Girl, I Guess Progessive Voting Guide has some strong feelings about the retention ballot

The Girl, I Guess Progressive Voting Guide has been updated for the November election, and the guide offers guidance in every Cook County judicial retention race, with opinions ranging from "Yes" to "No"... and then to "Super No" and "Extreme No." Here's the chart (which was at p. 4 of the Guide when I saw it):

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):

• 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)

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:

1. Political:

a. What role does this judge play in the politics of the County, or the State?
b. Is that role positive, negative, or neutral?
c. Does this judge accept the FOP endorsement?

2. Competence:

a. Is a judge actually good at being a judge?
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?

3. Impact:

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?"

The Guide's authors describe themselves thusly (pp. 5-6):

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.

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.

Each of the following narratives ("The Dish") were written by Stephanie Skora.

With that preface, here are the Cook County judicial retention candidates which the Guide strongly opposes (pp. 87-89):

Kerry M. Kennedy
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. — §

The 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.

Who's behind this flyer? Can someone help me out?

I spotted this one on Facebook. This is typical of a certain type of flyer that one sees around election time: It borrows from the Injustice Watch Check Your Judges Guide; it references the guide without providing a link. It also references, as you will note, negative ISBA ratings for Judges Lorraine Mary Murphy and Tiesha L. Smith. If you would like to read those two negative ratings in their entirety, see this FWIW post.

While we're focused on Judges Murphy and Smith, it should be noted that, unlike the ISBA, the Chicago Bar Association rated both of these judges qualfied for retention. Eleven of the 13 Alliance bar groups also rated Murphy qualified for retention; only the Cook County Bar Association joined the ISBA in making a "no" recommendation on Murphy's retention.

On the other hand, while the CCBA rated Judge Smith qualified for retention, six other Alliance bar groups (besides the ISBA) did not. These were the the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois (HBA), the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC), and the Puerto Rican Bar Association (PRBA).

The Chicago Council of Lawyers rated both Murphy and Smith qualified for retention. The ISBA and the Council are the only two bar groups to publish narrative explanations of their ratings of retention candidates in this election cycle. Here is what the Council had to say about these two candidates:

Lorraine Mary Murphy - Qualified

Hon. Lorraine Mary Murphy was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2003. She was an Assistant State’s Attorney at the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where she was First Chair in a felony courtroom at the George Leighton Criminal Courthouse. She was a member of several bar associations, including the Chicago Bar Association, where she served on the Judicial Evaluation Committee.

Judge Murphy is considered to have good legal ability. She is reported to have a good temperament and has been praised for her trial skills. She has substantial experience in complex litigation matters. Judge Murphy is currently assigned to the Second Municipal District. The Council finds her Qualified for retention on the Circuit Court.

Tiesha L. Smith - Qualified

Judge [Tiesha] Smith was elected to the bench in 2020, following an unsuccessful run in 2018. She failed to seek a review of her candidacies in either of those elections and was accordingly rated “Not Qualified” in those elections. She is now seeking Retention. Judge Smith is a 2006 graduate of Chicago Kent College of Law and she was admitted to the bar in 2007. Prior to becoming a judge she practiced for ten years as an Assistant Public Defender in Cook County, where she served primarily in the Child Protection Division.

Following her election she served for less than two years in the Traffic Division and then spent approximately 3 years in the Child Protection Division, where she received generally good reviews. However, in 2024 she transferred to the Juvenile Division, where she hears delinquency matters and has also a second calendar created to meet the needs of minors involved with DCFS.

Since her transfer to the Juvenile Division there have been a number of problems reported with both her temperament and attendance. She has been described by a number of practitioners as having adopted a hostile temperament. After carefully reviewing her record and seeking an agreement from her to attend a Stress Management course, the Council finds her Qualified to continue to serve on the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Please note that I am not criticizing the creators of this flyer for putting their opinions before the public. Nor do I express any opinion about the opinions that the creators of this flyer share about any of the individual judges named; FWIW does not endorse individual candidates. And, obviously, I do not quarrel with the general proposition that a voter should feel free to vote "NO" on any retention judge where the voter has concerns about the judge's record.

But I am curious. Who is putting this flyer before the public?

The flyer itself gives no clues. I thought the motto "One Band, One Sound" might lead me to an answer here, but the only answer I got was that this motto comes from a movie I never saw.

There is nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening about sharing one's endorsements anonymously -- though it might enhance the impact or effectiveness of the endorsements if the endorser's identity were known. Of course, it might lessen the impact, too. But I just want to know. Can anybody out there enlighten us?

