June 5, 2026 · 57,447 words · 16 speakers · 1120 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 139, nays 1.
This bill is passed. Assembly number 11479, Rules Report 526, Committee on Rules, Mr. Pretlow. An act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the Public Officers Law. On a motion by Mr. Pretlow, the Senate bill is before the House, and the Senate bill has advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. Please read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 30th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you.
Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 127 nays 13
The bill is passed. Assembly number 11533, Rules Report 527, Committee on Rules, Ms. Chemsky, an act authorizing the town of Greenberg County of Westchester to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parkland. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last...
On a motion by Ms. Shimsky, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced.
Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 129, nays 11.
The bill is passed. Assembly number 11552, Rules Report 528, Committee on Rules, Mr. Stern. An act to amend the tax law. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 134, nays 6.
Bill is passed. Assembly number 11569, Rules Report 529, Committee on Rules, Mr. De Los Santos, an act to amend the Social Services Law. On a motion by Mr. De Los Santos, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
Announce the results. Ayes 140, nays 0.
The bill is passed. Ms. People Stokes, for the purpose of an introduction.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to interrupt our proceedings for the purposes of introducing a guest of mine from the great city of Buffalo. She is a former staffer here with me in Albany, and she is right now the majority leader of the city council in the great city of Buffalo. Her name is Leah Halton Pope. So would you please welcome my council member to the chambers and offer her the cordialities of the House?
Of course. On behalf of Ms. People Stokes, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our very distinguished guest to the Assembly Chamber, the Honorable Ms. Leah Pope, the Majority Leader of the Buffalo City Council, to our Assembly Chamber, extending to you, ma'am, the privileges of the floor. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. We thank you for joining us today and in the future. Thank you so very much for seeing you here today. Ms. People Stokes.
Madam Speaker, if we can now turn our attention to page 12, Rules Report 440.
This one is by Mr. Rivera. Thank you. We are going to be on debate. Colleagues, on the main calendar, page 12, Rules Report 440. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 11550, Rules Report 440, Committee on Rules, Mr. Rivera, an act to amend the Judiciary Law.
An explanation has been requested. Mr. Rivera.
Thank you very much. Before us is a bill that we passed last year at the end of session with some amendments that we can discuss shortly. The long and short of it is the state constitution empowers the legislature to adjust judicial districts including increasing or decreasing their number and altering their composition once every ten years. And this allows for the reapportionment of justices within these altered districts, specifically to the fourth judicial department.
Mr. Jensen.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the esteemed gentleman from the city of Buffalo yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield? For this esteemed gentleman, sure. Sponsor yields.
You're very kind, Mr. Sponsor. It's deja vu all over again. I think it was the same time of night where we did this dance last year. You mentioned in your explanation that this version of the legislation we have before us today does differ from the version that was passed and vetoed by the governor. What are the changes between the previous version and this version?
Sure, I appreciate it. The primary change is, in last year's version, we created districts solely encompassing the counties of Monroe, Onondaga, and Erie, and sort of created an additional district with all the remaining counties. What we've done is that larger county, larger geographically, we've divided into two. We think that it will be easier administratively to manage this way, and this is also coming from ongoing conversations that we had post-passage of last year's bill with the unified court system.
What was the reasoning behind changing the makeup of the proposed judicial districts this year as opposed to last year Why did we choose to make the three urban counties primarily urban counties with large metro areas stand judicial districts And rather than creating one giant JD, it was chosen to separate it into two, three separate smaller JDs with more rural-based counties.
Yeah, part of that is feedback that we got from the Office of Court Administration. You know, geographically, they're pretty, you know, the district was pretty large. You and I come from western New York. We're used to the hall between Albany to where we are. but this district would be tough and we think that in including the conversation, it's actually improved it. I think that OCA is going to feel better about it. They've provided a letter of support and it's clear in their take that administratively they're going to be able to move on this in a more seamless
way. You mentioned that the OCA does support this version of the legislation and I saw the memo you referenced. And I think in the memo they did provide a fiscal impact over the next fiscal year and the following fiscal year. In the recently enacted budget, was there any allocation for some of the costs the OCA referenced they would need to set up any new operational responsibilities for the three new judicial districts?
Sure, sure. So in this fiscal year, there will be no impact. The changes of this bill make it so that in 2027, those that are seeking office will run on new lines, but those new offices won't be sworn in. Those new judges won't be sworn in until 2028, so there is no fiscal burden this year on this. We anticipate a modest cost into the next fiscal year.
Okay. And I know much like the version we saw last year, this legislation in the bill text, it does assign the judges from the Supreme Court judges from the current JDs.
It reallocates them to their new respective JDs, whether they're staying in their assigned JD that they're in now or to one of the three proposed new JDs.
What was the logic behind choosing which judges would go to which judicial district in the text of the legislation?
Yeah, I mean, I would say if I can narrow it down to three factors, though there was certainly a lot of conversations, I would say, you know, number one, we took into account keeping appellate judges together. So that's one. Second, you know, proper feedback from OCA, from administrative judges voicing their sort of thoughts on it. And, you know, OCA certainly communicating that to us. And in some scenarios, seniority was taken into account, too. But just like in any redistricting where we're going to make this sort of change, you know, well, I guess I'll preface before I even say that. The key to remember is that every one of these judges, their terms are not affected by this. There is no relocation necessary. Nobody's going to have to suddenly run next year because of these changes. So, you know, and on top of it, remember, the OCA has all kinds of latitude in appointing or moving judges where they need to move them. So yes in the bill it lays out what judges are going to go to what district but know that in the end OCA has a lot of space to determine perhaps by caseload or whatever measure if judges need to be moved from one area to another
And I do remember from our conversation last year that, as you just mentioned and as we talked about last year, that a judge could be elected out of Richmond County and live in Staten Island but be assigned to a JD up in the North Country.
Even though they're elected out of a JD, they are statewide officers to that respect.
So I know we talked about, and you referenced it in your explanation, we talked about it quite a bit last year, that we were doing this because the state constitution gives us the power every 10 years to adjust judicial districts, whether it's to move counties or create new judicial districts. What's the reasoning for doing it now?
That's a great question. Thank you. I would say, you know, this conversation for me began two years ago when I originally proposed legislation that was originally, in my scenario, solely for Erie County and the judicial district. You know, simultaneously there was another member you might be hearing from shortly that was also proposing something similar in his district. And, you know, I think there was a clear conclusion. These districts have not been touched in a very, very long time. We believe that these lines have existed for 175 years without ever being adjusted, despite drastic population differences, as you can imagine, from the mid-1800s to today. And I really say to that, it's not about doing it now versus tomorrow. It's really, why haven't we done this sooner? and there's really no reason why we would want to kick the can anymore knowing that population and density and communities and frankly every way we live lives is drastically different from when this was originally done many, many, many years ago. As the letter states from OCM, they think that these lines go back to the establishment of this system, which goes back to 1847. And I can sort of say shame on us for not doing it sooner.
Okay. I do recall from last year, right from the beginning of our conversation, one of the big drivers of last year's bill was something that you had identified, particularly out of Erie County, but then identified out of Onondaga and Monroe, in that there was a lack of diversity on the bench. and I haven't heard you reference that as part of the reasoning for doing it today. Has that, the need for this to happen because of that diversity on the bench, no longer become a compelling reason to adjust the judicial districts in Western and Central New York?
I would say the largest argument that we have on this is, like I said, these lines have existed for 175 years. and the nature of anything existing that long means that it doesn't reflect the community that it is in the now. I would say that because of that, we don't have role representation the way we should in the judiciary. And I'd say there's a lack of diversity in all kinds of measures in the judiciary. But that is what happens when things are left to be left the same for such a long period of time.
In understanding, so to presume that this year, as you said, this is more based on the need to right-size the judicial districts based on population, hence why the three metropolitan upstate counties are receiving their own JD. Would that be an accurate assessment of kind of what we talked about up until this point in tonight conversation I would say there a clear need for a change in addressing what we should have been doing for a very long time. The last time we've touched districts at all in the New York State goes
back to 2007, and before that quite a while. But in our region where we are, like I said, 1847, and there's no reason not to pursue it now.
So we saw that, and I'll use the 7th J.D., where I call home, we've seen Monroe be separated from the rest of the counties within the Finger Lakes region, and it does have, Monroe does have an outsized population as compared to those other surrounding counties, and I think you could make the same assessment for Erie and Onondaga. So we've seen that in that respect. How come we didn't extend that same idea to the other judicial districts across the state? I know if you look at the ninth judicial district, you have Westchester County, Putnam, Dutchess, Orange, and Rockland, all within that same JD. Where you have Westchester is a prominent metropolitan community, they have Yonkers, which is the third largest city in the state, and that has an outsized population as compared to the other four counties in that judicial district. Why didn't we look at the ninth judicial district and also make the same reflective change we're seeing in Central, Western, and the Finger Lakes?
Yeah, I would say, you know, this has been a conversation that we've now gone on for two years and in that process, you know, there's certainly been a lot of conversations with a lot of stakeholders during that process. Truthfully, no other region has, you know, sought this, sought that sort of direction. I do know that one of our members in our conference does have a bill that would do that, so I know you referenced another colleague who had a similar bill, so we We did include one other bill, but yet did not choose to incorporate all the proposals to do that in this legislation.
I wasn't aware. Okay. Maybe next year. Moving on, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to ask this question and wait for everybody who does have a law degree in the room to glare at me.
Well, that makes both of us.
Probably some who are sitting around you at the moment. But do you have any concerns that the changes in these JDs and the makeup of all the judicial districts in New York present a challenge or a problem to the idea of one person, one vote, and could potentially be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
I don't think that. I would say two reasons why I don't think that. Number one, I kind of doubt that the unified court system would issue a letter of support if they thought that was a possibility. But additionally, I'd say the uniqueness about judicial redistricting and the way that we do it in New York State is, comparatively to other redistricting, is that in a redistricting in districts like ours or the Senate, you know, those districts can be cut up in so many different ways. But the way that judicial redistricting works for judicial districts is that entire counties have to be kept whole. So it's not as if you could dissect it a bunch of different ways. It's based on the population and it's based on entire counties. So, no, I don't believe that's the case.
And once again, I'm not a once again, not being a lawyer, also not a state constitutional scholar.
Makes it most of us. Yeah. It's nice that we're the ones doing this.
Isn't there a clause, I think it's in our Constitution or it's an existing state law, that the approximate amount of people per justice in each judicial district has to be approximately 50,000 people?
Correct. Correct. Well, to be clear, for every 50,000 people, there is one seat. There's one judge. Yes.
Yes. So having said that, when you look at the way in which these judicial districts that we're talking about today have been divided up, do you see a problem that in the 7th Judicial District, as proposed in this legislation, that contains Livingston, Wayne, Seneca, Yates, Ontario, Steuben, and Kegel, the county, they have a population of 493,995 New Yorkers. They're assigned seven justices of the Supreme Court, which means that approximately every 70,570 New Yorkers have one judge. Whereas in Erie County, with 954,236 people, They have 19 judges and each person has approximately one judge for every 50,222 people. Do you see any issue with a discrepancy of close to 20,000 New Yorkers per judge between those two judicial districts?
I would say given the nature of how counties are never going to have the same population across the board, it's a little apples and oranges. I would also say, you know, when we did Richmond County, it was only about 2,000 fewer people than the 7th Judicial District that we're proposing. That had 495, and this has 493. So it's consistent with what was passed in 2007 as well. And if that stood, then this should stay.
Okay. So there's no concern that not just within these six J.D.s that are being affected in this legislation, but all across New York State's judicial districts, there is tremendous deviation and no standard deviation between New Yorkers per judge on the low end to the high end.
Like I said, if the unified court system believes that this is appropriate and after a lot of conversation, it seems to be fine with them, I'm confident in their support as well.
All right. One other thing we touched on last year, the judicial districts are not the only thing that are affected by the...
Thank you very much, Ms. Rivera. I appreciate your answers.
Thank you, Madam.
Thank you. Ms. Walsh?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, of course.
Sponsor yield.
Great. Thank you. So I have a series of questions. We'll see how many I get through in 15 minutes, and then we'll see where we're at. But I guess I want to start with the concept of the process that was followed and the transparency of the process that was followed and getting us where we're here right now. So how many public hearings were held on this legislation?
No public hearings.
Pardon?
No public hearings.
No public hearings. Okay. Was this bill ever brought before the Judiciary Committee for discussion or for debate?
Oh, I would say no. No.
I think it was just brought to Ways and Means, wasn't it?
Yeah I would say we passed this bill gee last June and it was reintroduced this week and here where we are And here we are Okay Were there any stakeholder meetings held with members at the bench or bar associations or the general public at all Oh, I would say we've had a lot of conversations with bar associations. I have gotten letters of support from bars associations. There's been conversations with OCA, arguably one of the largest stakeholders. So, yeah, there's been a lot of conversations about it.
Okay. So have the bar associations in Onondaga, Monroe, or Erie weighed in?
Not that I'm aware. Well, if they have, I'm unaware. I've received support letters from bars associations within those counties, but not those bar associations.
Okay. All right. Because when I'm looking at my information that I've been provided, the only real letter of support that I've received is the one from the unified court system.
I don't have anything else other than that, and we've asked.
Okay. And we might as well talk about that while I've got it in front of me. You were asked, I think, by the previous speaker about cost estimates. and I'm reading the memorandum in support from Unified Court System, but they don't contain any estimates as to cost. But that being said, our staff reached out to OCA and asked them for some kind of an estimate as far as what this would cost. And what we were told, you said, I think, on debate that it was, I think, modest cost is how you termed it. Okay. What I've learned through our staff is that in 2028, the estimate is $3.6 million, and then in 2029, $14.2 million. And the opinion that was expressed to me, which I have no reason to doubt and actually kind of makes sense to me, is that it probably is going to be quite a bit higher in terms of staffing up salaries, furnishings, space for the chambers. And I don't know if there's going to be a need for courtroom space. I'm just not familiar with what you've got out there. But it's probably quite a bit higher than that. So is that like a surprising figure when you said that it was a modest cost?
Is that what you were thinking? Yeah, certainly. I mean, the Office of Court Administration manages a $4.5 billion budget every year. So if that number of $3.6 million is the number for the fiscal year 2028, I find that modest in comparison to the $4.5 billion budget that they oversee.
Right. Yeah, that's true. I think it was up like 8% this year.
Yeah. Anyway, I wonder what it will be next year.
Who knows, right? Was there any population study done regarding these affected judicial districts?
Population studies?
Population study?
No, no. I mean the math of the 50,000 per seat, I guess, is considered, but other than that, no.
Okay. It was interesting because I was just, I happen to be, I mean, God knows we've been busy doing other things, but I happen to see that there were some new population numbers that were coming out about, you know, where in the state we're losing population, where we're gaining population. Where I live in Saratoga County, we actually are one of the outliers for gaining population, but I think out in your neck of the woods there's been a population loss. Did that factor in at all into the way that the lines were drawn?
No, no. Truthfully, no. No, I mean, it was, like I said, the only metric for determining how many judges in the district and the size of the district to an extent were the 50,000 resident rule. Which is in the state constitution. Yeah, yeah. I mean like I said before you know if we concerned about like what the population should show as I said before the last time these lines were reviewed we talking about you know 1847 and certainly population has drastically changed since then
The numbers that we use to determine the 50,000 is the 2020 census, obviously, but yeah. Right. And kind of going along with that, was LATFOR involved in these new redistricting maps for the judicial districts?
No.
Or the Independent Redistricting Commission?
No.
Or any bipartisan redistricting entity?
No.
Okay. All right. Was OCA, I know that they support this legislation, but were they, and I apologize if you've already answered this, but were they consulted?
Were they actively involved in this process? Yeah, I mean, I would say there was conversations that took place last year prior to the bill's passage last June. I would say after its passage, there was more conversations that led to what we did with the district that I mentioned before. where we had a very large district with quite a bit of counties, and we sort of split it in two. That was a recommendation by OCA.
Okay. And was the New York State Supreme Court Judges Association consulted during the drafting or revision of the bill?
Oh, I've had multiple conversations with the association.
Okay. All right. But have they issued any kind of a formal position or letter regarding the legislation?
Nope.
Okay. All right. But it's your understanding that they support it?
Oh, I wouldn't speak for them. Yes, if they were sort of consulted, I'd certainly met with them here and had other conversations.
So, yeah. Okay. All right. Just hang on one second. Just check my time here. So how many currently sitting Supreme Court justices will be reassigned as a result of this legislation?
Oh, I mean, the breakdown of what judges are going to what districts are in the bill. I don't have the number off the top of my head of which ones are going where. But, you know.
The total number, though? Do you know the total number that is going to be reassigned? I don't need to know the where.
No, yeah. No, I don't. Okay. All right.
What criteria were used to determine how judges would be reassigned into the newly created judicial districts?
Yeah, I mentioned before, I mean, the real considerations that were taken into account were, you know, feedback from OCA, ensuring that appellate judges were kept together in the same district, and then seniority was also considered as well.
Could you just confirm the party enrollment breakdown of the judges that were reassigned into the new judicial districts?
Truthfully, I am clueless on it. I don't know.
You don't know?
I don't know the affiliation of any of the judges.
Okay, all right. When does the bill go into effect?
Sure. So it would go into effect for the election cycle that is in 2027, but the actual districts themselves will be formalized in 2028. So those that are running, you know, the petitions will be passed out next February for the Judicial Convention. Those will be for the new district lines that will take into effect January 1, 2028.
Okay. All right. So I want to talk a little bit about what's going to happen to existing cases when the bill goes into effect. Does the case move to the new judicial district? In other words, will it follow with the judge? Will the judge be taking his or her caseload that they have existing with them into the new JD? Or will it go back on the wheel?
How is that going to work Sure I mean the bill does not contemplate particular caseloads or where cases are That up to you know the presiding judge of that region and you know OCA management
OCA will figure it out, you think?
Well, the presiding judge will do what they do in any other scenario.
Yeah, because, I mean, I would think when you have a judge, there's a certain efficiency with keeping a matter with the judge that has been working with it. Sure. because there are motions, there are decisions that may have been issued. There may have been a lot of things. So that'll be interesting to see how that gets handled.
But that's not part of this legislation.
That's just something that I was considering in terms of just the logistics of how this is going to work. OK. Will the new districts have part rules? What happens if the judicial district has different part rules from the district that the case was originally commenced in?
Yeah, that's up to the presiding judge, the administrative judge. That's up to the folks that are there now.
Okay. Were the judges themselves consulted about being in a new judicial district?
No.
Okay. Nobody put out a survey and said, do you feel like moving? Do you want some new chambers? Do you want maybe a whole new caseload? Better parking spot? No, no.
Yeah, we'll get you a good parking spot.
What about the existing terms for the judges? Are they affected at all?
The terms themselves are not affected at all.
I didn't think so. Okay. Is it possible, though, that voters in one county voted for a judge who would no longer be their elected official when this bill takes effect?
That's the consequence of any redistricting, truthfully. So, you know, in a scenario where I'll just use my judicial district, for example, the current eighth, if a voter voted for a judge that lives in Erie County, they still will be seen by Erie County judges. So that's in that respect, that's not different. But, you know, when we discuss redistricting, we run into that scenario. But, you know, there's elections that will happen every year for different judicial spots. And that's how it is.
I mean, some people are concerned that that really disenfranchised the voters that supported that particular judge. They wanted that judge to be their judge, and now that judge will not be their judge in some instances.
But it doesn't affect their term? No, it doesn't affect their term.
It just potentially impacts the voters, you know. But anyway, okay. Okay. Previously, when this was debated last year, it was interesting to me that as I looked at the memorandum of support, you know, that accompanied the legislation, that the sponsor's memo, like the justification last year that was discussed, and we discussed it quite a bit, I think, as we debated the bill, was diversity. It was – but the bill is substantially similar to last year, but why is there no mention of diversity this year in the sponsor's memo where there was in last year's?
Yeah, I mean, I think that that point was debated well last year, and I think that, you know, as we continue in our conversations, we're accomplishing the same thing. I'd say, you know, when I have conversations with folks that live in other parts of this state that are not represented by, you know, folks from their community, it is consistent across the department. I mean, I spend a lot of time in Cattaraugus County, and I have family in Niagara County, and I'm in Chautauqua County occasionally, and, you know, the life... ...in its current form that someone from Cattaraugus County is actually elected to the judiciary, given that Erie County being part of the judicial district prevents that county from really moving up in the world.
You know, if I asked a resident of Catt County, would you rather have a higher probability of being seen by somebody from Catt County, or would you rather still be lumped in with Erie County? I'd imagine they'd want a higher probability of being seen by somebody from Catt County.
So I think we're accomplishing something for rural communities, all the more so with the amendment that we've made. And, you know, that's why I think that more people have conveyed positive feedback on this over last year.
Okay. I mean, do you think that there's more positive feedback because there's no longer a stated justification being given that diversity is the underlying reason for the change?
I don't think that's why. I think it's because we listened and we addressed the concerns of other parts of the state.
Making Monroe and Onondaga and Erie their own judicial districts because they're the population centers in that region makes sense. The letter clearly says from OCA that by separating urban areas from rural ones, the bill will enhance the administration of the courts because urban and rural courts pose different administrative challenges. Additionally, by replacing three existing judicial districts with six, the legislation places the election of judges more closely into the hands of the people those judges serve.
It's true, urban center regions move and dictate and operate differently from rural areas, and I'm happy that we're able to accommodate both interests in this.
Yeah, and again, I'm just circling back in my mind to the earlier point that we were talking about, about whether the caseloads are going to follow the judges or not. I mean, you've got to wonder if you are in a rural area and the judge that you had your case with is moving to a more urban area. And I might totally have this backwards. I don't know. But whatever the situation is, it could result in that litigant having to travel to the new location in order to follow that judge.
Yeah, I would say technically that could happen today. I mean, OCA can move a judge from one region to another. without this bill.
So I think that situation that you're proposing, it could happen today anyways. But I have confidence in the administration of our AJs and our presiding judges to work that out. Well, thank you very much for answering my questions. I'm sure that our colleagues have other questions to ask as well, so I'll give them a chance. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Lunsford?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. I just wanted to rise in support of this piece of legislation because I think it is far overdue. Throughout my legal career, I had the opportunity to practice law in dozens and dozens of our counties. I think at last count, I was over 45 of our counties. I visited many of our county seats, seen many of our rural courthouses. And I know how different it can be to practice law in those counties and to seek justice in those counties. I believe that this redistricting will, as the sponsor mentioned, create an opportunity for people to have judges who are more likely to live in their communities, to have grown up in their communities, and to have a greater appreciation for the particulars of the people that they are serving. I think the closer judges are to the people that they see the better the administration of justice And when people know their judges have an understanding I mean even in the simplest of cases if you have a car accident and a judge regularly traverses that route I think they have a better understanding of that case. Over and over, I have seen, as someone who hails from Monroe County, but has practiced law in Steuben or in, I've gone as far down as Cataragas. I've been in Wyoming County, I've been in Painted Post. I have seen judges who come from my area who are traveling from Rochester down five counties because that's where they got stuck. And I'll say, all due respect to some of our judges, what tends to happen is our less experienced judges tend to get put in rural counties. I've watched it happen. And I think that more experienced attorneys from the area will be more likely to seek office if they know that they are going to have an opportunity to serve in the counties that they're from. This is going to create a better bench. It's going to create a better set of candidates. I think it's going to create more justice for people, particularly in our rural communities. This is a net positive. I'm really excited that we're doing this. I think the changes this year have really met some of the concerns that I'd heard from OCA over the course of last year with just, frankly, administrative issues related to HR and payroll and things that are challenging for people. I'd heard from court officers, truly was stopped in a church parking lot one time by a rural court officer who was concerned about how this would affect him. And the changes that we've made to the bill this year address his concerns. This is a well-crafted bill. It's been well argued by my colleague here, and I am extremely grateful that this is going to be happening for the people of Western and Central New York. Thank you very much, and I look forward to voting in the affirmative. Thank you.
Mr. Sampolinski?
Speaker, would the sponsor yield for some questions?
Would the sponsor yield?
Yes, yes, yes, of course.
Sponsor yield.
I thank the sponsor for yielding. So in response to the floor leader's questions, you'd indicated that there had not been any public hearings, and we didn't go through regular order with the Judiciary Committee. We've had a whole year. So last year this was dropped at the end of session, at the last minute, and this year it was dropped at the end of session, at the last minute. If there was a year of time in between, why wouldn't we take advantage of that time to have some sort of public hearing? or go through the proper procedure of going through the Judiciary Committee?
Yeah, I would say in the case of last year, there's sort of something to be said around the way that it kind of came up suddenly. But given the fact that we debated this and had such a long conversation on it and engaged with OCA as much as we did and had been out there for a year, I mean, I think there's been a lot of eyes on this. I'd also say, you know, we have a responsibility that the state constitution gives us in this house to do this. And there's no reason to sort of cede that responsibility to anyone else. I think the biggest complaint that people will have is why did we wait 175 years to do it above all other things? So I guess that's my take.
Well, I'll get to the 175 years in a minute. I am also a little confused about the dramatic change in rationale. and the previous questioners asked about this but I wanted to discuss it because it was so dramatic Everything in the sponsor memo last year was about diversity and that completely disappeared How can you have a very similar bill one year apart
and be doing it for two completely different reasons? I think it's a mischaracterization to say we're doing it for two different reasons. I mean, I would say we knew then last year that it had been over a century since we had done this and I'm sure I brought that up in the conversation. But I'd also say, you know, with the amendment that we've made this year, it clearly is taking into account all types of communities, not just folks that live in urban counties, but really the interest of folks in rural counties.
So I think, you know, diversity can be defined in all ways. And, you know, this is a big state that looks different from one corner to another. But in the end of the day, you know, we're all under the same court system. I'm looking forward to a day where I could look at people that I know in Cattaraugus County or Niagara County and say you know you now have a higher chance of electing someone from your county and that's what this does.
Well I represent Cattaraugus County. We discussed Allegheny County I think last year. Sure sure. And I think your colleague mentioned Steuben County a second ago so we'll get to that in a second. We are reassigning judges but I I just wanted to clarify, we are neither creating nor destroying judges. They're just being shifted around.
Correct. No new judge ships are being created.
So we've mentioned a few times here, you've mentioned a few times, and I know it was mentioned in the OCA memo, and I do appreciate you providing that. You provided that to me yesterday. Thank you very much. That was very courteous.
Of course.
That these lines have been in place since 1847, and you've said that's a reason that all of a sudden now in 2026 we have to change things. My opinion on that would be sort of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If we've had the same geographic configuration since 1847, what's the need to change that configuration?
I would say it's severely broke, and maybe that's sort of the foundational different take you and I will have. I think it's very broken. I think that the fact that we've elected so many judges from such few counties is a reflection of it being broken. I mean, I said it last year, we haven't elected a judge in Allegheny County since the early 80s. That's because this district was lumped in with Erie County, an almost million-person county, and the majority of judges reside in Erie County that don't know Allegheny County, and they don't know Wyoming County, and now we give them an opportunity to be represented by folks in their neck of the woods.
Well, it's a beautiful place. I hope they come down and they're always welcome. Yeah, sure. But I view it a little differently. I view having not repeated changes to judicial districts as a source of stability. This chamber dropped an atom bomb yesterday on the congressional lines and the state legislative lines. The judiciary is supposed to be a source of stability for our system of government. So knowing over time how you're going to be allocated and who you're going to be with for judicial purposes, isn't stability a positive thing for our government? Isn't it a source of credibility for the judiciary?
I think what you're calling stability I would call antiquated approach. So I would say that we look at these lines. There's a reason why assembly lines have to be reviewed. There's a reason why senate lines have to be reviewed. There's a reason why congressional lines have to be reviewed. And the Constitution is clear. We should be doing this more often. We haven done it in quite some time and we haven done it in our neck of the woods since practically forever and there really no reason not to pursue this now We can you know next year the population only going to look more like this year
Well, the difference I would say, with all respect, is those other lines, the legislative lines, you have to make them equal because the idea is you represent the same number of people that I do, and that's less of a factor of the judiciary. And also, if the concern is, well, the population is much bigger than 1847, which I concede, although it's been declining recently, isn't that just a reason to add more judges as opposed to change the district lines?
I would make the argument, if we would simply have added 20, 30, 40 more judges in the current makeup, we would just be reproducing the same results.
Okay.
So if we were to add 20 more judges, we'd have that much more in the big urban counties and not in the rural counties. So my concern is what might be going on here is while we can talk about rural representation, any time a, let's say a partisan gerrymander is drawn, certain areas that are represented by the minority party, they get crammed together and they get an overwhelmingly large number of people in the minority party. And the reason I'm concerned this would have the effect of a partisan gerrymander, I'll I'll give you some numbers and see how I react to them.
The judicial district I'm most familiar with is the 7th. That's where I live. I live in Steuben County. Currently, the 7th Judicial District has 20 judges and is represented by 16 Republican judges and 4 Democrat judges. Now, that judicial district will be split. Between, of those 20 judges, 7 will go with the rural areas. Presumably, they would be represented by Republicans. and 13 would go with Monroe County. So you would presumably be going from 16 Republican judges, representing that full area, to 7 Republican judges. They would just happen to be rural Republicans as opposed to suburban or urban Republicans. So it would be a net gain of 9 just in that district for the Democratic Party.
Yeah, I mean, I suppose what I would say is when looking at these lines and looking at this issue, I never looked at the affiliation of Judge A versus Judge B, and like I said, I know a handful of judges in the county that I live in, but don't know any of them anywhere else, and I'm happy that that stood that way because it allowed me to think sort of separate from all that. I mean, what you're pursuing in the conversation is like the difference between D's and R's when in reality, that's not what we're called to do. We're called to review these lines, ideally every 10 years, and take into account, I believe, the interest and the commonalities within those areas. So, you know, I think that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the interests of folks who live in urban counties are unique and the interest of folks that live in rural counties is unique. and I think we're accomplishing, you know, addressing those concerns. The affiliations of judges is, you know, I think to me in this conversation inconsequential, especially when you consider how many judges are cross-endorsed anyways. So, you know, you know.
Well, I would just say, just for the record, that's much more common in the 8th Judicial District. It's very rare in the 7th Judicial District.
Perhaps. But, you know, I now can look at those counties that, you know, we're talking about, Livingston and Steuben and Yates and know now they have a much higher probability of being, the residents there have a much higher probability of being seen by someone from their counties. And I think frankly anybody that's looking to have a fair day in court, they're not thinking about whether the judge is a D or an R or what, you know, what, how, You know, what, what, where their background is. They like the idea, I'd imagine, of somebody that knows their community, knows their neighborhood. And I think that's what this accomplishes.
Okay. Well, I'm going to go on the bill. I thank the sponsor for answering my questions. On the bill. So, as was sort of alluded to, I'm from a rural area. I represent a rural area. I'm proud to represent a rural area. And, yeah, you might end up with more rural judges. I'm not concerned about parochial political interests. I'm concerned about the health of the system and the broad fairness of the system. And I think stability in the judicial system is a good thing. I'd be certainly open, if we have a problem, to adding more judges. But to me, this is very obvious that this is a partisan gerrymander designed to grab more judges for the Democratic Party overall. and therefore, just like I was against partisan gerrymandering yesterday, with the other bill, I'm against partisan gerrymandering today, and I'll be voting no.
Ms. Clark.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. So I, too, want to join my, I guess, Finger Lakes region colleague, initially judicial district 7 soon to be split in in a couple different points of why I really just want to commend the sponsor for doing this for making the change the changes that brought us to this point in this year with a lot more support from our courts and I think in other ways also making this a much more simpler or more efficient process in terms of the changes that have to be made within the court system. I was just trying to recall in my head the last time a Supreme State Supreme Court Justice was elected not from Monroe County. I can't think of one in all eight counties that are currently in the district and so I do think as someone who in previous careers not as an attorney but doing other statewide activities having spent time driving across many many many many counties in our state think that you know this is actually the ungerrymandering of the district this in 120 years is actually saying we recognize the population shifts we recognize how much of the internal knowledge that judges bring with them their lived experiences the communities they grew up in how important that is in shaping the justice that folks get in those places. So I actually think this is doing the actual reverse of anything that's been mentioned around gerrymandering in terms of making sure that opportunities are there to elect people from the communities which they serve or live. And I would, you know, when it comes to stability or change, it hasn't happened often, but it has happened in the last 50 years that there has been two changes to the to the districts and one was creating the 12th and one was creating the 13th judicial districts and I would argue that neither of them would complain or think that this somehow created such an uproar I would say if you went to both those communities now I think they would be very happy that those changes were made and that they are where they are with their own judicial districts being able to elect people from their communities in a way that makes justice better served so I'm just really proud of the changes that were made and the listening that happened to make sure that this was doing the things we wanted to accomplish which was creating judicial districts that very much reflect the communities and the changes that have been made the changes in population and all the different things over the last hundred plus years I, too, question why it has not been done sooner. For those who are saying why now, I think the time is beyond when we should have done it. So thank you to the sponsor for bringing this forward today, and you have my full support.
Thank you. Mr. Molitor?
Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Certainly.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you, Mr. Rivera. So I just want to first talk about the judicial assignments. Something you said before about how, you know, this could really benefit rural communities. So in your bill, there'll be a new 16th, which is Erie County, right? It's one county? Correct.
And there'll be 19 seats in that county, right? Correct.
And so in the next election for all 19 of those seats, those judges, there's a guarantee that the people running for those seats will be from Erie County, right?
Well, not necessarily, and that's not even the case now. I mean, hypothetically, you could run in a different part of the state. This is how it's always been. Oh, yeah.
So maybe guarantee is too strong. Yeah. But it's much more likely, right, that's what we're talking about here, that the next time those 19 seats become available, the people of Erie County will be able to choose a lawyer from Erie County for those seats, right?
Yes.
Now the new 8th is seven counties, and so you're still going to have for those nine seats that remain in those seven counties, it's going to be nine seats. There's going to be an election in all seven of those counties for those nine seats. So those counties are all competing against each other to elect somebody for one of those nine seats, right? But they're doing that now within the current 8th Judicial District.
Exactly.
But now they have a higher probability because Erie County is a million-person county almost, and the majority of those counties are substantially smaller. Right, but in the current 8th, you had Erie County with everyone else.
Correct. And now you won't have that, right? Correct.
Okay. I'd like to talk about some of the practical application of this particular bill. Right now in the 8th, which encompasses all the counties that we are talking about, there are administrative judges. You have the criminal court judge who oversees all the criminal courts, and you have a surrogate court judge who oversees all the surrogate parts and family court, and there's that sort of leadership mentorship role. How will that change if this bill becomes law? Will the new 8th have its own administrative structure or will it still get sort of administered by the 16th because it's in the area?
I mean in the end of the day that up to the court system but I imagine that yeah I imagine that the court system would appoint from among that new district a new head judge Okay so you have potentially a new administrative structure within the new districts as contemplated Yeah, I'd imagine, yeah.
Okay. Now, we've discussed before that just because you're elected, you know, let's say Chautauqua County elects a judge in the new 8th district. There's no guarantee that that judge will actually sit in Chautauqua County because OCA has the ability to move judges really anywhere across the state, right?
True. Yep. That's no different. That's no different. That's what the law is right now. Sure.
So, you know, just because somebody, just because a county maybe will now have, as you have said, a little bit of a better chance to elect somebody from their county doesn't necessarily follow that that person will be overseeing cases from that county, right?
Well, we give OCA the latitude to kind of make the sort of decisions and administrative choices that they make. All we can do is do the best that we can to try to make it more representative of communities, and that's what I think this accomplishes. What OCA does in its administration of the courts is up to OCA.
Would you agree with me, though, that, and I don't want to quibble about this, but I think it's a fair point. Would you agree with me, though, that if the concern was we wanted to increase rural representation, that we would maybe put some restrictions on where OCA can move judges and why they can move them?
I would say if that's of interest of this body, then that's a separate piece of legislation that somebody might want to pursue, but it's not contemplated in this bill. Fair enough.
I knew you were going to answer that way, but that's okay. Now, some of the expenses that we've been, maybe we haven't really got into. Let's say you're one of the counties in the new eighth that has never had a Supreme Court judge sitting in your county. You said that part of the modest expense could be creating a new courthouse, not a new courthouse, but maybe a new court office, and providing staff and technology and supplies to that particular area, right?
Sure, yes.
Okay. So these new judicial districts, in your conversations with OCA, these new judicial districts will be properly funded, you believe?
Yes. Okay.
Okay. And just so that, I know that you and I know this, but just for the record, the reason why there's 19 judges in Erie County and there would be nine, I should say, seats in the 8th is because the Supreme Court designation has to follow with the population, right? So the higher your population, the more judges are assigned to your area. Is that right? Correct.
Okay.
And would you contemplate that if this bill becomes law that if there were let say an issue in the new 8th maybe a judge was incapacitated for whatever reason and there was no judge no other judge in the 8th to be able to fill in for that judge who was incapacitated, that OCA would very easily be able to still assign a judge from maybe the 16th or somewhere else to that area in
order to fulfill that issue. OCA has that discretion today with or without this bill,
and this wouldn't change it. Right. And the staff, let's say if you're a stenographer who currently works in the 8th and you're assigned to Chautauqua County, for example, under this bill, would you still remain in the 8th because you're a current employee of the 8th, or would you become an employee of the 16th?
That's a fair question.
It is addressed in OCA's statement.
They say, in their words, this legislation ensures that no employees lose their seniority rights, all of the specialty courts will be able to continue operating, and there will be no adverse impact on case processing.
Okay, so that's the way I interpret that is that they're sort of going to have to go employee by employee and say, hey, do you want to go to the 8th or do you want to stay in the 8th or do you want to go to the 16th? And they have to go by their collective bargaining agreements and seniority? Is that right? Yeah, I mean, that's what OCA would have to manage.
Okay. So it is potentially possible that, let's say, there's an employee in the 16th.
Well, you've got an employee in Erie County right now, let's say a stenographer, and an employee in Chautauqua County who's also a stenographer. But the employee in Erie County, let's say, has more seniority, and this bill becomes law. the employee in Erie County could say, I want to go to the 8th because I have more seniority, and the employee in the 8th would have to maybe go elsewhere?
That's a reflection of the collective bargaining agreement within that union and OCA's sort of space as the sort of agency. So that's one-off.
Where somebody sits is something that's managed by OCA and not what we're doing there. Right. That's kind of what I'm saying is that OCA would have to make that determination. And based upon what you said from the OCA memo, all seniority and contractual rights will be preserved, right?
That would be the case today. If we had somebody that was in Erie County and was considering relocating to Monroe County,
that's a separate judicial district, where they are in seniority and what their bargaining agreement says and what OCA does, that's all the same. Well, yeah, it is the same, but there's a little bit of a difference. I mean,
right now, the two stenographers that I'm talking about in my hypothetical example, right, they're there physically. There hasn't been any sort of change. Like, there hasn't been, like, some open seat that's come available for them. But with this new law and you have all these new districts, it's like sort of resetting things for people.
Like they have to make decisions where they want to go and how they want to do it. And I understand preserving all their contractual rights and seniority rights. and all of that, but potentially this bill could cause employees to make decisions like saying, hey, something new has happened here, I get to make a choice.
And then OCA has got to figure that out, right? Yeah, I'd also say the flip side of that is, and it's, I think, a beneficial idea, and that is we're creating new positions in these areas, especially in the rural areas, where, you know, they didn't exist before. So there's, again, a higher probability of people that live in those areas having a shorter commute. So it cuts both ways.
But the living in that area is not prioritized. What is prioritized is seniority and contractual rights. So that's the issue, right?
I guess I just sort of defer again to my point before. Those sort of conversations are handled within the Office of Court Administration and the bargaining unit, and that doesn't change with this bill. Okay.
I guess my last question, and I don't fully understand this, but you'll have nine seats in the new eighth. will after if this bill becomes law will OCA be able to move those seats anywhere within the new eighth in other words could they say you know we're going to take a seat from Cattaraugus County and a seat from Allegheny County and we're going to move it to Niagara County and have four seats there. Again, there's no difference in how that is today. I mean, in the current 8th Judicial
District that has Erie and all of the neighboring counties, there's no difference in what could happen today. So there's no change. Right. That's the way it is right now in the 8th. Yeah. You know, the 8th could say, we're going to take seats from all the surrounding counties or all the counties around Erie County and put all the judges in Buffalo. They could do that if
they wanted, right? That's OCA's discretion. Right. They have to keep them within the district, the seats themselves, but they can move them all to one major metropolitan area.
They can move them wherever, truthfully, yeah. Well, they can send judges wherever,
but the seats themselves have to stay. Yeah, yeah. Right, right. Okay. Okay, thank you, Mr. Rivera, I'm going to go on the bill.
For sure.
On the bill. You know, I do understand, you know, some of the reasoning for this bill, and I do get that we haven't changed things in 175 years or whatever, but I'm not quite sure that the reason for this, the sort of like hand to rural counties is what this bill is actually about. If OCA already has the power to consolidate seats into metropolitan area, and they already have the power to move elected judges to anywhere in the state, then there's no guarantee that a small rural county is going to get the judge that they elected. What is going to happen, though, with this bill, and I mentioned this before last year, is that you are going to separate major metropolitan areas from rural areas unnecessarily You know many of my friends in the judicial system in Chautauqua County started off in Buffalo There was a job opening in one of our courts They came down to Chautauqua County They fell in love with Chautauqua County. They decided to stay there and raise their family. And it was because, you know, they didn't necessarily apply to live in Chautauqua County, but they were assigned there. So I think this is really going to upset the apple cart for a lot of employees of the 8th Judicial District and the unified court system. You know, I'm sure there are other reasons why this bill is being advanced right now, this year, this time of the year. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Bronson.
Madam Speaker, on the bill? On the bill. I want to start by thanking the speaker, the sponsor, and staff who have made the adjustments to this bill over last year's bill. I'm strongly in support of this legislation, which will create new judicial districts for Monroe County, Onondaga, and Erie counties. This is a reform that is constitutionally grounded, historically precedented, administratively sound, and long, long overdue. As OCA said in their memo of support, this legislation will ensure that the election of judges is more closely in the hands of the people those judges will serve. It's been over 100 years since we've changed these judicial districts, yet we're allowed constitutionally to change them every 10 years. It's time for us to make the change because our communities have indeed changed. Redrawing of lines last happened in 2007, and that related to the Judicial District for Staten Island, which at the time was grouped with the district with Brooklyn. At that time, an argument was made that because Brooklyn had six times the population of Staten Island, it resulted in Brooklyn electing all of the Supreme Court judges. The same principle happens here, where judges are not elected from those who they will serve mostly. It was also stated at the time, and I couldn't agree more because the situation applies today. Constituents deserve homegrown judges, jurists who know their community, who come from their community, who would be accountable to their community. That's what this legislation is about. As Labor Chair, I also want to address the practical question that matters most to those who work in our courts. That is, that they, those workers, will not be disrupted, nor will the operations of the court be disrupted. OCA submitted the memorandum in support of this legislation, and they pointed out that there will be no adverse impact on case processing. All specialty courts will continue to operate, and the legislation continues to have the protection of employee seniority rights. Employees will not be disrupted by this piece of legislation. It is important that OCA is supporting this legislation because that is the body that will administer these judicial districts as they are under the current judicial districts For the constitutional integrity of this reform for the administrative soundness of this reform for the confirmation by OCA that this is the right thing to do, and for the precedent set by the Staten Island example, and mostly of all, that because it will be the people closest to these judges who will be selecting these judges. For all those reasons, I look forward to voting in the affirmative. Affirmative, Madam Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bologna.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield?
Would the sponsor yield?
Certainly.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you very much, John. I just got to tell you, this is the last time we get to debate.
I know. We've known each other for a long time.
Yes, we have, yeah.
I thank you very much, and it's been a pleasure serving with you, my friend.
Thank you. So I want to touch on something that a few of my colleagues have, and I just kind of want to circle back to it for a second. Last year's memo, as we discussed, stated that the bill's goal was to address the lack of diversity amongst judges in Western New York, specifically Erie, Monroe, and Onondaga counties. We had very few justices from communities of color. Is that still the goal of the bill?
I would say the goal of the bill is to address the diversity across the district, or I say across the department, but that also surpasses sort of the diversity that you're probably alluding to. It really has to do with the interests of folks that live in every kind of county in the fourth department. I'd say this bill does a better job of addressing the diverse natures of our counties. OCA said it clearly themselves in their letter, by separating urban areas from rural areas, the bill will enhance the administration of the courts because urban and rural courts pose different administrative challenges. Additionally, by replacing three judicial districts with six, the legislation places the election of judges more closely in the hands of people those judges serve. I think we are going to make it so that if you live in Herkimer or Lewis or Or Oneida or Oswego, you have a better chance of being seen by a judge from your county. And no matter what, that's always a good thing.
So what you're saying is the diversity, the racial diversity, was removed intentionally. So can you tell us why the legislature is concerned about racial diversity amongst judges, which was strong enough to pass both houses last year, is no longer stated in the sponsored
this year? I'd say the commitment to investing in diverse community is ever present in this house. I don't think that that's questionable. I would say that, you know, as we amended the bill, we're taking into account, you know, those interests and many more. And I'm happy with the product that we have in front of us. So I guess I just want to, I'm going to refer to a debate, our debate last year, where you said, and I quote, in the new maps, there's a higher probability that individuals reside in those counties are going to find themselves in front of a judge that is from their community. We're focusing now on the sort of ethnic and racial part of it.
Is that still accurate? Do you still believe that? Is that still the intent of this legislation?
I would say statistically that's still going to be the truth. It clear that Monroe Onondaga and Erie make up the majority of the ethnic diversity in the region But I also say you know the interest of those communities should be heard just as much as the interest of folks that live in Allegheny and Stuban and Livingston. So I'm happy that this accomplishes all those things.
So in the sponsors memo this year, the reason for the reorganization are, quote, population changes in western New York. So can you tell us what specific population changes occurred that weren't present when the district lines were last drawn?
From 1847, the difference in population? Yeah, sure. I imagine they're starkly different than what they were in 1847. You know, the Titanic has sunk. We landed on the moon. A million things have happened in that period of time. And I am confident that the way that the world looked like then looks very different in every measurable way. That's fair enough.
So the bill does create three new judicial districts, correct? Correct. Okay, separate district offices, separate administrative structures, separate election infrastructure. I know we talked a little bit about this earlier, but can we just talk about the costs of what that is and what we're anticipating that being annually?
Yeah, so I would say this year there is no fiscal impact because the changes don't take place in this fiscal year. I would say in the following fiscal year, we've estimated at $3.6 million. And those costs include additional staff, district offices, salary and fringe for said staff, real estate costs. What OCA requires to administer the system that they're tasked to administering?
Okay, so I'm going to shift to a constitutional portion here now. Cases brought in what is currently the 8th Judicial District, including election law and constitutional challenges, would be drawn from a wheel consisting exclusively of judges elected in Erie County should this go into effect. I would say any cases brought in Erie County, if this moves forward, will be seen by Erie County judges. Okay. So have we considered how that impacts the composition of panels in high-stakes political cases?
I mean, we've kind of done this in years past where certain cases are only allowed to be seen in certain counties. I mean, we can surmise as to the reasons for that, but do you have any concerns of the political bias that would come in? As I alluded to earlier, when reviewing these judge placements and how it was all lining up, I was absolutely and truly unaware of what affiliations were of what judges. I would say, and I'd additionally say that given OCA's latitude on where they can move judges anyways, that's not as much of a concern because it could look different purely by OCA's determination anyways. I would agree with that assessment a little bit, but again, we do a lot of things in this chamber that strike at the heart of the impartial judiciary. So I have a little hard time following down that path, but I do appreciate it. So the Constitution allows for the legislature to redraw district lines once every 10 years. this bill would redraw them again just 18 years after 2007 and then redo it again in 2027. Do I have that right or no?
The last time was 2007 2007 but it just didn't change correct? Our In our region, it did not change. It solely was for Richmond County.
So what I'm going to do is I'm just going to go back to one of my earlier questions. When I said what specific demographics or census criteria has changed since 2007 to make this monumental change? Can you point to specific data points?
I guess are you asking like why didn't we change it in 2007 when we redid Richmond County?
Yeah.
So you'd have to ask the members of this body in 2007 why they did what they did. It predates you and I, so I can't speak to it. But to my friend Mr. Sempolinsky's point, if it's not broke, don't fix it.
Has there been such a monumental shift from 2007 to today that, if there is, can you please point to that statistical data points and those census points? And can you provide some type of demographic changes that would prompt this kind of a piece of legislation?
I guess I disagree with the sentiment that it's not broke. I think it's very broke. I think that we should be embarrassed that we haven't looked at our lines for the region that we live in in over a century. I think that if your argument is, since population doesn't look that different from a couple years ago, why are we doing this now? I would say the measure of a couple years ago doesn't totally make sense because really the question is, why is it that this was unchanged from 1847 and we're now in 2026? So I would say there is deep urgency why we should pursue this. I think it's truly not reflective of the communities that we live in in every measurable way, especially if we consider how population numbers in and of themselves have drastically different over the century and a half. I mean, there's no argument to be made to push this another year knowing how long it's been in its current state.
That's fair enough. Mr. Rivera, thank you very much for your time.
Thank you, sir.
Madam Speaker, I'm going to go on the bill real quick.
On the bill.
So we accept in this body that there's gerrymandering legislative districts for partisan advantages is wrong. Well, it's a thought we did until last night, but this bill applies the same logic to the judiciary. Carving up urban democratic strongholds into standalone judicial districts is wrong. It's guaranteeing that election law challenges and constitutional cases in Erie County will be cited by judges who ran on the Democratic ticket in Erie County. We really should not be tolerating that kind of engineering in the legislative context. And also in the context of what we've voted on the past 24 hours and are going to be voting on the next 24 hours. We really shouldn't tolerate that at all, especially in this body. The sponsor's memo says population changes in western New York justify redistricting, but the current district lines were drawn before 2007. No census change since then plausibly requires isolating exactly three counties. And that the sponsor's own prior memo identified as majority and minority. As a population were concerned, a neutral demographer could draw these lines. no neutral gemographer would draw them this way. So this chamber passed a bill last year. The Senate passed it. The governor pocket vetoed it. We haven't heard what her objections were necessarily, and we haven't fixed whatever was wrong. So we're running it back and hoping she signs it. This isn't legislation. This is hoping. So with that, I'll be a negative on this one. Thank you Ms People Stokes Thank you Madam Speaker We sponsor you for a couple questions
Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.
Thank you. Mr. Rivera, this particular legislation only focuses on one sector of the judicial population in the state of New York. Is that right?
Correct. The fourth department.
Yep.
Just state Supreme Court judges.
Correct.
So it's not going to impact a court of appeals, it's not going to impact a court of claims, or anything else like that? No county court, no city court, no town court, no family court, no.
And this is something that hasn't changed in over 100 years?
Yes.
Well, you know what? Thank you very much. I want to go on the bill. Thank you. I do appreciate the work that you put out on this bill, because this is more important than most people think. And I realize that there are some people who really would like to stay stuck in a diversity position. But I don't want to stay stuck there because this doesn't always have to be about diversity. However, you should always want to think about that because if you're not thinking about the inclusive process of diversity, then you're not going to get to the right place where you need to be with the law. Now, I understand that there are some municipalities within the county of Erie, where I live, that you don't even have to have a law degree to be a judge. Is that correct? And so I'm really kind of hoping that those folks who do not have law degrees do not have access to an opportunity to be a state Supreme Court justice. I should have asked that question that you missed it, Rivera, but perhaps you could answer that later because I'm not sure. I know I've heard some very questionable decisions that were made, not by a person who's been to law school, we were by somebody who happens to be appointed as a judge in one of the communities in and around Buffalo. And so I do have some concerns about that. But I think right now at this point, in this day, in 2026, there is no reason why we should look for the same demographics to represent our judicial population that we did 100 years ago. Things change, and we should actually want to change with them. And to be honest, I'm a little offended that people are looking for, why did you have diversity last year and you didn't have diversity this year? Maybe it's because at the national level, people are storming on diversity so hard you want to step away from that and get to the real place where we need to be. And that's how do you get a judge that can speak to my needs just like he can speak to yours without using my name? That's kind of sad that we're in this position in this country. But here's where we are. And thank you, Mr. Rivera, for stepping up to the plate to say this is where we are, here's where we need to be, and here's the goal line to get there. So thank you very much for reintroducing this legislation. And I hope that this one doesn't get the veto pen this time because it's fair, it's just, and I think it's going to make for better communities all the way around. So thank you for your efforts on this, and I do look forward to supporting it. Thank you. Mr. Paul Masano.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. Thank you, Mr. Rivera.
I kind of want to actually, last year during this debate, my predecessor who sat here, our now leader, Mr. Ra, engaged you in a dialogue and a discussion, knowing the judicial districts has other impacts, and particularly particularly our Board of Regents Right now we have 17 Board of Regents 13 of them one for each judicial district How do we address that issue Do you have any plans to address that issue
Yeah, you know, with the addition of new judicial districts, I mean, there will be no more additional Board of Regents slots.
So there should be three new Board of Regents positions created. And given the fact, though, the New York State Board of Regents is not just a statutory authority, it's a constitutional authority. Because now you're saying we're going to have to change the numbers. I mean, obviously, we're going for 17 members. If we go 3, 13 per, what do we have now? And then it would be 16 plus 4, so we're going to go from 17 to 20. It's not just a statutory change. Isn't it a constitutional change that's going to be required because it's a constitutional authority? So isn't that something that's going to have to be addressed, and won't that take time? And until we are able to fix that, won't we be in violation of the state constitution? I'm not a lawyer. I'm just asking questions.
I join you in not being a lawyer. I would say there's clear time on this.
The actual elections that are affected by this take place in 2027.
The actual districts themselves don't exist until 2028. So there is sufficient time between now and then to manage this.
I would say my interpretation is that it speaks to the amount of regents being equal to the amount of judicial districts. Therefore, three new regents' positions should be opened. And between now and 2028, I'm confident that this body who appoints said regents will figure that out. But again, I guess going back to the point, if it's a constitutional authority, not just a statutory authority, an education body, wouldn't this require constitutional change, let alone just a statutory change? And if that's the case, for it to be a constitutional change, we'd have to vote this year and then vote in the next concurrent legislation to make that effective for 2028, just like you want to do with the congressional district.
It's our interpretation that it's not a constitutional change.
Okay. Have you had any conversation with SED about this? I mean, at all? Nope.
No? I mean, given the fact that this came up on the discussion last year,
given the fact that we knew this put this in conflict with the Board of Regents, and that now you're moving forward with, again, wouldn't it have been a wise idea to have a conversation with the state education department and say, how are we going to do this?
I wouldn't use the word conflict. That's not the case. I would say, as I mentioned before, if this were to pass and sign by the end of the year, we still have all of 2027 to figure that matter out and work out the timing of it. So I'm not concerned at all.
And I know you said it's your interpretation. This doesn't require constitutional. But what if your interpretation is wrong?
It's happened before.
I'm sure it has. I'm sure it's happened to all of us in some way. But my concern is if you're just going based on what your interpretation is, saying that it doesn't need the constitutional change, just the statutory change, if you're wrong, then we miss that opportunity.
The only way we can change the Constitution, as you know, is we have to pass it into concurrent legislatures, which this would be the first one. Then we have to do it because if we can't, if we don't do it this year, say we find out next year we can't be done. Someone challenges it and say we're violating the Constitution. Then we'd have to pass it in 27 or 28, and then again in 29 or 30. Then we're behind. Then we have a problem.
Then it is a problem which is kind of where I going with this question Why didn we have this conversation with FCD with the lawyers on all parties to see is this a constitutional concern Because just saying it our interpretation I rather have some firm ground to stand on that just given this because this could be very problematic
I don't think there's a question in there. I guess I would stick to that.
Well, let me rephrase it. If it's ruled, it requires a constitutional change, and we fall the direction that you're heading in now that we have enough time and we could just do it statutory. If it's determined, no, this does require a constitutional change, and then we're in the next year, then we have a big problem because we're in violation of the Constitution, and then we do run out of time because then we're getting into 29 or 30 before it becomes a fact. True?
I guess you're describing a hypothetical situation that we just don't agree on the premise of. We don't believe.
I understand you don't agree with me. I know you're saying it's hypothetical, but it is a possibility, correct?
Anything's a possibility.
Can you say emphatically it won't happen?
I'm not a lawyer, but I sound like one on TV, I guess.
I mean, if it's a possibility, shouldn't we be concerned about it and address it?
I just don't believe it to be a possibility. We don't believe it's a constitutional issue.
I know you guys have made it very clear you don't believe it is, but my concern is, what if it is?
It could be a possibility.
There's no uncertainty there, and we might have had some certainty. If there were some conversations with the state education department, if there were some conversations maybe with the governor's office to get some interpretation on this, maybe that's something she might take into consideration in considering this bill and hopefully beetles it, in my opinion.
I'm just talking about one point of it. I don't like the other parts of it either, but that's neither here nor there.
But I just think, so you're saying from your perspective, we could take action sometime next year and just add three Board of Regents through the statute. Is that what your understanding is?
No, I mean, this body elects Regents just about every year, and in 2028 we will elect three more.
I understand it. And the same thing, same term, five-year term?
Yeah, that's unaffected. Okay.
And again, you're just going to hold to the point that this doesn't require any type of constitutional change, and just a statutory change from your perspective, and that you're just going to move forward and say that we can just do it, that we can just appoint them. Is that what you're saying?
