Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Illinois is one of only two states, along with Louisiana, to empower its Supreme Court with the responsibility of appointing interim judges to fill vacancies, according to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice. The Illinois Constitution calls for the interim replacement to run for re-election in a partisan election at least 60 days after their appointment.

(Although Louisiana initially allows the Supreme Court to fill the seat, a special election is called to elect a full-time replacement within a year.)

Because Illinois’ primaries have already occurred and the general election looms in November, [appointed Supreme Court Justice Justice Joy V. Cunningham] won’t face voters until 2024. In fact, of the seven state Supreme Court Justices, only one, Republican David Overstreet, was elected to the court without first receiving an interim appointment.

The process allows the Supreme Court to “replicate itself” by choosing like-minded judges to fill vacancies, University of Illinois College of Law Dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone wrote in a blog post in May.

* The Question: Should Illinois require special elections held within a year for vacancies on the Illinois Supreme Court? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

online polls

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:34 am

Comments

I said yes because anything that makes our government more democratic is fundamentally a good thing.

Comment by SWSider Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:36 am
I voted no. I’m generally wary of special elections, and I don’t see why an appointed incumbent would have an especially strong advantage. Justices don’t do constituent outreach, have social media, or generally do much that would increase their name ID. Having them stand at the next general election seems sufficient.

Comment by vern Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:38 am
My gut feeling is yes, but the expense involved pushes me against it.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:42 am
No, because the turnout would be so low.

Also No, because we should not elect judges. But, that’s a different question.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:47 am
I voted no. This would be another 2 elections that would have to be put on by the Chicago Board of Election and the Cook County Clerk’s office that would be very costly to the taxpayers (Primary and General). Additionally, I do not know whether a judicial race (even for the Supreme Court) would generate enough interest to justify the additional cost. Most people do not know anything about any judicial candidates and there is very little that candidates can do to separate themselves from other candidates - especially if those candidates have the same bar ratings). I say leave it the same.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:48 am
Yes, judges should not be picking judges.

Comment by Anon E Moose Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:51 am
==Also No, because we should not elect judges. But, that’s a different question==

I voted no because I don’t think the expense of a special election is warranted in these cases. But I have to admit the overall question of judicial elections looms in the background (subtext?) for me as well.

Comment by Leslie K Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:59 am
Great timing by Ann Burke for her retirement

She leaves the seat the exact same as she came in

Appointed to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2006 and elected to a ten year term in 2008

Now the machine can appoint another Judge instead of one duly elected

This is what Democracy looks like in Illinois

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:09 pm
Absolutely yes. It’s insidious the way our system permits a person to wait out the primary and then announce resulting in other politicians to appoint their replacement. A S Ct Justice is an important role- this isn’t like some single state rep or Senator creating a vacancy. Only the voters should be permitted to appoint Anne Burke’s successor. For someone who dedicated their life to the Justice system- Burke just committed a major injustice

Comment by Sue Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:13 pm
so with 56 days till the election, Justice Burke timed her retirement pretty well so the new judge won’t have to face a primary type fight for the seat.

Comment by todd Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:20 pm
I voted no. All of the recent interm picks have been excellent. Why break a system that’s producing quality judges.

Comment by Golden Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:27 pm
=== Justice Burke timed her retirement pretty well so the new judge won’t have to face a primary type fight for the seat. ===

If the person wants to keep the seat they would have to run in a primary in 2024 so your comment isn’t really accurate.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:39 pm
I’m also against special elections. I’m not super thrilled about elected judges in general, but the current system could be far worse.

Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:41 pm
Voted no. Elections are expensive, and because we don’t seem to have the problem of activist judges on the Illinois Supreme Court (as SCOTUS does), turnout would probably be abysmal.

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:47 pm
Voted no - there’d be little turnout…

Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:59 pm
No. just sick of judicial elections. But I would love for the legal community to take more notice of the times they elevate someone at whatever level who gets appointed all the way along. Appointed to judge then appointed to appellate court should mean good things but insider moves often do not.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 1:17 pm
No. How many voters can identify any of the existing ISC judges by name? How many voters have any idea what an ISC judge candidate judicial history/philosophy has been? My guess extremely low. Voting by alphapetical order, pure chance, or party line is not much of an election.

Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 2:07 pm
No, because we shouldn’t be voting for judges in any circumstance anyway. Elections are political, and the judicial branch needs to be apolitical.

However, I know that’s not reality here. I’m still a “no” though because a statewide special election for Supreme Court would have a single digit participation rate, only influenced by the furthest extremes of the party primary base.

Comment by Matty Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 3:11 pm
No, because judges should not be elected. No, because a special election for an ISC seat would have incredibly low turnout and be cost prohibitive.

Comment by Oxfordian Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 3:57 pm
Yes, as a special election might be better than the current practice of filling the vacancy without public notice or comment.

But the Court took a far better approach in 1988, when it solicited applications - and accepted comments from bar associations - to fill a vacancy when Seymour Simon resigned. 25 candidates applied, and the excellent Justice John Stamos was appointed. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1988-04-23-8803110264-story.html

There’s no reason the Court can’t take open applications with comment, or a full merit selection approach, for every Supreme Court vacancy.

Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 4:45 pm
I voted yes. Although I am opposed to electing judges, the appointment of a Justice without any input from anyone is not what democracy is. Requiring a vote soon after the appointment would force the Justice to be approved by the voters, rather than insiders.

Comment by AFSCME Steward Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:28 pm