Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Sun-Times has been writing about House Speaker Michael Madigan’s attempts to get people selected to associate Cook County judgeships for years. The pool of hopefuls is vetted and winnowed down by a nominating committee, and then selected by secret ballot by full circuit court judges whenever there are enough vacancies to warrant an election. They’ve had five such selection processes since 2003. The Tribune is now playing a belated game of catch-up on its front page…
The letters from Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan are short and to the point.
“Dear Judge,” begins one, written on Madigan’s General Assembly stationery. “I believe that these people would be excellent members of the judiciary.” […]
Since 2003, Madigan has recommended 37 lawyers to become associate judges, and 25 were selected outright, according to documents obtained by the Tribune and interviews. Several more made it to the bench through appointments.
So, a third didn’t make the cut, for whatever reasons. That’s not insignificant when you figure that Madigan plays a big role in helping those circuit court judges get themselves elected in the first place. Still, two outta three ain’t bad. He’s got some pull, for sure. Or he’s at least pushing lots of people who are already favored. But his average isn’t what it used to be.
* The number of people Madigan was able to get onto the bench dropped off a lot in 2007. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that 8 of 15 didn’t make the cut…
But this year, of the 15 names State Democratic Party Chair Mike Madigan sent on a letter to judges’ homes, only seven were chosen. And all 15 had mostly good ratings.
Less than half. That’s not a very good record, which is something not mentioned by the Trib. His letters did help five out of his eight favorites tin 2008. A bit more than half. But only one out of the three he recommended were named to ten open seats in 2009.
Clearly, Madigan’s not as successful as he once was. He’s just 13 for 26 since 2007. And he appears to be slowing down as well, recommending just three people for ten open slots in ‘09.
Also, the Trib never said if any of those judges had ever ruled on Madigan’s cases.
* Why is Madigan so important to the process? The judges think so…
Associate Judge John Thomas Carr was selected after he was named in Madigan’s 2007 letter. He said judges and other lawyers told him being on Madigan’s list would be a good thing, so he wrote a letter to the House speaker stressing his qualifications. He said he heard nothing back.
Madigan has a lot of control over judicial salaries and pensions, so it’s always best to be on his good side, of course.
* And campaign contributions don’t seem to play much of a role if this is the best example the Trib could find…
Take Laura Bertucci Smith, a former Cook County prosecutor whose husband is a regular contributor to Democrats. He gave $1,000 to Lisa Madigan in 2002 and $500 in 2003. Bertucci Smith donated $300 to Ald. Burke in 2004. She wasn’t picked when she was on the speaker’s 2005 list.
Madigan even recommended a Republican in 2003, which isn’t mentioned in the piece.
* So, to sum up, Madigan’s batting average has fallen over the years, sitting judges think his opinion is important (for several reasons), campaign contributions don’t appear to be a factor and the Tribune established no connections between judicial rulings and Madigan’s recommendations. Other than that, it’s front-page news.
* Related…
* Madigan’s letters
* The process of picking associated judges
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 5:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Wow- MJM doesn’t hold massive influence over the process, and they ran the story anyway? I am not sure they point of these stories: sounds to me like they either have the goal of (1) trying to accuse MJM of abusing his influence and they make a weak case; or (2) they are poking a stick at MJM and mocking him because he doesnt have the influence to get the job done.
The Tribune is so clueless about most things it pontificates on. It treats judicial bar poll ratings as some sort of gospel but fails to understand that such things are little more than political popularity contests and are easily manipulated.
Comment by Nice kid Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 6:57 am
Sorry- I meant THE point, not THEY point.
Comment by Nice kid Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:02 am
Ya know who else supported Laura Bertucci Smith in 2008 election for judge? The Tribune!
Yup, the Trib endorsed her in the primary (which she lost). I wonder if her husband ever bought the Tribune. Ooh, there’s a front page story!
Comment by Edition Parker Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:31 am
Once again throws a bucket of slop on the one public official who fails to dance to their off key tunes.
Once again they miss and draw little or no pick up
BTW,the Trib also failed to:
— tell us about all the bad or reversed decisions made by these judges.
— how the finalist list is assembled.
— why they suddenly turn to the Council of Lawyers, another judge making group, after years of trashing their credibility.
Of course let us remember one more time the Trib has not explained why no one ran to DOJ when Blaggo wanted to do the $100 million Wrigley scam and their on-going ESOP fraud case
Not sure they are the folks we want commenting on the justice system.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:14 am
“Of course let us remember one more time the Trib has not explained why no one ran to DOJ when Blaggo wanted to do the $100 million Wrigley scam and their on-going ESOP fraud case.”
Good point.
Comment by just sayin' Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:32 am
Some news outlets, once they make the investment in time and resources on a supposition, will run with anything, even if it turns out there really isn’t much there.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:41 am
Actually the trib supported her twice in the 2002 and 2008 primaries. Really good piece of journalism they have here.
Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:47 am
I agree. Mike Madigan has a much better record of getting people placed at jobs at McCormick Place and UIC than he does getting lawyers appointed to the bench.
Comment by Meanderthal Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:16 am
Did anyone else notice that the word state was was spelled incorrectly TWICE in the Sunday Trib for this piece?
Comment by KJD Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:17 am
Breaking News!!! M .J. Madigan has some Clout. YA Think?
Comment by mokenavince Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:27 am
Unless I’m mistaken, Madigan has no control over the pensions and salaries of current judges.
