Regular Session - March 1, 2000
878
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 1, 2000
11:03 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
879
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
Will everyone present please rise
and repeat with me the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: In the
absence of clergy, may we now bow our heads in
a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, February 29, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Monday,
February 28, was read and approved. On
motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
880
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. On behalf of Senator McGee, on
page 25 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 310, Senate Print 4620A, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received. The bill will retain
its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: Also, Mr.
President, on behalf of Senator Padavan, on
page 26 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 327, Senate Print 6427, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Amendments received. The bill will stay on
the Third Reading Calendar.
881
SENATOR KUHL: Also, on behalf of
Senator Bruno, Mr. President, on page 27 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 332, Senate Print 909, and ask that
said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received. The bill will remain
on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: And lastly, Mr.
President, on behalf of Senator Trunzo, on
page 27 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 335, Senate Print 1076A, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
882
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
139, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6304, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating a portion of the state highway
system.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
147, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
4134A, an act to amend the Environmental
Conservation Law, in relation to management of
wildlife resources.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
883
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
184, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5725A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to providing for an additional annual
apportionment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
884
236, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3244, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing the operation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
254, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 813, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to imposing plea bargaining
limitations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay the bill
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
885
263, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5898, an
act to amend the -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay the bill
aside temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
268, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 6279, an
act to repeal Chapter 57 of the Laws of 1974
incorporating.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
269, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 6284,
an act authorizing the assessors of the County
of Nassau.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
886
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just to explain my vote briefly.
I'm going to vote no on this bill.
This is another one of the continuing bills
that we have from Nassau County every year
because of the tax-exempt status of properties
that, at least to my understanding -- and I've
only read it briefly -- are transferred during
a period of time and they're delayed in
applying for their tax-exempt status.
I continue to believe that this
issue -- which plagues, frankly, communities
across the state. I have a couple in my own
district which have run into the same problem.
We either should do a statewide bill that
settles this issue once and for all, allows
for partial tax exemptions in property tax
887
years, or we're going to continue to have to
do this on a case-by-case basis.
It just seems to me that the better
approach is to have a statewide bill. We did
this, as Senator Marcellino knows, with the
pension system when we gave the pension
authorities the ability to resolve disputes
with the pension system on a case-by-case
basis.
We should do the same thing with
state tax-assessing units, give them the
ability to do it on a case-by-case basis so
that the inequity and the unfairness that this
bill highlights can be handled without having
to have an appeal to the State Legislature,
which of course carries with it a political
side to it and a potential for unfairness in
one part of the state versus what happens in
another.
I appreciate the sentiment and the
goodwill with which Senator Marcellino brings
the bill to the floor. But until we have a
statewide method for addressing this problem,
I'm going to continue to vote no, Madam
President.
888
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
271, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1101, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to increasing penalties.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
275, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1971, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the unlawful sale of dissertations, theses,
and term papers.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
889
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
277, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3021A, an
act to amend the Executive Law and the
Education Law, in relation to providing
security information.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
315, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1590A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to establishing assessments.
890
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
Senator Duane -
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: -- why do you
rise?
SENATOR DUANE: I'd like to ask
for unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 236.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you will be so recorded as voting in the
negative on Calendar Number 236.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And that's
without objection.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar
891
and start with Senator Johnson's bill,
Calendar Number 315.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
315, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1590A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to establishing assessments.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill simply corrects the law
to say essentially that waterfront-dependent
businesses -- marinas, boatyards, boat sale
centers, water-dependent -- shall be assessed
at their current use and not at the highest
and best use.
This avoids the current situation
where many of these marinas and the boatyards
are being sold for housing because the tax
burden is just too high to bear to maintain
that facility. And of course everyone who
likes to use the water is deprived, then, of a
place to dock his boat, have it serviced, and
892
so on.
In other words, if you live on an
island, live on a lake, live on a river, you
are really being denied the services which
private enterprise would willingly provide if
they weren't taxed out of business.
And so this just says tax it at its
use and don't tax it at a value greatly
exceeding the revenue that can be derived from
that property.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, if Senator Johnson will just yield
to a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield to a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President.
Does this bill deviate from the
standard that we use with respect to all other
893
commercial properties or all other properties
that are on the tax roll? Are we really
changing the standard in this bill by going to
a -- something other than the best and highest
use of the land?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, what
we're saying here, essentially, is that
waterfront property is limited. Commercial
property per se is really unlimited. And of
course these people have the same opportunity
as a commercial operation on another location
to go to court in an Article 78 proceeding,
possibly get their taxes reduced.
But this is an unnecessary
redundancy that they shouldn't be forced to go
through every couple of years in order to
maintain their property. I think waterfront
property is a unique piece of property.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Johnson will yield
to another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
894
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't
dispute, Senator Johnson, that waterfront
property is unique, given its limited amount,
especially on a coastline like Long Island or,
frankly, up in my neck of the woods, bordering
Lake Ontario.
My question is, does this bill
create a differentiation between properties
that have docks and marinas on them and other
waterfront properties that may not have such
facilities?
In other words, if you had two
parcels next to each other, one had a dock and
a marina on it and it would be valued under
your bill under this "value in use" concept,
and you had a property right next door to it
that had no marina or docking facilities but
was simply vacant land, would the second piece
of property continue to be valued on its
highest and best use and the first property be
valued on this value-in-use basis?
895
Are we creating an inequity between
the way we deal with waterfront property -- is
it simply on the basis of the fact of whether
they've got a marina on them?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, let's put
it this way. Vacant real estate on the
waterfront is valued at its highest and best
use. But where there's an established
facility there which is being overtaxed, they
would get relief through this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President.
Senator Johnson, you used the
phrase "overtaxed." Under the current system,
they're properly taxed. What you're
suggesting is that for reasons of access and
other reasons, we should treat marina
properties differently than other waterfront
properties; is that correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: We're talking
about commercial property, essentially. All
right? This is regarding commercial
waterfront property, nonresidential waterfront
896
property which is already developed.
As I said to you, this would
eliminate the necessity of these boatyard
owners either being overtaxed and going out of
business or constantly bringing actions to
bring the taxes in line with the revenue
developed from that property -- which, as you
know, is what happens in an Article 78 or a -
what's the other proceeding?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Certiorari.
SENATOR JOHNSON: -- certiorari
proceedings that are done all over this state
and all over this country -- to eliminate the
necessity of doing that and therefore hope to
continue to preserve the waterfront property
which is serving the residents of our
community and which, if that's developed into
condos, that land is taken away from the
general use by the community for docking
boats, having your boat serviced, and so on.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President. I apologize for
belaboring this. I just want to make sure I
understand it clearly. If Senator Johnson
will yield to a question.
897
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In the
example I used a moment ago where you have one
property that has marina facilities already
developed and you have a vacant lot next door,
my question is, will there be a difference in
the method of valuing the property for real
property tax purposes between the already
developed commercial site and the vacant
commercial site? And, if so, how do you
reconcile that difference?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Counsel doesn't
apprehend the problem which you have
postulated.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, let me
go back and again, through you, Madam
President, if I can, restate the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm simply
898
trying to find out, Senator Johnson, whether
this treats all waterfront property the same
or whether it only treats those that are
currently commercially developed. Could you
just explain that to me and tell me, does it
treat them all the same or does it treat only
those which are commercially developed?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I
would say that in regards to property which is
already developed, not vacant land -- we're
talking about nonresidential activities of a
water-dependent nature. I guess empty land
doesn't really have any activities on it at
the moment. So I would say that it refers to
developed property, waterfront property
commercially developed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President, just so I make
sure -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you continue to yield for another question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
899
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I apologize,
through you, Madam President, for belaboring
the point. I just want to make sure I
understand.
Is the property that already has
improvements on it going to be assessed in a
value of use but the property next to it,
which is also commercially zoned but is
vacant, will that continue to be assessed at
the highest and best use when it has nothing
on it?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes. Yes,
that's correct. That's my understanding of
the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I appreciate Senator
Johnson's patience. But -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you continue to yield -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Actually,
Madam President, I don't need him to continue
to yield. I'll just address the bill, if I
can.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill? All
right, go ahead, Senator Dollinger.
900
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I voted in favor of this bill
in the past, I guess not fully understanding
the implication of it.
Because it seems to me that if what
we're doing is drawing a distinction between
properties and waterfront properties -- which
I agree with you, Senator Johnson, are in
short supply, given the finite amount of
appropriate frontage, whether it's on Lake
Ontario, Lake Erie or, frankly, on Long Island
Sound. It seems to me that what we will do if
we pass this bill and this bill becomes law is
we're going to create an inequity in the way
we treat similarly situated properties.
One property will be taxed at a
slower rate, at a smaller rate, because it is
being used, currently used, as marina
facilities, whereas a similarly situated
property which is undeveloped will find itself
still subject to the highest and best use
method of appraisal and therefore pay at a
higher rate or a higher amount of taxes.
That seems to me to be an
inconsistency that will drive the way this
901
bill operates. And, frankly, it could create
even greater inequities and greater unfairness
for shorefront property owners.
So I know that the Conference of
Mayors and the communities are against this
because of the tax-shifting effect of reducing
and changing the way we appraise properties in
this state. I frankly think that this creates
an unacceptable inequity between certain types
of shore property operators and others that
already have currently developed land. And
based on the opposition of the Conference of
Mayors, I'm not sure that it's justified and I
think it may create only greater inequities
downstream.
I'm going to change my vote in the
negative this year, Madam President. But it's
an interesting issue, and I think a
complicated one that calls into question the
whole way we evaluate waterfront properties.
I'm not sure this is the right approach.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
902
act shall take effect January 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, I would like to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 263.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been
laid aside, Senator Montgomery. That bill has
been laid aside.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry.
Okay, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So we'll wait on
that.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
254, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 813, an
903
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to imposing plea bargaining
limitations.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay the bill
aside for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
263, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5898 -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
271, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1101, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to increasing penalties.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
Senator Skelos.
904
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Any
substitutions to be made?
THE PRESIDENT: There are no
substitutions, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: The Senate will
stand at ease.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 11:24 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 11:25 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: I ask
the house to come to order.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee -- what did you say, Senator?
SENATOR SKELOS: In the Majority
Conference Room.
905
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: In the
Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: And we'll stand
at ease, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: And
the Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 11:26 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 11:30 a.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
263.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
263, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5898, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Highway
Law, in relation to violence committed on
school grounds.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr.
906
President.
The bill that's before us is a bill
that we passed in this house unanimously last
year. And it's referred to as Suzanne's Law.
And today we celebrate a very sad anniversary,
and that is the second year that Suzanne
disappeared from the SUNY campus here in
Albany and has not been heard from since.
Her parents, Doug and Mary Lyall,
are here with us, and they have turned what is
a terrible, terrible tragedy in their lives
into something that can be positive to help
others throughout this state.
What this bill does is just
increase the penalties one notch on any crime
that is committed in any school environment -
that's nursery school, daycare centers,
elementary schools, colleges. So that anyone
that's on a campus will recognize that if they
commit a violent crime or felony, they are
going to be punished very, very severely.
Now, last year we passed the Campus
Security Act. And that helped. And that was
the result of Suzanne's disappearance. And
what that did, and is now law, it coordinates
907
all the activities of the law enforcement
people on the campus and in the municipality
so that there is a plan when someone
disappears or is hurt. It also established a
hotline so that parents or any interested
party can reach in in one place and get an
immediate response, because minutes are
critical when someone is hurt or disappears
from a school environment.
So we're really indebted to the
Lyalls, who are here with us, and to their
family -- they have two children, Steven and
Sandra; a granddaughter, Heather. And this
has been a terrible thing for them to revisit.
But they have been courageous
enough, and we thank you, for being here today
and for being out there every day. They have
collected, so far, something like 25,000
signatures to help the Assembly understand how
critically important this issue is to the
safety of young people throughout this state.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Bruno.
Senator Farley.
908
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. I rise in support of
this legislation and in support of the Lyalls
in this incredible tragedy.
You know, I'm a professor at the
State University of New York at Albany. This
is the second tragedy that has happened in
this Capital District. Karen Wilson, a few
years ago, was abducted, never heard from
again. Suzanne Lyall has been abducted and
never heard from again.
This sends a message to these
predators that as they go to any campus in
this state that we're going to go after them,
the penalties are going to be increased, the
reporting time is decreased.
I think it's critical that this -
and I applaud my colleagues in this house.
You supported this legislation 59 to nothing
last year. And it is a piece of legislation
that should become law.
As Senator Bruno said, the Lyalls
have turned this tragedy and this personal
torment that they go through that never has
any closure -- they still don't know where
909
their daughter is -- they've turned it into a
positive thing.
And the fact that Suzanne is going
to have a law named after her, I say
wonderful. You have made a difference in this
state. You've made a difference on behalf of
everybody that has got a young person at a
college campus.
This is something that we should
pass. And I applaud my colleagues and urge
them to support it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield
to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Bruno?
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
910
I also applaud this legislation,
and I particularly applaud the provisions
having to do with tightening up the reporting
and the increase in penalty to not just
prosecute those who would perpetrate these
kinds of crimes but also to send a message
that this kind of crime will not be tolerated
in our state.
And I'm also wondering if, in light
of the stronger reporting requirements and the
increase in penalties, if the sponsor might
not also be willing to allow the Senate to
consider a bill which would do the exact same
things on bias crimes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: What we're doing
here -- and thank you, Senator, for your
support and for your words of support and your
recognition of the importance of what's
happening here to deter crime.
But we see as a difference -- and
we're open. You and I have discussed this
issue, and we're open to doing whatever is
necessary to protect the public and punish
911
them severely. And that hasn't changed. So
that matter is still under discussion and
review with me and with our conference.
But what we're talking about here
is an area. We are in essence saying that if
you, a perpetrator, invade an area that is
special -- the geography of a school, a
nursery, a daycare, an elementary school, a
campus -- if you go -- in fact, this
legislation allows signs to be put up that
this is a special, secure school area. That's
the difference in what we're doing. You
trespass, you go on to commit a crime, you are
going to be punished severely.
Now, in the bias-crime legislation
that's out there and that has passed the
Assembly, it includes all kinds of groups -
race, creed, color -- that you are punished in
a special way. And I guess the present
perception is that it's almost, almost
all-encompassing. So since it's almost
all-encompassing, why do we want to exclude
some people from being punished if the same
crime takes place? Why do we want to exclude
people?
912
What we have said is we'll take
your bill and we'll increase the penalties for
everybody, as if any crime that's committed on
anyone is considered a bias crime. So you add
a phrase to your bill that says "and all
others," we'll pass it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the -- actually, I think I'm
just going to speak on the bill, if I may.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I certainly
want to again commend Senator Bruno on this
legislation. I think that it will have its
intended effect so that we will not in the
future see similar tragedies such as the one
that Suzanne Lyall's family has had to deal
with. And I think that we all express our
extreme sorrow and hope that in some small way
we'll be able to prevent this from happening
to other families.
I do also, though, want to comment
that in fact the bias bill, in each of the
913
forms that have been presented to the Senate,
in fact does include everyone regardless of
race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, disability. In fact, you would
not have to add "all others," because
everybody is already included in the
bias-crimes legislation.
I do, though, want to thank Senator
Bruno for his comments that the legislation is
still under consideration and express the hope
that we will come to a speedy resolution on
it.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Duane.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. If I may be heard on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I have a
daughter in the first grade in a New York City
elementary school. And I hear what we're
trying to do with this bill. I think it's an
important step.
914
But after what just took place in
Michigan yesterday, where a first-grader was
shot by another child who brought a gun that
was found by that child, unlocked and loaded,
brought it into school and shot and killed
someone in the school, I think we are playing
around the margins with an issue that this
house has got to act on this year.
Twelve children every day in the
United States die from gunshot injuries, most
of them from injuries caused by the fact that
we do not have laws in this country requiring
that guns be locked and imposing penalties on
people who leave guns where children can get
them.
The Assembly is passing these bills
year after year, and in this case -- and I'm
proud of the leadership this house shows on
many issues, including the bill we're voting
on now. But in this case, when we're dealing
with the issue of guns, this house is the
problem. And we have to step up to the plate
and take action.
There have been a series of reports
by the Harvard School for Public Health
915
documenting in detail the fact that in other
countries around the world that have the same
level of violent acts as the United States,
the same level of violent crime, but nothing
like our level of death and serious injury,
because guns in those countries are not
available.
This is a national crisis. It is a
public health crisis. And if we care about
children and we care about schools and we're
serious about the concerns that have been
expressed here today and that are reflected in
this bill, then this year the Senate has to
take action to create a gun-free zone, not
just in schools but around all of our
children, no matter where they are.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Schneiderman.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I rise to note that the Majority Leader of
this house has taken an idea that is long
overdue. It's such a shame that we focus on
an issue after a tragedy.
916
To consider the parents' loss and
then to consider their courage in coming to
this body and supporting this measure is a
very dramatic act on their part.
But what the Majority Leader is
doing with this particular issue is he is
recognizing something that perhaps is lost on
most of us. Our campuses today are some of
our greatest resources. It is the vehicle, we
hope, to encourage our futures. But in order
for individuals to be able to come to learn,
they must accept a place that is free of
violence, and safe. We have to make our
campuses safe harbors. That's what this
legislation does.
Again, it's a shame that we've not
considered this before. But sometimes out of
tragedy come good ideas. This is an issue
that we should act this year to do and
complete.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President.
917
Loath as I am to disagree with our
Majority Leader, I'm going to be voting no on
this bill. And I want the Lyalls to know, if
they are listening, that this has nothing to
do with the tragedy of the loss of their
daughter.
It has to do, for me, with the fact
that I don't understand why we take upon
ourselves, as the legislative body, to
implement such a bill or such legislation as
this without being in concert and making sure
that each university and each school -- I
think we've passed bills, we've put into law
that each educational institution is to
develop a plan for the safety of the people on
their campuses.
