SD-1: An Update From Regina Calcaterra

by: NYProgressive

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:10:04 AM EST

In the initial interview, Calcaterra shared her views on why it's important to have a regulated Wall Street to help Main Street. She also expressed her support for marriage equality, discussed property tax reform and ethics reform.

In her second interview with TAP, Calcaterra provided updates on her campaign, thoughts on the expulsion of Sen. Hiram Monserrate (she called for his resignation in October and, last month, for his expulsion) and her opinion of the ethics reform bill passed by the legislature.

CALCATERRA ON THE CAMPAIGN

"The campaign has done tremendously well very early and keeps gaining steam. We have had great success in our daily engagements with voters of the 1st Senate District. Hard working men and women are paying attention to the issues and are providing a clear and strong indication that voters of eastern Long Island want meaningful change."

"In fact, more residents of the district contributed to our campaign financially than that of my opponent, who is a 34-year incumbent. Interestingly, my candidacy has also drawn the support of admired Americans like Pete Dawkins, a West Point legend, Heisman Trophy winner and former Brigadier General of the U.S. Army and Marie C. Wilson, co-founder of Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Day, founder of the Ms. Foundation and founder and President of the White House Project. Additionally, our campaign has already begun receiving endorsements from the Women's Campaign Forum, NARAL Pro-Choice New York and the National Organization for Women in New York State, which is also gratifying given how early it is in the electoral process."

"Taking on an entrenched incumbent has always been difficult in New York, and will be this year, but we've gained good traction early which has already proven to be a tremendous help."

CALCATERRA ON MONSERRATE'S EXPULSION

"As a victim of, and witness to, childhood domestic violence, I am far too familiar with how emboldened the abuser gets when he/she gets away with their actions. If Monserrate remained as a sitting New York State Senator, in the eyes of abusers and victims, he did in fact get away with it. His continuation as a sitting New York State Senator could have led to a decrease in domestic violence reporting. A victim's decision to report domestic violence is most often influenced by fear of retaliation from their abuser or a belief that our criminal justice system cannot or will not stop the violence. Then, added on top of that belief was the assumption that Monserrate's actions were sanctioned by those in power, our Albany lawmakers."

"We have a long path to walk before New Yorkers will begin to look toward our state legislature with a sense of gratitude or appreciation, but the expulsion of Monserrate by his colleagues was a significant step along that path. Worth noting is that the Democratic Senate majority had a difficult decision to make, given how closely the Senate is split and the implications that doing the right thing could throw the leadership structure into turmoil. But even with knowing that, they made the right choice and put decency, integrity and the best interests of good government first. That is a welcome step in the right direction for honest government in Albany - and the kind of step that New Yorkers hadn't seen for a long time."

"New York is still in a recession. We have an ever-widening budget gap, 8.9 percent unemployment, children in 16.3 percent of all New York families living below the poverty line, and overtaxed residents who can no longer afford to live here. The New York State Senate has critical work to do and it should not have had to even waste the past few months investigating how to rid the Senate of Hiram Monserrate. However, now that he has been expelled it is time for the Senate to get back to the people's business."

The rest of the interview below the fold.

ON THE WEB:

Regina Calcaterra for Senate

Regina Calcaterra ActBlue Page

Follow Regina on Twitter and check out her Facebook page.

Reboot the State Senate, Fix its Problems

by: BingChester

Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 19:40:44 PM EST

Hat tip to an interesting piece by the New York Times for a thought-provoking dialogue between academics, good government experts, and politicians on Friday.  It's important that many people from both sides of the aisle recognize the problems of our dysfunctional government and debate solutions on curing the culture of corruption eating away the heart of Albany.

One person who definitely gets it is Kenneth Sherill, a Professor of Political Science at Hunter College.  He writes:

The Legislature's core problems can be solved by changing its members and its rules - and sadly for the many good members, it increasingly seems as if you can't change its rules without changing its members. We need independent, nonpartisan apportionment of districts, serious campaign finance reform, and a liberalization of the rules of each house.  

We agree entirely.  We know that New York State government has the potential to work.  It's worked in the past.  New York used to be a model of effective government throughout the country, responsible for some of the brightest government programs around.  Through strong leadership and a culture of responsibility, our politicians stood up for us.  It's only in the recent era that we the people have been subverted by corruption and dysfunction by those who claim to represent us.  

The answer is to kick out the trash currently occupying our state government and elect those who will stand up for our interests.  With better leaders, we can change the way the state is governed and promote transparency, efficiency, and fairness.  With a fair system of government, we can finally get back to a government that works for the people and responds to our needs.

Gerald Benjamin, a Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York, reminds us that some in the state have been down this road before.

The governance system needs serious fixing, as I've elsewhere argued. But ungovernable? Remember, we used to say that about New York City. No more. We found leaders that could make the city work. Now we have to use this election to do the same for the state. And then follow with the hard work of fixing the system itself.  

We can change our state. It starts by booting out those who have failed us and electing those who will pus us first.

Former Senator Monserrate's Shaky Defense

by: Bouldin

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 13:34:27 PM EST

Defendants named are Malcolm Smith, Tom DiNapoli, Eric Schneiderman, David Paterson, Richard Ravitch, and Lorraine Cortes-Vasquez, all in their official, not personal, capacities.

The suit alleges, inter alia, that former Senator Monserrate was injured in his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and further, that his expulsion from the Senate similarly violated the rights of his former constituents.

So lets look at that.

