Read on Twitter
Tonight is the judicial convention, where I, as a delegate, will get to “vote” for the Democratic party’s nominations to fill 4 NY Supreme Court judge seats. It& #39;s the closest thing that NY has to a primary.
Why do I say “vote,” you ask? A thread:
Why do I say “vote,” you ask? A thread:
As happens every year, of the 17 candidates running, all but 4 candidates will drop out of the race tonight. They’ll drop out of the race because they have been told that it’s “not their time” or that “maybe next year” it’ll be their turn.
What determines if it’s someone’s time? Is it having a strong record on criminal justice? Is it showing demonstrated success on making a more equitable courtroom for pro se litigants?
Nope. Here are some determinants of someone& #39;s "time":
Nope. Here are some determinants of someone& #39;s "time":
“They& #39;ve been running for a judgeship for years"
“If that judge is elected, there’s an open civil court seat, which means party leaders get to choose who fills the vacancy”
"There are enough women getting elected, we can elect a man to balance"
“If that judge is elected, there’s an open civil court seat, which means party leaders get to choose who fills the vacancy”
"There are enough women getting elected, we can elect a man to balance"
TRANSLATION: All but four candidates will have dropped out because they have not benefited from the sorts of structural and political privileges that have kept too many out of the legal and judicial profession for centuries!
Another reason given is: "they don& #39;t have the votes," meaning the judges have surveyed club/district leaders to ask who their club& #39;s delegates will vote for. It is considered bad etiquette for judges stay in the race when they& #39;ve been told they won& #39;t have the votes.
This completely neglects the fact that delegates may be pressured to tell their party leaders how they truly wish to vote, and significantly interferes with delegates& #39; ability to choose independently. And serves to benefit those candidates closest to party leaders.
I composed a spreadsheet for the initial 17 candidates full of comments from anonymous public defender surveys, their likeliness to set bail from a study conducted by Legal Aid and FiveThirtyEight, and their own stated views on cash bail.
I identified about a handful of judges who were outstanding in all of these categories. Almost all of those judges dropped out. Because they were told that it is “not their time.”
Of the four judges remaining, if I actually get a chance to vote, I’ll vote for three of them.
Of the four judges remaining, if I actually get a chance to vote, I’ll vote for three of them.
Even if they weren& #39;t all in my top picks, after doing my research, I know that 3 of them are sufficiently committed to reducing the jail population. But there is one judge who, if I can vote, will not get my vote because they have not demonstrated a commitment to decarceration.
When I’ve asked leaders why this judge vs any of the other candidates who have shown such a commitment, the reasons have less to do with principles and more to do with seniority and politics (i.e. it& #39;s this candidate& #39;s turn)
Other candidates could have filled this seat - candidates with a record for creating equity in the courtroom, avoiding incarceration as punishment, &making significant differences in the lives of marginalized people. I identified several of them, but it wasn& #39;t any of their "time"
Why are we valuing seniority and politicking over principles? Why are we allowing these sorts of methods determine who is elected to make crucial decisions regarding people’s lives?
And this is the judicial convention at its best. Delegates in other boroughs often don& #39;t even know who is in the running for their judicial convention until the day of the election, and candidates may be picked even if they aren& #39;t approved by an independent reporting panel.
The judicial convention system does. not. work. We need to get rid of it. Punto.
