) Thedford to countywide vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court today appointed D’Anthony (Tony) Thedford to the countywide vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Paul Karkula. The appointment is effective December 2 and terminates on December 7, 2026.

Licensed to practice in Illinois since 1997, according to ARDC, Thedford has been working for the firm of Thedford Garber Law LLC. According to a Supreme Court press release announcing his appointment, Thedford began his legal career as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender. He set up his own practice, the Law Office of Tony Thedford, P.C., in 2005. He has been with Thedford Garber Law LLC since 2016.

Thedford has not previously been a candidate for judicial office in Cook County. He is a former is a board member of the Illinois Prison Project, a former board member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a former President of the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, according to the Supreme Court's announcement.

The Karkula vacancy was one of the five vacancies announced by Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis this past September.

A couple of other updates on retention returns

Nothing world-shaking here, but some may find this 'inside baseball' stuff of interest:

I'm reporting tonight that all 78 jurists on the Cook County retention ballot were retained, with the possible exception of Judge Shannon O'Malley, who is right at the 60% mark, just above or just below, with every update.

And there will be several more updates from the election authorities before the results are certified. But there are a couple of other stories, too:

Judge Ieshia Gray is the only other retention judge polling below 60% in this evening's City returns... but she is not very far below the mark, at 59.65%, and her suburban percentage, 64.51%, is more than sufficient to offset the City deficit.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is painfully close to the 60% mark in this evening's City numbers (60.01%) but he, too, is the beneficiary of better numbers in the suburbs (65.55%).

And, of course, I keep saying 78 jurists on the retention ballot -- and there were, if you counted -- but that's not entirely correct. Celia Gamrath was on the retention ballot, but she is no longer on the Circuit Court bench. She was an unopposed candidate for the Appellate Court this past Tuesday, and she was appointed to the Appellate Court by the Supreme Court, effective September 6.

It is not unheard of for a judge seeking election to the Appellate Court to remain on the retention ballot, too. We lawyers are a risk-averse bunch. And there was that time, quite a few years back now, where a judge got elected to the Appellate Court and lost his Circuit Court retention bid. But Gamrath's case was different, in that, by taking the Appellate Court appointment, she left the Circuit Court behind. The Supreme Court even included Gamrath's 8th Subcircuit vacancy in its recent announcement of vacancies to be filled.

Only one retention judge in jeopardy... but how much does it matter?

Judge Shannon O'Malley's retention bid is still uncertain at this hour, but he is the only retention judge in jeopardy. All other judges on the ballot Tuesday appear to have been retained.

O'Malley is in count-every-vote territory, as he teeters perilously close to the 60% + 1 threshhold.

A couple of quick snapshots: Yesterday afternoon, O'Malley was under the mark, with 59.97% of the votes then counted, 778,061 "Yes" votes out of a total of 1,297,398 votes in re O'Malley. This afternoon, Frank Calabrese supplied updated figures, showing that O'Malley had edged up slightly, with 785,165 "Yes" votes out of a new total of 1,308,805 votes. That translates to 59.99%. But there's no rounding in retention races. Calabrese calculated that O'Malley was 118 votes down.

There are new numbers this evening. O'Malley has been above the water line in the suburban numbers right along:

But O'Malley's numbers have hovered around 55% in City returns, and these latest numbers are consistent:

The new total is 1,317,063, and O'Malley now has 790,461 "Yes" votes, translating to 60.02%.

Which, ordinarily, would have to be good news for Judge O'Malley. Granted,there are still votes to be counted. The Chicago Board of Elections tweeted out tonight that there are 91,340 uncounted ballots. I don't know the current County numbers. But the trend would appear, for the moment, to be O'Malley's friend.

But does it really matter that much? Injustice Watch has reported that Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans has referred Judges O'Malley and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. to the Judicial Inquiry Board because of the Injustice Watch report last month, questioning whether these judges actually live in Cook County:

On Wednesday, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans took the rare step of referring two judges for investigations before the Judicial Inquiry Board. We reported in October both judges claimed homeowner property tax exemptions on homes in Will County. https://t.co/qdofQITs26

— Injustice Watch (@injusticewatch) November 7, 2024

I suspect that, long before the reported referral, JIB was already keenly aware of the residency questions raised by Injustice Watch. While the JIB investigation process is confidential, and will remain confidential unless and until JIB brings charges against either judge before the Illinois Courts Commission, the Injustice Watch report itself and the subsequent revelations by bar groups scrambling to investigate this real-life October surprise, create very troubling questions about whether O'Malley or Wright are in fact eligible for judicial service in Cook County.

In other words, O'Malley could win retention... and still lose his job.

I don't know all the facts. I don't know where Judge O'Malley or Judge Wright actually lived, whatever public records may have shown. I don't know what either may try to prove, or argue, or raise. If charges are brought against either or both of them, I don't know what the Courts Commission might do.

However, under the unusual circumstances here, checking every update seems kind of beside the point. FWIW will check in on this again. But whether O'Malley stays over 60% is not necessarily the main story here.

Kathy Flanagan over 60% in updated City returns

It's 60.5% with 90.32% of the votes counted (1166 out of 1291 precincts)... but 60% + 1 is all that is required.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. has moved up in the latest numbers, but is still below 60% in City returns (59.18%). Ieshia Gray is at 58.78%, while Shannon O'Malley is at 55.09%.

These races may take a while to decide. All the other retention judges appear to be likely to be retained.

Continuing to look at retention races

Judges Kathy Flanagan, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., and Shannon O'Malley are still below the 60% threshhold in City results so far (now nearly three-quarters complete, with 73.66% of the votes counted).

The only other retention candidate falling below 60% in City returns is Ieshia Gray, with a 58.34% "Yes" vote. Her 64.41% favorable vote in suburban returns brings her combined favorable percentage, for now, to 61.94%.

There are a number of judges polling in the low 60s in City returns -- but 60% + 1 is what is required, and it makes no difference if a judge squeaks by with 61% or garners 81% -- that judge is retained either way.

No retention candidate has fallen below the 60% threshhold in suburban-only returns.

A first look at retention judge results

To be retained for a new term (10 years for Appellate Court justices, 6 years for Circuit Court judges), a retention candidate must receive a better than 60% "Yes" vote.

In this brief first look, we will focus on some judges who have been targeted for removal by bar associations or other groups.
With 68.55% of City votes reported, Judge Kathy M. Flanagan has fallen below the 60% threshhold, with a 59.67% "Yes" vote. She is polling much better in the suburbs, however, with a 67.12% favorable vote. Combining the numbers gives Flanagan a 64.8% "Yes" vote. But the suburban numbers are nearly complete, and there are many more City votes to come.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is also below 60% in City voting so far -- with a 58.66% "Yes" vote. He has a 65.48% favorable vote in the suburbs, however. Combined, he has a 62.8% "Yes" vote at this hour.

Judge Shannon O'Malley has only a 54.65% favorable vote in the City of Chicago; suburban voters were more generous, giving O'Malley a 63.79% "Yes" vote. But, combined, that translates to a razor-thin 60.24% "Yes" vote.

If City votes continue to break as they have so far, O'Malley certainly, and possibly Wright and Flannagan as well, may be in danger of losing their retention bids.

More to come.

deCastro defeats Glaub in the only contested countywide judicial race

Tien H. Glaub, the only Republican candidate to run for a countywide Circuit Court seat is down to Judge Pablo F. deCastro by 270,000 votes Citywide (with about two-thirds of the votes counted) and by another 210,000 or so votes, according to suburban tallies, with about 93% of the votes counted there.

The Illinois Supreme Court appointed deCastro to the countywide Flannery vacancy this past April. At the time, he had no Republican opponent. Glaub did not run in the Republican primary; she filed for the vacancy in June.

Democratic sweep in contested judicial subcircuit elections

With over 90% of the votes already counted, 90 minutes after the polls closed, it appears that the Democratic nominees in the four contested subcircuit elections have prevailed.

The closest race is in the 18th Subcircuit, but John Hock is ahead of Lynn Terese Palac by over 4,000 votes with 94% of the votes counted (136 of 144 precincts reporting):

The margins are even larger in the three 12th Subcircuit races, where Alon Stein appears to have bested Maria McCarthy, Frank J. Andreou holds a better-than-9,000 vote margin over Pamela Curran Smith, and James "Jack" Costello is up by more than 12,000 votes over Matthew Taylor:

Only five precincts are unaccounted for in this report from the Cook County Clerk's website.

