From the article:

“Judge John A. Noverini was elected to the 16th Circuit Court in Illinois in 2008. In 2014, the Illinois State Bar Association gave him a “Recommended” rating, but now it is threatening to publicly announce he is ‘Not Recommended’ if he fails to fill out the group’s questionnaire to evaluate judicial candidates.”

What are some of the questions asked of attorneys?

• “Do you belong to any business or social clubs, organizations, unions or associations which use race, gender, sexual orientation or national origin as a basis for determining memberships or the privileges of membership?”

• “How important is it to you to have inclusion from people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?

• “What efforts, if any, have you made in your community to include people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?”

Stating he will not fill out the poll, Noverini wrote the Illinois Bar Association,

“In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the judicial evaluation process has become politicized.”

The Washington Times reported,

“Judge Noverini told the association he won’t be participating in its review this year because it presents a conflict of interest to have an endorsement from a group that represents lawyers.

“He also said threatening judges into participating in the questionnaire — or else get a ‘Not Recommended’ rating — is a form of ‘bullying.’”

Further,

“Judge Noverini told The Washington Times that the Illinois State Bar Association has turned the judicial evaluation process into a ‘political exercise.’

“The left-leaning ISBA has a vested interest in who sits on the Supreme Court. 

“Accepting endorsements or ratings from organizations that represent attorneys crosses the line and brings into question the fairness and impartiality of our judicial system. 

“Labeling a candidate as ‘not recommended’ for choosing not to participate in the evaluation process is a veiled threat and a subtle way of bullying.

“‘Participating in the judicial evaluation is inappropriate and it’s why I respectfully declined to engage with the evaluation and requested that my name not be associated with this process,’ he said.”