Anne Burke
From Judgepedia
Contents |
Anne McGlone Burke is a justice on the Illinois Supreme Court, in one of the three Supreme Court seats allotted to the state's First Judicial District--Cook County. Burke was first appointed to the court in 2006 to fill the vacancy created when Mary Ann McMorrow retired. Burke ran unopposed in 2008 as a Democrat to a full ten-year term on the court, winning with 1,521,306 votes.[1]
Earlier on, Burke predicted that she would have no electoral opposition for her 2008 run, saying, "Anyone wishing to oppose me would have had to spend a great deal of money to try to get name recognition themselves to come to par with me."[2] Burke enjoys significant name recognition as a result of her marriage to powerful Alderman Edward Burke in 1968.
Legal background
A native of Chicago, Justice Burke received her B.A. degree in education from DePaul University in 1976 and her Juris Doctor from IIT/Chicago-Kent College of Law in 1983.
Burke was admitted to the Federal Court, Northern District of Illinois, in 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 1985, and certified for the Trial Bar, Federal District Court in 1987. In that same year, James Thompson appointed her Judge to the Court of Claims and, in 1991, she was reappointed by Governor Jim Edgar. In April 1994, she was appointed special counsel to the Governor for Child Welfare Services. In August 1995, she was appointed to the Appellate Court, First District. In 1996, she was elected to the Appellate Court, First District, for a full term. She is married to Alderman Edward M. Burke.
Justice Burke was appointed to the Illinois Supreme Court on July 6, 2006 after serving 11 years as a Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court. Her judicial career began in 1987 when she was appointed the first woman Justice of the Illinois Court of Claims.
Political ties
Justice Burke is married to Alderman Ed Burke of Chicago's 14th Ward. Alderman Burke is chairman of the judicial slating committees of Cook County's Democratic Party.[3]
Return of campaign donations
After discovering that she would run unopposed in Illinois's 2008 primary elections (held on February 5, 2008), Justice Burke decided to return a considerable amount of her campaign donations. Funds not returned were slated to be used for other Democratic judicial campaigns.[4]
Chicago and Illinois Bar ratings
The Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois Bar Association have both given Justice Burke their highest ratings. The Chicago Council of Lawyers noted Justice Burke's "excellent temperament" and her "impressive" list of civic activities but rated her "not qualified" because she didn't have "sufficient experience" to be an appellate court judge.[5]
Awards, Memberships and Civic Activities
Justice Burke has served on the board of Rush Medical Center, DePaul University, the Chicago Bar Association, Loyola University, the Chicago Public Library, St. Xavier University, Persons with Disabilities Fund of the Chicago Community Trust, River North Dance Company, the Lincoln Park Zoological Society, and the St. Rose School for the Mentally Disabled. She was president of Special Children’s Charities and the Caritas Foundation. In recognition of her many achievements, Justice Burke has received honorary degrees from Aurora University, the Catholic Theological Union, the College of the Holy Cross, DePaul University and St. Ambrose University.
On the Issues
On Employer and Employee Rights
- Justice Anne M. Burke concurred in the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, concluded, amongst other things, that the defendant, a labor union that falsely picketed the plaintiff corporation with signage indicating that the corporation was paying its workers below the prevailing wage, was entitled to have the jury's punitive damages award against it reduced from $325,000 to $50,000, under the belief that the award represented a 75 to one ration of punitive damages to compensatory damages, and was thus in violation of the labor union's due process rights.
- Justice Rita B. Garman was the lone dissenting vote, noting that "[b]ecause I believe the majority's decision in this case does not adequately vindicate the goals of punitive damage awards, I respectfully dissent. While the majority cites the goals of punishment and deterrence as informing its punitive award against the union, the resulting award of $50,000 does not achieve the purpose of those goals."
