The View From Here . . .

By Bob Morgan, Jr.

It is always risky to comment on a story that is developing at this writing. Nevertheless, the apparently successful takeover of the New York State Senate by Republicans and a few allied Democrats certainly has shaken up the political environment.

This story is probably best viewed through the prism of recent history. For at least 30 years until 2009, New York politics was essentially run by the "three men in a room" system, where the governor (a member of either party), the Senate majority leader (a Republican) and the Assembly speaker (a Democrat) would hammer out deals on much major legislation, including the state budget, in secret and their decision would essentially be rubber stamped by the legislature. The system had many shortcomings (lack of democratic process, chronically late budgets, high spending due to political horse trading, to name a few). Individual legislators went along because they received "member items" (popular projects in their home districts) and because the legislative districts were redistricted very much in favor of incumbents of either party, pretty much guaranteeing reelection.

Despite its shortcomings, the "three men in a room" system, plus divided partisan control of the legislature, did have one genuine virtue - it provided at least some measure of checks and balances. Proposed measures that leaned too far to the left or right could not get the blessing of one leader or the other and pass both chambers. Indeed, legislators pressured to push unwise bills through their own chamber no doubt secretly breathed a sigh of relief that the measures likely were dead on arrival in the other body.

However, the traditional system weakened in this decade as voters started to elect more Democrats to the Senate (even in districts drawn to favor Republicans), thus threatening Republican control of the Senate and potentially turning the bipartisan "three men a room" into an all-Democratic conclave. Republicans staved off Democratic control for a while (often by allying with traditional foes), but the Democrats, buoyed by the Obama landslide, finally took a 32-30 majority in the Senate in 2008 and after some wrangling elected Malcolm Smith as majority leader in January 2009. Now all three men in the room - Governor David Patterson, Mr. Smith and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver - were Democrats and the checks and balances were gone.

But Mr. Smith presided over a pretty chaotic session, and, without any meaningful input from Republicans, passed a huge and controversial budget on a partisan 32-30 vote. Moreover, the new Democratic leadership went out of its way to infuriate Republicans. According to the New York Post's Fred Dicker, nearly 200 Republican staffers in Albany were fired and the GOP staff budget was cut sharply. And the Democrats were about to propose that almost 90 percent of the member items go to Democratic districts.

Republicans plotted a coup for over five weeks to end Democratic control. With the aid of two renegade Democrats (neither of whom with great reputations) who felt left out by the Democratic leadership and support from billionaire Tom Golisano, the Republicans apparently reorganized the Senate with a new 32-30 majority of their own. The new leadership promised substantial reforms of Senate procedures.

Will the new leadership (assuming it does come to power) make a difference? The restoration of a Republican voice among the three men in the room is a good thing, if only to keep a lid on the budget. The promised reforms, if they actually happen, would be salutary. But Albany works in mysterious ways and there may be many more chapters in this drama.