This afternoon state Supreme Court Justice, Thomas McNamara, dismissed the litigation on whether last week's vote to change state Senate leadership was valid.

The court wanted no part of this case, as any ruling was a guarantee to upset at least half the Senate that would be on the losing side. No Solomonic "split the baby" option here.

It's refreshing to see a judge refuse the temptation to rule from the mountaintop, especially on the activities of another branch of government. Judicial restraint is in order here, even if it means uncertainty and the continuation of the "circus" (as the New York Post describes).

What happens next for the Senate?

First, a reminder of where things stand:

1) Sen. John Sampson is the new Democratic leader, effectively replacing Sen. Malcolm Smith. With the return of Sen. Hiram Monserrate, that conference has 31 members. Technically, Sen. Smith retains the Temporary President and Majority Leader title since the Democratic conference views last week's vote as illegal (thus, the basis of the lawsuit just dismissed). Yet, with only 31 votes, they can't vote in Sen. Sampson's new title.

2) Sen. Pedro Espada remains joined with the 30 Republicans, making for an evenly split chamber. Sen. Espada views himself as the Temporary President, with GOP Sen. Dean Skelos as the Majority Leader.

3) Since Justice McNamara dismissed the case, it's left for both sides to negotiate some sort of power sharing arrangement in order for the Senate to conduct business. Senate rules traditionally hold that the Majority Leader controls the Senate's budget, staff allocations, committee assignments, who chairs the committees and which bills go to the floor for a house vote. Will Espada and Skelos attempt to act out these roles with the 31 Democrats refusing to acquiesce? Seems that's the question for the moment.

4) Will senators Espada and Skelos try to exercise the powers of the majority (even though they cannot pass bills on the floor), and how will they? Will they attempt to oust staffers and expand their own, and what if the other side refuses?

5) Gov. David Paterson has offered to preside over the Senate like he did when he was Lieutenant Governor. Ah, hmmm. The LG under the state constitution is an officer of the Senate, while the Governor is not. If the Governor walks upstairs to the Senate chamber, his presence has no practical or legal effect. He should remain on the second floor and try and mediate from there.

Future Possibilities: Let us count the ways
Secondly, it's June, not January. The 2009 scheduled legislative session is over this week. Aside from mayoral control legislation over NYC schools, which the Assembly has pointed the way, there is little if anything the Senate actually needs to do. They could pack it in and wait for one of the following events in the next six months to affect the 31-31 tie:

a) Senator X (Pick One) gets convicted of a crime and must vacate his or her seat.
b) Senator Y (Pick Another) decides to switch sides, or switch back.
c) Senator Z dies of natural causes, which is not uncommon in recent years.
d) Republican Senator(s) Q gets an offer he can't refuse by taking a juicy, higher paying job in the Paterson administration or, a more tempting, comfy college presidency at a SUNY campus near his home, (driver included), resulting in a final average salary boost to his pension.
e) Gov. Paterson gets an ambassador appointment from President Obama, meaning either Sen. Smith or Sen. Espada becomes Governor.

No doubt there are more scenarios that I've missed as possibilities for the next six months (some more realistic than others), which is nearly a lifetime in politics.

Until then, we shouldn't expect much out of the state legislature affecting charter schools or most other issues. In this vacuous climate, that's probably a good thing.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard