The Longest Election: Dr. Klumpp analyzes the Cook County judicial retention results

by Albert J. Klumpp

Two years ago Cook County experienced an election that was different from any other in its 54-year history of retention voting. Last month’s election, while not a carbon copy of 2018’s, had many of the same basic characteristics and indicates that what happened in 2018 was more than just a flash in the pan.

Concern over police misconduct and wrongful convictions continued to drive higher-than-normal levels of attention to the retention part of the ballot. Voter participation on retention judges was 70.02%, roughly equal to that of 2018 but reaching just above 70% for the first time ever.

Most of the past fluctuations in participation can be tied to changes in voting systems and ballot designs. 2018 and 2020 together are only the second instance of participation changes attributable to a substantive public policy matter (the other being the Operation Greylord investigation of the 1980s). Evidence of this is that nearly all of the 2018-2020 increase is attributable to Chicago voters and not suburban voters. Historically a higher proportion of city voters has skipped the retention part of the ballot compared to suburban voters, but in 2018 and this year, city participation rose to nearly equal suburban participation.

The base approval rate for the entire set of judges—that is, the rate for a judge with no name-cue advantages or informational disadvantages--was 75.3 percent, a historically typical figure and essentially unchanged from 2018’s 75.4 percent. Female judges had their best election ever, with a 3.5 point advantage relative to male judges. Historically their advantage had been 1.5 to 2 percentage points but began creeping upwards more recently, jumping to 3.4 points two years ago.

On the other hand, there was no significant racial/ethnic vote. Typically there is a small but detectable bump for having a recognizably Irish, African-American (based on US Census data) or Hispanic surname. But while 2018 saw one- to two-point bumps in all three categories, nothing of the sort was detectable this year. Certain wards and townships showed expected preferences--Irish names in the 19th Ward; Hispanic in Cicero Township; African-American on the South Side—but in the overall countywide numbers there was no meaningful advantage.

The most important characteristic of the 2018 election was the substantial use of voter information. Nearly one-third of the 2018 retention electorate (32.7%) voted based on some source of information—a newspaper or bar association, a social media guide, or one of the political or community campaigns against Matthew Coghlan. This year, despite the larger turnout typical of a presidential election, information use held relatively steady at 31.9%. Both of these elections eclipsed the previous high of 22.0% in 1988.

While the 2018 and 2020 figures are similar, their composition differs. One difference is a decrease in the county Democratic party’s influence. In 2018 roughly seven percent of the electorate followed the party’s instructions to support all judges except Coghlan. This year its influence was less than three percent, albeit with a larger electorate. The wards and townships where the party’s influence was greatest were largely the same in both elections, but the overall effect was lower throughout. Negative publicity over the Michael Toomin controversy undoubtedly hurt the party, but another factor may have been a decrease in the overall number and timing of party mailers (still looking for information to confirm or refute this).

In contrast, there was an increase in the impact of social media. The “Girl I Guess” voter guide that emerged in 2018 remained influential this year, with an estimated 4.2 percent effect (versus estimated 3.4 percent in 2018, likely but not provably higher). In addition, a bare-bones “Chicago Voter Cheat Sheet” prepared by two city political activists was statistically detectable in every city ward except the 41st, and had an overall impact of roughly 2.6 percent countywide. Together the two guides had a larger impact than any single bar association or newspaper.

As for bar associations, the ISBA’s ratings emerged in 2018 and 2020 to become an influential information source, worth roughly 3.5 percentage points in both elections. More media outlets have reported ISBA ratings in recent years and their reporting is having an effect. For instance, the suburban Daily Herald newspapers, which in the past had tended to report CCL or Alliance ratings in their pre-election coverage, instead emphasized ISBA ratings in both 2018 and 2020. In all of the suburban townships where the Herald newspapers circulate, ISBA ratings this year showed an influence of between six and eight percentage points.

Ratings from the CBA and Chicago Tribune measured in the 5-6 point range, as they did in 2018. There also was evidence, as in 2018, of Alliance ratings having a small but detectable influence where little or none besides the CCL’s ratings could be detected in prior years. This is difficult to pin down precisely because of the number and similarity of the ratings among all of the bar associations, but overall the numbers do suggest, as they did two years ago, that the Internet and mobile devices are being used by increasing numbers of voters to access information from more different sources than in the past.

Finally, the usual bit of fine print: the statistical estimates reported here are just that—estimates—and have margins of error, but all are considered highly statistically significant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert J. Klumpp has been a generous and frequent contributor to FWIW over the years. A research analyst with a public policy PhD, Klumpp is the author of several scholarly works analyzing judicial elections including, most recently, "Evaluating Judicial Merit Selection," in the November 2020 issue of Arizona Attorney (the link will take you the magazine website; you'll have to click around a bit to access the article). Closer to home, Klumpp's recent publications include "Campaign Spending in Cook County Judicial Elections," CBA Record, Nov.-Dec. 2019 (p. 30)

The Longest Election: Starting a look back at the 2020 election

Maybe it was done to generate interest -- and, not coincedentally, to divert attention from the seemingly certain Democratic nominee. Maybe it was done because they had no clear frontrunner (though many alleged movers and shakers were supposedly pining for Jeb Bush). Whatever the reason, in 2016, the Republican Party sought their presidential nominee using a reality TV format -- their own version of Survivor, The Real World, or I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here -- with roughly 25 Republican hopefuls.

Or roughly 24 Republicans and billionaire reality TV host Donald Trump.

The Republicans and, ultimately, the nation as a whole were shocked -- shocked -- when the reality TV host emerged from this hokey process as the nominee.

Still, the concept might have been retired, unmourned, but for the unexpected outcome (unexpected by any pollsters or pundits) of the 2016 election. It is apparently a fundamental law of American politics that, if a tactic works for THEM, no matter how stupid or far-fetched, it will be copied by US.

Maybe that's unfair to politicians. It works that way in other industries, too. Does anybody get a big-budget movie greenlighted these days without a comic book superhero angle? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it is also the best defense against ever having to have an independent thought.

Thus it was that the 2020 election started before workers could remove that unshatterred glass ceiling from the hotel ballroom. And, sadly, history will affirm that many Democratic Party leaders first responded to Trump's victory by casting about for their own billionaire TV host to run against Trump in 2020.

When Oprah turned them down, the Democrats came up with their own reality TV format -- not just an island, but a two-island mini-archipelago, with something like 50 wannabes, many of whom were known to others beyond their immediate families. One island was like the kids' table at a holiday gathering, with obscure contestants vying for the chance to move up to the grownup table, from which the eventual nominee would emerge. Contestants could be voted off the islands entirely, or demoted to the kiddie table, apparently on the basis of responses to the breathless emails that clogged our inboxes every morning. (Who won last night's debate? Vote now!) I'm only surprised there wasn't an 800-number flashing throughout each nightly program.

There's no guarantee that the reality TV format will be abandoned four years hence. Indeed, I'm seriously afraid that, in 2024, one or both parties may add a panel of party elders to help eager contestants craft their messages to the American people. (Congratulations! You're on Team Bernie!) The Republic might survive that... as long as the parties don't make the candidates wear costumes.

The onset of the Pandemic also contributed to the seeming length of this election season.

But it wasn't just the fact that we were stuck at home, seeking affirmation of our increasingly strident views from our like-thinking friends on Facebook, or performing pathetic dances on Tik Tok as the economy crumbled about us -- this election season really was longer than its recent predecessors, and on both ends.

Early voting started earlier than ever -- and, of course, the unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots guaranteed that it would take far longer than usual to figure out who won. Indeed, you won't have to drive too far beyond the Chicago suburbs before you encounter some seemingly solid citizens who are not entirely sure that the national election is over even now.

But the 2020 election is over, even though, in a few local cases, discovery recounts and related court challenges will continue a while longer. So it's time to start looking back, and see what really happened and, potentially, use that hard-won knowledge to begin preparing for 2022.

By which time, hopefully, our two-week shutdown will finally be over....

Unfortunately, I have more questions than answers at this point. Among these:

• Despite being bombarded with incessant messages about the necessity and virtue of voting, and despite a myriad of options for accomplishing this civic duty, roughly three out of 10 of our neighbors still did not bother to vote. Why?


• Mail-in ballots unquestionably skewed strongly Democratic. But were they uniformly distributed among the population, or were there concentrated pockets of mail-in participation? If so, where?


• Do any identifiable pockets of mail-in voters in Cook County correspond with nationwide patterns? Were there nationwide patterns?


• Did local mail-in voters linger longer over their ballots, giving more attention to the down-ballot questions -- the judicial retention ballot, for example?

Definitive answers to some of these questions may be impossible to ascertain. But the next essay in this series, a guest post by Dr. Albert J. Klumpp, will suggest possible answers to one or more of these. And -- SPOILER ALERT -- Dr. Klumpp will thoroughly refute my unsupported perception that voters were more hositle toward retention judges this year than in recent elections. Stay tuned.

It's official: Fallon wins in 12; Mahoney retained

The votes are all counted, finally, and, finally, we can say: The "Red Mirage" was real.

No... wait... we can't say that. Mirages, by definition aren't real. Perhaps, instead, we could say the Red Mirage Phenomenon played out as prophesied.

The national pollsters messed up again in 2020. Not as bad, perhaps, as 2016 -- this time, the candidate predicted by the pollsters to win did in fact win -- but there was no landslide, though increasingly giddy pundits were making more and more extravagant promises in this regard as Election Day drew ever closer. But the vast majority of talking heads all cautioned that, on Election Night, it would appear that Trump had won, or was on his way to winning, a second term because Trump voters were going to the polls in person -- and Democrats were voting by mail. The vote by mail ballots (VBM ballots) would, ultimately, they said, flip the script.

Then came Election Night and all the pundits forgot about what they had said about mirages and began plotzing all over national TV....

The VBM effect was particularly strong in True Blue Illinois. A lot of races seemed to be heading for Republican wins as Tuesday, November 3 turned into Wednesday, November 4. Two Cook County judicial races---the only two contested Cook County judicial races---were among those impacted by the VBM wave.

Appointed Judge Patricia M. Fallon (pictured at right) seemed likely to have lost her seat as the in-person votes were posted. The gap seemed too large to close. Then, as VBM ballots were tabulated, the gap grew smaller. And then smaller still. Eventually, Fallon eked out a lead -- and, now, according to official results revealed today, has eked out a win, by 502 votes, 82,976 to 82,474.

Meanwhile, in the 13th Subcircuit, which looked like a cliffhanger on Election Night, Susanne Michele Groebner has won a decisive victory, with a better than 14,000 vote margin.

VBM ballots do not appear to have flipped any retention races. Judge John J. Mahoney was bobbing at or near the 60% mark on Election Night, dipping below 60% in City returns though faring better in the suburbs, and his fortunes seemed to ebb and flow with each new release of totals. In today's final figures, though, Mahoney's "yes" percentage was 60.13%, representing a slight upturn in his favorable numbers since I'd last reported them.

In other closely watched retention races, Judge Michael P. Toomin, though dumped by the Cook County Democratic Party and targeted for defeat by the Judicial Accountability PAC, was retained with 61.67% "yes" votes, according to today's final figures. Judge Patricia Manila Martin, who told evaluating bar groups that she would be retiring, was nevertheless retained with 62.16% of voters agreeing that she should be retained in office. Only two judges were actually defeated for retention, Mauricio Araujo, who finished with a "yes" vote of only 48.14%, and Jackie Marie Portman-Brown, who finished with a "yes" vote of 59.32%. Both had been assigned to administrative duties by the Executive Committee of the Cook County Circuit Court prior to the election; Araujo was actually brought before the Illinois Courts Commission on misconduct charges during the election cycle, quitting before the Commission could determine what sanction would be entered against him.

I have suggested now, on a couple of occasions, that the electorate this year may have been unusually sour and that this was reflected in lower than usual favorable percentages for all retention judges. After perusing the final figures, however, it may be necessary to revisit this conclusion. Five judges, all female, did top the 80% favorable mark in this election, Donna L. Cooper, Debra B. Walker, Cynthia Y. Cobbs, Maritza Martinez, and Bridget Anne Mitchell. Judge Walker seems to have led the pack with an 80.59% "yes" vote. In 2018, there were eight retention judge candidates (also all female) who bested the 80% mark. I think I'll wait for Dr. Klumpp's opinion as to whether this difference is significant.

The dust will be settling soon.... meanwhile let's talk about comments

The results of the November election should be certified today, three weeks after the polls closed. I'll hold off on final reports on a couple of races until these come out -- but it does appear that, when vote by mail ballots are finally tabulated, Judge Patricia M. Fallon will have completed her comeback from a substantial Election Night deficit and held on to her 12th Subcircuit seat. Admittedly, I did not report on every update.

The truth is, the results of the 2020 November election were fixed like a fly in amber when the last precinct closed in Cook County on the evening of Tuesday, November 3 -- or perhaps when the Main Post Office on Harrison Street stopped postmarking envelopes November 3.

(One good thing about efiling is that it's been a long time since I had to drive downtown in the middle of the night and get in line at the Post Office in hopes that my freshly-printed appellate brief would be postmarked on the filing date---thank you, mailbox rule!---even if, due to the length of the line, it did not look like I would make it to the counter until a minute or two after midnight. Anyone who doubts the literal, physical truth of the expression 'his heart was in his throat' has never been in line in those circumstances....)

But, though the election results were determined by 12:01 a.m. on November 4, these were not immediately known. The order in which the votes were counted made for significant, but entirely artifical, drama. I complained about 'horse race' coverage on TV on Election Night; it didn't seem right for me to contribute to the phenomenon in the races covered here on FWIW. Frankly, I think I reported enough to show the trend lines without engaging in unnecessary speculation.

Judging by the always anonymous comments in my inbox, several FWIW readers disagreed. I got updates, particularly on the 12th Subcircuit race and Judge John J. Mahoney's retention bid, every time new numbers were released.

Often these updates were accompanied by fairly creative statements that I would never print. (Admittedly, there were a couple of "creative" statements on other topics that did make it through in recent weeks, temporarily, due to my unfamiliarity with recent Blogger format changes. But I think I eventually removed them all.)

I have already suggested that electorate generally was in a sour mood this election cycle, just judging from the lower numbers across the board for Cook County judicial retention candidates: Even the highest rated, least controversial jurists fared worse this year than their similarly-situated brothers and sisters in years past. This sour mood was likewise reflected in the anonymous comments in my inbox this cycle.

I've struggled with how I might share some of these with you without actually aiding and abetting the defamatory purposes of some commenters. Some specific names have been deliberately retained. Also, some of the references are certainly obvious, but, in my best judgment, unavoidable, in order to report on the sentiments apparently floating around there among some in our community. I think I can get away with these (and, yes, I've edited where I can):

• What? Nothing to say about that Retention Class now? So much for judicial independence. The old dinosaur survives. [Redacted] trash talks. And two judges left twisting in the wind. Next time it will be 4 of them. Watch your backs 2022. So many of you have so much baggage. Save a seat for us at the Dearborn.


• Like mom always said, it's not always cream that rises to the top. Congratulations (?) to the Retention Class of 2020. But just remember, the Daley Center will eventually have to reopen and those of you who barely came to work pre-COVID will have to start riding those elevators with the rest of us sooner or later. You know what that means: R-E-T-I-R-E-M-E-N-T. You know many of you have been talking about it among yourselves and those "leakers" have been telling the rest of us. We will patiently wait for you to make your exit next summer. We will wait and have our petitions ready to pounce on the competition. Donald Trump and the Retention Classes are my role models: sociopaths who don't care about anything but themselves. Time for us to get ours.


• I've been phone banking all weekend long, courtesy of the Fair Tax Amendment people. Been calling people all over Cook County, encouraging all of them to vote NO on the following judges: Flannery Cobbs Rosario Rivers Raines Buford Sheahan Kubasiak Time to create some more countywide vacancies for 2022.


• [A certain Democratic committeeman] is something else. He has a mannequin dressed in a white Klan robe positioned outside the early voting location. It has a sign saying "Vote No on these Judges -- Mahoney, Wadas and Democopoulos -- former prosecutors and current racists, bad for OUR community." Very powerful stuff. I would have taken a picture of it, but the guys standing watch looked like they had a healthy respect for their Second Amendment rights and I wasn't going to push my luck.

I had one would-be commenter who researched 60+ names of persons he or she thinks will be on the retention ballot in 2022. This person is already demanding a "no" vote on all 2022 retention candidates "if they don't resume jury trials at the Daley Center in January 2021." I think (I devoutly hope) this was one person who submitted about 10 different comments along these lines (further example: resume trials "or else we FIRE the 2022 Retention Class"). I have reason to believe that one person was responsible for all of these comments since each one named every judge who might be on the retention ballot in 2022.

I posted about a judge who passed away during the height of the election season. I had to suppress several comments. Whatever happened to not speaking ill of the dead? Once upon a time, I thought that a Supreme Court committee on civility was unnecessary... now I wonder if its task is not akin to bailing out the ocean.

Some FWIW readers may be smart lawyers, but they don't understand how Illinois is set up: At least one would-be commenter presumed that Justice Kilbride's loss in his retention bid bodes ill for Justice Mary Jane Theis, who will be on the retention ballot in 2022. Um... Justice Kilbride was elected as a Democrat from an area that has always been Republican -- and has only become more and more so as America's partisan divide deepens. Whatever else the future may hold, Justice Theis will not be facing that kind of uphill battle in Cook County two years hence.

I have to think that this would-be commenter knew better than this... but, on the other hand, the failure of civic education seems more and more apparent:

Hello don’t you think the rate of Fallon’s votes seem fishy? Btw 7 of my families mail in ballets have yet to be counted as of tonight, November 17th. All straight Republican (including DiFranco). That’s not right. No updates on numbers today. Watch tomorrow she will pull ahead. No transparency.

Um... yeah... when I was a brand-new voter, in the late 1970s, living with my parents just across the Lake County line, I could see my primary vote reported in the local newspaper. And I knew it was my vote that had been counted... but only because I was the only one taking a Democratic ballot in my precinct. But that's about the only way that a voter can be absolutely sure that a particular vote has been counted.

Mahoney holding on by slimmest of margins in retention count; a look at where Portman-Brown did, and did not have, support

Nothing is certified yet, so nothing is official. But the County has not posted new numbers since Sunday afternoon.

At the moment, then, Judge John J. Mahoney appears---despite a torrent of "no" votes when VBM ballots were tabulated---to have hung on to keep his seat on the Circuit Court bench. In the City of Chicago, Mahoney polled 457,575 "yes" votes, or only 57.44% of the 796,557 votes cast in the City on his future. In the suburbs, however, Mahoney has 508,556 "yes" votes and 304,636 "no" votes, a favorable percentage of 62.54%.

Put them together, and Mahoney has 966,131 "yes" votes out of 1,609,749 counted -- a favorable percentage of 60.00174934%. One can't cut it much closer than that and survive. So we must await final results.

Mahoney was recommended for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers. But the Illinois State Bar Association and three other Alliance bar groups, inclucing the Cook County Bar Association, recommended a "no" vote, as did the Suburban Bar Coalition.

Judge Jackie Marie Portman-Brown was among those recommended on the Soul Slate. She was also recommended for retention by both the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers. Portman-Brown was, however, not recommended for retention by the Illinois State Bar Association and six other Alliance bar groups. Like Mahoney, the Suburban Bar Coalition recommended against Portman-Brown's retention. The Chicago Tribune also recommended against her retention. Portman-Brown had been removed from active judicial duty and assisgned to administrative duties earlier in 2020.

When the votes were counted, Judge Portman-Brown fell below the necessary 60% survival threshold in both the City and suburbs. Frank Calabrese has put together this map showing where Portman-Brown did, and did not have, support:

Map created by, and reprinted with the permission of, @FrankCalabrese.

With most VBM ballots counted now, Judge Portman-Brown appears to have lost her retention bid

I deliberately employed some lawyerly weasel-words when I wrote, on the morning of November 4, that it looked like all Cook County judges seeking retention appeared to have been retained.

There were still votes being counted, I cautioned. A week later, many of those votes have been counted. And Judge Jackie Marie Portman Brown has fallen below the 60% threshold necessary for retention in both the City and the suburbs -- 58.87% in the City, 59.69% in the Suburbs (the suburban returns having been updated just last night). There are still some suburban votes to be counted -- meaning vote by mail ballots already received but not yet processed. There could still late-arriving ballots in the City and the suburbs -- ballots postmarked on or before Election Day can still be counted if they arrive by November 17. But the numbers of validly postmarked, late-arriving ballots has dwindled, as one would expect, to a daily handful. Portman Brown seems unlikely to rebound at this point. Her combined "yes" percentage, by my calcuation, is 59.27%.

