U.S. Supreme Court Upholds New York's Party Selection of Judicial Candidates
The United States Supreme Court recently upheld New York's system for selecting candidates for trial-court judgeships. The Court ruled against a candidate who could not gain the support of her party's leadership. See the case New York State Board of Elections et al. v. Lopez Torres et al., October 2007 term, Case No. 06-766 (Decided January 16, 2008).
New York law requires political parties to select their candidates for the Supreme Court (New York's trial courts) by a convention of delegates elected by party members. Each party elects a representative from each political district to represent the party at its "judicial convention." The convention then selects its candidates for each of 12 judicial districts in the State. Candidates are placed as Party Candidates on the November ballot, where they are joined by independent candidates.
Margarita Lopez Torres, a county court judge, contested New York's system claiming it violated her First Amendment rights. Her party's leaders had opposed her selection as a Party Candidate in 1997, 2002, and 2003. Torres then asserted that the party conventions denied her and her party's voters in her district a "realistic opportunity to participate in [a political party's] nominating process."
The Supreme Court disagreed with Torres. Justice Scalia wrote that a political party has a First Amendment right to choose its membership and select candidates through whatever process it chooses. However, when the State gives parties a role in the election process, the parties must abide by basic constitutional provisions. A party cannot discriminate based on race or religion, for example.
In this case, the parties are required by the State to hold elections to select delegates to their judicial nominating conventions. Justice Scalia determined that Torres' real complaint with the system was her inability to garner the support of party leaders; that she felt that the system was therefore stacked against her. The Court held that just because voters tended to follow the recommendations of their party leaders did not mean that her First Amendment right to participate in the political process was denied.
