The dust hasn’t completely settled yet, but the 2015 legislative session is in the books and New Yorkers can draw some conclusions about the activity of their representatives.

A recent review of the 2015 session identified some surprises.  For example, while there has been considerable discussion over the session’s failures, an overview of the legislative activity tells a different story.  The 2015session saw the highest number of bills passed compared to the previous six years.  Of course, passing more bills does not necessarily mean that the bills were consequential.

However, while the 2015 session saw a hike in the number of bills that passed both houses, the total is still much lower than the overall historical trend.  The four years that saw the fewest bills pass both houses are 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2014.  Looking at the trend over a longer period shows that the number of bills approved by the Legislature has been in steady decline.  Since 1920 through the mid-1970s, state lawmakers had approved increasing numbers of bills, peaking during the Administrations of Governors Rockefeller and Wilson.  Starting with the Carey Administration, the numbers began to decline, with the least legislative activity during the current Administration.

The analysis also showed that Governor Cuomo has been less likely to abuse his power to issue messages of necessity.  Under New York’s constitution, bills cannot be voted on for three days after they have made their way to the floor of the legislature.  This rule makes perfect sense: it allows lawmakers time to review bills before voting on them.

However, the constitution also allows the governor to circumvent that rule by allowing bills to be voted on immediately in times when there is some “necessity,” at least in the governor’s view.  In the five years of Governor Cuomo’s tenure, an average of about 13 bills have passed both houses per year with a message of necessity.  The current governor’s record compares favorably to his immediate predecessors, the Spitzer/Paterson Administrations, which on average annually issued 41 messages of necessity and the Pataki Administration, which issued on average a whopping 90 messages per year.

There has been little change in the number of bills approved by the governor, and his actions track those of his most recent predecessors.  However, there has been an increase in the number of bills vetoed by Governor Cuomo.  This is one area in which we do not know how the governor will react to the 2015 session: many of the bills passed are in the flurry of June, 2015 activity and the vast majority of those bills have not yet been acted upon by the governor.

The analysis showed that legislative activity increased each month that lawmakers were in session, culminating with huge number of bills being approved in June.  Also, the analysis showed that Albany-based campaign fundraising peaked in March, the month when lawmakers are dealing with the state budget.

As I mentioned earlier, numbers alone do not tell the full story of a legislative session.  What is clear is that the session, at least numerically, was consistent with previous years.  What makes this session unique are the arrests and indictments of the legislative leaders.

Unfortunately, those arrests did not fundamentally change the way Albany operates; the faces changed but not much else.  The legislative leaders continued to control the process in both houses.

It continues to be the case that if the leader opposes bills, no matter how popular, they are blocked.

Here are some examples:

The Child Safe Products Act which would have regulated toxic chemicals in children’s products. The bill had two-thirds of the Senate as sponsors, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Assembly, and was supported by the governor.  Yet, the Senate leader killed the bill by blocking it from coming to a vote.

The same was true of Senate legislation to ban the dumping of fracking waste, which had a majority of Senate sponsors; a bill to ban microbeads; legislation to improve elevator safety; and legislation to improve patient protections.  All of these efforts had the votes to pass, but were killed by the Senate leader’s opposition.

The numbers show that despite all of the indictments and promises for change, Albany’s status quo remains firmly entrenched.  Hopefully, the public will not accept a system that undermines legislative innovation and reform.Voters must demand more or ensure that lawmakers pay the price in next year’s elections.

The 2015 legislative session wrapped up last week, one week later than scheduled.  During the last 2 weeks of session, nearly 540 bills passed both houses.  But the big story was the last bill approved – the “Big Ugly.”

What’s a “Big Ugly”?  The Big Ugly is an amalgamation of smaller proposals lumped together into one “big” bill.  In this case, the 72 page bill covered a wide range of topics, including: extension of rent control largely for New York City tenants; extension of tax credit programs for developments in New York City; expansion of charter schools in New York City; $250 million in aid for nonpublic K-12 schools; aid for the city of Yonkers; and an extension of the state’s property tax cap.

All in one piece of legislation.  Ugly.

And the legislation was slapped together and made public a mere few hours before the legislature voted on the legislation, which – by the way – was around midnight.  The process was ugly too.

Hence, the “Big Ugly.”

And to add insult to injury, the governor and state lawmakers ignored the elephant in the room – the swelling number of scandals and indictments that have plagued Albany.

It really was remarkable:  lawmakers were complaining that they were having a hard time negotiating agreements because the US Attorney was watching.  They said that his indictments of the former Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader complicated the session.

It’s not surprising that the indictments had some impact on the session.  But you can’t have it both ways: complain that the US Attorney is watching after the arrests of the legislative leaders and then ignore reforms that could help restore the public’s trust in their own government.

But they did just that.

The few reforms that were approved came in the state budget agreement, but were widely criticized as “inadequate” to solve the massive scandals that have plagued the Capitol.  The failure to enact any other needed changes was indefensible and shockingly irresponsible.

