A rose by any other name? Name change statute in for some big changes

HB 5164 has passed the House and, having been reported out of the Senate Executive Committee on a party line vote, stands on the cusp of passage in the Senate, set for its Third Reading as of November 20.

The bill would significantly alter Article XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/21-101 et seq.

As a practical matter, subject to certain statutory exceptions, a person could always seek a name change from our courts. If one keeps the new name long enough (three years, though married women may face additional hurdles), one may even be elected to the Circuit Court bench. (A name change for a judicial candidate, however, as we have seen recently, carries with it no guarantee of judicial retention.)

Courts have typically denied name change petitions if there was a suspicion that the person seeking the name change was doing so to avoid creditors: If the real reason John Smith wants to change his name to Sam Jones is to avoid collection proceedings brought by Messrs. MasterCard and Visa, what Smith is inviting the court to do is to become a co-conspirator in his attempted fraud on his creditors. Courts don't like that. Courts aren't supposed to like that. We don't want our courts to aid and abet fraudsters.

For this reason, Section 21-103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has provided that notice be made by publication of any proposed name change. There were certain exceptions to the publication provision provided for under the existing law, but Section 15 of HB 5164 would repeal the publication requirement entirely. MasterCard and Visa won't have even the possibility of knowing, now, if John Smith is trying to change his name to avoid paying his bills.

Well, you say, MasterCard and Visa don't need publication. Our biggest banks know more about us generally, and probably about John Smith in particular, than we care to think about. But what about Harry and Harriet Homemaker, senior citizen bungalow owners, who hire Joe Doaks to build a back porch on their home? Joe takes their substantial down payment and disappears, filing to change his name along the way. They, or their lawyer, may not see the publication notice in the Law Bulletin. But at least there would be a chance.

Publication serves a purpose.

Admittedly, in the present age, where print media seems to be dying, a published notice may not be as effective as it once was. If someone has a better alternative, contact your state legislator immediately. But abandoning publication altogether is going to have unintended, and unfortunate, consequences.

The reason HB 5164 proposes to do away with publication is because it will erect still another roadblock (a wall, if you will) against federal enforcement of immigration laws.

This is consistent with the language of new Section 21-103.8. In the current version of HB 5164, this section provides (emphasis supplied):

(a) A petitioner may file a request to have the petitioner's court file impounded by filing a statement, verified under oath as provided under Section 1-109 of this Code, that the person believes that public disclosure would be a hardship and have a negative impact on the person's health or safety to include, but not be limited to, that the person is transgender, an adoptee, a survivor of domestic or intimate partner abuse, a survivor of gender-based violence, a survivor of human trafficking, a refugee, a person who has been granted special immigrant status by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, a person who has survived reparative or conversion therapy, or a person who has been granted asylum in this country. The petitioner may attach to the statement any supporting documents including relevant court orders, although self attestation shall suffice as acceptable documentation.

(b) If the petitioner files a statement attesting that disclosure of the petitioner's address would put the petitioner or any member of the petitioner's family or household at risk or reveal the confidential address of a shelter for domestic violence victims, that address may be omitted from all documents filed with the court, and the petitioner may designate an alternative address for service.

The revisions to the statute do retain provisions requiring notice to the local prosecutor and the Illinois State Police (see, Sec. 21-102.5), so that persons charged with crimes, or registered sex offenders, at least those convicted in Illinois courts, can not elude the consequences of their crimes by simply changing their names.

I assume that all readers of FWIW will have their own, well-formed opinions about immigration policy, both long-term and in recent years, and I have never immersed myself sufficiently in the minutiae of federalism to offer any expert opinion about which state efforts to evade federal law may be permissible and which may amount to nullification of the kind that I thought, as a history major and armchair historian, we had done away with as a result of the Civil War. However, it is clearly the intent of the drafters of this revision to the name change statute to frustrate the efforts of the Orange Man Bad and his incoming administration's efforts to enforce a particular view of the immigration statutes.

But what will be the consequences in other areas of the abandonment of a stutory publication requirement? Will that encourage fraud? Will our courts be made complicit? Is the temporary frustration of immigration enforcement in some cases worth the other changes unleashed by HB 5164?

Every law has consequences. In theory, that's why we make laws, to have the consequences the legislature desires. Most (and maybe all) laws have unintended consequences as well. Sometimes the consequences may not be intended... but they seem pretty darn obvious.

HB3138 is now law -- what will that mean for Cook County judicial hopefuls?

Let's start with what we know for sure:

The new subcircuit maps are now law: On Friday, January 7, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed HB3138 into law. It is now P.A. 102-0693.

Because the bill has been signed into law, we also know that §2f(d-5) has now been added to the Circuit Courts Act. This provision states:

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 the those subcircuits (for a total of 55).

Let's move into what we think we know:

There are currently nine countywide judicial vacancies in Cook County. There may already be more, but that's what we know about now for sure.

Under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of P.A. 102-0693, these vacancies would have been filled in the forthcoming November election. The persons elected in November would take office on December 5, 2022.

Under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of P.A. 102-0693, any countywide judicial vacancies created (whether by death, retirement, or removal from office) on or before March 14, 2022 would also have been filled in the forthcoming November election. Filing for vacancies occurring on or before February 20 would have taken place between March 7 and 14; filing for vacancies occurring between February 21 and March 14 would have taken place between March 28 and April 4.

The Cook County Democratic Party slated nine persons for countywide vacancies this past December; it also anointed 11 hopefuls as alternates, ready-made, pre-slated candidates for any countywide vacancies that open up between now and March 14.

But the thing about vacancies existing now is that they will still be vacancies on June 1, 2022.

