Saturday, October 18, 2014

Retention Judges: The default vote is "yes"

Judicial retention elections seem strange to many voters. The over 70 Circuit Court judges (and one elected Justice of the Appellate Court) that are up for retention in Cook County this year do not run against anyone; the 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 the current class of judges have excellent prospects for success in this retention election; the last time any Cook County judges failed to achieve a 60% yes vote was in 1990, when seven judges were removed (though one was simultaneously elected to the Appellate Court).

But that doesn't mean that judges have no reason to take retention elections seriously. It is a fact that at least two out of 10 voters will mark "no" on every single judge, no matter how qualified. In the 2012 retention election, for example, out of the roughly 60 jurists on the retention ballot, no one received an 80% "yes" vote. Appellate Court Justice James Fitzgerald Smith received a 79.81% "yes" vote and four Circuit Court judges -- Patricia Banks, Maureen Elizabeth Connors (who was simultaneously elected to the Appellate Court in 2012), Mary Colleen Roberts, and Diane M. Shelley received "yes" votes from more than 79% of the voters.

Thus, the stars of the newspapers' editorials, the individuals rated most highly qualified by all the various bar groups, can still expect to be rejected by 20% or more of the voters. 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? As a lot of people learned first-hand with their IRAs in recent years, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.

But wholesale removal of judges in Cook County would not be in the public's best interests.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. All of the judges on the 2014 retention ballot are recommended by some of the 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:
For more information about Cook County judges on the retention ballot, see the 2014 Cook County Retention Judges Website.

I mean to express no opinion about whether any particular judge should or should not be retained -- 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."

Friday, October 17, 2014

Edward John King appointed to 4th Subcircuit vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court today appointed Edward John King to the 4th Subcircuit vacancy created by the recent retirement of Judge William J. Kunkle. The appointment is effective October 24 and terminates December 5, 2016.

At the time of his appointment, King was a practitioner in west suburban La Grange. According to his Sullivan's entry, King focused his practice in municipal law, eminent domain and condemnation practice. He has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1981.

Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis had announced an application process for the Kunkle vacancy this past July.

These obscure elected offices which voters reflexively ignore are important, too: Observations prompted by the Waukegan school strike


My sister Jodee is not shown in this picture of striking Waukegan teachers that I lifted this morning from the Chicago Tribune website, but she is a teacher at Waukegan High School and has been on strike now, along with her colleagues, for a couple of weeks. From what I can salvage from the flotsam and jetsam of my Facebook newsfeed, the teachers are encouraged by the support they've received from their students and their students' parents.

It is not at all surprising that a deep dissatisfaction with the Waukegan School Board has also emerged as a theme in the newsfeed Mr. Zuckerberg's Facebook algorithm sends my way on account of my sister walking the picket line. But I did not expect to see a number of posts fuming about the fact that the Waukegan school board is elected -- and griping that absolutely no education-related credentials of any kind are required in order to run. I saw one post that compared -- irony alert -- what is required to serve on the Waukegan school board (3,000 votes, allegedly) with the supposedly extensive credentials required to serve on the unelected school board in -- I warned you -- Chicago. (No, I can't find, or link to that post. Facebook doesn't work that way.)

The teachers' union in Chicago wants an elected school board to counter the mayor's control of the schools, while -- apparently -- at least some teachers in Waukegan, or their supporters, wish their school board had appointed members with some appreciation of what teachers do and how they do it so that they might be more willing partners in negotiation. (Jodee, you may wish to break this gently to your colleagues: We had a teachers' strike here in Chicago, too, recently, unelected school board and all.)

But -- and here's how I tie this morning's topic back to a recurring theme on this blog -- what I see, in both the Chicago teachers urging an elected school board, and in the Waukegan teachers wishing their board were appointed -- is a misplaced focus on process. Changing the stickers and the paint job on a race car will not necessarily make it go faster; sometimes what is really needed is a different driver.

Regular readers of this blog know that some of our local bar associations advocate fiercely for merit selection of judges (while other bar associations remain strongly opposed). In the not-so-distant past some of the bar associations that favor merit selection gave short shrift to the merits of the many persons running for judge: The lede was always we need merit selection... and only further down the page, where few bothered to read, did the association say whether, in its opinion, Candidates A through Z were, or were not, qualified for judicial office.

That's changed somewhat in recent years, I believe, and for the better. The bar associations, even those that support merit selection over judicial election, are spending a lot more time and effort now getting their evaluations about individual candidates out to the electorate: These bar associations still want different stickers on the car, but they realize that they can't win the race without the right driver -- or improve the quality of the bench without the right candidates.

Of course I realize it is a little late now for the teachers in Waukegan to field their own slate for the school board....

Isn't that funny? There is a belief, particularly among Republicans, that the public employee unions have all but hijacked the Democratic party, and particularly the primary process, so that the unions can effectively dictate terms at contract renewal time. And maybe, in some times and in some places, that has proved true -- not in Waukegan obviously -- but the theory does not explain how, in Illinois generally, for example, or in Chicago, these allegedly staunch public employee union-backers failed to make required pension contributions for so many years. You'd think that would have been a priority for a union-oriented elected official, wouldn't you?

Here's the bottom line, though: Many of us want to change the "system." (To improve it, of course.) But too many of us fail to also work with, and study, and understand, the system we have. School boards, library boards, water reclamation districts -- all of these "minor" or "obscure" public bodies spend tax dollars just like the City, county or state. All of these bodies, and of course the courts too, have an enormous influence on our lives and our pocketbooks. We have a right -- and it is surely in our best interests -- to pay attention to all public bodies, no matter how obscure or seemingly unimportant. Who are we allowing behind the wheel of those race cars? And, yet, voter turnout in November will be... what? 25%? 30%?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The people I really feel sorry for in the Waukegan strike are the senior athletes. The football players, and soccer players, and volleyball players -- anyone in a fall sport. These kids are really being punished for the strike. They can't play. They can't practice. And -- most of 'em anyway -- can never get these days back: There won't be another season.

I've watched my own sons play football and baseball and, whether that last season comes in high school or college, I can't help but ache with them as that time in their lives comes to an end. I've watched kids -- "kids" who can bench press hundreds of pounds, "kids" who could break me in half if they'd a mind to -- dissolve in unashamed tears after their last game as the finality overwhelms them. It's even tougher for the kids who get injured during their final seasons, but they can at least lean on crutches on the sideline or along the bench and share those last fleeting moments with their teammates. But even the sidelines have been taken away from the senior athletes in Waukegan.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Alliance issues revised ratings in 4th Subcircuit, one retention race

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has announced revised ratings in the contested 4th Subcircuit race between Ian Brenson and John J. Mahoney. FWIW readers will recall that the ISBA modified its rating of candidate Brenson earlier this week.

Here is the revised 'key' issued by the Alliance:


(Clicking on images here may increase their size or clarity depending on the device on which you are viewing this post.)

This is the new Alliance 'grid' in the race for the Billik vacancy in the 4th Subcircuit.


Brenson was formerly rated "Not Recommended" by every Alliance bar group. The ISBA, as you will note from the grid, is an Alliance member. Brenson was rated "Qualified" by the Chicago Bar Association. The Alliance ratings for John J. Mahoney remain those ratings issued for the March primary; Brenson was not a candidate in the March primary.

The Alliance also announced that the Hellenic Bar Association changed its recommendation on the retention of Judge Joan Powell from "No" to "Yes." Here (with my graphic abilities stretched to the breaking point) is the revised Alliance 'grid line' for Judge Powell.


The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL), Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), Hellenic Bar Association (HBA), Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC), Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois (PRBA), and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related: Council, Alliance ratings in the two contested Cook County judicial elections

Alliance releases, or re-releases, ratings in races for Cook County judicial vacancies

Alliance retention "grids" issued



Today's civics lesson: Sorority did not 'infringe' on college newspaper's 'First Amendment Rights'

The Chicago Tribune reports this morning that five members of an Elmhurst College sorority are in trouble with school authorities for swiping 800 copies of the Elmhurst College Leader (over half of the paper's bi-weekly 1500-issue press run) and dumping the pilfered papers in trash cans and compost bins around campus.

According to Annemarie Mannion's Tribune story, the Rho Theta chapter of the Phi Mu sorority had been investigated by the national organization because of hazing allegations. The national determined, and the Leader reported, that the hazing allegations were unfounded but, according to the Mannion's account, quoting Desiree Chen, a college spokeswoman, "I guess they were still upset about it."

The editor of the college paper, Zachary Bishop, is quoted in Mannion's story as well, as saying he was saddened "to see our work tossed out just because a couple of people didn't like what we wrote."

