JB: Unfortunately, being a lawyer for many years certainly doesn't ensure a good judge either. Practically speaking, how does a fresh new face go about gaining endorsements and support? Is it similar to the gauntlet run by candidates for political office?
BA: A good lawyer who has been in practice for many years develops a reputation among his or her peers and among the judges before whom he or she appears. One's reputation and work in the community also make your skills, talents and abilities known to others, including persons with political influence. On the political level, though, unfortunately, many politicians' endorsements are too often based upon political connections and paybacks without any real knowledge of the individual candidate's abilities.
I have worked with a number of political figures over the years on legal and other matters and have become acquainted with many prominent politicians, including some who are aggressively working with my campaign, such as Senator Ira Silverstein, Alderman Debra Silverstein, Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen, Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin, and a number of local Skokie officials. I am also backed and assisted by retired judges before whom I have appeared (sitting judges are prohibited from any active involvement in political elections).
Since judges are elected in a partisan political primary, they have to run the same gauntlet as other political office seekers; however, judges have somewhat of a handicap in that they are not allowed to take positions on issues. Therefore, the "issues" for judicial candidates become their personal skills, knowledge, experience, and temperament.
I have been greatly encouraged by the large number of my peers and judges before whom I appear regularly who have told me how they think I am a great candidate and will make a great judge.
I know this attitude among judges is sincere as I have received a number of court appointments by these judges in the divorce and custody courts to represent the interests of the minor children in pending cases where the parents are battling. I am honored by the appointments and pleased that such confidence is shown in my abilities to help the court reach fair and just decisions in the best interests of the minor children.
JB: You're running against one woman and a pack of men. What can you offer to offset that disadvantage? Got any feminist credentials?
BA: I know it is a reality, but the ratio of men to women in the race should not matter. Judges should be selected based on their merit, not their gender (or race, ethnicity, or other background). What sets me apart is that my legal experience is broadly based. I have been a general practitioner for 37 years. In court, I have handled a wide variety of cases including collection and contract litigation, mortgage foreclosures, an array of interpersonal disputes, juvenile delinquency and juvenile abuse cases, and divorce, custody, and child support cases.
I have also represented many clients in immigration and Social Security cases. My broader range of experience makes me unique among the candidates I face in the election. My non-litigation experience includes an extensive real estate practice and representing small businesses in corporate and business matters. This range makes me significantly more qualified as a judge because I am more cognizant of the entire range of intermingled issues and problems facing litigants who might appear before me.
In addition, I have received a rating of "Recommended" from the Women's Bar Association of Illinois, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, and the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago, among others.
JB: That sounds promising. There are only a few weeks before March 18th, the big day. What will you be doing ahead of the primary?
BA: Trying to get out and meet as many people as I can. Asking friends to talk to and to send letters and postcards to their friends--- basically, just trying to get the word out.
JB: You've just described the essential grunt work of a campaign. Let's go back to something you said before, Brian. You said that judges can't take positions on various "issues". Where did that prohibition come from? Isn't it important that we know how a judge thinks so we can decide whether he deserves our support? Otherwise, they run the risk of being judged for superficialities.
BA: The role of a judge in court is to assess the facts as presented by witnesses and to apply the law to those facts in reaching a decision; or, in the case of a jury trial, making sure the jury is given the right law to apply to the facts which they hear. A judge's role is not to set policy or to make law. A judge should not apply their political or social viewpoints in reaching a decision on any given case. Their role is only to apply the law as it is. It is the role of the legislature aided by the Supreme Courts to fashion the law and set policy.
Judges are not ethically supposed to bring a political or social agenda to their office and so should not advocate positions as part of their campaign for becoming a judge. Also, judges are not to directly participate in fundraising and should not know who contributes to their campaigns, because it could create the appearance of impropriety if a judge is ruling on a case involving a contributor as a litigant or attorney.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
