The 77 judges asking Cook County voters to keep them on the bench in November include some with unexplained tax debts, arrest histories, official censures, unflattering reversals by higher courts, and ties to indicted or convicted politicians.

Those judges — alongside the many with cleaner reputations and records — all want another term to continue deciding who goes to prison, who loses their homes, and who keeps their kids.

Despite the stakes, the races have made barely a ripple in public with weeks to go, as most of the judges appear to prefer.

Injustice Watch on Tuesday published the only substantive media coverage of the judicial retention election so far: a guide with professional and personal information on the 75 circuit judges and two appellate judges up for a vote in Cook County on Nov. 5.

Every two years, a small part of the judiciary stands for retention , and to stay on the bench, judges must clear 60% “yes” votes among people who cast votes in their races. Unlike candidates seeking the bench for the first time, these judges typically seek reelection as a group, trying to persuade voters to hit “yes” for all the little-known names listed in a daunting expanse at the bottom of the ballot. Circuit judges serve six-year terms; appellate judges serve 10-year terms.

For most of recent memory, retention elections were sleepy affairs, with a few notable exceptions. In 2018, progressive activists knocked off a sitting judge , Matthew E. Coghlan, for the first time in 28 years amid criticism of his harsh sentences and involvement with a wrongful conviction when he was a prosecutor. In 2020, Jackie Portman-Brown was jettisoned after being caught on video locking a 6-year-old relative in a holding cell.

Several other judges in recent elections scraped by amid controversy.

So far this year, there has been no movement to unseat any judge — a high-risk gamble for any lawyers whose fortunes depend on the good will of the judiciary. Advocates also say attention has gone instead to the high-stakes presidential race and the first-ever Chicago school board elections.

The judges — many of whom sought retention in 2018 when their colleague lost his seat — have been mostly quiet, sometimes evasive, and at points even confrontational. One judge pointedly questioned a reporter about her presence in the courtroom. This year, the retention class has worked to avoid media scrutiny far more than in past elections.

The most prominent public promotional effort from the judges is a website lacking basic biographical information for six of the judges as of early October, and 90% of them ignored Injustice Watch’s questionnaire on their lives and careers.

“It’s a putting-their-head-in-the-sand approach that they use a lot,” said Malcolm Rich, the recently retired executive director of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts.

Mary Kay Dawson, a political consultant hired by the Committee for Retention of Judges in Cook County, declined requests for an interview with herself or judges leading the class.

One judge responded briefly to suggest the voters have already spoken.

“Each of the judges running for retention was elected by the voters, either countywide or from a judicial subcircuit,” said Carl B. Boyd . “The electorate was able to consider a number of factors, including diversity, bar association evaluation ratings, community, and charitable service when casting their vote.”

Boyd also said his “personal challenges” shouldn’t overshadow his qualifications. He was arrested on a misdemeanor domestic battery charge in 2022 after an incident at his home in which his wife sustained a cut to her face. The charge was later dropped. In 2012, he was arrested on charges he stole a dozen of his opponent’s yard signs during his initial run for judge. That charge was also dropped.

Boyd is part of an unusually big retention class — ranging from relative newcomers elected in 2018 to one, Ronald F. Bartkowicz , who has been on the bench since 1985. They include judges who handle everything from felony criminal matters to eviction cases, family court, personal injury trials, and all manner of other court proceedings.

Injustice Watch reporters combed through public records, reviewed stacks of court rulings, visited their courtrooms, and interviewed hundreds of people to build a profile of each judge in the retention class.

Noteworthy candidates include Maura Slattery Boyle , who along with her husband was hit with a $114,000 IRS tax lien last year. The debt has now been paid, and she did not respond to requests for comment. And, during the 2018 race, Injustice Watch reported she’d been reversed far more often than any other criminal court judge up for retention — 34 times in the prior six years.

Also running this year is Beatriz Santiago , who was censured by the state’s judicial disciplinary agency in 2016 for deceiving a mortgage lender about where she lived. At the time, Santiago called it a careless error. She did not respond to Injustice Watch’s requests for comment.

And the class includes Mary Margaret Brosnahan , a criminal division judge who has attracted scrutiny for her marriage to Kriston Kato, a former Chicago police detective accused in lawsuits of torturing people and fabricating evidence. Eight cases related to Kato were removed from Cook County Circuit Court in 2021 because of his marriage to Brosnahan .

