Judges and Illinois ballots 2004

[doc_strange]

Planning to vote in Illinois this election? (Please do if you're a resident.)

Expecting to be lost when you hit the mammoth judicial retention/selection portion? Who can know 74 judges and a fistfull of new candidates all that well? Well, there's hope.

The Chicago Bar Association puts out its member-driven Judicial Evaluation Committee Findings each year. They're online. They're not just "recommend" or not. They give solid reasons based on the feedback of the people who've dealt with these individuals in their professional capacities. While most are deemed quite professional in their conduct and capability, some few are not. Worth a read before going to the polls. A bad judge can make an expensive mess of the legal system, and can be your caricature-bad-litigator's wet dream, allowing a case that should be tossed to make it into the pipeline, the news, and the political gristmills. Have a good look.

Edit: Note the big top list is just the judicial RETENTIONS. Be sure to also look at the evaluations for new CANDIDATES, towards the bottom.

Comments

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

Thank you, very valuable.

[keyne.livejournal.com]

I voted in Illinois for many years, and every single judicial election I faithfully took the newspaper editorials, the IVI-IPO recs, and anything else I could lay my hands on to vote against bad judges.

But I don't recall a single judge I voted against failing to win retention. :(

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

But I don't recall a single judge I voted against failing to win retention.

That's actually a hot issue in the IL Bar right now. There's almost never a non-retention even for absolutely abominable judges. They're trying to change that by advertising their positions more broadly and only recommending against those judges who refuse to participate, or that receive widespread negative commentary from the Bar constituency. It takes a lot to get the latter kind of reaction since attorneys are of all political stripes.

Good idea pointing to iviipo.org, too, for those who like their stance. I will admit to being disturbed that they explicitly recommend voting YES for the retention of a judge who's proven so incapable of managing the docket that he's been sued to force him to render a vaguely-timely opinion.

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

But I do have to admit being slightly uneasy at the idea that, if a judge declines to be rated by the attorneys, the judge is automatically rated "not qualified."

There's an inherent conflict of interest.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I see how it could seem severe, but first, you're mis-stating things. They're rated "not recommended" -- NOT "not qualified." The ones who decline to participate are rated "not recommended" not because they have declined to be rated by some organization, but because they have declined to be rated by their peers and clients. Who else should rate them?

There is only one set of people a judge deals with in a professional capacity: Attorneys and their clients. The attorneys are plainly a bipartisan group and the only people who know when a judge is fudging it, screwing up, and so on. They are on all sides of the fence but one: the majority will dislike inconsistent, corrupt, and incompetent judges, because they have to go before them and wonder every time who's going to win, even when they have a great case.

That said, if you still have room for doubt, the web page clearly states the reason for a 'not recommended' rating and makes it quite clear where the judge or candidate declined to participate. They provide the information to make your own judgment in such situations.

Biased; Useful in Context

[cosinejeremiah.livejournal.com]

The site seemed biased to me. Bipartisan in its bias, perhaps, but biased nonetheless. I know there's a political motive when the polar opposites that are presented are "Qualified" and "Not Recommended". They're implying "Recommended" and "Not Qualified" even if they don't say it (maybe because "Not Qualified" could induce a lawsuit).

In particular, I was concerned about one of the "Not Recommended" ratings given. The explaination said that he had the right temperament and desire to be fair, but he didn't know the law. Example, please? I don't know where to go looking into his case history to make my own decision based on so little information. I know an experienced judge ought to know the law and whatnot, but that does not diminish the lawyers' responsibility to explain the applicable laws in a case, primarily because there's often a jury that needs it explained to. How hard can it be to bring a judge up to speed on applicable law in any particular case? Where have the "peers and clients" for this guy been the last 12 years he's been judging? It's like this site thinks you need to be a member of some high priesthood, well versed in its Bible of Knowledge, to be qualified as a judge. I admit it doesn't hurt, but come on!

And it's not just that one. For many of the "Qualified" judges it just says this guy is well liked by his peers. Nothing more, and not unlike the useless endorsements I hear for more visible political races.

I do appreciate seeing what the site thinks about the candidates, but I don't think it should be presented as unbiased. In context, it presents an excellent starting point for someone that doesn't know anything about these guys.

Of course, I'm not in Cook County so I won't be able to vote for any of these guys anyway. Know of any sites that do the same thing for McHenry County? I've got four judges on my ballot that want to be retained, and I don't know didly squat about them.

And as an afterthought, I too am queasy about a site that gives an automatic "Not Recommended" rating if they refuse to be evaluated. Why does this site feel they cannot publish information on these judges anyway? Does first amendment not apply to text about judges? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Re: Biased; Useful in Context

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

How hard can it be to bring a judge up to speed on applicable law in any particular case?

Incredibly hard. Good lord. Probably the top requirements in a good judge are knowledge of the law and temperment.

There's the evidence rules, on which a judge often rules in seconds flat. There's conflicting case law, and both sides will try to make their case look better by skewing the interpretation of the past cases. A good judge knows how to read other judges' opinions, and has already done so on key areas of the law. A lazy judge relies on the parties in the courtroom.

The cost to most of us in bad law, uncertainly, and appeals is incredible in the latter case.

Know of any sites that do the same thing for McHenry County?

You can probably call the McHenry Bar Assoc.. Everything else is a political recommendation. I really don't like the idea of trial judges being selected on the basis of the politics of their decisions. I'd like them selected on the sound legal basis of their decisions. The choice is living in a competitive political war, or under the rule of law.

I too am queasy about a site that gives an automatic "Not Recommended" rating if they refuse to be evaluated. Why does this site feel they cannot publish information on these judges anyway? Does first amendment not apply to text about judges? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

1) You are missing: the evaluations, given by attorneys and judges, are kept and maintained anonymously to avoid retribution. As a social scientist who deals with sensitive data, I can tell you plainly that it is impossible to fully anonymize detailed personal evaluation data. No responsible researcher publishes the data in full because those discussed can almost always (really or in their belief) figure out who said what, and take it out on them. Thus, unless the participants KNOW the data won't be published, you get bad data. You then use standard stats methods to cull the extreme datapoints from the analysis.

2) Again: if a medical doctor refused to be evaluated by his peers and patients in an AMA study, would YOU recommend him?

Re: Biased; Useful in Context

[cosinejeremiah.livejournal.com]

2) Again: if a medical doctor refused to be evaluated by his peers and patients in an AMA study, would YOU recommend him?

My knowledge of the AMA would render any evaluation by that organization as something to be reviewed extremely critically. They really are an elite priesthood that looks down on anyone that might have a disagreement with their One True Way. A doctor refusing such an evaluation would be akin to a Catholic priest refusing a spiritual evaluation given by Scientologists.

I have less knowledge of how much the legal profession is akin to an elite priesthood, but health care isn't the only place that attitude exists. I have contacts that have confirmed that attitude is rampant among many biology and physics Ph.D.s.

Such priesthoods exist everywhere, in a wide spectrum of fields. Our current cultural-political system pretty much demands that people specialize themselves and become experts in one thing and refer to experts for everything else. Don't question the experts (in other fields); they know what's best. Be a good cog in the machine! The machine doesn't like cogs that ask the wrong questions.

You have a J.D. if I recall correctly, so I do expect you would know more about the landscape in the legal field.

Re: Biased; Useful in Context

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

If you're wondering what the process is, look at http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-edt-judge24.html It has a very fine-grained breakdown of which of the politically divergent Bar groups supported which judges for retention. It's very telling when there's one on which they all agree in the negative.

That took me about 25 seconds to find using Google. Really, if you're interested in the issues and digging deeper than the simple chart, you can find all you need. You just have to take the time to look.

For example, there's also a more granular breakdown for Chicago's NW suburban judges up for the vote at http://www.nwsba.org/about/news/news.php?NewsID=23 -- the NW Suburban Bar. They also make it clear who they recommend and not, and who elected to not participate.

McHenry Judges

[cosinejeremiah.livejournal.com]

I ended up googling the names of the judges up for election or retention on my ballot. I figured that if Google knew of a report that mentioned them, it would be found. All I did find that was useful for most of them was the website for the 19th Circuit in Illinois, which is where four of the five judges on my ballot are (three of four for retention that I mentioned previously, and one for an outright unopposed election that I didn't see earlier). That site was at least marginally useful since it had some information on the history of each judge. A lot can be gleaned from what appointments and promotions they've each had in figuring out what some other judges and political folk have thought about them.

The other judge is looking for retention in the 2nd Appellate District, and I found a lot of information on her. In addition to a lot of "this judge is a good one, we suggest retaining her" pages, I also found some of her own handiwork, which was quite good.

Your suggested URLs were fruitless as far as information on the judges in my area, but I appreciate the try. Should be useful for a lot of people that live directly between you and me. :)

Re: McHenry Judges

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I'm glad your searches paid off to some extent. I guess McHenry isn't "suburban" enough for the "suburban" Bar. [grin]

On the other point in your other response: Yes, the Bar associations are kind of a priesthood (more like political clubs), but unlike in medicine, there aren't several ways to treat a trial case: There's the legal way, and the not legal way. A judge who makes it up to suit some other agenda or different idea of the law is not innovating to help the patient; that judge is acting contrary to the law. That's what some call "activist" when it's at the appellate level (where at least all sides agree there could be a question of interpretation to be decided). But at the trial level it's plain out arbitrary and unfair to decide contrary to what the superior courts have held or against the clear letter of the law (where it's also plainly Constitutional). At the trial level, it's process and procedure, evidence, and fairness. It breaks the rule of law for a judge to diverge from the legal mainstream, for the very reason that It's The Law.

So, anyhow, when every political gradation of bar recommends against retaining a judge, I sit up and take notice.

Re: McHenry Judges

[cosinejeremiah.livejournal.com]

Cool. Well written. I think I understand things better (if only slightly) than I did yesterday. Thank you! :)