Among other things, sitting Illinois judges are
prohibited by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 4.1 from making “speeches on behalf
of a political organization,” or soliciting funds for a political organization
or candidate, except when they’re up for election or retention.
So, you might ask, what the heck was Illinois Supreme
Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford thinking when she decided to accept an
invitation to be the keynote speaker at the Lake County Democratic Women annual
fundraising gala on Sept. 9? The registered political action committee is
one of the most influential independent county-wide campaign groups of its kind
in all of Illinois, having helped recruit, train and then elect dozens of local
candidates over the years (including Justice Rochford herself).
“Illinois voters deserve a fair and impartial state
Supreme Court that’s free of and from politics, which does not appear to be the
case here,” said Illinois Republican Party executive director Shaun McCabe
in a press release last week about Rochford’s speech.
“The Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct
(Canon 4, Page 48-50) is clear: sitting judges who aren’t up for election shall
not speak at political functions supporting the election of candidates,” the
Illinois Republican Party’s press release claimed. A Republican Party official
said later that we can expect a formal complaint will be filed soon.
The controversy boils down to two questions about the
Supreme Court’s rule: 1) Did Justice Rochford make a speech on behalf of a political
organization? And 2) Did her role as keynote speaker mean she was soliciting
funds for the Lake County Democratic Women PAC?
Rochford’s defenders say “no” to both questions. She gave
a non-political speech “to” a political group, not “on behalf” of it. And she
didn’t do anything to solicit any money for the political action committee.
Rochford herself issued a rare statement to me last week:
“I receive speaking requests from many groups and organizations. I believe it
is important for judges to appear in public and help educate people about the
Judicial Branch. My speech at this event was about the work of the Illinois
Supreme Court, its non-partisan nature and the collegiality that is fostered by
our unique lodging arrangement during court terms. The content of my speech was
not political in any way and so should not be construed to have been provided
on behalf of any political candidate or organization.”
Others who were at the event confirmed Rochford’s claim
that she said nothing which could be construed as partisan or campaign-related
in nature.
I totally get the narrow and lawyerly interpretation. Any
formal Republican complaints are likely doomed because of it. These are
lawyers, after all. Words are carefully chosen for good reason.
And, more importantly, we elect our judges in Illinois,
so that means we do have to accept that they are inherently political beings.
If they were all appointed and confirmed by the state Senate, or whatever, it
would be a different story.
But, I mean, come on.
Keynote speakers are usually invited because they help
legitimize the organization and, as a result, drive increased attendance. And
robust attendance is obviously very crucial to the success of any annual
fundraiser.
So, while Rochford didn’t technically speak “on behalf”
of the group, she did help the Lake County Democratic Women further prove its
bona fides by agreeing to speak.
And while she did not directly raise money for the group –
which helped nominate her in a competitive Democratic primary and then elect
her over a Lake County Republican general election opponent – it should have
been abundantly clear that her very presence undoubtedly helped the group raise
at least some campaign money that it might possibly not have brought in without
her.
Rochford has been around politics for a very long time.
She most certainly knows that this speech was far different from presenting to
a law school symposium or bar organization.
I’m not saying that judges and justices should cloister
themselves away like monks. But they should at least try to keep up appearances
when they’re not actively campaigning, especially during an era when every
decision by just about every Supreme Court in the land, including the U.S.
Supreme Court, is being analyzed for political bents.
This article appears in Fall Home & Garden 2023.
