26 N.Y.2d 39 (1970)
When a constitutional provision relating to the structure of the court system is not self-executing and the legislature fails to provide implementing statutes, the court may take action to maintain the existing system in order to allow the court to function until the legislature acts.
Summary
This case addresses the issue of judicial elections for Civil Court Judges in New York City when the state legislature failed to enact legislation implementing a constitutional provision regarding the establishment of election districts. The Court of Appeals held that in the absence of implementing legislation, the existing mixed pattern of county-wide and sub-county district selection should continue to ensure the essential functioning of the Civil Court until the Legislature acts. The court emphasized that its action was a temporary emergency measure, not a substitution for legislative action.
Facts
Prior to 1962, Civil Court Judges in New York City were elected in a mixed system of county-wide and sub-county districts. From 1962 through 1968, the legislature passed annual acts that continued this existing mixed election pattern. In 1969, the legislature failed to pass an extension bill, creating a void in the statutory framework governing the election of Civil Court Judges. This legislative inaction raised questions about the validity of elections in the former Municipal Court Districts and the tenure of elected judges.
Procedural History
The case originated in the context of challenges to the election of Civil Court Judges after the legislature’s failure to pass an extension bill in 1969. The Special Term initially upheld the elections in the former Municipal Court Districts. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Special Term’s order and judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether, in the absence of implementing legislation for a non-self-executing constitutional provision regarding the election of Civil Court Judges, the court can order the continuation of the existing election system to ensure the court’s functionality.
Holding
Yes, because the court has the authority to provide temporary emergency implementation to a mandated but non-self-executing constitutional direction to continue the existing situation and ensure that the court may function until the Legislature acts.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the constitutional provision regarding the selection of Civil Court Judges (Art. VI, § 15, subd. a) is not self-executing and requires implementing legislation to define the election districts. In the absence of such legislation, the court found it necessary to maintain the existing mixed pattern of county-wide and sub-county district selection to allow the Civil Court to function. The court emphasized that its action was not a substitution for legislative action but rather a temporary measure to address an emergency situation created by the legislature’s inaction. The court drew an analogy to cases involving legislative redistricting, where courts have intervened to provide temporary solutions when the legislature fails to act. The court believed the omission of an annual extension bill in 1969 was likely an oversight, supported by the failure to pass an alternative bill that would have provided for county-wide elections alone. The court quoted precedent, referencing Matter of Dowling, 219 N.Y. 44, 59 and Matter of Sherrill v. O’Brien, 188 N.Y. 185, 215 in support of its reasoning regarding legislative redistricting. By continuing the existing mixed pattern until the legislature provides otherwise, the court aimed to effectuate the intention of the constitutional provision, which delegated discretion to the legislature.