Belle Katubig campaign website launched, January 14 kickoff fundraiser planned

Supporters of Belle Katubig's 20th Subcircuit judicial bid have launched a campaign website in support of that effort. That's a link to the site in the preceding sentence; a link has been added to the Sidebar on this site as well.

Licensed in Illinois since 1997, according to ARDC, Katubig's campaign bio notes that her service as an Assistant Cook County State's Attorney currently involves representation of John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital and its doctors and nurses. The campaign bio also notes that Katubig has worked in the private sector as a "trial partner in a mid-size firm."

Katubig's campaign bio describes her as a first generation Filipino American, and the first lawyer in her family. She has been appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to the Committee on Professional Responsibility. Katubig is the mother of two sons who attend CPS schools, according to her campaign bio.

Katubig's supporters are also planning a fundraiser for Wednesday, January 14, from 5:00 to 7:30 at the Italian Village, 71 W. Monroe Street. Tickets are $100 each, but sponsorships are available as shown in the flyer above.

CWB reports on controversy involving recalled judge

I'd seen the Facebook post from the Cook County Bar Association protesting the recall of Judge James R. Brown. Most of you probably saw it, too, and read the letter linked from that post. There's an updated post on the CCBA's Facebook page this week.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has also sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking it to terminate Judge Brown's recall appointment.

I'd meant to report on all this but, as we all know, the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. It may be the only road hereabouts without any potholes at all.

Meanwhile, CWB Chicago actually did do a story about the bar groups' objections. That's a link to Tim Hecke's story in the preceding sentence. In the paragraphs above, you can find links to the letters from the CCBA and CCL.

The CWB Chicago story contains links to a September 5, 2025 guest column written by then-retired Judge Brown on johnkassnews.com, the Internet home of former Tribune columnist John Kass, and to a September 29, 2025 Chicago Way podcast in which Judge Brown (Ret.) was the one and only guest.

It is certainly true that judges surrender some of their First Amendment rights when they attain the bench. This is as it should be.

However, judges' First Amendment rights are restored when they hang up their robes.

What makes Judge Brown's situation unusual is that -- for the first time in a long time -- we have a former judge being returned to the bench -- and only temporarily, mind you -- and while said former judge was a former judge he exercised those First Amendment rights he'd reacquired. And, in the exercise of those restored rights, the former judge espoused at least some opinions that are clearly at odds with the prevailing political orthodoxy in this county.

One assumes that, if, while a private citizen, Judge Brown had written an essay expressing opinions more in keeping with the prevailing political orthodoxy in this county, the CCBA and CCL would not be demanding that he be removed from the bench. Of course, his essay would not then have appeared on the John Kass website.

I do not propose to dissect Judge Brown's opinions, or agree or disagree with any of them. If he were running for a spot on the bench, however, some (OK, nearly all) of these opinions would make it impossible for him to be slated by the Cook County Democratic Party as currently constituted. And that's fine. Because political parties can and should stake out political positions on political issues. That's what political parties are supposed to do.

But since when are the bar associations also committed to policing political orthodoxy? And isn't that what the bar groups are doing here?

Maybe, based on his essay, Anthony Fauci or George Soros should consider a change of venue motion should either of them find themselves in Traffic Court before recalled Judge Brown... but, in the very unlikely event that one of them were, neither would need any help from the CCBA or the CCL in making that determination. Meanwhile, why are bar associations merely mirroring the political views of the faction now controlling the local Democratic party?

For bar groups to have credibility in assessing the bona fides of judicial wannabees, they need to have different priorities than the Cook County Democratic Party. Their concern must be whether a litigant or attorney would get a fair hearing from the judge or judicial candidate. They do this, in the ordinary case, by interviewing the candidate's colleagues, or other attorneys who have appeared before the judge. They talk to people who the candidate has opposed in court, not just the references he or she provides. In evaluating sitting judges, the bar groups talk to lawyers who won before that judge and to lawyers that lost.

The case of Judge Brown is not ordinary, since recall appointments haven't happened here recently. But the current members of the bar groups have access to what their predecessors on their respective judicial evaluation committees thought of Judge Brown, and apparently they thought he was fair and impartial... even though he probably held some or all of the views he subsequently expressed, after returning to private life. If Judge Brown earned a reputation for fairness and impartiaility in nearly 20 years on the bench, that is what should be important to the bar groups. Even if -- gasp -- he is also friendly to John Kass.