So....The Governor might try to appoint an Lt. Governor.

This symposium is potentially valuable reading.

http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/public_policy_forums/2008-05-29-public_policy_forum_gubernatorial_succession_and_the_powers_of_the_lieutenant_governor.pdf

The Times Union's political blog has a different link to the same conference.

I am not yet prepared to address the appointment issue in a legal sense; I have to do a lot more reading before I come to a reasonable assessment. Maybe I'll bother, maybe I won't.

Speaking politically, however, it is my position that, even if Paterson makes such an appointment, and even if it sticks Constitutionally, it will not settle the Senate stalemate. At least not by itself.

1. Firstly, the mere fact that this is an ambiguous constitutional question means such a move will be litigated, and that litigation potentially will far outlast the stalemate.

2. Secondly, let us assume no one feels like contesting Governor Paterson's authority to make such an appointment. I bet someone will contest the new Lt. Governor's authority to cast a tie-breaking vote (this is known in political and legal circles as the "Casting Vote") when it comes to matters of Senate leadership. Maybe that dispute wouldn't delay voting on actual bills. Maybe it would. Either way, there's enough litigation in there to ensure the stalemate continues despite the appointment.

3. Thirdly, let us assume no one feels like contesting Governor Paterson's authority to make such an appointment, or that the appointee can cast a Casting Vote on matters of leadership. This brings us to the issue of whether or not any Lt. Governor can cast a Casting Vote when it comes to legislation, or if it's limited to resolutions. Many have argued this issue. I, by the way, am not one of them. I am inclined to think the Lt. Governor's Casting Vote DOES apply to legislation. But my word isn't going to be enough for any court. The point is that the issue is a disputed one. Someone would litigate it, and this litigation would outlive the Senate stalemate.

I'm not saying I oppose this move. There are some good reasons to support it. Some VERY good reasons, actually.

One of them is that the Senate might settle their dispute faster for fear of having the matter taken out of their own hands. (In other words, the move might help settle the stalemate indirectly.)

Another is that the last time I looked, the State Budget still had a line for the Lt. Governor's staff. This information may be out-of-date, though. But if it's not, if we're going to have an Lt. Governor's staff, we might as well have a Lt. Governor to go with it.

Finally, this move, if it sticks, would mean that New York State wouldn't be dependent upon the State Senate to have a Governor if the current Governor died or left the State. Imagine the chaos if David Paterson were to die, right now. Close your eyes and imagine it. Now tell me you oppose this move anyway.

All I'm saying is that the Senate STILL, at the end of the day, will have to settle its own internal problems, regardless of what the Governor does, or does not, do.

Go David Paterson. But please don't tell me you expect this, by itself, to settle the Senate's dispute.

You're not that stupid, I know....Sorry for asking.