Assembly Hearings on Judicial Selection

Yesterday, the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing in Manhattan to discuss judicial selection in light of the recent Second Circuit decision that found New York’s system of judicial conventions to be unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York ordered that “until the New York Legislature enacts another electoral scheme, [Supreme Court] nominations shall be made by primary elections.” The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Gleeson's decision.

The hearing, the first in a series that will also take the Committee to Rochester and Albany over the next month, featured our very own Fritz Schwarz, who was lead counsel in the litigation that invalidated the old system of picking judges. Fritz’s testimony stressed that the Legislature, in assessing the proposals before it, must take care to only consider systems that would pass constitutional muster. He argued:

Those who contend that cosmetic changes will satisfy the courts have seized on a few details but ignore the profound and most fundamental constitutional infirmity of the convention system they are promoting: it does not envision a meaningful opportunity for voters to actually cast a vote for the candidates they support. Without such an opportunity, no convention system can stand.

If the legislators rejected the permanent adoption of open primaries, Fritz urged them to consider “a system analogous to the conventions now used to designate nominees for all state-wide offices.” Candidates could garner the support of convention delegates, or they could petition onto the primary ballot.

Jason Boog of Judicial Reports notes:

No one other than Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr…really wrestled with the 800-pound gorilla swinging between the chandeliers. These tinkerings, he argued, failed to solve the immediate problem at hand – Judge Gleeson’s finding that voters constitutionally deserve vastly more meaningful participation in the process.

Bravo, Fritz! We hope the Legislature will heed your warnings and, in your own words, build a system “that gives parties their appropriate role, but gives voters a true voice, as they have in balloting for every other elected office in the state.”

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Brennan Center and Friends of the Court File Briefs before U.S. Supreme Court Seeking Affirmance of Decisions Enjoining New York’s Judicial Selection

On Friday, along with pro bono partners Arnold & Porter LLP and Jenner & Block LLP, the Brennan Center filed its brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit enjoining New York’s uniquely burdensome multi-state system for selecting state Supreme Court nominees. The system purports to grant voters a role in electing trial court judges, but in reality, local party bosses control the process at the expense of their party’s rank-and-file members, who are precluded from playing any meaningful role in determining their own party’s standard bearer.

In its brief, the Brennan Center urged the Court to tear down one of the last vestiges of Tammany Hall’s boss control of New York State government arguing that “New York’s state-imposed nominating process creates a locked gate, to which those in control of the party hold the only key.” In urging affirmance of the Second Circuit decision, the Brennan Center’s brief assails a system that “vests de facto judicial appointive power in unaccountable party bosses, thereby creating a fertile source for corruption, decreasing confidence in its courts, impeding the search for excellence, and failing to achieve a genuinely representative judiciary.” See the Brennan Center's website for more information on Lopez Torres v. NYS Board of Elections.

The Brennan Center was supported by a broad and ideologically diverse cross-section of legal, political, academic, and reform organizations and individuals from across the country who filed amicus briefs offering unique perspectives on the operation of New York’s scheme, and supporting affirmance of the Second Circuit’s decision. Eleven briefs were filed on behalf of the following signatories:

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes: “I am persuaded, from my long experience as a prosecutor, voter, citizen, and lawyer that…the problems of corruption in Brooklyn involving Supreme Court judgeships are not attributable to a single corrupt party boss. Rather, as the public record demonstrates, corruption in judicial politics has a long history paralleling the long history of the judicial district convention system,” Hynes wrote. In addition to noting the statewide nature of the problem, Hynes strikingly explains to the Court that the “corruption brought about by the architecture of the Supreme Court nomination system does not end once the judge is tapped by party leaders to serve on the Supreme Court, or when the judge is elected. It often continues, in the form of corruption in the administration of justice.”

John Dunne, former Assistant United States Attorney General for Civil Rights (1990-1993) under President George H.W. Bush and former NY State Senator: “Mr. Dunne’s own experience is illustrative. Despite his record of dedication to the Republican Party and his demonstrated expertise in the area of judicial elections, he has never been put forward as a delegate candidate, even though he had asked repeatedly for the opportunity. Instead, he has been passed over by local bosses in favor of slates of delegates who can be relied upon to rubber stamp the choices of the “leadership.” These slating decisions are unreviewable. If a State Senator with 24 years’ service to his party can be shut out of the nomination process entirely, there is little hope for rank-and-file party members who do not hold elected office.”

Washington Legal Foundation: “If New York were to adopt a law declaring that Supreme Court Justices are to be popularly elected, but only the leaders of the most powerful political party within each judicial district are allowed to vote in that election, the law would surely amount to an unconstitutional abridgement of voting rights.....Based on the detailed (and uncontested) factual findings of the district court, the New York election system has exactly the same effect on voting rights.”

City of New York, the New York State Bar Association, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the Fund for Modern Courts: “As a policy matter, the current system results in the worst of all worlds: New York State effectively has an appointive system in the guise of an electoral system, but an appointive system of the worst kind – a system in which judges are appointed by party leaders who are unaccountable to the public and who base their choices on political loyalty and party credentials, rather than on professional judicial qualifications.”

New York County Lawyers Association: “While NYCLA prefers a merit-based appointment system for selecting New York Supreme Court Justices, it is imperative that the current, unconstitutional convention system for selecting Supreme Court Justices not be permitted to continue. The convention system is neither democratic, nor transparent. NYCLA therefore urges this Court to affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit so that public confidence in the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of a free society, can be restored.”

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Latino Lawyers Association of Queens County, the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College, the Amistad Black Bar Association of Long Island, and the Rochester Black Bar Association: “Minorities seeking to become supreme court justices in New York are not served by a closed, back-door system built on cronyism and political favors. No diverse, fair system can be built by such means. As a blue-ribbon task force on diversity in the judiciary found fifteen years ago, opening the system is “essential to improving diversity on the bench.”

Hon. Ed Koch: “New York’s convention system for electing Supreme Court Justices has gone largely unchanged for the forty-plus years that I have been familiar with it. The undemocratic boss run system that I observed in the 1960’s appears to operate no differently today than it did back then,” Koch wrote the court. He added, “Justices of the Supreme Court in New York are not elected, even though their names are on the ballot. They are selected.”

American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union: "[H]aving chosen to elect Justices of its State Supreme Court, New York is obligated by the federal Constitution to provide for a fair and accessible electoral process. This it has not done."

Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, the Reform Institute and the Campaign Legal Center: “Although New York’s judicial selection scheme genuflects at the altar of democracy, it prays to a very different god: patronage.”

“By effectively lodging the power to control the nomination of state Supreme Court Justices in local political party leaders, New York’s mandated system makes state Supreme Court Justices—and many below them on the judicial ladder—beholden to local party officials. The judges, their law clerks, and other judicial employees become mere patronage spoils.”

Former New York Judges and the American Judicature Society: “The current convention system undermines rather than enhances public confidence in the judiciary.”

“The current convention system thus fails—at the crucial juncture when the nomination is being bestowed—to provide constitutionally required assurances to the public of the nominees’ integrity, competence, impartiality, and quality, and of the integrity of the selection process itself.”

Prominent Constitutional and Election Law Professors: “Insofar as elections promote vibrant political parties, New York State’s regime usurps the autonomy of political parties to structure decisionmaking for themselves. In all, a worse system for electing judges is difficult to fathom.”

Deal Emerging on Judicial Selection?

This blog has devoted a considerable amount of space to Lopez-Torres (a case brought by the Brennan Center) and the Second Circuit's holding that New York must find a more open system for selecting judges for the Supreme Court (currently the system is dominated by party bosses at "judicial conventions").

As Jason Boog of Judicial Reports notes, since that decision has come down, the Brennan Center has been at odds with many of its traditional allies over how to satisfy New York State law and ensure that party bosses do not continue to dominate the selection of judges.

Finally, however, a compromise floated by the Brennan Center's Fritz Schwarz may bring these groups together:

Although [Fritz Schwarz] continued to insist on allowing candidates to petition their way onto primary ballots, he also embraced a continuing convention apparatus — albeit earlier in the year and with spots on the ballot for anyone gaining even a quarter of delegate votes. The idea emulates the nominating systems used for statewide offices, many of which have a convention bypass option to gather signatures and force primaries.

“This solution would give voters and candidates a real voice and a genuine opportunity to participate, while involving political parties in a way that is familiar to all participants in our State,” he explained.

Judicial Reports notes that "interviews this week with other key players in the reform debate indicate growing support for some version of such a compromise."

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Spitzer Says Tinkering with Judicial Selection Not an Option

Since prevailing in the landmark case Lopez-Torres -- which struck down the State's current party boss dominated process for selecting Supreme Court Judges -- the Brennan Center has argued that mere "tinkering" with that process (as proposed by some) will not be sufficient. If there are to be elections for Judges, the voters must have a say — the party bosses cannot continue to control who becomes a Judge in New York.

Today's New York Law Journal reports (subscription required) that at a post-State of the State news conference, Governor Sptizer made clear that he agrees with the Brennan Center, and that he will not allow such tinkering to substitute for changes the Courts have made clear are necessary:

"There are some who are saying let the court's mandate sit where it is and have an open primary," Mr. Spitzer said. "I think there is a superficial appeal to [open primaries] but the very real concern articulated by those who have spent a great deal of time looking at the judicial selection process is that the impact of money in those elections could be monumental. Whether we have an open primary process or restructure the conventions . . . there must be a way to primary onto the ballot. I will not support anything that has a closed convention structure, where only those who came out of the convention could be on the ballot."

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

More ethical judicial campaigns?

The Times Union reported last week that a new rule approved by the New York Administrative Board of the Courts will require the state’s judicial candidates to attend ethics training.

Any step toward more ethical government in New York is a good one.

Jonathan Lippman, the state’s chief administrative judge, said that “[t]his new program will ensure that those running for judicial office will have all the information and guidance they need to conduct a fair, dignified campaign.” The Judicial Campaign Ethics Center will conduct the training, a two-hour program discussing court rules relevant to judicial candidates as well as ethical questions that arise in hypothetical campaign situations. The program is the latest reform spurred by recommendations from the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, which Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye impaneled to bolster public confidence in the judiciary and promote ethical judicial campaigns.

Categories: General, Governmental Ethics, Judicial Selection

Senator DeFrancisco to Speak on Judicial Selection at NCSL Annual Meeting

Senator John DeFrancisco of New York's 50th District will be in Boston tomorrow on a panel at the National Conference of State Legislature's Annual Meeting. DeFrancisco is slated to join researchers from the American Judicature Society and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, along with other legislators and judges, in a discussion of judicial selection methods around the country.

DeFrancisco, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been a key player in conversations about how to bring the state's system of selecting Supreme Court judges in line with the decision invalidating New York's judicial nominating conventions.

The Senator sponsored a bill that is modeled on the system of conventions and primaries already in place for all statewide elected offices in New York. Designating conventions would occur in the spring. All Supreme Court candidates with more than 50 percent of the delegate vote would be designated as the party's potential nominees. Candidates receiving 25 percent of the delegate vote would earn an automatic spot on a September primary ballot. Most fundamentally, candidates with grass-roots support could force a primary by gathering petition signatures among the voters.

That system, familiar to all in New York state politics, gives parties and their leaders a role -- but if a candidate can muster support, it gives rank-and-file voters the final say.

Along with open primaries, DeFrancisco's model would rectify the problems inherent in the current system, so we look forward to hearing what he has to share with the NCSL audience!

Growing consensus on judges

As we have noted on many previous occasions, New York state must act to reform its judicial selection procedures to comply with the Second Circuit's decision in Lopez Torres. Today's New York Law Journal reports that there is a growing consensus behind so-called designating, rather than nominating, conventions. The key element of this kind of system is a petition-based "primary bypass" which ensures rank-and-file voters a role. The article also mentions Senator John A. DeFrancisco of Syracuse, who, at this week's New York State Bar Association conference, mentioned the idea of county-by-county judicial districts, a reform Brennan Center wholeheartedly supports as a way to reduce campaign costs and increase racial and geographic diversity.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Newsday on judicial elections

This morning’s Newsday included an overview of the reforms the editorial board believes should be implemented in the state’s court system, including a switch to "merit selection" of judges from the convention system that was recently found unconstitutional.

