BILL NUMBER: S7828
SPONSOR: RIVERA
 
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
contain 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 on 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 they 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 they 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 expan-
sions or amendments to substantive State law. The traditional notions of
"checks and balances" have been harmed and as a result, broad substan-
tive changes in law are insulated from meaningful analysis, review,
debate and amendment. This is a process which could not have been fore-
seen and was not the intent of the 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:
2006: S3195/A4630 - Passed Senate/Passed Assembly
2016: S4944 - Referred to Judiciary
2017-18: S3852 Referred to Judiciary
2019-20: S3302 (Gallivan) - Referred to Judiciary
2021-22: S2189 (Gallivan)/A9072 (Lawler) Referred to Judiciary
2023-24: S2062 (Femandez)/A8046 (Kelles) - Referred to Judiciary
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
These amendments would take effect after approval of the voters by
referendum.