May 11, 2026 · ALBANY, NEW YORK · 20,448 words · 23 speakers · 566 segments
The Senate will come to order. I ask everyone to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
In the absence of clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection or prayer. (Whereupon, the assemblage respected a moment of silence.)
Reading of the Journal.
In Senate, Friday, May 8, 2026, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Thursday, May 7, 2026, was read and approved. On motion, the Senate adjourned.
Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. The Secretary will read.
Senator Bailey moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10710 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 9599, Third Reading Calendar 659. Senator Griffo moves to discharge, from the Committee on Local Government, Assembly Bill Number 11008 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 9973, Third Reading Calendar 903.
So ordered. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.
Good afternoon, Mr. President. On behalf of Senator Ryan, I wish to call up Senate Print 611A, recalled from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
The Secretary will read. (Pause off the record.)
Mr. President, allow me to correct myself. On behalf of Senator Stavisky, I wish to call up Senate Bill Number 611A, recalled from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 795, Senate Print 611A, by Senator Stavisky, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
Move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The Secretary will now call the roll on reconsideration. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Ayes, 55.
The bill is restored to its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
I offer the following amendments.
The amendments are received.
Amendments are also offered to the following Third Reading Calendar bills: By Senator Myrie, page 16, Calendar Number 540, Senate Print 1859; Senator Sepúlveda, page 32, Calendar Number 847, Senate Print 5037; Senator Gonzalez, page 33, Calendar Number 854, Senate Print 9051; Senator Baskin, page 43, Calendar Number 966, Senate Print 6020; And Senator Kavanagh, page 24, Calendar Number 724, Senate Print 9742.
The amendments are received, and the bills will retain their place on the Third Reading Calendar. Senator Gianaris.
There will now be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
There will be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
The Senate stands at ease.
The Senate stands at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 4:08 p.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 4:14 p.m.)
The Senate will return to order. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, there's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk. Let's take that up, please.
The Secretary will read.
Senator Stewart-Cousins, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bill: Senate Print 10262, by Senator Serrano, an act making appropriations for the support of government. The bill is reported direct to third reading.
Move to accept the report of the Rules Committee.
All those in favor of accepting the report please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")
Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")
The report of the Rules Committee is accepted. Senator Gianaris.
Please take up the supplemental calendar.
There's a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.
Senator Serrano moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 11295 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 10262, Third Reading Calendar 999.
The substitution is so ordered. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 999, Assembly Bill Number 11295, by Assemblymember Pretlow, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
Is there a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk?
There is a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk.
Move to accept the message.
All those in favor of accepting the message, please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")
Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")
The message is accepted. The bill is before the house.
Lay it aside.
The bill will be laid aside. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the supplemental calendar.
Please take up the controversial supplemental calendar.
The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 999, Assembly Bill Number 11295, by Assemblymember Pretlow, an act making appropriations for the support of government.
Senator O'Mara, why do you rise?
Thank you, Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield for some questions on this 11th extender bill?
The sponsor will be Senator Serrano. Senator Serrano, do you yield?
Yes.
The Senator yields.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Here we are on Monday, May 11th. We are taking up the 11th extender bill. We're now a month and a half late on this year's budget. Can you tell us where we stand on an overall budget agreement so we actually have budget bills for this current year to consider? Since the Governor announced we had a deal last Thursday, five days ago, and yet apparently there is still no deal, where does this process stand?
Through you, Mr. President. Senator, the negotiations are still continuing. I think we're in the final stretch here. And we are certainly very close to having a set of budget bills to vote on here. But you are correct, we are -- this is our 11th extender. And this will cover us until May 14th, which is Thursday. It does appropriate $2.9 billion to cover a host of different issues. But again, I cannot tell you for sure exactly when we will have a full budget. But the bill before us will get us at least to a point where we can continue the operating of state government. So that's pretty much where we stand right now.
Okay, thank you. Mr. President, will the Senator continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Senator, do you have any updates for us on the major policy issues that have been holding up this process -- namely, the CLCPA, SEQR, auto insurance costs, and a few others. Which of these have been nailed down, which have not been nailed down?
Through you, Mr. President. Those conversations are certainly winding down. And I think that there has been a tremendous amount of progress made on all of the different policy issues that you've mentioned. And they've been widely reported in the media as well. But until we have a final set of budget bills and language before us that we can look at and -- it's hard to say exactly where we are on those issues. But I do feel very confident that we are very close to having all of the outstanding issues resolved, and certainly all of the math as well and the actual budgeting of this budget. So I do feel very confident that we will have more clarity in the coming days, and hopefully a budget to vote on.
Thank you, Senator. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
It's been reported, Senator, that there's been a deal to provide some $1 billion of relief to ratepayers in this state on their utility bills. Can you tell us how firm that agreement is?
Through you, Mr. President. Again, these are -- these sort of fall under the heading of policy issues that we will not know until we have a final agreement. I do believe all of those are important issues. All of the policy issues that you've mentioned, both now and in previous discussions on extenders, are all critically important to residents of the State of New York. And I feel confident that we will get to a resolution very soon. And we're close. We're I think in the final stretch here, and we're just getting everything together. And hopefully we will have budget language to vote on the remaining budget bills.
Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Senator, last Monday you informed us that there were indeed table targets of $380 million. I have not heard of any joint budget conference committees having been scheduled to distribute those funds amongst the various areas of state government. Can you tell us where we stand on joint conference committees and the formal distribution of that $380 million?
Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for that question, Senator O'Mara. My understanding is the table targets are actually $385 million. As far as the joint conference committees, I don't know of any scheduled at this time. But rest assured, I know that that allocation for table targets is being utilized as we wind down this budget process.
Thank you. Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Senator, do you know, can you tell us whether or not these joint budget sub-conference committees are going to be held at all?
Through you, Mr. President. To my knowledge, there aren't any scheduled at this time.
Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Can you tell us whether or not they are actually going to be held before we finalize this budget?
Through you, Mr. President. Again, it's difficult to answer that question because I have no information on that. But just as a reminder, the bill before the house doesn't deal with any of those issues. This is a budget extender bill to appropriate for the continuation of state government and things like payroll costs and things for -- the Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax, WIC payments, and other important payments.
Mr. President, on the bill. Thank you, Senator Serrano.
Senator O'Mara on the bill.
Mr. President, we're no further along today than we were last Thursday when the Governor announced that there was a deal on this budget. We're still in limbo on all of the major policy issues. We have no information from the Majority where these stand, which of those may have been nailed down and agreed to, which ones are open and outstanding, and what the issue is that is open and outstanding on those major policy issues that New Yorkers deserve to know where the majorities of this Legislature and the Governor are going to take the State of New York in regards to these very significant policy issues that are holding this budget up. It's very concerning to me that there is no commitment to hold the budget conference committees to ultimately determine how the table targets will be distributed. My guess is and hunch is that they probably won't be held. As they haven't been held in prior years under this Majority and under this Governor. That we will get the budget bills in the dead of night, and we'll be asked to vote on them that same night, as has been done far too often in this Legislature. You know, we are now six weeks late on this budget. We are now eight days away from every school district in this state voting on its budget, not knowing what amount of money is going to be designated in this budget for the voters to vote on. Those budgets are already in print. They've already been decided based on a number that they've guessed at, at this point. If we had a budget done before the budget votes of those schools next Tuesday, at least the voters might have a chance to find out whether those school districts have allocated too much or not enough state aid in those figures. And if they've calculated too little state aid, that means the property tax levies in these school districts are going to be raised further than they would need to be raised if that aid was coming from the state. And voters would have a decision to make and say, Well, no, this budget's too much -- it's not needed. It's over and above what the state aid number was factored into formulating that budget. And voters could say, No, we're not going to support that budget because we want it to be revised to include the accurate state aid figure. There's discussions of this $1 billion to be returned to ratepayers in some form or fashion. I'd like some explanation to the ratepayers of this state why it's only a billion dollars being discussed. Why isn't the full $3 billion that NYSERDA and the utility companies of this state are holding in escrow for further green projects to go forward -- throwing money down the drain more and more, and not returning it to the ratepayers who are in desperate need. Only a third of what's being held is being considered to be returned to those ratepayers. And that amount is basically built into NYSERDA's financial plan for the next several years out, to have that excess in its coffers rather than in the pockets of the ratepayers of New York State. I just want to know really what the Governor and the majorities of this Legislature are really doing about the affordability crisis we have in New York State. And that we hear, day in and day out, about the affordability struggles in this state, and yet the State Budget continues to rise. Now it's an estimated $268 billion, around that, is going to be approved -- $15 billion more than last year. As I've said many times, the spending in this state is out of control. It's unsustainable. And it's only exacerbating the affordability issues that we have in this state. And it's only going to further exacerbate those issues as we continue to have policies in this state that drive businesses out, that drive people out. We'll have less larger taxpayers so the amount of spending is going to be spread about even more against lower-income households, which is not fair. It's not just. And we're making the wrong policy designations to move this state forward so we can have some affordability, some semblance of affordability so that New Yorkers can afford to stay here and raise their families, so that businesses will want to stay here and invest and provide the jobs that New Yorkers need to sustain themselves and their families. You know, we now, in this budget extender, have allocated $23.1 billion towards this year's budget. Now, that's only 8.6 percent of what the overall budget would be at $268 billion. But an alarming fact is that that amount of $23 billion is in excess of the entire budgets of 22 states in this country, just to show you how out of whack our spending is in this state. Eleven to 12 times more than what 22 states are in this -- yeah, they're smaller states, I get it. But our spending per capita in these state budgets is out of control. And there's nothing that's been shown to be being done or even considered by the Governor or the majorities of the Legislature in going after that issue, going after these uncontrolled budgets, going after the impact they're having on businesses and households in this state, with no relief in sight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator O'Mara. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is now closed. Senator Gianaris.
Thank you, Mr. President. We've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.
The bill will be restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 999, voting in the negative: Senator Weik. Ayes, 59. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, let's return now to motions and resolutions and recognize Senator Sanders for an introduction.
Senator Sanders for an introduction.
Thank you, Mr. President. As the president knows, I'm sure, in 1787 Richard Allen and Absalom Jones were tossed out of the Methodist Episcopalian Church in Philadelphia for a simple crime. Their crime? Praying. They wanted to pray to God with other people. These people were white, and they were Black, and they were tossed out. This led to many different things, including the creation of the first Black denomination -- the AME church, the African Methodist Episcopalian church, was created. That church has of course been at the forefront of many of the human rights struggles that the world has seen. To speak of them would take days, if not months. But they have been at the forefront. In that tradition, the Allen AME church, located in my favorite borough, Queens, is also a church that has been at the forefront of every human rights struggle that there is. And now that it is under the guidance, the pastorship of Pastor Green, we expect nothing but great things from it. Mr. President, will you let them know that their trip up here has been well-received? And now that I have introduced them, Pastor Green, we thank you for coming up here with your congregation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator Sanders. To Pastor Green and our guests, I welcome you on behalf of the Senate. We extend to you the privileges and courtesies of this house. Please rise and be recognized. (Standing ovation.)
Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, we have another introduction, this time by Senator Hinchey. Please recognize Senator Hinchey.
Senator Hinchey for an introduction.
Thank you, Mr. President. If you like a good underdog story, a real David versus Goliath, then you need to know what happened in Middletown, New York, in the early 1990s. It happened because of the grit and determination of students and their extraordinary teacher, named Fred Isseks. If you were one of Fred's students, he taught you that you learned by doing. In his pioneering Electronic English class, he handed students video cameras and together they investigated rumors of contamination at their local landfill, the kind that showed up through sludgy tap water and birth defects in local children. These teenagers, backed by their teacher's belief in them, became key investigators. They interviewed their neighbors living with the consequences of pollution and collected samples from the landfill that showed dangerous levels of ammonia, arsenic and other toxic substance. And yet reporters brushed them off. Local officials put up roadblocks. But still they pushed forward. Through the work of classes from 1991 to '97, they uncovered a conspiracy of toxic dumping, Mafia involvement, and political corruption in their hometown. Despite being underestimated by those in power at every turn, they also gained allies. Among them was my father, who was Assemblyman and the chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee at the time. He spearheaded hearings and investigations, which uncovered a vast organized-crime ring dumping toxic materials across the state that led to more than 20 convictions and was a defining moment for me growing up, watching all of that in action. Incredibly, we are not only able to learn about what happened, we can see it unfold. Fred and his students captured about 500 hours of archival video footage, and in 2025 directors Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine turned it into the acclaimed documentary Teenage Wasteland. The film shows us the incredible gift Fred gave his students. He taught them that being in a democracy means believing it's yours to protect. We feel the turbulence of politics today, and we know that the antidote to apathy in our democratic process is civic courage, because the only plague to democracy is indifference. Fred and his students were a model for the kind of change we can make if we stay engaged, and that is a beautiful thing. So tonight, at 6 p.m., I invite everyone to join us for a screening at the State Museum, for a free screening of Teenage Wasteland, and the chance to meet the people who unearthed this piece of Hudson Valley and state history, several of whom are here with us today. They are Fred Isseks, the mentor, former teacher, and believer in the power of collective action, and David Birmingham, one of the former students whose bravery and persistence helped uncover the truth. They are joined today with their families. Mr. President, please welcome them to the chamber, thank them for their incredible work. Everyone should check out this film that the students created called Garbage, Gangsters and Greed. I believe that still may be on YouTube, but I'm sure we can get a copy. And please give them all the cordialities and privileges of the chamber. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Senator Hinchey. We thank you for your work. And to our guests, I welcome you on behalf of the Senate. We extend to you the privileges and courtesies of this house. Please rise and be recognized. (Standing ovation.)
Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, let's take up previously adopted Resolution 1343, by Senator Gallivan, read its title and recognize Senator Gallivan.
The Secretary will read.
Resolution 1343, by Senator Gallivan, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 10-16, 2026, as Police Week in the State of New York.
Senator Gallivan on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. Law enforcement has been a part of my life as long as I can remember, and so I rise in support of Police Week in New York State and across the country. We all know the job of a police officer is dangerous and difficult. We were all reminded of this just last week when we gathered in the Plaza here in Albany, pausing in solemn remembrance of 56 officers who made the ultimate sacrifice, and adding their names to the New York State Police Officer Memorial's black granite walls. Their names, and the names of the other fallen police officers etched on memorials from Albany to Washington, along with the nearly 60,000 police officers who are assaulted each year while on the job, remind us of the cost of our freedom. These fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, sacrifice family dinners, holidays and personal safety so that the rest of us can live the lives we do, safe and secure in our homes and communities. We're fortunate and grateful that hundreds of thousands of dedicated individuals have taken the oath to serve and protect our communities across the country, despite the risks and challenges they face. As we honor all who have fallen, let us also thank all who have served -- thank them for their service, their sacrifice, their dedication, and their steadfast protection of our families and our communities. And we can support them, Mr. President, with a commitment to providing the policies, tools and training they need to protect us and to ensure they return home safely to their own families each and every day. I ask my colleagues to join me in calling on the Governor to proclaim this week Police Officers Week in the State of New York. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator Gallivan. Senator Chan on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. I feel compelled to stand up and speak on behalf of Police Week. And I want to thank Senator Gallivan for introducing this resolution. As a retired police officer, I can honestly say and speak with a clear conscience that I did my job to the best of my ability, and with public service in mind. I can't keep account of how many people I helped, but it was many and many. Today's atmosphere in regards to police officers has changed. I feel very bad for them because the public opinion about the police is definitely on the wrong side. And I would hate for any new police officers today to call this their good old days, because I had my good old days and my predecessors had their good old days. And I don't want this kind of an atmosphere to be their good old days, especially to the families of all the police officers that gave their lives, made the ultimate sacrifice, so that we could stand here today. I just wanted to say thank you, and thank you for still running around out there.
Thank you, Senator Chan. Senator Rolison on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the sponsor, Senator Gallivan, for introducing this resolution. I too attended the memorial of last weekend. I remember being here many times over during my career as a Town of Poughkeepsie police officer. The memorial was dedicated in 1991. And every single service at that memorial is special. It is special to remember the lives that were lost, the families that were affected, and the communities also, Mr. President, that were affected by the loss of members of law enforcement. This year there were 56 names added to the memorial. And this year was a special year for members of the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department and the greater City of Poughkeepsie community. This was the 15th anniversary of the death of Detective John Falcone, who was shot and killed on February 1, 2011, after he and other officers responded to a shots-fired call during the day near the Poughkeepsie Train Station. Ultimately John lost his life because an individual who was there who had just actually killed his wife -- which, at the time, the officers did not even know that was the genesis of the shots-fired call in a domestic violence incident -- and John, in trying to apprehend this individual, was shot and killed. And I have attended many of those anniversaries down at the site by the Poughkeepsie Train Station. This year was no different. But thinking about John's family, his mom and dad -- his mom has since left us, but his father of course was there. And it is very comforting to know that there were police officers from all over the Greater Dutchess County and Ulster County area to remember John. And on that particular morning I saw John and his City of Poughkeepsie police car, and I waved at John. And I don't think he saw me. He was at a traffic light in the City of Poughkeepsie. And then several hours later, John would be gone. And it shows you the sacrifices that can come in an instant, and that happened that day. And I can also say, Mr. President, as this happens unfortunately throughout this great state of ours all too often, that there are people that are left behind. And in the City of Poughkeepsie of course it was his family, but it was the greater City of Poughkeepsie community that loved John. And they felt that loss just like his family, because John was part of that family. So today, Mr. President, I want to -- again, I want to thank the sponsor. I want to thank all the police officers and their families that make sacrifices for us every single day. But today, Mr. President, on the 15th year of John Falcone's death, I'm remembering Detective John Falcone. Thank you, Mr. President. I proudly vote aye.
Thank you, Senator Rolison. Senator Weik on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. Police Week has always been a big deal in my family. It's always been a week of celebrating and acknowledging all the hard work that law enforcement does. We typically will go out to Yaphank headquarters, which is Suffolk County police headquarters, to see all the different skills that law enforcement is required to do, whether it's helicopters, Marine Bureau, highway officers, and the many, many lifesaving skills that they need to acquire and to be able to perform in order to save all of us on our worst day. And it's usually the most interesting place you can be, and to see how many different things they have to do. My late uncle, who was deputy Suffolk County police commissioner back in the eighties, is actually in the Suffolk County Museum. He was shot in the line of duty and many years later passed away due to those injuries. So it's always been something of my family that we celebrate law enforcement. Police Week means a celebration for all families of law enforcement, to be able to acknowledge what a difficult job this is. Every day when my husband put on his uniform and left the house, I did not know if he was going to return that day. And now, as a mom, I have that same worry about my son, who's a state trooper. It's a difficult job -- not just being law enforcement police officers, but it's a difficult job to be the family of law enforcement. They perform so many good deeds, whether it's helping someone who got a flat tire on the side of the road. But then when you read in the news how many people get hit and killed while they're changing a tire on the side of the road, you realize the dangers. You know, my husband was hit and severely injured, like so many other officers on the job. Luckily, he's still alive, thank goodness. But we don't see that with so many officers. And that's why we have these memorials. My husband always attended the memorial in Washington, D.C., and now I get the great privilege to be able to attend the ones that we have here in Albany, which truly means so much to us, the families of law enforcement. But more than that, I want all of my dear police officers to know how much we love and support the work that you do, and that there are so many people out there that rely on you and think the world of you. And I want to thank all of our law enforcement, today more than any other day. We love you, we support you, and we're here for you. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Weik. Senator Ryan on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say thank you to Senator Gallivan for bringing this up. I just want to mention I too was at the memorial service, and it brings back memories. In April of 2024, a high-speed chase, two officers were led in the chase. The person who led them on that chase went back to their house, barricaded themselves in. More than 100 law enforcement officers responded to that scene after a six-hour standoff. Two officers, Officers Hoosock and Jensen, were brutally murdered, gunned down that terrible night. And it was a bad week, month, for law enforcement leaving behind families. So I too want to mention that. And, you know, that scenario tragically happens far too many times. So I want to say, to our state law enforcement agencies, to our county sheriffs across the state, to our local town and village municipalities, our police officers, to our police chiefs, our detectives, our lieutenants, but also to -- because I'm a union guy, our union rank-and-file police members, I want to say thank you. Thank you for all you do. Thank you for putting on the badge. And thank you for putting on the uniform and keeping us -- keeping us safe and allowing us to sleep at night, knowing that there's somebody out there making sure that our communities are safe. So I want to say thanks again. And, you know, we owe you a debt of gratitude.
