BILL NUMBER: S1102
SPONSOR: MAY
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the election law, in relation to eliminating the ability
of judicial candidates for office who are enrolled in a particular party
to automatically be allowed to run as a candidate in another party's
primary election
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To prevent judicial candidates of a particular party from automatically
being allowed to run as a candidate in another party's primary election.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 amends subdivision 4 section 6-120 of the Election Law, as
amended by chapter 73 of the laws of 1987, by removing candidates for
judicial offices from being exempt from the restrictions under this
section.
Section 2 sets forth the effective date which is immediately.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
Currently, candidates for office who are not enrolled in the political
party whose nomination they seek must be authorized by that party to be
the party's candidate or to run in that party's primary. The only
exceptions are candidates running for judicial office, nominated by
caucus, or running in a party in its first year (Election Law § 6-120).
This situation allows judicial candidates to effectively "raid" the
primary of another party.
Most of the time, people do not know how a particular judicial candidate
is enrolled. A Democratic judicial candidate can circulate a Republican
petition without telling signers the candidate's own party enrollment
(and vice versa). Voters seldom think to ask and simply assume that the
candidate is a member of the party whose petition they are asked to
sign.
This exception for judicial candidates creates confusion with voters and
often deprives voters of being able to vote for their party's endorsed
candidate in the general election. Since primary turnout is lower than
in a general election, a well-known or well financed candidate could win
the other major party's primary and leave voters without a meaningful
choice in November.
Because of this exception, a judicial candidate running in a primary of
a so-called "liberal" minor party could win because the candidate keeps
secret the fact that the candidate is also running on the so-called
"conservative" minor party. The reverse could also be true.
Judicial candidates are limited in what they can say in a campaign, so
the party lines on which a candidate appears is one of the few ways they
can telegraph their values. So, if a judicial candidate wins the primary
of a party whose values the candidate does not share, voters in November
will be duped into thinking that the candidate actually shares that
party's values. If another party wishes to have a judicial candidate who
is not a member of that party run on that party's line or in that
party's primary, the party should authorize the judicial candidate as a
stamp of approval that the candidate shares that party's values - as it
does for any other candidate.
This bill would help restore integrity in judicial elections.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2023-2024: S8454 (May) / A1127 (Jacobson)
2021-2022: S7556 (Brouk) / A8179 (Jacobson)
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.

Statutes affected:
S1102: 6-120 election law, 6-120(4) election law