On January 27, Federal Judge John Gleeson delivered a rather remarkable decision. In a case that had been pending for several years, he wrote a 77-page opinion holding that the State of New York’s constitutional provision for selecting Supreme Court Justices by judicial convention was in violation of the United States Constitution in that it deprived the people of the state of meaningful participation in the selection of judges.

He found as a matter of fact that these conventions are tightly controlled by a small group of political leaders (the county bosses) and that judicial candidates not recommended by these bosses have no chance to be chosen for their party’s nomination. Judge Gleeson directed the legislature to reform the system by this summer, when petitioning will begin for Supreme Court candidates. In political circles, the decision was considered momentous.

On Tuesday, Chief Judge Judith Kaye presented her annual State of the Judiciary message to the State Legislature, and part of her remarks dealt with the selection of judges. She presented a number of proposals to improve the convention system, developed by a commission headed by John Feerick, the dean of Fordham Law School. The proposals are meritorious, even if we have to put up with judicial conventions. If they can be abolished, the reforms should still be enacted to establish standards and promote integrity and objectivity in the primary election process.

The abolition of judicial conventions would not automatically lead to the selection of better judges, although it is a healthy first step. Primaries, especially borough wide contests in Brooklyn and New York counties, are very expensive, and if the candidates collect funds for litigants, they will create relationships that may interfere with their objectivity. Rule 28-C: “Don’t accept cigarettes in prison.” You may incur obligations that you are unwilling to meet.

We will be watching the litigation closely. If judges are to be elected in primaries, the petitioning process would begin in June, which is just four months off. We should be aware that no system will itself guarantee good judges. The governor may appoint his out-of-town cronies. The electorate may select the candidate who has spent the most money trying to reach them. The county bosses may sell the offices. It is possible, however, that the payoffs will be less than the cost of running countywide primaries. If judges have to pay for their seats, do we want the price to be high or low?

The situation was summed up by Alexander Pope in 1734 in his “Essay on Man,” where he wrote: “For forms of government let fools contest; Whate’er is best administered is best: For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight; His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right … “

Judge Gleeson’s decision has opened the door to reform of a self-serving practice in which mediocre insiders are elevated to the judiciary while far better qualified outsiders are excluded. We should do what we can to see that this unusual opportunity is not lost. There are many honest and able lawyers who would make fine judges. The bench should not be chosen from among ward-heelers, time-servers, sycophants, and rich men seeking a hobby while in retirement. Let us be clear: there are decent, honest, and intelligent judges serving today. They deserve particular credit for beating the system and making their way to the bench.

The case of Brooklyn Judge Victor Barron, sentenced to prison for taking bribes, is cited both as an example of a corrupt judiciary, and as an indication of an honest one, since he is the only judge, out of many, who committed this particular crime. We should know, however, that the only way this case was made is that the victim of the shakedown complained to the district attorney, and wore a wire to trap the judge. The great majority of bribery cases are consensual, with the briber relatively satisfied with the result, and, if he had made a payoff, unwilling to complain lest he be disbarred himself. There is a thin line between bribery and extortion, and some cases have elements of both.

In our view, there are a good number of judges who either take money or gifts, side with their friends out of loyalty, don’t understand the cases before them, or are too lazy to read the briefs. These vices appear to a greater or lesser extent in different individuals, and judges’ performance can change over the years, as senility sets in, or as personal problems cause distress. That is human nature.

Our object is to find a system in which the wisest and fairest men and women will sit on the bench. This will elevate not only the reputation of the courts, but the quality of justice dispensed. The parasites in robes would have to content themselves with patronage from the surrogates, until the tide of reform reaches that barnacle-encrusted office.

Reform is always an uphill struggle. The system is the way it is because the people who live off it want it that way. But an opening has been created. We need a Prague Spring to take advantage of it. The cause will have to be championed by the MSM (mainstream media).

Mr. Stern is a former New York City parks commissioner and the founder of New York Civic.