NKD supports a government that is accountable, representative, and responsive. We aim to open up government for those who have been historically underrepresented and disenfranchised. What that entails is transparency of process at all levels of the Democratic Party and government. 

The current system for electing judges is broken and heavily influenced by political party County Committees, including the Kings County (Brooklyn) Democratic County Committee, through law and custom. The County Committee leadership benefits from their grip on judicial elections in multiple ways: it can give them sway over the employment of court staff and appointment of court-ordered financial guardians and incentivizes judicial candidates to make monetary contributions to their campaign accounts. 

Specifically, the King’s County Democratic Party (KCDCC) plays a significant role in who runs to be a judge and who succeeds in a race in the following ways:

• KCDCC exercises formal power over filling candidate vacancies.
• KCDCC provides opportunities for cross-endorsement with other parties.
• Of the three courts in New York City that have judges elected by voters, the local party exerts its influence in the following ways:

1. Civil Court of New York City: KCDCC endorses and provides manpower to its chosen Civil Court Candidates.
2. Supreme Court of New York State: KCDCC exercises complete control over the Supreme Court Judicial Convention.

*for more information reference our white paper on the county party and judicial elections in Brooklyn. 

Acknowledging the outsized role of the KCDCC in deciding judicial placements, NKD recognizes the immense power and influence judicial candidates will have over New Yorkers and seeks to ensure that the process by which candidates are selected and put on the ballot is as fair and transparent as possible. 

Accordingly, with the understanding that the system is fundamentally broken and in need of complete redesign, NKD proposes the following reforms for KCDCC to incrementally improve the judicial elections process in Brooklyn:

• The Chair(s) of the Judicial Screening Committee should be chosen by a vote of the County Committee every two years, and the process for appointing the leadership of the Judicial Screening Committee should be documented.  
• Term limits for the Chair(s) of the Judicial Screening Committee should be established and documented.
• There should be an expanded and rotating leadership structure documented within the Judicial Screening Committee to allow for appropriate leadership balance and succession planning.
• A transparent and fair process should be documented in the Judicial Screening Committee rules for the appointment of all Screening Committee members.
• On an annual basis, the Chair(s) of the Judicial Screening Committee should present a report detailing the age, race, gender, professional, and geographic diversity of its members for the most recent cycle. 
• The Judicial Screening Committee should produce a report in a timely manner, so judicial delegates are able to review, detailing the biographies of each judicial candidate, as well as the reasoning for judges found qualified or unqualified, and differentiating between which judges were nearly unanimously qualified versus those where it was a closer vote.
• Judges found qualified should have pertinent experience for the position to which they are nominated.
• The KCDCC should provide public forums, with sufficient notification, including all candidates and allow for questions from the public to be answered, as well as specific forums for judicial delegates to ask questions of the candidates.
• The process for the KCDCC’s endorsement of Civil and Surrogate Court judges should be documented in the Party Rules and transparent to the general public.
• The Party rules should be amended so meetings where the Executive Committee discusses the endorsement of judicial candidates are mandated to be public, with notice given to all members of the KCDCC. 
• Change the roll call vote process for electing the Chair(s) of the Judicial Nominating Convention to a more efficient, inclusive manner.
• Candidates at the Judicial Nominating Convention should be voted on individually rather than as a slate.  A more democratic, transparent, and inclusive process for Judicial Delegates and County Committee members should be devised to determine the Democratic endorsements for Supreme Court candidates and allow Judicial Delegates to participate in a meaningful way. 
• The rules of the Judicial Screening Committee should be integrated into the KCDCC rules (they currently exist in a separate document), and the Executive Committee should regularly review the Judicial Screening Committee rules. Such Judicial Screening Committee rules should also be posted on the KCDCC website.

The current level of influence and benefits the KCDCC gains from presiding over judicial elections must end. Ultimately, within New York’s current system, work should be done to increase the transparency of judicial elections and reduce the undemocratic control KCDCC’s leadership enjoys.