A federal judge’s recent ruling opens the door to more cash pouring into Illinois Supreme Court races. Voters ought to be alarmed.
To keep money from tilting the elections, voters must educate themselves about the candidates and make sure they vote in what often are perceived as obscure races. Two of the court’s seven seats have opened up, and the winners of those seats will determine whether the court is majority conservative or moderate.
The preliminary injunction from federal Judge John Tharp Jr. blocked new laws designed to limit contributions in judicial races and could have a significant effect on the Nov. 8 election.
The state Supreme Court is meant to be an impartial panel that follows the law. But without limits on contributions, special interests can seize control of the court for their own benefit. Even before the Oct. 14 ruling, special interests have sought to use enormous donations to shape the Illinois Supreme Court, and now it seems likely to get worse. The 2020 Illinois Supreme Court race already was the most expensive in the nation’s history.
In the past, it may have felt like little would change in Illinois, no matter who won open seats on the seven-member court. But this year, if a new majority assumes control, things could go in a different direction quickly.
“These races should be at the top of the ballot, not at the bottom,” said Kathleen Sances, president and CEO of G-PAC, a gun-safety group.
Major issues could be in play
If a new court makes new rulings, abortion rights could be limited, as has happened in other states. Easy access to voting could become a thing of the past. Laws designed to reduce gun violence could be upended. Illinois’ ground-breaking laws to protect the environment could be overturned. The right to collective bargaining could be challenged. Other rights could be stripped away.
In one example cited by Julie Hamos, co-chair of the Protect Our Court Campaign, abortion rights might no longer be safe in Illinois after the election. In 2017, Illinois repealed a 1975 “trigger law” that would have banned abortion in Illinois should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. That should have settled the matter.
But a lawsuit has been brought to reinstate the Illinois trigger law, and a newly constituted Supreme Court could do so, as Ramos, a former state legislator and former head of the Illinois Department of Heath Care and Family Services, points out. If that happens, Illinois law would prohibit abortions unless necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life.
As the U.S. Supreme Court continues to overturn laws and precedent, Illinois voters will have to decide whether they want their own high court to follow suit or to stand as a bulwark against what the conservative court majority is doing in Washington.
If voters ignore Supreme Court races, it will be hard to undo balloting results they don’t like in future elections. Justices are elected to 10-year terms and then run on a retention ballot — not against an opponent — which generally means they get another term. Justices elected to open seats are likely to be around a long time.
Since Tharp’s ruling, new PAC donations already are coming into Illinois. The deluge of cash undoubtedly will be used to fund a last-minute blitz of advertising aimed at voters, many of whom don’t even realize Supreme Court justices are elected by voters.
To see big money used to sway elections is terrible at any level, but “to see it play out in judicial races in particular, it is that much more galling,” state Rep. Kelly Cassidy said.
It’s not easy for voters to educate themselves about judicial candidates, whose records often are based on obscure points of law. Campaign advertising can be very misleading. But if voters want a state high court that follows the law and not the money, they should do their research and go to the polls.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
