By Azi Paybarah

The next time you see a judge, whistle some jiggy hustler’s theme song to yourself. It was this tune which most New York judges danced to get on the bench in the first place. But for now, at least, the jig is up.

A ballsy federal judge declared last week what everyone has long known: The process by which most judges are elected is a total sham. “[T]he nominating conventions themselves are certainly not the places where important decisions get made. Rather, they are brief, rote, formal stamps of approval given to decisions made elsewhere,” Judge John Gleeson wrote.

More directly: Judges pay party bosses for their robes, and once they put them on, they keep paying.

Not true, said Democratic Party State Chairman Herman “Denny” Farrell. He said, err, ummm, well, nothing, actually. “[T]he defendant’s failure to call Farrell or any other county leader as a witness is striking,” Gleeson wrote. Farrell, Queens boss Tom Manton, Bronx boss Jose Rivera and the other 60-plus county leaders (read: bosses) all got lost on their way to the witness stand. 

Gleeson summarized their stance: The defendants—whose number included the state Democratic and Republican state committees and the state and city’s respective Associations of Justices of the Supreme Court—claim that they were only pretending to have this power. “Farrell makes everyone think he actually picks Manhattan’s Supreme Court Justices, but that’s merely what he wants the perception to be,” Gleeson wrote in his decision. 

Each time there is a judicial opening, a convention is held. At the last Manhattan judicial convention all but one of the judicial candidates was nominated and then immediately afterwards declined to run. Very judicious, wouldn’t you say? As a witness to this democratic process, I can say that Farrell’s defense is full of shit. Technically speaking. 

The winner of that election was Martin Shulman, who happens to be from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s neighborhood. Farrell favored another candidate, Faviola Sotto, but relented and gave Silver his pick that night. See, there is a choice: Silver’s judge or Farrell’s.

After the five or so other candidates dropped out, the judicial convention had their election.

“All those in favor say aye,”

A round of boos erupted.  

“The ayes have it.”

•

With Gleeson’s decision, there will be fair and open partisan primaries for judgeships, which just might be the death knell for local political bosses, ripping from their hands the last vestiges of patronage. In the boss-controlled surrogate’s court, judges give the estates of people who died without wills to their favorite attorneys. 

Until last week’s ruling—issued at 5 p.m. on Friday and thus buried in the little-read Saturday  papers—anyone who’s been a lawyer for 10 years who wanted to be a judge had to go to the party boss and do what they were told, which often involved paying off said boss and driving “business” to his opeation. 

“There is patronage in every court if you do it right,” said a dissident political operative in Brooklyn. “But this one is the motherlode because you’re dealing with people who die that have no relatives and you can charge [their estates’ exorbitant] fees.”

The lead plaintiff in the case was Margarita Lopez-Torres, a perennial judicial candidate who irked party bosses by not hiring their guys. Gleeson noted Assemblyman Vito Lopez unsuccessfully tried getting his daughter, a recent law school grad, a job with Lopez-Torres: “Lopez’s daughter was hired by another Civil Court judge in Brooklyn who was subsequently nominated and elected to the office of Supreme Court Justice.”

In 2004, two county-backed hacks ran against Lopez-Torres. Both paid who they were told to pay, and both lost to her. That’s when the two losers, Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz started snitching. Talk about justice.

They went to Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes saying Norman was selling judgeships. 

“Yellen going to the DA complaining about Norman is what led to the indictment,” said the same Brooklyn dissident. “It was the reason Hynes started going after Norman.”  Hynes’ office said only that what inspired the indictment was not a matter of public information. Okay. Then again, maybe that “no comment” has to do with Christopher Ketcham’s reporting in the Press and Harper’s about Hynes’ own role in the estate-assignment scandal.

Whatever Hynes’ motives, he soon indicted his old ally Norman on smaller charges (misusing $6,200 in campaign funds) hoping he’d role over and fess up to the bigger charges. Norman, though, pled innocent, and left the skeletons in the closet. He’s got two trials to go, but he’s already racked up a two-to-six year stay at an upstate prison.

When reached on his cell phone, Norman said, “I’m not involved in politics anymore… the judge heard the evidence and made his ruling.”

•   

With uncontrolled primaries, for now, who will get to be a judge?

According to pollster Jerry Skurnik, four types of people will run: the same ones who run now, lower court judges who’d been waiting for the right time to run, rich lawyers who don’t want to work on the lower courts and term-limited City Council members and state legislators tired of commuting to Albany. 

And then, there is the blackmail scenario. If judges are going to be elected without party control, anybody with enough name recognition can be a judge. Imagine Marty Markowitz, that renowned policy expert, asking party bosses for an endorsement for higher office, lest he run for judge to block other candidates, or win and use the gavel for good old-fashioned enemy-smiting.

One consultant, when asked about the decision, simply said, “It’s good for business.”