June 3, 2026 · ALBANY, NEW YORK · 70,023 words · 58 speakers · 2529 segments
The Senate will come to order. I ask everyone to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
In the absence of clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silence and reflection or prayer. (Whereupon, the assemblage respected a moment of silence.)
Reading of the Journal.
In Senate, Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Monday, June 1, 2026, was read and approved. On motion, the Senate adjourned.
Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. The Secretary will read.
Senator Rivera moves to discharge, from the Committee on Health, Assembly Bill Number 2726A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9237, Third Reading Calendar 560. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 10344 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 9452, Third Reading Calendar 651. Senator Bailey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10611A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9403A, Third Reading Calendar 706. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 10350 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9587, Third Reading Calendar 739. Senator Sepúlveda moves to discharge, from the Committee on Judiciary, Assembly Bill Number 8695 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9770, Third Reading Calendar 753. Senator Skoufis moves to discharge, from the Committee on Insurance, Assembly Bill Number 10279A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9179A, Third Reading Calendar 886. Senator Bailey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Insurance, Assembly Bill Number 10443A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9746A, Third Reading Calendar 887. Senator Bailey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Insurance, Assembly Bill Number 10987 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9832, Third Reading Calendar 888. Senator Bailey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Insurance, Assembly Bill Number 5710A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9941, Third Reading Calendar 889. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 10633 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9462, Third Reading Calendar 946. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 10692 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9463, Third Reading Calendar 947. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 10936 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9479A, Third Reading Calendar 948. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 11373 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9588, Third Reading Calendar 949. Senator Hinchey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 11167 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10038, Third Reading Calendar 950. Senator Martinez moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 11168 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10040, Third Reading Calendar 952. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill Number 11443 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10044, Third Reading Calendar 956. Senator Cleare moves to discharge, from the Committee on Consumer Protection, Assembly Bill Number 7875 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9704, Third Reading Calendar 1109. Senator Liu moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 10351 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9406, Third Reading Calendar 1215. Senator Addabbo moves to discharge, from the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Assembly Bill Number 8742 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9319, Third Reading Calendar 1227. Senator Salazar moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8840A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 8353A, Third Reading Calendar 1376.
So ordered. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.
Good morning, Mr. President. There will be an immediate meeting of the Judiciary Committee in Hearing Room A.
Lay it aside. (Laughter.)
There will be an immediate meeting of the Judiciary Committee in Hearing Room A.
The Senate will stand at ease.
The Senate will stand at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 9:14 a.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 4:04 p.m.)
The Senate will come to order. Senator Gianaris.
Madam President, there's a report of the Finance Committee at the desk. Please take that up.
The Secretary will read.
Senator Krueger, from the Committee on Finance, reports the following nominations. As Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation: Kathleen Moser. As Commissioner of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services: Terence O'Leary. As Executive Director of the Office of Cannabis Management: John Kagia.
Move to accept the report of the Finance Committee, and I ask that you recognize Senator Liu.
He's not finished, sorry. Hold on one second, Senator. (Pause.)
I move to accept the report of the Finance Committee and ask that you recognize Senator Liu.
All those in favor of accepting the Finance Committee report please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")
Opposed, nay. (No response.)
The report of the Finance Committee is accepted. Senator Liu on the nominations.
Madam President, the Finance Committee met with the following individuals for their respective appointments: Kathleen Moser, for Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; Terence O'Leary, as Commissioner of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services; And John Kagia, as Executive Director of the Office of Cannabis Management. The committee moves these nominations to the floor.
The Secretary will read.
As Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation: Kathleen Moser.
Senator Serrano on the nomination.
Thank you very much, Madam President. It gives me great -- it's a great honor for me to rise here in support of the nomination of Kathy Moser for Commissioner of Parks in the great State of New York. I have had the wonderful good fortune of knowing Kathy Moser for many years, all in this wonderful space of parks and green spaces, and she has been a tremendous pleasure to work with. Open Space Institute, Department of Environmental Conservation, she has shown tremendous leadership in ensuring that all communities can feel more and more connected with nature. I've often talked about, as chair of the Committee on Arts and Culture and Parks, about the transformative nature of all of our parks and the great outdoors. And indeed, connecting more communities to nature is not just something that sounds great or is poetic in some way. There are real and tangible benefits with connecting with our parks. And I am partial to hiking, in particular in Harriman State Park, which is some of the most beautiful hiking trails you'll find anywhere in the country. But when you're deep in the woods and the canopy is above you and you see nothing but green, your ears become more acute, your vision becomes sharper, you start to become one with the vibration of nature all around you. And this is real and this is tangible. And it is important for all of us to have that connection. And I know that Kathy Moser will ensure that more communities feel connected to our parks, that we can find ways to help communities become stewards of the parks, that we have a parks system that is viable, that all of us can enjoy not just now, but for generations to come. So I applaud Governor Kathy Hochul for putting forth this nomination. I think that this nominee, Kathy Moser, will be an amazing commissioner, that she will be very in line with the needs of our communities. And I certainly look forward to working with her. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator. Senator May on the nomination.
Thank you, Madam President. I rise with excitement and delight to support the nomination of Kathy Moser. We worked together on a bill to make sure that land trusts could acquire land more easily, and she was absolutely relentless in trying to make that happen. And always with the best motivations behind her in terms of wanting us to have more open space, more recreational space, more -- ultimately, more parkland in New York State. So I can't imagine a better person for this job, and I'm excited to work with her moving forward. I vote aye.
Thank you, Senator. The question is on the nomination. Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 57.
The nominee is confirmed. (Standing ovation.)
The Secretary will read.
As Commissioner of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services: Terence O'Leary.
Senator Scarcella-Spanton on the nomination.
Thank you, Madam President. It is my pleasure today to rise to support the nomination of Commissioner Terence O'Leary, and I thank Governor Hochul for this recommendation. Today he is here with his mother, Teresa; his brother, Owen; his wife, Argi; and his two children, Joseph and Finn. And I know you must be very proud of your dad today. I will tell you, for the last four years I have served as the chair on Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs, and I can truly say that our state is a better place because of you, Terry, and it is a safer place. So I could not think of somebody better to fit the role of commissioner. Thank you for your service to this state, and I proudly vote aye and encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.
The question is on the nomination. Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 58.
The nominee is confirmed. (Standing ovation.)
The Secretary will read.
As Executive Director of the Office of Cannabis Management: John Kagia.
Senator Fernandez on the nomination.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very proud to stand up to express my support for John Kagia, because this appointment is almost perfect. When we opened the Office of Cannabis Management in 2021, a year after the bill was signed and established, everyone was literally building the plane as it was flying. And a shout-out to Chris Alexander for doing an amazing job in his tenure. But John was there. John was in the office, John was part of analyzing and marketing and research and really figuring out how to make this new system work, this new office work. And we're in a good place, and it's a lot of credit to John. So for him to now take the reins as the pilot, the director of OCM, we're going to continue to see us flying high, no pun intended -- {Groans from audience.}
I had to, just telling you. {Further groans.}
But this appointment makes all the sense, and I'm looking forward to seeing you continue to make sure that this office runs efficiently, that we see the agency working, the communities are being heard, and that all concerns are addressed and cleared. And I thank you for giving your time to this service. So congratulations on the appointment. I vote aye and look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Senator Fernandez. The question is on the nomination. Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to the nomination, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 57. Nays, 1.
The nomination is confirmed. The nominee is confirmed, excuse me. Please give the nominee a round of applause. Please rise. (Standing ovation.)
Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, we're now going to call simultaneously an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332 and take up previously adopted Resolution 2164, by Senator Brisport, read that resolution's title and call on Senator Brisport.
There will be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332. The Secretary will read on the resolution.
Resolution 2164, by Senator Brisport, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month in the State of New York.
Senator Brisport on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. To my queer siblings, Happy Pride. To our haters: Give up. (Laughter.)
Actually, though, give up. Because if it were possible to create a world without queer people, we would have managed it by now. Throughout history you have demonized us, ostracized us, harassed us, assaulted us, criminalized us, sterilized us, killed us, censored us, fired us, evicted us and denied us medical care. And yet here we are, looking fabulous. The truth is queer people have been fighting fascism since before you learned how to dog-whistle. We wear resistance like quality moisturizer. Like the iconic William Dorsey Swann, born into slavery and living under criminalized homosexuality, he pioneered the tradition of drag balls. When he and his guests were arrested during the police raids of his events, he did not suffer in silence. He fostered an equally proud tradition of advocacy for queer liberation. Nearly a century later, when police raided the Stonewall Inn, that tradition was alive and well for figures like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson to build on. They became instrumental leaders in the uprising that began a new dawn for LGBTQ+ people. See, for queer people resilience is an art form that's been handed down through generations of found family and perfected over centuries. So when your political pundits and Red Pill influencers try to rile you up about how we must be stopped, the questions you should be asking yourself are: Why do they want you fighting an unwinnable war? What is it they don't want you to notice while they've got you harassing women on the street? What changes would actually improve your well-being and financial stability, and who has the power to make those changes? Your hate can harm us. Your hate can even end lives. But your hate cannot bring you peace. Your hate cannot win you a higher wage, affordable medical care, clean air, or lower energy bills. And above all, your hate cannot end our movement. And while you think about that, we'll continue doing what we've always done: Honoring our dead. Celebrating our living. Stitching up each other's wounds. Dancing until dawn and then marching through the morning. We will continue the legacies of icons your best efforts haven't managed to erase. Not only Swann, Rivera and Johnson, but also Harvey Milk, Cecilia Gentile, Ma Rainey, Brenda Howard, Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, Kiyoshi Kuromiya, Pauli Murray, Bayard Rustin, Henry Gerber, Mary Jones, Gladys Bentley and so, so many more. Courageous, flawed, human, they took all the hate the world could throw at them and gave us a roadmap of resilience that we carry forward with pride. So to my queer siblings, I will see you on the dance floor and I will see you on the streets. Happy Pride!
Thank you, Senator Brisport. Senator Bottcher on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. And to Senator Brisport, congratulations for being the queer elder of the New York State Senate now. (Laughter.)
Even though he's quite a bit younger than me, Mr. President. Happy Pride! Although I have to say that Pride feels different right now. And, you know, what I'm hearing more and more is, Why do we need Pride? Why do you need to make it all about yourselves? Why are you talking about it so much? Why do you need a Pride Month at all? And the best way I can put it is that pride is the opposite of shame. And shame is a kind of pain that every one of us has known since the minute that we realized that we were different. It's a sharp pain, shame. And there are people who want us to continue feeling shame. They think we should be ashamed. That has been true, Mr. President, for thousands of years. Thousands of years of persecution. We've been hunted down, attacked, murdered, jailed. I think about the countless people throughout history who have had to live loveless lives. Think about that for a minute. Think about the person that you love most in the world -- your spouse, a person that you couldn't live without. Now imagine being told you couldn't talk to them again. And if you got -- if you were seen holding their hand, you'd be put in jail and they would throw away the key. That's been happening for thousands of years. And it's happening in the world right now. In the grand scheme of history, it was very recently that we've achieved progress. It was here in New York State in 1969 when the cops went to raid the Stonewall Inn. They used to pull up to bars with a paddy wagon, and they would raid the bar and they would pull everyone out and they would take them away. They would publish their name in the newspaper. They would lose everything they had -- their jobs, their families. But one night in June of 1969, the people there said: No more, not tonight. And they fought back. And the word spread, and hundreds of people were in the street -- on the first night, on the second night, and they kept coming back. And it ignited a global movement for human rights for LGBTQ people around the world. The next year, they gathered again at the same place. They didn't call it Pride yet. They didn't know what it was. But that's why June is Pride Month. And we have to reflect during Pride on how much progress we've made in such a short amount of time. I don't know of another human rights movement that has made so much progress in such a short amount of time. Even during my lifetime, if you had told me when I was a kid in the Adirondacks who felt like I was the only person in the world going through what I was going through, that in my lifetime an openly gay person would win the Iowa Caucus to be president of the United States, I never would have believed you. I certainly wouldn't have believed that I'd be standing here, or that in 2011 I'd be standing right there in that corner when this body voted to make marriage the law, same-sex marriage the law of the land in New York State. And by the way, New York State ignited nationwide marriage equality. Within a few years we had marriage equality in all 50 states. So we've made tremendous progress. However, that did not come easily. It came because people put their lives on the line and they put their bodies on the line and they fought for it. And along the way we overcame an AIDS epidemic that killed 100,000 people here in New York. I've met people who lost every friend they had to AIDS. But we overcame with a determination that's been forged through thousands of years of hardship. Now, the progress we've made has been extraordinary, but not all members of our community have shared in that progress. And I feel extraordinarily lucky to be here. Around the world, if you display same-sex affection, there are countries where you will get thrown in jail -- Ghana last week passed a law saying minimum three years. That even includes helping someone who's gay. Russia, the Middle East. But here in the United States, we have lawmakers who express admiration over those policies. And they wish we had policies like that here. A sitting member of Congress on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, tweeted that homosexuality has no place in the United States. Today a Gallup Poll came out that found that the number of Republicans who think that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable has dropped from 56 to 36 percent in four years. No member of our community is under more threat, under more attack than the trans community -- trans people, gender-nonconforming people. And they are being viciously targeted in our country right now. Viciously. No amount of discrimination that I've ever experienced in my life can compare to what trans people are going through right now. Their rates of suicide, unemployment, homelessness, addiction -- off the charts. Because they're being scapegoated in our country. And people say, I don't understand it. I just don't get it. And I don't like it. That's what they said about gays and lesbians 40 years ago, the exact thing they said about us 40 years ago. Now, gays and lesbians have made a lot of progress. One of the problems that trans people are facing is that we've made progress as gays and lesbians because we came out. People got to know us as their children, their neighbor, their coworker, their parent, their barista, their hairdresser. They got to know us and they realized that the tropes about us weren't true. These evil tropes that we were predators, that we're trying to recruit children -- the same kind of tropes that have been trafficked for thousands of years. Most people, they haven't met transgender people in their lives, or at least they didn't know that they have. They're so few in number, comparatively. If people did know trans people, like I have the privilege of, they would know that they are just people trying to live their lives, trying to take care of themselves and their families. They don't want to have to be out in the streets marching. They just want to live their lives as Americans. And by the way, they didn't choose to be trans any more than I chose to be gay. My life would -- could be a lot easier. I'd probably be up in the Adirondacks sitting on a porch right now drinking a Miller Lite -- (Laughter.)
-- working at my brother's fly-fishing shop. I have to go to the gym six days a week, Mr. President. (Laughter.)
Now, there are those who would like to cleave us apart. They would like the gay and lesbian community to leave the trans community behind, because we have so many rights. We can marry, we can have families, we can do so much here in New York. But that is not going to happen. We are one community united. We will not be divided. We will not turn against each other. We will not let trans people fall behind. The good news is that in the arc of history, it does bend towards justice. And we will win in the end. Over time, justice advances. And I truly believe that future generations will look back at what we're going through now and they'll be truly astonished at how much progress we've made. I know that the people who opposed our rights, that their ancestors are going to be ashamed of what their forebears did. So today we also celebrate our accomplishments, our community, the people that we're so proud of throughout history: Lindsay Graham -- I'm just kidding, Mr. President. (Laughter.)
How boring would the world be without our community? How much more harsh overhead lighting would there be in the world, Mr. President? (Laughter.)
Come to Suite 902 across the street. You will see no overhead lighting. You will see lamps with dimmers, Mr. President. So this Pride Month we celebrate how far we've come, we honor those who fought before us, we recommit ourselves to the work that remains because we will not be cowed, we will not be afraid, we will not go back into the closet, we will not stop fighting until we achieve full equality for everyone in our community in every corner of this country and around the globe. Because we're here, we're queer, get used to it! Thank you, Mr. President. I vote aye.
Thank you, Senator Bottcher. Happy Pride, everyone. The resolution was adopted on May 27th. Senator Gianaris.
Let's now take up previously adopted Resolution 2259, by Senator Cleare, read its title, and call on Senator Cleare.
The Secretary will read.
Resolution 2259, by Senator Cleare, mourning the death of Susan Wright, distinguished citizen and devoted member of her community.
Senator Cleare on the resolution.
Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to the inspiring life of Susan Irene Gayles Wright of Harlem. Susan Wright was a beloved Harlem neighborhood leader, civic figure, and community builder. She worked just as hard behind the scenes to better Manhattan as her husband, former Assemblymember Keith L.T. Wright, and her son, Assemblymember Jordan Wright, have worked in the halls of the New York State Assembly. Throughout her life in Harlem, Susan Wright was deeply involved in local philanthropy, community outreach, and neighborhood development. Her longtime service to the Studio Museum in Harlem was legendary, as was the bedrock of faith that she placed in her home church, St. Philip's Episcopal Church in Harlem, and in exemplary community cornerstones like our treasured Figure Skating in Harlem. Susan Wright has served as an extraordinary example of how to embody leadership, service and selfless commitments. She has served as and will continue to be a beacon of inspiration to her family, the Harlem neighborhood, and the greater New York State community. Her many contributions and dedicated service to Harlem -- and even the world, by way of the Studio Museum in Harlem -- will never be forgotten. Of all the accomplishments and memories that I have of Susan Wright, I think the most strong impression I got of her was that of being a fearless mother. She was dedicated to her family and her children, and may her memory of that never be forgotten. And I think that shows in her son, Jordan Wright, who sits in the Assembly today. I'm going to share just a little story that came to me just now. I remember Assemblymember Jordan Wright was stuck in the elevator of the State Office Building in Harlem. And I remember Susan Wright running across the street from where she worked to get him out. And I have never been more afraid for the commissioner of OGS than I was on that day. (Laughter.)
I think that fear overrode anything else that we could think of. And we were all trying to hustle to get you out of that elevator that day. But she was fierce and she was dedicated in everything that she did. Just a wonderful member of our community contributing in every way that she could. May she rest in power, grace, and peace. Thank you, Madam President. I proudly vote aye.
Thank you, Senator. Senator Bailey on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Cleare, for this important resolution to celebrate the life and legacy of Ms. Susan Wright. You know, when the Bronx and Harlem, you know, united enjoy, but also when we mourn, we mourn together. And I couldn't not take this opportunity to show some love to my good friend and former Assemblymember and Manhattan County chair Keith Wright and -- he's like my little brother -- Jordan Wright. I remember -- Jordan's love for his mom was evident, but I remember one time last year there was a panel about Black men in the judiciary, and it spoke about his grandfather, Bruce Wright. And Jordan made remarks that were way more hasty than he usually would be, and he's like, "Look, I got to get home to Mom, I got to make sure I get home and make sure she's good." And his love for her shone through in that moment, and it is always shining through. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I took this moment in time to recognize Ms. Wright. And to the Wright family, we see you, we care for you, we're here for you, and we proudly celebrate her legacy. And I vote aye on the resolution, Madam President. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator Bottcher on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam President. I also wanted to speak on this resolution because although I didn't have the honor of meeting Mrs. Wright, I've over the course of my years in government had the honor of knowing the Wright family: Jordan, his father Keith. And she did a phenomenal job raising Jordan Wright. And her family has shown so much strength during this time, so much courage. I've been at events with Jordan and his father where people have asked them, How she's doing, how's your mom doing, how's your wife doing? And she wasn't doing well. And the strength that they demonstrated throughout is just so admirable. So my -- we're sending you love and light during this difficult time. Thank you very much.
To our guest, Assemblymember Jordan Wright, may you continue to live the legacy of your mother, Susan, and of the Wright family. We recognize, we mourn her loss. Please rise and be recognized at this time. (Extended standing ovation.)
The resolution was adopted on June 2nd. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, there's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk. Can we take that up, please.
The Secretary will read.
Senator Stewart-Cousins, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bills: Senate Print 14A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 40C, by Senator Walczyk, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 1058, by Senator Serrano, an act to amend the Multiple Dwelling Law; Senate Print 1169B, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the Civil Rights Law; Senate Print 1330A, by Senator Parker, an act to amend the Public Service Law; Senate Print 1422A, by Senator Liu, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 1679, by Senator Rolison, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law; Senate Print 4466A, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Civil Rights Law; Senate Print 4468C, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law; Senate Print 4602B, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the Election Law; Senate Print 4725A, by Senator Skoufis, an act in relation to authorizing Michael Winston Hoard, the widower of Kathy Marie Dwyer-Hoard, to file a new service retirement application; Senate Print 4927B, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 5510, by Senator Parker, an act to require the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to develop recommendations regarding the establishment of microgrids; Senate Print 5936A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law; Senate Print 6048A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to authorize Susan Gillinder, the widow of Robert C. Ritchie, to file a new service retirement application; Senate Print 6130A, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Executive Law; Senate Print 6319B, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law; Senate Print 6845B, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 7136, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Education Law; Senate Print 7327A, by Senator Brouk, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law; Senate Print 7491B, by Senator Brisport, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules; Senate Print 7529, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Retirement and Social Security Law; Senate Print 7544B, by Senator Brouk, an act to amend the Public Health Law; Senate Print 7602B, by Senator Walczyk, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 7638B, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the General Municipal Law; Senate Print 7817A, by Senator Baskin, an act to authorize the widow of William James Middlebrooks to file a retirement option election form; Senate Print 7835A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 7908B, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law; Senate Print 7970A, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law; Senate Print 8026A, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the Social Services Law; Senate Print 8211B, by Senator Addabbo, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law; Senate Print 8451B, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 8473, by Senator Mayer, an act directing the Department of Health to contract with a qualified entity for a feasibility study; Senate Print 8583C, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Insurance Law; Senate Print 8688A, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York; Senate Print 8717, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law; Senate Print 8746, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Tax Law; Senate Print 8844A, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 8864A, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 9034B, by Senator Stavisky, an act to amend the Education Law; Senate Print 9088A, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 9093, by Senator Fernandez, an act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law; Senate Print 9100A, by Senator Harckham, an act in relation to authorizing Tina Russo to receive a recalculation of her retirement benefit; Senate Print 9108, by Senator Ortt, an act in relation to authorizing the Town of Niagara to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parklands; Senate Print 9133, by Senator May, an act to amend the Real Property Law; Senate Print 9184A, by Senator Ryan, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law; Senate Print 9250, by Senator Hinchey, an act in relation to authorizing Janay M. Gasparini to take the competitive civil service examination; Senate Print 9263A, by Senator Jackson, an act to amend the Public Service Law; Senate Print 9328, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law; Senate Print 9338A, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Penal Law; Senate Print 9429, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law; Senate Print 9446A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 9451, by Senator Fahy, an act granting retroactive Tier IV membership in the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System to Katie Adamek; Senate Print 9527, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law; Senate Print 9546A, by Senator Sutton, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 9565A, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Education Law; Senate Print 9567B, by Senator Ryan, an act to amend the General Business Law; Senate Print 9620A, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Public Health Law; Senate Print 9685, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law; Senate Print 9877, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend Chapter 455 of the Laws of 1997; Senate Print 9878A, by Senator Baskin, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 9891B, by Senator Sanders, an act to amend the Banking Law; Senate Print 9930B, by Senator Sutton, an act to amend the Public Health Law; Senate Print 9949A, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 10010, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Facilities Development Corporation Act; Senate Print 10022, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law; Senate Print 10028, by Senator Walczyk, an act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law; Senate Print 10077, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the General Municipal Law; Senate Print 10161, by Senator Martinez, an act in relation to authorizing and directing the conveyance of a conservation easement; Senate Print 10181, by Senator Harckham, an act establishing the Birch Hill Highview Water District; Senate Print 10185, by Senator May, an act to authorize the Town of Aurelius to continue the use of an existing water district capital reserve fund; Senate Print 10199, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Multiple Dwelling Law; Senate Print 10240, by Senator Harckham, an act in relation to authorizing Larry Mendel to receive his 30 years of service credit; Senate Print 10261, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the General Municipal Law; Senate Print 10275, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Navigation Law; Senate Print 10276A, by Senator Weber, an act to amend the Town Law; Senate Print 10283, by Senator Webb, an act authorizing the County of Cortland to transfer ownership of Linear Park to Lime Hollow Nature Center, Inc.; Senate Print 10302, by Senator Harckham, an act authorizing Breanne M. Smith to receive a refund of certain accumulated contributions paid to the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System; Senate Print 10337, by Senator Ryan, an act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law; Senate Print 10339, by Senator Rivera, an act in relation to authorizing the Commissioner of General Services to provide compensation to Catholic Guardian Services for certain expenses; Senate Print 10344, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Insurance Law; Senate Print 10365, by Senator Liu, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law; Senate Print 10377, by Senator Serrano, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law; Senate Print 10384, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 10550, by Senator Weik, an act authorizing the Church of Pentecost, USA, Inc., to receive retroactive real property tax-exempt status; Senate Print 10551, by Senator Stec, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law; Senate Print 10558, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, an act to amend Chapter 573 of the Laws of 2025; Senate Print 10559A, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law; Senate Print 10596, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law; Senate Print 10598, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law; Senate Print 10601, by Senator Rolison, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law; Senate Print 10637A, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to Sections 4 and 5-b of Article 3 of the Constitution. All bills report directly to third reading.