Yes.
Okay.
Mr. Rivera, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker, on the bill?
On the bill.
Yeah, I appreciate the discussion. I really wanted to get this point on the record. My colleague, my predecessor, our leader asked this question. I thought it was a really good question to ask and to reinforce. And the thing I'm just finding puzzling and troubling is we knew this question came up last year, and we asked the question, should there be some conversations with FED? There were none. And I know I understand the interpretation from your side is this doesn't impact the Constitution. It doesn't require a constitutional change. Again, I'm not a constitutional, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a constitutional expert. I'm not a legal expert. But if it's something that could happen, if it's something that could be a problem, shouldn't we make sure we're dotting the I's and crossing the T's in the time frame we need to dot the I's and cross the T's? Because the problem is, if some were to challenge this from a constitutional perspective, and we don't have any action taken this year, our only right of recourse then is to pass it in the 27-28 term. And then again in the 29-30 term, and then we're behind the eight ball as far as that's concerned. Now maybe it could just be as easy as just appointing more regents. Maybe that's the case. If it is, then I'll say you're right. But my concern is the possibility. My concern is that there could be a challenge to this because it says the Board of Regents is a constitutional authority, not just a statutory authority. And that constitutional authority is formed and directed and dictated by the language of the Constitution. Again, I'm not sure what the Constitution says, but if it says one per district or if it says specifically 13 judicial districts and you have that, we could run into problems. And I think that's just part of the problem with this bill. I mean, I think the other part of it is what's going on on the political side of it. just like when we talked about on the redistricting amendment we did the other day or last night. It's just very concerning, very problematic from my perspective. I do appreciate the conversation with the sponsor on the issue I was bringing up, but the broader view on top of that I just think is more problematic. And for that and many other reasons, I will be voting in the negative on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few questions?
Would the sponsor yield?
Yes.
Sponsor yield.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera. And last year, I think you and I had quite a conversation in and around how the judges were chosen for each judicial district. I'm not going to go specifically in that direction, but more so maybe the number of justices per district. As we heard earlier tonight, you know, the 500, the one judge per 50,000 individuals. So when we're looking at, I'm going to take the 7th JD specifically. I can speak to that pretty fluently, where right now looking at seven justices with the proposal that is before us, that would be about 70,570 the population per justice. How did we come up with seven justices in that district and left 14 in the new 15th district, which would be Monroe County, where that's looking at, per judge, 54,246 individuals?
individuals. Yeah, I would say given the nature of how this redistricting has to happen where entire counties have to be kept intact There is going to be this sort of deviation because no county has the same population and there's no way of Dividing a county like in the case of our districts where we're all relatively represent the same amount of people Because we have to keep counties intact. This is this is going to be sort of part of it Okay, so we're keeping counties intact
That's not in question But if we add it, if we took and we placed eight justices in the 7th Judicial District as it's presented and maybe went to 13 in Monroe County, we're just shifting the population per justice. We're not changing the county lines. So I guess my question is how did we come up with the number of justices per district if that 50 was not there in place
I would say this bill began last year where we were designating Monroe, Onondaga, and Erie County as their own standalone districts. From there, obviously, we've amended it to include changes, including to the district that you're mentioning. and those were done with a lot of conversation with OCA and the approval, you know, as they've mentioned in their letter of this district and its layout. So, you know, conversations with OCA was a big factor.
Okay, so let me ask a question, and it was mentioned, I believe, earlier that this is impacting Supreme Court justices across these districts. Court of claims judges are often acting Supreme Court judges. Has that been taken into account based on where some of these court of claims justices are sitting currently right now, which might be in part of these districts?
No, but the reason you wouldn't is because that's up to OCA to administer. If a certain judge is in a certain place today, they might not necessarily be there tomorrow. The Constitution is specific to what we're doing, which is the actual seats themselves. What OCA does in its administration shouldn't be taken into effect in this because that's not based on population, but what this is. And that's unchanged in this. The OCA can manage it in whatever way it wants of where it places court of claims judges.
Thank you. So oftentimes court of claim judges are placed in areas based on caseload to help with caseload. And if memory serves me right, I think we had three appointed court of claims justices last year that went into the current 7th and 8th district combined. So was that taken into account at all as to where these justices may sit when we came up with the number? I'm just trying to figure out why we're looking at upwards of 20,000 additional individuals per judge in the proposed 7th JD versus take the 16th district proposed in Erie County that has 50,000.
Yeah, I would say caseloads are not taken into account with this because that's a highly variable number that can move pretty easily. But then I'd also defer to OCA's letter. It's clear that they say that there will be no adverse impact on case processing. So, you know, they're taking into account on their end. And if they're making the statement that this is not going to adverse caseload, then I would take their word on it.
Okay. And I guess one of my concerns in maybe this was or was not, and maybe you can share this with me if it was thought through. I just look at the 7th JD as it's proposed. So it's the rural communities outside of Monroe County as to what it's currently, you know, what it is. You have Livingston, Wayne, Seneca, Yates, Ontario, Steuben, and Cayuga. And we're looking at one judge per 70,000 plus individuals in that district. Obviously there going to be a larger area when we looking you know square mileage commute potentially Will that disenfranchise any of those folks in the rural communities now potentially
I would say no. It gives them a higher probability of being seen in their counties because now Monroe County is not part of their judicial district. Okay.
I see that a little bit different, but okay. Okay. Because currently, when you're looking at, you know, the Monroe County and the 20 judges that, or not Monroe County, but the 7th JD with the 20 judges that we currently have right now in the 7th Judicial District, you know, those judges are being, you know, placed in all of these counties as it is anyways. So I just, I guess my question would be, I'm still hung up on that 70,000 and how we got there when we really should be looking at a number that's 50,000. And just moving one judge from one area to another, one judicial district to another, would help even out some of those population counts. Which I believe, I mean, OCA obviously would be able to do that.
So if they're listening, I hope that's taken into account. when we're looking at it.
But those were my questions, and I do appreciate you very much for answering them.
And Madam Speaker, on the bill.
On the bill.
I, you know, last year I had concerns, and we're not going to dwell on the debates that we had last year in and around this, but it actually had to do with the square miles that were being looked at when we came up with some of the judicial districts. You know, taking out the three cities, in essence, out of the current 5th, 7th, and 8th judicial district, you know, it is what it is. I just find it very interesting that the 7th judicial district, as it's proposed tonight, the population per justice is looking at about 70,571. The 8th Judicial District is looking at 67,009 in population. The 5th Judicial District is looking at 61,455 individuals per justice. We then go to the 15th District in Monroe County, looking at 54,246,000 individuals. the 14th District of Onondaga looking at 52,946,000 and then looking at the 16th District in Erie County at 50,223. So my concern is about the number of justices that are being assigned to the populations in these counties and in these districts as presented to us and I really hope that you know OCA can take a a look at that and maybe we can shift some of those numbers or we look at those court of claims justices that have been assigned to help with caseload to ensure that you know there aren't some unintended consequences based off of this move and therefore madam speaker I will not be able to support this piece
of legislation as presented tonight thank you thank you miss Walsh
Thank you, Madam Speaker. In case anybody was saying, hey, wait a minute, she already spoke. I did, I'm exercising the option of a second 15, just to, and I asked this, would the sponsor please yield for a couple of clarifying questions.
Yes, of course.
Sponsor yield. Thank you so much So I just wanted to clarify a little bit of what was said earlier about the Board of Regents My colleague to the back of me had asked questions about that So currently there are 13 members on the Board of Regents for the 13 JDs and I believe that you had mentioned that with the addition of the 14th, 15th, and 16th newly created JDs that we would need three more members of the Board of Regents. Is that right?
Yes.
Okay. Will any of the five-year terms be affected for the existing 13 members of the Board of Regents?
No.
Okay. When will the additional three Board of Regents members be added?
20 and 28.
20, 28? Okay. And was the State Education Department consulted when drafting this piece of legislation because of the impacts that this will have on them?
No, I mean, the language sort of defaults. It says, you know, where there are judicial districts, there has to be an equivalent number of seats and more seats will be created. And like I said before, all of 2027 is ahead of us and really the remainder of 2026 to to sort of have those conversations. But I have confidence in this body in 2028 that they're going to be able to to, you know, elect.
OK, more and more regions. And then just following up on an earlier line of questioning, we were talking a little bit about the judges that are going to need to be moving. Now, I understand that I think salary-wise or even staff salary-wise and benefits, it's not going to change because you're not adding judges. And I'm assuming that you wouldn't be adding staff, but I don't know that. But you had kind of said that that would be handled, you know, by the administratively and all that stuff. But do you happen to know, out of the judges that are going to be moving, will there be a need to locate, fit up, and furnish and whatnot the additional chambers? Or how will that work? Do you know?
I would say there's certainly going to be costs associated with this. When we create new spaces, there's certainly going to be a cost to it. Like we said, we projected it in fiscal year 28 to be $3.6 million. I would say that's inclusive of potential additional staff, office space, real estate costs. But I'd also say there's collaboration that exists in every county really between OCA and local county governments, and that's going to be worked out as OCA does today.
Okay. I think that now I have all my questions answered, and I would like to please go on the bill.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bell. Thank you. So I just wanted to, a number of us have asked questions tonight and for my part I just wanted to kind of recap what we heard during the debate and then I have a few other things to say. So in terms of, I asked how many public hearings were held on this legislation? Zero was the answer. Was this bill ever brought before the Judiciary Committee for discussion or debate? No. Can the sponsor confirm whether any stakeholder meetings were held with members of the bench, bar associations, or the general public, that there were conversations. There were conversations that were had. There was no population study. LAT4 wasn't used. Independent Redistricting Commission, IRC, no, they weren't used. Any bipartisan redistricting entity, no, they weren't used in the development of the redrawing of these maps. We've We kind of talked about what the fiscal impact is, even though there wasn't a fiscal note that was really attached to the legislation. We've kind of sussed that out with OCA a little bit. I personally, this is my editorial, but I personally think it's probably a little going to be more expensive because usually things are in terms of cost of these things. But we'll see. And although it was alluded to that there were conversations with other associations and community organizations, specifically the bar associations of Onondaga, Monroe, and Erie did not weigh in. That was the answer that was given. This bill, we know, has been introduced in the last week of session. We know that there was no fiscal impact statement that was included. As far as when I asked the sponsor whether he could confirm the party enrollment breakdown of the judges reassigned into the new districts, he said that he didn't. He had no idea and that he had never thought of it. And I just think that, you know, Madam Speaker, I think that every time that we alter the structure of our judiciary, we really should do it only when there is clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the costs and consequences. Today, we're being asked to create three new judicial districts in the fourth department, yet we have not been provided with a compelling showing that this major reorganization is necessary, that it will improve the administration of justice or that it represents the best use of taxpayer resources. Reorganizing judicial districts is not a minor technical change. It affects court administration, judicial elections, staffing, and long-term costs. Before we redraw the judicial map, we should have clear data, broad stakeholder consensus, and confidence that the change will meaningfully improve access to justice and court efficiency. Good government requires more than good intentions. It requires careful justification. When questions remain about necessity, cost, and impact, the prudent course is not to rush forward. The prudent course is to pause, to gather the evidence, and to ensure that we are solving a real problem rather than creating new ones. I think that this bill would consolidate the handling of election law cases into more favorable, democratic-controlled jurisdictions. I think that this proposal follows a series of actions taken by the majority recently to influence redistricting, last night, judicial assignments, and control over election-related rulings. And I do not believe that this bill builds trust in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. And I think instead that it really politicizes the courts even further. So for all of those reasons, and the reasons mentioned by so many of my colleagues, I will be voting in the negative, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. On motion by Mr. Rivera, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section This act shall take effect immediately Party vote been requested Ms Walsh Thank you very much Madam Speaker The Republican conference will be not supporting this legislation, but if there are any exceptions, members may vote differently now at their desks. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Peebles-Stokes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this piece of progressive legislation. However, there may be a few that would desire to be an exception and they should feel free to do it so at their seats. Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Mr. Sempolinsky to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to be voting no. This has been a frustrating couple of days. We've only got three branches of government. We blew up one yesterday with a legislative redistricting. A lot of talk about what that was about and it'll net probably four or more congressional seats for one particular political party. We're gonna blow up judicial branch here. There's a lot of talk about what that's about but it'll net a couple dozen seats for that same political party and you know it's it's frustrating because when we start messing with our institutions like this for particular short-term gain, parochial interests, political interests. It hurts everyone in the long run regardless of our political affiliation. I think districts that have been in place, judicial districts, stability from 1847 is a good thing. And whether someone's political party has most of the seats or not. So we really all know what this is all about. I won't be part of it. I'm for preserving our institutions. I'm for preserving our three branches of government. And hopefully we won't make drastic changes to the executive tomorrow. I vote no. Mr. Sempolinsky in the negative. Mr. Rivera to explain his vote. Thank you very much. I just want to thank those of my colleagues that have been supportive of this. An issue that's been close to my heart for the last few years. The fact that we're able to address the long-standing issues in our region means a lot that we're able to tackle this. I want to thank the folks here and the staff that allowed it all to happen. And personally, thank everyone here. This is most likely my last bill debate as a member of this House, and I just want to thank everybody for your support over the years, and certainly to the Speaker. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Bologna, to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Really, my colleague, Mr. Sempolinski, He said it perfectly in the past couple seconds here. But one thing that he didn't say was that he actually stands to benefit from this piece of legislation more than anybody in this room. And when the guy who probably stands to gain the most power, most benefit from a piece of legislation, tells everyone how bad of an idea this is, I'm going to listen to that guy. So with that, I am going to be voting no emphatically on this piece of legislation. Mr. Bologna in the negative, Ms. Bailey, to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just have to reiterate again, hoping that someone other than just my mother is watching us tonight when I explain my vote here. And it really does have to do with the number of justices assigned to each judicial district based off of the population and what we should be looking at The math is not mathing I hope OCA is listening and I hope that they assign an additional justice to the proposed 7th JD here. It really, you know, every day I stand on this floor, I talk about rural upstate New York. That is who I am. That is who I represent. And here again, I just feel it's another piece where, you know, we're missing that. So I hope someone's listening, and I hope that, you know, we can look at the numbers. And even if we move one out of the proposed, I don't have my glasses on, 14th JD, I think it might be, into the 7th JD, you know, I would be appreciative. but until I just can't support this bill and I will be voting no. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bailey, in the negative. Thank you. Mr. Morinello to explain his vote. Thank you. I vote no on this bill, but I'm a little suspect. It was either last year or the year before. They made a change on where you can bring certain election challenges. And isn't it coincidental that one was Erie County and one was Monroe County? And now they move to make them separate judicial districts, which those two counties have a majority of one party of registration. I just find these actions as suspect. because of those reasons I vote no. Mr. Morinello in the negative. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Madam Speaker and colleagues, if we can now turn our attention to Rules Report 447 by Mr. Gibbs, followed by Rules Report 347 by Ms. Lucas, followed by Rules Report 499 by Ms. Romero, Rules Report 239 by Ms. Rosenthal, and Calendar number 376 by Ms. Kay. In that order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. . Thank you. Page 14, Rules Report 447. Clerk will read. Assembly number 5846B, Rules Report number 447, Mr. Gibbs. An act to amend the election law. Automation by Mr. Gibbs. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Bear with me one second. The purpose of this bill is to extend the time frame of voting in the event of a disruption at a poll site. Under current law, if there is a disruption at a polling place that prevents individuals from voting, The only remedy is a court order to extend time, which is not always immediate or an additional day of voting in the case of a natural disaster or other emergencies. Most often, voting time is lost and never made up. This bill would address this by creating an automatic extension of voting time if there is a disruption for more than one hour at a polling place. In addition, this bill will create a communication process for boards of elections to inform the public, candidates and committees on the ballot, and local news medias and civic organizations. Thank you, Mr. Slater. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? I would be honored, members. Sponsor yield. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs. It's a good-looking tie you got there. Thank you. I think I took from your closet. You probably did. Last session. I just wanted to, if we could just walk through the legislation here. I appreciate the explanation. And you did say that courts are able to, currently under the law, extend time if there's a disruption presently. Courts were able to extend the time. Yes. Is there evidence that courts are routinely denying relief when legitimate voting disruptions occur? Not that I know of, no. Quiet, please. So if the courts aren't really, we're not seeing this proliferation of denial, what specific problem is the current process in this bill attempting to solve that can't already be addressed through judicial intervention or the existing law? Well that an amazing question then Miss Slater In 2022 during early voting for the general election a bomb threat was called into the main early voting site in my district the Jackie Robinson Educational Complex. It took over two hours before NYPD allowed people back in to actually start voting. This was done on the last day of early voting in what was considered a competitive governor's race. This legislation would establish a set standard for local bipartisan election officials just to extend the time for voting at impact in polling places when the disruption to voting lasts more than one hour. Yeah, that sounds really horrific, and I really feel horrible that your constituents had to go through that. I'm glad no one was hurt, and obviously that it wasn't, in fact, a significant or serious situation. Did anybody in that situation go to the court to ask for an extension? No. They didn't know how to. So the court didn't deny an extension in that case? There was just no application by either a voter or the Board of Elections to extend because of that particular circumstance? I'm quite sure. This is the first time it happened in our district. So my constituents, voters, probably didn't even understand that they had the opportunity to go to court to extend the time. This legislation would give them that opportunity without going through all the harassment of going back and forth to court, which could be troublesome, timesome, and so on. But in this case, there was no application, and the court didn't deny. There was no application. There was no court process, and then it was later. If current law already allows courts, election officials, and the governor to address these types of election disruptions, because I believe the governor can also order these types of actions, why is an entirely new automatic extension framework necessary? I don't believe the governor can order these extensions immensely. But the court can? Yes. But the court can. Is it correct that under this bill, if a disruption exceeds one hour, voting must be automatically extended? Well, yes, if it exceeds one hour. That's what the bill was does. What discretion remains for local boards of elections once that one hour threshold has been reached? Repeat that question for me. I'm sorry. Does the local board of elections have discretion once the one hour threshold has been reached? Once this bill is passed, they will. Right. Once the bill has passed. Well, to answer your question, no, they don't. Can commissioners determine, under your bill, can commissioners determine that despite a disruption, voters still had a meaningful opportunity to vote during the remainder of the day? I'm sorry, I was distracted. Please, you picked the question. Under your proposal, can commissioners, local board of election commissioners, determine that despite a disruption, voters still had a meaningful opportunity to vote during the remainder of the day? No. And does the bill assume that every disruption lasting more than one hour requires the same remedy regardless of the circumstance? Correct. Correct. It does. It does. Currently, I just want to make sure I understand, when you go into, at least when I go into my polling places, oftentimes there's more than one machine in that polling place. Certainly. So is this specifically related to the actual polling location, or is it also encompassing polling machines It could be either So it could be both a polling it could be a machine breakdown or a disruption or inability to enter a polling place No, I think machine breakdown. Well, they want me to read you what the definition of disruption is, But I'm going to say that, you know, in the polling site, if there's a broken polling, if there's a broken poll in the polling site, what if elections do have commissioners who would then send out another commissioner to just look at or shut the site down? That's not considered disruption in this legislation. So it's not considered disruption. Under the definition, it talks about to be unable to vote for a period of time exceeding one hour, obstruction or interruption. So I guess the question that I'm trying to ask is, is an interruption also regarding the machines? Yeah, it can be if you can't vote. But now my follow-up to that is, don't the Board of Elections currently have processes in place so that when there is a machine breakdown, there is a backup option for voters to continue to cast their ballots? Yeah, yes, but this only applies if a repair or substitution to a vote machine or system cannot be made. Emergency ballots may not be given out during the repair or the substitution. So if a machine goes down, you can't use a plan B option? If the machine goes down, you can't use a plan B option. It doesn't help, no. Your bill doesn't speak to that, or you're not allowed to do that under the current law? The definition of disruption is no voting in the election. So if one machine is out, it's over the machines, it's fine. Right. So I'm going to read the description of disruption. Disruption, additional time for voting, publicity of remedy, in the event that early voting on election day voting at one or more polling places is disrupted prior to the close of polls of any day of election for duration exceeding one hour, the Board of Elections, that day of election, to account for the lost time voters of all such impacted election districts. So pretty much for the purposes of this election. Yeah, that's the definition. Yeah, so if the machine goes down, they do authorize them to change the machine. So if a machine goes down, the Board of Elections commissioners would then be able to decide themselves if, do they have the flexibility to say that even though there was a Plan B machine or they were able to collect affidavits, that they still have to extend, are they mandated to extend even in that situation when ballots were still being able to be cast? I mean, there's no voting going on, period. If there's a disruption, it's shut down, period. There's no ballot being cast. There's no ballot being collected. So basically, again, so we're really just talking about the extremes of if a tree falls and blocks the entranceway of a polling place or like that terrible situation you were describing in your district. but if ballots are still able to be cast then that does not meet the standards of the definition Well I think if a tree is blocking the polling site it preventing voters from coming to vote That's considered a disruption. Right. So at that point, the polling site will be shut down until the tree is removed. Right. And then the commissioners would deem the polling site safe to continue voting or to resume voting. Right. I just want to make sure that we're clear for our county board of elections that in those instances, because that happens, machines go down. But they do have backup plans. They do have other machines available. So as long as someone is able to enter safely into a polling place and cast a ballot, even if a machine goes down, that machine going down would not qualify under disruption. I just want to make sure we're perfectly clear about this. Not necessarily, no. Who decides not necessarily? Commissioners. So both commissioners would have to agree that there was a disruption as defined in the law if it extends more than an hour. So if a machine goes down for 45 minutes, it doesn't meet the criteria. If a machine is down for 90 minutes because you have to cross a county or go from one side of the city to the other or whatever the problem might be, then the Board of Elections commissioners may agree that the machine going down – because I understand what you're trying to say on the physical aspect of ingress and egress of a polling place. I understand that completely. But I'm trying to just make sure that we're clear in the law that you're proposing that it doesn't also apply to the machine itself. So if a machine goes down for an hour and a half, the Board of Elections commissioners could then determine that an additional time is needed to be added on at that particular polling place. Yeah, if the voters can't vote, that's a disruption. But also you alluded earlier that at your polling site, there's multiple polls there, right? Multiple voting polls there. Yeah. So if one goes down, you use another or the third. Right. And I just that's 100 percent. That's what I want to make sure that if there are other opportunities, again, whether it's using another election district's polling machine that is in the same polling place or, again, voting via affidavit, that that does not trigger that does not trigger the disruption definition. That's fine. We can. Well, number one, I'm not one of these professional politicians, but I do understand that if you're assigned to vote at one polling place, you got to vote at that polling place. There's no going back and forth, right? So that's why this bill, if there's a disruption, would allow them to shut down and then recoup that time, opposed to sending voters to another district to vote in another vote place. And, again, I understand what you're trying to achieve here. I think we just want to make sure we're clear on what some of the practicality, practical pieces of this is. If the commissioners disagree about when a disruption began, does the bill default to the time the first report was received by the board? Yes. And what happens if a disruption actually began well before it was reported? So if a disruption began at, you know, 10, but they didn't get the call until 1045 because they were trying to deal with it, when does the clock start? It's all a discrepancy. They can start it earlier. They can recoup the time or go back. The time is started and the time is reported. So what happens if a constituent or even, listen, even an elections poll worker calls and reports an issue and the Board of Election Commissioners investigate it and they disagree with the facts? that are presented to them. What happens in that case? The law provides that. The law kicks in. And it says what? It says simple. The commissioners have to act and then extend that time, recoup that time, unless it's the next day. But if the commissioners don't agree with the premise that was presented to them, then they just would not extend the extra time, correct? We may be breaking the law, right? I think they'd be breaking the law, right? You know, they'd be breaking the law. They have to comply. You know, it's the law. But if the— I understand what you're saying. But if the—if you and I are the elections commissioners, and we both go, no, we don't buy this, are we required as the board—even for the board of elections commissioners, we're saying, we don't think this is actually what happened? Are we still required to add additional time? Or do we have the authority to say we're going to continue to operate as is? If voting was stopped, if voting was disrupted, yes, you would have to return that time. You have to give that time back. And how do they verify that it indeed, in fact, was disrupted? How do I know that it's not just a disgruntled citizen who's calling and saying, I've been waiting for the last hour to cast my vote. What happens if they're not telling the truth? Such is life. We had a bomb threat, and there wasn't a bomb at the school, but yet our voters were disrupted for two hours while the NYPD searched for a bomb. But the NYPD... I just went to a constituent who said, hey, I don't want the governor to win. There's a bomb in the school. Right. But in that case, you had the NYPD actually there. I'm saying, like, if one person just calls and says that I haven't been able to cast my vote for an hour and 10 minutes, are we required to act on that one report? If a voting is going on, no, it's not a disruption if voting is going on. But if there's a disruption, if there's a big argument, a fight, and the commissioner deemed, hey, it's unsafe, he or she will shut it down. Could polling places across New York close at different times on Election Day under this legislation? I'm sorry, repeat that again, I'm sorry. Could polling places across New York close at different times on Election Day? Yes. Is statewide uniformity in polling hours an important election administration principle? Definitely not more than this, no. So could one polling place remain open until 10 p.m. while another closes at 9? Yes, that's what this bill provides, especially if you have to recoup that time. You can have your second, Mr. Slater. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could a polling place remain open even later depending on the length of the disruption? Yes. What happens to the staff? What happens to your poll workers who are there starting? They report at 5 o'clock in the morning. That's the Board of Elections. So they may be cooped with overtime, pay. That's the Board of Elections. Is the Board of Elections authorized to pay overtime? Yes. They can split shifts, yes. But what happens if they don't have enough people? We're struggling right now with election workers. So if you don't have enough people to split shifts, and you're in there at 5 a.m., and then there's a disruption, and the Board of Election Commissioners tell you, hey, your shift now is going to end at 10, 11, at night, what reprieve do we provide for the election workers? Yeah I mean if he was online at 9 vote and there destruction you have to honor that You have to have to stay and honor those voters those constituents who coming out to vote has New York previously authorized polling places within the same election to close at different times no I'm not sure that and so and so we really do have a a hard stop to ensure accuracy of votes so that all pencils and votes are down at a specific time on Election Day. This is an emergency situation on a minute later. And I understand that. But is there not an impact that could happen if we staggered closing times, especially in regards to public confidence in our elections? hate the fact they have to wait as long as they do as it is with the nine o'clock closing. And now we're going to tell them that they got to wait even longer for those results. You know, voting matters. The impact would be voters didn't vote. That would be a horrible impact. And I agree. I'm not disagreeing with you. But I think that there's questions about staggering these election polling places potentially and having them close at different times. On page three, lines one through four, is it correct that ballots that are cast during an extended voting period may not be segregated from other ballots? Yes. If a court later determines that an extension was improperly granted, how would those ballots be identified? That's a good question. It wouldn't happen. I couldn't tell you who you voted for a week. They wouldn't go back to find out. Then wouldn't that skew the potentially results of the election? If a judge says that those ballots that were cast after 9 o'clock because of an extension that should not have been granted, and now we can't find those ballots, how do we rectify that? That can't be the court order remedy. Look, if there was a disruption at the polling site and we shut the polling site down, this bill simply says we're going to recoup that time. So, you know, again, that's the remedy, to recoup the time and we shut the polling down. So like you said, if we shut it down at 8.50 and then we reopened it at 10 o'clock, it's the time. I understand, but we're also, and again, I understand what you're saying, but if that gets challenged in court for improperly extending those hours, are we not, because of the fact that we're not separating the ballots, are we not preventing meaningful judicial review of the extension decision? Mr. Slater, this bill protects the voters. The court don't have the authority to throw out votes. Sorry. Well, that's for the courts to decide though, right? If the extension itself is challenged, how would a court— We're here to decide. That's why we're here. We're here to decide that. This is what this bill is going to decide. If it gets challenged in court, if there's a situation that gets challenged in court, I don't think that they're going to be asking us here to make that decision. If the extension itself is challenged— Every law can be challenged in court. Notice this later. I'm sorry? Respectfully, every law can be challenged in court. I hope many of them that get passed here do. If the extension itself is challenged, how would a court fashion a remedy once all ballots have been mixed together? Yeah, that happened before the extension. No if the extension is challenged and you mix all the ballots how do you remedy that once all the ballots have been mixed together Who challenging an extension What happens if I don't believe that an extension should have been provided? And I go to a court, I go to a judge, and I challenge the extension in court. And a judge agrees and says, no, you're right, there was voting going on and they should not have been given the extension. But you already commingled all the ballots together, so you can't then extricate the ballots that were cast beyond the time that the court believes should have been cast. This is before the fact, then it's later. Well, I think when you're dealing with election law, you also have to think after the fact, because all these laws that we're passing have a real-life impact. impact, and especially when it comes to making sure that we have a process that people can have trust in. And I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but these are the nuances of the election law that we have to make sure that we're really ironing out. Has a fiscal analysis been completed regarding the additional staffing and operational costs this bill may impose? No. Again, that's a Board of Elections issue. And so we have not reached out to the Board of Elections, whether on a county level or even the State Board of Elections, to figure out if there's going to be a fiscal impact here? This is a emergency situation. We don't think it's going to happen all the time, God willing. Thank God it wasn't a bomb in Jackie Robinson educational complex. Thank God is right. But you know what? Those two hours the cops investigated, voters lost those two hours of voting. I just want to go back to our inspection workers again. Is there a limit on how many hours an inspection worker can work at a poll? Give me a second, all right? No. And so again, if there's a two-hour disruption, polls open at 6, we're going to 11. Yeah. Yeah, if it's early voting, it could be potentially the next day. I would recall when I was a young, struggling kid, I would look for these election day jobs, you know, and I would stay there 12 hours because I know they would pay handsomely on overtime. And most of the time, they would provide a car ride home. But respectfully, there's also poll workers who aren't young, who aren't younger kids. And they're just doing their part to support our institutions and to do their role to make sure that we have a working democracy. And so if you're asking someone who's not a young kid trying to make a few extra bucks to stay that extra time, I just have a concern with that. But that's OK. As a district leader, you know, my responsibility was to make sure that our seniors who were working in the polling that night did receive car fees or car stipends. So I think the Board of Elections are very mindful when it comes to seniors or adults working late night shifts. I agree. I think they do their best to accommodate them. I agree. I think they do their best to accommodate. Does this bill provide any additional funding for counties that may be needed to implement these new mandates? No. I just want to make sure that all my questions were answered. Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill, if I may. On the bill. I agree with Mr. Gibbs that every voter deserves an opportunity to cast a ballot, and every legitimate disruption at a polling place deserves an appropriate remedy. But the question before us today is not whether election disruption should be addressed. The question is whether this bill improves upon the system that we already have Under current law when a significant disruption occurs courts can act Existing remedies are already available and can be tailored to the facts of a particular situation This bill replaces that system with an automatic extension framework that raises more questions than it answers. If voting is interrupted for more than one hour, voting must automatically be extended. Polling places throughout New York could potentially close at different times on the same election day. One location could close at 9 p.m., another at 10 p.m., and another even later. That would be a dramatic departure from the uniform administration of elections that voters have come to expect, and frankly, trust. This bill also creates factual disputes that are difficult to resolve. When exactly did the disruption begin? When did the disruption end? What happens when election inspectors, voters, and commissioners disagree? Rather than relying on a neutral court to determine those facts, this legislation creates an automatic process that may generate additional confusion and litigation. Perhaps most concerning is the language regarding the ballots cast during an extended voting period. This bill specifically prohibits those ballots from being segregated from all other ballots. if a court later determines that an extension was improperly granted, how can meaningful judicial review occur if those ballots can't even be identified? We should not be creating a system where courts are unable to effectively review election procedures after the fact. I'm also concerned about the practical impact on county boards of elections, particularly our smaller counties, and all of our election workers that we continue to rely on. Additional staffing, additional public notice requirements, additional reporting requirements, and potentially extended voting hours all carry costs and administrative burdens that are not addressed in this legislation. At its core, this bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. The examples cited involve situations where existing legal remedies were already available, yet instead of strengthening those tools, this bill creates a new and complicated framework that risks inconsistent application across our state. I say it all the time when we talk about election law, and I'll keep saying it with every bill that we discuss for the next 36 hours or however much time we're here. Election laws need to be clear. They should be uniform. They should inspire confidence. Unfortunately, this legislation creates uncertainty where certainty is needed the most. And for all those reasons, Madam Speaker, I will be voting in the negative, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chang. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Will the sponsor yield?
Hey, Mr. Chang, I'm honored. How are you doing?
Sponsor yield.
Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, thank you.
When you wrote this bill, have you consulted the Board of Election Operations?
No, I did not.
I'm a 30-year experience post-site coordinator.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you, and I've done about a dozen different post-sites. Even during 9-11, as an emergency, I experienced that, what disruption is all about. So many of those issues you wrote, this law hasn't been already addressed. Post sites don't need power. Everything can be done by affidavit.
I disagree, Member Chang. Post sites need all the power. This is where our democracy lies. This is where the vote goes. We need power. We have to protect our votes.
No, no, no. Electrical power. It protects the vote.
I'm talking about electrical power.
Oh, electrical power.
Electrical power.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't hear electrical. I'm sorry. There was a time that we had spring mechanic machines that don't require any power.
It needs muscle power.
There you go. There you go. Thank you. Now, in disruptions, because why these disruptions exist, because it's public safety determined by the cop inside the post-site and determined by the post-site coordinator or who runs that. Those are the two people who determine if the emergency does exist for public safety, then a police officer takes over.
That's not always the case.
But let's talk hypothetical for a second.
You said in 911 you was at the post-site, right?
Yes, I was at the post-site 911.
What happened at 911?
Well, one thing is it took about an hour for the whole system to close down. We got a word from headquarters. Everything closes down, everything.
So they rescheduled that, I think, three weeks later.
Oh, three weeks later, right. Three weeks later.
And the vote was all canceled out, and they redid it again during 9-11.
That, I was clear about that.
It was a tragedy. It was a disaster.
Yes, it was. Actually, I was down in Chinatown, less than a mile away, World Trade Center. I saw it when it came down. Yeah. And I had white dust on my clothes, too.
And I'm glad you're here to talk about it today, Member Chang.
Oh, yes.
But there are other emergencies, and I heard from other poll sites, flooding in a basement. Now, that becomes a hazard if you have flooding. And what they did was they issued an emergency ballot, affidavit ballot, on the spot.
So you don't need to have the machine. You just have a pencil and paper and envelope and fill that out, and that will be counted as a ballot, even though manually, but it has been done.
Remember, this bill will not preclude any other remedies.
That's a great remedy.
But any disruption this bill addresses, whether it's a flood, a fire, a fight, a threat, a bomb, a terrorist, a Nazi. Sorry. That's determined by the police officer on the ground or the official border election to determine to make sure the site is safe for continual operations.
I don't think NYPD can predict what's going to happen during the day. And I don't think they have the authority to shut down a polling site or an election site.
Again, it's up to the commissioners. This bill simply addresses and says, hey, if there's a disruption, whether it may be, we will give the voters an opportunity to come back when the polling site is safe to pass their vote. We want to protect the vote. The vote got you here today, Member Chang.
Certainly, because the Board of Elections already solved that problem.
as long as you are in within that poll site at 9 o'clock.
Even though there's 20 million people in that poll site,
they will get the chance to vote even after 9 o'clock
as long as you are in that poll site.
Do you know about that?
But you're talking about curfew.
Right now we're talking about extension. So, of course, if you're inside the polling site before 9 o'clock,
you can stay in there until 10 o'clock to vote if that's how long the line is.
But there's a disruption where they say, hey, you cannot vote anymore because there's a disruption, like, i.e., a bomb threat, Maybe a fire next door. Maybe a flood. Maybe another plane hitting another tower. That's a disruption. And we're simply saying in this bill that the voters deserve an opportunity to get those two or three hours that was disrupted back to vote. Voting is important. Let's protect the power to vote. That why you need to consult It a board of election operation They have a contingent emergency to address those issues I went through it myself for 30 years I seen it Because even for myself I always protect the voters to come in to vote
The problem is not that many people come in and vote. As what, you know, the turnout, unfortunately, is not as robust as other states in New York City. But I always, in my best interest, when I run that poll site, is to make sure everyone gets in on that site by 9 o'clock. and if they're in by 9 o'clock, it could be 20 million people in that poll. I make sure that it will stay operation even past midnight because they have that right to vote. I thank you for protecting our democracy.
Were you a commissioner?
No, I'm not a commissioner.
Oh, so how could you do all the things you said you were just doing? Only the commissioner had the power to do everything you just said that you were doing.
Only the commissioner had the power to do that. There's more than one commission is a board of commissions in there. And you always get the instructions from headquarters. You don't make that decision yourself.
Oh, you was instructed.
Okay, I thought you were making instructions. There's always instructions, and there's a 100-page manual on what happens to the site. Have you read that?
Colleagues, colleagues, firstly, we need to not talk over each other.
Oh, sorry.
And secondly, we need to be speaking on the bill. This is fascinating stuff, listening to your histories. That's great, but we need to be speaking on the bill, please. Thank you.
So does the bill also account for emergency ballot?
Does it count for emergency ballot?
Emergency ballot.
What about emergency ballot, Mama Chang?
I'm sorry, I'm confused.
Emergency ballot is once you verify the voter can be voted, you get a ballot, paper ballot, an envelope, you fill everything out, seal it, and it's good.
Usually that happens when they can't find your name at the polling site.
They give you that ballot, put it in the envelope, and then when they find your name, they submit that ballot to vote.
It's called affidavit ballot. And they'll be counted.
It's normal operations. They will account for that at the border of election at the end of the day.
It's called affidavit ballot.
Member Chang, this is for disruptions.
But I do enjoy the dialogue.
Now, when you say early vote, this bill also includes regular election day and also as well as early voting. Is that correct?
Any day you can vote.
Okay, so even for early voting, if they're, you know, you have nine days of early voting.
If they can't miss and one day they can reschedule for the next day, isn't it?
Member Chang, I created this bill because in my district there was a bomb threat. And as a result, for three hours, two and a half hours technically, the polling sites were shut down.
Certainly.
I heard from my constituents who was very, very disappointed because they could not vote because of a bogus bomb threat simply because someone didn't like Governor Hoku. And as a result, 70, maybe 80 constituents could not vote that day.
You mean at that nighttime, they were unable to open up before 9 o'clock closing? There was no law that said they could do that, you know.
So was emergency ballot was issued to them?
I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
Emergency ballot.
There was a procedure for emergency ballot to give to these voters.
They weren't giving out. They didn't have an opportunity to receive an emergency ballot because they were kicked out of the polling site.
Like if someone say there's a bomb, we ain't gonna kick all of us out. Well, that's what happened at the polling site. They kicked everybody out. They didn't get an opportunity to receive an emergency ballot. And in fact, they didn't even come back to get an emergency ballot. So somewhere the procedure wasn't followed. That's what it sounds like.
Well this bill addresses that For all emergencies all disruptions voters will have an opportunity to come back to the poll to recast their vote if they disrupted Well they do have an opportunity for affidavit ballot They have an opportunity to do that So I not sure if you In your case I mean yeah
I mean, that's a backup plan. And you don't really need electrical power to count for votes, paper ballot.
It's not about electrical power, Mr. Jay, and I think this is a redundant, this argument. Simply, this bill simply says if there's a disruption, whether it's emergency, we are going to recoup those two, three hours that the disruption caused, and give those voters an opportunity to vote, whether they Republican, Democrat, Independent, or so on. They have an opportunity to come back and cast their vote. That's important. Now, imagine you going to a polling site. You walk seven blocks, and you get to this polling site, and you see the police and all these bomb dogs out there, and they say, hey, Mr. Change, you can't vote right now because we've got to take care of the bomb. Now, you're going to sit there for two, three hours, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock, they close the polling site, it won't allow you to vote. You're going to be disgruntled like my constituents. They weren't disgruntled because they could not vote because of a bogus bomb threat.
Well, I understand it's a concern, and there is contingent procedures in Board of Elections for that. If it's physically there is a, again, like flooding in facilities and unable to operate, they'll always have alternatives, they'll always have some vans, they'll always have some off-site to administer the vote.
Well, you know, in your 30 years experience, Member Chang, I know you know that you cannot give a voter, a constituent, an affidavit out in the street.
No, no it's not. You cannot do that. But it could be another polling site.
So if you're shutting down the polling site, you're out in the street. You, as a former commissioner, whatever your role was respectfully at the board of elections. You cannot go out in the street and say, hey, Mr. Voter, don't leave. Take the after-dated and vote in the street. You can't do that.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't operate that way.
This bill says, hey, let them come back into the building and let them vote, simply.
The Board of Elections operations always care about chain of custody. So there will always be alternative.
I'm sorry, repeat that.
I'm sorry.
Certainly.
The Board of Elections people always take series of chain of custody to make sure all the information are stayed. If there was an emergency in that site that had to be closed down because of public safety, okay, there is alternative by the Board of Election operation, either redirect to another poll site, or there might be a temporary poll site vehicles out there. And even if the poll site is reopened, as long as they're there before 9 o'clock.
Are you on the bill, Member Chang?
Because this is dialogue.
Okay.
We're just going back and forth.
All right.
So the question is, have you considered on early voting that could be another schedule?
Instead of just extended hours during early voting, you get nine days of early voting.
Yeah, we could consider that.
That's what the bill says. The bill gives you an opportunity to come back. whether it's early voting, late voting, it gives you an opportunity to recoup those hours you lost during a disruption.
That means he can come back then for the next day.
No, not the next day.
No, not everyone can come back the next day. Not everyone can come back in the next hour. Some people would be discouraged.
Some people have to walk seven, eight blocks. You said seniors, right?
Member Slater said something about protecting seniors Some seniors walk six seven blocks just to cast their vote So imagine an 85 woman walking to the polling site with her walker and she gets there and says hey ma you can vote today because there a disruption here Now she has to walk seven blocks with her walker, and she's discouraged. She's not walking back, and she's not going to sit around and wait three hours until they open the polling site again.
This bill gives her the opportunity to come back later on and cast her vote safely.
Yes, they can if they open up the polls site deemed safe by both poll site coordinators and the police if it's deemed safe. If it's not deemed safe, then the Board of Elections have to create an alternative, isn't it?
Is that a question or are we still dialoguing?
Yeah, that's... Can you repeat the question? Because I thought we were just talking. So if the post site is deemed safe and reopened, and the person is as long as before 9 o'clock, do you think they need an extension?
Yeah, it's simple. If there's an hour disruption, there should be an hour tapped on at the end.
I understand.
Okay.
On the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On the bill.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, interesting dialogue.
But I think this bill, it needs to be scrubbed. It needs to be thought out. It needs to work with the Board of Election operation. There are contingencies. Based on my experience of 30 years as coordinator with a dozen different sites, and even down at 9-11 that time when it went down. So from my personal experience, now New York City may be different in the rural or suburban because they may not have that robust support. but in New York City there is contingency to make sure that the people get to vote on time. Now if it's during election day because it's by law is six o'clock to nine o'clock that's structured by law can't change. But as long as person can be in that site by nine o'clock you can still vote and even though you're still waiting on line at 10 o'clock or 12 o'clock at midnight you can still vote as long you're in that site. And even though you're outside as long the police knows that you're waiting in line you're still eligible to vote. So I think this law itself is a little bit, it's not defined as disruption, but there are ways that Board of Elections has solved. In this case I would vote negative. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Durso. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would
the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Certainly for a bit of a vote. Sponsor yields. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. I'm probably gonna ask you
some questions that may have been asked already, but I just want to kind of simplify it for myself.
You're a member of Dursler, you can do what you want.
Thank you, sir. So as you said, this is for a disruption, so let's just say it's the first day of early voting, and there's a disruption, and the polling site is closed. It has to be closed, correct? You cannot walk in to vote. Correct. That would be the disruption for the definition of this bill.
Hold on one second. Yeah, if the police was closed.
So you cannot vote.
The polling site is closed.
That.
No voting is going on, correct.
So there's a disruption.
They're going to shut that site down.
Right.
No voting going on.
That's my question.
Yes, no, no, no.
That's perfect.
The site is shut down, nobody can vote.
Let's say it's for two hours, right? That two hours have to be tacked onto that same day Right, the extension of that day, correct? If the polls close at 9 or 6 o'clock because it's early voting, if it closes at 6, it's got to be extended to 8, right?
Whatever the amount of time it's closed for, it has to be extended that same day. Generally, yes.
You say generally, what does that mean?
Well, there could be certain situations where it could be possible the next day to go voting.
There could be possible situations where, you know, it's early voting, you could do it the next day, but the cutoff is on election day.
You can't vote at the election day.
Okay.
So my question is then, why would it not be extended that day if the concern, right, is people were not able to vote that day, but let's say there's another eight days of early voting, why would we extend the hours the next day when it seems like the bill wants it to extend it that day?
The next day it's open for eight, ten, twelve hours.
It would generally be the same thing, administratively, impractical.
But they can extend it the next step.
They can. In certain situations, they can.
And who would make that determination?
Commissioners.
Commissioners.
Okay. So the language in the bill says that essentially—I'm terrible at math, so just hear me out for a second. Let's say if voting is open for 100 hours during that week, you have to get 100 hours of voting in, regardless of what day it is. Is that a better way to say it?
So if it's closed for two hours this day, you have to get it in somewhere along the lines. Does it have to be the next day? Could it be three days later that they have to add those two hours on?
Generally, it's the same day, right?
So let's say hypothetically the disruption happened at 11 a.m.
Right.
And it lasted three hours.
My math is not as good as yours.
Mine obviously is not good. I'm about to pull out my calculator right now.
Okay.
So from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., let's say that's three hours, correct?
Right.
Now the poll site is open.
Right.
You resume voting.
Once NYPD and the commissioners deem the site to be safe, you resume voting.
Right.
Voters have an opportunity to come in and cast a vote in a safe site.
Right, which we want.
And I don't disagree with that at all.
My question is, those three hours have to be made up. Is there a part of this bill that says they have to be made up that day, or it just has to be made up at some time within that 10 days of voting?
Right. The vote is the same day, but it's extenuating circumstances where it may go over until the next day on early voting.
Okay. So I can see it maybe going to the next day. But technically, the way you're saying it to me and just understanding, it doesn't have to be the next day.
If they lose three hours and early voting is on a Monday, right, and it gets shut down Monday for three hours,
technically the commissioners could say we're going to leave the early voting site open on Thursday for an extra three hours.
No, the deflut should be the same day, you know, and again, and especially if the disruption happened early, say morning time, afternoon, you know, the deflut should be the same day.
Why carry on to the next day when you can actually?
I would agree. I'm actually, I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm just wondering why the legislation doesn't specifically say the next day or that day, because technically it could be.
It does say that.
Okay, perfect.
What does it say?
It has to be the next day?
I just trying to get it for clarification Page two We trying to locate the paragraph No problem Take your time
Okay, great. Bear with me. My glasses a little bit foggy.
Yes, sir. The scheduled time frame for voting shall then be adjusted accordingly for each such polling place and extended on that day of election, or if extended, the time frame for voting at such polling places on that day of election will be administratively impracticable. And such additional time for voting should be scheduled on the next day for voting or a successive day for voting in the same polling place.
Okay.
So I take it as that day or the next.
Or the next.
Page two.
Right?
That's the way I'm – can we all agree?
Right?
That's what it all says?
Everybody's shaking their heads, so I'm going to assume –
Yes, the next day, but the default is that day.
Of course.
Right.
But it could be the next day, not three days later.
It can be technically be the next day, but the default is that day.
Perfect.
Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
That was one of my questions.
My next question is, when we talk about it has to be that polling site, correct?
So in other words, if that polling site, just for clarification, I assume it is.
If the polling site on the corner of Van Buren Street, just for all, that's where I grew up, is closed, right?
You can't open a different polling site for another three hours the next day. It has to be that site?
Yes, the floor.
Okay.
Perfect.
Now, one thing I want to go back to, just as a moment of clarity.
When you spoke about – it's okay.
Let him talk. It's fine. When you talked about poll workers staying past time that they're being paid for, they don't get paid by the hour, correct? They get paid by a shift, I believe.
Yeah.
They already might have to stay late.
Yeah, they may have to stay late. It's a line, but yes, they get paid by the show.
Okay. Do poll workers get paid overtime?
That's outside of the scope of the bill.
Well, I understand it's outside the scope of the bill, but we're making the Board of Elections, and rightfully so, giving people the chance to vote.
Requiring, I think would be the best. Requiring, excuse me.
shouldn't we know if they are allowed to pay overtime because I know for sure they can't force them to stay right I know nobody in here wants to force someone to stay at work
I believe we passed bills to to not do that no so no forced overtime look that's up to the board of election this is for emergencies only agree well then it don't happen all the time agreed so
Let's just say, worst case scenario, the poll workers do not want to stay. Let's say polling closes at 9 and they have to stay at 11 and they say, I don't want to stay. Is that another disruption?
They agree to be poll workers. They don't get to just leave.
They can. They agree to be poll workers from 5 in the morning until the time the polls close. There is nothing that says that they have to stay until 5 in the morning until the polls close.
Yes. That the answer right there until the polls close It could be 9 p 11 p I work polling sites at 12 a Sure for the people that were already there Right So once you online right and poll closes at 9 right you allowed to vote
But now we're asking them, the polling stays open until 11.
It's not about who's there. It's about anybody could come in, which we want.
Right? I'm just concerned about how they get paid. That is my question. I worry about, as you've all heard me say, the worker. And there is no provision in this bill to take care of the worker, which some of them are young, Mr. Gibbs. As you said, you look forward to working there and making some of that money. We also have senior citizens that, listen, if you told my grandmother who worked polls, you have to stay, she would tell you what to do with that. So let's be honest. I'm just being serious.
So what is the remedy then in that case if we don't have enough poll workers?
Thank you for breaking them and not leaving.
Yeah, I mean, listen. My comfortability gets me in trouble in these changes. That's okay. I'll get myself in trouble today, Mr. Gibbs. You'll remember. Excuse me. Sure.
There's a long wait right now.
You have to stay until the end.
They don't get to leave until everyone is voted that's on the line.
Yeah, you know, and I've been through this too before. You know, if there's a long wait, look, you got to wait. There's a line, you have to wait. That's the process, you know?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. I appreciate you answering my questions. It's been amazing. Thank you, Mr. President.
Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
The Republican Conference will generally not be supporting this legislation, but if members do wish to support it, they can do so now by voting at their desks. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fall.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here at their desk.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote.
Thank you Thank you Mr. Anderson to explain his vote.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Constitution of the State of New York charges the legislature with establishing election procedures, and this piece of legislation, authored by my colleague, fulfills that responsibility by creating a clear remedy when access to voting is interrupted. Actually, if you look at Article 2, Section 8 of Election Administration, the Constitution expressly contemplates legislative regulation of election boards and election administration, and the bill gives the boards a uniform process to follow during disruption. I think that's important because disruptions happen all the time. I remember a few years ago there was a disruption at one of my poll sites in the Rockaways, and I think that just making sure that the poll workers, the board administrators, and all of the relevant staffers have a uniform protocol to follow is going to be key and important when these emergencies do come up. They're very far and few between, and we want to just make sure that those processes and procedures are there. I thank my colleague and his team for working on this piece of legislation, and I vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Anderson in the affirmative. Mr. Gibbs to explain his vote.
Madam Speaker, I rise to explain my vote. In 2022, in my district and my polling site, Jackie Robinson Educational Complex, we had a disruption in voting. We had a bogus phone call saying there was a bomb threat simply because a young man did not like Governor Kathy Hoku. As a result, two, three hours of voting was taken away from our constituents, many of whom were seniors, and did not get an opportunity to vote that year, and was very disappointed. This bill is just an opportunity to right a wrong, to tell the seniors who went to vote that day that we haven't forgotten about you, and we're working very hard here in Albany to secure your vote and make sure that you have an opportunity not only to vote, but vote safely. I want to thank the questions from my colleagues on the other aisle, and I want to thank my staff for putting this legislation together for me. I'm voting in the affirmative. Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gibson, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 96, nays 45. The bill is passed. Page 10. Rules Report 347. Clerk will read. Assembly Number 8192C. Rules Report 347. Ms. Lucas, an act to amend the education law. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Lucas.
Good evening to everyone. This bill would require museums that display works of art and artifacts, or arts and artifacts that were created using metal materials that were used in the exchange of enslaved human captives during the transatlantic slave period, to prominently display such a information on a sign or a placard.
Mr. Gandolfo.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few questions? Ms. Lucas, will you yield?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you. I appreciate that. So I was doing a little research on this, and this looks very similar to a bill we passed a couple years ago related to Holocaust-era art that was seized by the Nazis. So it's very similar in the framework here. So my question starts with almost the first line of the bill. It says, every museum which has on display identical works of art, it goes on. Every museum, does that apply to public museums, private museums? Is it possible to apply that requirement to a private museum?
Yes.
So even a private museum would have to display the placard outlined?
Yes.
Okay. Does the state have the authority to force a private museum to do that?
Yes. It's consistent with the authority that they have when displaying materials and artwork from the Holocaust.
OK. And now my next question is, how is it enforced? Is there any kind of task force that goes around and observes what's on display in museums that could potentially fit the definition in the bill? Then would they request or tell the museum that they have to display? I'm sorry, that was a lot. Can you just? I'll dial it back. How is this, I guess, administered? Is there any state task force or agency that would go around to museums and find artifacts or pieces of art that fit the description? And then they would, I guess, tell the museum that they have to put the placard up?
It would ultimately be the Arts and Historic Preservation Agency that oversees this. But there are also organizations out there that already have a list of some of the artifacts that are stolen. Of course, we can't know everything.
Right. Now, who determines the, I guess, historical timelines, the change of possession, whether something was seized involuntarily or purchased through legal means? How is that determined, and who would make the final determination if there's a dispute?
We kind of listed it during the time period in the bill, which includes the transatlantic slave periods from roughly 1500 to 1877.
Does that answer your question? Not exactly. I'll rephrase it. I'm giving you a lot of words in the questions. My brain is kind of foggy, so I don't even know half of what I'm saying right now, Ms. Lucas. Say a museum is told that you have to display this placard, and they disagree with the assessment, or maybe the curator of the museum says, we don't believe it fits the criteria. the donor who gave us this piece of art doesn't think it was seized involuntarily.
How would that dispute be resolved Well we kind of not going on people opinions or thoughts There is historic facts that are attached to these artifacts Like we know the Benin Bronzes, there's a history on that. Museums are designed in there to preserve history. And they have people that work there that are experts in this. So I would imagine that they would do their due diligence when someone comes to them and says yay or nay. Whether we say, hey, you know what, put this on, or somebody says it shouldn't be on, it is their responsibility to do their due diligence.
Okay. And I guess now that I'm reading the bill again, the word identifiable is there. So identifiable would, I guess, mean something of pretty, I guess, in the world of museums, a widely recognized piece of art or artifacts. So it would probably make it a little easier
for them to determine. It could be widely recognized or not. It could be something in there that just really connects to the history of what was stolen or taken or forcibly taken or however you want to describe it, but the true history of it would need to be told. Okay, and I think my final
Final question to clarify here. There's the piece about metals used in exchange and if that is used in other art. Can you provide an example of a metal that might show up in another artifact or some kind of art that would fall under this definition?
Sure. As I mentioned before, the Benin bronzes were crafted with a metal material traded from Europe to Benin in exchange for enslaved human captives. So that would be a more popular example.
Okay. And final question. If a museum is not in compliance, is there any penalty levied against them?
We haven't put anything within the bill, but that's a great idea. Maybe we'll see a chapter in a minute.
Thank you, Ms. Lucas. I appreciate you clarifying those questions for me.
Thank you for the questions.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Ms. Lucas, on the bill.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the bill. I rise in support of my bill, A-8192C. Museums play a vital role in preserving history and educating the public. but education is only meaningful when it includes the full truth. Throughout the transatlantic slave trade and the domestic slave trade, countless cultural artifacts, works of art, and valuable materials were taken through theft, seizure, forced sale, and other involuntary means. Many of these items remain on display today, often without any acknowledgement of how they were acquired. This bill simply requires museums to provide signage identifying artifacts that are known to have been stolen or created using materials exchanged for enslaved human captives It does not remove these items from public view Instead it provides visitors with important historical context By telling the complete story behind these objects, we honor individuals and communities whose labor, culture, and heritage were exploited. Transparency strengthens education and acknowledging difficult truths helps us better understand our shared history. And let me emphasize, we have a shared history. I respectfully ask for your support of A-8192C, and I want to also thank my colleague who did the bill in which we mimicked this after. And I hope I can say his name, Chuck Levine. Thank you.
Madam Speaker. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Levine, to explain his vote.
First, I want to commend and thank the sponsor, because I have a similar – it was a bill, It's now a law that requires that material stolen or procured by the Nazis or their allies during the Second World War bear this similar placard. We are here because of American democracy, and it is our obligation to preserve American democracy. And we're doing that at a time when there are really, really disgusting attempts to whitewash American history. Every great nation has its strengths. Every great and complex nation has its faults. But if we don't recognize those strengths and we don't recognize those faults, then we severely impair the ability of our children and our grandchildren to preserve our democracy. I'm very happy to vote in favor of this measure. And again, I commend the sponsor.
Mr. Levine in the affirmative. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 141, nays 0. The bill is passed. On the A calendar page 9 Rules Report 499 clerk will read Senate 88944 Rules Report 499 Senator Murray an act to amend the criminal procedure law An explanation has been requested, Ms. Romero.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill modifies various sections of the criminal procedure law to allow flexibility in our plea bargaining system, if and only if the judge, the district attorney, and the defense attorney all agree, and if the prosecutor and judge are of the opinion that the plea and sentence are in the interest of justice, then this law that we will hopefully pass today will allow the defendant to enter into a plea bargain with a sentence that is below the statutory minimum for that charge.
Thank you, Ms. Romero. Mr. Molotar.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?
Certainly.
Sponsor yields.
Thank you, Ms. Romero. So I want to go through the practical application of your bill. So it's my understanding that in New York State we have plea restrictions, meaning someone is charged by indictment after a grand jury with certain offenses, the court is restricted from accepting a reduced plea based upon our laws. Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay. And so, for example, the first two sections of your bill on page one would allow the court and the prosecution, if they both agree, they have to both agree, if they both agree, it would allow them to basically waive that law and would allow them to accept a plea reduction that is less than what the statute requires. Is that correct?
Well, not always. It doesn't always have to be necessarily a plea reduction. It could be a plea to the charge. It could also be a plea reduction, but the point is that it would be a plea bargain if the judge, district attorney, and defendant all agree, and there are interests of justice standards that are agreed upon and the district attorney and judge all agree are met. If and only if all of those conditions are existing, then there would be the possibility of a sentence that is below the statutory required.
Okay, so let's use an example. Let's say someone is charged with an A1 drug felony for possessing eight ounces of fentanyl. and they're indicted by a grand jury, and the top charge is an A1 felony, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. Under the current law that we have, the lowest plea that the court could accept on that charge would be a Class B felony, which is a one-step reduction. criminal possession of the Controlled substance in the second degree. The prosecution could say, I'd like to offer something less, but my hands are tied because of the statute. And the court would say, yeah, I can't accept anything less than a B felony on this charge. Is that correct?
Can you go A1 to A2? I believe you can go A1 to A2. I'm just checking with counsel, but the point of your question is plea bargaining. Can you get a reduced charge? Yes. And what was the second part of your question? And that's as low as you can go? Under the current law? You can go one step down, correct.
So is it A1 to A2 or is it A to B?
Let's make it easy. If it's an A2, you could go to a B. Is that right? Sure. Okay.
For the hypothetical we're in. But let's say maybe the defendant in that particular case agreed to testify, give information to the police, and testify against some other individuals, and maybe cooperate in a major narcotics investigation. And maybe also the defense attorney during the course of the plea negotiations was sharing some information about how this person got swept up into drug trafficking. Maybe there was a little bit of coercion involved. maybe the person had a very terrible upbringing and maybe was forced into the situation in some capacity, maybe had some mental limitations, even though the defense attorney was bringing up all of that, and even if the prosecutor wanted to offer something less than that B felony, and even if the court wanted to accept something less than that B felony, the current law prevents them from doing so. Is that correct?
Correct. The plea bargaining restrictions are extremely strict in that one can only go one less, correct? Right. And that's for some circumstances, right? Like a Class B drug felony can go two steps down to a Class D. You know, a Class B violent felony can go down to a Class D violent felony. Class C violent felony can go down to a Class D violent. It's not always a one-step, but there are very strict plea reductions under the criminal procedure laws as it exists right now. Is that correct? Correct. Once indicted, there are very strict, if following the criminal procedure law, there are very strict plea bargaining restrictions, yes. Hypothetically, one could dismiss the indictment, but it's not common, and frankly, in many jurisdictions, not... So that was something I was going to ask. In some courts this does happen where a prosecutor will charge a number of charges including some lesser offenses And where they feel like they can get that plea reduction they dismiss the top charge so that they can accept something less You're right. Probably doesn't happen a whole lot, but that is something that can happen. Isn't that right? Yeah.
Okay. Yes. Now, looking at page two of your bill, this does something a little bit different. So in this section, well, first I should probably start by saying we have sentence enhancement categories in New York State. So if you have a prior felony within 10 years, you can be sentenced as a second felony offender, just as an example, right? Do you want me to go through them for you? Well, I don't know if we want to bore everybody here. Oh, well, I'm happy to. Go ahead. Okay, so under CPL 400, there's the second felony offender or predicate felon, 400.21, second violent felony offender, 400.15, which means you have a current violent felony charge, and there's a prior violent felony charge, or a persistent violent felony offender, meaning you have two or more prior violent felonies and you are currently charged with a violent, currently charged with a violent felony.
Right.
And those are the ones that are also, as mentioned in the bill. And those are all aggravating factors that increase your sentencing exposure, the prior criminal history.
Right. So, God bless you.
So if you have, if you're a second felony offender, a second felony drug offender, or or a second violent felony offender, and the court finds that you are one of those three, then what would happen is your minimum sentence would actually increase. It's mandatory minimum increase. Is that right?
Yes, in addition to the aforementioned court parts that I put on under CPL 400, yes.
Right. And if you're found to be a persistent violent felony offender, that means that you have three or more, well, you have two or more prior violent felonies within the last 10 years and what's that?
Excluding prison time.
Excluding prison time, yes.
But that's a mandatory A-level sentence. So the same sentence that you could get for murder, life imprisonment, you could get if you satisfy the persistent violent felony categories, right? And what that means for people watching is that you have life on the back end.
Right. Life on the back end. It's an indeterminate sentence, right? Yeah. So this section would permit the court to accept a plea, and if the people, the prosecutor, requires it, well, I have to confess, this is a little bit confusing, this section. So it's my understanding that this section allows the court and the prosecution to agree, basically, to sentence someone outside without designating them one of those categories, one or more of those categories. Is that correct?
The prosecution and the judge.
And the judge. Very important factor in this bill is that you need all parties to agree to this agreed upon plea bargain Yes Right and the thing that and I talked to you about this before the thing that I find a little bit confusing is that under this section the court can take a plea, and then before sentence, the prosecution can say, I think the defendant is a second violent felony offender, and I want the defendant to be sentenced as such, and if the defendant doesn't agree to that, the defendant can withdraw their plea.
Is that right? So what is contemplated in that section of the law is that in plea bargaining, when the defense occasionally does not agree to a sentence, the defendant always preserves the right to withdraw their plea bargain. And so this is including in this language that if the defense does not agree to that enhancement as a part of the plea bargain, that the defendant is able to withdraw their plea if the DA makes it a part of their plea bargain. as created in the due process.
Like, if they don't want this very special and unique sentence, then the defendant can withdraw the plea to this very special and intense plea bargain and try, you know, their mandatory sentence. They won't get this beautiful, special, unique sentence. They can try what is contemplated under law. Would you agree with me that the best practice in this scenario would be for everyone, the prosecution, the judge, and the defendant, to agree prior to the plea? whether they're going to apply for the felony enhancement or the sentence enhancement category.
I mean, wouldn't that be best practice instead of taking a plea, then the prosecution says, well, I think they're a second violent felony offender, and then having to withdraw the plea. Probably best practice would be they do it before they take the plea, wouldn't it? Undoubtedly. However, the language as codified in this law is a reassurance or a reaffirmation that the defense retains the right to withdraw their plea if they don't agree with that additional requirement as the DA must require as a part of the plea bargain. as defendants do retain that right to withdraw their plea if they don't agree with plea bargains.
I think we can all agree, though, that the defendant would want to enter into this unique special plea bargain we are creating here. But if they do not want the special plea bargain, they do not have to take it. And I just want it to be clear for the record that if they do things out of order here, and all three parties do this, well, both parties in the court do this, at the time of the plea, it's not going to upset the apple cart, right? It would be best for the court and probably for all parties if they organized this on the record, did it beforehand, and ensured that all parties were aware of it, I agree. But, of course, the defendant always retains the right to withdraw the plea if they don't agree or don't feel like it's right for them.
but I understand where you coming from I agree Thank you Now it my understanding that the District Attorneys Association supports this bill Is that right Yes, in addition to OCA, Vera Institute, Center for Community Alternatives, and Legal Aid.
Okay. And I know that there are a couple of organizations that are also in support of this bill. and feel as if it's an important step towards the Marvin Mayfield Act, which I haven't read that act, but it's my understanding that the Marvin Mayfield Act would eliminate mandatory minimums across the board. Do you agree with those organizations that have provided support memos?
I'll take my second 15.
Thank you. On your second 15, sir.
Thank you.
Would you agree that this is a step, or is this something completely different from that?
I believe that this bill is helpful for judicial economy.
My reason for supporting this bill is that, frankly, when I was a public defender, I engaged in plea bargaining and engaged, frankly, in long, expensive, intense emotional trials that were costly to the court and engaged in long, intense sentences with my client that I don't believe were helpful. I'll give you an example. Mark Tora, stage four lung cancer over the age of 65. He had two prior home burglaries attenuated from over 30 years ago. He had a bad time. He fell on hard times. He was using drugs when he was younger and did undoubtedly commit those burglaries in the second degrees. He came to me much later in life, but undoubtedly had a relapse. The district attorney's office indicted him on a Berg second, but it was much later, later, later in his life. They were bound by the mandatory sentencing and that he was a mandatory violent persistent, meaning that they had to have life on the back end for this man that had stage four lung cancer. They had to offer him life on the back end, a plea bargaining offer. And my client said, screw it. We'll take it to trial. I said, Mark, you have lung cancer. This isn't a good idea. Maybe we can get you the best possible offer at the lowest end of the plea bargaining. And he said, I'm not going down without a fight. Undoubtedly, he was convicted because we knew that he committed that birth second. And what I wanted for him was something maybe more empathetic, maybe something that would be more helpful for him that could actually get him access to treatment and help and something that could get him assistance for his drug treatment, we ended up taking a two-and-a-half-week trial as well. That's just one example that I wish I was able to use something like this, that the judge and the DA both also said, my hands are literally tied, I cannot offer anything else. I said, okay. To answer your question more directly, the point of this bill is that judges and district attorneys want more flexibility. Do I think that this is going to help people? Millions of people. No. Do I think this is even going to help thousands of people? No. I think that this is going to help a small percentage of people in cases where the judge and the DA and the defense attorney, obviously, agree. And it will help. It will do a little bit of good. I do not think it's going to open the floodgates. I do not think that this is going to be a bill that radically changes the system, but it will allow for some positivity in cases where there is a literal interest of justice opportunity where judges and DAs want to do some good for a client that makes sense. And I hope that answers your question in a way that is, like, gives you where I'm coming from with my experience. And I think that I'm not trying to open the floodgates. I'm trying to help a very small percentage of people, which would only make sense if the judge and the DA agree.
Do you think that because, you know, we have 62 district attorneys and they all sort of operate a little bit differently, Do you think that there could be maybe an uneven application of this law across the state where, you know, some DAs who maybe feel that the interest of justice is a much broader sort of concept will be more likely to offer a plea reduction from a violent felony or a major drug case? than some other DAs who maybe think the interest of justice is a much more narrower scope and will never offer it?
Yeah, I can't answer that because it's going to be on a case-by-case basis. It's going to be carefully and thoughtfully used. And it's my understanding that both the prosecution and the court have to agree, right?
Yes. Okay. So just because the DA wants to offer maybe a particular plea reduction, a judge in that case could say, I'm not going to agree to that, right?
Yes, and I can just say from my personal experience as a mitigation attorney in my county that I've come with mitigation many times to the court saying that, you know, my client should be offered XYZ. and I've had the district attorney be on my side fully on board to the court and the judge has said absolutely not I've had the court be on my side and we've presented it to the DA and the DA had said absolutely not so it's it's from personal experience it's very challenging to get all parties to agree to a mitigation type situation it happens and when it does it's beautiful but like I said I do think that this will be a narrowly tailored and thoughtful opportunity for the court. Thank you, Ms. Romero, for answering my
questions. I'm gonna go on the bill. Thank you. On the bell. Thank you. So, I put my microphone down. So, you know, I've been a defense lawyer and I've been a prosecutor and from my personal experience, every case is unique. The The defendant is a unique person unique individual The witnesses are all unique The evidence is unique And you know sometimes in the midst of a case something happens and you need, both as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer and even a judge, you need the flexibility to achieve a just result. and a just result isn't always, you know, sorry the law says you have to go to prison for a long period of time because we're talking about an individual person. And I think the built-in protection in this particular bill is that the prosecutor and the court have to agree to this plea reduction. It's not just one side. So I think there are a lot of benefits to this bill. On the flip side, I am concerned about the lack of maybe sort of a uniform application of our mandatory sentencing guidelines in New York. You know, there's a reason why we have sentence categories like second felony offender, second violent felony offender, second drug offender, and a persistent violent felony offender. It's because what this legislature has said in the past is if you continue to commit crimes, if you continue to ignore the laws of society and hurt people, you should be in prison for longer periods of time for the protection of society and hopefully so that you can rehabilitate. So, some people I think, and maybe I'm a little bit, I haven't quite made up my mind on this particular bill, but I think some people will be very uncomfortable with the court and the prosecution being able to deviate from those mandatory sentence enhancement categories. You know, it's not always the case that judges and prosecutors apply the law as evenly as they probably should. and depending on where you live in the state and what kind of DA you have, you could see maybe this could open the floodgates, I'll say it, and essentially eliminate mandatory sentences on violent felony crimes. And in other parts of the state, this won't get used at all. So we don't know. We just don't know. So I'd like to thank the sponsor for answering my questions, and we'll see how I vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Tenusis.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Absolutely.
Sponsor yields.
So, Ms. Romero, I'm not going to be as extensive as Mr. Molitor was, but just wanted to ask just a few questions. so obviously this bill would apply only to post indictment cases right yes okay so this would not
apply to cases that are can actually correct yes of course I mean you can enter into a plea bargain um any time Right And thank you for giving me the ability to correct myself So you can enter into this plea bargain at any time, and you are able to do it pre-indictment as well, obviously.
Right.
and one is still open and exposed to the CPL 400 intensity, even pre-indictment.
Correct. So you are obviously, you know, I'm sure across the state people, you know, plea bargain on felonies and SCIs, for example. But in regards to this bill, this bill would apply after an indictment is had on the particular case, right?
No. You can enter into a plea bargain, and this plea bargain opportunity would be open to...
Oh, sorry. Actually, you're right. Okay. Thanks. I just want to clarify for the public. Okay. Never mind.
No, it's okay. It's late, so I understand.
And just to be sure, right now, if this bill were not to be enacted, okay, the prosecutor obviously would have to, if the prosecutor wanted to, for example, dismiss the top count in an indictment, for example, that prosecutor would have to make an application to the court and convince the court to dismiss that top count for the purposes of disposition, correct?
Can you repeat? Sorry, I was just thinking about post-indictment plea bargaining.
Sure, no problem. So the way that the law is right now and the way that the potential practice is right now is if a defense counsel and a prosecutor got into an agreement as to a plea bargain and the top count, for example, of an indictment had to be dismissed, the prosecutor would make an application to the court to seek the court's permission to dismiss the top count on that indictment for the purposes of that disposition, correct?
Yeah.
Okay.
And the court, of course, would potentially grant that application given what the prosecutor says is the reason for that dismissal, correct?
Okay. Yes.
Are you cross-examining me? Sorry. Yes.
Yes. Okay. Yes. Now, we mentioned predicate felons, for example, and I know it's late at night, and we do have some people, hopefully, in the general public that are watching this that are knowing that we're working at 10 o'clock at night. But if you could just – what is a predicate felon?
So a predicate felon means you've been convicted of a felony within the past 10 years. And that also timeline means that you're taking out prison time as well.
And of course, if you could just tell us the public, what is a violent predicate felon?
A violent predicate felon means that that is a violent felony. So that felony within the last 10 years is a violent felony.
And of course there's different sentencing guidelines because of your history, right?
Mm-hmm.
Okay. And of course the reason why you're introducing this bill is because of that history there's
a certain sentencing that you bound by because of that indictment right Correct Okay Thank you very much on the bill Sure On the bill Madam Speaker I have there no question in my mind that the sponsor intention
here, and I'm sure the Senate sponsor as well, is very well intentioned because they are looking to streamline plea bargains that occur in courts across our state every single day. However, there is a reason why there are certain sentencing guidelines in this state, why the defendant's criminal history matters when these plea bargains are being negotiated across the state. There is something that occurs to a case once a person's case goes before a grand jury, and there is an indictment brought forth by a grand jury in the county where that potential alleged crime has occurred. And the way that it works now is that in order to plea bargain down an indictment, the prosecutor, the district attorney, the one that actually sought the indictment, would have to get permission from the court to dismiss the top count, for example, or two counts or three counts on the indictment and seek the court's permission to get that count dismissed in order to move forward. on a plea bargain. Although this law before us, the prosecutor would have to consent as well as a defense attorney, I feel that this law potentially will not give the correct responsibility to that prosecutor to actually lay out there to the court the reason for that dismissal and the reason why those charges need to be dismissed. I've said this many times in this chamber that the prosecutor has a duty not just to the general public, not just to the victim of a crime, but the prosecutor has a duty to the defendant. They have a duty to ensure that the defendant's rights are not violated. And the prosecutor being the one that has the duty to actually seek that indictment in that grand jury, it is the prosecutor's responsibility to outline why those counts should be dismissed on that indictment. Because the prosecutor should be accountable to the general public and to that victim. And I feel that this bill potentially takes that responsibility a little bit away from that prosecutor and just makes it okay for him, for he or she, to consent along with the defense counsel and the court. It may be helpful in certain cases, but I feel that it diminishes the role of that prosecutor as to what their role actually is in the criminal justice process. The unfortunate part is that the actions of this legislature the past few years have not exactly led to the confidence of many people around the state that they have the public safety of the general public and victims in mind. So there are people in this state that worry that if we pass this law and now make it easier to dismiss certain counsel and indictments, just by consent, that we may be coming here during the next few years and maybe even taking away that consent of the prosecutor, making it even easier. So I put various things on the record. As I said, I am pretty sure, very sure that the sponsor's intentions are well and why she's pushing forward this piece of legislation. But given all the reasons I have put on the record now, I vote no on this bill and I encourage all my colleagues to do so. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Moranello.
Thank you.
Will the sponsor yield for a couple questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, Judge.
Sponsor yields.
Would it be a fair statement to say charges can be brought either by indictment before a complaint or can be just a regular charge?
In general?
Talking about like an indictment, but there had been no underlying charge before the indictment.
Correct.
Are you familiar with judicial diversion?
Yes, Judge.
Judicial diversion, if I'm correct, would be where, depending on the charge, and there are certain categories that would qualify for it, would allow an agreement between a defendant, a defense attorney, the district attorney, and the court to perform certain functions in exchange for a reduction in charges. Would that be correct?
Yes.
Okay. So let's take an indictment. Let's start with the indictment, where an indictment comes out and there's a minimum decrease in the plea bargain from an indictment, but it still has a minimum mandatory to it. Okay? And the defendant qualifies for judicial diversion, goes through all of the processes, and he's accepted.
Okay?
Are you with me on that so far?
Yes.
Now, if the defendant performs all of the functions of the requirements, the agreement would be that he gets sentenced to the agreed upon sentence. Would that be correct?
Are you speaking about the bill or a different judicial diversion hypothetical?
No, no, I'm just talking about moving into where this could apply. Okay. So he completes the process, and they still have to incarcerate him based upon the agreement on the minimum mandatory. Correct?
Right, Judge.
So if the court feels that that defendant has not only completed all of the requirements but has gone above and beyond, without this, that court would still be restricted to incarcerate that person. Am I correct?
Essentially, Judge, under mandatory minimums, yes. But what's special here is that these are really unique and intense.
I'm not finished. Oh, okay.
I wasn't sure if you wanted me to answer your question.
Let me finish. Okay. So now the court is sitting there with a dilemma that they have someone who's overproduced on their rehabilitation, gotten a degree, gotten married, has children, because the rehabilitation, because of the courts, may have been two or three years. And it could take that long sometimes. Would you agree with that?
If not longer, yes.
Would you agree that this can be then utilized in that position Yes Judge and I think that this could be used in rehabilitative courts
that this could be used in mitigation courts, this type of plea bargain, in the same exact way that you're referencing, that the interest of justice type standard could be created in a mitigation type court where people could prove their ability to show exceptional circumstances. And if I may, the interest of justice standard as codified in this language is nature and circumstance of the criminal conduct, available evidence as available to all parties, the history and character of the defendant that would obviously be put onto the record by the defense. and as I mentioned many times, but it bears repeating that the prosecutor and judge must both be of the opinion that the plea and the sentence are both of the interests of justice in order for this plea bargain and sentence to go forward, in order for anyone to go underneath the statutory minimum, which are all of those things must be met, each of them individually.
Thank you. I thank the sponsor for answering my questions on the bill.
On the bill.
The reason I was going there is I'm going to give you practical experience. When I was a judge, I used to do much judicial diversion. I had a defendant. I'll never forget this one. And we could only make the agreement he did qualify for judicial diversion. His crimes qualified for it, and there's a category. And my very first speech on this floor was supporting our majority leader's addition of crimes to that, because I understood the concept and I supported it. But in this situation, this individual, and we needed the ability to have him know he still could go to prison, even if he did a good job. Well, he did an exceptional job. Got a college degree, never missed one of his treatment program appointments, never showed dirty for drugs when we tested him in court. Got married, got a degree, got a job, and his wife got pregnant. He finished the program. I was saddled with putting him in jail for two years, and I couldn't do it. I got called on the carpet by the administrative judge for the criminal courts, and I still refused. I argued and argued, finally brought the DA in, had him look, and I convinced the DA to allow the charge to be withdrawn, take a plea to a lesser charge, and we were able to give him a conditional discharge. He has gone on with his life, and he's very successful. The reason I'm bringing this up is you need a hammer sometimes to get their attention. But this bill, should it become law, would have alleviated a lot of what had to go through my getting called on the carpet and that we might have been able to resolve this in a much more civil manner. From practical experience, I don't see this as a step towards avoiding or eliminating minimum mandatories. What I see it as is a way that we can keep minimum mandatories, but have an escape hatch if we need it. And remember one of the things we always argue in this chamber is judicial discretion And we argue and I argued against taking it away This continues judicial discretion. You need the prosecutor and the defense attorney. With that being said, I will support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same because of the practical experience I've been able to put on the record.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Read the last action.
This act shall take effect immediately.
Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So while I expect a variety of votes on this matter, the Republican conference will generally be opposing the bill. But like I said, if there are exceptions, people are certainly free to cast those now at their seats. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fall.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so at their desk. Thank you.
The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Romero to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe in small incremental change. This bill will not help millions or maybe even thousands of people, but for the defendants that are involved in these plea bargains, maybe the hundreds of people, we will have done a little bit of good today. I'm proud to support this bill. I want to thank Alana, the Speaker, Jen Ashley, Judge Zayas, also the two cool girls that were behind me that are now maybe somewhere else, Also, OCA, VERA, the Center for Community Alternatives, and the District Attorneys Association of New York, all organizations that for a very unique moment have all come together to be on this bill and agree that it's a step forward for the criminal legal system. With that, I vote in the affirmative, and I'm very appreciative of everyone that helps us get here.
Thank you.
Ms. Romero in the affirmative.
Mr. Molitor to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I made a decision, finally. So if you're a DA who abuses this escape hatch and lets everyone get a plea deal, then you're responsible to the voters that elected you. If you're a judge who abuses this and lets people get plea deals that shouldn't, you're responsible to the people that elected you. but I think it's just and fair that we should treat individual defendants according to their individual circumstances. So I'll be voting yes.
Mr. Mullet on the negative.
Oh.
Ooh, Mr. Mullet on the affirmative.
down. Mr. Otis, to explain his vote. I'll be voting aye, but I just wanted to compliment the sponsor and all of the colleagues who debated on this issue. This was an intelligent, legal discussion. It was not a political discussion. And I think for all attorneys in the room, I think we need to put in for CLE credit for being here for that debate Congratulations to all of for really a very good dialogue Thank you Mr Otis in the affirmative Mr Gibbs to explain his vote
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. Listening to Judge Maranello just a little while ago, I thought about my experiences. It's no secret that I'm New York's first formerly incarcerated New York State Legislature, the country's second. And in my experience with the law and being arrested and accepting the plea bargain, I wasn't given an option. The judge understood my case. The district attorney understood my case. And it seemed like the legal aid attorney understood my case, but they couldn't come to an agreement on the charge. Though self-defense, they all agreed that a young black man with a legal aid would not receive a self-defense charge. And instead, they gave me manslaughter B with a promise that I would serve three years. And in expediency and in fear, I accepted that plea bargain. A10024 recognizes that justice is not a one-size-fits-all. It allows judges and prosecutors in appropriate cases to consider the full circumstances of a person's conduct and background and reach a resolution that serves fairness, accountability, and the interest of justice. This gives the court the flexibility. This bill helps avoid outcomes caused by rigid plea rules. It allows prosecutors and judges to resolve unique cases more fairly. It recognizes that not every case fits neatly in its legal box. So in closing, I'm saying I'm affirmative on this bill, and I want to encourage all my colleagues to do the same.
Let's make justice fair for all.
Mr. Gibbs in the affirmative.
Mr. Tenusas to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the sponsor and my colleagues. I think it was a pretty very good discussion here today. And I know obviously I have some colleagues that will be voting yes on this bill. I just felt it necessary to explain why I am voting no on this. On its face, I would say, yes, this bill could be a tool to be utilized to actually dispose of cases in the interest of justice. and everything, of course, in the criminal justice system, as I've always stated from the very beginning, needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis. However, the reason I am voting no is because I believe that there are certain responsibilities in the different roles involving the criminal justice system. The prosecutor has certain responsibilities, defense counsel has certain responsibilities, responsibilities the judge has certain responsibilities I think the greatest responsibilities in that is the actual district attorneys position and I believe that there shouldn't be a law passed to put to basically take that district attorney off the hook in terms of having to explain themselves as to why certain charges should be dismissed and I believe that that district attorney has responsibility to the public, to the victim, and to the defendant. While I understand the many yes votes that I see here today, I myself, given my own personal beliefs, will be in the negative. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tanousa is in the negative. Mr. Saez to explain his vote.
Explain my vote. Listening to both sides and being an attorney myself, very often when When there's a criminal case, the expectation is there's equity in the law and it protects every individual by the same rules and procedures. But we all know that in anything, when we set policy and rules, there's always best practices, but one size does not fit all. And very often we've dealt with cases where the judge and the prosecutor both agree that there are special circumstances where the law forbids them from making a decision that they feel is more fair and more just. So for that reason, allowing that discretion, we all speak about allowing the court to have discretion. This is a case that allows discretion in special cases, and that's why I'm in support of this legislation.
Mr. Saez in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 105, nays 36.
The bill is passed on the main calendar, page 6, rules report 239.
Clerk will read. Assembly number 10357, Rules Report 239, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the general business law.
On a motion by Ms. Rosenthal, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosenthal.
Ms. Rosenthal. What is it?
Explanation.
This bill provides comprehensive health data privacy protections for individuals regarding their regulated health data and provides for the rights of consumers and responsibility of processors regarding regulated health data.
Mr. Boomer-Grantz.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
Sponsor yields.
Ms. Rosenthal.
Mr. Blumenkrantz. This isn't the first time we've debated this bill. We've seen it already. Can you tell us a little bit about the changes you've made since the governor's veto message regarding maybe the definition surrounding what is and is not considered health data?
Sure. One sec. Here I go. So generally, the definition of regulated entity and regulated health information were amended. There's a new verification process. It eliminates the 24 waiting period that we spoke a lot about last year and there are additional exemptions for federal law Basically, those are the ones. Okay.
So when you talk about a regulated entity, Section 4, this means that an entity that controls the processing of regulated health information of an individual who is a New York resident, or B, is physically present in New York while that individual is in New York, or C, is seeking to receive services in New York if the entity is located in New York. So what does physically present mean in this current definition? Does the company have to be physically present?
