|
Robert
Steigmann is at the
front end of a trend in judicial races
by
Aaron Chambers
The
signs along the northbound lanes of I-55 near Bloomington
look familiar. The series of five Burma Shave-style placards,
planted just off the shoulder, resemble others put along roads
throughout the state by Gunssavelife.com.
That’s
no accident. Justice Robert Steigmann is a member of the Champaign
County Rifle Association, the Web organization’s affiliated
group, and he’s proud its members helped construct the
signs to promote his race for the Illinois Supreme Court.
The
signs alert motorists that Steigmann is “tough on thugs”
and has “earned your vote.” They don’t speak
to gun owners’ rights, and the judge says they were not
a deliberate attempt to court pro-gun voters. Nonetheless,
he acknowledges that, in as much as his signs mirror the pro-gun
signs, they could help make his campaign attractive to voters
who care deeply about that issue.
The
gun group isn’t formally endorsing a candidate in the
GOP primary for the high court seat from the 4th Judicial
District, which stretches through central Illinois from the
Mississippi River to Indiana. Steigmann, an Appellate Court
justice, will face incumbent high court Justice Rita Garman,
who was appointed and is running to retain the seat in the
March 19 primary. The GOP nominee will face Appellate Justice
Sue Myerscough, a Democrat, in November.
Still,
Richard Klein, the gun group’s immediate past chair,
says members prefer Steigmann’s stance on gun issues
over Garman’s because Steigmann appears to be more of
a “strict constructionist” when it comes to the
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And he says
the connection between Steigmann’s name and the gun group’s
signs — there are 35 sets placed strategically alongside
roadways in high-traffic areas — is clear.
“I
think that it’s obvious that the public will recognize
an association: ‘Gee, this guy must really be endorsed
by the gun people.’ And the public can come to whatever
conclusion they want,” Klein says.
Indeed,
that association helps put Steigmann at the front end of a
trend in judicial races: campaigning on substantive —
and sometimes controversial — issues that are dear to
some voters. He’s challenging the traditional notion
that a judge keep a low profile.
To
be sure, Steigmann’s combative nature has made plenty
of folks in legal circles uneasy. The Illinois State Bar Association,
and its members in the 4th District, rated Steigmann “not
recommended” for the high court. But as far as he’s
concerned, more dialogue about his personal views is a healthy
addition to the elective process.
“It’s
almost an insult to voters to conduct a campaign for the bench,
as has been done so often, on a resume and a smile, essentially
saying, ‘This is what I’ve done in the past. I’m
a nice person. Vote for me,’” Steigmann says. “Under
the robes, we’re just people. And it seems to me that
the voters have a right to know what are our fundamental values
and judgments and beliefs.”
The
move toward issue-based judicial races is, in a sense, consistent
with a national trend toward more contentious races for the
bench in states where judges are elected. Supreme Court races
here and in other states have in recent years become more
expensive, with special interests playing a greater role in
campaign financing. And, as is the case with Steigmann, candidates
are going further to stake out positions on controversial
issues.Critics worry that more rhetoric from judicial candidates
can compromise the candidates’ impartiality once on the
bench and, ultimately, the judiciary’s integrity. After
all, judges are charged with interpreting and applying the
law to specific fact situations. Unlike legislators, they
do not represent the people; they represent the law.
But
judges still must win election and, as long as that’s
the case, judicial candidates will do what they have to do
to get elected. Like nonjudicial candidates, they form grass-roots
organizations, mount campaigns that raise and spend money,
and make statements in order to connect with voters.
The
Illinois Supreme Court’s rules governing campaign conduct
for judicial candidates were designed with this elective system
in mind.
They
forbid candidates from making statements that would commit
or appear to commit them with respect to cases that could
come before the court. Outside of that, judicial candidates
have wide latitude to talk about their beliefs.
In
a concurrence to the rule, now-retired Justice James Heiple
wrote that, “Realistically speaking, it is not enough
for the judge or candidate to merely give name, rank and serial
number as though he were a prisoner of war. Rather, the public
has a right to know the candidate’s core beliefs on matters
of deep conviction and principle.”
But
the storyboard signs are just the beginning for Steigmann.
He’s publicly calling for the right to carry concealed
weapons in Illinois. He has lobbied the General Assembly on
other issues, in some cases drafting legislation. And he has
run a television commercial featuring Chief Illiniwek, the
controversial University of Illinois mascot, to promote his
campaign. He says the university should keep the Chief, despite
complaints from critics that doing so is insensitive.
