Ever since the day Eliot Spitzer announced he would run for governor of New York, supporters have fixed their gaze on 2007. Governor Pataki would soon back out of the way, they reasoned, leaving a straight path for their candidate to steamroll whichever poor soul dares block Mr. Spitzer as he marches toward the executive chamber with a mandate to bring transparency and accountability to Albany.

The almost Hegelian inevitability with which many have come to view Mr. Spitzer’s ascendance to the governor’s office is reflected in one recent poll that put him almost 25 points ahead of Mr. Pataki in a theoretical race and an absurdly early endorsement from the Working Families Party nearly two years ahead of the election. If ever there were a candidate who had something to lose, it is Mr. Spitzer.

Yet lost in the enthusiasm over an aggressive reformer like Mr. Spitzer seizing the reins of power is the effort that legislators from both parties have been quietly making in recent months to render the office to which he aspires virtually impotent by the time he, or anyone else, gets there. Think of Wall Street traders rigging securities law ahead of Mr. Spitzer’s tenure as state attorney general, and you’ll have some idea of what lawmakers in Albany have been up to.

First, some background.

Last year, both legislative chambers passed resolutions to amend what the state constitution says about the budget. Lawmakers had failed to pass an on-time budget for 20 years, and pressure was building for them to do something about it. Because an amendment requires passage in two consecutive sessions, the Assembly passed the same resolution in February this year. Another passage in the Senate, and the measure would go to the voters in a statewide referendum in November.

Then, the unexpected occurred. Last month, legislators agreed on a budget by the April 1 deadline for the first time since 1984. It was the most compelling argument to date that the kind of budget reform they had advanced last year was no longer necessary. Or so many people thought. Last week, the Senate advanced the proposed constitutional amendment to the floor for a vote. A spokesman for the Senate, Mark Hansen, said it will pass in this session.

Why?

The answer to that question may lie in a little-noticed provision that puts legislators in the driver’s seat once the budget deadline has passed. According to the proposed amendment, a contingency budget would automatically take effect when the governor and the Legislature fail to reach agreement by a new May 1 deadline. The idea has been packaged as a scare tactic that would spur politicians to action by holding the prospect of a poorer budget over their heads.

But a corollary provision that characterizes the contingency budget as “final action” on the governor’s budget is what Mr. Spitzer and other would-be governors should be worried about, budget hawks say. According to the corollary, legislators are free to write their own budget bills once the contingency budget is in place. This would not only make them immune to complaints about late budgets, it would also give them exclusive power over how and how much money to spend virtually free from executive interference.

According to the director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, E.J. McMahon, the language by which lawmakers are seeking to secure new powers and to shield themselves from criticism is “diabolically clever.” He said the Republican-led Senate likely approved the resolution – even after last month’s on-time budget – in an effort to protect itself from a Democratic governor who would attempt to shake up the status quo.

“For the Senate, this is the best of both worlds because they can pass it and claim they’re doing reform,” Mr. McMahon said. “But what they’re also creating, if they can get voters to go along with this, is an Eliot Spitzer insurance policy for themselves because they would have a unilateral veto right over the governor’s budget.” As for the Democratic-led Assembly, Mr. McMahon said, the proposed amendment represents a similar guard. He said Democratic legislators are no more likely than Republicans to give up their power to a Democratic governor.

A budget analyst who almost always disagrees with Mr. McMahon on fiscal policy also criticized the proposed amendment. Frank Mauro, of the Fiscal Policy Institute, said the proposal is deficient because it only allows legislators to act on the governor’s budget after the deadline. He recommended first passage of an amendment proposal this year that could be voted on in a referendum after second passage next year to correct this and other “loose language.” Mr. Mauro said he thinks the current proposal is better than the existing separation of powers, which he termed “a virtual dictatorship.”

That’s potentially bad news for those who were hoping Mr. Spitzer would have carte blanche if elected governor. And it is potentially bad news for Mr. Spitzer himself, who undoubtedly has a list of reforms he would bring to the executive chamber if elected. According to Mr. McMahon at the Empire Center, the proposed amendment, if approved in November, would make the governor’s job “barely worth having.” Relatively quiet so far on the issues, Mr. Spitzer might consider speaking out on this one – before November.

Mr. McGuire is the Albany correspondent for The New York Sun.