60 Comments - Excessively Rabid - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:38 pm: Are we going to have Federalist Society recommendations for judges in Illinois now? Jeez. I think the basic idea here is that lawyers have some factual basis for evaluating judicial candidates, which, frankly, the rest of us just don’t. As far as I’m concerned, this candidate just branded himself as a nut job. - H-W - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:41 pm: I voted “reasonable.” It is always reasonable to ask, and often reasonable to answer or not. The latter is a choice. - Montrose - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:43 pm: They are pretty basic questions. The judicial candidate is acting like they are asking if he a proponent of Critical Race Theory. That aside, I do think that ISBA could change the wording to “no recommendation” for folks that don’t participate. - Michelle Flaherty - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:44 pm: Reasonable. Someone should also ask if he completes his ethics test and sexual harassment awareness and prevention training. - Donnie Elgin - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:49 pm: Voted NO The first question is reasonable as it has an element of the 14th amendment’s due process/equal protection of the laws. The other two questions ( no matter how one answers them) would offer no hint as to how effective/knowledgable/fair one would be as a judge. - vern - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:50 pm: Reasonable questions from ISBA and deeply unreasonable objections from Noverini. If an interest group sends you a questionnaire and you don’t fill it out, they’re not gonna recommend you for office. It’s not bullying for the Bar Association to say “well we couldn’t get ahold of him so you probably shouldn’t vote for him.” As to his conflict of interest word salad, not sure why accepting endorsements from lawyers is bad but accepting money from them is ok. https://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/A1List.aspx?FiledDocID=xdS5Sy%2b%2fBsFA%2brTYXjrPGg%3d%3d&ContributionType=wOGh3QTPfKqV2YWjeRmjTeStk426RfVK&Archived=I0cuvBFuZRw%3d&T=637870923054116185 - 47th Ward - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:50 pm: Perfectly reasonable. Voters and the public have a right to know if judicial candidates believe racism and exclusion are OK in society (spoiler alert: they aren’t). But we live in strange times, as this Political Wire item notes: https://politicalwire.com/2022/05/02/racism-no-longer-carries-any-stigma/ - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:55 pm: Reasonable. If you can’t or refuse to answer, you probably have no reason to be a judge. - Huh? - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 12:59 pm: Anon - Judaism is the ethic religion of the Jewish people. If a judge belongs to a club discriminates on the basis of race, one can correctly infer that Jews could be excluded from membership. - Perrid - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:00 pm: It’s for an endorsement, they can set the standard at whatever they want. And if their standard shows their values don’t mesh with voters, the voters will ignore them - Ice Scream - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:01 pm: The interesting thing is Noverini has vacillated with the political winds. He had been a Republican, ran as a Democrat for judge (and won) in 2008, looks like he initially filed to run as a Democrat for this seat, then switched to being a Republican (probably when the polling came back). If he had no problem getting rated when he was a Democrat, now that he’s a Republican it’s unacceptable? C’mon. - Lt Guv - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:02 pm: Very reasonable. Clearly the Judge doesn’t have the even temperament required to serve on the bench. - Candy Dogood - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:03 pm: Rich nails it on the head. Voters should know whether or not someone belongs to an organization that discriminates against people and then make that determination themselves. I would like to see some more explanation out of the “not reasonable” votes. For example, why is a question about belonging to a group that excludes people based off of categories that are illegal discrimination an unreasonable question to ask? Organizations that explicitly limit membership are either going to be something like the Knights of Columbus or the KKK. One of those is pretty easy to explain and membership in a Church’s mens group or something similar is also very easy to explain. ===What efforts, if any, have you made in your community to include people of a different […] than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?”