Albany Times Union Editorial on Chief Judge: On the merits? Prove it.

On the merits? Prove it.
Albany Times Union EDITORIAL - January 9, 2009

Picking a new senator for New York isn't the only election in which Gov. David Paterson essentially is a voter of one. The governor in the next few days is expected to name a chief judge, subject to Senate confirmation, to lead the Court of Appeals and direct the state court system . There really are two issues before the governor — who should fill the vacancy created when Judith Kaye retired, and how to fix a flawed selection process.

This post requires both the legal acumen to serve on the state's highest court and the skills to oversee New York's Unified Court System, which covers the entire judicial system down to the smallest village justice court. While the supervisory task is shared with the chief administrative judge, it falls on the chief judge to be vision and voice of the justice system. And, with the state facing huge deficits, the pressure will be on to ensure that the courts and all their machinery, including legal services for the poor, are efficiently run and adequately funded. For that task, it appears that Jonathan Lippman, the longest-serving chief administrative judge in state history, stands out among the seven candidates the governor is considering. A former chief state Supreme Court clerk and judge in Supreme Court, the Court of Claims and the Appellate Division, he served as chief administrative judge from 1996 to 2007, before then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer appointed him presiding justice of the Appellate Division in the First Judicial Department.

That is not to say there might not be more qualified people out there when it comes to either the administrative or legal duties. The fact is, we don't know, and neither do most New Yorkers. Which brings us to our second point: the shortcomings of New York's merit selection system of picking Court of Appeals judges. Under the system, created in the 1970s to make the selection process more about qualifications than politics, potential candidates are reviewed by a panel named by the governor, chief judge and legislative leaders. It gives the governor a list of three to seven names from which he must choose. The problem is, the commission's process is, by law, largely secretive. All its transcripts and other files, even the names of who else was considered, are confidential.

The governor doesn't get much guidance, either. Delivered to Mr. Paterson, for example, was a stack of publicly available material such as news clippings and court decisions, brief biographies containing less information than a newspaper obituary and a letter listing the candidates, with no analysis. When the governor complained, the panel provided a somewhat more expanded report. We suggest Mr. Paterson, the new chief judge and the Legislature take a fresh look at this process. There is no reason why, for example, the commission's interviews shouldn't be public, and why it can't deliver a publicly available memo explaining what sets its candidates apart. If citizens are to accept the idea that a governor's choice is better than the collective wisdom of the people, the least the people could get is good explanation of why their would-be judges deserve to sit in judgment of us all.

The issue:  The post of New York chief judge is vacant.

The Stakes:  The governor, new chief judge and legislative leaders should revisit the selection process.