A year after a fistfight broke out at the Brooklyn nominating convention for state Supreme Court judges, all eyes were on yesterday’s nominating convention.

No black eyes were evident.

But while five judges whose nominations had been predetermined were voted onto the ballot in rubber-stamp fashion, party reformers aggressively tried to block the nomination of a judge who an independent screening panel deemed “not qualified.”

The dissenters, many of whom were wearing stickers reading “Brooklyn deserves a fair judicial system,” argued against renominating Justice Louis Marrero, a Republican who has been on the bench for 14 years.

In a roll-call vote, Judge Marrero, who had the backing of Brooklyn’s Democratic Party chairman, Clarence Norman Jr., earned 71 votes. The reformers’ nominee, Sarah Krauss, a Brooklyn Civil Court justice, earned 25.

“Why do we have to settle for someone found unqualified?” reformer Susan Loeb asked during debate in the auditorium at St. Francis College in Brooklyn. “I think the people of Brooklyn deserve an explanation.”

“It doesn’t make sense,” she said later. “First off, he’s a Republican, and second, we’ve got 16 other candidates who the screening panel determined were qualified.”

Assemblyman Frank Seddio, who said he has known Judge Marrero for 40 years, vouched for the judge’s character. “Quite frankly, I found it outrageous that a gentleman like Louis Marrero was found unqualified.”

The borough’s party leaders have been entangled in ongoing corruption scandals for years. Both Mr. Norman and the party’s executive director, Jeffrey Feldman, are under indictment on charges of extortion and coercion of judicial candidates.

Justice Gerald Garson is facing trial on bribery charges. And the state Commission on Judicial Conduct was scheduled to meet last night to consider the removal of Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg. In the latest corruption case to rock the Brooklyn Democratic party machine, Mr. Feinberg is accused of awarding excessive fees to a lawyer, thereby bilking the estates of Brooklyn residents.

Many Democrats have expressed outrage at what they see as a broken system in which party leaders have delegates’ votes in the bag before even walking into the convention hall, and where a party challenger has virtually no chance in the general election.

“The delegates are meaningless,” the Park Slope district leader, JoAnne Simon, said. “The decision is made beforehand anyway.”

Mr. Norman denied accusations that the convention system is a sham. “I don’t think you saw anybody running around, or twisting arms, or threatening people to have delegates vote a particular way,” he said. “A roll call was taken. The delegates exercised their free will.”

Opponents of the convention system are lobbying to replace it with party primaries. Mr. Norman said primaries would require too much money and that the convention is the best process.

He also reiterated that the guidelines for the screening panel, which were created last year to root out corruption, allow the party to endorse sitting judges, such as Judge Marrero, no matter the panel’s recommendation for them.

Not everyone bought that rational. Some said the panel system, while not perfect, should be followed, even when members disagree with the recommendation.

“The law may permit an unqualified judge to get reappointed, but I think the people of Brooklyn want to see something more than unqualified judges being returned to the bench,” a delegate, lawyer Ronald Russo, said, a statement that was greeted with applause at the back of the room.