From SCOTUSblog
By Lyle Denniston

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Constitution does not require a state to use a primary election to select state judges. The decision found that New York did not violate the First Amendment by choosing its lowest-level judgeship nominees by a party convention.  The result in New York State Board of Elections v. Torres, et al. (06-766) was unanimous, although there were two concurring opinions.

The judicial election case involves a system in use in New York since 1921, requiring parties to choose their nominees for state “Supreme Court” judges by a convention of delegates who are political party members — a system that appears to be unique in the nation.  In New York, the “Supreme Court” is the original trial court, not the state’s highest court (which is called the Court of Appeals).  The challengers to the convention system argued that it is run by party bosses, making it hard for potential candidates not favored by the party apparatus to get chosen.  The system was struck down by the Second Circuit Court; that is the result the Supreme Court overturned in Wednesday’s ruling.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Court’s opinion, said the Court in the past has allowed states to offset the influence of party bosses by requiring selection of candidates by processes that are more favorable to insurgent candidates — such as a primary election. “But,” Scalia added, “to say that the state can require this is a far cry from saying that the Constitution demands it.”

Full article here.