Protecting Fair Courts in a Citizens United World — Blog
Today at 3 pm, we will begin blogging the Protecting Fair Courts forum on judicial recusal and campaign contributions disclosure.
We are co-sponsoring the forum with Justice at Stake, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, American Constitution Society, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, Chicago Council of Lawyers, and the Union League Club of Chicago is hosting the discussion.
We have superb panelists for the forum:
Judge Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York
Adam Skaggs, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice
Bert Brandenburg, Executive Director, Justice at Stake
Cynthia Gray, Director, American Judicature Society Center for Judicial Ethics Peter Bennett, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence
With opening remarks from ABA President-‐Elect Laurel G. Bellows.
Check back soon for updates!
Cook County Circuit Court Elects 9 Qualified & Well Qualified Associate Judges
The Cook County Circuit Court elected 9 new associate judges, all of whom were found qualified or well qualified by our affiliate, Chicago Council of Lawyers. Associate judges have the same authority as all other circuit court judges, although their salary is slightly lower. Associate Judges are elected by 272 circuit court judges (associate judges do not vote). The 9 were elected based upon a slate of 18, developed by a nominating committee headed up by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court.
Earlier this month the Daily Herald reported that 18 nominees were selected from 232 applicants, and that 9 new associate judges were to be elected, despite Cook County’s falling caseloads. The article also noted that Illinois circuit judges are the highest paid in the nation, at a salary of $178,835 per year. Associate judges receive $169,893 per year.
Interestingly, three of the judges elected were sitting judges who lost in this year’s general primary election. Stanley Hill lost to Karen Lynn O’Malley in General Cook County Circuit Court Primary, Nicholas Geanopoulos Lost in 8th Subcircuit Primary to Judge Gubin, and Mary Trew lost in 9th Subcircuit to Larry Axelrood.
The “For What It’s Worth Blog” summarizes the remaining six Associate Judges:
“The other six new Associate Judges include Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph M. Cataldo, Assistant Public Defender Lana C. Johnson, and Assistant Attorney General Richard D. Schwind. (Schwind had been a finalist for Associate Judge in 2009.)”
The list of new Associate Judges is below. The list includes evaluations by our affiliate public interest bar association, Chicago Council of Lawyers.
Joseph M. Cataldo – Qualified (Evaluated for Associate Judge in 2004)
Joseph M. Cataldo has been an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney since his admission to practice in 1992. He currently serves in the Criminal Division, Felony Trials, but also spent two years in the State’s Attorney’s civil litigation division. Mr. Cataldo is considered to have good legal ability and is widely praised for his temperament. The Council finds him Qualified.
Stanley Hill – Qualified
Stanley Hill is widely reported to be a knowledgeable and tenacious lawyer, although the Council’s current investigation turned up an issue that warrants special mention. In 1994, Mr. Hill was held in contempt by Judge James B. Zagel for professional misconduct, a ruling that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In reported opinions, the district judge found, and the appellate court agreed, that Mr. Hill acted at trial with the specific intent to prejudice a fair and impartial proceeding by refusing to abide by the rulings of the court. Nevertheless, the balance of the Council’s investigation leads it to conclude that the passage of time and sufficient seasoning likely have tempered the approach to litigation reflected in those judicial opinions.
Based on the totality of its investigation, therefore, the Council finds Mr. Hill Qualified for the Circuit Court.
Nicholas Geanopoulos – Qualified (Evaluated to fill a vacancy in 2006)
Nicholas Geanopoulos has practice law since 1983. He has been an associate with the Vrdolyak Law Group since 1992. From 1983 to 1992, he was an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. Mr. Geanopoulos is a solid practitioner with good legal ability and substantial trial experience. He has a good temperament. The Council finds him Qualified to fill a vacancy.
