NEW YORK DAILY NEWS,
Thursday, Jan. 2, 2003
Free the judges from boss rule By FERN SCHAIR
The Daily News' "Judging the Judges" editorial series
rightfully excoriates New York's flawed judicial system and applauds
Chief Judge Judith Kaye for her reform efforts. The News is on target
in arguing that it is time to discontinue the sordid practice of
electing judges.
Judicial elections suffer from the same money-related problems
as any election. Candidates need to raise funds. Who contributes
to judicial campaigns? The same lawyers and corporate special-interest
groups that appear before those judges. Imagine appearing in court
to seek justice when your adversary or his or her lawyer has contributed
heavily to the judge's campaign.
Worse, the process through which judges are elected is a farce.
Rather than an election in which citizens cast informed votes, the
system has devolved into one where party bosses dole out judgeships.
Studies show that few voters have any idea who is running for judicial
office in their district, much less what their qualifications may
be.
Parties often cross-endorse candidates in exchange for other concessions,
and in counties that are heavily Democratic or Republican, the winner
is a foregone conclusion.
The corruption from political patronage often follows. Bosses expect
the judges they choose to toe the party line or face the consequences.
This past year, it was reported that Brooklyn Civil Court Judge
Margarita Lopez Torres fell out of favor and was not supported for
reelection. By all accounts, she was fair and effective. Her shortcoming
appears to have been her refusal to hire a law clerk referred to
her by clubhouse leaders.
How best to minimize the influence of politics on the branch of
government that was designed to be politically independent? Merit
selection. It works this way: A bipartisan, broadly based nominating
commission appointed by a variety of sources evaluates judicial
candidates. The commission submits a list of qualified candidates
to the chief executive, who appoints someone from that list and
can be held accountable for that choice.
Thirty-three states choose at least some of their judges by merit
selection. In New York 25 years ago, voters approved a constitutional
amendment to stop electing judges to the Court of Appeals in favor
of merit selection. If that's the best way to select judges for
our highest court, surely it is the way for the rest of the judges.
Why the holdup? The state's lower courts offer fertile ground for
political patronage. Perhaps that is why leaders of the Legislature
refuse even to give voters an opportunity to support a merit selection
process.
The stranglehold that party politics has on choosing a qualified
and independent judiciary is proof that electing judges is bad policy.
The challenge is getting legislators to buck the party bosses and
act. Public outcry is the only thing that will make it happen.
Schair is chairwoman of the Fund for Modern Courts
|
