From the New York Times

Where Parties Select Judges, Donor List Is a Court Roll Call
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY

The dinners held by the Queens Democrats at Antun's catering hall are
fund-raisers that collect hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for party
coffers, but they could easily be mistaken for Queens courthouse socials.
Among those attending are scores of judges and their law clerks and
secretaries, as well as private lawyers who haunt the borough's courtrooms.
Even typists buy tickets, at up to $300 apiece.
Advertisement
The donor lists reflect a little-noticed but essential truth of politics in
New York City: the boroughs' Democratic machines rely heavily on the local
courthouse culture for their financial lifeblood. In Queens, for instance,
roughly $200,000, or nearly 40 percent, of the $525,000 raised by the Queens
Democratic Party last year came from courthouse donors, according to an
extensive analysis of the party's finances by The New York Times.
And that relationship, say legal experts, lawmakers and prosecutors, helps
explain why the state's system for selecting judges for its highest trial
court, the State Supreme Court, has not changed over the decades, despite
criminal scandals, charges of politically manipulated elections and repeated
calls for reform.
In New York, where State Supreme Court judges are elected rather than
appointed, the dominant political party in a county can virtually dictate
who goes on the bench, and further, who fills hundreds of courthouse jobs.
Not surprisingly, those in the courthouses and those hoping to become judges
make sure to donate to the party, interviews and campaign finance records
show.
It has been a durable formula. Even reports like the one from a state ethics
panel in the late 1980's, which warned that the system was mired in so many
conflicts of interest that public confidence in the bench was being damaged,
have failed to bring changes in Albany, where county political bosses wield
significant power. Many have argued that a system in which judges were
appointed would reduce the politicization of the judiciary.
The role of the parties in the judiciary has come under renewed scrutiny
since the Brooklyn Democratic leadership became the subject of a continuing
criminal investigation into the selection of judges.
The Queens leadership is not facing a similar inquiry, but its fund-raising,
like that of its counterparts in other boroughs, provides a stark
appreciation of the ties between parties and courthouses, according to
campaign finance records.
At a time when the overall influence of the local parties has declined,
their power over judicial selection remains one of their few remaining
bastions of patronage.
"The parties, like any institution, are not eager to give away power and
influence," said Justice Steven W. Fisher, who is the administrative judge
for the State Supreme Court in Queens and is presiding over the trial of a
Brooklyn judge charged with corruption. "And if they believe that a change
in the system would diminish their influence, they would be expected to
oppose reform."
The dominant parties, whether Democratic in the city or Republican upstate,
control State Supreme Court judgeships because of arcane state election
rules in place for decades. Candidates earn spots on the ballot not through
primaries, but through judicial conventions, over which party leaders
exercise almost total control. As a result, in the overwhelmingly Democratic
city, Democratic leaders in the boroughs can essentially name people to the
bench because the Democratic nomination is tantamount to election.
Former United States Representative Thomas J. Manton, the Queens Democratic
leader, did not respond to four messages seeking comment. Michael Reich, the
Queens party's executive secretary, said there was nothing untoward about
the party's collecting money from courthouse donors.
Mr. Reich disputed the fund-raising analysis by The Times, saying that he
thought that 10 percent or less of the party's money came from courthouse
donors. "If you really, honestly look at it, you are going to see that there
is really not a tremendous amount of money that our party is getting from
there," he said.
In fact, according to the analysis, law clerks alone donated close to 10
percent of the party's total last year. Of the 51 law clerks serving State
Supreme Court justices in Queens, 40, or nearly 80 percent, contributed to
the party last year, according to the analysis and a list of clerks provided
by court officials.
Most clerks bought at least a few tickets to the Antun's parties, at $200 to
$300 apiece. The clerk jobs, which are filled by lawyers who act as aides to
judges, are traditionally stepping stones to judgeships controlled by the
party.
Told of the totals for clerks, Mr. Reich said, "They want to become a judge,
so they are active in getting around."
He said many courthouse donors contributed because they were members of
neighborhood political clubs and involved in their communities, not because
of their jobs.
"They have a right to this association," he said. "And it is not anything
that is dirty."
Mr. Reich denied that the party controlled judgeships. Asked to cite the
last time a State Supreme Court justice was elected in Queens without the
backing of Democratic leaders, he said, "I really don't recall."
Many Queens courthouse donors said in telephone interviews that they were
uncomfortable discussing their contributions. But some said they were merely
taking part in an age-old courthouse custom.
"Anybody who wants to prosper in the Democratic Party goes there, has their
face be seen and so forth," said one law clerk, Peter Dunne, referring to
the fund-raisers. "Obviously part of that, too, is that there are people
there who will be selecting the judicial nominations. For them to get know
who I am, in case they are looking for somebody, is also a good thing."
Mr. Dunne said he had never been pressured to contribute.
Justice Fisher, the administrative judge in Queens, acknowledged that under
such a system, courthouse workers like law clerks may feel that they should
donate to have a chance of receiving favorable treatment.
"Some would say that this could give rise to a perception that we would
rather not see," said Justice Fisher, whose wife and two secretaries are
party donors. "But the question is, how else to do it?"
He contended that if there were primaries for State Supreme Court, which
might lessen the party's grip on the process, candidates would have to
engage in more fund-raising, which he said could lead to an even more
unfavorable perception. And, he said, a system of appointing judges could
also become politicized, pointing to conflicts over the confirmation of
federal judges in the United States Senate.
Others in Queens disagreed that the current system works better than the
alternatives, saying that the people who end up on the bench are the most
politically connected, not the most qualified.
"There should be very little role in judicial selection for partisan
politics and political machines," said Jimmy Van Bramer, who ran
unsuccessfully for the City Council in Queens in 2001. "In an ideal world,
judges and people who are ambitious should not have to feel that part of the
quid pro quo is forking over substantial amounts of money for dinner tickets
in order to get selected to be a judge. It's a completely broken system."
That is not a new criticism. In 1989, John D. Feerick, then the chairman of
a state commission that examined government corruption, wrote, "We must stop
perpetuating the myth that judicial elections have anything to do with
genuine democratic choice. In most New York State counties, a small group of
political party leaders control nominations and thereby the elections. As a
result, past service to the party organization ‹ not merit ‹ is the primary
consideration."
Donors from the courthouse culture include more than those seeking to become
judges, according to interviews and campaign finance records. Among them are
lawyers who receive thousands of dollars in court fees doled out by judges
to oversee guardianship and other cases.
Even the judges' secretaries, who are hired by the judges and are basically
in patronage jobs, are regulars at the fund-raisers. According to the
analysis, about half of the 49 secretaries to State Supreme Court judges in
Queens donated last year.
"There are certain jobs that are not put in the want ads of the newspaper,"
said one secretary, who agreed to be interviewed only if her name was not
used. "This is a political process, and politics means that you become
active in groups where people get to know you, if you are looking at getting
hired for a particular position."