Lana C. Johnson – Qualified
Lana C Johnson was admitted in 1988. She is an Assistant Public Defender in the Homicide Task Force. She has been in the office her entire career. As lead counsel she reports taking 65 criminal trials to a jury verdict and 100 criminal trials to a bench verdict. Ms. Johnson is reported to have good legal ability and is a widely respected criminal defense lawyer handling homicide cases. She has good temperament. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
Michael Kane – Well Qualified
Michael Kane was admitted to practice in 1974. He served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney from 1974 to 1980. He has been in private practice doing civil litigation since 1980. He reports acting as lead counsel in 35 civil and 45 criminal jury trials and 10 civil and 175 criminal bench trials. Mr. Kane is considered to have very good legal ability with experience in complex civil and criminal law matters. He is praised as being knowledgeable, as being always well-prepared, and as being a person of strong character and integrity. He does a substantial amount of pro bono work. The Council finds him Well Qualified for the Circuit Court.
Richard D. Schwind – Well Qualified (Evaluated for Associate Judge in 2002)
Richard D. Schwind was admitted to practice in 1978. He has served in the Illinois Attorney General’s Office since 1985 and currently holds the position of Chief of the Criminal Prosecutions and Trials Assistance Bureau. From 1978 until 1985, he was an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. He is a chair-qualified Cook County Arbitrator.
Mr. Schwind is considered to have very good legal ability. He is well regarded as a zealous but fair prosecutor with extensive trial experience, including experience in death penalty cases. The Council finds Mr. Schwind Well Qualified to serve in Circuit Court.
Mary S. Trew – Qualified (Evaluated for Associate Judge in 2002; she was appointed to the bench in November 2010)
Mary S. Trew was admitted to practice law in Michigan in 1981 and in Illinois in 1991. She was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in November 2010. Before taking the bench she had been with Pro Bono Advocates first as a supervising attorney and currently as the Executive Director. Before 1991, Ms. Trew practiced in Detroit. For one year, she was the supervising staff attorney at the Women’s Justice Center. From 1982 to 1989, she was in private practice doing primarily criminal defense work. From 1980 to 1981, she was at the Misdemeanor Defender Office, first as a student and later as a lawyer. Ms. Trew is a 1981 graduate of the Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University.
As a lawyer, Ms. Trew was considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She had a variety of litigation experience in both civil and criminal law matters. She is dedicated to public service and had a reputation as a hard-working and extremely well-prepared lawyer. The Council finds Ms. Trew Qualified to serve in the Circuit Court.
Steven M. Wagner – Well Qualified (Evaluated in 2004)
Steven M. Wagner has been practicing law since 1979. Mr. Wagner served as an Assistant Cook County Public Defender for 15 years following his admission to the bar, but entered private practice in 1994. As a public defender, Mr. Wagner served as a supervisor with the Murder Task Force, and acquired substantial bench and jury experience in significant and sophisticated matters. Mr. Wagner is reported to have very good legal ability and temperament, and enjoys an excellent reputation as an outstanding attorney with a notably professional demeanor. The Council finds him Well Qualified.
Allen P. Walker – Qualified
Allen P. Walker was admitted to practice in 1987. He is a partner at Greene and Letts and before that was a senior associate in the litigation department at Greene and Letts (1994-1998). He serves on the board of directors of the Public Interest Law Initiative. He reports being lead counsel in 4 trials that have gone to a jury verdict and 25 that have gone to a bench verdict. Mr. Walker has a litigation practice that included personal injury matters, medical malpractice and product liability defense, and commercial litigation. He also has an active transactional practice. He is praised for his community service work. As a lawyer, he is reported to have good legal ability. He is considered to be well-prepared and has a professional demeanor. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.
Save the Date: 5/23/12 “Judicial Independence in a Citizens United World”
Please join us…
Protecting Judicial Independence in a Citizens United World – New Ways of Looking at Judicial Recusal and
Campaign Contribution Disclosure
Sponsored by Justice at Stake Campaign
and
Co-Sponsored by
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Illinois Campaign for Political Reform
May 23, 2012
3:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Union League Club
65 W. Jackson Blvd
Chicago
Speakers include:
Judge Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York
Adam Skaggs, Brennan Center for Justice
Bert Brandenburg, Executive Director, Justice at Stake
Cynthia Gray, Director, American Judicature Society Center for Judicial Ethics
_________________________
1.5 hours of MCLE credit will be provided to attendees.
Program is FREE, but you must RSVP to Chicago Appleseed at: caffj@chicagoappleseed.org
Fax: 312-397-1338
For more information, please contact Malcolm Rich at:
malcolmrich@chicagoappleseed.org or 312-988-6552.
Thoughts after the Primary Election
In the run up to yesterday’s primary race, Appellate Justice Aurelia Pucinski was a vocal critic of the role of campaign financing in judicial elections. Judge Pucinski was particularly critical (audio link, relevant portion at the -1:20 mark) of the role of PAC money and money from donors and organizations with little or no connection to state of Illinois. Campaign contributions in the Supreme Court primary this year reached 1.6 million dollars. Self-described “long-shot candidate” Thomas Flannigan was alone in accepting no campaign contributions in the primary race. Judge Pucinski did not win yesterday’s primary race; current Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis did. In the interests of full disclosure, Justice Theis received a “Highly Qualified” recommendation from our partner organization, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, but Judge Pucinski did not.
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice has long been an advocate for judicial election reform and supports public financing for judicial campaigns (.pdf link). Public financing of judicial campaigns levels the playing field for qualified candidates and eliminates barriers for judicial candidates without a political affiliation. It relieves judges of the conflicts created by soliciting contributions from parties and organizations who may appear in their courtrooms. Public financing also fosters public confidence in the impartiality of judicial candidates and focuses electioneering on prior judicial performance and qualifications rather than hot-button issues.
Public opinion polls from the early 2000’s show that more than 70% of Americans feel judges are beholden to the parties who donate money to their campaigns and that campaign contributions influence courtroom outcomes. In a 2002 poll, 46% of state court judges themselves agreed, believing that campaign contributions have at least a little influence on courtroom decisions. As spending in elections continues to rise, public confidence in the judiciary will almost certainly continue to decline.
Campaign financing, campaign contributions, and campaign spending all degrade public confidence in the judiciary and the impartiality of judges and justices because judicial officers are meant to be beholden to the law, not constituencies.
To combat this, in 2002, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates adopted a resolution urging states that elect judges to consider public financing of judicial campaigns, based upon a report of the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence (.pdf). Like the ABA, the Brennan Center, Justice at Stake and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform also support public financing for judicial elections. Chicago Appleseed is in good company suggesting that Illinois adopt public financing for judicial campaigns.
As we have often remarked, public confidence in the judiciary arises from judicial excellence, judicial independence and judicial impartiality. Ensuring impartiality and independence in a jurisdiction with elected judges can be problematic, particularly as campaigns raise and spend ever larger amounts. Poll results reported by the American Judicature Society in 2002 show that in Illinois more than 85% of voters believed campaign contributions influence judicial decisions. Three out of four voters favored limits on campaign contributions to judicial candidates, and over 60% supported a voluntary system of public financing of judicial campaigns. Chicago Appleseed also advocates for public financing of judicial elections. In a 2003 report on judicial reform, we examined the process of judicial elections in Cook County, and our research found that judicial fundraising in Cook County increased from an average of $7,400 in 1988 to more than $30,000 in the 1998 subcircuit election.
More recent research by other groups demonstrates that campaign spending in judicial elections continues to rise. For instance, a 2010 study by the Brennan Center reported that non-candidate spending in state high court elections nearly doubled as a share of total costs, compared to the previous off-year election, including “a flood of non-candidate TV advertising, making this the costliest non-presidential election cycle ever for TV spending in judicial elections.” The report also showed that nearly one-third of all funds spent on state high court elections came from non-candidate groups ($11.5 million out of $38 million in 2009-10) and that nearly 40 percent of all funds spent on state high court races came from just 10 groups, including national special interest groups and political parties. It is extremely troubling that so much money funding judicial elections comes from national organizations, when state judicial officers are bound not only to uphold state and local law, but also to rule from the standards of the communities where they sit.
Illinois should seriously consider preserving the integrity of its judiciary by adopting a system of public financing for judicial races, particularly at the Supreme Court and Appellate Court levels.
Illinois & Cook County Primary Judicial Election Results
As of today, our Voteforjudges.org website received 518,000 hits since the beginning of this judicial evaluation season with about 17,000 unique visitors. This is exciting evidence of a concerned electorate!
Below is a table showing election results for Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois Appellate Court, Cook County, and Cook County Subcircuit races. Alongside the winner is the rating given to the candidate by our affiliate public interest bar association, the Chicago Council of Lawyers.
