At this newspaper, we approach the election for state offices with a heavy heart.

For the past four years, a variety of New York officials - governor, comptroller, state legislators - have been embroiled in scandal. Most of them - including the ones with the most egregious allegations - were Democrats, who have controlled the governor's office for 23 of the past 35 years and the Assembly for all of the past 35.

And when, after a tug-of-war with Republicans, they managed to take control of the State Senate in the summer of 2009 - thus running every branch of state government - they rewarded New Yorkers by naming Pedro Espada their majority leader. At the time, Espada was known for routinely ignoring state campaign-finance laws, and he is now accused of diverting millions of dollars in state and federal funds from a non-profit organization for his personal use. (Nor did Eliot Spitzer and Eric Massa help the party's reputation.)

Albany's problems go far beyond the behavior of individual Democratic officials, though. Our system of state government is so broken, so dysfunctional, that in many respects, it simply doesn't matter who we elect. Ordinary legislators are powerless to change anything.

Deliberating over our endorsements two years ago, we were concerned that the Democrats would have too much power if they controlled all three branches of state government. But we also reasoned that if Democrats were in complete control, partisan logjams would end and it would be easier to hold elected officials accountable for fixing what's wrong with Albany.

That has not happened. And we have no reason to hope that things will change if Democrats continue to run the show.

Major reform is needed. Most of the Democrats running for Assembly and State Senate this year promise that they'll change things. They won't. Their leadership won't let them.

We cannot urge readers to vote for particular candidates when in many respects, their vote is meaningless. But we can't bring ourselves to urge readers not to vote, and realistically, there is no other option than the major-party candidates. In the Rochester area, there are a few third-party candidates for Assembly and Senate, but in every case, they're the same candidates running on the Democratic or the Republican line.

If we're so upset with state Democrats, why don't we just endorse their Republican opponents? In the case of the State Senate, where Republicans could take back control in this election, you can make a strong case for doing just that. Most of the Senate Democrats come from the New York City area; Western New York is poorly represented. Unquestionably, the legislature has sometimes made decisions based on the needs and the reality of New York City, when those decisions hurt or ignore Upstate interests.

But Republicans aren't squeaky-clean reformers, either. Their former leader, Joe Bruno, had a scandal of his own. And during the chaotic spring of 2009, Senate Republicans were just as willing as the Democrats to embrace Pedro Espada and his partner-in-scandal, Hiram Monserrate (whose claim to fame was assaulting his girlfriend). Both parties ignored the ethical issues surrounding Espada and Monserrate, wooing them so they could take control of the Senate. Nor have Republicans been any more eager than the Democrats to reform state government.

Somebody will be elected to every state office. And on some very important issues - some of which undoubtedly will be before the legislature next year - it matters a great deal who is voting in the state legislature. Among those issues: drilling in the Marcellus Shale, a property-tax cap, energy, economic development, abortion rights, and gun laws.

Particularly important next year will be the right of same-sex couples to marry. This is a crucial issue of civil rights, and while we recognize that some opponents have deeply held religious beliefs, the right to marry is both a government and a religious issue. Individual religious institutions can withhold marriage rites from same-sex couples if they like, but government must not perpetuate what is a devastatingly harmful injustice.

We are torn, then, between the need to make clear our disgust with Albany and our concern over specific issues.

Our decision this year: while we are endorsing in statewide and federal races, we are not endorsing any candidates for either the State Senate or the Assembly. We can not dignify Albany's dysfunction by pretending that local representatives - of either party - will fix it. We are, however, analyzing six races and telling you which candidates' views are most closely aligned with ours on specific issues, particularly on civil rights and the environment.

All of them, unfortunately, are Democrats. All of the Democrats in those six races support same-sex marriage. None of the Republicans have told us they do. (A qualifier: we weren't able to get answers from one of the Republican candidates.) And we believe that overall, Democratic candidates offer a more cautious approach to drilling in the Marcellus Shale.

You can find the candidates' answers to our questions on a variety of subjects on our website (rochestercitynewspaper.com).

