publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group |
|
Obstacles to Reform
Governor Spitzer’s call for reform in his State of the State was remarkable for two reasons. First, it was the first time in memory that a governor spent so much time on the issue. In other States of the State, previous governors would tip their hat to the need for reform, but spend little time on the subject. Spitzer’s speech on the other hand, spent most of the first half on the need to clean up Albany. But there was one other remarkable aspect to the State of the State – the reaction of lawmakers. Or should I say, non-reaction. During the first half of the speech, Spitzer talked bluntly about the need for reform. The response from legislators in the room – particularly those in the political majorities – was tepid. At best, Spitzer’s calls received a polite applause, but often there was no response at all. And while legislators publicly stated that they agreed with the governor after his speech, it was clear from lawmakers’ responses during the speech that Spitzer is in for a fight. Most States of the State are about image building by the governor. The speeches are broad-brush presentations filled with applause lines and regional initiatives. The point of the speeches is not so much to discuss the needs of the state – despite the title – to make the governor look good to the public. Speeches, like Spitzer’s, that challenge lawmakers are risky. Generally speaking, a governor’s staff is worried about how it will look to the public if the governor’s speech is coolly received. In the case of Governor Spitzer, the calculation was different. Spitzer must have thought that given his huge victory – one that was based on a call for reform – that he had an obligation to make the case for change. But lawmakers were not buying it. They responded coolly, and as the days rolled on after the State of the State message, opponents popped up. For example, the powerful leader of the Senate, Majority Leader Bruno came out in opposition to the governor’s call for redistricting reform. In the State of the State, Governor Spitzer called for reforming the way political boundaries are drawn in New York. Currently, New York allows the Senate Republicans to draw the political boundaries for the Senate and the Assembly Democrats to do the same in the Assembly. Essentially, those with the most at stake in deciding new political boundaries – legislators – determine them. As a result, New York is carved up into scores of legislative districts designed to virtually eliminate serious elections. Of New York’s 212 legislative districts, roughly 185 of them are “one-party states.” That’s one reason why the Senate Republicans and Assembly Democrats have controlled their respective chambers for 30 years. And that’s why New Yorkers see so few competitive elections. Spitzer wants to end that. In his State of the State, he called for a new system, one in which those political boundaries are drawn by independent experts instead of politicians. 17 states have systems like this, so Spitzer’s plan would not make New York unique. Spitzer even went so far as to say that if legislators rejected his idea, he would veto any new political boundaries that were drawn for partisan advantage. Senator Bruno opposed the idea. Bruno argued that since redistricting decisions won’t have to be decided until the 2012 elections, there should be no rush. Of course Bruno’s comments miss the point. In order to have a new system in place – one in which experts are hired, technology purchased and hearings held – decisions have to be made soon, not at the last minute. If Senator Bruno had his way, no one would discuss the redistricting reforms until it was too late to put a new system in place. New Yorkers should not be misled. In order to create a fair system of designing legislative districts, the debate should begin now. New Yorkers should urge their legislators to support an independent redistricting system. A new system in which voters ultimately choose their elected representatives, not a system that allows the politicians to choose their own voters. This is one reform that is critical to changing Albany. That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. |
 |
