WHAT'S BEHIND DOOR NUMBER ONE AND DOOR NUMBER TWO?
The New York Law Journal breaks down the two judicial pay raise plans — one by Governor Spitzer himself and one by Chief Judge Judith Kaye — included in the 2008 proposed state budget which Spitzer submitted to the state Legislature yesterday. While both plans would raise the salaries of state Supreme Court justices to $165,200 from $136,700, Kaye’s plan is retroactive to 2005, whereas Spitzer’s only goes back to 2006. The other crucial difference is that Spitzer’s plan lacks mention of a future commission Kaye wants to set up to handle similar quagmires in the future. “The commission is very important because while salaries are vital, we are right back in this unless we solve the problem,” Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau said in an interview. “The way to solve the problem of having judicial salaries mired in politics is by a commission.” Additionally, Kaye sent an e-mail to state judges yesterday pointing out the absence of such a commission in Spitzer’s pay raise plan. “Our goal remains the same — to keep the pressure on the other branches as high as possible until our judicial salary proposal is enacted, with a COLA commission and full retroactivity,” Kaye wrote.

PIOGOTT'S PLEDGE
Meanwhile, the Law Journal also reports on an email sent to state judges by Court of Appeals Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr which asked judge to “stop whining” about the lack of a pay raise and “support our leaders, and target the real problem, our legislators, with letters and e-mail showing our unity” has inspired another judge to draw up an official resolution. Chemung County Court Judge Peter C. Buckley, who is also president of the statewide County Judges Association, drew up the resolution, which claims that the court system’s two leaders, Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau, “speak on our behalf with our full support and gratitude, and without equivocation.” Then, he forwarded copies of the resolution to the other 16 associations within the state, with the email message: “if your association sees fit you are free to use this resolution for your association as a sign of unity” among the judges. According to the article, Pigott’s email had expressed "that 'only one thing' has not been tried — a resolution of support for our Chief and Chief Administrative Judge so our elected officials know they speak for all of us without equivocation.” The resolution continues to make the rounds in the state’s other judicial associations.

JUDGE: PORT CHESTER'S ELECTIONS DISCRIMINATE 
The New York Times reports on Southern District Judge Stephen C. Robinson’s ruling yesterday — after a trial last spring — that the way municipal elections are conducted in the village of Port Chester, N.Y. discriminates against Hispanic voters. The village has used an at-large voting system, in which all village residents vote for all candidates on the ballot, as opposed to a system in which separate districts elect separate candidates.  “This court is persuaded that there is some history of official discrimination in Port Chester that continues to touch the rights of Hispanics to participate in the political process,” Judge Robinson wrote. “Defendants argued throughout this case that, given time and assuming the continued growth of the Hispanic population of the village, the Hispanic community could come to dominate the political landscape in Port Chester even under the current at-large system. This court, however, is not charged with projecting what might happen years or decades from now; rather we are forced with the current political reality in the village.” Robinson further ordered the village to change the at-large system.

CONFIDENTIALITY REJECTED IN NYPD SURVEILLANCE CASE 
Via an Associate Press thread, Forbes has news of Manhattan Magistrate Judge James C. Francis’s ruling yesterday that New York City must disclose the reasons it sought to keep confidential documents on police surveillance of protesters before the 2004 Republican National Convention. Francis had previously ordered some of the information made public last summer, but the city had balked, arguing it could reveal the identities of undercover officers and confidential informants. “Permitting the submission of secret argument is antithetical to our adversary system of justice,” Francis wrote, ruling that he wouldn’t consider a sealed affidavit by NYPD commissioner for intelligence David Cohen. “If the NYPD wants to rely on its political-surveillance operation to defend its tactics, the department must disclose the details of that operation,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is suing on behalf of more than 1,800 people arrested at the convention.