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

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! :)