THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

INTRODUCTION
It has become something of a cliché to bemoan Albany’s dysfunctional legislative
process and the “three men in a room” system of lawmaking. Virtually every
major newspaper in New York State has editorialized for many years against
the current system and its byproducts, including perennially late budgets, 1 the
lack of open deliberation and debate, 2 empty seat voting, 3 gridlock, 4 costliness
and inappropriate payments, 5 incumbency protection, 6 or the extent of control
exercised by the two leaders. 7 In addition, a handful of academics and policy
analysts have explored various aspects of the legislative process in greater depth
and proposed reforms to improve the system. 8 Certain state legislators have proposed
thoughtful reforms to their chambers’ rules, and others have complained
behind closed doors about their lack of input into the legislative process. 9
This study analyzes New York State’s legislative process in depth to answer several
important questions: What precisely is dysfunctional about the current system?
Is New York State’s legislative process unique? Why should New Yorkers
care about the state of the current system in Albany? How did the current system
develop in New York State? What, if anything, should be done specifically to
change it? We have used quantitative, historical, and comparative data to document
New York’s legislative process and to compare it, where possible, with that
in other states and in the U.S. Congress.
To obtain an accurate picture of the current legislative process, we analyzed data
in seven areas. First, we analyzed all of the “major” laws – 308 laws identified as
such by McKinney’s Session Law News of New York – passed by the Legislature and
signed into law from 1997 through 2001. 10 For each of those laws, we documented
the steps taken – or, in many cases, not taken – by legislators in each chamber
to develop, debate, obtain public comment on, amend, read, and vote upon the
legislation. To that end, we analyzed the records of committee votes on each of
these laws from the Assembly’s Public Information Office and the Senate Journal
Clerk’s Office, and where possible, interviewed staff of the bills’ sponsors to obtain
additional information about committee hearings and reports on each bill. 11 We
also analyzed the records of both chambers to determine the extent of debate on
the floor of each chamber that was devoted to each bill, which bills were amended,
and which bills were passed with a message of necessity from the governor to
allow immediate passage. 12 Second, we analyzed the voting records of one committee,
the Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation,
Commerce and Industry, to determine how often the committee used each of the
five options available when voting on a bill (favorable without amendment, favorable
with amendment, favorable with referral to another committee, defeated, and
held for consideration). 13 This analysis provides a snapshot of one committee’s voting
patterns. Third, we interviewed numerous sitting members of the Assembly
and Senate and members of their staff concerning various legislative procedures;
these interviews were conducted on the condition of anonymity to ensure that
their responses would be candid and that they would not face any negative conse-
1