Thank you, Senator Ryan. Senator Myrie on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Senator Gallivan for bringing this resolution. We have very spirited conversations in this chamber in the Codes Committee around public safety, but there's rarely if ever a time that our families have to worry about whether we will return home from the job that we do for people. And this is something that everyone who puts on a uniform, their family has to endure on a daily basis. So I just want to say thank you for the service that you provide to keep us safe. We are grateful for that service, we appreciate that service. And I'll be proudly voting in the affirmative for this resolution. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Myrie. The resolution was adopted on January 13th. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, let's take up previously adopted Resolution 1851, by Senator Sepúlveda, read that resolution's title and call on Senator Sepúlveda.
The Secretary will read.
Resolution 1851, by Senator Sepúlveda, commemorating Dominicans in Albany, a celebratory event of empowerment, on May 11, 2026.
Senator Sepúlveda on the resolution. SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA: Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to speak on this resolution. Today I rise before this chamber with a deep sense of pride and a steadfast commitment to the communities that enrich and strengthen the great State of New York. I have the honor of introducing a resolution to recognize the Dominicans in Albany event. It's happening today in the Well. It's been going on since 10:00 this morning. New York State is the home to the largest Dominican community outside of the Dominican Republic, with about 900,000 of them calling New York State home. They live in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and all the other counties throughout the State of New York. Dominicans have become a central part of the social, cultural, economic, and civic fabric of New York. Their contributions continue to shape the industry, strength, and future of our great state and great country. Along with my Dominican colleagues in the Assembly, today we aim to celebrate and honor the Dominican community, a community that has contributed immeasurably to the economic, cultural and social growth of our great state and nation. The Dominican presence in this region tells us a story of constant hard work, sacrifice, entrepreneurship, and dreams built through determination and perseverance. This resolution is not merely a symbolic act; it is an institutional recognition of a community that has helped strengthen and shape the diverse identity of New York State. It also serves as a reminder that our great state grows stronger when we embrace our differences and celebrate our roots. To my colleagues, I respectfully ask for your support on this resolution -- not only as a legislative gesture, but as an affirmation of the values that unite us. New York State is built by immigrants, enriched by diversity, and guided by the hope of a better future for all. Now in Spanish. {Delivering address in Spanish.} Thank you. I vote aye.
Thank you, Senator Sepúlveda. Senator Chan on the resolution.
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to support Senator Sepúlveda because I proudly represent the neighborhood of Sunset Park, in Brooklyn, with a large Dominican community. I want to especially thank my older daughter Elizabeth's godmother. I'm giving her a shout out: Maria Padilla, who is in fact Dominican. And she's happily retired in Florida -- a retired cop, so she gets a double thanks today, both as a police officer and as a Dominican woman who is the godmother to my child. And I want to thank the Hispanic community in my neighborhood of Sunset Park, especially the Dominicans. We have many eateries that I enjoy very much, from the chicharron to the pernil, and the Senator knows what I'm talking about. So I thank you for this resolution. I proudly support it. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Chan. The resolution was adopted on April 21st. Senator Gianaris.
Mr. President, the sponsors of today's resolutions would like to open them for cosponsorship.
The resolutions are open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be a cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Gianaris.
Please take up the calendar.
The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 215, Senate Print 7618B, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 215, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, O'Mara, Ortt, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 53. Nays, 7.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 258, Senate Print 1676, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect one year after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 258, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Martinez, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 45. Nays, 15.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 262, Senate Print 4691B, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 30th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 262, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 44. Nays, 16.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 512, Senate Print 703, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 512, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 59. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 659, Assembly Bill Number 10710, by Assemblymember Dilan, an act to amend the Insurance Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 659, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 38. Nays, 22.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 746, Senate Print 9611, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend Chapter 217 of the Laws of 2015.
Read the last section.
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 60.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 760, Senate Print 7053, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the County Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 60.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 801, Senate Print 4389, by Senator May, an act to amend the Executive Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 801, voting in the negative: Senator Brisport. Ayes, 59. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 839, Senate Print 88A, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
Lay it aside.
The bill will be laid aside.
Calendar Number 856, Senate Print 8199, by Senator Sanders, an act to direct the Department of Financial Services to conduct a study on the banking development district program.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 856, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 871, Senate Print 9331, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law.
Read the last section.
Section 5. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 871, voting in the negative are Senators Lanza, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 57. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 893, Senate Print 9677, by Senator Baskin, an act in relation to enacting the "City of Buffalo Historic Preservation Receivership Act."
Read the last section.
Section 12. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 60.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 897, Senate Print 265, by Senator Harckham, an act in relation to directing State Board of Real Property Tax Services to conduct a study on real property tax saturation.
Read the last section.
Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 60.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 903, Assembly Bill Number 11008, by Assemblymember Hunter, an act to amend the County Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 60.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 918, Senate Print 9848, by Senator Salazar, an act to amend the Court of Claims Act.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 918, voting in the negative are Senators Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Rhoads and Walczyk. Ayes, 57. Nays, 3.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 945, Senate Print 9206, by Senator Lanza, an act to amend Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2011.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
Ayes, 60.
The bill is passed. Calendar Number 966 will be laid aside. It is high.
Calendar Number 971, Senate Print 3366, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 971, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 38. Nays, 22.
The bill is passed.
Calendar Number 982, Senate Print 381, by Senator Brouk, an act to amend the Labor Law.
Read the last section.
Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 982, voting in the negative: Senator Walczyk. Ayes, 59. Nays, 1.
The bill is passed.
Excuse me. Also Senator Gallivan. Ayes, 58. Nays, 2.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's calendar.
Let's take up the controversial calendar, please.
The Secretary will ring the bell. The Secretary will read.
Calendar Number 839, Senate Print 88A, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
Senator Lanza, why do you rise?
Mr. President, I believe there's an amendment at the desk. I waive the reading of that amendment and ask that you recognize Senator Walczyk.
Thank you, Senator Lanza. Upon review of the amendment, in accordance with Rule 6, Section 4B, I rule it nongermane and out of order.
Accordingly, Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that Senator Walczyk be heard on that appeal.
The appeal has been made and recognized, and Senator Walczyk may be heard.
Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Mr. Floor Leader. I appreciate the appeal here. I needed an ID to drive here today. I also needed an ID to swipe into the building. The bill before us will automatically register people to vote when they meet various state agencies and file paperwork, including the DMV, who actually issues IDs. Aside from common sense and common practice, this idea, this helpful amendment that I offer here today is also immensely popular by the majority of New Yorkers. A Siena poll just a couple of weeks ago -- and I know we follow polls around here. But just a couple of weeks ago they showed that a majority of New Yorkers support voter ID. In New York we also have an affidavit system that if somebody forgets their ID on Election Day, has lost their ID, or just didn't bring it to the polls that day, we have a robust affidavit system that would allow them to vote and continue the franchise. Nonetheless, they would just vote on another ballot. So this bill that I offer up -- this helpful amendment to the bill-in-chief that we'll talk about in a moment -- doesn't solve all of the problems of the bill, but it is one helpful way that New Yorkers have consistently been asking for. They want to believe in full faith that our elections are secure by having voter ID at the polls. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator. I want to remind the house that the vote is on the procedures of the house and the ruling of the chair. Those in favor of overruling the chair, signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")
Show of hands.
A show of hands has been requested and so ordered. Announce the results.
Ayes, 22.
The ruling of the chair stands, and the bill-in-chief is now before the house. Read the last section.
Section 9. This act shall take effect January --
Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?
Thank you, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield?
Yes. I thank Senator Rhoads for goading you on to get up. This is your moment, Senator Walczyk. Let's go. (Laughter.)
The sponsor yields.
I notice we almost rushed through things. Through you, Mr. President. How many registered voters are there in the State of New York?
Many millions. If you want an exact number -- one second, Senator Walczyk. I can give you an estimate, if you would like. I would daresay we're probably at 7 or 8 million, but that's just a guess. I don't have the precise number in front of me.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. I talked to folks at the Board of Elections this morning. They said it's roughly 13.5 million currently registered, a little bit lower than that in active voters that have voted in previous elections in years past. I think they look at the five-year lookback. And that's according to July of last year. But the number is 13.5. How many New Yorkers are eligible to vote? Do you know that number?
I'd say you were correct on the number. I was handed that information after I answered. So probably that number has increased in large part because we have some version of automatic registration in place. Yet estimates are there remain about 2 million New Yorkers who are eligible yet unregistered.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
It's actually, according to -- through you, Mr. President. According to the Census's American Community Survey from 2024, there are 14.1 million New Yorkers eligible to be registered. So we're at about a 96 percent registration rate for eligible New Yorkers in the state. What does this bill do?
First of all, that's an imprecise estimate that you're using as it relates to the census. It's not an exact figure. As we all know, the census is notoriously inaccurate. But this would allow, even if it's half a million or 2 million -- I guess we can agree that that's the range we're talking about -- that's a significant amount of New Yorkers who are currently disenfranchised, even though they are eligible to vote.
Would the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. So the title of your -- of the bill here says "provides for automatic voter registration and preregistration for persons applying for certain Department of Motor Vehicle documentation and for Medicaid enrollees." What does this bill do?
It streamlines the automatic registration process we currently have in place. Currently, if you're interacting with the DMV, I believe you have to fill out paperwork in order to register, which is part of your transaction with the Department of Motor Vehicles. This would have the process be more automatic in the sense that it would be a burden on the agencies themselves to determine if you are eligible and then transmit that information to the Board of Elections. So it would remove a hurdle that the voter would currently have to go through. And I should add that it would also make the process -- the reason it's called secure AVR is it would make the process more secure, for lack of a better word, in a lot of the ways that I would think you would support. So, for example, currently someone who's filling out that paperwork has to attest themselves to their eligibility. Whereas in this -- under this bill, the agencies which would be armed with the data and information to conclusively prove a voter's eligibility would have that burden.
And, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
On page 3, line 24, you address DMV voter registrations, which we've just talked about a little bit. Line 24 says "provides documentation conclusively demonstrating that such person is not a United States citizen." The checkbox that is currently on the DMV or Motor Voter registration, the checkbox reads this way: "I decline use of this form for voter registration and preregistration purposes. Do not forward my information to the Board of Elections. If you do not check this box and you provide your signature on the space below, you will have applied to register or preregister to vote, and you will have attested to your eligibility to register or preregister to vote." Is that box going to remain under this law?
I suppose that would be up to the DMV. But it should not have to be there. It would be redundant because the burden, as I just mentioned, would fall on the DMV, based on the information the applicant provides to them, to make that determination regardless of whether a box is checked or not. And if I could direct you to the next page of the bill, on page 4, subdivision 2 says, in fact, that such person needs to provide documentation to the DMV conclusively demonstrating United States citizenship. And so that -- it's a little bit -- the section you outlined is a little bit redundant. It basically says you have to prove citizenship. And if somehow you prove that you're not a citizen, because you registered to vote with some other documentation, be it a green card or what have you, the DMV should definitely not transmit that information. But they're only authorized to transmit the information, under this bill, if they've already proven citizenship. So it's a little bit redundant.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And what documentation, for someone who doesn't have any documentation -- often referred to as undocumented -- what information would they provide the DMV?
What information would they provide to the DMV? I guess as it relates to this bill, that's irrelevant, because they would not have documentation proving citizenship, so the inquiry would end there and the information would not be sent to the Board of Elections.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If someone is not a citizen and doesn't have documentation, what would they bring to the Department of Motor Vehicles to prove their noncitizenship?
You've asked the same question twice.
I did.
And what I'm indicating to you is as it relates to this bill, that is an irrelevant question.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
What, then, would be the actions of the front-facing clerk -- through you, Mr. President. What then would be the actions of the front-facing clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles or a button-pusher in the Department of Motor Vehicles if they're doing it online? What would they -- what documentation would they have to be able to not register someone to vote?
You're asking the question in the negative.
Mm-hmm.
The fact of the matter is if an applicant does not provide conclusive proof that they are a citizen, the DMV's process as it relates to this, to registering someone to vote, is over.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Yeah, and maybe it's -- through you, Mr. President. Maybe it's some confusion on the redundancy that you mentioned earlier. But on page 3, in Section 2, (reading): Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall not provide an opportunity to register or preregister to vote to, or transmit an application for registration or preregistration for any person who, when conducting a Department of Motor Vehicles transaction pursuant to the subdivision 1 of this section, provides documentation conclusively demonstrating that that person is not a United States citizen. So I know you said it's a double negative. But I'm wondering about the double negative in that statement. If they don't have documentation, how do they prove that they are not a citizen to the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Well, as I indicated to you, you're harping on this one provision, which I would think should make you happy. But the fact is in the following page, the bill talks about when the DMV is in fact authorized to transmit someone's information to the Board of Elections. It specifically says after United States citizenship has been conclusively documented. Then there's this extra provision that you're talking about that says if somehow they've proven they're not a citizen, definitely do not send that information to the Board of Elections. But they wouldn't be allowed to send it regardless unless there's something that shows that they are in fact a U.S. Citizen.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. So on that process on page 4 that you mentioned, there are multiple paragraphs here. The DMV and Board of Elections will determine what proves citizenship, as you outlined. Whether they're already registered, and that information, how it gets shared. The State Board of Elections then sends that registration to the local boards of elections, and then the local board of elections shall register that voter. How will DMV and the Board of Elections decide what documents are -- make someone an eligible citizen to vote in New York State's elections?
That will be for them to determine. I would think you would have some comfort in the fact that the Board of Elections' decision-making process is governed equally by Democrats and Republicans. It's a decision that the commissioners would have to authorize, and that would not have any partisan leaning one way or the other. So whatever the Board of Elections deems sufficient would be something that members of your party would agree to.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
I asked the question -- and I would have more comfort if it were outlined in the bill. So I asked the question about what the process for the DMV and the Board of Elections would be in determining what that documentation is, which isn't spoken to in the bill. What do you imagine their process in determining what documentation --
I assume there would be some kind of interagency document that would be agreed upon through whatever authorization those agencies have. For the DMV, it would probably be the commissioner's agreement. For the Board of Elections, it would be their commissioners' agreement. Which, as I mentioned, is equally split amongst the parties.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
With three parties in the mix here, the DMV, the Republican elections commissioner and the Democrat elections commissioner, is there a weighted vote for --
No --
-- the process for how -- or does it need to be unanimous when determining which documentations will be acceptable?
No, I think -- I think the bill is clear that DMV would have to agree and the State Board of Elections would have to agree. And so the DMV process would be what it is. Let's presume it's the commissioner single-handedly making the determination. But for the Board of Elections, for them to agree, it would have to be a majority vote of their commissioners. Or else the Board of Elections is not making a decision, legally speaking.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So -- and that does give me comfort. So the commissioners of the Board of Elections, both Republicans and Democrats, would have to agree on which documentation is presented.
Correct.
Thank you. Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Why would -- so we -- and I know we've done Motor Voter and we've done the Green Light Law, and we do have automatic voter registration. Some of those -- some of those policies haven't been all the way put in place. I know the Board of Elections is still working on agreements for some of the finalization of Motor Voter or automatic registration through the DMV currently. Why would we put more onus on front-facing clerks to more registrations at this point, before those rules are finalized at the Board of Elections with, as you point out, bipartisan agreement?
Because we have a fundamental disagreement about our democratic process. We like for people to vote who are eligible to vote. And as I just saw from your attempted hostile amendment, you prefer to put obstacles in people's way before we let them vote. So there's a fundamental philosophical difference. I will always be proposing legislation, for the last few months I'm here, to make it easier for people who are eligible to participate in the democratic process. And it seems that you would prefer the opposite.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield for another question.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. I didn't present this bill today; I'm just asking some questions because I'd like to know some answers about it. It's a pretty lengthy bill, and I'm trying to understand what the implication of the policy that you're proposing here is. On page 6, line 45, what if they register through the DMV online?
What would they do? Is that your question?
Yeah, I'll -- through you, Mr. President, I'll clarify. So line 45 says that if such applicant applies to register to vote electronically, such applicant thereby consents to the use of an electronic copy of such applicant's manual signature that is in the custody of the Department of Motor Vehicles as such applicant's voter registration exemplar signature. So if someone is registering online, how will someone at the DMV determine their citizenship?
Well, as I've discussed, that would be up to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the State Board of Elections to jointly determine.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Could that still be a checkbox opt-out, or a self-attestation in the case of online registration through the DMV?
No, that's not the intention. No, that's not documentation.
And Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
On page 7 -- through you, Mr. President. And this is talking about so if they don't check the box, they're essentially registered. For each person who completes an application to register to vote -- I won't read the entire paragraph, but it closes with line 36: The department shall not transmit to the State Board of Elections an application for registration for a person who indicates on the integrated personal voter registration application, that such person does not meet the eligibility requirements for registration. So if they don't check the box, will they automatically be registered? (Pause.)
I'm trying to remember your question to answer whether negatively or positively in the form that you asked it. But if they do not check the box, is that your question? If they do not check the box, the information is provided to the State Board of Elections for purposes of updating a current registration, but it would not be sufficient documentation to actually register someone who's not registered to vote.
And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So under Green Light we've obviously been already giving driver's licenses to noncitizens in New York State. If they've updated their address, will they be registered to vote when they've updated their address online?
For undocumented individuals? No.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Well, in this case they've got a document, it's a New York State driver's license that we've already granted them. And under this provision, we'll be transmitting information to the Board of Elections when someone changes their address through My DMV. So will they be registered to vote at that time when they've changed their address?
No. Like I said, if someone is already registered, that information would be provided so the board can update a current registration, but they would not be eligible to be newly registered. Now, mind you -- I'll just extrapolate on that for a second -- today someone can walk into the Board of Elections and register to vote, and it's unlikely they'd be asked for any documentation at all. So this is a much more secure process than currently exists.
Mr. President, briefly on the bill.
Senator Walczyk on the bill.
So today if somebody walks into the Board of Elections to register to vote, they'll get a voter registration form. At the top of your voter registration form it says: If you do not have a DMV or Social Security number, you may use a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or some other government document that shows your name and address. You may include a copy of one of those types of ID with this form. Be sure to tape it to the sides of the form closed. And under identification, it says -- that's Block 13 -- you can provide a New York State DMV number, the last four of your Social Security number, or if you do not have a New York State driver's license or Social Security number -- but you are giving a self-attestation saying that you're a citizen of the United States, and your voter registration form goes -- it's at the Board of Elections. It goes to the bipartisan commissioners that we talked about earlier, in order to validate your eligibility to register to vote in the State of New York. Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Sure.
The sponsor yields.
On page 6 -- or on page 9, rather, subsection 6, what does this bill change about voter registration for convicted felons?
Before I get to that, let me just also address your comments on the bill. You just basically outlined the exact scenario you were concerned about. If a valid driver's license is good enough when you show up at the Board of Elections, the undocumented individual who has a driver's license would not be deterred. And so, again, this bill would provide a process that would be more secure than someone who's going to walk in, in person, at a board of elections. Now, to your question about -- someone who's incarcerated, was that the question?
(Inaudible.)
Give me one moment, please.
So my understanding is that the bill would provide for the situation where someone who is incarcerated but would be eligible to vote upon their release, that information would also be transmitted to the State Board of elections so that those individuals could be registered if eligible.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Also on the same page, in Section 8 -- so we're looking at line 45 -- it says (reading): Nothing in this section shall be construed to require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or require the Department of Motor Vehicles to request documentation establishing an applicant's citizenship solely for the purposes of voter recommendation. Why?