On Election Night I reported that Judge John J. Mahoney was below the 60% threshold in City returns. His City numbers got worse over the past week, as VBM ballots were processed. Mahoney received "yes" votes on only 57.44% of ballots in the City of Chicago. However, just as on Election Night, Mahoney's suburban numbers have bouyed his retention bid up above the minimum: As of last night, Mahoney had "yes" votes from 62.65% of suburban voters. By my calculations, however, that comes to 60.05% in the combined total. The margin is whisker thin -- and we may just have to await final certification of the results to know for certain.

The closely-watched retention bid of Judge Michael P. Toomin has not been seriously impacted by these late returns. As of November 4, I reported that Toomin had barely reached the 60% threshold in the City, but had been 'saved by the suburbs.' City totals now put his "yes" vote at 59.02%, but his favorable percentage in the most recently reported suburban returns is 64.15%. His combined favorable percentage is 61.57%.

One thing is clearly evident: When it came to the retention ballot, the electorate was in a sour mood this year. While someone may have slipped past my notice, I haven't seen any retention candidate with an overall favorable percentage clearly above 80%. In the last retention election, there were eight such. (Judge Cynthia Y. Cobbs had a nearly 82% favorable vote in the City returns, but just over 78% in the suburbs. By my calculations, she's at 80.007112% overall -- and she may top the retention class.)

All Cook County judges actually seeking retention -- and maybe even one who wasn't -- appear to have won retention

We have to put caveats on this. There are still votes being counted. In Illinois, mail-in votes postmarked by yesterday will be counted upon receipt if they are received by November 17. But it looks like all of the Cook County jurists seeking retention, including both Appellate Court justices, have been retained in office.

Mauricio Araujo was not retained. But he is the only one that has been defeated for certain -- and it really doesn't matter inasmuch as he resigned from the bench before the Illinois Courts Commission could remove him.

Even Judge Patricia Manila Martin was retained, although she told all the bar groups that she was planning to retire. I don't think she has actually retired---not yet---she's still on the list of Cook County judges maintained by the Illinois Supreme Court. But that list is not updated daily or anything, and she may well have put in her papers.

Even Judge Michael Toomin, who was targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party, and by JAPAC, seems to have been retained.

Injustice Watch is not too happy about it.

Despite endorsements from the Tribune, the Sun-Times, and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Toomin barely reached the 60% threshold in the City of Chicago (he got about 64% "yes" votes in the suburbs). Here is a map showing where Toomin did, and did not, have support in the City:

Map created by, and reprinted with the permission of, @FrankCalabrese.

It looks worse on the map than the numbers actually indicate

I realize how tough it must be this morning, but I hope that Justice Tom Kilbride will not see this defeat as a personal repudiation. The Third Judicial District of the State of Illinois has been a Republican stronghold for some time. His non-partisan retention race got framed in partisan terms and this result followed.

I am somewhat surprised to see that Justice Kilbride did not reach the 60% threshold in Will County, however.

Map created by, and reprinted with the permission of, @FrankCalabrese.

Justice Kilbride loses retention bid

Capitol Fax has this statement from Illinois Supreme Court Justice Tom Kilbride:

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Tom Kilbride Statement on Retention Race

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Tom Kilbride released the following statement regarding the results of his retention effort, in which he received support from a majority of voters but did not meet the 60 percent threshold required:

“Though votes continue to be counted, I am disappointed in the apparent outcome. I want to thank the voters of the Third Judicial District for twice placing their faith in me to uphold the sacred principles that guide our judicial system. Serving on the Illinois Supreme Court has been the honor and privilege of my lifetime, and I am proud of the legacy I will leave behind, including a court that is more open, transparent and accessible to all, regardless of economic means,” said Kilbride.

Illinois delivered a huge margin for the Biden Harris ticket, as expected. But the Third Judicial District is traditionally Republican and was again tonight. And Justice Kilbride could not overcome that.

Mahoney's City numbers are at 59%

That's with 88.79% of City precincts reporting. And Judge John J. Mahoney would need 60% to be retained.

But Mahoney is polling better in the suburbs. He has a 64% "yes" vote outside the City, with 1,478 of 1,599 of those precincts counted.

