Burke Corruption Release
The Political/Judicial Cesspool with the Burke Family at the epicenter
Ed Burke is the longest serving alderman in Chicago history. He and his father have held the seat since 1953. Burke has accrued immense power over the course of his more than 50 years in office, including as chair of the finance committee of the Chicago City Council, Burke dominated the judicial nominating committee.
An endorsement from Ed Burke was tantamount to a golden ticket to a judgeship. As a result, hundreds of judges “owed” Burke for their positions.
Burke’s influence over the system was instrumental in his wife Anne’s ascension in the IL court system. Chief Justice Anne Burke was appointed in 1987 to IL Court of Claims, a court with a history of being a patronage job clearinghouse for the Machine.
In 1995, Anne Burke was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court without having ever served as a Circuit Court Judge. The Chicago Council Of Lawyers said Burke was “Not Qualified” for the seat, saying “She did not have enough experience in complex litigation.” 1
That did not stop Ed Burke and the Machine from ensuring her appointment and election to the court. Anne Burke ran unopposed in the Democratic Primary for a full term on the Appellate Court after a member of former Alderman Ed Vrdolyak’s law firm filed to run against her, but then withdrew after the filing deadline. With the Machine’s backing, no one could run against her.
By 2006, with the support and clout of her husband, Justice Mary Ann McMorrow retired prior to the end of her term clearing the way for Anne Burke’s appointment to the IL Supreme Court.
In 2019, just after Alderman Ed Burke was charged with attempted extortion for allegedly using his political office to drive business for his law firm by the FBI, Justice Anne Burke was selected as the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court.
- Leon Pitt, “Lawyers Groups Split on 2 Judges,” Chicago Sun Times, 3/12/96
Packing the Court
Packing the Court With Favorable Judges
The Biggest Factor In Whether A Judge Wins Their Election Is Not Their Legal Ability, But Whether They Are Part of the Insider Machine: Slating Committees Value Party Loyalty Over Legal Competence
“Each lawyer tried to outdo the others in professing party loyalty. ‘I could tell you I've handled thousands of cases as a judge and a lawyer, but I don't think that's important -- I've been a loyal Democrat all my life,’ Mitchell Ware told Democratic ward bosses who were slating candidates for judge in 1999.” 1 ?
The way the corrupt cesspool operates is simple: The Democrat Party Machine endorses and “slates” candidates in upcoming judicial elections to pack the court with favorable judges.
The biggest factor in whether a judge is slated or endorsed is not their legal ability or experience, but whether they are loyal to the machine.
- In 2005, the Chicago Sun Times reported that candidates needed to have a history of working to elect Democratic candidates to have a chance at being slated by the Cook County Democratic Party. ?
- In 2007, slating candidate Paula Lingo noted that she had worked on or contributed to the campaigns of House Speaker Mike Madigan 2
- In 2011, The Chicago Tribune reported that one of the most reliable ways to be appointed a Cook County Circuit Court Associate Judge was to be recommended by Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan to Slating Committee Chairman Ed Burke. 3 ?
- In 2013, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that judicial candidates appearing before the Cook County Democratic Slating Committee were careful to mention their status as party loyalists before their legal qualifications.
- In 2021, the slating process continues as leaders in the Chicago Machine grill candidates who had a history of running against the Democratic Party’s slated candidates. And, if you are chosen to be slated, candidates are required to contribute $40,000 to the party. 4
Once the judges are chosen, the Democrat Machine bestows the necessary support to ensure the successful election and retention of their candidates. And since the corrupt Machine controls who becomes a judge, they then can control which judges are elevated to higher posts, such as the state Supreme Court.
In 2003, a study conducted with the Chicago Council of Lawyers found that candidates who were not slated by the Democrat Party stood only a 5.8% chance of winning. Even as recently as 2020, 9 of 13 Cook County Democrat slated candidates for the Circuit Court were elected.
Each election cycle in which this corrupt slating process takes place infects the judicial system with corruption for decades. Once elected, a Circuit Court Judge serves for 6 years. After that term, the judge merely needs to receive a vote of retention (simple yes or no vote) in order to remain on the bench. Machine and party officials ensure sufficient resources are spent to retain their hand-picked judges, and even if these judges are rejected for retention, the Machine still finds a way to keep them on the bench.
Political Insider Candidates Are Appointed To Be Judges Even AFTER They Are Rejected By The Voters
The Chicago Machine has made it clear that their goal is to install their loyalists in the judiciary to protect the interests of their political allies. This goal often comes at the expense of the democratic will of the people of Illinois.
Over the last several decades, the Machine has routinely elevated and re-appointed judges to the bench who voters have rejected. The will of the people means nothing to the Machine, only preserving and growing their own control over the system.
Between 2000-2011, the Illinois Supreme Court had reappointed 18 judges – many of them politically-active Democrats – after they were rejected by the voters at the polls. ?
- Chicago Sun Times
- Abdon M. Pallasch, “'If We Slate You, Brother, You're In',” Chicago Sun Times, 9/17/07
- Jeff Coen And Todd Lighty, “Madigan's List,” Chicago Tribune, 4/17/11
- Maya Dukmasova and Chloe Hilles, “Judicial hopefuls seek Cook County Democratic Party’s endorsement for 2022 primary, Injustice Watch, 10/15/21
Favorable Decisions
By Packing the Court, the Machine Gets Favorable Decisions To Protect Their Power
The Illinois Supreme Court is meant to be a non-partisan institution that is meant to act as a check on the Executive and Legislative branch of government. In reality, the Illinois Supreme court has become a partisan institution that enables the corruption of the Executive and Legislative branch.
