Cook County Democratic Party announces 2026 judicial slate

And it's a short one. (Hat tip for Frank Calabrese for being the first to provide it to me, because, this year, I could not attend the slating session in person.)

There are only four countywide vacancies at this point in the election cycle. That's the smallest number of vacancies since 1994, according to 46th Ward Committeeperson Sean Tenner.

Two of the four slated judicial candidates are already serving as judges pursuant to Supreme Court appointment. These are Michael Cabonargi (Coghlan vacancy) and D’Anthony (Tony) Thedford (Karkula vacancy). A third appointee, Linda Sackey (Hooks vacancy), was not slated. The Party endorsed Ava George Stewart and Luz Maria Toledo for the final two known vacancies.

Ava George Stewart was the highest remaining alternate from the 2024 slating. (OK, actually, she started out as the 6th alternate, but she moved up to the second position when Yolanda Sayre chose to run in the 5th Subcircuit.) Stewart has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 2003, according to ARDC. According to a profile published on the website of the Womens Bar Association of Illinois, Stewart worked in private practice for over 16 years before becoming Chief of the Misdemeanor/ Traffic Division of the Lake County State's Attorney's Office. According to ARDC, Stewart is now back in private practice in Chicago.

Luz Maria Toledo is a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, according to ARDC, and has been licensed to practice law in Illinois since 2006. She has not previously sought election to the bench.

The Party also named nine alternates for Circuit Court vacancies that may (or may not) open up between now and November 3, when the special judicial filing period ends. The nine alternates are, in order:

1. Steve McKenzie,
2. Mischelle Luckett,
3. Nisha Dotson,
4. Kevin Ochalla,
5. David Badillo,
6. Gregory Mitchell,
7. Mark Javier,
8. Mark Lawrence, and
9. Anna Sedelmaier.

How many vacancies will open up in the weeks to come? In some years there have been none at all. In 2024, one Circuit Court vacancy opened up. There may be more this time around.

Committeeperson Tenner noted that the election calendar has been pushed up a month this year (to allow more time, on the other end, for the resolution of petition challenges). Some judges who may be contemplating retirement would not necessarily have advanced their plans by that same month, Tenner speculated. There may also be some who are waiting to see how the forthcoming Chief Judge election turns out before finalizing their own plans, he added. Moreover, he said, the continued use of Zoom hearings may make staying on the job more attractive than it might be otherwise.

Frank Calabrese noted that the Party has encouraged legislation creating more subcircuit vacancies; the Party wants candidates to run in those races, he suggested. Given these priorities, judges holding countywide seats may not be facing as much pressure from politicians to step aside, at least compared to other election years.

I heard of at least one more recently elected judge who has vowed never to retire because the Tier II pension system does not make early retirement attractive. Who knows? If this attitude is widespread, turnover will certainly be reduced. But I agree there may be more value than usual in being a slated alternate for 2026.

Until the unexpected passing of Justice Thomas E. Hoffman, there were no vacancies on the Appellate Court. But the Democratic Party slatemakers promptly slated Judge Judith Rice for Hoffman's vacancy. Rice had been the top remaining Appellate Court alternate from the 2024 election cycle. (Justice LeRoy K. Martin, Jr. is about to assume the Hoffman vacancy pursuant to reassignment by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's action came before the slating meeting, but only by a couple of days.)

Party slatemakers also named three Appellate Court alternates. These are, in order, Sanjay Tailor, Sandra Ramos, and William Sullivan. Tailor's selction comes with an asterisk: it is conditional on his appointment to a vacancy on the Appellate Court.

In fact, Tailor is already serving on the Appellate Court; the Supreme Court assigned him to duty on that court in 2022. It may be that, after Justice Martin, Justice Tailor would be the next person to be moved into an up-or-out slot, should an additional vacancy occur, but that is speculation on my part. It would, however, explain the conditional language from the slatemakers.

Fundraiser for Judge Tiernan's 8th Subcircuit campaign set for Wednesday, July 23

I like to put these up sooner than the night before the event. Sometimes candidates don't give me enough lead time. That was not the case here. I hope to do better in future.

Quish elevated to Appellate Court, Martin appointed to Hoffman vacancy

We'll get to the outcome of last week's Cook County Democratic Party slating meeting as soon as possible... but some things we must cover first....

The Illinois Supreme Court has announced the assignment of Judge Clare J. Quish to the Illinois Appellate Court (click here for the Supreme Court's press release concerning the assignment).

Judge Quish, who currently sits in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court, will join the Appellate Court on September 2. The assignment is open-ended; she will remain on the Appellate Court "until further order of the Court."

Quish will take over the cases that were being handled by the Justice Thomas E. Hoffman at the time of his passing, but she has not been appointed to his vacancy.

Instead, the Supreme Court has appointed Justice LeRoy K. Martin to Justice Hoffman's vacancy. Justice Martin has served on the Appellate Court since the beginning of 2021, but he has been, and remains, a Circuit Court judge sitting by Supreme Court assignment. Unless he is elected to the Appellate Court, this new appointment (which is also effective September 2) will terminate on December 7, 2026, when Justice Hoffman's successor is sworn into office. On the other hand, Martin has not been appointed to the Appellate Court, so, if he does not secure election to the Appellate Court, he would still be a Circuit Court judge.

