‘She failed us’: Hochul vetoes Death Gamble bill
/
Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill that would eliminate the so-called “Death Gamble” for New York State judges. Photo by Don Pollard/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul
By Ryan Schwach
Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill late Friday that would have put an end to the “death gamble” state judges say they face during their final years on the bench when they are forced to choose between an early retirement and their family’s financial future.
Hochul rejected the Death Gamble bill – sponsored by two Bronx legislators – which would have changed state law so that judges who die while in office would get the same benefits they would have gotten had they retired before their death. Currently, the families of judges who die while still on the bench receive a lump sum benefit, which reduces 4 percent each year after the judge turns 60, and is often not as large as in-service pension benefits.
Supporters of the bill say that the current situation means older judges often take the “death gamble” – retire early, or continue to work and risk dying in office, leaving their family without the full benefit of their pension.
Hochul vetoed the bill on Friday, along with several others that would have provided enhancements to retirement or disability benefits for various public employees, including judges.
The governor argued that the death gamble bill, and the others included in the same veto memo, lacked fiscal support.
“I fully support our public employees and appreciate the vital services they provide to New Yorkers,” Hochul’s veto memo read. “However, I cannot sign these bills because none of them includes a funding source or plan to cover its costs in the current fiscal year or in future years.”
Hochul said that the combined receipt of all the bills she rejected would lead to an estimated $66.2 million in short-term costs to the state.
“These unplanned costs would put undue fiscal pressure on local governments already working to provide services to New Yorkers within limited budgets,” she said. “Fixed costs associated with these benefit enhancements would hinder the ability of local governments to function effectively and would negatively impact the State's overall economic competitiveness.”
Judges in Queens are disappointed after Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed the Death Gamble bill last week, along with several other pieces of legislation. Eagle file photo by David Brand
Hochul added that the bill should instead be discussed as part of the state’s budget.
However, the Office of Court Administration supported the bill, and said that it would absorb the costs of the pension payments if it had become law.
“The Office of Court Administration had indicated to the governor that they will absorb whatever cost it will stall for the bill, so there was no cost to the Governor or to the budget,” said Queens Supreme Court Justice Carmen Velasquez, the president of the Supreme Court Justices Association of the City of New York. “So, when she comes up and says, ‘My reason for vetoing this bill is because the cost is talking about other agencies,’ [that’s] not okay.”
In a statement to the Eagle, OCA confirmed its support for the bill, and reaffirmed that the agency would have been able to take on the cost of the changes.
“We strongly supported this measure because it would have eliminated the requirement that New York State’s most experienced jurists must place their families’ financial security at risk if they wish to continue to serve the public,” said OCA Spokesperson Al Baker. “Whereas the Unified Court System has lost dozens of experienced judges unwilling to take that risk, the annual cost of the measure would have been less than $300,000 in total, which is a very small price to pay to ensure that experienced judges who wish to continue to serve can do so without forfeiting their pension survivor benefits should they die in office.”
Hochul’s office did not respond to the Eagle’s follow up question regarding if OCA absorbing the cost was considered when making the final decision to veto.
Following the veto, judges felt let down and left behind by the governor.
“She failed us,” Velasquez told the Eagle. “It was a win-win for her, but she didn't see the judiciary to be important enough to actually look at us for what [we] are, the third branch of the government.”
Velasquez, who said that she had been getting numerous calls and texts from fellow judges disappointed about the veto, took issue with Hochul’s fiscal argument for vetoing the bill, and lumping the bill in with other retirement-centered legislation.
“We're not a union, we're not a sort of agency,” she said. “That's not the way it's supposed to be. We provide a public service. We do the best we can to make sure that we provide justice for individuals…The Police Department doesn't have the death gamble anymore, the teachers don't have a death gamble. Why should we live every day of our lives thinking ‘I must live so my family is protected?’”
The Queens County Bar Association also told the Eagle on Monday they had supported the bill.
“I think it's a question of fundamental fairness,” said the bar’s immediate past president Michael Abneri. “Why should judges have a different weight than any other state employees?”
Now, judges hope the Bronx legislators who brought the bill – Senator Luis Sepúlveda and Assemblymember Yudelka Tapia – will reintroduce it, something at least one of them vowed to do on Monday.
“Of course, we're going to reintroduce the bill,” Tapia said in a phone call with the Eagle. “We're going to try to include it in the budget.”
Tapia said that the lawmakers weren’t necessarily expecting a veto, since the bill passed unanimously through both chambers of the state legislature.
The Bronx legislator said that although she doesn’t want to speculate on the governor’s personal thinking, she doesn’t think Hochul was given a full picture of the bill, and didn’t acknowledge that OCA intended to take on the fiscal responsibility.
“It seemed to us that she just didn't pay attention,” Tapia said. “I don't believe that she was told exactly what the bill did.”
