With the exception of a brief period between 1912 and 1920, political parties in New York have nominated their candidates for the state supreme court using delegate based judicial conventions, with delegates elected at party primary elections or other nominating conventions.
The judicial conventions are often brief, with the determination as to candidates having been made by local political leaders, with input from the bar, before the convention is held.
13) New York Election Law does not require judicial conventions to elect party nominees by a majority or any particular method; as a practical matter, most convention nominations are unanimous.
7, 1851, at 3 ("The Ward and Town Meetings for the election of delegates to the City, County, Assembly and Judicial Conventions will be held at the usual places, on Wednesday evening.
85) In some areas, county or assembly district conventions elected or appointed the delegates to the judicial conventions.
They] are chosen at judicial conventions whose delegates are generally
Bloomberg stated: "[P]arty judicial conventions, where Supreme
principal function" of the judicial conventions is to "give
See Daniel Wise, Second Circuit Rejects Judicial Conventions,
New York State Board of Elections, was filed by a group of plaintiffs led by New York Judge Margarita Lopez Torres who have argued that the use of the judicial conventions deprive voters of their right to cast a "meaningful" vote for trial court judges and imposes "insurmountable burdens" on challenger candidates who have significant support among party members, but are opposed by their county's party leaders.
The plaintiffs in Lopez Torres take issue with New York's so-called "closed" judicial electoral scheme, in which judicial candidates for the supreme court (New York's highest trial court) must be nominated through judicial conventions.
The decision confirms what everyone already knew -- the judicial convention system deprives voters of a say in selecting judges and is firmly unconstitutional.