Hiram Monserrate, Civil Rights Icon

by: Bouldin

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 14:50:50 PM EST

The long drama of Hiram shuddered to an end last night not with a bang, but with a whimper. By 53-8, the Senate voted to expel Hiram Monserrate for bringing, essentially, too much discredit on a body that has altogether too much experience with it.

However, just in case anyone is confused, Hiram stands on the shoulders of giants. More to the point: his fight, in his mind, is not about him. It's actually about you.

I haven't talked to her recently, but I'm not sure god thinks highly of men who beat women bloody.

SD-58: Sean Cooney, Candidate For New York State Senate

by: robert.harding

Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 17:22:52 PM EST

No matter how you slice it, it does not look good for Senator Bill Stachowski in the 58th Senate District.

One candidate looking to replace Stachowski is Sean Cooney. Cooney, who officially declared this week, has nearly $12,000 cash on hand as he prepares his challenge to Stachowski.

Cooney, an attorney at Cantor, Lukasik, Dolce and Panepinto, is a native of Canandaigua. He attended high school at McQuaid Jesuit before heading to Saint Louis University for undergraduate studies. He returned to western New York to attend law school at the University at Buffalo, where he obtained his law degree.

He lives in Buffalo with his girlfriend Whitney.

Much like other candidates challenging incumbents, Cooney believes people have lost faith in state government and also believes reform is necessary.

"I am running because we have lost all trust in state government due to the pay to play and three men in a room system we currently have," he said. "Right now is an incredible opportunity for reform. We are enduring a fiscal crisis, a severe recession, a political uncertainty after the Senate coup last year. These crises have opened a window for reform that must not be squandered, but must be met with the election of legislators with a true commitment to meaningful reform and not just lip-service or gimmicks. As the only candidate not currently employed in this same broken system, I have the independence to champion these reforms, win the support of the WNY voters, but most of all restore our trust in State government."

One of the priorities high on Cooney's list is reform in Albany. The reasons reform is needed can be tied to our fiscal crisis, he says.

"We currently run our state with transactional governance based on a series of quid pro quos in both houses and the Governor's office," he said. "Reforming the way we govern is critical to solving our fiscal crisis and moving New York out of these tough economic times."

Some of the ideas he puts forth:

- Discuss having term limits, at the very least, for legislative leaders.

"We need to discuss having term limits at least for leadership positions within the legislature," he said.

- Supports empowering rank-and-file members to move bills out of committee and to the Senate floor for a vote.

- On campaign finance:

"We also need to focus on our political system," he said. "First we need end the pay to play, if you have financial dealings with the State of New York you should not per allowed to make contributions to state level elected officials.  We also need to lower our contribution limits.  There is no way working people and average citizens will ever be able to compete with donations of tens of thousands by wealthy interests.  Also, we need to require the reporting of outside income including a mechanism of reporting who is hiring our elected officials even if under the protection of attorney-client privilege."

- He also supports a constitutional convention, with other reforms to address the dysfunctional ways of Albany.

"I support a constitutional convention and more importantly, one that is done in a way to accomplish actual reform," he said. "We can have a limited convention strictly on the framework of our system and that protects longstanding workers rights and minority classes from further discrimination. Better yet, we can make sure the convention is not the rats guarding the cheese and prevent current elected officials from sitting as delegates, provide some public financing of campaigns for the delegates, and hopefully reclaim our own State government so that we can legislate even more reform."

- His approach to addressing budget issues:

"The budget for our state should be a moral document, just like our family budgets.  We have to prioritize what we need and spend our money accordingly. We must not make cuts that will cost us more in the long run and as a general rule we should not balance our budget our the backs of our children, the sick, or the elderly. This answer is difficult because we have such a secretive and undemocratic budget process right now, but we need to look first at our authorities and districts which do not provide vital services.

The important thing for 2010 is making sure we elect legislators committed to long term budget solutions.  We are spending too much tax payer money without real results.  We give away hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits to companies through our Industrial Development Agencies without ensuring that we are actually creating living wage jobs.  Worse, we are leaving our working families to pay more than their share in property taxes.  If local governments had the property tax credits we have given away over the last ten years saved, we would not have the budget deficit we have today."

One of the major issues in recent history is marriage equality. Stachowski was one of eight Democrats to vote against marriage equality late last year. For Cooney, it is an important issue. And it is an issue he supports.

"I support marriage equality because I support equal rights for all New Yorkers," he said. "To me, that obviously includes the nearly 2,500 rights that come with the institution of marriage. I have spoken on this issue a number of times and was deeply frustrated by last month's vote."

Q Poll: New Yorkers Give Legislature All-Time Low Approval Rating

by: robert.harding

Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:31:21 AM EST

Only these records aren't ones to be proud of.

In today's Q poll, the New York State Legislature has its worst approval and disapproval rating of all time. The legislature's approval rating of 17 percent is the worst it has ever been and the disapproval rating of 72 percent is also a record. When you consider the all-time best approval rating in the Q poll for the legislature is 34 percent, 17 percent doesn't seem that bad. But with 72 percent of respondents disapproving of the job the Assembly and Senate are doing, it is hardly a good thing.

This is how the approval/disapproval rating breaks down:

- Only 24 percent of Democrats and nine percent of Republicans and approve of the job legislators are doing in Albany. Disapproval among Democrats is at 64 percent while Republican disapproval stands at 81 percent. Independents are in the middle, with 16 percent approving of the legislature and 74 percent disapproving.

