In announcing the 26 Associate Judge finalists, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans stated, "These candidates are capable, talented individuals. All of them were found either 'Qualified' or 'Recommended' by all of the bar organizations participating in the process."
But, in addition to announcing the successful applicants, the Nominating Committee also released a fact sheet about the entire applicant pool. These were figures for the 236 applicants that completed the process (41 applicants withdrew, for one reason or another, presumably including the 12 applicants who won nomination in the primary). The numbers show that the Nominating Committee had a plethora of well-qualified individuals from which to choose.
In short, while every one of the 26 finalists was rated Qualified or Recommended by every evaluating bar association (the Chicago Bar Association and the member bar groups of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening), a lot of the candidates passed over can say the same. According to the Nominating Committee's figures, some 88.14% of the applicant class were found qualified by the Chicago Bar Association (the figures for the CBA aren't broken down further, but I can think of at least three unsuccessful applicants who were deemed Highly Qualified by the CBA).
The Nominating Committee did provide a more detailed breakdown for the Chicago Council of Lawyers evaluations of the associate judge applicants. Some 83.06% of the applicants were deemed Qualified or better by the CCL. The CCL deemed two of these Highly Qualified (neither was chosen by the Nominating Committee). The Council found 29 applicants Well Qualified (nine of these made the short list, according to figures provided by the Nominating Committee).
The Cook County Bar Association gave favorable marks to 91.95% of the applicants. Five candidates were deemed Highly Qualified; none of these made the short list, according to the Nominating Committee fact sheet.
The Illinois State Bar Association deemed 88.13% of the applicants Qualified or better. Nine were rated Highly Qualified by the ISBA. Only one of these, however (James Robert Carroll), made the short list.
The Decalogue Society of Lawyers found 87.72% of the applicants Recommended or better. The Decalogue Society found 39 applicants Highly Recommended; eight of these (Carroll, Shauna Louise Boliker, Kevin Thomas Lee, Myron Franklin Mackoff, Sanju David Oommen, Linda Johanna Pauel, Debra Ann Seaton, and Stephen Stern) are on the short list. Of course, that necessarily means that 31 are not.
There are seven candidates on the short list who were rated Highly Recommended by the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (Carroll, Bolliker, Oomen, Pauel, Stern, Gregory Emmett Ahern, Jr. and Devlin Joseph Schoop). But LAGBAC found 28 candidates Highly Recommended (83.05% of the applicants being deemed Recommended or batter).
The Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois found 89.41% of the applicants qualified, 18 of these deemed Highly Qualified per the Nominating Committee's fact sheet. Only two of these (Carroll and Alfredo Maldonado) made the short list. The Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois gave favorable marks to 89.41% of the applicants. Nineteen of these were considered Highly Recommended by the PRBA but only one (Stern) is among the finalists.
Several Alliance members have only one favorable rating (Qualified or Recommended is the best rating given). The Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area found 89.41% of the applicants Qualified. The Black Women Lawyers' Association found 83.47% of applicants Recommended. The Hellenic Bar association found 87.29% of the applicants Recommended, while the 89.83% of the applicants were Recommended by the Women's Bar Association of Illinois.
Looking at the list myself, I believe there were 13 current judges in this pool of applicants, including one recalled Associate Judge. Four of these won their primary races. Of the nine remaining, only two (Ahern and Michael Francis Otto) made the short list. There were nine former judges in the applicant pool as well; none of these made the short list.
By my calculations, eight of the nine finalists who were not selected in 2012 (the last time Associate Judges were chosen) reapplied. But only two of these former finalists (Maldonado and Rossana Patricia Fernandez) made the short list.
Sixty-six percent of the applicants were male, 34% female, according to the Nominating Committee. The Nominating also reported that 77% of the applicants were Caucasian, 16% African-American, 4% Hispanic, and 3% Asian.
After the short list was announced Friday I heard from some disappointed applicants, some of whom were kind enough to offer me condolences as well (I was an also an unsuccessful applicant -- again). It took me awhile to think of an appropriate response, but this is what I eventually came up with: We may not be in select company, but we are in good company. The facts and figures bear this out.
Justice Cunningham announces application process for three Circuit Court
vacancies
-
Supreme Court Justice Joy V. Cunningham has announced an application
process for three Circuit Court vacancies, one countywide, and one each in
the 1st and...
1 day ago
Posts
4 comments:
I have followed Jack's blogg since my 2012 judicial election race. In my humble opinion, his intellect, hard work, thoughtfulness, consideration and kindness are virtues that would have made him a good jurist. I just realized that I had failed to formally give my condolences (was selfishly wrapped up in my own self pity). Jack, sorry for your loss and my delay in telling you.
Thankfully yours,
Mark V. Ferrante
P.S.: I am curious about the statistics of years of experience of the candidates in the pool vs. years of experience of those who made the short list and also the type of experience public vs. private practice of the pool vs. short list candidates.
Mark, thank you for your very kind words. I hope I didn't come across as fishing for condolences! I only mentioned my own disappointment because I wouldn't want any outside observer to think I was indifferent to the outcome (I was trying for equanimity).
Jack, the Supreme Court of Illinois has a rule not to appoint candidates who ran for Judges and lost at the polls, then how can Circuit Court Judges nominate candidates for Associate Judges that ran in previous elections such as in 2012 and in 2014 and lost at the pools. in effect appointing Associate Judges contrary to the Supreme Court self imposed rule. If this rule is good for the Supreme Court, it should also be folllowed by the Circuit Court Judges in nominating candidates for Associate Judges.
Anon -- You misunderstand the Supreme Court's rule. The Supreme Court has agreed to no longer recall to judicial service judges who were appointed but who subsequently did not win election. The Supreme Court has not agreed to automatically cashier a judge who the court felt was worthy of appointment but who failed to win election, perhaps only because of lack of party slating or ballot position or being stuck in a race with a woman with an Irish surname. In fact, since the policy was announced in 2012, there have been several cases where the court has appointed that defeated judge to a different vacancy.
From a management standpoint, clearly, it makes sense to reappoint persons who have done well in judicial service whether or not they have had problems at the polls.
A recalled judge fills a personnel need in the court system, but not a statutorily created vacancy, and therefore is not required to seek election. The reason the recall mechanism became controversial in Cook County was that, over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court recalled someone to judicial service who had been defeated in a retention election. I really don't see how recalling a judge to service who was defeated in a primary election can be compared to recalling a judge who was voted out of office in a straight up or down, yes or no, vote by the people of Cook County. (I wrote about that in this post.)
The Court's current policy of sometimes reappointing former appointees to new vacancies does force those Supreme Court nominees to keep seeking public validation of the court's choices while keeping judges in office who have performed capable service.
The Circuit Court Nominating Committee is likewise interested in keeping judges in office who have performed well as judges but who may not have, for whatever reason, performed well at the polls. Quite frankly, I was surprised that the Nominating Committee chose only two current judges for the short list (and none of the former judges who applied).
Post a Comment