Put them together and Mahoney has an overall 61.4% "yes" vote.

Mahoney below 60% threshold in City returns

With 85.98% of precincts reporting, Judge John J. Mahoney has a "yes" vote of only 58.97%. He's got a 63.72% "yes" vote in the suburbs. I haven't put the numbers together yet... but he's on the bubble, apparently.

Judge Jackie Marie Portman-Brown has a 61.1% "yes" vote in the suburbs. She has a 60.38% favorable vote in the City. She's above water, but barely.

Toomin holding on

With 70% of the City vote counted now, Judge Michael Toomin has a yes vote of 60.16%. He's doing better in the suburbs.

About 44% of suburban vote reporting, only 20% of the City vote in

Judge Michael Toomin has a 65% yes vote in his retention bid in the suburbs, 61% in the City.

For comparison purposes, former Judge Mauricio Araujo has a 52% no vote in the City and a 49% no vote in the suburbs.

Waiting for numbers just like everyone else

City numbers are just starting to come in. Not seeing anything yet from the suburbs.

According to Frank Calabrese, there are 134,000 mail-in ballots in the Cook County suburbs, with another 75,000 outstanding in the City. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are that many languishing in the postal system somewhere. Some were undoubtedly discarded as voters decided to vote at an early voting site instead, or decided to vote today. Any mail-in ballots not postmarked today, or before today, will not be counted.

The presidential election may not be decided tonight. The fate of the "fair tax" amendment will almost certainly not be decided tonight. But I will update on the two contested subcircuit races and retention races as numbers become available (hopefully) later this evening.

A true tale of two text messages -- wait for the punchline

I live in the 20th House District, so my mailbox has been overflowing with mailings in the Darbro-Stephens race. We've received multiple pieces on several days -- pro-Dabro pieces, anti-Dabro pieces, pro-Stephens pieces, anti-Stephens pieces -- I think our one-day record was five pieces.

But even if you don't have a hotly-contested legislative race in your home district, we are all subject to the never ending plague of commercials any time you dare to turn on the TV. And, of course, we are all bombarded with phone calls and text messages urging your support for this candidate or that one. But, this past weekend, I received two text messages about the judicial retention election that I think are worth sharing.

It took all my techno-skills to transfer the teeny tiny graphic from my cell phone to the screen before you. And it wasn't printed at full width even there. Millennials must have keen eyesight. Members of Gen Z (should we be calling them "Zoomers" now?) also.

The text accompanying this micro-graphic read as follows:

Hi Francis, this is the final weekend to vote early! Find your nearest location here and be sure to vote against Republican Judge Michael Toomin, #206: https://chicagoelections.gov/en/early-voting.html

This text was received Friday evening.

Another text came in Saturday morning. It read:

Hi Francis, don't let Trump or any politician mess w/ our judicial system. VOTE YES to retain qualifed judges including Michael Toomin. VOTE YES!
Txt9tostop

Big deal, you say. Everyone gets texts on both sides of every issue, for and against every candidate. And, of course, I would ordinarily agree with you on that. Ordinarily.

But this is different. Promise.

And the reason why this is so, is that both of these texts came from the same number. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Capitalism in action.

For those who have not yet voted: Resources for navigating the Cook County judicial retention ballot

Supposedly, at least half of those who are going to vote in this election have already done so.

But, if you have not yet voted, you may not have yet faced the reality that there are nearly 60 Cook County jurists seeking retention on the ballot.

Appellate Court justices are elected to 10-year terms. Circuit Court judges have 6-year terms. When their terms are up, these judges are not obliged to go through a contested election process to stay on the job. Instead, voters are asked to state, yes or no, whether each judge should be "retained in office." To remain on the bench---to be retained in office---a judge must get a "yes" vote from more than 60% of the voters answering the question.

There are only two Appellate Court justices seeking retention this year, but well over 50 Circuit Court judges. The Circuit Court judges are not listed in alphabetical order; rather, those serving longest are listed first.

Information about Cook County judges on the retention ballot is available on the 2020 Cook County Retention Judges Website. That's a site published by almost all of the retention judges, who are running as a group.