He
has publicly attacked several of the high court’s policies
— also an unprecedented practice in judicial politics.
And he’s pledged to shed light on the court’s “secretive”
practices.
He
says the court, which administers the state’s judicial
system, should require all judges to expedite cases involving
child custody. The court in January launched a committee to
study how child custody cases could be expedited. Garman,
Steigmann’s primary opponent, is a court liaison to the
committee.
Steigmann
also has his own weekly talk radio show based in Springfield.
As he notes, he’s been talking for years about many of
the issues that are central to his campaign.
For
her part, Garman doesn’t express concern over Steigmann’s
name recognition. She is running a more conventional campaign,
complete with a strong organization and endorsements from
such top Republicans as U.S. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert
and former Gov. Jim Edgar. Like Steigmann, she is traveling
extensively, attending community functions throughout the
30-county district.
And
she won’t accuse Steigmann of violating court rules,
though she suggests his behavior is inappropriate. “I
play by the rules. I don’t believe Rule 67 is a suggestion;
it’s a rule,” she says. “If a Supreme Court
candidate doesn’t play by the rules, I don’t know
how we can expect anybody to play by the rules.”
As
for Steigmann’s unusual practice of lobbying, she says,
“If you want to draft legislation and get it passed,
you ought to run for a legislative position. That’s what
legislators do.”
Steven
Lubet, a professor at the Northwestern University School of
Law and co-author of the definitive resource on judicial ethics,
says Steigmann is in the clear.
Specifically
with regard to Steigmann’s call for a concealed carry
law, Lubet says he hasn’t indicated how he would rule
on a case involving such a law, and “discussing the advisability
of legislation” is permitted. Lubet says judges can make
statements about improvement in the law, the legal system
or the administration of justice.
He
says lobbying also is acceptable under court rules. “Judges
are good at that; they are on the front line and it’s
generally understood that they have expertise about how the
law could be improved.”
It’s
up to the Judicial Inquiry Board and the Illinois Courts Commission
to decide whether Steigmann’s conduct violates judicial
canons. If the board believes he has swayed too far, it will
charge him. The commission then would decide whether he should
be sanctioned.
In
2000, former Justice S. Louis Rathje accused an opponent of
violating court rules to win votes. Rathje was appointed to
the high court in 1998 to finish the last two years of another
justice’s term. He then ran for the seat.
During
the three-way GOP primary race for Rathje’s seat, Bob
Thomas disclosed that he is against abortion. That position,
and the unusual nature of the statement by a judicial candidate,
was widely publicized. Thomas’ campaign also distributed
fliers tagging Thomas as the only candidate endorsed by anti-abortion
groups. His victory in the largely Republican district, west
of Cook County to Iowa and north to Wisconsin, was attributed
by some to that statement and his name recognition as a former
Chicago Bears kicker.
Thomas
says he first disclosed his anti-abortion stance in response
to a reporter’s question and that the comment was not
part of his campaign strategy. He says he made clear that
he would make decisions based on the facts and the law, and,
as such, thought there was nothing wrong with circulating
his anti-abortion position.
“I
guess up to that point, candidates didn’t say they didn’t
have personal views; they said they couldn’t talk about
personal views,” he says. “That seemed pretty ridiculous
to me that you couldn’t speak on a matter of core values.”
Asked whether the anti-abortion statement helped him win,
Thomas says: “I don’t know the answer to that.”
So
if judges are supposed to abandon their personal views once
on the bench, is it appropriate for a judicial candidate to
divulge those views when voters likely will weigh them in
deciding which candidate to vote for?
Steigmann
says sure. He says core values do play into judicial decision-making,
though he’s not as bold when asked to be specific. He
cites his support of the First Amendment and his fair approach
to cases as values that impact decision-making. Any judicial
candidate likely would embrace those two “values.”
Besides,
he says, courting voters with messages not necessarily relevant
to decision-making — such as Chief Illiniwek — is
fair political game. “It’s to make people who see
the commercial like you or like what you’re saying,”
he says.
Judicial
candidates are playing hardball. And Steigmann is playing
the hardest.
Illinois
Issues, March 2002
For information about how to subcribe to Illinois Issues go to:
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/subscribe/subscribe.html
Go to Illinois Issues blog at http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/
Write a letter to the editor
I would like to comment on this article
(Please
state month and author of article.)
Ask a staff member
Home
|
