I don’t understand why the vote occurred, what makes it illegal, or what it really means.
Espada has gone on to say that he wants to vote quickly on gay marriage (he’s pro), but that’s not a Republican agenda.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/10/2009-06-10_fiddled_with_blackberry_as_senate_burned.html
deleted
In a nutshell, two democrats joined with republicans on a 32-30 vote Monday to oust the current leadership of the state senate. The two senators who swung were given leadership posts (majority leader, senate president). The democrats are arguing the vote was illegal and are seeking an injunction, but their legal argument for this is unclear. I presume they will allege a prid quo pro agreement – that the offer of positions and or money for their votes constitutes a bribe.
Further complicating the issue is that the two state senators who swung are under indictment or under investigation. Espada, the new senate leader, is accused of setting up dummy companies into which he funneled government grants, and of not actually living in the district he represents, among other things. Monserrate has been indicted for allegedly slashing his girlfriends face with a broken bottle.
It’s a circus, but one could make the case (and I’m trying not to step outside the bounds of GQ) that the NY State legislature is so corrupt and dysfunctional it makes Chicago politics look like a garden club. Thewikipedia article on the NY State government begins with the sentence “New York’s legislative process is notoriously problematic,” the understatement of the freaking century, IMHO.
The Democrats say that they had adjourned the session when the leadership vote was conducted and therefore it has no effect.
New York really doesn’t have a legislature in the usual understanding in the term. It has the Senate Majority Leader and the Assembly Speaker; all else is redundant. Both offices have tremendous power and there’s no way for a legislator to overrule them. You even had a previous Senate Majority Leader say that allowing legislators to have more say is “third world stuff.” They can, without explanation, “star” a bill, which kills it until they remove the star (put beside the bill’s title to indicate it’s in limbo). If you’re in the majority party, you can persuade your leader to get behind a measure; if you’re in the majority, you just collect your (rather hefty) salary and produce nothing.
This mess is partly a function of that power. Usually no one crosses party lines (if you do, forget about any of your bills), but because the Senate numbers for the parties are about even, the two democrats can make this sort of change. There’s a good chance that neither will survive a primary in 2010, and since they come from highly Democratic districts, their replacements will be Democrats.
I can’t see what the legal argument for this is. Even if the Democrats argue the vote was never taken, they would only regain power until a vote can be taken – which will be the moment they call the session. And politics in the legislature is always quid pro quo (“I’ll vote for your bill if you’ll vote for mine.”). The Senate Majority Leader rewards followers by giving them choice assignments; there’s nothing illegal about that.
Who says they have to go back into session? And if they do, assuming the vote purportedly changing the leadership is determined to have occurred after adjournment, then the “proper” leaders can have an instantaneous motion to to adjourn sine die, ending the attempt at the coup. Then, the Dems point fingers at the Repubs and say how they are stalling government, getting in the way of the progress the Dems have promised to make.
The fact that all of this is being brokered by some Rochester businessman only makes it all the more stinky. One wonders what real machinations are going on behind everything.
One of the accusations is that the two were persuaded to swing in response to financial contributions from kingmaker Tom Golisano. The Rochester billionaire (who had three unsuccessful runs for governor) recently launched a PAC to funnel money to candidates he supports.
I’m not speaking to the merits of the claims, just reporting what’s being said.
Florida businessman now.
But this article might help:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=808223
For a guy who called a press conference to announce he was moving to Florida, he sure is spending a lot of time in Albany.
Well, most New Yorkers who move down here spend the rest of their lives complaining about how much nicer New York was. I guess he’s one who votes with his feet, as well as his wallet. 
Nitpick: quid pro quo. But I really like “prid quo pro” Let’s introduce it as a new phrase.
Actually, the State Constitution: if the Senate or Assembly doesn’t meet for three business days, the legislative session automatically ends. To bring it back, you need the cooperation of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (a Democrat), the only one in Albany who both has power and knows how to use it. Silver would never call the session back if the Republicans had control. The new coalition needs to meet every few days or they’re screwed.
A court would have to determine whether the vote was prior to adjournment. Reports are very unclear, but I haven’t heard anything that indicated the session was adjourned before the vote.
The Galisano issue stinks halfway to the moon, but I suspect it would be legal simply because there is no quid pro quo – Galisano does not get any direct benefit from the change. Yes, he want’s Republicans in government, but I haven’t seen any indication he expects to get preferential treatment (other than assuming a Republican majority would be good for him). Also, by the time this plays out in court, there will probably be another election (in 2010).
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if New York courts stayed well clear of this whole appalling mess as a “political question.”
Ironically, Galisono dumped a bunch of money into the election to get enough Democrats elected to take over the Assembly because he wanted a quid pro quo. When he thought he wasn’t getting it, he went for his payback move of courting a couple of guys that were under investigation. Who knows what they were offered under the table?
Trying to answer the OP will only confuse the OP. That’s how bad it is. To try to use as few words as possible, the NY State Legislature:
Joe Bruno (Republican) and Sheldon Silver (Democrat) have a stranglehold on the process. Reformer Elliot Spitzer goes after Bruno. Ah, but, Spitzer is hiding a huge skeleton and uses some shady tactics to try to nail Bruno. Bruno finds a way to politically destroy Spitzer. Later Bruno is indicted because he really is scum. Galisano tries to manipulate the process. Galisano has always only been looking out for himself. Now we have a total mess.
Check out Gail Collins’ column in the NY Times yesterday:
New York politics is so bad because the two parties have formed an unofficial agreement that it’s better for them to have a system where they each get a share of the spoils rather than compete for the whole pile. The Democrats under Silver controlled the New York City area and the Assembly. The Republicans under Bruno controlled upstate and the Senate. Neither side pointed a finger at the deals made by the other party.