For years, Machine insiders have received judgments favorable to their positions and to the institutions that help them maintain their stranglehold on Illinois governance. From the most local level to the Supreme Court, the courts have ruled in favor of the Machine to the detriment of the people of Illinois.
Redistricting Reform and Remap – Enabling Corrupt Politicians to pick their voters and not the voters to pick their politicians
Illinois Voters Overwhelmingly Support Redistricting Reform. Its 2020 annual poll, the Paul Simon public policy institute found that 64 percent of Illinois voters support the creation of an independent redistricting commission, while only 22 percent oppose it. Support for redistricting reform extends across geographic and political boundaries, with large majorities of Chicago, suburban and downstate voters in support, as well as large majorities of democrats, republicans, and independents.
When the people of Illinois introduced an effort for redistricting reform, they ran into the partisan will of the Illinois Supreme Court.
In 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court blocked a proposal from the 2016 general election ballot that asked voters to amend the Illinois constitution to reform the state’s redistricting process. More than half a million Illinois voters had signed petitions to place the amendment on the ballot. This proposal would have taken redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and instead have new districts drawn by an independent board.
In a 4-3 decision, the court’s Democrats ruled that the amendment could not be placed on the ballot through a citizen initiative because it did not solely affect the “structure and procedure” of the legislative article of the Illinois constitution. Three Justices dissented, with Justice Thomas writing that Kilbride’s decision should “include a bright orange warning sticker for readers to paste over” the citizen-initiative section of the constitution that reads “out of service.” ?
Not only were Justices on the Supreme Court outraged, but reporters across the state were quick to point out that this was the work of corrupt politicians and their ability to influence the court.
Rockford Register Star’s Chuck Sweeny: “If anyone doubted house speaker Michael Madigan’s total control of the state of Illinois, Thursday’s state supreme court decision throwing the independent map amendment off the Nov. 8 ballot should erase that doubt.”
The Chicago Tribune blasted the decision in an editorial, declaring “once again, machine politics won. Voters lost.” “It’s no secret what killed this remap amendment: a political machine fueled by self-interest.” “Justices Thomas Kilbride, Charles Freeman, Anne Burke and Mary Jane Theis – each of them helped along in their political careers by the democratic party – offered only limited, astringent reasoning for the nullification…”
Daily Gazette Editorial: Kilbride “centered the court’s argument on an extremely narrow interpretation of the citizen initiative portion of the Illinois constitution.”
Some of these politicians who helped ensure Fair Maps were struck down are currently under investigation, including Mike Madigan, Ed Burke, and their allies.
The lawsuit challenging the redistricting reform amendment was filed by a coalition of Madigan-tied businessmen calling themselves “people’s map,” and the lawyer who represented them was longtime Madigan attorney Mike Kasper. The Chairman of People’s Map was former Comed lobbyist John Hooker. In November 2020, Hooker and three other Comed lobbyists and executives were indicted in federal court and accused of funneling money and do-nothing jobs to Madigan loyalists in exchange for Madigan’s help in passing legislation friendly to Comed.
Pensions – The Illinois Supreme Court has a history of enabling Springfield’s terrible policy decisions that benefit corrupt insiders at the expense of our state’s fiscal health. The most disastrous decisions issued by the Illinois Supreme Court relate to the pension liability
The Supreme Court struck down state pension reform legislation that would have saved taxpayers $160 Billion while approving loopholes for special interest insiders
- In 2013, the General Assembly passed legislation to overhaul and reform Illinois’ Pension Systems. ?
- In 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a partisan vote, struck down the 2013 pension reforms – ruling that they violated the Illinois State Constitution’s Pension Protection Clause.
- In 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a former teachers union lobbyist (David Piccoli) who served as a substitute teacher for one day should be allowed to keep a public teachers pension valued at $35k/year. ?
Medical Malpractices
Illinois has been a hotbed for frivolous lawsuits that line the pockets of trial lawyers at the expense of IL consumers. Repeated attempts to enact reforms have been struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court. With millions of dollars being spent by special interest insiders to corrupt politicians and their judicial candidate friends, IL continues to struggle to keep Malpractice costs in line.
- In 2005, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation capping “pain and suffering” damages in Medical Malpractice lawsuits. ?
- In 2010, a divided Illinois Supreme Court ruled that caps on Medical Malpractice awards violated the state’s Constitution. ?
- Chuck Sweeny, “Chuck Sweeny: Democratic Supreme Court sides with Michael Madigan front group. Surprised?” Rockford Register Star, 08/27/16
- The Editorial Board, “Remap: Illinois reformers can keep losing to the Democratic machine. Or ...” Chicago Tribune, 09/02/2016
- The Sauk, “What We Think: Victory came 1 vote short; don’t give up on redistricting” Shaw Local News Network, 08/29/2016
Join Our CAUSE
Fill out this form to stay up to date with the latest from the Judicial Fairness Project.
