Nora the ignorer

Daily News Editorial, October 25,2008

It will be a wonder if Manhattan Surrogate-elect Nora Anderson lasts a month before she's bounced as a serial ethics violator.

Two new Anderson transgressions came to light on reading materials related to the campaign that helped her win the Democratic primary and run unopposed in November.

As previously revealed here, Anderson bankrolled her election with a loan that amounted to an illegal $202,000 contribution on the day she won the primary.

Then, she tried to clean up the mess with transactions that ran afoul of a rule barring successful judicial candidates from soliciting contributions if they plan to use them to repay campaign debts to themselves.

Through it all, Anderson failed to file required personal financial disclosure information.

And now, it turns out, she exaggerated her credentials. She says on her Web site that the "Independent Judicial Screening Panel," an official state body, deemed her "most highly qualified." There's no such official rating, although Democratic Party screeners used that term to describe all the primary candidates.

Finally, judicial candidates must file a questionnaire with the official screening panel and update it. They must disclose whether they have become the subject of investigation.

The Manhattan district attorney is on Anderson's case. If she hasn't told the panel, it's one more violation.