Looking at the ISBA's narratives on Cook County judicial retention candidates

The Illinois State Bar Association has released narrative explanations for the 59 Cook County Circuit Court judges and the one First District Illinois Appellate Court justice seeking retention on the November ballot. All the narrative evaluations can be found via this page of the ISBA website. Click on the "read evaluation" button for any judge that interests you. Note that you will have to scroll down through all of the uncontested elections for new judges in order to get to the list of judges seeking retention.

In this post, FWIW takes a look at the two judges that the ISBA does not recommend for retention. Readers should keep in mind that all of the judges on the retention ballot not named here are recommended for retention by the ISBA.

With that preface, here are the two Cook County Circuit Court judges that the ISBA does not recommend for retention and the explanation provided by the ISBA for each judge:

Lorraine Mary Murphy - No

Judge Murphy was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2003. Prior to her election to a countywide vacancy in 2020, she was a career Assistant State’s Attorney assigned to the Leighton Criminal Courthouse in the Appeals Division and at the Sixth Municipal District (Markham). Since March of 2024, Judge Murphy has been assigned to a felony courtroom in the Second Municipal District (Skokie); she served as a floater in Skokie from October 2021 until her present assignment. Prior to that, she was briefly assigned to Room 1104 in the Daley Center and to Traffic Court.

Judge Murphy reports she has worked with the Outreach Community Center in Little Village. She has participated in their school and summer programs, including chaperoning field trips to various museums.

Reports indicate that Judge Murphy has a good knowledge of criminal law and procedures. However, concerns were expressed about her lack of impartiality in criminal cases in favor of the prosecution and what the Committee felt was careless preparation of her judicial evaluation questionnaire. ISBA does not recommend Judge Lorraine Mary Murphy be retained to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Tiesha L. Smith - No

Judge Smith was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2007. She was elected in 2020 to a countywide vacancy in the circuit court. She served for a brief period in Traffic Court. From 2021 to 2024, Judge Smith was assigned to the Child Protection Division in Juvenile Court. In 2024, she was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Division. She worked in several areas of civil law: expungements, insurance defense, and mortgage counseling until becoming an Assistant Public Defender in 2010 where she practiced prior to her election.

Reports of screaming matches between the Judge and attorneys, and between the Judge and minor respondents cause concern about her temperament and effectiveness of her judicial performance. ISBA does not recommend Judge Tiesha L. Smith be retained to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Welcome early voters! I wish I had more to share with you, but....

Updated 10/7/26
Updated 10/12/26|

All the new Cook County judges are already chosen. I don't mean there are no competitive races for Cook County judicial vacancies; I mean there are no races at all.

Indeed, rather than make the expectant winners wait all the way until December, the Supreme Court appointed 13 of the unopposed candidates to the vacancies to which they will be elected next month. I assume you learned in high school Civics class that we have a two-party system in this country, but that's really not the case in Cook County judicial elections. In fact, there are no Republican candidates for any 2026 Cook County judicial vacancy. Unless you voted in the Democratic primary this past March, you have, and will have, no say in who gets elected to the bench here this year.

Technically, there's an election. But there is only one candidate for each vacancy.

Very Soviet.

But do not despair, early voter: You can still vote on the retention ballot. Circuit Court judges are elected to six-year terms; Appellate and Supreme Court justices are elected to 10-year terms. In order to remain in office when their terms expire, jurists must secure a "yes" vote from more than 60% of voters (60% +1, to be technical) on the question of whether Judge So-and-so shall remain in office. The retention ballot is just a straight up or down vote on whether each of these 59 Circuit Court judges (and one Appellate Court justice) should keep their jobs.

Lots of folks have all sorts of opinions on whether each of these judges should be retained. The Chicago Bar Association, for example, says that all 60 jurists on the retention ballot are worthy of retention. The separate Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening (a coalition of 13 different bar groups) agrees that most of these jurists are qualified for retention, but their "grids" contain some exceptions.

On the other hand, the influential Second City Cop blog encourages a "no" vote on every single retention judge. Just this morning, in fact, SCC said, "Regular readers know that we recommend against ever voting 'yes' on a single judge, if only to send a message to the Machine that we're getting damn sick and tired of their catering to the criminal element."

You, as a civic-minded early voter, would like to do the right thing -- but how can one decide what is right in the face of such diametrically opposed recommendations?

