The ongoing shift toward the Democratic Party in Nassau and Suffolk Counties is fueling an increasingly acrimonious battle among Conservative and Republican operatives as they prepare for this year’s election cycle, putting a handful of judicial seats in play.

With Conservatives having tipped the balance of many races through cross-endorsements and successful candidates of their own, Republican Party leaders facing the new reality are struggling to redefine their relationship with the minority party.

The last two election cycles have shown that the historically red-state voting patterns in the Tenth Judicial District, home of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, are turning deeper blue.

“We really have to be in good shape. The Democrats have made tremendous gains. It’s do or die,” said Michael D. O'Donohoe, a life-long Conservative Party member and former County Legislator from Suffolk County.

Voter registration statistics from the state Board of Elections punctuated his statement dramatically.

Between 2002 and 2007, the Republicans lost roughly 31,000 voters from its total of approximately 705,000. In contrast, the Democratic Party made powerful inroads during that same time period, shifting from just over 559,000 voters in 2002 to just over 600,000 voters last year.

Throughout this seismic demographic shift, the Conservative Party has managed to keep losses to a minimum. According to voter registration statistics, Conservative enrollment in the district dipped only slightly, sliding from 30,900 in 2002 to 30,000 voters in 2007.

O’Donohoe saw the 2008 election as a key moment for his party. Districtwide, 14 judicial posts — including Supreme, District, County, and Family Court seats — will be up for grabs in the election.

Conservative Party members hope to field at least two party members for judicial seats in November. The party already counts six of its registered members among the district’s more than 80 Supreme Court Justices.

Compared to the Democrat-dominated New York City races, judicial elections in the suburbs seem like a foreign country.

During annual judicial conventions in New York City, Democratic leaders anoint a candidate, and a slate of handpicked delegates endorse the future justice. In the general election, the overwhelming Democratic majority in the city means that those nominees typically face little or no opposition.

In contrast, suburban judicial candidates confront divided electorates, and an endorsement by the Conservative Party (or other minor party) can actually swing a close race. Recent partisan shifts, however, have raised the odds against some Conservative-backed nominees.

Former Justice Robert W. Schmidt, an incumbent Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, is a grim example. Appellate Division justices are chosen from the ranks of elected Supreme Court justices, nominated by the Governor when a vacancy arises. Even though they no longer handle Supreme Court caseloads, these justices must run for re-election when that term expires.

Schmidt, a Republican justice with 14 years of judicial experience, was competing in a field of five candidates vying to win three judicial seats in 2007.

The incumbent justice raised more than $110,000 for his hotly contested Supreme Court race — ranking him second among all metropolitan-area judicial fundraisers in that year. He also secured cross-endorsements from the Conservative and Independence Parties, an achievement that used to guarantee victory in that district.

But Schmidt was one of two candidates who lacked the Democratic cross-endorsement that season. That missing stamp of approval turned out to be crucial, as all three winners were cross-endorsed or endorsed by the Democrats.  Schmidt lost; his closest opponent beat him by more than 26,000 votes.

Schmidt declined to be interviewed for this story.

Schmidt’s loss in particular troubled Republican political consultant Paul Noto. “He was an experienced and well-liked judge,” commented the 20-year veteran of suburban races.  “It’s either an anomaly or the beginning of a trend. I was surprised to hear [Schmidt] wasn’t successful.”

 
The Conservative Party offered a current of red in that race’s sea of blue.

The Conservative Party candidate Vito M. DeStefano survived the same Supreme Court race that knocked Justice Schmidt off the Appellate Division bench.

His success depended on an unusual, yet highly strategic, move by the Nassau County Conservative Party. “For the first time in our history, a registered Conservative was endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans,” explained Roger C. Bogsted, Nassau Conservative Chairman.

That unlikely alliance between liberals and the Conservative Party translated into serious voter leverage. DeStefano garnered more than 341,000 votes — beating his closest Democratic contender by some 100,000 votes.

Bogsted attributed this unconventional cross-endorsement to his own bargaining prowess. “I have a good, trusting relationship with the other party leaders — my word is my bond. If I can convince them that it is a good idea to support qualified Conservatives for these judges, they usually listen.”

The chairman acknowledged that the future of his party depended on these new relationships.

“When I was elected chairman five years ago, we only had one judge,” recalled Bogsted. “In the past, people didn’t have a full idea of who [our candidates] are.”

The judicial push has paid off. Nassau County now counts three registered Conservative justices (out of about 50 justices): Vito DeStefano;  R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr.; and Joseph Spinola. In addition, the Conservative Party has District Court Judge Martin Massell as a registered member.

While the party’s small, but influential judicial ascent in Nassau is relatively recent, the Suffolk County Conservative Party has been working for years on a similar approach. In 1999, Newsday ran a series of investigative articles exploring the activities of then-Party Chairman of the Suffolk Conservatives, Pasquale Curcio.

At the time of the articles, Curcio had been rendered mute by a 1993 stroke. He interacted with the reporters via a notepad, and explained his push for judges by scribbling three numbers: “6, 10, 14.”

Those figures represented the terms for District Court, County Court and Supreme Court jurists, respectively — seeming to hint at the long-term political influence of a judge.

Michael O’Donohoe, the long-time Conservative Party leader in Suffolk County, fought Curicio’s judicial choices throughout his nearly 20-year reign as Conservative chairman.

“We were battling for years,” explained O’Donohoe in an interview. “What he was attempting to do, he would sell to the highest bidder. We could never really prove it, but you could see Democrats running on the line that didn’t fit our line or our philosophy.”

According to Newsday, the Commission on Judicial Conduct opened an investigation of a few candidates who bought ads in the Suffolk County Conservative Party’s official paper under Curicio’s watch.

By that report, advertising in this publication netted the party $100,000 in political donations from judges. The investigation was closed without disciplinary action.

Curicio died in 2006, but his handpicked judges still control the district.

In Suffolk County, two registered Conservatives hold key leadership positions: H. Patrick Leis is Suffolk County’s Administrative Judge and Ralph T. Gazillo is Supervising Judge of the Criminal Court, Suffolk County. Joseph Farneti is an Acting Supreme Court justice.

In addition, Family Court supervising judge David R. Freundlich is a Republican with “heavy Conservative support,” according to O'Donohoe.

Again, a party whose clout arguably exceeds its size. In all, there are more than 30 Supreme Court justices in the county.

HOW DO CONSERVATIVE PARTY JUDGES PERFORM?

With the Conservative Party’s strong focus on traditional values, they are very clear on the kind of judge they want to see in court.

“We do not want a judge or candidate that is going to legislate their personal views from the bench. The recent marriage case, that’s something for the Legislature. No judge should make that determination if we are going to honor marriages from another country,” said Bogsted.

In Suffolk County, O’Donohoe thought the majority of registered Conservatives were looking for public safety in the suburbs.

“People are voting on the line, particularly in judicial cases… if there are bad guys out there, they will vote for the judge who will put the bad guys away,” concluded the political leader.

While that law and order vote might convince Democratic voters to cross party lines, judges’ performance on the bench is what might keep voters Conservative.

Out of all the Conservative judges mentioned in this article, only three had enough appeals to generate reversal statistics about their performance on the bench between 2000 and 2007.

Only one registered Conservative justice had enough criminal cases to calculate a reversal report. Joseph Farneti had a 15 percent reversal rate, slightly higher than the Second Department average of 12 percent.

On the civil side, R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr. had 43 percent and Joseph Spinola had 53 percent, as against the Second Department average of 45 percent.  

With numbers like that, only one question remains. Will the public safety vote be enough for this smaller party to fend off the mounting forces of Democratic voters?