WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL News & Commentary By Jeffrey Binder, Esq. March 25, 2006: In late January something extraordinary happened in New York State judicial politics. In a breathtakingly well-written and reasoned decision, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson ruled that the state’s ages-old system for selecting Supreme Court judges gives too much power to political party bosses – and he ordered that it be scrapped!
Judge Gleeson issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the State’s Board of Elections from enforcing the existing system of political nominating conventions and instructed the state to hold traditional primary elections to pick Supreme Court candidates – at least until the State Legislature enacts another way.
If one assumes that the legislature will have some difficulty in enacting a new electoral scheme, what will be the practical and political implications of this earthquake of a ruling?
On a practical level, this ruling opens up the realistic goal of running for (and winning) a Supreme Court seat to the multitudes of lawyers who, because they were busy building practices, working endless hours in far-away firms, or deeply engrossed in their specialty of practice, never had the time or inclination to participate in the nitty-gritty of “club house” partisan politics.
Beginning in 2007, gone will be the days where the only viable route to the Supreme Court bench was to toil in the partisan political vineyards as a campaign worker, fundraiser, or other role to curry favor with the county leader or other titular heads of the party.
Favor was needed from the County leader because judicial delegates to the nominating conventions were beholden to the party bosses who either personally or through surrogates selected them in the first place. This undemocratic situation correctly convinced Judge Gleeson that judicial delegates were not accountable to the electorate at large.
Rather than getting hopelessly mired in the morass of local partisan politics with their arbitrary pecking orders, lawyers who have the motivation and resources to communicate with voters and want to run for judge can just do it! Like other candidates for office, they can form a campaign team, raise money, circulate petitions, communicate with voters and run unfettered (and un beholden to party bosses) in primaries.
Who are the winners under this system? First and foremost – the voters, who, will get meaningful choice at the polls. Second, the well-intentioned outsider lawyers who want to make their case to the people that they should serve in a position of public trust on the bench. Third – the political consultants (of which I am one) who will have the opportunity each year to help elect well financed candidates running in multiple parties.
If Judge Gleeson’s ruling withstands appeal, it will mark an incredible turning point in New York State politics where openness, accountability, and traditional campaigning have collided to create opportunity and much-needed reform – not to the multitude of potential political consulting opportunities.
Jeffrey Binder, Esq. – is the managing partner of the Strategic Political Group, a Westchester-based political consulting firm that has advised judicial candidates among other candidates for political office.
