reelection instead of following the retention process when their intent is really still stay on the bench where he and others are deciding begins when three presently sitting secretary of state that our positions are big and we can run or it looks like the supreme court sort of back we have seen that but taking a similar stance in some prior arguments as well that this is a different type of vacancy or of different type of resignation al prospect it that they are creating their own date subcreative vacancy as opposed to a resignation now that they've taken last august and have walked away from their current positions where it's it's a real they can see that the supreme court then you could have the option of saying oh  we need to do something to fill that vacancy maybe for example the judge ito will allow you to fill that to fill the vacancy if you will until the next general election or til next  we found north already for what these three judges are really doing which is taking the position that there's a choice that somehow the only constitution gives them a choice to just because they they say that they're eligible to run for an hour reelection instead of running for retention and so what they're doing is really campaigning with their own party taking a partisan stance if you will getting the benefit of running with their party when really retention ballot when someone is elected to the bench that you're removing yourself from the normal political processes you know not taking a political stance intended to be bipartisan but here they're taking a partisan stance and choosing to run with their party instead of remaining nonpartisan just injecting themselves right back into politics we think it's significant because on the detention ballot it's you know as all you know it's a special ballot you know it's separated from the rest of the ballot it's a yes or no question that it's it's yes or no that you know you need to have sixty percent of that electorate in order to say yes that they have the confidence the confidence in you if you are to remain on the bench for yet another term here they're taking a position by saying i'm ready for reelection of course that it all all we need is a simple majority really that simple fifty one percent what's bothersome is that why should they get the option of deciding what percentage of the electorate they think they need in order to stay on the bench you know effectively our argument has been that they're taking power away from them they're taking power away from the minority from those voters who could go to cast their ballot on election day and effectively choose no to their intentions well if no one runs against allegedly one vote right at least at least at the primary level that's right all the news one vote to to be able to run in and win the primary and in this case curiously they were the only three of their party to to run for the democratic seats in the primary the two of them not have opposition in the general that's correct so so they're really taking power away from the people who've lost confidence in these three judges making it easier upon themselves it's also a constitutional guarantee to the electorate that they have over a have a right they have a right that's been taken away from them by the attempt by their attempt to run for reelection instead of it by gaining a simple majority instead of requiring that sixty percent vote it's almost seems illogical that the framers of the constitution would really intend that there is somehow now a choice of running for retention or reelection particularly when they take so much time through the house to count scuse me through the constitutional convention to you know to raise that threshold from that from what was it fifty percent even at retention in prior years in one nine hundred sixty two finally becoming a sixty percent requirement to be retained we submit that there is nothing by any plain read by any plain word meaning that gives them a choice to run for reelection instead of retention when they want to sit in office and what's what's here is about this case too is that they're still sitting in office running with their ari again running for reelection as if they're running for the very first time the objection probably by client was at least based in part on article six section twelve of the illinois constitution and in particular those  words not less than six months before the general election proceeding by proceeding the expiration of his term of a judge who has been elected made by a with the office of secretary of state and those words we believe who has been elected are of of great importance when we're trying to understand the intent of the constitution what about the words may yes and the words made the word mate and made violence of great importance as well they may file because this is not a situation where we say that they must file for attention and it's because of joy a judge does have this choice of saying that i don't want to be retained i want to be able to walk away from my term that when my term is over i want to walk away from  s or maybe they've submitted a prior resignation so they're they're walking away from from the office so you can bury the maybe in the context or uses simply bearded so the judge won't think that they have no choice but to be retained for them for retention but i think they're there no choice of running for retention is if they want to stay on the bench the process to get there is that you may file before retention it's not saying you have to file for retention because you have other choices to resign or to walk away at the end of your term when you're terminal so it's not saying it's not saying you may run for attention or that you may if you don't like the idea of running for attention you may just run for reelection doesn't say that which aren't as you say you can't do that well you know but is that really the methodology that we're to have you know and this is maybe a little overly simplistic and in my mind but there are there is a whole list of things that you know were wrong when i was a kid that my mom didn't have to necessarily remind me some guidance as to what date they've made it it's not it's not by any stretch by plain work being say that you have a choice if you don't like the idea of running for retention then you can go ahead and resign pick your own resignation date still sit in office and run on a bad run on a partisan ticket so just so you can keep your job which is what they want to do they want to keep their job free of another term and so well i guess my question would be what about the language that it's about eligibility what statutory construction of that yes and i think we have to be able to read section eleven in some type of conjunction with section twelve however section twelve a though really outlines that eligibility we're talking about section eleven which is these are the criteria if you want to be like and when i read section twelve as a whole and go through each section you know aid me do you want to time it makes it more clear when i'm reading section eight yeah you can become elected you know to two circuit or appellate supreme court judge when you're eligible and section eleven defines for us when you are eligible i don't think disagreement with that but it doesn't say that i think it's just kind of a distraction here in this case the eligibility argument because they were legal in the first place that's why they're there that's why they were there and that's why they're there now because they were eligible in the first place so eligibility i don't think is really the criteria criteria here as we're looking for determining does the constitution say that you have a choice of running for reelection versus if you want to stay on the bench and keep your seat the process to get there is and again nothing in article twelve week let me back up for one second that we talked about section a section b outlines for us we're vacancy when a vacancy is defined and when it's created but then section is also of great importance to us as we read again section twelve as a whole and because section twelve see outlines when there is an appointment for when there's a vacancy and i think this is of great importance by way of analogy that if the supreme court decides that someone has to be appointed under twelve c to fill a vacancy because going back to earlier hypothetical let's say for example judge had announced his resignation and left the court house back of those things and left and now there's a true vacancy  summons not in that seat and the supreme court appoints someone but we get to the next judicial alexion that person has been appointed or the next general election that person has been appointed has the ability to run in the next general election and it makes sense that he does because say there's a vacancy here you've announced your resignation we're going to appoint you for the rest of this term for you to sit there and till the next judicial or general election that could happen yes but then then that would open up the opportunity because now he was a pointed to be able to go and run in the general election as opposed to now when he still sitting on the bench of being able to run in a partisan election when he's when he has been elected to that seat because there's a tr vacancy supreme court you know in the case of o'brian which we've cited in our brief we think is particularly helpful outlining a couple of approaches to schemes by which we can one can be elected to the bench first it outlines the another and mischel election process which of course anything in the constitutional convention transcripts that indicates that somehow a judge who's been elected can just continue to run as if he's eligible for the for the very first time over and over again something that seems to take that first team approach as being an option over and over again just because he wants to think you know i've read a lot of its case and there's parts of it that that i like and there's parts of it i don't like but i will say when i go back and i try to look at where it cites to the constitutional convention i've gone back and i've read those notes and here's here's really what was being discussed at the constitutional convention that it's it's foreseeable that someone in a subsequent election could come back and run in another and run the other race however just chairman faith though was describing some kind of something else believe the idea that if you've lost your retention race you could come back in theory and run again in a partisan race but he had a hard time understanding how that would really happen and why that would ever happen because why would someone who's lost the retention race you know actually power how could they be perceivable up with the foreseeable actually get the nomination to run again now they've lost the retention race that's what he was talking about so my issue with with the left it's case of some of that is taken a little out of context as to what was really being discussed  to strengthen the judiciary by creating a method for the electorate to remove those in whom they've lost confidence for one reason or another the fact is that the majority at the constitutional convention felt the requirement of less than sixty percent would make it almost which says that judges who are incumbents on january first one nine hundred sixty three and thereafter would run against their own records and without party doesn't nation rather than against an adversary candidate and the appropriate general election i mean it's talking about sitting judges and what they are to do you know when when they're when the end of their term has come and they're wanting to remain on the bench and we've submitted that that note and the other historical notes as well as the transcripts to support our position  mean this it's in least in my mind it's forseeable the sport could find some kind of ambiguity for example the word may here you know just in and of itself could seem somewhat ambiguous as to exactly what it means  don't think it's referring at all to the choice that a judge has of saying that i may run for reelection or i run for retention but rather the choice that i may run for retention if i so want to or i can walk away so there may be some ambiguity that work alternatively i've argued that is there ambiguity in reading the entire section twelve as a whole i don't know that there is i think each section as you read it seems on a big it's even our case law seems to say that twelve b is an ambiguous but the word may here you know continues as we move through this process to cause its problems to the extent that there is ambiguity you're correct that you could look at the store all notes and could look at the house official convention transcripts and anything else that isn't important to really opposed to saying we're reading them to try to figure out what they were saying here i think i distinction is that that if they simply bolster our plea work meaning the intent of section twe no we also submit that what's going on here is rather dangerous you know there's many judges up and down the state that are running for retention that may drastically change if what these three judges are doing is allowed to happen up and down the sting who wouldn't want to just say oh well it's a whole lot easier for me to go and run for reelection then it is for me to get sixty percent of the vote you know things haven't gone so well for me so i'll just make my own resignation date  saying that you may run retention or you may walk away there's nothing twelve you that gives us a choice of running for retention or the election finally the judges have made a big to do about about partisanship and the political arguments that we've made but it really seems true that what they're trying to do is flip side  we know when we have such a dangerous situation before us of the abuses that we feel like it happened to this to the illinois constitution and here you know justice roberts we think had it right if the  judiciary becomes another political branch response of to political pressures you know it offers an opportunity for these judges to have for lack of better words they have their palms raised by by their you know by those who are their closest to in their county and so where do you find the definition of told me that comes in section one section eleven specifically says no person will be eligible same or eligible unless they are a citizen of the united weiser just said well they were let eligible at the beginning when they first ran that doesn't matter the question is whether they're eligible not how they meet those three requirements therefore because they meet the three requirements under section eleven they have a constitutional right under section twelve eight to seek to have their name placed on the primary ballot which is exactly what they did so the section twelve deed the retention pr provides for an alternative method for a sitting judge and i don't disagree that they these judges could have sought protection and that section section twelve feet provides that a judge who has been elected may seek to succeed themselves through the retention may see c so there are two up to the word may appears twice once in twelve day and once in twelve feet they're not mutually exclusive nothing suggests that they are there is no case there is no note there is no statute that suggests that these two all routes are mutually exclusive mr  presentation and he quotes extensively in his brief the discussion about the retention threshold whether the vote should be fifty percent or sixty percent or something at length wouldn't this have come up somewhere if th section twelve deep was designed to somehow limit twelve may or eleven if that was somehow to exclude someone who was affected by twelve he could bend be excluded from eleven and the thereby twelve may one someone during the constitutional convention have said that wouldn't some case wouldn't some judge have ever said that no one has ever adopted that and you just that question dealt with the mandatory retirement age where the supreme court held the mandatory retirement age for judges that was enacted by statute was unconstitutional as a violation of the in that case to the conclusion of the case the majority twelve that's the only pronouncement from a supreme court justice so there are two judicial pronouncements on this question that support what these judges have done in addition the statute that was passed by the general assembly to implement this process the retention process that section seven a one of the election voters i cited says that a judge who has been so that the real question is whether there is any any theory under which a section twelve somehow limits the rights of every person eligible under section say mom says to the student every day after school you may have an apple on days of tests you may have a cook so section eleven being at the eligibility reporter is going to be eligible requirement in my example is going to school you're a citizen you're a licensed attorney and you are right that's equivalent to going to school you may have to cook every single day twelve way you may seek to have your name on one test ace little bit near or you may have a cook and test it doesn't mean you can't have an apple if that's what you want it means you panic you may have an apple or you may have a cookie because you mean ball in this case these candidates read both they may seek retention under twelve feet or they may see election under twelve and that's it can't be any clearer there's no ambiguity this they meet these requirements the maddux case that i talk about in my brief specifically says when the constitutional provisions are unambiguous then there's no need to look at the debate so whether you feel you know it so i think that that closes the question the word mate appears both they're eligible under both they can provide they can pursue both even if you find that there is nothing in this lengthy constitutional debate that even suggests that someone who is an elected judge may not seek election through twelve twelve these says what in our one an elected judge may do it does not say what he may master and so for that reason i believe that the decision of the state board of elections hearing officer was correct the state board split on the question and the circuit court i believe that decision was correct and should be from the other arguments that mr weiss are relied upon the judges should not be politicians things of that nature i mean judges are politicians under our constitutional scheme and that's just a fact that we've lived with for the last forty five years and that's not going to change judges seek election to the seats that they hold all the time judges assigned to this court by the supreme court seek election to the seats that they're currently sitting in all the time justices lampkin and justices justice burke are doing it right now in the first justice tice was assigned to the supreme court and ran for that seat as a sitting supreme court appointed circuit court judges run for the seat that they're holding in every single  and in fact if mr weiser gets his way that's exactly what will happen there will be vacancies because no won't be elected because there are no races the supreme court then will have the right to appoint someone who presumably will have to run in the next election so judges run for the seats that they're holding all the time under our constitution and there's nothing improper about that there's nothing in permissible in fact that what mr weiss arms will send you see this happening judicial elections as a whole and that's a debatable question but that's not our constitutional scheme the fact that the retention ballot is a separate ballot has absolutely nothing to do the eligibility of the candidates to appear on the separate ballot is designed to alert the voter as to why there is no opposition why there supreme court found that to be unconstitutional an unconstitutional extension of the period in which judges had to make their decision and in in finding that the supreme court came to the very unremarkable decision that the constitution means exactly what it says that's exactly what is the case in this case the constitution means exactly what it said a person eligible means three eligibility parts may seek judicial election but that's what it means there's no dispute that these three candidates meet those eligibility report and then i'm this question of the borders and whether or not the voters are harmed by any of this or all that i they these candidates have to win a primary election and they have to win the general election that gives the voters more options candidates can run against them in the primary election it can run against them as a different party in the general election or they could run as an nonpartizan new party so there's all kinds of options that this methodology provides to the voters that inures to the benefit of the voters now does the singer to their benefit i presume that it does so the candidates benefits i mean i'm represented a lot of candidates none of them have ever said i'm going to take the more difficult road but that doesn't make it unconstitutional i believe that in this case the constitution is quite clear and eligible person under section eleven may see collection at the primary that's exactly what these people are that's exactly what they did constitution specifically grants in the petition filed with the state board of elections was that these candidates names not appear on the primary that that's obviously no longer possible primary happened three months ago so the relief that they are asking for can no longer be right so the cases the question before the court is whether or not the public interest exception to the moves dr i will apply public interest start really that simple case on this question in terms of election cases sink this case again i want to reiterate that we need section twelve as a whole to try to understand the intent here and again i didn't mention this case in my initial argument but the the follow up company case i think is a constitutional provision it's appropriate and helpful to examine it in light of the history and condition of the times in the particular problem which the convention sought to address by great question provision that seems appropriate here when we're looking to section twelve d and trying to understand really what was set out by it and in its use of the word may with regard to retention and i again i go back and i have a hard time reading section twelve as a whole and trying to say that somehow when i read it by its plain words meaning that as a candidate is given a choice of running for retention or running for election no where does it say that there is a choice i agree with mr casper that the word mase used in it's used in both section  and section d but there's no correlation there between a and b to say well you know here you have a choice of running for either election or retention nothing nothing says that and we've talked about this well it's never happened before and you know forty five years well it's bound to happen now it's going to be coming up because people up and down the state are going to be doing it and it's happened three times in this situation by it is that just by coincidence i don't think it is and it's happened again it happened once previously in st clair county you know here's four instances in st clair county nobody took any legal action with regard to the judge we did the exact same thing just because judge we did it it doesn't make it right with regard to newt is you disagree there is a policy perspectives here  this is the exact same issue the exact same issue before the sport that existed at the primary election there was only each of the three candidates here running on the democratic ticket that's no different than what it is today so we would disagree that there's anything about