Two weeks from today will be Mary Jane Theis’ final shift as a member of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Theis, a Chicago Democrat, is 76 but had another seven years on the decade-long stint she secured in a 2022 retention election. That means her replacement, current First District Appellate Court Justice Sanjay Tailor, will serve until December 2028 but must win his own 10-year term in that year’s election.

The court’s official release on the switch asserts it “has constitutional authority to fill interim judicial vacancies and has appointed” Tailor, but offers no details about who nominated Tailor, if the members considered other judges or if the vote was unanimous.

In that sense, the information is little different from announcements affecting lower courts, such as the Jan. 8 document announcing 11th Circuit Judge Jennifer Bauknecht will retire March 17 and her replacement is current Associate Judge Randy Yedinak.

A judicial branch is separate from the executive and legislative, but also equal: our judges and justices are, at least in some portions of their careers, politicians. They have to finance campaigns and occasionally face voters. And, as with pretty much the rest of Illinois, judges often have opportunities to choose (or at least strongly influence the selection of) their replacements.

The mechanisms of these political appointments vary, but the ultimate effect is identical: people get to hold elected office before their name appears on a general ballot. And while political reality requires acknowledging these scenarios often play out in districts so deeply populated by one party that the ultimate electoral outcome is fairly inevitable, it’s also fair to point to the practice as a fundamental plank in the overall system that gets us those gerrymandered districts and the larger sentiment that government serves itself first and the public second (at best).

That said, the Supreme Court was correct in its release: this structure is embedded in the 1970 Illinois Constitution (specifically Article VI, Section 12, Subsection C). That means it’s only changing through the statewide amendment process – which has failed 11 times and succeeded 15 since 1974, if only considering the measures that actually advanced to a ballot – or could be revisited if voters ever approve another constitutional convention. We get the chance every 20 years, but soundly rejected the opportunity in 1988 and 2008.

It’s a little early to explore all the reasons a fresh start might be superior to attempting improvement through tweaking, but put me down firmly in the camp of a hard reset on the entire campaign and electoral process, from petition procedures to special elections for vacancies and most points in between.

When encountering convention resistance, consider how much of the opponent’s power is at stake.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.