Judicial candidates around the state rejoiced in early March when federal judge John Gleeson, reacting to a U.S. Supreme Court decision to review, stayed his judgment that overturned New York’s judicial convention system and mandated open primaries until the state legislature could find a better solution.

It appeared that 2007 would see another ceremonial election cycle with party bosses essentially picking members of the bench.

So why have two Supreme Court candidates from the Third Judicial district raised over $151,000 for the 2007 race?

According to political consultants, the closed system in New York City usually costs an incumbent judge a mere $25,000, with that money being spread around to petition-gatherers, consultants and political party clubs just to keep the machinery oiled.

But in the Third District, a balance of partisan power between heavily Democratic Albany and much of the outlying counties has created a highly competitive atmosphere. Which explains the extraordinary fundraising.

Not only might this be a harbinger of state judicial elections if the nation’s high court upholds Gleeson — it might not have even peaked for this cycle. After all, the 2005 election saw one Third District candidate top $250,000 in his bid.

And, given that one of the current incumbents has a judicial record smudged with two big black marks, the present fundraising resembles nothing so much as an attempt at competitive pre-emption or political insurance.


“Running in this district as a Republican is now like running as a Republican in New York [City],” explained Paul L. Gruner, a Republican attorney who lost a highly contested Supreme Court race in the district in 2005. “District-wide, there is an excess of 50,000 more enrolled Democrats than Republicans.”

The state Board of Elections statistics bear him out. By 2006 figures, 50,000 more Democrats are registered in Albany County alone. Recent demographic shifts have also resulted in Democratic enrollment majorities in Ulster and Sullivan counties — leaving heavily Republican Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, and Schoharie counties to help shore up the GOP.

“Over the last several years, Albany County has just controlled the election. If they want to elect the judge [from] Albany County, they’re going to do it,” concluded Gruner.

Even though Albany makes up only 36 percent of registered voters in the Third District, seven of the district’s 14 elected Supreme Court spots are currently held by jurists hailing from that county.

All of which could make the Third District contest the state’s most exciting judicial race of the season: two incumbent seats and one completely vacant spot are up for grabs, and one of those incumbents has suffered a pair of serious official rebukes for his conduct on the bench.

So is the chattering class all abuzz around Albany? If so, they’re being awfully circumspect.

John Karne, a spokesperson from the Albany County Democratic Committee, explained the early season fundraising quite simply. “Hopefully there’s no competition, but it’s happened in the past that you have competition when you don’t expect it,” he said. “People are raising money, just in case.”

A spokesperson for the Albany County Republican Committee declined to speak for attribution and refused to discuss the judicial fundraising bonanza, saying: “We have absolutely no information on the judicial race at this time.”


Even though Third Judicial District fundraising has reached eye-popping levels, none of the judges, consultants, nor political leaders interviewed for this article knew of any challengers, Republican or otherwise.

Out of the two Democratic incumbents, Justice Joseph C. Teresi wins the fundraising award. As of March 29, his committee had filed a whopping $110,200 with the state Board of Elections.

In an interview, Justice Teresi said his committee is responsible for fundraising, since the 2006 Judicial Campaign Ethics Handbook states quite clearly: “A judicial candidate may not personally solicit contributions or funds.” For that reason, Justice Teresi has a committee that organizes fundraisers and keeps track of contributions.

“I know we are raising money obviously, in the belief that this will be a contested election. If you wait until the judicial convention to raise money, then it’s too late,” he explained. “If it isn’t contested, we have to give the money back,” he said.

According to the handbook, judges cannot use their funds for anything except the judicial race. “Judicial candidates are specifically prohibited from using campaign funds to pay for any campaign-related goods or services for which fair value is not received,” the rules state.

Lee Daghlian, a spokesperson for the Board of Elections, clarified the rule in an interview. “You can’t shut down a campaign account if there’s still money it,” he said. “Judges can’t make political donations. Mostly, they are restricted to giving it back on a pro rata basis.”

If these two incumbents don’t spend their funds on a contested race, they can’t hold on to the money for future elections like state Assembly or Senate candidates — judicial candidates’ accounts must be closed promptly after the election.

But Justice Teresi has two good reasons for not taking anything for granted. During his first term as a justice, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct censured him twice.


Before joining the bench, Teresi was a partner at Ainsworth, Sullivan, Tracy, Knauf, Warner & Ruslander, primarily acting as a defense lawyer in civil cases. He spent 20 years at the Albany firm.

He won his first election to the Supreme Court bench in 1993.

In 2001, the commission addressed a written complaint about the judge’s courtroom manner, concluding, among other things, that Teresi “was injudicious, impatient and discourteous during discussions in which he attempted to achieve a settlement” in two cases. The 10-member panel ordered censure.

There are three degrees of judicial rebuke available to the commission: public admonishment, public censure, and removal from office. While censure is the more severe of the two public rebukes, it only serves as a warning for the judge.

The commission censured Teresi once again in 2004, this time for neglecting his duty to report an ex parte discussion with an expert witness during the trial, People v. Jeffrey Grune. The commission noted that Justice Teresi should have been more “sensitive” to the offense following his previous censure.

The decision bluntly stated the offense: “Respondent failed to disclose the ex parte contact, even when the defendant’s attorney announced in court that the witness had abruptly withdrawn. Respondent’s conduct created an appearance of impropriety and shows insensitivity to the high ethical standards required of judges.”

Although second offenses are rare, judges can be censured more than once without having their responsibilities changed. And, following judicial campaign ethics guidelines, the judge now basically declines to address any issues except for his qualifications as a judge.

His campaign maintains a website at www.joeteresi.org.

He did confess to enjoying the political process: “I’m having fun. For 14 years we’re not allowed to campaign or attend political fundraisers or talk to the public,” he said. “I enjoy the campaign process, whether by petitions or by conventions. We’re in the people business. It’s all good.”


With arguably less reason to be concerned about his judicial reputation, George B. Ceresia, Jr., has raised less than half the amount of Teresi’s war chest. So far, the Committee To Re-elect George B. Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice has filed a $41,400 in campaign contributions with the Board of Elections.

Ceresia began his career as a private attorney, practicing for more than ten years while simultaneously working as a town judge. He was elected to his first judicial post, North Greenbush Town justice, as a 28-year-old attorney.

His resume is replete with judicial posts: four terms as a town justice, one term as Surrogate Judge in Rensselaer County, and four years in Rensselaer County Court before being elected to the Supreme Court in 1993.

In 2004, Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman promoted him to Administrative Judge for the Third Judicial District.

Justice Ceresia did not return calls for comment.


The Third Judicial District is a vastly different demographic landscape than that of  New York City.

Political consultant Ernest Lendler said that 30 years ago voting followed a straightforward pattern in the District: “Except for Albany itself, the rest of the area was Republican.”

The political strategist from Branford Communications noted, however, that migration to the outer counties from larger cities such as Manhattan and Albany is tilting the district balance. He used a New York City suburb as an example.

“Take Yonkers — those old Italian areas are now full of people from Manhattan,” he said. “If a thousand homes change over the course of a year, that can seriously affect political races.”

Over at the Albany Democratic committee, John Karne felt that social forces are altering these traditionally hard and fast election demographics. “It’s a case of everything going on in society today. Things are more open, and there’s no more follow the leader,” he said.

The 2005 election illustrated how these changes can wreak havoc on judicial races. That year, five candidates ran to fill three slots on the Third Judicial District ballot, three Democrats versus two Republicans.

Republican attorney Thomas J. Marcelle raised a staggering $274,000 for his campaign. Meanwhile the race’s only incumbent, Democratic Justice Edward O. Spain, raised $101,000 for his battle.  Republicans were stunned when three Democratic candidates swept the race by thousands of votes.

Republican attorney Paul L. Gruner lost that race, but he had not raised any money for his fight.

“[Marcelle] spent almost $300,000 and got the same number of Republican votes I got,” he said.

In lieu of fattening his account, Gruner explained that he had counted on a coveted cross-endorsement that could buck party lines and nearly guarantee victory: “Historically, in this area, there were cross-endorsements. If there was a cross-endorsement, there would be, for the lack of a better term, deals made to ensure that the smaller counties had at least one elected Supreme Court judge.”

According to the district’s case distribution statistics, Albany has four elected justices working on Supreme Court cases (another three elected justices now work in appellate courts around the state), while Rensselaer, Sullivan, and Ulster counties each have one elected Supreme Court justice working on cases. Columbia and Greene don’t have any elected judges.

In all seven counties, appointed Acting Supreme Court justices share caseloads that aren’t handled by an elected justice.  
 
This year, Albany could have the only exciting judicial race in the state. But this kind of $100,000 free-for-all could become standard practice for state judges if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Gleeson’s prescription of open primaries and electoral reform.