Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Public records show greater than 90 percent of new york city judges donate to the democratic party
Executive summary
Public reporting by The City and New York Focus documents that many recent New York City judicial candidates and newly elected judges have given money to Democratic county parties and leaders — in some Brooklyn contests all six newly elected Supreme Court judges were donors to the Kings County Democratic Party (example totals: “more than $100,000” in collective donations from a crop of candidates; individual examples include over $21,000 from one justice candidate) [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide a single, city‑wide statistic that “greater than 90 percent” of all New York City judges donate to the Democratic Party; the reporting documents “most” or “many” and gives borough‑level examples rather than a comprehensive percentage [2] [1].
1. What the reporting actually shows: many judicial candidates give to Democrats
Investigations by New York Focus and reporting in THE CITY describe patterns where state Supreme Court and other judicial candidates in New York City have donated to Democratic county parties, local leaders and party clubs; THE CITY reported that a recent cohort of judicial candidates “collectively gave more than $100,000” to party leaders and clubs, and New York Focus documented that most winning city Supreme Court candidates had donated to Democratic county parties and leaders [1] [2]. In Brooklyn specifically, reporting notes six newly elected Supreme Court judges were donors to the Kings County Democratic Party and one candidate had given over $21,000 in nearly 100 contributions to local party accounts [2].
2. What the reporting does not show: no single sourced “>90%” figure for the entire bench
None of the provided sources present a single, city‑wide percentage (such as “greater than 90 percent”) of all New York City judges donating to the Democratic Party. THE CITY and New York Focus use terms such as “most,” “many,” and provide borough or race‑level counts and dollar examples, not a comprehensive statistic covering every judge in the city [2] [1]. Therefore the specific claim that public records show >90% across all NYC judges is not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
3. Legal context: judges’ political activity is tightly circumscribed but candidates can donate during the “window”
New York’s judicial conduct rules restrict political activity for sitting judges except during a defined “Window Period” when they are actually running for office; candidates and judges face special campaign ethics guidance and limits on activities such as ticket purchases and solicitations (22 NYCRR rules and ACJE opinions cited by New York Courts and the Commission on Judicial Conduct) [3] [4] [5]. The reports highlight that loopholes and permitted campaign activity — not prohibition of donations during the Window Period — help explain why judicial candidates can and do contribute to party structures [2] [1].
4. How party structure and nomination mechanics shape behavior
New York’s selection process for many judicial offices (including State Supreme Court candidates chosen through delegate conventions after closed primaries) and the power of county party leaders make party support valuable; reporting argues that nominating power and patronage in borough parties incentivize candidates to court party leaders, sometimes with contributions or paying for events [2] [6]. THE CITY frames judicial nominations as a remaining patronage power of county party machines, particularly in places like Brooklyn [1].
5. Competing perspectives and possible agendas in the reporting
The City and New York Focus focus on the appearance of pay‑to‑play and the ethics implications of judges contributing to party options; that coverage suggests reform is needed to avoid perceived conflicts. The official judiciary materials (ACJE opinions, Commission on Judicial Conduct rules) emphasize that the ethics regime already limits partisan activity and requires training and compliance, framing donations and permitted activity as bounded by law [4] [3] [5]. Readers should note each outlet’s implicit agenda: investigative outlets push for scrutiny and reform, while court guidance emphasizes rule compliance and legal limits.
6. Where to look to substantiate a precise percentage claim
To test a claim like “greater than 90 percent of NYC judges donate to the Democratic Party,” one would need systematic searching of campaign finance databases (city and state filings) and donor‑level searches (e.g., NYC Campaign Finance Board, state campaign filings, OpenSecrets state pages) and a clear definition of the population (sitting judges? recent candidates? which courts?) [7] [8]. The current set of sources provides examples and investigations but not a completed, city‑wide audit or an FEC/CFB‑style aggregated percentage for all judges in New York City (not found in current reporting).
If you want, I can outline the precise public‑records search steps and data fields you’d need (which databases to query, date ranges, and how to define the judge population) so someone could attempt to compile a definitive percentage.