Four judges, impartial arbiters of the law, all rated “Highly Qualified” by their Bar Associations. Hogarth, “The Bench,” 1758. 

First the protests were against police. Then Black Lives Matter activists went on to expose the role of prosecutors, and now we have reformers elected as state’s attorneys, district attorneys and state attorney generals. Kim Foxx in Cook County was one of those, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco.

But when will the movement come for the judges?

It better be soon.

There are 80 judges on my ballot in Chicago, and I only heard of two because of a county-wide campaign against them.

We don’t know who the judges are, but we’re supposed to “do our civic duty” and vote for them anyway. I had a suspicion that most voters don’t. So I took a close at the 2018 midterm results in Chicago, and my suspicion was pretty much confirmed. About 40% of the voters didn’t bother voting for the 31 judges running unopposed. The other judges on the ballot were up for retention – you had to vote “Yes” or “No.” About 1/3 of the voters ignored them and didn’t vote at all; of the ones who voted, about ¼  voted “NO!” Half of those judges had 20% or more “NO!” votes, and some a lot more.*

When I saw that, my blood pressure plummeted. My breathing was labored. I had to sit down.

And then I had a laugh.

No newspapers mentioned those refractory voters, but to me their behavior was the most interesting thing you could say about the judicial results. You can interpret those stats a lot of ways. My choice is, maybe they are casting a mad “NO!” vote for our entire judicial system. Could that be the sneaking suspicion worrying our city fathers, the reason we see these newspaper editorials and mailers shaming us into voting for judges? Should we piously do our “civic duty” and vote for them?  Or …

There are some decent judges … but how do we know how to separate them from the others? I’ll make some suggestions below, and you can also look at the Bar Association ratings in voteforjudges.org and the research on each judge at Injusticewatch.org, some of which I’ll summarize.

But first, allow me a bit of a rant, for which you will please declare me in contempt of court. And don’t expect me to channel our political class’s piety about preserving an independent judiciary. They are independent neither of Chicago’s Democratic machine,* nor of the real estate and financial elites who are their patrons and donors. And they are certainly not independent of our secular Church of Mass Incarceration, in which they are the priests and enforcers.

Find your sample judicial ballot from Injustice Watch here. Sample ballot for Chicago here.

Our apolitical, non-partisan and objective arbiters of the rule of law

Judges are supposed to be non-partisan, serving justice as neutral interpreters of the laws. But deep cultural changes have brought us to deep cynicism. Who could think the fights over Trump’s Supreme Court appointments are about “qualifications” and not just more naked struggles for power? Now we even have people in the corporate media calling BS on the rationalizations.

What if we were to do our civic duty and vote for them anyway? But for which ones? It’s one of the normal paradoxes of our political life that on average a bad judge will do far more harm in a day than a killer cop or a lying prosecutor, but we have no way of knowing who they are.

We can look at Bar Association ratings. But can you believe ratings which find almost every judge “qualified” or “recommended,” when our criminal justice system is more and more seen as systematically racist? Even judges like Vincent Gaughan, who gave the cop who murdered Laquan McDonald a six-year sentence? Or Mauricio Araujo, considered qualified by all the Bar Associations in 2014, only exposed as a sexual predator in 2020?

Is the theater of justice only more farce? Not only are the justices evaluated without regard to social justice. Judges in federal courts have lifetime appointments. … and the circuit court judges might as well have lifetime appointments. Once they are elected, they easily succeed themselves. In Illinois, they run unopposed in their next election, and if 60% of the voters agree on their “retention,” they stay in office. Since few voters have any idea who the judges are and no one is running against them, they quite predictably stay put. This allows them to rule with virtual impunity, while their obscurity shields them from our “NO!” votes.

It’s absurd, but don’t call it “farce.”  Farce and tragedy are not far apart. The stories lines in both lead to confusion and disaster; the difference is that in farce you laugh and in tragedy you cry.

“Bein’ a miner as soon as you’re too old and tired and ill and sick and stupid to do the job you got to go. Why the very opposite applies to the judges. All in all I’d rather be a judge than a miner.” (Beyond the Fringe)

Can activists mobilize effectively against judges?

Injustice Watch launched a mass campaign in 2018 to get rid of one egregiously bad judge, Matthew Coughlin. It was joined by Black Lives Matter Chicago, BYP100, GoodKids MadCity, Chicago Votes, DSA. The Cook County Democratic Party finally called for a no vote. They circulated a 30-second video, for “a justice system more fair to Black and brown communities.” Even the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times called for a “No!” vote.

Coughlin lost.  He was ousted because he failed to get 60% of the vote. We need more of that! But we need to remember that even as he lost, he won over 50% of the vote, and he was recommended by the Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association, though rejected by a few other BAR associations. More widespread rejection of judges will require a level of activism and education we may not see for some time.

“You can speak, explain yourself! You’re free!”  The defendant’s testimony suppressed with a gag; his plea torn on the floor, excluded evidence; the executioner already at work with his axe; and the tribunal in the rear appropriately disinterested. Daumier, La Caricature, 14 May 1835. LACMA.

Vote “NO!” on Judge Michael Toomin!

This year, the Judicial Accountability PAC called for “NO!” votes for judges Mauricio Araujo and Michael Toomin. Araujo resigned just before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board could remove him for sexual harassment. But really, why so harsh? After all, Araujo admitted his behavior was “overly casual.”  And he promised that, “if the commission would let him remain a judge, he’d behave in a more formal manner and refrain from hugs and kisses.”

He was forced out. Is this the system working, or does it make you ask, How did someone like that become a judge in the first place? (Part of the answer: He ponied up his donation – up to $40,000* — to the Cook County Democratic Party committee run by Ald. Ed Burke.)

Judge Michael Toomin may be next to lose a retention vote. A Republican who made donations to the campaigns of former Gov. Bruce Rauner, Mitt Romney and ousted States Attorney Anita Alvarez, the Cook County Democratic Committee refused to endorse him. All but two Democratic ward committee persons voted “NO!,” and prominent progressive congress persons also also urged a “NO!” vote.  The Judicial Accountability PAC has been campaigning to oust him.

Toomin is one of the most powerful circuit court judges. He presides over the juvenile justice division. There he both sets policy and supervises the other juvenile court judges. He has consistently opposed juvenile justice reform. He refused to grant emergency motions for hearings to release children from the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center during the pandemic, when coronavirus was spreading throughout the jails. He also overrode an ordinance unanimously passed by the Cook County Board banning detention of children under 13. A reminder — these children were all, supposedly, “presumed innocent” and had not come to trial. He even turned down funding from a multimillion dollar statewide grant program to provide youth with alternatives to prison.

“No judge is more emblematic of the judicial legitimization of police misconduct in Chicago than Toomin.”

“No judge is more emblematic of the judicial legitimization of police misconduct in Chicago than Toomin,” wrote Brendan Shiller of the Judicial Accountability PAC. “Four decades ago when Toomin became a judge and made to it the Criminal Courts building at 26th and California, he used his station to protect the culture of racism and corrupt police conduct that permeated the building in the 1990s and 2000s.” Just the right guy to oversee juvenile justice.

Toomin is also a crony of Ald. Ed Burke, indicted for racketeering and extortion after the FBI raided his home and offices. Burke, a once-powerful boss of the corrupt Chicago machine, ran the county’s judicial selection process before his disgrace. Toomin joined his friend Burke in the select Table of Wisdom LLC, an investment club. The conflict of interest, a judge doing business with a lawyer who could come before the court, may violate the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, but the intimacy with the sleazy alderman violates common decency.

But wait! Maybe we need to rethink this! The Chicago Bar Association and eleven others all recommend him! (Only one Bar association opposed his retention — the Black Women Lawyers’ Association.)

Toomin and his supporters claim the campaign against him is retaliation for his appointing a special prosecutor to investigate States Attorney Kim Foxx for her role in the Jussie Smollett case. Here we see the developing split in Chicago elites over criminal justice reform. Foxx, a genuine reformer, is loathed by opponents of reform for her efforts to eliminate cash bail, reduce the population of the County Jail, exonerate victims of false convictions, and end prosecution or reduce charges for non-violent drug offenses, petty theft and other non-violent offenses. It serves their purpose to reduce Foxx to her missteps in the Smollett case. And the Chicago Tribune buys Toomin’s argument and endorses him, despite their vaunted claims to support criminal justice reform.

Judge Michael Toomin: Punch #206 and Vote “NO!”

