Bar association, state groups explore Illinois judicial performance commission

CHICAGO—Twenty-one states use judicial performance commissions, nonpartisan groups that conduct evaluations of judges. Illinois is one of them, but unlike some other states, it requires evaluations to be conducted confidentially. Information from the reviews is used solely for the purpose of judges’ self-improvement and public information about the reviews is limited. The topic of a judicial performance commission has sparked discussion between bar associations, county clerks, state representatives and several political reform nonprofit organizations.

On Monday, the Chicago Council of Lawyers and three Illinois nonprofit organizations sponsored a forum on a state performance plan in downtown Chicago. The nonprofit groups – Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, League of Women Voters of Illinois and Illinois Campaign for Political Reform – are Midwest Democracy Network partners. More than 50 people gathered in a law firm conference room to listen to viewpoints on why a public performance plan would be beneficial.

Attendees sign in outside the law firm meeting room and are handed an information packet on Colorado’s judicial performance commission system.

Margaret Stapleton, a member of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and senior attorney of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, said she was eager to learn how states like Colorado had utilized a performance plan.

“You have good judges who are fair, smart … and [who] are crucial to democracy,” Stapleton said. “If people don’t think they can get a fair hearing, they despair.”

Executive Director of the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance Jane Howell began with a detailed presentation, outlining the judicial performance commission process in Colorado. Howell also laid out specific guidelines the commission uses to create its recommendations to voters. The commission examines information such as questionnaire results from attorneys and non-attorneys, along with reviews of judges’ decisions and opinions before releasing the survey report to the public.

According to Howell, the commission provides performance reports online, in addition to the narrative profiles and recommendations. The report can often be as many as 90 pages long for each judge, providing the grades and percentages given on a judges’ performance based on attorneys and non-attorneys responding to questions.
 
“We’re not there to throw them off the bench,” Howell said. “We’re there to improve their performance.”

Cook County has a population of more than five million, with the highest number of retention judges compared to any other county in the state. In a retention election, a voter is not selecting a candidate, but indicates approval or disapproval for the judges holding the positions. 

According to Cook County Clerk David Orr, paper ballots are “too long” for voters. The ballot is two pages, double-sided with every retention judge. Orr is an advocate for electronic ballots because, as he says, a long ballot is a “disservice to democracy.”

“Today’s election is a joke,” Orr said. “Not because the judges are a joke. It’s because the process is unyielding.”

Cook County Clerk David Orr discusses judicial retention touchscreen ballots in Illinois and results from the Nov. 2008 general election.

Michelle Jordan, a member of the League of Women Voters of Illinois and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, said the system is wrong and “gross.” The League of Women Voters believes voters’ access to nonpartisan information is crucial for informed voting on judges.

Illinois is one of 39 states that elects nearly all its judges. The public follows through more often when voting on non-judicial candidates, as the League of Women Voters stated, due to limited information on judges. According to Jordan, the review performed by Illinois’ current judicial performance commission should be made public.

“That is troubling as a member of the League of Women Voters because we are all about transparency,” Jordan said. “That is not transparency.”

State Representative Kathleen Ryg agreed with earlier speakers, saying one of the larger problems surrounding the system is that communication frequently gets lost between the public and judicial officers and judges.

“The process truly is a joke,” Ryg said. “The public has lost their faith in the system.”

From left: Appleseed Fund for Justice Executive Director Malcolm Rich introduces State Representative Kathleen Ryg, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform Executive Director Cindi Canary and State Representative Elizabeth Coulson, who speak on the political barriers of a performance commission in Illinois.

Executive Director of the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Malcolm Rich proposed a retention pilot project that the organization and Chicago Council of Lawyers are designing to increase the information about judges seeking retention and offer a credible way to identify judges who need improvement in their ratings. According to Rich, the pilot program will be available on their website.

For a complete list of speakers and sponsors, or for a copy of the slides used in Jane Howell’s presentation, visit www.chicagoappleseed.org.

For information on judges and judicial candidates in Illinois, visit www.voteforjudges.org.

For information on the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission, visit www.cojudicialperformance.com.

For information on Cook County Election Department, visit www.voterinfonet.com.

To support a performance plan, contact Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Executive Director Malcolm Rich.

-Kathleen Morton