Under most circumstances, independents would be supporting Cook County judiciary candidates Andrea Malka Schleifer and A.C. Cunningham in the March 15 Democratic primary. Schleifer specializes in family law, and Cunningham, a former prosecutor and defense lawyer, is a well-regarded associate judge. Both have long ties to independent activists.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
“I’m not sure why they did it this way, but they did,” says Schleifer. “The net effect is that most candidates file petitions to run in all three vacancies. Then we all maneuver–dropping out of this race, staying in that one–after we see who our opponents are.”
Candidates use all sorts of rationales when deciding which vacancy to run for. Schleifer, for instance, chose to run for vacancy B, in part because she didn’t want to split the women’s vote by running against Ann Houser, a highly praised associate judge. “The only thing I think everyone agrees on is that the subdistricts are madness,” says Meites. “This is a crazy way to elect judges.”
This is typical of behind-the-scenes IVI-IPO fights, which rage for years, insults and accusations flying. But this fight went public. On January 24 75 or so members gathered at the group’s downtown headquarters for the eighth-subcircuit endorsement session. First up were the candidates for race A: Cunningham, Houser, Herb Sirott, a north-side lawyer, and Tom Chiola, general counsel for the state Department of Professional Regulation. Each candidate gave a brief talk, answered questions, and left the room.
Cunningham’s backers resisted that notion. “That’s like saying we should endorse A.C. just because he’s black,” Richard Barnett, a Cunningham backer, said later. “Race or sexual preference shouldn’t matter–not when one candidate is so much better. I say we give all three candidates a qualified rating and let the voters decide for themselves.”
During the question period Meites asked Schleifer to respond to unspecified criticism about her lawyering skills allegedly made to the judicial committee by unnamed judges and lawyers. Schleifer said she couldn’t possibly respond to such vague, undetailed attacks. Most of her backers felt Meites and the judicial evaluation committee had exceeded their mandate. “It was McCarthy tactics,” says Bay. “There was no way Andrea could defend herself.”
That drew a countercharge from rival IVI-IPO members, continuing the fight. “It’s disingenuous to call us antiwomen, especially when you consider that most of the people making that charge are the same folks who supported Chiola over Ann Houser,” says Barnett. “If they’re so much for promoting women judges, why did they snub Houser? It’s also ridiculous that they’d quit just because they didn’t get their way. This is the IVI-IPO. We never agree on anything. If everyone quit after they lost a debate, there wouldn’t be anyone left in the organization.”
