Blog
NY Reform
By Renée Paradis & Kahlil Williams – 03/12/08
It may be an overstatement to refer to any state constitutional question as "interesting" in the wake of a nationally publicized sex scandal, but we believe there are genuinely interesting issues of succession following Eliot Spitzer's resignation. The
New York state constitution (Article IV, Section 5) provides for Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson to become Governor for the remainder of Spitzer's term, which ends in 2010. However, there is no provision made in the New York state constitution to replace the Lieutenant Governor if only that office is vacant. Instead, under Article IV, Section 6, in the case of a vacancy in the office of Lieutenant Governor alone, the temporary president of the Senate—that is, Republican Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno—"shall perform all the duties of lieutenant-governor," while still retaining his Senate seat.
Here's where things get interesting: the main duty of the lieutenant governor is casting a tie-breaking vote in the State Senate, known as a "casting vote," similar to the one the Vice President of the United States casts in the U.S. Senate. (Art. IV, Sec. 6 again). However, unlike the Vice President, Bruno would also remain a member of the Senate, enabling him to essentially vote twice when votes are tied: first, his full vote as a senator, and then, a casting vote wearing the hat of the lieutenant governor.
Given the competitiveness of recent Senate elections, it's increasingly possible that Bruno will be compelled to pull double duty. Though Republicans emerged from the 2006 general elections with a 34-28 advantage in the Senate, Democrats have narrowed the gap to 32-30 after capturing two GOP seats (Districts 9 and 48) through special elections. If the Democrats pull even with Republicans in seat share between now and 2010, they would still be, in effect, the minority party. Before the resignation, an even split would have given them control with Lt. Gov. Paterson as the tiebreaker, a fact not likely lost on a party that has not had control in the Senate since 1965. Even though the Dems won the Lieutenant Governorship in 2006, the Republicans will likely control the casting vote for the time being.
However, there's recently been some talk that the "casting vote" called for in the constitution can only be cast on procedural matters. Calling the vote a "casting vote" only means that it is a deciding, or tie-breaking vote, but different legislative bodies have given different power to the casting vote. In the U.S. Senate, any vote can be decided by the Vice President. But in the British House of Commons, the Speaker is only supposed to vote to hold further discussion. Interestingly enough, the Vice Presidency of the United States was modeled after New York's lieutenant governor post. But there's no indication in the constitutional text on whether the "casting vote" is for all votes, or just procedural ones, leading to some back and forth as to what the "casting vote" entails. In the words of one interested party, "The Constitution is clear, very clear. . . The Constitution gives certain rights to duly elected members. The lieutenant governor is not a duly elected member and is limited to certain procedural votes." Or so said John McArdle, spokesman for Majority Leader Bruno, just a week ago. The Dems, for their part, believe "it can be used for organizational matters, for procedural matters, motions made on the floor as well as passage of legislation." For now, the conflict is just hypothetical, but if it does come to pass, look for a fair amount of constitutional do-si-do.
The New York Sun noted another odd quirk in the New York constitution that might come into play with split control of the Lieutenant Governor's and Governor's seats: the Senate leader takes over anytime the governor is temporarily unable to perform his duties. In a provision that can best be understood as a relic of an era before air travel or the Acela, that includes any time the governor is out of the state. Paterson probably won't be taking any long vacations anytime soon.
So what options do the Democrats have if Spitzer resigns to hold onto control of the Lieutenant Governor's casting vote? The short answer is: very few. The state Constitution provides that "No election of a lieutenant-governor shall be had in any event except at the time of electing a governor," meaning an election for lieutenant governor would only take place if Patterson resigned as governor, creating a vacancy in both seats.
That new election can only take place at a general election, and the vacancy must be created not less than three months before that general election. New York has general elections every year, but the three-month window means that Paterson would have to resign by early August of the calendar year in order to trigger a new election. In addition to the incredible risk involved in running a new gubernatorial election in the wake of a scandal, there's also this wrinkle: during the three months before the election during which the governor's chair is empty, guess who acts as governor? That's right: Bruno.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform
By Michael Waldman – 03/12/08
After Spitzer; NY Reform, Take Two
By Michael Waldman – 03/12/08
The painful personal tragedy involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal is
obvious, and for other forums. In the storm of frenzied tabloid
attention, I hope we don't lose sight of the opportunity that has been
lost for New York—and one that might be gained.
Albany is notoriously broken. When the Brennan Center looked at the
legislative process in 2004, we deemed the legislature the nation's
"most dysfunctional." In 2006 we checked again and found little
progress. Our report on New York's campaign finance laws was entitled
"Paper Thin." Trial court judges are chosen by a corrupt system struck
down as unconstitutional after a two week trial, but eventually
resuscitated by the Supreme Court. Still, one Justice called the system
a "stupid law."
