JUDICIAL CIRCUITS—For many, it’s an opportunity that they pass by every other year without so much as a thought.
However, it’s an opportunity that, if taken and taken properly, could be absolutely golden.
During general election years in Illinois (every other year, on even years), certain circuit judges come up for what’s known as a ‘retention vote.’ This means that the voters have the opportunity to declare whether they do or do not want to keep a particular judge on the bench.
Not all judges deserve retention
This year, there are several judges up for retention in downstate (non-Cook County) circuits—a whopping 108 in all. And while a couple are above-par, not all of them deserve retention.
November 6 provides an opportunity, therefore, to send an Illinois judge back to private practice…or at least make him or her run again—on a party ticket—in another judicial vacancy election the next time it comes around, letting the other sitting judges know that once they’re elected to the bench, their time, too, could be as short as six years and not a 20-year (until retirement) appointment…so they might better start watching the decisions they make and the way they treat those over whom they preside.
Must carry 60 percent ‘yes’ to retain
Judges statewide are required to carry a 60 percent ‘yes’ vote in their circuit for retention. Anything below that, and a judge is simply removed from the bench—and at the next available general election, another judge is selected from the attorneys applying for the position (all judges in the state of Illinois must be BAR—British Attorney Registry—association attorneys, a practice not necessarily found in surrounding states).
Voting on this portion of the ballot is very important, and many make the simple mistake of not voting at all.
Those who are informed vote ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ depending upon their personal feelings/experiences toward the judge, or toward the judiciary as a whole—whether they believe that a judge shouldn’t spend 20 years on the bench once he gets there, but should serve the proscribed six-year term, then, if he’s not excelling at what he does, get booted out to give someone else the chance.
What studies show
Studies over the years have shown that those who don’t vote at all for judicial retention generally tend to believe judges shouldn’t be retained for another six, and would vote ‘no’ if A) they were informed of what the retention vote was really about, or B) they didn’t feel intimidated by voting ‘no’ and are afraid that a judge, whom they might eventually appear in front of, may find out they voted against him/her.
However, that just doesn’t happen. Your voting record cannot be used against you; even with electronic voting machines reading/scanning the ballot card and sort of tracking you via number of ballot, it would still be an ordeal for a judge to go to the trouble of learning which way you voted for him or her.
Further, it is a right of a citizen, and in fact their duty, if a judge is not doing his/her job, to vote ‘no’ to retain if that’s the way a voter feels about it.
This ‘non-vote’ of those who actually go to the ballot box is crucial: Not casting a vote at all is the equivalent of a ‘yes’ vote. It equates this way: Take 100 voters, out of which only 20 vote at all, and 80 don’t. If a mere 12 voters—60 percent of those 20—select ‘yes’ but the rest vote ‘no,’ that means 12 voters decided for that particular set of 100 voters who will remain in as judge.
The “vote no to retain” campaign, therefore, cannot be emphasized strongly enough: A vote MUST be taken; do NOT leave the ballot blank for judges. Vote your conscience, but at least VOTE.
The retention vote throughout the Fourth Circuit
All the counties in Disclosure Heartland’s coverage area (Clark, Coles, Cumberland and Edgar) are selecting “yes” or “no” for retention for just two judges: Craig H. DeArmond, and Nancy S. Fahey, both of Vermillion County.
While judges in the north part of the circuit travel all over the circuit, some in the more southerly counties may not be familiar with the Vermillion County judges.
DeArmond has a declared party affiliation of Republican (which is what he declared when he first ran and was elected); Fahey has no such declaration.
It’s up to the individual voters as to whether they approve or disapprove of the judges’ performances while in office and on the bench.
But not matter what the feeling on the matter, the important thing is to cast a vote; do not leave it blank.
A VERY important vote
Even during presidential and congressional elections, judicial retention is one of the most important items on the ticket every time it appears.
There are few public positions that affect each and every individual as directly as that of a circuit judge who sits on the bench in that county or travels to other counties on conflict cases (wherein a citizen should not appear before that particular county judge due to the judge, in previous days as a private attorney or defense attorney, representing a case for or against that citizen, as an example).
Judges are tasked with being not much more than a ‘referee,’ researching the law and apply it to a civil or criminal case. All too often, however, many judges ‘legislate’ from the bench, either misapplying the statutes as they are written, or, even more frequently, not applying the laws evenly…resulting in “two sets of laws,” often for the “haves” or “have-nots” in their segment of society.
Six years is a long term for any office-holder; however, it’s entirely too long for one to run on “retention” as opposed to a challenged “re-election.”
If other offices in the state of Illinois were run on a “retention vote” alone (such as state representatives, county sheriffs, county board members), the corruption, as bad as it currently is, would be so far out of control, there would be no hope.
There’s nothing any different about a judicial office, in that regard.
And about associates…
Perhaps the strongest argument for non-retention every six years is that of how associate judges are selected.
In a procedure that is little known, the current “regular” judges of a circuit (those whom the citizens vote in) cast a secret vote for those attorneys who apply for an associate judge position.
With 14 judges in a circuit, in a field of nine applicants (as occurred in late 2004), the associate selected could potentially have won by as little as TWO votes being cast for him or her.
What is worse is that the public has absolutely no input whatsoever in the associate selection. But to have a secret ballot for the associate judges is a great disservice to the voting public for the regular judges: how can the voting public base their next retention vote on the facts if they don’t know who—and by whom—a particular associate was that was selected?
On this basis alone, it might be fairly said that every retention should be ‘no’ until the Illinois legislature makes selection of associate judges an open process.
If in doubt, vote them out
Apparently, the truth getting out about judicial retention votes is causing some puckering among judges of the local circuits.
Whereas in years before, judicial retention was sort of a ‘given,’ ever since Disclosure has been writing about it (beginning in 2004), advertisements have appeared in the Second and surrounding circuits supporting voting “yes to retain!”, a position unnecessary in previous years.
Each political ad claims that the retention vote is “a non-partisan vote!” and it “keeps judges working for you!!”
However, each judicial retention vote really IS partisan, as all judges initially run as one party or another. A retention vote is really a masked partisan vote, then, as after six years, most voters forget which party each judge came from, and blindly make this decision if they vote yes to retain.
A better alternative would be for non-retention at the end of the six-year cycle, then when another two-year cycle comes up, any lawyer wanting to be a judge again at that point can make his party affiliation known, and seek the nod in that way. He can also campaign, and open himself up to questions from the voting public, something that doesn’t occur and is even studiously avoided by judges during retention vote cycles.
Whatever the reason, voting in judicial retention is a serious matter. For voters in the Fifth Judicial Circuit, please make educated choices before marking yes or no on the ballot…and, if in doubt, vote them out: VOTE ‘NO’ TO RETAIN JUDGES.