Justices Ask: What’s Wrong With 'Sham' Judge Elections?
Skeptical U.S. Supreme Court justices appear to side with the state of New York in a challenge to its system of electing judges.
In oral arguments yesterday, only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared sympathetic to the judge challenging the nominating convention system where political party leaders hold sway. And she may have been merely characterizing the judge’s argument rather than indicating agreement, the New York Times reports.
The argument, she said, is that the system is “really a sham because nobody is going to run for that except the party faithful, someone picked by the party boss,” Law.com reports. The nominating conventions are held after party primaries.
A federal appeals court had ruled the system violated the First Amendment right of association of both voters and judicial candidates. Lawyers defending the system emphasize instead the associational rights of the political parties.
The court posted the oral argument transcripts (PDF).
The April 2007 ABA Journal previewed this case.
