'What's all this fuss about merit selection?'

Once upon a time, so the story goes, the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley was being lobbied by do-gooders anxious to have judges chosen through appointment, rather than election. "What's all this fuss about merit selection?" the mayor supposedly responded. "We already got it. If they have merit, we select 'em."

Indeed, for years that has been the way judges are chosen in Cook County. Lawyers who rate a spot on the bench — usually through laboring in Democratic vineyards — are slated by party chieftains. Those choices, generally made with an eye to racial and ethnic voting blocs, routinely have been ratified at the polls. That time-honored system now faces its greatest threat ever, posed by what Gov. James R. Thompson called "the lengthening, deepening, darkening shadow of Greylord."

Even before the federal investigation into corruption in the Cook County judiciary, there were signs of stress. Unruly voters, for example, were beginning to reject annointed candidates in judicial primaries, and the breakup of the once-monolithic Democratic Machine has undercut slating's value. But the Greylord fallout, including the November election of an attorney who later admitted bribing judges, has galvanized advocates of an appointed judiciary as never before.

"Recent events . . . demonstrate that elections are the least desirable method of selecting judges," declared Richard L. Thies, president of the Illinois State Bar Association, in announcing a committee to draft a constitutional amendment for appointed judges. "Most voters have scant knowledge about judicial candidates and election returns show many voters don't even bother to mark judicial ballots."

And Thompson said he was seeking "greater political accountability" in naming a task force to propose a so-called merit selection plan. "Political parties . . . cannot easily be held accountable for those who stray and bedsheet ballots invite bewilderment and contempt from voters," he asserted.

Thus the drive for appointed judges rests largely on convictions that incompent or unqualified persons may achieve the bench because voters are unwilling or unable to inform themselves about judicial candidates. Once judges are elected there is no clear, clean link between judicial lemons and their political sponsors.

But would those concerns be resolved by delegating judicial selection to chosen few, the remedy being offered by advocates of appointed judges? Past proposals called for screening committees in each judicial district composed of lawyers and lay persons to recommend names of potential judges to the governor, who would fill judicial vacancies from those lists. Presumably the members of these panels would be better qualified than the average citizen to evaluate the character and legal abilities of judicial aspirants, ensuring the governor three quality candidates from which to make his selection. And because the governor would make the actual appointment, he would be accountable for his choice's performance. While the plan looks good in theory, problems could emerge in practice. By moving to nominating commissions the state could be exchanging partisan politics for bar association politics. Would judgeships in Cook County, for example, become patronage plums to be handed out by Chicago's major law firms, rather than by Democratic ward committeemen? Could a compliant panel simply list the governor's own favorite among its selections, or a hostile panel slant its nominees to force the governor to accept its choice?

And suppose a panel misgauges a nominee, as the existing bar association screening missed the Greylord-linked attorney last time? If an appointment goes sour, could the governor pass the buck to the relatively anonymous panel that initially recommended the ill-starred candidate?

November 1989 | Illinois Issues | 4

The nominating panels could be eliminated, of course, and the governor given the power to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, similar to the federal system. That certainly would fix accountability, but it also could raise a question whether that much control over the judiciary should be given to an official whose policies and departments are frequently embroiled in court action. Even if the traditional proposal for appointed judges had no obvious flaws, its political liabilities are great, starting with opposition from both Senate President Philip Rock (D-8, Oak Park) and House Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago). But there are other ways to deal with perceived shortcomings in the current manner judges are chosen.

One possibility worthy of study would be vesting appointment power for appellate and circuit judges in the Illinois Supreme Court, which already is authorized to fill vacancies and has general administrative and supervisory authority over the judicial system. Under such an arrangement a judge would never face the potential ethical dilemma of hearing his benefactor's case, nor would there be reason to suspect judgeships were being used as political patronage. Supreme Court justices would continue to be elected, but the office's importance should assure candidates of at least as much media attention and voter awareness as given hopefuls for offices like state comptroller and treasurer.

Or consider another, less radical change which recognizes that much of the criticism of the current procedure reflects problems in Cook County that are minor annoyances, if that, elsewhere in the state. A key difference seems to be that in each election there are dozens of judgeships being contested in Cook County, but only a handful in other circuits. Downstate voters thus are able to inform themselves about the candidates. If the countywide circuit of Cook were broken up into smaller electoral districts, might voters then have the same opportunity to focus on a few judicial races?

Other options are possible, of course. But if judicial reformers hope to parlay the Greyloard scandal into changing how judges are chosen, they'll likely have to come up with more than a rehash of the nominating panel-governor scheme rejected by the voters in 1970 and by the legislature ever since.

November 1989 | Illinois Issues | 5