Two persons not on the retention judges site are Judge Mauricio Araujo (who has resigned) and Judge Patricia Manila Martin (who said she was resigning). With the exception of these two individuals, all of the judges on the 2020 retention ballot are recommended by at least some of the many bar associations that screen judicial candidates; the vast majority have been recommended by each each and every one of the bar groups. Here's a linked list of the posts I've put up about the bar association ratings:

• CBA recommends "yes" vote for 60 of 62 jurists seeking retention;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers finds eight jurists Well Qualified for retention, one Highly Qualified;
• ISBA releases narratives for its Cook County judicial retention ratings;
• Suburban Bar Coalition announces retention recommendations; and
• Final Alliance grids released this morning.

More information about retention judge candidates. Injustice Watch offers this interactive guide to the retention ballot. The Chicago Tribune has announced its retention endorsements. The Chicago Sun-Times has run a couple of editorials about retention races. The IVI-IPO has also offered guidance on retention races.

And, if that's not enough for you, you can look at all the posts here on FWIW labeled "2020 Retention Election" by clicking here.

Ald. Michele Smith offers endorsements in retention races: "Yes" on Toomin, "No" on five others

And 43rd Ward Ald. Smith offers no endorsement in the race for Cook County State's Attorney.

The following are excerpts from a much longer email; Ald. Smith's entire sample ballot can be viewed as a webpage.

Ald. Smith's explanations for her suggested "no" votes can be found at the link above.

Because these are images, the links in the images don't work. But the reference to the "report issued in 2018" tracks to this link; you'll have to scroll down a bit to the heading "Juvenile Crime Statistics" to see report in question.

FWIW readers are continuing to respond to my "pics or it didn't happen" request for palm cards, and I am grateful. If you have a card to send, scan or photo it and email it to me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com. And please feel free to forward any endorsement emails you may receive.

Right down the line: 17th Ward election endorsements track county party exactly

FWIW readers are continuing to respond to my "pics or it didn't happen" request for palm cards -- thank you. If you have a card to send, scan or photo it and email it to me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com.

This 17th Ward card would not be at all newsworthy---strictly following the Party line as it does---but for the many comments I'm getting about one ward or another dumping this other retention candidate or that one. Some offer very detailed scenarios -- a costumed mannequin carrying a sign in front of one ward early voting site -- a banner attacking another retention judge outside the Super Site -- big signs with lots of suggested "no" votes outside another early voting location. Some of the elaborate storlyines in my comment queue read more like political fan fic than actual news -- but that's why I asked for pictures in the first place. So keep sending them in.

19th Ward says "yes" to Toomin, "no" to Kenworthy

FWIW readers are responding to my "pics or it didn't happen" request for palm cards -- thank you. If you have a card to send, scan or photo it and email it to me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com.

This one, strictly speaking, isn't a palm card. It appears to be an image of an email from 19th Ward Ald. and Committeeman Matthew J. O'Shea. Because it is only an image, the links shown above are not "live."

O'Shea breaks ranks with the countywide party in two ways here -- both by encouraging a "yes" vote for Judge Michael P. Toomin, officially dumped by the Cook County Democratic Party, and by seeking a "no" vote on Judge Diana L. Kenworthy. (O'Shea also requests a "no" vote for Mauricio Araujo -- but Araujo, who was also dumped by the Party because he was facing removal in a trial before the Illinois Courts Commission on charges of personal misconduct, has, as noted in the text of O'Shea's email, already resigned his judgeship.)

Kenworthy is endorsed for retention by the Cook County Democratic Party. She is also rated qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and all 12 members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. She was found Recommended for retention by the Suburban Bar Coalition.

34th Ward encourages "no" votes for Araujo, Toomin... and Mahoney

FWIW readers are responding to my "pics or it didn't happen" request for palm cards -- thank you. If you have a card to send, scan or photo it and email it to me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com.

This 34th Ward card would not be at all newsworthy---strictly following the Party line as it does---but for the request for a "no" vote for John J. Mahoney's retention bid.

Mahoney is officially endorsed for retention by the Cook County Democratic Party, and he has been rated qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and eight of the bar associations in the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, including the Chicago Council of Lawyers. But four Alliance bars turned thumbs down on Mahoney, including the Illinois State Bar Association. The Suburban Bar Coalition has also recommended against Mahoney's retention.