....May 6, 3:33 PM
 
 
   
Giving The NY State Legislature What It Deserves

Nassau Exec Tom Suozzi
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Last week, I took aim at the State Legislature.
In a column saluting their 20th consecutive year without an on-time budget, I proclaimed: “The New York State Legislature clearly stands as the 50th best legislature in the nation. And it seems the only way they can change their position is by admitting a new State to the Union.”

I explained that, “Their failure, by the way, extends far beyond the budget. The system just doesn’t work. The State Capital building should be burnt to the ground and we should start from scratch.”

Sadly, I explained, that they have gerrymandered lines, controlled campaign finance reform, made the rules, and that both Repubs and Dems have worked together so that the chance of unseating an incumbent is more remote than those jokers passing an on-time budget.

When elected officials believe there is no possibility of losing their seats, the people lose their power. The politicians focus on perpetuating themselves, improving their lot and put the needs of the people on the back burner – way back.

That is not to say they are all bad. It is to say that when the entire body believes they can’t lose the next election, the scramble for lulus, perks and money for future campaigns or personal interests take precedence over the duties of the job. And the leaders who control the lulus, perks and often the access to big money demand and get blind obedience from members who quickly learn how to play the game to better themselves and not the people of their district.

And so for at least two decades it has been in the New York State legislature. For two decades the budgets have been late and more often than not faulty; for two decades two leaders — a Dem in the Assembly and a Repub in the Senate – have held the members hostage to their iron fisted control. And where has it gotten us?

A State with skyrocketing deficit, a failing upstate economy, shortchanged and failing New York City schools and incumbents mired in the muck and locked into lifetime gigs.
And until now there has not been a voice from within the depressing system to speak out against the status quo.
Along comes Tom Suozzi!

Suozzi is the County Executive of Nassau and he’s on the fast track. He is only the second Dem to hold the highest elected position in Nassau and the first in over 30 years.
Suozzi is unconventional. Bravo!

He has declared war on the State legislature including fellow Dems who perpetuate the State’s failure.

Now Suozzi has won no friends in elected circles with his declaration to target incumbent State legislators to fix the Albany “badly broken system.” His major issue is the state’s growing Medicaid program costs being pushed by Albany to localities unable to foot the bill.

Suozzi’s position on Medicaid is universally embraced, but the thought of trying to unseat those who create and perpetuate the bloated monster (one of the two worst in the nation) and then mandate that localities pickup 25 percent of the tab, seems taboo in the world of government.

Punishing elected officials for failure is not acceptable to other elected officials.
We wonder why?
According to published reports, Suozzi has targeted a Democratic Assemblyman and a Republican State Senator who represent an area where Suozzi is exceedingly strong. The fact that his campaign is blind to party is laudable.

Newspaper editorial boards have embraced it. Ed Koch — this paper’s wily former movie reviewer and this City’s independent former Mayor – applauds it. Those who aren’t feeding at the trough of government can appreciate this insider’s move to call elected officials to task.

This writer applauds Suozzi’s move. This writer would applaud any move to challenge any State legislator who raises a hand in support of the present Albany leadership or goes along to get along, perpetuating the system which just keeps getting worse.

The Nassau County Exec’s move, if successful, will have long-lasting results. It will demonstrate to the people that they indeed control government. It will serve as a wake up call to State legislators throughout the State that nothing is forever. And it may just embolden other elected officials to stand up and be counted when politics as usual does not meet the needs of the people.

It also may just propel Tom Suozzi, the County Exec of our neighbor just east of the County line, from a player on the statewide scene to a national figure.

Imagine incumbent state senators and assembly members losing. It could start a revolution. Or maybe the defeat of one or two will be the nails in the coffin of destructive leaders and the pathetic system.

Either way, I’m rooting for Suozzi.

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.

 
 
Political Gerrymander Upheld By Supreme Court

By HENRY STERN

Fairness lost a major battle yesterday when the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, refused to overturn a district court decision in a Pennsylvania Congressional districting case. The court split precisely the way it did in Bush v. Gore, the case that helped decide the 2000 presidential election.

The Vieth case arose from a plan approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly (legislature) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that reduces the number of districts likely to elect Democrats to Congress. The five judges who upheld the plan were all appointed by Republican presidents. The four who dissented were appointed two by a Republican and two by a Democrat.

The opinion of the more conservative judges in Vieth was that the court should not enter politics by evaluating claims of political unfairness, these being matters of state sovereignty. Federal courts and the Justice Department have for some years monitored district lines to assure that minority voters are placed in districts where they can elect public officials. In Vieth, the discrimination was not racial, but political. By stacking some districts with large numbers of Democratic voters, and spreading Republicans around to achieve smaller minorities in more districts, the result is that more Republicans would be elected than if district boundaries were drawn on the basis of geography, city or county boundaries, compactness or contiguity.

The state of the law today, therefore, is that racial gerrymandering is approved, and in some cases required to reach a desired social result, but political gerrymandering is beyond the court’s reach. Although one Justice stated he did not find the districting egregious in the case, he would not rule out a fact situation in which the districting was so partisan as to deny voters in certain political parties equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court has a long history of involvement in cases challenging district lines. The pattern of decisions over the years shows, however, a slowly increasing concern on the part of the court that lines be fairly drawn.

In the well-publicized Texas case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay engineered a congressional redistricting so far-reaching that Democratic state senators fled the state to prevent a legislative quorum from passing the bill. DeLay’s minions employed the Texas Rangers to carry out the political errand of rounding up the Democrats as if they were felons. This case will eventually reach the Supreme Court, and, because of its fact situation, the Texas plan may be more difficult to uphold than Pennsylvania’s.

The risk of judicial involvement in political districting is that the Supreme Court may, in time, become as partisan as the state legislatures, and whichever party dominates the high court will then be able to draw district lines for the entire country. Political circles generally agree that some adjustment of districts to meet political needs is not unreasonable. Too much of it, however, eliminates competitive districts, abuses geography and history, and disenfranchises voters, who lose the right to make effective choices and have responsive representation.

The question, ‘How much is too much?’ is a question that has plagued affirmative action decisions, and is likely to rise again in districting cases. Precisely what is outrageous can be as difficult for a court to determine as precisely what is obscene. But these questions must be decided somewhere, and in our imperfect democracy the best place to do that is the Supreme Court, where Justices are nominated by the President, vetted by the press, law professors and the opposition party, confirmed by the Senate, and then serve for life, or until they step aside by their own will.

It would be helpful if independent, nonpolitical groups could set standards for districting; every legislative body that currently does the job is politicized. After all, these people are elected, and they want to stay elected.

The New York City Redistricting Commission, created by the City Charter, touted as reformist, is the creature of the elected officials who appoint its members. There really should be a better way to draw lines, but in the absence of Divine guidance (which is said to be available on other issues), I would leave the matter to the Supremes and pray for their enlightenment, the wakening of their consciences, or at least the loosening of their ties to political origins.

The Union will endure, but it would be more perfect it its legislators were chosen more equitably.

Henry Stern was NYC Parks Commissioner for 15 years and a Councilmember for nine. He is founder and director of NYCivic, a good government group. He can be reached at: starquest@nycivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.