Matter of Hurowitz, 46 N.Y.2d 564 (1979)

A sitting judge may not be a candidate for judicial office on the same court before the expiration of their current term, as such action would frustrate the intent of the New York State Constitution’s judiciary article.

Summary

The case concerns whether a sitting Civil Court Judge, Barry Hurowitz, could run for another term on the same court before his current term expired. The petitioner sought to invalidate his candidacy, arguing it violated Article VI, Section 20 of the New York State Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that allowing a judge to run for the same position before their term expires would undermine the constitutional intent of maintaining an independent judiciary and ensuring a regular electoral process free from unnecessary political influence and potential manipulation of judicial appointments. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the petitions to validate Hurowitz’s candidacy and granting the petition to invalidate it.

Facts

Barry Hurowitz was a sitting Civil Court Judge elected in 1976 for a ten-year term commencing January 1, 1977. Before completing his term, Hurowitz sought to run for another full ten-year term on the same Civil Court. Opponents challenged his eligibility, arguing it violated the New York State Constitution.

Procedural History

The case originated as a challenge to the validity of the petitions designating Hurowitz as a candidate. The lower court initially sided with Hurowitz, but the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that his candidacy was invalid.

Issue(s)

Whether Section 20 of Article VI of the New York State Constitution permits a sitting judge to be a candidate for the same judicial office before the expiration of their current term.

Holding

No, because such an interpretation would frustrate the overall purposes of Article VI of the Constitution, thwart the electoral process, and enhance the potential for public mischief.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that interpreting Section 20 to allow a sitting judge to run for the same office before their term expires would contradict the intent of Article VI of the New York Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Constitution seeks to ensure an independent and impartial judiciary, elected on a regular basis without fragmentation of terms. Allowing judges to repeatedly enter the political process to extend their tenure undermines this objective. The Court noted that a constitutional provision should be construed considering the overall intent, citing People ex rel. Jackson v. Potter, 47 N.Y. 375, 378. The court further observed that allowing such candidacies could lead to a system where judicial positions are filled by appointment due to frequent resignations, diluting the public’s right to elect judges. The court quoted People v. Purdy, 154 N.Y. 439, 442, stating that statutes relating to the qualifications of public officers should be construed to enable voters to act intelligently and accomplish their purpose. The Court also raised concerns about the appearance of impropriety when judges inject themselves into the political process to extend their tenure, referencing the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct. The court found that Hurowitz’s candidacy had the potential for “mischief” that the court could not condone.