Cook County Democratic Party mailer calling for a “NO!” vote on Toomin and Araujo.

Just two more of my picks:

Jackie Portman-Brown boasts she is “the lock-em up judge.” Voters might remember the video showing her locking up a child in an adult holding cell. Lawyers and probation officers in the intensive probation program she runs complain about her bullying, even punishing offenders to spite attorneys who annoyed her. Three Democratic committee persons voted against endorsing her, while eight more voted against endorsing the entire slate.  Seven Bar associations say “NO!”

Kenneth Wadas has had 25 decisions reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court, “more than any other criminal court judge running for retention this year, according to Injustice Watch.  IVI-IPO says his sentencing is harsher than average. He was reversed after he denied successive post-conviction petitions in a case alleging police torture; another reversal because he improperly allowed evidence from an illegal search; and another reversal was for giving a 100-year sentence to a 16-year old. He is recommended by every one of the Bar associations.

Two ways to vote for judges: Deep take or quick dive?

1. Quick: You can bring to the voting booth the Alliance of Bar Associations grid listing all the judges with their ratings from 12 Bar associations. Even quicker:  Scan to find the “NO!” ratings, which they helpfully list in red.
2. Deep dive. You can compile your own list based on the annotated list of Injustice Watch, which combines Bar Association ratings with additional research. You can make some guesses from their research notes about which judges favor restorative justice, harsh sentencing, or are cruel beyond the norm. I would pay special attention to judges whom the Black Women Lawyers Association (BWLA) oppose.

In case you choose the Quick Take, be warned that there are racist and misogynist judges who receive positive ratings even from every Bar Association because they fall within the norms —  the norms of a racist system. If the system is corrupt, even its decent practitioners will find themselves confined within its criteria and discourse.

Suggestion: Print out your sample ballot for Chicago here and use the notes below to mark your choices.

Judicial independence matters. Well, maybe a bit after 2019, when Ald. Ed Burke removed from chairing the Democratic Party’s judicial slating committee. 

“NO!” Recommendations

Here is a list of “NO!” recommendations you can find among the overwhelmingly positive ratings compiled by the Alliance of Bar Associations (voteforjudges.org).  And you can find additional information about these characters in Injustice Watch.

(BWLA: Black Women Lawyers’ Association; AABA: Arab American Bar Association; CCBA: Cook County Bar Association (Black community mission); ISBA: Illinois State Bar Association; LAGBAC: Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago; WBAI: Women’s Bar Association of Illinois.)

Michael P. Toomin (BWLA “NO!”)

Laura Marie Sullivan (BWLA “NO!”)

Tiesha L. Smith (All say “NO!”)

Maura McMahon Zeller (ISBA “NO!”)

Krista D. Butler (All say “NO!”)

Susanne Michelle Groebner (CCBA “NO!”)

Perla Tirado (DSL, ISBA, WBAI “NO!”)

Susan Michele Groebner (CCBA “NO!”)

Mauricio Araujo (All say “NO!”)

Jackie Marie Portman-Brown (DSL, HBA, HLAI, ISBA, LAGBA, WBAI)

Daniel J. Kubasiak (AABA, BWLA and PRBA  “NO!”)

John J. Mahoney (CCBA, ISBA, LAGBAC  “NO!”)

Diana Rosario (ISBA and WBAI say “NO!”)

Flagged by Injustice Watch

For your convenience, here is a list of some of the judges Injustice Watch flagged for notable “controversies” or negative ratings (there are others; these were my picks). Injustice Watch notes which judges are former state’s attorneys, which are former public defenders, which had “notable reversals.” Too many to name here — check their annotated list. There is no organized campaign against their retention, but you might want to look more closely at them before voting. Look for more details on each in Injustice Watch.

Michael P. Toomin. See above!

Kenneth J. Wadas. See above!

Margaret Ann Brennan. More reversals (40 since 2014) than any judge up for retention. Tried to let the Bears off the hook for $4.1 million in amusement taxes, but was reversed.

Kerry M. Kennedy. Threatened to jail a rape victim for contempt because she refused to watch a video of the sexual assault.

Laura Marie Sullivan. Ald. Ed Burke connection, assigns overly high bonds.

Patrick J.Sherlock. Reversals.

Mauricio Araujo. See above!

Thomas J. Byrne. Two rulings against victims of police torture.

Anna Helen Demacopoulos. Also flagged by Maggie O’Keefe (see below).

Jackie Marie Portman-Brown. See above!

Daniel J. Kubasiak. Was campaign mgr for Ald. Eddie Vrdolyak’s racist campaign against Mayor Harold Washington in 1987, earlier was administrative officer for City Council Finance Committee under
Ald. Ed Burke, in the racist bloc in the city council that stalled all of Mayor Washington’s first-term reforms.

Megan Elizabeth Goldish. Also flagged by “Girl, I Guess” (see below). Prosecuted a false conviction allegedly knowing it was based on coerced testimony that was recanted before the trial — and discounted an alibi witness. Normal prosecutorial behavior, at least before Kim Foxx became state’s attorney.

Robert D. Kuzas. Acquitted CPS security guard whom female students accused of groping.

John J. Mahoney. ISBA: “Concerns … about … arrogance and a lack of sensitivity to diversity issues.”

James Paul Pieczonka. Alleged favoritism to Ald. Rey Colon, finding him not guilty of drunk driving. “I’ve seen a lot worse,” he said.

Frank R. DiFranco. Allegedly complicit in a coerced confession by a crooked cop; defended abuser priest.

Here are a few judges positively rated by Bar Associations but flagged by progressives:

Kenneth Wadas*

Kerry M. Kennedy*

Thomas J. Byrne*

Anna Helen Demacopoulos*

Caroline Kate Moreland*

William B. Raines*

Jonathan C. Green*

Megan Elizabeth Goldish**

Go vote, and may the Farce be with you!
—Paul Elitzik

*Flagged by Maggie O’Keefe, community activist, 40^th Ward Committeewoman (the ward of socialist Ald. Andre Vasquez).

**Flagged in Girl, I Guess: A Progressive Voter Guide to the 2020 General Election and Beyond

Notes

* In Cook County, judicial candidates pony up $40,000 to the Democratic machine for its “communication plan” (mailers) and $10,000 for the privilege of being slated. “Democracy ain’t free,” and neither it appears is judicial independence. But this year judges rebelled. Angry that the party voted against slating Judge Michael Toomin, the Committee for Retention of Judges in Cook County voted 42-13 against the donation. They printed up and mailed their own ad, reproduced above, without mentioning the Democratic Party. The Party and the Committee don’t list the same judges. Rebels with the wrong cause.

Bar Association Ratings: Who am I to throw shade on the work of the Bar Associations? Only one trivial concern — their evaluations presuppose the normal practice of our legal system, which, incidentally, has a systematic racist and class bias. And  a culture that suits the courts which proudly sustain the world’s largest prison population. But the evaluations are what we have, and we also have some seriously reformist lawyers and even judges trying their best within those limits.

Aside from the Chicago Bar Association, which has the resources to do extensive investigations, the work is mostly done by overworked and often idealistic volunteers. It’s time consuming, and it relies on biased and limited sources of information. The ratings are more valuable the fewer alternatives we have.  I pay especial attention to The Chicago Council of Lawyers, which has a social justice mission, and the associations of women and minority lawyers.  Sometimes they are the only ones to recommend against a candidate, and that should make us pay special attention.

Here is an interview with Malcolm Rich, exec. dir. of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, explaining the ratings. He says: “Bar association evaluations are a volunteer effort that have to be conducted in a relatively short period of time. The bar associations do much with few resources. But some voters would like the benefit of judicial evaluations conducted through a more extensive research effort, which could provide court management data, the results from court watching and comments from litigants, in addition to the lawyers appearing before judges [my italics].” Yes, let’s hear from the victims of Justice, also.

Progressive voter guide: I’ve found few sites with progressive organization endorsements for Cook County and Chicago. The only extensive guide I know of is the quirky, larky, snarky, rather barky, very long but very readable “Girl, I Guess: A Progressive Voter Guide to the 2020 General Election in Cook County and Beyond.”

Girl, I Guess discusses all the candidates, including runners for parties you never heard of, has just the right Homer Simpson gif. Read their explanation of “Water Wonderland: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District,” which is as important as it is obscure. Suspense: Check it out to see if Girl, I Guess endorses the Greens or gives you permission to (gasp!)  vote Democratic.