2 judges worthy of dumping -- and without a trace of guilt
By Mark Brown , Sun-Times Columnist
Published November 01, 2004Susan McDunn and Dorothy Jones probably are not the worst two judges in Cook County. But of the many bad ones, they are the two you have the best opportunity to remove from the bench this election.
McDunn and Jones are among 74 judges facing a retention vote Tuesday. Of that group, McDunn and Jones are the only two that all the bar associations agree should be sent into early retirement. A modest campaign has been organized to persuade you to do exactly that.
I am eagerly joining this very worthwhile cause.
Why? Because every election, we put more bad judges onto the bench, yet when we get the chance, we almost never bother to rid ourselves of any of them.
Electing them in the first place is not entirely our fault. We can't be expected to make a truly informed vote in so many judicial races, and the political parties are geared up to slip their people past us anyhow. Even the lawyers don't know the qualifications of all the candidates running for judge. Whether you end up taking your cues from a precinct captain or from newspaper endorsements, it's still pretty much a crapshoot.
Since '90, everyone stays
Many voters give up and don't even go that far down the ballot, and while that may be preferable to voting for judges based on the sound of their names, it's probably not the best solution.
We have to take the blame, though, for how rarely we avail ourselves of the fairly simple method for cleaning up the mess from prior elections.
Every six years after their initial election, judges must stand for retention. That means we get a chance to vote "Yes" or "No" on whether they keep the job.
To win retention, a judge must receive at least a 60 percent "Yes" vote from ballots cast in that race.
That provides a reasonable opportunity for voters to correct past errors. Yet the voters of Cook County have turned the office of circuit judge into a lifetime tenured position, failing to kick anybody out in a retention vote since 1990.
With retention votes held every two years, that means the drought has now run six elections.
A simple process
A big reason judges are keeping their jobs is that the political parties have teamed up with sitting judges in a biennial campaign to vote "Yes" for everybody facing retention, apparently under the philosophy that they must all hang together lest they all hang separately. In theory, this is done to protect good judges from being unfairly thrown out by an unfairly testy electorate.
To end the drought, all you have to do is scan the retention ballot for Susan Jeanine McDunn and Dorothy F. Jones and vote "No."
It's that simple.
You don't even have to bother with the rest of the retention candidates. Somebody will say this is irresponsible because it ignores the good judges, but the blind effort to retain everyone has been so effective that you don't need to feel the least bit guilty.
On top of that, there are plenty more bad judges facing retention, but these are the only two on which the three major bar associations agree. For a complete rundown, check out www.voteforjudges.org.
McDunn and Jones have both been on the bench since 1992, and you may be wondering why they've been singled out for removal.
I wish I could tell you something shocking about them, but the knock seems to be they just don't know what they're doing.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers cited an investigation of Jones that found "a widespread belief among lawyers who appeared before her that Judge Jones lacked the legal skills and ability necessary to serve as a judge."
Just say no
That possibly explains why Jones is sitting in Pro Se Court handling small-time civil cases in which the parties act as their own lawyers. Given the knock on her, this sounds like the blind leading the blind.
Throughout her career, Jones has refused to even submit her credentials to the bar groups' evaluation process, which is reason enough to dump her.
Similarly, the Chicago Bar Association found that McDunn "has failed to demonstrate . . . that she possesses the requisite legal knowledge and ability to continue serving'' as a judge. Her chief claim to fame is her insistence on trying to block two lesbian couples from adopting children despite well-established case law in Illinois establishing the legality of same-sex adoptions.
I tried to pay them both a visit in court Friday, but Jones refused to speak to me, and McDunn, whose courtroom is just across the hall from Jones on the 13th floor of the Daley Center, is on vacation until after the election.
I'd rather be targeting one of the political hacks whose names I see on the retention ballot, but maybe next time.
For now, all you have to remember is McDunn and Jones. Just say no.
© 2004 Digital Chicago, Inc.