=== This again is a very reasonable question. A mentorship, a clerkship, a talk at a university student group, these are things that one would expect a judge to be doing and one would expect some measure of diversity in those venues unless they were specifically excluding people. This is a question where every judge should have something to say. This is a very unusual thing to dig ones heels into unless they are specifically trying to avoid an on the record answer about something, or are specifically trying to create controversy so they can appeal to the extreme right wing Christian Nationalists and White Nationalists that want public institutions to discriminate based off of their views. ===“The left-leaning ISBA has a vested interest in who sits on the Supreme Court”=== This is blowing the dog whistle quite loudly. Case law and constitutionality have been established for everything this organization has asked about which would demonstrate a “left wing bias.” If a judge doesn’t believe people have the rights that they have, then that judge should be forthcoming on that matter so that we can avoid instances where they rule incorrectly on a basis of their own superstition by declaring face masks in a pandemic to be “evil.” - NotMe - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:21 pm: Totally reasonable. Many candidates refuse to participate because they fall short in some way (lack of experience, extreme positions) and want to avoid having that information made public. Getting a “not recommended” for refusing to participate takes away any possible benefit of refusing to participate. Totally fair. - Boone's is Back - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:21 pm: Reasonable. Methinks that this judge is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in order to gain more conservative votes in the primary. - Benjamin - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:22 pm: Reasonable. These are essay questions; if you disagree with the premise, go ahead and make your case that it’s not your problem if a Black defendant gets an all-white jury or whatever your stance is. You still have the other 37 questions to find common cause with the state bar. Refusing to answer a questionnaire over this is either a sign of laziness or a desire to grandstand, or both are good reasons for the ISBA to label him “Not Recommended.” I don’t know about the rest of you, but I take these really seriously, by the way. I ususally line up my sample ballot with the judicial endorsements from the Tribune, Sun-Times, and every evaluating group I can find. If any group finds a candidate Not Qualified or Not Recommended, they don’t get my vote. - TheInvisibleMan - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:25 pm: Reasonable. And deeply concerning that a judge is labeling these questions as a ‘threat and bullying’. …As if he is entitled to sit on that bench. - Amalia - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:25 pm: yes. pretty basic. think he’s the candidate with the bucks so he will have to use much of those to explain away his “perspective.” - well... - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:32 pm: Isn’t Noverini the guy who has changed his party affiliation twice now? Hard to believe this is a genuine objection on his part. - Arsenal - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:32 pm: ==The other two questions ( no matter how one answers them) would offer no hint as to how effective/knowledgable/fair one would be as a judge.== Inaccurate. These questions are essentially asking “Are you interested in diversity in the legal profession?” and “Oh yeah? Well prove it.” The Illinois Supreme Court has real power to affect that issue. SCOIL governs the very licensing of new attorneys through IBAB, and it governs attorney discipline through the ARDC. SCOIL fills vacancies in the lower courts. It also administers other diversity programs and drafts reports on diversity in the legal profession. It’s possible, of course, that someone can believe that SCOIL should NOT do those things, or that it should not consider diversity when it does so. That’s valid. But then, you’d probably want to know which candidates are on your side. - Johnny Tractor - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:36 pm: Reasonable - the questions speak mostly to judicial temperament. BTW, saying that “Not Recommended” is a form of bullying is akin to saying that the ISBA should just give out the equivalent of participation medals. Everyone should be a winner! - The Ford Lawyer - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:50 pm: I voted reasonable. There is nothing outlandish about those questions. As a member, I find that the ISBA, like Illinois politics, skews slightly left-center, but not very far. Publicly refusing to answer the questionnaire and making an issue about it is a political stunt, nothing more or less. As far as the Federalist Society making recommendations for judicial candidates, I think it would be fine. One could keep in mind their judicial philosophy and use their ratings as a litmus test, to cut for or against candidates as one chooses. - Don't Bloc Me In - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:54 pm: These questions are reasonable. The judge calls them “political?” They certainly are not. In fact, they are based in Federal statutes, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. A judge who cannot support or doesn’t understand the laws shouldn’t be recommended for anything. - Proud Sucker - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 1:55 pm: Johnny Tractor just wrote what I was typing but far better. The only thing unreasonable here is the Judge’s hyperbole. - Retired SURS Employee - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:09 pm: Perfectly reasonable. Then again, I’m