New York Supreme Court - U.S. Supreme Court Case

U.S. Supreme Court Case

In February, 2006, a United States District Court judge in Brooklyn declared that the judicial-convention method, of nominating New York Supreme Court justices, was contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Judge John Gleeson stated: "A state may decide whether or not voters will be the best choosers of judges. But it may not say one thing – 'The justices of the supreme court shall be chosen by the electors,' N.Y. Const. art. VI § 6(c) – and do quite another, as they have here by effectively transferring the power to choose to major party leaders. Put simply ... the state may not pass off the will of the party leaders as the will of the people. Because that is exactly what the New York judicial convention system does, it violates the First Amendment."

In late August, 2006, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed Judge Gleeson’s ruling, which mandated open primaries until the state legislature builds a new system. There was a stay, however, so the judicial-convention method was used for the 2006 election.

On February 20, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for certiorari. The appeal was argued on October 3, 2007.

In the unanimous opinion handed down on January 16, 2008, N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, written by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court found the judicial-convention method constitutional. Nonetheless, Associate Justices Stevens and Kennedy expressed their dislike of the system.