Twenty-eight years. That’s how long it’s been since the last time a Cook County judge was voted out of office. This election year, as on every even year when we hit the polls to pick a president or governor, Cook County voters are also asked to vote on 39 candidates trying to join the judiciary for the first time and vote “yes” or “no” to keep another 61 judges already on the bench.
For the two-thirds of the circuit court judges who are elected by the public, the first hurdle is getting on the ballot—which usually means getting involved in partisan politics.
But this year is unusual. Two circuit court judges have been the targets of particularly intense scrutiny in the run-up to this election and stand a chance of losing their seats. Matthew Coghlan and Maura Slattery Boyle were among just seven judges in the county who received any negative reviews from one or more of the 11 local bar associations that evaluate judges for retention. (For a comprehensive digest of bar associations’ recommendations for each judge on the November ballot, see voteforjudges.org.)
For example, in its review Injustice Watch found circuit court judge Maura Slattery Boyle to be the county’s harshest sentencer—imposing longer prison terms for defendants than the other criminal division judges who handle serious felony cases like the ones that come through her courtroom. She was also found to favor prison terms over probation for less serious crimes. Slattery Boyle has also had more decisions overturned by the appellate court than any other of the six criminal division judges seeking retention this year—almost as many as the other five judges combined. Here too, cases involving Detective Guevara loom large. When the two men who are now suing Coghlan were appealing their conviction in 2013, Slattery Boyle discounted their evidence of Guevara’s misconduct and was later chastised by the appellate court, which took the case out of her hands. The higher court noted that Slattery Boyle “gave the impression that [she] was flatly unwilling to consider the evidence offered by [Serrano].”
But they don’t say not to vote for unqualified judges. Leavitt says that’s because ultimately, what “qualified” means isn’t for the committee to decide. “The position we take is, you take your position and we endorse qualified judges,” he says. This position extends even to Coghlan. “If you found him qualified, you’ll vote for him, if you found him not qualified, you don’t vote for him.”
A judicial evaluation system not tied to the election cycle would allow us to take better stock of the judiciary on all fronts, and Appleseed is currently working on a proposal to establish one in Illinois. In the meantime, we’ve got to make do with the system we have. This system relies heavily on voter self-education about the candidates and actually casting that ballot—no matter how tedious it might feel.