a member of that “left-leaning” ISBA! - Downstate - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:12 pm: Unreasonable. Question #2 is subjective in how it can be answered. If one answers that is “really” important versus “very” important, does that make one more or less qualified? I suppose “Really, very, super important to the max” is the necessary response. Question #2 and #3 both ignore the issue of socio-economic standing. It’s just as important as the other items. Candidly, if they are going to ask about the other issues, I’d be interested to know what the judge has done to try to change the trajectory of poverty in their area. JMHO - HLV - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:12 pm: ISBA question one. Just wondering, how exactly and truthfully should one answer this question if she is a member of the Women’s Bar Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Inc. (“BWLA”), League of Women Voters, National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) Junior League, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), The International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ)… - Wilted Flour - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:12 pm: Had to go with Not Reasonable because “marginally reasonable” was not an option. This incessant and self-serving posturing and signaling is ridiculous. I’m sure there are some who actually discriminate. But what purpose does this serve? To me, this is solely about ISBA (or whoever) signaling or advertising some sort of perceived morality or holiness. In fact, there are probably people howling at them for not including environment, global warming, green energy, vaccine or even masking questions. Surely, we can’t have a climate or vaccine denier being a judge! How long before these questions are entire pages of fluff? - Give Us Barabbas - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:16 pm: Voted reasonable. Along with lawyers, the public has a “vested interest” in selecting judges that are free of bias. This judge’s reaction and his refusal to participate is a very useful indicator of his fitness for higher level adjudicating. (to whit: he’s not.) He’s trying here to virtue-signal to the conservative right that he’ll be “their man” on the court. Good luck with that, judge. - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:20 pm: ===I’m sure there are some who actually discriminate. But what purpose does this serve?=== Don’t ask? As long as you aren’t facing the discrimination, it’s fine? If those questions are uncomfortable for one to answer, maybe that’s a “signal” to the submitter that they have biases… it’s reminder. - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:23 pm: ===I’d be interested to know what the judge has done to try to change the trajectory of poverty in their area.=== Maybe someone should ask. Volunteering, on a board, on a committee… is it a bad thing for judicial candidates to be folks actively involved as a member of society… giving back? - Downstate - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:34 pm: “Volunteering, on a board, on a committee” Exactly. But it would seem that over time the ISBA is diminishing the power of their rating. As with all slippery slopes, the “qualified” rating eventually becomes meaningless. After all, if a candidate has been a huge advocate for racial justice, but didn’t move the needle on age discrimination, are they more or less qualified? This reminds me a little of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist and their doomsday clock. It currently stands at 100 seconds to midnight. (Midnight signally “Armageddon”). While the clock presumably moved forward and backward due to the threat of nuclear engagement, the Atomic Scientists now move it based upon a range of issues including “disruptive technology”, “climate change” and the like. It simply diminishes their message. - JS Mill - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:36 pm: Reasonable. - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:37 pm: ===As with all slippery slopes=== It’s not a slippery slope to show good citizenship, a willingness to understand biases, and be questioned to how one sees social, racial, and gender inequity. Those using “slippery slope” are likely not liking how they’d answer these “probing” questions… that aren’t probing at all. Don’t seek the endorsement. - Ron Burgundy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 2:38 pm: Bar Association questionnaires have lots of questions, including about very personal things like personal litigation, finances, bankruptcies, malpractice and ethics issues, criminal history, etc. However, most associations give them the opportunity to discuss anything in their background that they would like. Diversity in the legal profession is an important issue, and if this association wants to ask about it, candidates are free to answer or not participate. If they choose not to participate then they have to accept the consequences. The fear is if a candidate thinks diversity in the profession is “political,” how will they treat the diverse litigant in their courtroom, or the diverse attorney. With so many qualified candidates out there, we shouldn’t have to settle. - Arsenal - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:00 pm: == If one answers that is “really” important versus “very” important, does that make one more or less qualified?