|
Brooklyn Daily Eagle,
July 13, 2004
Commission Reports 'Clamor' For Judicial
Election Reform
by Susie Poppick
Recommendations Include Public Campaign
Financing
NEW YORK - In its final report released
last week, a commission appointed by New York State Chief Judge
Judith Kaye stated that "the call for reform of the judicial
election system has become a clamor." The 29-member Commission
to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections - or "Feerick"
Commission, named for panel chairman John Feerick - was assembled
by Kaye more than a year ago to find out the causes of, and solutions
to, low public confidence in New York's system of judicial elections.
Following its December 2003 interim report, the commission's final
report recommends reforms including retention elections for incumbent
judges, on-line voter guides, independent committees for evaluating
judicial candidates and - most notably - public financing of elections.
State Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman said the Feerick
Commission focused on reforms to better tailor the rules of financing
and candidacy to the particular nature of judicial elections - which
he said could not be run in the same way as other political elections.
"Right now, the public doesn't always focus on judiciary,
like they do for the political branches of government," Lippman
said. "And because of the unique nature of the judiciary, elections
must be conducted differently. Unlike with political candidates,
you don't want judges making promises for what they're going to
do if elected. You want judges who are impartial, who will determine
matters on the basis of the law."
Although an Assembly bill recently passed, including many of the
Feerick Commission's recommendations concerning voter education,
judicial candidate screening and campaign finance, Lippman said
a changeover to public financing of judicial elections might be
some time away.
" It will be very difficult, but not impossible," he
said. "Given the financial state of the budget, it will be
difficult."
Unfortunately, it is the current system of private campaign finance
that causes public distrust of the judiciary, said Ken Jockers,
a spokesman for the citizens group The Committee for Modern Courts
(CMC). His group has advocated reforms of New York's more than 150-year-old
system of selecting judges, for nearly 50 years.
"The fundamental concern is people in New York State have indicated
that they don't have any confidence in the way we pick judges,"
Jockers said.
Jockers said that "many regular people feel they won't get
a fair shake" in a court case if they are brought before a
judge to whom participating lawyers have made campaign contributions.
"We are concerned about the fair administration of justice
when it's possible that somebody else has a judge's ear," he
said "When we pick judges in this state, the political party
process owns the system. There is no way for voters to really choose
judges."
Jockers and the CMC are not alone in their criticisms. The Feerick
Commission's report cites recent events including the cases of judges
- Ira Raab, William Watson and Thomas Spargo, who allegedly participated
in questionable political activities - that have spurred many complaints
of corruption and cronyism in the judiciary.
Results of a survey authorized by the commission show that 27 percent
of responding New York judges believe campaign contributions influence
judicial decisions, and almost 70 percent believe judicial candidates
know who their campaign contributors are, something which is officially
discouraged. More than 40 percent of judges believe a judge's impartiality
is brought into question if a campaign contributor appears before
the judge.
And 83 percent of registered voters think that campaign contributions
have some or a great deal of influence on judicial decisions.
The survey found that this public suspicion probably affects voter
participation - as few as 17 percent of registered voters cast a
ballot for judges in some areas of the state.
To remedy such public concerns - which include complaints that
the judiciary does not adequately represent women and minorities
- the Feerick Commission advocated a system of state-sponsored independent
commissions to evaluate qualifications of candidates for judicial
office. The commissions would reflect the state's diversity in their
membership, recruit judicial candidates, publish a list of qualified
candidates and require all judicial candidates to participate in
the evaluation process.
The Feerick Commission also recommends a more extensive use of
the Internet for posting campaign finance disclosure statements,
voter guides about judicial candidates, and a directory of background
information on all sitting New York judges.
Lippman said the commission's improvements would make it easier
for all New Yorkers to understand the election system.
"The commission puts a focus on making the election system
for judges more meaningful and comprehensible," Lippman said.
"Reforms would allow the average person to know who is running,
whether they are qualified or not and how their campaigns are financed."
Though the Feerick Commission originally intended to end its research
after the final report, the report contains a request for Judge
Kaye to extend the commission, as concerns about the process of
nominating Supreme Court justices remain.
|