So I would leave it up to them. I
trust their judgment. I trust their ability
to come up with a plan. And I would hope that
that plan would include security for people
who work and who are students and what have
you.
But with this legislation which
simply -- as the memo says, "recognizing that
current law does not adequately address the
918
profound consequences of these crimes, the
bill mandates enhanced penalties." That's all
that it does. It mandates enhanced penalties.
Now, in another paragraph of your
memorandum in support you talk about students
age 12 to 18. So, you know, while we use the
Lyalls as the rationale for doing this
legislation, we're in fact talking about
children as young as 12, and possibly younger,
as has happened in New York City last week.
There was an 11-year-old that was charged with
assault and a deadly weapon.
So I think that we're just reaching
too far. We're reaching into our schools to
create crimes for which we can penalize
children. And that's why I'm voting against
this legislation.
And let me just say one more thing
before I close. We understand that at least
50 percent of the crime is committed by white
people. But 95 percent of the people who are
incarcerated are people of color. So whatever
crime bills we pass, ultimately it does not
mean the same thing to everybody. And we
know, therefore, that most of the people who
919
are going to end up being sentenced based on
this legislation, and every other one that we
pass, is going to be people of color. And now
we're talking about children of color.
So I must be opposed to this
legislation, and I hope that some of my
colleagues would join me in at least
expressing our rejection of this direction for
us to go in with our criminal justice and
penal system.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: I too want to
add my voice of saying that this is a laudable
bill. Certainly, Senator Bruno -- and I think
most here in this house will agree that adding
additional penalties, enhanced penalties on
school grounds, given the nature of school
grounds, is a good thing for us to be doing.
920
Although the words of my colleague Senator
Montgomery are taken with great concern.
But certainly I think we can move
forward and do this, enhancing penalties for
crimes committed on school grounds. However,
given the fact -- given the fact that -
adding to the comments of my colleague Senator
Schneiderman, I believe that we need to go
further, not only with locks, trigger locks on
guns.
I think what we need to do, given
the fact that most of the crime that we see
with schools, around schools, involve guns -
as of yesterday we had another incident with a
shooting with two children, five and have
years old, I believe their ages were -- what
we need to do is go further and institute a
program of gun tracing in this state.
Tracing the guns in this state will
lead to finding out the illegal market,
tracing the illegal market in this state.
Because most of the guns that we find in this
state that are used for crimes are obtained on
the illegal market.
Gun tracing is a program that has
921
been started at the federal level. It has
been used in Boston, it has been used in
Philadelphia to great success. We need to
bring a program of that type here to this
state throughout our state.
And I believe that before we leave
this session this year, we need to have a
gun-tracing bill, legislation, passed in this
house, passed in the other house, and signed
by the Governor.
So while I applaud this step, I
think it's only the first step in what we need
to do before this session is over.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Gentile.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I would like to congratulate
Senator Bruno and the Lyalls for bringing this
issue to our attention again, and my
colleagues in this chamber for having passed
this legislation in the past.
As a schoolteacher, former
922
educator, I can attest quite seriously and
quite sincerely that education simply cannot
take place anywhere where there's fear, where
there's violence, and where predators have
free access and ease of entry. We must send a
clear message to those who would perpetrate
crimes against our children, even if they are
children doing it, that it's unacceptable
behavior.
I hear Senator Montgomery's
concerns. They're real. They deserve
consideration. They deserve respect. But,
Senator, I must say, we must act. What are
the alternatives? Do nothing? Allow them to
continue doing what they're doing with no
message sent?
Clearly the schools have not been
able to establish control. We've just had two
cases in college campuses in my district very
recently, within the last few weeks, of
assaults on campus. A girl taking a shower
found a stranger watching her in her dormitory
in the middle of the afternoon. Where was
college campus security? Where was the plan?
How does it stop that? They know who the
923
person was. They caught him. What's he going
to get, a peeping Tom? That's nonsense. You
cannot have that.
This kind of behavior has got to
stop. The message has got to be clearly
delivered that this is not going to be
tolerated in the state of New York and should
not be tolerated in any civilized society.
Violence against our children cannot go on,
even if it's perpetrated by other children.
It must stop.
I would welcome alternative
suggestions. We have proposed law after law
after law increasing penalties on crimes, for
crimes, only to have the same argument raised
by the same people. I have heard no counter.
I have heard nothing coming the other way. We
have had program after program after program
in the schools. For the last 30 years, there
have been more programs spent on talking to
kids, psychoanalysis of kids, giving them
treatment, giving them all kinds of programs,
giving them all kinds of attention.
They have not worked. The violence
is there, it is still there, it is increasing,
924
and it must be stopped. And that means we
must punish those who deliver the crime, who
commit the crime, who are convicted of the
crime, regardless of who they are. And I
think that message is being delivered by this
law. I will vote aye.
I again congratulate the Majority
Leader for his leadership on this issue. And
I thank my colleagues who have been in support
of this for the past two years. This issue,
its time has come. And we should be urging
the other chamber to act appropriately. They
have been passive on this issue; they must act
on this issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Marcellino.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I voted for this bill in the past,
and I'm going to vote for it again. I just
have a couple of quick comments about it.
One, this is a good bill. It could
be made better through one little amendment.
And that amendment would be to adopt a bill
925
that I've had in print. Senator Marcellino
has talked about ideas. Here's an idea. Take
harassment of a child in a school zone by an
adult. It's only a misdemeanor now. In a
school zone, an adult harassing a child ought
to be a felony. It ought to be against the
law. It ought to be punishable by more than a
year in prison.
In the Pittsford Central School
District, right next door to where I
represent, three children were on their way
home and were almost abducted by someone who
attempted to get them in a car. Most of it
was verbal. It would all fall under a
misdemeanor harassment.
Let's make, in a school zone, a
felony out of that kind of conduct by an adult
to a child. Add that as part of this bill.
This bill deals simply with felonies,
increases penalties. Let's take some of the
conduct that we describe as a misdemeanor
other places and elevate it to a felony inside
the school district.
The second point I want to make is
that I think the point that Senator Duane made
926
shouldn't be missed. And that is what we've
done is we have said in certain instances that
depending on who the victim is, we will
increase the penalties. In this bill, we're
saying depending on where the crime occurs we
will increase the penalties.
My question is, what if we
determine that there's an aspect of the
perpetrator that we are not willing to
tolerate? That is, they are motivated by hate
in engaging in a criminal activity. If we're
going to punish people because of who the
victim is, if we're going to increase
penalties, and we're going to increase
penalties because of where it occurs,
shouldn't we also increase penalties if the
person is engaging in the crime because
they're motivated by hate against a person,
whether it's because of their religion,
because of their color, or because of their
sexual orientation?
Shouldn't we do that too?
Shouldn't we be consistent and say we as a
society won't tolerate where it occurs, in a
school zone, we won't tolerate it if the
927
victim is a child or a student -- why should
we be any more tolerant if the perpetrator is
motivated by hate?
That bill -- and I appreciate
Senator Bruno's comment that that bill is
still in play in this session. But it seems
to me that it's a logical extension of what
we're doing here to also apply it to
perpetrators who are motivated by hate.
Finally, I'll just conclude on
another note that I don't want to miss. We
have been gathering data about crimes and
where they occur. We're gathering data about
crimes on college campuses. We're gathering
data about crimes that occur in school zones.
Wouldn't it also be appropriate to gather the
same data with respect to hate crimes? And, I
would add, the data with respect to stops, the
data with respect to interventions in police
departments against people in this state.
Maybe if we had a racial profiling
bill in which we gathered that data, we would
have more information so we could make more
intelligent choices about the future of how we
use our penal system as a deterrent to
928
behavior that we all find unacceptable. It
seems to me it's a logical corollary to this
bill that we move in the steps of gathering
information about hate crimes and gathering
information that would prohibit racial
profiling as well.
I would welcome the Majority to
take up that bill before the end of this
session, to complete our discussion and our
analysis of how we deter what we all
acknowledge is completely unacceptable
behavior.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take -
SENATOR CONNOR: Excuse me, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. I want to comment on the issues
raised by Senator Dollinger just now and a
little earlier by Senator Duane.
929
What we have started to do in the
law in relatively the last score of years is
to start to humanize the consequences of the
breaking of law. This particular bill, which
I'm going to vote for, does it by geographic
location. It takes an area, a school zone,
which we as a society see as precious to the
pillar of our development, because children
really are the energy of our future.
When we look at crimes against
individuals, we have already raised the
penalties for crimes committed against
individuals in the law right now. So I would
really have to refute the argument that
there's a difference between
geographic-location crimes and crimes waged
against individuals.
We have in our statutes right now
an increase in penalties if you commit crimes
against a police officer. Aggravated assault
is that crime. We have elevated the crime if
you commit a crime against a corrections
officer while you're in an institution, as
opposed to another inmate. Because we
distinguish between those individuals who also
930
represent that same pillar of society, that
law enforcement is essential to a democracy
and a civilization.