The constitutional amendment process that would be required to implement "merit selection" would take a number of years, and whether that form of an appointment system would be an improvement over an elective system is still an open question, in our view. The devil is in the details in both cases, but we are interested in examining any system that is constitutional and is likely to improve diversity on the bench. None of the current proposals to “tinker” with the convention system satisfies either of those criteria.

It's also important to clear up one misconception in the editorial: Newsday didn’t quite capture the current status of judicial elections when it said: “The legislature has to adopt an alternative.” In fact, if the Legislature fails to act, we will move to a direct primary system in September 2007, as directed by U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson and affirmed by the 2nd Circuit.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Spitzer Proposes Judicial Reform

This has truly been a busy week for Governor Spitzer, with a campaign finance reform proposal on Monday and plans to overhaul redistricting and judicial elections yesterday.

While the Brennan Center takes no position on the Governor’s long-term plan for an appointed judiciary, we welcome his proposal for interim reform of judicial selection.

The interim proposal, which would go into effect while the so-called "merit selection" constitutional amendment makes its way through the approval process, would:

• Form Independent Judicial Qualifications Commissions to evaluate candidates and submit a list of qualified individuals;
• Create alternative ways for judges to get nominated; and
• Provide public financing for Supreme Court candidates.

We applaud the Governor for recognizing, along with two federal courts, that we need immediate reform to resolve fatal constitutional flaws in the sham elections now held for New York's trial courts. Doing so will not only respect voters' rights but also contribute to a fair and impartial judiciary. As our executive director Michael Waldman said:

The Governor’s plan, along with proposals made by Senator John DeFrancisco, will ultimately strengthen New York’s judiciary. Under the current system, many well-qualified lawyers are never even considered for judgeships because they lack ties to party leaders. Allowing all well-qualified candidates to compete for their party’s nomination will improve confidence in our courts.

Last Days of Party Boss Control Over Judicial Selections

The Buffalo News notes that we've probably witnessed the final judicial nominating conventions this month, after the Brennan Center's successful challenge of this system in Lopez-Torres.

Why is this a good thing? James Sample, associate counsel at the Brennan Center has the answer: "The end of the current judicial convention system is a victory for democracy, for the rank-and-file voters who were excluded and for the candidates excluded by New York's party boss system."

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

At Least One More Year of Boss Rule Selection for New York Courts

This morning's Buffalo News featured a piece illuminating a probable deal between Democratic and Republican party leaders in Erie County to effectively deny voters a real choice in two of the three state Supreme Court races that will take place there this fall. The party leaders are poised to cross-endorse Democrat Rose Sconiers and Republican Frank Caruso, which means that their names will appear on both party lines on the ballot, in effect assuring them reelection.

Cross-endorsements are just one additional, after-the-fact aspect of the complex ways in which New York's system of judicial selection lacks accountability. The complex convention process for judicial nominations that precedes a cross endorsement is even worse. That is why the Second Circuit court of Appeals aptly described it as "byzantine"...and unconstitutional. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review, will hear the case. The Brennan Center's Fritz Schwarz will argue the case for the plaintiffs who are systemically denied a voice in the choice of their own party's standard bearear.

The Daily News expressed our thoughts exactly in an editorial this morning: this year "must be the end of boss rule over New York's courts."

Read a collection of "best-of" excerpts and quotes from the extraordinarily powerful amicus briefs submitted by groups on the right, left, and in-between.

With Briefing Complete, Next Stop: Supreme Court

In response to the respondents' Supreme Court brief and the numerous, diverse and extensive friend-of-the-court briefs submitted supporting affirmance, the few defenders of New York's status quo judicial conventions filed their reply briefs last week in the litigation challenging the constitutionality of New York's judicial nominating conventions.

With briefing complete, all that remains is the Supreme Court hearing on October 3rd, which will feature the Brennan Center's Fritz Schwartz arguing that New York's judicial selection process effectively precludes rank-and-file party members from playing any meaningful role in determining their own party's standard bearer.

The reply briefs can be found here.

