Joseph Maltese and Judith McMahon plan to run against each other for state Supreme Court on Staten Island, if Washington approves the existence of their judicial district.



Staten Island is tied to Brooklyn by four legislative districts, a school region and a judicial district. That will all change at the end of this year—at least, that is, in terms of the judicial district.

Soon, the island will have its very own state Supreme Court seat, allowing borough residents to vote for homegrown judges. Due to Judge Robert Gigante's (D) election to Surrogate Court last year, there will be at least one open seat on the bench for Staten Islanders to vote in a new, competitive borough-wide race this November.

“I think it's going to make political life interesting for many,” said Assembly Member Michael Cusick (D-Staten Island), author of his chamber's bill.

State Sen. Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island) carried the bill in the Senate.

Previously, judges from Staten Island would have to interview with a Brooklyn county committee as part of the judicial selection process. Now, the power to nominate locally elected judges will be solely in the hands of Staten Island’s party leaders.

So far, two acting state Supreme Court judges have announced they will make the race. But how this year’s elections will be conducted—either as part of the old Brooklyn-Staten Island district or with the new, independent one—is not clear, since the new district can only take effect after approval from the Department of Justice, according to the Voting Rights Act.

Cusick is confident that those making the decision in Washington will support the move.

“They'll find that this is a good piece of legislation,” he said.

But for now, Chris Bauer, speaking as executive director of the borough's Democratic Party—a post he has since left—said the party is treating this seat as part of Brooklyn's judicial district until Justice Department approval arrives. However, if the race becomes competitive as an exclusively Staten Island race, Democrats will run a strong campaign.

“We look forward to a Democratic win,” Bauer said. “It's definitely a plus for the party being competitive island-wide.”

Potential candidate Joseph Maltese, on the other hand, said his reading of the bill shows that this district is now clearly only for Staten Island. The likely Republican candidate in the race, he said, will wait until next year to run if Brooklynites can vote in the November election for the seat.

Maltese previously lost state Supreme Court races in 1993 and 2006, with Brooklyn's heavily Democratic population diluting the vote of Staten Islanders voting for their judges, who were only nominated by the GOP.

Maltese was appointed in 1996 to the Court of Claims by then-Gov. George Pataki (R). He said he prefers that method to running in low-profile races.

“The appointed system is far more superior,” he said. “The process is more scrupulous than the elective process.”
Given the obscurity of judicial races and the legal restraint on candidates from speaking about political issues, Maltese believes the race will be decided by dueling résumés and voting by party line or ethnicity.

However, his expected challenger, Judith McMahon, said that the fanfare around the new district would drum up enthusiasm for the campaign.

McMahon successfully ran on the Democratic line for the North Shore Civil Court seat in 2002, and like Maltese, currently serves as an acting state Supreme Court judge.

“This would be the first election where Staten Islanders will be selecting their Supreme Court judge,” McMahon said. “There has been a lot of publicity about it. I think people will obviously be much more aware of it.”

Though both potential candidates are appointed judges, only a state Supreme Court judge who has been elected, not appointed, can move to the Appellate division, the intermediary between trial court and the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

McMahon's run for state Supreme Court will coincide with the congressional campaign of her husband, Council Member Michael McMahon (D).

This issue reportedly weighed on Michael McMahon's decision to enter the race, as he feared that his campaign would siphon funds and party resources from his wife.

Yet without an already well-known Republican in the congressional race, McMahon said she believes the campaigns will not affect one another.

“The two elections and campaigns are separate and distinct,” she said.

Though the congressional race is a top priority for Democrats, who have not held the seat for 28 years, the party wants to keep the state Supreme Court seat once held by Gigante, a popular Democratic stalwart. Control of the seat is also proudly viewed as a testament to the Democratic Party's strength across the borough.

But as the race begins to take shape, there is a movement to create new openings on the bench from Staten Island with new legislation currently in committee in Albany.

Joseph Romagnolo, president of Staten Island Trial Lawyers Association, said this was the best way to avoid a contentious race between two colleagues in a borough with a much smaller pool of jurists.

“There would be discord and resentment on the bench,” Romagnolo said. “This will give the people of Staten Island another judge and keep the congeniality.”

********
Now that One New Judicial Slot Exists, a Move for More
After two decades of stalling in committee, State Sen. Andrew Lanza (R) and Assembly Member Michael Cusick (D) garnered enough support to get the Staten Island judicial district bill to then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) desk last December.

Cusick and Lanza both said special thanks was owed to Brooklyn Democratic Party chair Assembly Member Vito Lopez, who rallied the support of Brooklyn's delegation in Albany, which includes Helene Weinstein, the Assembly's Judiciary Committee chair.

The Brooklyn delegation was the key to passing a bill that had been repeatedly introduced only to stall in committee under the same objections, according to Lanza.

“We came to the realization that it would hurt the interests of Brooklyn and it would hurt their delegation,” Lanza said.
After meeting with Lopez and securing his support, Lanza and Cusick lobbied Spitzer to sign the bill.
“I put it in the context of judicial reform,” Lanza said.

Spitzer not only signed the bill, but traveled to Staten Island for a ceremonial signing.

That initial bill, which set the new district, removed three judicial seats and placed them instead in Staten Island.
Now Lanza and Cusick are pushing legislation that increases the number of judicial slots to 10—or one judge per 50,000 residents, as the State Constitution demands—and restores the three judges removed from Brooklyn's district.

A new judicial district, Cusick said, needs an appropriate number of staffers, proper funding and space for new judges. In order to secure the components necessary, Cusick said this part of the legislation had to be broken into a separate bill.

“The purpose has always been to get the judicial district first,” Cusick said. “You wouldn’t be able to start the district with 10 judges.”

Of the seven additional judges the new bill would add to Staten Island, five would be elected this November and two would be elected in 2009.

The Senate and Assembly bills, which have until the end of session to pass in order to leave time for petitioning, are being reviewed by the Judiciary Committee in each chamber. Cusick is optimistic about the bill's chance of succeeding.

“I'm confident,” Cusick said, “that the judicial district will move smoothly in January.”
********