“Retiring” Judges

Illinois needs to reform judicial ethics. Consider the use of bogus retirements. When judges first run for office, they must declare a political party and win by 50% plus one vote. If they run again, this is a retention election. They do not list their party, and they must win 60% of the vote to retain them.

Three judges in St. Clair County who are up for retention elections “retired” to refile as new candidates in the general election.  By doing so, they will avoid the 60% retention requirement and need to garner only one more vote than their opponents to serve again. 

Sounding like a smooth talking politician, Judge John Baricevic said that running in the general election will allow him to speak about issues affecting the judiciary. He failed to mention that his less noble intention to game the system in order to survive the next election.

In his 2010 retention election, Judge Baricevic squeaked by with a 62.49% yes vote— a margin of about two percentage points.  In the 2016 election, he can poll twelve percentage points less than he did in 2010, and win another term on the bench. St. Clair County Judge Lloyd Cueto retired to run in the 2006 general election, which he won.  He bragged he did not break the law— and he was correct in pointing to this retire-to-run loophole.

These retiring judges might also be angling to double dip— that is, receive retirement income while earning income in their “new” job. This recently happened in New York, where state supreme court Justice Brian DeJoseph retired on December 31, 2014 and began a new term of office the next day.  His election to a new term exploited a loophole in New York’s retirement law, enabling him to bank an estimated $112,000 a year in pension benefits while concurrently earning $183,300 as salary.  In Pennsylvania, 86 judges similarly double-dip, receiving nearly $11 million in combined pension and salary payments. 

Illinois has a similar problem. Judge Michael McCuskey, now an Illinois circuit court judge, took his current post after he retired from his federal judgeship. Upon retirement, he became eligible by federal law for a full-salary pension of $199,100 per year.  He quickly returned to the bench— simply by changing a federal robe for a state robe.  In Illinois, he earns $190,758. 

Thus, Judge McCuskey appears to be paid about $389,858 annually from his federal pension and state salary. Nothing in Illinois’ Judicial Code addresses this problem, perhaps because drafters never thought that a judge would do this. Aggravating this problem, Rule 68 of the Illinois Code creates an informational obstacle course for anyone who wants to discover if a judge is double dipping with a public pension.  Judge McCuskey’s possible money grab, facilitated and obscured by unnecessary barriers in Rule 68, reduces public confidence in Illinois courts.

In my research, the only way to find any information was to drive to Springfield, present my photo ID at the state supreme court, and complete a form with my name and address and my purpose for requesting Judge McCuskey’s annual financial disclosure form. Bear in mind that this disclosure is provided specifically so that the public has this information—so, why make it so hard to get?

Judge McCuskey is an occasional guest on central Illinois radio, where he and another local judge are touted as “pace setters” for engaging the “common people.” The common people— better known as taxpayers—would like to know if we are paying Judge McCuskey a full federal pension on top of a full state salary.