About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

46 Chi. B. Rec. 3 (1964-1965)

handle is hein.barjournals/chicbar0046 and id is 1 raw text is: 74 Pr4met's Page It was gratifying to read the following thoughtful Editorial appearing in the Sep- tember 26th issue of the Chicago Daily News, evaluating many previous comments and articles appearing in the papers and on television: WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES? FOR THE FIRST time in Illinois history, voters in November will be called upon to retain or unseat judges not in partisan man-to-man races but solely on the basis of their record on the bench. Judges with a majority of favorable votes will be retained. The record of a judge is largely a matter of his specialized skill and the public rightly seeks guidance in making its judgments. It is to provide such guidance that the Chicago Bar Assn. has held a poll of its members and published their assessment of each judge on a numerical scale. We cannot agree with those who say the bar has no business holding such a poll (see today's Letters to the Editor). It has an obligation to give the public the benefit of its knowledge. The poll is not infallible; no one, least of all the bar, says that it is. But past polls, experience has shown, quite consistently have given poor marks to judges who subsequently were publicly proved venal or lacking in judicial ability. The polls have given high ratings to judges who later won universal esteem. Critics have also suggested that the bar should do more than merely poll its members. Certainly, in the case of a judge whom the bar considers guilty of wrongdoing there is an obligation to tell the public. But that obligation would exist whether there was a poll or not. But to undertake to spell out in detail the pros and cons concerning the record and character of each candidate would carry the poll beyond its intended mission as a mathematical consensus and plunge it inescapably into politics. Finally, there are the critics who say that not enough lawyers answer the poll and at the same time aver that the lawyers who do answer do not have enough knowledge of the judges. There is validity in both criticisms; but they are criticisms which would apply to any democratically held secret election. It is hard to see how the association could compel lawyers to participate in the poll. And it is reasonable to assume that those who take part do so because they have reason to believe they can evaluate the judges' performance and not because they are mean-spirited members of the antibench conspiracy. It is the duty of each member of the Association-and particularly the members of the committees engaged in the screening process-to approach this obligation with complete objectivity and without regard to political or personal preferences, so as to provide the public with the best available guidance in making judgment in this impor- tant matter of judicial selection. We must set high standards adequate to meet the ever-increasing demands on the judiciary in the Chicago area and we must continue in our efforts to guide the public in the selection of judges who meet those standards.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most