Both the 12th and 18th Subcircuits are located entirely outside the City of Chicago.

BREAKING: CBA announces "Not Recommended" Rating for Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.

The Judicial Evaulation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association has announced that it has issued a "Not Recommended" rating on Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District. The explanation of the CBA's rating has just been posted to its website. FWIW reproduces it here:

Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Wright was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1977 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Wright serves as the Presiding Judge of the First Municipal District.

Judge Wright has a strong record of service and an impressive career as a Cook County judge for over 30 years. However, it was concerning to the Committee that a sitting Cook County judge has had a driver’s license for over 40 years that lists a Will County address and that he obtained a homeowner’s exemption on property he owns in Will County, attesting that it was his primary residence. While Judge Wright explained that these were innocent mistakes, the Committee is concerned that his failure to comply with basic law requiring him to update his driver’s license together with his application for a homeowner’s exemption in another county suggests an intent to secure unfair gain or advantage. Judge Wright also has taken inconsistent positions with regard to his primary residence, which raises diligence issues for the Panel. While we acknowledge that Judge Wright was apologetic and remorseful, for the above stated reasons we must find him “Not Recommended” for retention.

The CBA had previously recommended a "Yes" vote on Judge Wright's retention, but that rating was pulled after Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Wright and Judge Shannon O'Malley, "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, provided evidence suggesting that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County.

The Illinois State Bar Association also issued a "Not Recommended" rating regarding Judge Wright's retention following publication of the Injustice Watch story, stating, in pertinent part, "The [Judicial Evaluation] Committee has concerns regarding his level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues."

The Chicago Council of Lawyers also expressed concern about Judge Wright's residency, ultimately deciding to recommend him for retention anyway. The Council's evaluation stated, also 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.

Some voters may wonder why it is such a big deal where a judge lives.

The answer? It is a big deal because the Illinois Constituion makes it a big deal. There is a residency requirement specified in Section 11 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution. This section 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."

Failure to abide by these provisions can disqualify a person from judicial service. For example, 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, the failure to comply with these constitutional requirements 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).

In addition to the ISBA and, now, the CBA, Judge Wright has also been found Not Recommended for retention by LAGBAC, Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association.

On the other hand, at last report, in addition to the Chicago Council of Lawyers, the following members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening did recommend a "Yes" vote for Judge Wright: the Arab American Bar Association, the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area, the Black Men Lawyers’ Association, the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, the Cook County Bar Association, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois, the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois.

Resources for Cook County judicial voters

Bumped up for greater visibility and revised 11/4

Cook County voters will have a say in the election of five new judges this November, one countywide, three in the north suburban 12th subciruit, and one in the suburban 18th subcircuit. (Scroll down for links on specific contested races.)

Technically, there are many more Cook County judicial vacancies that will be filled when the results of this election are certified, but there are no contests for any of these vacancies. All of these, including a new jusitice of the Illinois Supreme Court and four justices of the Illinois Appellate Court, were chosen by voters in the Democratic Primary in March and are now running unopposed.

But Cook County judicial voters do get to determine whether 78 local jurists get to remain on the bench. Two Appellate Court justices are seeking new 10-year terms and 76 Circuit Court judges are asking voters to retain them for new 6-year terms. (Well... 75, actually, but there are 76 names on the ballot. Let's not confuse things more than we have to.)

That's a lot of judges.

Voters may glaze over, just a bit, at the 'bedsheet ballot' for retention judges. If you are one of these, allow me to let you in on a deep, dark secret: We lawyers tend to glaze over on the retention ballot, too.

Here's why: The busiest lawyer will not have appeared before every retention judge. Our lawyers, our judges, and our courts are too specialized in Cook County for that to ever happen. And even if the busiest lawyer has appeared before many, he or she will have appeared before some on too few occasions to form any reasonable opinion of those judges' fitness for another term.

To responsibly exercise our franchise, even us lawyers need help. We rely on our brothers and sisters on the many bar association Judicial Evaluation Committees to gather information and form opinions on those judges we do not ourselves know.

The Chicago Bar Association and the 13 bar groups that together comprise the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening conduct separate investigations on retention judges, including contacting attorneys that the judges have identified as appearing before them. The Alliance groups conduct joint investigations and hearings, but each bar group forms, and expresses, its own opinion about each judge. Some bar groups provide written explanations of their findings; most do not. While the bar groups consider the same information, not all always reach the same conclusions about the merits of particular judges.

Thus, particularly where there are differences of opinion among the bar groups, lawyers, just like non-lawyer voters, have to make up their own minds.

And lawyers, just like everyone else, have to cast about for other sources of information that may be persuasive. (Gosh, I hope I won't get in trouble with the Guild for spilling these secrets....)

One type of resource that a lot of us rely on -- besides asking our friends who have practices that bring them before judges we don't usually get to see -- or the Retention Judges' own website -- are the opinions of non-lawyers that spend a lot of time in courtrooms -- think police and reporters.

This doesn't mean we necessarily agree with what these worthies may think -- I am certain that some people scour the FOP endorsements carefully to make sure they don't accidentally vote for someone that the police union likes. On the other hand, other people may carefully consider the Girl, I Guess Guide to make certain that they don't vote for someone that the guide endorses. People are often contrary critters. (And what happens when the FOP and the Girl, I Guess Guide agree that a particular candidate is good... or bad... is there any danger of explosion?)

The interactive Injustice Watch Check Your Judges Guide is a valuable and increasingly influential resource for voters -- lawyers included -- seeking information in judicial elections. This year, just as the bar groups were releasing, or about to release, their retention candidate evaluations, On October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Judges Shannon O'Malley and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., "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. (My column about the controversy is here, if you're interested.)

The story threw a monkey wrench into the plans of the various JECs. The CBA pulled its initial favorable ratings of Wright and O'Malley; it has since issued a negative rating on O'Malley (story to come). The Injustice Watch disclosures were cited in the narrative evaluations issued by the Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Illinois State (links follow).

Injustice Watch is not the only publication regularly covering the courts. The focus of CWBChicago's reporting is also on the criminal courts.

This year, for the first time, CWBChicago made a specific endorsement in a retention race (asking for a 'no' vote on the retention of Judge Carol Howard). Voters may find this collection of CWBChicago articles helpful in evaluating other judges on the retention ballot.

Now here's where things get a bit circular. Injustice Watch reports all the bar ratings. FWIW reports all the bar ratings. VoteForJudges.org reports all the bar ratings. We all link to each other. Charlie Meyerson's Chicago Public Square Voter Guide Guide (not a typo - it's a guide to voter guides) also links to bar recommendations, Injustice Watch, and Girl, I Guess.

Visit some or all of these to reassure yourself that you've got all the relevant and available information... but, in addition, check out these prior FWIW posts which you may also find useful:

Prior FWIW articles on the 2024 Retention Election:

• Seventy-seven of 78 Cook County jurists recommended for retention by the Chicago Bar Association (but, see also, CBA reconsiders O'Malley rating; Wright rating still "Pending" as of Saturday, Nov. 2 and BREAKING: CBA announces "Not Recommended" Rating for Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.);
• Chicago Council of Lawyers finds 12 Cook County jurists Well Qualified for retention;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers finds four Cook County judges "Not Qualified" for retention;
• ISBA releases narrative explanations of its ratings of Cook County judicial retention candidates;
• A small change in the Alliance retention grids from yesterday....; and
• On the judicial retention ballot, the default vote should be "yes".

Prior FWIW articles on 2024 contested Cook County judicial races

• Organizing the Data: Countywide Flannery vacancy;
• Organizing the Data: 18th Subcircuit - Converted from Associate Judgeship of Linn;
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Dickler vacancy;
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Quinn vacancy; and
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Schleifer vacancy.

Why you might want to consider voting the ballot from the bottom up

Yes, I know: All eyes are supposed to be on Pennsylvania now, and Michigan, and Nevada and North Carolina, too. Maybe even Iowa and Arizona. I don't know who could actually keep their eyes on all those widely-scattered places, all at the same time. Marty Feldman perhaps?

