BILL NUMBER: S69
SPONSOR: GALLIVAN
 
TITLE OF BILL:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY proposing amendments to
article 7 of the constitution, in relation to items of appropriation
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 of the resolution amends section 3 of article 7 of the New
York state constitution by providing that the Governor's appropriation
and reappropriation bills be constrained by existing law except for
monetary amounts where appropriate, and that any other changes should be
contained in a separate and distinct bill.
Section 2 of the resolution amends section 6 of article 7 of the Consti-
tution to ensure that appropriation bills submitted by the governor only
contains items of appropriations and that each item of appropriation
specifically relates to some particular appropriation in the bill, iden-
tifies the purpose of the appropriation, does not include requirements
for implementation, and does not modify existing law.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
The New York Court of Appeals in an opinion in two cases, Pataki v.
Assembly (No. 171) and Silver v. Pataki (No. 172) (December 16, 2004),
held that while the Governor "should not put into an appropriation bill
essentially non-fiscal or non-budgetary legislation," should he so act,
the Legislature had no remedies other than accepting, rejecting or
reducing the dollar amount adjunct to such appropriation.
The court gave broad discretion to the Governor to bypass and, in
effect, inactivate any part of New York's corpus of law if he took such
action in the guise of an appropriation bill. The Executive has inserted
vast, far-reaching policy initiatives in appropriation bills that at
times have circumvented or bypassed then-existing substantive law which
had been enacted in the usual bill enactment process. Recent examples
of including non fiscal policy matters into the budget include education
reforms, criminal justice reforms and various other expansions or amend-
ments to substantive State law. The traditional notions of "checks and
balances" have been harmed and as a result, broad substantive changes in
law are insulated from meaningful analysis, review, debate and amend-
ment. This is a process which could not have been foreseen and was not
the intent framers of New York's Constitution. This proposal reasserts
the intent of our framers - a state government with limited power
divided among three Co-Equal branches of Government.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2021-22:S.2189/A.9072 Referred to Judiciary
2019-20: S.3302 Referred to Judiciary
2017-08: S.3852 Referred to Judiciary
2016: S.4944 - Referred to Judiciary
2006: S.3195/A.4630 - Passed Senate/Passed Assembly
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
These amendments would take effect after approval of the voters by
referendum.