== The ISBA’s questionnaires don’t work like that. There’s no gradation of “qualified”- you either are or you aren’t, and it’s not going to turn on “really” vs. “very”. ==I’m sure there are some who actually discriminate. But what purpose does this serve?== Finding which ones discriminate, as a first order. ==To me, this is solely about ISBA (or whoever) signaling or advertising some sort of perceived morality or holiness.== This is a questionnaire that no one except the candidates and the ISBA’s endorsement committee will read. That’d be a really inefficient form of PR. But the reality is that just about every bar association is very concerned with diversity in the legal profession, and as I explained above, SCOIL has a lot of power to effect that. I doubt this is just…what do they call it? “Virtue signalling?” I love that phrase because it automatically concedes that the position is virtuous. But I digress. This isn’t just virtue signalling, this is something the ISBA has devoted a lot of its resources toward that SCOIL can greatly impact. The ref should swallow his whistle here. - anon2 - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:05 pm: The questions are reasonable. What is dubious is the threat for not answering. “No recommendation” would be less threatening than “not recommended.” Not to justify it, but the ISBA isn’t the only group that does this. Personal PAC not only opposes a candidate who refuses to answer their questionnaire but accuses him or her of anti-choice positions across the board. - Arsenal - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:11 pm: ==The questions are reasonable. What is dubious is the threat for not answering. “No recommendation” would be less threatening than “not recommended.”== That doesn’t really work well for ISBA’s system, bc they aren’t really endorsing any particular candidate over another. The candidates are only judged against themselves. - Nick Name - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:14 pm: Reasonable, for the reason Rich said: “If a judicial candidate belongs to a club that excludes Jewish people, for instance, voters should know.” - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:15 pm: ===The candidates are only judged against themselves.=== This is everything, and if you can’t grasp this then you can’t grasp why the questions above are reasonable. It’s not A vs. B… it’s a measure of one’s own candidacy - Occasional Quipper - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:33 pm: == bc they aren’t really endorsing any particular candidate over another. == You’re saying that voters won’t look less favorably on a candidate who is rated not recommended? Sure, they’re not saying A is better then B is better than C, for the candidates who do answer, but they are still saying A, B, and C are all better than D because D didn’t answer the survey. It is absolutely an attempt to coerce participation, otherwise they would just say no recommendation, as has been suggested. - MisterJayEm - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:35 pm: “Judge John A. Noverini was elected to the 16th Circuit Court in Illinois in 2008. In 2014, the Illinois State Bar Association gave him a “Recommended” rating, but now it is threatening to publicly announce he is “Not Recommended” if he fails to fill out the group’s questionnaire to evaluate judicial candidates. There are only two categories. If you refuse to do the bare minimum necessary to be “Recommended,” you shouldn’t throw a hissy-fit when you find yourself “Not Recommended.” Seems like something that a third-grader should be able to understand, much less a candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court. – MrJM - Ron Burgundy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:49 pm: -“No recommendation” would be less threatening than “not recommended.”- I have served on one of these committees. Candidates routinely do not participate in the process as a strategy, often because they know what the result will be - for example if they haven’t been practicing law long enough to meet the minimum requirements set by the association. The association either finds them qualified (or recommends them), or doesn’t. Not recommended is pretty self-explanatory, and it’s called not recommended because based on what the association knows, it cannot recommend them. To just say “no recommendation” would let them off easily for their intentional decision not to submit themselves for evaluation by the only bodies that can make a deep dive into their backgrounds and careers. - Downstate - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:50 pm: “It is absolutely an attempt to coerce participation, otherwise they would just say no recommendation, as has been suggested.” Exactly. - cermak_rd - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:51 pm: These ratings are really important to me when I vote for judges. I print that big table and mark out the ones relavant to my district. And yes, I count the number of NR etc and if 2 candidates are equal in that regard then I start to look at what groups are against and which for. Usually it’s close to unanimous