Not a single Cook County judge has lost a retention election since 1990.

Startling? It shouldn't be. Often, there are as many as 80 judges on the ballot, and even lawyers say they know only a few dozen personally.

But if it were up to some 2,000 voters in Hickory Hills, that perfect game the courts pitch every two years wouldn't exist. In fact, this election year, eight judges up for retention would have been out of a job, stripped of their gavel and robe. And it would have been the same in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

That's because of the efforts of one civil servant and a small army of dedicated volunteers who sacrifice personal time and expense to keep their neighbors better informed about judicial races.

For six years, Hickory Hills Alderman Tom McAvoy has spent hundreds of his own dollars to compile and print a list of judges who at least one of the state's bar associations determined to be unfit for the job.

"As I am not a lawyer, I personally am familiar with none of (the judges)," McAvoy wrote last month in a letter to his constituents. "When I don't have a clue, I try to turn to some people who do for advice."

Those people are members of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, Chicago Bar Association and Illinois State Bar Association, all of whom conduct interviews, reference checks and lengthy questionnaires with judges up for retention and post the results online. The judges receive either a qualified or not qualified rating, followed by a summary of the bar group's findings.

"I make no recommendations on those sample ballots, but I do offer the recommendations of the major bar groups," McAvoy said. "It's non-partisan. (My volunteers) wouldn't do this if it wasn't."

About three weeks before each election, the alderman recruits more than 50 friends and neighbors, who range from 5 to 87 years old and vary in political preference, to stuff and deliver the sample ballots in hand-addressed envelopes to every household in his ward. Legally, volunteers cannot put this type of election material in mailboxes, so they improvise.

"Rain, snow, sleet — you find ways," said Anita Kieca, a volunteer. "You put it in the goose's mouth if you have to."

However they receive it, many 3rd ward residents seem keen on the information and can be seen bringing the scorecard into their polling station on Election Day, which is their right.

"It gives you a little insight on the judges, because you have no idea who the heck they are," Jim Leavy said. "Are they qualified or not?"

Some voters, such as Vicki Doherty, say they automatically vote against any judge who received a negative bar recommendation. Others, like Cathie Considine, a volunteer, say they use the information as a starting point to further research those judges online.

"(McAvoy) does it for us, just so we're better informed," she said. "I don't vote without it."

Many volunteers say they share their sample ballots with people outside their neighborhood.

"I have friends in Tinley (Park) who used to always look forward to it," Considine said. "She would come over to my house to read mine."

The Verdict Is In

Judges must receive a 60 percent or more retention approval to keep their jobs for another term. In some of McAvoy's precincts — Lyons Township 34 and Palos Township 4, 19 and 21 — the disapproval rate for select judges was as high as 70 percent.

"These results represented a very selective pruning of the bad apples," McAvoy said four days after the election. "This was not a case of everyone voting no on all judges."

The following table lists judges who were not recommended by at least one of the bar associations and the election results in each of the precincts where McAvoy's letters are distributed. McAvoy's ward extends into only some areas of the Palos 4th and Lyons 34th precincts. The Hon. John Turner was the only judge to receive a retention vote from one of the precincts.

                                       The Percent of 'Yes' Votes for Retention

Because of the greater county vote, of course, every judge up for retention escaped the cold sting of the populous boot, despite an insistence from legal organizations that they didn't deserve the job.

Of the Hon. Susan McDunn, the Chicago Bar Association reported that, despite her hard work, she "does not possess the requisite legal knowledge and ability to serve as a Circuit Court Judge." The same group found that the Hon. Jim Ryan did not possess "the requisite legal knowledge, ability or temperament" for court.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers was concerned with the Hon. Jeffrey Lawrence's alleged intemperance and inability to show up to court on time, and determined that the Hon. John Turner "does not always apply the law to the facts." What's more, they said, the Hon. Patrick Murphy is apt to make "inappropriate, sometimes insulting remarks to the parties in front of him," while the Hon. Laurence Dunford was described as "short-tempered and unpredictable."

Judges William O'Neal and Dorothy Jones declined to participate in the evaluation process, earning them an automatic negative recommendation rating across the board.

Cook County Deputy Clerk Clem Balanoff is aware of McAvoy's efforts and said the alderman is one of the few people, if not the only person, in the county to have done this.

"He provides a tremendous public service for his community," Balanoff said. "Even state's attorneys don't know all of the judges on the ballot."

And Justice for All

In all but one of the eight Cook County Circuit Court vacancies this year, Democrats ran uncontested. Republican Maureen Pulia lost to Democrat Daniel Gallagher, who met three bar associations' criteria, for the seat once held by the Hon. Carol McCarthy. Pulia was rated "not qualified" by Chicago Council of Lawyers.

Without competition, those remaining seven candidates for the Circuit Court won months ago.

In the Appellate Court, three Democrats and three Republicans also ran unchallenged. Democrat Aurelia Marie Pucinski won a seat in the First District despite receiving two "not qualified" marks.

Few people understand the frustration like Cook County Clerk David Orr, who has written on the failures of the current judicial voting system and the importance of reform.

"Our current system … undermines the quality of judges, in part because there are just too many on the ballot," he wrote on the Huffington Post last year. "Judicial retention races are a paradox, where too much democracy means no democracy at all."

Orr advocates giving a panel of bar association representatives the power to screen judges. Those who meet standards would keep their job, and those who don't would be placed on the retention ballot. That way, instead of 70 judges to dissect, the media and public could focus on the qualifications of 10 or so.

"Without the possibility of losing, we don't have democracy," Orr concluded. "A respectable judiciary deserves better."

McAvoy doesn't want to have a monopoly on the judicial race information stream. He says the more that groups reach out to voters directly the greater their impact will be.

"I have always encouraged the bar groups to get out there and deliver their recommendation sheets door to door," McAvoy said. "There are about 35,000 lawyers in Cook County. That's about seven in each election precinct. If they ever got off their duffs and did that in the format I do it in every (election) year, they would have an immense impact."