But Is It Legal?

New York State Governor David Paterson thinks he's hit upon a grand idea to break the stalemate in the State Senate. He selected a Lieutenant Governor; former MTA chief Richard Ravitch.

In an effort to break the monthlong state Senate stalemate, Gov. Paterson last night appointed former MTA boss Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor -- and a potential tiebreaking vote.

However, by early this morning, Republicans claimed to have secured a court order suspending the move.

"We cannot allow for any further exposure to uncertainty and risk at a time of unparalleled fiscal difficulty," Paterson said in a TV address as he announced he was naming Ravitch to his former job.

The pick "will bring the governor a successor, the Senate a presiding officer and will help to alleviate this crisis," the governor added.

It sounds grand, except for the fact of whether Paterson could actually do so legally. The GOP doesn't think it is, and they filed papers in court to block the move. In fact, State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo doesn't think it was legal either, and said as much yesterday:

The appointment defied decades of accepted legal wisdom and the advice of a fellow Democrat, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who Monday warned such a move was "not constitutional" and a "political ploy" that could become mired in the courts. Cuomo had no comment last night.

Two previous governors -- Democrat Mario Cuomo, the attorney general's father, and Republican Malcolm Wilson -- declined opportunities to make lieutenant-governor appointments after the posts became vacant, on the grounds it was not legal.

Paterson's move is unprecedented, and given that two previous governors chose to not make the appointment because they both believed it to be outside the governor. What's the law got to do with things when political power is at stake? Apparently not so much when control of state politics is at hand.

Paterson should know better, and his actions are reprehensible. More to the point, he's attempting to stack the deck so that his agenda can finally be passed through the state senate, which now is in GOP hands because two Democrats, Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate jumped ship and just days later Monserrate rejoined the Democrats splitting the Senate 31-31.

Once things finally do get sorted out, I can only hope that the legislature takes up the issue of succession in the state and explicitly lays out who would replace the lieutenant governor should he or she be elevated to the governor's office (as what happened when Paterson replaced Eliot Spitzer). It too would resolve the issue of control of the State Senate with a tie-breaker. That is for another time.

For now, the circus in Albany continues, particularly because Paterson swore Ravitch into office last night without much warning. In fact, it had been expected that Paterson would take the action today at 11:30, but he moved things up precisely because he feared the GOP would file lawsuits.

The GOP says that they've secured a court order blocking Paterson's actions.

If Paterson gets his way, the State will have nothing but unelected officials running the show through the end of 2010. After all, Paterson slipped into the office on the heels of the Spitzer scandal, and the State Comptroller was selected on the heels of the Hevesi scandal. Now, Paterson wants to select his successor in an unprecedented maneuver.

UPDATE:
See the new posting, but Pedro Espada has flipped back to the Democrats, meaning that the Democrats have the numbers to retake control of the Senate.