As Lawmakers Eye Need for NY Supreme Court Posts, Could a Ballot Question Remove the Constitutional Limit?

The No Cap Act, a measure that has gained support as an effort to lift the population-based limit that determines the number of judges in New York, has drawn the continued opposition of the association representing the state’s trial court jurists.

The Supreme Court justices’ association and other judicial groups have expressed concerns about the proposal to lift the cap and open the door to new judges. They say lawmakers would be giving themselves too much influence in apportioning judicial assignments.

But key sponsors of the legislation, Assemblymember Alex Bores and Senate Judiciary Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal, both Manhattan Democrats, are continuing their efforts to pass the act, which aims to lift judicial-seat limits through a constitutional amendment that would require passage in two successive legislative sessions. In its first go-round, the Senate passed it in March, followed by the Assembly’s approval in June.

Advocates say the present cap within each judicial district of one justice per population of 50,000 people renders the Legislature powerless to authorize additional seats to meet the needs of the state courts.

They say this has resulted in “stopgap” measures of assigning justices from other courts to serve on an “acting” basis. The practice is particularly pronounced in Manhattan, backers say.

During a lobbying effort in the Albany last year, advocates noted that in New York City, a state Supreme Court justice can have 2,500 cases on his or her docket and 400 motions awaiting decisions.

The justices’ association, for its part, says the present formula needs fixing, but the proposed act, if passed, would incur a risk.

“Our Association believes that the Constitutional population formula ensures that each Judicial District, irrespective of its location, is afforded a fair and equitable allocation of Justices to address the needs of their population,” said outgoing Supreme Court Justice Verna Saunders, president of the Association of Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

“This new legislation threatens risk to equal representation, voter choice, and diversity,” said Saunders, who was handing off the association’s presidency to state Supreme Court Justice Frank Caruso on Friday, during an annual breakfast in New York City.

“Further, it could serve to politicize the allocation of justices in a way that interferes with the independence of the judiciary as a coordinate branch of government,” Saunders said.

According to Saunders, the association continues to support a somewhat lesser-heralded bill that was sponsored in 2024 by Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz, D-Bronx. That one aims to lower the ratio of Supreme Court justices to 30,000, with backers saying it would also create hundreds of new judgeships while avoiding the political assignment of new seats.

But backers of the Bores/Hoylman-Sigal bill say that nothing would change about the process by which Supreme Court seats are created, as it will remain lawmakers’ purview to create elected judicial seats, as they do now.

The New York City Bar Association said advocating for the act remains one of its top legislative priorities for the year.

“It’s high time for a constitutional amendment to move on from the archaic system enacted in 1846 that caps the number of State Supreme Court Justices based on population,” NYCBA President Muhammad U. Faridi said. “We need a thoughtful and evidenced-based system that ensures, rather than impedes, New Yorkers’ access to the justice system.”

The Fund for Modern Courts is another backer.

If approved by lawmakers this session, the act could be included on the November statewide ballot.

The constitutional cap dates to 1846, and the one-justice-per-50,000-residents ratio was last updated in 1961.