Currently, there are 10 gay and lesbian judges in the Cook County Circuit Court. Openly gay and lesbian Cook County Circuit Court judges Tom Chiola and Colleen Sheehan are up for judicial retention, and with voters' help, want to keep community representation on the bench.
Circuit Court judges are up for retention every six years, which means voters get to decide whether or not a judge should continue to serve on the bench. Judges up for retention must receive a 60 percent 'yes' vote out of those who cast a vote for them individually.
Chiola has been endorsed by the Victory Fund for the second time since appearing on the bench in 1994. Both Chiola and Sheehan have been endorsed by IVI-IPO ( Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organizations ) . Both have also been selected as 'recommended' or 'qualified' by several local bar associations.
Chiola is probably best known as being the first openly gay candidate elected to any state, county or municipal office in the state of Illinois when he was elected in 1994. In 1996, he was moved to the Civil Trial Section, where as an assignment judge, he reduced caseloads by over 91,000 cases. In 1999, Chiola was assigned to the civil jury trial room. He as assigned to the Law Division of the County Department until 2003, when he was assigned to the law jury room. This year, he was awarded the Judicial Leadership Award by the Gay & Lesbian Legal Alliance.
Chiola was one of the organizers of the first pro bono project for people with AIDS in Chicago. He also serves as a volunteer for Vital Bridges.
This is Sheehan's first time up for judicial retention. She started her legal career as an assistant for a Cook County public defender. She was first elected to the bench in 2000, and is currently assigned to misdemeanor jury trials.
She has served on panels regarding sexual orientation alongside Chiola. In 2004, she was one of several judges honored at a reception sponsored by the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.
Both Sheehan and Chiola sat down the Windy City Times to talk about the importance of keeping lesbian and gay visibility in the courtroom, how much the landscape has changed for out judges and the importance of paying attention to judicial retention.
Windy City Times: Chiola, why should voters keep you on the bench?
Tom Chiola: Retention is a yes or no vote for all the judges. Every six years we have to stand for retention and basically, we're running on our records over the last six years. I would hope that my record would be one of someone who has worked hard in every courtroom I have been in, who has studied the law and is willing to be educated when I don't know a particular subject matter area. I was always one to study up before I went to my next assignment. Before I ever did a jury trial, I went to the jury trial rooms and sat with some of the jury trial judges so I was ready to hit the ground running the first day I ever did a jury trial. The job is important to me, and it is important to do a good job. I understand that we end up being symbols for the community and representatives for the community. Sometimes we even have to out-perform to be considered just as good as others, just because of the community we come from.
WCT: Is it still very much an old boys club, or are things changing?
TC: I think really things have changed since 1992, when we started the subcircuit system, which meant that people are being elected from smaller geographic areas. In '92, there were more women elected than ever before. There were more African Americans, there were more people from Latin communities, and that's why I ran in '94, because we had a tailor-made district made along the lakefront here with the highest percentage of the gay and lesbian population. I think you've seen a great increase in diversity on the bench over the last 14 years. That means that when the sitting circuit judges elect the associate judges, and you see a great further diversity among the associate judges as a result. The court has fundamentally changed in terms of the personnel over the last 14 years.
WCT: You still try very hard to assist openly gay and lesbian candidates to run for office.
TC: I think all of us there have made a point to talking to our fellow judges about people who are on the associate judges list in our community and supporting those people. I think we've all talked to various people who are considering being candidates for judge, or who have actually run for judge to try to get them some idea of what it means to run and maybe some tips on how to do it. I didn't have any hand in Colleen's [ Sheehan ] race and, in fact, I didn't know Colleen at the time, but I've certainly been there as a resource for other people I knew. You let them know that it's not bean-bagged; it is an election, and you have to be ready.
Colleen Sheehan: I was elected in 2000, so this is my first retention. But I see a big difference. After the Lawrence case and our letter to the Illinois Supreme Court requesting that the Illinois Supreme Court change their rules to include sexual orientation, before that, there were just three [ openly gay judges ] . Maybe for me, personally, it started to unfold a lot more, but it seemed to me that we've at least doubled our numbers in the last four years. I think that the Cook County judiciary is one of the most inclusive, welcoming environments to be GLBT. It's changed dramatically since I first became a lawyer. I think that welcoming inclusion under [ Chief ] Judge O'Connell, and now [ Chief ] Judge Evans, has been really remarkable. I have never felt anything but welcome and encouraged. It might feel different for Tom going back. Certainly in 1992 and 1994, it was a lot different.
TC: Don't you feel that by the time you hit the bench—you mentioned Sebastian Patti, Nancy Katz and myself—we had been there a few years by that time, and I think that may have given you some kind of comfort level in your own experience.
CS: I had been out. It wasn't like I wasn't out, but I wasn't that out professionally in the sense that I clearly and unequivocally embraced my sexuality. I might have side-stepped it or not spoken about it. When the issue came up whether or not I would support and sign the letter with regard to include sexual orientation in the class of people you could not discriminate against, it was clear that I was going to do the right thing and I was going to identify myself as a lesbian. Personally, it's been the most liberating experience I've ever had, and it's changed my life personally and professionally, too. There is a great opportunity to be an example by being who you are. They see you as a person that they like, just like everyone else, and the exposure to that is great. People from all walks of life might not realize they are being exposed to somebody who is gay or lesbian in the courtroom.
TC: We've made ourselves available as resources, and not only on formal panels talking about being out on the bench, but also in panels with students talking about what its like to be out at work. Being out there means that people might come and talk to you personally about things. You become that resource for them; you become that symbol for them. I think that's been an important part of the time we've spent on the bench.
WCT: Are there still any challenges either one of you face being out in the workplace, especially as a judge?
TC: I don't feel that way anymore. When I first came on the bench in 1994, one of the first things that I heard, even before I was sworn in, was that there was some judge sitting at lunch one day, and somehow I came up in the conversation and he said to another, 'Oh, so where are they going to put him? Juvenile?' You know, big joke. I recounted that story to then-Chief Judge Donald O'Connell when we were talking about what my first assignment was going to be. He was [ horrified ] that there would be anybody left in the judiciary who would have that kind of even joking attitude about it. So, as Colleen said, he was always extremely supportive.
Timothy Evans is now the Chief Judge. Again, he is always been very supportive of me when I wanted to make a move up. He was very supportive. Other than a couple of individual judges who may still harbor some animosity towards members of our community because of their own lack of understanding and lack of experience from people from our community, I think things have kind of played themselves out in terms of at least overt bigots.
CS: When you are just open with who you are, you take away the possibility of someone being discriminatory right to your face. They just aren't going to do it. So, that's just one less opportunity for someone to do something like that. I have heard in the six years that I've been on the bench maybe a handful of remarks, but it's very rare. The experience has been more than not when someone will come up to me and they will, unsolicited, say, 'I don't see why you can't get married' or 'I don't see why things are the way they are.' It was one thing coming out to my friends or people who I thought would be supportive of me. But being fully and openly out to a superior, someone who could affect a committee that I sat on, or effect an assignment, is another. And in doing that, it just takes away so much garbage. It's not my problem anymore. It's somebody else's problem if they have a problem. I haven't found anything but inclusion and support and respect and dignity.
WCT: What have you both done to ensure that, within the judiciary, people are more welcome and accepting in that they treat gay and lesbian litigants fairly as well as judges?
CS: One of the things that I think that's really important that Cook County has done is diversity. I think when you have people who are diverse, whether it is race, religion or sexual orientation, there is an example of that person sitting on the bench. When you have that, the perception is that people are going to be treated fairly. If somebody who looks like me or somebody who is like me is sitting on the bench, and they got into that position, then I feel like I've been treated fairly. So, I think just by being there.
TC: I think one of the most important things that Colleen alluded to earlier was to have a change in the rules that would be applicable to judges and also applicable to lawyers in the state that was adopted by the Supreme Court just a few years ago now, even though I started working on it when I first hit the bench. It took a number of years to finally get the change in place that would add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination laws applicable to judges and to lawyers throughout the state. That, of course, codifies things. Of course, attitudes are a different thing. I think that after November, to think that we're going to have 12 gay and lesbian judges on the bench in Cook County? It's one of the highest numbers anywhere in the country. That, in and of itself, makes it hard for people to deal with us in stereotypes, because there are so many of us; we are so different, yet we're all accomplished and we're all competent. It's hard to deny our competence and our value when there are so many of us and so many other judges have to deal with us on a daily basis.
CS: I almost think it was exponential the way it happened. You had the rule changed, then you had the Lawrence case that came down and then you had culture, like television shows like Will & Grace and Ellen. That coming together—I think that changed and helped things. I don't think they [ other judges ] can help the exposure of it. It makes people think.
WCT: Why should the community pay attention to judicial retention?
CS: I think they should pay attention to judicial retention like they should pay attention to all elections because that's your voice. Once gains have been made and rights have been had, it doesn't mean they will be there forever. You must constantly ensure that you have a voice, and that your voice is counted by voting. For all the reasons that we just said why it's important that we are on the judiciary, retention is so important.
TC: It's important to a larger extent since there are 71 of us running for retention. That is a healthy percentage of all of the judges in Cook County. People should know who these people are, what kind of ratings they get and what kind of reviews they get from whoever might be reviewing them. I understand it's hard to get educated on so many people, but it's important to know so you can have the confidence, if you ever have to go to court for any reason, that the person who is sitting in judgment in your case is someone who should be there. There are a lot of ways to get information about the people who are running for retention. We feel that we have a very good class. We feel that people in our class should be supported. We kind of run as a group. We feel it's important to look at all 71, and get some idea before you go in. … I think that if we would lose those 71 people, then what do we end up with? We would be losing some very fine judges if those people were turned out, and who would replace them?
CS: It takes a while before you start to feel confident. The way you make a decision when you are in six years may be different from when you are first elected. So, you have experienced judges and that's important.
TC: We have to get 60 percent yes vote of all of us voting on us individually. So, there's a huge fall-off from all of the people who would vote for governor, to the people who actually get down to judicial retention. It's typically more than 50 percent fall-off, so it's a very small pool of people who are making decisions on the judges. Of that, there's a group that consistently votes against everybody, for whatever their reason is. It's very important for people to look at the judges and cast a yes vote for all of those they feel deserve to remain in their offices.
WCT: For people who have been in your courtroom, how do you think they would describe you?
TC: I've always said that if I ever had a gravestone and it had something to do with my role as a judge, it would say, 'Firm but fair.' I talk to juries after every case, and I've done about 375 jury trials now, and the consistent comments that I get are, 'I'm glad we had you as a judge because you really moved things along. We didn't feel like you were wasting our time.' So, I think juries love me, and lawyers think I'm firm but fair. They are going to get a ruling based on the law as best as I can understand it, and not on some personality quirk or some other reason.
CS: Based on the results I got back from our associations, some of the comments were thoughtful, compassionate and fair and interested in alternative sentencing.
See www.retentionjudges.com for more information on all judges up for retention.
*****