State Senate, 56th district: Democrat Robin Wilt. Wilt, a Brighton resident and real-estate agent who has been active in progressive politics, is facing a formidable candidate, incumbent Senator Joe Robach. Wilt holds strongly progressive views, supporting gun control and living-wage proposals and opposing hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale. And she would be a strong advocate for marriage equality. Robach, a Democrat turned Republican, is exceptionally popular, despite his district's heavy Democratic enrollment. Strongly conservative, he opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

State Senate, 55th district: Mary Wilmot. Republican incumbent Jim Alesi has worked hard for his district, and he has steered state funds to numerous important events and institutions. But he could have provided a key vote last year, breaking from his party and voting for marriage equality. To the dismay of many of us, he did not. If he could not do that, we regret to say, we don't have faith that he would be independent on issues involving government reform. Wilmot, a well-informed candidate who served as director of the governor's Rochester regional office and as Rochester-area regional director for the State Senate, is pro-choice, supports wind and solar-energy development, wants campaign-finance reform, favors mayoral control, and supports marriage equality.

Assembly, 130th district: David Nachbar. Nachbar and Republican Sean Hanna are campaigning for the seat currently held by Republican Joe Errigo, who is not seeking re-election. Nachbar is smart and exceptionally well informed. He supports same-sex marriage rights and says that drilling in the Marcellus Shale is environmentally risky and too expensive. His Republican opponent, Sean Hanna, is a former Monroe County legislator who went on to serve as a respected regional director of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation. He did not respond to our request for his opinions on key state issues, but the issues part of his website focuses strictly on jobs and taxes. He says he opposes state budgets that raise taxes, supports a state property-tax cap, supports cutting the corporate franchise tax, and would push for tax credits for businesses relocating to the Rochester or Finger Lakes area.

Assembly, 131st district: Harry Bronson. Like the 130th, this is an open seat, with Democrat Susan John retiring. Bronson is an attorney with a background in labor and anti-discrimination law. Currently the co-owner of a small business in the South Wedge, he served as an attorney for the Assembly's labor committee, which Susan John chairs, and is currently Democratic minority leader in the Monroe County Legislature, where he's been as effective as a Democratic leader can be in that body. He's bright, stands up for what he believes in, and would be a strong advocate for marriage equality. His opponent, Kenneth Kraus, is running on the Republican, Conservative, and Independence lines. An associate attorney with Evans and Fox, he is an enthusiastic political newcomer who says he would push for cuts in state spending and a strong property-tax cap. Asked for his opinion on same-sex marriage, he says he supports equal rights and that the sanctity of marriage must be protected. While he supports the current moratorium on drilling in the Marcellus Shale to insure that there are environmental safeguards, he says the economic benefits of drilling are "undeniable."

Assembly, 132nd district: Joe Morelle. Republican Mark Scuderi is a financial advisor who has been active in a variety of civic organizations. He says he opposes gerrymandering and wants a "negative" cap on property taxes until New York's taxes "are in line with other states." On same-sex marriage: he says he supports "equal rights for all legal Americans." On his website, he stresses his concern with the state's "addiction to spending" and says he'll vote against any new taxes. Morelle, who was first elected to the Assembly in 1990, is a former Monroe County legislator and currently chairs the Monroe County Democratic Party. He's a knowledgeable, strong member of the Assembly who isn't afraid to take controversial positions - cosponsoring the Assembly's mayoral control bill, for example. He sometimes takes positions more moderate than some of his liberal colleagues, but he supports marriage equality.

Assembly, 135th district: David Koon. Democratic incumbent Koon, who has the Working Families and Independence Party endorsements, is running against Republican-Conservative Party candidate Mark Johns. Johns is on the staff of the Monroe County Health Department and has served on the Webster Conservation Board. He opposes same-sex marriage, says drilling in the Marcellus Shale should be done only if there are environmental safeguards, and says that a cap on government spending is more important than a property-tax cap, noting that the state often shifts costs down to local governments, forcing them to raise taxes. Koon is a relatively quiet member of the Assembly, but he understands the issues the state faces, and he has thoughtful responses to questions about hydrofracking and public education. And he's firmly in support of marriage equality. "Government," he says, "can not treat citizens in different ways."

(In the 133rd district, incumbent Democrat David Gantt is unopposed. In the 134th, Democratic candidate David Zimmerman is not actively campaigning against incumbent Bill Reilich. We did not analyze the Senate race between incumbent Republican Michael Nozzolio and Edward O'Shea. Nozzolio did not respond to our questionnaire; O'Shea's comments are on our website.)