This is no way to select judges

Long Islanders are itching to vote this year. The tally for absentee and early-voting ballots is soaring and poll workers are bracing for Tuesday’s Election Day turnout. But that enthusiasm for the top of the ticket hits a dead end because after the presidential choice, the next category asks voters to choose eight state Supreme Court candidates. The lines of the Democratic, Republican and Conservative parties all present the same names. A few rows down, the Independence Party supports four of the eight. It’s much the same for the Family Court and District Court judgeships that follow.

There’s not much of a choice, and it’s a bit of a sham.

The only judge getting any attention this cycle has been Amy Coney Barrett, who was just seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the selection of the state judges who handle 95% of cases that directly affect daily lives — criminal prosecutions, speeding tickets, divorce filings, getting a will executed — is all done secretly. These cross-endorsement deals, engineered by party bosses, have increased over time. New York is one of only seven states that allows fusion voting for judgeships.

Why are judgeships on the ballot, if voters have no real choice? One reason party leaders offer is that they have more important tasks, such as focusing on county and legislative races. There’s a more unseemly reason as well, especially in Suffolk County, where deals are made by major-party leaders to get minor-party endorsements in contests considered more significant, such as county executive. In return, the minor parties get the major-party backing for judicial candidates. Sometimes the judges chosen are family members of party leaders. Minor parties that have the clout to award judgeships often get generous donations from lawyers eyeing the bench.

Over the years, Newsday has chronicled these connections, which raise questions about a judge’s impartiality and weaken the public’s trust in the judiciary. Some judicial nominees may not be of the best caliber. In the past few years, three Suffolk District Court judges got themselves in trouble for using vile language, unfairly texting strategy to a prosecutor amid a criminal trial, and burglarizing a neighbor’s home to steal her underwear.

Even if Long Island had truly contested elections, is this the best way to choose judges? Judicial ethics bar candidates from expressing a political philosophy or doing traditional campaigning, so voters have little way to evaluate them. There is no perfect model, and 50 states have almost 50 combinations of choosing judges. But New York can improve with a process that minimally solicits and screens nominees and makes binding recommendations to elected officials.

What makes this process worse is New York’s bloated court structure — there are 11 levels of courts. State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore has proposed an overhaul to reorganize it into three tiers. A structure that delivers better consumer service is overdue. But her plan neglects to deal with how judges are chosen.

It’s a herculean task but it must be done. Until then, voters will continue to pick judges having little choice, let alone a way, to make an informed one.

— The editorial board