FWIW does not make endorsements. However, when it comes to the retention ballot, FWIW has always suggested that the default vote for judges on the retention ballot should be "yes." I usually do a separate post on this topic, and I may do so this year, too, but let me give you the Readers Digest condensed version of my position here: When you watch a baseball game, do you know the name of the home plate umpire? Certainly the announcers will mention the name at the outset -- but, if the umpire calls a good game, chances are good that you won't remember the ump's name at all.

Think of that lengthy list of retention judges as similar to a list of MLB umpires: If no one's name jumps off that list, like Ángel Hernández or Cowboy Joe West might have once jumped off a list of MLB umpires, that's probably a good thing. It strongly supports the notion that the judges were not particularly controversial, that they fulfilled their duties without calling attention to themselves. Put another way, if lots of people know a particular judge's name, like a lot of even casual baseball fans might have recognized Ángel Hernández's just a couple years back, it might mean that the judge has inserted him- or herself into a case, or series of cases, whether because of personality, or argumentative behavior, or a ruling or series of rulings that defied precedent, or which were summarily rejected on appeal.

For judges on the retention ballot, no news may well be good news.

For those early voters who want more information about retention judges before deciding how to vote, there are a number of resources.

The CBA and Alliance ratings, already mentioned, are an important resource. These bar ratings do not materialize out of thin air. Every judge who participates in either the CBA or Alliance evaluation process has to complete an extensive questionnaire for review by each of the bar groups' Judicial Evaluation Committees. In addition, the JECs will interview attorneys who have appeared before each judge, review a judge's appellate decisions, and conduct an interview of each participating judge. However, for judges on the retention ballot, all of the bar groups, with two exceptions, distill all this information down to their own 'yes' or 'no' ratings. Thus, voters must essentially take the bar groups' recommendations on faith, but, in so doing, they should feel confident that there really is a lot of time and effort that goes into these.

The two exceptions in this election cycle -- the two bar groups that are explaining their ratings of Cook County judges seeking retention -- are the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers. Voters can find explanations for the ISBA's ratings from this page of the ISBA website. The explanations for the Council's ratings can be found at this page of the VoteForJudges.org website. In both cases, you'll have to scroll some to get to the retention candidates.

The retention judges also have their own website. There, voters can see what the retention judges have to say for themselves. Be advised, however, that the site may trigger your antivirus program -- it triggers mine -- and, like me, you may not be able to use the site. On the other hand, I know for a fact that some FWIW readers have been able to access the site without difficulty. You will have to see for yourself.

Many voters find the Check Your Judges Guide, published by Injustice Watch to be helpful. Injustice Watch reports the bar ratings for each retention candidate, but supplements that with its own reporting about each judge -- and Injustice Watch has the resources to break some important stories that bar groups could not discover on their own (the stories about the residency questions concerning a couple of judges in the last retention cycle, for example).

CWB Chicago provides daily coverage of the criminal courts. It has begun a series of "brief biographies, background information, and links to relevant cases involving Cook County judges up for retention during the current cycle who handle criminal matters in CWB Chicago’s coverage area." As of October 7, two installments have appeared. For the first, click here; a second installment has now been posted.

But be forewarned: Neither Injustice Watch nor CWB Chicago are offering endorsements. So, if you rely on either of these resources, you still have to make up your own minds.

While Injustice Watch does not make endorsements, a number of groups cite its Check Your Judges Guide as a basis for their endorsements. Case in point: The Girl, I Guess Progressive Voter Guide takes information from the Injustice Watch guide in formulating its opinions.

Alliance updates retention ratings -- and there's one more blank than there was heretofore

There are a lot of names to keep track of on the November retention ballot, even for bar associations that make a point of doing just that. Errors can be made in compiling retention evaluation results, just as errors can be made, and too often are, in any human endeavor.

This morning's example comes from the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening: According to a statement from the Alliance Administrator, a "serious error was made" in reporting Judge Ursula Walowski's rating from the Cook County Bar Association. Contrary to earlier reports, Judge Walowski has not received her "final rating" from the CCBA. When you examine the grids below, you will find a blank space where the CCBA's rating for Judge Walowski was reported, and will (presumably) be reported at some future date.

Also still pending are three ratings (from the CCBA, the BMLA, and the AABA) for Judge Maritza Martinez.

Herewith, then, the updated Alliance 'grids' (click on any image to enlarge or clarify):

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association (AABAR), the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), the Black Men Lawyers’ Association (BMLA), the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), the Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois (HBA), the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC), the Puerto Rican Bar Association (PRBA), and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI), all working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

Updated Alliance retention judges ratings are nearly complete

Only three blanks remain on the Alliance 'grids,' all regarding Judge Maritza Martinez. The blanks mean only that the bar groups in question have not reported a rating yet; no assumption should be made as to whether the missing ratings, when reported, will be positve or negative.