Eliot Spitzer vowed to change all that, and he did try to do just
that. I saw it with my own eyes. He earnestly pushed for campaign
reform, for example, and would not sign the pay raise lawmakers craved
until they passed some modest contribution limits. The Brennan Center
hosted him to speak to a private meeting of business and civic leaders
last spring. He was compelling and convincing. He proposed strong
redistricting reform and opposed the status quo on judicial selection.
As we know, little came of this reform push even before this week.
Relations between the governor and the legislature soured. The joke
was, "It used to be that decisions were made by three men in a room.
Now you can't get them in a room." Spitzer's progress was hindered, in
fact, by the reliance on that very closed system. Negotiations were
inevitably conducted in private, without much chance to build public
support. As a result, little public outcry occurred. By year's end,
reform energy had been well and thoroughly drained. Reformers were
reduced to waiting for the long expected but never quite materialized
Democratic takeover of the State Senate. The Spitzer era ends with
Albany and New York politics essentially unchanged. The power brokers
must be laughing.
There is a chance, though, for a new start. David Paterson comes
from a special place: he was the leader of the minority in the state
senate. The Senate Democrats were always the most enthusiastic for
rules reform of any faction in state government. Paterson is now in a
position to make progress, using his far smoother legislative
relationships. But only if he steps up to the task. He should resist
the temptation not to make waves. Sure, he has to consolidate his
power. But he must also consciously don the mantle of reform agent, and
show that his smooth style will work better than the steamroller.
Everything didn't change on Day One—it never could. But Day One of the
Paterson governorship is approaching. We hope it will be the beginning
of a new, true, reform era. Day One, Take Two?
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform
By Bethany Foster – 01/06/08
Check out the Brennan Center's take on New York State politics at our blog
ReformNY. Attorneys and researchers from the Center's Democracy Program analyze current events and legislative action with an eye toward campaign finance reform, legislative reform, voting rights, and redistricting.
Tags: NY Reform
By Lawrence Norden – 11/19/07
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
Last week, I spoke at a gathering of state legislators from around the country about post-election audits.
Before
I spoke, I had lunch with a bunch of legislators and staff from various
Statehouses (including, from what I remember, Connecticut, Nebraska,
and Louisiana). Nebraska Senator Bill Avery
told a story about how one of his legislature's committees had recently
voted on a bill he'd introduced. Just before the vote, the Committee
chair had said "I hate this stupid bill, " and it was promptly defeated
by a 9-1 vote (with Senator Avery being the one "yes" vote).
"Wait," I said, "your Committee chair held a vote on a bill that he hated?"
Yes, of course, it was required, the Senator replied.
"And did you have a hearing on the bill beforehand?"
Again, of course -- it was required.
The others at the table looked at me as if I was a fool. I had to explain I was from New York --
where hearings and votes are basically held at the discretion of a
Committee Chair (and her chamber's leader). Of course, I already knew
New York did things differently.
But it was nonetheless striking to see so many from statehouses in
other parts of the country assume that votes and hearings on bills
would happen in any state legislative body, as a matter of course.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform
By Kahlil Williams – 03/21/07
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
Back in high school, my father coached my AAU basketball team- a
hodgepodge of players who were just good enough to get invited to
tournaments, where we would then get manhandled by teams with actual
talent. We had very little size, but we played solid, scrappy defense.
Unfortunately, we didn't get a lot of rebounds. This incensed my dad,
whose primary coaching tool was screaming "BOX!" (as in "box out") as
loudly as possible, whenever a shot would go up.
One day, after
a particularly disappointing game, he told us the story of some
barnyard animals who avoided all of the tasks necessary to prepare a
meal for themselves, yet they still wanted to partake in the feast. The
protagonist, Henny Penny, would ask them all "Who will pick the grain?"
or "Who will knead the dough?", and animals like Lucy Goosey and Turkey
Lurkey would summarily reply, "Not I!" Henny Penny was left to do all
of the work, but, predictably, the other animals were more than happy
to dig in once it was time to eat. The goal of the story was to point
out our team's reluctance to do the grunt work that needed to be done
(i.e, rebounding), even though all of us wanted to reap the rewards of
victory.
Enter Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton. Her guest column
on redistricting in the Ithaca Journal illustrates how Henny Penny and
Turkey Lurkey are sometimes the same creature. The beginning of her
piece is in the Henny Penny mold, presenting some important
considerations and questions for redistricting reform, including
compliance with Voting Rights Act, respecting communities of interest,
etc.
But these considerations begin to sound more like excuses
that undermine reform as the article goes on. For instance, Lifton
wonders aloud whether we could find non-partisans "who would be willing
to take on the complex task" of redrawing the boundaries for New York's
Congressional and state legislative districts, even though 2.3 million
New Yorkers are not registered to any
political party. And she struggles to understand how an independent
commission might be structured (as if one must be adopted out of whole
cloth) ignoring the fact that such commissions already exist elsewhere. In short, it's as if she's premptively saying "Not I!", a la Turkey Lurkey.
In fairness, I have no trouble with being cautious on redistricting
reform; we should be wary of recreating the current structure that
keeps the power to draw district lines, in essence, with the
legislature. Similarly, we must ensure that minority communities get a
fair shake. However, those who are facilitating the discussion should,
at the very least, present redistricting reform as an issue with
obstacles and substantial
benefits, not simply highlighting the negatives. Had Henny Penny
pitched the work as back-breaking labor to produce a meal that was
"pedestrian" or "lacking inspiration", the story wouldn't make any
sense. Who's going to give up a day of frolicking on the farm for that?
The Brennan Center salutes any and all who support meaningful and
effective redistricting reform, including Assemblywoman Lipton. But we
hope said supporters are converting more of our state's Turkey Lurkeys
into Henny Pennys, and not the other way around.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Redistricting
By Kahlil Williams – 02/27/07
The lights in Hollywood shine a little bit brighter on
Oscar night, but who knew how much light they would cast on New York? Notwithstanding NY native
Martin Scorcese’s
victories for Best Picture and Best Director, several parallels can be
drawn between the Academy Awards and New York’s political process. The
state legislature, like the Academy, has voting practices viewed by
outsiders as mysterious, if not secretive. Reform efforts have been
ushered stage-right like an Oscar winner who’s thanked a few too many
people in a rambling speech. And the incumbency advantage of elected
officials combined with their control of redistricting ensures that,
like the awards show, that though the outfits change in the
legislature, the people wearing them rarely do.
Eileen Markey’s
article in City Limits
alludes to another parallel. The majority of our state's prisoners come
from downstate (New York City), but virtually all the state's prisons
are upstate. More importantly, those prisoners are counted as
"residents" of upstate towns in the decennial census, but they are
unable to vote. Thus, for the purposes of reapportionment and
redistricting in NY, prisoners are like seat fillers at the Oscars:
they give districts the appearance of being full, but they have
absolutely no clout.
This practice has meaningful economic and
political consequences. The resources diverted to districts upstate do
little to aid prisoners, while the actual residents get a
disproportionately large slice of the pie. In turn, less money is
directed to downstate districts that already lack resources and support
returning prisoners upon their release. Politically, this method has
favored Republicans, who are heavily concentrated upstate. By
allocating prisoners up north, redistricters respecting
one-person/one-vote doctrine must create more districts upstate; these
puffed-up districts have tended to elect GOP candidates.
There
are simple ways to change New York’s method of counting prisoners. Some
states simply do not count prisoners when redistricting. Others,
including Sen. Eric Schneiderman have proposed creating a database with
the last known addresses of prisoners, and counting them there. Either
proposal would bring more fairness to the system and help end the
current practice in NY which heaps insult onto injury: not only are
prisoners being used for partisan gain, but their home districts suffer
as well. Or, put another way, not only are they little more than
nominees with no chance at a statue, they're left without the coveted
swag too.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Redistricting
By Bethany Foster – 02/02/07
*Cross-posted from ReformNY
We're feeling a little bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. In the movie, weatherman Phil Connors is sent to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania
to cover the ceremonial emergence of the groundhog who shares his first
name. To his horror, Phil discovers that each day after that dawns not
anew but as that same Groundhog Day.
For us, the nightmare is waking up every day and reading about the same
people doing the same thing: New York politicians, with their nearly
100% reelection rates and few viable challengers, legally raising
astronomical amounts of campaign cash that, after the election, they
can use for things clearly unrelated to campaigning.
Next week
we’ll get a fresh reminder of this constant fundraising; a law passed
in 1995 is set to cause contribution limits, already sky-high, to escalate even further. Every four years (this is the third iteration), the limits are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index, which has risen almost 12% since the last adjustment in 2002.
The resulting change
in the New York contribution limit for individuals giving to
gubernatorial candidates, shaking out to around $4,000, will actually
be larger than the entire allowable contribution in 21 states.
In the words of Phil/Bill: “There is no way this winter is ever
going to end as long as that groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don't
see any way out of it. He's got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.”
We
echo the sentiment and vow to keep pushing for more reasonable
contribution limits and other critical campaign finance reform.
Tags: Democracy, Campaign Finance Reform, Contribution Limits, NY Reform
1 comments | Permalink