This letter is in response to the Tribune endorsements in the upcoming judicial elections. The Tribune claims to take into consideration evaluations by 10 bar associations, among other information, in arriving at its endorsements. We are somewhat dismayed, however, by a seeming tendency of the Tribune to place undue reliance on evaluations by the Chicago Bar Association as evidenced by its endorsement in the race for the Judge Getty vacancy. The Tribune did not endorse Judge P. Scott Neville for this vacancy based in part on its finding that it was “inexcusable” that Judge Neville did not participate in the CBA process. This apparently carried more weight with the Tribune than the fact that Judge Neville was found qualified, recommended or well-qualified by nine other bar associations that form the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening.
The alliance was created in 1997 to provide an efficient, centralized process for judicial candidates to be evaluated by a diverse group of bar associations. We strongly believe that the diversity of the alliance is its greatest strength, and this diversity makes for a balanced review of candidates’ qualifications for judicial office.
Representing bar associations that undertake their own review of the candidates, we know how arduous a task it is, and we commend the Tribune for its efforts. But we urge you to fairly consider and weigh the opinions of the broad range of legal professionals who are donating their time and energy to the important task of informing the voters.
