Judge picked by Paterson swings ruling in guv's favor
Photo credit: AP | Gov. David A. Paterson, right, speaks as Richard Ravitch, who he appointed to the post of lieutenant governor, listens during a news conference at the Capitol in Albany. (July 9, 2009)
After seven months on the job, the chief state judge, picked by Gov. David A. Paterson, has played a key role in salvaging the governor's legally murky appointment of a potential successor.
Before July, a nonelected lieutenant governor like Richard Ravitch was unheard of.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman led this case to its bombshell conclusion. The 4-3 opinion of his Court of Appeals majority overrules eight of the 12 judges who heard this case between its inception on Long Island in July and its unexpected resolution in Albany yesterday.
Never mind that Article IV, Section 6 of the state Constitution clearly says that in the absence of a lieutenant governor, the temporary Senate president becomes next in line and assumes the lieutenant governor's role.
The high court decided instead that another part of state law allows this move. Paterson's defense evoked a financial emergency in Albany and a deadlock over Senate control that has since been resolved.
Lippman and allies thus reversed a bipartisan, 4-0 ruling from the middle-level appeals court that found Ravitch's appointment unconstitutional.
The ruling means a substitute governor may pick a potential successor - who has never been elected to anything.
Lippman's majority reasoned that rules of succession are "inevitably imperfect."
The ruling reverses what was prevailing practice and belief for decades: When a vacancy for lieutenant governor occurs, the office stays open until the next gubernatorial election.
Two fellow Democratic appointees voted with Lippman: Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick and Theodore Jones. Three Republicans voted against. The swing vote for Lippman was Susan Read - an appointee of Republican ex-Gov. George Pataki. Her vote gives the ruling its bipartisan validity.
One downstate Republican with a sense of humor called the surprise reversal New York State's "partisan answer to Bush v. Gore," the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively put George W. Bush in the White House nine years ago.
And yet, even Paterson's critics in both parties - who saw the ruling as a Constitutional contortion - were soon citing political plusses, silver linings and good results.
The ruling invites lawmakers to finally resolve just what the state's succession plan should be - something cited by those who favor a new Constitutional convention.
While they're at it, they can change the succession plan for U.S. Senate.
There is also speculation that having a bland, noncontroversial substitute who is pledged not to seek election next year could ease Paterson's departure early - should he so choose.
"The state needs stability, and this does it," one fan of the decision said.
But a warning issued in Judge Eugene Piggott's dissent resonates. "This is contrary to the text of the New York Constitution," Piggott writes, "and affords Governors unprecedented power to appoint a successor."
