Yet Another Reason Why the Bar Association Can’t Be Trusted

AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

Remember when the COVID restriction-loving left got its collective underoos in a bunch when a federal judge struck down their beloved mask mandate in airports and on airplanes? The leftist tears were particularly tasty during that whole brouhaha. But you might also recall that Democrats and their close friends and allies in the activist media took issue with the fact that the judge in question – U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle – was deemed “unqualified” by the bar association.

When one takes a closer look, one can see exactly why the bar association made this determination: Mizelle is a Trump appointee and the organization is biased as hell. In fact, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a constitutional attorney on my podcast, and he affirmed how skewed that organization is. However, this particular story involves the Illinois state bar association which doesn’t seem to be much different in terms of bias.

The Washington Times reported that a conservative judge who is running for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court accused the state bar association of threatening him with a “not recommended” rating, if he fails to fill out its “political” questionnaire on diversity and issues related to the LGBTQ community. From the report:

Judge John A. Noverini was elected to the16th Circuit Court in Illinois in 2008. In 2014, the Illinois State Bar Association gave him a “Recommended” rating, but now it is threatening to publicly announce he is “Not Recommended” if he fails to fill out the group’s questionnaire to evaluate judicial candidates.

Judge Noverini told the association he won’t be participating in its review this year because it presents a conflict of interest to have an endorsement from a group that represents lawyers. He also said threatening judges into participating in the questionnaire — or else get a “Not Recommended” rating — is a form of “bullying.”

In a letter addressed to the association, Noverini wrote, “In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the judicial evaluation process has become politicized.”

The organization responded by informing Noverini they would publish his rating on May 6. In an email, they wrote: “Since you chose not to participate in the judicial evaluation process, the Judicial Evaluations Committee of the Illinois State Bar Association rated you ‘Not Recommended’ for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court.”

The Illinois State Bar Association reviews Supreme Court candidates and typically publishes its findings ahead of elections. This year, the primary election is scheduled for June 28 and GOP candidates have a favorable chance of winning the majority, according to The Washington Times.

The reason Noverini refused to complete the form is that it appeared to have questions with an obvious political bent. Some of the questions included:

Do you belong to any business or social clubs, organizations, unions or associations which use race, gender, sexual orientation or national origin as a basis for determining memberships or the privileges of membership?

How important is it to you to have inclusion from people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?

What efforts, if any, have you made in your community to include people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?

The judge claimed the state bar association has transformed the evaluation process into a “political exercise,” and one look at the questions makes it obvious the group has an apparent bias in favor of progressive ideology. He explained:

“The left-leaning ISBA has a vested interest in who sits on the Supreme Court. Accepting endorsements or ratings from organizations that represent attorneys crosses the line and brings into question the fairness and impartiality of our judicial system. Labeling a candidate as ‘not recommended’ for choosing not to participate in the evaluation process is a veiled threat and a subtle way of bullying. Participating in the judicial evaluation is inappropriate and it’s why I respectfully declined to engage with the evaluation and requested that my name not be associated with this process.”

So, it appears that Democrats are using at least one state bar association to tilt the scale in favor of progressives seeking judicial seats. At this point, it would not be a surprise to find out this type of left-leaning litmus test is being used by other state bar associations to give an unfair advantage to leftist candidates. We have already seen how desperate Democrats have become. What other ways will they use to tilt the odds in their favor?


Trending on RedState Videos