Instead, the governor and the legislative leaders should have taken steps to:

1. strengthen the state ethics watchdogs to bolster their independence and public accountability;
2. place real limits on lawmakers’ outside employment;
3. appoint an independent executive and legislative compensation commission; and
4. close the LLC loophole created by the Board of Elections, in addition to other critical campaign finance reforms.

Any ethics agreement is only as good as the agencies charged with its enforcement.  New York’s ethics enforcement entities—JCOPE and the Legislative Ethics Commission—require substantial improvement.

New Yorkers deserved a serious response before the end of session in this year of unending corruption scandals.  Inaction and deflection in the face of the continuing ethics scandals is unacceptable.  New York’s political leadership must strengthen regulation, oversight and the enforcement of the state’s ethics laws.  New Yorkers across the state are demanding no less.

Governor Cuomo and the state’s legislative leaders shouldn’t blow off their responsibility to strengthen the state’s ethics.  The governor in particular has to take the lead:  the governor should convene a special session to tackle ethics reforms before the end of the calendar year.

The “Big Ugly” must not be the final word on the 2015 legislative session.

Last week was a depressing one in Albany: the all-too-familiar gridlock resulting from partisan differences, pettiness and legislative dysfunction.  And while some of the issues that are stuck in the legislative morass are important – such as tenants’ housing costs – some would, if enacted, have a limited impact on many people.

Yet, last week one issue moved front and center – global warming.  The push that moved the issue came from an unlikely source:  the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis.

The Pope publicly issued a policy paper that stated, “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.”  Strong stuff.

His encyclical further argued, “The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.”

His analysis is based on facts.  2014 was the hottest year in recorded history.  The world’s experts have stated that global warming is largely due to human activity—primarily the result of reliance on fossil fuels.  They argue that the only way to respond to this crisis is to dramatically slash the use of fossil fuels, like coal, oil and gas, which, when burned, emit the greenhouse gases warming the planet.

Over the past 150 years, the industrialized world has been able to use fossil fuels to power its societies.  Those nations, now joined by China and other emerging nations, are generating too much greenhouse gas emissions for the planet to absorb, thus leading to the greenhouse effect that is heating up the planet.

While global warming is a threat to civilization, given its wealth the most affluent nations should be able to mitigate some of the worst consequences.  Yet the poorest nations, those least responsible for generating greenhouse gases, are the ones who will suffer the most.

Not only will a hotter planet result in more droughts and thus famine, global warming can devastate in other ways.

For example, a severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.  The drought was the most severe on record, and its severity matched trends expected to occur with rising temperatures.  The drought increased the risk that the country would unravel, and climate change was a factor in the drought.

Another example is the impact of rising sea levels.  Experts predict that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by 2100.  Bangladesh is one of the world’s poorest nations’ and much of its land is at or below sea level.  Experts predict that by 2050, rising sea levels will inundate some 17 percent of Bangladesh and displace about 18 million people.  But Bangladesh generates only a tiny fraction of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

In a rational political system, our nation would act.  Congress would hold hearings, introduce legislation and advance proposals to help curb the impact our nation has on the world’s climate.

But our national political system is anything but rational.  Many of the nation’s political elite simply don’t believe in the fact that the planet is heating up, and many more ignore the evidence that humans are primarily responsible.

Given that our national government is incapable of addressing this issue, it is up to the states to develop solutions.  New York could be among the leaders in tackling the issue.

New York is not only contemplating how to respond to the climate change menace, but it is also trying to move its energy system into the digital age.  Under the current utility structure, the power sector in New York is on track to spend an estimated $30 billion to replace and modernize the state’s aging energy infrastructure over the next decade.

In New York, the proposed solution is the state’s Reforming the Energy Vision (“REV”) plan.  REV is under active development before the state’s Public Service Commission.  REV has the potential to fundamentally reshape the production and distribution of electric power and significantly reduce the creation of heat-trapping carbon emissions through the use of energy use reductions, efficiency measures and the move to reliance on alternative energy sources, such as solar power.

The old saying is that the states are the laboratories of democracy.  New York’s REV offers a vision for how to modernize the energy grid while mitigating the impacts from global warming.  If it succeeds, it can offer a model for the nation and perhaps the world.

Lawmakers are set to wrap up the scheduled end of the 2015 legislative session.  Typically, this week is “show time” for lawmakers – hundreds of bills are likely to be approved, many more will fail.

For the second year in a row, an important bill that is under serious consideration is the “Toxic Chemicals in Children’s Products” Act.  If approved the bill would establish a framework for identifying potentially harmful chemicals in everyday children’s apparel, toys and other consumer products.  The type of chemicals would include those likely to be a carcinogen, severely toxic or cause significant health problems.

Manufacturers would be required to report their intentional use of most harmful “priority chemicals” in children’s products within twelve months of such listing.  Eleven identified “priority chemicals”—such as lead, asbestos and benzene—would be banned for use in children’s products as of January 1, 2018.

This legislation represents a paradigm shift over current federal and state laws that fail to prevent toxic exposures.  It would oblige a response to the devastating health and environmental problems caused by toxic chemicals before injuries occur.

