Assembly Live Stream (partial)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you very much. I was going to ask a few questions, basically, what's going on here in terms of how this will affect mainly small businesses and the state. What are covered businesses? Can you explain that a little bit more to me?

What are the covered businesses that would be going under this?

50 or more employees. Okay. Is there going to be some type of distinguishing between a small business which generates a certain amount of revenue and a larger business that generates, let's say, millions of dollars a year?

business with 50 or more employees or publicly traded. So if let's say I'm a roofing company and I have some workers and I work in the

English is not first language and might have some issue reporting this, will they have some kind of an exemption in any way?

Any business with 50 or more employees. Okay. All right.

I'm sorry, what?

The Department of Labor would set up a process for reporting as it has in other reporting requirements that currently exist. I would presume they would set up a form, and that form would be either questions. I could also envision that that form would also have the definition of AI on it That would be one that already existing on their webpage And that the employer would track that form just like we do other forms and submit it to the Department of Labor by the deadline.

This is a process that the agency... We do... In statute, we put in broad requirements and we rely on our state agencies to do the implementation. Okay, understood.

let's just say similar to the, I know labor statistics usually sends out some kind of census or asking businesses about their business. That would be similar to that? It could be, yes.

is there some type of penalty if they say the employer does not respond in a timely manner? I don't believe so, but I don't know for sure.

Because we think that it's important that we encourage employers to follow this because of the importance of gathering this data, gathering this information. But at the same time, that's also why we put in a cure period. So if you do not report in a timely basis and the Department of Labor puts you on notice that you have not, you have 90 days to submit your report. Okay. And if you do, then the penalties do not have to be put on to the employer.

Because the violation is very steep. I presume $500 a day for a person who wouldn't know what this is referring to, wouldn't even know sometimes what AI is and how that reflects his business. I mean, is there anything similar to that?

I can't recall of one as I stand here today. All right.

Why is this the responsibilities of a business itself to give that data? I mean, we're talking about a lot of people.

Because they are the entity that has the information. They are the entity that knows the impact on their employees. They are the impact that knows what AI they've purchased and implemented. They are the entity that, as I indicated in prior questioning, that are doing the analysis. I mean, you don't just say, oh, I'm going to put AI in my business. You say, I'm going to put this application in my business, I'm going to do something else in my business, all with the purpose of making sure you have the most efficient operation possible. And if you're a good business owner, you're analyzing, am I achieving that efficiency that I am seeking?

And, you know, I could anticipate a report where they say we were using this application last year, and the report is saying we're no longer using that application. Because there's no efficiency. So it's not, you know, I get it. You know, I understand we don't want to overburden our businesses. As a small business owner, I certainly appreciate that. However, however, there's not this. Yes, you're going to be have to do a report. However, it's reporting on information as a business owner, you should already be analyzing and interpreting.

Not necessarily. Not necessarily. In the earlier questioning, I acknowledge there could be a scenario where you have implemented AI in your operations and it's resulted in more efficiency, more productivity. So another piece of that operation, you may have had to hire additional employees.

in through that AI marketing, I had to hire five additional employees. That's part of this report.

Thank you. On the bill. I understand a little bit about the intention behind this bill and why we're doing what we need to do because we want to understand better how AI is going to affect random industries in New York State. But again, like we speak, like comes up a lot with in terms of small businesses is that we're looking for ways to overburden them. And this is another way. It's a small way. It's a reporting issue. There is a very steep violation fee in the case where the person doesn't abide to these laws and policies that we're bringing up here. So we should not overburden these small businesses. We should look for ways to just leave them alone in some way. That's what I'm always going to say on this floor. But I understand what you're coming from, but I'll be voting also negative on this bill. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Ms. Walsh? Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will not be supporting this legislation, legislation, but if there are exceptions, members can vote differently at their seats. Thank you.

The clerk will record the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Durso. And the affirmative, Mr. Bronson, to explain his vote.

Mr. Bronson in the affirmative, Mr. Jacobson to explain his vote.

Mr. Jacobson, in the affirmative. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results. Ayes 102, nays 38. The bill is passed.

On the B calendar, page 7, Rules Report 463, Clerk will read. Assembly No. 11553A, Rules Report 463, Committee on Rules, Mr. Hastie. concurrent resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to Sections 4 and 5B of Article 3 of the Constitution. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Levine.

Thank you, Mr. Levine. Mr. Slater.

Of course.

Thank you, Mr. Levine. Good evening. I hope you had something to eat. I think you're going to be standing for a while.

That's right. Go Knicks. Mr. Levine, I appreciate the explanation. I just want to start walking through the proposal that we're looking at here tonight.

And this is a commission that was originally approved by voters through a statewide referendum in 2014. That's the constitutional amendment.

And that's the constitutional process.

This isn't the first time that this body has looked to the voters to make changes to the IRC. Is that an accurate statement?

That's the system of democracy with a small d. And then previously we did go back to the voters.

And which proposal are you discussing?

But certainly, Mr. Slater, we live in a constitutional democracy.

I appreciate that, Mr. Levine. So in 2021, we did go back to the voters and they rejected changes that were proposed to this very process that we're examining here. And I bring up 2021 because I do see some similar proposals that were made then that we're seeing today. And I wanted to just talk quickly about some of those proposals specifically related to the approval of the commission's plans, because it now takes away the super majority in this proposal, as it did in 2021, and it replaces it with a simple majority vote. Is that an accurate statement?

Thank you. If the IRC's proposal is rejected by either the Governor, the Senate, or the Assembly, this proposal would eliminate the IRC's right to create a second set of maps for us to consider under this proposal. Am I interpreting that correctly?

The answer to that is yes.

I want to look at, if we could, page 3, lines 7 and 8. It states, each house shall prepare a redistricting plan in the case where the IRC's only map is rejected. Are these maps submitted individually by each house like we do with one house budgets?

What does he mean by only map?

I'm just reading again.

So, again, each house shall prepare a redistricting plan in the case where the IRC's only map is rejected. So my question is, is each house drafting their own maps, or is it going to be concurrent where they are presenting them together one set of maps?

But that's not my question, sir.

I'm looking forward to a length of it, yes, sir.

And I appreciate that. But that's not my question. My question remains. The text clearly states each house shall, and then we've inserted this new line, Prepare a redistricting plan and introduce. So my question remains, is each house then charged with drawing their own maps to submit in case the IRC fails, or is it going to be done collectively? That's all I'm asking.

No, we have to come to consensus to enact maps.

And I understand that. Again, I'm just trying to understand if we are looking at this like we do with the state budget, where each House proposes its own one-house budget resolution. And so are we copying that model based on the insertion of this language that then would have each house produce its own maps for then, after that stage, consensus to be made? Or does that consensus get made beforehand?

So I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Madam Speaker, more than 140 years ago, a young assemblyman named Theodore Roosevelt came to Albany and confronted political machines that used government power to protect themselves rather than serve the people. If you understood a simple truth, self-government only works when political power remains accountable to the public. Today, we are facing a modern version of the same problem. Not corruption in the traditional sense, but a political power grab. An effort to weaken the constitutional safeguards that stand between politicians and the ability to draw districts for their own benefit. You know, in Roosevelt's day, political bosses sought to choose the politicians who would serve them. Today, partisan gerrymandering seeks to choose the voters who will serve the politicians. That is precisely why the people of New York acted. In 2014, voters approved constitutional reforms, creating an independent redistricting process. And when asked again, they reaffirmed their desire for safeguards against partisan map drawing. They understood a principle that should transcend party. People should choose their elected officials, not elected officials choosing their voters. Yet this proposal that's being sent to the voters moves us in the opposite direction. It removes the bipartisan approval requirement that voters demanded and replaces it with a simple majority vote. That's not reform. That's not modernization. That's a political power grab. It takes authority away from a process designed to require consensus and places it in the hands of whichever party happens to control the legislature at any given moment. And we know exactly where that road leads us. We just lived through a budget process where one party control meant the majority could ultimately advance whatever it wanted. Now we are being asked to apply that same model to federal and state redistricting, the process that determines how New Yorkers are represented here in Albany and in Washington. Theodore Roosevelt fought political machines. This amendment empowers them. And let's be honest about what this debate is really about. If politicians can simply rewrite the rules whenever the political winds shift, then why ask the voters in the first place? Why have a constitutional amendment a process at all? Why pretend this is about democracy if the answer can be changed whenever those in power dislike the result? The people of New York have already spoken on this matter. They voted for independent redistricting. They voted for bipartisan safeguards. They voted for a process that makes it harder, not easier, for politicians to manipulate district lines for partisan advantage. If Theodore Roosevelt were standing here in this chamber today, I don't believe he would view this proposal as reform. He would recognize it for what it is, a political power grab dressed up as a constitutional amendment. This debate comes down to a simple question. Do we trust the voters or do we trust the politicians? I trust the voters. People should choose their elected officials, not elected officials choosing their voters. For that reason Madam Speaker I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this matter Thank you Thank you Mr Sempolinsky Thank you Madam Speaker Will the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee yield for a few questions

Of course. Thank you.

Don't worry. That's what we're here for.

I think by asking that question, you know my answer, Mr. Simplanski.

Of course.

we have super majoritarian rules for approval of IRC maps?

Currently.

Oh, of course.

Correct.

Yes. I mean, you may characterize it that way.

There's a lot more involved than that simple concept.

What?

You said efficiency didn't sum it up completely.

Those voting thresholds that we established, I'm trying to remember when that was, 10 years ago or so. I believe 2014, I believe.

every other meaningful voting provision of the United States Constitution.

I'm sorry, of the New York State Constitution.

And if the IRC fails, in this case, it almost immediately moves to the legislature.

Now they would send the maps once, and the legislature immediately steps in.

They can certainly send the maps more than once as long as they do it within the time constraint that's established.

it's a January 15th deadline right but there's no subsequent deadlines now that is the only deadline currently there remains that's the only deadline that

that is deleted from the Constitution here.

Intentional.

So it is deleted, just for the record.

And they are being deleted not only for the maps that we draw for federal candidates, but they are being deleted for the maps that we draw for state legislative candidates as well. This provision covers all the maps.

Okay.

We're getting rid of gerrymandering restrictions for the state legislature, not just for the federal legislature.

It also provides unfettered freedom for mid-cycle redistricting.

By the legislation. I would not characterize the legislative responsibility as being unfettered.

we have federal statutes and rules and we have a state constitution.

Mr. Semplevinsky, in this legislature, we make a lot of decisions. But I never imagine that we make those decisions unfettered. Okay.

there is no such trigger in this particular proposal.

In theory, that may be right.

If my recollection serves me correctly at my advanced age, Mr. Sempolinsky, I think that you've got that.

So one of the things that I found extraordinarily frustrating, and the chairman indicates that he hasn't been following the media on this, I have. And we have seen a lot of commentary from the governor, from leadership in the legislature, from Democratic Party leadership about how somehow this is necessary because of what is happening in other states. And it's almost like there's some sort of Orwellian memory hole that all the things this legislature has done over the last five years have been forgotten. an amendment to gut the IRC. The current president wasn't the president in 2021. Joe Biden was the president in 2021. We had a gerrymander. Despite the fact that the people rejected that amendment, a gerrymander was drawn. It was rejected. And so that was thrown out. So there was an attempt to gerrymander by this legislature, by the people who are so concerned about democracy now, The current president wasn't the president in 2022. Joe Biden was president. And in fact, this legislature didn't like where the lawsuit was filed in Steuben County, my home county, and then restricted where lawsuits could be filed going forward. And what's been totally forgotten, apparently by the media, is this very legislature did a mid-cycle redistricting of Congress in 2024, and the Democratic Party picked up four seats in the last election, before Texas, before Florida. That's the first shot that was fired in any sort of redistricting war. As far as mid-cycle redistricting, it was fired here. So if people are looking for folks that started it, there's some people in this particular government, the need to look in the mirror. And we have the very arsonists calling the fire brigade.

So my concern is that we put all this together and it is an attempt for all time for some one party I won say who to control the government And I think it a very sad day But I will end where I started. And I started by asking the chairman about protecting democracy.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield? Mr. Levine, will you yield?

Mr. Levine yields.

I don't follow everything that any governor says.

Any governor.

You're not interested in what she has to say?

Oh, I am. I am.

She is the leader of your party here in New York, but I digress.

Mr. Gandolfo, you know, we have two political parties in the United States. of America and one of them is highly organized and highly hierarchical. I'm a member of the other party.

We are doing this amendment today to streamline the process make it more fair and leave it to the people of the state of New York to determine how this system should work

It's not about fairness, it's about flexibility. The concept you're describing, the concept of compactness, is inherent in any good faith effort to draw districts.

That is certainly not relevant to the debate on this particular bill, but if you care to speak about it, be my guest.

The answer to that is no.

It has next to nothing to do with the removal of that particular word, given everything else that is included in terms of considerations for the IRC and considerations for the districting process.

You know, I'm not good at reading crystal balls, so I don't know. But I do know this, that even though this amendment will remove the word compactness from the list of principles that must, again, must be used in redistricting, nothing precludes consideration of compactness as it is still part of the traditional redistricting criteria that may be considered. I venture no prognostication about Long Island or any other geographical areas with respect to how districts will in the future be drawn.

So, Mr. Gandolfo, let me respond by saying that in removing considerations for incumbency, political parties, and particular candidates from the principles that must be relied upon and used in redistricting, we keep communities of interest as a goal, and we will ensure that the people are at the center of the state's considerations in redistricting.

No. That all depends, sir.

They will be permitted to operate within federal and state constitutional guidelines.

Even though the Supreme Court as presently constituted sanctions that, it is my sincere hope that legislators in this body in years to come will have better sense than that.

We want to be clear. We are prioritizing. We are prioritizing the people of the state of New York, pure and simple.

That's sort of a cynical description of the democratic process, Mr. Gandolfo. But if that's what you believe, that's what you believe.

Allowing legislatures to operate in good faith is entirely consistent with democracy.

I don't think the Supreme Court is germane to this discussion on this bill.

I, for one, having grown up in the courts of the state of New York and the federal courts in New York and elsewhere, always abide by the United States Supreme Court. And I suggest each of us ought to do that, whether we grew up in those environments or not.

It can be existing. It can be people with shared socioeconomic. It can be a school district, a fire district. I think it's self-defining and I think we all know it. It can be geographical locations It can be school districts It can be communities It can be cities It can be counties And I not even close to exhausting the list of what we know to be a community of interest

Let me respond by actually looking at the proposal itself.

Give me a moment, and if you go to page three, down towards the bottom, districts shall not be drawn to have the purpose of the denial or abridgment of racial or language minority voting rights. That, to me, is inherently American, and I would be surprised if anyone would disagree with that.

It is a factor.

And has been a factor. and hopefully will continue to be effective.

On the bill.

Thank you. Ms. Hooks.

Of course.

Thank you, Mr. Levine. I see that there are two areas where mid redistricting is allowed Does this impact redistricting for assembly districts No No No Does it impact redistricting for Senate districts?

Thank you, Mr. Levine. Madam Speaker, I yield my time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will Mr. Levine yield?

Mr. Levine yield.

Mr. Brown, you don't have to keep it simple.

Mr. Levine. And Mr. Brown, I was a truck driver, so.

Nothing requires that.

Nothing requires what you just said.

Which maps are you talking about?

Currently?

Mr. Levine, we're debating a bill right now about redoing the congressional maps, are we not? We're just trying to figure out what you mean.

Let me do it a different way.

I'm just trying to see if you agree with that statement.

I'm just characterizing actually what you had said on February 28, 2024, to Spectrum News,

So if politicians drawing maps was a threat to democracy when the commission was created in 2014,

We are not getting rid of that. We are streamlining and modernizing the process for the benefit of the people of the state of New York.

When voters approved the Independent Redistricting Commission, did they vote for more legislative control or less legislative control? Because at this point, it's all legislative control.

Is the goal of this amendment fair maps or favorable maps? Very simple question. The goal of this is democracy.

So would the sponsor support this exact amendment if perhaps Republicans control the assembly Senate and Governor office today The exact one that being proposed today Mr Brown I try to concentrate on reality So the answer is no, the objection, political rather than constitutional?

Not at all. I'm actually reading the quotes from you from Spectrum News.

Thank you. I'll go on to my next question.

I'm sorry, you asked what is the emergency?

The current rules may not produce the congressional districts the majority party wants at this moment. So the majority party wants at this moment perhaps different rules.

And Mr. Brown, I don't talk over you.

Are you finished, Mr. Levine?

How does this benefit the voters in a more simplistic way of presenting my question?

Okay. I was listening.

I was listening to the discussions back and forth. So isn't the fundamental contradiction of this bill that it was sold,

Yet today, it actually gives politicians more power over the process than what actually an independent commission would do.

It was a question. That's why I started off with. Isn't the fundamental contradiction?

Thank you, Mr. Levine. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

Thank you so much. Bear with me one second. This debate is not really about redistricting. It's about credibility. In 2014, New York voters approved a constitutional amendment creating the Independent Redistricting Commission. They were told that politicians should not be redrawing their own districts. They were told that politicians should not be redrawing their own districts. All that independent bipartisan process would be fairer, more transparent, and less political than allowing legislators to control the process themselves. Today, we're being asked to move in the opposite direction. If the Independent Registration Commission was the answer in 2014, why is it no longer the answer today? If politicians drawing maps was a problem in 2014, why is it suddenly acceptable in 2026? The census hasn't changed. The Constitution hasn't changed. The principle hasn't changed. Well, only the political circumstances have changed. For years, New Yorkers were told that politicians should not choose their voters. Now those same politicians are asking voters to trust them with more authority over congressional district lines. The people of New York deserve consistency. They deserve honesty. More importantly, they deserve a system where the voters choose their representatives, not when representatives choose their voters. The question before us is simple. Were we right in 2014 when we created an independent redistricting commission? Or were we right today when we seek to move authority back to the legislature? In fact, Madam Speaker, you know, both can't be true. Madam Speaker, the people should choose their politicians. Politicians should not choose their voters. And for that reason, I will be voting in the negative on this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Does the sponsor yield for... Will the sponsor yield?

Of course.

It means that if the legislature cannot or is unable to agree to maps that are able to be passed in both houses and signed by the governor by whatever date we would need them to be in effect for the purpose of federal elections deadlines and overseas and military voters, then court-ordered maps may be implemented.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Tenusas.

Mr. Levine, he'll yield.

Mr. Levine, you mentioned to one of my colleagues that you believe this bill will bring, and I quote, power to the people. Is that what you said?

Okay. Well, you said it, so I'm assuming you agree with that?

Okay, good. Then can you please then expand on what you meant by that statement?

Well, I'm asking you to expand on it if you can. You said that this bill would bring power to the people. Yes. Can you please explain what you meant by that statement?

Thank you very much, but I'm pretty sure I've answered that several times.

So do you believe that the current congressional maps are inaccurate?

Well, if you believe that this law is necessary, then I would imagine that you would agree with the notion that there's something wrong with the current congressional maps. Correct?

And how did these current congressional maps come about?

And did this body vote on those congressional maps? At any point?

Thank you. How did you get involved with this law, with this bill today?

Were you in conversation with the governor's office about this bill?

Well, no. It's simply questions. And I'm asking questions in regards to this bill.

I just asked you a question, Mr. Levine. Are you in conversation?

Is it true that there was a recent meeting between the governor and a member of the congressional delegation? where this bill was discussed?

No problem. It's the second to last day of session.

Am I going to agree that this is the second to the last day?

Okay. Do you see an urgency in regards to this bill, which is why we're voting on it today?

Okay. What is that sense of urgency that you see?

So you believe that this bill is necessary for both democracy and justice, correct?

Is there something happening out there that leads you to believe that this bill is necessary for democracy and for justice Yes And what happening is that for this to be implemented we have to pass it today or tomorrow or Friday and then pass it again a year from now

Oh, it's the people of the state of New York I have much faith in. It's some others that I potentially may not.

Okay.

No, no, go ahead. You didn't remind me of something.

That's not the question I asked you. My question was whether you had any communications with the governor's office in regard to this bill.

Now, Mr. Levine, back in 2014, the voters approved an independent redistricting commission, correct?

And back in 2021, the legislature attempted to make changes to redistricting. Is that correct?

I'm sorry, the legislature?

I'm sorry, can you clarify? I'm a little confused. Were there changes that were attempted to be made to redistricting back in 2021? In the form of a referendum. I follow what you mean. And the voters rejected that as well, correct? I think that's the recollection of me and you and everybody else. Okay, but yet we are sitting here because this, in your words, will give power to the people. I should hope so. Thank you very much, Mr. Levine. On the bill, Madam Speaker? On the bill, Madam Speaker? On the bill. Madam Speaker, in 2014, the voters themselves, the taxpayers, the residents of this state, our bosses, so to speak, approved the Independent Redistricting Commission. The legislature in 2021 attempted to weaken the IRC in a manner to attempt to take more power. The voters rejected it. It is very clear, and history has shown, that time and time again, the voters would like an independent process when it comes to drawing congressional maps or any other types of maps. This is nothing more than an attempted power grab. And as many colleagues have stated before, the people have the power to choose their elected officials. The elected officials should not be the ones to have the power to pick who they represent. I vote no. Thank you. Thank you I just want to make another reminder to my colleagues that we will limit our comment to the bill in front of us right now not references to what other states are doing and that we will not be impugning motives of other colleagues With that stated Mr Simone Of course. Mr. Levine yields. Mr. Levine, would it be fair to say that one of the overarching goals of this proposal is to simplify and streamline the process of redistricting between the IRC and the legislature. Is that right? Definitely. Does this get rid of the IRC? It does not. Does it change the responsibilities of the Independent Redistricting Commission? No. Does this change anything about the composition of the IRC? No. does it change the requirement for public hearings? No. Thank you, Mr. Levine. Thank you, Mr. Simone. Mr. Beeman. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Mr. Levine, will you yield? Of course. Mr. Levine yields. So I don't have any prepared questions or notes, so we'll just have a discussion if that's all right. Which is fine, because I don't have any prepared answers for you. Perfect. Well, you have a team slightly larger than me. But so a couple questions on what this is going to look like going forward. So obviously today we're voting on this provision. Will this have to be voted again next year? Yes. Okay. Say it passes again next year. It will then go on the ballot in 2027? Yes. And who decides what that ballot question looks like? That is not part of an interesting question, but that's not part of this debate. That may be part of another legislative proposal. But in this current form, how the law sits, who generally decides that? It's the Board of Elections? It's the Board of Elections, but that's not relevant. It's the Board of Elections. But it's really, that has nothing, with all due respect, as they say. But you know that I do respect you. But that has nothing to do with this particular measure. Understood. Okay. So say if this ballot initiative passes in 2027, this is now enacted immediately, or does it take effect a certain period afterwards? We don't know. I don't know and we don't know if the next legislature is going to want to pursue this. We don't. Okay, understood. Understood. So say if this were to be implemented going forward, how does the legislature or one call for this redistricting, mid-decade redistricting to happen or occur? Mr. Beppin, I'm sorry, it was just a little difficult to hear what you were saying. How does the next legislature recall this? Oh, no, how do they call for a mid-decade redistricting if this passes in 2027? I hope I'm answering this appropriately. but congressional lines are defined in the law. So there would have to be a change in the law describing the lines of the congressional district. But what are the... requirements or what are the circumstances that would trigger that mid-decade redistricting under this proposal? I have nothing to do and no idea about what it means when you use the word trigger. This will be up to the democratic process. And that's the small d democratic process. Okay, so we don't know what would then trigger a mid-decade redistricting once this is passed and implemented. There's no trigger. There are no triggers. Okay, so say if a mid-decade redistricting process were to occur, would it be based on the 2020 census? Under Section 5C in this proposal, yes. Bless you. Yes, under Section 5C of this constitutional proposal. So since the last census, this body has passed a number of provisions that would include migrants into consideration for redistricting purposes. Would that apply here? Whatever the law is is what's going to apply. Okay, so that could potentially change and impact populations of current districts then. No, the federal census. We rely on the federal census, the 2020 federal census, and that's not going to change. I understand that, but now we passed a provision a while back, and I know it's not this bill that states that we would include migrants into redistricting purposes. Mr. Beppin, as much as I might personally want to change federal statutes, we can't. That's not part and parcel of anything that we're doing here today or anything that we will do in the days to come. Okay, so we are in the process of this mid-decade redistricting, and the IRC produces a map. Do they have to have a certain vote on that IRC commission for us to receive the maps? The IRC does census-based redistricting, and the way that they vote on maps to send us does not change under this bill. The IRC makes its decision on federal sentencing, and what we're doing here is not going to change in any way the process that the IRC uses to determine to send us maps. We've moved on from that topic. So say the IRC then determined or they're called to redraw congressional maps. Has any changes occurred to the vote which must occur between the IRC members? No. If I understand your question correctly, you're asking, are there any changes to the way the IRC votes or determines consensus? Nothing here. No change. So say if they are at an impasse or a 50-50 or something like that, what then occurs in that situation? No, if they have a 50-50 split, they send both sets of maps. When they have a 50-50 split, they send both sets of maps. Okay, understood. And then it's up to the legislature to then redraw said maps or adopt one of those options? Yeah. We act on the maps. Under the present constitutional system, we act on those maps. OK. Do we have to pick one map or another, or can we draw our own here? We have to act on what they send us And if they don get enacted then we have to draw on We have to act on what they send us and if they don get enacted then we have to draw on it We have to act on what they send us but if what they send us is not enacted then there are other prerogatives that the legislature has Are we required under this new provision to go back to the IRC after that first? No. So we can act on the first? Yes, but we don't have to go back to the IRC. Understood. Under the new proposed system. Alright, and then, so once these maps are decided on, is it decided by the Assembly and the Senate individually, or is it a combined effort? The rule presented to the Governor and signed into law, so there has to be consensus at some point. At some point, there's got to be consensus between both houses. houses. So it'll almost be like a budget process except it's three men in a room, it's two. I mean you might want to try to characterize it that way but I don't think that that's the way it is. Okay and so once there's consensus on those maps that it then comes to the legislature is the vote required to be a super majority or simple majority? What are the new rules going to be? It'll be a simple majority under the new system if adopted. And the old system would have been a supermajority? It would depend on whether the head of the Senate and the head of the Assembly are part of the same political party or separate political parties. So it could be 60% or two-thirds majority, depending on those permutations. And how the IRC goes to send us maps. And the IRC goes to the map. And of course, how the IRC votes with respect to sending us maps. And so speaking of those IRC votes, how do those vote differences matter? You mean if they can't come to some kind of a consensus? Yeah, so what's considered a consensus? Is it a simple majority for them or? They have to get seven. Do you want to read it? Hold on. Yes. Here you go. Simple majority. We're finding it. Hold on. Okay. Okay. It is starting here is the voting requirements. Does he really want you to read something? Okay. Okay. So, in the event that the Speaker of the Assembly and the temporary President of the Senate are members of the same political party, approval of a redistricting plan and implementing legislation by the Commission for Submission to the Legislature shall require the vote in support of its approval by at least seven members, including at least one member appointed by each of the legislative leaders. Now, to answer your question, there's a lot more. In the event that the Speaker of the Assembly and the temporary President of the Senate are members of different, and it's two different, political parties. Approval of a redistricting plan by the commission for submission to the legislature shall require the vote in support of its approval by at least seven members, including at least one member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and one member appointed by the temporary President of the Senate. So it's very straightforward, isn't it? Are those the current rules? Yes. And do those rules change under this new provision No Okay So only the real change is that instead of having to go back to the IRC twice we are only required to go back once now Thank you for stopping me from reading several more arcane paragraphs. I'm sure someone else will ask you to. But is that correct, though? Instead of having to go back twice under the current provision, now it's once. Okay, so the IRC vote fails, and now it's up to the legislature to come up with a new map. Is there a timeline for the legislature to come up with a map? It's not specified, but it's got to be done before, certainly in time for the elections. It's not specifically provided for presently or in this proposed bill, but it's got to be done in a timely fashion to be ready for elections and petitioning. That's where I was going with this because we've seen in the past where, you know, candidates have circulated petitions and then the maps have changed and they had to recirculate new petitions. So is there anything in place where candidates are not going to be circulating petitions in April or May for new maps? A good question, but a good answer is that everyone's going to have to work more expeditiously in order to make sure that voters are provided with their right to vote. So, say if everyone works expeditiously and new maps are redrawn and voted and approved by, say, March, right? We start the whole petition process. No, he's shaking his head. No, I'm not shaking my head. No, not you. Your team's shaking their head. Oh, but, you know, sometimes they shake their heads, and you'd think they mean no, but they mean yes. Okay, so maps are approved by March. Is there anything stopping the legislature from deciding to redraw maps again after that initial set was approved? Well, I doubt very much that the public would view that terribly kindly. Well, I mean, we could say the same thing about this, but it depends on what you represent. But there's nothing that stops the legislature from going back and amending the maps again the same year. You're talking about Congress? Congressional maps, correct. No, we would do the maps before end of February because that's when we should start. So we wouldn't in any event be doing the maps before the end of February when petitioning starts. Oh, so they would be done before the end of February? I'm sorry. I had a tough time hearing. They would be done before the end of February, you would think? Hopefully. I mean, that makes sense. Okay. Well, I don't know. I just didn't see anything in writing that it had to be completed by then. We don't include everything that involves common sense in writing. We assume that as legislators we're going to operate with common sense in mind. I think all the questions are fair considering I think our members of Congress have run in a different district every year since we started this decade essentially. This is the price we pay for democracy. Understood. Okay, so then once we approve those maps, that would be the end of this process. And if the legislature was so inclined, they could restart this process again the following election cycle, if they so choose. I guess there some sort of construct where someone could conceive of that but it certainly not realistic It not realistic but it an opportunity there that say for whatever reason in 2028 there was fault with that map There could be a redistricting again in 2030. Possibly, yes. And again in 2032. So I'll take that as the same answer. By 2032, we're in a whole new census mode. Decade, yeah. Exactly. Understood. All right. Well, thank you for your time, Mr. Levine. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Gonzalez-Rojas.

Of course.

Okay. Thanks for the question with respect to the block-on-border requirements. So the proposed constitutional amendment removes the block-on-border requirement for state Senate districts. That has been a concern historically for the State Senate, has not been a concern for the Assembly. So that would align the rules for redistricting Senate lines with the rules for redistricting Assembly lines.

Ms. Walsh.

On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Dias.

Of course.

If it's going to be acted on next year, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Exactly.

That, my friend, is our constitutional system, and the answer to that is a resounding yes.

Our Constitution is one of the very backbones of our democracy. Thank you. On the bill?

Thank you. Mr. Molitor?

Of course.

Hasn't changed.

I'll go on the bill.

Mr. Molitor, please limit your comments to this bill this year, not prior bills.

Thank you.

Mr. Molitor, I need you to keep your comments relative to this proposal, not prior court decisions, prior redistricting, what the proposal is in front of us today, sir.

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with Mr. Molitor.

This is our state's history. One moment, sir.

Madam Speaker, may I say one more thing?

Thank you. Thank you. Mr Molotow do you want to appeal the ruling of the chair relative to germaneness

Mr. Tagg and colleagues in this chamber, we will not be having decorum, inappropriate decorum. I'm speaking, Mr. Tagg. I am speaking. You can take your seat or you can go outside. I am speaking. I am waiting to get a ruling relative to what Ms. Walsh said and we will wait until I speak. Mr. Jackson. This is our state's history. I'm talking about the Court of Appeals case from 2022. It talks about the current state of the law. The same thing, Mr. McDonald. I'll finish two minutes short if you let me actually speak. Well, the good news is you get your time. I do get my time yet? They should. I'm not lobbying for it, but you should do it. Oh. This is my favorite place. Stop talking about Josh. Mr. McDonald is great. Mr. Davis is that big. You're just going to tell Josh Jenshin's story. He's the most important. The most exciting. This will be the first time. Oh, God. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to get a little bit. Thank you. Ms. Walsh, I never gave a ruling. I was giving a reminder. So there hasn't been a ruling by the chair. And if Mr. Molitor wants to continue speaking in order, recognizing the reminder, we can resume doing that. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would just remind colleagues, maybe it would be helpful to hear that in our rules, if any members in speaking fails to maintain decorum, deviates from the subject matter of the question before the House, or otherwise transgresses the rules of the House, then the Speaker may tell you to cut it out. But if you're staying within the subject matter of the question before the House, I believe that comments are well taken. And I appreciate what you're saying. You had not made a ruling. And if we could allow Mr. Molitor to, and he was maintaining decorum, you have five minutes and 14 seconds left on the clock because, unfortunately, we lost some time unless it could be restored to Mr. Molitor because it was through no fault of his own. If he could have four minutes back, that would be fantastic because that's about when things started to go off the rails, Madam Speaker. He should not be penalized because of a failure to maintain decorum by another member What the clock right now The clock been paused We did pause the clock for a while As you can see people looking at it have been paused The entire time we been sorting through the chairs which do come against the time of the person requesting a debate. Even if we're talking, it's still paused at 513. I agree, and part of it was something that we were doing with our informative members. We are swearing. We have 540 for the speaker. Okay, I'm sure. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Speaker, while we are comfortable with your decision, I would remind all of my colleagues that are in the chambers, you are sitting at the head of this house at this moment, and your decision should prevail. And I hope that people will honor that and respect it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Molitor, please proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. In rejecting the state's argument, the court stated, quote, Indeed, the state respondents studiously ignore events that gave rise to the 2014 amendments. While the 2012 legislature did agree on Senate and Assembly maps, the proposed maps were widely criticized as a product of partisan gerrymandering, prompting the then governor to threaten to veto the plans absent a concrete legislative commitment to redistricting reform. In urging this Court to adopt their view that the IRC may abandon its constitutional mandate with no impact on the ultimate result, and by contending that the legislature may seize upon such action to bypass the IRC process and compose its own redistricting maps with impunity, the state respondents ask us to effectively nullify the 2014 amendments. This we will not do. Indeed, such an approach would encourage partisans involved in the IRC process to avoid consensus, thereby permitting, God bless you, the legislature to step in and create new maps merely by engineering a stalemate at any stage of the IRC process, or even by failing to appoint members or withholding funding from the IRC, end quote. Now, these aren't my words. These are the words of our Court of Appeals from 2022. And I find it very interesting that this amendment to the Constitution is being proposed to us today. It's almost like the Court of Appeals could have predicted this result. Because what we're doing here today is we are effectively nullifying the IRC. The IRC is going to have every incentive to never, ever, ever come up with a map. Why? Because it splits 6-6 between each party. They're never going to agree. And they'll know, certainly from the majority side, they'll know that if they don't agree, what will happen, it will come to this body for a new map to be made. That is what is going to happen, without doubt. It's a rigged process. So what I suggest, so that we can make sure we have an open and transparent bill, I suggest we amend this bill to rename the Independent Redistricting Commission the Irrelevant Redistricting Commission. I vote no I will encourage all my colleagues to vote no Thank you Thank you Mr Palmisano Thank you Madam Speaker On the bill On the bill. I think my colleagues covered a lot of the questions mostly, so I'm just going to speak on the bill. Let me be frank. I love this institution. I treasure being a part of this institution. But let me be very clear. this is a very very sad day in this institution. For years I've heard my colleagues and friends on other side of the aisle say this is about protecting democracy we trust the voters. I listened to my friend and colleague during this debate he used words like this bill makes things more fair for the voters because we're asking their voters to streamline the process to make it more efficient. He said that this is returning power to the people. He said that the legislature is acting in good faith. This is about protecting the people of New York. I do not see how this does that when we're going against the very thing that New Yorkers did when they voted in an independent redistricting commission. I I don't see how this is trusting the voters when we're not listening to the voters and we're voting against their interests. I don't see how we're acting in good faith when we're acting in this way. I mean, this IRC is basically set up to fail so you can draw the maps, and the voters don't want you drawing the maps. They want an independent redistricting commission to draw the maps. To put it in perspective, how did we get here? This is a constitutional amendment. What did the voters say in 2014 when, which is this bill is changing in front of us. The voters said they wanted independent redistricting, correct? They said each district shall be as compact in form as practical. They also said, what do they want? District shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other political candidate particular candidates or political parties. They said they want the RC to provide two maps and they want it to be two thirds of the majority of one party controls the house. So what is this chamber doing? Even though constantly say we trust the voters when the voters spoke. You're saying we know better. We know what you voted for, but we're going to do it our way. This has real-world consequences, ladies and gentlemen. The language I mentioned here in this bill is what got us here. In the Constitution, which the voters put in, in 2020, you tried to change it back then, even before the IRC met, before they presented a map. Again, you told the voters you're wrong. We know better. And you put another map before the voters, asking them to approve what you wanted. What did they say? They said no. They said we already spoke on this. We don't want to change that. You added other things that doesn't matter, but it just shows things that the voters say you continue to try to erode through your actions. in 2022 what happened in this constitutional amendment part of this redistricting process which we talking about you didn let the IRC do their job you acted before they finished you did your own thing what happened? A lawsuit was filed on the redistricting amendment, the Constitution, which we're talking about here today. The Harkin-Ritter case, which my colleague mentioned, what did they say? You violated the Constitution. You violated the process. And he basically politically gerrymandered districts. And after that, the Court of Appeals, which my colleague talked about, upheld that decision. That forced a special master to be created to deal with the Constitution that we have here before us, that you're trying to change here tonight with the language you're putting for us. So the special master drove the seats in 2022. You know, we know later the chief judge left and they had to put new people on the judge. On the court, even though the Court of Appeals upheld that decision, let me be clear, so new people were put on the bench, and then what did you do? You tried to change it again, the Constitution, which is part of this discussion. Because what was the argument? The special master should be temporary. So you went to the court and they said okay, which I'm kind of having a hard time understanding, because you remember in 2012, there was a special master that was appointed, drew the maps for the congressional districts, and that lasted 12 years. That's not temporary. So what happened? They said it was temporary. They ordered the IRC back to do their job, to deal with the Constitution, which they were constitutionally obligated to do, which we're talking about changing here today. In 2024, the IRC delivered maps to this legislature like the voters voted for when they adopted the constitutional amendment in 2014. What did you do when the maps came? You rejected them. And then, not a week later, two days later, you vote in your own maps. You didn't even make it look good. 2-26-24, the maps were presented and then rejected. On 2-28, two days later, you voted and passed your own maps. How is that trusting the voters? Tell me, how is that trusting what the voters passed in 2014 with that constitutional amendment? No one can answer that question. Basically, what you're saying is we know better than the voters. It just really speaks to hypocrisy and, unfortunately, arrogance. This will be, if this goes through in 2028, this will be the fourth map in this decade. The fourth map, if this goes through and you do this in 2028. I don't understand. And I will remind you, we also took action to try to, through the courts, recently, in 2025, to try to address a congressional map. The courts didn't deal with it. They said no, and rightfully so. And in this process, when you deal with the Constitution, now if there's constitutional challenges because you didn't like the court it went to, now you can only go to one of four courts. New York City, Westchester, Albany County, or Erie County. How convenient. and On top of that, we're going to be debating a bill probably tomorrow that's going to tell the legislature, which is germane to this, because how the wording can be used on the constitutional amendment. Breaking decades of cooperation and bipartisanship with the Board of Elections, you want the ability to put on the ballot what that language is going to be. So you can say what it is. I'm sure that language is going to include protecting democracy. Give me a break. I don't understand. I've heard you say it. We trust the voters. I don't understand how you can say that. It's like you want every part of this process to work for you, not the voters. The problem is, you can say you trust the voters. The problem, ladies and gentlemen, the voters don't trust us. And until we realize that, it's going to be a problem. So you can control this process. You can pass this bill. You can pass the other bills and force that. You can do that. And unfortunately, it's shameful. But remember, as much as you say this started because of federal issues, this House started the redistricting, the gerrymandering back in 2021. We started it and have done it along the way. I'd be part of that process that I just laid out. You've done it since 2021. I think, I believe, this undermines the voters because we've done it. You've done it multiple times. It's like you say, you know best, they're not the voters. But at the end of the day, the voters are going to have the final say. And I hope they do what they've done in the past and deliver a very sound, clear, and decisive, convincing message. I hope they do, and I think they will. But even when they do, there's no doubt in my mind, and probably many of my colleagues, you're going to try to find another way. continue to look for other ways to make this system work for you and not for the people you represent. You're going to make it work for your own political power. Like I said, I love this institution. I love the people in this institution. I'm proud to be a part of this institution. But today, again, is a very, very sad day in this chamber. My colleagues, we owe the people of this state much, much better. This bill we have before us doesn't do that. The actions you're taking here today is why the voters of this state have such a terribly low opinion of elected officials like us in this room and across the state. And who can blame them? After they have given us a clear message time and time again, first was the passage of the Independent Redistricting Constitutional Amendment in 2014 with very clear language, which we are now deleting that language tonight. and it seems like you continue to thumb your nose at the people who give us the power You're not listening. And that's sad. And at the end of the day, remember, it's the people that have the power. And for the people out there listening, you will have an opportunity to once again deliver a very clear, decisive, compelling message to this legislature saying, we told you so before, we told you so again. Madam Speaker, for this reason and many others, I emphatically vote no on this very, very terrible piece of legislation, and I'm very sad to be a part of this legislature on this very day. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I sat here tonight on the bell, as I sat here tonight and I had questions for the sponsor, and most of my questions were asked by my colleague and answered by the sponsor over there, and we all could agree that no maps are perfect. And the sponsor said, continuity of community to define the district. Is absolutely correct. Compactness, absolutely correct. IRC maps need independent redistricting commission needs to draw maps. Correct. A history lesson. I lived what the legislature did with gerrymandering. As we all remember, the 101st district that was put in place in 2012, it was a district that went from New Hartford, and I'm going to explain how I saw it, from New Hartford, New York, and Central New York, to Kingdom Come. It was 204 linear miles long. Seven counties, 25 towns, okay? One town at a time. And this is a map drawn by the legislature. And this could happen again with the legislature redistricting maps right here. You couldn't drive through every one of those towns. You had to go out of district to come around a town to get into another one to drive from top to bottom. And we talk about continuity of community. There was no continuity of community in that district. If we drew districts the way that we preach, the way they need to be drawn, it started in the Mohawk Valley. It went down through Herkimer County, Otsego County, through the northern Catskills, down into the Hudson Valley, and all the way down to Orange County, where it was the farthest point you could live and still work for the city of New York. All of you, think about trying to make decisions and represent that district. If we modify our Constitution to modify how we draw districts in their timelines, this will happen again. And again, and again, and again. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I vote no on this. I lived it. I can explain to everyone how this is. And it's unbelievable. And we can't let this happen here in New York or anyplace else. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Durso. Thank you Madam Speaker Would the sponsor yield for some questions Mr Levine will you yield Of course Mr Levine yields Thank you Mr Levine So just to circle back and I probably ask some of the similar questions that were asked hours ago so I do apologize Not to worry. Currently, what is wrong, in your opinion, that we're doing this bill with the way the Independent Redistricting Commission is currently set up? We need a more streamlined process. So you're saying that, as you said before, this is streamlining the IRC? We have seen problems with the IRC process in the past, and we want to make sure that we're able to have a process that actually works. Okay. So now if we are looking for a process that actually works, As my colleagues asked you earlier, some of the language that has now been, I think the word used before was deleted. I'll just use the word missing from the current bill that's before us now. One of them being essentially not allowed to partisan gerrymand districts. Is that part of the streamlining process? Why would we take that language out? We are simply clarifying the considerations that ought to be relied upon. So, Mr. Levine, you're saying that we should consider having gerrymandered districts? Mr. Gersow, as the state constitution currently exists, as it is currently drafted, there has been confusion as to whether every single principle that's described has to be met. Impossible. Impossible. Okay. As well as whether some of these principles can or should be prioritized to help make the proper determinations. This proposed revision is intended to make clear that all of these principles must be, should be considered and accounted for, while acknowledging some of the principles must be more strictly adhered to than others. It's a relatively straightforward approach. It's a more straightforward approach. Understood. So the original principles you're saying that were in the original IRC provisions that the people voted on and we have used in this House, of those original principles that you said are tough to be met, all of them be met. And there's something to be said for that. However, in removing considerations for incumbency, political parties and particular candidates from the principles that have to be used in redistricting while keeping communities of interest together will ensure that the people are at the center of the state's consideration. when it comes to redistricting. And I'll agree with that. But my question is, in the original principles, it said about partisan gerrymandering. We've now taken that out. So what principles are left? Communities of interest and not disenfranchising people Understood. And those are very important principles and I would agree with you, sir. But partisan gerrymandering, which we weren't allowed to do prior, right, because that specifically was stated, is now taken out. So technically, you can partisan gerrymander, correct? Technically, and pursuant to the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the language of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has, for whatever reason, said, that's cool. I don't like it. But I think that legislators who operate in good faith will not do that. Understood. But since we are setting parameters here with this bill and this constitutional amendment, and we are changing the way the IRC is set up and their principles, and we would hope that legislators would not do that, why not leave that language in? That was just the decision that was made about what was important. We can hope all we want. We're simply trying to streamline a process so that the people benefit. And we're trying to do this consistently with Supreme Court jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction as well. Understood. But so are you saying that we are following the Supreme Court's ruling to a T with all our principles that we are putting in this legislation? Mr. Derso, I should hope that we are holding ourselves to higher standards. I agree, but unfortunately, sir, we don't. And that's why we're doing this bill now. Mr. Durso, and I don't want to speak. No, no, please. But as they say, with all due respect, that's how you're calling it. I'm calling it differently. Understood, and I guess that would be a matter of opinion. Correct, sir? But the fact remains that we are changing the language from its current state to this new state, and we are taking out the piece of language that says you are not allowed to partisan gerrymander districts. So, therefore, we're okay with partisan gerrymandering. That's the way I would take it. We have to act consistently with the Supreme Court, whether we like its decisions or we don't like its decisions. I'll hold you to that for future bills, sir. I hope you'll follow what the Supreme Court says at all times, and New York State won't do their own thing. Thank you, Mr. Durson. Sure. So another question is you had stated earlier. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Don't be sorry. I apologize. I wasn't on. I don't accept your apology. No, thank you, sir. You had said earlier in talking to one of my colleagues, this is about democracy and justice. Yes. Can you explain what you meant at that moment to me? Meaning this bill is about democracy and justice. Yes. That's what you were saying. And the will of the people. Correct? We've said that numerous times. Agreed. So we go. Gave this to the voters a number of years ago. And they overwhelmingly voted a certain way. And now we're telling them they're wrong. I wouldn't say, no, I wouldn't go so far. I know where you're going, Mr. Verso. But I wouldn't say they were wrong. I wouldn't either. I appreciate that, my friend. But I would say that people have the right to change the laws. They have the right to change the Constitution. And if they agree with the positions that have been advanced by some on your side of the aisle, then they will not accept this. They will not vote for it. And if they agree with the opinions of some of us on this side, they will. That is their call. I agree with you, sir. And as I'm sure you do, I also hope that the voters vote the way that they feel and they feel is the right thing to do. I'm sure you feel the same way. Now, you also stated before when one of our colleagues asked, does this get rid of the Independent Redistricting Commission? I believe your answer was no. It does not. But it does substantially change how the Independent Redistricting Commission works. No. It really doesn't change how it works. What it does do is streamline the process of what's to occur when they can't come to a decision, which we've seen happen, or when they come to a decision and send maps that are not tenable. Understood. So in the discussion, because I'm not an expert on this, it did say it allows for mid-decade congressional redistricting, correct? Yes. Okay, but it does not allow for mid-decade redistricting of the legislative maps, both the Senate and Assembly, correct? Yes. Why is that? The impact of the developments in redistricting decisions seems to impact congressional districts more than state legislative districts. And we have seen profound changes in federal interpretations of voting rights and constitutional rights over the course of the last several years. The constitutionally permissible population deviation for congressional districts is essentially its equal populations, plus or minus a few people, which inherently restricts application of other redistricting principles. principles. In other words, we have been able to handle state issues in terms of redistricting. Federal is a different story. But here in the state, we create the congressional maps, correct? I mean, I voted on them before, you voted on them before. Yes, we do. So why would we do a constitutional amendment that allows us to change and maybe you said and I don understand so I apologize congressional maps only mid but not the Senate and Assembly So if it a census issue if it our districts may be smaller right But the process is the same. So if the process is bad creating congressional maps, wouldn't the process then be bad creating the legislative maps? I'm just looking for consistency. Since we're trying to streamline this for the voters, I don't want them to be confused. So it's very foreseeable that changes to the overall rules governing redistricting will continue as we see more and more decisions issued by federal courts and the United States Supreme Court will continue. So the thought here is to enable our legislature to make mid-decade changes to congressional districts because we need the flexibility in order to do that. Flexibility for what? If we are the ones, we still create the maps. So why would the, if we change the map in 2020, just so we can go for even, why is that map different in 2025? We're not the Supreme Court of the United States, but we are constrained to live within how the Supreme Court of the United States defines issues such as districting and redistricting. We need the flexibility. We need to be nimble in order to do this. So you're saying that the Supreme Court has essentially told us we have to change the maps? No. No. No. As odd as some of their determinations are, they haven't gone into that realm of oddness. But we have the responsibility of protecting the people of the state of New York by making sure that their congressional districts are consistent with what the law is. Okay. But if they haven't made that ruling, and as you said before, you don't have a crystal ball, so you don't know what's going to happen, why are we doing this now? If we don't have a crystal ball and we don't know what's going to happen in the future, why do this ahead of time? So I seem to remember when kids were Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts, the motto was, be prepared. and we need to be prepared in order to protect the people of the state of New York. So why, Mr. Levine, with the 40 seconds I have left, why wouldn't we prepare if we had a similar issue when it came to our legislative maps? You mean our state legislative maps? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So I don't want to make this too arcane or too technical. But federal decisions are coming a lot, a lot more than any of us anticipated. Going into areas a lot of us never anticipated federal courts would go to. And federal courts are in charge of federal districts. In other words, these are federal issues. And we have a system where the federal government's got power, the state government's got power as well. And we need to have the flexibility and the insight in order to protect ourselves Thank you Mr Johnson Thank you Madam Speaker On the bill On the bill I rise this evening in opposition to the amendment being presented to us And as I make comments on the resolution, I do want to make something clear. My comments are not about one party versus another. They're not comments about which party may or may not benefit from a particular set of redistricting lines. It's not comments about who started the latest round in what has become an endless national redistricting war. What we're talking about tonight is about whether we as public servants are willing to acknowledge that something can be wrong when our side does it just as much as when the other side does. Because the truth is, this national redistricting war that has prompted this amendment and has consumed American politics for 12 months is a pox on all our houses. It is bad when the Republicans do it, and it's bad when the Democrats do it. It's bad when politicians view district lines as weapons to be sharpened rather than rules to be respected. And fundamentally, it's bad for democracy. For years, the New Yorkers we represent have heard promises about creating a more independent and more predictable redistricting process. And after decades of complaints about politicians drawing their own maps to choose their voters, we did amend our Constitution with voter approval to establish a process intended to provide greater transparency, greater public confidence, and greater stability. Is it perfect? No. But really no process designed by man ever is. But at least that imperfect process represented an agreement that the rules would be known in advance, and that those rules would not change every time political winds in our state or in the nation shifted. That certainty matters. That stability matters. And the public confidence that it gives matters. And I believe that this amendment tonight moves us in that opposite direction. this constitutional amendment will create a mechanism from which New York can reopen our congressional redistricting outside the normal timeline. And we've heard throughout this evening's debate that it will be the voters who have the ultimate say. And yes, under this proposal as a constitutional amendment, it needs to be approved by two separate legislatures and then be approved by the voters of this state. But that fundamentally misses the larger point. The question before us is not really merely whether this process will exist. The question is that whether redistricting mid-decade should become an accepted tool in our political arsenal. And I, for one, believe that answer should be no. What is happening around the country right now should concern every one of us, regardless of what side of the room we sit on. We watch every day states engage in an escalating cycle of retaliation. One state draws maps for partisan advantage, and then another state responds. Then another. And another. And the justification is always the same. Well, we have to do it because they did. We have to respond. We can unilaterally disarm We have to fight fire with fire But eventually if everyone is fighting fire with fire all we left with is ashes And that where this road will lead And the most troubling part of fighting fire with fire is that every side believes they're acting defensively. Every side believes it's merely responding to someone else's aggressions. Every side believes its own exception is justified. Meanwhile, the public we represent and their confidence in the fairness of elections will continue to erode. In the town of Ogden that I represent, there's an old farmer who lived down the street from where a good friend of mine grew up. And every spring, he sold vegetables from a small stand near the road. In one year, a farmer just near his became convinced that somebody had been taking his produce from his stand without paying. And he rightfully got mad. So in response, he started taking vegetables from another stand down the road because he figured, well, somebody else is doing it. He figured somebody else is doing it because they're doing it to him. And a few weeks later, the farmer that he took produce from started taking produce from somebody else. and before long, half the vegetable and produce stands in the entire town were short on vegetables and fruit, and nobody knew who had started what. And finally, the original farmer shook his head and said, well, fellas, I guess stealing from each other hasn't fixed or found a single one of my missing tomatoes. That is the problem with the politics of retaliation. When everybody starts justifying their actions based on what somebody else did first, eventually nobody will remember what the original rule was supposed to be. Two wrongs don't make a right. They just make more wrongs. If another state manipulates its maps for partisan gain, that suddenly doesn't make the manipulation virtuous. And that lesson applies just as much to redistricting as it does as the farmers missing tomatoes. If Republicans somewhere do something wrong, Democrats doing the same thing doesn't make it right. And if Democrats somewhere do something wrong, Republicans copying them doesn't make it right either. Two wrongs still will not make a right. And they certainly don't make good constitutional policy. Constitutions are supposed to establish enduring principles. They are supposed to be the guardrails that remain in place regardless of who happens to hold power at any given moment in time. They should not become instruments designed to gain temporary political advantage in the latest partisan conflict. It is true whether the beneficiaries are Democrats or Republicans, conservatives, liberals, or any other partisan viewpoint. The danger we have here is not simply what happens today. It's the danger and the precedent we establish for tomorrow. and imagine the message we send if we embrace the idea that congressional maps should be reopened whenever political circumstances appear favorable. Do we really believe the principle will only be used by one side? Do we really believe that future legislatures will exercise restraint once the door has been opened? Of course not. History has taught us time and time again exactly the opposite. it. Every new political weapon eventually gets used by everyone. Every escalation eventually invites another escalation. And every exception eventually becomes the new rule. That is why I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the direction our politics is heading. Not because I lack conviction and not because I don't care about policy outcomes, it's because I care deeply about institutions that make our self-government possible. Healthy democracies require losing sides to believe that the rules are legitimate. They require citizens to believe that elections are meaningful. And they require confidence that the game is not being rewritten in the middle of play. When people begin to view every election as a struggle to control the rules themselves, rather than a competition within established rules, that trust will disappear. And I remember when I was a kid, my father told me time and time again that trust, once lost, is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. and I understand the arguments that are being made in favor of the amendment and I understand the frustrations that have emerged from the redistricting battles from around our country and I understand the temptation to respond in kind but I would submit that somebody has to be willing to say enough. Somebody has to be willing to say that the answer to an unhealthy cycle is not accelerating it. Somebody has to be willing to say that constitutional governance requires restraint. And somebody has to be willing to say that what is legally permissible is not always wise. I believe that New Yorkers deserve a redistricting process that is stable. I believe they deserve rules that are predictable. And I believe that they deserve confidence that constitutional provisions are being written for the long-term health of democracy, rather than any short-term advantage of a certain political party. And I believe that the escalating national redistricting war is damaging public trust, regardless of who is winning this particular round. That war is a pox on all our houses. It is making our politics more cynical, it is making our institutions weaker, and it is making Americans increasingly doubtful that the system treats everyone fairly. We should not bring that mentality further into our Constitution. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you. Just a reminder to my colleagues that remarks offered should be relating to the proposed change in law and the impacts of that change. districting changes outside of New York are not related to the proposal currently before the House, nor national politics related to this proposal. Mr. Keith Brown. Commander Speaker, will the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee yield for some questions? Mr. Levine, will you yield? Of course. Mr. Levine yields. Thank you, Mr. Levine. And before we get started, I just want to say as a practitioner of 32 years, it's been an honor and a privilege to serve on the Judiciary Committee. I have some questions for you related to the sponsor memo in particular. Under the justification, first off, did you help prepare the sponsor memo for this piece of legislation? Are we the sponsor? Yes, we're the sponsor's memo. You're not the sponsor. Mr. Brown, your presence on the committee has been appreciated as well. But I'm not the sponsor, so I didn't prepare, nor do I know who prepared the sponsor's memo. Fair enough. Did you review the sponsor memo, though, in preparing for debate today? No. I reviewed the language of the proposed bill Well perhaps if a member of your team there might have a copy of it I going to be referring to it for the first couple of questions. I'm going to just suggest that you go in whatever direction you're going into. Sure. So the first paragraph talks about the redistricting issues in the state constitution arise out of misalignment with federal jurisprudence. Could you tell me what federal jurisprudence that's referring to? What paragraph? There are multiple parts to a sponsor memo. I'm sorry, you're talking about the first paragraph of the sponsor's memo? In the justification section, yes. Oh, in the justification section? I didn't read it. I don't know. And I'm not prepared to comment on the justification section. Well, certainly, you've been keeping abreast what's been happening, what was the genesis of this particular piece of legislation? Mr. Brown, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but as you know, I do know a little bit about cross-examination. And what may I ask, my friend, is your point? The question I was about to utter was, do you know what federal jurisprudence it's referring to, since you're no doubt a learned practitioner in the field of constitutional law, and in particular, the redistricting bill that we're referring to. Mr. Brown, I think we've been discussing that precise subject over the course of the last several hours. Sure, and that's why I just tried to clarify what federal jurisprudence we're talking about that caused this bill to be written. That's not the cause of the constitutional amendment. Let me just be clear that whatever federal decisions have been issued, they are not the cause of the need for the state of New York to have flexibility to make sure that our people are protected. Right. So the next paragraph talks about one of the justifications being the fact that the IRC process resulted in a convoluted process that only resulted in hurriedly drawn lines. Not my words, the justification words. Well, I agree with what you said and what you just read. Right. So, but was it the problem with the IRC the first time? there was temporary maps that were generated because there was not enough time before that next election day. So they used temporary maps, and then after that, there was a two-year process to generate new maps. Was there not? Mr. Brown, I'm not sure that that's correct, but certainly the process needs some assistance, And I would agree that there have been problems with the IRC in the past. And we all know that. I would submit to you, Mr. Levine, that I recall being here debating with the gentleman from Rockland County, who is no longer in this body, about this particular issue. And we talked about the fact that I asked him flat out, Was it the problem with the IRC and the process that we didn't go back to the IRC for the second round? And because of that those maps were thrown out So let me ask the question a different way Is two years in your estimation enough time to generate new maps for our congressional districts in the state of New York It certainly could be. I don't know. It could be. And that further on it says that this bill will revise the process for legislators' consideration of IRCB district plans to ensure adequate time to evaluate and vote on such plans, and if necessary, enact redistricting legislation should an IRC plan not be adopted. And the question is, do I agree with what you just said? No. I'm not sure I know what you just said. Was the first time we know that the process didn't work because we had two rounds, and at this time, you've eliminated the two rounds. Is that correct? Yes. Under the proposal. Under the proposal. You're correct. Okay. It goes on to state that we're removing certain redistricting criteria. Could you tell us what criteria that is specifically? Those are precisely what we've been discussing for the last two and a half hours, Mr. Brown. Okay. And then it goes on, while it leaves in place critical criteria that prioritizes voter enfranchisement and voter choice. So I'm asking what the difference between, it's in the same sentence, and it talks about certain criteria, and then it goes on to talk about the critical criteria. So what was that certain criteria that was so problematic? Mr. Brown, I'm sorry, I just had a tough time hearing that entire question. Do you think you could repeat it or...? Let me rephrase it. Thank you. In the justification paragraph, it talks about the proposed changes in this legislation were to remove certain redistricting criteria, and I'm simply asking what it is that was problematic that we're referring to as that certain criteria. Mr. Brown, that's precisely what we've been discussing for the last, is it three hours? Close. Just about three hours. And now it also says it has been this way since 2014. It talks about a future need for revisions to arise. And if we have a need for that, could you tell us in your estimation what some of those future needs of revisions might be so we all know? Mr. Brown, I have a tough enough time figuring out what's happened in the past. And I'm in no position to prognosticate on what's going to happen in the future. So there's no examples of what a triggering event might possibly be? There is no triggering event. Right. But this bill contemplates that the maps could be redrawn one time or multiple times within a decade, right? And there's got to be some type of triggering event. So you're telling us right now that we have no idea what that triggering event might be, yet we're making a constitutional amendment on it? So I'm going to answer this way. I don know but I do know in the words of Bob Dylan that the times they are a So it could be anything then within the 10 span from one census to another instead of having what we've been used to, which is the redrawing of one map for a decade, we could have multiple maps throughout the decade in the future. I think that anything is possible. I have no idea. And I don't know how to answer that question. Right. So we're building in a strong model here when we're changing the Constitutional Amendment. Mr. Lovine, can you tell me, what is the New York Democracy Project? What? Now, if I tell you I don't know, what are you going to do? That is not an answer to the question, Mr. Levine. I'm asking you simply, do you know what the New York Democracy Project is? I don't know what it is, and now what have you got to say about that? Yeah. So I'm not the one trying to justify the bill, Mr. Levine, you are. But there was a meeting on May 5th with Congressman Joe Morelli here at the State Capitol. Is that correct? You know, Joe Morelli is an old and a dear friend, and I do believe that he was in this neighborhood at some point recently. Were you present at that meeting, sir? Was I now? Ms. Cruz, why do you rise? Point of order, this question is not germane to the legislation, a press conference outside of what we're doing here. The point of order has been raised. We will pause for a moment until the chairman makes a ruling. May I defend the point of order? One moment, please. I do believe I do get a say. The point of order was... Just one moment, please. Thank you. I believe there was a question on the floor. It asked, were you present at the meeting simply, Mr. Levine? So was I now or was I ever present at that meeting? The answer is no. At the May 5th meeting, sir. You know which meeting I was talking to. No, but I'm a little upset I wasn't invited. Okay. Okay. So we just redrew the congressional maps in 2024, correct? That is accurate. Could you tell me what was wrong? What's wrong with them? It is a court order for the IRC if the IRC maps weren't adopted, so then we had to. As I recall, a court had ordered production of maps, and we couldn't get them, as I recall, from the IRC. We didn't enact that. We did not enact the maps that the IRC had forwarded. Do you recall how much we allocated for the IRC in this past budget that we just passed last week, Mr. Levine? You got me on that one. The answer is no. $1.2 million. Let me ask you this. Why do we have an IRC? We established an IRC at a time when we were attempting to protect the drawing of lines. Okay. Moving on to the Attorney General made an opinion on June 2nd of this year. It states that the amendment, quote, will have no further effect upon the provisions of the Constitution. Do you agree with that conclusion? The Attorney General was correct. Okay. Would New York be able to complete redistricting after the next census if this amendment were to be rejected, Mr. Levine? We've got to comply with the United States Constitution, so of course. And is there a particular constitutional defect in the maps? None has been identified by any court that I'm aware of. Or is there some type of federal constitutional requirement that's not contained in the maps? Is there some kind of federal constitutional requirement that's not contained in the maps? Yes. I don't understand. So the big question, Mr. Levine, with the time that remains, what is the compelling reason for amending the New York State Constitution at this time? to give the state the flexibility and nimbleness that it needs as laws are changing on the federal level. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have no further questions. Mr. Bologna. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill, please. On the bill. I want to begin somewhere just a little bit different. I don't want to start with Republicans. I don't want to start with Democrats, I don't want to start with presidents, and I don't want to start with Texas, Florida, California, or pick your state. I want to start with the people that we represent. Now, we've talked about people, the people, in the abstract tonight. But the fact of the matter is, is that most people don't spend their nights thinking about redistricting. They don't know what the Independent Redistricting Commission is. They don't know what Article 3 of the New York State Constitution says. And they don't sit around debating congressional maps. They're raising their children. Honestly, I'm thinking about mine a lot these past couple weeks. They're paying their mortgages. They're working overtime. They're running small businesses, coaching Little League. They're volunteering at their local fire department. They're trying to build a good life. And every few years they take a little bit of time out of their day to do something that I consider sacred They vote Not because they expect to win every election not because they expect everyone to agree with them They vote because they believe that their voice actually matters. They believe that their vote counts, and they believe that the rules are the rules. and that's what this debate is really about it's not about maps it's not about politics it's trust it's trust between people and their government and in 2014 the people of New York made a decision ultimately not us them they looked at decades of partisan redistricting, and they said, enough. They amended the Constitution, and they created an independent redistricting commission and said politicians should not have unchecked authority to draw their own districts, and they put safeguards in place. They prohibited districts from being drawn in favor of political parties. They prohibited districts from being drawn to protect incumbents, and they prohibited districts from being drawn to discourage competition. It wasn't the legislature's decision. That was the people's decision. And today, we are being asked to vote to undo that. Now, I've heard arguments. I've heard that other states are doing it. I've read the papers. I've heard that Texas is doing it. Florida is doing it. I've heard that we have to fight fire with fire. Mr. Bologna, we're not talking about other states. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've heard about fair play. And respectfully, I don't believe that they started it has ever been the foundation of good public policy. They started it has never once appeared in a preamble of a constitution, and it shouldn't appear in ours. if we're being honest that's what this entire argument is before us it's not this is good not this is fair not that it strengthens our democracy but someone else did it first if political gerrymandering is wrong in texas it's wrong in new york if it's wrong in florida it's wrong in New York. If it's wrong in California, it's wrong in New York. And the most dangerous thing about this bill is not that it draws unfair lines on a map. It's that it draws unfair lines between politicians who benefit from the system and the voters who are supposed to control it. Principles that only apply when your opponents are in power are not principles at all. They're excuses dressed up in language of democracy. And constitutions are supposed to be built on those principles, not preferences. Now, I've actually heard the governor reference the movie Star Wars. The governor said, quote, the empire state strikes back. And I actually really do get what she was trying to say there, but when I heard that phrase, I couldn't help but think of another line from that movie A line spoken at the moment the Republic willingly surrendered the restraints that protected its liberty So this is how liberty dies with thunderous applause That line has endured because it captured something timeless. The greatest threat to democratic institutions are rarely a single villain. it's people and frankly legislative bodies convincing themselves that extraordinary power is justified because the circumstances are extraordinary that the rules must be bent because the stakes are just too high that principles can wait because victory comes first history teaches us that once power is taken it is very rarely surrendered voluntarily that's why our constitution exists that's why the guardrails exists that's why people put those protections into place now this bill doesn't strengthen the irc it weakens it this bill doesn't strengthen the airy the anti-gerrymandering provisions of our constitution it quite literally removes them this bill doesn't preserve competition it eliminates language protecting competition. This bill does not maintain safeguards that voters have approved. And I think we should be honest enough to say that, because frankly, honesty matters here. The public can read the bill. They can see that the constitutional prohibition against favoring political parties has been removed. The public can see that the prohibition against discouraging competition has been removed. The public can see that the legislature is being given a new authority to redrawing congressional districts between censuses. They can read the bill for themselves, but they deserve honesty from us in here, in this building tonight. I have heard some people say that this is about getting New York a seat at the table, but New York already has a seat at the table. The question is, who's getting the seat? Is it the voters? Or is it the politicians? Because there is a profound difference between representation and power. Representation belongs to the people, and they give the power to the government. And every generation is tested on whether it is willing to place limits on that power. And that is our responsibility in this room tonight. That is the test before us. Not whether Democrats win, not whether Republicans win. It's whether the institution wins. It is whether the Constitution wins. whether people who have entrusted us with their voices can still believe that the rules apply equally to everyone even here in New York one of my favorite quotes is leadership is not about being in charge it is about taking care of those in our charge and the people in our charge did not send us here to maximize a partisan advantage They sent us here to protect the integrity of the system itself. Because when we lose faith in our institutions, the public loses. The institution loses. And once trust is lost, as my good friend Mr. Jensen said, it is damn near impossible to get back. So there's a moment in every institution's history where the people inside of it must decide whether the rules apply to them or just to everyone else. whether principles matter only when they are politically convenient I believe that this is one of those moments I know it late I know it tired I know we all probably want to go home But this is one of those moments because democracy is not measured by whether your side wins. Democracy is measured whether the rules remain fair when your side might lose. That is the question before us tonight. That is a test before us tonight, and I certainly hope that we are up to the challenge. And, Madam Speaker, that is why I cannot support this legislation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. People Stokes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're going to sponsor you for a question. Mr. Levine, will you yield? Of course. Mr. Levine yields. Thank you. I understand there's been 27 different amendments to our Constitution that went in place in 1895, so this will make 28? I believe so, and may I, point of personal order, say what an honor and privilege it has been to work with you, my friend. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments. I listen intently to the debate and the concerns that my colleagues in the chambers have. On both sides of the aisle, it's okay. It's understandable. We all have opinions. Why not necessarily agree on what our opinions are, but we do have them. And this is the place where we're supposed to be able to state them. And we're supposed to be able to state them in a way that is not disrespectful to our colleagues and that honors the principles of the building that we're in and what we're doing for our communities. So I just want to go on the bill for a minute. On the bill. Madam Speaker, I think that this is an opportunity to really talk about how do we make things more efficient. I mean, when we did the last amendment to add the IRC, there were some of us in this chamber, I kind of remember having the conversation that this is not a good thing to be doing. We're literally ceding our power to some people who hadn't been elected yet. And ever since we did that, we've always seemed to be in court again about something that came out of that process that should have worked better if it had remained in the houses where it was originally put in the Constitution. But it didn't happen that way. Here we are today, and this is what we have. And I think this is an opportunity to, as the sponsor said, to provide a more efficient process. process and it does give the voters the right to speak. Now, I have to be honest, voters probably have spoken more than once on a few things. I know they spoke more than once on a reelect than me. And so sometimes they do repetitive things and sometimes they do something that will be different and that will change the trajectory of where we're going here. I don't think that's going to happen because I think once people understand what the process that we're going through to make things more efficient, but that's telling me to take my 9 o'clock medication. I apologize. You don't listen. You want your government to function more effectively and efficiently. You shouldn't need to go to court multiple times after decisions have been made about redrawing lines. And hopefully that process will not happen again. So I do see this as streamlining, and I think it's an opportunity for us to, you know, lose a little confusion about the whole process. It's real simple. One vote for every person who's eligible. No matter what district you line them up and everybody gets that vote. Now, I'm grateful to have the opportunity to vote on this piece of legislation today. I'm honored to do that. And the only sad part about it is I won't be here next year to vote on it again. But if I was, I would. One place I will be, hopefully, is at the voting booth when it comes up so that I can vote on it as a voter. And I will. And I think that that is our responsibility to share with the rest of our consistent with you to make sure that they are doing likewise. So, again, it's you know, we're going to be on different sides of this issue and we don't live in a perfect democracy. As a matter of fact, it's really kind of unhealthy and it's been unhealthy for a long time. Ever since the sitting president was denied an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court judge, it's been unhealthy. So yes, we do still have a lot of work to do on it, but it's worth it because it's ours. It's our democracy. Our democracy in New York State and our democracy in the United States. We should want to keep working on that. I do. So again, I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation, and I hope that my colleagues, in spite of the fact that you're going to agree to disagree, don't be angry with each other because you don't agree with what I say. There's no need to be upset. Stay calm. Vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Levine, on doing a great job. Thank you. Ms. Cruz. Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, we come to Albany to represent. On the bill? Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. Yeah, it's late. On the bill. On the bill. We come to Albany to represent members of our communities who elect us. We come to get them resources, to pass legislation to protect their rights, to pass legislation to give them new rights. And we do so, you know, because they sent us here to be their voice. How do they choose us? There's a map. And that map gets to tell people who they can vote for from where. And there is a process currently for how to create those maps. And they're drawn to ensure that those folks who go out are choosing people that they want. These are the job interviews they put us through. And if they decide they like us every two years, they get to do the same thing. This process of creating the maps is difficult and, frankly, not democratic the way it is now. I happen to represent an incredibly politically involved community. And as involved as they are, I was actually really surprised to see how much attention they were paying to this. I received several emails asking me when we were going to do this. We got calls in the office from people asking when we were going to do this. And we got complaints the last time we did this because people were paying attention, not just a couple of years ago, but in 2013 and in 2014. And people saw, frankly, that it was kind of messy, unnecessarily. And, you know, the process, the way that it played out, it was supposed to be an independent process, but it actually was more of a bipartisan process, and it's a different thing. Those are not the same. And I want to read specifically from a Brennan Center article from 2022 that kind of explains how voting and constitutional scholars, as well as many of our voters, actually feel about this process. The latest round of redistricting in New York State was a mess with courts throwing out the maps passed by the legislature followed by a rushed process to get court maps in place in time for a delayed primary In the end, the maps adopted by the court are among the most competitive and politically balanced in the nation. But ultimately, most of the problems with how New York's redistricting played out lie in the design of the 2014 reforms. Despite being described in New York law as independent, the changes in reality resulted in a process that remains far more open to political manipulation and it is far less independent than those of states that adopted more comprehensive reforms. The IRC has generated at least three lawsuits because the process as it currently is written is confusing and disorganized and it's begging for clarity and that is what we're trying to do here today. These changes provide clarity, these changes are about small d democracy. The people elect their representatives and the reps, that's us, we come here and we align ourselves with the conference as we see fit for most of us and based on what our voters want, that's how we make decisions because our community is telling us what they need. And I want to thank our speaker for bringing this bill and the bill sponsor for bringing it forward to ensure that we can truly provide a clear and frankly a cleaner path for the creation of these maps so that the community's right to vote for who they want can be protected. Sitting here today, I found myself wondering why is it that when we make those decisions in support of our constituents, they're seen as two wrongs, and it's only because we're the ones making them. Ultimately, if the decisions we make are ever seen as something that makes our voters unhappy, they have a chance every two years during our job interviews to let us know and vote us out. For me, my voters are telling me that they're going, that they've been wanting this change to protect our democracy, and this is how we do it. And I'll be voting in the affirmative later, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Tagg. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield, please? Mr. Levine, will you yield? Mr. Levine, yield. It's probably our last go at it, Mr. Levine. It was a long time ago that I actually did my first debate with you. And I just want to say it's been an honor and a pleasure serving with you, sir. Mr. Tagg, as they say in Brooklyn, coming right back at you. One word. Mr. Levine, does this current Constitution amendment trump the Constitution amendment that's in place now? If it's approved, it will be the law. I'm not sure I know what you mean by, maybe I shouldn't go there, by Trump. It was a little bit of a joke, just so you know. You and I always have one joke between the two of us when we debate. Chris, you know I wish you all the best. Thank you. The other question I have, so if this bill is passed and it ends up going to the legislature to choose the maps, who is going to be responsible for holding the legislature to being fair and honest with the drawing of those maps? Ah you touching on the heart and the soul and the essence of the American system of government And it the people we represent Okay one other thing that I have a concern and I going to try to turn this into a question but one of my concerns is that the way that this reads, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that these provisions would end up being voted on by the public in 2027. And being that there are no federal or state elections in 2027, I mean, turnouts could be putrid. And, I mean, aren't we not giving as many folks as we possibly can the opportunity to vote? Why wouldn't we do it when we're going to have a state and federal election when we know that a majority of New York voters actually come out and vote? I'm just going to argue with part of the logic in your question. I have no idea whether this is going to be passed next year or not. Well, I thank you, as always, Mr. Levine. And Madam Speaker, on the bill, please. On the bill. I'm going to be very brief. But it just amazes me how we couldn't have a budget by April 1st. It took us until the end of this month to get a budget. But all of a sudden, almost the last night of session, at the end of the year, all of a sudden this bill pops up. No committee meetings. I'm on the election law committee. This never went through election law. Matter of fact, I don't even see the chairwoman from election law here. And all of a sudden, this bill just pops up in the last couple days, and we've got to do it right away. But there was no urgency to get a budget passed, none whatsoever. That's part of my problem with this, is that it's just the same old political stuff. No one's really thought this out. this is just a knee-jerk reaction. You know, this country, this state, all we care about is politics. We don't really care about the real reason why we're supposed to be here, and that's the people that we represent when we're going through an affordability crisis and so many other things. And we're here at 10 after 9 on one of the last nights of session worrying about redistricting, which we just did four years ago. I don't know. To me, it's a wonder why the people out in the real world are so disgusted with political parties and with politicians. I'll be voting no. I do appreciate Mr. Levine and all the time he spent answering all the questions. He's a very respectful gentleman, and I want to say that, but I'm not buying this. When we talk about democracy, this isn't democracy. Democracy is allowing the people a seat at the table and doing what they want, not pushed by just a few politicians. So, Madam Speaker, as I wind up my time here, it's probably no surprise that I'll be voting no. Thank you. Thank you Ms Gallagher Thank you Madam Speaker On the bill On the bill First and foremost I rise to recognize my colleague who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee He has proven through his thoughtfulness, eloquence, and responsiveness that he knows constitutional law deeply and cares about holding the documents that form the foundation of our state in high regard. And most of all, his sense of humor has kept the lights on here in this room, even as conversations have grown frequently dark this evening. The wonderful thing about democracy is that it is always a work in progress. That means we take our time to consider and think about how we can improve and streamline the process. The processes we develop in a different era are rarely the right ones for our modern era. I think it's important to ground us in the document that this proposal seeks to change, the New York State Constitution. The first New York Constitution was adopted by Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York on April 20, 1777. A second Constitution was adopted in 1821, a third in 1846, a fourth in 1894, and a fifth in 1938. Since 1938, that Constitution has been amended many times. A cornerstone of this New York state constitution is and has always been about making sure that small-D democracy can thrive from town to town, city to city, to make sure that each community can collaborate in lawmaking via the representative that they elect and that those elections are shaped by what communities make sense to vote together. I'm proud to be a part of the legislature that is looking into the future and thinking about how very much our representation counts. How we can adapt to changing conditions to give New Yorkers more power to choose their destiny. I, indeed, do come from a community that thinks about redistricting and participates in conversations around it. I have several parts of my district that have fought to be represented together so that communities of interest can stay together and those communities that have long been working together can vote together so that they may be represented by someone who understands both what they have in common and what they do not. That's what small-d democracy is. Power for the people of New York to choose their own destiny. Elections matter and voting is a form of public protection that everyone deserves access to. I believe this constitutional amendment brings us closer to that. It is our job to make sure that every community of interest has an opportunity to determine their representation through free and fair elections and with a simplified and clear process. Ultimately, it's the people of New York that will choose whether or not to approve this initiative. It is their choice, and I am proud to bring them that choice. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be voting yes. Thank you. Mr. Blumenkranz. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the chair yield for some questions? Mr. Levine, will you yield? Of course. Mr. Levine, yield. Mr. Levine, I'm going to ask you a question. You've been asked a few times here tonight, but because I keep hearing different answers, I just want to hear it maybe again. What is the purpose of doing this right here, right now? Why today? Why this session? Why are we choosing to do this now? Well, I think as you said, you've heard this answered many times this evening, and is to give the people of the state of New York who we represent the ability to have a more flexible process of drawing district lines. But I also heard when one of my colleagues was questioning why you were making some of these changes, you said it's because of Supreme Court decisions that allow you to do so. Is that correct? Well, it's pretty obvious, I think, to everyone that the law with respect to districting and voting rights has been dramatically altered over the last recent period of time. I'm sure you agree with that. Which case was it exactly? I know we're not allowed to talk about cases or other states, but where did this happen? What was the case in question that you're referencing? Mr. Blumenkranz, I don't think I need to describe to you what is the obvious, and I will not describe to you what is the obvious. Well, we're not allowed to say what the obvious is, so I'd love that you could describe it. And I don't speak over you, and again, I don't know if you were here. I doubt you were here earlier. when we had these comments. I was. I heard you. But any time you speak over somebody, you're indicating perhaps that you don't have the most cogent position. So I won't speak over you, but if you want to speak over me, you're welcome to do that. Well, you also said you wouldn't be cross-examined, but I'll move on. So what exactly did the Independent Redistricting Commission do wrong that justifies stripping away its authority? The IRC is going to have authority. But a significantly smaller amount of authority than it currently has, correct? No, it's got the authority to perform its statutory function. and the legislature would have the ability when that function is malfunctioning, which we have certainly seen in the past, to remedy it and remedy that expeditiously. So you told one of my colleagues, which asked a similar question, when the map was not tenable. Tenable to who? I'm sorry, when the map was not tenable? To one of my colleagues, you know, when the creation of the maps from the Independent Commission were not tenable, then they would be changed. Tenable to who? To whom? I'm not sure I comprehend what you mean. I wasn't either when you gave that answer, which is why I was asking for clarity. Point of order, this is not an exercise in personal harassment. I apologize if you feel harassed by my questions Mr Levine May I continue please Mr Levine what rule do you think has been violated with your point of order With all due respect, Madam Speaker, at this point I'm much more content to hear what the next question may be. Oh, and I withdraw. All right. Thank you. Points not sustained. Mr. Blumenkranz, please proceed. So, Mr. Levine, is it true that under this proposal, if passed, the Independent Redistricting Commission that produces a map that the majority of this body in the Senate dislike, the legislature can simply take over and draw its own maps? Currently, if the legislature does not enact the maps the IRC sends, the legislature drops. We are simply taking notes and time consuming instead of maps. We already have that ability. All we are doing here is trying to save time by eliminating the IRC submitting a second series of maps. So what you're saying is the current commission is already only independent until it's inconvenient twice. Now it just needs to be inconvenient once, right? Well, that's your editorial opinion. Okay. Mr. Levine, if the commission submits a map that the majority party doesn't currently like, Why should the Democrats or the majority party at the time be allowed to simply throw that map away and draw their own more expediently? I don't think that that's an accurate characterization. But I do think that we all know, and I do think that the people who vote know that time constraints are certainly important. and we want to make sure that we have the ability to be able to continue the democratic process in a timely fashion so that people can go get their petitions, so that people can vote in primaries, so that elections can occur with some measure of reliability and regularity. So for expediency for elected officials, that is what this piece of legislation intends to do, is just make it simpler and easier for elected officials to be able to go about their way after they'd like to politically gerrymander a map. Mr. Blumenkrantz, I'm going to make... Yeah, I know you're asking... I know you're posing questions, but that's just not right. Okay. So you've talked previously about certain guardrails that are being removed from our Constitution that the voters had agreed to put in the Constitution previously. One of those guardrails is compactness. You've talked about compactness, and I bring your attention to page 4, line 7th away, where each district shall be compact in form as practicable. That being removed from the Constitution I want to make this specific to an area that you and I both serve in the third district During previous iterations of the map with the current commission a district was drawn that would go all the way basically from SUNY Purchase to and sliver down through northern Long Island all the way to what is Stony Brook University, making a sort of non-contiguous district, even the former congressman called it, a district where someone would need a boat. to get around. It was this framework in the Constitution that the courts felt was not being abided by. Do you think that removing provisions like this would hurt communities like ours that would then have a representative who is serving individuals in the Bronx, in Westchester, in Suffolk, in Nassau, in Queens? No, because we maintain communities of continuity. We are maintaining communities of continuity. but communities of continuity, but not compact communities of continuity. Pardon me. I misspoke. I know that may be very difficult for you to believe, but these are communities of interest, and I said communities of continuity. I made a mistake. So the communities don't need to be contiguous, essentially, under the guidelines of the Constitution. They, of course, need to be contiguous, and that's specifically set forth. It's there. They just don't need to be compact. It's there in English. But they don't need to be compact. I'm sorry, you misspoke, so I'm trying to get the clarity that I'm hoping for in your question. And I'm with you on that. Colleagues, just a reminder to my colleagues that we need to maintain standards of order and decorum, including observance of being respectful, having a respectful tone. Manner of speaking, we have about 30 minutes left. Let us conclude our debate tonight with this in mind, all of us. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mayor Kulpa. Chair, is there a legitimate public policy objective that's being advanced by this that makes it easier to draw less compact maps? What is the political objective of removing that component of this? Are you talking about political or public policy objective? I'm asking, what's the public policy objective? Apologies if you're, again, interruption. To streamline the process and to make sure that we're preparing maps in a timely fashion. And Mr. Blomenkrantz, whether I like it or whether you like it, is a whole lot less important than whether the public likes it. And the public's going to have, assuming this passes this evening and assuming it passes a year in the next session, It will be up to the public to make that determination. And Mr. Blumenkrantz, I put great faith in the wisdom of the public. Yes, we did too when they passed the current system in place that we're removing today as an elected body. My next question, I'd like to draw your attention to page 8, line 5 through 13. News Section 5C says the legislature may by law make changes to one or more congressional districts in the state Ms Levine on page 8 your bill authorizes the legislature to redraw congressional districts on its own initiative What is the limiting principle here How many times can they redraw When can they redraw The limiting principle is the constitution of the state of New York and principles of good governance. The principles of good governance. So they can draw it as many times as they'd like? every year when an election changes the results? Not every year. There's two provisions you plan to do. One is short-term and one is 32 and a half. I got it. I don't think that any legislature is going to engage in continuing redistricting. And I think it's not realistic to assume or fear that possibility. So you're saying just because it hasn't been, it's wrong to assume because we're allowing it to happen, that it won't happen? Just for clarity. I think there's always a danger in assuming things. Yeah, well, to your point earlier, we're leaning on good faith now that we're removing guardrails. It seems like a lot of assumptions as to what good faith in the Constitution may look like, which is what leads me to my next question is, why should the voters have any confidence that this power won't simply be exercised whenever one party believes it can gain seats since it's now allowable? The voters I know are intelligent people, and they take the time to determine the quality of their representation, and they take the time to determine for whom and for what they should vote. I have great faith in New York voters and American voters. They took that time when they voted on an amendment to have the independent commission and remove the process from politicians. Do you feel like now is the time to ask them the question again, or you don't believe that their answer the first time was informed? So inherent in your question is the proposition that when people voted for the 2014 provisions, that they gave up all right to vote in the future to change that proposition. That's not democracy. That is not my proposition. It is your—I digress. I do have more questions, though. how many times do you believe congressional lines should be allowed to change during a decade? Whenever necessary. And as seldom as is possible. Whenever necessary. And that's the answer, and you can repeat it as often as you wish. But I don't believe that any legislature, no New York legislature, let me put it that way, no New York legislature will engage in that sort of conduct. Yet they open the door to allow themselves to. For generations, redistricting has followed the census. Why should politicians now be able to redraw congressional maps whenever they think they'd like? Thank you, Mr. Blumenkranz. Ms. Simon? Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill? On the bill. I rise to thank the sponsor for this bill. I do remember the redistricting, most recent redistricting, and how long it took for the IRC to come up with some maps, two maps, in fact, that were clearly not something that we could vote on. And then that change had caused a great deal of delay. And so what we're doing here is improving this redistricting process and streamlining it and making it more democratic. When you have a body that is five and five on different sides of the aisle and you require seven votes, it makes it almost impossible to come to a decision. And that doesn't serve the voters of the state of New York, whatever side you may be on. And so, as has been reflected in the past in this conversation, there has been an evolution in jurisprudence. And I remind my colleagues that the Supreme Court has always deferred to state legislatures to draw lines. So the doing of that and retaining that power, should the IRC not come up with maps that are acceptable, is in fact something that has long been part of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the concept of communities of interest. And in my own district, there was a great deal of question about that. And some of these communities of interest in my district, for example, I've been around for over 200 years. And we are right to respect those communities of interest and have those people have their fair say. So this proposal is flexible to respond to changes going on and basically is about not taking anything from the constituents. We still have an independent redistricting commission. It will just be able to function in a more streamlined and more productive way and more efficiently to better serve the people of the state of New York. And I will be voting in the affirmative, and I thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pierzolo. Good evening, Madam Speaker. How are you this evening? Wonderful. You, sir? I'm doing good. I think you're doing a good job up there. Very good. I hope you don't have to interrupt me. We'll see what happens. Will the sponsor please yield? Mr. Levine, will you yield? Mr. Levine yields. How are you, Mr. Levine? I'm doing quite well, thank you, Mr. Perizzolo, but I'm actually not the sponsor. Okay, that might explain the reason why you weren't able to answer some of the questions this evening. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear what you said. You put your head down and kind of muffled your voice. I'll say it much more clearly. That may be the reason why you were not able to answer some of our questions this evening. You're not familiar with the bill, maybe. Well, Mr. Perizzolo, I'm certainly looking forward to answering your questions. All right. Well, listen, I'm going to beg your forgiveness before we start. I kind of twisted my leg the other day, and this is really my first day that I'm here. I been in my room listening back and forth and I been coming back and forth today And you know as you take the elevators and walk through the halls sometimes you don get the reception on your phone or your headset as you normally do So I going to ask you some questions that I know that maybe some of my colleagues may have answered, and it's not because I'm trying to annoy you or ask them again. It's because I didn't either catch the question or the answer. So please forgive me. Mr. Pirazzolo, I understand and I sincerely regret you couldn't make your way over here for the earlier part of the debate. Well, as I said, it's not that I didn't hear it. So a couple of things I just want to touch on, a few different questions. Some of the things that you had said is that we want to pass this legislation so like a Boy Scout we can be prepared. And I believe that my colleague, Mr. Tenousis, had asked if there was anything that was going on that we need to be prepared for, but I think you skillfully did not answer his question. So I'm going to ask the question, what do we have to be prepared for, and is there something going on in this outside world that we need to prepare for that is going on right now that we have to take this action? Well, we're going to have to redistrict in a few years anyway. And this gives us the opportunity to make sure that we are prepared to protect the rights of our citizens in the meantime. I get it, but that wasn't the question I asked. The question I asked was, is there anything occurring right now, according to the words you used before and had in conversation with one of my colleagues, is there some outside influence in terms of occurrence that's happening right now that we have to take this step at the end of session? Mr. Pirazzolo, it may have not been the question you asked, but I'm pretty sure it was the question I answered. No, because then I wouldn't be asking it again. What I ask is, is there something happening outside that we have to do this? So either it's a yes or a no or... As I referenced before, even though this may be a reference to someone from before your time, but as Bob Dylan used to sing, the times they are changing. What times are changing? Where is this change that precipitates that we have to do this in this manner at the end of this session? What's the impotence? Mr. Pirazzolo, I think that it's patently obvious how things are changing in terms of voter rights and voters' rights to be able to cast ballots of their choice. Well, so it may be painfully obvious to you, but talk to me like I'm an eighth grader, which is the standard I think we're using for some of this language here. Please explain to me in at least eighth grade language to what you just said, because I have no idea what you're talking about. You might know what you're talking about. You might be the smartest person in the room. I might not be. But please tell me what you mean by what you just said because I don't get it. I'm not even going to answer that. Well, then I'm going to ask it again because you said the times are a-changing. What times are a-changing? Where's the change? And I'm not going to answer that either. Madam Speaker, point of order, I'm asking a direct question based on the comments made by the sponsor and he's refusing to answer the question. Mr. Respectfully, Mr. Perizzolo, he has answered your question. I know you don't like the answer. You can't demand he answer. I get it. But so then for the record, I'm going to have to say that he said times have changed. Points not sustained. Please move on. I'm asking what times and he refuses to answer. So we also talk about trust the people, right? You've said many times you trust the people, I trust the people. I do trust the people of New York As a matter of fact the last time we asked them this question they said no What I don trust is actually this body right here Because if you throw stuff at the wall long sooner or later something going to stick So I know that we talk about that, but I want to get into the IRC. I'm just going to ask, you know, so maybe I'll answer my own question. I don't know if you don't want to answer it. But what is the purpose of the IRC again? And how do you answer that, Mr. Pirazzolo? By asking you, sir. The purpose of the IRC is to help us draw election lines. Okay, so with this change, or even though it's existed in the past, if the IRC draws a map one time and we don't like it, we can immediately, because we talk about expediency and saving time, we can immediately go into drawing a new map on our own. That's what the proposal involves. Okay. So is there any sort of a ratio that you could maybe give me of what is the likelihood that we're going to accept the map from the IRC? I went to law school because I wasn't that good at mathematics, and I'm still not good at mathematics. I could give you a calculator if you want, but how about an educated opinion as a legislator? I have no idea. Okay, so if we can't specifically say that the map coming out of the IRC is not going to be good, why are we taking steps to eliminate it or to just override it without giving them a second shot, since IRC kind of stands for independence, so why are we overriding that second shot? We're doing what we can to protect the people of the state of New York by doing our best to ensure that there will be viable maps and viable maps in time for elections. and we have all lived through problems with the IRC in the not-too-distant past. Okay, so again, you said the term, and I'm going to re-ask the question because you said protect the people of New York. What are we protecting the people of New York from that's happening right now that we need to do this? No, can you, but we've had confusion. We've had elections moved. We've had electoral election dates directly. We've had election dates moved. We've had people inconvenienced. We've had voters who don't have the security in knowing that they will be able to participate in elections when they want to participate. And as some people say, that's history. Okay, so you say it. I don't know it. Can you give me an example? When was someone inconvenienced because an election was moved? We had two different primaries in 2022. In 2022, we had two different primaries. There were at least two different primaries no more than just a couple of years ago. I'm sorry. I can't hear you. There were at least two primaries during the same election cycle two years ago. That was – 2022. 2022. It was four years ago. I said, you know, I wasn't that good at math. Yeah, I get it. I get it. I'm not that good at math either. And something just isn't adding up in this entire process. So basically, this whole thing is happening because of two primaries within the last couple of years. That's the best reason we have as to why we're going to uproot the New York State Constitution and ask the voters for I don't know how many times that we need to change the maps because as a legislature, we're not happy with the outcome. two elections primaries even not even generals The folks who are going to answer that question are the folks who may end up voting on this constitutional measure And they are in a better position to make that determination certainly my friend than either you or I All right. So I had asked the purpose of the IRC, and I don't know if I got the answer to my question, so I'm going to kind of go back to it. If the IRC, or maybe lead into another question, if we don't like the outcome of the IRC and we're going to be able to instantly override or change it, why don't we just get rid of them? Why do we hide behind the eye of the IRC of independence? Mr. Pirazzolo, in the event that you want to offer that amendment, we'll all take a look at it and evaluate it. All right, so then can we withdraw this amendment so we can do that? You're suggesting this amendment, what we're doing now, should be withdrawn? No, you suggested that maybe I make a suggestion of adding an amendment, and we can't really make an amendment if we're passing this one, right? If you want to change it, like you said, we kind of need to withdraw it and then change it and then bring it back. Mr. Pirazzolo, the public will decide. You'll have your position. I'll have my position. We'll see what happens. It's up to the public. I get it, but we've already seen what happens. Like I said, I'm just tired of, you know, this is like a ball game. You know, you want to talk about the budget, a ball game with no outs. Right? How many swings are you guys going to take at the ball here? Well, I'm looking for a leadoff homer, my friend. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you again. I'll withdraw what I just said. Oh, rats. All right. Okay, so is there going to be a limit as to how many times lines can be withdrawn within a specific time frame? It's not set forth in this. So within a 10-year period of time, or even a two-year period of time, whatever, if an election happens and maybe we do or do not like the outcome, we can change those lines again. And in changing those lines, we would possibly be changing the outcome of the election we just had. We don't change elections. No, we change lines. Lines change elections. Perhaps to a certain extent. But that, again, what you fear will be left to the public to make a determination. Sir, it's not my bill, it's yours. I'm sorry. I don't like to speak over you. I thought you were done. I don't need the lecture. I'm sorry. Are you finished? I'm waiting for other questions from you, Mr. Perizzolo. So it's not my fear. I'm going to have to say it's your fear because we're taking another swing at the ball here. I don't know how many times we have. So the fear is not on my part. You know, you spoke about democracy, and I looked up the word democracy for a definition. Do you happen to know what I guess the official, if you want to call it, definition of democracy is? Well, let me put it to you this way. to echo what's been said by people much more intelligent than me. I know it when I see it. Okay. That was certainly not an answer to my question. It was, do you have any idea what the official definition of democracy is? Or maybe what it might say here on my phone. Because if you can see my phone, I'll bring it over so you can see it and then you can read it. As Yogi Berra used to say, Mr. Pirazzolo, you can look that up. I did, and I'm going to read it to you. Thank you. There we go. Okay. Democracy is a system of government where the ultimate power and authority rests with the citizens. I've heard that here before. Right? Who exercise it either directly or through elected representatives. That is what I see. It is derived from the Greek word demokritia, okay, which means ruled by the people, and it's built on principles like political equity. What is political equity? Like Yogi Berra used to say, Mr. Pirazzolo, you can look that up and you've got a dictionary handy. Why don't you tell us? Why don't you educate us? I'm not here to educate you. I'm here for you to educate me on your bill, right? So political equity, I mean, I don't know. It sounds to me where things are the same, things are equal. If we look up the word equity, it's probably going to say things are equal. Can we agree on that? Political equity does not refer to Democrats and Republicans. It refers to people's political rights. So wouldn't you say the people have a right to have representation that is half of one side and half of the other side so they can equally come together and put out something that is equally good for everyone instead of having just one party rule where you basically have 80% of the people making decisions? That doesn't sound politically equitable to me. We don't have a system that mandates that the public is forced to have half a loaf here and half a loaf there. Individuals, Mr. Pirazzolo, have got the right to vote for whom they believe will best represent their interests. They can vote for Democrats. They can vote for Republicans. They can vote for people who have no political affiliation. I'm sure you would agree with that, wouldn't you? I do, but you misunderstood my question. Of course. As a legislative body, we create this law that is supposed to bring those very people you're so concerned about political equity. So wouldn't we be justified or therefore bound by moral conscience to say that this body should consist of half of one and half of the other, this way people are represented? Shouldn't we change these lines to make sure that half and half or our society is fairly and equally represented? Isn't that what you want? Mr. Pirazzolo, I'm pretty good with my moral conscience, and you should be as well. Yeah, but that didn't answer my question. Isn't that what you want as far as political equity, having our constituents have an opportunity to choose from one or the other instead of just one? And that's what rules this body, just one. No. The answer is no. So you don't believe in political equity for our constituents. You can editorialize Mr. Pirazzolo as much as you want, but I'd suggest you take a look at the language in this eight-page bill and ask me questions about the language. Thank you. We have come almost to our four hours. Ms. Walker, you have five minutes, and then we close our four-hour debate. Ms. Walker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I think that we could see what's happening around the country. as it relates to the security of democracy within our country. Equity has nothing to do with equality. Equity involves meeting people and delivering to them the special and specific needs in order for them to be lifted to the point where people who are already receiving an advantageous result from whatever the institutional political operations may exist at that particular time And so no equity is not necessarily what is important in this situation We have seen in the 2002 enactment of our congressional maps, where the IRC was deadlocked. And based on that deadlock, the Court of Appeals struck down those particular maps. What was the result of that deadlock? Congressional maps that were not allowed to be drawn in a timely enough fashion in order for people to advocate for and to campaign in a district that was required so that people could have one person, one voice in a particular dynamic. In addition to that, there was very costly litigation that resulted that required people to fight for constitutional and voting rights in order for people to have the adequate notice, hearings, and their concerns to be addressed prior to those maps being finalized. So yes, timeliness was a serious, significant situation that election officials had to adhere to so that we could have the certainty of our elections as well as being able to have the respect as well as the deliberation of democracy in our country. It is important for our legislature to ensure that we have clear lines, that we reduce procedural disputes, and that people are delivered to them a timely map that they can vote in that does not allow for unnecessary delays that are caused by the deadlock and the commission of deadlocks that prevented us from being able to have the maps that we desired. Right now what we're doing is clarifying procedures for submitting, amending, and approving maps. Quite frankly, one of the most important and core details is to ensure that there is a map that will allow for everyone to be able to elect someone that shares their values, shares their intentions, and shares their particular dynamics within their districts that will allow for someone to be able to vote for someone that they choose. One of the things that is important to recognize is that we've seen the Constitution change the result of a discriminatory map. And instead of looking at the result to look at intent, it is very difficult in order to be able to base what is intent. How does someone intend to racially gerrymander a map? Who knows what that means? As we've heard from our sponsor indicate that they only know it when they see it. But the result of unnecessary maps is one of the things that we know that we have to we have to be able to defend against. I 100% support as the election law chair, since I understand that folk were looking for the election law chair, to be able to say that we need a partisan lens as well as a bipartisan lens in order for us to answer the fundamental questions before us. Whether or not maps are fair and effective and also allow for the representation of the people of the state of New York. Public confidence is the supreme democratic process by which we ensure that transparency inclusivity and accountability is ensured within our state As long as we have a New York State John Lewis Voting Rights Act I am confident that the voting rights of people of color across the state of New York will be adhered to But we must ensure that the access and equal access to the ballot is important and can be translated in the maps that we have here. We have to ensure that they will not be manipulated, as well as the fact of ensuring that our votes are not diluted and our voting strength is protected no matter what. So I do support this particular map and I encourage my colleagues to do the same so that we can make sure that voters can represent and elect representatives of their choice, whether or not the democracy is under. Thank you. On a motion by Mr. Hasty, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A slow roll call has been requested. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Stack to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Fair state redistricting for congressional elections is actually derived from the 14th and 15th amendments, which were enacted after a bloody civil war in which 50,000 New Yorkers died. The language says that Congress shall have the power to enforce these amendments with appropriate legislation. Congress did that when it enacted the Voting Rights Act, which governed state redistricting processes. The Constitution does not say the Supreme Court shall have the power to determine whether there is a need for congressional action. Indeed, nowhere in the Constitution does it even say that the Supreme Court has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. That it is inferred power which must be exercised sparingly. Whether there is a need for implementation of the 14th and 15th Amendments is a classic legislative judgment. the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in repealing the Voting Rights Act by fiat to undermine fair redistricting processes in this nation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not shown any willingness to engage in the type of restraint so eloquently urged by my colleague from Monroe County. Therefore, we must act in defense of democracy as defined in the 14th and 15th Amendments, which was well explained by the chair of the Elections Committee. I vote in the affirmative. Mr. Stack in the affirmative. Mr. Morinello to explain his vote. Mr. Smullen to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. This debate is simple. Who should choose our representatives, the people or the party in power? New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly in 2014 to create the Independent Redistricting Commission for one clear reason. To safeguard against the exact kind of partisan gerrymandering the Democrats are attempting now. They wanted to end the era of Democrats drawing districts for political advantage. Yet this amendment moves us in the exact opposite direction. Instead of strengthening independence, it weakens the Independent Redistricting Commission and hands more power back to the very legislators who benefit from the maps they draw at any time that they choose. The Independent Redistricting Commission was designed to bring power to the people, not to Albany politicians, when it comes to choosing their representatives. This bill does the reverse. The goal was to restore public confidence in our elections. At a time when trust in government is low, we should be reinforcing that confidence, not undermining it with a pure partisan political power grab. And let us be clear, its purpose is to disenfranchise Republicans in New York State. For these reasons, I will voting no on this bill. Mr. Smolin in the negative, Mr. Riley to explain his vote. Madam Speaker, to explain my vote, imagine an NFL playoff game. The score is tied at the end of regulation and the game goes into overtime. But instead of both teams playing under the same established rules, one team gets to rewrite the overtime rules after seeing how the game is unfolding. They decide who gets the ball first. They decide how long overtime lasts. They decide what counts as a touchdown. No fan would accept that. We would call it rigged. Or imagine a Major League Baseball game that goes into extra innings. The home team suddenly decides that from now on they get four outs per inning while the visiting team only gets three. The game would no longer be fair because one side is changing the rules to benefit itself. Or consider the NBA Finals. Imagine Game 7 is tied with two minutes remaining and one team is suddenly allowed to move the three-point line closer to the basket. while the other team still shoots from the original distance. Or imagine one team gets to appoint the referees for the final two minutes of the game. No player, coach, or fan would accept that outcome because the rules and the court itself would be tilted in favor of one side. Now, some may not like sports. You may be into cooking. Imagine you're in a cook-off, and now you get to choose the recipes that everybody gets to use. but you decide to slip in some hidden secret recipes. Would that be fair? We do not think so. Well, this is exactly why independent redistricting matters. And this is why common New Yorkers need to understand that the game is fixed. I will be no. Mr. Riley in the negative, Mr. Novikov to explain his vote. Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to explain my vote. The majority claims that this bill is about protecting democracy. I believe it is about protecting political power. The reason New York is losing congressional seats is not because of Texas. It is because too many New Yorkers are leaving the state. The answer is not to withdraw the map. The answer is to make New York a place where people want to stay, work, raise families, and build businesses. Until we address that reality, changing district lines is simply avoiding the real problem. And for that reason, Madam Speaker, I vote no. Mr. Novikoff in the negative, Mr. Keith Brown to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The New York Constitution is our state's foundational governing document. Constitutional amendments should be reserved for circumstances where there is a clear constitutional problem to solve, a constitutional right to protect, or a constitutional duty that cannot be otherwise fulfilled. One of my central concerns with this proposal is necessity. The Attorney General in the opinion issued June 2nd 2026 concluded that the proposed amendment will have no further effect upon our constitutional provisions If that the case then the legislators should ask a basic question what constitutional problem are we solving Before we ask the voters of New York to amend their constitution, we owe them a clear explanation of why such a change is required and what political benefit it provides. A second concern is timing. This amendment comes in the immediate aftermath of the United States Supreme Court decision. The legal landscape governing redistricting continues to evolve. Before altering our Constitution, we should carefully examine whether additional guidance from the courts is necessary or whether unintended consequences could arise for making constitutional changes before the implications of the decision are fully understood. Third, we should consider the institutional integrity. New Yorkers adopted constitutional reforms to create the IRC because they wanted greater public confidence in the redistricting process. Fourth is an issue of voter clarity. When the constitutional amendments are preserved to the voters, they should be straightforward and easy to answer. And finally, the principle of constitutional restraint. The Constitution should not be amended simply because a different process may be preferred at a particular moment in time. Constitutional amendments should be justified by clear necessity, broad consensus, and a demonstrated public benefit. For these reasons, I believe this bill warrants careful scrutiny, and I encourage members to reconsider it. This is a sham, exactly the type of partisan politics that our founding fathers were abhorred of. In 2014, voters made it clear when it comes to redistricting and gerrymandering, they made it perfectly clear. Mr. Brown, how do you vote? I vote in the negative. Mr. Brown in the negative. Mr. Sempolinsky to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So there's one wonderful thing about our state constitution is when we do these constitutional amendments, they have both an indirect and a direct role. And so now the people's role is going to start because the indirect portion is the intervening election where we all will have to answer for this vote. And the direct part would be if it passes again in 2027, there'll be a referendum. So I would remind the people of the state of New York that this is not the first time we've been down this road. 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2026. This is the fourth time that the majority has either changed the Constitution, attempted to, or drawn maps for partisan control. This happened long before the current administration was in Washington. It is simply a pattern of partisan power grabs over the course of the last five years. So I will be voting no. I certainly hope that the people will vote no because this amendment simply takes a blowtorch to representative government in the state of New York. Mr. Semplinsky in the negative. Mr. Angelino to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. We invest over $1 million in the Independent Redistricting Commission. And just once in my voting lifetime, I would like to cast a vote on a map that was drawn by this commission. I'll be voting in the negative tonight. Thank you. Mr. Antolino in the negative. Mr. Gandolfo to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. There was a lot of healthy debate tonight. And one of the points that kept coming up was that we needed to streamline our redistricting process and that it was confusing. I don't think there was much confusing about prohibiting drawing legislative districts to favor or disfavor incumbents to target certain individuals or political parties The only reason the process got messy was because the majority violated it so egregiously that the maps got thrown out and threw the process into chaos. When the special master was appointed to draw the fair maps, it turned out that the representation in Congress closely mirrored what the gubernatorial election results were, which is fair and which is good for the people of New York. Then the makeup of the court was changed. The court, as many of us on our side would say, was rigged. And those maps were thrown out and our new maps were put in place. So deleting these provisions from the state constitution, the provisions that prohibit drawing wacky-shaped districts from protecting incumbents, from targeting certain candidates or political parties, that is not in the best interest of the people of the state. It's not in the best interest of democracy, as we've heard so many times tonight, and it certainly isn't in the interest of fairness. So for that reason, Madam Speaker, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you. Mr. Gandolfo in the negative. Mr. Palmisano to explain his vote. Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a sad day for this chamber. I've got to tell you, I'm so tired hearing some of my friends and colleagues on the other side saying this is about protecting democracy. They have faith in the voters. They trust the voters. When your actions directly contradict this statement, This amendment does nothing to support that statement. If you have faith in our voters, if you trust our voters, then you listen to them. You respect their wishes. You respect their vote. Not undo them at every turn, every opportunity, like you've done multiple times, like you're doing here tonight, because you don't like what they've had to say and you think you know best. I've heard during this debate that this is about being more fair, streamlining for efficiency, restore power to the people, protecting the people, great faith in the voters, please. This does none of this. This is a train wreck. This is a political hit job designed simply to ensure political power. This is a pure political power grab. But I will remind you, at the end of the day, the voters will have the final say in this. And I hope they clearly remind and reinforce to you what they've already said in the past, and they reject this amendment, as I'm rejecting this amendment as we vote on the floor. I vote negative. Mr. Palmasano on the negative. Ms. Heinemann to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to explain my vote. I have been asked by reverends, constituents, and state legislators from other states, what is New York going to do? And so tonight we're showing exactly what New York is going to do. I never thought in this House we'd have to codify Roe v. Wade, but we did. I never thought in this House we'd have to talk about the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, but we have. So this immigrant votes yes. Thank you. Ms. Heinemann in the affirmative. Mr. Bologna to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Constitution was never meant to protect us from our opponents. It was meant to protect us from ourselves. The people of New York created these protections because they didn't trust politicians with that power. Tonight, we're proving them right. democracies don't disappear when people stop voting. They disappear when people stop believing that their vote actually matters. Absolutely not. Mr. Bologna in the negative. Ms. Lunsford to explain her vote. Maya To quote Brian Holten Man capacity for justice makes democracy possible but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. I vote today for the people of New York. I vote today for democracy. I vote today against injustice. I vote today for a New York and a country that I can keep voting for into the future. I vote to put this vote to the people of New York, because I believe democracy works when we trust the people. I vote yes. Ms. Lunsford and the affirmative. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. It's been a long day, right? We've heard a lot of debate tonight. We've heard a lot of things. We clearly are very, very much not in agreement here. So I'm just going to keep it short. I just think that this is incredibly unfair as a proposal. It's unfair. It is really shameless. It is all about power and staying in power and keeping power. It doesn't have a damn thing, darn thing, to do with democracy. It's all about power and keeping power. It's a power grab and I will not support it. And I'm not proud of what's going down here tonight. And I hope the people wise up. I hope the people wise up when they get a chance to vote on this and see it. We're all talking about transparency all the time. This is pretty transparent, folks. And I really, I'm gonna work as hard as I can to make sure that the voters see this for the real sham that it is. And I vote now. Ms. Walsh in the negative, Mr. Chang to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for an opportunity for me to explain my vote. I'm a plain-spoken guy, blue-collar guy, and in a simplistic way, the Constitution for me is the bedrock of our laws, should be sacred. It has to be from the ground people to tell us that we need to change something. Now, I've been in this business for three and a half years. I've had not once hear my constituents pounded the door and said, we need redistricting. Not one. More so that, hey, I need to be taking care of my DMV or sanitation, all those. Those are real things that are passing a budget. Those are real things. You know, we can scrap the $1 million for the IRC, Independent Review Commission. You know, I would probably suggest, let's hire a team of monkeys. Let them draw the line. I'll vote for that. I will vote no for this bill. Thank you very much. Mr. Chang in the negative. Ms. Walker to explain her vote. I need clarification of hiring a team of monkeys. However, the Constitution does require us to, in order to defeat our opponents, to protect our democracy, and that opponent was the monarchy. One of the things that we recognized as well as the IRC was deadlocked. The legislature was required to draw those maps. The deadlock was in January. The legislature adopted maps in February. The Court of Appeals invalidated those maps in April. There was an election to be held in June. The special master drew those maps in May. Those maps were finalized May 20th to 21st of 2022. And the district and the election had to be recalled and postponed until August 23rd of 2022. to, it ultimately resulted in voter confusion and to not do anything does not reflect democracy and will result in legislative malfeasance. Democracy demands this particular piece of legislation, and I vote in the affirmative, Madam Speaker. Ms. Walker in the affirmative, Mr. Cashman to explain his vote. Madam Speaker, I rise to explain my vote. This is the legislator placing a proposed change before the people. The legislator can make an offer, but only the voters. The voters. The voters. can make the decision whether or not this becomes part of the Constitution. I have the confidence in the people of New York State that they will examine this proposal carefully and determine for themselves whether it deserves their approval. And as we approach the 250th anniversary of this great nation, it is important to remember the greatest experiment has always been our democracy. We moved from a revolution into evolution, or as my grandfather would have said, a Korean War-era veteran. That change is the only thing that is consistent in the world. But the bedrock of our democracy is we the people, and it is the people of New York State that will decide. And as I watch this process unfold, I know that he was right then, and he is right now, and I vote in the affirmative. Thank you. Mr. Cashman and the affirmative. Mr. Lamondese to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. Having spent the bulk of my adult life in this nation's most respected institution, the military, it is very apparent why institutions that we are in here are the least respected. What took place here tonight is a travesty. It's standard professional conduct to use independent agencies for everything. There's a check and balance to every aspect of our society. But here, we eliminated that check and balance. The real asset test is the number of congressional seats. In 1850, we had 33. We got 26 today. You tell me why people are leaving. I vote no. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Lamont is in the negative. Mr. Fitzpatrick to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. You know, a lot of my colleagues are outraged and angry tonight, but I'm not. What I witnessed tonight was just the raw exercise of political power and attempt to increase hegemony over the minority party in the state of New York. I have to say, the Speaker's appointed advocate for the bill tonight treated us to a masterclass in the art of forensic rope-a-dope. Very clever, very shrewd, very well done. But what we're doing tonight with this bill, we are not amending the Constitution. We are disemboweling it. I vote no. Mr. Fitzpatrick in the negative. Mr. D'Arso to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I'm not going to, I can't agree with all the comments that Mr. Fitzpatrick just said, because some of them I didn't understand. But I will say this. I do thank the sponsor. I do think, though, obviously, there's no need for this bill. I do think that obviously this is a political power grab. But I do trust the voters and we all should And the fact of the matter is the voters in 2022 voted no overwhelmingly So maybe everybody in this body should start trusting the voters and stop saying that they were wrong by putting this on the ballot again They already spoke. So for everybody to sit here and say, we believe in the voters, we trust the voters, I think we do. The problem is the majority doesn't. So I'll be voting no. Mr. Durso in the negative, Mr. Slater. to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to explain my vote, look, this body and this state always likes to say that we do things first. We lead from the front. We do things before everyone else. And we should. And I think that's a great thing about this state and about this body. But here, we are removing principles from the Constitution that every state should have. We are taking a step back, not a step forward. Most notably, the principle that ensures maps are not drawn, favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties. This is wrong. Period. It is a political power grab that is wrong and should be rejected, which is why I vote no. Thank you. Mr. Slater in the negative. Mr. Levine to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The beginning of my political life was in March of 1965 when on a little TV I watched what had unfolded in Selma, Alabama. I am still outraged by what I saw. And one of my heroes became John Lewis. And I can't help but believe that somewhere, someway, somehow, if John Lewis is looking down on what we are doing here, he's got a smile on his face. I vote in the affirmative. Mr. Levine, in the affirmative. Ms. People Stokes to explain her vote. Thank you. I know it's inappropriate, but I will say ditto to that last comment regarding John Lewis. I also will say this, Madam Speaker. It's a great opportunity to make a positive vote on this one, even though I know some people don't necessarily understand it. But it's real clear to me as an African American that we have to do things to try to protect our right to vote. And I think that this is a critical moment to do that. I don't want to say what other states are doing, that's their issue, but I do know that there are only 11 states in this nation of 50 that have IRCs managing their redistricting process. And why is there only 11? Because the people who are elected feel like they can do it. And I think this body can come up with a redistricting plan that's fair to everybody, both bipartisan as well as people of color across the state of New York. And so I look forward to the day when that can be reconnected. I do also want to agree with another one of my colleagues who mentioned perhaps we should be just removing the IRC. Perhaps we should, but that's not what we're doing today. What we're doing is making a more efficient system so whatever they come up with doesn't keep us tied up in court for months, which actually costs a lot of resources that could be used on delivering service to our constituents throughout the state. So I will end my comments by saying I am absolutely voting yes. and Madam Speaker if you could please call on our colleagues that are on Zoom to cast their votes Ms People Stokes in the affirmative the clerk will call on the Zoom attendees for their votes Mr. Burke, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote. Patrick Burke, I vote yes. Mr. Burke, in the affirmative. Mr. DiPietro, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote. David DiPietro, on this shameless, corrupt communist bill, I vote no. Mr. DiPietro in the negative. Ms. Forrest, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote. Ms. Forrest? Mr. Mikulin, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote. John Mikulin, I vote no. Mr. Mikulin, in the negative. Ms. Roszak, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote. Neely Roszak, I vote yes. Ms. Roszak, in the affirmative. Ms. Torres, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote. Emerita Torres, I vote yes. Ms. Torres, in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 91, nays 47. The bill is passed. On the main calendar, resolutions page 3, clerk will read. Assembly number 1573 rules at the request of Ms. Romero. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as Myasthenia Gravis Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1574 rules at the request of Ms. Chandler Waterman. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim June 2026 as Gun Violence Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1575 rules at the request of Mr. Cunningham. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 6, 2026 as Jamaican Flag Day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1576 rules at the request of Ms. Griffin. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 26, 2026 as law enforcement suicide awareness day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted Assembly number 1577 rules at the request of Mr Smolin Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 26 2026 as hunting and fishing day in the state of New York On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1578 rules at the request of Ms. Rosenthal. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 5, 2026 as meningitis day in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1579 rules at the request of Ms. Button-Shun. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 26, 2026 as the day of the deployed in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1580 rules at the request of Mr. Bronson. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1581 rules at the request of Mr. McDonald. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Rett Syndrome Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1582 rules at the request of Mr. Cashman. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 8, 2026 as first generation college graduate day in the state of New York. Mr. Cashman on the resolution. Quiet, please. Thank you, Madam Speaker. First Generation College Day is celebrated annually on November 8th to commemorate the signing of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. This act created federal financial aid programs to fund students' education and make key investments in colleges and universities across the nation. Many of the Higher Education Act programs, particularly the federal TRIO programs, promote post-secondary access, retention, and completion for today's limited-income, first-generation college students. I myself am a first-generation college student. It was over 26 years ago that I started my studies at Plattsburgh University. It was the TRIO program, student support services, that provided critical support services to my peers and I to achieve both academic and collegiate success. The SUNY system serves a large population of first-generation students, with nearly half of the undergraduates at many of its campuses being first-gen. I am proud to represent a district that has my alma mater, SUNY Plattsburgh, along with Clinton Community College, North Country Community College, and Paul Smiths. These institutions that are both public and private higher education all have first-gen students. each who will become our teachers, our police officers, medical providers, small business owners, and yes, even assembly members of this esteemed body. Today we celebrate access, resiliency, and the empowerment that comes with higher education. Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1583 rules at the request of Ms. Rosenthal. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 11, 2026 as Lung Cancer Screening Awareness Day in the state of New York. On the rest All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1584 rules at the request of Mr. Cern. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 1st through the 7th, 2026 as Veterans Awareness Week in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1585 rules at the request of Mr. DiStefano. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 15th through the 21st, 2026 as Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1586 rules at the request of Mr. McDonald. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1587 rules at the request of Mr. Santa Barbara. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 2026 as Alpha One Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Ms. People Stokes. Madam Speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions? We have no housekeeping. A resolution by Mr. O'Farrow. Clerk will read. Assembly number 1588, Mr. O'Farrow. Legislative resolution mourning the untimely death of a decent senior junior, beloved son, brother, grandson, and member of his community. Mr. O'Farrill, on the resolution. Good evening, Madam Speaker and colleagues. Again, I rise with great respect and sincerity as we recognize and honor the life and times of E.D. Joshy Sine Jr. This assembly resolution is not just a formal acknowledgement. It is a reflection of life that carried meaning and impact, but value to those who knew this young man. Ederson Joshy Sine Jr. is remembered for his character, his presence, and the imprint he left on his family, friends, and our communities. His life serves as a reminder that every individual, no matter the length of time they share with us, has the power to influence others in their lasting and meaningful ways. Unfortunately, while working at CVS in my district on Christmas Day, Joshie was filling in for a co-worker when tragedy struck. A male entered the store, approached the counter, and demanded money. But when Joshie refused, he was brutally stabbed in the chest multiple times. He was rushed to Good Samaritan Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. Joshi was only 23 years of age. To the Sine family who cannot be here with us today, your kindness and love, just know that behind every life celebrated is a story of support, sacrifice, and deep connection. Today, we honor you, Joshi, in the people's house. We also affirm that a larger truth that we have the responsibility to uplift and remember those who helped shape our communities, whether through quiet acts of kindness leadership or love While we can truly never fully capture life in its totality I hope that this resolution serves as a lasting tribute to Ederson Jossie Sinead Jr and the memory he leaves behind. As long as I live and breathe, his legacy will continue to live in the hearts of all who knew him best and may his memory continue to be a blessing. Thank you to the Sine family. Thank you to the Lindenhurst community, the town of Babylon, which I represent, and to my FIG, my friend in government, the Honorable Mike Durso. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Durso, on the resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the resolution. First, I want to thank Assemblyman and my friend, Quanio Faro, for not only presenting this resolution, but also keeping Josh's memory alive. As Assemblyman O'Farrill stated, we share a district. And this life that was taken far too early left a profound impact not only on us, but on the community where we represent, which was very evident by the amount of people that came out for a candlelight vigil in Josh's honor that we both attended. and it really shows what community means. But it also showed the lasting legacy and the life that Joshi lived and the effect he had on so many. And I could say this on behalf of both of us, myself and Assemblyman O'Farrill, that his memory, because of his actions and because of the way he lived his life, will be remembered throughout the community forever. I also want to thank Assemblyman O'Farrill for putting forth legislation in Josh's honor and his name to make sure that no other family will have to suffer with the unknown about getting the justice for their family, for those loved ones that were taken from them too early. I'm a proud co-sponsor of that legislation. I want to thank the Sini family for allowing us to honor their son, their family member, their brother. And I want to thank the Assemblyman for allowing me to be a part of it. Thank you. Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. We have a number of additional resolutions before the House. Without objections, these resolutions will be taken up together. on the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Ms. People Stokes. Madam Speaker, I now move that the Assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene tomorrow, Thursday, June the 4th at 10.30 a.m. Tomorrow being a session day. 10.30 a.m. tomorrow on Ms. People Stokes' motion, the House stands adjourned. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. So Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. .