The Road to the Robe
By Henry J. Stern
October 3, 2002

    When writing about public affairs, it is very difficult to tell people how bad some situations are. That is because we live under a form of government that we basically like, that provides citizens with a great deal of freedom, and is a lot better than most other systems around the world.
There are, however, dark corners in our public institutions. One of the most shameful, the Brooklyn judiciary, was re-exposed in a Daily News editorial yesterday, which you are encouraged to click on to. If you don’t have the time to read it now at work, print it out and catch up with it when it is convenient for you.

    One sad chapter of this story is the existing system of party-driven judicial conventions, which guarantees political bosses dominion over the New York State Supreme Court. It is equally pathetic, however, that nobody seems to be doing anything about this issue. It excites no public outrage, in large part because most New Yorkers, except political insiders, are completely unaware of it.

    The gist of the problem is that judges are either appointed by the Mayor (Criminal Court and Family Court) or elected (Supreme Court, Surrogate and Civil Court). For surrogate and civil court judges, primaries determine the nominees of the parties. But for Supreme Court, there are no primaries, and the candidates are chosen by judicial conventions, which are generally completely controlled by county leaders. Since the Democratic nomination is usually tantamount to election in New York City, in substance political bosses choose the judges on the state’s most important trial court.
But where are the court reformers, the bar associations, the charities and the non-profits, the other newspapers, the foundations, the advocacy community, those who concern themselves with reform and good government ? Asking this question does not suggest that these worthy and meritorious groups are satisfied with the status quo. They may have decided, in rational self-interest, not to tilt at windmills. They may have other priorities. Some politically connected lawyers may do well with the status quo.
 
    But even if reform is far in the future, the public should know what a disgrace we have today, they should appreciate the lonely voices that are trying to tell them so, and they should seek a judicial system where the selection of judges is based on merit and fitness, not contributions and cronyism.
For example, is it not interesting that in the two major corruption cases in Brooklyn this year, Councilmember Angel Rodriguez and Judge Victor Barron, the crooked and officials were turned in by the very people they solicited to pay them off ? How many other situations do you think occurred where the bribers were satisfied with the results they got for a modest fee, and therefore did not complain to the authorities. Bribery is generally a crime involving collusion and consent, both parties profit from it.

    A possible solution to this problem lies in the appointment, by Governor Pataki, of a Moreland Act Commission to investigate the selection process for judges, and its effect on the operation of the courts. Such an inquiry could get around local politics. The decision on whether to do this clearly awaits the November election, and possibly a few more scandals.

    We believe that the district judicial conventions, in fact the ratification of the county leaders’ choices, do not serve the public interest, with regard to fairness of method and opportunity to compete, the quality of the candidates selected, the prior relationships which may affect their decisions, and the financial contributions usually required of them.

    We invite all of you, as well as the organized civic community, to express your views on this issue. Perhaps together we can free the judges from the bosses.

Henry J. Stern is the director of NYCivic.