It now seems likely that that this year was the last where candidates for New York Sate Supreme Court Justices will be chosen by conventions. This is a result of 2 Federal Court decisions that ruled the present convention system illegal.
Despite talk of switching to an appointive system, the most likely change is that candidate for Supreme Court will, starting next year, be picked in Primary elections. That is because a change to an appointive system requires amending the State Constitution and that will take at least three years.
While many reformers and good government types who sincerely want to have a high quality court system have proposals to improve the way these judges will be elected (public financing, smaller districts, independent screening panels), these changes are so controversial that I doubt the State Legislature will agree to them.
However there is one simple thing the Legislature and Governor can and should agree to in setting up these elections that I think should have almost universal support.
One legitimate fear is that in Primary elections, well-regarded incumbent Supreme Court Justices could be defeated in Primaries because of the particular way judges are elected. Unlike any other public office in New York State, voters usually elect more than one Supreme Court Justice at a time. There are numerous times where there are both incumbent judges running for re-election and candidates running for vacancies
For example, next year in Manhattan, three incumbent Supreme Court Justices terms expire and they are expected to run for re-election. There is also one open seat caused by another Justice reaching the mandatory retirement age. It is quite possible that the three incumbents will be supported by all the elected officials and Democratic clubs in Manhattan, while two or 3 candidates run for the open position. All the candidates for the open seat, because of either ethnic origin, geography, or money could finish ahead of one or more of the incumbents, despite the universal support for the incumbent.
Something similar has happened before, as I explained in previous post about Civil Court Primary elections.
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/jerry_skurnik/electing_judges_a_primer.html
There was a hotly contested Democratic Primary that occurred in either 1978 or 1979 in Brooklyn. That year there were 3 countywide vacancies and 1 incumbent Judge seeking re-election. The reform Democratic clubs banded together and supported 3 candidates opposing 3 chosen by the regular organization. Both Party factions agreed to support the incumbent. However this caused the incumbent to take his re-election for granted and he didn’t campaign or spend much money. All sides were surprised after the Primary to find the unopposed candidate had finished 5th and was therefore off the bench despite the incumbents stellar reputation.
To prevent his from happening again in Civil Court primaries, the Assigned Vacancy law was passed. Civil Court candidates now run for slots that are assigned a vacancy number. So if there are two positions to be filled, If only one candidate files petitions for vacancy #1 and 2 file for the vacancy #2, the candidate for vacancy #1 is the unopposed nominee for that slot and in the Party’s nominee while the two others compete for vacancy #2. But if there are 5 candidates and 2 file for each vacancy #1 and three for vacancy #2, all 5 candidates compete for the 2 slots.
The simple thing that should be done is to apply the Assigned Vacancy to Supreme Court Primaries also. This would not stop a candidate from challenging an incumbent but it would prevent either accidental defeat of incumbents or stealth campaigns where a challenger claims to be running for an open seat but is really planning to oust a sitting judge.