So will these vacancies, the ones that exist now, and any that come into existence between now and March 14, be filled by the 2022 election... or will they be divided up among the new subcircuits for the 2024 election? (Under P.A. 102-0693 no one will be elected from any of the new Cook County Judicial Subcircuits until 2024.)

I don't think for one millisecond that the drafters of the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022 meant or intended to dump the nine persons that the Cook County Democratic Party had slated or to deny any of the 11 named alternates from seeking any later-opening countywide vacancy that might have opened up.

However, given the plain language of §2f(d-5) of the Circuit Courts Act as amended by the Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022, it would appear that this is exactly what happened.

Obviously, I must be wrong about this? Right?

It doesn't bear directly on the question posed above, but there have apparently been alarm bells sounded in official quarters about the unintended consequences of the hastily drawn up Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022. I produce herewith a screenshot from a Tweet from MarkMaxwellTV (and a link to the original Tweet that you will probably want to click on) in support of this contention:

I retweeted the above this morning, along with a plea for a peek at the memo referred to in Maxwell's story.

I won't hold my breath waiting to see it. I understand my position here. I'm not a political insider (obviously). I'm not seen as a professional journalist. I'm not even an election lawyer. I'm just an observer -- and a nobody nobody sent.

I certainly claim no particular inside information.

After reading my articles last week about HB3138 a retired Cook County judge wrote me to advise that I had miscounted the number of pre-1992 judges (elected City-only or Suburbs-only) still serving in Cook County. I'd said there were two; the judge pointed out three and, of course, the judge was correct. I checked.

In my defense, I've been following along on an ancient, badly faded photocopy of an order, purportedly signed by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Benjamin K. Miller, setting out the order (determined by lot) in which subcircuit vacancies would be filled. It has been accurate since at least 2010 when (in order) "A" vacancies were filled in Subcircuits 9, 3, 14 and 1. Next up on the lottery list were Subcircuits 13, 8, and 4 -- and these had "A" vacancies assigned for the 2012 election. Next on the list were Subcircuits 10 and 11; these had "A" vacancies in 2014. In 2016, "A" vacancies were filled in Subcircuits 6 and 12, just as the list predicted. That left three vacancies for Subcircuits 2, 7, and 15, respectively. No "A" vacancies were added in 2018, but Judge Alexander White's 2018 retirement led to the filling of an "A" vacancy in the 2nd Subcircuit in the 2020 election. That left two (7 and 15) on my list.

Which is the source of my apparent error. Or did someone skip a line once some time ago that hasn't yet been rectified?

I'll probably never know.

The point is, on this beat, I'm as useful and as accurate as the information I can scrounge. And, maybe, and perhaps even understandably, as the guy peering through the knothole in the fence, sometimes I miss stuff.

But this is what I'm seeing so far: Through an accident of drafting, Cook County's existing countywide judicial vacancies appear not likely to be filled in the 2022 election. Maybe this will be fixed. Maybe I've got it wrong. If someone explains why I'm wrong to me, I'll try and explain it to you, too.

Late primary complicates evaluation process: Potential candidates take note

Moving next year's Illinois Primary from March to June 28 will have unintended consequences beyond trimming the length of some of next year's St. Patrick's Day parades.

For one thing, moving the primary another three months closer to the November general election will create severe time challenges for the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, according to Joyce Williams, Alliance Administrator.

Some candidates may be unknown to the bar groups before they file next March. And the Alliance will still have to conduct evaluations of the many judges seeking retention in November.

While the Alliance usually evaluates primary canndidates first, many of these candidates are as yet unknown while the identities of all potential retention candidates are already known. Therefore, for this election cycle, Williams advises that "the Alliance members have determined that we will begin our evaluation process this year with the retention class."

But the Alliance will continue to evaluate primary candidates where possible. Accordingly, anyone who is interested in running next year and who does not yet have Alliance ratings needs to advise the Alliance by downloading the candidate questionaire request application from the ISBA website. Yes, that's a link to the form.

Some persons may be exploring the idea but have not fully committed to a run. That's alright. Beginning the evaluation process does not force a person into making a run. Circulating petitions does not force a person into making a run. As a practical matter, in every election cycle, including the one now underway, there will be persons who file for judicial office -- and then withdraw. So even filing for office does not commit a person into making a run. If you are even thinking about making a run next year, let the Alliance know. Now.

With the primary in June, it seems unduly alarmist to suggest that time is already short. But, as Williams told FWIW, "Candidates also need to know that the Alliance does not expedite its evaluation process to meet slating deadlines." It may already be too late for first-time candidates to secure ratings before the slatemakers meet in December. And it is long since too late for first-time candidates to secure ratings before the Democratic Party's pre-slating meetings on October 14 and 15 -- but first time candidates can expect to be asked, by the slatemakers, if they've initiated the process.

So initiate already.

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again: Updating links

The Supreme Court updated its website this week, with splashy new colors, increased functionality, user-friendliness, mobile-compatibility and so on and so on.

All good, right?

Not so great, actually, for FWIW. Every link to every post-2011 public domain Illinois case citation changed when the new website launched. Every case citation I've linked to here... no longer worked. I ascribe this to the Law of Unintended Consequences, not to any conspiracy, vast or otherwise, or animus on the part of the Supreme Court or any court personnel. But it's still a pain in the neck to go back and fix links.

I've tried to do that this morning, and I've gone back through a few years of posts in search of newly-bad links. I'm sure I've missed some. I'm equally sure that you, Dear Reader, will enlighten me as to any I have failed to correct that you may happen across.

I'd have settled for a little less mega in the mega-menu if the links could have stayed the same.... Sigh.