The national media coverage of the Illinois Supreme Court race between Democrat Gordon Maag and Republican Lloyd Karmeier is certain to be shallow and inept, as is demonstrated by this piece from the Associated Press via CNN.com: "Size of verdicts focus of Illinois race."
It's a long article, but it contains absolutely nothing about the candidates' backgrounds or their judicial records. Instead, it's all the usual stuff about "trial lawyers," "sharks in fancy suits," "judicial hellholes," and other such nonsense.
Why will Judge Maag win the election? One reason is because the NRA has endorsed him. That's a rare occurrence for the Democratic candidate in any election. Moreover, a Republican vote for Maag by an NRA member is like two votes, since it also takes away a vote that Karmeier was counting on. Just don't expect to read about it on CNN: its piece is silent on the interesting twist of Maag's NRA endorsement.
I had a feeling you might have blogged about this fellow in the past.
This is weird and confusing. Gordon Maag is now running nightly ads on the Springfield TV station. Springfield is in the Fourth Appellate. One possible explanation is the southern reaches of Channel 20 might extend into the Fifth District. If so, that's one thing.
Another thing, the content of his ad gives one the impression, "Whoa! That's one right-wing Republican if I ever seen or heard one." Imagine my astonishment when I looked him up on the web and found that he lists himself as a Democrat. There's a lot of other interesting tidbits to be found, too.
Last thing, I don't know what his ads say down your way, but his ad up here basically speak on behalf of the tort reform.
Posted by: Marie | October 07, 2004 at 02:11 PM
Marie: I'm a plaintiffs' lawyer and a Democrat. Maybe it would surprise you, but I'm AGAINST frivolous lawsuits. (By the way, are there really many "frivolous" lawsuits--ones unjustified on the facts and the law? As I've said on this weblog before, any lawyer who filed them would go broke. It's definitely not the problem that the "tort reformers" say it is, but when it happens, I've been a vocal opponent.)
Anyway, did the ads in your part of the state say that Judge Maag was against frivolous lawsuits? Good. He should be. All lawyers should be too.
Posted by: Evan | October 07, 2004 at 02:53 PM
I completely understand your point and agree. I've been reading your weblog long enough to know where you stand.
In my almost 30 years as a legal secretary, I saw only one frivilous lawsuit. It was a case that should never have been filed in the first place. That was about 1977 and it happened to be a medical malpractice case. The process to even get such a case filed has changed a little since then. I think.
Somehow the words "frivilous lawsuit" have gotten into the political speech. It strikes hard at people's emotions. I believe Judge Maag does mention same in his ad.
Posted by: Marie | October 07, 2004 at 11:24 PM
Karmeier Wins Landslide!
Posted by: Jared Hunter | November 03, 2004 at 10:20 AM
Jared: That's the headline, all right! Congratulations to Judge Karmeier.
Posted by: Evan | November 03, 2004 at 03:45 PM