Public Service Post of the Week

Alright folks, I'm on a rampage. A crusade. A political firestorm of outrage. The topic? Judicial retention in Cook County. I'm relatively new here, and decided to be an informed voter when in comes to the local elections on the ballot Tuesday.

Chicago requires that circuit court judges go up for retention every 6 years. In order to be retained, a judge must receive 60% Yes votes. Judges rarely get booted from the bench in this manner. Few people can take the time to investigate the large number of judges, and frankly, get fatigue going through such a long ballot. (There are something like 74 judges on the ballot for retention this year.)

This year, a lovely specimen of judicial incompetence is up for retention - Susan McDunn. She was elected to the circuit court in 1992, eventually, after a series of recounts and disqualified ballots. When she was up for retention in 1998, the Chicago Council of Lawyers reported in its Judicial Evaluation Report that

"many lawyers complain that she appears to have difficulty handling a large volume court call in an efficient and timely manner. Several lawyers also reported that she loses her temper in court and appears unable to control her courtroom. In addition, a number of lawyers report that she does not possess adequate legal ability. These lawyers report that they do not believe that she understood the law or applied it properly, and that she lacked adequate understanding of the rules of evidence."

Yet she was retained in '98 and is therefore up again for retention this year. In the past 6 years, her behavior has become particularly loathesome. She was publicly rebuked by the Illinois Appellate Court for judicial conduct the court says "disgraced the judiciary and the people of Illinois."

The matters that form the basis of the appellate court's opinion began as uncontested adoptions by two same-sex couples. The legality of same-sex adoptions had previously been upheld in the Illinois courts. Notwithstanding positive and favorable reports by the guardians ad litem responsible for conducting the pre-adoption investigations, Judge McDunn challenged the reports on the basis of the adopting couples' sexual orientations. She then refused to rule on the pending adoptions, and on her own motion, appointed a Washington, D.C.-based group named the Family Research Council ("FRC"), an organization with a well-known anti-gay bias, as a "secondary" guardian ad litem in the two cases.

In other words, despite favorable accounts and recommendations by experts to the court that these couples be permitted to adopt, McDunn refused to rule on the adoptions solely based on the sexual orientation of the couples. In attempting to bring in the FRC to the case (necessary because, according to her, no one was representing the point of view that adoptions by persons living a homosexual lifestyle are not in the best interest of the children) she shared confidential case files with the FRC and consulted with the group outside the courtroom in order to further their involvement in the case.

12 different lawyer/bar associations in the Chicago area unanimously agree that we should NOT vote to retain Judge McDunn. The Chicago Council of Lawyers retention report, containing all the above juicy details and more (including Judge McDunn attempting to continue to control the case after being removed and sent to Traffic Court) can be found in the Chicago Council of Lawyers 2004 Retention Report (pdf).

Hopefully, enough people will vote no on this Judge that she will be removed from the bench. However, it's not very likely. Voters rarely vote to remove judges, because you have to vote Y/N on over 60 judges, and polling place workers often advice people to just vote yes on all of them. But please, if any of you are in Chicago, vote No on McDunn.

See also: Another blogger says No to McDunn