The key for ratings is: NQ = Not Qualified, Q = Qualified, WQ = Well Qualified, NR = Not Rated because the candidate refused to participate in the evaluation.
An asterisk* denotes that the candidate ran uncontested.
All in all, just TWO “Not Qualified” candidates running in a contested race won their primary.
(Click for larger/clearer image.)
Cook County Subcircuit Court Election -- Winners and Chicago Council of Lawyers Ratings
Illinois Supreme & Appellate Court, Cook County Circuit Court Elections -- Winners & Chicago Council of Lawyers Ratings
You CAN Take It With You: Judicial Candidate Evaluations into Illinois Voting Booths
45 of the candidates running in Tuesday’s Cook County Illinois primary were deemed “not recommended” or “not qualified” by at least one reviewing organization, and the SunTimes wants to know how voters are supposed to discern the best candidates when they’re faced with numerous options in the booth.
Here’s one way: Take the evaluations with you.
Using www.voteforjudges.org, a Chicago Appleseed project since 2006, you’ll find a collection of Cook County judicial candidate evaluation of candidates.
Chicago Council of Lawyers Evaluation -- Illinois Primary Election 2012, Supreme Court
And the best part is: you can take these evaluations with you into the ballot box!
The judges you elect on Tuesday may decide cases involving business licensing, divorce, civil rights, crimes, contracts and more. All of our lives are affected every day by their ability to manage a courtroom, apply the law, and address parties with thoughtfulness and integrity. Help strengthen the judiciary and take the evaluations with you.
Illinois Supreme Court Candidates Share Views on Judicial Recusal, Campaign Finance
To the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice released the responses of Illinois Supreme Court Candidates to a survey about judicial recusal standards and campaign finance reform.
You can find the complete press release and survey results at our website.
Only three of the five Democratic candidates seeking election in the March 20 primary responded to the questionnaire: Judges Joy Cunningham, Aurelia Pucinski, and Mary Jane Theis. Two other candidates, Democrat Thomas Flannigan and Republican James Riley, did not respond to the survey.
In response to the Judge Cunningham proposed an alternative to blackletter recusal standards. She says:
The main reason for recusal would be to ensure the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system. Therefore, rather than enacting new rules which will not likely be applicable to every recusal situation, an alternative approach would be to ensure the following.
• Only people of impeccable integrity should be elected to the court on all levels.
• Judges should voluntarily establish protocols, which are transparent and which they would consistently apply to recusal decisions.
• There should be an objective manner to monitor the consistency with which each judge applies the established rules to his or her recusal decisions.
While we are in favor of clearer recusal standards, we always advocate for strong monitoring and oversight systems.
Cunningham and Aurelia Pucinski also supported the creation of a set of uniform guidelines for recusal where attorneys or litigants before the court have made contributions to the judge’s campaign.
Pucinski took a strong stance on judicial campaign contributions. She writes:
I feel that there is a need to change the standards for recusal. Candidates receive contributions, endorsements and help from a variety of sources. There is nothing in the current rules that requires recusal when a litigant or attorney appearing before you has endorsed your campaign, has contributed, or has represented you in some other action. I think that judges should be responsible for knowing who has contributed to them or endorsed them, that the information should be available on the judge’s website, and that the judge should give a reason for recusal. Ultimately the best way to avoid the need for recusal, either because of an actual or apparent conflict of interest is to avoid the problem before it begins which is why:
- I have said “NO” to appellate lawyer contributions and endorsements
- I have said “NO” to political party or political boss endorsements
Theis did not respond to this question. And she did not support a system where a certain level of campaign contribution would trigger automatic review for recusal. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Theis over Cunningham in what they characterized as a “close call.”
From the ICPR and Chicago Appleseed press release:
Current Illinois Supreme Court rules direct judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but the rules do not give direction about how judges should respond when campaign contributors appear before them in court.
In the landmark 2008 decision Caperton v. Massey, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that private contributions in judicial campaigns may necessitate judges to recuse from certain cases, and invited states to establish guidelines addressing it. The American Bar Association last year approved a resolution urging states’ courts to take action.