With that preface, herewith the updated grids:

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association (AABAR), the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), the Black Men Lawyers’ Association (BMLA), the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), the Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois (HBA), the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC), the Puerto Rican Bar Association (PRBA), and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI), all working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

Chicago Bar Associations says all Cook County retention judges qualified

The Chicago Bar Association recommends retaining 60 of the 60 Cook County judges on the November ballot. Of the 60 judges on the ballot, the JEC found one Illinois Appellate Justices “Qualified,” and 59 Circuit Court judges “Qualified,” to be retained by Cook County voters.

These favorable recommendations are documented on the Vote Smart: CBA Judicial Voter's Guide page of the CBA website.

In a press release accompanying today's release of its ratings, the CBA explained that its "non-partisan evaluations are a comprehensive, peer-to-peer review process conducted as a long-standing public service by the CBA's Judicial Evaluation Committee. Candidates who submit a questionnaire and participate in the screening process are evaluated on their integrity, legal knowledge, legal ability, professional experience, judicial temperament, diligence, and punctuality."

"Judges have the power to profoundly impact people's lives, which is why we strongly encourage Cook County voters to review the CBA's Judicial Evaluation findings to make informed decisions about judicial candidates on November 3," said JEC Chair, Michael Shapiro. "Our nonpartisan judicial evaluation process provides voters with objective, independent assessments of candidates, free from political influence. An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of our democracy and plays a vital role in protecting the rights and liberties of all citizens."

Both the CBA and the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening have also issued their ratings of candidates seeking election to the bench on the November ballot. Regular FWIW readers will be aware, even though the general public may not be aware, that there are no contested Cook County judicial election contests, either countywide or in any subcircuit. FWIW will have more on that, later.

Alliance releases ratings for Cook County judges seeking retention

There are some "holes" in the grids that follow. Joyce Williams, the Administrator of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, cautioned that readers should remember "that evaluations are on-going" and that readers should not take the absence of a rating (a hole in the grids) "to mean that the final rating will be negative. The investigators and evaluators volunteer their time and efforts to ensure competent individuals will be elected to the county’s courts."

Williams also asked readers to "remember that the ratings from the Alliance member bars are 'advisory'; they are not endorsements and are not intended to be viewed as such."

With that preface, then, herewith the current Alliance grids for Cook County judges seeking retention (click to enlarge or clarify any image):

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association (AABAR), the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), the Black Men Lawyers’ Association (BMLA), the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), the Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois (HBA), the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), Chicago’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC), the Puerto Rican Bar Association (PRBA), and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI), all working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

Can anybody get on the retention judges website?

Update 9/22/26, 6:50 p.m.

Shortly after this article posted, Dr. Albert J. Klumpp wrote in to say that he had been able to access the cookcountyjudges.org site. After I got back (following a non-FWIW-related appointment), I tried accessing the retention judges' website from a phone (usually I use a laptop) and I still could not get on. But the phone said the site was blocked as malicious by my antivirus app (the same one that I use on my laptop. So I tried accessing the site from a different phone, one where the antivirus app is not installed: Lo and behold, I got on the site.

There is a rather robust cookie menu that pops up when the site loads. I don't know if that's what spooked my antivirus. But I am referring the issue to the retention judges' committee; their IT people need to figure this out. But the bottom line, for now, is that the cookcountyjudges.org site does load... depending on what, if any, antivirus app a user has.

Who knows? Maybe it's just me. But whenever I've tried to sign on the retention judges website (https://cookcountyjudges.org) I get something like this:

That's when trying to access the site via Firefox. When I tried using Chrome, I got this:

These screenshots are from a couple of weeks ago -- but I got the same results this morning when I tried to access the site. And in August, when I first tried to access the site for this election cycle. And my antivirus program went into spasm as well.

I wanted to link to the retention judges' site before last week's reception -- when I couldn't, I reached out to one of the organizers of the reception to inquire. Mary Kay Dawson responded on the committee's behalf and confirmed the website address; she subsequently forwarded the ActBlue donation webpage that I did include in the reception post (so interested persons could buy tickets in advance).

I asked Dawson to let me know when the retention judges site was to go live or, alternatively, whether the class had chosen not to update the site for this election cycle. I copied a couple of the retention judges who I understand to be among the leaders of the retention class on this same email. I asked for a response by Labor Day. I've heard nothing since.

