ILLINOIS NEEDS A BETTER WAY OF SELECTING JUDGES
What troubles us is the nonsensical system in which voters are confronted with long lists of unfamiliar names and expected to wisely choose among them.
Two judicial candidates rated as “Not Recommended” by 12 Chicago bar associations won anyway in the March 15 primaries, a pretty good sign we need a better way to decide whom we put on the bench.
A constitutional amendment that would add a modest merit selection dimension to how Illinois picks judges looks like the way to go.
On March 15, the two candidates who won despite the lack of support from any bar association were Rhonda Crawford in the First Subcircuit and D. Renee Jackson in the Second Subcircuit. Each race also included at least one candidate to whom the bar associations gave high marks. But now Crawford and Jackson face no opposition in the November general election.
The two bar associations that explain their recommendations — the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers — said neither Crawford nor Jackson presented her credentials for review. Therefore, each automatically was rated “Not Recommended.”
Our beef is not with these two candidates — we want to make that clear. They may prove to be competent jurists. What troubles us is the nonsensical system in which voters are confronted with long lists of unfamiliar names and are expected to wisely choose among them. Some years, it feels as though there are more judicial candidates than there are voters.
Most states employ some form of merit selection, in which a nonparti- san commission evaluates applicants, who then are appointed or placed before voters. Unlike a fully electoral system, in which unfit people can ascend to the bench, merit systems weed out the least qualified.
Fortunately, state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D- Chicago, and state Sen. Heather Steans, D- Chicago, are preparing a constitutional amendment that offers a small step in this direction.
Their amendment would restructure retention races for the Illinois Supreme Court and appellate courts. It wouldn’t change how judges are first elected, but it would create a merit panel to automatically certify the best- qualified judges for retention after their terms are up. The remaining judges would go before voters, who — with fewer names to consider — might do a better job of deciding who gets to remain a judge and who should be voted off the bench.
The amendment would be just a small step, but it could prove to be an effective template for a broader merit system in the future.
It’s too risky to keep putting “Not Recommended” candidates on the bench and just leave them there.