James Crawley has nearly 25 years of law practice under his belt, and now he wants to make the jump to judge.
The openly gay Joliet native is pursuing a seat in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Crawley attended Loyola University Chicago and received his law degree from St. Louis University, where he started doing legal work on HIV/AIDS issues.
In 2008, he married his partner of 13 years, Dan Ingram, in Napa.
Crawley has had his own practice, James P. Crawley & Associates, Ltd., for more than 12 years. During that time, he has developed a specialty in food poisoning personal injury cases.
He has volunteered time to American Civil Liberties Union, AIDS Care, Inc. and the Jane Addams Hull House Uptown Center, among others.
Windy City Times sat down with Crawley at his downtown office to talk about LGBT issues in the courts, what he thinks sets him apart as a judicial candidate and why he is ruffling feathers in the Cook County Democratic party.
Windy City Times: So how did you come to specialize in food-poisoning cases?
James Crawley: Initially, I represented a group of 40 school kids in Joliet. Part of their school lunch program was tainted chicken that the State of Illinois knew was tainted when they purchased it at a discount because it was poisoned, and it sickened all the kids as soon as they ate it, and the teachers.
This was right after 9/11. There was a lot of fear at the time that there was some kind of poisoning that was occurring. When I took on that case, two people ended up getting indicted as a result of it. We found out in discovery that the chicken was poisoned at this refrigeration warehouse where it was stored because there was an ammonia leak.
Because it was basically, inedible, they tried to sell the chicken to the penitentiary, and it still smelled so bad from ammonia that the prisons rejected it. So then they sold it to this impoverished school district in Joliet.
That got a lot of notoriety, and I started getting a lot of food poisoning cases.
WCT: Why is judge the right move for you now?
James Crawley: I'm about to turn 50. It seems a good time in my career to do it. There's still enough time to practice on the bench, and I now have the experience that I think one needs to go on the bench. You really do need a good number of years of courtroom experience to know the law, know procedure and to know the difference between a good and a bad judge.
WCT: What is the difference between a good and a bad judge?
James Crawley: Obviously, the most important fact is following the law, but I think it involves a good judicial temperament. I think it requires somebody who is well-prepared, reads the materials that are presented, reads the cases that are cited in your petitions, gives the attorneys ample time to explain their case. And a good judge to some degree needs to be somebody who is compassionate, who has an innate sense of fairness. You want everybody coming before you to be on equal footing. We're unfortunately in a system where the more money you have, the better legal representation you get.
WCT: What sets you apart as a judicial candidate?
James Crawley: One of the things that I think differentiates me from a lot of candidates is probably this innate sense of fairness that I feel that I have, a strong sense of integrity that I would bring to the bench. I want people leaving the courtroom, regardless of whether they're the winner or loser, to walk out knowing they were treated fairly. That's something I think I would be very good at.
WCT: Can you imagine a circumstance where your moral compass might conflict with the law and how you might navigate that?
James Crawley: That's one of the things about being a judge—you need to put your biases aside and apply the law fairly. There are, for example, First Amendment cases such as the Westboro Baptist Church. Most people would agree that their message is hateful and disgusting. Personally, I would be against it, but as a judge, you have to apply the constitution fairly. Sometimes that means hearing what you don't want to hear.
WCT: Do you see instances where the law in Illinois treats LGBT couples unfairly and if so, how?
James Crawley: We need to pass marriage equality, and I think there's a growing recognition that we need to pass that now that the federal government has ruled on DOMA; that ruling really does make civil unions something distinct from marriage.
WCT: You had some critiques of the way that session ended in May.
James Crawley: I think everyone in the gay community did. As part of my fundraising for my own campaign,my campaign sent a fundraising email to gay and lesbian donors that was critical of the party for not passing marriage equality in Springfield when they had the chance to do so.
I kind of describe that email as red meat. You have to energize your base, and part of that might be hyping the message a little. My position was that if you're going to call yourself a Democrat, this is an issue that is non-negotiable.
I expected that it would probably draw some heat at the Cook County slating. I was surprised at whom it drew heat from.
WCT: Who did it draw heat from?
James Crawley: After I was out of the room, and they discussed whether or not I should be slated, I understand from several people who were present that that particular email was a problem for Alderman Cappleman, who in essence said, "Why should the party support somebody who is critical of the party?"
What was disturbing about that was a couple things. First of all, Alderman Cappleman didn't ask me any questions about it when he had the opportunity to do so, and I had the opportunity to explain myself. But the very next day, Alderman Cappleman introduced and sponsored a resolution by the Democratic committeemen to encourage Springfield to pass marriage equality in the next session. [Editor's note: See a response from Cappleman below.]
I could see if I was not found qualified by the bar associations, but I was found qualified by all the bar associations thus far. I have a good number of years experience. I have a committed experience in the community.
WCT: We have talked about same-sex marriage. How comfortable do you feel with your knowledge on trans issues? What do you think are some issues face trans people in the courts?
James Crawley: One of the biggest areas would be in the criminal court setting, and this was one of the things when I was on the circuit talking to various committeemen. I told them that I really wanted to use my knowledge from the gay and lesbian community to help young people … both educating judges and recognizing the needs of the people that come before you. You obviously can't house somebody who identifies as one gender in a situation that's going to endanger them. I think the sheriff in our county has been pretty cognizant of that.
WCT: What do you want people to think of when they think of James Crawley?
James Crawley: Honesty, integrity, fairness, that I'm qualified, my independence.
****
Windy City Times asked Ald. James Cappleman to respond to Crawley's criticisms of the slating process. Cappleman said he was unable to go into detail about the slating process as it would hamper honest dialogue between committeemen, but he offered the following statement:
"We had a huge task ahead of us going into slating. Decisions on endorsements were needed on three appellate court candidates, 10 circuit court candidates and four alternates for both. In all, over 50 candidates were interviewed. We also had sitting judges with high bar ratings that were coming into slating without a guarantee of the weighted vote. We had our work cut out for us as committeemen to weed through all of these highly qualified candidates and try our best to satisfy all 80 committeemen.
"I can tell you coming into slating that James Crawley didn't have the weighted vote to be slated. There was some general confusion on his candidacy after he sent us a letter announcing he was dropping out of the race and then deciding to get back in again shortly before slating so I do believe that hurt his chances.
"The reality is that this process is quite grueling and it should be. You want to find highly qualified people to support and selecting these individuals is a position I take quite seriously. I met with almost all of the candidates and interviewed them myself, James Crawley included. I talked to fellow committeemen to find out who they were supporting and I went into the room that day prepared to push for a few candidates for slating. A few of my top choices were selected while some were not. That is the reality of slating. I, however, can't get into much more detail because the actual process of slating happens in executive session and we as committeemen honor that process to allow and promote free and open discussion among us."
Crawley addresses Cappleman's question over his candidacy:
"One of the many criticisms that has been publicly made by a number of committeemen regarding this endorsement session was that there never was a weighted voted taken of the 80 committeemen. Instead, the committeemen were presented with a slate chosen by a handful of officials and it was simply put to an up or down vote. The notion that there was some "weighted vote" cast and that I did not have the necessary votes is inaccurate.
"In the eight months leading up to slating, I met with 51 committeemen, including James Cappleman, and a dozen other elected officials to ask for their support. For several days in July, I did publicly question whether I wanted to seek the support of the Party or run on my own, and I suspect that sent a conflicting message.
"As a first-time candidate you are bound to make some missteps, and in hindsight, I see that I could have made my intentions clearer. If Ald. Cappleman had any questions about my commitment to the race, then I wish he would have raised them before or at slating and given me an opportunity to respond. Regardless of what has happened in the past, I know that James Cappleman and I share many of the same concerns for our community and people living with HIV/AIDS, and I look forward to working with him in the future."
