NYPIRG’s REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION – 2009 SESSION

As part of an ongoing review of legislative activity, the following analysis examines

the 2009 New York legislative session. This analysis does not draw conclusions on
the substance of bills or the legislative output, since legislative “productivity” is
more complicated than simple numbers. However, New Yorkers deserve information
on the functioning of their legislature and we hope that the following information
will stimulate dialogue between lawmakers and their constituents.

Legislative Action – An Overview

During the 2009 legislative session, the Assembly cast 1,275 votes on 1,242 bills. It
also passed 785 resolutions this year. Members of the Assembly introduced 8,939
bills and 814 resolutions. On average, a Democratic Assemblymember introduced
66 bills and got ten passed; the average for a typical Republican Assemblymember
was 41 bills introduced and three passed.

The Senate cast 645 votes and passed 640 bills. 6,428 bills were introduced, as
were 2,887 resolutions (2,778 of which were adopted). Democratic Senators
introduced an average of 114 bills and passed 13; Republicans introduced 80 and
passed six.

The following chart details the number of bills passed between January 1 and July 31
of each year:
Assem Senat
Year bly e Both
1
2009 1,242 640 554
2008 1,641 1,794 811
2007 1,540 1,770 847
2006 1,961 1,842 958
2005 1,628 1,603 882
2004 1,702 1,522 777
2003 1,403 1,366 761
2002 1,654 1,294 745
2001 1,283 1,050 549
2000 1,537 1,424 711
1999 1,470 1,317 607
1998 1,547 1,369 674
1997 1,132 1,234 475

1
This review only looks at bills passed between January 1st and July 31st. The six bills passed
in August’s special session are not included. Additionally, there are 123 bills that LRS lists as
having passed on June 30th, the day of the “coffee quorum.” Actions on those bills are
excluded from this review.
1
 1996 1,580 1,543 813
Avera
ge 1,523 1,413 726
A Closer Examination of Voting Patterns in the Senate and Assembly
The average bill in the Assembly had 132 “yes” votes, nine “no” votes, and eight
members absent or abstaining. Most bills faced either no or minimal opposition:

Total "No" Pct. Of all

Votes # of Bills Bills
none 680 53.33%
1-9 234 18.35%
10-19 98 7.69%
20-29 105 8.24%
30-39 79 6.20%
40-49 46 3.61%
50-59 28 2.20%
60 or more 5 0.39%

The five bills with the most opposition include three budget bills, a Wright bill
(A.1477) requiring police officers to be tested for alcohol after they have discharged
a weapon, and a Paulin bill (S.2810) permitting people to abbreviate their middle
names while signing absentee ballots.

The Senate was more likely to see agreement on legislation, passing over three-
quarters of its bills unanimously. The typical Senate bill had 58 supporters and two
opponents with two members absent.

Total "No" Pct. Of all

Votes # of Bills Bills
None 493 76.43%
1-9 103 15.97%
10-19 18 2.79%
20-30 29 4.50%
More than 30 2 0.31%

The two bills with more than 30 “no” votes were S.5576 (Parker/ Heastie- the “better
schools act”) and A.9037 (Abbate/ Rules- “pension smoothening”). Three additional
bills lost a floor vote in the Senate: S.1347 (Duane/ Kellner- rent-to-own sales
practice disclosure requirements), A.6741-B (Bradley/ Duane- reimbursement for
out-of-network providers of clinical laboratory services), and A.8839-A (Pheffer/
Perkins- enhanced do-not-call registry). These three bills, while being opposed by a
minority of Senators, were voted on with several absences in the chamber, and thus
did not have a majority in support.

2
The fact that five bills did not command a majority of votes is surprising given the
Senate’s legislative history:

Bills that Fail on Floor Votes

Year Senate Assembl
y
2009 5 0
2008 0 0
2007 1 0
2006 0 0
2005 0 0

A Closer Examination of Party-Line Voting

Assembly Democrats voted along party lines 97.4% of the time (as defined by
voting with the Speaker, who voted “yes” on all bills). Seven always voted with
the Speaker: Assemblymembers Farrell, Brook-Krasny, Lancman, Towns,
Mayersohn, Greene, and Diaz. Six voted with him less than 90% of the time:
Assemblymembers Fields (89.6%), Schimminger (88.4%), Gunther (88.3%),
Gabryszak (87.5%), Christensen (87.1%) and Parment (83.3%).

Defining what was a “party line” vote on the other side of the aisle was more
complicated given the changes in leadership. Assemblyman Tedisco served as
Minority Leader until April 6th, when Assemblyman Kolb took over. Assemblyman
Tedisco missed 24 votes during his time serving in this position. On the rest of the
bills, the person leading the Republican conference (either Tedisco or Kolb) voted
“Yes” 1,079 and “No” 172 times. The members of the minority conference voted
with them 89% of the time. For the remaining 11% of the votes, rank-and-file
Republicans voted “No” 58.7% of the time (putting them in opposition to the
Democrats when their leader was in agreement) and “Yes” 41.3% of the time
(putting them in agreement with the Democrats when their conference leader was
opposed).

Assemblymembers Oaks, Butler, Barclay, Calhoun, and Scozzafava all voted with
the Minority Leaders between 93% and 94% of the time, making them the members
of their party to do so the most.
Assemblymembers McKevitt, Thiele, Corwin, Fitzpatrick, and Ball voted the same as
the leaders on less than 84% of votes.

Senate Democrats voted with Temporary President Smith 99.7% of the time.
Senators Aubertine, Foley, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Savino, Schneiderman,
Stachowski, and Valesky always cast their vote with Senator Smith. Senator Duane
differed on 12 bills, making his 98.1% the lowest percentage.

Senate Republicans voted the same as Minority Leader Smith 96.5% of the time.
Every member of this conference voted the same as Minority Leader Skelos
3
between 94% and 98% of the time. Senators Bonacic and Ranzenhofer differed with
Senator Skelos the most frequently; Senators Leibell and Owen Johnson differed the
least.

4
 A Closer Examination of Additional Voting Patterns
Given the unusual circumstances of the Senate’s process this year, July turned out
to be the month in which that House passed the most bills. In the Assembly, June
was the month that saw the most approvals.

Bills Passed by Each Body by Month

Mont Senat Assem
h e bly
Jan 0 10
Feb 17 75
March 46 118
April 46 90
May 87 246
June 50 736
July 394 0

In the Assembly, there is a correlation between the length of time a legislator has
served and the average number of bills they passed in 2009. The correlation is not
evident in the Senate, likely due to the fact that the most senior members are now
serving in the minority party.

Seniority and Passage of Legislation

First Year in # Bills Averag Bills
Office Assms. Passed e # Sens Passed Average
1970-1979 7 107 15.29 5 31 6.2
1980-1989 19 263 13.84 8 81 10.13
1990-1999 44 445 10.11 17 163 9.59
2000-2008 72 419 5.82 25 283 11.32
2009 10 26 2.60 7 62 8.86

August Special Session

The special session held on August 6th was not included in this study due to its
disconnect from the regularly-scheduled session. Six bills were passed that would
not have significantly affected the findings above.

Appendix
The attached appendix lists each legislator, how many bills and resolutions they
introduced and got passed, and the number of times they cast a vote “aye,” “nay,”
or were absent. Their rank from 1-150 in the Assembly and 1-62 in the Senate in
terms of bills introduced and bills passed are next to these two columns. The
Assembly data also includes a percentage showing how frequently each member
voted with the Speaker. The Senate spreadsheet contains a list of 2008’s Senators

5
and how many bills they passed last year, to make it easy to observe the change
between this year and last.