- Men have a more negative view of the legislature than women. Only 10 percent of men approve of the legislature's work and 81 percent disapprove. Women are up slightly with 23 percent approval and 64 percent disapproval. Among races, white respondents only gave the legislature a 12 percent job approval rating while giving an 80 percent disapproval rating. The legislature received a 37 percent approval rating from black respondents and a 48 percent disapproval rating among the group. Hispanics were also a little more positive, with 30 percent approving of the legislature's job and 49 percent disapproving.

- The regional numbers show that the legislature isn't too well liked in any area of the state. The numbers in New York City are the best - 22 percent approval/64 percent disapproval - and it only gets worse from there. In the suburbs, the legislature has ratings of 15 percent approval/77 percent disapproval. Upstate is the worst (as expected) with 14 percent of upstate approving of the legislature's job and 77 percent disapproving. The urban areas of upstate gave the worst numbers of all, with only nine percent approving and 81 percent disapproving.

- When respondents were asked how satisfied they are about the direction of things in New York State, those numbers are also all-time lows. Only two percent said they were "very satisfied" and 22 percent said they were "somewhat satisfied." Three-quarters of respondents said they were either somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (37 percent said somewhat, 38 percent said very).

- There is more support for a wage freeze than layoffs. Two-thirds (68 percent) of respondents said they would support a wage freeze while only 44 percent said they would support layoffs for state employees in an effort to balance the state budget.

- Even with such high disapproval ratings, two percent of respondents said they would rate the state legislature as the best in the nation with 27 percent saying that the legislature is "among the best." With 43 percent saying that the legislature is among the worst and 15 percent saying that the legislature is THE worst, those numbers are somewhat better than the disapproval ratings given earlier in the survey.

- There is strong support for a constitutional convention. A majority of respondents - 63 percent - said they would support a constitutional convention. Only 21 percent would oppose such a convention.

- Respondents would rather have an independent nonpartisan commission to draw districts than allowing the legislature to do so. Nearly three-quarters of respondents - 73 percent - support an independent commission over allowing the legislature to draw the lines.  

SD-1: Meet Regina Calcaterra, Candidate For New York State Senate

by: robert.harding

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:52:59 PM EST

This fight for the Senate will have many battlegrounds and one of those battlegrounds will be Long Island. And for Regina Calcaterra, the 1st Senate District will be one district where the incumbent will face a serious challenge.

Calcaterra is a corporate fraud lawyer who has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including the fraud cases involving Merrill Lynch and WorldCom. She has protected the pensions of employees whose futures are threatened by the fraudulent actions of Wall Street.

She also is the Democratic candidate challenging Republican Senator Kenneth LaValle in the 1st Senate District.

"In 2008, there was only one candidate on the ballot for the state Senate's First District - a 32-year incumbent who had experienced only nominal opposition during his entire tenure," Calcaterra said. "With so much at stake in state government, and with growing dysfunction in the Legislature, I decided to run for the seat in next year's election."

Calcaterra's childhood is, in itself, a profile in courage. She experienced homelessness and poverty growing up and credits a certain group of people with making her the person she is today.

"Through the help of very hard-working people in government - teachers, social workers, librarians, police officers and even crossing guards - we got through it," she said. "They inspired me to take the path that got me here today, through public school, college and law school, and convinced me that government can absolutely do a better job than we see today."

Calcaterra took time to answer questions submitted via e-mail about her candidacy, where she stands on important issues and provided a general idea of what her platform will look like.

QUESTION: You make it a point on your website to list "Prosecuting Wall Street, Protecting Main Street" as, if I may presume, a priority. As it pertains to your district, why is protecting Main Street a high priority while ensuring that Wall Street is regulated?

CALCATERRA: Our current economic downturn might have been avoided had regulators been more vigilant and those on Wall Street were held to higher standards of transparency and honesty. Big companies like WorldCom and AIG took investment dollars from the pensions of hard working people like cops, firefighters, teachers and other civil servants. My job as a corporate fraud lawyer is to fight to get that money back so those hard-working people or taxpayers aren't out hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars. I have done this effectively on behalf of retirees and New York's taxpayers.

It shouldn't stop there, though. We've learned many lessons from what happened on Wall Street to cause the economic meltdown and a lot of it can be applied to Albany. Quarterly agency and authority budget reporting, certified audited year end agency financial statements, investigations that include legislative subpoena power, and agency head accountability can get government to work effectively again for everyone.

Q: After the defeat of marriage equality, you appeared at a pro-marriage equality rally. Your opponent, Senator LaValle, voted against the bill along with the whole Republican conference. Is it safe to say that you would be a "yes" vote for marriage equality? Why do you support marriage equality?

CALCATERRA: I will vote for marriage equality without hesitation. I do not believe in "separate but equal" treatment of any group in society, as Sen. LaValle proposed with favoring civil unions over legal marriage. I also believe we should not discriminate against families - - any families, any children - - for the reasons marriage equality opponents like Sen. LaValle suggest.

Q: Property tax reform has been an issue in the past that is still largely unsettled. Governor Paterson and other advocates have supported a property tax cap that would cap taxes at a certain percentage rate. Others have supported a circuit breaker, which would set your tax rate based on the money you make. Do you support either of those proposals or do you have other ideas for property tax reform?

CALCATERRA: Long Island has a deep problem with property taxes that can't be solved overnight. A major step toward fixing high property taxes has been taken by allowing voters the option of consolidating local government and getting rid of some unnecessary special benefit (and tax) districts at the local level. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo proposed that legislation last year, the Legislature passed it and Gov. Paterson signed it into law. It is unfortunate that Sen. LaValle voted against this measure; the first step toward reducing property taxes is reducing waste and redundancy in local government. Residents now have that opportunity in spite of Sen. LaValle's opposition.