Does just the individual? The individual is physically present in New York. So let's say I'm wearing an aura ring and I don't have the tracking for geolocation on and I live in Ohio and I travel to Buffalo to get some food. Would aura for that specific customer then be violating the law, even though they don't know where the customer is because they are receiving health information under this law and they're not a New York resident? So you're not a New York resident? They're not a New York resident, no. But you are in New York? They drove into New York for the day. For the time that you are physically present in New York, you're subject to New York's laws. So if I'm aura, right, they make those rings that track my heartbeat, which would be considered a vital sign. That I don't use, but some do. An Apple Watch. Yeah. Let's say I don't have geolocation options on my Apple Watch, but I am receiving my heartbeat. How is Apple supposed to know where I am, and how are they supposed to know that they are no longer in compliance with the law? If you do not have your geolocation tracking on, then you've opted out of them tracking you. I have, but I'm still opted in to, under this definition, sensitive health data, because I'm receiving information about my heartbeat. So I just want to know how compliance is supposed to work for a company like that, right? Because they don't know where I am, but they do know that they would be out of compliance if they served a non-New York resident in New York. You have to write it. They can't process their source information unless it's strictly necessary. So they wouldn't be able to process that information unless it were strictly necessary. Okay, so you utilize this term strictly necessary. Most privacy laws use reasonably necessary as a standard. Why did you choose the far more restrictive strictly necessary standard? And can you define what strictly necessary means within the definition of this bill? Strictly necessary means for example if you wish to purchase let see some weight loss medication and it would be sent to you Strictly necessary would be your name your address anything necessary for them to process it and send you the product Okay, so it brings me to maybe some examples you could help me with, because this law is pretty confusing, especially for maybe some of those who have to comply. A retailer's algorithm notices a shopper buying prenatal vitamins and starts showing baby ads. Is that retailer now processing the regulated health information? And if yes, has the bill just made all of Target's entire recommendation engine illegal without having that separate authorization for the user? I mean, yes, that would be health information. But the way a place like Target, Target like labels what category the product is in. So that would necessarily be, you know, a health and wellness, whereas your candy bar would not be. Well, the reason I ask this question is because section 1122B13, you state that, and I find this pretty sweeping and still pretty concerning, any data that's derived or extrapolated from non-health information by algorithms or machine learning. So with that definitional inclusion within the bill, I find that you sweep into other categories of non-health data that may potentially touch health data, which is why virtually every industry that this may touch is still pretty concerned about the language. First of all, the Washington state law has comparable language, and there hasn't been any trouble for the industry to comply. So is your language parallel to Washington state's law? It is very, very similar and has the same effects, basically. So in the context of that same, the inference clause that I recently brought up, a search engine, right? A what? If I go into a search engine and I type in knee pain, has the act of... I can't hear you. You type in... Knee pain. Like my knee hurts. Knee pain. Why does my knee hurt? Knee pain. Has the act of returning the results of a search engine is that using curated, regulated health information? And if so, is it the website's obligation to report and ask for permission, or is it the search engines? Or is it both? Will I have to go through the process of clicking through an acceptance when I Google it, because it's health information now, And then when I go to the website? I mean, if they're not processing that information or selling it, then it's irrelevant. Well, if I go on Google and I input information, they would fundamentally be processing it, right? Processing is strictly necessary information. So you just looking for information but not to obtain a service OK So given that if I am going to a grocery store and I am part of a grocery store loyalty program that now covered under this what happens Walk me through it. So do I need 12-point font authorization forms at every checkout point, or every time I purchase something? It depends on what you're purchasing. So is the grocer going to have to look at what I'm purchasing to determine whether or not I have to comply with the law? Well, I mean, generally the grocer, it depends. Are you talking about like the neighborhood bodega? They're really not in the business of using your information. But in general, stores and cabochers... Let's say I'm going to Stop and Shop. Sorry? Let's say I'm going to something like Stop and Shop. I go to stop and shop. I go to buy my groceries. I also happen to buy some prenatal vitamins. They're going to have to disclose to me that they may be utilizing HealthEta or no longer utilize HealthEta. What? So what does that mean? So they, because that can be reasonably linked to your health, they would need to get consent. So when would they need to get consent? If I'm at Stop and Shop and I go to the counter, when they scan the item, now it's like when you're over 18, you're like, now you need to consent to, you know, you're over 18. It would be the same thing with health data if I'm purchasing something that could be considered sensitive. Hold on one second. I don't consent to sell anything strictly necessary to the transaction. For a sale, it's strictly necessary. Okay, so you are asking for that product. So, you know, your consent, it is strictly necessary. And I see how the application can apply online, right, because it's easier to collect information that way, but on the fly in a grocery store, if they are tracking what you're purchasing over time for loyalty program purposes, not necessarily for the purposes you may be looking to catch all here, they'd still have to fall into the compliance realm, wouldn't they? There'd still have to be an acceptance of the use of the information when you go to purchase something, and I just, you know, when you're at a grocery store. I'm not necessarily sure how that was going to work. If they're selling your information, which would not be allowed, if they're selling it, that's something different. If they need it just to, you know, they don't need consent to sell you prenatal vitamins. What's necessary for the transaction is perhaps your credit card or you want to get bonus points, your loyalty card. If you want to repurpose that information in ways that benefit the grocer and not you, and that you would not expect they would have to get consent. Can you tell me how your bill affects the use of data for R&D purposes? So not necessarily selling it, but utilizing it for the use of research and development. So if it's disaggregated, so you know, perhaps there's a profile of female, age 35, lives in a city, or whatever, you know, if it doesn't, if you can't read it and identify it as Joanne, then it's fine. but dissimilar to HIPAA because this goes further as to what may be qualified versus the federal regulations, correct? Well, yeah, but it's different than HIPAA. It is. So going back to just some of my examples because I'd love to understand who is and is not strictly necessary to comply. So if I go into an app in my phone looking for a map to get directions to what turns out to be a clinic, Is the navigation company now live? Wait, it turns out to be? Yeah. Sorry, it was just a little loud. It turns out to be a clinic. So if I use a map to go to a clinic, now they understand in my search history they have me going to a clinic, maybe even regularly they can see that information. They use it for traffic data, not necessarily health purposes. Right. Would they still be caught in the regulatory? They're not using it for health purposes? You're just going to a parking lot? Well, you're putting the input is a piece of what you consider within your definitions health information, traveling to and from a clinic. Would that be caught within the definitions here? I mean, were you going to the clinic or were you just parking there? I put in my phone, I'm going to a dermatology clinic. I put in the actual name of the clinic. name of the clinic. So that could be reasonably linkable to your health information. So when I do that, does Waze then, let's say I'm using Waze or Google Maps, do I have to understand what I'm consenting to each and every time I put in that address? Is it something when I sign up for the app they have to do? How does that framework look for your everyday user? Well, when you sign up for the app. So never again after that. They just have to do it once. Once a year? Every year, every 12 months? Yeah. Good. So I'm curious how this affects the small business that might have or utilize this information. Let's say I'm a small business, but I utilize something like Stripe or Square for payment processing. Am I a... Mr. Blumer-Krantz, are you taking your second? Yeah, I'll take my second. Okay, go ahead. Am I on the hook for liability if that health data is utilized one way or the other, or is Stripe or another payment processing company that I'm utilizing is a small business on the hook? Who has to pay for the compliance metrics that are going to be necessary here now? Well, in other states, there are measures that companies will be occurring some costs. You know, there would be some compliance costs. What about a landlord? If they receive a request from a tenant for disability accommodations, landlords trying to understand the metrics surrounding what they need to do in their buildings, they own multiple buildings. Is keeping that file on the record conceivably considered sensitive health data under the catch definitions you have in the bill I mean the landlord is not selling or using your health data They could potentially be utilizing that data for non-health purposes, understanding how they can better serve the building when it comes to treating individuals with disabilities more fairly. But they're collecting the data nonetheless, which would be caught and encompassed within the bill. I think that's a little far-fetched. It happens. Does it? It was one of what, where landlords collect information. I mean, I thought I knew what landlords do. I didn't realize they'd do that too. I'm sorry? I have never ascribed that kind of action to a landlord. I know about other things that they do that perhaps are unsavory, but I never heard that they're going to capture, you know, you're disabled and what are they going to do with that? So I think that's a far-fetched example. It depends on the accommodation you receive, but I understand that, again, I'm looking at the most far-fetched because the definitions are so broadly reaching. Well, you know, I must say that in the event that a company is really perplexed or confused, that's why we have an attorney general who can answer those kinds of thorny questions. Has the attorney general's office since the passage the last time and this time said they're prepared to subscribe to each and every single business that may be willing to? Yes, and there is no private right of action here, which we did have, so we do have to rely on the Attorney General. So they're well aware that it would fall under their aegis. So under this bill, violations can result in penalties of up to $15,000 per violation or 20% of revenue received in New York. How could these violations arise from a single database containing thousands of customers, or is it, you know, that if there was a single breach, how would that work? What does that metric look like? Can you repeat the beginning part? Because I didn't hear it. Just how the violation system is supposed to work, especially for businesses that might not be operating with the level of sophistication of, say, an Amazon. No, more than 15. Okay, so... Per violation, which is how they would get. Okay, so the penalties are no more than $15,000 per violation. Or 20% of revenue in New York. No, that's not currently included in the bill? No. Is this Allie watching? No, but I heard the answer is there. Did you have a follow-up question? Is there a single organization representing New York businesses that currently supports this bill in its current form? I don't know. I don't know that, you know, that's something you could find out. I have. Okay, good. I don't know. Well, I ask because you have companies in areas and sectors, credit card, you have businesses and coalitions in multiple different spaces that you wouldn't think would be interested or concerned with the catch-all of the language here who are. Do you feel like your bill is creating a serious regulatory burden, and do you have an estimated cost to consumer or business on how to comply with this regulatory framework? Absolutely absolutely not As much as we in New York State like to break ground and be the first Washington State has successfully implemented this They do have a private right of action. There have been none. And this bill is interoperative with other states' privacy laws, and our child data requires similar provisions that are protective of a child's personal data. So I think they are used to complying, and it's not anything really new or revolutionary. Okay, so just going on into compliance a little bit more. A customer demands deletion of all regulated health information, But the company is required by tax law or by a litigation hold or insurance regulation to keep the underlying record. The bill does exempt the deletion necessary to comply with legal obligations, but who decides what's necessary? And will the company receive a penalty either way, or would it have to ask for compliance from the AG's office? I mean, once again, the AG would be the best source of guidance. And they will be providing rules and regulations that may be helpful in complying with the law. Under your definitions in this bill, is there any data held by any modern business that an algorithm couldn't conceivably link to health data, health inference here, under your definition of health inference? I mean, I... I'm just trying to see because it seems like this starts as a health bill and ends as a data regulation bill. No, no. It's actually companies that are pulling your data and inferring certain health conditions. It's the companies themselves that are doing this, so that they can use the information, sell the information, market to you. And, for example, and this happened in 2012, Target interpreted somebody buying lotion, fragrance-free, that the purchaser was pregnant, started sending ads for baby products. This is something that the person had not told their family, their friends, and their parent saw the ads for baby products. So this is target inferring from the purchase a health condition. So, but we're, I'm concerned about innovation in this bill too, because where it starts that way, it does devolve. You have within the inference clause and the R&D exclusion, you sort of say two things that are contradictory. You say it says it can quote, improve a product, improving a product is allowed, and then in the research and development it is excluded. So you can't use the data for research and development to improve it, but you are allowed to use it for improvements without complying. So which is it? If I'm using it for improvements but I don't call it R&D, it wouldn't qualify or it would? It seems like there's a bit of a... It has to be de for R purposes But not for innovation purposes So improving a product is allowed So I can use that non data to improve my product Yes, yes. But I can't use it as a form of research or development for product improvement. You know, if that's an area of concern, we can have the AG clarify. I really think that it'd be great to get that clarity here on the record too, but I understand that they'll be definitely working on some of the kinks in this. I think that's all my questions for today from you, Ms. Rosenthal. Thank you. Thank you so much. On the bill. On the bill. Everyone agrees that sensitive health information should be protected. The question is whether we should pass a bill so broad that Governor Hochul has vetoed a nearly identical version because of the scope and concerns on clarity. This legislation goes far beyond protecting medical records. It regulates information that might merely allow a health condition to be inferred. Not diagnosed, not treated, not recorded by a doctor, but inferred. As a result, businesses across New York will be forced to guess what data is covered and what isn't. They'll be forced to hire lawyers and interpret vague definitions or navigate one of the most restrictive policy frameworks in the nation. Hospitals have concerns, banks have concerns, credit cards and credit unions have concerns, technology companies have concerns, and small businesses have concerns. When everyone your bill affects is very concerned about its passage and implementation, it's reason to pause and second guess whether or not we're getting it right on the first or second try. New Yorkers deserve privacy protections that are clear, that are targeted, and that don't get in the way of daily life and don't make products inherently more expensive to meet regulatory frameworks. What they do deserve is not having another Albany mandate built on ambiguity, uncertainty, and unintended consequences. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. A party vote has been requested.
Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be not in favor of this legislation, but if there are exceptions, members should vote now at their seats. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Foll. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this bill. For those that would like to be an exception, they can do so at their desk.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote.
Mr. Otis to explain his vote. Briefly, I'd like to compliment the sponsor on the bill. The number one value that we should be backing up in legislation like this is the right of an individual to have, if it is their choice, their health care information kept private in a world where none of what we do is really protected or unavailable to anybody that goes online, anybody that accesses information in a variety of ways. It's important that we protect the individual who makes the decision. Note that this bill leaves the decision with the individual. That's where the decision should be. My compliments to the sponsor, and I'm hopeful that this bill will pass both houses and be signed into law. I vote aye. Mr. Otis in the affirmative. Thank you. Ms. Rosenthal to explain her vote. Ms. To explain my vote. New Yorkers are using health apps, devices, and other digital platforms each and every day to monitor and log their health status. From step counters to period trackers to mental health journals, businesses are gathering our private information each and every day. What most New Yorkers and most people don't realize is that none of this information is protected by HIPAA. We've seen attacks on reproductive rights and so many other privacy concerns, we in New York State need to institute some protections now more than ever. And the New York Health Information Privacy Act will ensure we have strong protections and that our data will not be weaponized against us, sold to the highest bidder, and will be protected because it is, after all, our data. Companies want to make money off it, but we need to give them permission to use it for research, for development, but not to sell. And it's up to us whether they have access to use it for their own profits. I would like to thank the many advocates who have worked on this bill, especially Ali Baum from NICLU. I'd like to thank the AG's team for their perseverance. And, of course, I'd like to thank the Assembly Program and Council, Emily and her team, and my Legislative Director, Nick Geil, and, of course, everyone who supports this because they understand that our data belongs to us. I vote in the affirmative. Ms. Rosenthal in the affirmative. I'm going to reveal you myself. Ms. Walsh, to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I agree with the sponsor that every New Yorker really does deserve strong protections for their health information. The question I keep coming back to, though, is whether this bill really strikes the right balance between protecting privacy and preserving innovation, research, health care options, and economic growth. I think that this bill really does impose broad and very uncertain requirements on entities far beyond traditional health care providers It creates substantial compliance burdens and risks that are unintended consequences for consumers for researchers, and businesses alike. Before creating an expansive new regulatory regime, we really should ensure that the problem has been clearly identified, the costs fully understood, and the definitions sufficiently precise So because I don't believe it does strike that appropriate balance, I respectfully vote no. Thank you. Ms. Walsh, the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 96, nays 45.
The bill is passed. Page 37, calendar number 376. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 10207A, rules report, rules calendar 376, Ms. Kay, an act to amend the real property tax law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 141, nays 0.
The bill is passed. Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to continue more work on the main calendar on debate, starting with Rules Report 351 on page 10 by Ms. Torres, Rules Report 441 on page 12 by Ms. Walker, followed by Rules Report 443 on page 13 by Ms. Walker. Thank you. On debate, page 10, Rules Report 351, Clerk will read.
Assembly number 9349B, Rules Report 351, Ms. Torres, an act to amend the general business law.
An explanation has been requested, Ms. Torres. Speaker, this bill is a targeted prohibition on a harmful market behavior known as surveillance pricing. This practice is at the core of our affordability crisis, and it causes harm to consumers and the marketplace by creating a fog of pricing that prevents consumers from comparison shopping, creates unfair situations where two individuals receive different prices for the same goods or services, and overall leads to higher prices in the marketplace. Mr. Dursthal. Thank you Madam Speaker Would the sponsor yield for some questions Will the sponsor yield Yes sponsor yield Thank you Ms Torres So just in your explanation there you said surveillance pricing is what again in your definition So, well, I can read you the definition in the bill. But what you just explained in your explanation, you said surveillance pricing is essentially the price. Essentially, when a company, corporation, an entity uses your personal data, which can be, for example, your zip code, your browsing habits, all kinds of information that is collected on you to set a price. So to set a price. So in other words, just using an example off of what you just said, and then I'll just because I just want to ask a question for clarification. by using a zip code, for example, right? So in other words, if my zip code is, which it is, it's 11762, I can be offered a different price than the person in the zip code next to me, correct? Yes, potentially, yes. Okay. But I can be offered a different price, but I can be offered discounts? Yeah, so the bill goes into discounts. So the bill goes into discounts and we define bonafide discounts, which are legitimate discounts that are not based on any piece of personal data. That includes things that we go into detail on the bill, but things like coupons and retention offers and these sorts of things that are generally available in the market. We also define what is called a bonafide custom discount, and that is a discount based on personal data in certain circumstances. For example, loyalty programs, hotel programs, membership programs, if you are a certain member of a particular group, like a veteran, like a senior, etc. And also discounts based on your purchase history with a particular retailer. Understood. Now, how would those particular retailers or how are they allowed to track your history buying at that store or restaurant or hotel? What can they use to track that? So they can use pretty much whatever data is available to them on the Internet that they collect on us. So there's often examples when you're searching for a flight, if you're searching for a good or service, and companies can combine different pieces of your data profile to set a price for you that is different from a price that someone else receives. So those companies are allowed to use your personal data in certain circumstances? Well, right now they're using our personal data to set prices in many different ways. What this bill does is it prohibits surveillance pricing, so it prohibits the ability for an entity or a service provider to set a price using your personal data. So a price should be set based on supply, demand, what the market can bear, not your personal data. That's what this bill is all about. Understood. So in other words, I cannot have a different price for a good than you based on, like I said, if I walked into a store and I'm carrying an expensive bag or I have expensive shoes, right, they can't look at me and say, that guy's essentially got money, right? I'm going to charge him more. but my colleague in front of me is wearing sweatpants and they say he might not have enough, sorry so they're going to charge him a lesser amount. That's what you mean by that. That's essentially the spirit of the bill. Understood. And discounts are allowed they are allowed bonafide discounts are allowed, legit Discounts are allowed. Custom discounts, as I said, bona fide custom discounts, they are allowed as well based on personal data in particular circumstances.
And OK, so that's what I want to drill down at this second. You just said we can't price people if you walk into a store or restaurant or anything like that because of an algorithm surveillance of that person and using their personal data.
but we can in certain circumstances.
What are those certain circumstances that you can use personal data to give someone a discount?
Okay, so I'm going to run through them when you can use personal data. We go through them in the bill. The first is loyalty programs, membership programs. For example, Hilton Honors. You're a Hilton Honors person. You can use personal data to set discounts on that. Group discounts. For veterans, you're in a special class of consumers. You can get discounts there. You have to voluntarily provide that information in order to get said discount. And most times if you go to Applebee's and you get the veteran's discount, sometimes they'll ask you for a military ID. And then purchase history, because that purchase history is the relationship that you've developed with the retailer. So they can offer. So, for example, I think we talked about this in committee.
We did, yes.
when you go to a store often and they've collected data on your preferences, they can offer you, let's say it's at a grocery store, you buy a certain seltzer. They can offer you chips with the seltzer at a discount. They can offer you a premium brand of seltzer because they know you like seltzer.
Understood.
At a discount.
So they can offer me that discount because I'm essentially a frequent customer there.
Right. So I could go in and because they essentially have my data.
Right. They can purchase history, which is my data.
Yes. Right. Because they're obviously keeping track of what I purchase.
Yes. Right. So what I'm what I'm trying to understand is you're saying that they could use personal data in certain circumstances, but not in others. And I just want to understand. OK, got it. Yeah, and that's one of my questions is because, again, you're saying that they're allowed to, because the way I read this, and that's why I'm asking, I could be wrong, was that you cannot collect people's personal data and give them a price because of their personal data.
Yes.
My shopping history is my personal data. So they can offer me a discount on a certain seltzer because they know exactly what seltzer I'm drinking, Right. But my friend in front of me and I hate that I'm just going to be using him a lot as an example. If he's online behind me, does he have to receive the same discount even though. Right. So if I'm in front of him and I get lemon seltzer for seven dollars a case and then he goes up and it's nine. Right. Are we now in violation of that law? Because I got the discount and he's not.
Well, that – so the thing about your purchasing history is that's unique to you. So you get unique discounts based on your purchase history, based on that relationship, that consumer-to-business relationship that you have developed. That's based on your purchase history. He might have a different purchase history. That's the relationship he's developed between the consumer and the business.
So can he bring a private right of action based on this bill stating that he did not receive – he's paying more than me, right?
He's right on my- He's getting a discount. I sorry He getting a discount No no he not gonna get the discount because Oh no someone getting a discount Right I paying for the case he paying Can he file a private right of action because he not getting a discount but I am No there no language on private right of action in this bill. This bill does not include... There's no language... There's no private right of action in this bill. In the B print, there is no private right of action. Okay. So the attorney general is not going to be instituting fines or anybody that... She has enforcement and authority, but she does not have a private right of action.
So there is no private right of action in this legislation whatsoever?
Correct.
Okay. So to backtrack on that, under the general business law now, right, to my understanding, any business entity that sets up the price of a specific good or service using personalized algorithmic pricing and directly or indirectly advertises, promotes, labels, or publishes a statement, display, image, offer, announcement, personalized algorithm pricing to a consumer using his or her personal data, must provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure stating that the price for such goods and services was set by an algorithmic using your personal data.
That is – and I'm sorry. I actually didn't realize it was so long. So that is the current general business law.
Now, will this new law, if it goes into effect, will it change that?
Yes, because that was a disclosure, so we passed that in the budget last year. It's a disclosure, so retailers, companies online have to disclose that when they're using an algorithm, using their personal data to set prices. So you see that on different retailers online.
I see it.
Now it's no longer a disclosure. Now, surveillance pricing with this bill, so when we pass it, it's a ban. It's a prohibition on surveillance pricing.
But so you just used those words again, and I, again, I just want to be consistent. You said personal death, right? So is that only online is what you mean by it? Or are you meaning at any store, restaurant, chain restaurant, you know, a drugstore, anything like that?
they cannot use personal data to set a price for you. Most of these occurrences occur online because that's the mass amount of how, it's how corporations collect our personal data when we're exchanging it online. So the practice happens mostly online. It doesn't happen really in brick-and-mortar stores.
Okay.
But for example, I'll give you an example.
Sure, please.
I'll give you one example is, you know, like Target. Target has a mobile app, Target you can buy online, And there's also, you know, you can go to a physical store, right? And so, you know, one example of surveillance pricing that happened, I think, fairly recently was you had a customer that had the mobile app, looked at a product on the mobile app, and then kind of drove a little bit closer to a Target, went to the Target parking lot, and the price went up.
That's an example. Okay.
Because they're using your location to figure out, okay, they're close to Target. They're actually going to buy the good.
And I'm fine with that. And I think I stated that during committee. I don't want anybody to pay more because an algorithm picks up that maybe I have or look like I have money or anything like that. But what I am concerned with is the language in the bill when it comes to, as we keep saying, personal data, right, and bona fide discounts. So going back to bona fide discounts, and we're going to get into the online portion of it and some other concerns I have. But the bonafide discount right again explain to me what a bonafide discount is when it comes to a brick store Sure So a bonafide discount is a discount that is generally available to the public one that is not based on personal data at all
It's not based on personal data. So let's say it's like two for one, you bring a friend, you refer, all kinds of promotions, and we list a couple in the bill.
Let me see where we see it. Really? Yeah, I see it, okay.
So, you know, based on things like bulk purchases and subscriptions, end of season sales, flash sales, early bird sales, inventory-based sales, all of that is available and nothing has changed with regards to discounts. They're called bonafide discounts because they're general discounts that are available in the market.
They're available to everyone?
Everyone, yes.
Okay.
Yes.
So let's just say I go to a specific hardware store.
I try not to use names of stores. I don't like to give anybody avatars.
but because I frequently shop there or I haven't been there in a long time and they say, hey, we haven't seen you in six months, here's a $25 gift card or a discount, right? And again, my next door neighbor who has never shopped there does not get that. And are they allowed to give me that discount?
Yes, that's a retention, that's a we miss you, come back discount, yes.
Okay, now in the previous version, right?
We had this discussion. There seemed to be a little confusion on maybe if that was allowed.
Do you think that the B-print has now changed that?
It is. We've clarified that. Yes, we've clarified that in the B-print.
So I'm going to focus a little bit on more of the online portion of this, because you're saying this seems to be an online issue mostly.
Largely, largely.
Okay.
So it still remains the same.
You cannot be offered discounts using personal data, correct?
Well, you can be offered a discount. You're still going to be able to have all of your discounts. And even we have exceptions. I wouldn't even call them exceptions. They're bonafide custom discounts. They're defined as discounts that use your personal data in particular situations. And the reason why they're there is because we've met with so many industry leaders, so many members of the business community who said it's important to have these discounts. We agree, and we included it in the bill.
Okay. So there's a big online shopping platform that's out there. Again, not using names. But I regularly get, if I go onto that website, things will pop up on it, you know, saying these sneakers are for sale. Or these are at, you know, it's now personalizing that sale to me, and it also knows what I've shopped for. is that not allowed anymore through this piece of legislation?
So I want to just take a step back and talk about the online marketplace a little bit. So I think I know perhaps who you're referring to. We probably all do. I'm just not saying the name.
Okay, that's fine.
So that's an online marketplace, right? And there's independent third-party retailers on that site. You're allowed to offer discounts. If you're a retailer on that site, for example, You can offer a discount to a consumer that's personalized based on purchasing history, for example. Let's say the larger retailer, however, what they cannot do is they cannot cross-reference the data from the other smaller retailers to set prices or discounts for you because that's an abuse of the data. And I tell you a little bit about why we care about that and why that important because you have a lot of small businesses that operate on these sites And then you have a large Mr Durso you take a second
I'm sorry, ma'am.
You're taking your second, Mr. Durso.
Oh, please, if I may.
And then you have a large online marketplace that collects all of this data on you. All of this data on you. And they use that data to set prices. They use that data also to offer you a customized discount. and perhaps they don't offer someone else a customized discount based on personal data when you didn't shop at the retailer.
Right, and not that I'm sticking up for them at all, but as you just said, the third party, which is usually that smaller entity that's selling it through the larger entity, the third party is allowed to offer you that discount.
Yes.
But the bigger company is not allowed.
They can offer you the discounts related to how they operate as a marketplace. So, for example, let's say the marketplace does direct delivery service or they do a direct service for you. They can offer that to you, but they can't use the personal data to offer you a special discount or to steer you to certain retailers. That's what they can't do. That's the whole idea of surveillance pricing. That's why it's a problem.
Okay, so they're saying you can't use my personal data to, so if there's two separate retailers on that using that platform, you can't direct me to one in particular one. And not the other because of the data that the online marketplace has. it's also a competition issue, right?
Because an online marketplace might want to direct you to a particular retailer and not another one, and that hurts small businesses that are on the broader online marketplace.
Okay. Okay. So just a couple more questions, Ms. Torres. What evidence currently, other than, like you said, an example that you'd given before, demonstrates that surveillance pricing is a widespread problem?
Sure. I'm going to give you a couple. So in 2025, there was an interim study done by the Federal Trade Commission that found that several existing clients of surveillance pricing solutions, including large retailers, a significant number of stores, including grocery stores, apparel retailers, health and beauty retailers, home goods, furnishing stores, building and hardware stores, travel and financial service firms, and general merchandise retailers participate and use the tools of surveillance pricing. pricing, if you will. Understood. So just for clarity, when it comes to discounts, is this only,
this is really for every business, correct? I know there are certain, when it comes to insurance, we talked about banking institutions, that's federally regulated to a degree, right? So this doesn't affect that. What about when it comes to higher education institutions, colleges, right? So if a college, as many kids now are getting set for college, right? And they're essentially shopping around, right? And a college uses your data, right? In other words, whether it's online presence, whether it is any information about you, right, to offer you a scholarship, right, would this affect that? ability for the colleges to give you any type of discount, any type of different price, then it would give it to me than my friend here sitting in front of me.
No, this does not affect grants, scholarships, need-based financial aid. It does not. It does not. And that's something that's come up in conversation. And in the rules and regulations that will be promulgated, you know, 180 days after this goes into effect, it's going to be laid out because that's a concern that came up. This is not the intention of the bill. It does not touch that issue.
I understand it's not the intention, but it will not affect that.
It will not affect.
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Torres. No more questions.
I appreciate it. Mr. Bologna.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. with the sponsor yield for a few quick questions. Will the sponsor yield?
Yes, sponsor yields.
Thank you, Ms. Torres. So some of the questions I have are going to be with regards to the financial service industry and banking specifically, which I believe was added in the B-print version of this bill. Is that an accurate statement?
Yeah.
Okay. So what specific documented examples of surveillance pricing by a New York State chartered bank prompted banks to be added to the bill? So the banks, so in conversations that we've had with
the banking industry, they have told us that they do not participate in surveillance pricing, and because they do not participate in surveillance pricing, we didn't think they needed a carve out or exemption. Okay, so there's not an example of something where someone brought
an actual specific case of an incident or an occurrence of trouble with surveillance pricing with banks in New York. That has not happened, right?
