Supreme Court To Review NY Judicial Selection
Posted on Saturday, 29 of September , 2007 at 7:56 pm
NEW YORK—New York’s unique convention system, used by the political parties to select their judicial nominees, deprives New Yorkers of their right to cast a meaningful vote for trial court judges.
So argues the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, together with pro bono counsel, Arnold & Porter LLP and Jenner & Block LLP and will challenge the constitutionality of how New York chooses its judges before the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Oct. 3, Brennan Center For Justice Senior Counsel Frederick A.O. Jr. “Fritz” Schwarz will argue Lopez Torres v. NY State Board of Elections before the Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s Supreme Court judges should be chosen by the people.
The Brennan Center argues through a Byzantine statutory scheme that New York makes that democratic promise illusory. Instead, the statutory scheme facilitates categorical control by local party machines, and crushes internal party dissent. The result is that rank and file voters are precluded from influencing the choice of their own party’s standard bearer, according to the Brennan Center.
But the courts agreed that New York’s scheme is an anti-democratic sham that is antithetical to the First Amendment; undermines New York’s bench; and makes a mockery of democracy.
The case history can be found here and a complete backgrounder with “best of” excerpts from a set of amicus briefs filed by organizations on the right and left can be found here.
In January, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn granted a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections.
The Court enjoined the state from using the existing judicial convention system to nominate candidates for Supreme Court Justice. “Until the New York legislature enacts another electoral scheme,” the Court ordered, “such nominations shall be made by primary election.”
Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Judge Gleeson’s determination that New York’s judicial candidates “have the right to . . . compete for their major party’s nomination free from burdens that are both severe and unnecessary” under the First Amendment. The court also found that Judge Gleeson did not err in finding that “the structure of [New York's] primary election, its petitioning requirements, and the delegate lobbying process severely burden First Amendment associational rights.” The Second Circuit also upheld Judge Gleeson’s remedy, requiring “that nominations be settled by primary election until the State Legislature enacts corrective legislation.” The ruling grants voters relief from a system that gives party bosses virtually complete control over the selection process and is an election in name only.
In February 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in the case.
On Friday, three incumbent judges received cross-endorsements from Republicans as well as their own Democratic nomination.
State Supreme Court Judge Joseph C. Teresi of Albany County, George B. Ceresia of Rensselaer County and Christopher Cahill of Ulster County, seeking new 14-years terms to the bench, will appear on both the Republican and Democratic line, virtually assuring them of election and essentially prohibiting voters from making the choice.
The trio was nominated at the judicial convention held Friday by Democratic and GOP delegates from Albany, Rensselaer, Ulster, Columbia, Greene, Schoharie and Sullivan Counties.
Teresi has been twice censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, most recently in December 2004 for engaging in ex parte communications. In February, 2001, Teresi was censured for failing to “respect and comply with the law” and “to be faithful to the law”. The commission found that Teresi’s actions constituted an abuse of his judicial power and suggested that he was biased against an unrepresented litigant.
In two other cases, it was found that Teresi was injudicious, impatient and discourteous during discussions in which he attempted to achieve a settlement. 9-29-07
Category: Constitution, Courts, Government, New York State
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
COPYRIGHT 2009 - NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of the publisher.