Ten states have adopted new guidelines to address recusal questions in the context of campaign support. The Illinois Supreme Court has not acted on the ABA’s recommendation.
Learn more about our position on judicial performance at our website, www.chicagoappleseed.org.
All Illinois Voters Can Now Vote By Mail!
The Cook County blog reports that, for the first time in state history, all registered Illinois voters may mail in their vote.
“In the past, you needed an absentee excuse to vote by mail,” Cook County Clerk David Orr said. “All voters are now eligible for a mail ballot, bringing one more convenient option for participating in the democratic process.”
Mail ballot applications are now being accepted for the March 20, 2012 Presidential Primary. Suburban Cook County voters can download an application at cookcountyclerk.com, request an application by calling (312) 603-0946, or pick one up at any of the Clerk’s six offices.
Early voting began this past Monday. Voters can cast their ballot at ANY of the early voting, which are open Monday – Saturday, 9-5. Learn more about early voting in our earlier post.
You can also use the County’s helpful Voter Information Tool to:
- Verify your voter registration
- Find your polling place
- See your sample ballot, when available
- See a list of your elected officials and their contact information
- Check your mail ballot status
Early Voting in Illinois Starts Today!
Early voting for the March 20 General Primary Election in Illinois starts today!
Voters may use any early voting site no matter where you live. Early voting sites are open Monday – Saturday 9 am – 5 pm, February 27 – March 15.
A complete list of locations and hours sites is available at the Chicago Board of Elections site. Here you can also check your voter registration status and election results.
All US Representatives and all members of the Illinois State Legislature are up for re-election.
Here’s a PDF with a complete listing of offices.
Cook County Democrats will choose their candidate for state Supreme Court; clerk of the Circuit Court; committeeman and up to 20 circuit and appellate court judges.
Learn about judicial candidate’s qualifications by checking out their evaluations at www.voteforjudges.org. Voteforjudges.org is a project of Chicago Appleseed and the Judicial Performance Commission.
You can view the evaluations conducted by our affiliate, Chicago Council of Lawyers, on this year’s sample ballot (pdf). You CAN take this sample ballot into the voter booth with you!
Have any questions about this year’s election, or voting in general? Let us know in the comment box, and we’ll do our best to respond!
Judicial Campaign Contributions Revive Need for Recusal Standards
The sole asbestos judge in Madison County, IL was dropped from several asbestos cases after receiving over $30,000 in campaign contributions from asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms, reports the Belleville News Democrat. Just days before contributing to Judge Crowder’s campaign for re-election, the three firms had been assigned to her docket.
Upon learning of the contributions, Chief Judge Ann Callis transferred the cases to another judge’s docket.
As the Belleville News Democrat explains:
The Illinois Judicial Conduct Code does not explicitly prohibit judges’ campaign committees from accepting contributions from legal firms. The code does state, however, that judges should conduct themselves ‘in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.’
Chicago Appleseed, which is affiliated with two judicial evaluation organizations–Judicial Performance Commission and the Chicago Council of Lawyers–advocates for similar recusal standards for Illinois judges.
We also support an easily searchable public database of donors to judicial campaigns to facilitate recusal or disqualification of judges where appropriate.
New York recently implemented new recusal standards, issued by its Administrative Board of Courts. The new rule prohibits prohibit judges from hearing cases where any one of the lawyers or parties on either side has contributed $2,500 or more to that judge’s election campaign. (The case will be transferred if a lawyer’s firm has contributed $3,500 or more.)
Just one month ago, in another case where a justice had received campaign contributions from a litigant in the case, we filed an amicus brief with the Illinois Supreme Court, drafted by pro bono attorneys from Chicago-based firm DLA Piper.
As we explained in an earlier post, ”In the amicus brief, which was accepted by the Court, we reiterate the position that Illinois’ standards and procedures of recusal should be improved consistent with two principles: reasoned, transparent review of recusal decisions by neutral judges and consideration of recusal on account of judicial campaign spending by litigants or their attorneys. Illinois should adopt the evolving best practices of judicial recusal like other states across the country in order to ensure public confidence in the judiciary.”
An independent judiciary underpins a just society, as well as public confidence in that society. Recusal standards are a proven way to improve both.
