Thanks to everyone who paid attention to sources such as this blog to assist in voting on judges in Cook County.
I’ve said it before; here it is again.
Of all offices for which you vote, none is closer to you personally than that of a judge in a local court. You could personally face a judge for any of a number of reasons; you could have jury duty; you could be a witness in a trial. You need to have confidence that the judge’s peers have reviewed her/his qualifications to be there. Often organizations other than bar associations review the judge’s actual performance on the bench. Often other organizations look at a new candidate’s actual performance before the bar. It’s very important that you pay attention, even if you’re doing that only in your own best interest.
My blog entry of September 28 singled out the judges and judge candidates whose bar association qualifications were found questionable by enough associations to require a careful look at those candidates. My supplements on October 2 and October 13 brought to light additional information. The October 13 post highlighted a Chicago Sun-Times article expressing strong reservations about four candidates for retention, candidates whose bar association reviews had been favorable.
None of the Cook County candidates up for retention lost their elections. To do so, a candidate must receive less than 60% of the votes cast in that slot. Some came very close to being ousted.
This fact makes me wonder if I should have sought a much larger audience for my information. I send personal emails to an audience of under 100. This election teaches me that I must expand that list. It also teaches me that I need to expand the audience for this blog.
Understand that I bear no personal animus toward any candidate. What I feel is a responsibility to inform as widely as possible and to help people to be able to vote intelligently on a long list of candidates. Too many have told me that they automatically vote “yes” for everyone, or “no” for everyone (“Throw all the bums out!” as one person told me). This is understandable, but ultimately is a disservice to the community.
With all of that in mind, let me give you the results in the cases of those for whom questions were raised, some of them quite serious. Please note (as I will help you to do) those whose margins for retention were very thin. I suspect that, with a much larger informed audience, the percentages for these judges would have fallen below 60%, moving them off the bench.
Let me reiterate: these are the judicial candidates about whom questions of varying seriousness were raised.
First, I noted in my September 28 blog entry that Michael P. Toomin had been recommended by 9 of the associations and that 3 did not evaluate. Further, I pointed out that he is the judge who was not supported by the Cook County Democratic Organization because he appointed a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case. Judge Toomin was retained with a very small margin, 62.2% of the votes cast.
Despite “Not Recommended” evaluations by all 12 of the bar associations of the The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, Teisha L. Smith was elected to fill the “Vacancy of Bellows” and Krista Butler was elected to fill the “Vacancy of Brooks.”
Perla Tirado, not recommended by 3 of of the bar associations of the The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, was elected in the “Vacancy of Lacy,” 14th subcircuit.
Candidates Running for Retention
Maurice Araujo, who resigned his seat well in advance of the general election in the face of a growing scandal, remained on the ballot and received 50.81% of the votes cast.
Patricia Manila Martin, who had withdrawn from running for retention, received 62.4% of votes cast.
Kenneth J. Wadas, whose past record both as a prosecutor and as a judge was found so egregious by Injustice Watch (as reported in the Sun-Times), squeaked by with 67.61% of votes cast.
Marguerite Ann Brennan, found by Injustice watch to have had rulings reversed on appeal more than three times as often as her colleagues, received 73.18% of votes cast.
Patrick J. Sherlock, also found by Injustice watch to have had rulings reversed on appeal more than three times as often as his colleagues. won 70.85% of votes cast.
Anna Helen Demacopoulos, another judge found by Injustice watch to have had rulings reversed on appeal more than three times as often as her colleagues. received 71.84% of votes.
John J. Mahoney, not recommended by 3 of of the bar associations of the The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, got 63.6% of the vote, perilously close to non-retention.
Diana Rosario, not recommended by 2 of of the bar associations of the The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening, received 67.98% of votes cast.
The total turnout in Suburban Cook was 58.36% of registered voters, not a stunning number.
To see all results, see the page of the Cook County Clerk at https://results1120.cookcountyclerkil.gov/summary.aspx?eid=110320
Edmund J. McDevitt
©November, 2020
Ed,
Thank you for the update. In fact, I used your blog for the information that I took into the voting booth. I spent more time voting for judges than I spent in line waiting to vote.
I have lead two different Community organizations since 2012 in a community of thirty thousand. I have a reach of ten thousand. The most commitment I have ever received is 700 on a petition so I feel your frustration.
I think part of the problem is that there is usually little information about Judges until a couple weeks before elections. I’ve never paid attention because I never felt that I had enough information to vote responsibly. I think we need the type of information you provided on a regular basis, no less frequently than annually and preferable more often. I’m willing to help build a base of followers if you can develop the content.