Now -- don't get me wrong -- no one has to tell me anything. I'm the nobody that nobody sent. Always have been. But actual voters will soon begin voting. (Voters have been able to request mail-in ballots since August 5, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections; the ISBE also says that ballots will be mailed to voters who've requested them starting this Thursday, September 24.) The retention judges' website is one resource that voters have traditionally utilized in evaluating which retention judges to support. If that resource is going to be available, when will it be available? If that resource is not going to be utilized this year, why not? And, if the website is up and running, why can't I get on it? Can you?

Retention judges get awfully anxious at this point in the election cycle, and I am sorry for adding to their stress levels. Most FWIW readers will understand why: It's no sure thing to get a 60% +1 "yes" vote. Yes, most -- nearly all -- judges do. But we live in an increasingly contentious age... and, at this stage, retention judges typically want to leave nothing to chance.

I'll update this story as new information becomes available.

Reception for 2026 Cook County Retention Judges set for September 17

The Committee for Retention of Judges in Cook County will hold its reception for Cook County judges seeking retention this year on Thursday, September 17, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., at Plumbers Hall, 1340 W. Washington Blvd.

This is the one and only fundraiser for the retention class as a whole. Tickets cost $130 each, and the price includes wine, beer, soft drinks, and hors d'oeuvres. Sponsorships are avaiable (Silver - $1,000, Gold - $2,500, or Platinum - $5,000). Tickets and sponsorships can be purchased at this ActBlue webpage; tickets will be held at the door.

Event organizers ask that persons interested in attending respond by September 10.

CBA JEC looking for new recruits

The Judicial Evaluation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association is seeking volunteers. The following is a message from CBA JEC Chair Jeff Finke; CBA JEC Recruitment, Member Development & Retention Chair Michelle Carey; and the CBA's JEC Administrator, Phyllis Lubinski:

Interested in Strengthening Our Judiciary? The Chicago Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee Needs Investigators.

The Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) of the Chicago Bar Association plays a vital role in maintaining a fair, competent, and ethical judiciary. Our investigators interview judges and judicial candidates, review professional histories, and help prepare evaluations that voters and judges rely on when making informed decisions.

Right now, we’re looking for new investigators to join this important public service.

Who can serve?

• You must be a CBA member
• You must be a licensed attorney in Illinois with at least two years of legal experience

If you’re a retired attorney looking for a meaningful way to give back, serving on the JEC is an incredible opportunity to use your expertise for the public good.

If you’re an associate attorney hoping to expand your network, sharpen your skills, and get more deeply involved in the Chicago legal community, the JEC offers unmatched professional development and exposure.

This is not just volunteer work, it’s an extraordinary chance to improve our courts, support transparency, and ensure that our judicial system reflects the highest standards of professionalism.

If you’re interested in joining or learning more, reach out to the CBA’s JEC Administrator, Phyllis Lubinski, Plubinski@chicagobar.org. Your experience can make a real difference.

* * * * * * * * * * *

FWIW here, with a few comments:

The CBA's memo mentions networking opportunities for younger lawyers. That may be an understatement. JEC service may give the ambitious young lawyer very specific and meaningful networking opportunities: If you read candidate biographies here, both current and former, you will note that a great many of the successful candidates have served on one or more judicial evaluation committees before running for the bench themselves. One important caveat: You can't serve on a JEC and run for judge. That's an automatic not recommended rating right there. So... you plan. You serve an election cycle or two and then run, taking care to resign first.

What if you're not a CBA member? Well, you could join. (Sadly, I failed to negotiate a commission arrangement before publishing this....) But, also, are you a member of any other bar associations? There are 13 bar associations who collaborate in the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening; each has its own JEC that you might join. (In the coming days, you may see 'pitches' from one or more of these, soliciting volunteers just as the CBA is doing here.) There are also suburban bar groups who are not affiliated with the Alliance who provide judicial evaluations; you might consider service on one of their JECs as an alternative to (or in addition to) service on the CBA JEC.

No evaluation system is perfect. But the quality and reliability of evaluations necessarily (and understanably) improves when more attorneys participate. If you are cynical type, perhaps this will resonate with you: Don't cede the field to those who may have an axe to grind, or partisan blinders, or extreme views on specific topics. Such persons will participate (and have participated) on evaluation committees regardless of whether you particpate. The candidates they approve without you will perhaps screw up your cases some day. Is that what you want? No? Then consider JEC service as a practical practice protection plan.