But, as a practical matter, the person ultimately elected as POTUS will have far less actual influence in most of our lives than the persons we are about to elect (or retain) as judges, or the persons we will elect to the General Assembly or as members of the Chicago School Board.

Look at it this way: You will probably never get invited to a State Dinner at the White House, but you may get a speeding ticket. One of your wayward relations may get pinched for vandalism. Someone may fall on your sidewalk and sue you; you will certainly pay property taxes. That was why the late Avy Meyers used to say it was so important to pay attention to the races at the bottom of the ballot, to the point of voting the ballot from the bottom up. I suggest this idea is equally valid today as it was in Avy's lifetime.

I've recently read and re-Tweeted a couple of long threads on X about "subsidiarity," a nice 25-cent word that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines as "a principle in social organization holding that functions which are performed effectively by subordinate or local organizations belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization." In other words, it is a principle which suggests that decision making is best done on the most local level possible. Apparently (and maybe all of you knew this already, but I didn't) "subsidiarity" has a long, important history in Catholic social teaching, too.

There weren't many Catholics in America at the time of the Revolution, but the patriots' rallying cry of "No Taxation Without Representation" sounds to me like an application of this principle of subsidiarity: Each of the Colonies had their own legislatures to raise revenues for local needs; but the Colonies objected vociferously, and, ultimately, violently, to decisions about their defense and boundaries and obligations being made in London where the Colonists had only lobbyists to advance their interests. (Ben Franklin worked in London for many years as an agent of several Colonies, for example.)

And, if decisions are best taken at the most local level possible, voters should naturally be more concerned with their local leaders that with those who would strut and fret upon the national stage. That sounds suspiciously like what Avy Meyers used to say and, of course, Avy wasn't Catholic either.

If we were more focused on selecting the best possible candidates on the local level, maybe we'd have better candidates to choose from at higher rungs on the cursus honorum as well.

I can dream, can't I?

CBA Symphony Orchestra & Chorus concert set for November 9

The Chicago Bar Association Symphony Orchestra & Chorus will present two pieces in concert next Saturday evening, November 9, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., at St. James Cathedral, 65 E. Huron St.

The first of these will be the "Requiem in D Minor," by 19th Century Brazilian composer José Maurício Nunes Garcia. Stephen Blackwelder, the Director of the Chicago Bar Association Chorus, will conduct. Featured vocal soloists are Kristina Bachrach, soprano; Leah Dexter, mezzo; Klaus Georg, tenor; and Bill McMurray, baritone.

The second piece will be Dvorak's Symphony No. 8. Jennifer Huang, the CBASO Music Director, will conduct.

Tickets for the concert are $15 each; students 18 or younger or law students will be admitted for $10 each. Tickets are available at this Eventbrite link (note that there is a service charge for tickets). Tickets will also be available at the door on the evening of the performance. These will cost $20 each, for adults, and $15 each for qualifying students.

CBA reconsiders O'Malley rating; Wright rating still "Pending" as of Saturday, Nov. 2

By now, everyone who regularly follows Cook County judicial elections knows that, on October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about two retention candidates, Judges Shannon O'Malley and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., "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. (My column about the controversy is here, if you haven't already read it.)

That phrase -- "everyone who regularly follows" -- translates, I realize, to only a small percentage of the electorate. The Injustice Watch story got significant coverage beyond our little "Everyone Who Regularly Follows" community, thanks to that publication's partnerships with other, broader-based outlets like the Chicago Sun-Times (which republished the story).

For us here in the EWRF community, the story about the Injustice Watch article was the impact of that article on the just-released or just-about-to-be-released ratings of the Chicago Bar Association and the 13-member Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening.

That's a difficult story to properly report because judicial candidate evaluations are confidential -- and should be confidential. We can report when a rating is 'pulled' or when a rating is changed or, when as happened here, two bar associations that release narrative explanations of all their retention judge ratings, the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, refer to the Injustice Watch reporting in their evaluations.

