Illinois Supreme Court Justice Tom Kilbride is facing a retention vote on the November 3 ballot, seeking to remain on the bench for an additional 10-year term. Kilbride’s retention will be decided by voters in the court’s third district, which encompasses Will and Kankakee counties and extends westward to the Iowa border.

Although Kilbride’s seat is determined by voters outside of Chicago and Cook County, the retention effort has drawn significant attention within those urban centers due to Kilbride’s association with Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Critics have highlighted Kilbride’s acceptance of $550,000 in campaign contributions from Madigan’s state Democratic Party, an action that came shortly after Kilbride had pledged not to accept funds tied to the speaker. Madigan has denied any wrongdoing related to the donations.

Conservative groups opposing Kilbride’s retention argue that this financial connection influences the justice’s rulings, contending that his decisions directly benefit Madigan’s interests. They view the retention vote as a pivotal moment, as Kilbride’s departure could shift the Illinois Supreme Court’s current 4-3 Democratic majority, which has persisted since Kilbride’s initial election to the court in 2000—a campaign also strongly supported by Madigan’s financial backing.

Despite the controversies, there are no formal allegations of misconduct or incompetence against Kilbride. Opponents primarily accuse him of issuing rulings that negatively affect taxpayers and suggest that he is beholden to Madigan, though such claims remain unproven. Supporters note that large campaign contributions are a common practice on both sides, including Republican-backed candidates for the Supreme Court, and argue that funding alone should not be a disqualifying factor.

The Illinois Supreme Court has drawn criticism in the past for several of Kilbride’s constitutional interpretations, notably his liberal reading of the state’s pension clause and a 2016 decision rejecting efforts to reform legislative redistricting. While some observers and commentators disagree with these decisions, they have not deemed them sufficient grounds to recommend Kilbride’s removal from the bench.

Voters within the third district will ultimately determine whether Kilbride remains on the court, weighing his judicial record, campaign funding controversies, and broader political implications. Observers emphasize that the retention process is designed to allow constituents to apply their own judgment regarding a justice’s continued service.