And the legal fight begins

Interesting (4.00 / 1)

that the Republicans are NOT charging their legal fees to the State.  Gonna look good in their ads.

Meanwhile, if you were raised Catholic, you probably remember the St. Vincent DePaul Society that had (do they still?) "poor boxes" for donations to the poor inside the door of every church.  I'd like to see one put in the Senate Chambers-- like at the church, even if you didn't put anything in, it reminded you that the poor were there, in need.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:12:35 PM UTC

I guess that's how you get the courts to do something. (0.00 / 0)

Actually make a move, a brilliant one at that, and let the other side sue.  The result is that some judge will do what you wanted all along, which was to resolve the Senate impasse.  It appears at first glance that I have misjudged our ersatz governor.  Time will tell.

---

by: Steaming Pile @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:28:29 PM UTC

Three issues: oath, filing of oath, exercise of power (0.00 / 0)

against the swearing-in of Richard Ravitch as Lieutenant Governor.

Sorta. Ravitch was sworn in at 8 PM, which is why there is nothing in the order against the swearing-in itself; that ship had already sailed. The order's prohibiting the filing of the oath. It is a distinction with a difference; while some offices as self-executing with the oath, others had the "swear and file" two part requirement.

The real meat is the second prohibition, namely the defendants are "restrained and enjoined from acting with regard to or exercising any of the powers" of the LG.

For the parliamentary procedure types out there, the oath vs. oath and filing will be thing to watch. For the rest of humanity (that doesn't turn away in disgust), it will be the "exercising any of the powers" provision.

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:34:15 PM UTC

Also, look to the quo warranto option (0.00 / 0)

Keep an eye too on the TRO's supporting documents mention of a quo warranto action. IF Ravitch is "occupying" the office of LG, the only way to get him out is if Andrew Cuomo files an action as A.G. If Ravitch never occupies the office because he failed to file the oath, anyone (or nearly anyone) with an interest in the office (i.e. any Senator) could have gone to court. Cuomo would not have had to have picked a side formally.

The assumption here and so far is that the LG's office is an oath and file. If the office is an oath only, however, then Ravitch occupied the office effective 8 PM and there's nothing Skelos or anyone else can do except Cuomo.

It is one thing to have Cuomo chirp from the sidelines that this is unconstitutional. It is quite another, especially for Cuomo's future as a possible Dem Governor candidate, to have the case of Cuomo v. Ravitch (even if they manipulate the caption to read State of New York ex rel. Ravitch or something like that, you know the press will reduce it down to Cuomo v. Ravitch or Cuomo v. Paterson).

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:00:22 PM UTC

and (0.00 / 0)

how do we find out which one it is?

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:12:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The courts will hash it out (4.00 / 1)

ARTICLE XIII Section 1 of the constitution at least seems to imply it is an oath only.

Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;"

Public Officer Law  § 10 and § 30(1)(h) on the other hand seems to suggest oath and file.

§ 10. Official  oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath of office required by law...before he shall be  entitled  to  enter  upon  the discharge  of  any  of  his  official  duties.

§ 30 1. Every office shall be vacant upon the happening of one of the following events before the expiration of the term thereof:

h. His refusal or neglect to file his official oath or undertaking, if one is required, before or within thirty days after the commencement of the term of office for which he is chosen, if an elective office, or if an appointive office, within thirty days after notice of his appointment, or within thirty days after the commencement of such term; or to file a renewal undertaking within the time required by law, or if no time be so specified, within thirty days after notice to him in pursuance of law, that such renewal undertaking is required.

Because Paterson is relying on Public Officer Law § 40 to fill the LG office, one could make the argument he has to get Ravitch to swear & file. On the other hand, the constitution seems to require oath only.

And its off to the courts we go to settle this, of course.

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:25:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

would be nice (4.00 / 1)

if we had a constitutional convention to clear all this up :-)

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:51:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ConCons do not always "clear all things up" (0.00 / 0)

Remember: part of the reason we are in this mess is because a past concon (1938) joined the offices of Gov. and Lt. Gov. into a single ticket for ballot purposes. Previously, the Lt. Gov. was separately and distinctly "elected", making it actually clearer if Paterson could have appointed someone to fill the vacancy under Public Officer Law 40.

Moreover, even if you have a concon, there is no certitude that a) what comes out won't be a monstrously complicated mess (keep in mind many of the same cast of characters that are in charge of this fracas would get themselves elected delegates) and b) the voters won't ultimately approve the new constitution, as has happened after prior concons.

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 15:04:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

But, as Washington Irving once said, "There is a certain relief in change, even though it be from bad to worse; as I have found in traveling in a stage-coach, that it is often a comfort to shift one's position and be bruised in a new place."

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 15:14:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right on (0.00 / 0)

I think you are perfectly right

---

by: Alexstack @ Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 09:25:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the ball game (0.00 / 0)

According to the NY Daily News, Ravitch was:

Sworn in shortly after 5 p.m.
Signed his oath of office at 8:40 p.m. and
filed it with the state Secretary of State at 11 p.m.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blo...

If true, then Ravich is the "occupier" of the Lt. Governorship and the only way to pry him out is via a quo warranto filed by Cuomo. Even the GOP filing last night made that much clear per the Ciampoli Emergency Affirmation, Paragraph 11

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1722...

Were the Defendant purported nominee to occupy the office the Plaintiffs could be deprived of the right to proceed before this Court on the basis that exclusive remedy is a quo warranto proceeding which may only be brought in the name of the people of the state by the Attorney General.

That "could" is whistling past the graveyard. They know that with the filing, Ravitch is in and this now goes to Cuomo exclusively.

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 17:28:14 PM UTC

Espada (0.00 / 0)

Espada goes back to the Dems:

http://blog.timesunion.com/cap...

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:00:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even if Espada goes back the issue of Lt. Governorship will remain active (0.00 / 0)

Espada going back perhaps makes it worse. Now, you'd have at least 5 possible positions for the holder of the Lt. Governorship and/or next in line to succeed Paterson.

1) Espada (based on June 8 vote)
2) Skelos (ditto, if Espada now no longer wants)
3) Sampson (based on the new Espada lead coalition)
4) Ravitch (the Paterson appointment)
5) Silver (the office of temp president of the senate is vacant and there is no one because there was never a legit election for temporary president).

At the risk of repeating myself, wheeee!!!!

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:17:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One more (0.00 / 0)

6) Smith, if he instead of Sampson has the "temp president" title.

---

by: cynicalflyer @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:20:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Worse now (0.00 / 0)

Espada going back perhaps makes it worse. Now, you'd have at least 5 possible positions for the holder of the Lt. Governorship and/or next in line to succeed Paterson.  

---

by: theafapt @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 19:17:20 PM UTC