2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J U D I C I A L S E L E C T I O N T A S K F O R C E nomination to other elective judicial office, or nomination by an independent body for justice of the Supreme Court are required to file designating or nominating petitions, the JQC would receive ample notice of their candidacies. 8. There shall be no more than 15 delegates for each judicial convention. Each party’s delegates shall be elected at large at a primary election from within the judicial convention district. Candidates for the party position of delegate shall qualify for the ballot by filing a designating petition bearing the signatures of at least 5% of the enrolled voters of the party residing in the judicial convention district or 200 such signatures, whichever is less. The State Board of Elections is to promulgate regulations pursuant to which candidates for delegate can, if they choose, either run as part of a slate with other candidates for delegate or identify the candidate(s) for nomination for election to justice of the Supreme Court for whom they are pledged to vote on the first ballot, or both. 9. There shall be a governing body, overseeing all JQCs, which shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the operation and composition of the JQCs. The Chief Judge, the Governor, the presiding Justices of the Appellate Division in which the district sits and the highest ranking members of each party in the Senate and in the Assembly shall each appoint an independent bar association or a law school or a not-for-profit civic or community organization that will in turn appoint the members of the governing body, and these appointing authorities shall rotate every three years. No individual may serve on the governing body for more than three consecutive years. 10. The governing body shall adopt rules applicable to all JQCs. In addition to the rules governing proceedings before the JQCs, these rules shall include, but not be limited to: qualification for selection of an organization as a non-governmental appointing authority; conflicts of interest applicable to members and staff; disclosure and recusal standards applicable to judges before whom a JQC member might appear; disclosure and recusal standards applicable to JQC members before whom a candidate for evaluation might appear; compliance with the composition requirements for each JQC; the standards by which the JQC will determine whether a candidate is “most qualified,” “highly qualified” (in the case of an incumbent) or “unqualified.” 11. The governing body shall publish a judicial voters’ guide for each primary, general and special election involving candidates for a Covered Judgeship. It shall contain a biographical entry for each candidate who has submitted his/her qualifications to a JQC for review and who has T H E R E C O R D 114
J U D I C I A L S E L E C T I O N S Y S T E M I N N E W Y O R K S T A T E been designated for nomination or nominated, as the case may be. The biographical entry shall also reflect whether the candidate was reported out as “most qualified” for a vacancy, “highly qualified” (in the case of an incumbent) or “unqualified.” III. DIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING BOTH APPOINTIVE AND ELECTIVE JUDICIAL SELECTION SYSTEMS 61 The Task Force is committed to a judicial selection system that effectively promotes a diverse judiciary. A diverse judiciary is necessary to ensure that our populations are appropriately represented; to ensure that a broad array of views and experiences are brought to the bench; to regain the public’s confidence in the judiciary, and to restore the judicial system’s credibility in the public’s eyes. After reviewing a large variety of data, empirical studies and articles generally regarding minorities serving on <strong>New</strong> <strong>York</strong> State’s judiciary, the Task Force realized that it was unable to conclude on the statewide level whether one of the two systems—appointive or elective—better promotes diversity. Some of the difficulties the Task Force encountered were the following: • Although statistics on the composition of the population in the twelve judicial districts are generally available, there is a lack of reliable statistics on the diversity of the actual voting population as well as the diversity of the practicing lawyer’s— and thus potential justices’—population. In addition, sometimes the available information does not correspond to the judicial district distributions. • Where diverse qualifications commissions are not in place statewide to screen the candidates before the appointing authority’s final selection, statistics on the minority justices selected through an appointive system do not demonstrate the efficacy of the appointive system to ensure diversity. • Available statistics on the percentage of minority justices on the bench (when compared to the percentage of minorities in the underlying population) reveal significantly different results among the various judicial districts, thus rendering any conclusion on the statewide level very difficult. 61. For purposes of this Report, “diversity” is defined on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual preference. 2 0 0 7 V O L. 6 2 , N O. 1 115
Page 1 and 2:
THE RECORD OF THE ASSOCIATION OF TH
Page 3 and 4:
Of Note THE NEW YORK CITY BAR PRESE
Page 5 and 6:
O F N O T E cial Department, were p
Page 7 and 8:
R E C E N T C O M M I T T E E R E P
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
P R E V E N T I O N A N D P R O S E
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: P R E V E N T I O N A N D P R O S E
Page 71 and 72: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L devoted
Page 73 and 74: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L The Repo
Page 75 and 76: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L 2. It wo
Page 77 and 78: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L Territor
Page 79 and 80: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L the U.S.
Page 81 and 82: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L An exemp
Page 83 and 84: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L Conclusi
Page 85 and 86: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L do busin
Page 87 and 88: P A U L R. M C D A N I E L mestic i
Page 89 and 90: Recommendations on the Selection of
Page 91 and 92: Recommendations on the Selection of
Page 93 and 94: J U D I C I A L S E L E C T I O N S
Page 113: J U D I C I A L S E L E C T I O N S
Page 119 and 120: W E B S I T E A C C E S S I B I L I
Page 137 and 138: Formal Opinion 2006-3 Outsourcing L
Page 139 and 140: F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 147 and 148: Formal Opinion 2007-1 Applicability
Page 155 and 156: Formal Opinion 2007-2 Secondment of
Page 165 and 166:
Report of the Task Force on the Law
Page 167 and 168:
L A W Y E R ’ S R O L E I N C O R
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225:
show all

2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?