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.
90 percent of new york city judges vote democrat
Executive summary
Available reporting does not support a simple claim that “90 percent of New York City judges vote Democrat.” Coverage shows that many municipal judicial contests in NYC are dominated by Democrats (large Democratic registration advantages and many uncontested races), that judges run on party lines and sometimes multiple lines, and that primaries often decide outcomes — but I found no source giving a 90% figure for how judges personally “vote” or how many are Democrats on the bench (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3].
1. What the sources do say about party dominance in NYC judicial races
Local coverage and guides emphasize that Democratic dominance in most of New York City makes primary elections decisive: in many counties there are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, and The CITY reported that of 18 judicial races on one ballot, 14 had no competition — meaning Democrats effectively hold the seats in many contests [1]. The New York City Bar Association and its guides explicitly note that “so much of New York City is dominated by one party (in most places, the Democratic Party…)” and that primaries are therefore especially important [2] [4].
2. Why “who wins the race” is not the same as “how judges vote”
The user’s original wording — “90 percent of New York City judges vote Democrat” — mixes two different facts: (A) which party label a judicial candidate runs under or wins election as, and (B) how an individual judge may vote on cases. The sources discuss party labels, primaries and ballot lines (including fusion voting where the same candidate can appear on multiple party lines), but they do not measure judges’ case decisions as “voting Democrat” or quantify judges’ personal partisan votes on the bench (not found in current reporting) [3] [4].
3. Election mechanics that produce heavy Democratic representation
New York electoral mechanics — closed primaries for party nominations, convention systems for some supreme court nominations, signature thresholds for petitions, and fusion voting — create environments where party organization matters and party-dominant areas produce one-party outcomes. Ballotpedia and NYC Bar explain these rules and their practical effect: party primaries and delegate conventions frequently determine which candidates reach the general election, and many general-election judicial contests in NYC are uncontested or effectively decided by party primaries [5] [2] [6].
4. Evidence of heavy—but not numerically specified—Democratic advantage
Reporting gives concrete examples of registration disparities: The CITY cites Queens County registration numbers (811,000 Democrats vs. 147,000 Republicans), and notes that in many boroughs the general-election races are “essentially predetermined,” which supports the conclusion that a large majority of elected judges in much of the city will be Democrats — but none of the supplied sources supply a citywide percentage like “90%” for either party-affiliation of sitting judges or how they decide cases [1].
5. Cross-filed and fusion lines complicate simple party labels
Gothamist and other pieces explain fusion voting and the fact that judicial candidates sometimes run on multiple party lines, so ballot labels do not cleanly map to ideological behavior: one name may appear on Democratic, Republican, Conservative, or third-party lines, and votes are tallied across lines [3]. That practice makes it harder to assign a single “party vote” percentage without detailed, seat-by-seat data [3].
6. What would be needed to substantiate a “90%” claim
To verify “90 percent,” you would need a current roster enumerating all NYC judges, the party label under which they were elected or currently registered, or a systematic count of judicial election outcomes by party over a defined period. None of the current reporting or guides in the provided set present such a tally; Ballotpedia and NYC Votes provide candidate lists and election pages where a researcher could compile counts, but those are not summarized into a single citywide percentage in these sources [7] [5] [8].
7. Alternative viewpoints and limitations
Some coverage frames this concentration as a democratic-choice issue — voters in primaries choose candidates — while others cast it as a structural problem that limits competitiveness and information for voters (The CITY and NYC Bar present both practical effects and normative concerns) [1] [2]. Importantly, the sources repeatedly note limitations on public information about judicial candidates and that many races attract little campaign scrutiny, which constrains public understanding of whether judges’ decisions track partisan labels [4] [9].
Bottom line
The available sources establish that Democratic dominance and uncontested races give Democrats a strong edge in many NYC judicial elections, and that primaries often decide outcomes — but they do not provide or cite a 90% statistic attributing either judges’ party affiliation or their case votes to Democrats. To substantiate a “90%” number would require an explicit seat-by-seat count or dataset not present in the current reporting [1] [2] [3].