For what it's worth, after consideration of the residency issues raised by Injustice Watch, the ISBA and CCL reached different conclusions about whether Judge Wright should be retained. The Council recommends a "Yes" vote on Judge Wright, stating, 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, the ISBA recommends a "No" vote on Judge Wright, stating, again in pertinent part, "The [Judicial Evaluation] Committee has concerns regarding his level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues."

Both the Council and the ISBA issued negative evaluations regarding Judge O'Malley's retention; the Injustice Watch report is not specifically mentioned in either of their narratives. On its website, however, the CCL 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."

The Chicago Bar Association had issued "Yes" recommendations for both O'Malley and Wright just as the Injustice Watch story was breaking. Soon after the Injustice Watch story was published, the CBA ratings on Wright and O'Malley were pulled. Visitors to the CBA website -- e.g. prospective voters seeking the guidance of the oldest, and, arguably, the most broadly based local bar group -- would find that the ratings for O'Malley and Wright had been changed to "PENDING."

The CBA's rating on O'Malley was updated over a week ago. Now the CBA recommends a "No" vote on O'Malley and, as it did with the only other negative recommendation it has so far given on a retention judge, issued an explanation of its finding. This is the CBA's explanation on O'Malley:

Judge Shannon O’Malley has been found “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge O’Malley was admitted to practice law in 1992. He was in private practice prior to becoming a Judge in 2018 and being assigned to the First Municipal District. In May 2019, Judge O’Malley was transferred to the Child Protection Division where he currently presides.

Judge O’Malley did not seem to understand the seriousness of the issues raised by the Committee, answering with flip responses. Judge O’Malley blamed others for his assertion, for tax purposes, that his principal residence is in Will County while, for election purposes, saying he resides in Cook County. His responses to the Committee’s questions were short, vague, and evasive. The Committee found Judge O’Malley’s credibility severely lacking and his integrity highly questionable. His prior criminal history and sheer number of ARDC complaints are also very concerning. Significant concerns were also raised regarding Judge O’Malley’s lack of knowledge of the law, diligence, case and courtroom management, and legal ability. While the Committee appreciated his candor about his lack of excellence, he seems satisfied to be “not bad.” These reasons resulted in Judge O’Malley’s “Not Recommended” finding.

The reference to "prior criminal history and sheer number of ARDC complaints" in Judge O'Malley's evaluation is very concerning for me, inasmuch as I can find no indication that Judge O'Malley has ever been disciplined by the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission or that he is the subject of any pending disciplinary proceedings stemming from his time in private practice. Nor do I find reference in my archives, or in an (admittedly not exhaustive) online search today, to any prior criminal proceedings regarding Judge O'Malley under that name or the name by which he was formerly known, Phillip Spiwak.

Though I never served as a judge, I did subject myself to bar association screenings on several occasions over many years in my futile efforts to become a judge. From that experience, I can state that prospective judges are required to report disciplinary episodes in their past that may not have resulted in any public discipline. We also must sign consent forms, allowing the bar groups access to ARDC records concerning matters that never became a matter of public charges -- you know, just in case we 'forgot' to mention something. This is because ARDC proceedings are confidential unless and until public charges are brought, so this is the only way bar evaluators can get the full disciplinary picture. I assume judges seeking retention are expected to make similar disclosures.

I also understand that criminal defense attorneys in private practice, as Spiwak was before his name change and ascension to the bench, draw a disproportionate number of disciplinary complaints that the ARDC finds unfounded or insufficient to pursue. So, without context or explanation, but as an almost gratuitous aside, this is not the sort of thing I would expect to find in a JEC finding ever. The residency allegations alone are sufficient, and substantive, and, if true, disqualifying. So it concerns me that these other vague, unexplained references were included.

But -- put all that aside -- I have been 'sitting' on the CBA's new statement regarding Judge O'Malley for some days now, expecting that it would be shortly followed, for better or worse, by a new statement regarding Judge Wright. But here is a screenshot of the CBA's website taken this morning (just after 10:30 a.m.):

This is written on Saturday, November 2. Although it may seem like it will never get here, Election Day is this coming Tuesday, November 5. What help or hindrance the CBA's recommendation may be for Judge Wright at this stage diminishes with each passing hour.

When the CBA issues any statement, I will have it here as soon as possible.