All Politics is Local

In Illinois, we elect our state court judges. That puts a tremendous amount of responsibility in the hands of voters. I am not implying that judges are somehow beyond the capability of voter evaluation. The problem is more one of volume. Most voters cannot make a meaningful choice between the hundreds of candidates running for judge. The major newspapers give scant attention to judicial elections and the Chicago Bar Association judicial evaluation results are not yet out and who knows how well distributed they will be. So, judicial elections unfortunately often turn on ballot position, the ethnicity of surnames (more on that below), and gender.

That is why I want to let Cook County voters know about my friend Mike Hyman who was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to fill a judicial vacancy and is now running to keep the seat. Mike is the candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party for the position. The Chicago Bar Association has called him "Highly Qualified" for the job and the Chicago Council of Lawyers called him "Well Qualified." Before becoming a judge, Mike was one of the premier litigators of complex fraud and class action law suits in the country. He was also President of the Chicago Bar Association and the Decalogue Society of Lawyers.

I have known Mike for at least 10 years while we served together on the Editorial Board of the Chicago Bar Association putting out the Bar's magazine, The Record. I have never known anyone to take on more responsibility and produce more results than Mike. He does everything with energy, enthusiasm, and the grace to listen to and understand every side in a discussion. Mike writes beautifully and has a wide and deep knowledge of the law, history, and literature that informs all of his decisions. In short, Mike is exactly the kind of person the voters in Illinois should want on the bench. Consequently, I am asking my friends and colleagues who live in Cook County to Punch 100 on your ballot to elect Mike Hyman to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Nowicki vacancy.

My Bar colleague Jack Leyhane has posted some of Mike's writing on the judiciary to his blog, For What It's Worth. I encourage you to read it.

One last thing: The surname issue in Cook County is worthy of scrutiny by anthropologists and sociologists. The practice of voting for Irish names is so well ingrained in this City that non-Irish candidates have--in the past--legally changed their names as part of a campaign strategy. This produces candidates with names like Esther Bernstein O'Rourke and Leon Jefferson O'Malley. Given the number of candidates involved and the lack of real coverage of judicial elections, it is understandable that voters latch on to something quick and familiar when casting a vote. Unfortunately, this leads to other problems. I am told that there has not been a Jewish candidate elected judge in Cook County in 12 years. It has, again I am told, been 18 years since there were two judges with Jewish surnames elected in Cook County. Given the high representation of Jews in the practice of law, this is an unfortunate set of statistics. The judiciary should represent the community and the legal profession when without compromising the quality of judges.

Electing Michael Hyman to the bench (really retaining him), adds to diversity in the court. But, far and away more important than that, electing Mike keeps an eminently qualified lawyer and judge on the bench serving the people of the County.

Punch 100 for Michael B. Hyman.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more