Want to See Required Economic Disclosures of Illinois Judges? Good Luck with That!

Here is my current research dilemma. In working on a project about judicial ethics in Illinois, I believe (but don’t know for sure) that Judge Michael McCuskey is double-dipping as a retiree at full-pay while also accepting a salary as a full-time judge. Judge McCuskey, now an Illinois circuit court judge, took his post after he retired from his federal judgeship. Upon retirement from the federal government, he appeared to become eligible by statute for a full-salary pension at close to $200,000 per year.  He quickly returned to the bench— changing federal robes for state robes—where he earned $190,758 according to a recent salary survey. My hunch is that he is drawing about $400,000 from taxpayers. Nothing in the Judicial Code addresses this, and therefore, the arrangement— if it is double-dipping— is not a violation of judicial ethics.

But in this age of constrained taxpayer resources, it’s fair to know this.

The Judicial Code makes it difficult, in fact, for the public to find this information. Rule 68 requires judges to make a declaration of economic interests. By administrative order (Rule 1), current economic interests specifically includes a “pension plan.” But the information is not available online—indeed, one must personally travel to Springfield or Chicago to inspect the filing, and further, “[e]ach person requesting examination of a statement or portion thereof must first fill out a form prepared by the Director specifying the statement requested, identifying the examiner by name, occupation, address and telephone number, and listing the date of the request and the reason for such request.” How’s that for a chilling effect! (If I go to Springfield for this, I promise to drive exactly or under the speed limit.)