History
The position of President pro tempore of the New York State Senate was created as a standing office by a constitutional amendment in 1873. The President pro tempore was elected for the duration of the biennial senatorial term which comprised two sessions, the first in an even-numbered year, the other in the following odd-numbered year.
Before this time, a President pro tempore was elected only in case of vacancy (the President pro tem acting as Lieutenant Governor for the remainder of the term), or if the Lieutenant Governor was absent. In practice, this new arrangement transferred much power from the Lieutenant Governor to the President pro tempore, whose political position became comparable to that of the Speaker of the New York State Assembly.
After the impeachment of Governor William Sulzer in October 1913, Lt. Gov. Martin H. Glynn became Governor, and President pro tempore Robert F. Wagner became Acting Lieutenant Governor. At the time Wagner - as Acting Lieutenant Governor - was considered to be President of the Senate and it was deemed necessary to elect another member as President pro tempore/Majority Leader, and John F. Murtaugh was chosen.
The precedent of 1913-14 caused some confusion after the death of Lt. Gov. Thomas W. Wallace in 1943. It was unclear if the Majority Leader had to give up his post upon becoming Acting Lieutenant Governor, and if such an Acting Lieutenant Governor became President of the Senate for the remainder of the unexpired term.
Traditionally, the positions of Acting Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor were considered to be tied to the post of Majority Leader. This means that if the Majority Leader resigns, or is ousted from office, or if the majority changes and a new Majority Leader is chosen, the offices of Acting Lieutenant Governor or Acting Governor were transferred at the same time to the new Majority Leader.
Read more about this topic: Majority Leader Of The New York State Senate
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“The visual is sorely undervalued in modern scholarship. Art history has attained only a fraction of the conceptual sophistication of literary criticism.... Drunk with self-love, criticism has hugely overestimated the centrality of language to western culture. It has failed to see the electrifying sign language of images.”
—Camille Paglia (b. 1947)
“Every literary critic believes he will outwit history and have the last word.”
—Mason Cooley (b. 1927)
“The history of modern art is also the history of the progressive loss of art’s audience. Art has increasingly become the concern of the artist and the bafflement of the public.”
—Henry Geldzahler (1935–1994)