New Yorkers who “tsk-tsk” state Senate inaction and wring their hands over the hopeless prospects their hometown legislators have to get bills passed can start holding incumbents more accountable, thanks to new rules lawmakers adopted this week.
Under Albany’s leader-driven government, state senators for decades could simply cry “Not my fault!” while popular, controversial or urgent legislation languished in committees, going nowhere without the thumbs up from the powerful majority leader. The power imbalance made it easy for lawmakers to return to their district, deflect blame for unpopular inaction and get re-elected.
While it will still be difficult to get a bill to the floor without the support of the majority leaders, the reforms adopted this week give bill sponsors new ways to try to push legislation through — or at least force their fellow senators to take a public stance on the issues.
Some of the most controversial issues are so delicate that lawmakers don’t really want constituents to know how they would vote, so it’s been easier and safer to keep things quarantined in committee, said Lawrence Norden, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
“Gay marriage is a great example of members being able to avoid taking a stand,” Norden said. “There’s no vote. If there was a vote, maybe (senators) just wouldn’t be on the floor.”
The new rules make three main changes:
— A bill sponsor can force a committee to vote on a bill after 45 days, getting it closer to reaching the Senate floor. In the past, Senate or committee leadership could just never take a vote, essentially killing a bill. Under the new rule, the committee has to vote on the bill within 45 days of a sponsor forcing the vote. This means it won’t be possible in the waning months of a session, so senators will have to use careful strategy when flexing this new power.
The legislation could still fail in committee, but at least it would force senators to take a public stance. Another hitch: Even if it passes, it could get moved to another committee. Or, if it’s put on the Senate calendar, leadership could keep it off the “active list” of bills getting voted on that day.
“There’s still lots of limits on what people can do to get things past the leadership if leadership does not want them to get voted on, but given what New York was dealing with before, this is a significant loosening of leadership control,” Norden said.
— A sponsor can petition senators to get a vote on legislation. If they can muster signatures from three-fifths of the Senate, the bill must be voted on within four days. Senators who decline to sign a petition will be making a public statement about their position on the issue.
— A sponsor can also move to get bills that survived committee onto the active list for a vote. The change requires the sponsor to get a majority vote from the full Senate, at which point the bill must be voted on within four days.
“These three changes start to provide a way out for members if there is overwhelming support for bills,” Norden said. “It will be much more difficult for members to either pretend they have no power to overcome the wishes of the majority leader and it will be much more difficult for (former Senate Majority Leader) Joe Brunos of the past to say, ‘Even though 50 members want to vote on this, I’m not bringing it to the floor.'”
The reforms also apply 8-year term limits to leadership and committee chairmanships, and lend more balance to the distribution of resources. Both are steps intended to dilute the overarching power of Senate leaders.
Still, the success of the rules reforms will be determined months from now when senators are back in session and scrambling to get votes on issues their constituents care about.
“We don’t know how this is actually going to play on its face,” said Doug Muzzio, a politics professor at Baruch College. “If it worked the way it ought to work, yes, it should make it easier to bring any legislation — certainly controversial legislation that is opposed by the leadership.”
“How it actually works, we’ll see,” he said. “There are rules and then there are the application of the rules.”
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.