Illinois' gubernatorial race has been snippy. The battle for Illinois' U.S. Senate seat has been downright nasty. But a little-known judicial race could be the state's most vicious of the 2010 election season.

The 10-year term of Illinois' Third District Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride runs out this year and conservatives are anxious to see him replaced. GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Brady and GOP State Party Chairman Pat Brady (no relation) are both urging voters not to support Kilbride's retention bid. (While Supreme Court candidates initially run against an opponent, their retention race is unopposed and requires 60 percent of the votes cast to stay on the bench.) 

Right-leaning activists and funders are pledging to raise loads of cash to take down the Rock Island Democrat, as well. The PAC representing the Illinois Civil Justice League, an Illinois-based pro-business group, has already said it intends to raise $1 million to defeat Kilbride. Political consultant Jon Zahm started a committee titled "Vote No Kilbride." Both the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois Medical Society are also rumored to have an interest in the contest. The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform thinks it could be one of the most expensive judicial race Illinois has ever seen. "This looks like it could be a game-changing race," Director Cindi Canary told the Tribune.

Why Kilbride? The Chamber of Commerce argues that his decisions have helped contribute to a state business climate they consider too "litigious." The Civil Justice League classifies him as "extreme" for supporting new trials for the 25 inmates currently held on Illinois' flawed Death Row. His major sin, however, is ruling unconstitutional this past February the state's 2005 medical malpractice reform package, which (among many provisions) placed caps on the amount of non-economic damages a plaintiff can receive in medical malpractice cases.

It's certainly signficant that Kilbride happens to be a Democrat in a formerly Republican district, too. If he's voted out, the court would appoint someone to fill his vacancy until the next election in 2012. Currently, Democrats hold a 4-3 advantage on the bench, so the ideological ramifications are clear. It would be the first time ever a sitting Illinois Supreme Court justice would be removed from his or her post by the electorate.

From a political perspective, conservatives' emphasis on the med mal decision is understandable enough. It pleases wealthy insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors organizations. It makes for a good talking point; a plurality of Americans (and a majority of Republicans) support caps on jury awards. Forcing Democrats to defend the judge's seat also diverts precious resources away from swing legislative races.

But the med mal cap demagoguery is not necessarily good government. The Illinois Supreme Court has now thrown out similar laws on three separate occasions. If Republicans were serious about protecting doctors and hospitals from insurance premium spikes, they'd put aside the issue of hard caps and work with Democrats to reinstate a series of alterations to the Illinois Insurance Code that were included in the 2005 bill but were also tossed out when the broader package was deemed unconstitutional this year. After all, state regulators think those rules were key drivers behind the dip in malpractice premiums for doctors and hospitals in recent years. And Illinois can't even provide the public with detailed histories of the state's doctors anymore, a service that was used frequently by patients statewide. When a bill to restore those rules came up in the state Senate this year, Bill Brady and his cohorts in Springfield ignored it.

The Kilbride controversy, meanwhile, is just another example of the fraught politics of judicial elections. Last week, a new report produced jointly by the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and the Justice at Stake Campaign highlighted just how much money special interests have spent to influence state Supreme Court races.

Nationwide, spending in the nine states that have effectively partisan elections for seats on their highest courts more than doubled in the last decade, from $83 million in 2000 to $207 million in 2009. Illinois ranks fourth, having rang up $20 million during that stretch. (Almost half was spent in a bitter 2004 race in which southern Illinois Republican Lloyd Karmeier defeated Democrat Gordon Maag.) The authors argue that the special interest explosion jeopardizes the impartiality of officials in the judicial system. That subsequently reduces public trust in the way court officials rule.

There are several reforms the General Assembly and justices could make to limit the influence of outside groups in these races. State Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) has introduced legislation that would create a voluntary public financing system for Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court judicial elections. It's an effort supported by the state's reform committee, although there probably won't be any changes on that front until at least 2012. Judges could also spell out in detail when one should recuse him or herself from cases in which there is  a conflict of interest. There's precedent for this; last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must recuse themselves from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

Meanwhile, the Sun-Times editorial board yesterday morning endorsed another approach that's equally intriguing:

In an alternative approach, long supported by judicial reform groups, a nonpartisan committee of experts would assess the performance and temperament of candidates for the bench and narrow the field to the best of the bunch. The names of these "certified" candidates would be put on the ballot so voters could have their say ...

There are inevitable strengths and dangers to both approaches in choosing judges -- merit selection vs. direct election -- and the creation of blue-ribbon panels to vet candidates might be a sensible middle ground. It could result in more judges on the bench who are superbly qualified for the job, rather than simply superbly good at raising money. As it is, voters often are asked to choose from a crowded list of names they've never heard before.

Whatever route elected officials take, it's clear that something needs to be done to wall off Illinois' judicial system from big money influences. The arbiters of justice should not be worried about their future job prospects when deciding how to uphold the law of the land.