Expert Analysis

"While decisions they render influence civic life in profound and lasting ways, the system employed to choose these judges remains rooted in a bygone era governed by rules that no longer resemble the way contemporary elections operate. These judicial election reforms would move New York closer to a more accessible, transparent and democratic system, considerably benefiting voters on their journey to the ballot."

"The city's small-donor matching system, administered by the New York City Campaign Finance Board, has demonstrated how public financing can broaden participation and reduce reliance on wealthy donors. Small contributions are matched at rates of up to eight-to-one, allowing candidates to build viable campaigns by engaging ordinary voters."

"Without public financing, candidates with personal wealth begin these races with a clear advantage, while others must spend months raising private contributions to mount viable campaigns. More troubling, the lack of matching funds leaves judicial elections open to disproportionate influence from large donors including attorneys, law firms and wealthy individuals who may later appear before those they help elect."

New York City's elected judges make consequential decisions affecting housing, finances, businesses, and families, yet the system for choosing them relies on outdated rules. Judicial candidates lack access to public campaign financing available to other candidates, creating significant disadvantages for those without personal wealth. The city's small-donor matching system successfully broadens participation in other elections, but judicial races remain excluded from both city and state public financing programs. This exclusion leaves judicial elections vulnerable to disproportionate influence from large donors, including attorneys and law firms who may later appear before elected judges. Consequently, ordinary voters have less voice than wealthy contributors in selecting judges who profoundly influence civic life.

Read at www.amny.com