Judge takes heat for speech (2025)

Illinois Supreme Court Justice was the keynote speaker at a Democratic fundraiser

By Rich Miller

Audio By Carbonatix

Among other things, sitting Illinois judges areprohibited by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 4.1 from making “speeches on behalfof a political organization,” or soliciting funds for a political organizationor candidate, except when they’re up for election or retention.

So, you might ask, what the heck was Illinois SupremeCourt Justice Elizabeth Rochford thinking when she decided to accept aninvitation to be the keynote speaker at the Lake County Democratic Women annualfundraising gala on Sept. 9? The registered political action committee isone of the most influential independent county-wide campaign groups of its kindin all of Illinois, having helped recruit, train and then elect dozens of localcandidates over the years (including Justice Rochford herself).

“Illinois voters deserve a fair and impartial stateSupreme Court that's free of and from politics, which does not appear to be thecase here," said Illinois Republican Party executive director Shaun McCabein a press release last week about Rochford’s speech.

“The Illinois Supreme Court's Code of Judicial Conduct(Canon 4, Page 48-50) is clear: sitting judges who aren't up for election shallnot speak at political functions supporting the election of candidates,” theIllinois Republican Party’s press release claimed. A Republican Party officialsaid later that we can expect a formal complaint will be filed soon.

The controversy boils down to two questions about theSupreme Court’s rule: 1) Did Justice Rochford make a speech on behalf of a politicalorganization? And 2) Did her role as keynote speaker mean she was solicitingfunds for the Lake County Democratic Women PAC?

Rochford’s defenders say “no” to both questions. She gavea non-political speech “to” a political group, not “on behalf” of it. And shedidn’t do anything to solicit any money for the political action committee.

Rochford herself issued a rare statement to me last week:“I receive speaking requests from many groups and organizations. I believe itis important for judges to appear in public and help educate people about theJudicial Branch. My speech at this event was about the work of the IllinoisSupreme Court, its non-partisan nature and the collegiality that is fostered byour unique lodging arrangement during court terms. The content of my speech wasnot political in any way and so should not be construed to have been providedon behalf of any political candidate or organization.”

Others who were at the event confirmed Rochford’s claimthat she said nothing which could be construed as partisan or campaign-relatedin nature.

I totally get the narrow and lawyerly interpretation. Anyformal Republican complaints are likely doomed because of it. These arelawyers, after all. Words are carefully chosen for good reason.

And, more importantly, we elect our judges in Illinois,so that means we do have to accept that they are inherently political beings.If they were all appointed and confirmed by the state Senate, or whatever, itwould be a different story.

But, I mean, come on.

Keynote speakers are usually invited because they helplegitimize the organization and, as a result, drive increased attendance. Androbust attendance is obviously very crucial to the success of any annualfundraiser.

So, while Rochford didn’t technically speak “on behalf”of the group, she did help the Lake County Democratic Women further prove itsbona fides by agreeing to speak.

And while she did not directly raise money for the group –which helped nominate her in a competitive Democratic primary and then electher over a Lake County Republican general election opponent – it should havebeen abundantly clear that her very presence undoubtedly helped the group raiseat least some campaign money that it might possibly not have brought in withouther.

Rochford has been around politics for a very long time.She most certainly knows that this speech was far different from presenting toa law school symposium or bar organization.

I’m not saying that judges and justices should cloisterthemselves away like monks. But they should at least try to keep up appearanceswhen they’re not actively campaigning, especially during an era when everydecision by just about every Supreme Court in the land, including the U.S.Supreme Court, is being analyzed for political bents.