Andrew R. Weatherford for 6th Circuit Court 2022
Andrew R. Weatherford is a Democrat candidate for the 6th Circuit Court's Thomas Little Vacancy, in the 2022 General Election and will be on the ballot in Macon County, Illinois.
- Party: Democrat
- Little Vacancy
Campaign Platform
Written by Reed Sutman on Oct 05, 2022
Andrew Weatherford is a practicing attorney, running to be Judge in the 6th Circuit Court, presiding in Macon County. He is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, moderate Democrat. Weatherford does not see judgeship as a partisan office, saying there is no 'Democrat law' or 'Republican law', just "'the law' that needs to be enforced."
Weatherford has a master's degree in Political Science with a concentration in Public Administration. He says his past education in political science helps him better understand differences between political arguments and legal arguments. He says this race "really shouldn't be [about] partisan politics", that it should instead be focused on his experience and integrity. He considered running as an independent, but says he didn't because that requires five times as many petition signatures.
Weatherford does not strictly adhere to either 'Constitutional Originalism' or 'Living Constituion' judicial philosophies, saying that he can 'see both sides of it'. His primary background in law is decedent's estates, guardianships, family law, and municipal law, plus some criminal defense work. He's most excited about judging with a fair process and making sure "people felt like they got their day in court."
Weatherford has wanted to be a judge for awhile. He is committed to Macon County, and is running for Judge Thomas Little's Vacancy. He's not interested in being an appellate judge, which is a higher office, because he wants to be a dad and husband and is already away from his family enough.
Both Andrew Weatherford and his Republican opponent Shane Mendenhall received a 'not recommended' rating from the Judicial Advisory Poll, a survey prepared by the Illinois State Bar Association and sent to lawyers to review judicial candidates. Andrew suspects this is because lawyers would like to see an existing associate judge they're familiar with take the circuit judge position, rather than take a chance on other lawyers.
Andrew commends Democrats for trying to address a money-driven aspect of the criminal justice system, but is concerned that ending cash bail will introduce some new problems. He adds that there is still a process for pre-trial detention, but says there are still things to be figured out in that process and only time will tell if this new pre-trial detention system will be effective.
Weatherford has not read Dobbs v Jackson, the case which overturned Roe v Wade, and did not provide a legal opinion, but said "I have some concerns about the rights of women and where this will lead, to a patchwork of [state laws]", with some "maintain[ing] the health of women" and others not. He does not know whether the 2019 Illinois Law Protecting Abortion Rights violates the Illinois or U.S. Constitution, but says he would analyze those things if it came before him.
Andrew says that our society is experiencing a crisis of values - primarily in the value of life and the value of compromise. He is interested in knowing, but not currently aware of whether racial disparities exist in sentencing in Macon County, saying he is not currently at the 'macro' level. He has a mortgage and may have other debts but did not specify. He is an owning partner in Johnson, Chiligiris & Weatherford.
Early on, he suspects he will primarily hear traffic cases, order of protection cases, and similar matters. He says he will "plug whatever holes there are" and will work with the other circuit judges to determine which cases he'll hear. He does not know of any relationship between Macon County Courts and private prisons. He is aware that convictions can affect a person's immigration status, and that a judge must inform the accused of this before a plea is given. He does not have any pending litigation against him personally, though his name may be attached to litigation, since he serves as a Macon County Public Administrator and Public Guardian.
This writeup is from an interview with Andrew, conducted by Reed Sutman. Unless otherwise noted, "quotes" are of Andrew Weatherford. Quotes may be slightly edited for readability or clarity, such as removing filler words, [paraphrasing] or [adding context]. Sponsors can read the full transcript on Patreon or Facebook. Many quotes are shortened from their spoken version.
In your words, what does a circuit judge do?
Andrew: "A circuit judge, from the perspective of hearing cases, listens to both sides, with the law in mind, and rules on the issues in front of him or her"
Reed: "What are the primary kind of cases that you'll hear as a circuit judge?"
Andrew, Paraphrased: Each circuit judge hears different kinds of cases. Associate Judges, who are appointed by circuit judges, do not get to pick their cases. Some circuit judges deal with specific types of cases depending upon their specialty. Andrew will work with the other circuit judges to delegate cases and suspects early on that he will primarily hear cases regarding traffic, orders of protection, and similar matters. There are many types of cases circuit judges hear.
Reed: "As circuit judge would you be in charge of appointing associate judges?"
Andrew: "I would be one of four that would be hearing interviews and appointing Associate Judges. I would have a vote, as I understand it."
Reed: "It comes down to a vote between you and three other circuit judges?"
Andrew: "Correct"
Why are you running for circuit judge in the 6th circuit?
Reed: "Why are you running for circuit judge in the 6th circuit, instead of running as an appellate judge, continuing to be a lawyer, or seeking an appointment as an associate judge?"
Context: Appellate judges are mostly elected and handle cases that are escalated above circuit courts. Associate judges are appointed by circuit judges and are not elected.
Andrew: "Number one because I've wanted to be a judge for awhile. I've been looking at this possibility for a little bit, and just by sheer luck, Tom Little decided he was going to retire and I thought I would throw my hat in the ring."
Andrew: "This is the community I grew up in. This is the community I went to college in. This is the community I came back to and decided I would grow my family and grow my business [in], and it's the community that I love, so, that, at its essence, is why I'm running."
Andrew says "number one", he doesn't have the desire to run for appellate judge. He says "number two", it doesn't make sense for him logistically. He says the appellate district goes east, west, and south, almost to the state lines. He says "I wanna be a dad, I wanna be a husband, I don't wanna be, [sic] I'm already away from my family enough, so logistically that doesn't make any sense to me."
Reed: "Do you think you might be interested in an appellate judgeship in the future?"
Andrew: "Well I never rule anything out, but at the same point in time, I don't feel that that's where my heart lies at the moment. That's for sure."
Duties as a circuit judge
Reed: "Would you end up being in charge of which kind of cases you hear, as far as whether you take the drug court cases or?"
Andrew: "As I understand, and [with the caveat that] I've never been a judge before, I understand that circuit court judges would get together and kind of figure out who's going to hear what types of cases. I guess at some point in time, I anticipate that I might be able to choose a little more of what I would be hearing, but off the bat, I'm just gonna plug whatever holes there are."
Reed: "So you'll kind of take some guidance from the other three circuit judges?"
Andrew: "Well in my estimation, Macon County as a whole has a finite number of cases. If my strengths lend to some areas of those cases that maybe other judges don't have, I'm happy to be a team player and work alongside them, i guess is kind of what I'm saying."
What is your expertise in law?
Andrew: "I would say that I'm a general practictioner, so that means I do a little bit of everything. However, there's some things I know I just won't do, because maybe I don't have the medical expertise, like for a medical malpractice case. Usually you rely heavily upon a doctor, and some of those lawyers that do that type of thing have some medical background. But I don't pretend to know that. I'm not opposed to learning it, but at the same time I don't pretend to have a great deal of expertise [in medicine]."
Reed: "Are you well versed in the drug crout, family court, and other civil matters?"
Andrew, heavily edited: "I was getting ready to go there. If I had to put a percentage on my areas of practice, i would say [almost 30% is] decedant's (deceased person's) estates and guardianships. About another third is family law. Probably a good 20% of my practice [is] municipal law. I have three municipalities and one fire district I represent. And probably 10% or so is criminal defense work. So, criminal defense, of course, is where that drug court component comes in. I have some experience with that. So I think, if that was the hole that needed to be filled, that I needed to step into, I feel comfortable doing so."
Reed: "What aspect of being a circuit judge are you most excited about?"
Andrew: "The excitement for me would be coming from the perspective of sitting up there, listening to both sides, and making sure that I've heard both sides. Making sure that the process is fair. That people felt like they got their day in court, that they weren't interrupted when they were talking, so long as they're being civil. [That] they were listened to. They might not have got what they wanted or everything they asked for, but they know it was a fair process, and I think that's the part that excites me the most."
Judicial Philosophy
Reed: "Do you follow the judicial philosophy of 'Constitutional Originalism', 'Living Constitution,' or something else?"
Andrew: "You know, I can't say that I've subscribed to either one of them strictly. When I've read through some of them, and talked about 'em, and read through opinions, I see kind of both sides of it. And there are times that I find myself more inclined to one. Other times, I find myself kind of reversing that kind of notion. So, it's a difficult question. I'm not quite sure that I could say I find myself in one camp or the other. "
Context: Justice Ginsburg described the constitution as expressing values which should be extracted and applied to our circumstances today. This interpretation is sometimes referred to as 'Living Constitution'. 'Constitutional Originalism' attempts to view the constitution in a very objective and unchanging fashion through no interpretive lens. Scalia accused Ginsburg of interpreting the constitution rather than taking it objectively. Ginsburg accused Scalia of doing the same while pretending to be, but not actually being, objective. Justice Ginsburg & Justice Scalia debate judicial philosophy, and Justice Breyer & Justice Scalia debate judicial philosophy. I recommend U.S. Supreme Court of the Opposing Viewpoints series for an introduction to judicial philosophies, available at the Decatur Public Library.
Dobbs V Jackson
Reed: "It's my understanding that Dobbs v Jackson was decided with the lense of constitutional originalism. Would you agree with that & do you agree with the Dobbs decision?"
Andrew: "Tell me what Dobbs's decision was"
Reed: "The one that overturned Roe v Wade"
Andrew: "Oh okay. Do I agree with Dobbs's decision? I have to say that because I've been in the midst of a campaign for the last 8 months, I have not read Dobbs v Jackson, but I can tell you that generally, the court itself has taken a position on this, and I have some concerns about the rights of women and where this will lead, to a patchwork of states that have the ability to maintain the health of women, and other states that don't have that, to maintain the health of women. And I have some serious concerns about that. I don't necessarily know that the path that's going down is the right path. "
Reed: "Do you believe, I know you haven't had a chance to read [Dobbs], but do you believe there is anything in the Illinois or U.S. constitution that would invalidate the 2019 law that protects abortion rights in Illinois?"
Andrew: "I would have to say that I don't know the answer to that. I have not researched that at all. I would be happy to at some point in time, if time allows to do that, or if it comes in front of me, that is the due dilligence that is required to spend the time to look through that and analyze those things."
Context: Dobbs v Jackson is the case which overturned Roe v Wade. The 2019 Illinois law is the Reproductive Health Act, IL SB25, 101st General Assembly.
Current Law Practice
Reed: "I understand you have practiced law in Decatur since 2009 and are currently with 'Johnson, Chiligiris & Weatherford'. "
Andrew: "Right"
Reed: "So are you a partner in ownership of the firm?"
Andrew: "Yes"
Reed: "Will your name remain on the firm if you are elected judge?"
Andrew says "That's a good question. Nothing I've ever considered." He says it would depend upon whom he could comfortably reach a deal with to take over his side of the firm. He says "as far as my name being on the firm, to me it's immaterial, it's just a name."
Reed: "How will you manage conflicts of interest when ruling on cases that your current partners and colleagues bring before you."
Andrew: "The judicial code requires us to recuse ourselves any point in time when, I can't remember the specifics, I'd have to read the rule again, but there is a rule in the judicial code that advises how to deal with that type of conflict. My recollection is that you can't hear cases from your prior firm or those that you've been in business with. Now there very well might be a time frame on that, there might not be, i don't remember off the top of my head. So obviously, I'd follow that rule."
Reed: "Right, of course."
"Our society is experiencing a crisis of values"
Reed: "Your website says that you believe 'our society is experiencing a crisis of values'. What did you mean by that?"
Andrew: "Thank you for that question. In my estimation, we have, we have people in society currently that are really floundering, making decisions that aren't, you know whether you're religious or not, or or have a certain code of morals that you live by, whether religious or not, I just feel that too much of what we're seeing right now is so, so devisive, so 'you're either with me or against me' type of mentality that is such a concern."
"We have people that, you know, maybe when, in the generations that were older than us, they would have disputes, but they would have disputes with their hands maybe, or their words. Today, we have people that grab guns and feel like they've gotta protect themselves or one-up the other person, and I just don't understand that mentality. I just don't understand that those, to me those values of 'life is a preciuos thing', that you and I sitting here is an interactive moment that we'll have, we'll have shared at some point in time once we've completed. But people are just sometimes so short-sighted, I guess."
"In my estimation, valuing that life, valuing the moments that we have, I just think that's being, that's been lost. The fact that, even though Democrats believe one thing and Republicans believe another, there in my estimation, is probably 40 to 50% of society is my theory, that is kind of somewhere in the middle, that go 'okay umm, i agree with demorats on this point, i agree with republicans on this point', and I don't think they're, i think those are the values, the value of compromising and figuring a path forward that you might not have gotten everything you wanted, but you can still move forward, and still be reasonably pleased with the result and the process, and I think we're missing that right now."
Partisanship
Reed: "You're running for Republican Judge Thomas Little's vacancy. If he had not retired, would you be running this year?"
Andrew: "No, because there would be no open seat."
Reed: "Are there any decisions of Little's you disagreed with or would have handled differently?"
Andrew: "Umm, it's a good question. I can't honestly think of one at the moment. I'm sure there were times that I did, but off the top of my head, no i can't think of any one in particular."
Reed: "Republican Shane Mendenhall is running against you. You have identified as a 'Moderate Democrat' and took a Republican ballot in the Primaries, which you said you did because there were no Democrats running in several races locally. You said on Byers & Co that you wanted to run as an independent to avoid the political aspects, but didn't because it requires five times as many signatures."
Why are judicial races partisan?
Reed: "Why do you think judicial races are partisan?"
Andrew: "I think the political parties have a lot of control over the legislature, and they've decided to engage in and require certain things to be partisan. That's my take on it. I've not researched that at all, but that's just my view."
Reed: "Do you think there are any benefits to it being an elected position?"
Andrew, heavily edited: "Oh I think there's definitely a benefit to it being elected. I think the people should choose in some fashion, all the four circuit judges are all elected. The associate judges are appointed. I completely agree there needs to be some component of the judicial system that's elected."
"What i have some frustration with, I guess I'll say, is in our system of government, though, the political parties have gotten their teeth on some of these types of positions that in my estimation [should be non-partisan]. There's no 'Democrat law' or no 'Republican law', there's just 'the law'. There's no 'Democrat law' or 'Republican law' that needs to be enforced. It's just 'the law' that needs to be enforced. So in my estimation of the judges, the sheriffs, the coroners, I would hope that partisanship really doesn't, i can't imagine a way that partisanship should really affect that job, as to how it's being done. I think that, that just leads to a society that has even fewer values than what we currently have at times. "
Why did you run as a Democrat and not a Republican?
Andrew: "Well, I chose to run as a Democrat because I identify with more Democrat ideas than I do with Republican ideas. ... I'm talking about running as an independent, but I'm clearly running as a Democrat. I get that that doesn't necessarily match up, but the point is, the point is that it's a situation where I don't think there should be partisanship, but if there's going to be partisanship, I clearly identify with one party over the other, and that's why I chose to be running as a Democrat, but at the same time, I'll tell Democrats, well I wanna make sure the budget is balanced. I don't agree with having an unbalanced budget, yaknow type of thing. So fiscally, I'm conservative. But when it comes to maybe climate and other things, yaknow, I tend to be more Democrat yaknow about those social issues."
How would a Moderate judge differ from a Republican or Progressive judge?
Reed: "Can you see any ways that a moderate Democrat might execute the office differently from a Republican or a Progressive or farther left Democrat?"
Andrew says "I'm sure that there probably is, but I can't say that anything comes to mind as specficially about that." He goes on to say if you're on the far left or far right, he wonders "how much you're willing to listen to the other side and not have your own filter or lense blocking or accepting things that you already agree with or disagree with."
Covid Mandates, Case Consolidation
Reed: "Judge Mike McHaney ruled Pritzker's covid mandates "unconstitutional" in the 4th Judicial Circuit and has said the mandates were "tyranny". McHaney said the case was consolidated with other similar cases into Sangamon County. " Read McHaney's interview for additional context.
Reed: "First of all, what do you think of McHaney's ruling?"
Andrew: "I've not read McHaney's ruling."
Reed: "What do you think of the process of consolidating that case and other cases like it into Sangamon County? "
Andrew: "I'm not familiar with where that original case was, but if there are cases within the same county, I think judicial economy would make sense, in other words, only having one judge hear those two or three cases that need, you know that could be consolidated ... so long as it makes sense to do so. Meaning that [if these] two or three cases have similar issues or just slightly different issues, but within the same vein of the law, then in my estimation that makes sense to just have one judge hear it and hear them all together."
"But, umm, for instance, a lot of times when I'm doing a family case or a divorce case, there might also be an order of protection case that came along with that. A lot of times the judge in Orders of Protection, and family law cases are primarily heard by two different judges. A lot of times, one of the attorneys or both will ask that those cases be consolidated, so that one judge can hear all of the information and see the bigger picture. ... In my estimation that type of thing makes sense, at least on that level."
"Onto that, this other issue here, that McHaney is talking about, I'm not as familiar with it, so I wouldn't be willing to issue an opinion at this point in time on that."
Reed: "Understandable."
Cash Bail / SAFE-T act
Note: NBC Chicago writes about the changes to pre-trial detention, and in what circumstances an offender may be held prior to trial. NBC Chicago summarizes many other changes found in the SAFE-T act. The SAFE-T act does not end pre-trial detention. It does end the cash component of pre-trial detention.
Reed: "What do you think of legislation regarding cash bail?"
Andrew: "Umm, I have mixed feelings about it. I applaud Democrats for trying to figure out a way to make the system not so based upon a person's funds. But I have some real concerns about how we maintain accountability for people who have done crimes, and maintain safety while doing so."
"So, it's a big problem they've tried to tackle there, in this experiment of democracy and criminal justice. Time will tell whether or not they got it right or if it needs to be tweaked. I don't know the answer to that yet. But I would say those are the two things I see that we've got."
"I applaud them for taking on that issue that's been an issue for awhile, but at the same point in time, we've gotta maintain accountability for them, people need to be held accountable for their actions, and we need to maintain a civil society. We can't go to a lawless sort of chaos or wild west."
More on cash bail
Reed: "Do you have any other strong feelings or thoughts about any other povisions in the SAFE-T act?"
Andrew: "As I understand it, when a person is accused of a crime and arrested, the State's Attorney then has 24 to 48 hours to put on file and have a hearing for whether or not that person needs to continue to be detained or not. In that hearing, as I understand it, the judge will hear arguments about whether or not this individual is a danger to another individual in society and/or a danger to society at large. That I think is somewhat typical of a current bond hearing. There's also a component of whether or not the person's going to flee or show up or not show up."
Andrew says he hasn't yet seen whether a judge can consider these two things: First, whether or not the accused has been convicted of similar crimes in the past. Second, whether or not the accused has shown up or missed prior court dates.
Andrew says "To me those two things will help maintain the accountability of that individual and civil society at large, but also will help cut down on the system just kind of chasing its tail in that we're trying to always find these people who may have committed these crimes but aren't being detained and that we're spending a lot of time chasing people rather than maintaining law and order. I guess to me, [those are two things that] haven't been answered yet, or if they've been answered, I haven't found them yet."
Note: I intended to ask about other aspects of the SAFE-T act, not related to cash bail, but we were short on time.
Racial Disparities in Sentencing
Reed: "Are you aware of any racial disparities in sentencing in Macon County, and how will you control for or monitor that?"
Andrew: "I can't say that I'm aware of any. But there again, my experience right now is not really on a macro level, it's on a micro level of 'I represent John Smith in this particular case and what he got accused of and what he got convicted of fell within this range and the sentence was in this range'. I don't have a good feel for the macro version of yaknow, 'we had 10,000 felony cases this year and all of them were ... the break down, the racial break down of those'. I mean, that would be interesting to me to know, but as I sit here today, I don't know the answer to that."
Illinois State Bar Association Judicial Advisory Poll
Reed: "The Illinois State Bar Association Judicial Advisory Poll had 82 respondents for you, and you received a "not recommended" rating. Your opponent Shane Mendenhall had 73 respondents and also received a "not recommended" rating. What are your thoughts on the results of this survey of lawyers?"
Andrew: "Umm, my thoughts on it are that, that lawyers, my gut says that lawyers are, were looking for something else. And I think lawyers generally were attempting to go with the status quo, meaning that they wanted the associate judge who had been hearing cases that they were somewhat familiar with, they were more comfortable supporting him, versus taking a chance on other lawyers."
Note: See the ISBA judicial evaluations and the Macon County Results (pdf download).
Masters degree in Political Science
Reed: "You had said on Byers & Co that you have a master's degree in Political Science. So, why did you choose to go into law rather than something legislative?"
Andrew said that "going into law was what I thought would be helpful in wherever I went." He said he wasn't "100% sure what I would do after getting a law degree, but I knew I had an interest in the political science sphere, but I also had a concentration there in public administration." He said that if he wanted to work in government bureacracy, such as in the City of Decatur, he thought he would need to have some background in law to help understand how separate municipalities might legally work together to address community issues. He said he was fortunate that his parents offered to help him afford law school.
Reed: "How does your political science background contribute to your understanding of the law and contribute to how you will perform your judicial duties?"
Andrew: "It's a good question. I think that my political science and public administration background kind of helps me understand a little bit more about what's political, which is not necessarily legal, but what's political, and identifying what's political versus the legal issues. Cuz the political sometimes is that, that discourse or that opinion that people want to see happen. It's not necessarily what the law then provides. And so helping identify those differences as to what becomes political or opinion versus what has more basis in the law, I think is very helpful, because you can kind of narrow down and focus on what there is a root in the law and what is just opinion, in my estimation."
Note: Listen on Byers & Co
Anything Else?
Reed: "Do you have anything else that you want to add about your political platform?"
Andrew: "I don't know that I really do. I just think that my experience and my integrity, you know this is what this race should really all be about. It really shouldn't be in my estimation like i said before, about partisan politics too much, even though it's filtering in and coming in."
Questions from Voters
Debts
Reed: "Somebody asked me to ask you: Do you have any debts?"
Andrew: "Do I have any debts? As far as monetary debts, I'm assuming."
Reed: "I would believe so."
Andrew: "Okay. I'm sure that I do. I have probably a mortgage, I know i have a mortgage. Yes, yes I have debts."
Note: Due to time constraints, I did not press further on details of his debts.
Pending Litigation
Reed: "Do you have any pending litigation against you?"
Andrew: "No. Let me clarify that though too. My name might be attached to litigation, but I also serve as the Macon County Public Administrator and Public Guardian, so sometimes in those sort of situations, where somebody has passed away and their loved one did not have anyone to take care of their estate, I get appointed to help facilitate that estate and wind it down and liquidate it and that sort of thing, so it's possible my name is involved in litigation, but I'm not really the one being sued or anything like that, just to be clear."
Reed: "That makes sense"
Immigration Law
Reed: "What is your background in immigration law and your understanding of how sentencing can affect a person's immigration status?"
Andrew: "Great question. That comes into play quite a bit. I can't say that I've researched that recently. At one point in time, probably three years ago, I was representing someone [for whom] that issue [came] up." He says that he hasn't researched this recently, but that he recollects that "any time a person pleads guilty or is convicted of a class four felony or higher, it can cause problems for their immmigration status."
Andrew says any time a plea is to be given, the judge will instruct the individual that a conviction may cause problems for their immigration status. He says "as to how that then works within the immigration law, that's something I've never researched, but I do know enough to know that that raises a red flag for anybody attempting to attain citizenship or stay in the country, it can cause some problems as I understand it. But that's just a generic thing, it's not anything I've researched."
Private Prisons
Reed: "What do you know of the relationship between Macon County Courts and private prisons, if there are any?"
Andrew: "I don't know of any relationship."
Read Full Platform
Read Less
Andrew Weatherford is a practicing attorney, running to be Judge in the 6th Circuit Court, presiding in Macon County. He is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, moderate Democrat. Weatherford does not see judgeship as a partisan office, saying there is no 'Democrat law' or 'Republican law', just "'the law' that needs to be enforced."
Weatherford has a master's degree in Political Science with a concentration in Public Administration. He says his past education in political science helps him better understand differences between political arguments and legal arguments. He says this race "really shouldn't be [about] partisan politics", that it should instead be focused on his experience and integrity. He considered running as an independent, but says he didn't because that requires five times as many petition signatures.
Weatherford does not strictly adhere to either 'Constitutional Originalism' or 'Living Constituion' judicial philosophies, saying that he can 'see both sides of it'. His primary background in law is decedent's estates, guardianships, family law, and municipal law, plus some criminal defense work. He's most excited about judging with a fair process and making sure "people felt like they got their day in court."
Weatherford has wanted to be a judge for awhile. He is committed to Macon County, and is running for Judge Thomas Little's Vacancy. He's not interested in being an appellate judge, which is a higher office, because he wants to be a dad and husband and is already away from his family enough.
Both Andrew Weatherford and his Republican opponent Shane Mendenhall received a 'not recommended' rating from the Judicial Advisory Poll, a survey prepared by the Illinois State Bar Association and sent to lawyers to review judicial candidates. Andrew suspects this is because lawyers would like to see an existing associate judge they're familiar with take the circuit judge position, rather than take a chance on other lawyers.
Andrew commends Democrats for trying to address a money-driven aspect of the criminal justice system, but is concerned that ending cash bail will introduce some new problems. He adds that there is still a process for pre-trial detention, but says there are still things to be figured out in that process and only time will tell if this new pre-trial detention system will be effective.
Weatherford has not read Dobbs v Jackson, the case which overturned Roe v Wade, and did not provide a legal opinion, but said "I have some concerns about the rights of women and where this will lead, to a patchwork of [state laws]", with some "maintain[ing] the health of women" and others not. He does not know whether the 2019 Illinois Law Protecting Abortion Rights violates the Illinois or U.S. Constitution, but says he would analyze those things if it came before him.
Andrew says that our society is experiencing a crisis of values - primarily in the value of life and the value of compromise. He is interested in knowing, but not currently aware of whether racial disparities exist in sentencing in Macon County, saying he is not currently at the 'macro' level. He has a mortgage and may have other debts but did not specify. He is an owning partner in Johnson, Chiligiris & Weatherford.
Early on, he suspects he will primarily hear traffic cases, order of protection cases, and similar matters. He says he will "plug whatever holes there are" and will work with the other circuit judges to determine which cases he'll hear. He does not know of any relationship between Macon County Courts and private prisons. He is aware that convictions can affect a person's immigration status, and that a judge must inform the accused of this before a plea is given. He does not have any pending litigation against him personally, though his name may be attached to litigation, since he serves as a Macon County Public Administrator and Public Guardian.
This writeup is from an interview with Andrew, conducted by Reed Sutman. Unless otherwise noted, "quotes" are of Andrew Weatherford. Quotes may be slightly edited for readability or clarity, such as removing filler words, [paraphrasing] or [adding context]. Sponsors can read the full transcript on Patreon or Facebook. Many quotes are shortened from their spoken version.
In your words, what does a circuit judge do?
Andrew: "A circuit judge, from the perspective of hearing cases, listens to both sides, with the law in mind, and rules on the issues in front of him or her"
Reed: "What are the primary kind of cases that you'll hear as a circuit judge?"
Andrew, Paraphrased: Each circuit judge hears different kinds of cases. Associate Judges, who are appointed by circuit judges, do not get to pick their cases. Some circuit judges deal with specific types of cases depending upon their specialty. Andrew will work with the other circuit judges to delegate cases and suspects early on that he will primarily hear cases regarding traffic, orders of protection, and similar matters. There are many types of cases circuit judges hear.
Reed: "As circuit judge would you be in charge of appointing associate judges?"
Andrew: "I would be one of four that would be hearing interviews and appointing Associate Judges. I would have a vote, as I understand it."
Reed: "It comes down to a vote between you and three other circuit judges?"
Andrew: "Correct"
Why are you running for circuit judge in the 6th circuit?
Reed: "Why are you running for circuit judge in the 6th circuit, instead of running as an appellate judge, continuing to be a lawyer, or seeking an appointment as an associate judge?"
Context: Appellate judges are mostly elected and handle cases that are escalated above circuit courts. Associate judges are appointed by circuit judges and are not elected.
Andrew: "Number one because I've wanted to be a judge for awhile. I've been looking at this possibility for a little bit, and just by sheer luck, Tom Little decided he was going to retire and I thought I would throw my hat in the ring."
Andrew: "This is the community I grew up in. This is the community I went to college in. This is the community I came back to and decided I would grow my family and grow my business [in], and it's the community that I love, so, that, at its essence, is why I'm running."
Andrew says "number one", he doesn't have the desire to run for appellate judge. He says "number two", it doesn't make sense for him logistically. He says the appellate district goes east, west, and south, almost to the state lines. He says "I wanna be a dad, I wanna be a husband, I don't wanna be, [sic] I'm already away from my family enough, so logistically that doesn't make any sense to me."
Reed: "Do you think you might be interested in an appellate judgeship in the future?"
Andrew: "Well I never rule anything out, but at the same point in time, I don't feel that that's where my heart lies at the moment. That's for sure."
Duties as a circuit judge
Reed: "Would you end up being in charge of which kind of cases you hear, as far as whether you take the drug court cases or?"
Andrew: "As I understand, and [with the caveat that] I've never been a judge before, I understand that circuit court judges would get together and kind of figure out who's going to hear what types of cases. I guess at some point in time, I anticipate that I might be able to choose a little more of what I would be hearing, but off the bat, I'm just gonna plug whatever holes there are."
Reed: "So you'll kind of take some guidance from the other three circuit judges?" Andrew: "Well in my estimation, Macon County as a whole has a finite number of cases. If my strengths lend to some areas of those cases that maybe other judges don't have, I'm happy to be a team player and work alongside them, i guess is kind of what I'm saying."
What is your expertise in law?
Andrew: "I would say that I'm a general practictioner, so that means I do a little bit of everything. However, there's some things I know I just won't do, because maybe I don't have the medical expertise, like for a medical malpractice case. Usually you rely heavily upon a doctor, and some of those lawyers that do that type of thing have some medical background. But I don't pretend to know that. I'm not opposed to learning it, but at the same time I don't pretend to have a great deal of expertise [in medicine]."
Reed: "Are you well versed in the drug crout, family court, and other civil matters?"
Andrew, heavily edited: "I was getting ready to go there. If I had to put a percentage on my areas of practice, i would say [almost 30% is] decedant's (deceased person's) estates and guardianships. About another third is family law. Probably a good 20% of my practice [is] municipal law. I have three municipalities and one fire district I represent. And probably 10% or so is criminal defense work. So, criminal defense, of course, is where that drug court component comes in. I have some experience with that. So I think, if that was the hole that needed to be filled, that I needed to step into, I feel comfortable doing so."
Reed: "What aspect of being a circuit judge are you most excited about?"
Andrew: "The excitement for me would be coming from the perspective of sitting up there, listening to both sides, and making sure that I've heard both sides. Making sure that the process is fair. That people felt like they got their day in court, that they weren't interrupted when they were talking, so long as they're being civil. [That] they were listened to. They might not have got what they wanted or everything they asked for, but they know it was a fair process, and I think that's the part that excites me the most."
Judicial Philosophy
Reed: "Do you follow the judicial philosophy of 'Constitutional Originalism', 'Living Constitution,' or something else?"
Andrew: "You know, I can't say that I've subscribed to either one of them strictly. When I've read through some of them, and talked about 'em, and read through opinions, I see kind of both sides of it. And there are times that I find myself more inclined to one. Other times, I find myself kind of reversing that kind of notion. So, it's a difficult question. I'm not quite sure that I could say I find myself in one camp or the other. "
Context: Justice Ginsburg described the constitution as expressing values which should be extracted and applied to our circumstances today. This interpretation is sometimes referred to as 'Living Constitution'. 'Constitutional Originalism' attempts to view the constitution in a very objective and unchanging fashion through no interpretive lens. Scalia accused Ginsburg of interpreting the constitution rather than taking it objectively. Ginsburg accused Scalia of doing the same while pretending to be, but not actually being, objective. Justice Ginsburg & Justice Scalia debate judicial philosophy, and Justice Breyer & Justice Scalia debate judicial philosophy. I recommend U.S. Supreme Court of the Opposing Viewpoints series for an introduction to judicial philosophies, available at the Decatur Public Library.
Dobbs V Jackson
Reed: "It's my understanding that Dobbs v Jackson was decided with the lense of constitutional originalism. Would you agree with that & do you agree with the Dobbs decision?"
Andrew: "Tell me what Dobbs's decision was"
Reed: "The one that overturned Roe v Wade"
Andrew: "Oh okay. Do I agree with Dobbs's decision? I have to say that because I've been in the midst of a campaign for the last 8 months, I have not read Dobbs v Jackson, but I can tell you that generally, the court itself has taken a position on this, and I have some concerns about the rights of women and where this will lead, to a patchwork of states that have the ability to maintain the health of women, and other states that don't have that, to maintain the health of women. And I have some serious concerns about that. I don't necessarily know that the path that's going down is the right path. "
Reed: "Do you believe, I know you haven't had a chance to read [Dobbs], but do you believe there is anything in the Illinois or U.S. constitution that would invalidate the 2019 law that protects abortion rights in Illinois?"
Andrew: "I would have to say that I don't know the answer to that. I have not researched that at all. I would be happy to at some point in time, if time allows to do that, or if it comes in front of me, that is the due dilligence that is required to spend the time to look through that and analyze those things."
Context: Dobbs v Jackson is the case which overturned Roe v Wade. The 2019 Illinois law is the Reproductive Health Act, IL SB25, 101st General Assembly.
Current Law Practice
Reed: "I understand you have practiced law in Decatur since 2009 and are currently with 'Johnson, Chiligiris & Weatherford'. "
Andrew: "Right"
Reed: "So are you a partner in ownership of the firm?"
Andrew: "Yes"
Reed: "Will your name remain on the firm if you are elected judge?"
Andrew says "That's a good question. Nothing I've ever considered." He says it would depend upon whom he could comfortably reach a deal with to take over his side of the firm. He says "as far as my name being on the firm, to me it's immaterial, it's just a name."
Reed: "How will you manage conflicts of interest when ruling on cases that your current partners and colleagues bring before you."
Andrew: "The judicial code requires us to recuse ourselves any point in time when, I can't remember the specifics, I'd have to read the rule again, but there is a rule in the judicial code that advises how to deal with that type of conflict. My recollection is that you can't hear cases from your prior firm or those that you've been in business with. Now there very well might be a time frame on that, there might not be, i don't remember off the top of my head. So obviously, I'd follow that rule."
Reed: "Right, of course."
"Our society is experiencing a crisis of values"
Reed: "Your website says that you believe 'our society is experiencing a crisis of values'. What did you mean by that?"
Andrew: "Thank you for that question. In my estimation, we have, we have people in society currently that are really floundering, making decisions that aren't, you know whether you're religious or not, or or have a certain code of morals that you live by, whether religious or not, I just feel that too much of what we're seeing right now is so, so devisive, so 'you're either with me or against me' type of mentality that is such a concern."
"We have people that, you know, maybe when, in the generations that were older than us, they would have disputes, but they would have disputes with their hands maybe, or their words. Today, we have people that grab guns and feel like they've gotta protect themselves or one-up the other person, and I just don't understand that mentality. I just don't understand that those, to me those values of 'life is a preciuos thing', that you and I sitting here is an interactive moment that we'll have, we'll have shared at some point in time once we've completed. But people are just sometimes so short-sighted, I guess."
"In my estimation, valuing that life, valuing the moments that we have, I just think that's being, that's been lost. The fact that, even though Democrats believe one thing and Republicans believe another, there in my estimation, is probably 40 to 50% of society is my theory, that is kind of somewhere in the middle, that go 'okay umm, i agree with demorats on this point, i agree with republicans on this point', and I don't think they're, i think those are the values, the value of compromising and figuring a path forward that you might not have gotten everything you wanted, but you can still move forward, and still be reasonably pleased with the result and the process, and I think we're missing that right now."
Partisanship
Reed: "You're running for Republican Judge Thomas Little's vacancy. If he had not retired, would you be running this year?"
Andrew: "No, because there would be no open seat."
Reed: "Are there any decisions of Little's you disagreed with or would have handled differently?"
Andrew: "Umm, it's a good question. I can't honestly think of one at the moment. I'm sure there were times that I did, but off the top of my head, no i can't think of any one in particular."
Reed: "Republican Shane Mendenhall is running against you. You have identified as a 'Moderate Democrat' and took a Republican ballot in the Primaries, which you said you did because there were no Democrats running in several races locally. You said on Byers & Co that you wanted to run as an independent to avoid the political aspects, but didn't because it requires five times as many signatures."
Why are judicial races partisan?
Reed: "Why do you think judicial races are partisan?"
Andrew: "I think the political parties have a lot of control over the legislature, and they've decided to engage in and require certain things to be partisan. That's my take on it. I've not researched that at all, but that's just my view."
Reed: "Do you think there are any benefits to it being an elected position?"
Andrew, heavily edited: "Oh I think there's definitely a benefit to it being elected. I think the people should choose in some fashion, all the four circuit judges are all elected. The associate judges are appointed. I completely agree there needs to be some component of the judicial system that's elected."
"What i have some frustration with, I guess I'll say, is in our system of government, though, the political parties have gotten their teeth on some of these types of positions that in my estimation [should be non-partisan]. There's no 'Democrat law' or no 'Republican law', there's just 'the law'. There's no 'Democrat law' or 'Republican law' that needs to be enforced. It's just 'the law' that needs to be enforced. So in my estimation of the judges, the sheriffs, the coroners, I would hope that partisanship really doesn't, i can't imagine a way that partisanship should really affect that job, as to how it's being done. I think that, that just leads to a society that has even fewer values than what we currently have at times. "
Why did you run as a Democrat and not a Republican?
Andrew: "Well, I chose to run as a Democrat because I identify with more Democrat ideas than I do with Republican ideas. ... I'm talking about running as an independent, but I'm clearly running as a Democrat. I get that that doesn't necessarily match up, but the point is, the point is that it's a situation where I don't think there should be partisanship, but if there's going to be partisanship, I clearly identify with one party over the other, and that's why I chose to be running as a Democrat, but at the same time, I'll tell Democrats, well I wanna make sure the budget is balanced. I don't agree with having an unbalanced budget, yaknow type of thing. So fiscally, I'm conservative. But when it comes to maybe climate and other things, yaknow, I tend to be more Democrat yaknow about those social issues."
How would a Moderate judge differ from a Republican or Progressive judge?
Reed: "Can you see any ways that a moderate Democrat might execute the office differently from a Republican or a Progressive or farther left Democrat?"
Andrew says "I'm sure that there probably is, but I can't say that anything comes to mind as specficially about that." He goes on to say if you're on the far left or far right, he wonders "how much you're willing to listen to the other side and not have your own filter or lense blocking or accepting things that you already agree with or disagree with."
Covid Mandates, Case Consolidation
Reed: "Judge Mike McHaney ruled Pritzker's covid mandates "unconstitutional" in the 4th Judicial Circuit and has said the mandates were "tyranny". McHaney said the case was consolidated with other similar cases into Sangamon County. " Read McHaney's interview for additional context.
Reed: "First of all, what do you think of McHaney's ruling?"
Andrew: "I've not read McHaney's ruling."
Reed: "What do you think of the process of consolidating that case and other cases like it into Sangamon County? "
Andrew: "I'm not familiar with where that original case was, but if there are cases within the same county, I think judicial economy would make sense, in other words, only having one judge hear those two or three cases that need, you know that could be consolidated ... so long as it makes sense to do so. Meaning that [if these] two or three cases have similar issues or just slightly different issues, but within the same vein of the law, then in my estimation that makes sense to just have one judge hear it and hear them all together."
"But, umm, for instance, a lot of times when I'm doing a family case or a divorce case, there might also be an order of protection case that came along with that. A lot of times the judge in Orders of Protection, and family law cases are primarily heard by two different judges. A lot of times, one of the attorneys or both will ask that those cases be consolidated, so that one judge can hear all of the information and see the bigger picture. ... In my estimation that type of thing makes sense, at least on that level."
"Onto that, this other issue here, that McHaney is talking about, I'm not as familiar with it, so I wouldn't be willing to issue an opinion at this point in time on that."
Reed: "Understandable."
Cash Bail / SAFE-T act
Note: NBC Chicago writes about the changes to pre-trial detention, and in what circumstances an offender may be held prior to trial. NBC Chicago summarizes many other changes found in the SAFE-T act. The SAFE-T act does not end pre-trial detention. It does end the cash component of pre-trial detention.
Reed: "What do you think of legislation regarding cash bail?"
Andrew: "Umm, I have mixed feelings about it. I applaud Democrats for trying to figure out a way to make the system not so based upon a person's funds. But I have some real concerns about how we maintain accountability for people who have done crimes, and maintain safety while doing so."
"So, it's a big problem they've tried to tackle there, in this experiment of democracy and criminal justice. Time will tell whether or not they got it right or if it needs to be tweaked. I don't know the answer to that yet. But I would say those are the two things I see that we've got."
"I applaud them for taking on that issue that's been an issue for awhile, but at the same point in time, we've gotta maintain accountability for them, people need to be held accountable for their actions, and we need to maintain a civil society. We can't go to a lawless sort of chaos or wild west."
More on cash bail
Reed: "Do you have any other strong feelings or thoughts about any other povisions in the SAFE-T act?"
Andrew: "As I understand it, when a person is accused of a crime and arrested, the State's Attorney then has 24 to 48 hours to put on file and have a hearing for whether or not that person needs to continue to be detained or not. In that hearing, as I understand it, the judge will hear arguments about whether or not this individual is a danger to another individual in society and/or a danger to society at large. That I think is somewhat typical of a current bond hearing. There's also a component of whether or not the person's going to flee or show up or not show up."
Andrew says he hasn't yet seen whether a judge can consider these two things: First, whether or not the accused has been convicted of similar crimes in the past. Second, whether or not the accused has shown up or missed prior court dates.
Andrew says "To me those two things will help maintain the accountability of that individual and civil society at large, but also will help cut down on the system just kind of chasing its tail in that we're trying to always find these people who may have committed these crimes but aren't being detained and that we're spending a lot of time chasing people rather than maintaining law and order. I guess to me, [those are two things that] haven't been answered yet, or if they've been answered, I haven't found them yet."
Note: I intended to ask about other aspects of the SAFE-T act, not related to cash bail, but we were short on time.
Racial Disparities in Sentencing
Reed: "Are you aware of any racial disparities in sentencing in Macon County, and how will you control for or monitor that?"
Andrew: "I can't say that I'm aware of any. But there again, my experience right now is not really on a macro level, it's on a micro level of 'I represent John Smith in this particular case and what he got accused of and what he got convicted of fell within this range and the sentence was in this range'. I don't have a good feel for the macro version of yaknow, 'we had 10,000 felony cases this year and all of them were ... the break down, the racial break down of those'. I mean, that would be interesting to me to know, but as I sit here today, I don't know the answer to that."
Illinois State Bar Association Judicial Advisory Poll
Reed: "The Illinois State Bar Association Judicial Advisory Poll had 82 respondents for you, and you received a "not recommended" rating. Your opponent Shane Mendenhall had 73 respondents and also received a "not recommended" rating. What are your thoughts on the results of this survey of lawyers?"
Andrew: "Umm, my thoughts on it are that, that lawyers, my gut says that lawyers are, were looking for something else. And I think lawyers generally were attempting to go with the status quo, meaning that they wanted the associate judge who had been hearing cases that they were somewhat familiar with, they were more comfortable supporting him, versus taking a chance on other lawyers."
Note: See the ISBA judicial evaluations and the Macon County Results (pdf download).
Masters degree in Political Science
Reed: "You had said on Byers & Co that you have a master's degree in Political Science. So, why did you choose to go into law rather than something legislative?"
Andrew said that "going into law was what I thought would be helpful in wherever I went." He said he wasn't "100% sure what I would do after getting a law degree, but I knew I had an interest in the political science sphere, but I also had a concentration there in public administration." He said that if he wanted to work in government bureacracy, such as in the City of Decatur, he thought he would need to have some background in law to help understand how separate municipalities might legally work together to address community issues. He said he was fortunate that his parents offered to help him afford law school.
Reed: "How does your political science background contribute to your understanding of the law and contribute to how you will perform your judicial duties?"
Andrew: "It's a good question. I think that my political science and public administration background kind of helps me understand a little bit more about what's political, which is not necessarily legal, but what's political, and identifying what's political versus the legal issues. Cuz the political sometimes is that, that discourse or that opinion that people want to see happen. It's not necessarily what the law then provides. And so helping identify those differences as to what becomes political or opinion versus what has more basis in the law, I think is very helpful, because you can kind of narrow down and focus on what there is a root in the law and what is just opinion, in my estimation."
Note: Listen on Byers & Co
Anything Else?
Reed: "Do you have anything else that you want to add about your political platform?"
Andrew: "I don't know that I really do. I just think that my experience and my integrity, you know this is what this race should really all be about. It really shouldn't be in my estimation like i said before, about partisan politics too much, even though it's filtering in and coming in."
Questions from Voters
Debts
Reed: "Somebody asked me to ask you: Do you have any debts?"
Andrew: "Do I have any debts? As far as monetary debts, I'm assuming."
Reed: "I would believe so."
Andrew: "Okay. I'm sure that I do. I have probably a mortgage, I know i have a mortgage. Yes, yes I have debts."
Note: Due to time constraints, I did not press further on details of his debts.
Pending Litigation
Reed: "Do you have any pending litigation against you?"
Andrew: "No. Let me clarify that though too. My name might be attached to litigation, but I also serve as the Macon County Public Administrator and Public Guardian, so sometimes in those sort of situations, where somebody has passed away and their loved one did not have anyone to take care of their estate, I get appointed to help facilitate that estate and wind it down and liquidate it and that sort of thing, so it's possible my name is involved in litigation, but I'm not really the one being sued or anything like that, just to be clear."
Reed: "That makes sense"
Immigration Law
Reed: "What is your background in immigration law and your understanding of how sentencing can affect a person's immigration status?"
Andrew: "Great question. That comes into play quite a bit. I can't say that I've researched that recently. At one point in time, probably three years ago, I was representing someone [for whom] that issue [came] up." He says that he hasn't researched this recently, but that he recollects that "any time a person pleads guilty or is convicted of a class four felony or higher, it can cause problems for their immmigration status."
Andrew says any time a plea is to be given, the judge will instruct the individual that a conviction may cause problems for their immigration status. He says "as to how that then works within the immigration law, that's something I've never researched, but I do know enough to know that that raises a red flag for anybody attempting to attain citizenship or stay in the country, it can cause some problems as I understand it. But that's just a generic thing, it's not anything I've researched."
Private Prisons
Reed: "What do you know of the relationship between Macon County Courts and private prisons, if there are any?"
Andrew: "I don't know of any relationship."
Contact
Candidate
Andrew Weatherford
Phone
Website
Give
Time
Money
Feedback
Q/A with Andrew R. Weatherford
collapse allNo questions found
Shane Mendenhall