Criminal justice reform advocates push against judges’ recertification

Dozens of state Supreme Court justices over the mandatory retirement age of 70 have applied for certification to remain on the bench for at least another two years. Criminal justice reform advocates wrote a letter opposing four of them this year – but what happens next is a big question mark. 

Under the state constitution, all state judges must retire at the end of the year they turn 70. But state Supreme Court justices specifically can serve up to six more years after that if they apply for certification to remain on the bench. They can apply up to three times for two-year periods. Only Supreme Court justices are eligible at the trial level, and while rejection is generally rare, certification is not a right.

In a letter first reported in City & State’s Heard Around Town newsletter last week, the Center for Community Alternatives expressed opposition to the certification of state Supreme Court Justices Laura Ward, Mario Mattei, Timothy Mazzei and Thomas Moran. The group pointed to dozens of decisions by those four judges that it argued demonstrates they should not receive approval to continue serving.

“These four judges are united by a pattern of appellate courts repeatedly finding serious legal errors in some of the most fundamental responsibilities of a trial judge, from protecting constitutional rights and ensuring fair trials to imposing lawful sentences and correctly applying basic legal standards,” said Peter Martin, director of judicial accountability at the Center for Community Alternatives. “When judges ask to remain on the bench beyond our state’s constitutional retirement age, records like this should matter.”

The Center for Community Alternatives has led the charge in New York for judicial reforms, including specific campaigns against individual judges. It previously opposed Ward’s nomination in 2024 to serve out a vacant state Supreme Court term that was ostensibly meant to expire at the end of that year. Ward had turned 70 in 2024 and would have needed to retire at the end of the year anyway. 

But Gov. Kathy Hochul’s nomination and the state Senate’s subsequent confirmation of Ward to serve as an interim state Supreme Court Justice permitted her to apply for certification. Previously, as an acting Supreme Court justice, she was not eligible. Ward is now applying for her second, two-year certification to remain. At the time, she declined to comment on her nomination and Hochul’s office offered no details about the governor’s decision to nominate the soon-to-be retiring judge.

The state’s judiciary is shrouded in mystery and misunderstanding – and the certification process is no different. Although state law grants a body known as the Administrative Board of the Courts broad decision-making powers in determining who will and will not get certification, little is known about criteria they adhere to, and the process, Martin said, is “far too opaque.” 

“The Administrative Board exercises enormous discretion over whether judges continue serving beyond the mandatory retirement age, yet it provides virtually no explanation for its decisions and no insight into how it weighs the public comments it receives,” he added.

According to Lou Nock, a former state Supreme Court justice familiar with the certification process, the administrative decision-makers prioritize three factors when making their determinations: the jurists’ physical health, their mental acuity and whether they have been able to pace with the large caseload that comes with being a Supreme Court justice. Nock said they do weigh other factors, including appellate reversal rate, but to a lesser extent – and he’s less knowledgeable about how outside comments affect the process. He said each judge sits down for a roughly one-hour interview before receiving a decision on their certification application.

A 2021 Times Union article that cited former Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks also noted that the Administrative Board can solicit input from bar associations, other administrative judges and the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. It said judges who apply for certification waive rights to confidentiality so decision-makers can see any pending investigations into the jurist. 

The Office of Court Administration sent out an invitation for public comment at the beginning of May regarding the dozens of judges seeking certification, which the Center for Community Alternatives responded to. A spokesperson for OCA did not offer a response to a request for comment on the letter specifically, nor for additional information on the certification process. 

Yet for something so hazy, the issue of judge certification is frequently a topic of contention for politicos. Hochul issued her first ever pocket veto in 2022 to reject legislation that would have largely automated the certification process so long as judges proved they remained mentally fit. The governor proactively vetoed it a second time at the start of 2023.

“The Administrative Board considers various factors when determining whether to recertify a retiring judge or justice, including, for example, whether the justice has been the subject of complaints or involved in activities that undermine public confidence and trust in the courts,” Hochul wrote in a veto memo. Although she didn’t get into specific criteria, the governor said the legislation would have improperly limited the discretion of the decision-making body.

Judicial certification also made news in 2020, when court administration rejected dozens of applications due to COVID-19 pandemic fiscal constraints. Those judges proceeded to sue the state for age discrimination.