The Dead Hand Journal

A friend forwarded me a link to the Chicago Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Program. Their findings (download the Green Guide or the condensed Pocket Guide) constitute just about the only guidance most voters will ever see before they pull the lever for a judicial candidate.\

Of course, we may differ on how to use that guidance.

Nominees fall into three categories: Highly Qualified (HQ), Qualified (Q), and Not Recommended (NR). Candidates who refused to participate in the process—a significant number—were automatically assigned an NR rating.

Here's how the numbers broke down:

		Party Affiliation
		R		D
Rating	HQ	1	8%	3	5%
	Q	7	54%	41	66%
	NR	5	38%	18	29%
Total		13	100%	62	100%

Note in particular the percentage breakdowns. Given that the samples are small, and that the numbers of candidates by party are quite different, the ratings seem to have been assigned pretty even-handedly.

But now let's take that non-participation rule into account. Here are the numbers again:

		Party Affiliation
		R		D
Rating	HQ	1	8%	3	5%
	Q	7	54%	41	66%
	NR	3	23%	4	6%
Declined		2	15%	14	23%
Total		13	100%	62	100%

The difference is striking. While we have to emphasize that these sample sizes are small—and thus that the ranges constituting statistical equivalency are broad—it is hard not to conclude that participating Republican candidates were found Not Recommended at a significantly higher rate than Democrats.

Anybody surprised?

In any case, I promised to tell you what to DO with these numbers...

Vote for Republican candidates, of course. If you can. This will help us avoid the spectre of judicial activism. But in the rare case where you have a choice between two Republican candidates, vote for the one who declined to participate in this survey. Odds are he or she will be the candidate with the lowest tolerance for bullshit... which, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the more important qualities a judge can have.