Room Eight | Gatemouth’s Voter’s Guide (Part Two

"You are as much a resource as google"
– Azi Paybarah, New York Observer (both his paper and his life’s work)

The subject of judicial selection traditionally draws a lot of hew and cry, but little passion. The first piece I ever did on Room 8 was about Judicial selection, and drew exactly zero comments, despite the fact it was written to offend the delicate sensibilities of nearly everyone (I’ll try to minimize repetition with the ground covered there).

The recent 2^nd Circuit ruling in the Lopez-Torres case will likely result in great changes in the manner in which judges are selected in the future; one hopes for the better. Everyone has their own proposal. My current idea is that potential judges put their profiles on JDate or Nerve.com and the voters can chose whether they’d like to do dinner, drinks or just coffee before making a commitment, or just hop right into the sack. Those who scoff at the idea should take note that this is essentially how judges are currently chosen for party nomination to the State’s Supreme Court (which in true New York funhouse fashion is the lowest level of the State’s judicial system), although, ala Cyrano De Bergerac, District Leaders contact each other on the candidate’s behalf, and do it by snail mail, rather than over the web; but, the dating aspect is almost exactly the same, although it will likely soon go the way of the moonlight serenade.

As long as we continue to elect judges (and as I’ve pointed out previously, the alternatives are no more palatable), some changes need to be made. At least in the City, most judges are elected from constituencies which are way too large. It would be far better if Judges were elected from constituencies no larger than an Assembly District, cutting candidates’ cash dependency considerably. I’m also open to considering some form of public financing.

Even more importantly, the process must change for sitting judges, who should be able to minimize their need to raise money as well as their contacts with the political process. Currently, a parasitical claque of “consultants” exist which feed in the manner of bottom fish. Usually they approach sitting Civil Court judges up for re-nomination, and in the manner of Doug and Dimsdale Piranha, say something like “that’s a nice judgeship you have there; it would be ashamed if anything happened to it. If you hire me, I can protect you from a primary…nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.” Unspoken is the threat that, if the “consultant” is not hired, they will find a candidate to oppose the sitting judge. In Brooklyn, such primaries have occurred several times in recent years, and when they haven’t occurred, it is often because such “consultants” have been hired.

In several states, sitting judges ending their terms instead face retention elections. In this system, a sitting judge’s name appears on the ballot alone, and the public gets the choice of voting yes or no on their retention. This has several advantages. Because consultants no longer have a horse in the race paying their expenses, they have no incentive to make mischief. In addition, this system actually makes it easier for the press and good government groups to target the real losers, and no amount of political pump priming or ballot-access lawyering would allow a judge to avoid facing this election. Careful readers of Times endorsements will notice that several times in the last decade, the paper has despaired of having to endorse a less than outstanding sitting Judge because of their abysmal opposition. If there was a simple yes or no vote, things would be far more simplified. If a sitting judge is defeated, an interim successor could be appointed for a year before the seat went up in the next election.

A final note before I review this year’s contests. Scandals involving judges may be the most damaging form of government corruption, because it undermines the very foundations of our legal system, which in turn damages the very underpinnings of civil society. Yet the overwhelming majority of judges are neither corrupt nor incompetent. Elected judges are chosen in a political process, but so are appointed judges; there is little evidence that one group is generally more competent than the other. In fact, I would stack up the Judges personally hand-chosen over the years by Vito Lopez against any group chosen by “merit selection”. The problems in our state court system, to the extent they are amenable to legislative solution, stem mostly from the unwillingness of the political branches to dedicate to the Courts the resources required to handle the jobs society drops in their laps. The judges we chose to elect can and do make a difference, and these elections are important, but changing the driver will not mitigate the problems of a vehicle which, in many ways, is unsafe at any speed.

Unlike Supreme Court, there are primaries to chose party nominees for Civil Court. And now, the envelope:

CIVIL COURT:

Countywide (Brooklyn): After strenuous efforts were undertaken by reformers Alan Fleishman and Jo Anne Simon (and, yes, in this case I have dropped usual use of quotations around the word “reformer”, because they have earned it), the Brooklyn Democrats implemented an independent screening panel for judicial candidates. The panel, like all efforts to reform a political process to select the person who will receive a prestigious position, is undeniably imperfect (the “independent” screening panels used by the Mayor and, especially, the Governor, are also undeniably imperfect). Some have complained that the Brooklyn panel’s rules differ in significant ways from that of the similar panel in Manhattan; ironically, most of the difference had come at the suggestion of Manhattanites dissatisfied with the imperfections in their own panel’s procedures.

At the Civil Court level, the panel has a limited purpose. Since anyone is free to circulate a petition for an opening, regardless of what the panel says, the panel’s decisions regarding Civil Court slots have only one effect: the Brooklyn Democratic Party no longer prints or binds any nominating petitions which contain judicial candidates not approved by the panel. And this has had an impact; in 2005, the panel actually rejected a candidate who was the personal choice of Vito Lopez. And, the panel generally approves more candidates than there are slots, and has not shown demonstrable bias in judging Civil Court candidates by their political affiliation.

This year, only three candidates who put themselves before the panel ended up circulating nominating petitions. One was Robin Sheares, who is currently under investigation by the State’s Committee on Character and Fitness for helping a friend from New Jersey fake an address so their child could attend New York City schools for free (does anyone besides me and Mole333 find something encouraging in what this story implies?). Not surprisingly, the panel demurred on approving her. The other two were Dena Douglas, an Assistant District Attorney, and Jacqueline Williams, a Law Secretary, both of such apparently impeccable credentials that they’ve attracted the favorable attention of blogger Mole333, a vociferous opponent of the Brooklyn organization (see: http://dailygotham.com/blog/mole333/backlash_ind_rebels_against_state_convention_minorly_updated).

The panel approved Douglas and Williams. Sheares stayed in the race, hooking up with “consultant” Tahaka Robinson, who was also running Pia Wood. Consultant Gary Tilzer found his own team, perennial Republican candidate (and conservative activist) Phil Smallman and Manhattan resident John Serpico. None of the other candidates went through the panel, and Serpico and Smallman have actually tried to make this major failure of character into some sort of a virtue.

If we even deign to add in questions of ideology and geography, because voters have a right to expect judges for their jurisdiction that share a common belief system and a common interest in their home community; then the case for rejecting Smallman (perhaps next year Tilzer can run Alito; I hear he's free from scandal) and Serpico becomes even more compelling. The Smallman/Serpico team isn't a political phenomena of militant insurgency, but an artificial creature, like a Frankenstein monster, found on neither land or sea, put together by a consultant, for the sole purpose of making money. It is, in essence, part of the problem.

“Reformers” can’t have it both ways; after screaming for the creation of the panel, and insisting it have veto power over who County supports, they cannot disregard the rules and support candidates who refuse to submit to its scrutiny. To their credit, Fleishman and Simon understand this and are supporting Douglas and Williams. Some other reformers are demurring, because of issues they have with political associates of Williams’s father. After years of complaining that the only criteria for judicial office should be qualifications, and that political connections should be irrelevant, they seek to apply the old standards of hackhood to the demonstrably qualified, Yale educated, Williams because they don’t like her political connections. “Reformers” worthy of the name, who desire to be taken seriously, should be backing Douglas and Williams.

Countywide (Staten Island): This is an Independence Party Primary; if you are an eligible voter, see http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/the_independence_party_is_neither.html and http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/the_lunatics_are_back_running_the_asylum_or_the_lonesome_discomfort_of_frank_mckay.html and leave this Party, but before you go, do this one public service: Vote for Ralph Porzio.

Porzio, a Republican, was previously a Family Court Judge, who made the mistake of forcing the Agency for Children’s Services to do its job. As a result, he was not reappointed by the Mayor (this process is what is known as “Merit Selection”). The Office of Court Administration (OCA) expressed its outrage by immediately making Porzio a Family Court Referee; now you can express your outrage as well by voting for Porzio. In the interests of poetic justice, it is hoped that Porzio will be elected to Civil Court in the fall, and that OCA will immediately make him an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, and see that he is put into a Part handling cases involving the City.

CORRECTION: An intemparate post from a lunatic, which had to be deleted, contains an unfortunate grain of truth. The poster said I had the wrong judge, and that it was not Porzio, but a different Family Court Judge, who was removed for holding ACS's feet to the fire. While my source insists it was both Judges who were so bushwacked in this manner, it is now clear that Porzio was also targetted for removal by advocates for victims of domestic violence. While I've not had time to examine this matter fully, it is clear I can no longer make the recomendation I'd made before. I should have known that endorsing a Republican was bound to lead to no good whatsoever.

I apologize not only to both members of the Staten Island Independence Party I may have influenced with my comments, but to all of my sane readers as well. However, it's interesting that the complaint essentially confirmed my real point. At least one judge was dumped from Family Court specifically because he was making sure that ACS was doing its job. So much for "Merit Selection".

2^nd District (Manhattan): It is reported by Errol Lewis that “candidate Margaret Chan’s platform includes common-sense measures to boost local participations in elections”, including requiring nominating petition to be printed in multiple languages. I will ignore the temptation to question of whether such measures are really products of common sense when subjected to the test of how they’d actually be implemented, and how Lewis, who has run for public office, could fail to raise such questions; perhaps Lewis’ description oversimplified the proposal. Instead, I will ask a simpler question: How is it that a candidate for Civil Court Judge has a platform? How is it that a candidate for Civil Court judge is advocating legislative measures to boost participation in elections? Even if such measures were indeed both worthy and commonsensical, would not their incorporation into a judicial campaign violate the code of conduct governing candidates running for Judicial office?

Just asking.

7^th District (Manhattan): An old story with a new twist; two Law Secretaries attempt to climb the judicial food chain; this time they are both Dominican women. The more things change, the more they stay the same

CORRECTION: A lunatic poster pointed to an apparent dichotomy between my comments about Manhattan's 7th Municipal Court District and Brooklyn's Countywide race. Frankly, I don't see it. They said I dissed Law Secretaries while commenting about this race, but endorsed one in Brooklyn. WRONG; I never implied that Law Secretaries were unqualified; in fact, they range in quality from awesome to godfuckinawful. I merely noted the repetitive pattern of the Judicial foodchain as being business as usual, which is neither good, bad or even indifferent, just familiar. This was a shrug of the shoulders, not a critique. However, I not only got the ethnicity wrong for one of the candidates here, but her job as well. Since these two things were the entire substance of my comments, I failed to say anything whatsoever about this race which was accurate, and thus failed in my mission to cover ever primary race for public office in the City of New York; in the words of Herman Munster: "DARN".