THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

34 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM ■■ END-OF-SESSION PASSAGE The glut of legislation to be considered at the end of the legislative session is a pervasive problem across the country. “No practice of state legislatures’ workload management has been more thoroughly condemned than the end-of-session logjam of business.” 234 Out of 82 respondents to a 2001 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures, 58 chambers reported that end-of-session logjams are unavoidable; in 1998, 43 out of 50 state legislatures surveyed experienced frequent logjam. 235 Evidence is not available for this report to determine whether New York State’s Legislature has faced a greater logjam than other chambers in recent years. In 1982, 48% of all laws passed in New York were passed in the last 10% of the session, while the national average was 38%. 236 Although not comparative, more recent statistics demonstrate that New York passes a large proportion of its major legislation at the very end of the session. From 1997 through 2001, approximately one of every four major laws was passed in the last three days of the session or in a special session day after the final day of the regular session. 237 See Fig. 16. Plainly, the end-of-session logjam in New York acts as one of many practices and procedures that preclude legislators’ significant consideration of final legislation prior to a floor vote. Indeed, this problem may result at least in part from decisions by the legislative leaders and staff to bring bills before the full chamber at the final hour to avoid full review and possible objections by the members or by the public. ■■ VOTE OUTCOMES An examination of all bills voted on in the Senate from 1997 through 2001 and in the Assembly from 1997 through 1999 demonstrates the amount of control FIGURE 16 NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE ■ MAJOR LEGISLATION PASSED IN FINAL THREE DAYS OF LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS OR DURING SPECIAL SESSION AFTER REGULAR SESSION, 1997-2001 (% of Total Major Laws Passed in Same Year) Year Senate Assembly 1997 8 (18.6%) 10 (23.3%) 1998 4 (6.7%) 5 (8.3%) 1999 14 (19.4%) 16 (22.2%) 2000 22 (26.8%) 27 (31.2%) 2001 18 (35.3%) 16 (25.5%) 1997-2001 66 (21.4%) 74 (24%)
that the leaders exert over which bills reach the floor. 238 During these periods the Senate voted on 7,109 bills and the Assembly voted on 4,365 bills. Not a single bill that reached the floor for a vote was rejected in either chamber. In other words, the Speaker and the Majority Leader are able to prevent any bill from reaching the floors of their respective chambers without the certainty of passage and, presumably, without their support. See Fig. 17. When combined with the absence of floor amendments, these statistics show that, in all or nearly all cases, the full chambers do not act except to approve those bills already agreed upon by the Speaker or Majority Leader in their final form. ■ RECONCILING BILLS PASSED BY EACH CHAMBER Conference committees are widely used in the U.S. Congress and in other state legislatures to reconcile differences between the bills passed by the two houses of a legislature to produce a single law that can be passed by both. 239 In a survey conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures, only Nebraska (which, as a unicameral legislature, has no need for conference committees) and Delaware reported not having at least the procedural option of using conference committees. 240 In July 1999, a request for information as to the actual usage of conference committees was posted to the electronic discussion group of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries. 241 The 25 chambers that responded reported using an average of about 59 conference committees in that year alone. All 25 chambers that responded had used at least one conference committee in 1999. The results from the professional legislatures that responded are shown in Figure 18. 242 See Fig. 18. Although New York’s legislative rules include conference committees as a mechanism for resolving differences between versions of bills passed in the Senate and the Assembly, in practice this method has rarely been used since the first decades FIGURE 17 NEW YORK STATE’S LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 35 NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE ■ OUTCOMES OF FLOOR VOTES ON ALL LEGISLATION 1997-2001 SENATE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Bills Approved 1463 1465 1497 1481 1203 Bills Defeated 0 0 0 0 0 ASSEMBLY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Bills Approved 1104 1640 1621 Not available Not available Bills Defeated 0 0 0 Not available Not available
Page 1: THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROC
Page 4 and 5: The Brennan Center for Justice at N
Page 7: CONTENTS Executive Summary. . . . .
Page 10 and 11: viii THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE
Page 12 and 13: x THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PR
Page 14 and 15: xii THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE
Page 16 and 17: xiv THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE
Page 19 and 20: INTRODUCTION It has become somethin
Page 21 and 22: ■ Accessibility. An accessible le
Page 23 and 24: NEW YORK STATE’S LEGISLATIVE PROC
Page 25 and 26: ■■ REFERRAL OF LEGISLATION TO C
Page 27 and 28: legislation. As a result, the final
Page 29 and 30: ■■ COMMITTEE REPORTS Legislatur
Page 31 and 32: usually adopted by the full committ
Page 33 and 34: Neither of New York State’s two c
Page 35 and 36: FIGURE 5 RESTRICTIONS ON MOTIONS TO
Page 37 and 38: that is overturned; this allows the
Page 39 and 40: of these committees. 142 In 1971, a
Page 41 and 42: into, a bill because the committee
Page 43 and 44: Additional research is necessary to
Page 45 and 46: Finally, analysis of the outcomes o
Page 47 and 48: maybe 20 staff people saw it before
Page 49 and 50: Few other states rely so heavily up
Page 51: Both the fast roll call (also known
Page 55 and 56: Nor is this pattern a recent phenom
Page 57 and 58: A COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF NEW YORK
Page 59 and 60: State A COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF LEGI
Page 61 and 62: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK’S DYSFUNCT
Page 69 and 70: the people of New York State by acq
Page 71 and 72: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM The refo
Page 73 and 74: ■ Motions to discharge a bill may
Page 75 and 76: ENDNOTES 1 See, e.g., Albany’s Ad
Page 77 and 78: the New York State Legislature was
Page 79 and 80: 41 MAJOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ANAL
Page 81 and 82: Fin. Network, Inc., 830 A.2d 711, 7
Page 83 and 84: ers, the committee chair and majori
Page 85 and 86: 90-day session and the 105th day of
Page 87 and 88: at 244, 547-48. 148 Aubrey Jewett,
Page 89 and 90: 175 MAJOR LEGISLATION ANALYSIS 1997
Page 91 and 92: 210 S4422B passed the Senate on Jun
Page 93 and 94: voted from 1997 through 2001 were a
Page 95 and 96: METHODOLOGY The research for this r
Page 97 and 98: ■ Vote Outcomes for All Bills 199
Page 99 and 100: A9291-A, S6292-A S7833, A1103 A7162
Page 101 and 102: TELEPHONE SURVEY RESPONDENTS Alabam
Page 103 and 104:
Montana Legislative Services Divisi
Page 105 and 106:
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE BOARD OF
Page 108:
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU S
show all

THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?