New York Times: Lopez Torres “Blazing a Trail”

The Supreme Court’s reversal of the lower court decisions in Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections was a major victory for the defenders of New York’s judicial selection status quo. As counsel to the plaintiffs, the Brennan Center, along with all those observers who understand the seamy realities of how New York’s system actually works in practice, was certainly disappointed by the decision.

That said, as we indicated in an op-ed in Tuesday’s New York Law Journal, the First Amendment claim rejected by the Supreme Court is just one chapter in an 87-year story. The battle to end the Byzantine process by which New York’s trial court judgeships are determined, will go on both legislatively and in the courts.

Today, a wonderful and deeply personal profile story in the New York Times looks at the remarkable woman and jurist behind the case that bears her name. The profile examines the courage of our lead plaintiff, whose story serves as a valuable reminder of why the fight for a truly accessible selection process is not only worth fighting, but is an essential component the larger struggle for truly fair and independent courts.

We Must Go Beyond "Modest" Tinkering on Judicial Reform

From Crain's New York Business:

On other matters, Judge Kaye defended the current convention-based system of choosing judges, saying only modest reforms are needed, such as modifying the conventions to allow for more candidates to participate and winning legislation requiring judicial screening committees.

Her position differs sharply from many groups -- namely the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York Bar Association, the Fund for Modern Courts -- who support fundamental reforms including merit selection.

While the Brennan Center has publicly supported judicial pay raises, this article misrepresents the Center's position on reforming New York's selection process for state Supreme Court judges. The Center is agnostic as to the question of appointments versus elections in the abstract.

Where, however, as in New York, elections are required under the state constitution, the Center's unequivocal position is that voters and candidates are entitled to more than a sham that merely masquerades as an election - which is what New York has now. The Center's position is that fundamental democratic reforms - rather than the "modest" tinkering Judge Kaye references - are necessary both as a matter of law and policy.

Post-Argument Press

We apologize for the radio silence on last week's Supreme Court argument in Lopez Torres v. NYS Board of Elections. Justice shouldn't take a holiday, but sometimes ReformNY must.

The Daily News argues that despite the U.S. Supreme Court's questions and comments suggesting that they are "constitutionally comfortable" with New York's judicial selection process, it is "appalling" to approve a system that denies New Yorkers any meaningful say over who becomes a judge on the state's most important trial court.

The Times Union notes that despite New York's "broken" and "undemocratic" process, the U.S. Supreme Court seems inclined to find New York's judicial conventions constitutional. The editorial argues that if the justices lived in New York, they "might have another view."

And the Buffalo News states that New York's "corrupted boss-driven apparatus provides a window into the entire mechanism of [its] state government." The editorial states that "it is all but impossible to win a place on the ballot without the approval of the party boss, and the boss's evaluation is based in large part on how much money you give him."

Adding Color to the Bench

As we have previously noted, Governor Spitzer will probably appoint three judges to the seven member Court of Appeals this year. Today, Capitol Confidential reports that Governor Spitzer has just announced his first Court of Appeals nomination, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones.

We are certain that there are many ways in which Justice Jones differs from any of the six members Governor Pataki appointed in his 12 years in office. But as Capitol Confidential points out -- there is one way that is immediately obvious and is likely to garner significant media attention: Justice Jones is African American.

Governor Patatki's final appointment on August 18, 2006 of Eugene Pigott left the Court of Appeals without a single judge of color for the first time in over 20 years. At the time, many of the State's leading politicians were mystified. "To think that in this state, with the enormous minority population that we have, that of those seven jurists (on the Court of Appeals) there's not one of color I'm saddened," former Mayor Dinkins said in an interview with The New York Times.

The need for more judges of color is more than just symbolism. A survey conducted by the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections found that 71 percent of registered voters in New York believe that the state's judges are fair and impartial, but only 51 percent of black voters surveyed believed that they are. Having more minorities on the bench would go a long way toward making all New Yorkers feel that they can receive a fair day in court. More diversity among judges would also mean that decisions would reflect a broader range of perspectives.