But Bishop also said, "It seems like they were trying to censor us, and they infringed on our First Amendment Right of Freedom of the Press." And the college spokesperson, Ms. Chen, is also quoted as saying, "This was an attack on [the newspaper's] First Amendment rights. They were right to protest it."

And thus we see the need for a civics lesson. Because the editor and the school spokesperson could not be more mistaken.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." The First Amendment has been recognized as expressly applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment since at least Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931). Therefore, unless the five sorority girls who allegedly swiped the newspapers can be somehow made into agents of the government (government actors), they did not violate the newspaper's First Amendment Rights.

Young Mr. Bishop also said the sorority girls were out to "censor us."

But, again, this is not so. The City of Chicago used to censor films shown within the City limits. The FCC censors what may be seen or said on prime-time TV. To be a censor one must have legal or at least de facto authority to determine what other people may see or read or hear. The sorority girls were presumably not authorized by anyone, other than themselves or possibly other members of their sorority (Mannion reports that another investigation is underway), to swipe the newspapers.

If the girls are guilty of swiping the newspapers as alleged, they are not censors. They are thieves. Vandals, perhaps. They may be guilty of converting the school newspaper's property. And it was a dumb and stupid thing to do, besides.

College students (and college spokespersons) and, certainly, newspaper reporters should know the difference between censorship and 'infringing' someone's First Amendment rights and theft. And the rest of us should as well.

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

ISBA modifies rating of Republican candidate in 4th Subcircuit contest

The Illinois State Bar Association has changed its rating for Ian Brenson, the Republican candidate for judge in the far west suburban 4th Subcircuit.

Like all of the other Alliance bar associations, the ISBA previously had issued a Not Recommended rating for Brenson on the grounds that he did not submit to Alliance screening after he was appointed by Republican committeemen to the November ballot. I didn't find out about Brenson's candidacy until September; I was told the Alliance also did not find out about Brenson's candidacy until recently. Today, FWIW has learned that the ISBA has changed its rating to, simply, "Not Rated." The ISBA has so far issued no explanatory statement explaining the change. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that the ISBA's change may have come because it may have determined that Brenson's failure to participate was not willful, in that he (unlike some other candidates rated Not Recommended by all Alliance bar associations) may not have failed to respond to Alliance screening requests. If the Alliance didn't know about Brenson's appointment to the ballot, it could not have reached out to him. On the other hand, according to Alliance sources, Brenson seems not to have reached out to the Alliance either.

Brenson was rated Qualified by the Chicago Bar Association.

Brenson's Democratic opponent in November is Assistant State's Attorney John J. Mahoney.

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Why does the Sun-Times have a beef against Robert Kuzas?

Judicial candidate Robert D. Kuzas is singled out on the Sun-Times editorial page today as "another example of how firmly politicians continue to control who sits on the Cook County bench."

The newspapers editorial agitation stems from a Watchdogs column, by Tim Novak and Chris Fusco, in yesterday's paper entitled, "How a white police attorney got a West Side judge seat."

Kuzas isn't on the bench yet; he is unopposed, however, for the late-opening Hardy-Campbell vacancy in the 7th Subcircuit.

And it was a late-opening vacancy. Had it been announced only a few days later, it would have triggered the special filing period provisions of §7-12(1) of the Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/7-12(1). The second paragraph of §7-12(1) provides,
Where a vacancy occurs in the office of Supreme, Appellate or Circuit Court Judge within the 3-week period preceding the 106th day before a general primary election, petitions for nomination for the office in which the vacancy has occurred shall be filed in the principal office of the State Board of Elections not more than 92 nor less than 85 days prior to the date of the general primary election.
In the 2014 primary season, there were no additional vacancies to trigger the additional filing period (which would have run from December 16 to 23). A special filing period was necessary to accommodate a last-minute Circuit Court vacancy during the 2010 primary season; the death of Appellate Court Justice Robert Cahill triggered a special filing period during the 2012 season as well. The resignation of Judge Hardy-Campbell must have come right at the cutoff for the regular filing period (that would have been November 11, 2013, 21 days exactly before the close of the regular petition filing period on December 2).

The Sun-Times indicates that Kuzas' would-be challenger, Mable Taylor, had only 19 days to gather up her petitions; that suggests she found out about the vacancy on November 13. I had news of the vacancy posted 17 days before the filing deadline, on November 15. According to the Hearing Examiner designated by the Cook County Electoral Board to evaluate the challenges to Taylor's petitions, the Illinois State Board of Elections did not know about (or certify) the Hardy-Campbell vacancy until November 14, 2013, 18 days before the filing deadline. (Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommended Decision, Rockford v. Taylor, 13-COEB-JUD-36 at ¶16, citing the Affidavit of ISBE Deputy Director Kenneth Metzel.) Interestingly, according to the Hearing Examiner's Report, a few of Taylor's challenged petition sheets were apparently notarized before the Hardy-Campbell vacancy was certified. (Report at ¶17.)

(Why the discrepancy between the date of the judge's resignation and the date on which the ISBE certified the existence of a new vacancy? I'm not privy to the exact mechanics, but there are channels that must be gone through when a judge retires, for obvious reasons.)

Whether it's 21, 19, or 18 days, though, there was not a lot of time to print proper petitions and obtain 1,000 valid signatures. In her haste to meet the deadline, Taylor mustered 4,807 signatures, but only 685, or 315 less than the required amount were found to be valid. The Hearing Examiner stated, "The several noted discrepancies suggest to the Hearing Examiner that there was far more than carelessness or unintentional mistakes in the submissions of the noted Circulators of the Candidate, Mable Taylor’s nomination papers for the Office of Judge of the 7th Judicial Subcircuit" (Report at ¶19). On the other hand, the Hearing Examiner expressed her opinion that "while the Candidate, Mable Taylor, did not participate in the []bad behavior of the Circulators, her having hired a petition gathering company, Mr. Jet’s Petitions, her reliance on their process was to her detriment" (Report at ¶20, emphasis in original).

In my opinion, the Sun-Times is not wrong to suggest that this very compressed period of time for circulating nominating petitions favors the well-funded, better-connected sort of candidate as opposed to the 'nobody that nobody sent.'

Of course, the time period used to be shorter.

In late 1985, some may recall, a Cook County judge's sudden retirement triggered a vacancy three hours before the close of the filing period -- and, lo and behold, 80 minutes later, a candidate walked into the State Board of Elections in Springfield ready to file for that vacancy with the then-necessary 500 signatures all present and accounted for. It was truly a miracle of precision timing... but the January 18, 1986 Chicago Tribune reported that Judge Prentice Marshall threw out a suit seeking to prevent that candidate from being certified for the ballot, stating that he found no evidence that the retiring judge conspired with the well-informed candidate to prevent anyone else from seeking the vacancy.

Three weeks, or most of three weeks, is surely better than three hours. I could agree with the Sun-Times that more time would be better still -- but, wherever the line is drawn, someone may find themselves on the wrong side of it. Such is the harsh nature of deadlines.

The part I'm having trouble with is why the Sun-Times seems so upset with Mr. Kuzas in particular. It can't be because his supporters attacked his would-be opponent's petitions, could it? Attacking petitions may not exactly be the most courteous thing to do, but it certainly is legal and FWIW readers will recall that, in this primary season, there were a number of judicial races (including the race for the other 7th Subcircuit vacancy) in which every single candidate's petitions were challenged. In anticipation of the 1996 primary, supporters of a then-obscure community organizer brought petition challenges in their candidate's State Senate race. With the challenges upheld and the field cleared of competition (including the incumbent State Senator), the community organizer won election unopposed. The then-obscure community organizer is now President of the United States.

Clearly, Mr. Kuzas has some important friends among political leaders in the 7th Subcircuit. According to Rock and Fusco's Watchdogs piece, Kuzas obtained "the endorsements of black political figures including Secretary of State Jesse White and White’s protégé, Ald. Walter Burnett (27th)." Today's editorial also notes the support Kuzas received from Ald. Jason Ervin (28th). But Kuzas was also rated Qualified or Recommended by every single bar association. So it's not as if Mr. Kuzas has only political skills or connections, at least in the view of the various bar associations.

Still, I shed no tears for Mr. Kuzas. I do not know the man, but he has put himself into the public arena by running for judge and, as Finley Peter Dunne said a century ago, "Politics ain't beanbag." But I don't understand why the Sun-Times felt the need to cast aspersions on Mr. Kuzas in order to make an otherwise valid point about the desirability of greater ballot access. As a long-time 'nobody that nobody sent,' I am in sympathy with the Sun-Times on this goal. If I were Philosopher-King, I would demand less restrictive ballot access rules, lowering the signature requirements perhaps, and making it easier to survive petition challenges. But since neither I nor the Sun-Times editorial writer will ever reign as Philosopher-King, all hope of reform lies with the political process, a process that requires building coalitions, even with politicians. How does a seemingly gratuitous slap at an apparently qualified judicial aspirant further the stated goal of ballot reform?

