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.

The crazy early primary calendar. To politicians, this is a feature, not a bug.

You are looking at a dead moth in a notebook; this was the original computer bug. Seriously. You could look it up.

If you are old enough to have taken a code writing class during your formative years, you will have had the unhappy experience of "debugging" your program: looking for the missing parenthesis or quotation mark or command that crashed your whole project. At Loyola, back in the day, though punch cards were even then long obsolete, we had to look for improperly punched cards (hanging chads long before 2000), or cards that had somehow gotten into the wrong order.

The English language expands over time. When talking of many different systems now, not just computers, we talk about "bugs." The maddening way in which modern appliances die two weeks after the expiration of their warranties, for example. But, say economists, planned obsolesence is a feature, not a bug: If you could keep your refrigerator going for 30 years, like your parents kept theirs going, look at all the factory workers who'd be idled. This is supposed to appease you as you shell out for a shiny new appliance that will inevitably fail in five years' (and two weeks) time, just like the one you're replacing.

Whether something is a feature, as opposed to a bug, will oft depend on point of view. If you sell appliances, as long as no one remembers how to make, or is willing to make, the stoves and refrigerators that could last 30 years (that is, as long as everyone makes and markets the same kind of dreck), the short life-cycle is a feature. For those who use the appliances, planned obsolescence is a very big, slimy, poisonous bug.

As it is with appliances, so too with politics. Having an eternity between candidate filing and the actual election helps politicians keep non-politicians from entering the system. A lot of your neighbors may think that they will have an opportunity to 'throw the rascals out' at the next election -- in November 2026. It's not that they're dumb; it is just what they were taught in Civics class. But nearly all the rascals will be already safely in place long before then. In Illinois, some rascals may have to face other rascals in March -- but that's still nearly eight months before the election.

For politicians, this absurd primary calendar is a feature, not a bug.

Politicians are in the business of getting elected... and re-elected. Early primaries are one way of accomplishing this. Although it may be impolite to say so, holding early primaries is absolutely a form of voter suppression, albeit one tactic that receives strong bipartisan support, even in these fractious times. Because you are a regular FWIW reader, you may not have noticed this -- because you would vote whenever an election was held -- you would head out to the polls during a blizzard or a hurricane. You are politically active and (if you do say so yourself) aware. But you are, in fact, a unicorn. Most people, however, being not-unicorns, do not vote in primaries ("I don't want to declare a party" is one of the better-sounding, but still-frivolous, excuses). The earlier the primary, the fewer people who actually vote.

That is exactly the way the politicians want it. Political professionals don't want big turnouts. Hoping for huge turnouts is 1960s League of Women Voters stuff. Political professionals want reliable, predictable turnouts -- and, as a practical matter, that means the fewer voters, the better.

Remember the Bad Old Days? Remember when the unofficial motto of the Cook County Democratic Party was 'we don't want nobody that nobody sent'? You don't? You say you are too young to remember the reign of Richard J. Daley?

Well, perhaps you are too young to remember Da Mare -- but I have sad news for you, bunky -- the Bad Old Days never went away. Some FWIW readers may think they're welcome to participate in politics, even though nobody sent them. But you, friends, are not welcome. Your checkbooks are.

Many FWIW readers hope someday to serve in the judiciary. So they need to get involved in politics. They learn who to call, who to cultivate, what tickets to buy, what things to say. They are lawyers -- and lawyers are very good problem solvers -- and, thankfully, in every election cycle, some good lawyers figure out the system well enough to get on the bench. They don't necessarily have to believe the slogans they are forced to spout in order to get elected (although many presumably do); the issues that consume politicians tend not to surface in Traffic Court. And, while (not being an insider) I can't say this with certainty, I strongly suspect that the politicians really don't mind that some judges are, at best, agnostic on their Great Issues... because judges don't make laws, they only apply the laws the politicians make to the cases that come before them. In other words (and I don't mean this to be hurtful, I'm only saying it because it is true) judges just aren't all that important to the ordinary operation of the political establishment. There's a reason why you need a lot more signatures to run for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District than to run for the bench....

But we could do so much better. If we tried.

---------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Bad as our March primary is, NBC News reports this evening that the Illinois Democratic Party is lobbying to move our 2028 primary up. Why? Well, a February primary helped Illinois favorite son Barack Obama secure the White House. Gov. Pritzker is apparently hoping for a similar boost. *Sigh*

Why you might want to consider voting the ballot from the bottom up

Yes, I know: All eyes are supposed to be on Pennsylvania now, and Michigan, and Nevada and North Carolina, too. Maybe even Iowa and Arizona. I don't know who could actually keep their eyes on all those widely-scattered places, all at the same time. Marty Feldman perhaps?

But, as a practical matter, the person ultimately elected as POTUS will have far less actual influence in most of our lives than the persons we are about to elect (or retain) as judges, or the persons we will elect to the General Assembly or as members of the Chicago School Board.

Look at it this way: You will probably never get invited to a State Dinner at the White House, but you may get a speeding ticket. One of your wayward relations may get pinched for vandalism. Someone may fall on your sidewalk and sue you; you will certainly pay property taxes. That was why the late Avy Meyers used to say it was so important to pay attention to the races at the bottom of the ballot, to the point of voting the ballot from the bottom up. I suggest this idea is equally valid today as it was in Avy's lifetime.

I've recently read and re-Tweeted a couple of long threads on X about "subsidiarity," a nice 25-cent word that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines as "a principle in social organization holding that functions which are performed effectively by subordinate or local organizations belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization." In other words, it is a principle which suggests that decision making is best done on the most local level possible. Apparently (and maybe all of you knew this already, but I didn't) "subsidiarity" has a long, important history in Catholic social teaching, too.

There weren't many Catholics in America at the time of the Revolution, but the patriots' rallying cry of "No Taxation Without Representation" sounds to me like an application of this principle of subsidiarity: Each of the Colonies had their own legislatures to raise revenues for local needs; but the Colonies objected vociferously, and, ultimately, violently, to decisions about their defense and boundaries and obligations being made in London where the Colonists had only lobbyists to advance their interests. (Ben Franklin worked in London for many years as an agent of several Colonies, for example.)

And, if decisions are best taken at the most local level possible, voters should naturally be more concerned with their local leaders that with those who would strut and fret upon the national stage. That sounds suspiciously like what Avy Meyers used to say and, of course, Avy wasn't Catholic either.

If we were more focused on selecting the best possible candidates on the local level, maybe we'd have better candidates to choose from at higher rungs on the cursus honorum as well.

I can dream, can't I?

Supreme Court Justice Joy V. Cunningham announces formation of a standing judicial selection committee

Catching up on things that happened during my hiatus...

