Valerie Umholtz is running for judge in the 10th Judicial Circuit. The 10th Judicial Circuit in Illinois covers five counties: Peoria, Marshall, Putnam, Stark, and Tazewell. Her husband is the State’s Attorney for Tazewell County, Stewart Umholtz. He’s also her campaign manager. He’s also a big monetary contributor to her campaign:
[Valerie] Umholtz raised roughly $48,500. That includes more than $10,000 transferred from the previous campaign for attorney general of her husband, Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stewart Umholtz. She also received a recent $20,000 loan from him.
The Journal Star Editorial Board has endorsed her over her Republican primary challengers, John Vespa and Bruce Thiemann. The board acknowledges the relationship, but ultimately feels it’s “manageable”:
Voters should know that Umholtz is married to Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stu Umholtz, which could pose a conflict in those courtrooms in which the state’s attorney has a presence – felony, misdemeanor, traffic court, potentially some others. Her election would reduce the chief judge’s flexibility somewhat in assigning courtrooms, but from where we sit it’s a manageable situation – Umholtz could be placed in Peoria County, for example – and therefore not disqualifying. That said, it’s fair for voters to factor it into their decision.
A couple thoughts about this situation:
First, when the paper says it “could pose a conflict in those courtrooms in which the state’s attorney has a presence,” that doesn’t just mean Stewart Umholtz himself, but anyone in the Tazewell County State’s Attorney’s office. Mr. Umholtz’s conflict of interest is imputed to the entire prosecutor’s office. While it may be “manageable,” it’s not optimal. Tazewell County is the second-largest county in the 10th circuit with a little over 38% of the five-county population. It seems to me that the only reason to vote for a judicial candidate with such a huge potential for conflict of interest within the circuit is if there’s some compelling reason to vote against her challengers. The Journal Star offers only one reason to vote against Vespa — his low grade by his peers on the Illinois State Bar Association’s bar poll. No reason is given to vote against Thiemann. (Incidentally, Thiemann received higher ratings than Umholtz on the bar poll.)
Secondly, the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct says, “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge’s Activities.” It goes on to elaborate: “A judge should . . . conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Lawyers are able to slice ethical nuance with a scalpel, but laymen will look at Umholtz the judge married to Umholtz the State’s Attorney and see plenty of “appearance of impropriety,” even if any real conflict is “managed.” And when it comes to promoting “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” it’s the laymen that count, not the lawyers.
In the end, voters should ask themselves why they would want a Republican judicial candidate in the general election (and ultimately, a potential judge) who is disqualified from presiding over so much in Tazewell County when the other candidates have no such conflicts. Despite the Journal Star’s endorsement, I don’t see any good reason to vote for Umholtz.
I think you need to tread carefully here. Conflicts like this will continue to occur more and more often in government and the private sector as women continue to advance and hold more positions in leadership. Have you not read Maria Shivers’ report — “A Womens Nation?” I rightly understand your conflicts concern but I do not think it presents an unworkable burden to assign Ms. Umholtz to an court outside Tazewell county. Voters should be selecting the candidate that they believe will best serve as a judge for the 10th District.
This situation has nothing to do with the increase of women in the workplace. It has to do with conflict of interest. I think concern over potential conflicts of interest is a perfectly legitimate reason to believe one judicial candidate cannot serve as judge as well as another otherwise equally-qualified candidate.
This is a great example of why blogs are gaining in relevance and popularity while newspapers are tanking.
Good call C.J. Now… Is there a third choice?
Gee Charlie why so beholden to C.J.? You are just a regular C.J. cheerleader. Is he your new BFF, what gives?
Frustrated, as a member of a two-lawyer family, it is true that lawyers today are more likely to have spousal “conflicts” than in the past, and that most states (including Illinois) have specific ethical rules to deal with spousal “conflicts” … which I put in quotes because basically spouses are even allowed oppose each other in court as long as the clients are amenable.
That said, there’s a difference between a husband and wife opposing each other in court, or even a husband and wife where one’s on the bench and the other is a CIVIL litigator … and this case, where the state’s attorney is married to the judge. It reminds me of the old saying, “A good lawyer knows the law … a great lawyer knows the judge.” I’m just not super comfortable with the state’s attorney being married to a judge in the same circuit, especially in a circuit this small; and while I understand his totally laudable urge to support his wife in her campaign, I think his monetary support for her campaign makes me even less comfortable, since they haven’t done much to create a “wall” between the two of them (and by extension, their two offices, should she win) to help avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Had they handled the campaign differently, I might feel differently, I don’t know.
Frustrated, I think you’re exactly right that it will be an increasing issue, especially in small bars like the 10th circuit, as more women reach the upper echelons of the legal profession. And I don’t think anything unethical has occurred. But I’m not real comfortable with the lack of separation between the two, or with the Journal Star’s thin reasoning in choosing whom to endorse.
You should probably take a closer look at the PJS endorsement in regards to the bar poll.
The bar poll is one barometer of a candidate’s judicial fitness, though it can be controversial. On that score both Thiemann and Umholtz come “recommended” by their peers, with Thiemann scoring higher. Vespa fell below the 65 passing grade and is “not recommended.” Voters can make of that what they will.
Well then voting for Vespa is also keeping it in the family. Joe Vespa was a judge and now John Vespa. I say vote for the third one (Bruce Thiemann) unless you all want the same old same old.
Theiman is the best candidate….. IMO
I worked with him on one occasion and was quite satisfied with his integrity and performance.
I for one prefer to vote for a judge that is not an expert at raising campaign funds as is Ms. Umholtz. Mr. Thiemann seams to be fund raising challenged and thats good enough for me
Emtronics-
Please!! The obvious difference between Umholtz and Vespa concerning your comment is that the Vespas would not be in office at the same time!
Christ! Ever heard of levity? Still, you want change, then vote outside the box. I am not comparing the Umholtz situation which is brazen, to Vespa. Just saying, one Vespa two Vespa three….
Eyebrows – I agree Ms. Umholtz campaign financing makes you go “yuck!” It just struck a cord with me that C.J. suggests she should automatically be dismissed because of a conflict that could be adjusted for in the event that she wins.
“Is everything C.J. blogs about really a good call?”
Yes. 🙂
“A Reader”: So noted. Thanks for the correction.
I “love” the part of Umholtz’s ad when she states that she learned courage from teaching Sunday School–7th graders, I think.
“Is everything C.J. blogs about really a good call?”
Nope. Good call, whoever.