If these efficiency and consolidation measures do not address the problems in the near term, a property tax cap should be part of the discussion. However taxpayers must be assured that schools and localities would receive adequate funding so it does not have the effect of forcing school districts to fire teachers, or municipalities to lay off law enforcement officers.

The ultimate tax cap is the voters' ability to hire new legislators who will force government to be efficient and effective.

Read more from Calcaterra about reform and analysis below the fold.

ON THE WEB:

Regina Calcaterra's Campaign Website

Regina Calcaterra's ActBlue Page

Sampson's "Top-To-Bottom" Review Of Senate Staffing

by: robert.harding

Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 16:37:59 PM EST

This comes after a report from Jimmy Vielkind saying that Sampson has already cut loose some Republican holdovers as well as staffers hired on by Senator Malcolm Smith.

If the hiring of Melanie Hartgraves at the Governor's press office is any indication, the problem with New York State isn't the number of staffers but rather the qualifications of these staffers. If you hire someone just as a patronage hire to serve in a role that pays them well and aren't very qualified for, then you are creating a problem, not a solution. We need more solutions and less problems in Albany.

Sampson is right to conduct this review, but it needs to be done within reason. Bringing the ax down for the sake of bringing the ax down won't do anyone any good. Cuts do need to be made, but don't cut yourself into a situation where you lack staff to get the job done.  

The Winners And Losers After The Equality Vote

by: robert.harding

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 05:32:01 AM EST

The disappointing fact is that in the Democratic conference, we had eight members who voted against equality. There were five who had hinted that they were definitely no votes or possible no votes. We knew that Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. was going to vote no. He wanted to suspend democracy by not having a vote at all (he considered it "treason" today that a vote was even held, regardless of the outcome) and has been the Senate's most outspoken critic of marriage equality, even outdoing the 30 members of the Republican conference who have said very little on the subject.

The other seven Democrats who voted against the bill with Diaz are:

- Joseph Addabbo
- Darrel Aubertine
- Shirley Huntley
- Carl Kruger
- Hiram Monserrate
- George Onorato
- Bill Stachowski

So who won this round of the marriage fight in New York? Who lost? Here are those answers.

WINNERS
Marriage Equality Advocates: It might not feel like it now, but this is a small victory. It's not the outcome groups like Empire State Pride Agenda wanted, but it is a vote. It gives them what they need to push forward and help primary some of these Democrats (Onorato and Huntley come to mind) who voted against the bill and prevented equality.

Gang Of Four: Remember the original "Gang of Four?" It consisted of Diaz, Pedro Espada, Kruger and Monserrate. Three of those four voted against the bill today and played a part in assuring the failure of this bill. Only Espada, who argued passionately for equality, voted for it. But this goes to show that the so-called "Amigos" shouldn't have been negotiated with in the first place and voted against the Democratic conference.

Republicans: It is hard to argue that the more united party in the state senate is the Republican Party. It was speculated that a few Republicans would break with their party and vote for this bill. In the end, none of them did. Of course, this could be a politically convenient for some, since such a vote would draw the ire of social conservatives within the party and with Republicans like Vincent Leibell being subjected to a primary, but they come away from this vote unscathed (for the most part).

LOSERS
Senator Tom Duane: On several occasions, Duane has said he has the votes to pass this. In the end, that was wishful thinking. The leading voice for marriage equality in the Senate and the Senate's only openly gay member was eight votes off of what he needed to pass a bill that is very important to him personally and politically.

Democratic Conference: Like Duane, the conference made the mistake of indicating that they might have the votes and expressed feelings of optimism. The vote should have taken place, but the overconfidence could have been left at the door. They had no less than 22 votes to start with and ended up with 24. It wasn't even close. It is good that they brought it to the floor for a vote - a rarity in Albany when a bill faces such uncertainty - but saying it might pass was overdoing it.

Queens Democrats: The excuses are plenty. In Addabbo's case, it is the Catholic Church's pressure. In Huntley's case, it is her predominantly African American district. As Yorkvillian pointed out in another thread, these districts are represented in the Assembly by progressives AND supporters of marriage equality. So the argument that they had to vote against equality is weak. Credit goes to Malcolm Smith and Toby Ann Stavisky for voting in favor of the bill.

Governor David Paterson was not a winner or loser. He called for a vote and he got what he called for. In that sense, he was a winner. As a supporter of marriage equality, he didn't win, but it wasn't his job to pass the bill. His job is to sign it. He won't have that chance.

This vote will have consequences for both parties. There will be primaries for Democrats next year. Will this vote be the sole reason for that? No. There are Democrats who were being eyed for primaries before (Huntley, Monserrate, Onorato) whose votes won't help them and will only make the case against them stronger.

It is a disappointing outcome, but at least it is an outcome. This starting point will be helpful for future votes.  

