Lest they be judged

The front page of the Daily News didn’t convince us that it’s a really bad idea to elect judges. We’ve known that for years, urging merit selection by mayors, governors and presidents. But Monday’s detailed takedown by Michael Gartland, exposing how lawyers on the judicial screening committee of the Brooklyn Democratic machine are cashing in on court appointments made by the very judges they okay for the ballot, reinforces every argument against an elected judiciary.

Voters generally have no good way to discern between lawyers’ names on a ballot. And that’s when they have a choice. There are 17 Civil Court openings citywide in this November’s election, but in the all-important Democratic primary this month, there are only four contests. Everyone else gets a bye.

That leaves the local Democratic Party

machine pulling the strings.

While Manhattan Democrats employ an independent screening panel, Brooklyn boss Frank Seddio, a former Surrogate judge that this page chased off the bench, names a third of the members in Brooklyn.

Without his rigged panel, no party blessing. No ballot line.

And as The News lays out, several of the panel members, including Seddio-tapped pals, have been receiving largess from the same Brooklyn judges that they okayed.

The best solution is a merit-based, appointed judiciary.

But as long as judges are elected, what’s needed are totally independent screening panels. And everyone serving on a panel must pledge to take no favors from judges before them. Even Seddio should be able to agree to that.