Chicagoist: Judging Others

Fuzzy Gerdes

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:47:40 -0600

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.

Martin Vail

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:18:49 -0600

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.

geekgrrl

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:18:35 -0600

@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.

aj

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:43:15 -0600

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

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:20:42 -0600

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.

dpnash

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:04:15 -0600

I printed out a form from http://voteforjudges.org/ that shows recommendations from several different bar associations. It's a very handy reference.

Julene

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:03:07 -0600

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.

geekgrrl

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:48:37 -0600

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.

james

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:28:27 -0600

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.