Breaking Down the Clubhouse The New York Times: September 9, 2006 Editorial
Judicial selection in New York remains the last bastion of the clubhouse. Judges ascend to the bench as a result of loyal work for the party or friendship with a political power broker. But this may be about to change, now that a federal appeals court has ruled that New York’s method of choosing judges is unconstitutional. The Legislature should get to work right away fixing a badly broken system.
New York Supreme Court justices, who are actually trial court judges, are chosen at judicial conventions whose delegates are generally handpicked by party bosses. This backroom process is fueled by political quid pro quos. When Margarita Lopez Torres became a Civil Court judge with the Brooklyn Democratic machine’s backing, she came under pressure to hire a party operative as her law clerk. After she refused, it was made clear that she would be blocked from becoming a Supreme Court justice — and she was. (She was elected to the Surrogate Court over the machine’s fierce opposition.)
The Brennan Center for Justice challenged the system on behalf of Ms. Lopez Torres and others. A federal district court judge ruled earlier this year that New York’s system violates the First Amendment because it functions in such an undemocratic way. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that decision with a sharply worded opinion that called for the State Legislature to create a new system.
Some legislators, who have their own ties to political power brokers, will be tempted to make only small changes. Minor tinkering will not be enough to cure the constitutional flaws. The Legislature needs to immediately develop a process that is truly open to any candidate, and that gives voters the deciding say in who becomes a judge.
The best permanent solution, however, would be a merit-based appointment system that puts qualifications ahead of political connections. That would require amending the state Constitution, and that is exactly what should be done. The current system of choosing judges through secret deals and old-fashioned cronyism corrodes the integrity of the legal system and diminishes the courts.
New York Supreme Court justices, who are actually trial court judges, are chosen at judicial conventions whose delegates are generally handpicked by party bosses. This backroom process is fueled by political quid pro quos. When Margarita Lopez Torres became a Civil Court judge with the Brooklyn Democratic machine’s backing, she came under pressure to hire a party operative as her law clerk. After she refused, it was made clear that she would be blocked from becoming a Supreme Court justice — and she was. (She was elected to the Surrogate Court over the machine’s fierce opposition.)
The Brennan Center for Justice challenged the system on behalf of Ms. Lopez Torres and others. A federal district court judge ruled earlier this year that New York’s system violates the First Amendment because it functions in such an undemocratic way. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that decision with a sharply worded opinion that called for the State Legislature to create a new system.
Some legislators, who have their own ties to political power brokers, will be tempted to make only small changes. Minor tinkering will not be enough to cure the constitutional flaws. The Legislature needs to immediately develop a process that is truly open to any candidate, and that gives voters the deciding say in who becomes a judge.
The best permanent solution, however, would be a merit-based appointment system that puts qualifications ahead of political connections. That would require amending the state Constitution, and that is exactly what should be done. The current system of choosing judges through secret deals and old-fashioned cronyism corrodes the integrity of the legal system and diminishes the courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment