Wednesday, October 21, 2026

On the judicial retention ballot, the default vote should be "yes"

In most elections, supporters of a candidate who wins 59% of the vote will use words like "landslide" to describe their favorite's splendid victory. "Landslides" are routinely declared when a candidate gets a significantly smaller percentage of votes.

In Illinois judicial retention elections, a judge who receives a 59% favorable vote has to look for a new job come the first Monday in December.

To remain in office, a judge must receive a better-than-60% "yes" vote (often expressed as 60% + 1). Historically, most Cook County judges have had little trouble surpassing this minimum requirement, high as it may seem.

Indeed, for several consecutive elections (from 1992 until 2018) all of the Cook County judges who sought retention won retention. In 2018 one judge was targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party and the targeted candidate lost. In 2020, the Party targeted a veteran judge and two judges in "judges' jail." One of the judges in judges' jail quit before the election; the other lost. The targeted veteran judge survived. (The Democratic Party had usually supported all retention candidates, as it doing this year.)

In 2022, all the judges on the retention ballot won new terms; in 2024, only only one judge fell below 60% on the retention ballot.

So even the occasional judge who has incurred the wrath of powerful politicians or 'community activists' can survive on the retention ballot. And most judges do their necessary work unnoticed, safely out the politicians' reach.

But this rosy prospectus is darkened by the fact that, in any given retention election, 15 to 20% of the Cook County electorate reaching the retention ballot will vote "no" on every single judge. Every single judge -- no matter how universally praised by the bar associations -- no matter how highly praised by the press, dead tree, TV, or online -- no matter how mellifluous their surnames -- every single one will get a "no" vote from 15 or 20 of every 100 voters. Second City Cop always urges voters to vote 'no' on every judge on the retention ballot.

In 2020, for example, only five judges (all female) secured more than an 80% "yes" vote -- and none of them got 81%. In the 2022 retention election, no judge reached an 80% yes vote (Judge Sophia Hall got the highest 'yes' vote -- at 79.24%). A few judges got more than 78%. Many judges were below 70%. (Source.) The top finisher in 2024 was Kimberly D. Lewis, with a 79.05% 'yes' vote. Quite a few judges were below 70%; several fell below 65%. (Source.)

So retention judges can count on a definite "no" vote from roughly 1 in 5 voters, no matter how what. (Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that some of them get a little squirrely at this time; if there are retention judges among your personal acquaintance, be understanding.)

Why do some judges perform less well than others?

Well... this is where bar association evaluations and media notoriety and special-interest groups like "Girl, I Guess" come into play. Girl, I Guess has a slew of negative recommendations this year; only Second City Cop, with its Nancy Reagan 'just say no' approach, has more. And, if you haven't heard, Girl, I Guess and Second City Cop are pretty much matter and anti-matter.

A judge who runs afoul of the bar groups, or has unfavorable press, will draw more negative votes than his or her better-regarded peers. Of course, there is less and less 'press' with each election cycle. The Check Your Judges Guide, published by Injustice Watch, devotes considerable resources to the investigation of retention judges' performance, and its reach increases with every election cycle. The Injustice Watch Guide does not make yes or no recommendations, but it identifies controversies and concerns in accordance with its editorial slant. The Girl, I Guess Progressive Voters Guide and other election pop-up guides take those controversies and concerns and turn them into negative recommendations. Experts like Dr. Albert J. Klumpp will be able to quantify which groups had the most influence, but only after the fact. But the effects of unfavorable bar evaluations and negative recommendations from other groups are real, and they do depress the "yes" votes for retention candidates to a greater or lesser extent.

And then there are the selective "no" votes: Lawyers will vote against judges who did not (in the lawyers' subjective view) treat them, or their clients, with the respect they considered their due. Some may vote on the basis of 'sour grapes' -- that judge ruled against me, so I will vote 'no' on that judge. And ordinary people, too: "No" on the judge who dinged them on the speeding ticket, "no" on the judge who handled her divorce, "no" on the judge who put the voter's relative in jail, "no" on the judge who didn't jail that trouble-making kid down the street. Any time a judge makes a decision, someone is likely to be upset. And, yet, a judge's job is to make decisions.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. Some are smarter than others, some are nicer than others, some are perhaps a bit more diligent than others, too. FWIW does not make endorsements of individual candidates.

But I will make this suggestion: In the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, I submit that the default vote for any judge on the judicial retention ballot should be "yes."

Now... what constitutes a good reason? That, Dear Reader, is up to you. But here are some prior FWIW posts or other links that you may find helpful (I may revise or update this list in the days remaining before the election):
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)