Well, I mean, what I'll say is there are, in, I would say, you know, like the fintech world, the banking world, there's lots of examples where you have retailers that use or that offer credit cards, that offer banking tools that potentially could be participating in this. But what I will say is that we've spoken to the banking industry, and they say they do not do this.
All right, so if we can't identify a record of abuse in the financial services or banking industry, then what specific banking problem are we actually trying to solve by adding them to the legislation?
No, they're not included. there's a carve-out for them essentially here.
Okay. So would you agree that banks are regulated by federal banking regulators and the Department of Financial Services?
Sorry, say that again?
Banks are already regulated by the federal banking regulators and Department of Financial Services in New York State, right?
Yes.
Okay. Sorry, and forgive me.
Yeah, I think I understood your question. It's 11-something, so I get it.
So what regulatory gaps exist that these regulators have failed to address?
I guess this bill doesn't capture banks.
It's not capturing banks.
Okay.
Okay. Thank you very much, and thank you. Appreciate it.
Thanks. Mr. Norber.
Thank you, Matt. Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yield Thank you very much Thank you Ms Torres Just a few questions regarding how this would apply to platforms such as Google and Facebook Because many businesses these days are implementing the platforms themselves on Facebook Instagram Google which enable them and allow them to pinpoint specific behaviors that anybody has while searching on Instagram or Google And there is no way to really disable these features if they want to advertise on these platforms. And these days, everybody, every organization and business is utilizing these tools. So I just wanted to see how could this be avoided in terms of surveillance pricing when that's pretty much what it's all about.
Yeah, I mean, if Google and I think some of the other online services you mentioned, if they're setting prices for things, this affects them. So if they are setting a price for a service, then this would impact them. If they're an entity setting a price.
So this would impact the business that's utilizing tools?
Yeah, if Google has a business, Google has an entity.
Could they actually receive a violation? Potentially, if they're setting a price using Google?
No, no, no. As an entity, if they're a business, they're a corporation. And so if Google is selling me a service, Google sells service, Gmail, all that. They sell ads. Yes, they sell things. And so if they're selling things to a consumer, and they're using surveillance pricing as we've defined it here, and there's a violation, yes.
The whole thing is a violation. That's what I'm trying to get at. No, no. It is. Because if, let's say, a person is searching on the web apartments and then somebody wants to sell to them roofing services or moving services or whatever it might be, I mean, isn't that a form of surveillance pricing just because they're searching for an apartment?
Well, if you're, I mean, marketing is not really addressed, marketing is not addressed in this bill, if that's what you're referring to. Marketing, advertising. Marketing, okay.
Yeah, yeah. If a person, if we're going to look at a person's personal information, is behavior on the web considered to be part of that personal information?
A personal data, yes, but we're talking about pricing here. So, like, you can search online. That is free. Like, you can go online and search online. But if the entity as a business is setting a price, then, yes, this is not a big, broad data privacy bill. Like, this is not, if that answers your question, this is about pricing.
Okay. Yeah. So if, let's say, in the example, I want to – a person is searching on the web, Versace, Cartier, things like that. and I want to sell, and my business is going to sell to him a $1,000 necklace. Okay, would that be considered to be a problem, surveillance pricing?
No, I don't. I mean, companies can and do monitor your browsing habits, so it wouldn't be, I mean, you couldn't put a violation on the Internet,
but if a company bought your data,
We don't have a data broker bill. We don't have like a, you know, prohibition on selling data.
I want to find all the people that are looking on the web for Versace.
And we can take up a bill like that But my bill doesn really address that I thought that Yeah they just you can set a price based on that So a month later I not selling that necklace the way I would like to sell it and now I decided to sell it for Mm-hmm.
To a different market, a different geographic market. Would that be a violation?
If it's not based on personal data, you can. If it's not based on someone's personal data, you haven't personalized the price for an individual, rule, then you're able to adjust the prices that you like.
The way the AI algorithms work right now on Instagram and Google is only according to personal data.
So they really see everything. Yeah.
They know exactly how to find these specific types of consumers.
Yes.
So it's just the way the platform is built in terms of those tools. If they are engaging in surveillance pricing and selling you products or services based on surveillance pricing, then yes, they would be in violation.
The corporation would be? The corporation.
The business that would be selling that?
The entity, yes.
OK. Because I think there could be an issue here in terms of the way these systems are enabled. The tools that they want us to use, the businesses to use, are already embedded with surveillance pricing. All of them. So I'm just not sure how this bill could maybe could be fixed in that way, because that's my opinion. If somebody doesn't want to get into trouble, if right now Google is selling me these tools, and they will, and then the state comes back and says you're not allowed to do exactly what Google is letting you do, then that's my whole concern.
I mean, I think definitely when the bill hopefully comes into effect, there will be rules and regulations. that the AG will develop, and I hope that we'll be able to address some of this. But I just want to reiterate that it is around pricing and pricing offered by entities and service providers.
So I'm thinking of this as Google and Instagram, as entities and service providers providing a service. But am I allowed to change my price from time to time for whatever I'm selling?
I mean, dynamic pricing, yes. Like, this doesn't address dynamic pricing. You can change a price based on supply, demand, and what the market can bear, yes. But based on personal data, what this bill says is, no, you can't use personal data to change price.
Okay, so if I wanted to change my price and do this in a way that doesn't make creating violations for myself, how would I do that? On my platform, on my website, on my app? You know, based on prior purchase history, based on just not in use of personal data, just based on supply and demand and inventory conditions and the things that we have historically set prices on as businesses and corporations. Okay, thank you very much. No more questions.
Mr. Palmisano?
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor you for a few questions? The sponsor you? Yes, sponsor you. Good evening, Ms. Torres. How are you tonight?
Good. As great as can be. It's early.
It's early, right? It sure is. I don't have a lot of questions. I just want to go over a couple of things. I'm going to spend more of my time talking on the bill. But I did want to ask you, when I was listening to the debate, because I think my colleagues covered most of the questions, you had mentioned that this legislation does not capture banks. Is that correct? The intent is not to capture banks because they say they don't engage.
Yeah so the and forgive me because the intent is not to capture banks because they don engage They told us that they don engage in surveillance pricing so they not included
I think you're talking about the GBL. Yeah, because the original version, they had the exemption in, but this one.
What's in there now is the FCRA, the Federal Credit Reporting Act, Because, for example, if you take out a loan, a mortgage, or what have you, you have to provide or use personal data as part of that for a function of credit, credit score.
Right, but just for the record, you did remove the GLBA, right? Correct. and what we're hearing from obviously the banking industry who have expressed opposition to this, that should go hand-in-hand with the federal credit FCRA. So you removed it, so I think that's some concerns from that perspective. I just want to speak on the bill.
I just want to get that clarified, if I could.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill.
Yes, I appreciate the questions from my colleagues. I think they covered most of the questions. To me, this is more about more misplaced priorities. At a time when our families are struggling in the midst of an affordability crisis, now is not the time to institute an outright prohibition on certain price discounts, coupons, and promotions. And this would exacerbate the affordability challenges facing our New York families rather than providing meaningful solutions. And rather than discouraging businesses from using a customer's personal identifiable information to increase the price of goods, this legislation would actually limit popular discounts and promotions in New York State. When we talk about some of the programs, discounts that have families have benefited from these programs, some of the ones that have a list of here, what programs are at risk, the Just For You personalized savings programs, personalized lightning deals, personalized restaurant promotions, We Miss You, When You Back offers, possible hotel loyalty programs, browse abandonment offers, rewards program challenges, electric shelving labels, savings, milestone life events, birthday promotions, things of that nature, even military seniors. and although they say there's exemptions for this, some of these you have to actually apply for and qualify for. This legislation, and I understand the intent of it, I'm not questioning the intent of the sponsor, but has a host of opposition from a number of different groups. Even recently this week, independent colleges and universities came out expressing their concern that they could face significant legal and operational uncertainty regarding their ability to administer financial aid programs to help students afford college.
That's a concern. The hospitality and tourism industry have expressed concerns. The New York State Bankers Association have expressed concerns relative to the removal of this one provision that they believe should be in there, and for whatever reason it was removed in this print, and that should go hand in hand along with the FCRA. The Financial Technology Association has expressed concern with a host of other issues. Our small business community, the NFIB says this is something would ...impose a comprehensive ban on pricing practices. They will no longer be able to offer targeted promotions, loyalty programs, and personalized savings options to help New York households manage their budgets effectively. The Food Industry Alliance says this potential ban will further increase the cost of groceries and prohibit the ability for retail food stores to offer discounts, rewards, programs, and coupons. The retail council says this outright prohibition on certain price discounts, coupons, and promotions will exacerbate the affordability channels that are facing New Yorkers. One industry after another. Again, I understand the intention of what the sponsor is trying to do, but now is not the time to take away the opportunity for families to save money in the midst of an affordability crisis and a quality of life crisis that's going on here in New York. So for those reasons and many other points my colleagues brought up, I'm going to be voting in a negative on this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Zuccaro?
On the bill, Madam Speaker?
On the bill.
So today I rise not just as a legislator, but I rise as a father. Like parents across New York, I know what it means to sit at a kitchen table and to make tough choices. I know what it means to stretch a paycheck, as many of us have learned over the last couple of weeks. I know what it is to compare prices. and to ask whether there's enough left at the end of the month for groceries, school supplies, transportation, and the little moments that our children deserve. And every parent knows that calculation. Every working family knows that calculation. And when New Yorkers make those decisions, they deserve one simple thing. A fair price. not a manipulated price, not a secret price, a fair price. But today, powerful corporations are using personal information in ways most consumers never see and never consent to. They track our online behavior, they collect our data, they analyze our habits, and they feed that information into algorithms designed to answer one simple question. How much more can we charge this person? Think about that. Two people sitting side by side, looking at the same product, the same flight, the same hotel room, the same sporting event ticket, yet one pays more than the other. not because of supply and demand, not because of market competition, but because an algorithm has decided that they can afford to pay more. Colleagues, that is not transparency. That is not fairness. That is not free market. That is digital discrimination. And what makes it even worse is that consumers often don't even know that this is happening. The decision is hidden The process is hidden The price is hidden Meanwhile working families are oftentimes left paying the bill In the Bronx I represent hardworking people who do everything they can They wake up every single morning. They work long hours. They care for their families. They contribute to their communities. They play by the rules. But oftentimes they feel like the rules are written for them, not written for them. They feel like the deck is constantly stacked against them. And when companies use personal data to quietly charge more people, that feeling isn't paranoia. It's reality. Technology should make life better. And artificial intelligence should empower consumers, not exploit them. Innovation should create opportunity, not create new ways to squeeze working families. If a company wants to compete, let it compete by offering a better product, a better service, a better price. Not by spying on consumers and charging them whatever the computer predicts they will tolerate. And at a time when families across New York are struggling with the cost of housing, groceries, transportation, child care, we cannot allow hidden algorithms to make life more expensive. And what this bill does today is it draws a very clear line. It says your personal data should not be used against you. It says that your privacy should not be a profit center and that your wallet should not be target of a secret algorithm. And so today, Madam Speaker, we send a clear message that in New York, fairness matters. That in New York, transparency matters. That in New York, consumers matter. And I want to commend the bill sponsor for bringing this important legislation forward. A mom and a colleague like many of you all who understand what this reality is like for the people that you serve in your communities. And so today I stand in full support of this bill and of this legislation because I stand for New York families and I stand for transparency, and as a father, and as a representative of the Bronx, and someone who believes that all New Yorkers deserve a fair shake. And so, Madam Speaker, with that, I yield my time, and I proudly vote in favor of this bill, and I look forward to its passage. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Ms. Torres?
Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the bill.
On the bill.
So I just wanted to, one, just correct one thing for the record, because I know we were talking about banks and banking. Banks are technically covered, but they are exempted for credit-related decisions, and they've told us again and again that they do not practice surveillance pricing. So I wanted to make that clear for the record, and then I wanted to talk a little bit about why I did this bill. Surveillance pricing represents a fundamental shift in how prices are set. Behind our screens, corporations quietly collect treasure troves of our data, our personal data, from our mouse clicks and browser history to our zip code and even when we are getting our next paycheck. Companies are tracking our behaviors online and building specific consumer profiles on us to infer our quote price sensitivity including the highest price we are willing to pay for a given product or service Companies will call this personalized pricing which can suggest that there a type of value within this pricing for the consumer But the reality is that we as consumers, we as New Yorkers, have no idea what a true price is anymore because I can get a different price compared to my neighbor for the very same product or service. It might be because I shopped right before getting my paycheck and the retailer knows I have more money to spend. It might be because of desperation, because corporations that use surveillance pricing prey on our desperation, including lack of time to comparison shop, like when we need to take an emergency trip or buy medicine for our sick children. Because under surveillance pricing, the reality is that if you really want or need something and a seller knows it, with surveillance pricing, you will likely pay more for it. Most policymakers will call that exploitation, but corporations will call it revenue generation or efficiency. This is all because our data has value, and in today's digital commerce world, it is available to them in limitless ways that they can use to impact pricing. This also means that some consumers may get discounts, some may not, and some may be charged a higher price without anyone knowing it. Many, many corporations are using software pricing tools and pricing consultants to determine price sensitivity to optimize prices accordingly. And time and time again, these tools are mentioned on investor and earning calls as ways to maximize profits for corporations by finding the maximum price consumers are willing to pay. This is simply not how our economy should work. Advancements in technology can absolutely bring innovation to our lives, but when it comes to pricing and affordability, the practice of surveillance pricing is exploitation, plain and simple. New Yorkers shouldn't be put in a position where we have to decide between affording our groceries and protecting our privacy. You shouldn't have to constantly clear your cookies to get a lower price. You shouldn't have to sign up for subscriptions and memberships offering a quote-unquote discount in exchange for full access to every personal data point in your life. Shopping online shouldn't feel like a bait and switch. We need this ban on surveillance pricing because our screens are not public storefronts. New Yorkers should not be spied on or ripped off. They deserve fair pricing. They should have the ability to compare and to find the best deal and feel secure in knowing that the price they see is legitimate and the price that is offered to other consumers. This legislation recognizes that personal data should not be used as a tool to extract the highest price possible from each individual consumer. It promotes transparency, it safeguards privacy, and it ensures that technological innovation works for people rather than against them. This legislation also helps to level the playing field for small businesses because larger corporations and online marketplaces have the ability to collect vast amounts of data and buy sophisticated pricing tools that facilitate this practice, but most small businesses do not. Banning surveillance pricing promotes fair competition in the marketplace. And a last word on discounts. This bill preserves the ability for businesses to offer a wide array of discounts, including personalized savings, retention offers, and even discounts based on purchase history. But it does not allow unfair pricing based on personal data. Finally, I just want to thank a lot of people who are part of this. I want to thank the Speaker and his team. I want to thank Senator May on the Senate side for this, for carrying this in the Senate I want to thank our tremendous Attorney General Tis James and her entire team Chair Rosick I want to thank Program and Council and a very large coalition that we worked with including AARP New York UFCW RWDSU the American Economic Liberties Project Zephyr Teachout Groundwork Collaborative 1199 CSEA AFL DC37 the NAACP Consumer Reports the Small Business Majority the Community Service Society and many many more And I also want to thank everyone who's here with me, including my chief of staff, Ram Dassing. With that, I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative. Thank you.
Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. Party vote's been requested.
Mr. Gandolfo.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this bill. However, there may be exceptions, and those individuals can vote yes at their desk.
Thank you, Mr. Fall.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this piece of legislation. For those that would like to be an exception, they can make that exception at their desk. Thank you.
The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Bologna to explain his vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I'm voting no on this legislation because I do not believe we've adequately addressed significant ambiguities in the bill before us. During debate, the sponsors suggested that the legislation does not affect banks or financial service industry. Respectfully, I disagree. The language before us does not clearly support that conclusion. In fact, I continue to question why the exemption for entities regulated under the GLBA were removed in the first place. More importantly, this debate highlights a broader problem. It's not enough for members to stand up and tell us what the bill intended to do. It's our responsibility to write legislation that clearly states what it does. Intent is not law. Statutory language is law. There are too many gray areas in the bill, too many unanswered questions about the scope, and too much uncertainty about who may ultimately be affected. I'm particularly troubled by the rationale that we should pass a bill now and fix any deficiencies in future chapters. That's not a responsible way to legislate. We should solve major questions before enactment, not after. When regulated entities face uncertainty regarding their legal obligations or potential liability, they respond conservatively. In the financial sector, that can mean tightening lending standards or reducing access to credit, and the people most affected are often not those with great resources, but first-time homebuyers, young families, working-class New Yorkers, and borrowers with limited credit histories. And what brings me back to the question I have repeatedly asked throughout the debate is what specific problem in the banking or financial service industry were we trying to solve with this bill? And I still have yet to get a good answer on that. And for that reason, I cannot support the legislation before us. Thank you.
Mr. Bologna in the negative. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
Ayes 96, nays 45.
The bill is passed. Page 12, Rules Report 441. Clerk will read.
Assembly number 11557, Rules Report number 441, Committee on Rules, Ms. Walker.
Enact to amend the election law.
An explanation has been requested Ms Walker One moment please Ms Walker
On a motion by Ms. Walker, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested, Ms. Walker. I felt you were going to say, read the last section, Madam Speaker.
This bill would authorize the legislature to determine the form in which a statewide proposed constitutional amendment is submitted to the people of the state of New York on the ballot. It also requires that such proposals are presented in the clearest language and with the most accurate descriptions. This is critical given the gravity of a constitutional amendment. It is a moment that should be treated with the sanctity and clarity it deserves, and it is a rare opportunity for voters to have a direct voice in state policy. As my brother would say, straight talk leads to straight understanding. Clear language is the best pathway to understanding, and we cannot accurately engage the sentiment of the electorate on a proposed amendment if they cannot understand it. The legislature would be required to use best efforts to comply with the plain language requirements and best efforts to score no more than an eighth grade reading level. The bill preserves the plain language standard, which is already part of the law. That means the proposed amendments will use concise language no more than... That's it.
Mr. Sempolinsky.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?
Will the sponsor yield? Yes, sponsor yield.
Well, first, Chairwoman, I want to wish you good morning, because we are past midnight. So bear with me if I'm a little punchy. So the way that I'm going to walk through what it does, what I think has not changed, and then what I think has changed. And this maybe asks you to clarify some things, if that's all right. So my understanding is that this calls on the legislature to produce the form and abstract of any concurrent resolutions that are constitutional amendments. Can you describe to us what those would be? What is the form? What is the abstract?
The form shall include a descriptive title of up to 15 words, a summary of the text ballot proposal of up to 30 words in plain language that describes the change in policy to be adopted and not the legal mechanism.
And am I correct that under this proposal, the form and abstract could either be included in the constitutional amendment when it's passed, or it could be its own separate concurrent resolution as long as it's passed a certain amount of time, I believe 120 days prior to the general election in which a particular constitutional amendment is considered?
That is correct.
So there's some flexibility there in timing on when the legislature would produce this particular information. Yes. Now a lot of the things that didn change or are similar to or you know the same as current election law are the provisions regarding the type of language Is that correct
That's correct. The plain language requirement, which requires that the language be easily comprehended and concise, no more than one passive sentence, no use of semicolons, and utilize multiple sentences as necessary, and no double negatives remains.
And am I correct that those rules are already included in election law in section 4-108, to which this law adds a new subdivision?
So it's referring back to previous subdivisions in section 4-108, and there really aren't any changes as far as what plain language means. You're using the same plain language rules that the Board of Elections is compelled to use under current statute. I believe that's a correct assumption, yes.
Thank you, Chairman. And the level of vocabulary and sophistication of the language currently would be at the 8th grade standard, and under this bill would also be at the 8th grade standard. Is that correct?
That is correct.
OK. And the effective date of this would be effectively immediately. So anything that would pass in the current session, maybe perhaps amendments that will pass later today, or maybe amendments we passed yesterday, this would apply to those, right?
That is correct.
OK. So I want to go over, those are a lot of things that didn't change. Now, what does change, am I correct that prior to the passage of this potential law, the Board of Elections is mandated to produce the form and abstract for constitutional amendments?
That is our current process and, in my understanding, longstanding process.
That is correct. You said that the Board of Elections would be the folk who promulgate the language.
Right, prior to this, under current law.
That's correct. And there is also a place for the Office of the Attorney General to weigh in on that as well.
And so this bill actually makes that requirement a little more concise.
Actually, you anticipated that was one of my next questions.
So the AG would hold a similar role to what she does now as far as advising this process? Not necessarily.
Not necessarily. Okay.
So it's sort of mandated that she does. Now, if it goes to the legislature, it's not a requirement that she advises.
It's not like she has to submit an opinion prior to the passage of a constitutional amendment.
There's no requirement for her action like that in this.
In this, no.
Okay.
And my understanding of the role of the BOE, should this pass, would be they cannot make any amendment or alteration to the language that would be produced by the legislature. However, they would still determine the order in which propositions are placed on the ballot.
Is that correct? Yes.
Okay. So why is this change needed now?
Well, one of the goals that we mentioned is about making the processes more clear and more concise This provides the legislature with an option to draft the plain language that will appear on the ballot for voters You know there an age adage that says sometimes the people who are closest to the problem are also closest to the solution
And since the legislature will be drafting the statutory amendment, then it'll be easier for the legislative intent to be able to be realized in a ballot question.
It would avoid a lot of confusion with a number of different authors lending to the ballot question and what it may look like as in the past.
And Section 1 of Article 19 of the state constitution places a duty on the legislature to submit a proposed statement amendment to the people for approval.
And so this bill is not inconsistent with that requirement and with that intent that the legislature approve such amendments.
So we went through, there isn't really a lot of changes to the level of language. It's eighth grade. There aren't changes to what plain language means. And you had indicated at the outset during your explanation that the hope was to make things clearer.
I understand what you're saying as far as legislative intent,
but we're not changing the words that you're allowed to use or the format of those words.
It's just who's writing them is different.
So I don't understand why it would make it clearer for the electorate if we wrote it as compared to the BOE, if the rules that we have to follow as far as difficulty and how plain it is are exactly the same.
Well, there is already a constitutional duty for the legislature to make amendments to the Constitution. And so, quite frankly, it follows a pretty decent path that the folk who would be writing such language should be the people who would be involved in preparing the actual amendment in the first place. In addition to that, it still sets clear readability standards. It would also reduce a lot of last-minute lawsuits, procedural confusion, and basically it creates clarity and not controversy. And so we want to just ensure, again, that the people who were the closest to recognizing that as constitutional amendment was necessary are also the folk who are explaining it to the people so that there is no confusion at the ballot.
What is the partisan makeup of the Board of Elections?
It's bipartisan.
Correct. Right. That's my understanding. So it's equal representation on the Board of Elections between the two major parties, that being the two parties that received the most votes on their party line in the most recent gubernatorial election. They each have half control of the Board of Elections. That's my understanding.
Is that also your understanding? Yes, sir, it is.
OK. What's the makeup of the New York State legislature?
It's bipartisan.
Well, I agree, because we're in two different political parties. But I would say it may not be equally bipartisan as the Board of Elections, which is mandated to have equal representation from each of the two major political parties.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean equal. We generally have equal constituencies
and numbers. That's true. What I'm saying is the Board of Elections is mandated by statute to have equal control between the two political parties. And the New York State Legislature is super majoritarian, one particular political party. So one might feel, as I do, that you're that you're taking this from a truly statutorily bipartisan body and handing it to a partisan body?
Well, not necessarily. The legislature has the option that they may choose to exercise or not. And if they don't exercise it, then the Board of Elections, which is, again, another bipartisan body, may be able to draft the language.
So just to clarify that, there is not a mandate that the legislature act.
They have the option to act, and they could kick it back to the old process if they wished. That's correct.
Okay. Now, I would imagine for the more controversial, the more important referendum, the legislature might be more likely to act. and that those would be the ones that we would be the most concerned about partisan bias leaking into the process?
I wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment. I just think that the legislature has the option to elect to, and the purposes will be about being clear and being concise and ensuring that the legislative intent of the statutory amendment is communicated to the people of the state of New York in a way that is understandable, readable, and is plain language.
How does a constitutional amendment get on the ballot?
a constitutional amendment gets on the ballot by being voted in this House in two consecutive sessions, terms, legislatures, and then there will be a ballot question on the ballot.
That is also my understanding. So for something to be on the ballot, it has to have passed both houses of the legislature twice effectively by that process. So therefore, we know that whatever the majority in the legislature is, is by definition in favor of the amendment. Otherwise, it wouldn't be on the ballot. So therefore, by definition, the legislature is biased in favor of the amendment.
I can't necessarily say I agree with that. But you are safe to make that interpretation. Well, my point is that if they weren't in favor of the amendment, the amendment wouldn't be offered because we're the ones offering the amendment. I don't think that's the part that I disagree with. You know, we're having a lot of conversation about one party, other party, this party, that party. The goal of this legislation is not to advance any campaigns. It's not to advance any particular political party. This is about having a clear and readable and concise and understandable piece of information which will be on the ballot that the people will have a voice in how our Constitution is made.
Let's imagine, heaven forbid, that the legislature, which as I said will love whatever referendums on the ballot produces something that is biased toward the proposal What would be the recourse to prevent that bias from leaking into the ballot
Well, there is a standard that was presented in a case, the case is Fernandez versus the Board of Elections. I am looking for the language as it relates to that standard. and when challenging a ballot proposition, the petitioner must show that the language on the ballot is not misleading, nor ambiguous, nor illegal, and that is consistent with existing law. So the language is not, you know, whomever is the drafter does not have unfettered opportunity to be able to just write, whatever it is that they choose to write without the necessary checks and balances of the judiciary.
So, Chairwoman, that would be adjudicated through the courts.
There's no sort of review by the Board of Elections or any other body that's baked into your statute.
You would have to go and sue, basically.
Yes. Okay. And people have exercised that right.
All right. Well, Chairwoman, I appreciate you answering my questions. at this early or late, however you want to look at it, hour. And I'm going to go on the bill. Thank you.
On the bill.
So I do have some very grave concerns about this piece of legislation. I'm going to be voting against it. And as I laid out in my questioning, and I appreciate the Chairwoman being so gracious to answer my questions, we have a process that is working. Do you want a second? Second, 15. We have a process that is working. It has been longstanding. It inherently forces, by statute, the description of a constitutional amendment to a truly, perfectly bipartisan organization. And I think that's appropriate, because it's important that the people, if we're going to, as we discussed last night, trust the people to make the changes to the Constitution, they have to be presented a fair, objective description of what they may be signing up for or what they may be declining to sign up for. And we all know that there is one party that has dominant control of this chamber, the chamber down the hall. And we would be handing this grave responsibility over to a very partisan, by definition, extraordinarily political body. and the immediate temptation would be to produce a biased description. And as I said, we would know they would have that temptation because they would have been the ones that just voted for the proposition and put it on the ballot multiple times. And so they're going to want to convince people to vote for it. And certainly I think people should be able to campaign for or against any proposition that's on the ballot.
We heard last night people are getting ready to campaign for or against the proposition that will potentially be on the ballot in 2027 that we passed last night. But it shouldn't be done on the ballot. That should be unbiased That should be fair It should not be political It should not be driven for partisan purposes And I'm concerned, obviously, about the timing. We had a very controversial constitutional amendment that we did last night. I hear rumors we may do another one before we're done. And so to now change the process, I think, is extraordinarily problematic. I think it will lead to bias. I think it is, once again, as we've been doing this week, injecting partisanship, where partisanship should not be, undermining our institutions. We have a process that works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And just as I have said over the last couple days, stop messing with the Constitution. let's not mess with the process by which the people, the sovereign people of the state of New York, will be determining whether to change their constitution. This is partisanship in the process that we simply do not need and can't afford if we're going to have a healthy democracy in the state of New York. Mr. Bologna. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a quick question? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, Madam Speaker. Sponsor yields. Thank you very much. So are you familiar with the term, like when we talk about polling or asking questions, are you familiar with the term framing? Yes. Okay. So would you agree that- Like you're about to frame your question? Possibly. The day is young. So would you agree, though, that depending on how I could be asking the same question, but depending on how I ask that question is going to prompt a different response from the respondent? You want to give me an example of that? I would love to. I'd love to. I actually have a couple right here. So let's say, let's talk about hamburgers. I'm actually kind of hungry. Let's talk about hamburgers for a second. So option one is, would you like a juicy flame grilled hamburger with fresh toppings? No. Okay. Would you like to eat processed remains of slaughtered cows served on bread? Same hamburger. No. And I am from South Carolina, so. My wife is also from South Carolina. What if I use vinegar based barbecue? There we go. We could use slaughtered pork. But my point is, is that we're still talking about the same product. We're still talking about the same thing. But the way that that question is framed prompts a different response from who's receiving the question. Would you work with me on that one? I can work with you on that. All right. Thank you very much. And you know what? That's all I needed. I'm going to go on the bill. Thank you so much. On the bill. It's the best debate I've ever had. Thank you. That's what I'm here for. So I want to start with something simple, a demonstration, and this is beyond hamburgers, but, you know, if two pollsters show up at your door and one says, do you support allowing the legislature to provide voters with a clear, plain language explanation of our proposed constitutional amendments? And the second one asks, do you support allowing politicians who wrote the amendment, and directly benefit from the amendment passage to also write the description of that amendment for the voters Which do you think that the voters are going to go with? The same question, the same underlying policy, two completely different answers because the framing determines the response. And every political consultant and every pollster in this state knows that. And yet with this bill, we're handing the majority party the pen, and really the super majority party the pen. That's what this bill does. It's stripped of its jurisdiction memo. It removes the authority to draft ballot proposition language from the State Board of Elections, a statutory, equally bipartisan body, structurally designed by law to have equal representation from both parties, and it gives that authority to this legislature. A legislature that, at this moment, is one of the most lopsided partisan bodies in the history of the state. So let me be precise about the current law because the sponsor's memo kind of glosses right over it. Right now, the Board of Elections drafts ballot summary. The Attorney General advises the public comments, and the final language is certified and transmitted. That's the process. There's multiple eyes on it. there's a public record, and the board is required by statute to use plain language at an eighth grade reading level, the same standard that this bill claims to impose on the legislature. So I ask again, what problem is being solved here? And the answer, if we're being honest, is not a readability problem. It's a problem of control. Because look at what's happening in this building right now. Look at the context in which this bill is being rushed to the floor. while we're simultaneously advancing a redistricting amendment that would allow this legislature to draw its own congressional lines. Every major good government organization in the state, Citizens Union, NYPREG, League of Women Voters, Reinvent Albany has come out and said exactly what this is, a power grab dressed up as a procedural reform. They said it plainly. This bill is purpose-built to benefit the expected 2027 redistricting amendment. It exists so that when this amendment goes to the voters, the majority gets to write the question. And this bill makes it— Ms. Walker, why do you write? Would Mr. Bologna like to answer a few questions? No, I'm just going to keep going on the bill, if that's all right. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. He does not yield. So this bill makes it almost explicit. It curves out a prior session, the 2023-2024 session from its reach, but it applies immediately to the session forward. There's a reason for that timing. There's a reason, a specific amendment they have in mind. This is not a general election reform. This is a precision instrument. Now, I want to talk about the Board of Elections for a moment because I think it's worth understanding what we are dismantling and why it was built the way it was. The board is bipartisan by design, not by accident, by design. The entire architecture of the institution reflects a foundational understanding that elections and the processes surrounding elections must not be controlled by either party, but both equally at the same time. This is not a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. This is an idea of democracy. You separate the players from the referees. you build structural independence into the process so that no single faction can tilt the table you This bill quite literally eliminates that. It says the legislature, which is to say right now, Democratic majority, will write the ballot question. And then it says the Board of Elections must transmit that language without amendment or alteration. That's not a check that's a rubber stamp with a government seal on it. This bill does include one supposed guardrail. the legislature shall use, quote, best efforts, best efforts, real legal definition there, to write neutral, plain language. So I want everyone in this chamber to sit with that phrase for a moment, best efforts. It's not an enforceable legal standard. It is the legislative equivalent of a pinky promise. So if the majority writes a summary that is incomplete, strategically favorable, or subtly misleading, who corrects it? Well, the board can't touch it. The attorney general's role is advisory. There's no mechanism. There's no remedy. The voter gets what the majority decides, the voter gets, and that's the end of it. I've been thinking about this institution a lot over the past 24 hours, And I've been thinking a lot about my kids, to be honest with you, because I miss the hell out of them. Which I know is a sentiment that many of us share, given how much time you've been away from our houses. But I keep coming back to what we are modeling and what we're building and what we're leaving behind specifically. I said yesterday that this body has taken a machete to the New York State Constitution in the span of 24 hours, and I really do mean that. But we're not just passing bad policy. We're systematically closing off the avenues through which the opposition could ever be effective. We're redrawing lines so that the maps favor one party. Now we're writing ballot questions so that the language favors one party. And we're doing it all while talking about clarity and good governance and protecting voters. I want to say something about how democracies end, because it's usually democratic. It is not a single villain. It is not a single moment. It's not a single law. That's a series of incremental moves, and this is one of a series of those moves in the past 36 to 48 hours that I fear are going to continue. As I said yesterday, the Constitution was not written to protect us from our enemies. It was written to protect us from ourselves. From the very human tendency of people who have power believe so completely in their own righteousness that they stop questioning their own actions. I'm not questioning the motives of anyone who votes for this bill. I'm just questioning the system that this bill creates. A system where one party proposes, one party approves, and one party writes the descriptions, and the voters are left to decide based on that information that was crafted by the people who need a specific answer. That's not democracy, folks. That's the theater of democracy. Thank you. Mr. Slater. Well, good morning, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, Madam Speaker. Sponsor yields. Thank you very much. I appreciate the debate that we've had so far on this. Happy Friday, by the way. It is officially Friday. I wanted to, if we could, just talk a little bit about some more details here. Under the current law, who's responsible for preparing the ballot abstract and form submission today? Who is responsible for submitting it to whom? Who is responsible for preparing the abstract and form of submission today Oh today The Board of Elections The Board of Elections And you told my colleague that the Board of Elections is a bipartisan body I did. I also told him that I didn't want slaughtered meat. You did say that. Well, he didn't offer you fries. There's a difference if you would have asked for fries. I think we all would have said yes. Have you identified any instance where the Board of Elections was incapable of performing its responsibility that it currently has? You mean in this instance or ever? Well, we're trying to make a change, and I guess the assumption is that the Board of Elections, if you're wanting to make the change, is that the Board of Elections cannot perform its duty. So my question is, has there been an instance where the Board of Elections has not been able to either prepare the ballot abstract or form of submission? So this provides an option to the legislature to write the question, the abstract and or the form. It does not eliminate this opportunity in totality from the Board of Elections to be able to perform that act. And quite frankly, the Board of Elections still has the opportunity to provide language as it relates to proposals, propositions, and referendums. Right. In the language, it's a may versus shall. It says that the legislature may rather than shall. So there still is the opportunity. We'll get that. I'll get there in a second because I have some questions about that as well. Would the Board of Elections be able to revise or modify the language if the legislature chooses to, if this bill is passed, if the legislature chooses to execute its authority, would the Board of Elections be able to make any revisions or modifications to the language that the legislature provides? No. On lines 20 and 21, it requires the board to transmit the legislature's language without amendment or alteration. So under this bill, the legislature drafts the amendment, drafts the abstract, drafts the form of submission, and the board is just required to transmit that language without any alteration or modification, despite its history of being able to do so? Yes, in the event that the legislature elects to exercise its option. Understood. The bill references the Automated Readability Index. Is that a publicly available tool? it's a formula and if mr goodell was here he would be able to recite that formula verbatim but i encourage you to read the previous debate of june 8th 2023 on this issue okay but my My question remains, is this a publicly available tool? Well, let's make it public again. I defer to you to Mr. Goodell's statement, where he very eloquently laid out the formula So anybody can use it Anyone can use it Thank you So could the State Board of Elections actually use the tool that cited in your legislation Yes, they can. Can the State Board of Elections use the tool? Yeah, that was my question. Can the State Board of Elections utilize the ARI? Yes. And the law already dictates today, it already dictates, if I heard you correctly with my colleague earlier, the level by which we currently have the abstract and form submission written. There's a level, a reading level. Yes, eighth grade. So if the board could use that tool, why aren't we simply just directing the board to apply that exact standard if you're wanting to use it here? That's not how the tool works. That's not how the tool works. The automated readability index score shall be calculated according to the following formula. I wish I had a chalkboard. Divide the number of characters, excluding spaces, by the number of words, and multiply that number by 4.71. B, divide the number of words by the number of sentences and multiply that number by .5. Add the results of paragraphs A and B of this subdivision and D, subtract 21.43 from the result of paragraph C of this paragraph and round to the nearest whole number. So the Board of Elections can apply that today? The Board of Elections has applied that. Oh, it has? Yes. So then why are we, if readability is the objective, why is there a transfer of authority necessary? There is not a transfer of authority. There is an additional option, just more tools in the toolbox. Who within the legislature is going to determine whether the ARI standard has been satisfied? Are we going to ask Mr. Vanell to run the numbers every time? That's a joke. Who's going to be in the legislature? Who's going to determine whether that standard has been utilized? It's an evaluation. Now that this is on the record, it's open to anyone and everyone to perform the calculation. So there's nobody specifically tasked with performing that specific calculation in the legislature? The calculation will be conducted, sir. Is there a particular individual that the bill points to? I'm just curious if there's going to be a public disclosure that the ARI score is acceptable. So they can, just as Ms. Victoria Fernandez did, for the court to decide whether or not best efforts were utilized in order to meet the ARI scores in compliance with the law. So then, just to make sure I'm clear, we as a legislature may exercise our ability to write these abstracts and form submissions, but the only way that we not going to verify or disclose to the public that it meets the ARI score unless they bring a court order or perform the calculation themselves It can be discussed in the chamber, but quite frankly, I believe that this is a very eloquently written decision, which lays out the dynamics as it relates to best efforts on the automated readability index, as well as providing a framework by how to determine what is plain language. Is it easily comprehended? Is it concise? And does it, does it, it shall not contain more than one passive sentence and not use semicolons or multiple sentences as necessary. In addition to that, you can also question, as was indicated by Mr. Bologna, if the question was hamburger or slaughtered meat, the court to make a determination as to whether or not it was misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with the law. Is there any bipartisan approval requirement if the legislature exercises its authority in this case? No. Most members of both political parties agree to the ballot language before it's proposed. Well they will agree to the amendment. Not necessarily. They have the option to if they chose to. But before it's presented to the legislature were to exercise that authority, there's no bipartisan collaboration or requirement before that language is provided to the voters? There's no requirement. Understood. The bill allows the Board of Elections to assign a ballot order number, correct? They still have that authority. That's one of the tasks that they're given. Yes. So we trust the board to administer statewide elections and assign those ballot order numbers? Yes. Madam Chair, thank you very much for answering my questions. I think I'm just going to use my remaining time to go on the bill if I can. Mr. Speaker. On the bill. Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing against plain language. No one is arguing that constitutional amendments should be difficult to understand. And I think we've demonstrated today that they, in fact, the Board of Elections has done a pretty good job making sure that they are at a sufficient reading level. And every member of this chamber should want voters to receive clear and accurate information before casting their ballot. But I'm left with a simple question. If readability is the goal, why not direct the bipartisan State Board of Elections to use the very same readability standards that is cited in the bill? The sponsor has acknowledged that the ARI is available. She actually recited the formula to us, which was great. Brought me back to high school math. The sponsor has acknowledged that the Board of Elections could apply it and has acknowledged that the Board already performs this function today. Yet instead of improving the existing process, this bill transfers authority from the Board of Elections to the legislature itself. By the way, to the legislature itself went politically advantageous. Under current law, the legislature proposes constitutional amendments and the Board of Elections prepares the explanation language. Under this Bill, the legislature drafts the amendment, drafts the abstract, drafts the form of submission, and the board is required to transmit that language without alteration or modification. That's not simply a readability reform, that's a transfer of authority. And what safeguards are added in exchange, there's no independent verification, there's no bipartisan approval requirement, there's no meaningful check on how that language is ultimately crafted. At a time when New Yorkers are already questioning whether too much power is being concentrated in too few hands, this legislation moves in the wrong direction. The people of New York deserve confidence that constitutional amendments are explained through an independent and trusted process, not by the very political body seeking their approval. That's why many New Yorkers will view this proposal not as a plain language bill, but as yet another attempt to consolidate authority within the legislature. The answer to public skepticism is not more control. The answer is more transparency, more independence, and more public trust. For those reasons, I cannot support this bill. I would encourage my colleagues to reject it as well. I vote no. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Ari Brown. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the bill. On the bill. At first glance, this legislation seems harmless. I mean, who would be against clear ballot language? Who could be against helping voters better understand constitutional amendments? But that's not the real question before us today. The real question is quite simple. Who should write the language that voters see when they enter the voting booth? Under current law, that responsibility rests with an independent entity. This bill transfers that authority to the legislature itself. The very body proposing the constitutional amendment, we are told this is merely an administrative change. I disagree. You know, words matter. Every political consultant, pollster, advertiser, and campaign professional in America, or in the world for that matter, understands that words matter. The entire advertising industry exists because words matter. If words didn't matter, did not influence outcomes, there'd be no reason for this bill. We have seen this throughout American political history. The Inflation Reduction Act was presented to the public as legislation focused on reducing inflation, but years later, many Americans view it primarily as climate, energy and a tax bill. The No Child Left Behind bill sounded like a promise that every child would succeed. The actual debate became centered on federal mandates, testing requirements, and Washington's role in local education. Heck, the U.S. Patriot Act sounded like a vote on patriotism. The real debate involved surveillance powers, privacy rights, and governmental authority. This bill asks New Yorkers to trust politicians with the power to write the description of their own proposals. If a voter spends 30 seconds just reading a ballot description and never reads the constitutional amendment itself, then the person writing those few sentences holds enormous influence over the outcome. That is exactly why independent review matters. If a constitutional amendment is good policy it should stand on its own merits It should not require politicians to control the wording presented to voters Government should not be in the business of writing its own sales brochure The people deserve an independent explanation, not a politically crafted one. And for that reason, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Palmisano. Yes, Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield for some questions? Ms. Walker, will you yield? Yes, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor yields. Good morning, Ms. Walker. How are you today? Good morning. I just heard the most amazing quote. The Board of Elections is bipartisan, not nonpartisan. I would agree with that. Well, on that note, though, it's bipartisan. They vote the Republican and Democrat the way it works now. They have to agree on the language that's going to go before the voters, correct? They have. That's how it works now. Correct. Yes. And from your position, I heard you say, well, the legislature writes the law, so we're closer to it, so we know best how to portray that message to the voters. Is that an accurate statement, possibly? Well, one of the things I said was that there's an old adage which says that if you're closer to the problem, you're closer to the solution. But what I also indicated was that the importance of legislative intent to be able to be communicated by the authors of the actual amendment. Sure. And if the legislature wants to, when we pass a law, certainly there's nothing stopping the legislature from conveying to the Board of Elections. This is what we want to see happen, but they still, the decision would rest with the Board of Elections, right? This, you mean in the present way? Oh yeah, I mean, because you said the legislature has the ability to express their intent. So the way the system is working now, there's nothing stopping either the Democrats or Republicans for conveying what they believe the process, what should be said in the language now. They can convey that message, but ultimately – Yes, and quite frankly, that happens because there's also a third arm where the Office of the Attorney General also made recommendations. And ironically, in the last iteration of a statutory amendment, the Equal Rights Act, the Board of Election wholly ignored the Office of the Attorney General's suggestions. Now, when we say about writing the laws and being closer to it, like the legislature, we pass tons of bills of governor signs that have become law. Now, do we pass the regulations that implement these laws? doesn't that usually the regulations fall to departments or agencies who take the law that we pass, and then they work, the experts within those agencies put in place the regulations. Isn't that accurate statement? Yes. So couldn't you make the same argument here that we're writing the law, then we give it to the experts at the Board of Election who are experts in that. They make the interpretation, and then they put the language together to convey to the voters with input from the legislature because nothing's precluding us to provide input from the legislature. So tell me why that's not working. I just don't understand how that's not working. It's been going on for how many years, decades? I don't believe anyone said that it's not working. I think one of the things that I did communicate was that we put more tools in the toolbox as opposed to wholly taking it away from the Board of Elections The legislature only has the option to exercise its right to write the question It not a requirement that the legislature does so So are you saying that once this passes, this body won't 100% write the language that's going to go before the voters in 2027? Whether it's 100% or 50%, I can't speak to that. But what I can say is they don't have to exercise that right if they don't want to. It's discretionary. Sure. It's discretionary. Now, that language, with the Board of Elections, again, they have to agree on it. That goes back and forth, and they work together to approve the language. Now, with this, with the legislature, who approves the language? It's the legislature? That's correct. So they would basically be, is it fair to say it'd be the, because it's concurrent resolution for the Senate and some, would that be fair to say that the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate would basically sign off on the language? That's correct. So the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Assembly would not have any input or sign off on that language, is that correct? It's the legislature, so quite frankly, it's all of the bells and whistles that make up our legislature. Because we're the legislature.
You're saying here that the minority leader of the assembly and the minority leader of the senate will be a part of those discussions to sign off and agree to that language? Is that what you're going to do tonight?
What I am saying is that the bill does not specifically lay out any particular position for whom will be the author. It says the legislature. So it makes up all of the body politic of the legislature.
I say you're saying this is probably being done in good faith, right? All this is done. So in the interest of good faith, wouldn't it be maybe good for you to agree, say, we're going to let the minority leader of the assembly and the minority leader of the Senate participate in crafting that language in a bipartisan fashion, just like the Board of Elections does, because the legislature is closer to it. So we're going to let them participate in and sign off on the language. Wouldn't that be a good way to show good faith to the voters?
Let me see if I can find good faith in here, because I think the only term that I was able to find is best efforts. And this is not necessarily about the convenience of the legislature. This bill is for the opportunity for the voters to be able to have clear and concise and plain language to be able to understand the contents of the statutory amendment.
Sure. So let's just say, for argument's sakes, you don't include the minority leader of our assembly, the minority leader in the Senate, in the discussions between the majorities, and you want to put language, clear language, you could probably write something like this, and this would be okay, right? The Protect Democracy, Justice, and Fairness Redistricting Act. You could do something like that and put that on the ballot with the redistricting amendment we passed yesterday. You could do that if you wanted to, correct?
You could put that clear language on the ballot with that initiative if that's what you chose to do, right? I think that's a hypothetical. It's very speculative.
Hypothetical, but possible, right? You could do that if you chose to do that, right?
I am not necessarily answering questions about what is going to go on to a question as it relates to a statutory amendment, which took place here. this bill just deals with the authorization of the legislature to determine the form in which the constitutional amendment is submitted to the people.
I heard when you were talking about this you made some comments that you said we believe this process letting it change in the language would make this process more clear more precise right
Correct.
So you said more clear, more precise, and more political, right?
I did not say more political.
Oh, I thought I heard you say that.
Maybe, I don't think I have to hear you say that.
I'm just joking, but that's all right. It is more political, but that's okay. I digress. You also said this creates clarity and is non-controversial, right? Was that your word?
I did say clarity. I don't remember saying non-controversial. But what I did say was that there are procedural safeguards in the courts that will protect language from being misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with the law. And if the courts find that the ballot language violates one of those four tenets, then the language will be struck.
And that would take a court challenge to do that, correct?
Correct.
All right. Swalker, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
I appreciate you.
Let me banter with you a little bit on this. Mr. Speaker on the bill.
Thank you. On the bill.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I know the hour is late, early, whatever you want to look at it. As we talked about with the redistricting amendment yesterday, this all goes hand in hand, all germane together. You heard a lot about protecting democracy, preserving democracy, trusting the voters, faith in the voters. All in the interest. So ultimately, you will have the ability to draw the congressional lines. I said, in my opinion, it was a political hit job, it's a political power grab. And just when you don't think it could get any worse, and then in that, that's where you remove the language, which basically took away not allowing for favorable or non-favorable lines for one party or not, or one candidate or not, basically to allow gerrymandering. And then when you just think it can't get worse, What we have here now basically removes a practice that has been in effect for well over 100 years of bipartisanship. Yes, not nonpartisanship, but bipartisanship. And what does that bipartisanship ensure? It ensures that both sides come together. They might not agree on 100% of what it says, but they come together to work out the language that they put before the voters. I think the voters have trust in that concept. What they don't have trust in is to say that one party who controls the whole operation up here has all to say in that process. I don't see how you could say that. And even the existing process we do have has input from the Attorney General, who is currently a Democrat, by the way, most often has been a Democrat. So you still have that type of, if you look at that, it still leans Democrat from that perspective. I mean, you could say this is about clarity. You could say this is about being more precise, but it's really more political. And when we talk about this being an eighth grade reading level, The thing about it is, even if it's beyond the 8th grade reading level, because even an 8th grader, with their knowledge and their IQ, can understand what this body is doing here tonight, can understand what this body did here last night. They will understand what you did here tonight, what you did here last night. It isn't fair. It isn't right. It's dishonest. It's very, very wrong. Very, very wrong. Very, very sad. and very, very shameful. And I'll go back to what I said that I heard you saying, oh, we trust the voters. We have faith in the voters. The problem is the voters don't trust us. And when you lose the trust of the voters, how can they have confidence in any action they were taking up here? How can they have confidence in the work we're doing here is in their best interest? Because the work we're doing on this bill right now is certainly not in the best interest of the voters. The work we did on that redistricting amendment, which totally counters what they asked for, what they voted for, not once in 2014 to create the district independent redistricting commission, but again in 2021 rejecting your ability and your attempt to overturn that commission and what they voted for. time and time again the voters have told us. And you wonder why they don't trust us. And what do we do over and over again? What does this body do? You do an end run around them. You say, I know better, we know best, all for the simple purposes of one thing, political power. And like I said, even an eighth grader knows that is wrong, that is not fair, It's dishonest. It's very sad and very, very shameful. So, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I am definitely voting no on this piece of legislation before us, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, my colleagues.
Thank you. Mr. Gandolfo.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for a few questions? Ms. Walker, will you yield?
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Sponsor yields.
I appreciate that. So looking at this bill, the only two requirements I see that the legislature would have to fulfill when drafting the ballot question language is that it would have to be in plain language and at the eighth grade reading level as determined by the formula. Is that correct?
That's correct.
I'm sorry.
Also, don't forget the best efforts requirement.
And the best efforts are required for what? For the plain language?
Best efforts for the reading level.
Okay, so I don't – if those are the only two requirements I see here, if a voter, a New Yorker, felt that the language was misleading, how could they challenge that based on the grounds that it doesn't accurately portray what the question before them is. They can bring a case at the Albany Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Albany County Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Okay, but the only two requirements that the legislature must fulfill is that it's in plain language and readable So let say we doing new redistricting maps and the legislature decides to put the question as do you want to adopt the most fair best impartial maps of all time And a voter might say, oh, that seems not like objective language, that might be subjective, and they want to bring an action. Is it my understanding that they could only bring an action if the language wasn't plain and if it didn't comply with the eighth grade reading level?
There are other requirements also. There are requirements that were put in place by the interpretation of the law as it relates to being misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with the law. But this particular bill deals with plain language and readability, best efforts.
And the interpretation of what law, as in those other requirements? The other requirements, before you mentioned also procedural safeguards, I don't see them referenced in this bill. So where might we find any provision that the ballot question is objective and not misleading?
Well, that was the finding in the Fernandez case. But I can also state that also in the law, the form shall include a descriptive title of up to 15 words, a summary of the text ballot proposal of up to 30 words in plain language that describes the change in policy to be adopted and not the legal mechanism, as well as state of what a yes or no vote means in up to 30 words in plain language that identifies the practical outcome of each election result and not the legal mechanism.
Okay, and that was the determination in the Fernandez case that you referenced?
No, that's in the bill, section four.
Section four of the bill.
Oh, 4408. Sorry. 4108.
Okay, now, are there any... I still don't see anything that says it can't be misleading. I just see plain language and reading level. So my concern is, I think I heard you reference that, you know, a New Yorker can sue, bring it to court. My concern is that the only thing they could challenge is the plainness of the language and not necessarily the veracity. I guess that's not a question. So I will go on this bill. Thank you.
On the bell.
Madam Speaker, not to drone in on the points that were made by my colleagues, but my concern is that when we're changing this, the only requirements really are is that the language is plain and understandable at an eighth grade reading level. We've seen, there could be examples of ballot questions. For example, there could be a redistricting ballot question that says should these new congressional districts be adopted to restore fairness. That's an example that was in Virginia. That could be an example here. But what is fairness when you're talking about redistricting? If there was an objective standard of fairness, we wouldn't have had a four-hour debate on the constitutional amendment last night that was all based around fairness. So we're putting questions to the voters and allowing only the legislature, the party in power to write those questions. I don't know. Maybe I am cynical after the procedures of this House over the last few days but I don exactly trust us to put something that accurately portrays what we doing especially when it couldn even be admitted what we were doing last night and why we were doing it. So for those reasons, Madam Speaker, I will be voting no
and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall
I'll take it back immediately.
Party vote has been requested. Mr. Gandolfo.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this legislation. However, if there are the unlikely exceptions, they may do so at their desk. Thank you.
Mr. Fall.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Lunsford to explain her vote.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The plain language requirements that we previously passed in this House were passed in 2023. The first opportunity for the Board of Elections to bipartisanly write language related to a constitutional amendment was in 2024 when we passed the Equal Rights Amendment language. Not only did they fail spectacularly in drafting something that was at an appropriate reading level and which met all the requirements, they were sued in the Fernandez case, which then supplemented their language with equally bad language, both of which were at a grade 13 reading level. At this point, I would prefer an actual eighth grader write this language since the BOE can't seem to do it. I kind of don't care who does it. As long as it's written in language people can understand. Every single time I had to talk about that provision, I had to defend why it was written like that. I spent more time talking about Prop 1 than I did myself that year when I was running for office. I vote in the affirmative because I'd like New Yorkers to be able to understand what they're voting for. Thank you.
Ms. Lunsford in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Chang to explain his vote
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm kind of cynical. I wonder who's going to write the amendment. Probably some bunch of lawyers or some PhDs or English majors. They're not going to write eighth grade level. And I agree with Ms. Lunsford. An actual eighth grader at eighth grade reading level should be writing this, but more than half of our eighth graders are reading below eighth grade reading level. That's why I'm voting negative. Thank you.
Mr. Chang in the negative. Ms. Walsh, explain her vote.
Yeah, so it's quarter after one in the morning, and every day we do a quote around here, right? So my quote is, quote, no one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would only be too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades. And then where should we be? That's from Animal Farm by George Orwell. I mean, God forbid we should not stack the deck one more time, you know. I mean, let's just keep stacking it. So, yeah, I am very cynical tonight. And what really makes me unhappy is that I know that at some point tomorrow when we finally pull the plug on all of this fun and wrap-up session for this year, everyone will applaud and there will be speeches and we'll all be getting along. I'm not feeling it, folks. I mean, this bill, the last one, the one from last night, I mean, it's just like every one is just worse than the next. And this one is really just disgusting. And I am a hearty no on this one. Thank you.
Ms. Walsh in the negative. Thank you. Thank you. . Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 96, nays 45. The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to take on these next five bills. Rules report 281 by Ms. Lopardo. Rules report 299 by Ms. People Stokes. Calendar 478 by Ms. Pauling. Calendar 163 by Ms. DeBores. and calendar 460 by Mr. Simone.
Thank you. Page 8, Rules Report 281. Clerk will read. Assembly number 11217, Rules Report 281.
Ms. Lopardo, an act to amend the cannabis law. On a motion by Ms. Lopardo, the Senate bill is before the House.
The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.
The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. Exceptions can be recorded now.
Thank you, Mr. Fall.
The majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.
Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 92 nays 49 The bill is passed Page 9 Rules Report 299 Clerk will read Assembly number 8244A, Rules Report 299, Mrs. People Stokes, an act to amend the real property actions and proceedings law.
On a motion by Mrs. People Stokes, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.
This act shall take effect immediately. Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.
The Republican conference will not be supporting this piece of legislation either, but if there are any yes votes, they can be recorded now.
Thank you, Mr. Fall.
The majority conference will be in support of this bill. There may be some exceptions, and they could voice those opinions at their desk.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 95, nays 46. The bill is passed. Page 42, calendar 478. Clerk will read. Assembly number 10305A, rules calendar 478, Ms. Paulin, an act to amend the public service law.
Read the last section.
This act shall take effect on the 180th day. A party vote's been requested, Ms. Walsh.
The Republican conference will be in the negative on this bill. Exceptions may be recorded right now.
Thank you, Mr. Fall.
The Democratic, the majority conference will be in support of this bill. For those that want to vote differently, they can do a stable here in the chamber.
Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you Are there any other votes Announce the results Ayes 100, nays 40. The bill is passed. Page 30, calendar 163. Clerk will read. Assembly number 6540E, calendar 163, Mr. Boras, an act to amend the general business law.
On a motion by Mr. Boris, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced, read the last section.
This act shall take effect on the 180th day. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 141, nays 0. The bill is passed. Page 41, calendar 460. Clerk will read. Assembly number 8043C, calendar 460, Mr. Simone, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.
On a motion by Mr. Simone, the Senate bill is before the House.
The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 60th day. Clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 129, nays 13. The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.
Madam Speaker, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions?
No housekeeping, no resolutions. Mr. Fall.
Madam Speaker, I now move that the Assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene on Friday, June 5th at 10 a.m., tomorrow being a session day.
10 a.m. tomorrow on Mr. Falls Motion, the House stands adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.