DID is proud of our in-depth judicial vetting and endorsement process. In 2025, DID’s Judicial Committee Chairs, E.E. Keenan and Eliza Orlins, will lead this process and they may be reached at [email protected].
DID encourages all Civil, Surrogate and Supreme Court candidates to submit their interest in a position and background information to [email protected]. Please include (a) a CV / resume, (b) a one-page candidate statement, and (c) several writing samples that show your work. Civil and Surrogate candidates should submit this information by January 15 of the year they are interested in running. Supreme Court candidates should submit this information by July 15.
Please review our vetting and endorsement process detailed below.
DID’s Endorsement Process
Civil & Surrogate Court |
|
Supreme Court |
|
|
Screening Panels |
In January, the County Democratic Party convenes a Countywide screening panel and reports out in February. |
|
In June, the County Democratic Party convenes a Countywide screening panel and reports out in July. |
|
Eligible Candidates |
Candidates are eligible for DID consideration if they are (a) rated “Most Highly Qualified” by the current year’s panel or (b) have been rated “Most Highly Qualified” by two prior panels out of the prior four years. |
||
|
In-Depth DID Interviews |
In February, DID schedules interviews with each eligible candidate and these meetings are open to DID members and co-sponsoring clubs, if any. Candidates receive a combination of standard questions that we ask of each candidate and an open forum. |
|
In late July / early August, DID schedules interviews with each eligible candidate. Candidates receive a combination of standard questions that we ask of each candidate and an open forum. |
|
Judicial Committee Straw Poll Vote |
At the end of the interview process, DID’s Judicial Committee meets to discuss the candidates and takes a straw poll vote on which candidates we will recommend to the membership. |
|
At the end of the interview process, DID’s Judicial Committee meets to discuss the candidates and takes a straw poll vote and develops a set of recommendations to be delivered to the membership. The committee may choose to develop the recommendations through discussion, consensus, or vote. |
|
DID Public Forum |
Candidates will make brief presentations, followed by questions from DID Members. (The time allotted to each candidate will be determined prior to the meeting and communicated to members and candidates.) |
|
If scheduling permits, candidates may be invited to make brief presentations, followed by questions from DID Members. (The time allotted to each candidate will be determined prior to the meeting and communicated to members and candidates.) |
|
DID Membership Vote |
At a closed DID membership meeting, the Judicial Committee shares its recommendation then members will deliberate and vote via secret ballot. |
||
|
DID’s Endorsement |
The membership vote is DID’s endorsement for the District Civil Court seats and a non-binding advisory recommendation to DID’s District Leaders for the Countywide judicial seats. District Leaders meet countywide in February to vote on countywide seat(s), with the Judicial Committee and membership recommendations as reference. |
|
The membership vote is a non-binding advisory recommendation to DID’s Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee reconvenes and, with reference to its prior recommendation, the membership recommendation, and any further discussion it may choose to have, may remain with its initial recommendation or conducts a final vote via secret ballot. This final vote is binding on all DID Judicial Delegates. The votes will provide a ranking of candidates, the number of which will be determined by the Judicial Committee based on the number of open seats and the number of likely viable candidates. The Judicial Delegates are bound to DID endorsed candidates so long as there is a ranked candidate in the running. If and when there are no ranked candidates in the running for a seat, Judicial Delegates are then free to vote for their candidate of personal preference. |
|
DID Petitioning |
DID carries petitions for our endorsed candidates to help them get on the ballot. |
|
Not applicable |
2025 DID Judicial Delegates and Alternates
Judicial delegates are elected in the June party primary for a two-year term. In 2025, there are 155 delegates. DID has 13 delegates, 8% of the total. Our voice matters.
|
Assembly |
Delegate |
|
Alternate |
|
61 |
Daniel Burke |
|
Mariama James |
|
65 |
Sommer Omar |
|
Ron Thomas |
|
66 |
Kathryn Freed |
|
Jeannine Kiely |
Additional Background
Civil, Supreme and Surrogates Court
Civil Court: includes Housing, Small Claims and General Civil Court and is a limited-jurisdiction court, but it’s the farm system for the upper judiciary. Vacancies occur regularly in both district seats and countywide seats. When there is a vacancy, DID covers endorses in Municipal Court Districts 1 and 2, and its district leaders also vote on the Countywide all endorsements, which is usually tantamount to election.
Vetting for Civil Court, regardless of its lower rank in the court system, is extremely important because once someone is a Civil Court judge, they can be assigned to any other trial court - Civil, Criminal, Supreme, and Family. A civil court term is ten (10) years.
Democratic civil court candidates are on the June primary ballot and primary winners are on the ballot in the general election in November.
Supreme Court: this is the unlimited jurisdiction trial court of general jurisdiction in New York City. (Unlike most other states, the Supreme Court is the trial court and not the highest court of the state.) Although both civil and criminal matters get tried in Supreme Court in Manhattan, in practice, once someone is elected to Supreme Court, they will, for the most part, only sit on civil matters. A Supreme Court term is fourteen (14) years.
A major importance of Supreme Court is that the Governor can elevate its justices to the Appellate Division, which is the state’s second highest court.
Democratic candidates do not go through a party primary. Instead, in Manhattan, they are selected by judicial delegates at the Democratic Judicial Convention held in each August, and then go onto the November general ballot. As with most Manhattan elections, the November general is commonly a formality due to the County’s overwhelming Democratic tilt.
Surrogate’s Court: this court covers probate matters (i.e., estates, trusts, and guardianships). Vacancies are rare because there are only two Surrogates for the whole county, and they serve long terms. The election process is the same as for Civil Court countywide.
New York County Judicial Screening Panel
The New York County (Manhattan) Judicial Screening Panel, formally known as the Independent Judicial Screening Panel, is convened by the New York County Democratic Committee to evaluate candidates for judicial vacancies in Manhattan’s Civil and Supreme Courts. This panel comprises members nominated by a diverse array of organizations, including bar associations, community groups, law schools, and legal service nonprofits.
These organizations nominate individuals to serve on the panel, ensuring a broad representation of the legal community and public interest groups. The panel's role is to assess and report on the qualifications of judicial candidates, identifying those deemed most highly qualified for election to the bench.
The New York judicial screening panel system was formally initiated in 1977 by Governor Hugh Carey as part of broader reforms aimed at improving the quality and integrity of judicial appointments in New York State. The move was also prompted by growing public and media scrutiny over judicial conduct and ethics, including specific controversies over unqualified or politically connected judicial nominees. It was initiated to:
- Reduce political patronage: Prior to the panels, judicial appointments in New York were often influenced by political connections rather than merit. The system aimed to insulate the judiciary from political pressures.
- Promote merit-based selection: The panels were designed to identify and recommend only qualified and competent candidates for judicial office, elevating professional standards.
- Increase public confidence: The state sought to restore public trust in the courts by ensuring that judges were selected through a transparent and credible process.