That is to provide the individual with the option to not provide documentation. And therefore, they would not be registered to vote absent that documentation. In other words, you can't require someone to provide this documentation to be transmitted to the state board. But if you don't provide it, you won't be registered through this process.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
I read it a different and concerning way. But on page 10 -- I'll move along to the next point, because I think we may have a disagreement on the technical purpose of that section -- you're adding a new section to the law that's Section 5-901-a for Medicaid enrollees in the State of New York. When does that part take effect?
I believe the effective date of the bill is three years from its enactment. Correction. It's January 1, 2028. Which is probably three years from when the bill was passed, in 2025. So it would be January 1, 2028.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
You can receive Medicaid in New York State as a noncitizen, is that correct?
Yes.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Largely some rules for DOH and DSS -- these are largely some of the same rules for the Department of Health or the Department of Social Services as they are for the DMV, outlined in your bill here? Are they largely the same rules?
That's correct.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. The New York State Comptroller released an audit last year; he found multiple issues with how the state identified out-of-state Medicaid members and found close to $1.2 billion in managed care premiums that were paid for members who have resided outside of New York State. Auditors found the State Department of Health did not properly check to confirm that Medicaid members were New York State residents and waited too long to recoup improper payments. The breakdown there is roughly 150,000 non-New Yorkers receiving Medicaid payments and another 600,000 unverified by Social Security numbers. Would these people be automatically enrolled to vote under this bill?
Not if there's not conclusive proof of documentation of citizenship that the State Board of Elections agrees to.
And, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
And that onus would be solely on the Board of Elections? Or would the Department of Health or DSS be the rulemaking body there?
I believe it's a comparable process to what we earlier discussed about DMV. It would be an enjoined agreement between the agencies.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
There is a new section for the New York City Housing Authority, is that correct?
Yes.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Why did you select the New York City Housing Authority to do automatic voter registration in the State of New York?
What we attempted to do was find the agencies that have access to citizenship information and documentation, and also those that were most likely to interact with the individuals we believe are eligible yet unregistered, so we can maximize the number of people we're helping.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
On page 13, if someone doesn't automatically register to a political party, the Board of Elections will have to mail them an enrollment application, is that correct?
Yes.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, why is that provision in here?
Because there are parts of the state in which primaries are tantamount to elections. In your part of the state, that may be a Republican primary. In my part, it's a Democratic primary. But we want to give every opportunity for someone registering to make a conscious choice if they do not want to be registered in a party, because they would in fact be excluded from participating in primaries if they do that.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. Will the forms for NYCHA, for DMV, for the changes that we've got on Medicaid applications, will they include a party registration opportunity already as a way that you've envisioned it?
Yes, that's correct.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President, if they've already opted out of enrolling in a party, why would we burden local boards of elections with mailing them an additional registration form?
Well, we want to be sure. Because it's easy to imagine someone who is going to the DMV or to the Department of Health or Social Services or whatever agency we're referring to, their primary purpose is not to register to vote, it's to avail themselves of services offered from those agencies. So they may not be thinking about the voter registration aspect of their interaction.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If the Board of -- through you, Mr. President. If the Board of Elections does not have consensus on documentation, would that prevent them being referred to the Board of Elections for registration?
Yes. Or if they were, then the board would decline to register those people.
And, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
In 2021, New York City tried allowing noncitizens to register to vote in our elections. Six out of the seven judge on the Court of Appeals found that to be unconstitutional. Is that a problem?
No.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. There's somewhere between 800,000 and a million noncitizens in New York. How will this prevent them from being registered to vote in the State of New York?
Because as we've discussed ad nauseam in this debate, there would be conclusive documentation of United States citizenship required before any of this process is implemented.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Does this bill allow Social Services or the DMV or NYCHA to pull down lists from USCIS on the individuals that are living in New York State that are noncitizens, to check their citizenship status against those lists?
I don't think so. But why would that be necessary? As I have said, if they don't have proof that the person they're dealing with is a citizen, that ends their process.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
Through you, Mr. President. Are you familiar with the good moral character test during an immigration process?
Vaguely.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
So the good moral test is a criminal background check and also USCIS is checking as individuals are going through the citizenship process, checking to see if they've been registered to vote or if they have voted in elections. You'll actually see this often show up on immigration attorneys' websites: If you're registered to vote, that could be a bar to your citizenship in the United States. If you have voted, that could be another bar. In fact, the Board of Elections has reported many noncitizens reaching out to boards of elections, sometimes they hear from immigration attorneys, asking to be disenrolled, voluntary disenrollment in the State of New York. Are you concerned that by more automatically registering with many state agencies and bureaucracies, noncitizens may be registered to vote in the State of New York, in fact barring them to citizenship or creating another hurdle?
No, I'm not. And I understand you're caught up with the fantasy that there are hordes of undocumented people dying to fakely register to vote when the data indicates the contrary. But what I'm concerned about is, by your own admission, at least half a million people -- by my count, almost 2 million people -- who are eligible to vote in this state and are not registered to vote.
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
All right. All of those concerns that you have swayed aside, on page 16, line 7, why would we exempt people who are automatically registered to vote, saying that they did not willfully or knowingly seek to register if they're registered under the provisions of this bill? Why would we give them that immunity?
First of all, there is no page 16 in this bill.
Mr. President, I apologize. Page 13 of this bill, looking at lines 7 through 9.
Why is that provision there, is that your question?
Sure.
To deal with a potential administrative snafu. If we're putting the burdens on the agencies as opposed to the individuals, we don't want to hold the individual accountable for a mistake that an agency representative might have made.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
Does the sponsor yield?
Yes.
The sponsor yields.
If proof of citizenship is required, how could an agency possibly make a mistake?
There are humans involved.
Mr. President, on the bill.
Senator Walczyk on the bill.
By the numbers, New York State is actually doing really well on voter registration. Roughly 96 percent of eligible New Yorkers are registered to vote in the State of New York. This bill will automatically register anybody that bumps into multiple different agencies, seeking out those next 4 percent -- those last 4 percent. If you've walked around New York State or ever talked to people during an election cycle, which we often do, you'll find many people just don't want to register to vote. Some of those people may register by this, but this will also capture an entirely new crowd that did not intend to register to vote in the State of New York. And Motor Voter has already caused, with Green Light, noncitizens to be accidentally registered to vote in the State of New York. We know this. Talk to an immigration attorney. Talk to someone who has gone through the immigration naturalization process. This can actually be a bar to citizenship that we're laying down in our bureaucracy. So with all of the language here, with all of the affirmation that, no, we'll have to confirm a million times that they are indeed a citizen and eligible to vote, we have said but if they are accidentally, by an administrative snafu, there is no problem for them -- no criminality, no issue whatsoever -- because that is exactly what this bill is designed to do. The Board of Elections has handled our registrations and enrollments for a long time for very good reason. We haven't passed it off to a bunch of different departments that don't do voter registration and enrollment, because that is the job of the Board of Elections. And if you give it to the New York City Housing Authority and to Medicaid, which is making payments to non-New Yorkers as well as some noncitizens, and you say they're going to automatically register people to vote unless all of these hoops are jumped through and everybody dots their I's and crosses their T's, the danger -- as the sponsor has said, the danger is that there could be administrative snafus. Well, of course. And if you have a million noncitizens living in New York State, that's a million options for administrative snafus. This bill moves more registration to Social Services, New York City Housing Authority, and away from our bipartisan local boards of election. Instead of fixing problems, it only causes more. Instead of building faith, it only degrades trust. Instead of protecting the franchise, it threatens to dilute it. And it even creates a bar to citizenship for those who don't want to be caught up in administrative snafus. And for those reasons, Mr. President, I'll be voting no and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Senator Walczyk. Senator Borrello, why do you rise?
