In March the Assembly once again voted to stop mayors’ being able to knock charter amendments off the ballot.  The matter now idles, as it has in the past, in the hands of the Cities Committee.  If you happen to live in one of its member’s districts, take a minute to ask them to move on this.  Below is the relevant legislative info.

A6019  Gottfried (MS)     Same as S7110.

TITLE….Repeals certain provisions regarding adoption of new or revised city charter proposed by charter commission which limit submission of questions to city’s electors
02/24/09     referred to cities
04/28/09     reported
04/30/09     advanced to third reading cal.472
05/04/09     passed assembly
05/04/09     delivered to senate
05/04/09     REFERRED TO CITIES
01/06/10     DIED IN SENATE
01/06/10     RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
01/06/10     ordered to third reading cal.419
03/10/10     passed assembly
03/10/10     delivered to senate
03/10/10     REFERRED TO CITIES

SUMMARY:

GOTTFRIED, FARRELL, ESPAILLAT, GLICK, CLARK, DINOWITZ, MILLMAN, HIKIND, COLTON; M-S: Brennan, Cook, Jacobs, McEneny, Pheffer, Scarborough
Rpld S36 sub (5) PP(e), (f) & (g), Munic Home R L
Repeals certain provisions regarding the adoption of a new or revised city charter proposed by a charter commission which limit the submission of questions to a city’s qualified electors: eliminates the rule that provides that whenever a city charter commission puts a proposal on the local ballot, all other local referendum proposals are barred from the ballot.

BILL TEXT:

6019    2009-2010 Regular Sessions   IN ASSEMBLY   February 24, 2009
___________

Introduced  by  M.  of  A.  GOTTFRIED, FARRELL, ESPAILLAT, GLICK, CLARK, GREENE, DINOWITZ, MILLMAN, HIKIND, COLTON — Multi-Sponsored by –  M. of  A.  BRENNAN,  COOK,  JACOBS, McENENY, PHEFFER, SCARBOROUGH — read once and referred to the Committee on Cities

AN ACT to repeal paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36 of the municipal home rule law,  relating  to  limitations  on  the submitting  of  a  question  to  the qualified electors of a city when there is a question submitted by a charter commission

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assembly, do enact as follows:

1     Section  1. Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36
2            of the municipal home rule law are REPEALED.
3    § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
REPEAL NOTE.–Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of  section 36  of  the  municipal home rule law proposed to be repealed by this act provides limitations including prohibition on submission by  local  law, ordinance,  resolution  or petition of a question to the qualified electors of a city when any question is submitted by a charter commission.

EXPLANATION–Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.

SPONSORS MEMO:

BILL NUMBER: A6019
SPONSOR: Gottfried (MS)

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to repeal paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36 of the municipal home rule law, relating to limitations on the submitting of a question to the qualified electors of a city when there is a question submitted by a charter commission

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:  This bill would delete the “bumping” provision from the Municipal Home Rule Law, which provides that whenever a city charter revision commission puts any proposal on the local ballot, all other local referendum proposals are barred from the ballot.

JUSTIFICATION: In 1998, the New York City Council proposed a referendum on a city charter amendment relating to Yankee Stadium. In response, Mayor Giuliani took advantage of the “bumping” provision in the Municipal Home Rule Law, to prevent the City Council from placing referenda on the ballot that year. Using his power unilaterally, he appointed a charter revision commission to put proposals on the ballot, bumping not only the Yankee Stadium question, but a campaign finance initiative, as well.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
1999-00 A.7670 - referred to Cities Committee
2001-02: A.8914 - referred to Cities Committee
2003-04: A.5585 - referred to Cities Committee
2005: A.4117 - reported to Rules Committee
2006: A.4117 - advanced to 3rd reading
2007: A.5504 - advanced to 3rd reading; 2008: A.5504 - passed Assembly

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None               EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.

Sometime in late 2010 or early 2011 we’ll begin circulating petitions!  Until then we’ll be focusing on crafting the proposed amendments (input welcome).

In the meantime, sign up on the bottom right, and think of three NYC voters you can get a signature from, each solid enough to go on to collect three of their own the following week.

Well, to no one’s surprise, it does not look as though NYCCAN will be getting on the ballot.  Worth noting though is that not among the things found invalid in their petition was that some of their signatures were from before the previous general election.  According to their website’s FAQ,

Each of the 30,000+ signatures collected in 2008 remain valid until the signer is no longer a registered voter in New York City.

Whether the validity of the signatures was ultimately not contested because the city was confident the measure would be blocked based on its content, I don’t know.  Given NYCCAN’s demonstrated tunnel-vision, a grain of salt is needed, but still..

Also not appearing on the ballot will be…Bloomberg’s threatened revisions which have quietly disappeared never having been specified, the unreachable deputy mayor once responsible for their formulation dropping any mention of them from her title, the threat having, except in NYCCAN’s case, achieved its goal.  Sigh.

The only questions on the ballot will be two state constitutional revisions placed on the ballot by the legislature.  Kind of quaint how the people create the government, but then changes to it can only come from those they hire to run it, huh?  Even when we next get the option to call a constitutional convention in 2017, it’ll be through delegates elected from state senate districts, and everything will be on the table, not just whatever changes we might want.

The NYC Coalition for Accountability Now submitted their ballot petitions to the City Clerk last month.

They deserve congratulations for their incredible doggedness, which I hope will keep them going after they are kept off the ballot, as they almost surely will be, so that they might partake in winning the rights they, given case law, over-optimistically believe recognized.

The City Clerk who first needs to certify and pass the initiative petition to City Council for action, and the judge NYCAN will likely need to convince to make the Clerk do so, are both likely to find their proposed ballot measure inappropriate to the city’s charter, and thus, under current law, ineligible for placement on the ballot by initiative petition.

Their claim of 4,000 signatures a week is pretty damn impressive though!

The Clerk has until the end of next week to certify to the Council the petition conforms to all relevant law.

(Incidentally, for a fictional example of an NYC ballot initiative that would also get thrown out in court, check out the movie Noise, which touches on the even more galling ability of the mayor to block the democratic process.)

Worth reading for getting an idea of some of the obstacles New Yorkers face in shaping their government and their constitution is this article by Gerald Benjamin on mandated referendums on constitutional change, focusing on New York state’s last, in 1997.

Of particular interest are the many groups arrayed against calling a constitutional convention (also briefly noted in this NYT piece at the time) and how convention delegates being elected by gerrymandered Senate districts affects things.  Whichever party will control the redistricting process after the coming census currently looks to be very much up for grabs in 2010..

[Here is a more recent update]

A bill, which would get rid of the Mayor’s ability to knock us off the ballot with his own ever threatened charter revisions, passed in the Assembly but has remained buried in the Senate’s Rules Committee, whose membership, and new Chair, includes many cosponsors of an identical Senate bill. Presumably, since there has been an intervening election, were it to pass the Senate, it would have to pass the Assembly again.

The Senate version’s cosponsors are: STEWART-COUSINS, KRUEGER, MONTGOMERY, ONORATO, PARKER, PERKINS, SAMPSON, SCHNEIDERMAN, and SMITH

Here’s the info on the bill from the Assembly:

STATUS:
A5504  Gottfried (MS)         Same as S 8229  STEWART-COUSINS
Municipal Home Rule Law
TITLE….Repeals certain provisions regarding adoption of new or revised city charter proposed by charter commission which limit submission of questions to city’s electors

02/15/07     referred to cities
05/15/07     reported
05/17/07     advanced to third reading cal.524
01/09/08     referred to cities
01/29/08      reported
01/31/08     advanced to third reading cal.684
06/18/08     passed assembly
06/18/08     delivered to senate
06/18/08     REFERRED TO RULES

SUMMARY:
GOTTFRIED, FARRELL, ESPAILLAT, GLICK, CLARK, GREENE, DINOWITZ, MILLMAN, HIKIND; M-S: Brennan, Cook, Jacobs, McEneny, Scarborough
Rpld S36 sub (5) PP(e), (f) & (g), Munic Home R L
Repeals certain provisions regarding the adoption of a new or revised city charter proposed by a charter commission which limit the submission of questions to a city’s qualified electors: eliminates the rule that provides that whenever a city charter commission puts a proposal on the local ballot, all other local referendum proposals are barred from the ballot. BILL TEXT:

STATE OF NEW YORK

5504
2007-2008 Regular Sessions
IN ASSEMBLY

February 15, 2007
___________

Introduced  by  M.  of A. GOTTFRIED, GRANNIS, FARRELL, ESPAILLAT, GLICK, CLARK, GREENE, DINOWITZ, MILLMAN, HIKIND — Multi-Sponsored by  –  M. of  A.  BRENNAN,  COOK,  JACOBS, McENENY, SCARBOROUGH — read once and referred to the Committee on Cities

AN ACT to repeal paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36 of the municipal home rule law,  relating  to  limitations  on  the submitting  of  a  question  to  the qualified electors of a city when there is a question submitted by a charter commission

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and  Assembly, do enact as follows:

1    Section  1. Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36
2  of the municipal home rule law are REPEALED.
3    § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
REPEAL NOTE.–Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of  section 36  of  the  municipal home rule law proposed to be repealed by this act provides limitations including prohibition on submission by  local  law, ordinance,  resolution  or petition of a question to the qualified electors of a city when any question is submitted by a charter commission.

EXPLANATION–Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD03294-01-7

SPONSORS MEMO:

BILL NUMBER: A5504

SPONSOR: Gottfried (MS)

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to repeal paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subdivision 5 of section 36 of the municipal home rule law, relating to limitations on the submitting of a question to the qualified electors of a city when there is a question submitted by a charter commission

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:  This bill would delete the “bumping” provision from the Municipal Home Rule Law, which provides that whenever a city charter revision commission puts any proposal on the local ballot, all other local referendum proposals are barred from the ballot.

JUSTIFICATION: In 1998, the New York City Council proposed a referendum on a city charter amendment relating to Yankee Stadium. In response, Mayor Giuliani took advantage of the “bumping” provision in the Municipal Home Rule Law, to prevent the City Council from placing referenda on the ballot that year. Using his power unilaterally, he appointed a charter revision commission to put proposals on the ballot, bumping not only the Yankee Stadium question, but a campaign finance initiative, as well.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
1999-00 A.7670 - referred to Cities Committee
2001-02: A.8914 - referred to Cities Committee
2003-04: A.5585 - referred to Cities Committee
2005: A.4117 - reported to Rules Committee
2006: A.4117 - advanced to 3rd reading

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None

EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.

If term limit extensions stands, it makes a mayoral charter revision likely in 2010, whether Bloomberg stays or gets booted. This delays our plans, since that would knock us off the ballot.

The state law that lets the mayor knock off other ballot amendments with his own (section 36 (5) (e) of the Municipal Home Rule Law) has got to be changed!  Nonetheless, it’s hard to imagine a way in which New Yorkers could have been better prepped to join this effort than the way term limits went down.