Move to accept the report of the Rules Committee.
All those in favor of accepting the report of the Rules Committee please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")
Opposed, nay. (No response.)
The report of the Rules Committee is accepted. Senator Gianaris.
At this time, Mr. President, let's take up the reading of the calendar.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 184, Senate Print 6985A, by Senator May, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 184, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, Helming, Ortt and Walczyk. Also Senator Griffo. Ayes, 55. Nays, 6.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 432, Senate Print 6954B, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 432, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 494, Senate Print 7160A, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Elder Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 556, Senate Print 1911C, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 556, voting in the negative are Senators Griffo, Ortt and Walczyk. Ayes, 58. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 560, Assembly Bill Number 2726A, by Assemblymember Paulin, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect six months after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 578, Senate Print 5940, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Executive Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
In relation to Calendar 578, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Helming, Palumbo, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senator Martins. Ayes, 55. Nays, 6.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 637, Senate Print 9433B, by Senator Parker, an act to amend the Public Service Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect January 1, 2027.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 651, Assembly Bill Number 10344, by Assemblymember Kay, an act to amend Chapter 63 of the Laws of 2021.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 651, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello and Ortt. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 702, Senate Print 5311, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 706, Assembly Bill Number 10611A, by Assemblymember Woerner, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 706, voting in the negative are Senators Martinez and Skoufis. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 726, Senate Print 9239A, by Senator Cleare, an act in relation to the Caregiver Coordinating Commission.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 739, Assembly Bill Number 10350, by Assemblymember Powers, an act to amend Chapter 274 of the Laws of 2010.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 740, Senate Print 9635, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 740, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Gallivan, Griffo, Oberacker, Ortt, Stec, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 51. Nays, 10.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 753, Assembly Bill Number 8695, by Assemblymember Rajkumar, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 753, voting in the negative are Senators Martinez and Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed. There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Sanders moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7849C and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 6952C, Third Reading Calendar 779.
Substitution so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 779, Assembly Bill Number 7849C, by Assemblymember Anderson, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 779, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 837, Assembly Bill Number 8939A, by Assemblymember Paulin, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 886, Assembly Bill Number 10279A, by Assemblymember Weprin, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of January.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Skoufis to explain his vote.
Thank you very much, Mr. President, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for a moment. Almost a year ago, on National Widows Day, I had a constituent by the name of Michele Gregorio reach out to my office to discuss something that my staff and I had never heard of, something called a "widow's penalty." And she reached out after 12 years. Her husband had passed away 12 years prior. She reached out because she felt that at some point she needed to stop complaining and actually reach out and try and fix this problem, this situation that had occurred to her. And that was that after her husband passed away, her insurance agent advised her that using whatever actuarial table that her carrier used, her rates were going to go up as a result of simply being a widow. And as anyone here can imagine and either sympathize or empathize with, this is one of the most heartbreaking moments of any individual's existence, losing their loved one that they are married to. And certainly, of course, after losing your spouse you still have to pay your mortgage bills, you still have to pay your electric bills, you still have to pay all the bills associated with your livelihood, and they don't increase as a result of being a widow, but in her case and untold others' cases, they had to pay higher insurance premiums as a result of their deep and profound loss. And so working with insurance stakeholders and colleagues -- including Senator Bailey, chair of Insurance -- I'm thrilled to advance this bill really in honor of Michele Gregorio's family and her situation and correct this for all future New Yorkers who lose their loved one. Thank you, Mr. President. I vote yes.
Senator Skoufis to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, at this time there will be an immediate meeting, a joint meeting of the Committees on Finance, Transportation and Corporations, in Room 124.
There will be an immediate joint meeting of the Finance, Corporations and Transportation committees in Room 124.
Let's continue with the active list, please.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 887, Assembly Bill Number 10443A, by Assemblymember Weprin, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 888, Assembly Bill Number 10987, by Assemblymember Hunter, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 889, Senate Print Number 5710A, by Assemblymember Solages, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 890, Senate Print 6263, by Senator Griffo, an act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 919, Senate Print 9894, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 919, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Lanza, Martins, Palumbo, Rhoads, Stec and Weik. Ayes, 53. Nays, 8.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 946, Assembly Bill Number 10633, by Assemblymember Hunter, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 946, voting in the negative are Senators Brisport and Martinez. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 947, Assembly Bill Number 10692, by Assemblymember Schiavoni, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 947, voting in the negative are Senators Ortt and Skoufis. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 948, Assembly Bill Number 10936, by Assemblymember Glick, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 948, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Gallivan, Murray, Ortt, Rhoads, Ryan, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senator Griffo. Ayes, 51. Nays, 10.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 949, Assembly Bill Number 11373, by Assemblymember Kassay, an act to amend Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2014.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 950, Assembly Bill Number 11167, by Assemblymember Alvarez, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 950, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 952, Assembly Bill Number 11168, by Assemblymember Hooks, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 952, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 956, Assembly Bill Number 11443, by Assemblymember Glick, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 986, Senate Print 9759, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Labor Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 986, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Griffo, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 43. Nays, 18.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1002, Senate Print 10070, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Social Services Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1002, voting in the negative: Senator Martinez. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1046, Senate Print 2438A, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1046, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1085, Senate Print 9979, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1109, Assembly Bill Number 7875, by Assemblymember Gallagher, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1109, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1128, Senate Print 10017, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 7. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1193, Senate Print 1087, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Election Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1193, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Griffo, Lanza, Martins, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 43. Nays, 18.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1209, Senate Print 7367A, by Senator Stavisky, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of July.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1215, Assembly Bill Number 10351, by Assemblymember Lupardo, an act to amend the Civil Service Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1223, Senate Print 7645, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1223, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1227, Assembly Bill Number 8742, by Assemblymember Lunsford, an act to amend the Business Corporation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 6. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1227, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1229, Senate Print 10176, by Senator Gallivan, an act to amend the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1229, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1241, Senate Print 10097A, by Senator Parker, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1241, voting in the negative are Senators Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Martinez, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik -- Senator Ryan. In relation to Calendar 1241, voting in the negative: Senators Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Martinez, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Rhoads, Ryan, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 47. Nays, 14.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1255, Senate Print 10170, by Senator Cleare, in relation to directing the State Board of Real Property Tax Services to conduct a study on the feasibility of property tax revisions.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1257, Senate Print 10203, by Senator Bynoe, in relation to authorizing the County of Nassau assessor to accept an application for a real property tax exemption.
Lay it aside for the day.
The bill will be laid aside for the day.
Calendar Number 1270, Senate Print 8453, by Senator Rhoads, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1276, Senate Print 9431, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1278, Senate Print 9749, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1278, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Griffo, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Also Senator Oberacker. Ayes, 55. Nays, 6.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1280, Print 9752, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Lay it aside for the day.
Lay it aside for the day. There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Hinchey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 9609 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9592, Third Reading Calendar 1293.
Substitution so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1293, Assembly Bill Number 9609, by Assemblymember Paulin, an act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1324, Senate Print 9269, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Lay it aside.
Calendar Number 1335, Senate Print 247, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect 18 months after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1335, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1336, Senate Print 519, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1336, voting in the negative are Senators Chan, Lanza and Ortt. Ayes, 58. Nays 3.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1338, Senate Print 704A, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect September 1, 2026.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1338, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1359, Senate Print 5494A, by Senator Bynoe, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1359, voting in the negative are Senators Ortt and Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1361, Senate Print 6019, by Senator Baskin, an act to repeal paragraph 2 of subsection (e-1) of Section 606 of the Tax Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1366, Senate Print 7280, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the same date and in the same manner as Chapter 442 of the Laws of 2024.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1372, Senate Print 7951B, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the State Finance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1372, voting in the negative are Senators Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Griffo, Martins, Ortt, Rhoads, Walczyk and Weik.
Senator Rhoads to explain his vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. This legislation certainly is well-intentioned, but I think part of the issue that I certainly have is that the State Department of Transportation creates these plantings in various locations throughout my district, and I know this occurs in several districts -- they create these plantings and then fail to maintain them. And my concern with this piece of legislation is that we're creating native pollinator planting funds to plant these plants along our highways, which just become sources of aggravation for many of our local community associations, civic associations, who I continuously get phone calls from because the State Department of Transportation is not maintaining them. They become unsightly, overgrown messes. And so while this legislation may be well-intentioned, the reality is until we do something about holding the State Department of Transportation accountable for maintaining these plantings that they put in, I don't think we should be adding to the problem. So thank you, Mr. President. I'll be voting no.
Senator Rhoads to be recorded in the negative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1372, voting in the negative are Senators Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Griffo, Martins, Ortt, Rhoads, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 54. Nays, 7.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1375, Senate Print 8252C, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 29. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1376, Assembly Bill Number 8840A, by Assemblymember Hooks, an act to amend the Correction Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Salazar to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. We recently have seen numerous incidents where state prisons are forcing women who are menstruating to remove their tampons or pads from their bodies if they want to visit their incarcerated loved ones. This is of course a humiliating and discriminatory practice that essentially forces New Yorkers either to bleed through their clothes until they're given an opportunity to use a menstrual product again or forgo visitation altogether. There's no justification for this. These incidents make it clear that Department of Corrections does not currently have sufficient policies in place to protect against the discriminatory treatment of women on the basis of their sex. And this bill would prohibit this practice. It would prohibit state and local correctional facilities from denying entry or denying contact visits to visitors on the sole basis that they are using menstrual products or have an internal contraceptive device, known as an IUD. For more than a year now, my office has received dozens of complaints from New Yorkers who have been denied the ability to visit their loved ones in state prisons solely due to erroneous body scans. In several documented cases, period products that appear in the body scans were falsely identified as contraband. And while no evidence of contraband was otherwise found, these individuals were barred from visitation or required to remove the menstrual product for no reason other than a security personnel's interpretation of the body scan. In many of these cases the individuals reasonably requested to be subject to alternative search methods to prove that they didn't have contraband, but security personnel refused. By passing this bill today we can end this deeply disturbing pattern of treating civilian visitors in a degrading way while still prioritizing security in prisons or jails. I vote aye.
Senator Salazar to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1376, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 21. Nays, 20.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1377, Senate Print 8363A, by Senator Fernandez, an act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1377, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1378, Senate Print 8457, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 9. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1379, Senate Print 8541, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the Social Services Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Webb to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. One of the many things that we continue to work on in this chamber is improving access to maternal healthcare for our expectant mothers. And at the same time, we know that there are significant barriers that continue to persist. We know that everyone always hopes for a smooth and healthy pregnancy. And unfortunately, there are many potential complications throughout this very important physical process that can arise. What this bill will do is that it will require Medicaid to automatically authorize coverage for blood pressure monitors without a prescription for individuals who are pregnant. High blood pressure may begin prior to pregnancy, or it can develop during the pregnancy. High blood pressure in pregnant individuals can cause several health complications, including chronic hypertension and preeclampsia. Now, folks may have heard of this term "preeclampsia" before. Preeclampsia is a type of high blood pressure that generally develops during pregnancy and can damage the organ systems -- typically, the liver or the kidneys -- during pregnancy. At the same time, preeclampsia disproportionately impacts Black women. Black women are 60 percent more likely to develop preeclampsia than white women. This is an easily addressed issue. By facilitating easier access to at-home blood-pressure monitors, we can help expecting parents to identify high-blood-pressure conditions early on, which will allow for more prompt treatment and reduce risk of complications during delivery. Currently in New York, Medicaid provides up to $50 in coverage for blood-pressure cuffs and devices, but only if ordered by a qualified practitioner as part of a comprehensive treatment plan that requires monitoring and recording of blood-pressure readings at home. This creates unnecessary barriers to access. In addition to the problems for coverage requirements, it is also very concerning that none of the devices covered by Medicaid are validated by the American Medical Association, that damaged devices and cuffs are not being replaced, and that larger cuffs are not covered. Most concerning, the devices that have been proven to be more beneficial to pregnant and postpartum individuals are not covered at all by Medicaid. This bill will help to fix this. It will require Medicaid to automatically authorize coverage for blood-pressure monitors without a prescription for individuals who are pregnant. I would also like to thank the Assembly sponsor, Assemblymember Jackson, for her advocacy on this very commonsense bill. I proudly vote aye, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator Webb to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1380, Senate Print 8580A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1380, voting in the negative: Senator Ortt. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed. There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Gounardes moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 9245A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 8587A, Third Reading Calendar 1381.
The substitution is so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1381, Assembly Bill Number 9245A, by Assemblymember Rosenthal, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1381, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1382, Senate Print 8592A, by Senator Sutton, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1382, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1383, Senate Print 8598A, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Lay it aside.
Lay it aside.
Calendar Number 1384, Senate Print 8637, by Senator Fernandez, an act to amend the State Finance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed. There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Hinchey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 9026A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 8701A, Third Reading Calendar 1385.
Substitution so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1385, Assembly Bill Number 9026A, by Assemblymember Torres, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1385, voting in the negative: Senator Ortt. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1391, Senate Print 9024, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1391, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Martins, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 42. Nays, 19.
The bill is passed. There is a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Hinchey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10052 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9041, Third Reading Calendar 1392.
Substitution so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1392, Assembly Bill Number 10052, by Assemblymember Shrestha, an act to amend Chapter 443 of the Laws of 2006.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1392, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, Martins, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Skoufis, Stec, Tedisco and Weik. Ayes, 46. Nays, 15.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1430, Senate Print 10118, by Senator Murray, an act to amend the Town Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1430, voting in the negative are Senators Griffo, Ryan, Sepúlveda, Skoufis and Weik. Ayes, 56. Nays, 5.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1431, Senate Print 10134, by Senator Weber, an act authorizing the Congregation Divrei Chaim to receive retroactive real property tax-exempt status.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1431, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's initial calendar.
Let's move right to the supplemental calendar, please.
The Secretary will read. There are substitutions at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Rolison moves to discharge, from the Committee on Codes, Assembly Bill Number 2020 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 1679, Third Reading Calendar 1610. Senator Mayer moves to discharge, from the Committee on Codes, Assembly Bill Number 9195A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 4466A, Third Reading Calendar 1611. Senator Ramos moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7376B and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 4927B, Third Reading Calendar 1615. Senator Parker moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 1392 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 5510, Third Reading Calendar 1616. Senator Skoufis moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 6744 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 7136, Third Reading Calendar 1622. Senator Brouk moves to discharge, from the Committee on Codes, Assembly Bill Number 7345A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 7327, Third Reading Calendar 1623. Senator Brouk moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 1541B and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 7544B, Third Reading Calendar 1626. Senator Hinchey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8091B and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 7638B, Third Reading Calendar 1628. Senator Fahy moves to discharge, from the Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill Number 8617A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 7970A, Third Reading Calendar 1632. Senator Stavisky moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10334A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9034B, Third Reading Calendar 1643. Senator May moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10102 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9133, Third Reading Calendar 1648. Senator Ryan moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10328A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9184A, Third Reading Calendar 1649. Senator Jackson moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10160A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9263A, Third Reading Calendar 1657. Senator Fahy moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10518 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9328, Third Reading Calendar 1652. Senator Myrie moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8904A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9429, Third Reading Calendar 1654. Senator Harckham moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10523A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 9446A, Third Reading Calendar 1655. Senator Webb moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10455 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9527, Third Reading Calendar 1657. Senator Scarcella-Spanton moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10310B and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9620A, Third Reading Calendar 1661. Senator Fahy moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10653 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9685, Third Reading Calendar 1662. Senator Myrie moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10338 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9877, Third Reading Calendar 1663. Senator Sutton moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11146B and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 9330B, Third Reading Calendar 1666. Senator Martinez moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10341 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10161, Third Reading Calendar 1672. Senator Webb moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11296 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10261, Third Reading Calendar 1677. Senator Martinez moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11188 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10275, Third Reading Calendar 1678. Senator Ryan moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11297 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10337, Third Reading Calendar 1682. Senator Bailey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11411 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10344, Third Reading Calendar 1684. Senator Liu moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11378 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10365, Third Reading Calendar 1685. Senator Serrano moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11348 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10377, Third Reading Calendar 1686. Senator Stec moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11472 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10551, Third Reading Calendar 1689. Senator Stewart-Cousins moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11476 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10558, Third Reading Calendar 1690. Senator Kavanagh moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11457B and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10559A, Third Reading Calendar 1691. Senator Rolison moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 1934A and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10601, Third Reading Calendar 1694.
Substitutions so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1604, Senate Print 14A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1605, Senate Print 40C, by Senator Walczyk, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1606, Senate Print 1058, by Senator Serrano, an act to amend the Multiple Dwelling Law.
Read the last section.
Lay it aside.
Lay it aside.
Calendar Number 1608, Senate Print 1330A, by Senator Parker, an act to amend the Public Service Law.
Lay it aside.
Lay it aside.
Calendar Number 1609, Senate Print --
Senator Serrano.
Mr. President, let's temporarily stand at ease.
The Senate will temporarily stand at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 5:31 p.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 5:46 p.m.)
The Senate will return to order. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, while we continue to work through the supplemental calendar, let's jump to Calendar 1695 on the supplemental calendar, please.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1695, Senate Print 10637A, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to Section 4 and 5-b of Article 3 of the Constitution.
Lay it aside.
Lay it aside.
Let's now take that bill up on the controversial calendar, please.
The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1695, Senate Print Number 10637A, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to Section 4 and 5-b of Article 3 of the Constitution.
Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?
Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield?
It's Walczyk Wednesday! Let's go. Let's go.
The sponsor yields. (Laughter; off the record.)
Yes, he yields. The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. Is partisan gerrymandering good for the health of our representative democracy?
In an ideal circumstance, no.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
As New York leads on many issues -- and I get many lectures, I think, sometimes about things that I think we fail at leading at -- we've been a leader on creating independent redistricting commissions and trying to create a bipartisan situation for redistricting. Why would we move to make partisan gerrymandering part of the -- well, really the rule of our process?
I have so much to take issue with in terms of what you just asked. First of all, you used the term "independent" in one instance and "bipartisan" in the other. Those are two very different things. I know the commission is called the Independent Redistricting Commission, but in reality it is a bipartisan redistricting commission, in the sense that they are political appointees. You know, if you look at California, for example, they have a more, quote, unquote, independent process where literally random citizens are selected to serve on their commission. That's genuinely independent. This is bipartisan. You also said that it serves as a model. I would vehemently disagree with that. I think that when this was enacted or passed for the first time -- what was it, 2011, 2012, whenever it was -- you know, as luck would have it, it was the same night as the Tier 6 vote that we had here in this chamber. And the members of the Democratic Conference who were here at that time walked out on both of those votes because we knew they were both bad for the state. And I think we've been proven correct. The commission, by both accounts, was a fiasco and a failure when it tried to do its work in 2022. And so it clearly needed to be fixed.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Over a decade ago we took up the -- you know, it's called the Independent Redistricting Commission, but sure, we could refer to it as a bipartisan redistricting commission. I think that probably more accurately describes its function when it comes to appointees. And after that was taken up in both houses of the Legislature, it ended up on the ballot in 2014 for New Yorkers, after receiving bipartisan support in this chamber and in the Assembly chamber. So it showed up on the ballots in 2014, and New Yorkers flipped their ballot over and, by an overwhelming majority, they supported the bipartisan Independent Redistricting Commission. Were voters wrong when they voted on that amendment in direct democracy on the back of their ballot? Were the voters wrong?
Well, I did not support that referendum. And so the voters made a choice; we certainly respect that. As you point out, that was over a decade ago at this point. And so things change, we reevaluate the status of things. And we are proposing some changes here that would improve the process, in our opinion. I would also point out that whatever we're proposing here, whatever we vote on, doesn't take effect unless it's ratified by the voters themselves. So they'll have the opportunity to say whether they think there should be changes or not.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
The reality is since that time, over the last decade, the politics in Albany have changed, the party in power in this chamber being the biggest change in our politics. We had a Democrat Governor at the time, we had Democrat control of the Assembly Chamber, but you had Republican control of this chamber. That's the politics that changed. So after Democrats took control of the chamber, they then tried again to amend the Constitution in the years right after they took control of the chamber, and that ended up on the ballot again in 2021, trying to effect redistricting in the last round. Were the voters wrong when they rejected the attempts from the Democrat majorities? And this wasn't with bipartisan support. Were they wrong when they rejected the Democrat majorities when they were attempting to add partisan redistricting back into the process?
You know, whether I supported that referendum or not, the voters made their selection. So I won't characterize the correctness of their choice. It's their choice. And we honor it and we abide by it. The same way we make choices in this chamber and you disagree probably with most of them, but I assume you're abiding by the laws as we pass them. And so again, I'll point out that that was many, many years ago and there have been some significant developments as it relates to redistricting around the country just in the last couple of years. And so we deemed that these changes were something we wanted to put before the voters to let them opine once again. I should also point out, because we've been talking about the commission itself, that what we're proposing here does not change the makeup of the commission or its purpose in the process. What's changing is some of the criteria that are used as the commission does it its work.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. But it does change some of the process. Maybe not, you know, certainly how they draw maps within the Independent Redistricting Commission, but certainly the overall process. One of the things that was on the back of the ballot in 2021 that New Yorkers rejected was a proposal to eliminate the two-thirds majority requirement in the Legislature to approve the maps. Doesn't this bill do that? Doesn't it eliminate the two-thirds majority that the voters have already told us, in 2021, "no"?
Does it remove that requirement? Yes, it does.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Why?
Because as I just pointed out, the landscape as it relates to the redistricting processes throughout the country has changed significantly. We have states that predominantly lean of a certainly political persuasion that have decided to, I would say, get very aggressive with the partisanship of their processes and the fact that they have stepped in mid-decade to do redistricting -- of course I'm talking about Texas, Florida and some other states. And then you layer on top of that the recent Supreme Court decision in the Callais decision, which has now led to Alabama, Louisiana, and some other states specifically trying to eliminate Black representation from Congress, we think that all of those aggressive redistricting actions by these other states required a response from New York. That's why.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
You think what those other states did was right?
Obviously not.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Then why would we do something that's wrong in New York State?
Because we are playing a game that we are not playing alone. And so if the other participants in this process are playing by a different set of rules, to not be able to respond in kind would be irresponsible.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Now, as I understand, this bill looks to -- and this is first -- what we refer to as first passage. So this will have to pass both houses of the Legislature in successive legislatures, so it would also have to pass next time around and then end up on the back of the ballot for voters once again I hope to reject. As I understand this constitutional amendment, the way that it's laid out it changes some things in the Independent Redistricting Commission and the way that they vote on maps. It also changes a timeline for the Independent Redistricting Commission. By January 15 they would have to bring maps after the census. So following the census, January 15 comes up, they have to bring maps to the Legislature. Currently it's written where if we reject those maps one time, they would be sent back to the Independent Redistricting Commission to do again. Does this eliminate the second time that currently they're required in the New York State Constitution to bring a second set of maps for the Legislature to review?
That's correct. I do want to correct one of your -- the statements in your preamble to that question, which is that we do not change the way the IRC votes on its maps. But yes, it would -- it would remove the second opportunity that you're asking about.
I didn't -- I didn't hear you.
We're not changing anything about how the IRC votes on maps. I think you had indicated that as a part of your initial question, as a premise to your question. We do not in fact change how they vote or the margins required within the IRC to enact the map.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And through you, Mr. President. So the IRC will continue to apply when it comes to drawing state legislative maps in the Senate and the Assembly. Will it also -- will an independent or a bipartisan redistricting commission apply when it comes to drawing maps for Congress?
After this next census, yes.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So -- and through you, Mr. President. So the Independent Redistricting Commission would then still be in charge of drawing the maps for Congress up until the next census in 2030?
No. I'm trying to understand your question, no.
I'm trying to understand your answer.
After the next census the commission would perform its function, not before.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And through you, Mr. President. So as I understand it -- and I'm looking at page 3, line 32 (reading) -- at any time after congressional districts are enacted pursuant to the subdivisions of this section, or otherwise implemented pursuant to a court order, the Legislature shall have the authority on its own initiative, by law, to make changes to one or more of such districts, provided, however, any such changes shall comply with the provisions of this section except for subdivision (b) -- which is the IRC, the Independent Redistricting Commission. So I read that an entirely different way, that the Independent Redistricting Commission will not be involved in writing congressional maps. Am I correct in that assessment?
The commission would be responsible for drawing the maps pursuant to a census on the regular calendar. But not beyond that.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
How -- if this becomes our new constitution, if it passes both houses twice and then the voters for some reason actually supported this when they flipped their ballot over -- which I hope that they don't -- how often will we be able -- or will the Legislature be permitted to redraw the congressional lines in the State of New York?
That would be up to the elected representatives of the state.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So -- through you, Mr. President. So after each congressional race we could technically, if the Legislature -- which is controlled in both houses currently by Democrats -- they could make a decision to redraw the district lines for congressional seats in New York State?
I think one of the problems we're circling here is that the good Senator here has a problem with the fact that Democrats are in charge of the Legislature. And so I look at it as we have a democracy, we have elections, people get elected, they are sent to rooms like this to make decisions, and that represents the will of the people who vote for all of us or against us. And so when I say that's up to the will of the elected leaders who represent the voters of this state, that's what I mean. And so the -- it doesn't matter, in theory, if we're Democrats or Republicans, we're selected by the voters. It happens that voters have selected overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses. So the same way we can pass a law on any subject that we're allowed to after any -- on any given date, this would be something else that we could do if the people who are elected to represent this state see it as something they want to do.
Mr. President, briefly on the bill.
Senator Walczyk on the bill.
No, my problem is not specifically -- well, I hope the voters make better decisions in their elections and who their elected representatives are. And I hope they tune into debates like this to see who truly defends the principles of our representative democracy. My problem is not with how state representatives are elected or even who's in control of the chambers. My problem when it comes to this is after voters in direct democracy have consistently said, by flipping over their ballot, said they want an independent bipartisan redistricting commission -- they voted for it, we amended the Constitution to do that. Members of your conference and members on both sides of the aisle all supported that. And it became the Constitution of the State of New York. And then my problem is when Democrats took control of both houses of the Legislature, they tried to amend that Constitution. Okay. Well, it went back out to the voters. And once again the voters said: No, we want an independent bipartisan redistricting commission. We do not want political gerrymandering in the State of New York and drawing congressional districts all over the place to one party's advantage. So that is not my problem. And through you --
-- ask a question, Mr. President? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's on the bill.
I'll yield, Mr. President.
Does Senator Walczyk think the voters were wrong in electing Democratic majorities to both houses?
Senator Walczyk, do you yield? Senator Walczyk yields. Just so we get back on track. Senator Walczyk.
I yield. And while that's not part of this bill, I do think that voters were right when they voted for an independent, bipartisan redistricting commission. And I do think voters were right when they rejected your scheme to create partisan gerrymandering in the State of New York. And I think they'll be right when they reject this constitutional amendment --
Will Senator Walczyk continue to yield?
-- to try and play politics for one party's advantage in the State of New York, drawing congressional districts whenever one party doesn't like the results of an election.
Would Senator Walczyk continue to yield?
Senator Walczyk, will you yield?
I'm not sure who's on debate here, Mr. President, but I'll yield.
Senator Walczyk was on the bill, which opens him up to being questioned.
This is part of the Senate Rules which we all should know.
I yield.
The Senator yields.
Of course you did not answer my question. I asked if you thought the voters were wrong in electing Democratic majorities to both houses of the Legislature.
Through you, Mr. President, I've already answered that question, that I don't have an issue with the way that our elections run. And I hope that voters make better choices and tune into debates like this to determine who is actually standing up for the fundamental principles of our democracy. So no, I think they've elected all of us. I think you're making a poor choice today. I think you made a poor choice in putting it on the ballot in 2021. And I think every time I agree with the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers that agree that political gerrymandering is wrong.
I'm happy to yield for continued questions.
Senator Walczyk, are you on the bill or are you going to ask Senator Gianaris to yield?
No, I'd like Senator Gianaris to yield, if he would.
Senator Gianaris, will you yield?
Yes, I do.
The Senator yields.
Through you, Mr. President. So back to the question that I asked at the start of this little soliloquy. Will Democrat majorities in the Assembly and the Senate be able to draw congressional lines every two years? Is that what you're permitting here in a change to the Constitution?
I already answered that pretty clearly. The representatives in the Assembly and the Senate, whatever the political makeup of those bodies is, will be free to act in a way that they see fit as they represent the people that they represent. So yes, if you'd like a more direct answer.
Thank you. And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Section (c) provides direction for the drawing of districts. Are these principles applied to Congress as well as the Senate and the Assembly?
As part of the commission process, yes.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Currently, under law, when any legislative district or congressional district deviates from having an equal number of inhabitants, the Independent Redistricting Commission must provide a public explanation for that deviation, the reasons why. Is that correct?
Currently, yes.
Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
(Sneezing.) Excuse me. That's not in the Senate Rules. Would the Senator yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. This proposal eliminates that requirement. So moving forward, this level of public accountability is removed, isn't it?
Yes, it is.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
Why?
Well, because the landscape as it relates to redistricting around this country has changed quite dramatically. I kind of delineated the reasons why earlier. And the changes proposed in this amendment would be responsive in the sense that it would allow New York to -- it would allow New York to be more responsive to what's going on around the country so that we're all playing by at least a similar set of rules, if not the same set of rules.
Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And by that you mean partisan political gerrymandering, right?
I mean, you can characterize it any way you want. What I'm indicating to you is that there are states that have gotten quite abusive with their redistricting process. They are specifically targeting minorities now. And New York needs a freer hand to be able to be part of the same process that other states are part of.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Another principle that's been removed is the compactness of districts. Some people, when they talk about redistricting, like to see a map look neat. We've seen in New York State all kinds of different shapes, whether they be snakelike or salamander-like or name your Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade float of a shape. Why are you proposing removing this compactness of districts in the provisions here in this constitutional amendment?
Because the landscape as it relates to redistricting around the country has changed quite dramatically in the last couple of years, and there are some states that are becoming quite abusive with their redistricting process. New York deserves to be part of a process where everyone is playing by at least a similar set of rules, if not the same rules.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Are there any abuses that you're taking off of the table in the State of New York in this political gerrymander?
I'm not sure I understand the question, Senator Walczyk.
Through you, Mr. President, I'll clarify.
Senator Walczyk, clarify, yes.
In your attempt to change the New York State Constitution to allow political gerrymandering, what constraints have you given yourself? Or is it solely for the purpose of getting more Democrats elected to Congress and in the halls of the State Legislature?
There are still criteria that are listed here that need to be considered (reading). Districts shall not be drawn to have the purpose of the denial or abridgement of racial or language minority voting rights. Districts shall be drawn so that, based on the totality of the circumstances, racial and minority language groups do not have less opportunity to participate in the political process than other members of the electorate, and to elect representatives of their choice. To the extent practicable, the drawing of districts that contain -- shall contain as nearly as may be an equal number of inhabitants. The drawing of districts should consist of contiguous territory and should maintain communities of interest.
Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you for that answer. One of the principles that I notice was struck out of here is that when the voters supported this and it was negotiated in a bipartisan way and the bipartisan Independent Redistricting Commission was created with the parameters in our current State Constitution, it was that maps could not be drawn to favor or disfavor incumbents, particular candidates or particular political parties. I.e., the drawers of the maps can't pick and choose which politicians they like or which political parties they like. Is that provision preserved or is that eliminated as I see it?
No, it's not preserved.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. So now in the State of New York if the voters make the mistake of approving this amendment, politicians will be able to decide which incumbents they like and which they don't like, which districts for a political party they would like to draw and not draw. Am I understanding that correctly?
I certainly wouldn't put it that way. What I would say is there are other states that are abusing the redistricting process to gain political advantage, and it would be irresponsible for New York to not be playing on the same field as those other states.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So is your goal here -- through you, Mr. President. So is your goal here to make sure that New York State can draw congressional, State Senate and State Assembly districts to a political advantage?
No. The goal here is to give New York the flexibility to be responsive to what is going on in other parts of the country.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
This bill deletes some critical principles. Is there anywhere in this bill that the principle of not political gerrymandering is preserved in any way?
Principle of not political gerrymandering? I'm not sure I understand what you're --
Senator Walczyk, would you mind clarifying for Senator Gianaris?
Yeah. Is there -- sure. Is there any -- is there any provision that I can read in here -- I see a lot of red lines to the New York State Constitution as I review this bill. The protections -- excuse me. The protections that New Yorkers approved in the New York State Constitution against political gerrymandering are struck out. Are there any in here that I could look to to say, No, here's where we won't play politics with district lines?
The only place that appeared is in the provision that you already asked about that I indicated was removed.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
I'd like to turn attention to Section 6(e), page 4, line 52. It currently speaks to using the courts as a remedy, is that correct?
Let me just catch it. Page 4, you said?
Yeah, page 4, line 52.
I don't see that on page 4, I'm sorry. I think you mean page 6.
Page 6.
Yes, I see that now.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Has -- has that happened in the last five years? Has the court been used as a remedy in the last five years?
Yes.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
To refresh my memory, and on the record, can you tell us what happened in that chapter of this redistricting saga?
I don't really remember.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So the State Senate and congressional maps of 2022 were declared unconstitutional, and then they were drawn by a special master. Is that refreshing your memory?
Oh, I do remember that. And in fact there was a subsequent court decision that said that that court decision needed modification because in fact a special master should not have been used, it should have been returned to the commission to continue the process.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And then after that election in 2023, the courts directed new Assembly and congressional maps be redrawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission, is that correct?
I'm not sure if they asked the Assembly to be redrawn. (Pause.) At least I can agree on the congressional lines. I'm not sure if the Assembly was part of that or not.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So the courts have had to step in and play referee. But under this proposal, if it is deemed that there has been a violation of the law -- as has happened several times in the last few years since one party took control of both houses -- this is saying the maps would just return to that same one party of both houses, right?
This is saying that the maps will return to the elected representatives that the people have chosen to sit here. I mean, you're assuming that it would continue to be dominated by Democrats. You're probably right, but in fact the people in the intervening elections can choose the makeup of these bodies as they see fit.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And through you, Mr. President. Indeed. And I'm hopeful that New Yorkers make the right decision and put Republicans in the majority in the New York State Senate. That would put us right back where we started before voters ever put together -- well, before a bipartisan group of legislators in both houses of the Legislature put together an Independent Redistricting Commission, put it on the ballots, and then voters approved it to change our Constitution. Wouldn't that put us in the same spot that got us here in the first place?
First of all, you keep saying a bipartisan group in both houses. I'm not sure what you're referring to. As I told you earlier, the Democrats in the Senate did not vote on this amendment. We opposed it. But I guess your question is whether it would return to the Legislature? Yes, it would return to the Legislature.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Why should politicians decide what politicians' districts look like, and not a bipartisan commission?
Well, I think the answer to that question is that the Legislature has always had a role in determining what the district lines look like because we express the will of the people. Even this with this commission process, the Legislature has a role to play in making this determination. The fact that the commission was flawed and predictably broke down is what created that crisis in 2022 as it relates to the redistricting process. The courts, in my view incorrectly, said that if the commission refused to do its work, the Legislature could not step in. So I think that was a poor decision. It was made by a court that was operating under an ethical cloud at the time, whose chief judge resigned in disgrace shortly thereafter. And so we're giving the voters an opportunity to improve the process.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Senator Walczyk, I regret to inform you that your 30-minute debate time has elapsed. Senator Gianaris, will you yield for one final question?
Sure.
The Senator will yield for one final question.
No, I'll give my time. I have too many good follow-up questions on the next one. (Laughter.)
Thank you, Senator Walczyk. Senator Martins, why do you rise?
Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill briefly.
Senator Martins on the bill.
So some of you may be aware that -- and I'm sure that the sponsor is aware that I served on the Independent Redistricting Commission back in '21 and '22, Mr. President. And I happened to be not only in the room but actively negotiating maps at the time that this process came to a head. I can tell you personally that we had maps that were negotiated, close, and we were there. And then we took a break. And during that break -- we were on Zoom. During that break, we were discussing amongst ourselves how we can bridge gaps. There were two areas in the state where there were some changes that needed to be agreed to. And then when we came back from that break, the cochair read a statement saying that the negotiations had broken down. Now, I've always suspected that during the time that we were on that break that there had been conversations with members of the commission and others. Can I prove it? No. But there were instructions certainly that took place between one call and the other that led to a breakdown in those discussions. So what ultimately happened is although we were close as a commission to reaching agreement on maps, we ultimately couldn't reach agreement on maps because, inexplicably, the other side just stopped negotiating and decided to stop. We all know then that the maps, two sets of maps were forwarded. Those maps were rejected. The Legislature chose to draw maps themselves. It ended up going to court and ultimately was overturned, and a magistrate was directed to oversee maps. So with that, Mr. President, I'm concerned that with this, we're going back not only to 2009, 2010, we're actually making it worse than it was even then. The idea that maps can be changed every two years, depending on how the national political winds are going -- and I fail to see how these changes are going to actually inure to the benefit of the residents and the voters of New York State. I can go through quotes from leadership here swearing that they do not support partisan maps and go through quotes where voters should choose their elected officials rather than the elected officials choosing their voters. All of these lines frankly -- but that was when Democrats were in the minority and they wanted to change the system. Here they are in the majority advancing legislation that not only takes us back 10 years, takes us back far worse and actually puts the voters and the residents in New York State in a far worse position than they were even under the older system. So we're left to ask why. So with that, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
Certainly. Will the sponsor yield?
I would, if I may -- yes, I should point out, because I was listening to Senator Martins talk, that if memory serves it was the Republican-appointed commissioners, including Senator Martins himself, who refused to attend a meeting called of the commission so that they wouldn't have the opportunity to vote on a map to then officially fail so that the Legislature would have the opportunity to draw the lines indisputably. And so it's pretty cynical to actually not do your job intentionally just to get a political result. But yes, I yield.
Is he on the bill?
Senator Gianaris, are you yielding for a question?
Oh, I'm yielding, yes.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you. I just wanted to be sure. Because if he was on the bill, I would certainly wait till you were done. Mr. President, on the bill.
Senator Martins on the bill.
I want to clarify that, and then I'll come back and ask the Senator a question. The members of the Redistricting Commission -- and, you know, as much as the Senator may want to rewrite history, Mr. President, the members of the Redistricting Commission had to agree on coming back. No one called a meeting of the Redistricting Commission. And therefore reaching a deadlock -- again, I suspect, Mr. President, because of people influencing members of the commission at the time. That's my opinion. Unfortunately, the commission did deadlock. But with that, if the Senator would yield for some questions.
Senator Gianaris --
Sure.
-- do you yield? The Senator yields.
Thank you. So I went through the timeline, including, you know, what people have considered or called the Hochul-mander, Mr. President. You know, the gerrymandering of maps, the court's decision to overturn that, and then the resulting election that resulted in a number of Republicans being elected to Congress. And, you know, many believe across the country that that resulted in the majority in Congress being in Republican hands. And if I remember correctly, there was an outcry around the country where they blamed New York for not having done enough to elect Democrats. And specifically, Mr. President, they blamed Senator Gianaris for not having done enough to elect Democrats. And so I have to wonder, Senator, is that why we're advancing this bill now, so that perhaps people around the country can stop blaming Democrats in New York for not having elected more Democrats in that election cycle?
Certainly not. But I will point out to my colleague that the State Senate lines were also drawn by a special master in that election, and we had no problem electing Democrats all throughout this state. How's the view from over there, Senator Martins?
Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator would continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
The view is just fine. Just fine.
(Inaudible.)
And, Mr. President, again, you know, I had -- and as, Mr. President, you know and certainly Senator Gianaris remembers quite well, there are times when Senators were in the majority, Republican Senators were in the majority, and now we're in the minority. And, you know, as the pendulum does swing, there are opportunities for things to change. But understanding that, it was when the Republicans were in the majority that these changes were made, in order to create an independent, bipartisan redistricting commission. And so, you know, again -- and I've heard comments from the Senator that we're playing a game and not playing alone, which I assume means that there are national politics involved. Do we not have a responsibility, Senator, to make sure that these maps here in New York are not gerrymandered and that the voters have a right to choose their representatives and not vice versa?
We have a responsibility not to tie our hands while other states are abusing the process and creating a Congress that is not representative of the people of this country.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
So the State Constitution clearly protects New Yorkers. And I hope, Senator, that you would agree: The State Constitution protects New Yorkers, and that's the purpose of having a State Constitution?
It's supposed to.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
So is the State Constitution, the New York State Constitution there to also protect Democrats in other parts of the country and to somehow use New York State voters and the Constitution itself in a way that advances one political party rather than protecting the rights of every New Yorker?
When Congress is not properly representative of the people of this country, New York suffers. It's the reason we had the SALT cap situation. It's the reason why New Yorkers are getting dragged off the streets and separated from their families. It's the reason why New Yorkers are currently being terrorized by this federal government. And so we don't stand alone. We stand as one of 50 states where the policy of the federal government affects us quite profoundly.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So the proposed legislation speaks to communities of interest -- that term appears -- and I was hoping, Senator, that you would give us a sense of what -- in your sense, what is a community of interest?
A community of interest is something that, as I understand it, doesn't have a very specific legal definition. But it is something that can be defined by neighborhood, it can be defined by county, it can be defined by economy, it can be defined by ethnic or religious backgrounds. I mean, communities of interest can mean a lot of different things. But I think it's left up to policymakers to hold those communities together -- one of the reasons, by the way, having some random professor from Pennsylvania tell us how to draw lines is a mistake, because a person like that doesn't know what the communities of interest in New York are.
Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So in discussing communities of interest, is there any ranking in terms of priorities which communities of interest would be considered first, and thereafter in descending order, which ones should be considered so that there was at least a framework that people can understand? Is there?
No.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So understanding, as we do, that this is now being advanced as a purely partisan effort -- and frankly, you know, for some, perhaps an understanding of the changing winds and grasping on to a majority here and in the other chamber: Let's ensure that there isn't an opportunity for the voters of this state to make a change -- wouldn't it be helpful for people to understand what the game rules are going to be with regard to how these lines are going to be set and in what order? Wouldn't it be helpful to have that, Senator Gianaris?
I would say that the people speak through their representatives. And as the criteria for what constitutes a community of interest is variable, it is something that should be in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.
Mr. President, on the bill.
Senator Martins on the bill.
And there you have it. And I want to thank Senator Gianaris. Obviously we all understand what this is about. So the Independent Redistricting Commission is still going to be there. Great. But if they do deadlock, the decision comes to the Legislature. So -- sounds interesting. Except when one party, as I believe has already happened and will continue to happen, directs their members to deadlock and not to agree, the default is ultimately going to be made by the politicians and elected officials that sit here in the Capitol. And whoever happens to have the majority -- in this case, Democrats -- will simply wait for that process to play itself out and will make those decisions as you see fit. Now, some of you are saying, "That's great." Until the worm turns, and then things change. And then we'll hear from Senator Gianaris or Senator Stewart-Cousins, Leader Stewart-Cousins, or frankly others here in the room who, you know, provided all kinds of quotes back in 2010, '11, '12 about how critically important it was for these things to happen. So either we are in favor of independent lines or we're not. So just call it what it is. You don't care about democracy anymore. You don't care about the opportunity of voters to make these decisions for themselves. You're going to make those decisions for them. You're not even going to define what a community of interest is. You're actually going to turn around and leave that vague so that you can decide what a community of interest is depending on who you want to get elected in any particular district. Now, we've heard a lot about playing games and that we're not playing these games alone and that there are things happening in other parts of the country. Last time I checked, we're sitting in the New York State Capitol and we're talking about the New York State Constitution. I'm not here to represent anyone who lives in Massachusetts, I'm not here to represent anyone who lives in Texas. I'm here to represent a beautiful piece of New York State on the North Shore of Nassau County on Long Island. You may want to turn around and say, No, no, it's more important for us to get into this game. We need to be able to change the rules every two years because if the voters decided that they wanted to vote for people we don't believe should be in office in order to get a certain partisan result, because we care more about majorities in Congress than we do about the will of the voters in exercising their right to vote, we can go so far -- as Senator Gianaris said, we can go so far as to change the rules every two years. Well, look, I have a lot more confidence in the voters and residents of the State of New York. Frankly, I thank you for this gift. Because by you putting this on the ballot, you're challenging everybody in New York to decide that they care more about people out there across the country than they care about themselves, their families, their homes and what's happening here in New York. And you're wrong. You're wrong. Mr. President, just to end with a couple of quotes. 2010, State Senator Michael Gianaris of Queens, standing with former Mayor Ed Koch. People are going to say that's a long time ago. Not that long ago. Same issues. Same importance. Same person. "There is no good excuse not to pass this when we go back to Albany as the first order of business." Independent redistricting is what he was talking about. As for independent redistricting in which elected officials don't draw their own district lines, Gianaris said the intent is simple. "Voters choose their elected officials, rather than the elected officials choose their voters." That's a great quote from Senator Gianaris back in 2010. April 1, 2011, Politico. "State Senator Michael Gianaris, the Queens Democrat who has been one of the most outspoken advocates for independent redistricting legislation, explained his position as follows. 'Mr. President, a court master is certainly more independent than the Legislature itself. While I would prefer an independent commission where the Legislature has a voice, a court master is still better than the status quo'" -- which was the Legislature drawing its own lines. In fact, in February of 2012, Mr. President, February 7th, The Leader mentions that State Senator Michael Gianaris told a packed redistricting hearing that the Senate's Republican majority has brought "shame" to New York by proposing blatant gerrymandering in a continuing plot to protect its power. Shame to this body by continuing to advance gerrymandering in order to protect its power. Well, and I'll just end with the quotes, Mr. President, because there's one more I think is important. It's a press conference with Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, at that time Senator Stewart-Cousins, and Mayor Koch. And they had this press conference and they discussed Albany reform. And I'll quote. "If we don't deal with redistricting in a fair, bipartisan way, it won't work." If we don't deal with redistricting in a fair, bipartisan way, it won't work. You know what? I agree with the Majority Leader. But this bill and this bill being proposed today, ironically, by the same Majority Leader and defended on the floor by the same Deputy Majority Leader, brings shame to this house and to this Legislature. Mr. President, I'll be voting no.
Thank you, Senator Martins. Senator Gianaris on the bill.
Mr. President, just a couple of corrections. First of all, at the time Andrea Stewart-Cousins was not just Senator Stewart-Cousins, she was the Democratic Leader of the Senate. So show some respect, please, to her name when you talk about her. And she is your Majority Leader right now, and President Pro Tem of the Senate. But I did want to quote -- since we're talking about quotes, I wanted to pull up one here from the Columbia Law Review, a journal pretty esteemed, I would say, which was recounting the process in 2022. It said (reading): The first submission to the Legislature from the IRC on January 3rd consisted of two plans supported on party lines by five commissioners each. The Legislature failed to approve either plan. Although the IRC was supposed to submit a second plan, this time the IRC wasn't even able to meet, let alone submit a plan. The Republican members -- Senator Martins included -- refused to attend a meeting to vote on proposed plans, thus denying the commission the seven-member quorum the Constitution requires for action. The Court of Appeals case that followed the one that initially was held specifically faulted the IRC for not doing its job. It was Senator Martins and his four colleagues from that side of the aisle that refused to attend a meeting in order to deny a quorum so that the commission wouldn't dare submit the plans -- two separate ones if they wouldn't agree -- so that we would not be in power to reject them and then indisputably have the right to enact lines at that point. Unfortunately, our corrupted Court of Appeals at the time went along with that. But the fact remains this. You could pull up 15-, 16-year-old quotes, whatever. I mean, the world has changed in so many ways since then, particularly in the last couple of years as it relates to this specific issue. When you have Black members of Congress being specifically targeted in some of these states because of a Supreme Court decision that was just handed down, when you have some states at the specific urging of the president to engage in partisan gerrymandering -- I mean, they're not even trying to hide it -- of course, of course the Republican members of this body will say: No, don't fight fire with fire. Don't give us the opportunity to respond because we don't want you to respond. We like this president and we like this Congress the way it is. Well, I --
Will the Senator yield?
The Senator's still on the bill, Senator Martins.
(Inaudible.)
He can ask me to yield, but I don't yield until I finish.
The Senator is continuing. He has the floor, Senator Martins. Thank you.
(Inaudible.)
Well, as you know, pursuant -- Senator Martins, you were one of the presiding officers and you know that when somebody's on the bill they can't be questioned, correct? Just like what happened with Senator Walczyk. I would appreciate the consideration. Thank you.
I will yield -- I will yield -- I will yield in a moment, but let me just finish my train of thought. The fact is the people of this state ultimately will opine on whatever we pass if it's passed again a second time. And so if you want to continue to wave the flag of referendums that have happened and what people have said, then don't be afraid of this. Put it on the ballot. Let the people decide. What are you afraid of? You're afraid of the people, as Senator Walczyk said earlier, making a wrong decision, in his mind? Let them say it. You're afraid of the people having a direct vote on this issue? We're not doing anything unilaterally here. This can only be enacted by the people. I'll yield to Senator Martins.
Senator Gianaris will yield, Senator Martins, if you so desire to ask a question.
No, that's quite all right. I think I've heard enough from Senator Gianaris for now. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Martins. Are there any other -- next in debate, Senator Borrello. Why do you rise?
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield for a question?
Will the sponsor yield?
I do.
The sponsor yields.
So I believe in this -- in a previous part of the debate I heard you say that you were doing this because New York needs to step into the fray of what's going on across the country. So you're saying that the sole purpose of changing the Constitution and going against the will of the people who have twice confirmed that they want an independent redistricting commission, the sole purpose of this is for New York to enter the national I guess game of redistricting?
No, I have never said it was the sole purpose.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Okay. Well, is it one of the purposes, then?
Yes.
Okay --
And let me just say, to correct something you had just said, Senator Borrello, we cannot possibly be going against the will of the voters by passing this, because the voters will have their say. And so if they don't like it, if it's against their will, they will reject it.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, so with that being said, so, you know, back in 2022 when you undermined the Independent Redistricting Commission and put forth gerrymandered maps that were indeed thrown out by the court, that was during the Biden years. So what was the purpose then of basically derailing, undermining the Independent Redistricting Commission -- that was, you know, the charge by the voters of New York State to change the Constitution to do that -- what was the purpose then to do that when it was the Biden administration and not the current fight, the national fight that you've been -- that you feel you're championing for? Why did you do that back then in 2022?
What act are you referring to in '22?
The '22 when you actually put forth gerrymandered maps that were then thrown out by the courts as being illegal and unconstitutional.
I see. I see. Well, obviously I disagree with that court decision, as I made clear. I think it was one of the worst decisions this Court of Appeals has ever made. But at the time we clearly didn't think that -- nor to this day do I believe that in fact they were improper.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, it sounds to me like the courts then certainly thought as much and definitely were supporting the power of the people in their desire for an independent redistricting commission. But with that being said, you know, you certainly did support in the past this idea of a redistricting commission. I know you didn't want to go back to 2012 or 2011. But in 2021, not that long ago, the goal was to set up -- this is your words, in an interview with CBS Morning: "The goal is to set up a commission that is really independent and not colored by the politics." You were calling for a commission that is really independent and not colored by the politics. Why now -- how is this change, which is going to be obviously colored by politics, good for New Yorkers?
Well, it would be great if all 50 states were following that directive. But unfortunately, they're not.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So what you're saying is, in an effort to join the partisan battle across the country, we're going to do a disservice to New Yorkers?
As I've already indicated, New Yorkers are already being done a disservice by the fact that this Congress is not properly representative of the population of this country. That is only going to get worse because of the actions that these other states are taking. And so I do believe New York needs the flexibility to be responsive to that.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So you -- but this is about New York, it's not about any other state. It's about representing people fairly and equitably in the State of New York. So do you feel that the representation here in New York State is not proportional to the population and their political beliefs?
I feel that New York suffers when the Congress is not enacting the will of the people.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
The will of the people. You mean the will of the people of New York State to have an independent redistricting commission, like that?
The will of the people of New York State to have a federal government that is properly representing what the people of this country want.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So because of things that are happening in other states, you believe that we should undermine the will of the people of New York State in order to level the playing field? Is that -- is that what you're saying?
No. Certainly not, Senator Borrello. I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, I don't understand, then. Because, you know, you have -- I have multiple quotes here from you and from Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins that she was supportive of the idea of an independent redistricting commission, of a special master actually being better at drawing maps -- which we had recently, and you saw the results of that. And now all of a sudden, because of this battle in other states, we are going to essentially ignore what you said previously and, again, the will of people of New York State, who have changed the Constitution for an independent redistricting commission for the purpose of somehow righting a wrong in a different state? Is that what you're saying?
Well, first of all, I appreciate that you're such a fine student of my statements through the years, Senator Borrello.
I am a fan. (Laughter.)
I think you know my quotes better than I do. But I doubt I ever supported a special master, precisely because the -- in this case, the special master was some gentleman in Pennsylvania who knew very little about the communities in New York State.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
Well, I did group in the Majority Leader with you. And back when she was the Minority Leader, she was indeed supportive of a special master. And I don't necessarily disagree with you that someone from outside the state may not know the best, but it's also something that would be independent and third party, very much like the audit we are calling for of the entire bloated New York State budget. We could have an independent, third-party, disassociated person that's perhaps drawing those maps for the sole purpose of trying to meet the standard. So I think that that is certainly what happened there. But that's not what's going to happen here. If this were to become law, not only are you going to have the pen, as they say, but you're also taking over the ability of the Board of Elections -- taking away from the Board of Elections their ability to actually write the words on the ballot initiative. Why are you doing that?
There's nothing in this bill that would do that.
Pardon?
There's nothing in this legislation that would do that.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, perhaps because this was dropped on us just a few hours ago, perhaps our analysts were wrong. But it appears that the Board of Elections will no longer be able to write the actual words that will appear the ballot. Are you saying that that's not true?
Let me help Senator Borrello. That's tomorrow's debate, Senator Borrello, a different bill.
Mr. President, sorry for the foreshadowing. (Laughter.)
But I guess I'll save that question for tomorrow. But --
Senator Borrello, are you asking the Senator to yield or on the bill?
If the sponsor would please yield, yes.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So I guess I want to ask this question again. I know that there is this feeling that we have to have New York State somehow level the playing field for things that are happening in other states. But again, how is this good for New Yorkers? What specifically about this change to the Constitution and putting -- taking away the Independent Redistricting Commission's power and putting it into the hands of the party in charge, which you admitted this will do, how is this good for New Yorkers?
Let me begin by once again pointing out that New Yorkers will decide for themselves what's good for them and what's not. If this gets passed in two successive Legislatures, it will be on the ballot for the voters to make a decision as to what they want to do or not do in this case. If you're asking me why I think it's good for New York, it is because there is a horrible attempt throughout the country now, in at least half a dozen states -- that all are of a particular political persuasion that you share -- to manipulate the process for unabashedly and admittedly partisan purposes. And, I would also add, racist purposes. And so we are trying to give New Yorkers a chance to have a voice in that that and not be playing by a different set of rules.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
I do want to take the opportunity to just point out -- because I'd like you to address this. And again, this was back in April 1st of 2011, a lifetime ago, I will admit. But you did say "a court master is certainly more independent than the Legislature itself. While I would prefer an independent commission where the Legislature has a voice, a court master is still better than the status quo." So did you not admit that an actual special master would be better in that quote?
That status quo was very different than this status quo, Senator Borrello.
Mr. President, on the bill.
Senator Borrello on the bill.
Thank you, Senator Gianaris. So here's what I've heard. I've heard that there is this battle that is happening in other states and that New York State needs to just trash what the voters of New York have twice said that they wanted, an independent redistricting commission. Because quite frankly, gerrymandering, the idea of gerrymandering repulses most people, most rank-and-file people. They don't like that idea. But because they're doing it in some other state, that's supposed to be a justification. Well, I don't know about your grandmother, but my grandmother taught me two wrongs don't make a right. So I don't want to see that happen here in New York State, number one. But number two, people truly believe that we are here to serve their best interests, that we come here to Albany and pass legislation to try to do the most good for the most people of New York State. That's not what this is going to do. Now, I know Senator Gianaris has told me that don't worry, we're going to give those voters a chance again. However, we know that there is going to be essentially a rigging of the system. We're going to say the words just right, pour a ton of money into the propaganda and try to convince people that this is in their best interest. But before that was an issue, before this fight happened, this national fight that we have to be in, it was very simple. We said over the course of two different parties controlling this chamber, and over the course of several years, that the best thing for New Yorkers is to have an independent group of people draw maps, draw districts that are in the best interests of communities -- of like communities, communities of interest. That was something that everybody agreed on. Now, perhaps the individual nitty-gritty of the final ways that that came about, everybody didn't agree on. But the principle, the principle that the people of New York State demanded is take the partisan politics out of this. You talk to people and you look at the maps sometimes, and districts, and they're like, How does this make sense? Most of the time the answer is it doesn't. But we had an opportunity to do the right thing because that's what the people of New York wanted. Even when all of a sudden the majority changed -- you know, prior to me being here; I've never been in the majority -- and the politics changed. And we said, You know what? The will of the people be damned. We're going to do it the way we want to because now we're in charge. And that's what the Democrats did. And the courts said: Oh, no. Oh, no. And, you know, I know Senator Gianaris said that this is a corrupt court or whatever -- whatever. I don't think there were very many Republican appointees. These were not partisan judges. These were not activist judges like we have now, by the way, this Court of Appeals that we have here in the state that is just a lapdog for the Majority. No, they were liberals. They were appointed by, almost entirely, Democrat governors. But they were good jurists who understood the Constitution and the law. And they said what you did was illegal and unconstitutional, and they struck it down. And you wiped them out. In a very kind of Darth-Vader-type way, I might add. So in a way, I kind of respect that a little bit. You wiped out fair, honest jurists who actually were politically aligned with your side, to replace it with people that would do your bidding. And so that's why now is a good opportunity, right? It's a good opportunity because you have everything lined up. You're going to control the messaging, you're going to have the money, and you're going to push this through. And do I hope that the people of New York State see through that ruse? Yes, I do. And I have faith that they will. I have faith that they'll remember that they wanted their people to be representing them, the representatives here. They wanted people that truly were doing what was in the best interests of them to draw those maps. That's what I hope New Yorkers choose. And I have faith that they will, no matter how much you try to rig the system in your favor. But at the moment, that's not really what you're saying. What you're saying is we have to enter this fight, that we have to fight fire with fire. That it doesn't matter what the people of New York State want, what's in their best interests. We have to enter this fight because something somewhere else was done unjustly. You know what? I don't really necessarily agree with what other states have done, quite frankly. That's not my concern here. My concern is to watch out for the best interests of the people of my district and, in turn, the people of New York State. That's my job here. It's everyone's job here. You want to run for Congress? You want to go to Washington and be part of that show? Feel free. That's not the job we're elected to do here. We're supposed to uphold the integrity of the people we represent and let them know that we're not in here for some kind of fight on behalf of somebody else that lives in a different state. We're here to represent the people of New York State that sent us here. I don't have a single person from Texas or wherever else voting for me. They all live here in my district. At least in my district they do. So what's what we're going to do. We're going to essentially say it doesn't really matter, right or wrong, political or not. It doesn't matter that we tried this before and we were shut down. We're going to try it again. We're going to blame something else, we're going to blame some injustice far away as an excuse for rigging the system. Because the reality is this. We're losing population. We are losing congressional representation. Okay? Our districts are getting less while other states are getting more. And so it's going to be harder and harder to keep control, to keep power. So you've got to rig the system so you keep power. That's what this is really about. You can blame it on whatever injustice you want: This is about rigging the system to stay in power no matter how harmful your policies have been to the people of New York State, to the quality of life here. That's what this is really about. And I hope that New Yorkers see this. If it ends up going on the ballot, I hope they flip that thing over and vote no, and I hope that they restore the integrity of this body even if this body doesn't want to have any integrity itself. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Borrello. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, if I can interrupt for a moment, there will be an immediate meeting of the Crime Victims and Corrections Committee in Room 124.
There will be an immediate meeting of the Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee in Room 124. Senator Rhoads, why do you rise?
I was hoping that the sponsor would yield to some questions.
Will the sponsor yield?
Senator Rhoads's hopes are fulfilled. I will yield.
The sponsor yields.
I am glad to hear that, Senator Gianaris. Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. (Reading): By creating an independent commission, we will ensure that this government is more representative of its people and not the party that happens to be in power at that time. Through you, Mr. President -- Madam President. We've had a change. Senator, do you know who said that?
I'm going to guess it's me. (Laughter.)
I'll answer that question. Ironically, no.
Oh! (Laughter.)
It was Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins --
Ah. Close enough.
-- who said that. Will the sponsor yield to another question?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
We must -- through you, Madam President. (Reading): We must conduct redistricting in a fair and bipartisan manner. Building a better government begins with keeping our promise to pass independent redistricting. Any idea who said that?
It's either me or her?
Well --
I'm not sure which way you're going. It could have been either of us. Definitely not you, Senator Rhoads.
In 2011 I wasn't even in politics. But that again was Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins.
Don't I get any quotes? (Laughter.)
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Yes.
Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
(Reading.) This bill fulfills the promise that 53 of my Senate colleagues and I made to the people of New York. I would hope that all Senators who signed Mayor Koch's pledge would join us in passing this legislation and finally establishing an Independent Redistricting Commission in this state. Do you know who happened to say that?
Well, I'm going to guess this time it's Leader Stewart-Cousins. But I will say I'm disappointed because your other colleagues were quoting me more directly. Nonetheless, I think what you're referring to is a piece of legislation that was not the constitutional amendment that ended up being passed, which was quite different. Which is why we didn't actually support it.
You are correct, it was Leader Stewart-Cousins. Will the sponsor yield to another question?
Yes.
Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.
(Reading.) Gerrymandering only serves the interests of political parties and legislators in power, not the people whom government officials are elected to serve. Of those two choices, which do you think it is?
It's tough. I'm going to go with Leader Stewart-Cousins again.
Okay, this one you're right.
Yes! I'm learning. I'm learning.
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
I feel like you're going to switch it to me at one point, so I want to be ready. (Laughter.)
At some point.
Yes. Yes, I yield.
The sponsor yields.
(Reading.) This is a matter of transparency and accountability. We owe it to our constituents to get this done.
I'll go with Leader Stewart-Cousins.
Again, you are right, Senator Gianaris. (Off the record.)
What do I win, Senator Rhoads? (Laughter.)
You get the chance to sit down as I go on the bill for a few moments before my next question. (Laughter.)
Senator Rhoads on the bill.
Thank you, Madam President. Through you. We have heard a number of quotes both through our Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins and through our floor leader, Senator Gianaris, each of them referring to the importance of there being an independent redistricting process, controlled not by the politicians in the Senate but controlled by an independent redistricting body. That was back in 2014. And so the question becomes, what changed? Well, back in 2014 the now-Majority was in the Minority. The Republicans were in charge back in 2014, and now the script has flipped. And now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are singing a very different tune. And as soon as that change happened, what exactly took place? Well, all of a sudden the redistricting process that was fair, that was bipartisan, and that was independent all of a sudden had to change. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 2021 put up a referendum, again for the voters to approve to change the process. The voters overwhelmingly said no. Not to be deterred, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried in 2022 what we refer to as the Hochul-mander, the opportunity to redraw the district lines in such a way that was so egregious that even the Court of Appeals, controlled by Democrats, Democrat appointees -- in fact, only one Republican on the Court of Appeals at that time -- said there is absolutely no way even we can allow that to take place. In 2024, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle then sued to throw out the 2022 lines that were eventually drawn by a special master, and were successful in that suit. Not happy with the court in 2022, we then remade the Court of Appeals, rejecting the Governor's appointee to be chief justice and installing a chief justice who would do the bidding of the Democratic majority and in fact did just that, throwing Hector LaSalle to the side as a discarded, sadly, casualty of this political battle. We've seen a host of legislation, things like the odd-even law, which passed this chamber proposed by my colleagues in the majority, that changed the elections for local offices to odd and even years -- to even years under the guise of having greater voter participation. We've seen no-excuse absentee ballots. We've seen temporary pop-up polling locations. We've had automatic voter registration for anyone who is applying for Medicare, anyone at the DMV to renew a driver's license, anyone applying for NYCHA housing now receiving automatic enrollment in voter registration, all things which, sadly, illegal immigrants participate in. And these all make it easier for illegal immigrants to be able to vote in the process. We had motor-voter registration, so that simply filing for a driver's license or for a state-issued I.D. would allow you to register to vote. So this didn't start with what happened in other states. This is a process that started as soon as my colleagues on the other side got into the Majority back in 2019. And that brings us up to today and this particular bill. And at this point I'm hoping that Senator Gianaris would yield to a few questions.
Will the Senator yield?
Yes, I do.
The Senator yields.
Thank you, Senator. Through you, Madam President. Back in 2021 this body passed legislation controlling the redistricting process that took place in counties. One of the provisions of that legislation was that districts shall consist of contiguous territory. In the legislation that we are debating now, does that provision still exist?
I'm -- I'm struggling to figure out what you're asking about. You said in '21 --
Sure, not a problem.
-- we passed something about lines drawn by counties, is that what you said?
Redistricting by counties.
Counties.
So counties controlling their own redistricting process.
Oh, I see.
Not with respect to Congress or the State Legislature, but this is with respect to drawing the lines for their own -- for example, county legislative districts.
Okay, I'm sorry. Your question?
In that process we said that one of the things that they had to consider was the districts shall consist of contiguous territory. In the piece of legislation that's before us, it appears as though districts consisting of contiguous territory was removed from the state redistricting process. Why is that?
I'm sorry to inform you that you are incorrect. The contiguous territory language is still there, on -- what is that -- page 4, line 7.
Will the sponsor yield to another question?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
In the 2021 legislation it requires that counties, when they do their redistricting, "districts shall be as compact in form as practicable." Does that provision continue in the legislation that's before us today?
This time Senator Rhoads is correct. That language is no longer there.
I should have read my highlighting better. Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So that provision has been removed.
Correct.
Why?
Because we are providing New York with some flexibility to respond to the dynamics of the last couple of years that have seen other states manipulate the process to skew Congress in an unrepresentative fashion.
And will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
In the 2021 legislation we told counties that districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other political candidates or political parties. In this legislation, am I correct in understanding that that provision has also been removed?
Yes, you are.
And in the 2021 legislation --
Are you asking the sponsor to yield, Senator?
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
I do.
The sponsor yields.
And in the 2021 legislation we told counties that it was incredibly important that to the extent practicable, no villages, cities or towns, except those having more than 40 percent of a full ratio for each district, shall be divided. Am I correct in my understanding that that language has been removed in this legislation?
Again, you're talking about county --
In the instant legislation before us, I read the provision in --
I don't believe that language is in there. I'm not sure it was there to begin with, in terms of what we're amending. But it's not there now.
And in the -- will the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
In the present legislation the line "The commission" -- and I'm referring to page 4, line 11: "The commission shall consider the maintenance of cores of existing districts, of preexisting political subdivisions, including counties, cities and towns," was stricken from this legislation. Is this also to provide the same flexibility that you mentioned earlier?
That's correct, Senator Rhoads.
Okay. Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If the purpose behind instructing the counties when they were performing redistricting to abide by these guidelines that were in the 2021 legislation -- are removed from this existing legislation, would you agree that the purpose of doing so was to allow the Legislature the ability to disregard cores of existing districts to favor or disfavor incumbents or other candidates or political parties?
Would I agree that this provides that possibility, is that the question?
Yes.
I suppose so.
And will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If redistricting were to take place as you suggest, I note from the legislation it indicates that we would be using 2020 Census data, is that correct?
In? I'm sorry --
If redistricting were to take place under the provisions of this legislation, am I correct in my understanding that your intention is to use 2020 Census data?
Not for the redistricting of 2032.
Correct.
That would be based on the Census of 2030.
Will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
If the decision were made to perform a redistricting mid-decade or within the course of a decade -- let's say in 2028, for example -- is my understanding -- am I correct in my understanding that we would be using 2020 Census data in order to do that?
That's correct.
And will the sponsor continue to yield.
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
I am sure that you -- Madam President, through you, of course. I am sure, Senator, that you're aware that New York has lost over a million people since the last census and is projected to lose one to two congressional seats prior to the 2030 Census. How is it your intention to draw accurate lines when the data that it's based upon is inherently inaccurate at this point?
Well, because what we'd be amending would be the lines that were based on the 2020 Census to begin with. So I mean in a sense your question presupposes that the current lines are no longer accurate, an accurate representation of the population of the state.
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
That may very well be true, Senator. But the reality is that using the 2020 Census data to complete a redistricting, knowing that those numbers are inaccurate, simply compounds an error that we may already be making. But I will ask this question. In the legislation, one of the few criteria that is actually still permitted to be considered is that of a community of interest. Can you define what a community of interest is?
I think we went through that, I think it was with Senator Martins earlier. Communities of interest don't have a very specific legal definition. It can be based on numerous factors. And it's why I think it's best left to those who are actually closer to the people and representative of the people, as opposed to, say, a professor from Pennsylvania.
And will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, through you, Madam President. Would the sponsor be kind enough to give us a few examples of what he believes communities of interest might mean, to provide some guidance to those that are looking at this afterward?
I think I did that previously. You could look at neighborhoods within New York City. And neighborhoods are very notoriously difficult to define specifically. And so, you know, I could tell you where Astoria ends and Long Island City begins, but I don't know that many other people -- Senator Gonzalez certainly can. But I don't think there's many other people who have as much familiarity with New York to make that kind of determination. In other parts of the state you could look at counties, you could look at town lines, you can look at religious beliefs, you could look at ethnic identity. There's different factors that make counties a community of interest that those who represent these communities would know very well.
Would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Would industry be one of the factors that you could look at as a community of interest? Industry.
I think I mentioned economy earlier in discussing this with Senator Martins.
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Would that potentially include student populations?
I suppose so.
I'm sorry?
I said I suppose so.
Will the sponsor continue to yield.
And I -- I do.
The sponsor yields.
And if I could just add to that answer a little bit, ultimately a legislature will decide, under this proposal. But frankly on a -- once every decennial year the commission would have the opportunity to do this, decide what they believe is an appropriate community of interest. And as inevitably happens, every time there's a redistricting there will be a court challenge and a court will decide if those are valid determinations or not.
And will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Earlier in this debate you stated that New York suffers when Congress is not representative of the people of New York. I believe that was your quote.
Sounds right. That was me. (Laughter.)
That was you. That was you. (Laughter.)
I will note that registration statistics are that New York is 47 percent Democratic yet has 73 percent of the representation in Congress. At what point do you believe that becomes too much, and how will this legislation address it?
What that says to me was there's plenty of blanks and Republicans going for Democratic candidates in this state.
And not the -- will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And has nothing to do with how the congressional lines are already drawn?
You guys have been telling me for the last hour and a half that these lines are drawn fairly. Now you're telling me they're not drawn fairly because it's mischaracterizing the population. So I don't know, Senator Rhoads. You either like these lines or you don't. If you don't like these lines, vote for the bill. We're giving you a chance to do it differently.
Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
Can you tell me, when do you anticipate this actually appearing on the ballot for voters to actually consider?
Well, Senator Rhoads, I will be gone by the time that determination is made. Second passage has to occur, and the next Legislature, of which I will not be a part.
Understood. Will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
Do you anticipate that this will actually be put on the ballot in 2028 when we have the greatest voter turnout, according to the odd-even bill? Or do you think this will be in 2027 when all of the elections -- for the most part, with the exception of the City of New York -- will be on the ballot?
This is not a decision I get to make, Senator Rhoads. The incoming Legislature next year will either have second passage occur in '27 or '28 and decide when to put it on the ballot. But it will be either in 2027 or 2028. Because if it's not, you'll get into the second Legislature beyond this one, and that wouldn't be the process that we use.
Thank you, Senator Gianaris. On the bill.
Senator Rhoads on the bill.
What we're seeing here is essentially a repudiation of the very process that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle advocated for back in 2014. That process, since they took the Majority, has continued to be undermined by the actions of this Majority. First directly, by refusing the will of the voters, putting this up for a referendum, the voters having confirmed their belief that there should be an Independent Redistricting Commission. Trying to advance congressional lines in 2022 that were so egregious that they had to be overturned by the Court of Appeals. Then changing the composition of the Court of Appeals so that they would have a friendlier court the next time that they tried it. Which they did again in 2024, this time successfully, undermining through legislation like the odd-even law, no-excuse absentee ballots, temporary pop-up polling locations, automatic voter registration -- all of the things that we have seen to try and influence the electorate and the electorate's composition. And now we have this piece of legislation, which throws up their hands and says, You know what? We're simply going to try and scrap the entire process because we're in charge and because we can. Oh, and by the way, while my colleague may no longer be in this chamber next year, I fully expect that this will be back on the docket for consideration in the 2027 legislative session, and that this will appear in 2027. And this will appear not on the 2028 ballot when we have the largest turnout, as guaranteed by the switch of odd-year elections back to even years, but it will be done when you have the lowest-turnout election, because the City of New York is the only jurisdiction in the state that's been exempted from this odd-even rule. And so in 2027, you will have a tremendous turnout from the City of New York controlled by Democrats. This legislation is undermining the clear expression of the will of the people. That is why it should be rejected. And I hope it will be rejected -- if this ever makes it to the ballot, it will be rejected by the voters of the State of New York. This is not about having fair elections, this is about having easy elections where it's easier to control the outcome to the benefit of the Majority. That is not democracy, that is tyranny. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, why do you rise?
Thank you, Madam President. I was wondering if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
Will the sponsor yield?
I would.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you. So I believe I heard you say that you want to pass this legislation so that New Yorkers have a freer hand to determine the congressional seats. Is that accurate?
I think I said we wanted to create greater flexibility.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
So my understanding is that at this time in New York we have 26 seats in Congress, seven of which are Republican, 19 of which are Democrat. My question for you is, how many Republicans do you think we should have in Congress?
As many as the people elect.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
By my count, since 2014 we've had 16 proposed measures to amend our Constitution, four of which related to the election process, only one of which passed. And that's the one that we are trying to undo by this legislation. So my question for you is: Why do you think that the voters will actually approve this based on the prior voting record?
Because the dynamics around the country as it relates to this issue have changed dramatically in the last couple of years. You have some states that have chosen to get involved in mid-decade redistricting. You have others that have targeted Black members of Congress specifically. You have a Supreme Court decision that has allowed these states, that are all of a particular political persuasion, to do these things. And I think that changing landscape justifies us giving the people of this state the opportunity to opine on whether we should make changes.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
So would you say that gerrymandering in New York is okay if it just elects more Democrats?
No, I certainly never said that.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
When the redistricting commission was created, to my understanding it was voted on by a majority in this house that was controlled by Republicans, and the Assembly was controlled by Democrats, bipartisanship. Are you saying that those bodies that decided to elect to create the redistricting commission were wrong?
One hundred percent yes. And I wouldn't call it bipartisanship. I would call it incumbency-ship. The majorities in both houses did what they had to do to protect themselves.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So court cases that have approved the Independent Redistricting Commission have overwhelmingly continually reapproved this process, but we're trying to change it. And is it our responsibility to fix what's going on in Washington? Don't we have a responsibility first to New Yorkers?
We have a responsibility to both things. And I would just again point out we are not changing it. We are giving the voters the opportunity to change it.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, I would submit that by taking away a two-thirds vote to override the commission and to change how districts can be created is essentially gutting what the Independent Redistricting Commission was designed to do. Do you disagree with that?
Yes.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
Does the sponsor yield?
I do.
The sponsor yields.
So if we have districts that are cutting through counties, cutting through villages, cutting through towns, that's possible under this bill, is it not?
I apologize, Senator, I was talking to staff. Can you repeat that?
Sure. It's my understanding by this legislation that we could create districts that cut through counties, cut through townships, cut through incorporated villages, and divide communities, potentially. Is that correct?
Well, I would disagree with that because the requirement to maintain communities of interest is still there. And so I would say if you're creating things that divide communities in that way, that would not be appropriate, even still.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If this bill does pass and passes again in the next session and then it goes to the voters, does this legislation dictate how the language will be formed for a ballot amendment?
No, it does not.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Under current law, would not that be controlled by the Independent Redistricting Commission?
Language on the ballot?
The language on the ballot.
No.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Do you know who would determine the ballot language?
The State Board of Elections.
Madam President, on the bill.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick on the bill.
We are New York Senators in the New York State Senate. What we cannot control is what's going on in other states. What we can control is what's going on here. And we all know what's being done here. This is rigging the system to eliminate Republican congressmen. The Independent Redistricting Commission was advanced based on a bipartisan agreement with a controlled -- a Senate controlled by Republicans and a Democrat-controlled Assembly. And the voters approved it. The only election amendment that we have approved in this state, now we want to throw it out. Voters have rejected each election-related constitutional amendment advanced under one-party control. So what's our solution? Is it to start proposing election amendments that voters actually do support? Such as one we've put forth several times in this body, is voter ID. Because if you look at the polling, an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers actually support voter ID. But that's not what's going on the ballot. Rather than conforming to what New Yorkers want, we want to rig the process. If you can't get New Yorkers on board with the changes that you want, then we will just change the system. I think New Yorkers know better, and I'm confident that they will reject this proposal if it reaches that stage. But I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote no. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Ashby, why do you rise?
Good evening, Madam President.
Good evening.
Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
I do.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Madam President. Do you think that Congress was generally more productive in the 1960s or more productive today?
I honestly have no idea.
Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Do you think there were fewer or more politically competitive congressional seats then?
In the 1960s? Again, I really don't know. You guys are going way back today. But this one is the most, 60 years. You going to pull out a quote from my elementary school or something?
On the bill.
Senator Ashby on the bill.
In 1964, for example, 120 members of Congress were elected with less than 55 percent of the vote. And in the years shortly after, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, the Housing Rights Act, and created Medicare and Medicaid -- all with bipartisan votes that would be an anomaly today. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Do you think that it's fair to say that political polarization, fueled by partisan gerrymandering, has been a factor that's made Congress less productive?
Again, I --
Or should I say -- excuse me, Madam President. I know you didn't comment on it earlier today, Senator Gianaris, whether or not Congress is less productive today versus 60 years ago. Assuming that your opinion is that they're less productive today.
What I would say -- and maybe you would agree with this as well, it gets to your same point. Certainly things are more divided and less collaborative today than they were then. And yes, I do think that partisan gerrymandering is a part of that problem.
Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Madam President. Would you support, then, state governments passing laws creating compacts requiring each member state to use nonpartisan, independent redistricting commissions every 10 years?
Yes, I would.
That's excellent. Will the sponsor yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
How many states would you like to -- would you agree to form that compact before it would go into effect?
That's a really good question, seeing as how this is the first time I've been presented with this possibility. I'd have to take some thought. And I don't know that I have a very specific answer for you. But, you know, it would have to be many of them. Certainly greater than -- substantially greater than a majority of the states.
Will the sponsor --
But you know what, as I sit here and continue to think about it, substantially greater than states that represent a majority of the members of Congress, let's do it that way.
Does the sponsor yield?
Are we negotiating a new bill, Senator Ashby?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
We may be. (Laughter.)
In fact, there is a similar compact that has to do with the popular vote. Through you, Madam President. If we pass this bill and adopt a public referendum and adopt a new healthy Democratic map, don't we create a standoff with other states? Who blinks first and goes back to a balanced map? What's the exit strategy?
It's a really good question. The exit strategy is a national solution. And so -- well, one that you suggested, possibly. But either enough states get together and do this -- and by the way, I believe New York is a member of the compact related to popular vote for president -- or the federal government gets its act together and does this for all the states so we are all operating by the same rules.
On the bill.
Senator Ashby on the bill.
I want to thank Senator Gianaris. Although I was a little surprised at his lack of historical political knowledge in the 1960s. But I know that he's been pressed with more recent -- more recent events here. But again, I mean, this begs the question, Madam President, that this measure has been to the voters before, and they've decided over and over again to reject it. Despite what's happening at the national level, despite that it's wrong what other states are doing, we should not jump into the fray, especially after it's been decided by our voters. Yet this remains the priority for this Majority. I look forward to seeing it defeated. Thank you.
Senator Helming, why do you rise?
Thank you, Madam President. On the bill.
Senator Helming on the bill.
Thank you. We've heard a lot tonight, but the bottom line is the voters of this state don't want gerrymandering, period. That's why they overwhelmingly voted for constitutional reforms to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians. During the debate there has been so much back-and-forth on why the bill before us is needed. Why is the Majority pushing these significant changes to the bipartisan process that's currently enshrined in our Constitution? And based on what I've heard, what it comes down to is that there's a belief that changes are needed to counter the actions of other states. And I'd say that message is consistent with what I've been reading in the news lately, that the Governor's out there saying that she could get behind these changes because she doesn't like what's happening at the federal level or in other states. And that is the reason why the process that we currently have is under attack here this evening. Madam President, I would offer that changing political circumstances in other states should not be used as justification for disregarding the Constitution and the will of the people. We have something that's really great. We have something that people want. We have an independent, bipartisan commission. We have ensured that our state government is representative of the people who make up this state. The bill before us is absolutely not necessary. And I would offer this: That this type of politically driven action, this is what people are sick and tired of. This is why they're losing trust and confidence in our government. I will be voting no.
Senator Tedisco, why do you rise?
I've got to get to my seat. (Laughter.)
Time's going.
Thank you, Madam President. On the bill.
Senator Tedisco on the bill.
Madam President and my colleagues, I think you're about to make this the saddest day I have experienced as a legislator in this New York State Legislature, either in the Assembly where I served, or here on the Senate floor. If it's not the saddest, it's at the top of the list. It's not only disappointing, it's disturbing, what you're about to do. You're not only about to impact in a serious way our representative democracy, you're about to legalize the one thing my constituents and yours have always railed against -- you're going to legalize, to a great extent, gerrymandering. Now, if I'm saddened now, you may not be saddened here sitting in the chambers. You're looking to the future. Every two years, if we don't like what this looks like on our side of the aisle, the numbers we have and you have, we'll just do it all over again. Every two years we'll change the districts so we can win more seats. When you go home and you sit down and you look at the replay of the Knicks tonight, you're going to think to yourself, I didn't do justice to my constituents. Because as much as we're sad on this side for you, and you're going to be sad later on if you have a conscience, the saddest people tonight are the constituents you represent. Because you were sent here to represent not only yours, but all the people of New York State. I can assure you that like my constituents, the preponderance of yours, for our Assemblymembers and our Senators, do not support this attempt to legalize gerrymandering, to let you choose the representatives rather than them. So let me be very clear. Two wrongs never make a right. Two wrongs never make a right. It's wrong for any other state in this nation, anywhere throughout it, to take the ability for their constituents, the most important part of our representative democracy. Because you're elected officials, you're public servants, but they're the most important part of this representative democracy, and you're their representatives. You're not representing them today. Let me tell you a little bit of history, because I know a little bit about it here. A few years back I and several current members of this Senate chamber, including members of the Majority, joined the late -- a Democrat -- Mayor Ed Koch to sign his Heroes of Reform redistricting pledge. Now, those of you who were here back then know who you are, know who signed it. It's been talked about before I got up. Let me tell you what it did, the pledge that you signed. The pledge called for, and I quote, an independent commission to propose and draw district boundaries for congressional and state legislative districts every 10 years following the U.S. Census. The pledge that several of you who are championing this bill today signed sought to, and I quote, ensure the even-handed and nonpartisan drawing of lines. I want to repeat that. You signed a pledge, for those of you who were here, to ensure the even-handed and nonpartisan drawing of lines. This, what you're doing today, is anything but that. And you know in your hearts that you're not serving your constituents as representatives. You may be elected, you may be public servants, but you're not serving the most important part of our representative democracy, the people who put you here. The Legislature went on, as you've seen here and heard, to pass it. And the voters approved an Independent Redistricting Commission that largely lived up to the spirit of that pledge. The voters did that. Unfortunately, you, this Majority, have repeatedly tried to break that redistricting reform pledge and bypass the will of the people, all in the name of brazen partisan politics. That's the only way to describe it. You want more power. You always rail against a whole bunch of people that are the same and look the same. You want diversity. But you want one political affiliation rule here. You don't want the political diversity allowing people to pick their representatives. The state's highest court has rejected your partisan schemes when you last tried to subvert the Independent Redistricting Commission and threw the lines out. I had a little experience with that with some of my friends here on my side of the aisle. It was very disturbing for me. I had to sell my house. Came to my district and took it a mile out of it. I had to sell my house because you didn't like the way Jim Tedisco stood up and got in your face. That's my job. That's their job. That's your job, to get in anybody's face that's impacting the people who are the most important in this representative democracy. That's why we're standing up today. You know what you're doing is wrong. So you took me out of my district. It was a block down the road, you got to me, and you were going to get me this time. It was redistricting. I built a new house. But you know what? I won by 25,000 votes. Because the constituents saw through what you did, saw through what you did. And don't think, you know, we're talking about -- well, we're here, they put us here. Well, they put you here because most of the people that wouldn't put you here are walking out of the state. And you don't care about it. You don't care that you're number one in outmigration as a state because over the five years, your policies and agenda -- and it's an indictment on them -- have made us number one in outmigration. Now, it's not talked about too much because it's very quiet in the media about that. It's quiet that we're one of the seven states that lost another representative during that census. We lost that leadership out there. It's very quiet that the demographers have said we're going to lose two to three -- I think I've said this several times, but I talk to my constituents. They don't know people are leaving the state in droves. They don't know every two minutes and 24 seconds, through the last research, every day somebody walks out of our state not to take a vacation, but to live in a different state. That's not reported too much. But you're just as happy to see the people leave because they're the ones who know your policies and agenda have failed. And this is really the ultimate failure. If you can't win on your own to be stronger as a Majority, why would you take away the will of the people to allow you to do that if you wanted to be their representative? Do the poll, do the survey. I think Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Working Families -- you name it -- holistically are going to say we want to choose our representatives. We don't want to game the system.
Senator Tedisco, the debate time has expired and your debate is closed. Thank you.
I'll close by saying one more thing, is that okay?
You have half a second.
Why is he shaking his head like that? Those who support this bill can no longer be called heroes of reform --
Senator Tedisco, you can explain your vote --
-- because they've gone to the dark side.
You can explain your vote. Thank you.
Thank you for that lack of courtesy.
You're welcome. (Laughter.)
The debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
(Inaudible.)
Senator Tedisco -- Senators, please. Senators, please.
-- give me a few seconds more.
(Gaveling.) Senators, please. There is no need for that.
There is no need to shut somebody up when they're closing. You don't do it to your side.
Senators, the debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. On the resolution, call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Skoufis to explain his vote.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I just want to offer one correction that came up during the debate. No doubt -- or I think there's a likelihood that at the end of the this process there may well be litigation and certainly courts to look to the floor debate and the remarks offered during the debate. And so it came up by Senator Rhoads that New York City is the only municipality exempted from the odd/even-year legislation that we passed a few years ago. You know, this is one of many remarks as part of this sort of conspiracy-fueled set of theories that have been applied as motive or as justification from that side to this side. To be clear, and this is the fact, New York City was not exempted from the odd/even-year law. This is the first time I've heard it, you know, named that. It's usually the even-year election law. But they're not exempted, they were constitutionally constrained from being included in that legislation. But even more relevantly, New York City is not the only jurisdiction, as the Senator, my colleague, claimed that was, in his words, exempted -- what I'll call constrained -- from being included. Every city in the state is constitutionally constrained from being included in that law that we enacted. Every village was also not included. County clerks, county sheriffs, county DAs, county registrars were not included also because constitutionally they could not be included. And so I've heard this, to put it kindly, mischaracterization offered many times. But particularly during this debate on this bill, I wanted to make sure that the record was corrected. I will be voting yes.
Senator Skoufis to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Chan to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. So on this restricting bill I am going to speak the language of parts of Southern Brooklyn from my district. There's an old saying: The fix is in. What we're witnessing here is the total disregard for a voter-approved and voter demand to take politics out of drawing our district maps. This is the purest form of gerrymandering, just to gain a political advantage. Just so politicians can decide who to get into office. My district doesn't like it. I don't like it. And I vote no. Thank you.
Senator Chan to be recorded in the negative. Senator Weber to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. I rise today in strong opposition to yet another attempt by Albany Democrats and Governor Kathy Hochul to manipulate New York's Election Law for raw political advantage. Let's be honest about what this is. This is not reform. This is not fairness. This is not about protecting democracy. This is a naked attempt to redraw the congressional map so that Albany Democrats can eliminate someone like Congressman Mike Lawler and silence the voters of Rockland County, the Hudson Valley, and every community that dares to elect someone they don't control. New Yorkers have already spoken on this issue. They supported an independent redistricting process because they were tired of hyperpartisan, power-hungry politicians picking their voters instead of New York voters picking their representatives. But every time the voters put up a guardrail, Governor Hochul and her allies look for a way to trample on it. We saw it when Albany Democrats pushed partisan maps after the last census. We saw those maps rejected by the courts. We saw them come back again and again, up until including recently. That is the very definition of subverting democracy for their own selfish partisan purposes. It is a government power being used to punish political opponents. It is an abuse of the Constitution. It is an insult to every New Yorker who believes elections should be decided at the ballot box, not in a back room in Albany. And let's not miss the hypocrisy. The same leaders who lecture the rest of the country about democracy are now trying to rig the map in New York to protect their own majority. Governor Hochul has made a habit of these stunts -- change the process, bend the rules, ignore the voters, and then call it democracy -- and then blame the president. We should be strengthening independent redistricting, not dismantling it. We should respect voters, not override them. And we should force candidates to compete for every vote, not carving up communities to predetermine the result. I urge my colleagues to reject --
Senator Weber, how do you vote?
-- this partisan power grab and stand up for fair elections.
Senator, how do you vote?
I vote no.
Senator Weber to be recorded in the negative. I just want to remind all colleagues, you have two minutes to explain your vote. Senator Murray to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to be clear when I say this. I'm not speaking for any party, I'm not speaking for the conference. This is Dean Murray saying I think what's happening across the country is wrong. It's wrong. This isn't the way to do it. It is partisan politics at its worst. Be it left, right, red, blue, it doesn't matter. It's wrong. And we shouldn't be following suit. Listen, I'm going to say something that's very rare and seldom heard, and that is when it comes to this process, the government gets it right -- I'll say it again, the government gets it right when we do redistricting. It's done for a reason, and it's actually done logically if we do it right. It's done right after the census so we can see where the population shifted so we can make sure that the people are represented properly and fairly. That is, if we do it right. Now, the people in 2014 spoke loudly. The people of New York -- not all across the country, the people of New York spoke loudly when they said we want this to be nonpartisan. We managed to botch it up so royally a couple of years ago that it actually ended up going to a special master. But I've got to tell you, the special master did a great job. These were some of the fairest maps I've ever seen. Maybe that's the way we should do it. But either way, we shouldn't be doing it this way. I've heard over and over again that two wrongs don't make a right. Well, these wrongs apparently take you left. And I hope if it does pass, that when it does come to the voters they'll follow my lead and vote no. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Murray to be recorded in the negative. Senator Weik to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam President. We heard the bill sponsor say this bill is trying to legislate changes here in New York to make up for things we don't like happening in other states. That is certainly not acting in the best interests of our constituents. In fact, the voters voted twice for fairness. This bill disregards their voice entirely. This bill aims to draw lines gerrymandering in order to drive out Republicans, leaving only one way to vote, one way to do things. Which describes what we call a single-party dictatorship, a system where power is strictly centralized, political pluralism -- which is multiple parties -- are banned, and individual choices are severely restricted. There is literally only one way to vote, because only one party is legal. And that's not something I support. I vote no.
Senator Weik to be recorded in the negative. Senator Stec to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. To explain my vote. The term "gerrymandering," its origin, Massachusetts, Governor Elbridge Gerry, 1812. So everyone wants to point, we're keeping up with the Joneses. This started, your side started it a year ago, two years ago. Depends how far back you want your lens to be. If you want to go to the origin, 1812, a salamander-shaped district to benefit a single political party at the time. It's reminiscent of the Hatfields and the McCoys. No one can even remember who started the fight, you just -- through your own lens, you're going to point the finger and say doing this action is justified because you did wrong. Where does it end? But the facts here in New York State are that in 2014, voters said they wanted an independent process. And they were given that in the Constitution. They chose that. Then, under one-party rule, your side decided to subvert that and put something else in front of the voters, and they rejected it. But now the winds are blowing and you stick your finger in the air and you say, We might be able to convince them to do it again this time. You're going to keep putting it out there, putting it out there, until you get the result that you want. I'll tell you what that isn't. It's not integrity. It's not leadership. It's not a good example. As has been said before, it was wrong then, it's wrong now. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is embarrassing. This is not what our children should be learning how to behave. I'll be voting no. This is an awful, awful precedent.
Senator Stec to be recorded in the negative. Senator Rolison to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. As I've heard I think twice now from my colleagues about the two wrongs don't make it right, well, this is like several wrongs don't make it right. And quite frankly, as Senator Murray said, I'm speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for the conference, I'm not speaking for the party. I'm speaking for myself and about the 300,000 residents of the 39th District. Because when they hear the term "gerrymandering," they recoil. Because that is not a term that endears itself to anybody, I think, in our government and political system. And when you think about what this proposal can do is take away the ability of the voters to choose the individuals that they want, by a majority, to represent them, and now we're talking about representing them in Congress -- I don't think it's our responsibility as state legislators or a state legislature to make those decisions for those voters. It's essentially saying, you know, we've done a lot of bills up here to make it easier for you to vote, and that's -- that's a good thing. But in this particular governmental office, it doesn't matter, because we're going to decide how that is going to be determined. It is taking the power that we have at the ballot box or the mailbox or however that vote gets voted, away from the individuals who actually are filling it out, and it's going to be vested here. And I think, Madam President, also when the individuals in the state have pretty much all, percentagewise, said they really don't like what government is doing and they're concerned about that --
Senator Rolison --
-- this doesn't help.
-- how do you vote?
This doesn't help, Madam President. Because of that and many other things I just said, I will be voting no and I encourage my colleagues to do so. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Rolison to be recorded in the negative. Senator Palumbo to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. You know, we get into the weeds a little bit on these things. I'm probably one of the culprits who does that a lot -- you know, page 6, line 6(b)(i). But this is very simple when you look at this. And it would actually be laughable if it weren't so serious. When you hear, you know, the outrage about threats to democracy and a Democratic Party who is just sickened by what's going on around the country, we know it's wrong. We've even said it's wrong. And then here, just very simply, the will of the people. We heard that said many, many times, the will of the people. The will of the people have put this Majority over there. Right, that's true. And actually the will of the people is proportionately we have more Republicans in this house. And proportionately, a couple of years ago, they put seven Republicans in Congress. The will of the people. And then we put this bill on the floor, and this is really at the essence of what this is. To get in the game, we heard. To have a little bit looser pen, a freer hand with the pen. Well, why would you possibly need to have new lines and a freer hand? The will of the people was to elect seven out of 26 Republican Congressmembers. We made a lot of talk about, well, you know, was the voter right, was the voter wrong? Rhetorically, trying to be cute. Well, the voters are always right. And the voters chose to put seven Republicans into the House of Representatives, which might have swung the majority. But now we have to, quote, get in the game. That is what this does in a couple of sentences. It's wrong no matter who does it. It's -- it's unconstitutional, I hope. The people will strike it down again. The will of the people will speak. And this will no longer be the law that I expect will be signed by the Governor in a very short order. So, Madam President, this is a terrible idea. This is completely outrageous. And I will be voting no. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Palumbo to be recorded in the negative. Senator Borrello to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. You know, roll back a couple of years when we were talking about moving all elections to even years. And there was this, you know, feigned outrage that we wanted to suppress voter participation. And now we're watching as the timing of this event will be to ensure that this goes on to the 2027 ballot initiative when the only major races are, you know, down in New York City, because we've conveniently moved all the other elections to the even years. So I hope to avoid the hypocrisy that's so obvious that you wait until 2028 so we can have full participation. Just like we were so concerned about a couple of years ago. Because we know that's B.S., right? You want to make sure that it's the voters in New York City that are deciding whether or not this becomes a constitutional change. But let's just put that aside for the moment and let's realize what we're doing here. We are saying we are going to undermine democracy in New York State in order to save democracy in America. What a load that is. I'll be voting no.
Senator Borrello to be recorded in the negative. Senator Tedisco to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. You know, it's pretty clear -- I'm watching your faces -- you don't like what we have to say here. Now, that's not a crime. What is a crime? You don't like what your own constituents have to say about what you're doing here and about legalizing gerrymandering. Because if you do a survey, you've probably heard it before: They want to pick their representatives. Elected officials and partisan political hacks shouldn't rig the game by drawing district lines so they can choose our representatives. Only voters should choose our representatives. New Yorkers deserve fair and equal legislative districts that are based on the commonalities of communities and not on political power blocs. Those who support this bill can no longer be called heroes of reform because they've gone too -- to the dark side and betrayed their pledge, becoming an enemy of real democracy and reform. So, Madam President, I'm voting no.
Senator Tedisco to be recorded in the negative. Senator Mattera to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. This bill is nothing but gerrymandering. (Reading.) "Gerrymandering is dividing our country. It promotes safe seats that encourage politicians to pander to their bases that vote in low-turnout primary elections. Gerrymandering rigs general elections, dilutes the will of the voters, carves up communities with shared interests, and incentivizes polarization instead of collaboration," said Problem Solvers Caucus Co-Chairman Congressman Tom Suozzi. That just says it all. I guess nobody in this whole room did not talk to Congressman Tom Suozzi. You know, when I first got here, there it was for two years, then all of a sudden the 10 years that you have the seats, you have to get changed, the distribution lines get changed. And you know what happens? It gets changed and gerrymandering happened. We know what happened: You had to have a special master that the taxpayers of New York State had to pay for, for gerrymandering. A company, there it was, out of Pennsylvania that has to, guess what, that has to redraw lines. There was a line, the congressional seat, the 3rd Congressional seat that went from Huntington all the way up to Westchester, from the lines that were drawn here. Madam President, I vote no.
Senator Mattera to be recorded in the negative. Senator Rhoads to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. You know, the one question that we try and ask ourselves every time we take a vote in this chamber is, How does this benefit New Yorkers? And I have yet to hear anybody on the other side explain to me, other than some strange theory that you're counteracting things that other parts of the country are doing, how this in any way actually benefits New Yorkers. You're taking the will of New Yorkers and flipping it on its head, trying to subvert that will to accomplish your own political objectives. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spoke about the -- what we call the odd-even bill. And you know what? He was right in the sense that there were other municipalities that were exempted. But the coincidence in all of this is that we just passed another constitutional amendment that sought to correct that, because it can only be amended through the Constitution, and conspicuously absent from that constitutional amendment was the City of New York. You know, what you call a conspiracy -- and we've come to know that conspiracies turn out all too often, in the last few years, to be true. When you have a pattern of conduct all of which points to the same outcome, it's not a coincidence. It's easier to win the game when you keep changing the rules when you don't like the outcome. This does not -- this piece of legislation does not benefit New Yorkers at all. And when we talk about threats to democracy, which my friends on the other side of the aisle love to do, just like taxing and spending, no one does threats to democracy better than the majorities in the New York State Legislature. I vote no.
Senator Rhoads to be recorded in the negative. Senator Walczyk to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. Partisan gerrymandering is wrong. And you don't have to take that from me; you should have already taken that from the voters of the State of New York when in 2014 they told us all, in direct democracy, when they flipped over their ballots, do away with partisan gerrymandering. Six of you on the other side of the aisle voted for it in this Legislature. People know that they don't want politicians choosing their representatives, they want to choose their representatives. And they're tired of the political games. And yet you brought back a constitutional amendment just in case the voters got it wrong. And in 2021, they rejected your constitutional amendment that would have allowed some political gerrymandering. So they validated their first decision. And yet you still didn't listen. So you ignored it, you took them to court, you subverted the Independent Redistricting Committee, you sued, you lost, you tried to redraw lines in a partisan way and the court rejected you. And yet again, here we are today where you're trying again. Well, I have all the confidence in the world in the voters of the State of New York. They're going to reject you again. "A republic, if you can keep it." That's what Benjamin Franklin said. And here we are 250 years later. And I'll tell you what, the founders would be glad that we're still here. I think they would be impressed with the union today. I don't even think they would be surprised to see political factions fighting each other. But de Tocqueville warned about the tyranny of the majority, and you're putting it on full display. Alexander Hamilton warned about party factions, saying they're the most fatal disease. And you're showing that disease running rampant through the halls of this Capitol. Six of you had the courage to do the right thing when this constitutional amendment to create an Independent Redistricting Commission came up in the Legislature last time. I hope a lot more of you Democrats have the courage to do the right thing today and reject it. I vote no.
Senator Walczyk to be recorded in the negative. Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam President. A lot has been said today, and I agree with my colleagues that the voters once again will do the right thing because they did it not once, but twice, telling this body that they don't want partisan gerrymandering. When I look at the numbers of how we are represented in Congress and how we are represented in this body, it is very similar. Seven Republicans out of 26; we have 22 Senators out of 63. It shows me that the voters have elected consistently in Congress what they've elected in this body, and we're saying no, that's not -- we're not going to stand for it. And I agree that what's been done in the other states is wrong. But we should not be doing the same thing. A colleague on the other side of the aisle told me in a private conversation: "My job is to make sure that none of you on the other side of the aisle exist." And that is exactly what this bill is trying to do. I vote no.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick to be recorded in the negative. Senator Martins to explains his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. You know, Madam President, the silence coming from the other side of the aisle from the Majority, 40-plus members here, is deafening. You're all good people -- smart, well-intentioned, I'm sure, able to speak your minds. You've done it plenty in the past. And yet on this bill it is more than telling that not a single one of you, aside from Senator Skoufis on a technicality, chose to stand up to defend the indefensible. When you put party over your district and residents in New York, when you decide you're a Democrat first and not a New York State Senator representing New Yorkers, you bring shame on this body, and you know it. I don't believe a single one of you thinks this is a good idea. And yet I expect every one of you is going to vote for it anyway. I'm really sorry for that. Gerrymandering is wrong, and we all know it. And Madam President, I will continue to protect our State Constitution, the residents of our great state, and I'll vote to protect democracy here in New York. I do trust the voters of New York State, and I expect that between now and when this is on the ballot, they will vote the same way they voted in the past and reject this nonsense. Madam President, I vote no.
Senator Martins to be recorded in the negative. Senator Griffo to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. In conversations with people, the overwhelming consensus and opinion expressed is that gerrymandering was and is unfortunate and wrong anywhere and everywhere. And New York State voters recognize that. That was the sentiment that they expressed and the path that we took to form an independent, bipartisan redistricting commission, something that was desired. New Yorkers said, We want a different approach, a better approach. And they expressed their will in approving a state amendment to the Constitution, a change that was meaningful to all of them. But tonight this attempt is not a defense of democracy, it defies democracy. It will disenfranchise people and communities. Today what we are seeing is dismissing the will of the people and their voices, this bill and the rulings of the courts. This bill neuters the independent structure and process. This legislation is motivated strictly by politics. And we will now implement something that will cost more, that will confuse more and diminish the role of the voters. Potentially doing this every two years, biennially, as opposed to the traditional decennial post-census redistricting, is wrong. Tonight you are putting politics first, you're putting party first, and all others be damned. I vote no.
Senator Griffo to be recorded in the negative. Are there any other Senators wishing to explain their vote? Senator Gallivan to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam President. I rise to oppose this resolution in very simple terms. It's disrespectful to and inconsiderate of the citizens we're supposed to be serving. It's purely political and partisan, and it's the wrong thing to do. I vote no.
Senator Gallivan to be recorded in the negative. Senator Gianaris to close.
Thank you, Madam President. I've heard a lot of these comments with a lot of old quotes and a lot of characterizations of what happened 15, 16 years ago. Very few of the people talking about that time period were actually here. I happen to have been here, and so I want to clarify the record. Because many of us and then-Mayor Koch -- or actually, then, former Mayor Koch led a campaign to pass legislation establishing an independent commission. And there was a lot of momentum and energy behind that effort. At some point -- and a lot of the quotes that were identified were speaking about that legislation. At some point that turned into some dirty deal where then-Governor Andrew Cuomo and the then-Republican majority in the Senate said, Let us gerrymander to our heart's content this time, and then set up a constitutional process that will forever hamstring the Democrats in the Senate when inevitably they take over the chamber. That's what that was about. And that was the origin story of this amendment you're holding up as some ideal thing. That's why it has this bizzaro language about both houses being controlled by the same party and all of that. It was a Senate Republican protection scheme. Now, a number of you have talked about Mayor Koch. I want to read you a letter from Mayor Koch, March 7, 2012 -- if we're going back 14 years, let's go back 14 years. He says: "There have been many discussions of a deal. The process would begin for passing a constitutional amendment that would govern the next round of redistricting in 2022. I urge you not to support this deal. If you stand by your original pledge, as we hope you do, you should oppose it." Okay? So don't conflate things. Don't pull up quotes about other things than the vote on the constitutional amendment. I don't know what Senator Walczyk is talking about. There are not six people sitting on this side of the aisle that voted for this commission to be entered into the Constitution, because we never supported it to begin with. Because -- and if you want to go find quotes, I'm sure I can find some old quotes of mine saying this commission is going to fail because it's five to five, and they're going to come up with nothing. Which is, of course, precisely what happened. The world has changed since then, and not in a good way. And so while we might have an ideal of independent commissions that we might like to hold true and think that would be the way we do things, we do not operate in a vacuum in New York State. We are one of 50 who are participating in this process. We are electing members of Congress who don't just sit in New York State. They go to Washington and they sit with over 400 other people who get elected from their states to make decisions for the whole country. And so this process is undoubtedly one that has national implications. You can't just say we'll do it right and let everyone else do it wrong and hope for the best, because New York will suffer if that happens. And it's already happening. This proposal will correct that process. This proposal will give New Yorkers a voice in what's happening around this country, which they desperately want. And by the way, as I've said repeatedly, the voters get to decide if they want to do this at all. And so if you respect the voters, give them a choice. But maybe, just maybe you're afraid of what they might choose. The same way some of you in debate said, Well, you think you made a mistake in electing so many Democrats to this body. Maybe you're afraid that in your view, they'll make a mistake and support this thing. Madam President, I vote aye very proudly, and I look forward to this passing and passing again and being enacted by the voters and giving New Yorkers a voice in what's happening around this country. Thank you.
Senator Gianaris to be recorded in the affirmative.
Slow roll call requested.
A slow roll call has been requested.
Madam President, more than five members have risen.
Call the roll.
Senator Addabbo.
Yes.
Senator Ashby.
Nay.
Senator Bailey.
Aye.
Senator Baskin.
Aye.
Senator Borrello.
Nay.
Senator Bottcher.
Aye.
Senator Brisport.
Aye.
Senator Brouk in the affirmative, voting remotely. Senator Bynoe.
Aye.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick.
Nay.
Senator Chan.
Nay.
Senator Cleare.
Aye.
Senator Comrie.
Aye.
Senator Fahy.
Aye.
Senator Fernandez.
Aye.
Senator Gallivan.
Nay.
Senator Gianaris.
Aye.
Senator Gonzalez.
Aye.
Senator Gounardes.
Aye.
Senator Griffo.
Nay.
Senator Harckham.
Aye.
Senator Helming.
Nay.
Senator Hinchey.
Aye.
Senator Jackson.
Aye.
Senator Kavanagh.
Aye.
Senator Krueger voting remotely in the affirmative. Senator Lanza.
Nay.
Senator Liu.
Yes.
Senator Martinez.
Aye.
Senator Martins.
Nay.
Senator Mattera.
Nay.
Senator May.
Aye.
Senator Mayer.
Aye.
Senator Murray.
Nay.
Senator Myrie.
Aye.
Senator Oberacker.
Nay.
Senator O'Mara.
Nay.
Senator Ortt. Senator Ortt voting in the negative. Senator Palumbo.
Nay.
Senator Persaud.
Aye.
Senator Ramos.
Aye.
Senator Rhoads.
Nay.
Senator Rivera.
Sí, señor.
Senator Rolison.
Nay.
Senator Ryan.
Aye.
Senator Salazar.
Aye.
Senator Sanders.
Absolutely yes.
Senator Scarcella-Spanton.
Aye.
Senator Sepúlveda. SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA: (In Spanish; affirmative.)
Senator Serrano.
Yes.
Senator Skoufis.
Aye.
Senator Stavisky voting in the affirmative remotely. Senator Stec.
Nay.
Senator Stewart-Cousins voting in the affirmative. Senator Sutton. (No response.)
Senator Tedisco.
Not a chance.
Senator Walczyk.
Nay!
Senator Webb.
Aye.
Senator Weber.
No way.
Senator Weik.
Nay.
Senator Zellner.
Aye.
Ayes, 38. Nays, 22. Senator Sutton absent from voting.
The resolution is adopted. Senator Gianaris.
Okay, I guess we're moving on to the next debate, which is Calendar 1324.
The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1324, Senate Print 9269, by Senator Krueger, an act --
May we have some order in the chamber, please.
-- an act to amend the General Business Law.
Senator Borrello, why do you rise?
I'm wondering if the sponsor, whosever standing in, could answer some questions.
Senator Mayer will answer on behalf of Senator Krueger. Senator Borrello, if you could just give us a minute, please --
Sure. Yeah, yeah.
-- while everyone moves from behind Senator Mayer. Senator Mayer, do you yield?
Yes, I yield.
The Senator yields.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to confirm that this bill is pretty much the same as a previous version of this bill, S929, from last session, which was vetoed by the Governor, is that correct?
Through you, Madam President, no, that's not correct. A number of provisions have been modified from last year's bill in response to the veto, and in addition to additional responsiveness to others who had comments about the bill that was passed last year.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, a lot of these concerns in the veto message was on how broad the scope was. You know, basically that it says, to quote her veto message, "The bill's definition and scope are broad, creating potential uncertainly about the information subject to regulation and compliance challenges for consumers, businesses and not-for-profits alike." So what exactly was changed in this bill to tighten that up?
Through you, Madam President. One of the important changes that has been made is the exemption provisions, which have been broadened to allow additional exemptions from the requirements of the bill. And in addition, the definition sections with respect to some of the definitions have been modified in response to the comments not only in the veto message, but from other stakeholders.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield? (Pause.)
Yes, I yield, sorry. Sorry.
The sponsor yields.
So you mentioned that there are exemptions, but are there any thresholds for these exemptions, you know, which would apply to small businesses so that they are not burdened unnecessarily by the operational cost of this compliance?
Through you, Madam President. No, there is not an exemption for small businesses.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So, look, in my district there are independent pharmacies that would face really serious compliance issues, small businesses. For example, a customer charges on a credit card purchases which may include medications, greeting cards, you know, toilet tissue. When these charges and charge information goes for processing to the credit card company or bank, which obligation -- what obligation does the pharmacy have to protect that information? Is the pharmacy responsible for determining whether a purchase involves regulated health information? And does the pharmacy have to treat that type of purchase differently? In other words, lookit, we've all done this, right? We've all gone to the pharmacy and, you know, got your medicine and then brought other things up, and it's all one transaction for the convenience of it. Is that going to be subject to this compliance? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. Yes, it would apply to a small pharmacy. But yes, there already exist ways to segregate the data that is reflected on the bill through the codes that the pharmacy sends to the credit card company or the processor. So this is not a new science, this is something that is already done. And I would also just explain in context that the HIPAA law, which was enacted over 30 years ago, our constituents think that all of this information about what they consider private health data is protected. But in fact it is not. The world has changed dramatically in 30 years in terms of the way information is collected, the nature of AI being used to determine what health issues affect people, and a number of the other technological changes, including people having Fitbits and other information that requires a new approach to ensuring that what is really private data remains private. And so I feel, and I think my colleagues, including many on the other side who have voted for the prior bill in the past, believe the time has come to ensure that data which leads to the determination of health problems or health issues is protected.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
I think we all want to make sure that our private health data is protected. I don't disagree with that. However, as with everything, there are always unintended consequences. And again, the Governor's veto message was how broad the scope was of this. So let's use another example, on a larger scale. Most new cars now come with a GPS built in. That's data that's being collected by the car company, by maybe a third party that manages the GPS system. And now if somebody drives to a hospital or a doctor's appointment or some other healthcare facility, does that now fall under this -- the auspices of this bill? Is that now somehow going to be data that needs to be protected?
Through you, Madam President. The bill refers to regulated health information, and it's defined quite specifically in Section 2 of the bill. And GPS data -- for example, I'm driving to an emergency room -- would not fall within that definition.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So are there any other states that have something similar to this that it's already, you know, a scope of this magnitude, a law like this?
Through you, Madam President, yes. The State of Washington enacted a bill that is extremely comparable with very similar definitions approximately two years ago. It has gone to the best of my knowledge quite smoothly, without any litigation, without companies pulling out, without companies unable to comply. And this bill is based in large part on the successful model in the State of Washington.
Madam President, will the sponsor -- one more question. Will you yield for one more question?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, I will.
The sponsor yields.
My favorite question on every bill. Does this have a private right of action?
Through you, Madam President. No, this bill does not have a private right of action.
All right. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?
Thank you, Madam President. Would the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, of course.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Madam President. So this bill requires affirmative consent on the part of the consumer, is that correct?
Through you, Madam President. To the extent that information is going to be shared, it does require affirmative consent by the consumer, yes.
And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
By imposing that affirmative consent mandate on all data that could be broadly construed or outlined in this bill as health-related outside of HIPAA, how does this bill prevent endless consent forms and pop-ups asking for affirmative consent from consumers?
Through you, Madam President. It appears that the statute really only requires one affirmative effort by the purveyor of the information to reach out and get the affirmative consent. It's not an endless supply of data requests going to the person online. And let me remind our colleagues that a significant reason why this bill is so important is because information is now transferred online in a way that it was not previously. And so people are sharing data, again, or sharing information they presume is confidential, and as we know from the example of Target, they actually used this data to make determinations about the health status of individuals that went far beyond the expectation, reasonable expectation. So it is really the use of online data and AI that requires a new approach, and that's why I think the bill is so justified.
And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Thank you. Through you, Madam President. Okay, so as I understand in your explanation, the first time, by your example, that you go to a Target.com or any other type of business, you'll then affirm your consent and then the consumer's data will be able to be utilized so long as they consent to it in that first interaction? Do I understand that correctly? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. Yes, you are correct that there is certainly initially one effort made to reach out to the consumer for affirmative consent. It could be potentially that there needs to be another request if additional data is obtained for another purchase. For example, you go back and you purchase something separately. But the intent is to have a single authorization at the beginning of the process.
And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So if the consumer goes back to the same website but they're buying another product, or even the same product, that would be new information and new health data they would then have to affirm consent once again -- essentially, in every transaction or every time they're offering data? Do I understand that correctly?
I think -- through you, Madam President. Under Section 2, unless strictly necessary, which is a concept we have not discussed previously, which basically does not require this affirmative authorization, it occurs at the onset of the purchase. So if they went back a second time again to Amazon.com and bought the chemical that keeps you from losing your hair, is the example I keep thinking of -- I don't know, there must be a lot of people here losing their hair tonight. (Laughter.)
And if that occurs the second time, yes, they would have to go and seek another authorization.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
You're probably -- that example is coming back to you time and again because you're debating with a balding man. (Laughter.)
Would the same thing occur at a pharmacy that you regularly go to, in a local pharmacy? Each interaction, each purchase, every time you go back to that pharmacy the consumer would have to affirm consent each and every single time? Or can they establish a relationship with that pharmacy under this legislation, say, Okay, I consent to you sharing my data -- or I don't -- and then that's the end of it?
Through you, Madam President. The bill does not preclude the process by which an entity might establish a preliminary authorization that would allow you to consent to a subsequent purchase, in my reading of the statute. I think, you know, your neighborhood pharmacy, if you're going to be going there every week for your kids and everything else, there's nothing here that precludes it. But the point is that you ought to actually affirmatively give authority before your information is shared. And this is seeking an effective way that addresses some of the things in the veto to get that information and the authorization.
Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, the debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect six months after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1324, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 48. Nays, 13.
The bill is passed. Senator Serrano.
Thank you, Madam President. Let's now take up Calendar 1383.
The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1383, Senate Print 8598A, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Senator Borrello, why do you rise?
Madam President, would the sponsor yield for some questions.
I yield, Madam President.
Senator Ramos yields.
Thank you. Through you, Madam President. So it sounds like we want to take products, personal care products that are sold all over the world, but we want to make them have a warning sticker if they're sold here in New York State. Is that what this bill does?
Through you, Madam President. This is warning signs for skin-care products, not very different from the warning labels that passed in Senator Lanza's bill unanimously yesterday.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
I do.
The sponsor yields.
Yeah, I really don't pay attention to Lanza's bills anyway. (Laughter.)
But anyway, with that being said, what I'm trying to figure out is we have FDA-approved skin-care products, they're on the market, and they're not required to have a warning anywhere else but here?
Through you, Madam President. I think that if the Senator did bother to read bills before voting on them, like this one, he might learn that there are certain ingredients in these products that unfortunately on very young skin cause very serious dermatological issues. And so unfortunately we are talking about chemicals that are not adequate for underage skin.
Madam President, does the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
I do.
The Senator yields.
So we're going to put a warning sticker, and you think that that's going to prevent that from being sold to an underage person that shouldn't be using it? Is that what's going to happen?
Through you, Madam President. Unlike the Senator, I do think that people read warning labels, and that informs them and helps them make much more educated decisions as consumers.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the Senator yield?
I do.
The sponsor yields.
We're talking about underage kids, though. So will this bill ban them from buying them, or it's just going to be a sticker?
Madam President, it's not a ban. This is a warning label with an understanding of the consequences of using these chemicals on skin.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So who is going to be punished if there's not a label? Is it the retailer? Who's going to -- who's going to have to pay? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. As stated on the bottom of the first page of the bill, it is the retailer that would pay for the consequences of not having the warning labels attached.
Madam President, I was surprised to see that the sponsor hadn't read her own bill and didn't know that right away. But with that being -- can I -- will she yield for a question?
Would the sponsor yield?
I do.
Yes. So we're going to saddle the retailer. So what about like Amazon or some other online company that ships them into New York? What happens then?
Well, they're the retailer. They're responsible, Madam President.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Sure.
The sponsor yields.
But Amazon's delivering it to someone's house -- I'm just using that as an example -- versus a pharmacy that has it on a shelf. You're saying the retailer, not the --
Senator Borrello, are you asking a question?
Yeah, I'm sorry, will the sponsor yield for a question?
Will you yield for a question?
Yes.
Thank you.
Yes. Yes. The sponsor yields.
Through you, Madam President. So you just got done saying it's the retailer. So I envision that as a pharmacy or a salon or whatever -- a bodega -- that's carrying these skin-care products is ultimately responsible for applying a sticker, not the manufacturer. Who decides what goes on that sticker? How is the retailer supposed to know what the warning label is supposed to say?
Through you, Madam President. We outline this in the bill. And yes, all of those providers are retailers and therefore included in the bill.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So the manufacturer, the distributor, the wholesaler, they're not responsible. The person that has it on the shelf is responsible, is that correct? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. Well, actually the manufacturer, the producer is considered as a retailer in -- within the language of the bill. And that is because, well, nowadays some companies sell their own products on their websites, aside from selling them -- having a different point of sale.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, as far as like Supply Chain 101, no, the manufacturer is not the retailer. Yes, sometimes they do direct consumer prices -- or sales, I get that. But I'm asking who's responsible, ultimately, for ensuring that this law is being abided to? First you said it was the retailer and not the manufacturer. So which is it?
Through you, Madam President, it's outlined -- we're defining "retailer" in the bill to include the producer as well. It says "Retailer shall mean any person, firm, association, partnership, limited liability company or corporation that sells, produces, prepares, formulates or compounds a personal-care product or products or whose brand name is affixed to such product or products.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So that's a lot of people within the supply chain, then. So you're -- so if the sticker's not on at the retail location or if the box shows up at your door and there's not a sticker in it, so who's going to be responsible, then, for paying this fine? And what is the fine?
Through you, Madam President. It's whoever sells it. It could be any of them. I'm not sure, you know -- I didn't know where the condescension came from before, and I don't understand what the different angles towards the same answer is trying to purport.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Sure.
The sponsor yields.
The question is, who's going to end up paying? Who's going to be enforcing this? I mean, are we asking some -- someone within New York State government to go after Amazon? Or are we going to go after some mom-and-pop local pharmacy? Who's going to the target of this enforcement?
Through you, Madam President. I'm going to continue to point to the place in the bill that lists the retailers. But in this question, this time the Senator did allude to enforcement. And in that case it would be the Attorney General who would help enforce the law.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
All right, so we're going to take the resources of the Attorney General's office to make sure that there's a sticker on a bottle of product that is legally sold within New York State and with the approval of the FDA, most likely. So they're going to be the ones going after retailers who haven't put the sticker, the warning sticker that you've outlined, on the bottle. That's what we're going to do here?
Through you, Madam President. Yes, it is a valuable use of our resources to ensure that underage children are not blindly following TikTok trends and purchasing chemicals that are designed for the purposes of preventing wrinkles and treating skin-care issues and concerns that grown adults have. Taking care of our children is always a good use of our resources.
Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So you think that an underage child, a 15-year-old who believes that they need anti-wrinkle cream is also going to take heed to the warning label that you're going to put on this bottle?
Through you, Madam President, I believe that if we create a culture of whether it's the people working at the store, more better-informed parents, and yes, including better-informed children, that better decisions among consumers will be made. Yes, I do.
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So you're talking about TikTok trends and kids using, you know, potentially harmful facial treatments that clearly they shouldn't be using. And you really think that a TikTok influencer is not going to kind of outrank, in the mind of a child, a sticker on a bottle?
Through you, Madam President. As both the mother and stepmother to teenagers, I will say absolutely. I think by and large right now the teenage population and younger does want to be informed. And not only will they be able to know and identify influencers who are not guiding them down the right path, but hopefully this contributes to a much more -- a healthier -- a healthier situation for these young kids.
Madam President, on the bill.
Senator Borrello on the bill.
Senator Ramos, thank you. I understand the concern. But again, this is misplaced. What you're trying to say is that we have kids out there that are using something that's potentially dangerous because they've seen an influencer do it or they've seen some kind of a TikTok challenge. I don't think any stickers are going to stop that, quite frankly. I mean, we've seen kids, you know, downing toxic amounts of cinnamon because of a challenge, a TikTok challenge. We've seen kids do really stupid things. A sticker is not going to replace good parenting, number one. A sticker is not going to stop a child from doing something they shouldn't be doing. Parents have to enable it. They have to give them the money, in most cases, and they have to -- you know, and they have to in some cases bring the kid to the store to buy it or let them buy it online. So bad parenting -- a sticker's not going to stop bad parenting. But it is going to create a situation where once again we are going to go after retailers, brick-and-mortar stores, people in New York State that are just trying to do -- to run their business and provide products and services to the people of New York State, and we're going to because of some grandiose idea that we think a sticker is going to outweigh and outrank an influencer, is going to somehow protect our children. It's not. I don't think anybody in here believes that if a kid thinks that something they see on TikTok is good, that a sticker is going to stop them from doing it. I don't think anybody honestly believes that. But we can feel good about ourselves that maybe we tried to do something. The reality is this is not what's going to happen. This could create a situation where we're going to have, again, class action lawsuits, lots of people are going to pay. It's going to be harder to do business in New York State. And just like we talked about previously, it's hard for someone who doesn't actually know what it's like to run a business and sign the front of a check and not just the back of one, to understand the negative impact on small businesses. But this is another bad idea, and I'll be voting no. Thank you.
Senator Walczyk indicated previously he wanted to ask questions. I see others have raised. So, Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?
Thank you, Madam President. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield?
Absolutely.
Yes, the sponsor yields.
Thank you. Through you, Madam President. So this bill's about requiring and providing warning labels on anti-aging skin-care products. I saw talc was on the product list. Why would talc need a warning label? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. Unfortunately, talc has a high potential for carcinogenic asbestos contamination.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Sure.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Madam President. California passed Prop 95. I think they're the only other state in the union that requires any kind of warning label on talc. But that's only if the talc is containing asbestos. I noticed in your legislation, unless I missed it in a line here, this would just be all talc, whether it contained asbestos or not. Should I look to a line that tells me this is only going to be provided a warning label if it's talc that has the asbestos contamination that you're concerned with?
Through you, Madam President. It's an unfortunate fact that talc in many circumstances has the potential for carcinogenic asbestos contamination. In fact, just last year the FDA was considering a full ban of talc. And I'll also correct the Senator: It's not Prop 95, it's Prop 65 in California.
Thank you. And through you, Madam President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
Do you continue to yield?
Sure.
The sponsor yields.
Prop 65 or 95, I can't keep track of all the props in California. But the question is the same: Why would we ban talc regardless of whether it's contaminated -- or not ban it, require a warning label on it regardless of whether it's contaminated in New York State products or not contaminated? If it's pure talc and it doesn't have any asbestos contamination, why would we require a warning label on it?
Through you, Madam President. There is major class action lawsuits going on right now with Johnson & Johnson with regard to the use of talcum. But at the end of the day here we're talking about, again, children's skin. I think among adults, we can decide what to do. But we want to discourage young people from using these types of products. And I would add that these types of warning labels can be quite transformative in creating a culture that discourages use. We've seen it with cigarette packs and the decrease in smoking.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Yeah.
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Why would we want to put a warning label on pure talc that doesn't have any contaminants? Who does that save?
Through you, Madam President, we're not sure -- we -- maybe I'm not sure I understand the question. Nobody is asking to put warning labels on pure talc.
Well, I'm certainly not. But I would clarify my question, if that's what the sponsor is asking.
Yes, could you clarify your question.
So on line 8 to -- well, I'll read right here from line 5: "'Anti-aging skin-care product' shall mean any over-the-counter cosmetic or skin-care product that contains as an active or intentionally added ingredient" -- and then you list them. And talc is listed as one of those ingredients. And then later in the bill, as was said in the debate: No retailer shall sell or offer for sale any anti-aging skin-care product -- as we've just defined talc, and/or with talc added to it -- in this state unless such product bears a clear and conspicuous warning label. Such warning label shall appear -- and it goes on. That was already displayed in debate. So, I mean, the question is the same. If you have pure talc, why would people need to be warned about that? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. I mean, the warning label is to warn for possible carcinogens in the different -- with the different ingredients. Some of these skin-care products might not have talc. So that may be irrelevant. But either way, it is simply a warning. Nobody is banning a product. It's simply providing more information and could even allow the person to Google the ingredients of that particular product.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Sure.
The sponsor yields.
I won't belabor that point any longer. What's the violation for selling pure talc without a warning label? What's the penalty?
Through you, Madam President. The violation would be up to $250.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Excuse me, if I could just interrupt. I want to call an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 124, Madam President.
There will be an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in Room 124. Sorry.
Would the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
I suppose, although I am on the Finance Committee.
Through you, Madam President. What kind of disadvantage does this put on New York State when it comes to the talc and talcum powder industry if we're only requiring warning labels on talc in New York and not the other 49, with an asterisk for California based on Prop 65 and whether or not it contains a carcinogen or any contaminant?
Through you, Madam President. I think it puts us at a full advantage of having fewer children with skin problems. That is far more important than any industry.
Madam President, would the sponsor yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
Through you, Madam President. What skin problems are we talking about when you're talking about pure talc?
Through you, Madam President. It's not just pure talc, right? We're talking about eye creams, different moisturizers, things that are designed for people of a certain age. So it's not about pure talc. I know you're stuck on talc, but what we're talking about is a bigger universe than that. And frankly, these products on anyone, but especially very young, undeveloped skin, can cause inflammation, all sorts of irritation, including permanent scarring.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
What permanent scarring does talc cause? (Pause.)
Through you, Madam President. Actually, just about two years ago to the date, the Attorney General recovered $700 million from Johnson & Johnson over products that contained dangerous talcum powder. And here it says that talcum powder can cause serious health concerns, including ovarian cancer and lung problems.
Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yeah.
The sponsor yields.
Right. That would be talcum powder that was contaminated I think in that case with asbestos. But for pure talc, which is just listed in your bill, not contaminated talc, not tested talc, not talc from any particular area of the world or any particular mine -- your bill just lists talc. So if it's pure talc with no contaminant, what cancer, ovarian cancer, facial scarring, as you said -- how could pure talc cause that, and is there any case where it has?
Through you, Madam President. Again, we're not talking about the purchase of pure talc, we are talking about the purchase of skin-care products where talc won't be the exclusive ingredient. And so this can be a combination of -- the effect of the combination of the different chemicals for a particular product, but more so, it's a warning label. It's just extra information for someone to hopefully feel inspired to do more research before they purchase a product and make sure that it's right for them.
Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yeah.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Madam President. Yeah, I'm familiar with the California-style warning labels, which I think have the danger to consumers that they kind of ignore them at this point. Because, you know, it's kind of a running joke that everything causes cancer in California. But if we're talking about pure talc -- and there's been no studies to show that pure talc has any kind of danger that you've, you know, referenced in any of the other products. If you're talking about pure talc as an additive to any of these cosmetic products or talc itself, don't we run the danger of telling consumers the wrong thing? If you put a warning label on bottled water in the State of New York -- which it's possible at some point water could get contaminated. But if you put a warning label on a bottle of water and say in some states this has sometimes proved to have cancerous effects -- well, then, what are you really communicating to the constituency across the State of New York? They obviously know that water doesn't cause cancer. So I ask again, when it comes to pure talc, what concerns are there that we would want to put a warning label on products that contain pure talc?
Through you, Madam President. Since it is clear that cancer or, you know, scarring and all of the things we've talked about are not compelling enough reasons for the Senator to support simple warning labels on products -- which I find deeply unfortunate -- I would simply add that for these products, perhaps it's worth even saving families money, insurance companies money, our healthcare system money on having to deal with these maladies that particularly our teenagers and even younger children are experiencing for using these products.
Madam President, on the bill.
Senator Walczyk on the bill.
So a $250 violation in the State of New York if you've sold a product that contains pure talc -- which is not dangerous -- obviously some of those studies that you're reading are contaminated talc, which it's not uncommon for talc to get contaminated, especially with asbestos. But that doesn't mean it's a certainty. And if you had written in this bill contaminated talc or how about a product with asbestos in it, that would have had you covered at least as far as this one concern that I have here with this bill. This -- you know, New Yorkers are concerned about affordability. It's death by a thousand cuts. You're requiring a warning label on something that literally people do not need to be warned about. And a $250 violation for a small-business retailer, if they miss the memo with all of the laws that we're passing through these halls all the time, a 250 -- well, you know where that $250 bill is going to get paid. They're going to have to raise prices on other products in order to make up that gap. Or maybe like many in businesses in the State of New York they'll just say, I've had enough, I'm going to pack it into a U-Haul and I'm going to head down South where business is more friendly. And you can look no further than the example that California has already set with this same style of legislation. And I mean it, consumers roll their eyes and it is a joke, because everything causes cancer in the state of California. This is a perfect example. Pure talc does not cause cancer. Asbestos in talc, which is not tremendously uncommon, absolutely. Asbestos causes cancer. But to just say that on every product that has talc in it, now we're going to need to slap a warning label on it is the wrong thing to do. It's bad public policy. And as the representative of Talcville, New York, I will be voting no and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Yes, Madam President.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, why do you rise?
I would like to know if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
Senator Ramos, do you yield?
I do.
The Senator yields.
Thank you, Senator. My questions have to do with the warning label. If a retailer, a small drugstore, were to get a product that did not have a label attached to it -- through you Madam President -- would the retailer be required to create a label to put on the product?
Through you, Madam President, the bill doesn't speak to that. So no.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If a small mom-and-pop shop wanted to put a label on, how would they get the information to -- you know, as to what is required by the warning under this bill?
Through you, Madam President. They would have to obtain the information from the company that created the skin-care cream, the product.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
Do you continue to yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
The bill says that the warning must be in a font that is a size and style that is clearly legible and placed in a location reasonably calculated to be seen and understood by consumers under ordinary conditions of purchase and use. So my question for you is if a product is in a very small tube, how do we have a font size that's readable for a product that's very small?
Through you, Madam President. We've seen many times even on pens where they attach a tape, a string, that has all the information that is pertinent. There's many different creative ways to make sure that people are getting the information that's needed on a product, no matter what the size or the packaging of the product may be.
Through you, Madam President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Has there been any consideration for putting signs on display units, say in a makeup store or in a store that sells these products so that there's a warning that's clearly conspicuous as opposed to on the product itself?
Through you, Madam President. I think that retailers are certainly welcome to do something like that. But ultimately we want the consumer to be able to take the information home. I mean, look, this information already exists online, right, if the person goes and looks for it. But I think the point is for the information to be readily available, in the person's face, and that they're taking it home with them in a way that is written.
Through you, Madam President, on the bill.
Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick on the bill.
Well, thank you, sponsor, for this bill. As a mom of three daughters, I know that there are many products that are out there that are marketed to our young women in the hopes that they will avoid aging and spots and wrinkles and all kinds of other things. In the Sephora close to my home, Roosevelt Field, there's actually a sign that says that teenagers are not allowed into the store unless they're accompanied by adults, because they tend to use up products, they wreck display cases, they purchase products that, you know, maybe are not appropriate for them. And they also run up credit card bills for their parents. So I do know that one of the products that you've listed in the bill is something that is a concern, retinol. And that that is damaging to skin that is young. I happen to have a daughter who worked in Long Island City for Manna Products developing skin-care products and learned a lot about these types of products, their damaging effects, and she's educated everybody in my house about what we should and should not be using. I do think that reaching parents is a more effective means because if, as Senator Borrello said, the kids that are seeing this on TikTok and Instagram are not going to be swayed by a small warning label. They may be swayed if there is a display that has a warning that will actually be seen by parents. I agree that it might be online, but I'm not sure that that's going to be sufficient to ward our girls off from buying these types of products. So I do have concerns, of course, because it does put potentially a small business in harm's way if they don't have products that have these labels on them. That's another concern of mine that we may be a putting small businesses in jeopardy. And as we've talked about in this body, that we need to do everything we can to keep our businesses afloat, keep them in business without increased regulation. So those are my thoughts. I think we could add a few things to make this more effective. But thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Yes, Senator Gianaris.
We've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.
The bill has been restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Ramos to explain her vote.
Yeah, thank you, Madam President. You know, this bill is I think rather simple, but it's still an important step in consumer protection. Over the last few years we've seen a dramatic increase in children and teenagers using anti-aging skin-care products that were never designed for young, developing skin. And social media has influenced trends that encourage these young people to use products containing retinoids, exfoliating acids, and other active ingredients without fully understanding the risks. The irony is that many of these young people start with healthy skin but after following social media trends and using products designed for aging adults, they end up with irritation, inflammation, damaged skin barriers, and increased sensitivity that requires serious and costly treatment. Children should not be damaging healthy skin in pursuit of wrinkles they don't have. This bill doesn't ban these products. It doesn't tell parents what decisions to make. It simply ensures that consumers receive clear warnings about potential risks and are encouraged to consult a healthcare professional before use. And I want to recognize Dr. Linda Tagliamonte, whose expertise and advocacy helped bring attention to this issue. Professionals like Dr. Linda understand that healthy skin is not about chasing social media trends, it's about education, prevention, and making informed decisions. That's exactly what this bill does, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting aye. Thank you.
Senator Ramos to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1383, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Walczyk and Weber. Also Senator Helming. Ayes, 53. Nays, 8.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris.
Madam President, please call on Senator Lanza for an announcement.
Senator Lanza for an announcement.
Madam President, there will be an immediate meeting of the Republican Conference in Room 315 of the Capitol.
There will be an immediate meeting of the Republican Conference in 315 of the Capital.
The Senate will stand at ease.
The Senate will stand at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 9:21 p.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 10:41 p.m.)
The Senate will return to order. Senator Gianaris.
Madam President, it's my understanding that the lay-asides on Calendar 1606 and 1608 have been removed. Let us proceed with the supplemental calendar, beginning with 1606.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1606, Senate Print 1058, by Senator Serrano, an act to amend the Multiple Dwelling Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1606, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Griffo, Mattera, Oberacker, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 50. Nays, 11.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1607, Senate Print 1169B, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the Civil Rights Law.
Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect one year after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1607, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Griffo, Helming, Martins, Murray, Oberacker, Palumbo, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 49. Nays, 12.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1608, Senate Print 1330A, by Senator Parker, an act to amend the Public Service Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1608, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1609, Senate Print 1422A, by Senator Liu, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1609, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 42. Nays, 19.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1610, Assembly Bill Number 2020, by Assemblymember Maher, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1610, voting in the negative are Senators Bailey, Brisport, Gonzalez, Krueger, Liu, Rivera and Salazar. Ayes, 54. Nays, 7.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1611, Assembly Bill Number 9195A, by Assemblymember Eichenstein, an act to amend the Civil Rights Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1611, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1612, Senate Print 4468C, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1613, Senate Print 4602B, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the Election Law.
The bill is high and will be laid aside for the day.
Calendar Number 1614, Senate Print 4725A, by Senator Skoufis, an act in relation to authorizing Michael Winston Hoard, the widower of Kathy Marie Dwyer-Hoard, to file a new service retirement application.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1615, Assembly Bill Number 7376B, by Assemblymember Reyes, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1616, Assembly Bill Number 1392, by Assemblymember Cruz, an act to require the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to develop recommendations regarding the establishment of microgrids.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1616, voting in the negative are Senators Oberacker and Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1617, Senate Print 5936A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1618, Senate Print 6048A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to authorize Susan Gillinder, the widow of Robert C. Ritchie, to file a new service retirement application.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1619, Senate Print 6130A, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Executive Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1620, Senate Print 6319B, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Read the last section.
Section 15. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1620, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 22.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1621, Senate Print 6845B, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1621, voting in the negative are Senators Salazar and Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1622, Assembly Bill Number 6744, by Assemblymember Simone, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1622, voting in the negative are Senators Martinez, Martins, Rhoads and Weik. Also Senator Mattera. Ayes, 56. Nays, 5.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1623, Assembly Bill Number 7345A, by Assemblymember Bronson, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1623, voting in the negative are Senators Bailey, Brisport, Gonzalez, Krueger, Liu, Rivera and Salazar. Ayes, 54. Nays, 7.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1624, Senate Print 7491B, by Senator Brisport, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1624, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Martins, Rhoads, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 55. Nays, 6.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1625, Senate Print Number 7529, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1626, Assembly Bill Number 1541B, by Assemblymember Paulin, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1627, Senate Print 7602B, by Senator Walczyk, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1627, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1628, Assembly Bill Number 8091B, by Assemblymember Peoples-Stokes, an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1628, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 45. Nays, 16.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1629, Senate Print 7817A, by Senator Baskin, an act to authorize the widow of William James Middlebrooks to file a retirement option election form.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1630, Senate Print 7835A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1631, Senate Print 7908B, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law.
Read the last section.
Section 6. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1632, Assembly Bill Number 8617A, by Assemblymember McDonald, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Fahy to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings momentarily to rise in support of this legislation. It's about the Mohawk River, which is one of our most important natural and economic resources. It stretches from the Adirondack foothills to where it connects with the Hudson River. Despite its importance, however, it is -- the Mohawk River Basin is facing growing challenges with invasive aquatic species that are continuing to threaten our native ecosystems as well as pollution runoff, erosion and more, in addition to frequent flooding and extreme weather. Given the climate challenges, this legislation is simple but very significant in creating a comprehensive, basin-wide management program with a dedicated advisory committee of experts and stakeholders as well as a watershed coordinator and, more importantly, it also requires the development of an invasive species management plan to protect the health of this waterway, fisheries, and natural habitat. More than 600,000 New Yorkers live within this watershed; many -- most of them are my constituents. And hundreds of municipalities, farmers and businesses rely on it. This will take a scientific approach to protect this incredibly vital waterway, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain that and will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you.
Senator Fahy to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1632, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1633, Senate Print 8026A, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the Social Services Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1633, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 41. Nays, 20.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1634, Senate Print 8211B, by Senator Addabbo, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
Read the last section.
Section 8. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1635, Senate Print 8451B, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the General Business Law.
The bill is high and will be laid aside for the day.
Calendar Number 1636, Senate Print 8473, by Senator Mayer, an act directing the Department of Health to contract with a qualified entity for a feasibility study.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1637, Senate Print 8583C, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 10. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1637, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 22.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1638, Senate Print 8688A, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1639, Senate Print 8717, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll).
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1639, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Griffo, Murray, O'Mara, Ortt, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 53. Nays, 8.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1640, Senate Print 8746, by Senator Cooney, an act to amend the Tax Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1640, voting in the negative are Senators Griffo, Helming, Oberacker and Walczyk. Ayes, 57. Nays, 4.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1641, Senate Print 8844A, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1641, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1642, Senate Print 8864A, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1642, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1643, Assembly Bill Number 10334A, by Assemblymember Solages, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1643, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1644, Senate Print 9088A, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1644, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Chan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, O'Mara, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 51. Nays, 10.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1645, Senate Print 9093, by Senator Fernandez, an act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of January.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1645, voting in the negative are Senators Gallivan, Griffo, Rhoads, Sutton and Walczyk. Also Senator Weber. Ayes, 55. Nays, 6.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1646, Senate Print 9100A, by Senator Harckham, an act in relation to authorizing Tina Russo to receive a recalculation of her retirement benefit.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1647, Senate Print 9108A, by Senator Ortt, an act in relation to authorizing the Town of Niagara to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parklands.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1647, voting in the negative: Senator Fahy. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1648, Assembly Bill Number 10102, by Assemblymember Glick, an act to amend the Real Property Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1648, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Ryan, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 39. Nays, 22.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1649, Assembly Bill Number 10328A, by Assemblymember Stirpe, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1649, voting in the negative are Senators Bailey, Brisport, Gonzalez, Krueger, Liu, Rivera and Salazar. Ayes, 54. Nays, 7.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1650, Senate Print 9250, by Senator Hinchey, an act in relation to authorizing Janay M. Gasparini to take the competitive civil service examination.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1651, Assembly Bill Number 10160A, by Assemblymember Burdick, an act to amend the Public Service Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1652, Assembly Bill Number 10518, by Assemblymember McDonald, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1652, voting in the negative are Senators Bailey, Brisport, Gonzalez, Krueger, Liu, Rivera and Salazar. Ayes, 54. Nays, 7.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1653, Senate Print 9338A, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Penal Law.
Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1653, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Ryan, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 43. Nays, 18.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1654, Assembly Bill Number 8904A, by Assemblymember Lucas, an act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1655, Assembly Bill Number 10523A, by Assemblymember Burdick, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1656, Senate Print 9451, by Senator Fahy, an act granting retroactive Tier 4 membership in the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System to Katie Adamek.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1657, Assembly Bill Number 10455, by Assemblymember Kelles, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
There is a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1657, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Stec and Weber. Also Senator Tedisco. Ayes, 44. Nays, 17.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1658, Senate Print 9546A, by Senator Sutton, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1658, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1659, Senate Print 9565A, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Education Law.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 120th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1659, voting in the negative are Senators Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1660, Senate Print 9567B, by Senator Ryan, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 6. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Ryan to explain his vote.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. So I rise today as sponsor of this bill, 9567B, known as Nima's Law. This bill is named in honor of Nima Pazooki of Jericho, New York, in Nassau County, who tragically lost his life after prolonged exposure to nitrous oxide products. Nima was working hard in recovery and attending regular meetings, but began experiencing serious and unexplained health symptoms. Even after seeking medical care, no one could determine the cause. It was only after his unfortunate and tragic passing that the parents discovered evidence of his long-term nitrous oxide use. Nima's story is heartbreaking because it shows how the hidden dangers can be of these products -- that are often marketed as harmless -- causing severe neurological damage, addiction, and in some cases -- and tragically, in Nima's case -- death. Today nitrous oxide is sold in brightly colored canisters, flavors, package that is clearly, clearly aimed at young adults. These products are being marketed not for its intended purpose. The FDA warns that inhaling nitrous oxide can lead to Vitamin B12 deficiency, paralysis, psychiatric disturbances, loss of consciousness, asphyxiation, permanent neurological damage and, tragically, death. These are not minor side effects; these are life altering consequences. What this bill does, it takes a commonsense approach. It prohibits the sale, retail sale of nitrous oxide while preserving the legitimate medical, dental and industrial uses. It also strengthens public education so no more do families, educators, young people not understand the risks before tragedy strikes. I vote in the affirmative and in the memory of Nima. Thank you.
Senator Ryan to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1660, voting in the negative are Senators Skoufis and Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1661, Assembly Bill Number 10310B, by Assemblymember Paulin, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 120th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1661, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Mattera, Murray, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 48. Nays, 13.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1662, Assembly Bill Number 10653, by Assemblymember Paulin, an act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 100th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1662, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Mattera, Oberacker, O'Mara, Rhoads, Skoufis, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senator Martins. Ayes, 45. Nays, 16.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1663, Assembly Bill Number 10338, by Assemblymember Lavine, an act to amend Chapter 455 of the Laws of 1997.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1663, voting in the negative are Senators Addabbo, Brisport and Rhoads. Ayes, 58. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed.
Madam President, please recognize Senator Bailey for a quick announcement.
Senator Bailey for a quick announcement.
Madam President, I am pleased to announce that our New York Knicks have taken Game 1 against the San Antonio Spurs! (Extended cheers, applause.)
Go New York, go New York, go! Go New York, go New York, go! (Cheers, applause.)
That's a very unified Senate sound. (Laughter.)
Calendar Number -- oh, sorry.
Go ahead.
Calendar Number 1664, Senate Print 9878A, by Senator Baskin, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Baskin to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam President. This bill will honor Travis Krege by naming a bridge in my district the Army Private First Class Travis C. Krege Bridge. Army Private Krege was a Cheektowaga native who was tragically killed in the line of duty on December 6, 2006, while serving during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Krege and four other soldiers were killed when an explosive device destroyed their military vehicle in Iraq. Travis was just 24 years old at the time of his death. Travis graduated from Maryvale High School in the year 2000, in my district, and he was known as an easygoing guy who enjoyed eating wings, reading history books, playing basketball, and watching the Buffalo Sabres play. He would have loved to be here this year for the Sabres' historic return to the playoffs or to see tonight's historic win as well, I'm sure. And it's remembrance of this American hero's sacrifice, in conjunction with honoring the family that he left behind, that has led to the consideration of this bill before us today. Dedicating this bridge on Cleveland Drive in Cheektowaga is a way of acknowledging Travis's mark on his hometown for defending this country's freedom. Each of us spent Memorial Day in our districts remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in their service to our country. And I am honored to sponsor this bill that will serve as a daily reminder to the residents of Western New York of the sacrifice that Army Private First Class Travis Krege made for us. With gratitude, I proudly vote aye. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Baskin to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1664, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1665, Senate Print 9891B, by Senator Sanders, an act to amend the Banking Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1665, voting in the negative: Senators Ortt and Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1666, Assembly Bill Number 11146B, by Assemblymember Wieder, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1667, Senate Print 9949A, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1667, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1668, Senate Print 10010, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Facilities Development Corporation Act.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1669, Senate Print 10022, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1669, voting in the negative are Senators Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, O'Mara, Ortt, Stec and Weik. Ayes, 52. Nays, 9.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1670, Senate Print 10028, by Senator Walczyk, an act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1670, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1671, Senate Print 10077, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1671, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1672, Assembly Bill Number 10341, by Assemblymember Kassay, an act in relation to authorizing and directing the conveyance of a conservation easement over certain state-owned lands.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1673, Senate Print 10181, by Senator Harckham, an act establishing the Birch Hill-Highview Water District in the Town of Southeast, Putnam County.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 7. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1674, Senate Print 10185, by Senator May, an act to authorize the Town of Aurelius to continue the use of an existing water district capital reserve fund.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1674, voting in the negative: Senator Skoufis. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1675, Senate Print 10199, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Multiple Dwelling Law.
Read the last section.
Section 23. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1675, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1676, Senate Print 10240, by Senator Harckham, in relation to authorizing Larry Mendel to receive his 30 years of service credit.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1677, Assembly Bill Number 11296, by Assemblymember Lupardo, an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1678, Assembly Bill Number 11188, by Assemblymember Lavine, an act to amend the Navigation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1678, voting in the negative are Senators Skoufis, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 58. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed. There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Weber moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11349 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10276A, Third Reading Calendar 1679.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1679, Assembly Bill Number 11349, by Assemblymember Carroll, an act to amend the Town Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1679, voting in the negative are Senators Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martinez, O'Mara, Scarcella-Spanton, Sepúlveda, Skoufis and Weik. Also Senator Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick. Also Senator Tedisco. Ayes, 50. Nays, 11.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1680, Senate Print 10283, by Senator Webb, an act authorizing the County of Cortland to transfer ownership of Linear Park to Lime Hollow Nature Center, Inc.
There's a home-rule message at the desk. Read the last section.
Section 8. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1680, voting in the negative: Senator Fahy. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1681, Senate Print 10302, by Senator Harckham, an act authorizing Breanne M. Smith to receive a refund of certain accumulated contributions.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1682, Assembly Bill Number 11297, by Assemblymember Hunter, an act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1683, Senate Print 10339, by Senator Rivera, an act in relation to authorizing the Commissioner of General Services to provide compensation to Catholic Guardian Services.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1683, voting in the negative are Senators Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads and Weik. Ayes, 53. Nays, 8.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1684, Assembly Bill Number 11411, by Assemblymember Hunter, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 7. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1685, Assembly Bill Number 11378, by Assemblymember Rozic, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1686, Assembly Bill Number 11348, by Assemblymember Gibbs, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1687, Senate Print 10384, by Senator Fahy, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Fahy to explain her vote.
Madam President, thank you for allowing me a moment to rise to vote aye on this bill and note that this is dedicating a portion of State Route 9W in the Town of Bethlehem, right nearby, in memory of Patrick LaFortune Jr. His life was defined by service to others. He was the founder and CEO of LaFortune and Family Construction, which he built into a successful business. But more importantly, he shared a deep love of young people and created a pathway for many to a better future, dedicated his life to workforce development and mentorship. He led a local leading apprenticeship program, including the MAPP program, which is the Multi-craft Apprenticeship Preparation Program, and trained countless young people who needed a second chance and the opportunity to have a meaningful career. He passed very tragically at the age of 32 last July after a -- due to a reckless driver who hit his motorcycle. It leaves a tremendous void for his two young sons as well as 15 siblings and countless other lives that he touched. His legacy will live on. Dedicating a section of 9W in his honor will create a lasting tribute to a man who spent his lifetime not only building structures or buildings but creating pathways for countless young people. And with that, I vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Fahy to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1688, Senate Print 10550, by Senator Weik, an act authorizing the Church of Pentecost USA, Inc., to receive retroactive real property tax-exempt status.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1688, voting in the negative: Senators O'Mara and Skoufis. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1689, Assembly Bill Number 11472, by Assemblymember Cashman, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1689, voting in the negative are Senators Lanza, Martinez and Sepúlveda. Ayes, 58. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1690, Assembly Bill Number 11476, by Assemblymember Shimsky, an act to amend Chapter 573 of the Laws of 2025.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1691, Assembly Bill Number 11457B, by Assemblymember Fall, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1691, voting in the negative: Senators Lanza and Martinez. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1692, Senate Print 10596, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 61.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1693, Senate Print 10598, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Highway Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1693, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 60. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 1694, Assembly Bill Number 1934A, by Assemblymember Maher, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1694, voting in the negative are Senators Lanza, Martinez and Sepúlveda. Ayes, 58. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the calendar.
Madam President, earlier today in the original calendar Senator Fernandez had wanted to explain her vote on Calendar 1384 but was at a committee meeting. So by consent we will now give her that opportunity. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Fernandez to explain her vote on Calendar 1384.
Thank you so much, Senator Gianaris. And thank you so much, Madam President. I'm sorry I missed the vote, and I hope everybody voted for it. Let me explain why that we needed to vote for it. So this bill that I introduced and passed on the floor, 8637, is important legislation to expand the New York State Drug Treatment and Public Education Fund, and to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of individuals, families and communities across our state. The fund, created under the MRTA, has supported substance use disorder treatment and drug education programs for both youth and adults. These programs emphasize culturally and gender competent, trauma-informed and evidence-informed approaches that recognize the diverse experiences and needs of New Yorkers. They have placed countless individuals in access care, receive support and build healthier futures. This bill builds on that foundation. Substance use disorder is a complex public health challenge, and we know that treatment alone is not enough. Successful responses require a full continuum of care, one that includes prevention, treatment, harm reduction and drug-user health services and long-term recovery support. Research and experience have shown that each of these components play a critical role in helping people stay healthy, reduce risk, and achieve lasting recovery. That is why this bill explic -- explicately -- explix --
Explicitly.
It directly, okay -- (Laughter.)
-- expands the types of services that may be supported through the fund to include prevention programs, drug user health initiatives, and recovery services. By doing so, we align the fund with what we know works. We give communities greater flexibility to invest in proven strategies that can prevent substance use disorders before they even start, reduce harm reduction for those who are actively using substances, and support individuals as they rebuild their lives in recovery. Just as importantly, this bill strengthens transparency and accountability. New Yorkers deserve to know how public funds are being used and whether those resources are reaching the communities and programs they are intended to serve. By increasing transparency around the fund and the disbursement of its monies, this legislation promotes public trust and helps ensure that resources are allocated effectively and responsibly. At its core this bill is about improving outcomes. It is about supporting evidence-based approaches, recognizing the realities of substance use and recovery, and ensuring that the state's resources can be directed where we will have the greatest impact. By expanding support across the continuum of care and increasing transparency in the administration of these funds, this legislation will help strengthen our public health response, save lives, and support healthier communities throughout New York. I urge my colleagues to please support this bill, and for those that did, thank you. I vote aye.
Senator Fernandez will have been recorded in the affirmative. Senator Gianaris.
Madam President, we are now returning to resolutions. Previously adopted Resolution 2052, by Senator Myrie. Read its title and call on Senator Myrie, please.
The Secretary will read.
Resolution 2052, by Senator Myrie, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 9, 2026, as Sneakers Day in the State of New York.
Senator Myrie on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam President. The hour is late, so I'm going to dedicate this entire resolution to the New York Knicks. (Cheers.)
I've often spoken about and we've heard how sneakers bring us together and they're a unifying thing. There is nothing that brings New Yorkers more together than the New York Knicks. And we just witnessed history tonight. I want to enter it into the record that the Knicks won by 10 points in San Antonio. After everyone said we were underdogs, after everyone said we should be afraid of Wemby -- we were scrappy, we were gritty, we fought back, and we won. There's nothing more New York than that. So on a day where we celebrate sneakers, on a day where we celebrate unity, let us celebrate the best team in basketball, the New York Knicks. I vote aye. (Applause.)
Thank you, Senator Myrie. Senator Bailey on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam President. My brother, I could not have said it any better. Senator Myrie encapsulated it. New Yorkers come together, sports is the world's greatest social currency, and sneakers are too. I want to formally nominate the Sneaker Prom King and Queen, Senators George Borrello and Roxanne Persaud -- (Laughter.)
-- the winners of Sneaker Day. We have a lot of contentious discussion, sometimes we -- sometimes we really get heated and we do so because we're really zealous advocates for our constituency. But at the end of the night -- you know, sometimes we like to do this at the beginning, but this is apropos after a major historic victory -- the 12th victory in a row for the New York -- your New York Knicks, our New York Knicks. Right? -- we get a chance to reflect on the things that unite us. And that's footwear and basketball and footwear on the basketball court. And Game 2 is on Friday night, still in San Antonio, still in hostile territory. And we will come out victorious for the first victory in 53 years, Madam President. I vote aye on this resolution. Sneakers forever! The New York Knicks forever! The New York State Senate forever! And congratulations to George Borrello and Roxanne Persaud, the Prom King and Queen of Sneaker Day. I vote aye. (Laughter, applause.)
Thank you, Senator Bailey. The resolution was previously adopted on May 12th. Senator Gianaris.
Now previously adopted Resolution 2230, by Senator Griffo, read its title and call on Senator Griffo.
The Secretary will read.
Resolution 2230, by Senator Griffo, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 26, 2026, as Hunting and Fishing Day in the State of New York.
Senator Griffo on the resolution.
Thank you, Madam President. Go New York, go! Hopefully Senator Bailey will be watching in the Garden, not in the Capitol on Friday. It's a pleasure to cochair the New York State Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus with Senator Hinchey as we advocate for the rights of sportsmen and sportswomen across the State of New York. And this resolution is asking the Governor to proclaim September 26th as Hunting and Fishing Day in New York. Since 1972, National Hunting and Fishing Day was established to celebrate and to recognize the many contributions that sportsmen and -women make regularly throughout our country, society and particularly in our state here in New York. We see contributions every day. Hunting and fishing are a way of life for many. They're a part of the cultural fabric of the communities across this state. The activities are not just beloved pastimes and traditions, but they are -- New York sportsmen and -women are conservationists. They help fund efforts to protect the health and sustainability of natural resources and provide for food security. They support the state's economy. Approximately 1.4 million hunters and anglers have generated more than $76 million to support conservation efforts at DEC. So in addition to spending money on trips, travel, restaurants and other amenities, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis division on a national level, sportsmen and -women spent more than a billion dollars on hunting and fishing recreational activities. No doubt those who hunt and fish have a big impact on our communities and the State of New York. So this resolution is one way we can recognize that tremendous impact, continue to work to ensure that gentlemen and -women are able to share their beloved outdoor activities and traditions with their families, and they continue to grow for generations to come. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Griffo. The resolution was previously adopted on June 2nd. Senator Gianaris, may I take a moment of personal privilege to acknowledge Beth LaMountain, who is here, who was with Senator Stavisky all day. And if everyone had a staff member like Beth, they'd be extremely fortunate. Thank you, Beth, for being here. (Standing ovation.)
Senator Gianaris.
And for those who may not be aware, Senator Stavisky is fine. A couple of broken bones in her hand, but otherwise okay. We'll be seeing her again soon. The sponsors of all of today's resolutions would like to open those resolutions for cosponsorship.
The resolutions are open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be a cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Gianaris.
I have one final motion here. On behalf of Senator Skoufis, I wish to call up Senate Print 8580A, which is now at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1380, Senate Print 8580A, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the General Business Law.
I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed and ask that the bill be restored to the order of third reading.
The Secretary will call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Ayes, 61.
Senator Gianaris.
I believe the bill is restored to its place on the Third Reading Calendar, Madam President?
The bill will retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
I move to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Print 9274A and substitute it for the identical bill. And I now move that the substituted Assembly bill have its third reading at this time.
The substitution is so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 1380, Assembly Bill Number 9274A, by Assemblymember McDonald, an act to amend the General Business Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 1380, voting in the negative are Senators O'Mara and Ortt. Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris.
Is there any further business at the desk?
There is no further business at the desk.
I move to adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, June 4th, promptly at 12:00 noon.
The Senate will be adjourned until tomorrow, June 4th, at 12:00 noon. (Whereupon, at 11:43 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)