All due respect1/8/2024 ![]() ![]() Supreme Court, which concluded that the selection process was not unconstitutional. ![]() The case eventually made it up to the U.S. New York State’s method for selecting its most powerful trial judges was challenged in court a couple dozen years ago as violating the First Amendment. The fix is in, and the public is left with no meaningful choice. This approach often leads to there being the same number of candidates as there are judicial vacancies – for example, four slots to fill and only four names to choose from – assuring the cross-endorsed candidate a victory. This corruption-inducing process is further tainted by a sleight-of-hand referred to as “cross-endorsements.” Rather than each party naming its own distinct candidates, party leaders agree to cross party lines and endorse each other’s nominee. Under this system, the party leaders virtually handpick which hopefuls will be on the November election ballot for a judgeship that involves a 14-year term and currently provides an annual salary of $210,900. New York State’s legislature replaced primaries with party judicial conventions controlled by party leaders. Ninety-five years ago, New York ceased using a primary election process for selecting candidates for Supreme Court Justices, where registered Democrats and Republicans had a say on which judicial hopefuls would appear on the election ballot as their party’s nominees. As a recent Buffalo News editorial correctly states: “ New York’s corrupt system is specifically designed to take judicial elections out of the hands of voters, who are left merely to ratify the decisions made by party bosses.”Īn Overview of this Legal but Unwise Process. Voters may think they have a real say in who gets to sit on the New York State’s Supreme Court – our state’s highest level trial court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |