Mayor Bloomberg was busy over the weekend selling the line that the legal troubles enveloping the Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, Clarence Norman, point to the need to pass his scheme for non-partisan elections. Mr. Norman has been under investigation by the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles Hynes, with regard to judgeships being for sale in Brooklyn; Mr. Norman has not been charged with selling judgeships, but was indicted last week on charges that he stole from the state and broke campaign laws. Mr. Bloomberg’s plan is a non sequitur. It would eliminate party primaries in favor of open first- round municipal elections but would do nothing to improve the quality of, or method of selecting between, judicial candidates. To the contrary, it could make it more difficult for voters to determine a candidate’s judicial philosophy.

“Non-partisan elections is an idea whose time has come, you saw it again with the indictment,” Mr. Bloomberg said Sunday. Apparently, Mr. Bloomberg doesn’t see that the investigation at Kings County proves, if anything, that the system works, and that corruption will be rooted out by the structures already in place. “It’s time to stop these party bosses who limit democracy by limiting who you can choose from,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

In fact, the non-partisan elections ballot question before the voters next month would not do anything to affect judicial selections. The measure only covers offices like City Council member, mayor, comptroller, public advocate and borough president.

We wouldn’t profess to know all the answers offhand to the problem of reforming judicial selection in the five boroughs. But it does seem, as a general rule, that an appointment and confirmation process of some sort would lead to more accountability for those placed on the bench. The voters already have a hard enough time as it is following City Council races. Far more unreasonable is the request that they pass judgment on judicial candidates, the merits of whom the voters have little way to judge.

To the extent that judgeships are left to election, a non-partisan system would be the worst possible solution. The only information voters currently have regarding a judicial candidate is which party has endorsed the candidate. Is he or she for or against tort reform? Is he or she for or against the death penalty? A party affiliation at least gives voters a sense of where the candidate is likely to stand. Our Democrat-turned-Republican mayor, however, doesn’t seem to want anyone to know where anyone else stands. That may serve his brand of politics, but it won’t give New York City better judges.