Monday, October 06, 2014

IVI-IPO makes endorsements in some (but not all) Cook County judicial races

Updated and corrected 10/6/14

The Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organization has posted its endorsements for the November election. That's a link to the IVI-IPO's endorsement page in the preceding sentence.

The IVI-IPO made an endorsement in one of Cook County's two contested judicial races, choosing Judge James Kaplan over James Paul Pieczonka in the race for the Jordan vacancy in the far north suburban 12th Subcircuit.

The IVI-IPO has also singled out several Circuit Court judges seeking retention as worthy of a "yes" vote. The IVI-IPO has not announced that it opposes any judicial retention bid; it has merely endorsed some, but not all, of the Circuit Court judges seeking retention. The retention candidates singled out by the IVI-IPO are:
  • Ann Collins Dole
  • Anna H. Demacopoulos
  • Clayton J. Crane
  • Debra Walker
  • Diana Kenworthy
  • Donna Cooper
  • Edmund Ponce de Leon
  • Edward A. Arce
  • Eileen Brewer
  • Eileen O'Neill Burke
  • Evelyn B. Clay
  • Jackie Marie Portman
  • James P. Flannery, Jr.
  • James Rhodes
  • Kathleen Kennedy
  • Kathleen McGury
  • Kenneth J. Wadas
  • Kristyna C. Ryan
  • Lewis Nixon
  • Lynn M. Egan
  • Marilyn F. Johnson
  • Marjorie C. Laws
  • Mary Anne Mason
  • Mauricio Araujo
  • Michael B. Hyman
  • Raul Vega
  • Rickey Jones
  • Robert E. Gordon
  • Sebastian Thomas Patti
  • Thomas J. Lipscomb
  • Ursula Walowski
  • William Lacy
By my county, nine of the judges on the IVI-IPO's list of favorites are among the 16 rated "Well Qualified" for retention by the Chicago Council of Lawyers. These are Judges Clayton J. Crane, James P. Flannery Jr., Marilyn F. Johnson. Marjorie C. Laws, Sebastian Thomas Patti, and William Lacy and Appellate Court Justices Michael B. Hyman, Mary Anne Mason, and Robert E. Gordon. (Hyman, Mason and Gordon are all Circuit Court judges serving on the Appellate Court pursuant to Supreme Court assignment. They must stand for retention, however, as Circuit Court judges.)

Friday, October 03, 2014

Judith C. Rice gets a head start on her judicial career

Former Chicago Revenue Director and Water Commissioner Judith C. (Judy) Rice will be sworn in as a Cook County Circuit Court Judge on Monday, October 6, according to an order entered yesterday by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Rice won the Democratic nomination for the Taylor vacancy in the 7th Subcircuit vacancy in the March primary. This is the vacancy to which she has now been appointed. She faces no opponent in November.

Judge Freddrenna M. Lyle had been assigned to that vacancy by the Illinois Supreme Court; in August, however, Judge Lyle was reassigned to a 5th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Jane L. Stuart.

Thursday, October 02, 2014

Bad Judge, worse TV

Kate Walsh plays Judge Rebecca Wright on NBC's Bad Judge

I saw the commercials and was not enthused. Still, I thought it might be fun to watch NBC's Bad Judge and possibly do a review. I thought a review might fit in with the other judge-related stuff I put up here. My son-in-law, Arne, egged me on: There was a doctor, he told me, who blogged his reviews of the Fox TV show House, explaining the medical decisions in each episode, winding up with a book deal from his efforts.

Next to Judge Rebecca Wright,
Judge Harold T. Stone of TV's Night
Court
was a reincarnation of Benjamin
Cardozo and Learned Hand
About 15 minutes into the show, I asked my son-in-law if he remembered the doctor's name.

No, he admitted, adding that he wasn't even sure the doctor really did get a book deal out of his online reviews.

Another couple of painful minutes dragged by. "Did the poor doctor keep his license?" I asked.

Bad Judge is truly awful. And I'm trying to be nice. If a creature such as "Judge" Rebecca Wright really did exist, and if she really did the things that the TV character did, she would lose her robe, her law license, and quite possibly her liberty. And that's just from the pilot. To illustrate: Judge Wright's courtroom deputy walked into her chambers while she was engaged in (the network television equivalent of) sex with a witness who had just testified in her courtroom. We were just reenacting a case, she told the deputy. "I know the case," the bemused deputy says, "I saw it late night on Cinemax." Judge Wright and her, um, conferee are still pulling on their clothes when in walks the supervising judge. He wants Judge Wright to "file a motion."

File a motion? Did a page from an old L.A. Law script accidentally get mixed in this mess?

Of course, especially because she's a 'bad judge,' Judge Wright doesn't do as her supervisor requests; instead, she leaves her post in response to a phone call, heading to a nearby grammar school, there to represent a child (whose parents she'd sent to prison) in a dispute with his school. The kid is an artistic soul -- his troubles all come from drawing objectionable pictures of his teachers -- who is being bullied at the group home where he is awaiting his parents' release from stir. We are supposed to think kindly of Judge Wright on account of these efforts, because we the audience are supposed to see that her heart is in the right place, even though she has had "wine and cake for breakfast."

But in Illinois a judge cannot practice law or represent clients, even troubled and bullied young artists. Maybe California is different. I doubt that it's that different.

I could go on, but I won't. First of all, I want to start suppressing this entire experience as soon as possible.

I express no opinion on whether a funny show could be made about a 'bad judge.' But this sure wasn't it.

In Talamine v. Apartment Finders, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 121201, ¶17, in a concurring opinion, Justice Michael B. Hyman wrote, "Every ad hominem smear, insult, and innuendo, every speculative accusation, every potshot leveled at members of the judiciary has the capacity of weakening confidence in the judiciary as a whole, confidence which is essential to the vitality of our legal system." Don't get me wrong: I don't think Bad Judge should be taken that seriously. And, even if it were taken seriously, if tonight's episode is any indication, the show is unlikely to be around long enough to do any lasting damage. But, just in case, Mr. and Mrs. America, please do not judge America's judiciary by the character portrayed in the NBC program Bad Judge.

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Judge James Kaplan interviewed on NTNM



Judge James Kaplan, a candidate for the Jordan vacancy in the far north suburban 12th Judicial Subcircuit, is a guest on this week's edition of Avy Meyers' North Town News Magazine and his interview has now been posted online.

Judge Kaplan's interview airs Thursday, October 2 on CAN-TV at 7:30 p.m., and again on Friday, October 3 at 2:30 p.m. It also airs on a number of cable systems in the suburbs between October 2 and 6. Check your local listings for air times. Meanwhile, with the permission of NTNM host and moderator Avy Meyers and his entire technical crew Sonny Hersh, you can watch the interview here.

Judge Pamela Loza interviewed on NTNM



Judge Pamela Loza, a candidate for retention in the upcoming November election, is a guest on this week's edition of Avy Meyers' North Town News Magazine and her interview has now been posted online.

Judge Loza's interview airs Thursday, October 2 on CAN-TV at 7:30 p.m., and again on Friday, October 3 at 2:30 p.m. It also airs on a number of cable systems in the suburbs between October 2 and 6. Check your local listings for air times. Meanwhile, with the permission of NTNM host and moderator Avy Meyers and his entire technical crew Sonny Hersh, you can watch the interview here.

The website for the entire retention class may be found at CookCountyJudges.com.

Friday, September 26, 2014

LTF provides update on Northern Trust IOLTA conversions

The original deadline set by the Northern Trust for lawyers (or at least those lawyers who don't have $2 million that they can leave on deposit with the bank at all times) to move their IOLTA accounts is rapidly approaching.

Thankfully, the Northern Trust -- which for decades catered to lawyers and sought their business -- has not forgotten everything it learned in its years of dealing with the legal profession. The bank apparently realizes that, to many of us, a "deadline" means it is time to begin paying attention....

David Holtermann, General Counsel of the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois, has written FWIW to advise that the Northern Trust has granted, if not a reprieve, at least a temporary stay of execution, if affected lawyers act promptly. A new page, explaining the outcome of recent discussions between the Lawyers Trust Fund and the bank has been posted at the LTF website. Here's an excerpt:
The bank informed LTF that it has some leeway to accommodate lawyers who have not been able to move their IOLTA accounts to other financial institutions in advance of the October 3 deadline. Lawyers who need additional time should contact the bank directly.

Northern Trust also explained that its actions to curtail the IOLTA accounts of many customers are driven by its business decision to become a “wholesale bank.” Regulations related to that status require the bank to target its services away from the retail banking sector that encompasses many IOLTA accounts, even many with sizeable deposits. Although Lawyers Trust Fund regrets the disruption this has caused for many lawyers, LTF does not believe Northern Trust is targeting IOLTA accounts.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Council, Alliance ratings in the two contested Cook County judicial elections

Voters will have a choice of candidates in only one race in the 12th Subcircuit and one in the 4th Subcircuit.

In the 12th Subcircuit race, the Chicago Council of Lawyers has issued these ratings on the two competing candidates:
Democrat

Judge James L. Kaplan –-- Qualified
Judge James L. Kaplan was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2010. He was admitted to practice in 1971. Before becoming a Circuit Judge, he was senior partner with the law firm of Kaplan & Sorosky Ltd., and served as a judge on the Illinois Court of Claims. His practice primarily involved workers’ compensation matters. Judge Kaplan was considered to be a good lawyer with good legal ability and temperament. As a judge, he is reported to demonstrate a good temperament and ability to manage a courtroom. The Council finds Mr. Kaplan Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Republican

James Paul Pieczonka –-- Not Qualified
James Paul Pieczonka was admitted to practice in 1983. He has spent most of his career as a sole practitioner doing both transactional work and litigation. In addition to his legal practice, he has been involved in real estate development matters. From 1985 to 1996, he also worked as an Administrative Law Judge for the Illinois Department of Revenue in the Hearings Division. Mr. Pieczonka has limited litigation experience. Some question his litigation skills. Much of his career has been related to transactional work and real estate development. The Council finds him Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Here are the Alliance ratings on the two candidates:


In the race for the Billik vacancy in the 4th Subcircuit, the Chicago Council of Lawyers has issued these ratings on the two candidates:
Democrat

John J. Mahoney –-- Well Qualified
John J. Mahoney was admitted to practice in 1984. He serves as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney, and currently is the Supervisor of the Public Corruption and Financial Crimes Unit in the Special Prosecutions Bureau. He also supervises the Money Laundering Unit, the Intellectual Crimes Unit, the Mortgage Fraud Unit, and the soon to be formed Insurance Fraud Unit. His former positions include being a lead prosecutor in the Felony Trial Division. Between 1991 and 1997 he was a lawyer with the Peoples Energy Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, practicing before the Illinois Commerce Commission as well as in a variety of divisions of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mr. Mahoney has had a wide variety of litigation experience in highly complex matters. He has also handled 20 appellate cases as principal counsel. His answers to the judicial evaluation matters were thoughtful. Mr. Mahoney is considered to have very good legal ability with a professional demeanor. He is especially praised for both his litigation skills and his skill at supervising complex litigation. He is the coauthor of the Illinois statute known as the Illinois Financial Crime Law. The Council finds him Well Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Republican

Ian Brenson – Not Recommended
Ian Brenson did not submit materials for evaluation. The Council finds him Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.

Here are the Alliance ratings on the two candidates:


Sources within the Alliance told FWIW that the Alliance was not contacted by Brenson after he was appointed to the ballot. Moreover, the Alliance was unaware of Brenson's candidacy until recently. Brenson was rated Qualified by the Chicago Bar Association.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related: CBA ratings in "contested" Cook County judicial races on the November ballot

Alliance releases, or re-releases, ratings in races for Cook County judicial vacancies

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screenings has released its ratings for candidates seeking election to judicial vacancies in November. As regular FWIW readers know (and as newbies will soon see) most of these races are uncontested.

That's the bad news.

The good news is -- as you will see -- the various Alliance members have largely favorable opinions of the candidates who are (mostly) assured of election.

Here is the key for reading the Alliance "grids."


With that preface, here are the "grids" themselves:

Clicking on any image may enlarge it or sharpen its focus depending on the device on which you are viewing this.

A separate post on the two contested judicial elections is forthcoming.

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

CCL rates one judge Not Qualified for retention, but it's not the same judge singled out by the CBA

Continuing with a look at the release today of the Alliance retention ratings (the Chicago Council of Lawyers is an Alliance member) -- scroll down or click here for the complete Alliance "grids" on judicial retention candidates.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers rated 72 of the 73 Circuit Court judges seeking retention on the November ballot as Qualified (or better). Only one judge was singled out by the CCL as Not Qualified. This was Judge Ann O'Donnell, of whom the Council stated:
Judge Ann O’Donnell --- Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Ann Louise O’Donnell served as an Assistant Cook County Public Defender between 1987 and 1995. She was a solo practitioner focusing on criminal defense matters between 1995 and 2008. She was elected to the bench in 2008. She currently presides over the Preliminary Hearing Call. Her past assignments include serving as a floating judge in misdemeanor and felony branch courts. Lawyers report that she has the legal ability and knowledge necessary for her current assignment. Many lawyers, however criticize her judicial temperament as being unduly flip, sarcastic and rude. Judge O’Donnell was criticized by some lawyers for a recent practice (within the past year) of refusing to appoint an Assistant Public Defender to a number of indigent defendants in the belief that family members should have been paying for a private lawyer. She was doing this while failing to conduct a required indigency hearing – defendants were not being asked to complete the asset and liability form provided by the Circuit Court. More egregiously, she required certain of those defendants to return to her courtroom the next day with a private attorney, and continued to order these defendants to return each and every day until they were represented by private counsel. This sometimes went on for weeks, and was described by many as an abusive practice. Chief Judge Evans has now issued a General Order requiring an indigency determination before an Assistant Public Defender can be appointed or denied.
(I believe this link will take the reader to the Order referred to above.)

The Chicago Bar Association did find Judge O'Donnell "Qualified" for retention. The CBA noted:
ANNIE O’DONNELL --- QUALIFIED
Judge Annie O’Donnell is “QUALIFIED” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge O’Donnell was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1987. Judge O’Donnell served as an Assistant Public Defender and was engaged in private practice as a criminal defense lawyer before her election to the bench in 2008. Judge O’Donnell is currently assigned to a preliminary felony hearing call in a branch court. Judge O’Donnell is well regarded by the lawyers who appear in her court for her knowledge of the law, diligence, and fine temperament.
Alliance members other than the Council were split in their evaluations of Judge O'Donnell. The Black Women Lawyers' Association, Cook County Bar Association, Decalogue Society of Lawyers and the Illinois State Bar Association all agreed with the Council in recommending against O'Donnell's retention. However, the Women's Bar Association of Illinois, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, the Hellenic Bar Association, and the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area all advise a "yes" vote for Judge O'Donnell.

FWIW readers will remember that the Chicago Bar Association came out in favor of retaining all but one Cook County Circuit Court judge seeking retention this year. The one jurist singled out was Judge Thomas Flanagan. However, the Chicago Council of Lawyers rated Judge Flanagan "Qualified" for retention:
Judge Thomas E. Flanagan --- Qualified
Thomas E. Flanagan has been a judge since his election in 1984. He has been assigned to the Law Division for most of his judicial career. Judge Flanagan hears civil jury cases at the Daley Center. Judge Flanagan is considered to have good legal ability. He is respected as a solid jurist with good temperament and case management skills. The Council finds him Qualified for retention.
Every other Alliance member has also urged a "Yes" vote for Judge Flanagan.

In my post last week about the CBA ratings, I mentioned that Judge Laura Sullivan had received a favorable rating from the CBA despite the controversy that erupted when a law professor was taken into custody in her courtroom while taking notes. The law professor later wrote about this experience in the Chicago Tribune and I wrote about the story in this post.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has joined the CBA in recommending Judge Sullivan's retention. The CCL states:
Judge Laura Marie Sullivan --- Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Laura Sullivan served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney as both a trial attorney and as a supervisor. Judge Sullivan is currently sitting at the First Municipal District, where she presides over bond hearings. She was first elected to the bench in 2002. Judge Sullivan’s previous judicial assignments included the Traffic Court, Felony Preliminary Hearing Section, and Misdemeanor Section in the First Municipal District, and the Domestic Violence Division. Judge Sullivan is considered to have good legal ability and knowledge of the law. She is reported to be well prepared and hard working. Judge Sullivan has been criticized in the press on two separate occasions. While these incidents give the Council pause, on balance the Council finds her Qualified for retention.
Five Alliance members do urge a "No" vote on Judge Sullivan, however. These are the BWLA, the CCBA, the DSL, the ISBA and the LAGBAC. Five Alliance members besides the Council recommend a "Yes" vote for Judge Sullivan. These are the AABA, the HBA, the HLAI, the PRBA, and the WBAI.

Judges O'Donnell and Sullivan received the most negative ratings from Alliance members. Most Alliance members rated nearly all retention candidates positively. The Alliance member giving out the most negative ratings to retention candidates was the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, but LAGBAC rated 67 of 73 retention candidates positively.

Chicago Council of Lawyers finds 18 retention candidates "Well Qualified" for retention; the Council rates Judge Michael Toomin "Highly Qualified"

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has issued explanations for its ratings of Cook County judges seeking retention in November. The Council's complete ratings will be available shortly on VoteforJudges.org; the Council's ratings of retention candidates, stripped down to their Yes-No essence, can be viewed, along with those of all the other Alliance members, in the post below.

Nearly all of the 70-plus jurists seeking retention in Cook County were rated Qualified or better by the Council. The CCL found only one judge, Judge Ann O'Donnell, "Not Qualified" for retention. We will return to this in a separate post.

The big news here, however, at least in my reading, is that, not only did the Council find so many judges seeking retention to be Qualified, but that the Council bestowed "Well Qualified" ratings on 18 retention candidates.

Moreover, the Council singled out Judge Michael Philip Toomin as "Highly Qualified" for retention. Of Judge Toomin, the Council stated:
Judge Michael Philip Toomin --- Highly Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Michael Toomin was in private practice. He also served as an Assistant Public Defender for Cook County. Judge Toomin is currently sitting at the Juvenile Justice Division as a Presiding Judge. He was elected to the First Municipal District in 1980. His previous judicial assignments included the Appellate Court of Illinois, the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and the Second Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Toomin authored “Second Degree Murder and Attempted Murder: CLEAR’s Efforts to Maneuver the Slippery Slope” for the John Marshall Law Review. Judge Toomin is widely respected as an excellent judge and administrator. He has very good legal ability and temperament – both on the bench and as an administrator off the bench. He is praised for being exceptionally hard-working. As a judge, his rulings are considered well-reasoned and decisive. The Council finds him Highly Qualified for retention.
The Council rated Justice Thomas E. Hoffman, the one elected Appellate Court Justice seeking retention this year, "Well Qualified." Of Justice Hoffman, the CCL said:
Justice Thomas E. Hoffman --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Justice Thomas Hoffman worked as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the Chicago Department of Law and as an attorney in the private sector. Currently Justice dge Hoffman serves on the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, where he has worked since 1993. Prior to joining the Appellate Court in 1993, Justice Hoffman served in the Law Division. Justice Hoffman is highly praised for his excellent knowledge of the law and for the quality of his written opinions. He is respected as a mentor for other judges. He is also praised for his work ethic – he is described generally as being always well-prepared. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Appellate Court.
Here are the Council's explanations for the "Well Qualified" ratings it bestowed on 16 other Circuit Court judges seeking retention:
Judge Andrew Berman --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Andrew Berman was an Assistant Cook County Public Defender from 1979 to 1996. Beforehand, he was an assistant appellate defender for four years. Judge Berman has been assigned since 2007 to the Juvenile Justice Division. Judge Berman has also served in the Chancery Division. Judge Berman is considered to have very good legal ability and is widely respected for his legal knowledge. He serves as a mentor to other judges and serves as the acting Presiding Judge when Presiding Judge Toomin is unavailable. He is especially praised for his professionalism. His temperament is considered to be excellent and he is praised for the way he manages his courtroom. His rulings are considered to be well-reasoned and he spends the necessary time explaining his rulings to the parties appearing before him. He is active in court reform efforts. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Eileen Brewer --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Eileen Brewer was the Chief Counsel to County Board President, John H. Stroger. From 1988 to 1994, Judge Brewer served as the Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago. Before that, she worked for a year as an associate attorney at Jenner & Block. Judge Brewer was elected to the bench in 2002 and is currently sitting as a motion judge in the Law Division. She spent much of her judicial career in the Domestic Relations Division. Judge Brewer is considered to have very good legal ability and temperament. Practitioners report that she has successfully made the transition from the Domestic Relations Division to the motion call in the Law Division. She is praised for her court management skills and is reported fair to all parties. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Clayton J. Crane --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Clayton J. Crane was in private practice. He has also served as an Assistant State’s Attorney for Cook County. Judge Crane is currently sitting at the Criminal Division. He was first assigned to the Criminal Division in 1998. Judge Crane is praised as an excellent jurist by both prosecutors and defense counsel. He is considered to be fair to all parties, and to have very good legal ability and temperament. He has been involved in the development of specialty courts and other reform efforts in the Criminal Division. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Candace J. Fabri --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Candace J. Fabri was in private practice. She also served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois for nine years. Judge Fabri has taught at Loyola University School of Law and clerked for a district judge in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Fabri has been sitting at the Child Protection Division of the Juvenile Court since 1996. She is also presiding judge for the Family Treatment Court, where a judge, the lawyers, addiction specialists work with families where drug addiction has prevented reunification of a family. Judge Fabri is considered to have very good legal ability. She is praised for the quality and timeliness of her evidentiary rulings. Many respondents praised her opinions as “excellent” and “painstakingly thorough.” She is also praised for her ability to handle a high volume courtroom. During this current evaluation, all respondents described her temperament as “very professional”, “low key”, “respectful” and/or “effective.” Some respondents noted that she can be sharp with lawyers and caseworkers she believes are not prepared. She is often described as caring deeply for children and parents appearing in her courtroom. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge James P. Flannery Jr. --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, James P. Flannery worked as assistant corporation counsel in municipal and federal litigation for the City of Chicago until 1980, when he was hired as an associate attorney for Murphy, Preston & Jaffe. Judge Flannery worked in corporate, real estate, and labor law for two years before establishing a general practice as an associate at John T. Mitchell & associates. In 1984 Flannery worked as a solo practitioner maintaining his general practice before being hired as chief assistant attorney general where he was assigned to the Land Acquisition division in 1985.

Judge Flannery’s current assignment is Presiding Judge of the Law Division, where he has served since January, 2014 and supervised approximately 50 judges in the Law Division. His administrative duties include handling assignment and motion calls, as well as hearing contested motions involving the Law Jury section, Motion section, Commercial section, Tax and Miscellaneous section, and Individual calendar section of the Law Division of the Circuit Court. Previous judicial assignments include an assignment to the Law Division, Jury Section in 1997, where he presided over jury trials primarily involving personal injury and commercial cases. Before that, Judge Flannery spent 5 years assigned to the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County where he heard every type of felony case,
including death penalty cases, with as many as 300 cases on his docket at any given time.

Judge Flannery is considered to have very good legal ability and an excellent knowledge of the law. He is praised for his legal analysis of often complex issues and is reported to serve as a mentor to many other judges. He is also praised for his fairness and integrity – some respondents noted that he is willing to reconsider a ruling if sufficiently persuaded. He has an excellent demeanor and many respondents noted that he treats all parties fairly while having a calm yet effective temperament. He is reported to be exceptionally hard-working and many respondents noted that he is always prepared for court proceedings. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Rodolfo Garcia --- Well Qualified
Justice Rodolfo Garcia was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in 2003 and served there until 2012. He is now assigned to the Chancery Division. He was elected to the Circuit Court in 1996. From 1983 to 1996, Judge Garcia worked as a sole practitioner with concentrations in criminal defense and immigration. From 1981 to 1983, he worked as an Assistant Illinois Attorney General in the Criminal Appeals Division. In March 2011, he was appointed to fill the elected spot of retiring Appellate Court Judge Michael J. Gallagher.

As an Appellate Court Judge, Judge Garcia was praised for being well-prepared for oral argument and for issuing well-reasoned, well-written opinions. As a trial judge, he is considered to have very good legal ability and temperament. The Council found him Well Qualified for the Appellate Court during the 2012 primary election. He is also an excellent trial judge. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Justice Robert E. Gordon --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Robert Gordon spent 5 years working as an Associate Partner doing Insurance Defense work at Gordon & Brustin, followed by 10 years as a Partner and Insurance Defense litigator for Gordon Brustin. He then spent another 5 years as a Partner at Gordon, Schaefer, & Gordon, Ltd. where he represented both plaintiffs and defendants in litigation. Gordon then became President of Gordon & Gordon, Ltd. where he spent 15 years in General Litigation.

Justice Gordon is currently a Circuit Court judge sitting by appointment by the Illinois Supreme Court to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District since 2005. Justice Gordon is presiding judge of the Fifth Division and was previously presiding judge of the Sixth Division. Prior judicial assignments also included presiding over jury cases as a Jury trial Judge in the Law Division at Richard Daley Center, and presiding as a Jury Trial judge in the Municipal Division. He reports that he is currently working on a textbook on evidence which has yet to be published. Additionally Judge Gordon is a member of the
Appellate Court Administrative Committee.

Justice Gordon is considered to be a highly knowledgeable Appellate Court Justice who is praised for the quality of his written opinions and for the quality of his questioning during oral argument. He is considered to be exceptionally hard-working and prepared. He was also praised as an excellent trial judge before 2005. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Justice Michael Hyman --- Well Qualified
Justice Hyman was assigned to the First Judicial District of the Illinois Appellate Court effective January 2013. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2006 after being respected private sector practitioner since 1979. Justice Hyman is a former president of the Chicago Bar Association and the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, and former chair of the Bench and bar Section of the Illinois State Bar Association. He has published numerous articles on legal issues. As a trial judge, Justice Hyman was reported to have very good legal ability and temperament. He was praised for the quality of his written opinions and for his ability to thoughtfully bring about fair settlements. He was and continues to be well-respected for his dedication to improving the judicial system. As an Appellate Court Justice, he continues to be praised for his work ethic and for the quality of his written opinions. He is reported to be well-prepared. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Judge Marilyn Johnson --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Marilyn Johnson worked as a staff attorney for the Legal Assistance Foundation in Chicago providing civil representation of indigent clients. She then worked for a year is Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, Department of Law, followed by nine years as Deputy Corporation Counsel in the same department. Between November 1994 and December 1995 Johnson worked as General Counsel for the Chicago Housing Authority, before becoming General Counsel for the Chicago Board of Education. In March, 2003 she began working as Chief of Staff for the Illinois State Toll highway Authority in a managerial/administrative capacity until 2006.

Judge Johnson is assigned to the Child Protection Division of the Cook County Court, where she has served since 2006. Judge Johnson is widely praised for being a hard-working jurist who is very knowledgeable. She has very good legal ability, as demonstrated by both her performance as a judges and in the wide array of professional positions she held before becoming a judge. She is praised for combining her legal knowledge with common sense – a combination praised by practitioners. Her opinions are considered well-reasoned. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Themis Karnezis --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Themis Karnezis worked as a lawyer in criminal, workers’ compensation and real estate tax matters. He then served as an Associate Judge and, later as a Circuit Judge. From 1983 to 1998 he was assigned to the Criminal Division. He then went to the Law Division, and became the Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal District in 1999. He was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in 2002 and served there until 2012. Judge Karnezis then served as Supervising Judge at the Traffic Center. In 2014, he was transferred to the Law Division. Judge Karnezis has been regarded as one of the Circuit Court’s best trial judges and was considered an excellent Appellate Justice, as well. He has outstanding legal knowledge, integrity, temperament, and diligence. He serves as a mentor to practitioners and to other judges. Some lawyers are reporting that recently Judge Karnezis has been having difficulty with stamina, but the Council notes that for most of his career Judge Karnezis has been an outstanding jurist. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention based on the totality of his career.

Judge William G. Lacy --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, William G. Lacy spent six and a half years as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney, two years as an associate doing personal injury defense work for Fidelity National Law Group, and nearly five years as a partner at Tressler LLP doing insurance defense work. He was elected to the bench in 1996. Currently, Judge Lacy is assigned to the Criminal Division, Courtroom 604 where he has served since 2001. His previous judicial duties include an initial assignment to the 1st Municipal District, followed by three years as an evening narcotics judge, before being assigned as a back-up judge in the criminal division. Judge Lacy is considered to have good legal ability and exhibits a professional demeanor on the bench. He is respectful of all parties. He is praised for his decisiveness and is well regarded as a jurist. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Marjorie Laws --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Marjorie Laws worked as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. She did criminal litigation in the Public Interest Bureau doing Child Support Enforcement and Consumer Fraud cases; she worked as a trial assistant in the First Municipal District, followed by six years in the Felony Trial Division. Earlier in her career Judge Laws was a title examiner for the Chicago Title and Trust Company and was a partner at Cunningham and Cunningham where her practice primarily engaged in civil litigation with an emphasis on corporate, real estate, and domestic relations law.

Judge Laws is currently the Presiding Judge of the Sixth Municipal District. Her previous judicial duties include eight years assigned to the Criminal Division at 26th and California handling a felony caseload. Before becoming a presiding judge she spent several years assigned to the First Municipal District and to the Juvenile Justice Division. Judge Laws is considered to have very good legal ability and is respected as both a trial judge and as an administrator. As a judge, she is reported to be well prepared and to treat all parties fairly and respectfully. She is praised for her courtroom management skills. As an administrator, she has worked to improve the Sixth Municipal District, including working to improve the quality of the judiciary. She has worked to establish programs designed to improve access to justice. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Pamela Loza --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Pamela Loza was a partner at Loza & Associates, Ltd., where handled mostly divorce and criminal cases in numerous counties in Illinois. She also spent time as partner at Cameron, Loza & Associates and Cameron, Loza and Walsh, P.C. from 1987-2002 and 1984-1987 respectively. As an associate at Marder & Seidler Ltd. she practiced in divorce and criminal court after four years working as a Cook County assistant state’s attorney.

Currently Judge Loza is supervising judge in the Parentage/Child Support Enforcement Department of the Domestic Relations Division. She is responsible for day to day operation of the department and its numerous personnel, and has her own daily status and trial calls. Previous judicial service includes a year as a judge in traffic court and four years as a trial judge in the domestic relations division from 2009 - 2012. Judge Loza is considered to have very good legal ability and is described as being very knowledgeable about the law. Most lawyers say she has good temperament – exhibiting patience that respondents tell us is necessary in her current assignment. She is praised for being able to manage a high volume courtroom. She is considered to be well-prepared and is respectful of the parties before her. She has participated in major efforts to bring about systemic reform of the Domestic Relations Division. The Council finds her Well Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Judge Patricia Martin --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Patricia Martin was a career Assistant Cook County Public Defender. She was elected to the bench in 1996. She served in the Child Protection Division through July 1998, when she was transferred to the Law Division. She returned to the Child Protection Division as Presiding Judge in January 2000. She has been instrumental in creating new approaches to juvenile justice. She teaches and lectures extensively on representation of minorities in foster care, educational outcomes for children in foster care, and mediation in child protection cases. Respondents with experience with Judge Martin as a trial judge reported that she has a very good grasp of the law and that she controlled the courtroom well. Respondents with knowledge of her abilities as a presiding judge praised her administrative abilities and many praised her innovations and her training of judges. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Mary Ann Mason --- Well Qualified
Justice Mary Anne Mason was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in July 2013. She was appointed to the Circuit by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2000, and was elected to the Circuit Court in 2002. After serving in the Traffic Division, she served for two years in the Juvenile Justice Section. From July 2003 to July 2013 she was assigned to the Chancery Division presiding over cases involving injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, administrative reviews, partnership and corporate disputes, trust construction, and restrictive covenants. Before taking the bench, she worked in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and worked for Kevin M. Forde, Ltd (now the Forde Law Offices) doing commercial litigation and appeals. Before going on the bench, she had extensive experience in complex litigation and appellate matters.

Justice Mason has been hearing cases as an Appellate Justice for about a year. Lawyers report generally that she is well-prepared and is active during oral argument. Respondents who have received written opinions say her opinions are well-reasoned and well-written. As a judge in the Chancery Division, she was reported to have very good legal ability and temperament. Many respondents commented on their impression that she understood even complex issues. Off the bench, Justice Mason has lectured widely on issues considered in the Chancery Division. She reports that she prepares materials for the Judicial Conference. She also reports that as chair of the Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Discovery Procedures, she participated in preparing a report to the Illinois Supreme Court “regarding the status of e-discovery rules nationwide.” The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Sebastian Patti --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Sebastian Thomas Patti was Assistant Regional Counsel at the US Environmental Protection Agency and practiced federal civil environmental enforcement litigation from 1979-1995. Judge Patti is currently the presiding judge of the Domestic Violence Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Patti previously sat at the Chancery Division from 2010 to 2011, and then as appointed to the First Division Appellate Court from 2009 to 2010. He served as the supervising judge of the Housing Court between 1999 and 2009. Judge Patti was first appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1995. Judge Patti is considered to have very good legal ability and a dedication to improving the administration of justice. He is considered to be exceptionally knowledgeable about the law and has an excellent temperament. He serves as a mentor to other judges. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Shelley Sutker-Dermer --- Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Shelley Sutker-Dermer served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. Judge Sutker-Dermer is currently the Presiding Judge of the Second Municipal District. Judge Sutker-Dermer was appointed to the bench in 1995 and was elected in 1996. Judge Sutker-Dermer is considered to have very good legal ability and is well respected by respondents as doing an excellent job as Presiding Judge. She is part of the new judges training program, as well as other court reform initiatives. Lawyers report that it is their perception that the Skokie Courthouse (Second Municipal District) runs efficiently. She also has a court call and is praised for her temperament and her courtroom management. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Alliance retention "grids" issued

Updated 10/18/14

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has issued its ratings for the one Appellate Court justice and the seventy-plus Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention in November. This "key" will assist the reader in understanding the ratings.


FWIW will break down some of these ratings in future posts. However, for the present, herewith the Alliance retention "grids." (These are in ballot order.)

Please note that, as FWIW reported on October 10, the HBA has changed its recommendation on Judge Joan Powell from "No" to "Yes."

Clicking on any image may enlarge it or sharpen its focus depending on the device on which you are viewing this.

The Alliance has also released, or re-released, its evaluations of candidates seeking election to judicial vacancies in November. This will also be covered in a separate post.

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

Friday, September 19, 2014

Supreme Court catches up on a little paperwork in re: Judge Freddrenna Lyle

The Illinois Supreme Court yesterday terminated the appointment of Judge Freddrenna M. Lyle to the Taylor vacancy in Cook County's 7th Subcircuit. The termination order is "[e]ffective September 5, 2014, nunc pro tunc," nunc pro tunc being roughly translatable here as "backdated to."

The order was necessary because, back in August, the Illinois Supreme Court appointed Judge Lyle to a new 5th Subcircuit vacancy, this one created by the retirement of Judge Jane L. Stuart. That appointment was effective September 5.

The Taylor vacancy, meanwhile, will be filled on the first Monday in December when former Chicago Revenue Director and Water Commissioner Judy Rice is sworn in. Rice is unopposed on the November ballot for the Taylor vacancy.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

CBA ratings in "contested" Cook County judicial races on the November ballot

The word "contested" is rendered in quotes because so few of the contests on the November ballot are, in fact, contested.

These could have been contested, however, at least arguably, if the Republicans slated a field of candidates in the countywide judicial races or in any subcircuit except the 13th (that's the mirror-image subcircuit where only Republicans file in the primary and Democrats abstain). But in nearly all of True-Blue Cook County (the 13th Subcircuit excepted), the winners of the Democratic judicial primaries would be heavy or even prohibitive favorites to win, whether they were opposed or not. So nearly all Cook County judicial hopefuls run as Democrats.

If you're a November-only voter who has come here looking for information about your choices in races for the three Appellate Court vacancies and the many Circuit Court vacancies, you are destined for disappointment. Even if you live in the 4th or 12th Subcircuits, where the only two actual judicial contests will be decided, your choice will be limited to that one local race -- the three Appellate Court races and all 11 countywide Circuit Court races being just as uncontested there as elsewhere in Cook County.

That's the bad news.

The good news for the public -- and if you see Mark Suppelsa, you might want to pass this along -- is that, in the opinion of the Chicago Bar Association, at least, all three unopposed candidates for the Appellate Court are at least 'Qualified' (Justice John D. Simon being rated 'Highly Qualified'), and 25 of the 28 Circuit Court candidates are rated either 'Qualified' or 'Highly Qualified.' In the 11 countywide vacancies, where no candidate is opposed, the CBA rates 10 of the 11 candidates are rated 'Qualified.' In the subcircuit races, 15 of the 17 candidates are rated 'Qualified' or better (four subcircuit candidates received the CBA's 'Highly Qualified' rating).

In the north suburban 12th Subcircuit, the CBA has rated the opposing candidates thusly:
JAMES PAUL PIECZONKA (R) --- NOT RECOMMENDED
James Pieczonka is “Not Recommended” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Pieczonka was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1983 and is currently a solo practitioner concentrating in Taxation, Real Estate and Condominium Law. Mr. Pieczonka’s practice and court experience is limited. Mr. Pieczonka held a real estate broker’s license from 2004-2007 and was actively involved as a broker during this period. The candidate owns a number of properties that are currently in foreclosure and is personally involved in several residual court actions. Mr. Pieczonka needs to gain additional practice experience and resolve these financial responsibility concerns before reapplying to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

JAMES L. KAPLAN (D) --- QUALIFIED
Judge James L. Kaplan is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Kaplan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1971 and was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2010. Judge Kaplan is thoughtful, possesses a good demeanor, and has performed well on the bench.
There are two vacancies in the west suburban 4th Subcircuit, but only one contest, for the Billik vacancy. Of the two opposing candidates, the CBA states:
JOHN J. MAHONEY (D) --- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
John J. Mahoney is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Mahoney was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1984 and is currently serving as Deputy Supervisor of the Public Corruption and Financial Crimes Unit of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. Mr. Mahoney has extensive criminal trial experience and has handled many complex cases. Mr. Mahoney is well regarded for his knowledge of the law, legal ability, fine demeanor, and temperament.

IAN BRENSON (R) --- QUALIFIED
Ian Brenson is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Brenson was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1989 and is a sole practitioner concentrating in general litigation, business law, and appellate practice. While Mr. Brenson has limited jury trial experience, he possesses the requisite legal knowledge, temperament, and ability to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Chicago Bar Association releases ratings for Cook County judges seeking retention

The Chicago Bar Association has released its evaluations of all 73 judges seeking retention on the November ballot, finding all but one qualified for retention. (The link in the preceding sentence will take you to a page on the CBA website from which you can print or download the entire CBA Green Guide for November 2014 Election or the CBA's Pocket Guide.)

In retention elections the CBA dispenses with the rating of 'Highly Qualified,' a rating it sometimes bestows on judicial candidates seeking election. The CBA's choice of using rating of only 'Qualified' or 'Not Recommended' in these races is consistent with the nature and purpose of the retention ballot, an up or down, 1 or 0, yes or no vote. Judges must receive a 60% (plus 1) yes vote to be retained in office.

Only one Appellate Court justice, Justice Thomas E. Hoffman, is up for retention in 2014 (although there are a few Circuit Court judges currently assigned to the Appellate Court who are also on the retention ballot). The CBA stated, with regard to Justice Hoffman:
THOMAS E. HOFFMAN --- QUALIFIED
Justice Thomas E. Hoffman is “QUALIFIED” for retention as an Appellate Court Justice. Justice Hoffman was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1971 and was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in 1993. Justice Hoffman was elected to the Illinois Appellate Court in 1994 and is the Presiding Justice of the First Division of the Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District. Justice Hoffman is highly regarded for his knowledge of the law, work ethic, and legal ability. Justice Hoffman is always well prepared for oral arguments and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the Illinois Appellate Court. In addition to Justice Hoffman’s Appellate Court caseload, in 2000 he was appointed to serve on the Appellate Court’s Workers’ Compensation Division to decide appeals in Workers’ Compensation cases.
The one Circuit Court judge rated 'Not Recommended' by the CBA is Law Division Judge Thomas E. Flanagan. Of Judge Flanagan, the CBA stated,
THOMAS E. FLANAGAN --- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Thomas E. Flanagan is “NOT RECOMMENDED” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Flanagan was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1965 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 1984. Judge Flanagan is currently assigned to the Law Division and serves in the trial section. Judge Flanagan has had a distinguished judicial career and enjoys a fine reputation for his integrity. However, lawyers who have appeared before Judge Flanagan have expressed concerns about the judge’s ability to make decisions in a timely manner on motions and complex issues and to efficiently and effectively manage a trial call.
Every other Circuit Court judge seeking retention in 2014 is rated 'Qualified' by the Chicago Bar Association. Persons downloading the Green Guide will see that some 'Qualified' ratings are more glowing than others, but the good news for the public is that, at least in the opinion of the CBA, nearly every single judge seeking retention is worthy of being kept in office.

I don't want to cherry-pick ratings for particular candidates in this post. But, in June, I wrote about a judge who was criticized in a Tribune op-ed after a law professor taking notes in her courtroom was briefly taken into custody by Sheriff's deputies. Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans subsequently entered a general administrative order expressly allowing the taking of notes in Cook County courtrooms, at least under most circumstances. I mentioned at the time that the judge in question would be up for retention this year and that, before forming opinions based on only one newspaper article, it might be helpful to see what the various bar ratings groups made of the incident. This is what the CBA had to say about Judge Laura Marie Sullivan:
LAURA MARIE SULLIVAN --- QUALIFIED
Judge Laura Marie Sullivan is “QUALIFIED” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Sullivan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1988 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 2002. Judge Sullivan is assigned to Central Bond Court which sets bonds for defendants in the Criminal Justice System. Judge Sullivan is hardworking and well regarded for her knowledge of the law and well-reasoned, thoughtful decisions in a difficult assignment. The judge has been the subject of unwarranted and unjustified criticism and should be retained.
The CBA has also released (or in all but one case, re-released) its ratings on judicial candidates seeking election to the bench. I will do a separate post on those ratings soon.

When the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening releases its ratings on Cook County retention candidates, FWIW will cover those as well.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Ian Brenson joins race for Billik vacancy in 4th Judicial Subcircuit

I've been telling FWIW readers for months now that there is only one contested judicial election on the November ballot.

Turns out, I was wrong.

There are now two.

LaGrange attorney Ian Brenson will be on the November ballot as a Republican (his Democratic opponent is Assistant State's Attorney John J. Mahoney). That's a link to Brenson's campaign website in the preceding sentence. Brenson has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1989.

Brenson was not a candidate in the March primary. Readers may wonder how a person can qualify to run for judge as a Republican or Democrat without going through the primary process. I did.

I reached out to some smart people who weren't inclined to speak for the record -- but who were willing to point me in the direction of the applicable case law and statutes. (I also reached out to Mr. Brenson's campaign, but I haven't heard anything from that quarter before posting.)

My initial confusion arose from my dim recollection that a prior attempt by a political party to appoint a judicial candidate to the November ballot without going through the primary process was rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court has already said it can't be done, how could Mr. Brenson and the Republicans do it now?

The case I sorta, kinda remembered turned out to be Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 158 Ill.2d 391, 634 N.E.2d 712 (1994).

Lester Bonaguro was elected in the 1992 primary as the Republican candidate for the "B" vacancy in the northwest suburban 13th Judicial Subcircuit (1992 was the first year for subcircuit elections in Cook County, you may recall). No candidate filed for the Democratic nomination. However, after the primary, the Democratic Party selected Arthur L. Janura as its candidate in November.

Judge Bonaguro (he'd been an Associate Judge since 1981) filed objections to Judge Janura's candidacy (he was also a long-serving Associate Judge), contending that Janura's nomination was unconstitutional under Article VI §12(a) of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. That section of our State Constitution provides:
Supreme, Appellate and Circuit Judges shall be nominated at primary elections or by petition. Judges shall be elected at general or judicial elections as the General Assembly shall provide by law. A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions. The General Assembly shall prescribe by law the requirements for petitions.
Janura had not been nominated in the primary or by petition; rather, he had been selected as the Democratic Party's candidate pursuant to the provisions of §7-61 of the Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/7-61. The Circuit and Appellate Courts determined that the method of filling vacancies prescribed by §7-61 was not in fatal conflict with Article VI §12(a) of the Constitution. See, Phelan v. County Officers Electoral Board, 240 Ill.App.3d 368 (1992)(agreeing that interpreting section 12(a) to forbid a political party from filling vacancies in nomination would be "a restrictive interpretation" inconsistent with principles of constitutional interpretation).

The Supreme Court's majority opinion, authored by Justice Freeman, did not reach the constitutional question. After first deciding that the case was not mooted by Bonaguro defeating Janura at the polls in 1992, the Supreme Court determined that "the Election Code does not authorize a political party to fill a judicial vacancy in nomination by party resolution" (158 Ill.2d 397). In an opinion joined by then-Chief Justice Bilandic and Justice Nickels, Justice Heiple concurred with the majority's conclusion that §7-61 did not provide a proper means of nominating Janura. However, Justice Heiple would have reached the constitutional question -- and he would have resolved that against Judge Janura as well (158 Ill.2d at 402): "The constitutional provision at issue is clear. Section 12(a) prescribes that judicial candidates must be nominated by primary election or by petition. It does not contain any provision for nomination by political party resolution to fill a judicial vacancy in nomination."

Bonaguro, by itself, would seem to auger poorly for Mr. Brenson's candidacy. However, the pertinent provisions of the Election Code have changed since Bonaguro was decided.

The exact evolution of the relevant statutes is probably not important for our purposes. Suffice it to say that, even while Judge Bonaguro's challenges were pending, the legislature began trying to "fix" the perceived holes in the Election Code. The Phelan court upheld the right of the Democratic Party Chairman to fill the vacancies at issue in the case as a committee of one but noted, "The legislature has recently amended section 7-8(g) of the Election Code in this regard, which provides, in new section 7-8(g-1), that judicial subcircuit committees of each political party in Cook County shall be composed of ward and township committeemen, and further provides a voting formula to be followed. * * * [B]y reorganizing section 7-8(g) in 1992 to create a judicial subcircuit committee for each political party in new section 7-8(g-1)..., which under section 7-61 would be authorized to fill vacancies in nomination in the subcircuits, the legislature appears to have strengthened appellees' contentions in the present case as well as the circuit court's affirmance of the Electoral Board." (240 Ill.App.3d 379, n.6; Id. at 381.)

As matters now stand, §7-7 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part:
For the purpose of making nominations in certain instances as provided in this Article [10 ILCS 5/7-1 et seq.] and this Act, the following committees are authorized and shall constitute the central or managing committees of each political party, viz: * * * a judicial subcircuit committee in a judicial circuit divided into subcircuits for each judicial subcircuit in that circuit....
Section 7-8 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part:
§10 ILCS 5/7-8. [Committees; election and appointment]


* * *

Judicial District Committee

(f) The judicial district committee of each political party in each judicial district shall be composed of the chairman of the county central committees of the counties composing the judicial district.

In the organization and proceedings of judicial district committees composed of the chairmen of the county central committees of the counties within such district, each chairman of such county central committee shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his county by the primary electors of his party at the primary election immediately preceding the meeting of the judicial district committee.

* * *

Judicial Subcircuit Committee

(g-1) The judicial subcircuit committee of each political party in each judicial subcircuit in a judicial circuit divided into subcircuits shall be composed of (i) the ward and township committeemen of the townships and wards composing the judicial subcircuit in Cook County and (ii) the precinct committeemen of the precincts composing the judicial subcircuit in any county other than Cook County.

In the organization and proceedings of each judicial subcircuit committee, each township committeeman shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his township or part of a township, as the case may be, in the judicial subcircuit by the primary electors of his party at the primary election immediately preceding the meeting of the judicial subcircuit committee; each precinct committeeman shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his precinct or part of a precinct, as the case may be, in the judicial subcircuit by the primary electors of his party at the primary election immediately preceding the meeting of the judicial subcircuit committee; and each ward committeeman shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his ward or part of a ward, as the case may be, in the judicial subcircuit by the primary electors of his party at the primary election immediately preceding the meeting of the judicial subcircuit committee.
And the big one, §7-61, now provides, in pertinent part:
§10 ILCS 5/7-61. [Special election]

* * *

If the name of no established political party candidate was printed on the consolidated primary ballot for a particular office and if no person was nominated as a write-in candidate for such office, a vacancy in nomination shall be created which may be filled in accordance with the requirements of this Section. If the name of no established political party candidate was printed on the general primary ballot for a particular office and if no person was nominated as a write-in candidate for such office, a vacancy in nomination shall be filled only by a person designated by the appropriate committee of the political party and only if that designated person files nominating petitions with the number of signatures required for an established party candidate for that office within 75 days after the day of the general primary. The circulation period for those petitions begins on the day the appropriate committee designates that person. The person shall file his or her nominating petitions, statements of candidacy, notice of appointment by the appropriate committee, and receipt of filing his or her statement of economic interests together. These documents shall be filed at the same location as provided in Section 7-12. The electoral boards having jurisdiction under Section 10-9 [10 ILCS 5/10-9] to hear and pass upon objections to nominating petitions also shall hear and pass upon objections to nomination petitions filed by candidates under this paragraph.

A candidate for whom a nomination paper has been filed as a partisan candidate at a primary election, and who is defeated for his or her nomination at such primary election, is ineligible to be listed on the ballot at that general or consolidated election as a candidate of another political party.
At least with regard to subcircuit candidates, it seems pretty clear that the legislature has tried to respond to the constitutional objections that were raised (if not decided) in Bonaguro.

Even after being anointed "by the appropriate committee," a candidate must circulate and submit nominating petitions, collecting the same number of valid signatures as if he or she were filing for the primary. The late-filing candidate's nomination papers are expressly made subject to the same objections as those filed by a primary candidate. This would appear to satisfy the "petition" requirements in Article VI, §12(a).

Also, the term "vacancy" has been specifically redefined to include the situation where no candidate filed for the primary.

Because no objections were filed to Mr. Brenson's candidacy, the questions raised in Bonaguro will not be revisited. But I can't help but think that, based on the current language of the statutes, the objections that succeeded in Bonaguro would have failed in this case.

Speaking as a non-specialist, I wonder whether the same result would obtain if the Republicans had tried to put up a countywide candidate. There is no specific counterpart to the judicial subcircuit committee that applies in Cook County. The circuit court committee created by §7-8(g) applies only outside of Cook County. In Cook County, would the judicial district committee be (as it was at the time of Bonaguro) a committee of one, namely, the county party chair? Unlike the judicial subcircuit committee expressly provided for by §7-7 and referred to in §7-8(g-1), there is no judicial committee identified in §7-7. Thus, the "judicial committee" of §7-8(f) is not expressly authorized for "the purpose of making nominations in certain instances as provided in this Article."

Would that make a difference? My suspicion is that it would.