Campaign Diaries

In a desperate effort to prove that Illinois has no monopoly on political chaos, New York is doing its best to keep up entertained with its remarkable state Senate saga.

On all levels but the state Senate, New York has now largely become a one-party state, and we have been chronicling the collapse of New York’s once-dominant Republican Party for much of the past decade. Democrats now hold both Senate seats, the governorship and a stunning 26 House seats (out of 29).

Remained the state Senate, which Republicans have controlled the upper chamber for decades. But the Democrats’ furious multi-cycle offensive was set to finally succeed this year, and 2008 indeed proved to be yet another disaster for New York Republicans: The party lost 3 House seats (NY-13, NY-25 and NY-29) and 2 seats in the state Senate, enough for Democrats to capture a one-seat majority (32 Democrats versus 30 Republicans).

On November 4th, then, the state GOP looked to have lost its last share of power.

But the Democrats’ celebration were soon cut short when three Democrats representing New York City districts - Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sen.-elect Pedro Espada and Sen. Carl Kruger - hinted that they might not support the Democratic caucus, throwing control of the state Senator in the hands of the GOP and electing Republican Dean Skelos as state Majority Leader.

Their somewhat unclear demands looked to be a mix of identity politics (Espada and Diaz contended that Hispanics were not given their share of power in New York) and policy disputes (Diaz, an extreme social conservative and an ardent foe of gay marriage, insisted he could not support Democrats if they kept up their efforts to legalize gay marriage in New York).

After weeks of confusion, a deal was announced earlier this month between Governor Paterson, Democratic leader Malcolm Smith and the Gang of Three. (The New York Times reported that the deal was sealed with a prayer recited by Diaz, who is also a pentecostal minister. Kruger said that the deal had been “sanctified” by this prayer service.)

First, Paterson and Smith agreed to table gay rights for the next two years. Second, they prepared to shake-up the state Senate’s power structure to give the three dissidents plum leadership positions. Kruger would be made chairman of the Finance Committee, while Espada would rise to the very top of the Democratic Caucus and share the traditional duties of majority leader with Smith - a reward of stunning proportions.

Of course, it is difficult to argue with the Democrats’ desire to keep the state Senate at all costs - including meeting the demands of the Gang of Three. After all, after decades in the minority, this must be a terribly frustrating situation. But allowing a dissident who is still a Senator-elect to blackmail his way at the very top of the leadership ladder would surely set a disastrous precedent. (Not to mention that Espada is surrounded by controversy.)

What if Joe Lieberman had come back to the Senate in December 2006 when Democrats had just captured a 51-49 majority and threatened to vote with Republicans (thus throwing the majority back to the GOP) unless he was made into Majority Leader? He did, after all, owe far less to Democrats then (having won his seat as an independent) then any of the Gang of Three.

Thankfully, last week’s deal collapsed yesterday - apparently due to the anger of the rest of the Democratic caucus. Smith backpedaled on the commitments, while Espada accused the Democratic leader of lying, adding that “Malcolm Smith is not ready for prime time.”

These are not the words of someone who is preparing to back Smith as Majority Leader - which means that control of the state Senate is once again in doubt.

Republican leader Skelos made the situation somewhat more complex by saying that he had no plans to woo the Gang of Three. In other words, the three dissidents might have the power to decide which party controls the chamber, but they are now unlikely to receive anything in return as neither caucus is willing to negotiate with them.

This could make for interesting situations when they run for re-election. While incumbents are difficult to beat, could Espada and Diaz win another term in the Bronx if they caucus with Republicans? But if they vote for Skelos, could they possibly stay in the Democratic caucus given how much they have antagonized fellow Democrats?

These chaotic proceedings also make the gay marriage debate more unpredictable. Smith is no longer held by his word to not bring up such a bill to a vote over the next two years - but he might still not want to do so if it risks endangering the unity of his caucus. With Democrats holding the narrowest of majorities and a few of their Senators sure to vote against gay marriage, they would need to pull some Republican support to ensure passage.

And as if the situation was not chaotic enough, one of the seats Republicans held in November was thrown into overtime yesterday, as a state judge ruled that nearly two thousands ballots that had been deemed invalid should be counted. The Republican incumbent had won re-election by 600 votes, and Democrats are now hopeful that they could come from behind and pick-up this seat - increasing their majority and thus their bargaining power.

The GOP is planning to appeal that decision, so the state Senate battle is now being played out in backrooms and in court rooms.