So when Senator Duane gets up and
just asks why we -- now that we are in the
business of raising penalties for specific
types of crime, everybody would qualify as a
victim based on the protected classes in the
hate-crimes bill: those of sex, sexual
orientation, age or disability, national
origin, race, religion, or color.
And so when we look at those
classifications, the reason we are being so
specific, the reason we don't want to say "all
others" is because we don't want any confusion
in our society today that hate does exist, and
we don't want anyone to worry that we as a
law-making body are not addressing it.
And so it is with the same spirit
that is the catalyst for this legislation that
we are taking certain victims and holding them
not to be more important than any other human
beings, but that those types of crimes tear at
the fabric of our society in a different
sense. When a police officer is injured or
931
killed by an individual, it is an act more
against our society than anything else.
Now, our society itself, which was
founded on a Constitution that didn't have
protected classes, that was founded on a
Constitution that separated one-sixth of its
population -- to the extent that in 1820,
writing in the Edinburgh Review, the great
English wit Sydney Smith once asked: "Which
of the tyrannies of Europe to which the
Americans object systematically tortures and
separates one-sixth of its population?" So
this is something that really is a blunt one,
even what the meaning of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution were at the
time of their formation.
So I think that in terms of the
fact that we still have people manifesting
that hate and violence, and that they've
extended themselves beyond race to do it
against people because of their religion and
sexual orientation, which are the
largest-growing hate crimes now, that it is
something that we need to connect to the same
type of philosophy that was used to draft this
932
bill, which I heartily support.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm going to support this bill,
which as Senator Bruno pointed out, passed
unanimously last year. I have checked the
record. Actually, Senator Montgomery was
excused that day when the bill passed 59 to
nothing. So I think we -- let no one here
doubt her consistency.
And, you know, this bill -- and on
behalf of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle -- as Senator Bruno pointed out, in this
house has bipartisan support, and we do
applaud Senator Bruno for bringing this bill.
What's important to remember is
this bill is not the total answer. The Campus
Security Act that we passed is as important or
perhaps more important in deterring afuture
instance. I think when we debated that, I
pointed out the need to coordinate with local
law enforcement on campuses.
933
I was on a task force a number of
years ago led by Senator Oppenheimer that held
hearings at various campuses about the problem
of rape, and was absolutely astounded to hear
university administrators say that they dealt
with that internally, through their student
discipline process, and were hesitant to call
the DAs or police. I mean, excuse me, that's
a major felony in this state, and there's no
exemption in there for students or campuses.
So we went a long way with that.
This bill is important because it
sends a message, it sends a message about how
we as a society feel about those who invade
one of our great sanctuaries, our educational
institutions. We have done this sort of
thing, increased penalties, to also express
our societal outrage at those, for example,
who would violate the integrity of religious
institutions or cemeteries. So we have done
it in a very special way.
Do we really think these things
will stop because the penalties are cranked up
a notch? Hopefully, it will, but
realistically, it may not. But what will be
934
there is the statement of the people of the
state of New York, through their legislators,
about the collective outrage at these things.
Similarly, over the years, I might
point out, as Senator Paterson noted, we have
enhanced penalties for particular crimes
against particularly vulnerable citizens. For
many years, I think it was Senator Farley
would have bills to increase penalties for
certain crimes against senior citizens.
We certainly support and have in
the past enacted legislation, as Senator
Paterson pointed out, with respect to public
servants, our law enforcement officers, to
express the way we feel as a society about the
importance that we attach to that -- those
servants.
The things that Senator Montgomery
point out cut beyond all these bills. They
cut to the very essence of how our penal
system operates and criminal justice system
operates, and they do raise issues that must
be of grave concern to everyone here. And I
hope we will address those in a systemic way,
because all these things we do about sending
935
messages and increased penalties and all fail
miserably if the integrity of our criminal
justice system and our penal system is subject
to question. And it certainly is in some
regards.
So I applaud Senator Bruno for
this. On behalf of my colleagues, I join him
in expressing to Mr. and Mrs. Lyall our
thoughts and prayers, our sympathy for the
tragedy, and our appreciation for their
courage in trying to turn this into something
that will protect others from such a tragedy.
So I'm voting for this bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Connor.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
936
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
271, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1101, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to increasing penalties.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Who requested
the explanation, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President
and Senator Duane, this bill has as its
purpose an attempt to prevent the abuses which
have crept into our system, being perpetrated
by a group of unscrupulous furniture movers.
I first became aware of the problem
when my own personal effects were put on a
truck. I was moving from one apartment to
937
another. I was given an estimate, and that
estimate proved to be one that was totally
fictitious. Because at the time that they
were supposed to unload my furniture from the
truck, the estimate had quadrupled, and the
demand was made to pay them four times the
original amount or they would not unload my
material from the truck; rather, it would go
to some unknown warehouse.
This is obviously an outrageous
situation which prompted the Senate
Investigations Committee to hold a series of
public hearings on mover abuses. And this
bill is a core bill in an attempt to stem such
abuses.
Specifically, what it does is to
increase penalties for violating a motor
carrier certificate or permitting an acting
carrier of household goods to operate without
a license.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to a handful of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
938
Senator Goodman, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: To a hatful of
questions, or a handful? Did you say would I
yield to a handful of questions or a hatful?
SENATOR DUANE: Perhaps slightly
less than a handful of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Slightly less than a handful. About four.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, the answer
is I will do so. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
continue to yield, Senator?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm wondering how the new fine was
determined.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: The new fine
was determined by the judgment of the sponsor.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
continue to yield, Senator?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
939
Senator Goodman, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I do, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: He
thinks so. Yes, he yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Obviously that was a good enough
answer for me on that one.
I'm wondering, though, whether or
not the new fines might not be just considered
to be the cost of doing business by these
unscrupulous movers.
SENATOR GOODMAN: No. Actually,
Senator, after the public hearings revealed
the abuses to which I referred a moment ago,
it was quite evident that more than a casual
slap on the wrist would be needed, and it was
imperative that we have a fairly severe fine
to try to curb these abuses.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield to
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Will
the sponsor yield for another question?
940
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
SENATOR DUANE: I also was
wondering why the determination was made only
to do a civil action as opposed to a criminal
and civil action. Is there an impediment to
making this a criminal offense?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, the
criminal courts, as you know, are very crowded
with crimes against individuals. And
therefore it was our judgment that the civil
route would be the preferable one, not to add
to the crowding of the courts in criminal
matters which involve abuse and violence
against individuals.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And if the
sponsor would yield for a final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman, will you yield to another
question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will
continue to yield, sir.
941
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I don't see that there's a memo
attached as to what the City of New York's
position is on it. Since this would be under
the jurisdiction of the New York City
Department of Consumer Affairs, I'm wondering
whether or not the administration this year
has taken a position on the legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, this
bill has passed in several previous years in
the Senate, and during this period there's
been no objection voiced by the city
whatsoever.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Goodman. Thank you, Senator
Duane.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
942
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to the reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report from the Rules Committee. I ask that
that be read now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 6720A, by Senator
Johnson, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Bruno.
943
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: All in
favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Opposed, say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
report is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we at this
time take up Calendar 356, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read Calendar 356.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
356, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 6720A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to motor vehicle dealers.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
944
Senator, there is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move we accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Roll
call.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: No,
945
there is not, Senator Bruno.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time recognize Senator Connor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you, Senator Bruno.
Mr. President, I believe there's a
motion at the desk. I ask that it be read,
and I would like to be heard on the motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill 6482,
by Senator Connor, an act to amend the
Election Law, in relation to election of
delegates and alternate delegates.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a motion to discharge my
bill. But let me outline for you what I want
to do in this discussion. First I'll give you
a little history, as I know it, of how these
946
things have worked over the years, identify a
problem, and tell all of my colleagues -
particularly my Republican colleagues, in the
context of this year -- why this bill is good
for the people of the state of New York, why
it's good for your political party, why it's
good for your party leadership, and why we
ought to do something.
A little history. Once upon a
time, New York had a system for both major
political parties in its law -- a prelude.
Does a party, if we pass this into law, does a
political party have to follow this? No. A
political party has a First Amendment
associational right to do whatever it wants to
do.
What this bill says, though, is any
political party that wants to use the state's
election mechanism for its presidential
primary has to accept this bill. If it's a
state-conducted primary, it's at state,
county, city, and town expense. And the
Supreme Court has made it very clear that the
state can then therefore set forth the frame
of that.
947
If the Democratic Party doesn't
like this, they can say, "We're not opting in,
we want to run our own caucuses at our own
expense. We'll pick our delegates, our
presidential candidate any way we want." If
the Republican Party, if this were law in a
year, said, "We don't want to do this, we
don't want to have a presidential primary, we
all want to meet in a back room, pick our
delegates, pick our presidential candidate,"
you can. You have a First Amendment right to
do that.
But if you want to use any kind of
state mechanism or state expense or local
expense, then this would be the system.
What's the problem? If you go back
to 1972, both political parties had a system
very similar to the ones the Republicans have
next week. They ran slates of delegates. I
was a young Turk then; we ran a McGovern slate
of delegates. We didn't have McGovern's name
even on the ballot in those days, just a slate
of delegates. But we had an army of
volunteers who could give out little palm
cards at every polling place.
948
At least in that primary, McGovern
caught fire. People got that palm card and
voted for our delegates. They were folks like
Moe, Larry, and Curly, I guess -
25-year-olds, 30-year-olds.
Who were the regular organization's
candidates for delegate, supporting I forget
whom then? Oh, state senators, Congress
members, party chairmen. Sound familiar?
They all went down to glorious defeat. And at
the Chicago convention, the New York
delegation were 300-and-some young folks not
in connection, really, with the party's
mechanisms in New York.
Not a good thing for McGovern in
the end, not a good thing for the Democratic
Party. Certainly not a good thing for the
leadership at the time. Although I look
around here, and those of my colleagues who
are now as old as me were as young as some of
my other colleagues in those days, and we
thought it was great while it lasted.
The Democrats changed their system
to deal with this. We had kind of a
convoluted thing. And by next time out,
949
'76 -- now, by '80 we had caucuses to pick
delegates, but a beauty contest. If you
remember, Kennedy won the beauty contest. We
picked the delegates later.
The Republicans have pretty much
stuck with the same system throughout. But we
had problems.
In 1976, the regular Democratic
organization kicked some upstart peanut
farmer, former governor of Georgia off all the
ballots in New York State. He didn't get a
single delegate from New York State, much to
our embarrassment. By primary day -- we had
it in June then, I guess, early June -- it was
clear that Jimmy Carter was our presidential
nominee, but he wasn't going to get a single
delegate in New York. And a lot of people who
dropped out got all the delegates.
And it was mildly embarrassing to
the Democratic organization then, who
naturally thought this guy might win and
wanted to have some sort of friendly
relationship. Because that is politics in
both political parties, obviously.
We got to -- by 19-- let me get
950
this straight. By 1988, we had a different
system in place. And the Democratic Party
realized, wait a minute, we want a national
convention where the state's party leaders are
among the delegation for sure. We want that
connection. When we pick our candidate, we
want to know, hey, you know, you can call the
state chair and whatever.
So we've opted for a different
system over the years that features a beauty
contest, delegates awarded proportionate to
how the candidates do. But we hold in reserve
40 or 50 percent of the delegates, at least,
who are selected after the primary and who
must include people like the State Chair, the
Speaker, the statewide elected officials, all
the Congress members.
My Republican colleagues, good
system as you face next Tuesday. So it's a
good system. This bill isn't exactly that.
But what this bill would do is
allow a political party to hold up to
50 percent of its delegates in reserve for
selection by the state committee after the
primary. Yes, you have to divide who they're
951
pledged for based on the beauty contest.
Okay? But, you know, the at-large delegates
picked afterwards can decide who they're for
after the primary. I know that appeals to
some people's political instincts as well.
But you get to be delegates at your
own party's convention, and you don't send a
delegation of totally disconnected upstarts
who've latched onto a hot presidential
candidate as your delegation and condemn
whoever your party's nominee is to this
disconnect. You know?
I would think -- it certainly has
worked for us. I think it would work for the
Republicans or any other party that opted in.
You want your party's leadership heading up
that delegation when it goes. And you want
them doing that no matter who sweeps the
primary, no matter who the hot candidate is on
March 7th or whenever the primary is.
Obviously what we've had here, we
had litigation in 1992 on the Democratic side,
by Tsongas, to get on the ballot. He was hot
that month. We had litigation by Forbes in
the Republican Party four years ago. He was
952
hot for a while. Got himself on the ballot
through the federal courts. And of course we
saw recently the federal courts placing
Senator McCain's name on the ballot. And
Keyes, yes. And Forbes.
So the old game doesn't work. Not
only does it not work for its political ends,
it's not working very well for the players in
there, depending on next week's results. I
suggest that this has the virtue -- this bill,
what would it do? The executive director of
the State Board of Elections would place
automatically on the party ballot statewide,
in a beauty contest, all the well-known,
generally accepted candidates for President in
the political party. Who are they? I know
who they are, or who they were a month or two
ago. I put the TV on, there were seven
Republicans debating. If they make the
demand, put them all on the ballot. You know?
You can pick half your delegates after the
fact.
Secondly, it would allow district
delegates -
SENATOR GOODMAN: Would Senator
953
Connor yield for just a moment, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I don't want to
interrupt the -
SENATOR CONNOR: I'd be
delighted. I'd be delighted, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Connor, do you yield?
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator Connor,
I'll speak to your general proposition in just
a moment.
But I would like to focus very
heavily on line 37, page 2 of your bill, in
which you do indicate that the executive
director of the State Board of Elections shall
file a certificate indicating that any
nationally known or recognized candidate who
made a demand upon him to appear on the ballot
may be placed upon the ballot.
What is the definition of a
954
nationally known candidate? Would a David
Duke, for example, be permitted to be on the
ballot? What's to determine the discretion to
be exercised by one single bureaucrat in a
matter this sensitive and this important?
This is the part of your bill that most
concerns me.
SENATOR CONNOR: Absolutely. Let
me address that, because I notice that
Assemblyman Faso put a bill in last week. I
had a prior bill to this directed at this
March 7th. But this does not affect next
week. Obviously that's -
SENATOR GOODMAN: Just for the
purpose of your responding to the question,
that the debate people on the radio and on
television and in the media have criteria
which say that anyone who has been approved
with federally acceptable funds for the
campaign will be recognized by them to appear,
but others will not.
Now, do you make any such
distinction in your bill?
SENATOR CONNOR: That's where I
was going. That's where I was going, Senator,
955
if you'll be patient.
Assemblyman Faso put in a bill last
week saying, well, let's automatically put on
everybody who qualifies for federal matching
funds, or who would have qualified.
My original bill a few weeks ago
directed toward this year, before the federal
court acted, used federal matching funds.
Knowing that it excluded George W. Bush,
because he isn't in the federal matching fund
program. But that, when I was looking to this
March 7th, wasn't a problem. McCain had
qualified, Forbes, the others who -- Forbes
never did, I'm sorry.
But in any event. So that was one
option, and obviously Assemblyman Faso took
it.
My concern was when you get a
Governor Bush who says "I don't want federal
matching funds" -- which he's entitled to do
because he raised so much money. Spent a lot
of it, too. To say "would have qualified,"
well, without the auditing procedures and
filing your donations and all with the FEC,
that's a -- that, unfortunately, is a
956
speculative standard. Yet everybody
recognizes that certainly up to a week or two
ago, George W. Bush was the favorite
nominee -- and may be again after yesterday.
So that's why I didn't go with that standard.
This standard is what California
uses, Connecticut uses. The Board of
Elections, of course, would adopt regulations.
What the other states look to is who have the
TV people included in the debates, how many
states are they running in, are they getting
on the ballot in, who's generally recognized.
If David Duke wanted to run in the
primary, he'd have to go get petitions.
That's what we provide for fringe candidates.
They have a right to run, they want to run,
whatever. Lyndon LaRouche, I guess, got on
the Democratic ballot through petitions this
year. Those kind of candidates would have to
do this.
But let's be realistic. We all
know who the major candidates are. We see
them on TV. They're raising money, they're
off running in other states' primaries,
they're running in New Hampshire, they're
957
running in the Iowa caucuses.
You need some good faith here. You
know, the public has a lot of say in this.
Public opinion -- and I'm not suggesting
federal judges look at public opinion. They
look at the law. But we've already seen how
public opinion can propel somebody onto the
ballot, notwithstanding technicalities.
So I'm open to refinements on this.
I suggest that it -- and I'm not averse to
Leader Faso's suggested solution. I just,
frankly, was really concerned for George W.
Bush in the future, not -- you know, I don't
know how you say "would have qualified."
Based on the total amount he made, he would
have qualified. But as we know, there are
distribution and limit standards that can only
be evaluated when the candidates file for it
and document it.
As I say, local people who want to
run for delegate can file in their
congressional districts a petition to list
them as a delegate. You know, presumably
not -- you know, a party could do that for all
their delegates. Or they could only do it for
958
half the delegates. Within the congressional
district, the delegates would win a portion
based on how the presidential candidates did
in proportion. And the at-large afterwards
would be distributed.
It's a pretty simple system, and it
avoids -- by the way, a presidential candidate
under this could run and have no delegates
running in any congressional district if
that's burdensome to them. You know, a John
McCain or a Bill Bradley could just get
themselves on the ballot, run statewide, no
delegates running in the congressional
districts, and they can pick them afterwards.
Which is what they can do now.
So a lot of the stuff in the press
about how the Democrats this year, well, they
had a burden too, you had to petition for
delegate -- you didn't have to. You didn't
have to. Where people petitioned for delegate
in a congressional district, fine. They get
on the ballot, they run for delegate. Where
they didn't, Bradley can still get delegates
in those congressional districts. If he gets
40 percent of the vote or 50 percent of the
959
vote in a congressional district, he gets half
the delegates and he gets to pick them
afterwards. Or at least he gets to designate
to the state committee who he feels is loyal,
and the state committee will pick them
afterwards for him, those people pledged to a
irst-ballot support or whatever the party
standard is.
It's not a winner-take-all system.
There's some proportionality. We'd eliminate,
really, all the technical hurdles that frankly
have made New York -- and if this can work in
Connecticut, if it can work in California, a
far larger, in some respects different
political culture, more diverse -- California,
between the north and the south of the state,
is more diverse than all the little
differences we point out in our state between
upstate, downstate, and all that.
Works in California, works in
Connecticut, works well -- works well for
everybody. Gains the respect of the public
because it's a fair and open system, preserves
the party leadership's prerogatives in terms
of heading up their delegation.
960
Yeah, okay, maybe for the
candidates -- you know, the candidates get a
certain edge by having illustrious names
running for delegate in a district. But let's
face it. Once upon a time, it worked. It
worked for the Democrats up until 1972. Oh,
gee, State Senator So-and-so is running in my
district as a -- who the heck were the
regulars back then? A Muskie delegate, I
guess. You know, we had a bunch of people all
under 30 running for McGovern. They beat
State Senator Whoever-it-was-then. It didn't
work well for him.
And you know what? These are now
national campaigns. You know, when a
prominent party official puts their name on
the ballot, is it really going to get George
W. Bush more votes? Yes, in an even-up thing.
But if George W. Bush crashes and burns, and
I'm not suggesting he has, or if somebody else
gets hot -- you know, nobody's voting for
somebody they don't like for president because
I'm the heading the delegate slate. You know?
So I suggest, with all due respect
to my Republican colleagues, you've kind of
961
allowed an old system to persist when the
nature of the nation, the nature of the way we
pick presidential candidates has changed.
It's no longer conventions where all the
huddling goes on to pick a candidate. Maybe
that worked better for the parties in those
days, but that isn't the way it is today.
It's primaries, it's Iowa, New Hampshire,
South Carolina. It's momentum, it's press,
it's TV ads.
And I don't know why, frankly,
prominent elected officials in either party -
it's one thing to endorse your favorite guy
for President. Why you'd put your name on the
ballot -- you know, your name's on the ballot,
my colleagues. Some of your names are on the
ballot. And you're probably going to be okay
next Tuesday. But, you know, you put your
name on the ballot a month or two ago -
right? You put your name on the ballot a
month or two ago because the candidate looked
good. And something could happen in the
meantime in Iowa or Texas or South Carolina or
Michigan that makes your candidate out of the
race, and your name's on the ballot as a
962
certain loser on primary day.
The system doesn't make any sense
anymore. It did in the old -- twenty, thirty
years ago. It doesn't anymore.
More important than the practical
politics of this is the public's confidence in
an open system. You know, I think ultimately
Governor Bush was hurt for a while in New York
because people looked at John McCain.
Naturally, he has credentials. I don't
support him, I don't agree with him on a lot
of issues, but I don't question his right to
run for President in a minute. He earned
that. He earned that by his public service,
he earned that by his wartime sacrifice for
the nation.
Who are we kidding? We can't use
the backroom politics anymore. I suggest to
you, my colleagues, this bill -- why now?
People say, Why now? We've got four years to
fix it now. The federal courts, the federal
courts made it plain. They solved this year's
dilemma. So now we've got four years to fix
it.
I suggest to you the following.
963
Now it's easy to do the right thing, because
nobody has a vested interest anymore. It's
easy to do the right thing. We can all do the
right thing and not worry, does this help
Presidential Candidate X or Presidential
Candidate Y. Because this year's fixed, now's
the time to do it.
No matter who is sworn in as
President, Mr. President, next January 20th,
within a week, particularly in the party whose
candidate isn't President, there will be
people jockeying to become the candidate four
years thereafter. And they'll tell you, Oh,
it's not four years, by then it will be 3
years and 9 months later, and we'd better
start raising money.
And people will be calling you
within six months of the new administration
taking office, people -- particularly in the
party that's on the outs, naturally -- will be
calling around, lining up people to support
them for President four years later. That's
the system now.
You know, once upon a time, people
went to conventions in the end of August or
964
September and they picked a presidential
candidate. The presidential candidate didn't
even go. They called them up: "Governor
Roosevelt, we've nominated you, will you come
out to Chicago," or whatever. They had an
eight-week campaign.
Well, now it's not. People are
already maneuvering to be the candidates the
next time, in case Bush loses or Gore loses or
whatever. So now's the time to do the right
thing, because we'll all be compromised a year
from now. We'll all be worried about, well,
how is this going to help this one or that one
or whatever.
Do it now. Do it with a clean
slate. Do it before we all have political
conflicts of interest because we're for the
senator from Tennessee or the governor from
Idaho or whatever it is.
Don't wait. And this is addressed
to the other house as well. Don't say we've
got lots of time to fix it, we've got four
years. A year or two from now, those who want
to fix it will find there are others who
think, no, I don't want to fix it, this helps
965
me, helps my candidate.
Do it now. No bias in it. You
know, we all know who we're for for President
this year. Fine. This year, it doesn't
affect this year. Let's do it for four years
from now. Let's just do it. It works for the
parties, it works for the public. And if we
do it now before we're all lining up with the
next go-round, we can get it done. We can get
it done.
I urge my motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Connor.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Thank you, Senator Connor, for that
history lesson. That long history lesson.
Thank you also for confessing that you were
organizationally very naughty during the
McGovern years. Had that not happened, you
might be a front-runner instead of Al Gore,
organizationally. You never know in this
business.
Thank you also for all of your
966
intended help and support for our primary next
Tuesday here in this state. It makes you feel
good that you have such a high level of
concern for all of us.
I want to just share with you that
I am not standing here to debate the merits of
this procedural motion. Because while you are
correct, the time has come for us to change
the primary system here in New York State, we
have been talking about it and working on it
for some weeks, and it will change. And we
will appreciate the support.
So the subject is timely. It
should happen. It can't happen between now
and next Tuesday, because it would create more
confusion than it would solve.
And also, again, if I were
discussing the merits of this particular piece
of legislation, I would have to say that I'm
told by our very learned counsel that it's so
flawed that we have to start over. And we
will engage you in starting over and putting
together something that makes sense for all
the people of this state.
And when I say our learned counsel,
967
I'm very, very cognizant of the fact that
learned counsel on this side says "you're
right," learned counsel on this side says
"you're wrong." And that's why there's so
many learned counsels that do so well.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: It's always an
inspiration to me that there can be so many
experts that feel so strongly and who are so
highly paid for their expertise. And I
applaud them. And I'm told by one of my
learned counsels we need more learned
counsels.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: But in
seriousness, I appreciate the interest, and we
will reconcile our differences. Because I
think where we're headed is in the right
direction, and what we want to do is something
that makes sense for the entire constituency
of this state. And get some clarity, create
the ballot access that all of us want, make it
fair, make it equitable, and really give the
people a chance to speak out on primary day.
So I'm going to ask my colleagues
968
procedurally to join us in a party vote in the
negative when the vote comes up.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Bruno.
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
let me start by saying that I'm in total
accord with the two previous speakers when
they characterize the existing system as not
good. In fact, I would say that it reeks,
that it has deep defects. And those could
never been more adequately illustrated than
they were by the fact that a man with the
general support of Senator McCain was kept off
the ballot this year. This was a travesty.
And may I just say as a matter of
personal privilege, in a sense, that in New
York County, where I happen to be the chairman
of the Republican Party, I passed the word
that there was to be no challenge to any
petition whatsoever for Mr. McCain or
Mr. Forbes, and there was none. And in so
doing, I assured that there would be a contest
which could very well result in my own defeat
as a delegate.
969
So I'd like to make very clear my
position on this. It was one which went, I
think, to the merits of the case and
recognized the defect in the situation.
Now, if I can just ask for Senator
Connor's gracious attention, I'd like to
proceed. Sorry.
I was just commenting, Senator
Connor, that in my own district as county
chairman in Manhattan, where we have eight
delegates at stake, we passed the word that
there was to be no challenge to the McCain or
the Forbes petitions, and there was none. And
that assured their being on the ballot and, in
effect, assured the fact that there would be a
contest over which I, as a delegate, do not
have control in any sense.
And I may awaken on next Wednesday
to find that I have been rejected by the
voters, which would be an untoward and an
unpleasant experience, to say the least. But
it could happen and, if the voters will it, it
should happen.
But let's go on from there. The
fact of the matter is you present us with a
970
bill which is strongly supported by such
stentorian voices as those of the New York
Times editorial board, which has conveyed to
me their very deep feelings about the
important principle of revising this system.
And I believe deeply that it should be
revised.
But I feel, as I may have indicated
in my first question to you a few moments ago,
that the proposal you've made for the
determination of who should be on the ballot
has some serious flaws. To place this
responsibility in the hands of one bureaucrat
would, in my judgment, be a very dangerous
practice.
Although the present bureaucrat in
office happens to be all right, I don't know
who that would be in the future. I have no
idea what his bias or her bias might be and
what judgment lack might occur at that time.
