New York City’s judicial selection system gives local political parties an important role in determining which candidates appear on the ballot for some judicial offices. A September 15 investigation by NY1 examined that process in Brooklyn, including the role of judicial delegates, party leaders, campaign contributions and judicial conventions.
How the Judicial Selection Process Works
New York uses different selection methods depending on the court.
Some judicial offices are filled through elections, while others involve appointments. Candidates for New York Supreme Court, the state’s trial-level court of general jurisdiction, are nominated through political-party judicial conventions under the state’s election system.
Judicial delegates play an important role in that process. Party members can elect delegates who then participate in a judicial nominating convention.
New York’s judicial convention system has been in place since the early 20th century. In New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of New York’s system, rejecting the argument that candidates have a constitutional right to a “fair shot” at winning a party nomination.
New York court guidance also confirms that judicial candidates seeking a Supreme Court nomination may, within applicable ethical rules, support judicial delegates who would support their own nomination.
What Happened in Brooklyn
NY1 followed the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s process for selecting candidates for the state Supreme Court.
Jan Combopiano, a first-time judicial delegate, told NY1 that she was appointed by an elected official and was expected to participate in the judicial convention.
According to NY1’s reporting, party leaders had already discussed and selected their preferred candidates before the formal convention took place.
The investigation reported that senior Brooklyn Democratic Party figures met privately in early August at a restaurant in southern Brooklyn. The candidates whom party leaders had selected later appeared at the gathering.
Several days afterward, judicial delegates attended a convention at a Brooklyn golf course. The delegates formally voted on the candidates, but NY1 reported that there was no debate over the slate that had already been selected.
The report also described attempts to prevent NY1 cameras from recording the convention proceedings and included comments from delegates and party officials about the process.
Campaign Contributions and Judicial Candidates
NY1 examined campaign contributions made by more than 340 judicial candidates since 2020 across New York City’s five boroughs.
The investigation found more than $742,000 in contributions to local political parties, party leaders or district leaders during that period. NY1 reported that $124,366 went to the Queens Democratic Party and $37,325 went to the Brooklyn Democratic Party.
The investigation included individual examples.
NY1 reported that Civil Court candidate Michelle DeSouza-Forte had contributed at least $2,115, while candidate Bridget Hamblin had made $474 in contributions despite telling NY1 she had not donated.
These figures do not by themselves establish that a contribution resulted in a nomination or endorsement. NY1 presented the financial data as part of a broader examination of the relationship between judicial candidates and local political organizations.
How Competitive Are NYC Judicial Races?
NY1 analyzed judicial races across the five boroughs since 2020 and reported that only about half were contested.
The investigation also found that some races included candidates appearing on multiple ballot lines, limiting the number of choices available to voters.
The system therefore combines several different stages: candidate recruitment, party involvement, delegate selection, judicial conventions and, where applicable, the general election.
For someone trying to understand NYC elections, distinguishing these stages is important because the rules for a Supreme Court candidate are not identical to those for a City Council or other local candidate.
Judicial Oversight and Public Confidence
The investigation also examined disciplinary issues involving New York City judges.
NY1 reported that 19 judges had been removed, censured or sanctioned in New York City by the Commission on Judicial Conduct since 2015. The commission is a state agency responsible for reviewing judicial misconduct matters.
The report also discussed the 2026 arrest of former Brooklyn judge Edward King, who was accused by federal prosecutors of defrauding real estate investors of millions of dollars. NY1 noted that King had also been named in a civil lawsuit with a Brooklyn party leader; that case has since settled.
These cases are separate from the judicial nomination process, but NY1 included them as part of its broader examination of questions surrounding judicial accountability and public confidence.
What the Supreme Court Decided About Party Control
Political parties’ role in judicial nominations has previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the 2008 New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres decision, the Court upheld New York’s judicial convention system against a constitutional challenge.
The Court held that the First Amendment did not give an unsuccessful judicial candidate a constitutional right to a particular opportunity to win a party nomination. The ruling allowed New York to continue using its convention-based system for Supreme Court nominations.
That does not mean every aspect of a judicial campaign is exempt from election law or ethical requirements. New York’s judicial ethics guidance continues to regulate campaign conduct, including activities involving judicial delegates.
Why This Matters for NYC Candidates
The judicial selection process provides several lessons for people considering how to run for office in NYC.
Ballot Access Is More Than Filing a Petition
For many candidates, getting on the ballot means understanding petition requirements, filing deadlines and election-law procedures.
Judicial candidates seeking a Supreme Court nomination face an additional party-convention structure. Judicial delegates can be elected before a convention where nominees are selected.
First-time candidates should therefore research the specific nomination method for the office they want before building their campaign calendar.
Understand Who Controls Each Stage
Candidates need to identify the institutions and individuals involved in their particular election.
For a City Council campaign, this can include voters in the district, the Board of Elections, political parties and campaign-finance regulators.
For a Supreme Court campaign, judicial delegates and party conventions can play a particularly important role in the nomination process.
Understanding that structure helps candidates determine where campaign outreach and compliance work need to be focused.
Campaign Finance Requires Careful Documentation
The NY1 investigation also demonstrates why candidates should maintain accurate campaign-finance records.
Political contributions, fundraising events and relationships with political organizations can become part of public campaign-finance records.
Candidates should understand contribution limits, disclosure requirements, reporting deadlines and the rules that apply to their specific office.
For NYC candidates participating in the city’s public matching-funds program, additional requirements can apply.
Political Relationships and District Strategy
Political relationships can be relevant to campaign organization, but candidates still need a district strategy based on the electorate they are seeking to represent.
Voter data, past election results, neighborhood demographics and direct voter contact can help campaigns understand their district.
A City Council candidate should also distinguish between relationships that help with campaign organization and the formal legal requirements for ballot access.
Campaign Messaging Should Be Evidence-Based
The Brooklyn judicial-selection story also demonstrates why candidates should be careful when discussing political processes.
Claims about favoritism, party influence or campaign contributions can be politically significant, but individual facts should be distinguished from broader allegations.
Candidates discussing election reform can strengthen their messaging by identifying the specific rule or process they are proposing to change rather than relying on general claims about how NYC politics works.
What First-Time Candidates Can Learn
For someone considering whether to run for office in NYC, the judicial system illustrates the importance of understanding the election process before launching a campaign.
A practical preparation process can include:
- Identify the exact office and court or district.
- Research the applicable ballot-access and nomination rules.
- Determine whether a primary, convention or other process is used.
- Understand campaign-finance registration and reporting requirements.
- Research the relevant electorate and voter data.
- Map the political and community organizations active in the district.
- Develop campaign messaging based on documented issues and voter concerns.
These steps are useful beyond judicial races. City Council candidates also need to understand how party organizations, voters, campaign-finance rules and election administration interact.
What Happens Next
The debate over judicial selection is likely to remain part of broader discussions about election administration, campaign finance and judicial accountability in New York.
The current system allows political parties to play a significant role in Supreme Court nominations, while judicial candidates remain subject to election-law and judicial-ethics requirements.
For people preparing to run for office in NYC, the broader lesson is that ballot access is not simply about collecting signatures. Candidates need to understand the full nomination structure, the political organizations involved, campaign-finance requirements and the voters who ultimately decide the election.
Related Reading
NYC PAC: Menin Launches Statewide PAC for Democrats
Rahm Emanuel, Zohran Mamdani Dispute Meeting Account
FAQs
Candidates are nominated through judicial conventions organized by political parties, with judicial delegates playing a role in selecting nominees.
New York judicial ethics guidance permits certain efforts by Supreme Court candidates to support delegates who would advance their own nomination, subject to specific rules.
[…] NYC Judicial Elections: How Parties Pick Judges […]