Question of the day
Friday, Aug 2, 2024 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Sun-Times…
Eileen O’Neill Burke, the Democratic nominee for Cook County state’s attorney in November, has taken campaign contributions from at least a dozen judges, records show, though many preside over or one day could hear cases involving the prosecutor’s office.
Though some jurisdictions ban or limit judges or judicial candidates from giving money to candidates or political groups out of ethical concerns, Illinois Supreme Court rules allow judges and judicial hopefuls to attend political get-togethers, “identify as a member of a political party” and “contribute to a political organization.” […]
Burke’s campaign spokeswoman forwarded a written comment from former Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride that says: “Judges, like all citizens, care about the administration of justice. The judicial canons serve to ensure everyone before a court gets a fair hearing. They are not designed to muzzle a judge’s concern for their community. I have no concern that any judge who donated to Eileen O’Neill Burke’s campaign would ever let anything other than the facts or the law affect their judgment in any case.”
Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet, who focuses on judicial ethics, has a different view: “In a system where the judges absolutely prized the appearance of impartiality, they would not be making contributions in the state’s attorney’s race.”
* The Question: Should Illinois ban these types of contributions or just leave it the way it is? Explain.
- Keyrock - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:05 pm:
Of course they should be banned. But conflicts are an inherent part of our elective system.
An even better idea is for judges to be appointed by the Governor from a list chosen by a screening panel. No system is perfect, but we’d see a sharp increase in the quality of our bench if we ever could move to a merit selection system.
- Snitchy the Tattler - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:09 pm:
The Code of Judicial conduct already does ban these contributions. Judges are already prohibited from endorsing or supporting other non-judicial candidates, and sitting judges aren’t supposed to support or endorse any candidates at all, regardless whether they are judicial or non-judicial candidates. But it has been happening so often for so long that the rule is abrogated in practice. At this point it wouldn’t be fair to single out any particular judges for doing something that has been so widely ignored so regularly for so long.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:13 pm:
Yes they should be banned, or these judges should be barred from presiding over cases involving the prosecutors office.
I have less of a concern with party affiliation in general, it’s absurd to suggest that any judge doesn’t have political opinions.
- An even better idea is for judges to be appointed by the Governor from a list chosen by a screening panel. -
Hard no. We need more democracy, not less.
- Gravitas - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:15 pm:
The Chicago City Council has elected its members on a non-partisan basis since 1923. How about elected judges on a non-partisan basis at long last? The only ones opposing the end of partisan judicial elections are the party bosses who want to be paid off to slate judicial candidates.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:25 pm:
===We need more democracy, not less.===
Should we elect SCOTUS as well? Would that make those justices more impartial? Honest question, as it is something I have never considered.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm:
- Should we elect SCOTUS as well? -
In my opinion, yes. Can anyone say with a straight face that appointed justices have been impartial and above politics?
- Keyrock - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:43 pm:
Yes, in states where judges are appointed after a screening panel, they’ve been much less partisan.
In addition, a screening panel process typically causes a higher quality of attorneys to apply, and screens out some of the folks who become judges solely because of their political connections.
- charles in charge - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:48 pm:
Kilbride’s comments epitomize the delusion common among judges that they are above reproach. But obviously they are not, and to suggest otherwise is patently absurd.
Since judges apparently can’t be trusted to abide by their own Code of Judicial Conduct, my answer is yes, the State should pass a law prohibiting them from contributing to the campaigns of candidates for State’s Attorney.
- Unionman - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:54 pm:
Judges are people too. They have a right to support candidates. That being said, I think they should have a dollar value limitation on how much support they can provide.
To show the Sun-Times trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, the Sun-Times identified judges who made a $250 donation. A $250 donation is not something that tells me as the State’s Attorney, this judge will rule in my favor. $250 is I am his /her friend from work/school/life and feel want to show my token support but without being a major campaign donor.
- clec dcn - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 1:54 pm:
Ban any contributions it only makes sense. Judges try to judge but money gets in the way of judgement. As to electing SCOTUS, oh the law could change all the time in 180-degree increments. Nobody seriously would consider this action I hope.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 2:04 pm:
===oh the law could change all the time in 180-degree increments===
Um, have you been on the moon the past few years?
- Amalia - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 2:19 pm:
i’ve always been confused by this. told a judge could contribute but not endorse. but tell that to the people who say of course I support your candidate but cleverly never give money.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 2:48 pm:
===Judges are people too. They have a right to support candidates.===
They have the right to support candidates, but not the right to be a judge. At a minimum, they need to recuse themselves from cases where they have some sort of relationship to one of the parties or their counsel. That would include donations to the prosecutor’s campaign. And, if that judge regularly presides over cases from that prosecutor’s office, they may so often need to recuse that they are unable to effectively serve.