Next Tuesday’s Democratic primary ballot will confront voters with the usual bewildering array of judicial candidates. Among some 86 candidates for a total of 17 judgeships, voters will find the traditional assortment of also-rans, has-beens, party hacks, aspiring youngsters, ethnic opportunists, and, here and there, a few really good judges–like Dom Rizzi (line 157 on the ballot) and Charles Freeman (line 159), who unfortunately are vying for one of two state supreme court vacancies; Blanche Manning (line 164), who is running for the other supreme court vacancy; and Joseph Gordon (line 166), who is running for the appellate court.
The panel explained that Wolfson “has consistently maintained the highest ethical standards of conduct, has an excellent judicial temperament, and is widely regarded as one of the best judges in Illinois. Lawyers practicing before him, including those who have lost cases, have praised his fairness and his ability to master complex legal and factual issues. Before becoming a judge, he had an excellent reputation in private practice . . .”
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
It is hard to find anyone who disagrees. The council’s current evaluation of candidates in the primary echoes those accolades. So does the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. The Chicago Bar Association finds him “highly qualified.” In endorsing Wolfson, the Sun-Times notes such “topmost bar ratings” (Tribune endorsements, as of this writing, aren’t out yet). The progressive Chicago Conference of Black Lawyers praises Wolfson’s “sensitivity to the concerns of the African American community and commitment to fairness in the judiciary.”
The response is due in part to Wolfson’s record as one of the premier trial advocacy teachers in the country. He has long been on the faculty of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy and of the New Judge Seminar of the Illinois Judicial Conference, and he teaches trial advocacy at both the University of Chicago Law School and the Illinois Institute of Technology/Chicago Kent College of Law.
Wolfson’s vow of poverty stems from the fact that most money for judicial campaigns comes from lawyers. He explains, “There is nothing illegal or immoral about that, but it does not look right and it makes me uncomfortable. Nonlawyers cannot understand how judges can maintain their independence when accepting funds from lawyers who could appear before those judges. I want to eliminate that cloud of suspicion.”
In urging his own candidacy, Wolfson stresses two points. First, as he sees it, the public has a vital need for the judiciary to act as an honest, independent check on the excesses of government. In 18 years as a criminal defense lawyer before becoming a judge in 1975, Wolfson had plenty of exposure to the underside of law enforcement. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, he saw it close up as a defense counsel for student radicals and for the Black Panthers in Chicago.
In Mahran’s case, Wolfson wrote: “Public employees and officials serve the public. They are not above the law. Government expects its citizens to obey the law. Citizens, in turn, have the right to expect no less from their government. And they have a right to expect that courts will enforce the law.
