Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver does not seem terribly perturbed about the prospect of having three separate primaries – federal, state and presidential – despite the fact that he and his Democratic colleagues have indicated a preference for moving the state contests up to conform with Judge Gary Sharpe’s mandated June 26 date for the House and US Senate races.

During an interview this morning with The Captiol Pressroom’s Susan Arbetter, Silver reacted to a DN report that Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, who had been pushing for an August primary, now has his heart set on maintaining the regularly scheduled Sept. 11 state races, despite the fact that to do so would cost an additional $50 million. (And that’s on top of the $100 million combined cost of the April 24 presidential primary and June 26 federal primaries).

“I’d like to see the primary, you know, in June on the same day,” Silver said. “It would cost localities more money to run another primary in September. However, you know, it’s (Skelos’) perogative not to pass legislative to conform to the judge’s decision and have the state primary run in September.”

Silver also doesn’t share the anxiety expressed by LATFOR co-chair Assemblyman Jack McEneny and others that Sharpe’s ruling is difficult – if not outright impossible – to adhere to, given the confines of the redistricting process and the political calendar. Said the speaker: “I believe in the power of federal judges, and if they order something to happen they will provide the remedy to make it happen.”

Silver declined to comment on the Senate Democrats’ lawsuit challenging the GOP’s proposal to add a 63rd Senate seat, saying it will be up to the state attorney general to make that determination. (I find this confusing…because the AG has to decided which side to defend? Can’t he recuse himself and kick the issue to outside counsel, as has been done by past AGs when two branches of government duke it out in court?)

The speaker said negotiations with the governor on a potential constitutional amendment that would overhaul the redistricting process in time for the 2022 elections are “not actually taking place” at the moment, adding: “They’re in spurts; they start, they stop. It’s for ten years from now, really, to have a major impact, so, you know, the people of the state will have the opportunity to weigh in on the final product.”

That said, Silver insisted he’s completely on board with the idea of taking the partisanship out of the redistricting process.

“We had no problems redistricting and bringing our Assembly Republican colleagues in and talking to them about what their desires are and giving their desires some weight in the process,” the speaker said. “And I think that’s what is the key to everything: Taking the partisanship out of it and making it a nonpartisan plan, or a bipartisan plan, providing equal access to both parties in each house.”