Livestream today at 3:00 p.m. -- "Improving the Bench: Importance of Judical Quality and Diversity in Cook County"

Updated October 19, 2020 to note that this presentation was recorded and can be watched online at your convenience.

Today's program is the second of three planned forums planned by the Collaboration for Justice, a partnership of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and Chicago Appleseed.

Organizers have provided this description of the reasons and purposes of today's event:

A high-quality judiciary - the foundation of equitable and effective courts - relies on public oversight of the performance of sitting judges. In Cook County, some judges are elected by the public on a countywide or precinct (“Subcircuit”) basis; others - Associate Judges - are peer-elected by a majority of sitting judges after an application process. Associate Judges submit applications to the Illinois Supreme Court at the end of their four-year term in order to be retained, whereas Circuit and Subcircuit judges must campaign for reelection every six years (for all three types of judges, nearly all who run for retention are retained).

In 2013, a Chicago Appleseed analysis of the 397 sitting judges in Cook County suggested that the Associate judge process was leading to a higher-quality, more diverse judiciary than did the public election process, but more recent findings show no real difference in the racial composition of judges - regardless of whether they are appointed or elected. In order to make informed ballot decisions, the public must have access to transparent and objective reports of individuals judges’ histories, behaviors, and practices. Join us as we discuss the importance of voting for judges and speak with legal experts, journalists, and civic organizers about strategies to improve and diversify - in more than just a representative way - the Cook County bench.

Just a little clarification here: Associate judges do not ordinarily have four year terms when initially chosen. Per Illinois Supreme Court Rule 39(a)(1), the terms of all associate judges across the state expire "on June 30th of every fourth year subsequent to 1975 [presently June 30, 2023], regardless of the date on which any judge is appointed." Associate judges seeking to remain in office do not apply to the Supreme Court; rather, they must submit, per Rule 39(c)(1), "a request for reappointment with the chief judge of the circuit at least three months but not more than six months before the expiration of his or her term." The chief judge certifies the names of the candidates seeking retention to the Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, and the Director prepares and distributes a retention ballot to each circuit judge in that circuit (Rule 39(c)(2)). An associate judge must secure "yes" votes from three-fifths of the circuit judges voting in order to be reappointed (Rule 39(c)(3)).

Also, the distinction between subcircuit and circuit judges evaporates at retention time: All face the entire county electorate.

In any event, Mari Cohen, an Assistant Editor of Jewish Currents and an author for South Side Weekly, will be the moderator for today's program.

Panelists will include Stevie Valles and Jen Dean, the Executive Director and Co-Deputy Director, respectively, of Chicago Votes; former Judge Travis Richardson; Rick Tulsky, a Co-Founder of Injustice Watch; and Malcolm Rich and Elizabeth Monkus, the Executive Director and Development and Access to Justice Program Coordinator for Chicago Appleseed. (Rich is also the Executive Director of the Chicago Council of Lawyers.)

Here's the link for the program.

Soul Slate seeks "yes" votes for nine retention judges

The Soul Slate PAC is out with its general election endorsement list.

Nine Cook County judges seeking retention are on the slate, Cassandra Lewis, Donna L. Cooper, Jackie Marie Portman-Brown, Dominique C. Ross, Cynthia Y. Cobbs, Andrea M. Buford, Kristal Rivers, Steven G. Watkins, and Judith Rice.

Each of these judges, with the exception of Portman-Brown, has been found qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and all 12 members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. Portman-Brown, who is currently assigned to administrative duties pursuant to the order of the Circuit Court Executive Committee, is rated qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers.

Owing to complications arising from this Never Ending Year of Pandemic, the CBA did not issue narratives explaining its ratings for judges seeking retention. The CCL, however, did. Of Judge Portman-Brown, the Council stated:

Prior to becoming a judge, Hon. Jackie Marie Portman-Brown was general counsel at the Independent Police Review Authority from 2005 to 2008. From 1998 to 2005, she served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Judge Portman-Brown has served as thee Presiding Judge of Adult Redeploy Illinois for the First Municipal District as well as the Presiding Judge of the State’s Attorney Office Deferred Prosecution Program. Some attorneys report that she is knowledgeable about the law and innovative, and that she applies the law with compassion. But other attorneys noted a pattern of judicial behavior demonstrating a lack of professionalism and some accused her of pre-judging cases.

In 2020, the Executive Committee of the Circuit Court referred a matter to the Judicial Inquiry Board. In a highly publicized situation Judge Portman-Brown had her grandniece locked in the lockup behind her courtroom as part of a discipline. Judge Portman-Brown has expressed regret for her actions; the JIB investigation is ongoing.

Her behavior on the bench has been described by some as quirky, but effective. Some lawyers praised her fairness on the bench in criminal law matters – particularly during the time after 2018 when she was assigned to a primarily narcotics courtroom in the Felony Trial Criminal Division. Her detractors say she is erratic and unpredictable. The Council has balanced the positive reviews Judge Portman has received against those who question her judgment. The Council on balance finds her Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Four other Alliance members have joined the Council in recommending Judge Portman-Brown's retention. The other seven members of the Alliance, however, including the Illinois State Bar Association, are urging a "no" vote on Portman-Brown, as are the Chicago Tribune and the Suburban Bar Coalition.

For what it's worth, the Suburban Bar Coalition found the other eight judges highlighted on the Soul Slate "Highly Recommended" for retention.

Advocates annual Judges' Night goes virtual for 2020, offers CLE

Like so many other cultural institutions in Chicago, the Polish Museum of America is currently closed on account of the Never Ending Pandemic.

Understandably, this has put a sizable crimp in the plans of the Advocates Society to hold its annual Judges Night at the museum, as it has done recently.

So, instead, the Advocates will hold a virtual Judges Night on Thursday, October 29, starting at 5:30 p.m. This year, the event will be free -- but the Advocates are asking attendees to make a donation of $10 or more to the Polish Museum of America.

There is a bit of a trick to this, the Advocates have disclosed.

On the home page of the museum website, there is a "DONATE" button -- but the minimum donation shown is $100. Now, while the Advocates and the museum alike would be pleased to accept donations of that size, or larger, there is a way to make a donation in the requested range. To do this, press the "Take Action" button on the museum home page (immediately to the left of the DONATE button). This will open a drop-down menu. Choose the "make a payment option," select "other," and write in "Donation" in the additional information box. (I suspect that the museum might welcome good old-fashioned checks as well, which could be sent to the museum at 984 North Milwaukee Ave., Chicago, 60642-4101 -- and checks sent via the U.S. Mail would presumably help the beleaguered USPS as well. Kind of a win-win.)

As an incentive to register for the virtual Judges Night, the Advocates have arranged for a CLE presentation. Here is the schedule for the event:

5:30 - 5:55 p.m. -- Introductions and Virtual Cocktail with the Advocates, Justice Aurelia Pucinski, other Judiciary, and Participants

5:55 - 6:00 p.m. -- Welcome by Representative of the Polish Museum of America

6:00 - 7:00 p.m. -- CLE on "Judicial Ethics and Social Media" by Justice Michael B. Hyman

To register, email your name, ARDC number, and email address to advocatessociety@gmail.com. The Advocates Society is a registered provider with the Illinois MCLE Board.

Virtual reception supporting Judge Toomin's retention set for Tuesday, October 20

The Committee to Retain Michael P. Toomin is holding a virtual reception on Tuesday, October 20, at 5:30 p.m. Reservations for the event are $100 each, and sponsorships are available (Supporter - $250, Advocate - $500, Friend - $1,000, Co-Host - $1,500, Host - $2,500, and Sponsor - $5,000). Login details will be provided when a reservation is purchased.

Chicago Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot will be the special guest at this reception.

Reservations may be obtained at this link. For more information, or to make a reservation by phone, call (312) 854-8018 or email hanah@p2consultinginc.com.

Chief Judge Evans issues statement on "appellate court decisions"

In apparent response to the recent Sun-Times editorial and two John Seasly articles, co-published by the Sun-Times and Injustice Watch (links to stories on the Injustice Watch here and here), Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans has issued a statement on "appellate court decisions." Here is that statement, in full:

When appeals court judges disagree with trial court judges, an honest difference of opinion is often involved. It is not only common for appeals courts to affirm or reverse with one or more dissenting judges, it is also common for a divided group of appeals court judges to be overruled by a divided group of judges in a higher appeals court. Some of our nation’s most respected judges have written some of the most famous dissents; some of those dissents were later adopted as the correct view of the law by a different group of judges.

When voters evaluate a circuit court judge for retention, it is important to keep appeals court decisions in perspective. Reversals should be considered along with a number of other factors, including appeals affirmed or dismissed, evaluations of judges by their peers in the bar associations, and fact-based media reports. The reputation a judge acquires over years on the bench, which includes the opinions of attorneys, other court personnel, witnesses, jurors, and litigants who have experience with a judge, should also be taken into consideration.

The various bar associations that screen retention candidates do take these factors into account. And the evaluating bar groups specifically ask the judges seeking retention how they have fared when their decisions are subjected to appellate review. Accordingly, none of the revelations in the Sun-Times/Injustice Watch articles should have come as a surprise to bar evaluators -- and, despite the information selected for the published accounts, each and every one of the four judges singled out in the Sun-Times/Injustice Watch articles were found qualified for retention by each and every one of the evaluating bar groups.

The Chicago Bar Association questionnaire for sitting judges seeking retention asks specifically (emphasis in original):

List each Supreme or Appellate Court citation, or attach a copy of the opinion, for all cases heard by you that have been reviewed during the last six years[.]

The Alliance questionnaire asks a virtually identical question:

List citation for each Supreme or Appellate Court citation, for all cases heard by you that have been reviewed during the last six years (or ten years for Appellate candidates).

The bar association screening process depends on self-disclosure. This is true for all candidates, from first time judicial hopefuls to Supreme Court justices seeking retention. In theory, of course, a retention candidate might fail to disclose a case in which he or she was reversed -- but that would be a suicidal course. Judicial evaluation committee investigators take their very responsibilities seriously and, with computer research tools like Lexis or Westlaw at their disposal, fact-checking a candidate's list of cases for accuracy or completeness is much less arduous than it would be otherwise.

Retention candidates are even required to highlight for the screening committees any cases in which they were specifically criticized. From the Alliance retention questionnaire (emphasis in original):

Have your judicial rulings ever been commended or criticized by a reviewing court? Please state “Yes” or “No”.

*

If yes, supply, herein, the case name and citation, attach a copy of the opinion, and, if you deem it appropriate to comment, explain or amplify.

The CBA retention questionnaire makes a similar request (emphasis in original):

Has your judicial conduct ever been commended or criticized by a reviewing court? _____ If yes, supply in a separate attachment the case name and citation, attach a copy of the opinion, and, if you deem it appropriate to comment, explain or amplify.

Of course, just because the CBA and the 12-member Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening were not sufficiently 'troubled' by the appellate records of the four judges named in the Sun-Times/Injustice Watch coverage to recommend against their retention bids, does not mean that editorialists or other voters should not be troubled. Bar groups, including the five-member Suburban Bar Coalition, which found each of these four judges "Highly Recommended" for retention, are fallible. The unanimity of bar evaluator opinion is also a factor to be considered, but in our system it is the voters, not the bar groups or Injustice Watch, that ultimately decides the fates of the retention judges.

Candidates in contested subcircuit races tout endorsements

Voters in the November election will have to live in the 12th or 13th Subcircuits (far north suburban and far northwest suburban, respectively) in order to have any choice in filling any Cook County judicial vacancy.

The elections for all other judges in the county are mere formalities: There are only Democrats running in every other race, all unopposed. Wonderful for the happy candidates, of course... although this may not reflect well on the health of our polity. For now, however, and for the foreseeable future, this is beyond our control. So we look at what we have. In the only two contests there are.

Each of the four candidates for these two seats touts their many and various endorsements on their respective campaign websites. Susanne Groebner doesn't have a separate endorsements page on her site, but her Tribune endorsement pops up as soon as her site loads. Her opponent, Gary Seyring, has a separate endorsements page, as do both 12th Subcircuit candidates (Frank R. DiFranco's, Patricia M. Fallon's). I certainly encourage readers to click over to the candidates' sites and peruse the endorsements themselves.

In addition, I have added some of the endorsements you'll find on the candidates' websites to my Organizing the Data post about the two races -- but only some.

This drives candidates crazy, I realize, but I have a reason.

It's not that I doubt any of the candidates' assertions about who has endorsed them -- I believe them all. But my policy here has been to report only those endorsements that I can independently verify. I typically can't do that with individual, personal endorsements. Many organizations or groups have websites that proudly boast of their endorsements -- but, perhaps suprisingly, a great many other organizations or groups do not. They may have websites, but these are silent on political endorsements. It's hard to imagine why a group would go to the trouble of giving a candidate an endorsement... and then keeping it quiet. But many do. Labor unions are among the worst at this, in my experience. I don't know why. (For what it's worth, the Chicago Federation of Labor endorses Fallon in the 12th Subcircuit, Groebner in the 13th. The Chicago Journeymen Plumbers Local Union 130 UA endorses DiFranco in 12, Groebner in 13. I didn't say that no labor groups published their endorsements -- but too few do.)

