One of Illinois' newest Democratic Supreme Court justices has come under a new round of criticism over her judicial ethics, this time for her decision to serve as a keynote speaker at a Democratic Party fundraiser in suburban Lake County, despite state ethics rules that bar judges from speaking at such functions.
On Sept. 9, Illinois Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford addressed a Lake County Democratic Party fundraiser dinner, on behalf of the Lake County Women’s Political Action Committee. The group explicitly declares it exists to elect female Democratic candidates to office in Lake County and elsewhere.
In posts advertising the event, the Lake County Democratic groups specifically used Rochford's expected appearance to sell tickets and promote the fundraiser.
Rochford's decision sparked a new round of criticism, including from state Republican Party officials, who pledged to quickly file complaints against the justice with the Judicial Inquiry Board, the state body responsible for investigating judicial misconduct cases.
Shaun McCabe, the executive director of the state GOP, said actions will be taken to attempt to hold Rochford accountable for her address before the partisan group.
“Complaints will definitely be filed in this case,” McCabe said. “In monitoring it, we’ve heard from a number of people who were surprised by Justice Rochford’s brazen disregard of judicial ethics rules. It wouldn’t surprise me if complaints have already been filed.”
Any complaints against Rochford would likely cite to the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is issued by the Illinois Supreme Court, the court to which Rochford was added when she was elected in the fall of 2022.
Rules in that Code of Judicial Conduct appear to explicitly prohibit such speeches by Illinois state judges, no matter their judicial office, saying:
“Except as may be specifically authorized in the context of judicial election campaigns, Rule 4.1 prohibits judges and judicial candidates from 'publicly' endorsing or making 'speeches' on behalf of political candidates or organizations.
“Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from making speeches on behalf of political organizations.to prevent them from misusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others.”
The state Code of Judicial Conduct goes on to say that, “Public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence."
In a statement supplied to the Cook County Record by a spokesman for the Illinois Supreme Court, Rochford defended the speaking engagement.
“I receive speaking requests from many groups and organizations,” Rochford said. “I believe it is important for judges to appear in public and help educate people about the judicial branch. My speech at this event was about the work of the Illinois Supreme Court, its non-partisan nature and the collegiality that is fostered by our unique lodging arrangement during court terms. The content of my speech was not political in any way and so should not be construed to have been provided on behalf of any political candidate or organization.”
Representatives of the Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee, a body that helps to interpret the Code of Judicial Conduct, declined to comment on Rochford's speech. They also did not respond to questions from the Cook County Record as to whether such speeches are common among justices or if justices are generally barred by the Code of Judicial Conduct from attending political fundraisers that are not a part of their own campaigns.
As recently as 2021, the IJEC had issued an opinion on this very question, explicitly declaring that judges who are not running for office themselves are "forbidden" from speaking at such clearly political events. While the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct has been revised since then, the rules governing such political activity were not.
A judicial ethics professor familiar with the Illinois rules governing judicial conduct also said the Rochford case should be straightforward.
“Rule 4.1 of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge ‘shall not … make speeches on behalf of a political organization,’" said Charles Geyh,a professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University Bloomington, an email response to The Cook County Record. “The accompanying comment explains that the purpose of that rule is to prevent judges from ‘misusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others.’”
Geyh added that the rules must be seen in context of the state’s system requiring that state Supreme Court candidates run for office in partisan elections. This requirement already places a strain on their role as impartial arbiters of the law, he said.
“To reduce that strain, the rules strive to keep judges out of the partisan fray to the extent possible – and giving a speech that casts the judge in the role of a cheerleader for a political party undercuts that objective,” Geyh said.
But he said any sanction imposed for such actions should not be excessive.
“The disciplinary process features an array of sanctions that may be imposed for misconduct,” Geyh said. “This does not strike me as serious enough to warrant severe sanctions on the order of suspension or removal, but a public reprimand is possible.”
Rochford, who has been on the state’s high court for less than one year, has also been involved in other controversies.
Since landing on the court, she has refused to recuse herself from controversial politically-charged cases, including those involving constitutional questions over laws prominently supported by Gov. JB Pritzker, who donated $1 million to her campaign.
She joined with her fellow Democrats in declaring the so-called SAFE-T Act constitutional, allowing the state to become the first in the country to abolish cash bail.
And, as one of the newest members of the court, she authored the majority opinion upholding Illinois' ban on so-called "assault weapons," after specifically refused to recuse herself from the case, despite the big money support from Pritzker and endorsements from prominent gun control groups. Such groups typically require candidates to sign pledges in support of "assault weapons" bans to receive such endorsements.
In her statement denying the recusal request, Rochford blasted the plaintiffs, calling the motion for recusal an attempt to use “sinister aspersions” as “simply subterfuge to circumvent anticipated adverse rulings.”
“In sum, plaintiffs do not suggest that I am biased or partial in this matter,” Rochford wrote at the time. “Rather, plaintiffs have attempted to show bias based upon inference and supposition, to create the appearance of impropriety where none exists.”
Rochford was then selected to author the court's majority opinion upholding the state gun ban, despite her relative inexperience compared to other, more seasoned members of the court's 5-2 Democratic majority.
Jonathan Bilyk contributed to this report.