2 No. 66
Kenneth P. LaValle, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
Carl T. Hayden, et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 65
June 6, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Richard Hamburger, for appellants.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., for respondents Board and Regents.
Melanie L. Oxhorn, for State respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
CIPARICK, J.:
The question presented by this appeal is whether the joint ballot
provisions of Education Law § 202, providing for an alternative
means of electing members of the State Board of Regents, where the
Senate and Assembly fail to elect by concurrent resolution , violate
Article XI §§ 1 and 2 -- the Education article -- of the New York
State Constitution. We say that it does not.
Plaintiffs Kenneth P. LaValle, a State Senator, and David H. Pearl, a
retired teacher, commenced this action in Supreme Court seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, 14 individually
named regents, the Board of Regents of the State of New York,
Alexander F. Treadwell, the Secretary of State, and the State of New
York. The underlying facts are undisputed. The Education Law provides
guidelines for the election of State regents.(1) The Legislature
must first attempt to elect regents by concurrent resolution. When the
Senate and Assembly are deadlocked, the Legislature may use a "joint
ballot" to elect regents. The individually named regent defendants
were elected, on various dates, pursuant to the contested joint ballot
method. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendant regents from assuming
office, and additionally sought a declaration that the joint ballot
provisions of Education Law § 202(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.
Following commencement of the action, defendants promptly moved to
dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 . Plaintiffs cross-moved
for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion, and
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The question presented by this appeal is whether the joint ballot provisions of Education Law
The Education Law provides guidelines for the election of State regents.The Legislature must
The individually named regent defendants were elected, on various dates, pursuant to the
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendant regents from assuming office, and additionally sought a
Plaintiffs contend that joint ballot elections violate the constitutional delegation of
The University derives from a colonial remnant, the "Governors of the College of the Province
The regents were statutorily endowed with the "full power and authority to ordain and make
the individual members of the board of regents were themselves named in the text of the
this statute granted the Governor a limited power to fill board vacancies as they occurred.
each state was represented in Congress by "delegates".
Article XXX of the First Constitution of New York, 1777, governed the appointment of
It embodied most of the prior statutory ideals and framework governing election of the
This, in turn, would presuppose the continuation of a suitable means for electing regents in
Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality (see Patterson v
The contemporary legislative exercise of this constitutionally conferred power is found in
Thereafter, if the Legislature cannot bicamerally agree on a candidate, a joint session must
The Legislature, although typically, and necessarily functioning in its lawmaking capacity in
Similarly, under the federal Constitution, not all legislative actions are "subject to the
|