This intelligent legislation proposes a preventative, science-based approach—as already adopted by the European Union.  The bill is modeled after legislation in Maine and Washington State.  Three counties in New York – Albany, Suffolk and Westchester – have acted as well.

Federal law was supposed to protect public health and the environment by establishing a way to review the safety of chemicals and, if based upon that analysis a chemical was found to be toxic, ban its use in the U.S.  Yet, after 35 years, only 200 of the nearly 83,000 chemicals produced and used in commerce have been reviewed.  Only five have been banned.  Chemicals such as asbestos—proven to cause cancer and lung disease—have not be banned.

Toxic chemicals are suspected of playing a role in many of the most pressing health issues, including cancer, heart disease, obesity, and children’s developmental disorders.  Moreover, getting these toxic chemicals out of children’s products will protect workers from exposure, reduce overall toxics in the environment and diminish toxic chemicals sent to landfills, recycling programs and incinerators.

Clearly, there needs to be a better way to protect children and the environment.

More than fifty years ago, President Kennedy laid out the cornerstones of modern consumer protection.  President Kennedy’s 1962 Consumer Bill of Rights was hailed as opening a new era in consumer protection.  These principles continue to be relevant and vital in 2015.  Included among these were three key principles:

1. The right to meaningful information;
2. The right to choice; and
3. The right to safety.

These rights are so reasonable and so fundamental as to be beyond dispute.  They complement each other and ensure that the other rights are meaningful and realized.  If there is no choice, meaningful information becomes moot; if there is choice, but no meaningful information, consumer choice is illusory.  And if a product is unsafe, information and choice are of little benefit.

Parents and other caregivers cannot be expected to sample and laboratory test each product for toxic chemicals before a purchase.  And not every parent can afford or find products that are guaranteed to be “toxic free”—if such products exist at all.

Ensuring that children’s products are safe is not only an appropriate role for government; it is an essential role for government. 

The legislature has begun to act.  The Assembly has passed legislation that addresses this problem and there is significant support in the state Senate.  Of the 63 Senators, 42 of them are now sponsors of the bill; including a Republican lead sponsor.  Governor Cuomo has stated that he supports this legislation and that is a priority for him this session.  Yet, so far, the Senate leadership has blocked the bill from consideration.

Clearly, with such overwhelming support, this important public health measure could become law this week.  It is now up to the overwhelming number of Senators to make sure that this legislation gets approved and sent to the governor.

While New York’s political class has been focused on Albany as it heads down the homestretch for the 2015 legislative session, the US Supreme Court could have a huge impact on both the state’s policies and politics.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by some voters in Texas that could define the meaning of the principle of “one person, one vote.”  The Court is expected to reach a decision next year.

We all know that in our representative democracy, it’s important that legislative districts contain more or less the same number of people; we all want equal representation.  That’s why the nation has had a census – it’s a way to count the number of people in the nation and then to allocate Congressional districts to reflect changes in the population.

The Constitution itself is quite clear:  the 14th Amendment states that all people in the United States are to be counted for distributing US representatives.

A 1964 Supreme Court decision ruled that voting districts must contain very close to the same number of people. But the court did not say which people count.

Federal appeals courts have uniformly ruled that counting everyone is permissible, and one court has indicated that it is required.  The census counts every person living in the nation, irrespective of their ages, whether they are immigrants – here legally or not.   And it is that census that provides the basis for the reapportionment of Congressional representatives and the drawing of new district lines every ten years.

But the Supreme Court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners.

And that issue – who counts when creating legislative districts – is at the heart of the case brought in Texas.

Most state and local governments draw districts based on total population. If people who were ineligible to vote were evenly distributed, the difference between counting all people or counting only eligible voters would not matter. But demographic patterns vary widely.

Not only is there the obvious issue of counting those under the age of 18 – clearly nonvoters – but there is the issue of immigrants living in the country.  For example, there are about 11.7 million illegal immigrants that lived in the United States in January 2010.  More than half of all unauthorized immigrants lived in California (2.9 million), Texas (1.6 million), Florida (1.0 million), and New York (705 thousand).

More broadly, more than four million immigrants live in New York and three million of them live in New York City.  Roughly the same proportion of illegal immigrants live in New York City, so more than 550,000 illegal immigrants live in the City.

The Texas case argues that the definition of “one person, one vote” means only voters.  The individuals bringing the case argue that their voting power had been diluted.  They argue that their representatives should have more of a say since they are from rural areas which tend to have higher numbers of older voters and with a smaller percentage of immigrants.

So, what are the arguments?  The current system ensures representational equality, with elected officials tending to the interests of the same number of people, whether they are voters or not. Counting only eligible voters, on the other hand, is based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate political power in our democracy.

If the challenge succeeds, it is likely to hurt urban areas – with its larger immigrant populations and with a younger average age – and benefit rural areas.

But more problems could result: The change would likely mean new districts would have to be developed, but that would require a new census, since the current one includes all people, of all ages.

And redoing legislative districts and then holding new elections could make Albany even more chaotic than it is now.  New York’s political future is in the Court’s hands.