Thoughts on the Judicial Primary

Center for Judicial Performance and Integrity, Judicial Campaigns, Elections, and Selection , , , ,

We’re just past the March 2018 primary. Before the election, Vote for Judges received about 55,000 unique visitors with about 100,000 viewed/downloaded pages. The evaluations collected by Vote for Judges were aggregated through a number of ballot reference websites, like Ballot Ready. It’s great to see the resource getting such widespread use. It’s difficult for voters to collect all the information they need to cast informed ballots and we’re honored that they turn to VoteforJudges.org.

VoteForJudges.org collects the evaluations and recommendations of the Alliance of Bar Associations, comprised of 11 associations, the Chicago Bar Association, as well as the endorsements of the Chicago Tribune.  VoteforJudges.org also compiles information describing judicial elections, where to go for more information, and media accounts of those running for judge or judges seeking retention.

The Alliance of Bar Associations is comprised of:

 

Chicago Appleseed began VoteforJudges.org more than a decade ago in an effort to educate voters about the judicial elections. Today, the website is sponsored by the Committee to Elect Qualified Judges, a political action committee dedicated to informed judicial voting.

There were 39 total races—10 vacant countywide seats and 29 subcircuit judgeships. There were no Republican candidates for the countywide seats, although each of those races had multiple Democratic candidates. Overall, five Democratic candidates were uncontested—two of those countywide and three 13th subcircuit races. Two Republican candidates were uncontested in the primary—one in the 13th and one in the 15th subcircuit—although both those races had Democratic candidates in the primary.

31 candidates in the primary were sitting judges, having been temporarily appointed to vacancies by the Illinois Supreme Court. 16 of them—just about half—lost their primary races. This is in contrast to prior years where three-quarters or more of sitting judges have won their primary races.

Fourteen candidates across all races had unanimous ratings of not recommended or not qualified. One candidate in an uncontested race won with unanimous ratings of not recommended or not qualified and a single candidate in a contested race won with a majority of not recommended or not qualified. No other winner was found not recommended or not qualified by more than 3 of 12 bar associations. This also contrasts to prior years.

Website traffic clearly shows voters engaged with the evaluations of judicial candidates prior to casting their ballots. Results in the primary suggest they are taking those evaluations seriously.