There was no decision Thursday in two challenges to the state’s public campaign finance commission that could have a major impact on voting in New York moving forward.
A state Supreme Court justice in Niagara Falls heard arguments from roughly 15 separate attorneys.
There are two very similar lawsuits from the state’s Working Families party and the Conservative Party. Those lawsuits were not joined but the judge heard them at the same time. Although the majority of the public finance commission’s report earlier this month was about publicly financed elections – the main point of these lawsuits is protecting fusion voting in New York.
That’s the process in which candidates can run on multiple party lines and aggregate votes – giving minor parties more influence in the state. Attorneys for the state entities argued the commission did not make any recommendations with regards to fusion so the lawsuits are moot.
However, plaintiffs said recommendations to change the vote threshold for parties to make the ballot was meant to interfere with fusion.
“When you don’t have legal arguments against our position, you start to attack procedure and that’s exactly what they did,” Conservative Party Executive Committee Member and attorney Ralph Lorigo said.
Conservative leaders seemed confident after court.
“We really strongly believe we have the arguments on our side and through presentation and this hearing, we felt that our case was made,” NYS Conservative Party Chairman Gerry Kassar said.
Those commission recommendations become law unless the Legislature votes to reject them before December 22. It’s unclear if the judge will issue a summary judgment before that date.
Plaintiffs also argue only the Legislature, not a commission, has the right to make laws. Considering that’s a tool they’ve been using quite a bit in Albany, this is bound to be an important decision that could either proliferate the utilization of these kinds of commissions or stop the practice in its tracks.
The Conservative Party and Working Families party are on opposite sides of the political spectrum but continue to work closely on this issue. They shared a table in court Thursday with former Assemblyman Richard Brodsky representing WFP.
Brodsky made a number of colorful arguments including comparing the recommendation to raise the vote threshold to “shooting the groom” instead of “banning the marriage” of parties.
“(The state) is trying to turn a political monopoly into a financial monopoly and it’s inexcusable,” Brodsky told the judge.
Noticeable during the more than three hour proceeding was the sheer number of attorneys making arguments. The state Attorney General recused herself, so each body, including the Assembly and Senate majorities and minorities plus the governor’s office have contracted out to firms – at taxpayer expense no less.