Judge candidates tell why they think voters should choose them

• Reprints

Updated: August 4, 2011 4:20PM

This November, Kane County voters will choose a resident judge, a new seat on the bench in Illinois’ 16th Circuit Court created to help handle the growing case load as the area grows.

Running for that office are Republican David Akemann and Democrat John Dalton, both of whom live in Elgin.

The Courier-News recently asked both men five questions related to their run. Their answers follow. To learn more from each candidate, visit the websites akemannforjudge.com and www.johndaltonforjudge.com

David Akemann

What do you see as the major differences between you and your opponent that make you the better choice for Kane County?

Akemann: I have far greater depth and breadth of experience in the practice of law generally and in this circuit particularly. I have literally done every kind of case in this circuit and appeared in every court room in the county. My experience as an elected state’s attorney where I prosecuted the most serious of cases personally, including cases where a capital sentence was imposed, is unique to my candidacy. My opponent indicates that he has had 23 years experience as a trial attorney and yet, the overwhelming response I get from attorneys when they ask me, “Who’s your opponent?” and I tell them, their answer is overwhelmingly, “I’ve never heard of him.” I have not spoken to a single lawyer in this county that has had a case with my opponent where he was or is the counsel of record, not one. I have not spoken to a judge in this county who has indicated that my opponent has appeared before that judge as the attorney of record, not one. I would encourage voters to ask their own Kane County attorneys if they have ever heard of my opponent or have had any professional dealings with him.

A circuit judge must make decisions on a wide variety of cases, including felony criminal cases which is the one category of cases that associate judges are not allowed to hear without special certification. Obviously, felony trial experience is very important for a circuit judge.

My experience has also provided me with extensive knowledge of Kane County government as a civil division chief that dealt constantly with civil liability and fiscal issues. I was a part of the weekly “justice managers” meetings with all of the justice system department heads under several different chief judges. This experience gave me a first-hand perspective as to the operation not just of the state’s attorney office, but all of the programs and offices of the court system, including the problems and challenges involved.

I have tried civil and criminal cases of the most serious kind and complexity in Kane County. As state’s attorney, I constantly made judgments about witness credibility, admissibility of evidence, and what kinds of punishment or disposition would constitute just results. I have 9 or 10 more years of experience than my opponent does. My years of private practice have been concentrated in this county and continue to the present time.

I am the only candidate who served as the people’s elected state’s attorney, and in that capacity have personally prosecuted first-degree murder cases and successfully sought the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes.

People want to feel safe in their homes and they want their families free from danger. However, the maximum penalty is not normally appropriate. As Kane County state’s attorney, I recognized this by establishing the highly successful second chance program for first-time, non-violent offenders. Instead of the taxpayers footing the bill for the prosecution, defense and punishment of these offenders, they came before a volunteer citizen-only panel who, after determining that the person was not a threat to the public could recommend treatment, restitution, and community service to aid the community as these good folks thought just. I am “Highly Recommended” by the Kane County Bar Association.

Both of you have stated that you won’t take campaign money from attorneys, as you say it raises ethical issues if donor/lawyers have to come before you to present cases. Yet, theoretically, couldn’t any potential donor have to come before the bench? Aside from the higher likelihood of an attorney coming before you, how is it different taking any money for your campaign? In terms of money, how much are you spending on this campaign? What does this say about the process?

Akemann: Yes, theoretically, every donor may be able to come before the bench. Receiving help from a person’s family or close friends would not be an issue because I would be required to recuse myself in such cases. Court rules require recusal if a judge cannot be fair or impartial. If my brothers or sister or a close friend contribute to my campaign, such contributions do not have an effect on the judicial system as I would not be able to hear cases where their interests were involved with or without a contribution.

In my 32-year legal career, I have been asked many times by a judge candidate’s (usually a sitting judge) committee to contribute to a campaign. Often, I would hear whispers as to suggestions to “cover yourself” by contributing to all of the candidates.

In past eras, I would hear discussion about “taking names” or having a “list” on the bench where the names of contributors, opponent’s contributors, and non contributors were readily available. If you are a litigant, do you want to even think about whether a judge has such a list in his or her head? Can she or he ignore the knowledge about such categorizations? I realize that our Supreme Court rules expressly allow for attorneys to make contributions to judicial campaigns. However, just because something is legally permitted does not mean that a person has to do it.

I have chosen to direct my committee not to accept campaign contributions from attorneys. This eliminates any pressure on the attorney to contribute. In the end it’s not really about the attorney. It’s about the people, the public, that we as judges will serve. Judges, and all public officials, work for the people not the other way around. Do the people really want the image of a line of lawyers with $100 bills waiting to get into a fund raiser for a judge? I don’t think so.

