LETTER: VOTING RIGHTS CASE IN ILLINOIS TAINTED BY COMPROMISED JUDGES

To the editor:

Imagine playing in a baseball game where the four umpires are drawn from the roster of the opposing team. You would have good reason to question the impartiality of the umpires' judgment. Believe it or not, such a contest did occur, but it was no game. It was an important voting rights case that was heard by the seven justices of the Illinois Supreme Court this past summer.

Last May, Illinois Treasurer Pat Quinn filed more than 437,000 petition signatures in support of the term limit referendum to limit state officials to no more than eight years in the same office.

In June, the Chicago Bar Association, a lobby group of 21,000 lawyers, filed a lawsuit to knock the Eight is Enough term limit referendum off the Nov. 8 ballot.

On Aug. 10, by a narrow 4-3 majority, the Illinois Supreme Court went along with the Chicago Bar Association and denied the six million voters in Illinois a chance to vote on the term limit issue. In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal said "the court's decision reeks of politics."

There is no question the Illinois Supreme Court's decision on the term limit referendum was clouded by a conflict of interest. After the Aug. 10 decision, it was discovered that three members of the court who voted against term limits were members of the Chicago Bar Association, the group trying to keep term limits off the ballot.

These three judges, Michael A. Bilandic, Charles E. Freeman and Mary Ann G. McMorrow, all voted to take away the public's right to vote on the term limit referendum and never disclosed their membership in the Chicago Bar Association at any time during the case.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63 (c)(1) says, "A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned...". The three Chicago Bar Association judges should have recused themselves from the term limit and never participated at all.

The failure of justices Bilandic, Freeman and McMorrow to disclose crucial information in a case before them should be held up to public scrutiny. The Illinois Supreme Court is supposed to be fair. Our state's highest court should be above playing politics where the voting rights of six million citizens are at stake.

TOM COLGAN

Executive Director,

Eight is Enough Committee

Chicago