The Constitution controls the former and I’m not sure the latter has ever or even CAN be reduced due to the separation of powers.
Otherwise, a capricious legislature could reduce the salaries of judges on a whim, out of retribution, or political puffery.
This is yet another quid without a quo story from the Tribune.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:49 am
so what is the alternative? the lawyers groups that evaluate should do a more public job of stating exactly who gets their highest recommendations for the slots. or recruit lawyers who would make great judges. granted, there is politics in the electing part, but in the appointment part, it is done by judges who will have to face the lawyers groups again in the future.
step it up, Council of Lawyers. fill the intellectual void.
Comment by amalia Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:01 am
On a side note, we should elect the associate judges and get rid of these appoitnemnts anyway.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:17 am
The entire Cook County judicial system has become a massive fund-raising arm of the Democratic Party. Lawyers who want to be judges must give and give and work. And so we have so very many mediocre and incompetent judges. But the public doesn’t care.
Comment by formerpolitico Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:18 am
Question: What is the quality of the candidates who’ve had Madigan’s support and who have ultimately been appointed? If it turns out they’re good judges, does it matter who supported them? Carr and Goldfarb have excellent reputations as judges, to my understanding.
Comment by Kyle Orton's Neck Beard Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:29 am
Points out the fallacy of merit selection as a means of removing politics from the judicial branch. Replacing election with “merit” appointments is and always has been a bad idea , akin to achieving college fraternity membership. Election is the least “political” and most fair and most transparent method for picking judges.
Ridiculous $ 15 Million spent in 2004 Sup Ct race , but at least we knew who was backing who and could guess why.
Comment by x ace Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:49 am
x ace -
My bet is if you looked at the bar ratings of people chosen as Associate Judges they would be on average higher than the ratings of elected judges. VERY rarely is an Associate Judge not found qualified across the board, but it happens quite often in the elections, especially the subcircuits.
That isn’t directly to your point, but only to point out that while politics certainly plays a politics in the associate process (especially getting on the short list), they are still usually very qualified people.
Comment by Edison Parker Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 12:51 pm
No disagreement on the qualification issue. But either way ,appears you got to be connected. That’s politics whether out front or behind the scenes. With elections it is presumably more out front.
Comment by x ace Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:59 pm
The difference between elections and a screening panel is that the screening panel elminates the bottom of the barrel. It doesn’t mean that the most qualified get the position, or that the process operates entirely without politics.
In general, associate judges have been much better quality than circuit judges in Cook County, since Cook switched over to a screening panel for the associate appointments. But the process isn’t perfect. The composition of the screening panel and the selecting authority will always matter.
On a related note, the Council of Lawyers fulfilled an important function in Cook County. It almost single-handedly raised the quality of the bench in the ’70’s and ’80’s, when the judiciary (as well as the Chicago Bar Association) was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. The Council found hundreds of judges and judicial candidates not qualfied, filed complaints against many judges, and generally raised public awareness of the inadequacy of the Cook County bench. While the bench is better now, the Council is also more timid. The big law firms, many of which supported the Council, are no longer willing to have their lawyers cricticize folks closely tied to the powers-that-be. The young firebrands who formed the Council haven’t been replaced.
Comment by A Former Bar Association Officer Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:17 pm
On Merit Selection:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
- Sir Winston Churchill
“Who watches the Watchmen?”
- Juvenal
- Alan Moore
- Speaker Madigan
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 3:00 pm
Lame attempt, again. Tribune whiffs. Save the front page stories for something real.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 4:24 pm
Good point about the Chicago Bar Association functioning as an auxiliary of the Cook County Democratic organization.
Supposedly, the last time “merit selection” was subjected to a serious discussion and submitted to a vote (somebody ought to help with the history here), Cook County favored appointed judges while downstate wanted elections to continue. In downstate circuits, a judicial candidate can actually campaign amongst the voters, but, in Cook County, a candidate could campaign year round and never hope to make contact
with voters in all eighty wards and townships.
Comment by Esquire Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 4:57 pm
This whole article is BS. Every lawyer in Cook County receives a letter asking them to make recommendations or rate candidates. Madigan is a lawyer. Madigan makes recommendations. Yes, he’s a powerful politician, but he’s also the partner of a major law firm. Most law firms in Chicago make recommendations. Half the people I know who want assoc judge positions have sent letters to law firm partners asking for their support.
I get that the Tribune has a beef with him, but if this is the most they can get, isn’t it time to stop the witch hunt?
Comment by ugh Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 5:10 pm
–I get that the Tribune has a beef with him, but if this is the most they can get, isn’t it time to stop the witch hunt?–
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Who’s with me? Heyoooo……
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 5:13 pm
Congrats to the Sun Times on the Pulitzer
Btw it appears Tribes got zip zero. Nada
Again
Comment by circularfiringsquad Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:18 pm
Ugh-
There are three people who’ve mattered most in Cook County for making associate judges the past two decades: Burke, Madigan, and Vrdolyak (and not necessarily in that order). How many former big law firm partners do you see on that bench?
Comment by A Former Bar Association Officer Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:07 pm
Bar,
It is a nice pay increase for a State’s Attorney, PD, Corp Counsel or small firm lawyer to become a judge. It can be a huge pay cut for a big law firm partner to take the bench. I’m not sure the reason Winston & Strawn partners aren’t flocking to become Associate Judges is because of politics.
Comment by Edison Parker Tuesday, Apr 19, 11 @ 7:36 am