While Justice Martin is technically filling Justice Hoffman's vacancy, Justice Martin keeps his existing Appellate Court caseload. As noted, Judge Quish will inherit Justice Hoffman's cases.

On the passing of Justice Thomas E. Hoffman

I note that none of the glowing tributes I've seen following the sudden passing of Appellate Court Justice Thomas E. Hoffman mention his early service with the Chicago Police Department. (This Sun-Times article, for example. Or these obituaries published by the Supreme Court or the ISBA. His CPD experience is also not mentioned in his official Illinois Courts biography.)

I hope that honorable service with the police department is still something that the legal profession appreciates and that the omission here is only because Justice Hoffman did so much else in his life, and there is only so much room in any readable obituary.

But it was once well-known among practitioners that Justice Hoffman used to carry a badge. The photo accompanying this post comes from a 2015 function sponsored by the Appellate Lawyers Association at which Justice Hoffman was honored. The ALA blog post recapping the event mentioned Hoffman's CPD experince.

If I recall correctly, then-Judge Hoffman was the first judge assigned to Motion Call C in the Law Division, fairly early in his judicial career (if he wasn't the first, he was one of the first). I appeared before Hoffman many times on that call, winning sometimes and losing, too. I liked him more when I won, of course, but I always appreciated his fairness.

He could be a bit brusque, at times. Some of us younger practitioners attributed this to his police background. I never watched the original Hawaii 5-0, but some wise guy in my circle of acquaintance was of the opinion that Hoffman resembled Jack Lord, the star of the old police procedural, and somehow it became common for some of us to 'hear' (in our imaginations) "Book 'em Danno," after Hoffman made a quick decision.

I can't recall, today, any splendid victories I achieved before Justice Hoffman, either in the Law Division or in the Appellate Court. But I can recall one painful failure. I think anyone who has ever appeared in a courtroom remembers the losses ever so much more vividly than the wins. That's not a knock against this judge or any other; it's just how human memory, or at least lawyers' memory (there must be similarities) works.

The case involved a recent Yugoslav immigrant (he died in 1998, within 90 days of reaching these shores), killed in a nine-foot fall through an opening in the subfloor of a home under construction in Hinsdale. The opening was covered with pieces of ⅝-inch plywood. The testimony of the general contractor (also a Yugoslav immigrant) established that he himself had removed the nails securing the plywood cover only minutes before the fall, then left, without resecuring the plywood or moving it at all (to expose the opening). Thus, no one could see what he had done, and he hadn't told anyone about what he'd done either.

Why did he skedaddle so abruptly? In addition to being a general contractor, the defendant also owned a bar in Cicero. Said bar was equipped with poker machines. He'd received a page that people were coming to check out those poker machines and he could not keep these people waiting.

His testimony was (I thought) compelling: I created a dangerous condition minutes before the fatal accident. I did not tell anyone what I had done before I left.

These plywood sheets had been nailed over the opening for what would eventually be a stairway to the basement. Fully nailed to the subfloor, a marching band could have tromped across these plywood sheets without incident. With all the nails removed, the sheets became a trap door, as the plaintiff's decedent discovered when he walked across them, intending to join the other workers on the site (Yugoslave immigrants all, except for one Mexican guy who they sent to McDonald's) for lunch.

Somehow, despite this testimony, summary judgment was entered in favor of the contractor. I was brought in to handle the appeal by the decedent's family.

Sure, there were other facts, chief among them that, though the house was barely framed at this stage, none of the workers admitted to seeing the decedent's fall. Imagine: immigrants from former Communist countries being wary of speaking to the police. Surely, I thought, when I saw that Justice Hoffman would be presiding at oral argument, a former policeman would not be overly impressed by Eastern Europeans being reluctant to remember anything for the authorities. He'd understand the urgency of the contractor's departure, too. All I needed was a question of fact for reversal.

I thought I'd written good briefs. I thought I had strong facts. I thought the defendant's admissions about creating the unsafe condition so close in time to the fatal accident, and his sudden departure without telling a soul what he had done, were far more important than the speculations of his counsel that, for reasons that could never be known, maybe the decedent intentionally toppled through the opening.

But, when I got up to present my rebuttal argument, Justice Hoffman pushed back from the bench and closed his folder. I knew then that the cause was lost.

The decedent's whole family came to the oral argument, his widow, his grown sons, and other various relations. After the argument, in the cloakroom, when we were getting our coats, all pressed around me, congratulating me on my fine presentation, and telling me what a great job I'd done.

I wanted to burst into tears. I tried instead, however, as gently as I could, to prepare the family for an adverse outcome. They didn't believe me.

Two weeks to the day later (one of those intervening days being Thanksgiving and, thus, only nine business days later) the Order came out: As Justice Hoffman had clearly telegraphed, the trial court was affirmed.

I do not recount this story to besmirch Justice Hoffman's memory. On the contrary, I agree Justice Hoffman was a good and fair and knowledgeable judge... though I still think he was way wrong in this particular case. And it must be admitted that the Supreme Court did not agree with me; my PLA was denied.

I understand that a celebration of Justice Hoffman's life and career is being planned. I will provide that information if I can.