Dr. Klumpp: Analyzing the results of the March 2026 Cook County judicial primary (Part One)

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.

This is Part One of a two-part series; Part Two will appear tomorrow morning.

by Albert J. Klumpp

Over the years it’s become a regular part of my elections research: sketching out for FWIW the important facts and figures from the judicial voting in our county’s primary and general elections. Unfortunately that task is becoming more and more difficult as time passes, because of the continuing decline in candidates seeking judicial vacancies.

Less competition means fewer votes to study and fewer valid conclusions that can be drawn. In particular, the kind of detailed statistical analysis that I’ve done in the past becomes unworkable due to insufficient data. And last month’s primary was the least competitive in several decades, with just 12 contests among 29 total judicial vacancies -- only two of those countywide -- and a total of only 46 candidates.

But if only by eyeballing and relying on past results for guidance, we can still get a basic picture of the March 17 results and what produced them.

First, voter turnout and participation. Total turnout for the primary was 24.9 percent. As Figure 1 shows, this does represent an uptick from the all-time low levels of the two previous primaries. However, those primaries had no significant contests at the top of the ballot to attract the attention of potential voters. This year there was a closely contested U.S. Senate race and several very competitive U.S. House races that all drew substantial campaign activity and media coverage. So it cannot be concluded that the uptick is the start of any larger trend of a rebound in voter turnout. At least not yet.

Participation in judicial voting by the voters who did turn out was high. The vast majority did complete the judicial part of the ballot. For instance, the two countywide contests saw votes from 84.3 percent of Democratic voters -- the second-highest total ever. But again, this cannot be seen by itself as anything meaningful, since there were so few contests on the ballot this year.

As for what influenced the choices made by those voters, several general statements can be made:

• The single most valuable attribute throughout our history of primaries has been gender -- a pro-female vote that has almost always produced an advantage per contest well into the teens percentage-wise. This year female candidates won in five of the seven contests between at least one female and one male, and the vote percentages of female candidates relative to their other attributes suggest a boost consistent with past years.


• In only five of the 12 contests was there a substantial difference between or among any of the candidates in ratings from bar associations and other non-party information sources. The higher-rated candidate, or one of the higher-rated candidates, won in all five instances. However, those candidates generally had other advantages as well, so while it’s likely that those sources were of some limited value, as is usual, it can’t be said for certain.


• Political endorsements in subcircuit contests produced mixed results. In some contests it seemed to be of some value, but in others it made little difference. Countywide, the Democratic Party’s slating appeared to provide its usual double-digit boost, despite one of the two slated candidates losing decisively (more on that to follow).


• Ballot position has historically been worth several percentage points, and this year 10 of the 12 contests were won by the candidate in the first ballot position. The two exceptions were lone females running against one or two males. While the size of this effect is not large, it turned out to be the deciding factor in both of the late-decided contests in Subcircuits 1 and 8. Both of those winners were in the first ballot position, and without that favorable lottery result neither would have won.


• Campaign spending was roughly on par with the three previous primaries this decade, continuing the trend of greater spending over the past several decades. But as this year’s numbers show, simply outspending opponents is no guarantee of success. Of the six candidates who have reported at least $100,000 in spending through the first quarter of the year, five of them lost.

Part Two of this article will appear tomorrow.