During the last month, The New York Law Journal, the League of Women Voters, and the Unified Court System have all published toothless, anemic voter guides to judicial candidates around the state.

While journalists and good government groups scrutinize every waking moment of gubernatorial candidates such as Elliot Spitzer or troubled incumbents such as Comptroller Alan Hevesi, they practically ignore these powerful officials who are elected for terms that last anywhere from ten to 14 years.

Take the Nassau County Supreme Court race, for instance. The court system guide featured profiles of four contenders for the two open spots on the bench in that county. They were Appellate Division, Second Department judge Thomas A. Adams, Nassau county district court judges Joel K. Asarch and Randy Sue Marber, and Nassau County Family Court judge John G. Marks.  

Justice Adams — the lone incumbent Supreme Court race — has a profile that reads more like a college application than a piece of campaign literature: a brief resume, recommendations from a few political parties, and an airy promise to act with “honesty, fairness, and integrity” if elected.

No data is presented on his jurisprudence, outlining the major cases and opinions from a judge’s career. Not a word on the essentials of his performance determining the appellate fate of Supreme Court cases.

Surely voters would find his dissents against the majority opinions of his colleagues on appellate panels noteworthy.

Most recently, Adams dissented when the Appellate court overturned a man’s drug conviction in the 2005 appeal, People v. Kisoon. The dissent argued that the defense lawyer should have intervened during the trial, and the trial judge should be affirmed.

Adams also dissented when the panel reversed a manslaughter conviction in the 2004 appeal of People v. Feuer. The appeal hinged on jury instructions, and the appellate panel faulted the trial judge’s handling of the problem. Once again, Adams joined a dissent that stressed the trial attorney’s responsibility to expose this error, arguing that the original judgment should stand.

An equally stark omission from the guides is an examination of the money trail in these races. Adams has raised, to date, $229,529 for his campaign — $150,000 more than the highest of his three opponents. Adams’s biggest contributions included $11,000 from Garden City attorney, Anthony W. Cornachio; $8,000 from the Minneola law firm, Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn; and $5,000 from the Renew New York PAC.

(Just why Judge Adams felt the need to amass such a treasure chest is a conversation for another day.)

Judicial fitness of the current candidates aside, our current campaign methods shackle judges to stringent protocols and vacuous personal statements. If the state continues to use elections to select judges, New York voters deserve to know more about their judges than these guides provide.

During the last two months, Judicial Reports has followed these uncharted campaign trails, doggedly charting campaign expenditures, judicial contributions, and the party machinery behind these elections.

This final ballot watcher before the election offers an investigative look at judicial races around the state, with the level of detail that a meaningful guide might provide.

Cakewalk: Supreme Court Races
Compared to the expensive campaign races in Nassau County, Brooklyn is a cakewalk for judges. In fact, once the Democratic judicial convention season has passed, an elections guide is basically moot for Supreme Court candidates in the four judicial districts in New York City.

Take William F. Mastro, an Appellate Division, Second Department justice just like Judge Adams. Like all Supreme Court judges (including those who are appointed to sit on the Appellate Division), Mastro must face re-election every 14 years. Under the current system, incumbents enjoy ironclad election protection, compliments of the party. Mastro collected just $1,000 for his uncontested campaign while other candidates spent up to $25,000.

In that same Brooklyn Supreme Court race, two losers in the nomination process spent the most money.

Civil Court judge Debra Silber spent $18,000 on her campaign for the Kings County Supreme Court, but lost the nomination to judge Karen B. Rothenberg. The Debra Silber for Supreme Court 2006 committee spent more than $10,000 on her consultant, Peter R. Weiss.  

Friends of Loren Baily-Schiffman 2006 also spent $25,000, even though the Brooklyn Civil Court judge couldn’t muster enough delegate support to win the Democratic Party’s nomination. According to Board of Election filings, she spent nearly $16,500 on her consultancy firm — the Dunham Group.

These expenditures were peanuts compared to expensive suburban races for Supreme Court, election battles waged in counties that don’t have Democratic Party monopolies on judgeships.

Alan D. Scheinkman, a Democratic attorney running for one of two open Ninth District Supreme Court seats, has already spent $142,000 on his campaign, joining three other judges on a crowded, expensive ballot.

Scheinkman joins Acting Supreme Court Justice Sam D. Walker on the Democratic slate this year. They are running against two Republicans: Joseph Cerreto, an Appellate Division law secretary, and Rory Bellantoni, an Acting Supreme Court Justice.

These are the last elections New York state will ever see under the current system of judicial selection. In January, federal judge John Gleeson ordered the state legislature to build a new process for picking judges in New York. That could lead to an open primary system, at least for now, and whether it eventually evolves into a merit-appointive system will take some time to discern.

Uncontested: Civil Court Races
In four of the five boroughs, Civil Court races featured business as usual this year. In Manhattan and Brooklyn, these races were effectively decided during the Democratic primary in September.

In Brooklyn, party favorites Dena Douglas and Jacqueline D. Williams swept the Democratic nomination, effectively winning a free election pass this November. The Manhattan primary featured a re-count and tight race, but two Manhattan attorneys ultimately scored Civil Court primary wins: Margaret A. Chan and Rita Mella.

While those races were interesting, six judges didn't even need to meet voters. Thanks to Democratic Party control during the petition process, these Civil Court incumbents were completely uncontested during the primary battles in their counties.

In Manhattan, they are Arthur Birnbaum, Eileen A. Rakower, Jane Solomon, Paul G. Feinman, and Michael D. Stallman; in Richmond County there is Philip S. Straniere.

Lee Daghlian, spokesperson from the New York State Board of Elections has explained the Civil Court process this way: “If you’re not chosen by the party in areas with strong party influence, it’s a tough job to petition by yourself. It kind of discourages competition.”

In the five boroughs, the strongest challenge to the party-controlled judicial selection came in Staten Island Civil Court. This November, law clerk Kim Dollard faces off against former Family Court judge Ralph Porzio, competing to fill an island-wide seat on the Civil Court. “Staten Island doesn’t always follow party lines,” explained Porzio. “For us, essentially it’s an all-or-nothing election.”

Unlike the Democratic Party’s monopoly in Brooklyn or Manhattan, Staten Island’s political structure hinges on five parties with pockets of control. Candidates are allowed to receive multiple endorsements.

According to filings at the state Board of Elections, the Committee To Elect Kim Dollard Civil Court Judge has raised $93,000, and the Committee to Elect Judge Ralph Porzio for Civil Court has raised $46,000.