I have had lawyers that I respect tell me that my policy implies that there is something dirty about accepting a contribution from a lawyer which implies a negative feeling about the characters of lawyers. The great majority of my fellow attorneys are honorable women and men who may legitimately feel that they know the candidates best because they have had (or have not had in the case of my opponent) professional dealings with that candidate, and they want the best candidates to win so our legal system has the best judges. This often is in fact true, but the public who is making the selection sees too often in the media the faces of corruption of public officials, usually related to money. We all make choices and need to take responsibility for those choices. I have made one where my committee will not accept contributions from licensed attorneys.

The campaign contributions and expenditures are contained in reports filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections. The report is or will be available online to the public.

Give a concrete example of something you have done or accomplished which shows why you have the necessary judgment to be a good judge.

Akemann: The most widely known example is my service as Kane County state’s attorney for two full terms. Seven people have served as state’s attorney since it became a full time position following the 1970 constitution; of those seven, I am the only one to have lasted two full terms. As state’s attorney, I made dozens of decisions daily about witness credibility, evidence and just disposition and punishment, including the difficult decisions about the imposition of the death penalty.

I have also served as a commissioner of the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission, and as such functioned as an administrative law judge where I heard and decided cases as a sole commissioner and as a member of an appellate panel of three.

Should judgeships be elected positions? Why or why not?

Akemann: Yes. The people need to be connected to their judicial system like the executive and legislative branches of government. It is good to walk door to door and meet real people in their homes where they live and to listen to their concerns about justice issues. The world of a judge can be a very isolated one, having dealings with only the courthouse crowd.

Other systems used in the state are:

a) Selection only by other judges such as the process of selection of associate judges. In our circuit, you currently need a “vote” of nine or more circuit judges. What this produces in fact is something very much like “corporate” politics where candidates are sponsored by sitting circuit judges who encourage their colleagues to vote for their candidate or the candidate of a coalition of judges. We vote for your guy this time, if you agree to vote for our guy next time, etc. All of this is done in secret with the public completely out of the process. The public never knows who votes for whom or why, only the result.

b) Vacancies in circuit judgeships between elections are filled by the Supreme Court which means a vote of at least 4 of the 7 justices, however practical; it means the vote of the justice assigned to the Supreme Court district, who then circulates the order to his or her colleagues. As a practical matter, the decision is made by one person, again with only the input he or she chooses to have, which may include absolutely none at all.

c) Our federal constitution indicates that judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, however, in the real world, they are normally in fact selected by one person, the senior senator in the state of the same party as the president. The amount of input the senator receives is up to that senator. Normally, the list of applicants is unknown and the selection process is often done completely in private.

As this is a new position, please explain to voters how you see its role in the existing judicial system and what your plans for the office might be.

Akemann: The chief judge decides where to assign the judges, now numbering 35 in the circuit. As one of those judges, I could be assigned anywhere the chief judge determines.

I would come to work everyday, on time, work hard, and apply wisdom and common sense to cases without wasting the time of citizens that interact with the court system be they witness, juror, or parties to a case or lawyers.

I would seek non-traditional approaches for earlier disposal of cases, including early screening for alternative solutions like diversion programs. Moving cases from probation to conditional discharge, requiring mediation in civil cases and increasing the use of pretrial conferences to move cases along are all viable options. Night court, Saturday court, video court, field courts and the use of hearing officers to handle municipal ordinance violations would be other options. The setting of realistic bails and tracking warrants, proper use of monitoring systems that save precious jail resources and a triage system for criminal cases to fast track the trial of violent criminals are other goals.

People want hard-working, common sense judges who will be tough on violent convicted criminals but compassionate when circumstances dictate. Judges work for the people, not the other way around. Perception of judicial fairness means judges must maintain judicial independence and freedom from social and political pressure. The burden of that falls to each judge to avoid associations which create a perception that impartiality is not possible.

The people of Kane County want the judiciary to be more efficient and responsive to the need to expedite high volume court calls for traffic tickets. Traffic court has become a cash cow for municipalities seeking to raise additional revenues, but people are tired of wasted hours and missed work due to huge court calls where they are herded in like cattle. We must be more creative, like online court supervision, staggered appearance times, and in locations with plenty of parking and working bathrooms.

John Dalton

What do you see as the major differences between you and your opponent that make you the better choice for Kane County?

Dalton: Unlike my worthy opponent, who has run for office six times, I am not a professional politician. I have never run for elective office before. However, I have served my community in many ways (some of which are listed in his other responses, found online) and at the risk of immodesty, I believe I have excellent credentials, good judgment and an inherent sense of fairness. I have over 85 endorsements for a reason. I believe in hard work, personal accountability, transparency, diversity, precedent and tradition. I believe in keeping an open mind until all the evidence is in, and the possibility of grace and redemption. I believe the job of a judge is to be nonpartisan, follow the law, listen to both sides and treat everyone fairly, with dignity and respect. If elected, that’s the kind of judge I’ll be.

