DECIDING VOTE IN ALBANY: SELF-INTEREST

THE State Legislature goes into its season closer today, a day-plus of
frenzied deal-making that will end with some bills approved, some rejected
and some ignored.

Which measures will mature into laws? Which won't? Lawmakers concede that
the process is so chaotic and secretive that sometimes even they don't quite
know what they voted for and against. But we can guess with confidence,
because while Albany is messy, it is not complicated.

For those handicapping the results, look at the vagaries of that stern
master of Albany -- election-year politics. Yes, legislators can support a
measure because they believe in its merits. But what good are merits if
you're not re-elected? So consider self-interest. Weigh the influence of the
Albany Three -- the Democratic Assembly, the Republican Senate and the
governor -- and you can often guess a measure's fate.

For instance, the hate crimes bill will finally become law (unless the two
chambers fail to resolve a technical squabble over authorship). The measure
had been stalled for more than a decade because the Republican-led Senate
objected to including gays as a protected group.

The leadership relented, in deference to some Republican senators from
moderate districts, worried they'd be hurt by continued resistance. And
Republican leaders don't want their United States Senate candidate, Rick A.
Lazio, to look as though his party is intolerant. The Democratic Assembly
has voted for the bill 11 times, and Gov. George E. Pataki is supportive.

Politicians facing re-election stand to gain, the Albany Three agree, so the
state will probably get a hate crimes law.

The same who-wins concept applies to revising the state's harsh drug laws,
with an opposite outcome. The so-called Rockefeller drug laws consign
nonviolent drug users and sellers to prison for a minimum of 15 years.

The bipartisan call for relaxing the laws has become a loud chorus. But
those who stand to gain are prisoners, and those who stand to lose are
politicians -- Democratic legislators from conservative districts (the
"marginals") who might be accused of coddling criminals and of ignoring the
interests of the booming upstate prisons.

If the marginal Democrats are not re-elected, the Assembly could lose its
Democratic majority -- not a petty issue for the speaker, Sheldon Silver,
who decides voting priorities.

So much for changing the Rockefeller drug laws this year.

Another criminal justice measure is in limbo, mainly because of the
ever-dicey politics between Albany and New York City.

City Hall is lobbying for more Family Court and Criminal Court judges.
Figures from the Office of Court Administration show that with misdemeanor
arrests way up -- a result of the Giuliani administration's quality-of-life
arrests and its antidrug crackdown -- the courts are overwhelmed.

The average wait for a misdemeanor trial is 200 days, and the number of
pending cases was 40,617 at the beginning of June -- 10,000 more cases than
10 years ago. But the number of authorized Criminal Court judges is the same
(107) as in 1990. The number of Family Court judges hasn't increased from 47
in 10 years either, but the number of court filings has increased by 26
percent.

The city has asked Albany for 37 more judges -- 14 for Family Court, 23 for
Criminal Court. But the request is facing three-way resistance.

The Assembly: The Democratic Assembly is said to be unenthusiastic about
giving Republican Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani 37 new judges to appoint. City
Hall says it would go along with phasing in the judges so that Mr.
Giuliani's successor could name some of the 37. But so far, no compromise.

The Senate: The Senate is a Republican bastion, but it is an upstate,
suburban Republican bastion, led by Joseph L. Bruno, who is from Rensselaer
in Saratoga County. There is little appetite in the Senate to lavish so much
state largess on the (still) outspoken Mr. Giuliani and his city.

The governor: Already under criticism from some fiscal conservatives, the
governor has to watch the state budget. His office has estimated that adding
20 new local judges statewide would cost $15 million.

The matter is under negotiation. Possible results: a handful of new judges
for local courts statewide, with New York City getting a small share; or
nothing.

Either would be a classic Albany outcome: a little bit for everybody in an
election year; or wait until next year, when lawmakers do not have to run
for re-election.