2009 Legislative Voting Summary

NYPIRG’s REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION – 2009 SESSION As part of an ongoing review of legislative activity, the following analysis examines the 2009 New York legislative session. This analysis does not draw conclusions on the substance of bills or the legislative output, since legislative “productivity” is more complicated than simple numbers. However, New Yorkers deserve information on the functioning of their legislature and we hope that the following information will stimulate dialogue between lawmakers and their constituents. Legislative Action – An Overview During the 2009 legislative session, the Assembly cast 1,275 votes on 1,242 bills. It also passed 785 resolutions this year. Members of the Assembly introduced 8,939 bills and 814 resolutions. On average, a Democratic Assemblymember introduced 66 bills and got ten passed; the average for a typical Republican Assemblymember was 41 bills introduced and three passed. The Senate cast 645 votes and passed 640 bills. 6,428 bills were introduced, as were 2,887 resolutions (2,778 of which were adopted). Democratic Senators introduced an average of 114 bills and passed 13; Republicans introduced 80 and passed six. The following chart details the number of bills passed between January 1 and July 31 of each year: Assem Senat Year bly e Both 1 2009 1,242 640 554 2008 1,641 1,794 811 2007 1,540 1,770 847 2006 1,961 1,842 958 2005 1,628 1,603 882 2004 1,702 1,522 777 2003 1,403 1,366 761 2002 1,654 1,294 745 2001 1,283 1,050 549 2000 1,537 1,424 711 1999 1,470 1,317 607 1998 1,547 1,369 674 1997 1,132 1,234 475 1

This review only looks at bills passed between January 1st and July 31st. The six bills passed in August’s special session are not included. Additionally, there are 123 bills that LRS lists as having passed on June 30th, the day of the “coffee quorum.” Actions on those bills are excluded from this review.

1

1996 1,580 1,543 813 Avera ge 1,523 1,413 726 A Closer Examination of Voting Patterns in the Senate and Assembly The average bill in the Assembly had 132 “yes” votes, nine “no” votes, and eight members absent or abstaining. Most bills faced either no or minimal opposition: Total "No" Votes

# of Bills

Pct. Of all Bills

none

680

53.33%

1-9

234

18.35%

10-19

98

7.69%

20-29

105

8.24%

30-39

79

6.20%

40-49

46

3.61%

50-59

28

2.20%

60 or more

5

0.39%

The five bills with the most opposition include three budget bills, a Wright bill (A.1477) requiring police officers to be tested for alcohol after they have discharged a weapon, and a Paulin bill (S.2810) permitting people to abbreviate their middle names while signing absentee ballots. The Senate was more likely to see agreement on legislation, passing over threequarters of its bills unanimously. The typical Senate bill had 58 supporters and two opponents with two members absent. Total "No" Votes None 1-9 10-19 20-30 More than 30

# of Bills 493 103 18 29 2

Pct. Of all Bills 76.43% 15.97% 2.79% 4.50% 0.31%

The two bills with more than 30 “no” votes were S.5576 (Parker/ Heastie- the “better schools act”) and A.9037 (Abbate/ Rules- “pension smoothening”). Three additional bills lost a floor vote in the Senate: S.1347 (Duane/ Kellner- rent-to-own sales practice disclosure requirements), A.6741-B (Bradley/ Duane- reimbursement for out-of-network providers of clinical laboratory services), and A.8839-A (Pheffer/ Perkins- enhanced do-not-call registry). These three bills, while being opposed by a minority of Senators, were voted on with several absences in the chamber, and thus did not have a majority in support.

2

The fact that five bills did not command a majority of votes is surprising given the Senate’s legislative history: Bills that Fail on Floor Votes Year Senate Assembl y 2009 5 0 2008 2007 2006 2005

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0

A Closer Examination of Party-Line Voting Assembly Democrats voted along party lines 97.4% of the time (as defined by voting with the Speaker, who voted “yes” on all bills). Seven always voted with the Speaker: Assemblymembers Farrell, Brook-Krasny, Lancman, Towns, Mayersohn, Greene, and Diaz. Six voted with him less than 90% of the time: Assemblymembers Fields (89.6%), Schimminger (88.4%), Gunther (88.3%), Gabryszak (87.5%), Christensen (87.1%) and Parment (83.3%). Defining what was a “party line” vote on the other side of the aisle was more complicated given the changes in leadership. Assemblyman Tedisco served as Minority Leader until April 6th, when Assemblyman Kolb took over. Assemblyman Tedisco missed 24 votes during his time serving in this position. On the rest of the bills, the person leading the Republican conference (either Tedisco or Kolb) voted “Yes” 1,079 and “No” 172 times. The members of the minority conference voted with them 89% of the time. For the remaining 11% of the votes, rank-and-file Republicans voted “No” 58.7% of the time (putting them in opposition to the Democrats when their leader was in agreement) and “Yes” 41.3% of the time (putting them in agreement with the Democrats when their conference leader was opposed). Assemblymembers Oaks, Butler, Barclay, Calhoun, and Scozzafava all voted with the Minority Leaders between 93% and 94% of the time, making them the members of their party to do so the most. Assemblymembers McKevitt, Thiele, Corwin, Fitzpatrick, and Ball voted the same as the leaders on less than 84% of votes. Senate Democrats voted with Temporary President Smith 99.7% of the time. Senators Aubertine, Foley, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Savino, Schneiderman, Stachowski, and Valesky always cast their vote with Senator Smith. Senator Duane differed on 12 bills, making his 98.1% the lowest percentage. Senate Republicans voted the same as Minority Leader Smith 96.5% of the time. Every member of this conference voted the same as Minority Leader Skelos 3

between 94% and 98% of the time. Senators Bonacic and Ranzenhofer differed with Senator Skelos the most frequently; Senators Leibell and Owen Johnson differed the least.

4

A Closer Examination of Additional Voting Patterns Given the unusual circumstances of the Senate’s process this year, July turned out to be the month in which that House passed the most bills. In the Assembly, June was the month that saw the most approvals. Bills Passed by Each Body by Month Mont h Jan Feb March April May June July

Senat e 0 17 46 46 87 50 394

Assem bly 10 75 118 90 246 736 0

In the Assembly, there is a correlation between the length of time a legislator has served and the average number of bills they passed in 2009. The correlation is not evident in the Senate, likely due to the fact that the most senior members are now serving in the minority party.

First Year in Office

Seniority and Passage of Legislation # Bills Averag Bills Assms. Passed e # Sens Passed

Average

1970-1979

7

107

15.29

5

31

6.2

1980-1989

19

263

13.84

8

81

10.13

1990-1999

44

445

10.11

17

163

9.59

2000-2008

72

419

5.82

25

283

11.32

2009

10

26

2.60

7

62

8.86

August Special Session The special session held on August 6th was not included in this study due to its disconnect from the regularly-scheduled session. Six bills were passed that would not have significantly affected the findings above. Appendix The attached appendix lists each legislator, how many bills and resolutions they introduced and got passed, and the number of times they cast a vote “aye,” “nay,” or were absent. Their rank from 1-150 in the Assembly and 1-62 in the Senate in terms of bills introduced and bills passed are next to these two columns. The Assembly data also includes a percentage showing how frequently each member voted with the Speaker. The Senate spreadsheet contains a list of 2008’s Senators 5

and how many bills they passed last year, to make it easy to observe the change between this year and last.

6