Why These Seven Democrats Should Worry

by: robert.harding

Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 22:21:03 PM EST

Here are the enrollment numbers (as of Nov. 1):

Shirley Huntley (SD-10)
Democrats: 130,346 Republicans: 12,787 Independence: 3,350 Conservative: 520 Working Families: 499 Blank: 23,666
TOTAL: 171,255

George Onorato (SD-12)
Democrats: 93,914 Republicans: 17,370 Independence: 4,169 Conservative: 631 Working Families: 424 Blank: 30,061
TOTAL: 146,937

Hiram Monserrate (SD-13)
Democrats: 77,946 Republicans: 11,745 Independence: 2,259 Conservative: 353 Working Families: 285 Blank: 21,883
TOTAL: 114,590

Joseph Addabbo (SD-15)
Democrats: 79,767 Republicans: 29,470 Independence: 3,738 Conservative: 1,649 Working Families: 491 Blank: 31,085
TOTAL: 146,357

Carl Kruger (SD-27)
Democrats: 93,222 Republicans: 26,491 Independence: 2,706 Conservative: 618 Working Families: 271 Blank: 32,475
TOTAL: 155,914

Ruben Diaz Sr. (SD-32)
Democrats: 138,268 Republicans: 9,102 Independence: 3,103 Conservative: 695 Working Families: 731 Blank: 22,713
TOTAL: 174,671

Bill Stachowski (SD-58)
Democrats: 108,163 Republicans: 43,307 Independence: 8,073 Conservative: 4,888 Working Families: 972 Blank: 32,129
TOTAL: 198,033

Believe in replacing these Democrats with the best Democrats? We can.

The only Democrat who voted against marriage equality who gets a pass is Darrel Aubertine, who is a social conservative and has made his stance known for some time. While he is a no vote, he comes from a district where there are 26,500 more Republicans than Democrats (SD-48). Yes, it would have been better for him to support this, but given the seven others who come from very blue districts, he gets a pass.

A side story here is the fact that half of the Democrats who voted against the bill hail from Queens. Huntley, Onorato, Monserrate and Addabbo all represent districts in Queens and voted against equality. More senators from what is known as conservative upstate voted for marriage equality (three) than senators from the more blue, Democratic and alleged progressive territories in the city.

But there is no excuse for this. The eight votes against marriage equality was the difference. Eight Democrats voting against their party on a key issue like this is never acceptable. This is a matter of equal rights. Apparently these senators are sending a message that they do not wish for equal rights.

Next year will be the year of the primary on both sides of the aisle. Democrats will see their share come September 2010.

Marriage Equality Debate And Vote Tonight: Will It Pass?

by: robert.harding

Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:54:33 PM EST

All signs are pointing to the New York State Senate voting on the Marriage Equality Act (S4401) tonight. The debate and vote won't take place until late tonight, but multiple sources are telling me it is going to happen.

(You can watch the live debate here.)

And the best part? It just might pass.

The historic nature of this bill won't be lost on the Assembly either. Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell, who is the sponsor of the Assembly version of the bill, said earlier today that his chamber will pass marriage equality again which will set the stage for the Senate later tonight.

It is the Senate where the bill faces uncertainty. Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. - a vocal opponent of marriage equality based on his religious beliefs - has resorted to prayer. He has tried to stand in the way of a vote in the past, but the fact he is now praying means that a vote is not only coming, but a real chance at passing.

So what does this bill need to pass? There are no less than 22 votes for the bill right now. Those votes are all Democrats. Sponsor of the bill Tom Duane and 19 co-sponsors: Senators Adams, Breslin, Dilan, Espada, Craig Johnson, Klein, Krueger, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Parker, Perkins, Savino, Schneiderman, Serrano, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins, Hassell-Thompson and Thompson. In addition to those 20, the two leaders of the Democratic conference, John Sampson and Malcolm Smith, are supporting the bill.

That leaves 10 votes needed and a lot of uncertainty.

In May, Nate Silver whipped the votes for marriage equality. He found what we know: This is an uphill battle. There are at least two definite no votes in the Senate Democratic conference: The aforementioned Diaz and Darrel Aubertine, who is a conservative on the social issues (he is also anti-choice). Silver listed five Democrats - Aubertine, Diaz, Shirley Huntley, George Onorato and Bill Stachowski - who were on the record as opposed to marriage equality. However, because of the nature of this vote, there could be at least one of those who are opposed that will vote in the affirmative.

The Republicans have at least 20 members in their conference who will vote against the bill in addition to the two Democrats who are certain no votes. That means there are 18 members who are up in the air. Some will certainly be no votes. Others will be yes votes.

The 18 undecideds are:

DEMOCRATS

- Brian Foley. Foley has been on the fence about marriage equality and has been undecided on the issue since campaigning for the seat in 2008. But when the time comes, he could be a yes vote. It has been said that out of all the undecideds on the Democratic side, he is one of the ones that will vote yes.

- Shirley Huntley. While she is listed as a no, that was in May. This is December. Things can change and a vote for marriage equality would be helpful for her in a conference that is ready to replace her with someone better.

- George Onorato. Onorato has faced protests over his opposition or undecided status. That pressure could turn him into a yes vote.

- Hiram Monserrate. Monserrate isn't exactly beloved. But his vote would be important. He is one of the few representatives from Queens where a vote on marriage equality is possible. Other Hispanic members (including Espada) are supportive. Monserrate might be as well.

- Joseph Addabbo. He is on record as saying he believes there are other important issues to discuss prior to marriage equality. Whether that means he is against equal rights is another issue. He replaced a man who was in opposition, so voting for this bill will mean that 2008 wasn't a loss for those who fought for change and made Addabbo one of two Democrats to overtake Republican incumbents in November (Foley was the other).

- Carl Kruger. Kruger isn't the best Democrat in this conference (although Espada and Monserrate have made him look like a party loyalist over the last several months) but he knows a key vote when he sees it. He has been out in front, as finance chairman, on the issues with the governor's DRP. So if he gets what he wants with the DRP, maybe that will give him the motivation he needs to vote for marriage equality.