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Joy V. Cunningham has announced the formation of a standing Judicial Selection Committee. The committee has been formed for the purpose of assessing the qualifications of those who apply for appointment to vacancies in the Supreme Court’s First District (i.e., Cook County).

The committee, which will be chaired by attorney Tim Tomasik of of Tomasik Kotin Kasserman LLC (pictured at right), consists of both non-lawyers and lawyers who reside in Cook County. The non-lawyer members of the committee are Dr. Byron Brazier of the Apostolic Church of God and former Equality Illinois Board Chair Dalila Fridi. The other attorneys on the committee are (in alphabetical order) Suyash Agrawal of Massey & Gail LLP; Edward Austin of Edward J. Austin PC; Terri Mascherin of Jenner & Block LLP; Kerry Peck of Peck Ritchey LLC; Patricia Rangel of Rangel Rangel & Associates; Larry Rogers Jr. of Power Rogers LLP; Eirene Salvi of Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C.; and Andrea Zopp of Cleveland Avenue LLC.

Pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, judicial vacancies on the Circuit and Appellate Courts are filled on an interim basis by Supreme Court appointment. According to long-standing custom and practice, the three justices elected from the First Judicial District divide the availble Cook County appointments amongst themselves. The exact mechanism or manner of distribution has never been made public, but, generally speaking, each justice could fill one-third of the available vacancies -- if they so choose. Some vacancies go unfilled in every election cycle.

Justices can fill 'their' vacancies one-by-one or in groups, as Chief Justice Theis is now doing.

Regardless of the Cook County justice making the appointment, appointed individuals have to run in the next election in order to hold their seats. All interim appointments expire on the first Monday in December of the year that the vacancy is filled by election.

Weeping Angels amend Election Code... but why?

In a rational polity, legislatures would not act on anything important without investigation (extensive committee hearings, for example) and deliberation. Important legislation would take time... to ripen, to refine, to polish... to consider consequences. Public input and opinion would be sought or, if necessary, guided and shaped by wise legislative leaders.

That's not how we do things in Illinois, of course.

Not for anything important. When our General Assembly does something important, or at least something it thinks is important, it materializes a statute out of seeming nowhere, in an eyeblink, and zips it through the process before anyone on the Outside has a chance to know it is happening.

That's how we know P.A. 103-0586 must be important. It must be really important because it sprang into existence, fully formed, out of less than nothing, in the course of 48 hours or less -- and was signed by the Governor the very next day.

In fact, P.A. 103-0586 must be really, really important because the Springfield Weeping Angels chose to rush this statute through before the end of the current legislative term.

Those of you familiar with these legislative shenanigans can skip ahead a few paragraphs, when we get to the specifics of what P.A. 103-0586 is trying to accomplish. But, for the rest of you, a brief look at the legislative history of SB2412 may prove entertaining. Or terrifying.

As introduced, SB2412 was apparently a substantive attempt to amend the Children and Family Services Act. It was filed in February 2023, and, in due course, referred to committee. It passed through committee unanimously and, by March 29, 2003, it passed its third and final reading in the State Senate 57-0. Not controversial. Also, not anything that would be on the radar of anyone tasked with monitoring changes to Illinois election law.

SB2414 arrived in the House without apparent incident. But on May 16, 2023, Assistant Majority Leader Robert "Bob" Rita introduced an "amendment" to SB2412. Here is that amendment:

You've heard of "shell bills" perhaps. This is what one looks like. This is what the Weeping Angels seem to need in order to weave their magic.

On account of this brilliant piece of legislative drafting (deleting "and" and then inserting "and" back in -- it sort of makes my heart swell with patriotic pride at the craftsmanship of of it all) the newly 'amended' bill had to go back to committee... where it passed on what looks like a party line vote. Then it was set up for a Second Reading in the House. With legislation, though, it's the third time that's the charm, and the legislative history reveals that SB2412 was set up for its third reading/final action through May 31, 2023.

And then nothing happened.

Except... on May 31, 2023 it was "re-referred" to the Rules Committee. Ready for whenever it might be needed.

Whenever came 11 months and one day later: On May 1, 2024 SB2412 got a new sponsor, Assistant Majority Leader Jay Hoffman, from downstate Belleville, and all new language (via House Floor Amendment No. 2, an amendment filed by the aformentioned Rep. Hoffman). In fact, it got the language it has now. And on May 1, it went back to committee, and back out of committee. Still on May 1, the amendment was adopted on the floor of the House and the newly amended SB2412 passed on its third and final reading, 67-4. Forty abstentions were recorded; apparently the Republican members of the House walked out, rather than vote against the bill.

SB2414 went back to the Senate at this point, where the two "amendments" to the innocuous, not-election-related proposal that it had been when it was last in the State Senate were adopted, in sequence. Senate Republicans apparently boycotted these votes (recorded as 35-3-18). All of this on May 2.

And, as already noted, the Governor signed SB2412, now P.A. 103-0586, on May 3, effective immediately.

In Springfield, don't blink!

So... what does P.A. 103-0586 purport to do?

Well, this is where it gets interesting: Some of it appears to be fairly standard election year theatrics. Some of it appears to be a helpful reform to our very congested election calendar. And the middle part of it -- the one that apparently triggered the Republican boycott -- prevents political parties from putting candidates on the ballot in the general election where no candidate of that party came forward in the primary.

The election year theatrics are found in Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the new law. These articles certify three advisory referendum questions for the statewide November ballot:

1. Should any candidate appearing on the Illinois ballot for federal, State, or local office be subject to civil penalties if the candidate interferes or attempts to interfere with an election worker's official duties?


2. Should the Illinois Constitution be amended to create an additional 3% tax on income greater than $1,000,000 for the purpose of dedicating funds raised to property tax relief?


3. Should all medically appropriate assisted reproductive treatments, including, but not limited to, in vitro fertilization, be covered by any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides coverage for pregnancy benefits, without limitation on the number of treatments?

Nothing binding here... just a means of potentially ginning up turnout from among constituencies that the Democratic majority would like to see at the polls on Election Day. (Just a side note here for our elected leaders: Do you see how easy it would be to put a referendum on the ballot calling for fair election maps drawn by a nonpartisan commission?)

The potentially helpful part of the statute is in the amendments to §§7-11 and 7-12 of the Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/7-11 and 7-12, moving up petition filing dates by 28 days. This would allow more time for election boards to consider challenges to nominating petitions and potentially allow for their disposition prior to the start of early voting. Perhaps, in the next election cycle, we can avoid any necessity to 'halt early voting' whilst appeals proceed on petition challenges.

I believe this will move the entire election calendar up by those same 28 days. Petition signing may begin 28 days sooner, perhaps. But that is my hunch, not yet backed up with research or authoritative opinion. Actual election lawyers are looking into this carefully, I am sure. Persons interested in running for office in 2026 should be paying careful attention to this as well... and, of course, should be consulting an election lawyer sooner rather than later. (At least 28 days sooner, I would say.)

The controversial part of P.A. 103-0586 appears to be the amendments to §7-61 and §8-17 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-61 and 10 ILCS 5/8-17) and related statutes. Clearly, judging by the partisan outrage, the Legislature did this for somebody specific... or to someone specific. Maybe both. Those of us on the Outside are unlikely to find out the particulars.

Before P.A. 103-0586, where no candidate ran in the primary, or was nominated as a write-in, the leaders of that party could thereafter appoint someone to 'fill in the blank' on the ballot. If you clicked on the news link a few paragraphs above, you may have noticed that this practice was referred to as 'slating.' Apparently.

Obviously, 'slating' Downstate and slating in County Cook are different things.

There were hoops that had to be jumped through by the person so appointed, and apparently these have grown more complicated over time. Entropy increases is a law of physics. When it comes to legislation, it is complexity that increases.

Probably most FWIW readers have never even heard of this practice. Since I've been on this beat, this was done exactly once in a Cook County judicial race, in 2014, in the 4th Subcircuit. I wrote about it then.

But the new act purports to preclude political parties from nominating candidates for election without going through a primary.

The operative language appears to be in §8-17 of the Election Code which, on its face, seems to be about candidates who die on or before the primary. It previously provided, and continues to provide, a procedure for parties to replace a candidate who dies before or after the primary, or declines his or her nomination, or withdraws from the general election.

But §8-17 used to allow this procedure to be used "should the nomination for any other reason become vacant." That language is now stricken by P.A. 103-0586. Further, the second sentence in that second paragraph now reads, "However, if there was no candidate for the nomination of the party in the primary, no candidate of that party for that office may be listed on the ballot at the general election."

So... assuming the law holds up against an expected legal challenge (on the grounds that the rules of the election are being changed in the middle of the election cycle, and not just for the future)... all currently unopposed candidates will remain unopposed (pending, if you really want to be technical, the vanishly small possibility that some independent candidate might somehow qualify for the November ballot).

Again, however, the provisions now amended by P.A. 103-0586 have only been used once in Cook County judicial races in many years. There was a rumor that the Republicans were going to field a candidate in, oddly enough, the 4th Subcircuit, but, from what I heard, the prospective candidate in question decided against running this time... even before the Weeping Angels struck. It seems highly unlikely that all this legislative effort was made to prevent a contest in the 4th Subcircuit.

But you can bet your mortgage this was done for a reason. Probably to help a specific person, presumably an incumbent, or to prevent a specific person from slipping onto the November ballot. But who?

396 (out of 400) associate judges retained statewide

The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts announced yesterday that 396 of the 400 Illinois associate judges who filed requests for reappointment to a new four-year term have been retained. That's a link to the press release in the preceding sentence.

Only one Cook County associate judge, Judge Gregory P. Vazquez, did not receive reappointment. Judge Vazquez was recently the subject of an article by Maya Dukmasova on Injustice Watch, "Videos of Cook County judge with massage parlor owner raise ethics questions." He had also been the subject of other articles on that site.

Pursuant to recently amended Illinois Supreme Court Rule 39, all Illinois associate judges wishing to remain in office must apply for new terms every four years. The terms of all Illinois associate judges end on June 30 of every fourth year subsequent to 1975. Pursuant to Rule 39(c), associate judges must receive a favorable vote from at least three-fifths of the judges of their circuit in order to be retained.

The high retention numbers this year are consistent with recent retention elections.

In 2019, for example, 386 out of 391 associate judges were retained statewide. Of the five who were not retained, only one was from Cook County. In 2015, 376 (out of a total of 384) associate judges were retained. All Cook County associate judges were retained in 2015.

What follows is a list of all Cook County associate judges whose retention has been certified by the AOIC:

1. Carmen K. Aguilar
2. Gregory Emmett Ahern, Jr.
3. Maryam Ahmad
4. Mohammad A. Ahmad
5. Amee Alonso
6. Marina E. Ammendola
7. Frank John Andreou
8. Sophia Atcherson
9. David B. Atkins
10. Hilda Bahena
11. Callie Lynn Baird
12. Patrice Ball-Reed
13. Jerome C. Barrido
14. Fredrick H. Bates
15. Laura Bertucci Smith
16. Sunil Shashikant Bhave
17. Shauna L. Boliker
18. Darron Edward Bowden
19. Karen J. Bowes
20. William Stewart Boyd
21. Lloyd James Brooks
22. Elizabeth M. Budzinski
23. Joel D. Buikema
24. Clarence L. Burch
25. Anthony John Calabrese
26. George L. Canellis, Jr.
27. Matthew J. Carmody
28. James R. Carroll
29. Nicole Castillo
30. Joseph Michael Cataldo
31. Peggy Chiampas
32. Vincenzo Chimera
33. Jeffery G. Chrones
34. Gerald V. Cleary
35. Jean M. Cocozza
36. Jennifer F. Coleman
37. Thomas J. Condon
38. Torrie L. Corbin
39. Barbara Lynette Dawkins
40. James Thomas Derico, Jr.
41. Israel A. Desierto
42. Geraldine A. D’Souza
43. Melissa A. Durkin
44. Sabra Lynne Ebersole
45. Lauren Gottainer Edidin
46. Carl Lauras Evans, Jr.
47. William Nicholas Fahy
48. John A. Fairman
49. Brian K. Flaherty
50. Lawrence Edward Flood
51. Barbara Nubia Flores
52. Athena James Frentzas
53. Michele A. Gemskie
54. Mohammed M. Ghouse
55. Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg
56. Jean M. Golden
57. Renee G. Goldfarb
58. Sanju Oommen Green
59. Joel L. Greenblatt
60. Maxwell Griffin, Jr.
61. James E. Hanlon, Jr.
62. David E. Haracz
63. Patrick J. Heneghan
64. Thomas J. Hennelly
65. Jasmine Villaflor Hernandez
66. Stanley L. Hill
67. Michael James Hogan, Jr.
68. Michael J. Hood
69. Bridget Jane Hughes
70. Matthew William Jannusch
71. Lakshmi E. Jha
72. Martha-Victoria Jimenez
73. Moira S. Johnson
74. Robert Wade Johnson
75. Timothy Joseph Joyce
76. Michael Joseph Kane
77. Sharon Arnold Kanter
78. Demetrios G. Kottaras
79. Maria Kuriakos Ciesil
80. Kevin T. Lee
81. James B. Linn
82. Myron F. Mackoff
83. Alfredo Maldonado
84. Edward J. Maloney
85. Ellen Beth Mandeltort
86. Marc W. Martin
87. Patricia Mendoza
88. Stephanie K. Miller
89. Mary R. Minella
90. Lisette Catherine Mojica
91. Martin Paul Moltz
92. Thomas A. Morrissey
93. Scott Norris
94. James Bryan Novy
95. James Michael Obbish
96. Margaret M. Ogarek
97. Michael F. Otto
98. Donald D. Panarese, Jr.
99. Joseph D. Panarese
100. Luciano Panici
101. Michael N. Pattarozzi
102. Linda J. Pauel
103. Jennifer J. Payne
104. Angela Munari Petrone
105. Diane M. Pezanoski
106. Michele M. Pitman
107. Mary Anna Planey
108. Brian R. Porter
109. Mariano R. Reyna
110. Jeanne Marie Reynolds
111. Edward N. Robles
112. Lori Rosen
113. Geri Pinzur Rosenberg
114. Steven Jay Rosenblum
115. Stanley Sacks
116. Pamela Saindon
117. Eric Michael Sauceda
118. Naomi H. Schuster
119. Joseph M. Sconza
120. Robert E. Senechalle, Jr.
121. Rouhy J. Shalabi
122. Terrence V. Sharkey
123. John A. Simon
124. Theresa Marie Smith Conyers
125. Ankur Srivastava
126. Patrick T. Stanton
127. Domenica A. Stephenson
128. Pamela J. Stratigakis
129. Marita C. Sullivan
130. Anthony C. Swanagan
131. Sybil C. Thomas
132. Daniel O. Tiernan
133. Natosha C. Toller
134. Daniel A. Trevino
135. Mary S. Trew
136. John J. Tully, Jr.
137. Andreana Ann Turano
138. Scott W. Tzinberg
139. Peter J. Vilkelis
140. Steven M. Wagner
141. Allen Price Walker
142. Neera Walsh
143. Jeffrey L. Warnick
144. John W. Wilson
145. James A. Wright
146. William Yu

Upcoming Democratic fundraisers which may of interest to Cook County judicial hopefuls

Haven't done one of these for awhile, but the latest batch arrived with significant lead time....

FWIW readers with disposable income and judicial ambitions may be interested in one or more of the following House Democratic fundraisers.

Not, of course, because attendance will give you some sort of clear, inside track to Democratic Party political support for your eventual judicial campaign -- no matter how much disposable income you may have, you almost certainly don't have enough for that -- but your appearance at various functions may, over time, give you a sort of familiarity that might serve you well when slating rolls around. If you make a favorable impression.

Just knowing about these events, and showing up, may confer some benefit. Some little benefit.

FWIW readers are all too familiar with the old politicans' mantra, we don't want nobody nobody sent. That made sense in the long-ago days of Daley I, and for decades prior thereto, when precinct captains with patronage jobs could turn out sufficient votes to elect almost anyone that the Party chose for greater things. Why mess up the system with strangers?

But Daley I has been gone since 1976. There are 80 warlords vying for influence in a continual Game of Thrones, with no certainty of a single winner ever emerging. Within that Group of 80, there is an increasingly influential coalition of progressive activists, not all of whom shy away from the label "Socialist." But, if this is the largest at the moment, it is not the only coalition in the Group of 80. There are ethnic coalitions, too, and others defined by sexual orientation, and still a stunted, scattered smattering of old-school liberals. Well, they think they are liberals, anyway, even if some of their comrades in the Group of 80 disagree. Some in the Group of 80 belong to multiple coalitions, or at least claim to, depending on who is in the room at the moment. But there is no One Absolute Boss. That's alright. You -- the judicial wannabe -- don't need a Boss. You need your own, temporary coalition of local committeepersons, particularly in this dawning era of smaller subcircuits.

While reformers and political scientists may fret that that our one-party monopoly is a rotten system, and doomed and due to fall, it hasn't yet. For now, for the would-be Cook County judge, winning the Democratic Primary is the only thing that matters. So it may help to meet some Democrats on their turf. Or not. No warranties of any kind are intended, nor should they be inferred by you, in the dissemination of this list.

So, with these caveats firmly in mind, herewith some local Democratic Party fundraisers:

Equality & Pride 365
Thursday, June 1 | VIP Reception: 5:00-5:30 p.m. |
General Reception: 5:30-8:30 p.m.
I.O. Godfrey Rooftop | 127 W. Huron St, Chicago, IL 60654
Guest: $250 | Ambassador: $365
Sponsor Levels: $1,000 Bronze | $3,000 Silver | $6,000 Gold | $12,000 Platinum | $20,000 Diamond
Tickets here
For questions or to RSVP: communications@hdemsIL.com

Welcome to Summertime Sip and Paint Fundraiser with Rep. Lilly
Thursday, May 25 | 6:00-8:30 p.m.
May Del Sol | 144 S. Oak Park Ave, Oak Park, IL 60302
Individual Ticket: $100
Sponsor Levels: $3,500 | $2,500 | $1,500 | $500
Valet: $5
For questions or to RSVP: communications@hdemsIL.com

Fundraiser for Rep. Morgan
Featuring Special Guest: U.S. Senator Chris Murphy Sunday, June 11 | 12:30-2:00 p.m.
Located at a privide residence in downtown Chicago | Address provided upon RSVP
Sponsor Levels: $2,500 Sponsor | $1,000 Host | $500 Supporter | $250 Friend
Tickets here
For more information or to RSVP, please email Erin Schuler at erin@newchicagollc.com

Reception Honoring Rep. Avelar, Rep. LaPointe, Sen. Villa, and Rep. West
Wednesday, June 14 | 5:30-7:30 p.m.
The Dawson | 730 W. Grand Ave, Chicago, IL
Individual Guest: $250
Sponsor Levels: $500 | $1,500 | $3,000 | $5,000
Committee Names and Addresses:

• Community for Dee: PO Box 1571, Bolingbrook, IL 60440
• Friends of LaPointe: PO Box 30161, Chicago, IL 60630
• Citizens for Karina Villa: PO Box 457, West Chicago, IL 60186
• Maurice West for Illinois: PO Box 4303, Rockford, IL 61110

For questions or to RSVP, please contact Kelly Marie Murphy at kellymarie@kmmconsulting.com

And, finally, here's one that's supposed to be free... but organizers are looking for volunteers:

2nd Annual Juneteenth and Father’s Day Festival
Join 7th District State Representative and Speaker of the House Emanuel “Chris” Welch as well as local and state leaders.
Monday, June 19 | 2:00-6:00 p.m.
Memorial Park District | 639 N. Wolf Rd, Hillside, IL 60162 (Behind Adventure Bay Pool)
Performances by Nyla XO, the Jesse White Tumblers, Ayodele Dance and Drum, and Proviso West High Drumline
Volunteer sign-up form here
Questions: communications@hdemsIL.com

CBA webinar May 25 offers keys to success when running for office

Prospective Judicial Candidates: Even if you are already signed up for tomorrow's "Road to the Robe" presentation, sponsored by the Cook County Democratic Party (and perhaps especially if you are), you should also consider attending the Chicago Bar Association's upcoming webinar, "Running for Office: Keys to Success."

The program, on Thursday May 25, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m., is geared, according to its sponsors, towards both those individuals thinking of seeking elective office and those attorneys who may be called upon to represent those candidates.

Potential judicial candidates are not the only ones who might benefit from this program. Potential candidates for suburban school boards or library districts or (Heaven help us) possible candidates for alderperson, committeeperson, or the General Assembly may all benefit.

Here is a list of the scheduled topics and speakers:

• Getting on the Ballot
  Michael C. Dorf, The Law Offices of Michael C. Dorf, LLC


• Navigating the Petition Objection Process
  Thomas A. Jaconetty, Law Office of Thomas A. Jaconetty


• Ethical and Financial Compliance Considerations
  Ross Secler, Odelson, Sterk, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd.


• Election Day and Voting Rights Considerations
  Adam Lasker, General Counsel, Chicago Board of Elections

Barbara B. Goodman, of the Law Office of Barbara B. Goodman, will serve as moderator. Goodman is Chair of the CBA Election Law Committee.

Attendees will receive 2.0 hours of MCLE credit (including .5 hours of PR-MCLE credit).

The cost to attend is $125 (CBA members get in for $65 -- members of the CBA CLE-Advantage Plan can register for free). Registration can be accomplished by clicking this link.

New Subcircuit Map released by Cook County Clerk

The Cook County Clerk's Office has released this map of the new 20 judicial subcircuits created by Section 5 of the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022, 705 ILCS 24/5.

FWIW has been informed that individual subcircuit maps should be available by early June. When these are released, FWIW will have them.

Some links about running for judge generally that may be of interest to new visitors

This morning's article about FWIW reaching the four million page view milestone has generated a goodly number of clicks and a whole bunch of new Twitter followers (which, admittedly, was something I hoped might happen when I put it up).

The following links may be helpful and/or entertaining for at least some of any new visitors who happen by.

The list begins with a 2017 reminiscence about my ill-fated 1994 10th Subcircuit campaign (the picture above shows one of my billboards from that debacle -- and, yes, the reason you can't see the punch number on that billboard was because, in 1994, I did not know enough to include it). The other four links on this list are to posts I did in 2021, attempting to answer the should-I-just-throw-my-hat-in-the-ring question, including a retelling of my really dumb countywide bid in 1996, but also providing a little Chicago history along with some of the lessons I eventually learned in the 15 years (so far) that I have covered Cook County judicial elections on this site.

If you are not a new visitor, do not be alarmed: regular programming will resume here shortly.

Herewith, then, the list:

• For those who came in late: Why I cover judicial stuff on my blog;
• Or you could just run? That is terrible advice....;
• Or you could just run? Some suggestions if you're thinking about it -- part 1;
• Or you could just run? More suggestions... for what they're worth; and
• Or you could just run? The pros and cons, especially the cons, of slating.

If you don't want to deal with all this clicking back and forth, you can always wait for the book which I keep trying to write. Actually, click now and remember to buy the book later....

Cook County Democratic Party to offer "Road to the Robe" presentation on May 17

The Cook County Democratic Party will offer potential judicial candidates a program on "the ins and outs about running for judge," with presentations from "experts in the field," on Wednesday, May 17, from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m., at the Mid-America Carpenters Chicago Training Facility, 2141 S. Union Ave. Free parking will be provided for this in-person "Road to the Robe" event.

Jacob Kaplan, the Executive Director of the Cook County Democratic Party, told FWIW that the lineup of speakers has not yet been finalized, though he does not expect elected officials to be among the main speakers. In other words, the event will not provide any meaningful opportunity to buttonhole Cook County Board President (and Party Chair) Toni Preckwinkle or State Senate President Don Harmon, the Chair of the Party's Circuit Court Committee. Would anyone seriously expect otherwise? And how could anyone hope to elbow all the other judicial hopefuls aside whilst doing so?

But chances are pretty good that someone like election lawyer Thomas M. Jaconnetty will be pressed into service. He has spoken at events like this previously. Jaconetty has traditionally represented slated candidates, and has a wealth of experience. Someone will talk about fundraising and record-keeping and reporting. Kaplan will talk about how the Party's slating process works. If I receive any more definite information about speakers, I will update.

The event is free, but registration is required. To register, visit https://www.cookcountydems.com/robe/.

Guest Post: Dr. Klumpp takes a look at 2022 judicial campaign spending

FWIW is pleased to present this Guest Post by Albert J. Klumpp, a generous and frequent contributor to FWIW over the years, a research analyst with a public policy PhD, and the author of several scholarly works analyzing judicial elections.

by Albert J. Klumpp

Our final piece of business in examining Cook County’s 2022 judicial election cycle is a look at the campaign spending numbers. As in, how much was spent, who spent it, and how it all compares to previous cycles.

The 75 candidates who sought one of the county’s 29 judicial vacancies spent a total of $8,028,433 on their campaigns. Except for one November contest involving two candidates in the 13th Subcircuit, all of that total was spent for the June primary.

For the two Appellate Court vacancies, five of the six candidates reported totals of between $123,281 and $236,262. Raymond Mitchell was the highest spender; Devlin Schoop was the lowest (filed ISBE documents but reported $0 in spending).

For the 26 candidates for countywide Circuit Court vacancies, the median spending amount was $72,744. Rena Marie Van Tine was the biggest single spender at $317,879; this was the fifth-highest total for a countywide candidate since 1980, but was well short of the top four, each of whose inflation-adjusted totals exceeded $400,000 (Jack Hagerty 2018, Martin Leavitt 2000, Kerrie Maloney Leytin 2020, Chris Stacey 2020). The top ten countywide spending totals for 2022:

As for the subcircuits, the median spending amount for the 43 candidates who sought subcircuit vacancies was $50,840, slightly less than that of the countywide candidates. But as has become typical, certain individual contests produced some remarkable numbers.

The single most-watched subcircuit contest took place in the 4th Subcircuit and involved ShawnTe Raines-Welch, the wife of the current Illinois House Speaker. Not surprisingly, Ms. Raines-Welch was able to mount a substantial campaign, and ended up spending $697,356 during the primary cycle (and, as the chart below indicates, just a bit more besides for the uncontested general election). This easily outdistanced the previous record high for a subcircuit primary campaign (James Shapiro in 2018, inflation-adjusted to $574,619).

And yet... Ms. Raines-Welch is not the new record-holder. That distinction belongs to Stephen Swedlow, who faced one opponent in an 8th Subcircuit contest and spent a whopping $719,637. Roughly two-thirds of that amount was reported as direct mail costs, with smaller amounts spent on both robocalls, digital advertising, and consulting.

The top ten subcircuit spending totals:

As for the larger significance of these numbers: A few years ago, in an article for the CBA Record*, I presented an analysis of spending numbers covering candidates from 1980 through 2018. I showed how spending had trended upwards significantly in the decades of the 2000s and 2010s compared to the 1980s and 1990s. The decade of the 2020s has only two completed election cycles so far, so any sort of larger comparison to previous complete decades is premature. But as the following graph shows, there is no reason to think that the gradual increase in spending is leveling off.

Median Spending By Decade, Cook County Judicial Candidates (excluding Supreme Court candidates):

Finally, the usual fine print. The amounts reported here come from a review of every quarterly campaign finance report filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections by every candidate. The totals include items reported as in-kind contributions, and exclude items that are not directly relevant to the vote-getting objective of the campaign (for instance, loan repayments that are technically required to be reported as expenditures). All pre-2022 totals were adjusted for inflation basic standard Consumer Price Index data provided on Federal Reserve Bank websites.

---------------------------------------------------------
*  "Campaign Spending in Cook County Judicial Elections," CBA Record, Vol. 33, No. 6, p. 30 (Nov/Dec 2019).

Dr. Wilson's campaign spending provides a cautionary tale for the would-be judicial candidate

I can only imagine what admixture of altruism and ambition courses through the veins of Dr. Willie Wilson (that's a screen shot of a recent Wilson Tweet above). Even if I had twice his money, I doubt that I'd be half so eager to go back out and start dishing out dough to an ungrateful electorate had it rejected me as thoroughly as it rejected Dr. Wilson in last week's Chicago mayoral primary.

In that sense, certainly, Dr. Wilson is a better man than I could ever be. And God bless him for it.

But whatever your opinion of Dr. Wilson, or his policies, or his giveaways, his several unsuccessful campaigns provide a cautionary tale for the would-be judicial candidate.

Wilson provides an extreme example of the old adage: No matter how much money you, the candidate, may have to spend, there's always someone around to spend all of it... and more besides. And the equally awaful corollary of that old adage: Spending money, even spending money by the bushel, does not guarantee victory.

Political consulting is one of the last bastions of caveat emptor. There's no regulation and, sometimes, seemingly, no shame. That is not to say there is no value in the consultant's work. There can be. The good consultant knows everyone and gets along with most. The good consultant can take a decent lawyer with limited political instincts and make him or her a judge.

And if a consultant occasionally fleeces a well-heeled candidate just to pay the bills, you, the prospective candidate, must understand that the candidate also needs his or her share of winners. No consultant is going to secure your business by telling you all the losing campaigns he or she has run, or helped run. If the consultant has a web site, it will boast about all the winners he or she has helped; the consultant's sales pitch will invite you to imagine yourself in this select company.

That's where the consultant wants you to be. The consultant, no less than the Democratic Pary of Cook County, is shopping for winners. You may be a lump of unfinished clay, but the consultant soliciting your business thinks he or she can mold you into something electable. You are not just buying a consultant's service, the consultant is trying to buy you, too.

You will notice, as you investigate those consultants that maintain a web presence (and many do not), that consultants often indicate that they will only work with those who share their worldview. They are quite selective (the ones who don't advertise may be even more so). I'm not saying you have to be an ideological soulmate in order to be taken on by a consultant, but if he or she uses all the progressive buzzwords of the moment and you are a Trumper, chances are pretty good that you will not connect. Even if you have a lot of money to spend. Remember, the consultant knows everyone and gets along with most -- and, for a consultant in Cook County, these relationships would surely be strained by taking on a Trumper.

(And, yes, there are conservative consultants, too -- but how could one help you in Cook County?)

Also, remember always, there is another side to this: I've heard from aggrieved consultants who lament that they lost this campaign or that one because they were obliged to follow their candidate's instructions. The candidate rejected the consultant's expert advice and insisted on dictating a strategy that worked for the candidate's mentor, who got elected to the bench 30 years ago.

There may be more than excuse-making in these sorts of complaints.

I don't want to overgeneralize: It is probably unfair to say that all lawyers are control freaks. At least some, surely, are merely micromanagers.

However, dear Prospective Candidate, when you give someone the keys to the car, you really do have to let them take the wheel.

Within reason, anyway.

Many of the consultants you may encounter will have cut their teeth on aldermanic or state legislative campaigns. These are, and should be, more rough-and-tumble affairs than judicial campaigns. Tactics that may seem acceptable, or at least all too common, in other races should be viewed with skepticism (and, in my opinion, revulsion) in judicial campaigns.

Remember, Prospective Candidate, it is your reputation that is at stake in your campaign, more so than the consultant's. The consultant will find other sheep to shear. Or, if things get really tough, he or she will seek a sinecure in some public agency. Meantime, listen to what the consultant recommends. Even though your great friend Judge Smith did not have to do what the consultant suggests, the consultant knows more about how to get elected today. That's the reason to pay the consultant in the first place.

Just remember, even if you do not win a robe in this campaign, you will still have your reputation. Get it back from the consultant at the end of the campaign, win or lose, as intact as it was when you started the campaign. Don't let the consultant risk your hard-earned reputation by doing something that makes your moral compass start spinning wildly.

Running for judicial office is often a process -- more than one campaign may be necessary (and, indeed, should ordinarily be expected).

In political campaigns as in so many other things, your results do not come simply from what you spend, but from how you spend it. From what you buy.

Caveat emptor.

---------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of judicial candidates spending money, FWIW is pleased to announce that Dr. Albert J. Klumpp has completed his look into 2022 campaign spending numbers. His guest post on this topic will appear later today. Please stand by.

Weeping Angels strike Springfield yet again: Countywide vacancies will continue in Cook County but the number of associate judgeships is going down

A year ago, here on FWIW, I was wondering about P.A. 102-0693's apparent elimination of 55 countywide judicial slots in Cook County -- and, with it, the elimination of 55 opportunities for the Cook County Democratic Party to cash substantial checks from eager lawyers in exchange for the privilege of the Party's endorsement for countywide judicial vacancies.

At the time I was concerned about the nine persons already slated for countywide vacancies in the June 2022 primary -- I sometimes get hung up on language actually used in statutes (which I thought was something lawyers were supposed to do) -- but the election went off without a hitch and, in the event, 10 countywide vacancies were filled.

But that did not resolve the question of how future countywide vacancies might be allocated among the newly created subcircuits.

Countywide vacancies did occur thereafter in the normal course, and some of these were filled by temporary appointments, as the Supreme Court sometimes does when it has a mind to.

After one such appointment, last summer, I reached out to the Supreme Court's press officer to find out which new subcircuit would be given the privilege of filling the latest vacancy. I printed the response: "The vacancy created... will be filled by election in 2024 so if it needs to be allotted to a subcircuit, that allotment will occur closer to the 2024 election."

If?

I questioned the usage of the conditional word at the time -- if the vacancy needs to be allocated? Wasn't that the plain language of the statute?

Sure, I thought it was a little odd that the Legislature -- wholly controlled as it was (and is) by the Democratic Party -- would deprive the Cook County Democratic Party of the significant revenue streams, actual and incidental, created by countywide judicial vacancies. But I thought, well gosh, the Senate President is not just a township Committeeperson, when it comes to the selection of judicial candidates in our fair county, he is in fact one of the most influential. So I figured, however inconvenient this might be for the Cook County Democratic Party for the next several election cycles, this was all a done deal.

But the Supreme Court (or at least its press officer) understood the political untenability of the vacancy allocaton method specified by P.A. 102-0693 much better than I did.

And, sure enough, late last week, the Weeping Angels struck Springfield again.

The vehicle chosen for utter transformation on this occasion was HB0045, a 307-page behemoth that would have conformed language in a host of statutes to current fashion (alderman to alderperson, and so forth). (They're not always one-paragraph wonders.) HB0045 sailed through the House after it was introduced in January 2021, passing 102-6 in April of that year. It moved to the Senate and seemed to be sailing through there as well... until it was parked awaiting its third and final reading.

And there it remained until January 5 of this year, when it was revived, only to be eviscerated, with all its previous 307 pages torn out and 70 new ones substituted in their stead. On that same day, it sailed through committee and back onto the Senate floor for what was already (technically at least, which is all that apparently matters) its third reading... where it passed... on a party line vote... and -- still on the same day, mind you -- went back to the House which sent it to and through committee and back onto the floor. By this time, a new day had dawned. And on this new day, January 6, the "amendment" to its bill was accepted by the House, also on a party-line vote.

It will presumably be signed into law promptly, if indeed this has not already occurred.

Don't blink!

Obviously, I did not find out about any of this on my own. FWIW has a great many sharp readers, some of whom actually know what's going on in the political world, and one of them -- named Anonymous, like most of my readers -- sent me a link to the Senate "Amendmendment."

So what happened?

The amendment addresses how the validity of mail-in ballots is determined (worthy of its own post, obviously) and makes changes across the State to the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022.

To which FWIW readers say -- get to how it changes things in Cook County already.

OK. First, there will be countywide vacancies to be filled in Cook County in 2024 and beyond. The number of countywide judgeships remains at 94.

Now, the 55 new resident judgeships (in the five new Cook County subcircuits) will be filled from vacancies occurring among the ranks of the associate judges.

Section 2f(d-5) of the Circuit Courts Act, 705 ILCS 35/2f(d-5) has been totally rewritten. Last year's §2f(d-5) provided:

All vacancies in circuit judgeships in the Circuit of Cook County, which are not allotted to Judicial Subcircuits 1 through 15 pursuant to subsection (c) of this Section, existing on or occurring on or after June 1, 2022 shall be allotted in numerical order to Judicial Subcircuits 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 until there are 11 resident judges to be elected from each of those subcircuits (for a total of 55).

(It was the "existing on" language that had me worried about the 2022 countywide candidates: Vacancies exist until they are filled by election; existing vacancies can be temporarily filled by the Supreme Court, but the vacancies still exist. But we got past that... somehow... so we move on.)

As now rewritten, §2-f(d-5) clarifies that a vacancy occurring in one of the existing subcircuits goes automatically to the same numbered subcircuit under the new map, even if that subcircuit is now on the other side of the county. It also purports to address the allocation of the few remaining pre-subcircuit resident judgeships. But the meat of the new provision is this:

Any vacancies in formerly associate judgeships converted to resident circuit judgeships in the Circuit of Cook County occurring on or after June 1, 2023 shall be allotted in numerical order to Judicial Subcircuits 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 until there are 11 resident judges to be elected from each of those subcircuits (for a total of 55). The maximum number of formerly associate judgeships converted to resident circuit judgeships which may be allotted to Judicial Subcircuits 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 in an election cycle shall be 2 judgeships per subcircuit.

This is a reference to an amendment to §2(a)(4) of the Judicial Vacancies Act, 705 ILCS 40/2(a)(4), which increases the number of resident (for our purposes, subcircuit) judges in Cook County from 165 to 220 and adds a new §2(a)(4)(vi), which in turn explains that the new 55 resident judges will be authorized one by one, "one each for each reduction upon vacancy in the office of associate judge in the Circuit of Cook County as those vacancies occur on and after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 102nd General Assembly and as those vacancies are determined under subsection (b-5) of Section 2 of the Associate Judges Act until the total resident judgeships authorized under this item (vi) is 55."

The reference here is to new §2(b-5) of the Associate Judges Act, 705 ILCS 45/2(b-5). We're coming to this in due course.

But first, we need to look at §2(a) of the Associate Judges Act, which sets the 'maximum' number of associate judges in Cook County as a division problem: Take the population of Cook County (still the only circuit with a population of more than 3,000,000) and divide that figure by 29,000. So the statutory maximum number of associate judges changes according to population fluctuations in Cook County. It went down in 2010. It went up by two as a result of the 2020 census.

Of course, nothing is simple when it comes to calculating the number of judges in Cook County. Section 2(a) of the Associate Judges effectively adds six associates to the result of the division problem referred to in the preceding paragraph with this sentence: "In addition, in circuits of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants, there shall be one additional associate judge authorized for each municipal district of the circuit court."

That maximum number was reduced when the first 15 subcircuits were created. Section 2(b) of the Associate Judges Act reduced the maximum by 60.

(Or thereabouts at least. I did some ciphering today preparing this article. After the 2010 Census, which put the population of Cook County at 5,194,675, the maximum number of Cook County associate judges per §2(a) was 186 (5.194.675 divided by 29,000 comes out to just over 179, which rounds up under the "or part thereof" language in §2(a) to 180 plus one for each of our six municipal districts). Reduce that number by 60 as per §2(b) and we have 136. However, in 2019, when all the associate judges were up for retention, there were 137 relected by their peers, and one rejected, making a total of 138. 'Close enough for government work,' you may say, and I can't disagree, really, but it offends my sense of neatness. Maybe someone can explain the seeming discrepancy.)

Anyway (to resume the narrative thread), new §2(b-5) reduces, or will reduce, the maximum number of associate judges in Cook County by another 55. This is the operative language:

Each associate judgeship vacancy that occurs on or after June 1, 2023 shall be converted to a resident circuit judgeship and allotted to a subcircuit pursuant to subsection (d-5) of Section 2f of the Circuit Courts Act, and that maximum number shall be reduced by one until the total number of associate judges authorized under subsection (a) is reduced by 55. The maximum number of formerly associate judgeships converted to resident circuit judgeships which may be allotted to subcircuits 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 in an election cycle shall be 2 judgeships per subcircuit. A vacancy occurs when an associate judge dies, resigns, retires, is removed, or is not reappointed upon expiration of his or her term; a vacancy does not occur at the expiration of a term if the associate judge is reappointed.

The current class of associate judges working its way through interviews will not be derailed by this new statute. And no more than 10 associate judge vacancies in any given election cycle can be allocated to the new subcircuits. But the frequency of new classes of associate judges, absent extraordinary turnover, will likely diminish.

And all these changes were accomplished in a day.

It's amazing what our Legislature can accomplish when it wants to. It's no way to run a proper government -- but it's amazing nonetheless.

Don't blink!

Welcome early voters! Everything you need to know about the Cook County judicial retention ballot

Updated October 28 and bumped up for greater visibility
Updated October 14 and bumped up for greater visibility

Early voting is now well underway for both Chicago residents and residents of suburban Cook County.

If you've landed here via a web search, you are probably seeking information about the lengthy Cook County judicial retention ballot. What follows are a number of links to recent FWIW posts that should help satisfy your curiousity.

Feel free to share this post (or any of the posts linked herein) with your friends and neighbors by clicking on one of those little buttons at the bottom of the post you wish to share (or in whatever other way you share on social media).

And, for those of you who are voting early, you do know it won't stop the commercials on your TV, right? (If only...........)

Without further adieu, then, links:

• Chicago Council of Lawyers recommends retention of Theis and all six elected Appellate Court justices on the November ballot;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers recommends "Yes" votes for all but two Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention, finds Evans "Highly Qualified";
• Illinois State Bar Association recommends "No" vote on four Cook County judges seeking retention;
• Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening retention judges "grids" published (these are the charts that show you all the ratings side-by-side... except for the Chicago Bar Association... and without the CCL's and ISBA's narratives);
• Chicago Bar Association says vote "yes" on all retention judges, with two exceptions ;
• Injustice Watch out with its "Check Your Judges" Guide (which provides some suggestions on how to use and evaluate the very helpful Injustice Watch guide);
• Just in time for the November elections, the Illinois Judges Association makes a plea for judicial independence (a timely plea from the IJA not to let partisan election shenanigans corrode judicial independence);
• On the judicial retention ballot, the default vote should be "yes" (personal opinion clearly labeled as such -- and maybe some historical perspective that the reader may find of interest);
• "Girl I Guess Progressive Voter Guide" recommends "no" votes on six -- no, check that -- five Cook County retention judges ;
• Another day, another voters' guide.... (the Chicago Votes 'judicial cheat sheet'); and
• Former alderperson and Democratic Party committeeperson recommends "no" vote on Chief Judge Evans (judicial retention ballot recommendations from former Ald. Michele Smith).

You mean there might be even more commercials?

The following item, from today's Chicago Public Square, caught my attention:

■ A federal judge has at least temporarily blocked Illinois laws limiting political contributions to judicial races—potentially unleashing what the Tribune calls “a deluge of cash into two hotly contested races for … the state’s highest court.”

The linked article discusses, but does not link to, the October 14, 2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order of U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. in Chancey v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 22 CV 04043. Here's the link.

Just what we need: More outrageous nonsense about the State Supreme Court candidates in the newly-reconstituted Second and Third Judicial Districts.

I didn't think it was possible to buy any more airtime... but I fear I may be proved wrong.

Some resources for Downstate voters in judicial races

While the primary focus of this site is on Cook County judicial races, I get inquiries from time to time from persons looking for information about judicial elections outside Cook County -- or "Downstate" as the term is sometimes (and imprecisely) used. For those who may have landed here looking for information about judicial elections outside Cook County, I can offer the following:

While the Illinois State Bar Association is but one of many bar groups in Cook County that evaluate judicial candidates (although, since it has started publishing evaluation narratives, an increasingly important one), outside of Cook County it is the go-to source.

This page of the ISBA website will take the reader to a hyperlinked list of Illinois counties; each county link will take the reader to a list of all judges on the ballot in that county.

Outside of Cook County, the ISBA reviews candidates by polling practitioners -- it requires a certain minimum response before making a recommendation, so not every candidate may be evaluated... but, in the smaller counties there is a good chance that the lawyers really do know each other and deeply concerned about who may preside when they attempt to earn some portion of their living in court.

In this election cycle the ISBA also has had its Judicial Evaluation Committee evaluate Downstate (outside Cook County) candidates for Supreme and Appellate Court vacancies or retention. So the reader reviewing the county list will sometimes find two ISBA evaluations for some Appellate or Supreme Court vacancies.

But, while the ISBA is the traditional, go-to source for judicial evaluations outside Cook County, there are evaluations published by the DuPage County Bar Association specifically for the November election. The Lake County Bar Association and the Kane County Bar Association published ratings for the June primary on their respective websites (but the KCBA rating was only for the 16th Circuit, 1st Subcircuit vacancy) (as regular FWIW readers know, a great many Illinois counties have their own subcircuits these days). Voters in these counties may find these of interest as well.

Readers are invited to advise of any additional resources I have overlooked; I will update as necessary.

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.

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 little trouble surpassing this minimum requirement, high as it may seem.

For several consecutive elections (from 1992 until 2018) all Cook County judges won retention. In 2018 one judge was targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party (which historically had always supported all retention judges, even those first elected as *gasp* Republicans) -- 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.

So even the occasional judge who has incurred the wrath of powerful politicians 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 or online -- no matter how mellifluous their surnames -- will get a "no" vote from 15 or 20 of every 100 voters.

In the 2020 retention election, for example, only five judges (all female) secured more than an 80% "yes" vote -- and none of them got 81%.

Some people (me, for one) believe that the influence of consistent "no" voters increases in inverse proportion to the turnout: The number of always-"no" voters is roughly consistent from election to election, so if turnout is lower, the indigestible lump of "no" votes may climb higher than 20%.

And turnouts for gubernatorial elections, like this one, are typically lower than the turnouts in presidential election years.

And that's before the selective "no" votes are counted. Lawyers will vote against judges who did not (in the lawyers' subjective view) treat them, or their clients, with the respect they considered 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 the 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 a judge's job is to make decisions.

So judges on the retention ballot (and their friends and family) may be forgiven if they get a little squirrelly around this time.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. With two exceptions, one of whom has already retired, all of the judges on the 2022 retention ballot are recommended by most of the bar associations that screen judicial candidates; the overwhelming majority have been recommended by each each and every one of the bar groups.

Therefore, while I mean to express no opinion about whether any particular judge should or should not be retained, I submit that the default vote on the judicial retention ballot, in the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, should be "yes."