THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

62 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM 49 E-Mail Correspondence from N.Y. State Sen. D (Nov. 17, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 50 For example, in the Spring 2003 legislative session that lasted from January through June, the Senate’s published schedule listed 600 meetings. That total represents 17 standing committees meeting once every week and 16 standing committees meeting every other week over the course of the 24-week session. In the Assembly, 888 committee meetings were listed on the published schedule, which represents 37 standing committees meeting once every week. 51 E-Mail Correspondence from N.Y. State Sen. D (Nov. 17, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 52 Jeffrey Schmalz, In Land of ‘Oz,’ A State Senator Breaks the Rules, N.Y.TIMES, Jan. 11, 1988, at B1. 53 MAJOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, supra note 11. 54 Telephone Interview with N.Y. State Assembly Member A (Dec. 15, 2003). 55 MAJOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, supra note 11. 56 In New York, notation of proxy votes in a committee is left to the discretion of the committee clerk and the computer program that records committee votes does not provide any way to indicate proxy votes. Interview with Sheillagh Dare, N.Y. State Senate Journal Clerk’s Office (May 29 & June 9-13, 2003). 57 E-mail Correspondence from N.Y. State Sen. D (Oct. 21, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 58 E-mail Correspondence from N.Y. State Sen. D (Nov. 17, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 59 E-mail Correspondence from B, Legislative Director for N.Y. Assembly Member C (Oct. 10, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center); Telephone Interview with N.Y. State Assembly Member A (Dec. 15, 2003). 60 N.Y. SEN. R. VII, § 1(5). 61 RULES ANALYSIS, supra note 15. The five chambers outside New York that expressly allow proxy voting in committee are the Indiana House, the Montana House and Senate, the Pennsylvania Senate, and the Virginia Senate. The relevant rules are as follows [hereinafter RULES ANALYSIS PROXY RULES]: ARK. H.R.64;CAL. ASSEMB. R. 58.5; COLO. H. R. 25(j)(1)(H)(2); COLO. SEN. R. 22(c); CONN. JT. R. 5(e); FLA. H. R. 7.17; FLA. SEN. R. 2.27(4); GA. SEN. R. 187(m); IND. H. R. 63 & 63.5; IND. SEN. R. 60(C); IOWA SEN. R. 40; KAN. H. R. 1307 & 2504; KAN. SEN. R. 10; KY. H. R. 49 & 69; KY. SEN. R. 49 & 67; LA. SEN. R. 13.89; ME. JOINT R. 310(5); MICH. H.R. 36(3)(b); MONT. H. R. H30-50(15)(f); MONT. SEN. R. S30-70(13)(f); NEV. ASSEMB. R. 42(7); NEV. SEN. R. 53(7); N.H. H. R. 102; N.J. H. R. 10:13; N.M. H. R. 9-5-2; N.Y. ASSEMB. R. IV, § 2(d); N.Y. SEN. R. VII, § 5; N.C. SEN. R. 27; OHIO H. R. 40; OHIO SEN. R. 24; OR. H. R. 8.25; PA. H.R. 45; PA. SEN.. R. XVII, § 1; S.C. H. R. 4.14; S.D. H. R. H5-9; TENN. SEN. R. 83(10); TEX. SEN. R. 11.15; UTAH H. R. HR-24.26; UTAH SEN. R. SR-24.26; VA. H. R. 18(c); VA. SEN. R. 20(e); WASH. H. R. 24(D)(5); WASH.SEN. R. 22(7); WIS.ASSEMB. R. 11(4). An earlier survey of 79 chambers conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that eight chambers allowed proxy voting in committee. BRENDA ERICKSON, NAT’L COUNCIL OF STATE LEGISLATURES, REMOTE VOTING IN LEGISLATURES 4 (n.d.) (on file with the Brennan Center). Twenty chambers (including the New York State Senate) were not covered by that survey. 62 RULES ANALYSIS PROXY RULES, supra note 61. 63 TIEFER, supra note 33, at 179. 64 See, e.g., Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs. v. Superior Court, 79 P.3d 556, 563 (Cal. 2003) (relying upon conference committee report to determine legislative intent); Tappin v. Homecomings
Fin. Network, Inc., 830 A.2d 711, 724 (Conn. 2003) (relying upon committee report); Beaulieu v. The Aube Corp., 796 A.2d 683, 688-89 (Me. 2002) (same); Price v. State, 835 A.2d 1221, 1229 (Md. 2003) (same); In re P.A.F., 822 A.2d 572, 575 (N.J. 2003) (same); Columbus Park Hous. Corp. v. City of Kenosha, 671 N.W.2d 633, 644 (Wis. 2003) (same); State ex rel. Morrison v. Oshman Sporting Goods Co. Kansas, 69 P.3d 1087, 1093 (Kan. 2003) (relying upon committee hearings and meeting minutes); Guthery v. Taylor, 112 S.W.3d 715, 723 (Tex. App. 2003) (relying upon committee bill analysis). Significantly, a preliminary search of Westlaw suggests that New York State’s courts cite legislative history for state laws much less frequently than courts in other states. 65 U.S. SEN. R. XVII, § 5; Senate Legislative Process, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm; U.S. H.R. VIII §§ 2-6; Judy Schneider, House Committee Organization and Process: A Brief Overview, in CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS 4 (2001). 66 MAJOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, supra note 11. Data were obtained for 152 of the 294 pieces of major legislation passed by the Senate from 1997 through 2001. Gaps in the available data for the remaining bills result from changes in members or committee staff that made it impossible to confirm whether committee reports were prepared for a bill. 67 Id. Data were obtained for 181 of the 294 pieces of major legislation passed by the Assembly from 1997 through 2001. 68 Id. Reports on the following bills were produced: A10817-B (amended the general business and state finance laws to establish a statewide “no call” registry), Telephone Interview with Todd Gold, Legislative Analyst, Consumer Affairs & Protection Committee (May 2003); A10239 (amended environmental conservation law by requiring study of the striped bass fishery in the Hudson River), Telephone Interview with Alex Roth, Legislative Analyst, Environmental Conservation Committee (May 2003). 69 E-mail Correspondence with B, Legislative Director to N.Y. State Assembly Member C (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with the Brennan Center). 70 GERALD BENJAMIN & ROBERT T. NAKAMURA, THE MODERN NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE: REDRESSING THE BALANCE 44 (1991). 71 Chao-Chi Shan & Jeffrey M. Stonecash, Legislative Resources and Electoral Margins: New York State Senate, 1950-1990, 19 LEG. STUD. Q. 79, 81 (1994). 72 ALAN G. HEVESI, LEGISLATIVE POLITICS IN NEW YORK STATE:A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 20, 61 (1975). 73 E-mail Correspondence from N.Y. State Sen. D (Oct. 21, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 74 E-mail Correspondence from B, Legislative Director for N.Y. Assemblymember C (Oct. 10, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 75 E-mail Correspondence from N.Y. State Sen. D (Oct. 21, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). 76 N.Y. ASSEMB. R. I, § 3(a) (“The use of the Assembly Chamber, lobbies, rooms and property shall be controlled by the Speaker.”); N.Y. SEN. R. II, § 6 (“[The majority leader] shall have general control, except as otherwise provided by law or in these rules, of the Senate Chamber and the lobbies and galleries thereof, and of the rooms, corridors and passages in that part of the Capitol and Legislative Office Building assigned to the use of the Senate, and any other property leased or utilized by the Senate.”). 77 Telephone Interview with B, Legislative Director to N.Y. State Assembly Member C (Oct. 10, 2003). 78 E-mail Correspondence from B, Legislative Director for N.Y. Assembly Member C (Oct. 10, 2003) (on file with the Brennan Center). ENDNOTES 63
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 and 52: Both the fast roll call (also known
Page 53 and 54: that the leaders exert over which b
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: 41 MAJOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ANAL
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?