As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
There was quite a lively discussion yesterday afternoon in the Chicagoist offices. One we wanted to share with you, gentle reader, on this most special of days. As we were talking about the Illinois Bar Association's endorsements of judges to be retained, we got to talking about how weird it is to vote for them. Some of us felt that there shouldn't be judicial elections, arguing that the Constitution intended for the judiciary to be independent -- appointed by the executive, with the advice and consent of the legislature. They should be divorced from the political whims of the electorate, and if we want to have a true system of checks and balances, this principle must be upheld. Others felt that since we don't live in a utopian society, such a tactic is ineffective, and the people are the means to vote out judges who abuse their position of power; to do otherwise is to shirk one's civic duty.
Now we here at Chicagoist aren't really that smart, but we like a good argument as much as the next guy. And what an argument we had. Scott Smith threw a three-ring binder at Kevin, Olivia yelled at Matt, Rachelle punched Tankboy, and Chuck just sobbed in the corner, rocking gently back and forth. We thought it would be fun to ask you for your two cents on this matter. Did you vote for the judges? Why or why not? And how did you know for whom to vote? We hope you join our conversation and let us know what you think in the comments (we really do read them all). And no matter how you voted, we'd love to have you join us tonite at Daily Bar and Grill in Lincoln Square (4560 N. Lincoln Ave.) for an election night watching party, starting at 6.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i voted 'no' on judge sheahan because she let those two drunky girls from minnesota who caused the ruccus at crobar a while back go free without any jail time or fines, etc. also voted no to judge rodney brooks, because he let the guy who shot and killed officer ceriale on the streets a few days before that shooting.
yep, i was notified of these two from some cop friends, but voting no on these two at least, seemed to make sense to me, and i'm not really mr. law and order, either.
i followed the illinois bar's recommendations. the lady behind me went with the chicago bar, which had more "nos" on it. maybe i should have used hers instead.. too late now!
as for the actual voting process.. my polling place's ballot scanner was programmed for the wrong district, rendering the paper ballots useless. we had to wait, one by one, for each person to use the only electronic voting machine in the place. there were maybe four people ahead of me and it still took 40 minutes. i'm just glad it's over with.
After years of doing research on the judges and never seeing any of the "bad" ones get kicked out, I now just vote "no" on all of them figuring at some point in the future - someone may get kicked out. This year I have a strict "if you're in office, you don't get re-elected" stance for everyone.
I printed out a form from http://voteforjudges.org/ that shows recommendations from several different bar associations. It's a very handy reference.
Hey geekgrrl-
Whats the precinct with the screwup?
Let contact@ballot-integrity.org know where you were forced to use the Touch Screen Machines.
Others should visit www.ballot-integrity.org to get caught up on the whole stripping of your vote thing.
Not intereseted in protecting the right to vote? Please stick head in nearest hole for safekeeping.
I also use voteforjudges.org to make my judicial voting decisions.
It makes me very angry when I hear people say "I voted for Judge X because she is a woman" or "... their last name was Irish!"
And I've heard this a lot. Come on, people, being a semi-informed voter for this takes five minutes.
@poll watcher: done. i cc'd the CBOE in on the message, but their mailbox is full. i doubt they've cleaned it out since the primaries.
Chicagoist should spend a little more time with the Constitution: the only court established in the Constitution is the Supreme Court (Article III). The Constitution gives Congress the power to create all other (inferior) Federal courts. If Congress wanted to they could eliminate all the courts except the Supreme Court. So much for the independent judiciary.
But NONE OF THAT MATTERS because you aren't voting on Federal judges. Duh. The States still have some rights, you know.
The Illinois Constitution provides for judicial elections. So the people of the state in which Chicagoist resides decided deliberately not to follow the approach of the U.S. Constitution, and instead, provided for election of the judges. Perhaps to keep them a little more independent than merely political appointees.
I'm with Julene with the "No to all judges" kick -- especially since there hasn't been a judge removed by the voters since before 1990.