Editorial: Good new rule on judges' donors

Any system where elected judges decide cases involving their own campaign donors poses great risks for our system of justice. Remedies for actual, as well as perceived, conflicts of interest have long generated a lot of talk but little action.

Now, New York's court officials are doing something about it.

Starting July 15, elected judges will be prohibited from presiding in cases involving an attorney or litigant who has contributed $2,500 or more to their campaigns in the previous two years. The rule will also apply if an attorney, his or her law firm, or the person represented collectively contributed $3,500 or more.

That straightforward ban is such common sense it's surprising New York is the first in the nation to adopt it.

The rule will apply to nearly 1,000 judges -- the 70 percent of the state's jurists who are elected, which includes those who sit in Supreme, County and Surrogate courts. Exceptions will be permitted for emergencies or if the non-contributing party doesn't object. Until now, individual judges decided on their own when to remove themselves from a case.

The new rule may reduce the amount of money in judicial campaigns and the influence it could buy. So that's a good thing, especially if in the end it spurs public campaign financing or merit selection of judges.

For now it's a safeguard to promote confidence in the integrity and impartiality of New York's judges and protect the credibility of our courts. hN