THE HEARING
Madigan cited an alarming statistic from 2004: “Five of New York’s judicial districts — almost half of the state’s total — had no minority justices, even though minorities make up between 7.4 percent and 27 percent of the voting age population in those districts.” 

She bemoaned New York’s paucity of minority justices, worrying that this deficiency left too many citizens dissatisfied and underrepresented in the state judicial system.

Her comments came at a crucial crossroads for the state judiciary. While courts around the state suffer from a lack of diversity, the state Legislature has a rare chance to correct this problem, as they literally re-write the rules governing judicial selection.

In January, U.S. District judge John Gleeson turned the state judiciary upside down in his decision in the election law case, Lopez Torres vs. NYS Board of Elections. With his dramatic preliminary injunction — which was later upheld on appeal — Judge Gleeson overturned the state’s judicial convention system for selecting Supreme Court justices, ordering the state Legislature to create a new one.

Legislative action is expected early next year, but an election time-bomb is ticking in Albany. If the legislature can’t find a better solution by the Spring, the 2007 judicial election will be settled in expensive, potentially chaotic primaries — races run without the clubhouse politics that essentially determined judges in the past.

In the interests of saving trees and research time for court watchers, we have archived that diversity testimony in one easy-reading, digital digest.

 
THE TESTIMONY
After reading her startling diversity statistics, the state bar's president-edlect endorsed an appointment selection system for judges with a “non-partisan nominating commission” recommending candidates to the executive official.

“True reform requires more than merely patching up the unconstitutional convention system. Now is the time for lasting change; now is the time for merit selection,” Madigan concluded, endorsing a model the state bar had espoused since 1973.

Click here to read Kathryn Grant Madigan's testimony.

In contrast, First Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau hoped to maintain the convention system with a few changes. She drew most of her reform suggestions from John D. Feerick’s Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections report on the judiciary. She pointed out how the court adapted some of Feerick’s reforms already: the creation of the Judicial Campaign Ethics Center and a judicial voter guide.

Judge Pfau recommended that the state legislature continuing following Feerick’s reform prescription, building “Independent Judicial Qualification Commissions” to insure that political conventions work with the best candidates.  

In the event that the state moves to open primaries, Judge Pfau hoped to avoid expensive elections in order to encourage minorities to participate in the system. She suggested “a pilot program of voluntary public financing … would open the door to many candidates with fewer financial resources, including those who have pursued public service careers.”

Click here to read Judge Pfau's testimony.

 
Speaking as President-Elect of the New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers, John Bonina stressed that open elections would create a diverse judiciary.

While encouraging legislators to raise judicial salaries to attract a more diverse group of judicial candidates, the trial lawyer also called for publicly funded elections. He ultimately laid out a familiar model for these low-budget elections:

“If we are to have truly open judicial elections, we would propose a system of campain financing which includes matching contributions, similar to the campaign finance system currently in place for New York City Council elections. Under such a system, campaign contributions could be matched by public financing on a 4-1 basis, up to a certain (and preferably limited) amount.”

Click here to read testimony from the New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers.

 
In contrast to this elective model, Susan Antos spoke on behalf of the Empire Justice Center, a statewide legal services group that has stressed diversity in the judiciary throughout the recent series of legislative hearings.

Antos proposed that state legislators amend the constitution to turn judicial selection over to the governor—a merit selection system with an independent screening panel to ensure that the governor chooses best and most diverse pool of candidates. At the same time, Antos admitted that screening panels need to be carefully organized to encourage diversity, critiquing the current lack of diversity in other courts chosen by screening panels like the Court of Appeals.

“Historically, the screening committees have had no difficulty finding qualified women and candidates of color to recommend for seats on the Court of Appeals. The problem has been that the official appointing from the list provided by the committee simply did not prioritize diversity highly in making choices.”

Click here to read testimony from the Empire Justice Center.

Finally, Albany City Court judge Helena Heath-Roland spoke, speaking for the underrepresented in lower courts around the state. A diversity trailblazer herself, Judge Heath-Roland was the first black woman ever to sit on her city court. In her testimony, she encouraged the Senate to consider proposals that will bring more diversity to all levels of the judiciary.

“We must recognize the need to also expand the number of women and minorities who serve as judges in the beginning of the 'pipeline' (that is, the lower courts), as well as increase opportunities for women and minority lawyers to advance to the bench, and undertake efforts to create a larger pool of minority attorneys,” she said.

Click here to read testimony from Judge Helena Heath-Roland.