The Guide is a Google Doc, updated from time to time, although it is likely in close to final form at this point, as Election Day draws near. To be absolutely certain that you have accessed the latest iteration of the Guide, you may want to start at the Girl, I Guess website.
As you can see, when I last accessed the Guide, the authors stated there would be "no commentary because there are too many judges." But that's not strictly true: The Guide explains its "Super No" and "Extreme No" retention ratings. And we will get to these momentarily. But, first, some explanation about the Guide and its authors, taken from the Guide itself.
The Guide describes itself as "Jewish, Black, queer, trans, nerdy and dedicated to helping members of our community navigate a confusing ballot and identify the most progressive candidates. We also recommend you consult with progressive / radical organizers in your community, especially queer, trans, Black, and Brown folks!" (p. 6, emphasis in original). The Guide adds (p. 8): "Candidates are judged based on the overall progressive nature of their platform, which varies for Federal and State races."
While the Guide denies applying "purity tests" to candidates, it does have two "Red Lines" that, in the view of the authors of the Guide, "define progressivism for us." State and local candidates (which would include judicial candidates) are not "require[d] to have public stances on Palestine in order to be endorsed" because "the vast majority of local officials do not have the ability to make a meaningful impact on Palestinian liberation due to the scope of their role" (p. 8).
However, the Guide's "Red Line criteria" are (p. 9, emphasis in original):
The Guide states (pp. 9-10) that judicial candidates "are evaluated on the following criteria, with help from the excellent coverage provided by the folks at Injustice Watch:
- Support for a free Palestine and BDS (Federal Litmus Test, State & Local Criteria)
- Opposition to the expansion of police influence (State, Local, & Federal Litmus Test)
1. Political:The Guide's authors describe themselves thusly (pp. 5-6):
a. What role does this judge play in the politics of the County, or the State?2. Competence:
b. Is that role positive, negative, or neutral?
c. Does this judge accept the FOP endorsement?
a. Is a judge actually good at being a judge?3. Impact:
b. Do they know the law and apply it ably?
c. Are they a gigantic asshole in court?
d. Do other judges agree with their rulings, and do lawyers/Bar Associations find them capable of presiding over a trial with fairness and accuracy?
a. How does the judge impact the community in which they serve?
b. How do people whose cases are heard before that judge feel about the way that they were treated in the courtroom?
c. If they oversee civil cases, are their judgements and awards fair and equitable?
d. If they preside over criminal cases, are they overly punitive or seem set on sending people to prison?
e. Is this judge a cop, or affiliated with the police in a way where their impartiality is in question by virtue of that affiliation?
f. Does the judge’s personal behavior meet the standard we expect from a judge?
g. Do advocate groups or civil organizations find the judge to be fair, impartial, and competent?"
Stephanie Skora is a grouchy Jewish trans dyke, and an anarchist with a political science degree. She is the Director of Development and Strategic Priorities for Chicago Therapy Collective, is on the Board of One Roof Chicago, and does several other things, as well.Each of the following narratives ("The Dish") were written by Stephanie Skora.
Raeghn Draper is a pro-labor, queer, Black, non-binary babe who is bisexual only because they like the flag colors better than the ones for the pansexual flag. They are the Communications Manager for the Center for Third World Organizing, a co-founder of the CHAAD Project, a community organizer, painter, and writer.
With that preface, here are the Cook County judicial retention candidates which the Guide strongly opposes (pp. 87-89):
Kerry M. KennedyThe website for the Illinois Alliance for Reentry and Justice, mentioned in some of these narratives, may be found here. A slogan from the website: "Ending mass incarceration requires ending incarceration." Interested persons can download a .pdf copy of the IARJ's 2026 Election Guide, subtitled "A People's Guide to Cook County Criminal Division Judges" from that website.
The Dish:
Kerry Kennedy, dear reader, just seems like a huge dick. Not only did he threaten a teenage rape survivor with contempt if she didn’t watch a videotape of her assault in court, which would be enough to earn a forever NO rating from this Guide on its own, he displayed the same disdain for others in 2016 when he sneered in court about the reversal of a pro-cop ruling he had issued on a defendant’s bond. Now he’s here 10 years later still having his rulings reversed, according to Injustice Watch, which noted that his dismissal of post-conviction petitions by two defendants were overturned on appeal. Megalomania and assholery doesn’t belong anywhere near the bench, especially in Cook County where bad judges can do lasting damage. Vote NO. — §
Thomas J. Byrne
The Dish:
Injustice Watch noted that Thomas Byrne’s rulings were reversed 16 times during his current term, which is a massive amount and enough to vote against his retention on its own, but it does, dear reader, get worse from there. In one particularly egregious case, Byrne threw out the testimony of a key 90-year-old prosecution witness who contradicted his initial eyewitness account in court, resulting in a defendant’s conviction that was overturned on appeal. Ridiculous and stupid. Byrne’s SUPER NO rating is also the product of courtwatching data collected by the Illinois Alliance for Reentry and Justice, which showed that Byrne’s treatment of Black and Latine defendants in his courtroom was substantially worse than the average criminal judge, especially when discussing the children of defendants, pursuing enhanced sentences at increased rates, and preparedness/knowledge about the cases he was seeing. All of this is extremely concerning, and “concerning” is the absolute opposite of what we want to see from a Judge, especially given the racist history of Cook County Courts. Vote NO. — §
Ursula Walowski
The Dish:
Ursula Walowski has the distinction of being this retention class’s Least Competent Judge, as Injustice Watch notes her 25 ruling reversals are more than any other criminal judge on the ballot this year. Yikes! Walowski appears to be cavalier and thoughtless with her power on the bench, especially in her reversed rulings. Injustice Watch pulled the most egregious of these in their summary of the race: In 2021 an appeal panel directly stated that Walowski abused her discretion and denied a defendant a fair trial when she forced an attorney to proceed after he tried to recuse himself while suffering from food poisoning (yes, really). In 2023 an appellate panel said Walowski displayed her disdain for the rights of defendants again by failing to render appropriate guidance regarding a defendant’s attempt at pro se representation. And in 2024 an appeals court overturned a Walowski bench conviction, saying the evidence was insufficient to deliver a guilty verdict. All of this is made worse by Walowski’s behavior in court towards Black and Latine defendants, according to courtwatching data collected by the Illinois Alliance for Reentry and Justice. This data shows that Walowski was less prepared, less communicative, less willing to pursue diversion, more willing to pursue sentence enhancements, and more willing to dehumanize defendants in court compared to the dataset’s average for cases involving defendants of any race, but the disparity was marked between white and Black/Latine defendants for Walowski. When Injustice Watch asked Walowski about her slew of reversals, she responded that “sometimes things can be missed” in a high-volume courtroom, and “mistakes can happen”. When you consider that Walowski’s job is determining the freedom and enfranchisement of those before her in her courtroom, “mistakes can happen” is a gobsmacking and extreme answer. I believe it deserves a matching EXTREME rating. Vote NO. — §
Megan Elizabeth Goldish
The Dish:
I wrote about Goldish back in 2020, when she pulled a SUPER NO from this Guide for mostly the same reasons as this year. Not only was she sued over her role as a prosecutor in two wrongful convictions, but Federal judges allowed claims made against her to proceed and both lawsuits were settled for a total of $2.5 million dollars in mostly-taxpayer-money. Horrifying, and disqualifying for a seat on the bench, in the opinion of this Guide. She’s also married to a cop (additionally disqualifying) and has a mixed-at-best record of rulings in DV cases involving cops, including one where she was dismissive of an LGBTQ survivor’s three-day-later report. Gross. Goldish also has an extensive political donation history, including several gifts to AlderFoe Debra Silverstein starting in mid-2023. Goldish claimed in an email to Injustice Watch that these donations were predominantly event tickets and sponsorships, to which I respond that she must keep one of the busiest social calendars of a standard-issue Judge in all of Cook County. There are a bunch of reasons why Megan Elizabeth Goldish is a terrible and untrustworthy judge, and all of them mean that you should Vote NO. — §
Maritza Martinez
The Dish:
Yikes. Maritza Martinez, dear reader, has some anger issues, which is not the best quality for any elected official… let alone a judge. Injustice Watch coverage reported that Martinez was lambasted by several litigants in a July 2025 County Board hearing about improving services for survivors of domestic violence. Those litigants said, among other things, that Martinez was insensitive, biased, and alleged that Martinez forced them and their children into potentially unsafe situations with abusive ex-partners. Even attorneys who appeared before Martinez had some harsh criticism for the would-be second-time-retainee, with those who disliked the experience describing her as rude and overly emotional, according to Injustice Watch. Those who liked appearing before Martinez still described her tendency to get angry in court and yell at litigants. Like I said… yikes. Vote NO. — §
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment