Should slated judicial candidates be obliged to "contribute" $40,000 to the Democratic Party?

Thirty-third Ward Committeeman Aaron Goldstein (pictured at left) is the man who unseated legendary Committeeman Dick Mell. He is also an attorney who works as a supervisor in the Cook County Public Defender's Office.

In this morning's Chicago Sun-Times Committeeman Goldstein answers the question posed in the headline of this post with a resounding "no": "This practice needs to stop. Now."

Goldstein offers four reasons for his opinion (and explains each of these points in his piece, which I encourage you to read in full):

1. It leads to a perception of corruption.
2. It distracts from the principal issues in slating judicial candidates.
3. It harms the slated candidate.
4. It does not represent the costs claimed.

It does seem, well, unseemly when you think about it... an awful lot like a quid pro quo... you give us 40k and we'll slate you....

But...

Are all quid pro quos bad things? I give Jewel $182; it gives me a cart full of groceries. I give the local gas station $32.18; I get a full tank of gas. Open and transparent. Totally above board.

On the other hand...

How can you equate paying Jewel for groceries with paying the Cook County Democratic Party for making some lucky, faithful party supporter into a judge?

Well, that would look bad. Except... 40k doesn't make anyone a judge. That's not the quo for the quid. All the party promises is slating.

There was a time, not within the living memory of any Millennial, or even most of the Gen-Xer's, when slating was tantamount to election -- unless one was slated for a suburban 'suicide squad' run. Readers of this blog know that slating these days carries with it no guarantee of election. I have previously suggested that all a candidate gets for $40,000 is credibility and access.

Even in those misty, far-off days of Daley I it was not much different:

Once slated for office, the candidate is expected to carry his own load as part of the ticket. The central committee does very little except to arrange appearances for him at the various ward and township organizations during the campaign. He is expected to raise his own campaign funds, establish his own campaign office, do his own advertising, and reach those segments of the electorate to whom he supposedly has the greatest appeal on behalf of the ticket. In fact, a candidate for a major office, rather than getting campaign funds from the county central committee, is expected to make a major contribution to the county central committee for the privilege of being slated for office by the party. He is also expected to buy tickets for every ward and township organization dinner dance, picnic, and golf day.

Milton L. Rakove, Don't Make No Waves, Don't Back No Losers, p. 98 (Indiana University Press, 1975).

There is one major difference in terms of what the Democratic Party does, or doesn't do, for its candidates these days as opposed to the days of yore. Today, although the party still gathers signatures for all candidates, a slated candidate is also expected to help out with his or her own nominating petitions. In Professor Rakove's day, after he managed a place on the county ticket (in 1970, in a 'suicide squad' race for a suburban seat on the Cook County Board), he came to the realization that he had no idea how to get the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. He promptly repaired to party headquarters to ask Chairman Daley's office manager, Mary Mullen, what he should do. "She responded, pointing to a stack of petitions on a table, 'See that pile over there on that table? Those are your signatures, 8,000 names. This is an organization we are running here.'" (Dont Make No Waves..., p. 99, n. 1.)

Because the Democratic Party can apparently no longer guarantee that it can, on its own, garner sufficient signatures to make all of its candidates' nominating petitions 'bullet-proof,' the day may come when a duly slated Democratic Party candidate gets knocked off the ballot. But that hasn't happened yet. Right now, almost any judicial candidate would rather be slated than not slated.

So -- and maybe this is because I've been steeped too long in a simmering sea of corruption and cynicism -- I don't necessarily see a transparent $40,000 judicial candidate assessment as a totally bad thing. It is a campaign expense, one that most judicial wannabes would be only too pleased to pay (even if they'd have to throw a lot of fundraisers to accumulate it), not much different from the fee charged by the election lawyer, the campaign consultant, the printer, the web designer, and so on.

On the other, other hand, though, does slating really mean unanimous support from all 80 Democratic Party Committeemen?

FWIW readers know the answer here. And several committeemen -- the 47th comes to mind -- have already made endorsements in judicial races. Will any of these endorsements be rescinded if the rest of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee fails to concur in these recommendations?

Other ward and township organizations will have endorsement sessions later on; several will diverge from the 'official' slate in one or more races. History ain't bunk: Sometimes past performance really is a great indicator, if not an outright guarantee, of future results.

And, less publicly, as the primary draws near, some ward or township organization---and I do not here refer solely to one headed by an upstart, independent, progressive or goo-goo (whatever term you prefer)---will abandon one or more slated judicial candidates in favor of some candidate who has somehow won the favor of the committeeman. This will probably happen in more than just one 'regular' ward or township. Check the archives. It happens, to a greater or lesser extent, in every election cycle.

If I buy a toaster at Target, and I take it home, and plug it in... and it promptly belches smoke and fire, I take the toaster back to the store and demand (and expect) a refund. I didn't get quo for my quid; I want my quid back.

When various Democratic committeemen 'dump' a slated candidate, does the Cook County Democratic Party ever offer at least a pro rata refund?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Therefore, on balance... although I'm sympathetic to Committeeman Goldstein's position (if for no other reason than I'll never have $40,000 to spare on my own)... what is the alternative? Say assessments are outlawed. Does anyone seriously expect that Democratic Party slatemakers would not consider past contributions to party causes in making future slates? The quid pro quo issue would still be there, but now it would be pushed underground... and made to look dirtier, I think.

Look, I agree with Committeeman Goldstein that "the party should be focused on promoting qualified, ethical and fair candidates that represent our diverse county. Period." But I think he asks too much if he thinks the party would not also want, and expect, and in some sense be entitled to, the support of those good people that it chooses to promote. Keep the assessment public -- and, slated candidates, watch that toaster for the first sign of smoke!

Keep your comments civil and don't get personal -- I'd like to publish as many comments as I can.

Guest Post: Why the March Judicial Primaries Should Tick You Off

This post was written by Susana Darwin, Judicial Evaluation Committee Co-Chair, Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago; Chuck Little, Judicial Evaluation Committee Co-Chair, Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago; and Federico Rodriguez, Judicial Evaluation Committee Chair, Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois. Together they are the Executive Committee Co-Chairs of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening.

It's hard to be a fan of elections without opposition. They seem essentially undemocratic, and where's the fun when there's no suspense? Seven Chicago-area judicial races in the March 2014 primary feature single candidates, so when the candidate's mother casts her vote, as it were, the election's done.

Fortunately, all seven candidates running unopposed in March did voters, their fellow members of the bar, and the judiciary the courtesy of presenting themselves before the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening to have their credentials evaluated. Kudos for appearing anyway to David W. Ellis, Maritza Martinez, Daniel J. Kubasiak, Patricia O'Brien Sheahan, Caroline Kate Moreland, and Thomas J. Carroll. All are running for the Circuit Court of Cook County except for Mr. Ellis, who is running for the Illinois Appellate Court.

It is the six candidates who are seeking election this month who consciously chose not to appear before the Alliance we are calling out. They earn the wrath of the voter.

When candidates decline to be evaluated, each is saying to the voter, “Go ahead. Do your research. You can decide for yourself whether to vote for me or not.”

Except who has the time or the resources to undertake this, when as many as 33 judicial candidates could appear on a voter's ballot? Even lawyers who regularly practice in the Circuit Court may be unfamiliar with some of these candidates, so how can the general electorate be expected to have experiences or the time to develop informed choices?

The Alliance's mission is to bring together attorneys with overlapping interests as practitioners and a variety of perspectives that reflect the values and priorities of the people of Cook County to consider the qualifications of judicial candidates. The Alliance has many voices, and although its members may not sing in unison or even harmonize at times, because of the Alliance’s work voters can listen to the voices they care about. Every member of the Alliance volunteers time because we feel so strongly about the need to educate Cook County voters on casting an informed vote when it comes to our judiciary. Candidates and judges who choose not to participate in the Alliance screening strip from the electorate an opportunity to address the ballot in an informed way.

Voting is a privilege we dare not treat lightly. People around the world continue to fight and die for the vote. Even within our own country there are concerted efforts to roll back hard-won voting rights victories.

We hear the hand-wringing about how low voter turnout is likely to be in an off-year election, with no one compelling or dynamic at the top of the ticket to drive interest in the election. But how about this: there are six candidates whose campaign choices suggest not just poor judgment but also contempt for the voter and the very judicial system they are attempting to join.

All of these candidates have been found "not recommended" or "not qualified" by all eleven members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening for failing to participate in the Alliance's screening process. They include:

Kelly Maloney Kachmarik (Countywide - to fill vacancy of the Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal)
Nyshana K. Sumner (Second Subcircuit - to fill vacancy of the Hon. William D. O'Neal)
Lauren Brougham Glennon (Third Subcircuit - to fill vacancy of the Hon. Christopher J. Donnelly)
Owens J. Shelby (Seventh Subcircuit - to fill vacancy of the Hon. W. Taylor)
Sondra Denmark AND Robbin Perkins (Fifteenth Subcircuit - to fill vacancy of the Hon. David Sterba)

The good news is that voters have options in each of these races. Please visit www.voteforjudges.org and cast an informed vote in March.