Why won't Congress pass another law, repealing sequestration?
New York's jury sequestration law has been on the books since 1881.
As controller, Mr. Werfel is responsible for making sure that the departments and agencies of the federal government adhere to the sequestration law.
Today, officials with the court officers union said they had struck a "win-win" deal, under which the court system had agreed to strengthen court security in exchange for a repeal of the sequestration law.
Two years ago, a study by the state court system found that the loosening of the sequestration law resulted in no discernible increase in jury tampering, nor in more mistrials, as opponents had feared.
Republicans don't want to change the law to stop sequestration because they cannot come to an agreement with the White House on larger issues of what the deficit should look like, how taxes will be treated, and so on.
State court officials have pressed for a repeal of the mandatory sequestration law for 25 years, arguing that it was unduly burdensome for jurors, unnecessarily costly for the state and troubling as a constitutional matter, because it effectively barred some New Yorkers -- those with people to care for at home, for instance -- from jury service.
Instead, the labor leaders said repealing the sequestration law was the best route to prevent what labor leaders fear will be disastrous cuts, potentially involving hundreds of thousands of layoffs, many of them unionized government workers at the federal, state and local levels.
Michael Richter, head of aerospace and defense investment banking for the investment bank Lazard, in Los Angeles, said the U.S. budget sequestration law would cut U.S. defense spending to $551 billion next year from $587 billion this year, with a further fall in prospect to $505 billion in 2015 and 2016.
If Congress disapproves, the current sequestration law would stay in effect.
