Reforming NY: Judicial Elections

As the Times Union wrote on January 31, "A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional the process by which Supreme Court judicial candidates are selected -- which is to say, by political party bosses. And he wants the Legislature to come up with a better system." See: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=445451

New York's judicial nominating process has been tightly controlled by party leaders instead of by the members of the parties in conventions or primaries. The NY Times wrote that the current system "has allowed political party leaders in some cases to treat selections to the state's highest trial court like classic patronage positions." The current system also locks out most libertarian choices for judicial office, because only the recognized parties (ones who have received 50,000 votes for governor in the last election) may place judicial nominees on New York's ballots.

According to Newsday, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson (the same judge who gave us our enrollment decision) issued "a preliminary injunction enjoining the state's Board of Elections from enforcing the existing system, and instructed the state to hold traditional primary elections to pick Supreme Court candidates until the Legislature enacts a replacement scheme." Family, county and city court judges around the state are selected in primary elections.

The Times Union calls for the Legislature to pass laws allowing judicial appointments by the parties rather than more open elections. What do you think? Do you think that "independent panels" can be independent in an atmosphere like Albany's?

There are also calls for public financing of judicial campaigns, such as from the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, chaired by John Feerick, the former Dean of Fordham Law School. Public financing would make problems even worse, because public financing supports the incumbant parties, locking out reformist groups trying to make change. See: http://www.moderncourts.org/News/New/clamor.html.

Feerick's Commission suggests:
* Judicial retention elections (where a judge faces only a yes/no vote, not an opponent)
* State-sponsored independent screening panels to vet judicial candidates
* Public financing of judicial election campaigns
* Voter guides containing information on candidates and the justice system
* Public access to candidates’ campaign finance information via the Internet, as well as a web-based judicial directory

The complete report of the Feerick Commission is available at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/JudicialElectionsReport.pdf It's hard to see how the Feerick Commission's suggestions will make it any easier for libertarian judges -- who understand the true intent of our founders for limited government -- to get on the ballot and get elected.

The case was brought by Margarita Lopez Torres, then an elected Civil Court judge and now a surrogate judge, plus eight voters and the group Common Cause. They were represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. State Supreme Court judges are currently paid $136,700 a year.

This is the first in a series of articles on "Reforming NY" at http://ny.lp.org/. Your comments are welcome.
bonnie on 02.10.06 @ 01:22 PM ET [link] [No Comments]