that if one recommends a candidate all of them will. Then I might look at the Highly qualified if two candidates are both recommended by the vast predominance of bar associations. But at the point in time we are pretty much guaranteed to get a decent judge either way. - zatoichi - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 3:53 pm: Reasonable. How much effort does it take to answer the questions? They are not looking for a multi-paragragh legal analysis. How many people in his district know who he is oe even remember voting for him? Why bring on any easily avoided controversy. Write something neutral and move on. - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 4:04 pm: ===coerce=== It’s a free country… - Ron Burgundy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 4:10 pm: -diversity and LGBT issues- The judge is going to be really, really disappointed when the associations much more diverse than the ISBA and more focused on these issues because of their membership ask these same questions and more. And when they ask about this news item. It’s almost like they want to ensure that their members and diverse clients will be treated fairly or something. - Homebody - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 4:12 pm: If someone wants a job as a Supreme Court justice, I absolutely want to know everything he or she thinks about every hot button issue. The more someone fights over some very benign questions like these though, the more naturally suspicious I become of them. - Amalia - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 4:13 pm: interesting also that they threaten him with a different rating. this harkens back to a Chicago Council of Lawyers matter where they changed the rating of a candidate who dissed them for their prior rating in a rant sent to a blog which the candidate agreed could be published. years later that led to her suspension from the practice of law for a month because she lied in the rant about her record. - Red Ketcher - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 4:18 pm: Area of Inquiry certainly appears logical and reasonable. However, the catch all , all encompassing wording of Questions 2 and 3 cause hesitation. For example , seems that including those with ” mental disability ” in the legal profession may be in conflict with general law licensing criteria . So the compound questions are somewhat awkward but probably not unreasonable. As suggested No Recommendation might possibly fit. - Leslie K - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 4:28 pm: I voted “reasonable.” But maybe declining to answer should result in a “declined to be rated” status rather than not recommended? Although if you don’t want to answer those questions, maybe that’s enough to be not recommended. - Ron Burgundy - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 5:02 pm: Calling that a threat is a bit hyperbolic. It’s a statement of fact - if you don’t complete the application fully, under our rules you will be found Not Recommended. Also prior ratings aren’t good forever. They expire. Then, the candidate is re-evaluated. Sometimes things occur in the interim or come to the committee’s attention that change their collective minds. It’s unusual but not unheard of. Good candidates become bad candidates, and good judges become bad judges. - Jimmy Doolittle - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 5:29 pm: This is SOP for ISBA polls. Really, for all bar polls. I am guessing the guy is just hoping to use this as a wedge issue to rally the hard right in his favor. - Tominchicago - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 5:41 pm: His argument might have some minimal value if he made it when he was running for circuit court before. Now, it seems like he’s just worried about telling the truth when running for a more high profile seat. - Captain Obvious - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 7:01 pm: Question 1 - perfectly reasonable and fair game for any candidate for office. No candidate for office with any sense would belong to such a group anyway, but if they do they should be made to explain it. 2&3 are typical litmus test trap type questions that there is no - Proud Papa Bear - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 7:02 pm: Reasonable. He was in today’s Northwest Herald tossing around God and church so naturally, I think he should be upfront about all of his relevant views. - Formerly Unemployed - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 7:16 pm: Note to HLV 2:12: The applicant could answer truthfully. And by the way, membership in the League of Women Voters is open to everyone, despite the name. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 2, 22 @ 7:31 pm: === Shock, readers of this site support a litmus test for judges=== The Constitution requires advice and consent of the Senate to confirm SCOTUS nominees. Illinois allows voters the privilege of electing ILSC members. Why should our standards be lower? - Suz - Tuesday, May 3, 22 @ 4:19 pm: As far as I am concerned this guy stands for nothing but taxpayer funded job. He began his career elected as a repub. Then he ran as a dem. Now, he is running as a repub as he cannot win a dem primary. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.