Cook County Judge Shannon O’Malley loses retention, becoming third judge in 6 years to be ousted by voters

For the third time in the past four elections, voters removed a Cook County judge from the bench — something which hadn’t happened in the previous three decades.

Judge Shannon O’Malley, 62, a first-term judge in the court’s child protection division, was ousted by voters in the Nov. 5 election after Injustice Watch raised questions about whether he met state judicial residency requirements and the bar associations criticized his courtroom management and credibility.

O’Malley received 57.9% “yes” votes, falling short of the 60% required to stay on the bench, according to unofficial final results published this week.

The other 76 Cook County judges on the ballot were retained, but two other judges who also were subjects of Injustice Watch investigations narrowly kept their seats.

Judge E. Kenneth Wright Jr., who presides over the court’s 1st municipal district and who Injustice Watch found took inappropriate property tax exemptions in another county, was retained with 61.5%. Ieshia Gray, who is currently under investigation by a state disciplinary board after being accused of bias and unfair treatment, just barely held on with 60.6%.

On Nov. 6, a day after the election, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans referred O’Malley and Wright to the state’s Judicial Inquiry Board for investigation over the property tax exemptions. O’Malley will no longer be under the board’s jurisdiction once his term ends Dec. 1.

O’Malley and his attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

O’Malley was the only one of the 77 Cook County judges running this year who was not recommended for retention by any of the lawyers groups evaluating judicial candidates.

The Illinois State Bar Association said attorneys “raised concerns over his courtroom management skills, which, at times, causes cases to be delayed for long periods of time.” The Chicago Council of Lawyers noted these delays “can mean that a child remains in a group home, psychiatric hospital, or other placement longer than necessary.”

Meanwhile, the Chicago Bar Association highlighted Injustice Watch’s reporting about the property tax exemption O’Malley claimed on a home he owns in Will County, saying they found his “credibility severely lacking and his integrity highly questionable.”

Judicial election experts said O’Malley’s ouster, despite a lack of any targeted opposition to his retention, reflects the unusual consensus among bar associations and the increased availability of information about judicial elections.

“The combined effect of all those information sources and the fact that they all agreed that Shannon O’Malley should be removed is what got him removed,” said Albert Klumpp, who has studied Cook County judicial elections for decades.

Voters have more information about judicial races

Cook County judicial elections historically have been fairly sleepy affairs, with about two-thirds of voters or fewer making a choice in any retention race between 1998 and 2016.

But participation has increased in recent years as voter guides, including Injustice Watch’s judicial election guide, and the “Girl, I Guess” progressive voter guide, have provided more information about judicial candidates.

This year, 75% of voters made a selection in the top circuit court race, with participation dropping off as voters made their way down the ballot.

Voters also seemed somewhat more discerning than in past years. Six judges fell below 65%, the most since at least 1998, according to an Injustice Watch analysis of election results.

“There’s much better information available now than there was in the past,” said 69-year-old longtime voter Alice Cottingham, who lives in Oak Park. She said before Injustice Watch started producing judicial election guides in 2016, she rarely voted in judicial elections because she had no information on the candidates.

“If you don’t know anything, why would you vote yes for people?” she asked.

The judges receiving the most “no” votes fared better in the suburbs than in the city. Many also shared another trait: A “no” recommendation from the “Girl, I Guess” guide.

Klumpp attributed some of the city-suburban divide to diminished information about judicial elections in traditional newspapers, which used to make endorsements in retention races and had greater reach in the suburbs, while “Girl, I Guess” reaches younger voters in the city.

“If information use in the suburbs on Nov. 5 had matched that of the city, as many as 100,000 votes would have been affected, and the number of removals would have been at least three, and possibly four or five, instead of one,” Klumpp argued in a postelection analysis on the “For What It’s Worth” blog.

That said, voters on the whole were still just as likely to vote to retain judges as they have been in recent years. On average, judges received 74% “yes” votes — a number that has remained fairly steady since 2016 but is down from 79% in the early 2000s.

David Jackson and Sara Stanisavic contributed reporting.