Kwiat lies again!

This is a follow-up to our story on circuit judge candidate Wayne Kwiat inflating his resume. In his campaign literature, Kwiat falsely claims to be “Head of the Northern Branch of the State’s Attorney’s Office.” We have confirmed no such position exists. According to the state’s attorney’s office, Mr. Kwiat’s real title is “part-time assistant state’s attorney” and his duties are limited to processing simple traffic cases in a few branch courts.

Since the publication of our initial story, the state’s attorney’s office has ordered Mr. Kwiat to correct his campaign literature. It has been more than a week since Mr. Kwiat was so instructed, but as of this writing, the requisite corrections from the candidate and his campaign have yet to be disseminated..

In the meantime, we have also learned that Mr. Kwiat is making other misleading claims:

Mr. Kwiat’s campaign is distributing literature that depicts him as: “Wayne Kwiat, Circuit Court Judge.”

Mr. Kwiat is not a circuit court judge nor has he ever been a judge of any kind.  All the other candidates for circuit judge, including Mr. Kwiat’s opponent, Judge Carmen Goodman, state in there literature in no uncertain terms that they are candidates and do not currently hold the position.  That is Judge Goodman’s literature says “elect” Carmen Goodman.  Others running for circuit judge, including those who are already serving as associate judges, describe themselves in terms such as “candidate.” 

Mr. Kwiat’s phrasing seems clearly designed to foster the false impression that he already holds the position for which he is campaigning. At least one attorney has told us that phrasing is a clear violation both of the code of ethics for all lawyers and a potential violation of campaign laws aimed at preventing unscrupulous candidates for office from misleading voters. Again we must ask what kind of judge Mr. Kwiat would be when he flouts both the code of legal ethics and state law.

We have also learned that Mr. Kwiat is misleading voters in regard to his union membership.  Mr. Kwiat’s Web site describes it this way: “Appointed in 1987 and Union Member of AFSCME.” The phrasing seems deliberately chosen to suggest that he has been a member of the union since 1987. That is impossible. While Mr. Kwiat was hired as an assistant state’s attorney in 1987, he could not possibly have joined the union then because AFSCME did not begin representing the employees of the state’s attorney’s office until 1996.

Two months ago, we asked Mr. Kwiat to clarify when he joined AFSCME.  Mr. Kwiat has not responded. As far as anyone can determine, Mr. Kwiat only recently joined the union that had represented him and his interests for more than a decade — in other words, only after deciding to seek public office.

Of especial interest is that Mr. Kwiat has been featured in internet photos taken at a Tea Party fundraiser. He was at the event because he has given that movement his financial support. The Tea Party movement regards unions as one of the chief causes of America’s problems and, if allowed, would greatly restrict unions’ ability to organize and represent workers. A centerpiece of Tea Party labor policies are so-called “Right to Work” laws, which enable workers to reap all the benefits of union representation without ever having to join or pay dues. Mr. Kwiat has chosen not to clarify whether he stands with his Tea Party chums on that issue.

One reason Mr. Kwiat — “Appointed in 1987 and Union Member of AFSCME” — may have felt obligated to fudge the question of union affiliation is that his opponent, Judge Goodman, is the only judicial candidate on the Will County ballot to have been an active, longtime union member, someone who represented workers and negotiated on their behalf. That any union leaders would look at their records and even consider supporting Mr. Kwiat raises troubling questions about those leaders’ motivations and priorities.

Mr. Kwiat’s repeated and uncorrected false claims about his career and professional responsibilities raise a crucial and obvious question: Given his transparent attempts to mislead voters, should he be entrusted with a vital role in a legal system that above all else is based on honesty? The answer seems equally obvious.