Both you and your opponent have stated that you won’t take campaign money from attorneys, as you say it raises ethical issues if donor/lawyers have to come before you to present cases. Yet, theoretically, couldn’t any potential donor have to come before the bench? Aside from the higher likelihood of an attorney coming before you, how is it different taking any money for your campaign? And in terms of money, how much are you spending on this campaign? What does this say about the process?

Dalton: As a candidate, I think accepting donations from lawyers, or organizations that represent lawyers, creates a conflict of interest, so I’m refusing all donations from lawyers, and I challenge my opponent to do the same. We’ve returned donations from lawyers several times. Thus far, my opponent has only promised not to take donations from lawyers “who may end up practicing before me” (quoted from his website). He hasn’t disclosed where he bought his crystal ball, or how he intends to determine who will appear before him in the future. Apparently, even though he acknowledges there is a conflict of interest, he thinks it’s OK to take money from the partners of lawyers that may appear before him, organizations that represent lawyers, etc. I think that sort of hair splitting creates loopholes in his pledge big enough to call his promise illusory.

According to a report published last year by The Brennan Center for Justice, “over two-thirds of citizens and nearly half of state judges believe that campaign contributions influence judge’s decisions.” The report, “Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards,” cited studies of judicial rulings in Ohio and Louisiana which showed a strong correlation between campaign contributions and judicial decisions.

I think the court must be independent and demonstrate integrity, not just talk about it. Unlimited donations from lawyers corrupts the process. Those same lawyers may appear before me in court, and that’s not ethical. It’s just not right. The citizens of Kane County have the right to a fair trial and an impartial judge. Accepting contributions from attorneys would bring my independence and integrity into question, so I’m just not going to do it.

Of course any donor could appear before a judge as a party to a case, and, unlike the lawyer donation problem, existing rules recognize this conflict. I would recuse myself from a case involving a campaign donor. This is a rare event and would not impair my effectiveness as a judge the way recusing myself whenever a lawyer donor stepped up to the bar might if I routinely accepted donations from lawyers.

The judicial election process for a county-wide candidate in a big county like Kane is very expensive. There are many ethical issues involved in judicial campaign fund raising, not the least of which is the possible appearance that justice is for sale. That’s why current rules prohibit judicial candidates from soliciting contributions the way other candidates routinely do. Public financing of such elections might be a way to alleviate many of these concerns and should be explored as an alternative. There was a bill pending to do that, but it didn’t include the Illinois Circuit Courts and only applied to the Appellate and Supreme courts.

It is impossible to determine how much my campaign will spend until the fund raising is finished and the campaign is complete. However, it does appear likely that the primary and general elections combined will cost my campaign something in the neighborhood of $80,000-100,000. To put this in perspective, this is a small fraction of what certain local candidates for state senate or state representative will spend this year.

Give a concrete example of something you have done or accomplished which shows why you have the necessary judgment to be a good judge.

Dalton: I was an arbitration chairman for 10 years. This was a part of the Cook County Circuit Court’s mandatory arbitration system. While I didn’t bear the title of “Judge” (They called me “Mr. Chairman.”), I was responsible for managing a courtroom, ruling on the evidence, ruling on all of the objections, ensuring that the proceedings were fair and that the law was followed and rendering decisions in hundreds of cases. I think that this experience demonstrates that I have the necessary judgment to be a good judge.

Should judgeships be elected positions? Why or why not?

Dalton: Twenty-seven states elect their judges as we do, so it would be a tad impertinent of me to say that’s the wrong way for a democracy to behave. The idea of merit selection is appealing, but there are flaws with every proposal to date. What would merit selection look like? Would we, as some states do, let the governor appoint the judges? Are you familiar with our recent governors? I’m not yet convinced that would be the right approach. That’s not to say there aren’t valid complaints about the precise way we go about it. For example, I wish our elections were nonpartisan. Unlike legislative candidates, the issues that divide us on party lines don’t really apply to the job of a circuit court Judge. The role of such a judge is to be nonpartisan, so the elections should be too, just as they currently are when we decide whether such judges should be retained every six years. Public financing of such elections might be an idea worthy of consideration too, for some of the reasons discussed above.

As this is a new position, please explain to voters how you see its role in the existing judicial system and what your plans for the office might be.

Dalton: We are getting a new judge because the county is growing rapidly. This “Kane County Resident Judge” seat is a new seat, but not really a new position. The position is Circuit Court Judge, and this judge will have the same powers and responsibilities as the other elected Circuit Court Judges in the 16th Circuit. The term Kane County Resident Judge really refers to the method of selection and who is eligible for the seat. Only residents of Kane County can run, and the voters of Kane County will make the decision, as opposed to a judicial subcircuit race (where only the voters of a small portion of the county can vote) or a full circuit race involving the voters of all three counties in the 16th Circuit. The precise call this judge handles will be determined by the Chief Judge of the 16th Circuit, F. Keith Brown.