The Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed Sangamon County Circuit Judge Ryan Cadagin’s order dismissing a lawsuit challenging the controversial judicial subcircuit law, finding that the Illinois Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from eliminating countywide judicial elections.
On Thursday, Justice James Knecht delivered the opinion with Justices Craig DeArmond and Robert Steigmann concurring.
The Judicial Circuits Districting Act of 2022 was signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Jan. 7, which divided Madison County into three judicial subcircuits and eliminated countywide judicial elections. Bond County also became its own subcircuit within the Third Judicial Circuit under the new law.
Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Haine filed the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on Jan. 21 on behalf of Madison County residents and Christina Wiley. Lake County citizen and Republican Sen. Daniel McConchie and circuit judges Christopher Threlkeld and Amy Sholar are included as intervenor-plaintiffs. They seek relief against Pritzker, Clerk of the Supreme Court Cynthia Grant and the Illinois State Board of Elections and its members. Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and Senate President Don Harmon, both Democrats, are included as intervenor-defendants.
The appellate court notes that the Illinois State Board of Elections and members Ian Linnabary, Cassandra Watson, William Cadigan, Laura Donahue, Tonya Genovese, Catherin McCrory, William McGuffage and Andrick Tereven Sr. have not taken any positions throughout the proceedings.
Haine filed the complaint “to protect and vindicate the rights of Madison County residents and voters to freely and fairly elect members of the judiciary in Madison County.”
Madison County and Wiley sought a declaration that the Act violated the Illinois Constitution by creating a subcircuit scheme that only applied to the Third Judicial Circuit. While other judicial subcircuits exist in Illinois, the Third Judicial Circuit's subcircuits were implemented immediately for the 2022 election. Madison County is also the only county in the state where the first three judicial vacancies will be chosen by voters in subcircuit one, with the following three vacancies elected in subcircuit two and the next two in subcircuit three.
In its opinion, the appellate court rejected the defendants’ argument that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested declaratory relief or that all claims are barred.
“While the circuit court may not have been able to overrule the supreme court’s order or direct that the order be ignored, the issuance of the requested declaratory relief - or an order dismissing the claims - resolves the controversy and allows an avenue for review,” Knecht wrote.
However, the appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims relating to the retention election are barred for lack of standing and for being unripe.
“Retention elections for judges elected in 2022 will not occur until 2028,” Knecht wrote. “Indeed, the complaints contain no allegations suggesting any judge, including Threlkeld or Sholar, has applied for retention and been denied the right to run in the circuit at large or any voter of the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims, nor are any of the claims ripe for review.”
Knecht added that the courts “would proceed under the well-established presumption” that the legislature enacted the subcircuit law “in light, and not inconsistent with, the provisions of the Illinois Constitution.”
The appellate court declined to address whether Madison County lacks standing to bring its claims because Wiley has “undisputed standing.”
Additionally, the appellate court agreed with the defendants’ interpretation of the circuit courts clause in the constitution.
“The General Assembly may provide for the division of a circuit for the selection of circuit judges, and it may provide for the selection of circuit judges from the circuit at large,” Knecht wrote. “That is, the General Assembly has no obligation to do both things in every circuit. Stated differently, the constitution does not prohibit the General Assembly from having a judicial circuit be comprised of only subcircuit resident judges.”
The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ concerns about their interpretation of the language.
“Specifically, they suggest the General Assembly under our interpretation could eliminate all judgeships from a circuit, design a circuit with one judge whose election is confined to only a smaller division of the circuit, or assign all judges in a circuit to a particular subcircuit,” Knecht wrote.
“Plaintiffs’ concern is unwarranted,” he added. “To begin with, we find plaintiffs’ concern is based on entirely speculative scenarios. Moreover, plaintiffs fail to recognize any attempt by the General Assembly to proceed as they suggest would be considered not only in light of language interpreted in this case but also the other language of the constitution.”
The appellate court also rejected McConchie’s claim that the Act creates unequal voting strength amongst similarly situated voters because it allows voters in heavily democratic subcircuits to vote for more judges and creates subcircuits of unequal population.
After the complaint was initially filed in Sangamon County Circuit Court, Haine filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, which was granted on Jan. 24.
The following day, Pritzker and Grant responded by petitioning the Fourth District Appellate Court for review of the temporary restraining order.
Grant filed a motion to dismiss herself from the action on Feb. 4, arguing that she has no power to certify judicial vacancies. Instead, she argues that the vacancies are certified by Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court with assistance from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.
Shortly after Grant sought dismissal in the circuit court, the appellate court reversed the temporary restraining order and remanded the case on Feb. 7.
The appellate court concluded that Madison County and Wiley “had not shown they would suffer an irreparable injury if a temporary restraining order did not issue before the merits of their claims could be adjudicated,” the opinion states.
Harmon and Welch filed a motion to dismiss the action on Feb. 21.
Then on Feb. 22, the plaintiffs filed trial briefs and Pritzker filed a motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs filed an oral motion to voluntarily dismiss Grant during a hearing on Feb. 24. Cadagin also granted the additional pending motions to dismiss, concluding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, the plaintiffs lacked standing and the complaints failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Haine appealed.