Mr. President, on the bill.
Senator Borrello on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for the debate today. I think Senator Walczyk did an excellent job of pointing out the issues with this bill. Now, you can go back and forth and you can say, Oh, no, no, that's never going to happen. Or no, no, no, we have a check and balance here. But our democracy -- in fact, every democracy -- is built on faith and confidence that the voters believe that when they cast a vote, it will be counted and it will be counted fairly. Bills like this undermine that confidence. It is a direct threat to the democracy that I hear so much from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about they want to protect, protecting democracy. Democracy's foundation is free and fair elections and people having confidence that when they cast a vote, that vote is a vote that will be counted. We are threatening that here. One-point-two billion dollars was paid out for Medicaid recipients that don't live in New York State. About 150,000 people, in fact. Now, you might say, Well, how is that going to happen here? How are those folks going to be registered here in New York? That's a good question. Undermining the confidence, because people will ask that question and say: How will they not be registered here in New York State if they're registered automatically because they interacted with the Medicaid office? We do a lot of things here in New York State that undermine confidence -- confidence that we can pass a budget on time, confidence that we can actually fund things like schools and hospitals. But undermining confidence in democracy is the most dangerous thing that we do here. You don't have to show an ID. We don't want you to show an ID. We insist that you do not show an ID. People have actually been scolded going to a polling place and showing their ID: You can't do that. So a simple thing like showing an ID could actually even offset a little bit of this confidence that we're undermining in the system. But we're not going to do that here. But here's the bottom line. Please show me that disenfranchised voter. Show that someone that said, I tried really hard to register and vote, and I could not. I haven't seen one yet. I don't know anybody that has, because it's very easy to vote here in New York State if you choose to vote. And this is still a democracy. This is still where people have freedom of choice. They choose not to vote. So the people that aren't voting are not voting because they don't want to. It's that simple. And to undermine the confidence in the process because you think, arrogantly, that we must have everybody vote and we must register everyone to vote is not only arrogant, it's foolish and it's dangerous. And I'll be voting no. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator Borrello. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Senator Gianaris.
This bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar by consent, Mr. President.
The bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.
Section 9. This act shall take effect January 1, 2028.
Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)
Senator Gianaris to explain his vote.
"This is still a democracy," thundered one of our colleagues. Despite the best efforts of their president to make it not so -- refusing to accept the results of a previous election, to this day claiming it was invalid. Which led to a bunch of maniacs trying to storm the Capitol, which this party doesn't even recognize as a criminal act. Law enforcement officers were killed. We had the resolution on Police Week today. Where is the outrage that this president's questioning of the democratic process directly led to that outcome? Let's be clear -- thank you for the exhale, Senator Weber. Let's be clear about what's going on here. Because there's no undocumented person today, under threat of having their children yanked away from them, who's going to sit there, commit some fraudulent registration and go and vote to affect an election as if one vote's going to determine the outcome of a particular election. That's not happening. What is happening is there are people who are eligible to vote who are not voting. Maybe they choose not to vote. That's possible. They can continue to choose not to vote. You can be registered and never show up to vote if you don't want to vote. But we're about removing hurdles to voting for those eligible -- not placing new ones in their place, not asking for ID where there are large communities that don't drive, don't have a driver's license, don't have an ID readily available. This is about voter disenfranchisement for my colleagues on that side of the aisle. Let's not dress it up as some fantastical notion that there's massive fraud going on when all the data in this country, for decades, proves that that's not the case. One of my colleagues said, Oh, the 4 percent of the people that are not registered, or whatever incorrect number was bandied about -- by his own admission, that's at least half a million people. If you want to scoff at half a million people who should be able to vote and are not registered, that makes my point better than anything I've said in the last couple of minutes. Mr. President, this is a bill we've passed before. We've had this debate. We'll have it again. I hope the Assembly joins us in passing it for the first time so we can get it done and do something to make sure that more people participate in our process and not less. I vote aye.
Senator Gianaris to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Zellner to explain his vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. As a recent elections professional, a board of elections commissioner for the last nine years, I rise in support of this bill because, as Senator Gianaris said, we have to remove every hurdle to democracy that we can. And I support this bill because this does. This actually strengthens and streamlines the process as it is now, because our agencies will only be sending the people who are eligible to be voters to our boards of elections, and they will then determine but already have that prerequisite from our agencies. So Mr. President, I vote aye. Thank you.
Senator Zellner to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Helming to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. The bill before us continues to shift responsibility to determine voter eligibility and registration from our local bipartisan boards of elections towards state agencies -- as we heard, towards the DMV, the Department of Health, and even the New York City Housing Authority. Under the bill, unless identification documents submitted to these agencies conclusively demonstrate someone is not a United States citizen, they may move forward with the automatic voter registration process. I want to clarify something that was said earlier. Every eligible citizen should be able to vote. And this body, both sides of the political aisle, have taken past actions to support voter participation. But this bill, for me, raises serious concerns and questions, beginning with stripping away local decision-making. And it raises concerns about the potential administrative errors in the registration process that could lead to the possibility that noncitizens could be improperly registered to vote. For those reasons and many others, I vote no and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Senator Helming to be recorded in the negative. Senator May to explain her vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Senator Gianaris for this bill, because automatic voter registration is a crucial step toward allowing as many eligible people as possible to exercise their right to vote. A hundred years ago, especially across the deep South, white supremacists employed a host of methods to make it impossible for Black Americans to register: Poll taxes, literacy tests, purges of voter rolls, threats of violence and actual violence, including murder, were all too common. Everyone in this room understands that noncitizen voting is a nonissue. But it is being used to revive the practice of erecting barriers to registration -- once again, for the purpose of blocking eligible citizens from voting. In the past week we have seen white supremacists newly emboldened by an extremist Supreme Court revel in their new powers to disenfranchise Black voters everywhere they can. We should be proud here in New York that we are making it easier for all eligible New Yorkers to exercise their franchise. I vote aye.
Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Rhoads to explain his vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. We hear a lot of words about barriers to registering to vote. Where are those barriers? