Supreme Court Upholds New York's Judge Selection System
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld New York’s party-controlled system for choosing trial judges, saying there is no constitutional right to a fair shot at winning a nomination.
Under the state’s unique system, voters choose convention delegates who then choose the judicial candidates, the Associated Press reports. Often they face no opposition in the general election, although candidates can get on the ballot through a petition drive. Critics say the system is riddled with patronage.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the unanimous opinion for the court (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog).
“None of our cases establishes an individual’s constitutional right to have a ‘fair shot’ at winning the party’s nomination,” he wrote. “Party conventions, with their attendant ‘smokefilled rooms’ and domination by party leaders, have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates.”
A separate concurring opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, questioned whether judicial elections, with their need for campaign contributions, are the best method to choose candidates, SCOTUSblog reports. “The persisting question,” Kennedy wrote, “is whether that process is consistent with the perception and the reality of judicial independence and judicial excellence.”
The New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down New York’s judicial selection system, citing the First Amendment associational rights of the candidates.
Margarita Lopez Torres, a New York judge, challenged the system after clashing with party officials over patronage hires, the ABA Journal reported in an April story. The case is New York Board of Elections v. Torres.
Updated 11:30 a.m. CT to correct the name of Margarita Lopez Torres.