So that would be a very dangerous opening that
we could create through which some very
defective candidates could be drawn, and that
would be a significant problem.
I see some other problems in the
971
structure that you've proposed -- which I
think, incidentally, is thoughtful and
sincere, and I commend you on having come up
with a bill that's worthy of careful thought.
How would we work a favorite son
candidacy, for example? Suppose instead of
wishing to designate a specific candidate in
advance, a state should advance its own
interest and wish to have a favorite son?
Under your system, that would not be feasible.
Further, I point out to you that
there would be other procedural problems which
would surround this. Let me give you one
specific example. In closely contested
conventions, historically it is a fact, and
the present practice is after the second
ballot in the Republican convention -- I think
the same rule may apply to the Democrats -
but with the permission of the designated
candidate, a delegate may be released to
exercise his own judgment as to whom he may
wish to vote for.
And in that instance, there is in
existence a very significant factor here,
which is that in voting for a delegate, the
972
people of the district, the congressional
district, may wish to select someone who in
their judgment would best reflect their views.
That can often be accomplished by designating
a state official, an elected official such as
a Congressman or a Senator, an Assembly
member, or someone else who is deemed to be
appropriate to advance that thought.
But under your system, no such
thing would be possible, because it would all
be totally in the hands of the candidate after
the -- with the exception of your 40 percent,
I think you said, which would be in -- but
there would be a significant undermining of
the opportunity for the electorate to select
someone whose judgment they'd have confidence
in in the very serious event of a deadlocked
convention. So I ask you to think very
carefully about that.
But let me just say, in summation,
that Senator Bruno is not a man who speaks
lightly of his commitments, and he has a
distinctive record of having stuck with the
things he says he's doing to do. Furthermore,
he has an instinct as a reformer, as is
973
evidenced by the way he's turned this Senate
into an operating body. The railroad runs on
time these days. And Senator Bruno has
espoused some of the more significant reforms
that have come before our body in the last
decade.
So I have confidence in his
expressed willingness to look carefully at
this and to get something done timely. And if
I didn't, I might be sorely tempted to ask you
to amend your resolution and try to work on it
as a work in progress on the floor. But I
think Senator Bruno's suggestion is far
preferable, which is let's get our learned
people together and come up with a timely and
significant change in this system.
And let me conclude as I began, by
saying the system stinks. It's a very, very
bad and defective system which must be revised
and it must be done timely. We can't put it
off indefinitely. Your sense of timing is one
with which I happen to be in accord. We
should do it before the new pressures of the
next election arise.
But let it be said, my good
974
colleagues and friends, that at this stage of
the game the proposal which you've advanced is
one which is significantly flawed and
defective. And therefore, with due respect, I
think we can improve upon it through the
process recommended by the Majority Leader.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Goodman.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Let me begin by commending Senator
Connor on his very articulate explanation of
why the legislation that's before us today is
legally, from a matter of public policy, from
a political standpoint, and from a
commonsense, good-government standpoint,
absolutely the right thing to do.
And also express a little bit of
surprise at Senator Goodman -- pleasant
surprise -- that he chose to address some of
his substantive criticism of this bill that
we're trying to release during the discussion
on the motion to discharge. His doing that
undermines the -- this notion that this is
975
simply a procedural mechanism, a procedural
movement.
And so, since Senator Connor has
done such an outstanding job in discussing the
actual merits of the legislation, I'm only
going to say a few words about that, and then
I'm going to talk about motion to discharge
and what that means and what we're doing here
today.
By advancing this legislation,
Democrats, everyone here should know, are
doing a little bit, on a lesser scale, a
little bit of a mea culpa, which is saying
that even our process is a little bit too
onerous. Even our process. We're admitting
that by advancing this legislation today,
which would change the way Democrats currently
do things.
And the way we do it right now is
that there need to be 5,000 signatures
statewide in order to qualify candidates for
the ballot. Okay? Very much different than
the much more onerous requirements that the
Republicans advance, by which they need 5,000
statewide and one-half of 1 percent in every
976
single congressional district and all the
rules pertaining to that, to petitioning on
the ballot, including the subscribing
witnesses and delegates all have to reside
within a district, all of that.
Which essentially, when we boil it
down for you, we need 5,000 for any of the
candidates to have required under the current
law, irrespective of the fact that a judge
ruled that some of the portions of the current
law were unconstitutional for this election.
It meant that 24,000 signatures were needed by
the Republican candidate. We needed 5,000,
they needed 24,000.
And anyone who is familiar with
this process knows that if we needed 5,000, we
didn't really need 5,000. Everyone knows you
need much more than that. The rule of thumb
is three times that amount, to withstand the
challenges that inevitably come because of
other provisions of our Election Law that are
so obscene and arcane as to be a perfect
mechanism to prevent candidates that you don't
want from getting on the ballot.
So we didn't need 5,000, we needed
977
15,000, in actuality. Not legally, in
actuality. And for Republican candidates,
they didn't need 24,000, they needed 72,000
signatures. That is the reason why candidates
chose not even to try to get on the ballot in
this state.
So having said that, and echoing
all of the other arguments that Senator Connor
laid out, all of which I believe made perfect
sense, let me talk for a second about what
this means, what we're doing here today, this
motion to discharge. Because this is some
fundamental problem that I have had since I
stepped foot in this legislative body.
Some would have us believe that if
you say that the motion to discharge is a
procedural motion, that you are not taking a
vote on the substance of the legislation
that's at hand. Now, as I pointed out before,
Senator Goodman -- and I applaud him for doing
this -- undermined that by talking about the
substance of the bill.
But I'm going to prove to you now
that a vote on a motion to discharge is a vote
on the substance. And let's do that by
978
analyzing why people vote the way they do on a
motion to discharge. So let's start with
voting yes on a motion to discharge.
There are two reasons to vote yes
on a motion to discharge. One is that you
agree with the policy implication of the
legislation at hand. You agree with it, you
want to see it enacted into law, you vote yes
on the motion to discharge to get it out of
committee onto the floor so that it can be
enacted into law. That's reason number one
why you vote yes.
Or you vote yes because you
disagree with the policy implication of the
legislation at hand but feel that that
legislation is of such substance and of such
weight that it deserves to be heard and a vote
taken by the full floor of the Senate. That's
a very noble proposition, incidentally, and I
don't think we see it very much.
Those are the two reasons why
people vote yes. People vote no on a motion
to discharge because you are flat out against
the policy that the legislation would bring to
bear for the residents of New York State. Or
979
you might vote no on this legislation because
you agree with the policy implication but
would never vote on something that a Democrat
has sponsored or has brought to the floor.
And I wouldn't suggest that anybody
in this house would undertake such an endeavor
whereby they would put politics over the
interests of what's good for the people of the
state. So I'll leave that one alone for a
second.
And the third reason why somebody
would vote no a motion to discharge is that
they agree with the policy -- the conception
behind the policy, but they think the bill is
flawed. That's what Senator Goodman was
talking about.
To which I respond by saying the
following. Every single day in this house,
the members of the Minority, because of the
flawed rules of this house, come in and vote
on a legislative agenda that is entirely set
by the Majority. We don't vote on anything
that does not have some kind of acquiescence
on the part of the Majority. The legislative
agenda in this house is completely driven by
980
the Majority. So we in the Minority are asked
to vote every single day on legislation that
we have no say whether it should be voted on
or not.
And you know what? It's not such a
bad thing conceptually that we're forced to
take votes on things that we may not want to.
We've got to take positions. That's what this
is all about. But to block, to block from
coming to this floor legislation which would
unquestionably change a system which is flawed
and everybody recognizes it's flawed is a
fundamental problem.
I believe this so much so that I
have changed my position on a constitutional
convention in the state of New York. When I
was first elected to the Senate, I opposed the
constitutional convention. I thought there
were some things that we needed to remedy in
the fundamental structure of how we perform
governance in New York State, but I was afraid
to open up the process for fear that some of
the things that I cherish and hold dear to me,
as they are outlined in the Constitution,
could also be tampered with.
981
Having witnessed, as a member of
this house, how we conduct ourselves here, I
have now changed my position. And I now
believe that we need a constitutional
convention to do one thing. We need it to do
a bunch of things, but one thing I'm concerned
with right now is having the rules of this
house, or possibly the Assembly, and/or
possibly the Assembly, more closely mirror the
rules of the United States Senate, whereby any
40 members of the house, or 40 percent of this
house, if we chose to do it, could filibuster
and block any piece of legislation. And
thereby you create an instant bipartisanship
that would advance democratic principles and
promote solid public policy.
We don't have that here. And as a
result, we are forced to sit here and vote on
procedural measures. And Senator Bruno is
right, we're just voting on a procedural
measure. Know what the procedural measure
does? The procedural measure releases a bill
that's been bottled up in committee, and that
bottling it up prevents it from becoming law.
That's what the procedure is.
982
So when you're voting no -- you
want to say you're voting no on a procedure?