Accordingly, we applaud Governor Spitzer for turning around an ABYSMAL record on diversity with his first nomination. The Senate will have to confirm or reject Justice Jones within 30 days of receiving his nomination.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Second Circuit Takes Power Away From Party Bosses

In a unanimous vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed – in its entirety – the decision of U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson granting a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, together with pro bono counsel, Arnold & Porter LLP and Jenner & Block LLP, argued that New York’s unique convention system -— used by the political parties to select their judicial nominees -— deprives New Yorkers of their right to cast a meaningful vote for trial court judges.

A copy of the (in our unbiased view) excellent opinion can be found here. William Rashbaum's account in the Times is here.

Why is this decision so important? There are many reasons, and we will continue to blog about this in the coming days. But the most simple reason is this: New Yorkers will now have a say in who their trial court judges are. An undemocratic process -- whereby party bosses chose our judges -- seems to have received its death knell.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Defending Diversity in Our Courts

The American Constitutional Society Blog has this posting on Lopez Torres v. NY State Board of Elections et al. challenging that New York State’s party-boss dominated convention system for Supreme Court justices is an unconstitutional deprivation of the rights of voters, candidates, and political party members.

The Brennan Center filed suit in federal court in March of 2004 on behalf of several plaintiffs, including Civil Court (now Surrogate Court) Judge Margarita Lopez Torres, Common Cause/NY, and several voters across the state. The named defendant is the New York State Board of Elections. The Association of Supreme Court Justices, the New York County Democratic Committee, and the New York State Republican Party all intervened as defendants to defend the status quo judicial convention system. On appeal, a wide array of groups including seven minority bar associations and legal organizations joined our efforts as amici.

Categories: General, Judicial Selection

Snow Day Poll

While we're out shoveling the snow on Sixth Avenue, we thought it would be worthwhile to ask, which of the Brennan Center's New York Reform issues is most important to you?

Which New York Reform Issue Is Most Important to You?
	Legislative Rules
	Campaign Finance Reform
	Redistricting
	Government Ethics
	Judicial Selection
	Voting Rights and Voting Machines
pollcode.com free polls

After Spitzer; NY Reform, Take Two

Cross-posted from the Brennan Center blog

The painful personal tragedy involved in the Eliot Spitzer scandal is obvious, and for other forums. In the storm of frenzied tabloid attention, I hope we don't lose sight of the opportunity that has been lost for New York—and one that might be gained.

Albany is notoriously broken. When the Brennan Center looked at the legislative process in 2004, we deemed the legislature the nation's "most dysfunctional." In 2006 we checked again and found little progress. Our report on New York's campaign finance laws was entitled "Paper Thin." Trial court judges are chosen by a corrupt system struck down as unconstitutional after a two week trial, but eventually resuscitated by the Supreme Court. Still, one Justice called the system a "stupid law."

Eliot Spitzer vowed to change all that, and he did try to do just that. I saw it with my own eyes. He earnestly pushed for campaign reform, for example, and would not sign the pay raise lawmakers craved until they passed some modest contribution limits. The Brennan Center hosted him to speak to a private meeting of business and civic leaders last spring. He was compelling and convincing. He proposed strong redistricting reform and opposed the status quo on judicial selection. As we know, little came of this reform push even before this week. Relations between the governor and the legislature soured. The joke was, "It used to be that decisions were made by three men in a room. Now you can't get them in a room." Spitzer's progress was hindered, in fact, by the reliance on that very closed system. Negotiations were inevitably conducted in private, without much chance to build public support. As a result, little public outcry occurred. By year's end, reform energy had been well and thoroughly drained. Reformers were reduced to waiting for the long expected but never quite materialized Democratic takeover of the State Senate. The Spitzer era ends with Albany and New York politics essentially unchanged. The power brokers must be laughing.

There is a chance, though, for a new start. David Paterson comes from a special place: he was the leader of the minority in the state senate. The Senate Democrats were always the most enthusiastic for rules reform of any faction in state government. Paterson is now in a position to make progress, using his far smoother legislative relationships. But only if he steps up to the task. He should resist the temptation not to make waves. Sure, he has to consolidate his power. But he must also consciously don the mantle of reform agent, and show that his smooth style will work better than the steamroller. Everything didn't change on Day One—it never could. But Day One of the Paterson governorship is approaching. We hope it will be the beginning of a new, true, reform era. Day One, Take Two?

--Michael Waldman, Executive Director