- David Valesky. He could be a no, but his leadership position in the Senate might change that. The upstate delegation is split on this and Valesky could give us a third vote from upstate. That would be important.

- Bill Stachowski. He is another whose weak showing in the 2008 elections would be helped by a vote for marriage equality vote. He needs to show that he will be there when it counts and this is a way for him to do that. He is previously a no against it (citing religious reasons) but has kept an open mind on the issue. We need a yes vote from him. This is important.

REPUBLICANS

- Long Island senators: Kenneth LaValle, John Flanagan, Owen Johnson, Kemp Hannon, Charles Fuschillo. Newsday found that six of the nine Long Island senators opposes marriage equality. That means some of these Republicans listed as undecided will be no votes. However, Owen Johnson is still on the fence. So while those Long Island senators (if their votes hold) make it tougher to pass the marriage equality bill, the door is still open.

- Andrew Lanza. Lanza is one of the few Republicans in New York City and might be one of the easier Republicans to bag as a yes vote. His vote, like others, is up in the air but he could be one vote in our column.

- Vincent Leibell. With Leibell getting a primary challenge from Greg Ball, will Leibell move to the right and vote against this? Or would he have voted against it anyway? It's hard to say, but he is another who could be a yes vote under normal circumstances, but might bail on this vote to save his political career.

- Betty Little. Little is leaning no, but would be one of the likely Republicans to vote yes. She is fairly moderate and just might be a surprise vote in favor of the bill.

- Jim Alesi. He is the only Republican on record as a yes vote giving us no less than 23 YES VOTES.

- Cathy Young. Being from a conservative upstate district, it won't be surprising if Young votes no. That is the likely vote, but she might pull a rabbit out of the hat.

My prediction? I say it passes one of two ways:

(1) We get 32 or 33 votes, mostly Democrats but also a few surprise Republicans (i.e. Lanza, Little, etc.). The number of undecided Democrats could also give us a higher number, especially if there are Republicans who will vote for this bill.

(2) We get 31 votes and Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch is called in to cast the tie-breaking vote. What a monumental situation that would be, given the controversy surrounding his appointment.

Will it pass? Possibly. Insiders are saying it is likely. We'll see what happens tonight.

A Vote On Marriage Equality Should Take Place

by: robert.harding

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 15:48:12 PM EST

The Empire State Pride Agenda is hoping that a vote takes place. Executive Director Alan Van Capelle issued this statement in support of a vote on marriage equality:

Today, as the State Senate goes back into session, we expect that the marriage equality bill will get the overdue, respectful debate that we've been waiting for since June.  

Our community has spent the past few years making the case to 62 State Senators for why we should be treated equally by the laws of our state. The time for making cases is over. We've heard dozens of excuses and we've been told countless times that we'll have to wait for equality. We've been told before that the time isn't right to end discrimination against tens of thousands of families. The excuses and the waiting must end today.

Hundreds of LGBT New Yorkers will be coming to Albany today to hear their lives debated on the Senate floor. New York State Senators will now need to do the right thing and debate this human rights bill and vote to treat these families-and the millions of others that cannot be here-like all other New York families.

To not bring this bill to the floor for a debate would be a slap in the face to every LGBT New Yorker. We have waited far too long for the basic respect of a vote from our elected State Senators on an issue that affects our daily lives and the lives of our loved ones.  

This vote will be a vote of conscience for all Democrat and Republican Senators. There is no room for politics in a human rights issue like this. When this bill passes, it will be bipartisan. This is a deeply personal issue for Senators because they know that they will have to go back home to their sons and daughters, their nieces and nephews, their friends and neighbors and explain how they voted on this bill.

ESPA has an action alert they are sending around to rally those in Albany to head to the state capital and support marriage equality and tell leaders there that a vote should take place today in the New York State Senate.

Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. has been loud in his opposition to a vote on marriage equality. That, of course, is not very democratic. The chances of marriage equality passing are slim, but even that slim chance has Diaz worried. That is a good thing. If Diaz is scared, we must be close.

It is my hope that a vote takes place today. Even if it is voted down, we know who is on the side of marriage equality and who is against it. That's what we need to know. We need to know who is willing to stand for equal rights and who isn't.

SD-ALL: Skelos Puts Bullseyes On Certain Senate Democrats

by: robert.harding

Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 16:48:46 PM EST

Courtesy of Liz:

There were also Republican successes, albeit slightly less high-profile, in Monroe, Erie and Onondaga counties, Skelos noted, all of which are home to marginal Democrats who have been in the GOP crosshairs in the past.

   "If you're Bill Stachowski, Dave Valesky, Darrel Aubertine, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Craig Johnson or Brian Foley, I think you have some cause for concern," Skelos told me yesterday.

   "We've had people approaching us and asking to run against Democratic incumbents whereas in the past we've had to go out and seek candidates to run," the senator continued. "Even some candidates who maybe fell a little short, we're going to look at all of them. Some of them ran terrific campaigns and perhaps are ready to go for the Senate."

So if we go by what Skelos is saying, his targets are clear: SD-3, SD-7, SD-35, SD-48, SD-49 and SD-58.

Without challengers, it will be tough to gauge just how vulnerable those six seats are. Keep in mind that Skelos gave us Barbara Donno in SD-7 last year, so it's not as if Skelos has a good record to work with. He was, after all, the leader when the Republicans lost the majority last year.

Introduction Of Ian's Law Draws National Attention

by: robert.harding

Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 12:08:21 PM EST

But what happened to Ian should not happen to any American. I will let Ian's own words tell the story:

After decades of medical emergencies, we still weren't prepared for the latest crisis -- this one created by the same insurance company that once saved my life. Guardian abruptly withdrew our health plan from all policyholders in New York where my father's business is based. Guardian offered a 'replacement' plan with low benefits and no home nursing benefits. They knew that I would never survive with such a plan, but they didn't care.

Suspecting that this action was related to the high cost of my care, we filed a lawsuit and have asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to enforce existing federal laws and require Guardian to continue my health plan. Without federal intervention, I will lose this insurance, and that would be a death sentence.

Our lawsuit uncovered insurance company documents that confirmed my suspicion that I'm a target of discrimination. The documents revealed Guardian had compiled a "hit list" of its costliest members, including patients with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, and paralysis. Guardian executives referred to us all as "dogs" and "trainwrecks," and they debated how and when to dump us from the rolls. Laws prohibited the cancellation of the individual members with serious chronic health problems, so Guardian opted to cancel the plan for all members of this specific health plan in New York, an action that violates federal law.

Because of this, Senator Eric Schneiderman announced yesterday that he was introducing S.6263 in the New York State Senate. The bill will be called Ian's Law and would protect those like Ian who are denied coverage they need by companies who don't feel like covering them.

Joined by patients and insurance reform advocates, Senator Eric T. Schneiderman (D-Manhattan/Bronx) announced the introduction of major legislation today that protects patients from egregious insurance industry practices. "Ian's Law" (S.6263) makes it illegal for insurers to drop entire classes of insurance as a pretext to deny coverage to individual policyholders; requires insurance companies to get prior approval from the Insurance Department before discontinuing a class of insurance; and expands the minimum length of time - to 18 months - that an insurance company must ensure that  policyholders with total disabilities receive continued coverage after losing their policy due to the statewide cancellation of an entire class of policies.

...

Ian's Law requires insurers to prove they are not dropping a line of coverage as a pretext for dumping an individual policyholder. That means:
Insurers must get permission from the Insurance Department to drop a line of coverage - and notify impacted policyholders when they apply.

Insurers must show the following to the Insurance Department: the claims  and premium rates for each policy issued in the class, the historical profits and losses for the line of policies, and any other information requested by the Department.  The Department must look at this information to determine if the dropping of a class of  policies statewide is merely a pretext for dropping coverage of a particular individual.

Policyholders are given an opportunity to comment on the impact of the dropped policies, and the Insurance Department must take these comments into account.

Ian's Law also empowers consumers to challenge insurance companies in court if they discontinue lines of coverage in violation of the new law. In addition, policyholders with severe disabilities will receive at least 18 months of coverage if they lose their policies due to the cancellation of a class of policies. (Current regulations require such care for only 12 months.)

Ian's Law is already getting nationwide attention. The Washington Times has a piece on the bill and CNN has the announcement of the bill. Politics On The Hudson also had a write-up on the bill.

What happened to Ian Pearl should not happen to anyone. This should not only be a New York State law, but it should also be a federal law. Hopefully, the state legislature acts quickly on Ian's Law and in turn, motivates other states and the federal government to take action.  

Open Legislation: New York State Senate Makes Finding Bills Easier

by: robert.harding

Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 15:13:32 PM EST

For the New York State Senate, the process was even worse. Sometimes you could not find bills (even notable ones) and you would have to search through the Assembly database to find them. Roll call vote information wasn't there and it made for a difficult and frustrating research effort.

But today, the Senate did something to address that. What they did was create Open Legislation, a Google-like search engine where you can find bills, roll call votes and all of the key information about legislation going through the New York State Senate. What's even better about this is that you can comment on the legislation.

Senator Jose Serrano introduced the website today and praised the efforts to make the upper house in the state legislature more open.

"Transparency in government has always been one of my greatest priorities as an elected official," said Senator Serrano. "This generation of students has an unprecedented amount of access to technology, and it is thrilling that they can now use those skills to keep themselves informed of the legislative process. As a lawmaker, it is an honor to take the future voters and policymakers of New York State step by step through a resource that will enrich their lives for years to come."

Open Legislation is just one part of Open Senate, an effort by the Senate to make its own body more transparent and allow for a tremendous amount of access to bills and records.

"The launch of Open Legislation is a key milestone in our ongoing effort to make the New York State Senate the most transparent, efficient and participatory legislative body in the country," said Andrew Hoppin, Chief information Officer for the Senate. "We hope that the site will help more New Yorkers to not only keep tabs on what is going on in Albany, but to have a voice in what is going on."

The easier we can make the availability of information, the better off we are and the better off our democracy is. I know that we want reform and change in the New York State Senate, but it is a process that should not be rushed. This is just one example of how a thought-out process can lead to something great. I have said for a long time that we needed the equivalent of THOMAS at the state level. We aren't all the way there, but the Senate has done its part to reach that goal.

Arrogance - the current norm

by: jmcbride

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 18:25:13 PM EST

Obviously, Jim [Gennaro] has the right of first refusal in the race," said Mark Weprin [David's brother]. "But if Jim doesn't do it, whoever the Democrats' candidate might be, I think Frank is vulnerable.

What in the world gives Mr. Gennaro, or anyone else, the "right of first first refusal" to public office?  

This is the sort of arrogance that we need to remove from the public discourse.  

NY-Sen: Five Targets For 2010

by: robert.harding

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:59:32 AM EST

The dysfunctional body has its share of problems. And by problems, I mean senators who are in Albany for all the wrong reasons. Instead of serving the people of their district and the citizens of New York, they are in Albany to serve their own interests. We need to get rid of those senators and replace them with not more and better Democrats, but the best Democrat for the job.

Early on, here are five targets to focus on moving forward.

PEDRO ESPADA JR.
This one probably goes without saying, but we can't take our eyes off the ball. In 2008, we replaced one corrupt Democrat - Efrain Gonzalez - with Espada. This time around, we need to replace Espada with someone who will serve SD-33 well and not put his desire for power over the interests and issues of the district. It would also be in the best interests of Democrats in the district to find a replacement, since Espada embarrassed them by temporarily caucusing with the Republicans.

HIRAM MONSERRATE
If we can't fire Monserrate before the 2010 elections, let's have the voters of SD-13 send him home. Assemblyman Jose Peralta has stepped up to challenge Monserrate should he stick around for 2010. Monserrate's beating of his girlfriend and his role in the coup shouldn't be what the Democratic Party stands for. We need someone else and we need the best Democrat to step forward.

KEVIN PARKER
Parker has his own legal woes (an assault case, actually) to worry about. His defending of Monserrate was interesting, given his own problems and the fate he could face. He was in a primary in 2008 and another primary in 2010 seems likely. This time, we need to replace him. He is known for his bad temper and that temper leads to bad things, including the assault charge he is facing. We can't have that in Albany. We need someone else.

FRANK PADAVAN
This is a seat Jim Gennaro nearly won in 2008. It is reminiscent of when SD-15 was narrowly won by incumbent Serf Maltese in 2006 only to be lost in 2008 to Joseph Addabbo. Padavan has very little wiggle room and if Gennaro aimed for a rematch with the resources of the DSCC invested in the race, he can win. Picking up SD-11 would be huge, since the district has a Democratic enrollment advantage and should be in our hands to begin with. Gennaro would make a good candidate for 2010, if he wants it.

GEORGE MAZIARZ
Two things: I live in the district (SD-62) and I know that it might come as a surprise that I pick Maziarz over others. But I see this as a real opportunity. The only thing that makes SD-62 a leaning Republican district is the county I live in, Orleans. Take it away and this is a Democratic district. Maziarz's connections to Steve Pigeon and his role in the coup are worth noting. Maybe we don't win in 2010, but a strong candidate will give him trouble.

It would also be key to look at Long Island for another pickup. Kemp Hannon in SD-6 is a possibility. But we also need to make gains in upstate. We have areas that are Democratic or "purple" districts where we could win, but currently, these districts are represented by Republicans. That needs to change.

We have a lot of work to do for 2010. In 2008, we took back the New York State Senate. In 2010, we need to do some renovations.  

5 to go... Who will be the lucky 1000th to

by: Andrew C. White

Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 22:02:34 PM EDT

This is a man that needs firing. He has no place in government. If you haven't signed yet... will you now? Will you be the 1000th to FireMonserrate!

Parker Comes To Monserrate's Defense

by: robert.harding

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 18:16:08 PM EDT

From Liz:

If it comes down to a vote to oust Monserrate, Parker said he will be a "no". He insisted that has nothing to do with his own situation, but rather is borne of a belief that "it is not my place" to decide whether a duly-elected lawmaker has the right to retain his seat.

"The Legislature makes the laws and the court looks at guilt and innocence," Parker said. "The courts are still legally in this process. I think any conversation about anybody doing anything to Hiram now is putting the cart before the horse when you haven't heard what the sentence is going to be."
Parker also noted Monserrate and his attorney, Joseph Tacopina, have said they intend to appeal the senator's conviction. So, in the end, he might be completely exonerated and, in Parker's eyes, the Senate will have engaged in "double jeopardy by punishing (Monserrate) a second time."

"I don't see how it helps this conference or the state of New York to rush to judgment when the legal system hasn't rendered a final verdict," Parker said.

"Frankly, I think most of these people on both sides of the aisle are more upset about Hiram's involvement in the coup attempt than they are about the incident involving his girlfriend, honestly."

Parker's argument is weak. There are those in Albany who were prepared for a felony guilty verdict to be handed down, which would have led to Monserrate's ouster. That was a very real possibility. It didn't pan out that way, but that doesn't make what Monserrate any better.

Is this revenge for the coup attempt? Maybe for a few people. I don't see it being the reason for a lot of those coming out and saying he should resign. I think it has more to do with the crime. I have watched the surveillance video of Monserrate escorting his girlfriend out of the apartment building. It is nothing short of chilling.

I don't think is Parker looking out for himself either. He genuinely believes this. It's a weak view, but it's one that he would hold no matter what was going on in his own life.  

Capitol Follies

by: Bouldin

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 14:56:54 PM EDT

If you haven't been paying attention, this is what happened: a Democratic state Senator, one Hiram Monserrate, was found guilty of slashing his girlfriend in the face last year before Christmas. However, there are degrees of guilt, apparently, leaving a hole large enough for none other than bigoted shitbag Ruben Diaz to jump through.

The New York Times:

Calls for Mr. Monserrate to resign drew angry responses from his allies, including Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx. "Senator Monserrate was found guilty of trying to do good by forcing his girlfriend to go to the hospital for treatment," Mr. Diaz said in a statement on Thursday afternoon.

Actually, that wasn't the point of the whole matter. It's not as if Mr. Monserrate's companion had been in need of treatment before he, well, slashed her face with a broken glass.