Go ahead, say you're voting no on it. You're
voting no on a procedure that would allow a
bill to come out so that you can vote on it.
That's what you're voting no on today.
And today's New York Times, I'll
read you a line from it, hit it right on the
head. And I'll read you two quick sentences.
"Joseph Bruno, the Senate Majority Leader,
plans to rally his Republican caucus to cast a
party-line vote against the motion" -- that's
the one we're talking about -- "playing down
the significance of the showdown by labeling
the vote merely procedural. That should fool
no one. A vote against discharging Mr.
Connor's bill from the certain burial ground
of the Elections Committee is the equivalent
of a vote against the bill itself." Is the
equivalent of a vote against the bill itself.
So I would suggest to Senator
Goodman that if he has fundamental problems
with the legislation -- and I respect that -
then let it out of committee and vote no on it
on the floor. Or propose your own bill, which
983
you've had many, many years to do, to change
this system. And let's get on with it.
But I don't want to hear that this
procedural motion means that you're not voting
against something that would have a positive
impact for the people of this state. We heard
the same argument on hate crimes. It's a
procedural motion.
You voted against hate crimes,
members of the Majority. You're going to vote
against this, members of the Majority. And
it's dead wrong. And to the extent that we
can expose the fallacy and the argument that
it's just a procedural motion, I hope I have
been effective in doing that today.
I extol the virtues of this
legislation, applaud everyone who intends to
vote in support of it, and would urge everyone
who intends to vote no on this to reconsider
conceptually what that vote means. Your
constituents will not understand what it means
by your argument that you're voting on a
procedure, because we're going to tell them
that you voted to block a positive reform for
the people of New York State. It is what you
984
have done here by casting your negative vote.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Hevesi.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I also join in support of this
legislation. And I don't think it's a mystery
to anyone -- and I followed the trial, the
case that Senator McCain brought. The
language the federal judge used in that trial
should embarrass every member of the Senate.
The language the judge used was that our
ballot laws do not pass the giggle test, that
our laws are absurd, they're irrational, and,
most importantly, as was done four years ago,
our laws are unconstitutional. They're an
unfair burden on the people of the State of
New York trying to exercise their rights to
vote in a democratic system.
That is a disgrace. It is a
disgrace that every four years we are held up
to national shame for this. And it's time to
do something about it.
985
It is not hard. Senator Connor, an
expert in this area, has worked out a lot of
details in this bill that I think commend
themselves to us. We should vote for this
bill. We should bring it to the floor. We
should get this national embarrassment out of
the media every four years. We should get
this national disgrace of New York's
ballot-access laws on the track to recovery.
I want to now address the issue
that Senator Hevesi addressed so persuasively.
I was a trial lawyer. Saying something is
procedural doesn't mean it does not have
tremendous substantive effect. The only way
you get a bill to the floor of the Senate is
through a procedure. Voting a bill out of
committee is a procedure. The procedural step
of getting a calendar number, that's a
procedure.
We don't do these things, we don't
pass any legislation -- the Majority
frequently does motions to discharge bills out
of committee. That's a procedure. Gets
unanimous consent to waive the third reading.
That's a procedure.
986
Let's get rid of this smokescreen.
If you vote against a motion to discharge, you
are killing a bill. If you vote against a
hostile amendment, you are killing the
provisions of that amendment. Let's call it
what it is. Procedure is the only way to get
a bill to the floor. If you won't let a bill
to the floor, the bill ain't going to pass.
And everyone who votes against this
motion is voting against the bill, as Senator
Hevesi has pointed out, voted against our
right, our opportunity to consider this
legislation. This is something that I don't
think the voters are going to understand. And
I don't think they should understand.
If you're voting against a motion
to discharge on this bill, you'd better have a
very quick counterproposal getting to the
floor through a procedure, which is the only
way to get things to the floor.
A vote no on this bill is a vote
against democracy in two senses: in terms of
the substance of ballot access, and in terms
of this house's ability to consider this
legislation.
987
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Schneiderman.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I'm sorry that Senator Bruno isn't
here. I tape-recorded his statement earlier.
I'm going to give it to my 15-year-old son.
He turns 16 on March 15th, and he's going to
ask me for the keys to my car. And I'm going
to say to him, "Wait a second, son. You need
a license before you can drive that car."
You know what he's going to say to
me? "Just a procedure, Dad, that's all it is.
It's just a procedural issue. I know how to
drive the car. Why should -- this is
procedure, Dad. This has nothing to do with
substance."
And I'm going to lecture him about
the need to have a license before you can
drive a car, and he's going to say just what
Senator Bruno said. "That's a procedural
motion. It doesn't affect anything
substantively at all. It's purely and simply
a procedure, Dad. And why should I comply
988
with the procedure?"
And I would just suggest I'm going
to can what Senator Bruno -- I'm just going to
tape it and I'm going to take it home and make
sure that my son lectures me about procedure
versus substance and how the procedure of
getting a license doesn't affect the substance
of driving a car.
I think Senator Bruno makes a great
point. I completely disagree with it, by the
way, but he makes a great point.
This bill, on its substance, is a
fascinating thing to track when you track the
other great election that's happened in this
planet in the same period of time. Did you
follow the elections in that country -- you
remember that country, the one that called us
Satan. You know, in Iran.
Remember what happened in Iran?
They had new elections, new parliamentary
elections. They had thousands of people who
wanted to run as candidates. And lo and
behold, what happened? They filed their
procedural request to be a candidate, and all
of a sudden they ran into a problem. The
989
clerics, the Islamic fundamentalists that run
Iran, started throwing people off the ballot.
And said, Guess what? You don't qualify to go
on the ballot. Why? Because you're not
enough of an orthodox Muslim to qualify to go
before the voters.
We were aghast in this country.
How dare anyone use religious fundamentalism
as a principle for getting access to be
ballot? How dare anyone say, You're not
orthodox enough as a Muslim to run for office?
I would just suggest to you that
what we do in this state is we allow the high
priests of politics to do exactly the same
thing. What did the high priests of the
Republican Party say to John McCain? Not
orthodox enough. You can't get on the ballot.
And we've got all these rules, all these
little procedural rules which will affect the
substance of people's right to vote. And if
you don't jump through all these procedural
steps, you can't get on the ballot.
Why is it that we recoil in horror
when Iran does it, but there's certain people
in this state who seem to celebrate it when we
990
do it here in New York? Where is the notion
of democracy in either of those two systems?
Where's the notion of people running for
office and getting a chance to take their
issues to the voters and letting the voters
decide?
I am astounded by the response that
this bill shouldn't become law, or that it's
seriously flawed. I think what Senator
Connor's bill does, it promotes something that
I've been lectured about in this hall through
my whole career. And people say to me, "Rick
Dollinger, you're one of those old liberal
Democrats. You're not enough of a free-market
guy. You don't believe in competition."
Well, I supported deregulation of
our utilities. I supported deregulation and
opening to competition of our
telecommunications. I supported the opening
of our health care system to competition. I
would like to have more competition in our
airfares.
And yet this bill does one thing.
It prevents competition in our elections. It
preserves a system that prohibits and limits
991
competition. Why is it that we're so
capitalist in all these other businesses but
when it's our business, the business of
running elections, we act like socialists?
We control the marketplace. We're
not going to let anybody else get into our
little game of running for office. And sure
enough, we're limiting access to people's
right to run for office by all these steps
which Senator Connor's bill will eradicate.
Let's be honest. Let's open our
system to competition. And I would suggest
that it will have a tremendous benefit to New
York. When we make New York a freely
competitive state, New York's power and
leverage in Washington will be amplified.
Because everybody's going to come to New York.
Candidates from all stripes, across the
spectrum, they will come to New York, because
we have the third largest number of delegates
to both of the conventions. We will get
greater clout if people come here and compete
on our home court for our voters.
And it seems to me, in a state
which already pays far too much to Washington
992
and gets far too little back, we would send a
message about our relative importance as a
state in this nation if we opened our primary
system to greater competition.
I'll close with one other example.
There was a forlorn candidate a while back who
was a member of a new party, an old
amalgamation of parties who got together. And
he didn't have a lot of support. In fact, he
eventually ran for national office and he got
less than 40 percent of the vote. He didn't
have widespread support. In fact, he was
never even a member of the party that he was
running for until he went to the convention,
the national convention. And he got less than
40 percent of the vote. He was an outsider,
the true outsider. He's the greatest
Republican President in history, Abraham
Lincoln.
I would suggest to you that if he
had to navigate his way through the process
that we now have in this state, he would
never, ever have seen the doorstep of 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Let's do it for Lincoln. Let's
993
change this rule for Lincoln, to open up the
ballot and make it work.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
All in favor of accepting the
motion to discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR CONNOR: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR VELELLA: Party vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will call the party roll call.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 23. Nays,
36. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
motion is defeated.
Senator Connor, do you wish to
be -
SENATOR CONNOR: No, I'm leaving.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Don't
try to fool the new guy.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
there being no further business to come before
994
the Senate, I move we adjourn until Monday,
March 6th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days to
be legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, March 6th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days being legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)