In which I make a point that even a Republican can agree with, or, "Holy Schmitt!"
Prince Niccolo Machiavelli once wrote that,
"Men are so simple and yield so readily to the desires of the moment that he who will trick will always find another who will suffer to be tricked."
It's been a wild ride here in Nassau County these past few weeks. Just this past october, I was expressing considerable adulation for my county's collective wisdom (or, more likely, collective memory) in denying Republicans any local leadership at the polls. Tom Suozzi was re-elected as County Executive, and the County legislature retained it's 10-9 Democratic majority. But today, we sit here in astonishment, as longtime GOP curmudgeon Peter Schmitt (R-Massapequa) is elected Presiding Officer of the legislature. What happened?
First up, as a bit of background, being Presiding Officer isn't just a nominal title. It entails not only a considerable boost in pay, it also conveys the sole power to spend the budget that is allocated to the legislature. Our password for today is "patronage". What's more important for us is that the Presiding Officer is also the Speaker, and as such gets to run the meetings and control what gets to the floor for a vote.
This fiasco all started after the election results came in. Apparently, Legislator Roger Corbin (D-Westbury), who was the Deputy Presiding Officer, had decided that the time was past for the incumbent Presiding Officer, Judy Jacobs (D-Woodbury). Ms. Jacobs is amidst a long and well-decorated career in public service to Nassau County. She's an older woman, but certainly capable of continuing her responsibilities. Mr. Corbin is black, and appears to have made that his only justification for being Presiding Officer. "It's time for an African-American leader." So, he conspired with Legislator Lisanne Altmann (D-Great Neck) to wrest the leadership post from Jacobs, by getting the Republicans in on the act. This is where it gets weird. In exchange for floor time for Republican proposals, they agreed to cast their votes for Corbin.
In a normal world, the Republicans vote for their leader, the Democrats vote for their leader, and the one who gets the most votes is the Presiding Officer. The legislator with the second-most votes who is not in the same political party as the Presiding Officer is the Minority Leader - the second most important position in the legislature. This works rationally if people support one another within their party. In the current case, however, dissent has turned toxic.
So, the plan was that Corbin, Altmann, and eight of the Republicans would elect Corbin as Presiding Officer, preventing the rest of the Democrats from re-appointing Jacobs. All this while Schmitt votes for himself, assuring that he would continue to be the Minority Leader. It gets yet wilder. In advance of the vote, Jacobs and the Nassau Democratic Party agreed that she should be kicked out of the Democratic Party, thus making her "not the same political party" as Corbin, and allowing her to potentially take the Minority Leader post from Schmitt. (I guess that makes her now "(NR-Woodbury)". We use "NR" for "Not Registered", because there's an Independence Party in New York State that uses the "I".) Thus leaving the Republicans officially disenfranchised within the legislative leadership. This was expected to put pressure on the Republicans to abandon their interference in the Democrats' affairs.
(I'm skipping the predictable boring parts about how each side sued to prevent the other side from doing any of these things.)
The next step was furious negotiations, which were to no avail. Corbin and Altmann were dead set on voting for Corbin. Only now, the Republicans simply responded by voting for their own leader, Schmitt, the way one would expect to begin with. The final tally gave Schmitt a plurality at 9 votes. The Democrats are challenging the result in court, asserting that a plurality is not enough, and a majority is required to appoint a Presiding Officer. This is a thousand-to-one shot, though. The County Charter states that, "The Legislature shall choose from among its number a Presiding Officer...", and leaves the legislature to devise its own rules on how to go about it. Can a plurality assert that a plurality is sufficient? Or, must the plurality be backed by a majority? Yeah, my head hurts, too.
How obscene would it be if today's U. S. House of Representatives couldn't choose a majority leader, thus ceding the Speakership to Nancy Pelosi? That's the analogy for what's happening here, in essence. And, in fact, "obscene" is the very word Peter Schmitt himself used to describe such a situation as we see today. But, he's now only too happy to partake in the obscenity with great aplomb. Once the court decision is handed down, the county will be run, in part, by a minority-elected majority leader.
The Democrats did manage one parting shot, however. Rather than voting for Jacobs, they through their support behind Legislator Kevan Abrahams (D-Hempstead), who is black. Thus, they give a rising star within the party an opportunity as the Minority Leader of the majority caucus. And, they completely toss the race card over the side of the boat on Corbin.
I expect that for the next election, both Corbin and Altmann will either be expelled from the party outright, or at the very least hit with strong primary challengers.
As an aside, I have to say, Newsday's coverage on this issue has been pretty good.
The point I have to make is this: In what universe should your political party have a say in who my caucus leader is?
To close, I give you Walt Handelsmann's take:
