With a judicial primary looming in Brooklyn for Tuesday, the newly-instituted screening panel system has thrown two Civil Court races into disarray, because none of the four candidates received a “qualified” rating.

Out of all five boroughs, Brooklyn contains the only two competitive Civil Court races in this year’s primary.

“I’m just shocked that the bar association found three of the four candidates qualified but the [court system’s panel] found no one,” said Ernest Lendler, a political consultant from Branford Communications. He is not currently involved in any Brooklyn primary races.

In fact, it is impossible to say exactly what the panels found, because they release no information about who came before them or the content of their deliberations. Click here to read the list of candidates found "qualified."

“People have a right to run for office, whether the government appointed panel likes it or not,” Lendler concluded, urging candidates not to give the ratings much weight.

OCA Director of Communications David Bookstaver said, "It's not a mandatory process, so we shouldn't draw conclusions."

A call to the Brooklyn Democratic Party headquarters was not returned.

The strangest race pits a former Democratic darling (who turned prosecution’s witness against her own party) versus the political machine’s new candidate.

In that 5th District Civil Court contest between former Civil Court Judge Karen B. Yellen and former city councilman Noach Dear, neither Dear (the party-backed favorite) nor Yellen (the party outcast) received a rating.

In an interview, Yellen insisted that she turned in all her screening panel forms — a confidential 49-question survey that probes candidates about past briefs, bar associations, and political participation — but that the panel never contacted her. Late on Friday she said that the OCA had assured her they would indeed review her materials—after the primary, however.

Noach Dear did not return calls for comment.

Similarly, in the neighboring 6th District, neither Katherine Levine nor Sharen D. Hudson received a rating. (That race, however, is much lower profile than the Dear-Yellen tilt.)

For this campaign cycle, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye created 15-member Independent Judicial Election Qualification Commissions to screen candidates for the 12 judicial districts in New York. The panels are charged with bestowing a “qualified” rating on all judges they deem fit for office.

Kaye or her deputy picks 10 members on each panel, with bar associations selecting the remaining five.

Any candidate found unqualified, and any who chooses not to participate in the process, is supposed to receive no mention — either positive or negative — from the panel. Moreover, candidates are not allowed to use any of the panel’s findings about their opponent during the campaign. Click here to read Judicial Reports's coverage of the panels.

Earlier this year, the commissions released this statement explaining why: “Because the commissions do not publicly disclose the reasons why a person has not been listed as ‘qualified’ for a particular judicial office, judicial candidates should not state or imply any reason why another candidate does not appear on the list.”

As it turns out, the Brooklyn ratings were released just days before the election, making it difficult for candidates or voters to use this new resource. That will leave most voters to base their choice on whatever vague memories or name recognition they have from coverage in the mainstream media.

Yellen made headlines earlier this year, testifying as to how disgraced former Brooklyn Democratic Chairman Clarence Norman, Jr., undermined her Civil Court re-election bid in 2002 when he was still running the party.

Despite paying Democratic Party operatives $9,000 for murky campaign expenses, Yellen lost the primary to insurgent candidates Margarita Lopez Torres and Civil Court Judge Delores Thomas. In other words, she lost even though she bore the party’s stamp of approval.

Her testimony helped a jury convict Norman of coercion, and he is now serving a one-to-three-year jail sentence for that conviction.

This time, Yellen is running without party support, as she said in a recent interview: “I’m running very much independently. I had to put everything together on my own. I’m absolutely running on my record. I did not go to the county leader and seek his support. I think it was clear this wasn’t going to happen.”

Her opponent comes to the battle with a loaded war chest and the Democratic Party’s endorsement. Noach Dear served as a City Councilman for 19 years and now chairs the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission.

“You have to think Dear is the favorite, largely because of his name recognition,” said Jerry Skurnik, a consultant at the firm Prime New York. His company is working on the Kings County Surrogate race, but Skurnik has no stake in the Civil Court contests.

Dear’s political ties and well-known name have paid off in the fundraising game, with the Friends of Noach Dear having raised $183,010 for this race. Dear's committee has spent $92,000, so he has plenty of money left for the endgame.

In contrast, the Committee to Elect Former Judge Karen B. Yellen to the Civil Court has raised $22,330, with $5,000 coming out of the judge’s own pocket. Some $10,000 went to her political consultants, Advance Communications.

Dear’s campaign took a couple crucial PR hits recently. The New York City Bar voted him “not approved” for office, citing “the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate.” In addition, The New York Times endorsed Yellen, including a scathing attack on Dear that concluded he was “utterly unsuited for the bench.”

The second contested race involves two candidates without judicial experience, both of them fighting for a Civil Court seat in the 6th District in Kings County. Neither candidate received a “qualified” rating from the OCA screening panel.

“That one is wide open,” said political consultant Skurnik. “It’s a wild card. The turnout is going to be so low that nobody knows what’s going to happen.”

Katherine Levine has worked for years as an attorney for the state teacher’s union. In her close race, she was voted “approved” by the New York City Bar screening panel. Her committee already has raised $38,385 for the race.

However, to date, the committee has spent $57,541 — leaving quite a deficit for the post-primary season.

While Levine declined to discuss her appearances before the various screening panels this election, she noted that she enjoyed the campaign process: “I’ve discovered neighborhoods I haven’t seen since I was a kid. [But] my little kids are wanting their mommy back.”

Sharen D. Hudson is an attorney at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. She once worked as a law clerk for Justice Diana A. Johnson — the jurist now involved in an intense Surrogate Court battle in their borough. She also was rated "approved" by the City Bar of New York.

Hudson did not return calls for comment.

The attorney’s account also appears to be in red, according to filings at the State Board of Elections. To date, the Committee to Elect Sharen D. Hudson has only raised $695, but they have already spent more than $16,000 on attorney fees and consultants.

The final contested race in Brooklyn involves an open Surrogate Court spot in Kings County. That contest pits Supreme Court Justice Diana A. Johnson against Civil Court Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson.

Last month, Johnson disputed her opponent’s residency status, alleging that Simpson does not live at the Brooklyn address printed on her primary petitions but actually lives with her husband and children at a South Orange, New Jersey address. Click here for Judicial Reports's exclusive coverage.

A Queens Supreme Court judge rejected the challenge in August, and the Appellate Division, Second Department upheld his decision. These Surrogate campaign finance records are not stored at the Board of Elections website, so no information is available about current expenditures for these races.

According to Judge Simpson’s husband and campaign spokesperson, Jacob Walthour, Jr., the judge just bought 850 television commercial spots and sent out 100,000 pieces of campaign literature in an expensive push for the finish line. Simpson’s video is available at the campaign’s website.

“We’re in a great financial position, we feel really good from a resource perspective,” said Walthour. “It’s a great way to end a negative campaign.”
 
Justice Johnson’s camp declined to comment.

As acrimonious at the Simpson-Johnson race has been, it will not be haunted by the screening system. Both candidates received a “qualified” rating from the OCA panel.