Candidates try to get endorsements from as many groups as possible; winning coalitions have many disparate components. The Northwest Political Coalition has endorsed DiFranco. The Italian American Political Coalition and the Italian American Police Association have endorsed DiFranco and Groebner. Fallon and Groebner are endorsed by Personal PAC, the abortion rights lobbying group. Seyring has been endorsed by the United Hellenic Voters of America.

Both candidates for the 12th Subcircuit vacancy, Fallon and DiFranco, were "recommended" by the Advocates Society in the March primary. The Advocates Society, an association of Polish-American attorneys, is not a member of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening (which is why it issues endorsements and recommendations). The Advocates announced this week that, "due to COVID-19 difficulties... renewed its previous Circuit Court recommendations from the March 2020 Primary." The Advocates, presumably, will be satisfied with the outcome in 12, regardless of who wins; the group made no endorsement (or recommendation) in the 13th Subcircuit race.

Final Alliance retention grids released this morning

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has completed its evaluations of candidates seeking retention on the November ballot. The final "grids" follow. Click on any image to enlarge or clarify.

Now-former Judge Mauricio Araujo was the only retention candidate unanimously rejected by all 12 of the Alliance bar groups. Judge Patricia Manila Martin, who told the Alliance she was retiring, but did not withdraw from the ballot in time, was not rated at all.

After Araujo, the judge receiving the highest number of negative Alliance ratings was Judge Jackie Marie Portman-Brown. Seven of the 12 Alliance bar groups recommend a "no" vote on her retention. John J. Mahoney received negative ratings from four of the Alliance bar groups. Judge Daniel J. Kubasiak drew negative ratings from three Alliance bar groups. Two judges received "no" recommendations from two Alliance bar groups, Diana Rosario and Laura Marie Sullivan. Judge Michael P. Toomin received a negative rating from one Alliance bar group. All the rest of the retention judges received unanimously favorable recommendations from every one of the 12 bar associations in the Alliance issuing ratings for those candidates.

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

The Alliance does not include the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), which maintains its own evaluation process. (Click here for a post on the CBA's retention evaluations.)

I express my thanks and appreciation to Alliance coordinator Joyce Williams who compiled and kept updating the Alliance ratings.

Chicago Sun-Times urges "yes" vote on Judge Michael P. Toomin -- but is troubled by the reversal rates of four others

The Chicago Sun-Times came out last week with an endorsement of Circuit Court Judge Michael P. Toomin's retention bid. In its editorial, which noted that Toomin "is supported by all of the major bar associations," the Sun-Times said, "we want to emphasize how important it is for voters to stand up for integrity in our local politics and competence on the judicial bench by casting a 'yes' retention vote for Michael P. Toomin."

On Sunday, the Sun-Times published an article by Injustice Watch's John Seasly, "Appeals court reverses this judge more than any other in criminal courts seeking retention" (the link here is to the Injustice Watch site). Yesterday, the Sun-Times came out with an editorial, "Before voting to retain Judge Kenneth J. Wadas, consider his troubling record."

Newspaper editorial boards are amazing. The same editorialists that thought bar association ratings were important, when building the case for Judge Toomin, casually dismiss the favorable ratings given to Judge Wadas: "There’s a good argument Wadas, though approved for retention by all the major local bar associations, never should have been elected to the bench in the first place in 1996."

For what it's worth, Toomin, although targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party, is recommended favorably for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and all of the Alliance bar groups except the Black Women Lawyers' Association. Wadas is endorsed by the Cook County Democratic Party for retention and is rated favorably by both the CBA and all of the Alliance bar groups. Toomin and Wadas are both "Highly Recommended" by the Suburban Bar Coalition.

Three other judges were the subject, along with Wadas, of another October 11 Injustice Watch story by John Seasly, "4 judges, 6 years, 98 reversals — and they want you to vote to keep them in office." The judges named are Margaret Ann Brennan, Patrick J. Sherlock, and Anna Helen Demacopoulos.

Each one of these judges is also rated favorably for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and every one of the Alliance bar groups. All three are "Highly Recommended" by the Suburban Bar Coalition as well. Each of these three judges has been also endorsed for retention by the Cook County Democratic Party.

Readers may wonder about the seeming disconnect between the favorable ratings awarded these four judges and the 'troubling' number of times their decisions have been reversed in the Appellate or Supreme Courts. Don't the bar associations know about these?

The answer is, yes, the bar groups do know about those cases in which a Circuit Court's decision was subject to appellate scrutiny. Why? Because the bar groups ask.

The Chicago Bar Association questionnaire for sitting judges seeking retention asks specifically (emphasis in original):

List each Supreme or Appellate Court citation, or attach a copy of the opinion, for all cases heard by you that have been reviewed during the last six years[.]

The Alliance questionnaire asks a virtually identical question:

List citation for each Supreme or Appellate Court citation, for all cases heard by you that have been reviewed during the last six years (or ten years for Appellate candidates).

The bar association screening process depends on self-disclosure. This is true for all candidates, from first time judicial hopefuls to Supreme Court justices seeking retention. In theory, of course, a retention candidate might fail to disclose a case in which he or she was reversed -- but that would be a suicidal course. Judicial evaluation committee investigators take their very responsibilities seriously and, with computer research tools like Lexis or Westlaw at their disposal, fact-checking a candidate's list of cases for accuracy or completeness is much less arduous than it would be otherwise.

Retention candidates are even required to highlight for the screening committees any cases in which they were specifically criticized. From the Alliance retention questionnaire (emphasis in original):

Have your judicial rulings ever been commended or criticized by a reviewing court? Please state “Yes” or “No”.

*

If yes, supply, herein, the case name and citation, attach a copy of the opinion, and, if you deem it appropriate to comment, explain or amplify.

The CBA retention questionnaire makes a similar request (emphasis in original):

Has your judicial conduct ever been commended or criticized by a reviewing court? _____ If yes, supply in a separate attachment the case name and citation, attach a copy of the opinion, and, if you deem it appropriate to comment, explain or amplify.

While Mr. Seasly and Injustice Watch may be commended for their effort in calculating and reporting which judges have experienced the most reversals, it is safe to say that these disclosures did not come as news to the bar groups that evaluated the judges seeking retention. In other words, the bar groups knew about the reversals but, following their investigation into the circumstances---and case citations are often (though not always) absent from the Injustice Watch coverage---the bar groups were not 'troubled.'

It may be argued that bar groups are, generally, 'kinder' to judges seeking retention than they are to first-time aspirants or unconnected hopefuls. (I know many FWIW readers have expressed that view; I've made that argument myself.) But no human institution is perfect.

And just because a bar group does not get its dander up about a judge's track record on review does not mean that a judge's reasoning or rulings in a given case were not faulty, or even foolish. But regardless of one's view of the validity of the 'balls and strikes' analogy between judges and baseball umpires, statistics alone do not tell the whole story about a judge.

The fact is that every trial judge gets reversed from time to time. Certain types of cases, such as criminal cases where convicted defendants wind up in jail, are more likely to prompt appeals than others. Thus, as Seasly's article notes about Judge Demacopoulos, "Her reversals [largely] came from her time hearing felony criminal cases at the Markham courthouse." Judge Wadas has spent nearly the entirety of his career in the Criminal Court.

If determining the law were always easy, we wouldn't need judges at all, or if we did, because some wicked or obstinate people refused to follow the clear mandates of the law, we wouldn't need many. And we wouldn't need appellate courts either, because trial judges would always get it right. Count on this happening the same day that unicorns begin grazing in your backyard. So, in real life, there will be times where smart, hard-working judges miss an issue that an appellate court sees as dispositive. Some judges will perform better in some assignments than others, and the reviewing courts will provide a vital backstop to ensure justice in a given case. Sometimes an appellate court can be wrong. Usually I think that when an appellate court fails to reverse the erroneous decision of a trial judge -- and I filed the brief with the white cover. I have a point of view that stems from my rooting interests.

So does Injustice Watch. That does not mean that the group's reporting should not be respected and appreciated. But one need not go all a-flutter just because Injustice Watch reports information already taken into account by bar groups before reaching conclusions not shared by Injustice Watch.

Before being 'troubled' by this judge's record, or that one's, consider the point of view of the group presenting the rating or the information. And your own as well.

IVI-IPO recommends "no" vote on three retention judges

The Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organization has recommended "no" votes on three Cook County Circuit judges seeking retention this November.

Singled out for involuntary retirement by the IVI-IPO are Judges Mauricio Araujo (who has already resigned from the bench), Michael Toomin, and Kenneth Wadas.

Although targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party, Toomin is recommended favorably for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and all of the Alliance bar groups except the Black Women Lawyers' Association. Wadas is endorsed by the Cook County Democratic Party for retention and is rated favorably by both the CBA and all of the Alliance bar groups. Toomin and Wadas are both "Highly Recommended" by the Suburban Bar Coalition.

Taking a closer look at the Mathias H. case

I retweeted Mark Brown's October 9 Sun-Times column on Saturday.

"One of the main complaints is that Toomin wrote an opinion overturning a... county ordinance that sought to prevent children under 13 from being placed in juvenile detention.... [But the] Illinois Appellate Court upheld Toomin’s ruling." https://t.co/E8czThnkfl via @SunTimes

— Jack Leyhane (@JackLeyhane) October 10, 2020

But Brown's column did not identify the case in which Toomin "[overturned] a Preckwinkle-backed county ordinance that sought to prevent children under 13 from being placed in juvenile detention."

The case Brown refers to is In re Mathias H., 2019 IL App (1st) 182250, appeal denied, 2019 Ill. LEXIS 1243 (Dec. 31, 2019).

Twelve-year old Mathias was accused of robbing a GameStop store, "stealing money, gift cards, a PlayStation 4, and an Xbox gaming system." His alleged accomplice in this robbery was Mathias's 18-year old brother. The older brother was accused of using a handgun in the crime. (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶3.) The disposition of the charges against Mathias's brother is not reported in this opinion.

What is reported is that, on August 4, 2018, when the petition for adjudication of wardship was filed, Mathias was arraigned before Judge Marianne Jackson, who determined that there was probable cause to proceed. The question then became whether the "secured custody of respondent was a matter of immediate and urgent necessity." The State suggested electronic monitoring; the defense requested that Mathias be sent home in the custody of his mother. Judge Jackson went along with these suggestions. (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶4.)

The court explained to Mathias what all this meant. Among other things (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶4),

[t]he court explained to the respondent that he was being placed on home confinement and would be required to wear a GPS ankle bracelet. The court also informed respondent that he would be responsible for charging the bracelet and that failure to charge the bracelet or tampering with it would be considered a violation.

A month later, the State's Attorney sought to revoke electronic monitoring (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶5):

At a hearing on the motion, the State asserted that on September 1, 2018, a probation officer visited respondent’s home and was informed by respondent’s mother that respondent had left home the day before and had not returned. The State also asserted that the electronic monitoring device had lost power on September 2 through September 3 and for all of September 5. Defense counsel explained that respondent’s failure to charge the device was because he was in school but had no explanation for the fact that respondent was not home on September 1, 2018, which was a Saturday.

Judge Jackson asked Mathias where he'd been. On September 2, he told the court, he'd been at a friend's house. Mathias's mother contradicted him. When she got back from work that day, and found Mathias missing, she "contacted his friends on Facebook," but they said they did not know where he was. Mathias showed up the next day, September 3, around 8:00 p.m. Mathias's mother told Judge Jackson that Mathias "repeatedly failed to listen to her." The court admonished Mathias, but kept the order for electronic monitoring in place. Instead of sending him home with his mother, Judge Jackson sent Mathias to the Saura Center "for a few days." The Saura Center is described in the opinion as a "nonsecure shelter." (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶¶6, 4.)

The case was back before Judge Jackson within a week, on September 12, 2018, the very same day, the opinion notes, that the County Board passed Cook County Ordinance No. 18-4955 (codified at Cook County Code of Ordinances §46-4), "which provides in relevant part that '[a]n individual under 13 years of age shall not be admitted, kept, detained or committed to the Cook County Jail or the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center'" (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶7).

Judge Jackson did not send Mathias to jail on September 12. She sent him home, still on electronic monitoring. The court warned Mathias that he "was not free to visit friends but could only leave home to go to school or church. Respondent indicated that he understood, and the court told respondent that if he failed to comply, he would be sent to the detention center." (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶8.)

But Mathias apparently did not comply. The State's Attorney was back in court on September 24 with another motion to revoke electronic monitoring, alleging that Mathias had allowed his monitoring device to lose power on September 17, 2018, from 2:45 p.m. to 3:25 p.m., and later that day from 5:25 p.m. to 12:36 a.m. the following morning. "It was further alleged that on September 23, 2018, a strap-tampering alert was issued at 1:25 p.m. Probation officer Escalara conducted a home visit and determined that respondent was not home and that his whereabouts were unknown." (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶9). Mathias had run away.

The potential application of new §46-4 was raised at the September 24 hearing. The State's Attorney "asked for guidance" about the ordinance. Judge Jackson expressed concern that the new ordinance might be unconstitutional "because it infringes on [the] authority that this Court has been granted by the legislature of the State of Illinois to make decisions on detention." Moreover, Judge Jackson noted, electronic monitoring clearly was not working in Mathias's case and no one present at the hearing knew where Mathias might be found. Mathias was a danger to himself. Judge Jackson therefore issued a juvenile arrest warrant. (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶10.)

Mathias was arrested pursuant to the warrant and brought back before Judge Jackson. The potential applicability of §46-4 was very much on the court's mind. "If I follow this ordinance," Judge Jackson said, "what I would be creating is a 12-year-old who is at liberty to ignore his mother, at liberty to ignore this Court, and put himself in extreme danger, and that I would be powerless, essentially a paper tiger, to do anything about it." She ordered Mathias held in custody at the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center. (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶11.)

Mathias filed a motion to reconsider detention on October 4. Judge Jackson continued the matter to October 19, with Mathias to be held in custody in the meantime, "for his own safety." (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶12.)

Now you'll notice that, to this point, there has been no mention of Judge Toomin here. That's because, to this point, Judge Toomin was not involved.

The Public Defender got Judge Toomin involved by filing an emergency petition for habeas corpus on October 10. He heard the petition on October 12. The PD argued that Mathias could not be held under §46-4; the State's attorney took "no position" on the petition. (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶13.)

Here is where my lack of juvenile justice and criminal procedure experience puts me at a disadvantage.

I see this all the time in media reporting on civil cases: A reporter or columnist, unfamiliar with civil procedure, draws all sorts of sinister inferences from matters easily explained or understood by lawyers conversant in the applicable procedure. I am wary of falling into this trap myself. I have hopes that FWIW readers will be able to help me understand here.

But right now, howeer, to me, at least, this taking of "no position" on the habeas petition looks like a lay down by the State's Attorney. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The State's Attorney is the county's attorney and would have at least the initial responsibility to defend the ordinance against any challenge. That would be the case if the occupant of that office were Kim Foxx or Bernie Carey. So there may well have been an expectation, among those going before Judge Toomin, that the habeas petition would be unopposed, and granted accordingly.

Except for one thing.

However the motion was styled, the habeas petition represented a collateral attack against Judge Jackson's rulings. A motion to reconsider was actually pending before Judge Jackson when the habeas petition was presented to Judge Toomin.

Here again my unfamiliarity with juvenile and/or criminal procedure puts me a disadvantage. Perhaps a habeas petition would be the normal, customary way of attacking Judge Jackson's order. Perhaps, if she had denied the motion to reconsider on October 19, her order striking down the ordinance might not have been immediately appealable. Perhaps the habeas petition was the best vehicle to get the issue before the Appellate Court. Certianly the opinion does not question the circuitous route by which the issue arrived in the Appellate Court. Of course, if Judge Toomin had granted the habeas petition, who would have appealed?

Even without specific knowledge of the applicable procedure here, I can state with some confidence that courts do not look with favor on collateral attacks generally.

In Thomas v. Sklodowski, 303 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1035 (1st Dist. 1999), the Appellate Court stated, citing Lewis v. Blumenthal, 395 Ill. 588 (1947), "interlocutory orders in a case are as insusceptible to collateral attack as is the final judgment." In Thomas, the Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a lawyer in a legal malpractice case, finding that the suit was an impermissible collateral attack on the Federal District Court's order allowing the attorney to withdraw in a §1983 matter. Thomas wound up on the receiving end of a million dollar default judgment in the Federal case, but the Illinois Appellate Court said his remedy had been in the 7th Circuit, not in a state court malpractice suit. See also, Tielke v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 2019 IL App (1st) 181756 (breach of contract suit impermissible collateral attack on denial of motion to enforce alleged settlement agreement in personal injury case). Citing both Thomas and Blumenthal, the Tielke court stated (¶39):

In Blumenthal, our supreme court held that "Each and every step taken or order made in the proceeding, whether it concerns the merits or not, is just as impervious to collateral attack as the final judgment on the merits, *** [and] that an interlocutory order, no matter how erroneous, if not void, will justify or protect all persons as completely as the final judgment itself." [Internal quotation marks omitted]. Id. at 594. Pursuant to Thomas and Blumenthal, the trial judge's order in the personal injury action, denying plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, was impervious to collateral attack.

Granted, the Mathias H. opinion does not refer to the habeas proceedings before Judge Toomin as a collateral attack on Judge Jackson's determination that she was not bound by §46-4. And, if the Appellate Court had determined that the habeas proceedings were an improper collateral attack, the affirmance of Judge Toomin's dismissal of the petition would presumably have been on those grounds, without reaching the merits of §46-4.

But even if the habeas proceedings were not, under the applicable custom, practice, or procedure, a collateral attack on Judge Jackson's order, or even if the proceedings were a permissible form of collateral attack, there was reason for Judge Toomin to be wary of effectively reversing Judge Jackson's decision.

Balciunas v. Duff, 94 Ill.2d 176 (1983), was a mandamus action, filed in the Illinois Supreme Court, seeking to compel Judge Brian B. Duff to reverse some interlocutory discovery orders he made on reconsideration of discovery orders made by his predecessor on the Law Division motion calendar, Judge Walter B. Bieschke.

In Balciunas the plaintiff contended (94 Ill.2d at 183) "that Judge Duff reviewed and reversed orders entered by another judge of coordinate authority, and that such action is neither consistent with the orderly administration of justice nor with our judicial system." The Supreme Court did not agree with this contention, but did caution against the evils of judge-shopping, stating (pp. 187-188), "we think it is particularly appropriate for a judge before whom a motion for reconsideration is pending to exercise considerable restraint in reversing or modifying previous rulings." If a successor judge, appointed in the ordinary course of rotating assignments, is expected to exercise "considerable restraint" before reversing a fellow judge's order, how much more cautious should a judge be in Judge Toomin's position, where he was being asked to effectively reverse his colleague's order while a motion to reconsider was still pending before her?

And, on top of it all, Judge Toomin, as the Presiding Judge of Juvenile Justice Division, had an administrative consideration as well: He was being asked to undermine the ruling of a judge in his 'chain of command' without giving her the chance to decide the reconsideration motion pending before her. What I really don't understand is why, under the circumstances, Judge Toomin did not simply 'kick' the habeas petition over to Judge Jackson. But this is not a criticism on my part -- I don't know the procedure and therefore can not venture a competent opinion as to whether such a transfer was possible.

What I do know was that, on October 17, 2018, two days before the next scheduled date in Judge Jackson's courtroom, Judge Toomin issued a written opinion denying the habeas petition on the grounds "that the county board did not have home rule authority to enact section 46-4 because the General Assembly had preempted the purported exercise of power expressed in the ordinance." (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶14.)

I also know that, to reach the merits, the Appellate Court -- not Judge Toomin -- had to get past the fact that the parties agreed that the case was now moot inasmuch as Mathias had already served his time and had been released. Basically, the Appellate Court determined that the "public interest" exception to the mootness doctrine applied and the court should provide guidance on the enforceability of §46-4 because the question will arise again (2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶¶17-20).

The third thing I know is that the State's Attorney's Office took a number of inconsistent positions during the course of this matter.

The panel deciding the Mathias H. case split 2-1 on the enforceability of §46-4. The justices deciding the case did, however, all agree that, on appeal, for the first time, the State took the position that the County Board lacked the home rule authority to enact the ordinance. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Michael B. Hyman stated, 2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶48,

The majority describes the State's position before the circuit court as taking "no position," but the situation is not so innocuous---the State affirmatively took the opposite position in the trial court from the position it takes on appeal. At Mathias H.'s detention hearing, the state's attorney's office affirmatively agreed with Mathias H. that the ordinance was valid and controlling. At the hearing on Mathias H.'s habeas petition, the assistant state's attorney, appearing in a different juvenile's case raising a similar issue, took "no position" on the ordinance's validity. Allowing the State to take the opposite position now seems entirely unfair.

Justice Hyman continued, 2019 IL App (1st) 182250, ¶51, "I would hope the State will not repeat what I consider a maneuver that undermines the adversarial process. By initially embracing the ordinance and then taking no position, the State made a commitment, a knowing choice, and should not on appeal raise an argument waived before the trial court, especially because the State has proffered no reason for its fickleness." I am not certain how the SAO's agreeing with the PD on the enforceability of §46-4 advances the adversarial process, particularly where Judge Jackson disagreed, and where Judge Toomin disagreed. But I understand the concern about a party taking different positions in different courts in the same case.

I will leave it to the reader to sift through the competing positions on the merits staked out by the majority and the dissent in this case. The practical bottom line here is that the majority opinion, invalidating §46-4, has prevailed because the Supreme Court decided not to grant leave to appeal in this case.

Which leads me to the final thing I think it may be safe to say about the Mathias H. case: None of the persons involved think that jailing a 12-year old is a good idea. But what was the alternative in this case? Judge Jackson explained to Mathias what he needed to do. And then he defied her. His mother said she had no control. Mathias defied her, too. He circumvented his ankle bracelet and took off for parts unknown despite the good intentions and actual efforts of those charged with his welfare to help him. So, again, what was the alternative to incarceration here?

Almost complete: Alliance retention grids updated today

This latest update was released at noon today. Almost all the blanks are filled in, as you can see. (Click on any image to enlarge or clarify.)

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

The Alliance does not include the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), which maintains its own evaluation process. (Click here for a post on the CBA's retention evaluations.)

On the judicial retention ballot the default vote is "yes"

Updated October 15, 2020
Updated October 13, 2020
Updated October 8, 2020

Judicial retention elections seem strange to many voters. The two elected justices of the Illinois Appellate Court and the 60 Circuit Court judges (which is really 59 and may be 58 or even 57, depending on how you count) who are up for retention in Cook County this year do not run against anyone; each candidate's name is on the ballot in the form of a question that comes down to this: Should Judge X remain a judge? Or should Judge X look for work elsewhere come December?

If Judge X receives at least a 60% "yes" vote, he or she keeps the job.

Past results suggest that all of the judges in the current class have excellent prospects for success in this retention election. While one judge was removed from office in 2018 (with a "yes" vote of only 52.16%), that was the first time that any retention judge had lost in Cook County since 1990 -- when seven judges were removed (and one of those judges removed from office was simultaneously elected to the Appellate Court).

But that does not mean that judges have no reason to be nervous. In a normal year roughly two out of 10 voters will mark "no" on every single judge, no matter how qualified. In the 2018 retention election, for example, now-Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and Appellate Court Justice Margaret Stanton McBride recieved a "yes" vote of just more than 81%. Among Circuit Court judges seeking retention in 2018, eight, all female, broke the 80% barrier: Marcia Maras (80.05%), Carol Howard (80.65%), Mary Colleen Roberts (80.41%), Diane M. Shelley (80.57%), Erica M. Reddick (80.12%), Elizabeth Mary Hayes (81.48%), Kimberly D. Lewis (81.14%), and Cynthia Ramirez (81.03%) -- but not by much. Everyone else finished with a "yes" vote of less than 80%.

While you are no doubt sick of hearing this, still it must be said that 2020 is not a normal year. Persons can spend days, literally, lingering over mail-in ballots. Will these voters work their way all the way down the ballot? Will they be more kindly disposed towards the retention judges -- or less?

I've gotten all sorts of would-be comments from angry persons castigating judges for not working during this Never Ending Year of Pandemic. Some bench trials have resumed... or is that re-zoomed? But there are no jury trials. Some of those stuffing my comment queue would blame 'lazy' judges for this... but, even if we were to start asking jurors to come in again, would they? Some, presumably, but not all. And would lawyers really like to place their clients' fates in the hands of those reckless enough to come in? The ones who show up might well be the least inclined to wear masks...or otherwise follow instructions.

There may be some judges who could have done, and who could be doing, more during these unprecedented times. There are goldbrickers in any occupation. But, just as in the economy at large, not everyone with the desire to work has had the opportunity. That's not their fault. But some voters will express their frustration with the slackened pace of the justice system by punishing the retention judges.

Even in a normal year, Second City Cop seldom misses an opportunity to urge its readers to vote "no" on all retention judges, nor are they the only ones who would put the "no" in NOvember. Those inclined to 'throw the rascals out' will vote the retention ballot no matter what.

Can we safely assume that the just-say-nay voters will number no more than 20 or 25% of the retention voters this year? As a lot of people learned first-hand with their IRAs in recent years, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.

While some clearly fantasize about the prospect, the wholesale removal of judges in Cook County would not be in the best interests of the public.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. Some, certainly, are better than others. However, with the exception of Judge Mauricio Araujo (who has resigned) and Judge Patricia Manila Martin (who said she was resigning), all of the judges on the 2020 retention ballot are recommended by at least some of the many bar associations that screen judicial candidates; the vast majority have been recommended by each each and every one of the bar groups. Here's a linked list of the posts I've put up about the bar association ratings:

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

More information about Cook County judges on the retention ballot is available on the 2020 Cook County Retention Judges Website. Injustice Watch offers this interactive guide to the retention ballot. The Chicago Tribune has announced its retention endorsements. The Chicago Sun-Times has run a couple of editorials about retention races. The IVI-IPO has also offered guidance on retention races. I'll be putting up more posts about who has endorsed whom as that information becomes available to me.

I mean to express no opinion here about whether any particular judge should or should not be retained -- as you can see from consulting the various sources of information about the candidates, reasonable people can differ as to who is qualified and who is not -- but I do submit that the default vote on the judicial retention ballot, in the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, should be "yes."

A new set of Alliance retention grids was released this morning

The retention evaluations of the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago are now complete -- and readers will notice that the BWLA, like the Democratic Party and the Judicial Accountability PAC, has decided not to recommend retention for Judge Michael P. Toomin.

Only one retention evaluation remainst to be released by the Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago. Since the prior update, the AABA has opted to recommend retention for Judge Toomin. While the AABA has recommended that Judge Jackie Marie Portman-Brown be retained, it has joined the BWLA in opposing the retention of Judge Daniel J. Kubasiak. After the AABA's favorable rating, Portman-Brown has received five positive ratings from Alliance groups and seven negative ratings from Alliance bar groups. Portman-Brown has also been found qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association. Kubasiak is also rated qualified for retention by the CBA. He has also been recommended for retention by nine of the other 10 Alliance bar groups (the rating of the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois is still pending).

With no further preface, then, herewith the latest set of Alliance retention grids (click on any image to enlarge or clarify):

In addition to the BWLA, AABA, and PRBA, the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association (AABAR) (the newest Alliance member), the Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois (HBA), the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC), and the Women's Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI), working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

The Alliance does not include the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), which maintains its own evaluation process. (Click here for a post on the CBA's retention evaluations.)

Chicago Tribune reveals judicial endorsements

The Chicago Tribune has decided that early voting may be more than just a fad. Claiming to have "heard" that readers "want some advice on down-ballot races, especially for judges," Mother Tribune has decided to share its opinions on both the retentnion ballot and the two contested Cook County subcircuit races earlier than usual.

In the 12th Subcircuit race, the Tribune picks Park Ridge attorney Frank DiFranco over appointed Judge Patricia Fallon. While today's editorial notes that both candidates have good bar ratings, the paper gives DiFranco the edge on "courtroom experience."

For the 13th Subcircuit, the Tribune picks Susanne Michele Groebner over Gary William Seyring, stating that, while both candidates have "high ratings from bar groups," Groebner is the paper's choice "due to her experience litigating complex cases."

The Tribune also weighs in on the retention ballot, urging "no" votes against Mauricio Araujo (who is leaving the bench as of today), Patricia Manila Martin (who told bar groups she was retiring but did not withdraw from the retention ballot in a timely fashion), and Jackie Marie Portman-Brown (who remains assigned to administrative duties "after she was seen on video putting a small child, whom she later said was a relative, in a lockup behind the bench").

The Tribune makes it a point to urge a "yes" vote for Judge Michael P. Toomin, the target of a removal campaign by the Cook County Democratic Party and the Judicial Accountability PAC. "In seeking an independent review [in the Jussie Smollett case]," the Tribune says, "Toomin angered the machine and they're coming after him."

Suburban Bar Coalition announces retention recommendations

Every two years a coalition of suburban bar groups forms for the purpose of reviewing Cook County jurists seeking retention.

This year, the Suburban Bar Coalition consists of the Northwest Suburban Bar Association, the North Suburban Bar Association, the South Suburban Bar Association, the Southwest Bar Association, and the West Suburban Bar Association. Arlington Heights attorney Michael Rothmann, who practices with the Law Offices of Martin L. Glink, was the chair of this year's Coalition.

The Suburban Bar Coalition issued "Highly Recommended" ratings for both of the Appellate Court justices seeking retention. It also awarded ratings of Recommended or Highly Recommended to every Circuit Court judge seeking retention -- with four exceptions.

The four exceptions were Mauricio Araujo (who has resigned from his position, effective today), John J. Mahoney, Patricia Manila Martin, and Jackie M. Portman-Brown. Martin did not participate in the Suburban Bar Coalition screening; other bar groups have reported that Judge Martin planned to resign, but her name remains on the ballot. Portman-Brown is presently assigned to administrative duties after putting a young relative in a court lockup.

For what it's worth, the Suburban Bar Coalition gave Judge Michael P. Toomin, the only remaining judge targeted for removal by the Cook County Democratic Party and the Judicial Accountability PAC, a rating of "Highly Recommended."

Here are the the complete results of the Suburban Bar Coalition's evaluations (click on either image to enlarge or clarify):

47th Ward Organization urges "no" vote on five judges

The 47th Ward Democratic Organization confirms, on its website, that it is urging a "no" vote for Mauricio Araujo and Michael P. Toomin, the two Circuit Court judges seeking retention that were dumped last month by the Cook County Democratic Party. (With early voting already underway, it's too late to remove him from the ballot, but Araujo has now resigned, so his 6th Subcircuit seat will be vacant regardless of whether voters give him a 60% "yes" vote or not.)

The 47th Ward Democratic Organization has also urged a "no" vote on these Circuit Court judges seeking retention:

• Kenneth J. Wadas,
• Anna Helen Demacopoulos, and
• Jackie Marie Portman-Brown.

Portman-Brown is currently assigned to administrative duties (sometimes referred to as "judges' jail") after a widely-publicized incident involving family members earlier this year. While she has been rated qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, she has drawn negative evaluations from seven other Alliance bar groups. (In addition to the CCL, Portman-Brown has received a positive rating from only other Alliance bar groups, with one ratng still pending.)

Kenneth J. Wadas is a Suprevising Judge in the Criminal Division. First elected in 1996, he has been found qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and all 11 of the Alliance bar groups, including the Chicago Council of Lawyers, that have so announced their ratings of Wadas (one group has yet to weigh in).

Anna Helen Demacopoulos sits in the Chancery Division. First elected in 2008, Demacopoulos has also been found qualified by the Chicago Bar Association and all 11 of the Alliance bar groups, including the CCL, that have so announced their ratings of Demacopoulos (one group has yet to weigh in on her as well).

For what it's worth, Judge Toomin has also been found qualified by the Chicago Bar Association and all nine of the Alliance bar groups, including the Chicago Council of Lawyers, that have so far released recommendations on his retention bid.

Interestingly, the 47th Ward website specifically asks voters to give a "yes" vote to Patricia Manila Martin, the judge who told the CBA and the Alliance bar groups that she was retiring from the bench, but did not withdraw from the ballot in time.

Another set of updated Alliance retention grids has been released

These were released late last night.

Further updates will be reported here as they become available. (Click on any image to enlarge or clarify.)

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

The Alliance does not include the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), which maintains its own evaluation process. (Click here for a post on the CBA's retention evaluations.)

AIJ promotes movie to raise funds for its law student scholarship fund

In celebration of National Coming Out Day, the Alliance of Illinois Judges, in conjunction with producer Anthony Farinas, are hosting a screening of an original film, Coming Out Stories, featuring "members of the judiciary sharing their coming out stories and advice for allies."

The documentary is hosted by three Cook County judges, Mary Cay Marubio, AIJ President; Linda Pauel, AIJ Vice President; and AIJ board member Cecilia Horan. The film features:

• The Hon. Sarah Smolenski (District Court Judge, 63rd District of Michigan), who received international news coverage when she was denied communion by her church after marrying her longtime partner;
• Hon. Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez (Bexar County, Texas), who received national attention when she was ordered to remove a rainbow flag from her courtroom;
• Unopposed Cook County judicial candidate Jill Rose Quinn, who will soon become the first openly transgender elected official in Illinois; and
• More stories from Cook County Associate Judge Levander Smith, Jr. (who is also unopposed on the November ballot for a countywide vacancy) and John Marshall Law School 3-L Lily Amberg.

All proceeds from the showings will benefit the AIJ's law student scholarship fund.

There are four screening dates. Purchasers of a ticket for one of these dates will receive a viewing code valid for 24 or 48 hours. Here are the screening dates and prices:

• October 8 - Sneak Preview Tickets - $50 (viewing code valid for 48 hours through Oct 10);
• October 11 - National Coming Out Day Premiere Tickets - $50 (viewing code valid for 48 hours through October 13);
• October 13 - Viewing Tickets - $25 (viewing code valid for 24 hours); and
• October 15 - Viewing Tickets - $25 (viewing code valid for 24 hours).

Law students can purchase tickets for $10 for either the October 13 or 15 showings.

To purchase tickets, visit the AIJ website or click here.

Araujo resigns... now what?

In a story first posted to Injustice Watch on Tuesday, September 29, and updated last evening, John Seasly reports that Judge Mauricio Araujo has submitted his resignation from the judiciary, effective Monday, October 5.

The resignation follows Araujo's hearing before the Illiois Courts Commission this past Monday and Tuesday.

At the hearing, according to Seasly's post and Marc Karlinsky's September 30 article for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), the Commission announced that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Araujo had engaged in a pattern of inappropriate and harassing behavior toward women. The Commission had set an October 7 hearing for the purpose of determining what sanction to impose.

Araujo apparantly took the hint.

Meanwhile, Araujo's resignation may leave the Cook County Democratic Party in something of a predicament.

Pursuant to its bylaw adopted for the 2018 election cycle, abandoning its long-standing tradition of automatically endorsing every judge for retention, the Democratic Party Central Committee voted to withhold its retention endorsement from Araujo and Judge Michael P. Toomin, the Presiding Judge of Juvenile Justice Division.

That would be the same Judge Toomin who was assigned the task of determining whether a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the handling of the Jussie Smollet case by Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx, a former Chief of Staff for Cook County Board President -- and Cook County Democratic Party Chair -- Toni Preckwinkle. The same Judge Toomin who ruled that a special prosecutor would be appointed -- an appointment which resulted in new charges as to Mr. Smollett. Ms. Foxx was not charged, but she and her office received some embarassing publicity as a result of the special prosecutor's investigation.

Some in the media claimed that the decision to withhold the Party's endorsement from Judge Toomin was in retaliation for his agreeing to appoint a special proseutor in the Smollett matter. The Democratic Party has adamantly denied any connection (the complete report of the Party's Judicial Retention Committee concerning Toomin is reproduced in the post linked above).

The Judicial Accountability PAC has likewise chosen to oppose the retention of Judges Araujo and Toomin (click here for Injustice Watch coverage of JAPAC's announcement).

For JAPAC, and perhaps for the Cook County Democratic Party as well, Araujo provided a useful fig-leaf for the campaign to unseat Toomin. The allegations against Araujo, which the Courts Commission found "clear and convincing," were reprehensible. He was an obvious target. And, as JAPAC President Brendan Shiller told Injustice Watch, "We just didn’t think we could be credible if we didn’t add [Araujo]."

But, for JAPAC at least, the real target was and is Toomin -- as this graphic from the JAPAC website shows:

The Democratic Party's brief against Judge Toomin did not publicly fault him for making a specific decision with which the County Board President might have disagreed, such as invalidating or "overruling" an ordinance passed by the Board. Rather, the Party charged only that Judge Toomin "is obstructing efforts at reforming the Juvenile Justice courts and pursues an outdated approach to juvenile justice."

This graphic, on the other hand, is explicit: Make a decision we don't like and we will come after you. With such an attitude, who needs appellate courts?

I was initially confused by a statement released by Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans on September 15, immediately after the Party decided to dump Toomin:

“At this time, as the general public, quite appropriately, prepares for the November 3 election by reviewing the qualifications and performance of many of our judges, it is important to remember that people who take the oath to be a Cook County Circuit Court judge are ethically bound to be independent in their rulings, free from fear or favor.

“They take an oath to ‘support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois.’ Independence does not mean judges are independent of the Constitution from which they derive their power or independent of the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

“I believe that the vast majority of the judges who have served in the Cook County Circuit Court during my tenure as chief judge have served with a sense of respect and awe for the seriousness of their calling and have performed their duties impartially, free of inappropriate influences. It is also important to remember that legal results we wish were different are often, nevertheless, good legal decisions.”

The statement from Judge Evans seemed, at the time, to be, at best, a rather tepid defense of judicial independence generally, and not any kind of a statement in support of Judge Toomin at all, except perhaps for its coincidental timing. The statement seemed especially weak at a time when other officials and media outlets were expressly decrying the Party's seeming retailiation for the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case.

But I get it now. Jussie Smollett is, and always was, a sideshow. A distraction. The campaign against Toomin is simply an exercise in political power and an attack on judicial independence. Any judicial independence. And the Araujo fig-leaf has been stripped away.

New update of Alliance retention grids released

These were released just yesterday afternoon.

Further updates will be reported here as they become available. (Click on any image to enlarge or clarify.)

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

The Alliance does not include the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), which maintains its own evaluation process. (Click here for a post on the CBA's retention evaluations.)