Two other judges benefited from homestead exemptions on houses they own in Will County, even though the law requires them to live in Cook County, Injustice Watch found.

One of them, Shannon P. O’Malley , said through his attorney, he moved to Cook County to live apart from his wife in 2017. E. Kenneth Wright , who first became a judge in 1994, owns a home in Will County for which he applied for a senior exemption in 2018. He declined requests for comment.

Injustice Watch also reported on several judges with prominent political ties to disgraced politicians. They include James Patrick Murphy , who’s married to the daughter of convicted former Chicago City Council powerbroker Ed Burke; and Appellate Judge David Ellis , who was the longtime chief counsel to Michael Madigan, the former speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and the state party chair who’s now facing trial on corruption charges.

In contrast to this year, judges in two of the last three retention elections were forced into the spotlight by high-profile anti-retention campaigns.

In 2018, activist groups and a now-defunct political action committee, the Judicial Accountability PAC, targeted Coghlan, a former prosecutor who was accused in a lawsuit of helping disgraced Detective Reynaldo Guevara frame two men for murder who were later cleared. Coghlan denied the allegation . But the Cook County Democratic Party refused to recommend him alongside the rest of the class , and County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, the head of the local party, put out an extraordinary video telling voters to throw him off the bench .

Coghlan lost handily, becoming the first judge to lose retention since 1990, with 52.5% “yes” votes. In the same race, Slattery Boyle eked out a narrow win, with 62.5%.

Two years later, activists and the PAC focused on removing Judge Michael Toomin , presiding judge of the juvenile justice division, whom they accused of being too harsh on kids . The Cook County Democratic Party opposed his retention, a move he alleged was retaliation for appointing a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett hoax case.

Toomin, who has since died, won with 62% “yes” votes . At the same time, voters tossed out Portman-Brown, who had been on administrative duty after she was captured on video locking a 6-year-old relative in a holding cell . Voters gave a thumbs-down to a third judge, Mauricio Araujo , who had been repeatedly accused of sexual harassment, but he had resigned the month before the election, though his name was still on the ballot. The Illinois Supreme Court later disbarred him .

Two years ago, all the judges kept their seats .

Judge Ann Finley Collins, who served from 2010 to 2023, said she found it “annoying” some judges survived despite serious misconduct while a handful were thrown off the bench. She said she didn’t think the anti-retention campaigns changed judges’ behavior, but the small cohort of judges she knew when she was on the bench were frustrated by those pushes.

“People that were friends of mine, they thought it was ridiculous,” she said.

Brendan Shiller, a force behind the movements against Coghlan and Toomin, said he thinks one reason anti-retention campaigns haven’t developed in the last few years is criminal judges are taking a less harsh approach. And he noted lawyers who criticize judges take a big career risk.

“There’s absolutely no self-interest in any lawyer taking on a sitting judge,” he said.

Maggie O’Keefe, 40th Ward Democratic Party committeeperson and a political consultant, said the party should look more closely at retention candidates, noting the comparatively robust process of endorsing lawyers who are running to become judges.

“We do a lot of work on the front end to get new judges into these positions,” she said. “So why are we not doing it on the back end?”

The judges have done little in public to promote their retention, and much of the campaign season passed quietly. Judges were even wary of scrutiny in court.

In August, an Injustice Watch reporter showed an expired police-issued media credential to staff in juvenile court, where public and media access is heavily restricted. She was allowed to stay.

Weeks later, Judge Elizabeth Ciaccia-Lezza at the Maywood courthouse demanded to see another Injustice Watch reporter’s credentials — which are not typically required to watch open proceedings in an adult courtroom such as hers — and said, “There was a huge email sent out” saying some Injustice Watch reporters had expired credentials. The judge allowed the reporter to stay.

Mary Wisniewski, a spokeswoman for Chief Judge Timothy Evans, declined to provide the message the judge described, saying it was confidential. She said Ciaccia-Lezza’s spectator gallery is small, so she often has to make sure there is room for people involved in the cases being called.

The executive committee of the retention class also declined to forward Injustice Watch’s questionnaire to the candidates, a move Dawson declined to explain. Only eight of the 77 judges filled it out — some only partially — after the news organization sent it to each of them. By contrast, about 75% of the judges up for retention in 2022 responded to the questionnaire.

Injustice Watch staff contributed.

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.