Federal judge strikes down state system for selecting judges

NEW YORK — A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled last week that the state’s system for selecting Supreme Court judges is unconstitutional, and ordered that it be replaced. Ruling in a case brought by a watchdog group, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson said the state’s practice of picking judiciary candidates through political conventions, tightly controlled by party bosses, deprives voters of a say in who was on the final ballot. Gleeson issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the state’s board of election from enforcing the existing system, and instructed New York to hold traditional primary elections to pick Supreme Court candidates until the legislature enacts a replacement scheme. The judge said the watchdog group, the Brennan Center for Justice, had demonstrated convincingly “that local major party leaders — not the voters or the delegates to the judicial nominating conventions — control who becomes a Supreme Court Justice and when.” “The result is an opaque, undemocratic selection procedure that violates the rights of the voters and the rights of candidates who lack the backing of the local party leaders,” he wrote. Under current rules, Democratic and Republican party leaders select candidates for Supreme Court justice posts at nominating conventions that critics have derided for years as exercises in patronage and power-broking. Their selections are rarely opposed in general elections. Political bosses also routinely cut deals to nominate the same candidate on both the Republican and Democratic party lines, further reducing the chance for competition. “Well qualified candidates who aren’t tied to party leaders don’t even get a shot,” said Brennan Center attorney Jeremy Creelan. The center, which is affiliated with New York University, sued in 2004, arguing that the system violated the First Amendment. Critics of the system also said it makes judicial candidates beholden to political parties.