Holding pattern

A court has ruled that Richard Ravitch may continue serving as New York's lieutenant governor — so long as he does not exercise the power of that office.

What good is that?

Gov. David A. Paterson appointed Mr. Ravitch to the office amid the Senate political crisis of last month. The governor's idea was to have Mr. Ravitch undertake the tasks of a lieutenant governor, presiding over the state Senate and casting a vote in the event of a tie.

Of course, the lieutenant governor also assumes the reins of command when the governor is out of state or unable to fulfill his duties.

Republicans objected to the appointment, pronouncing it unconstitutional. Indeed the state Constitution does not seem to provide for such a circumstance. As the former lieutenant governor, Mr. Paterson replaced ex-Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer, who stepped down amid a prostitution scandal.

Does the new governor, then, have the power to appoint a full-fledged lieutenant governor in such instances? It is not clear. Democrats have argued that Mr. Paterson has the right to fill the position under the state Public Officers Law which allows the gubernatorial appointment until the next election.

An appeals court said last week that Mr. Ravitch may remain in office until the court rules on whether the appointment is legal and constitutionally sound.

The governor and his attorneys have argued that Mr. Paterson needs Mr. Ravitch, an executive and veteran counselor of governors, to help tackle New York's financial crisis and other issues.

Yet surely the governor could retain him as an adviser for those purposes, without the lieutenant governor title.

The Appellate Division will rule further on this matter, and it will be interesting to see how the question is decided.

Meanwhile, important work — such as state finances — awaits New York's governor. Mr. Ravitch does not have to be lieutenant governor to help.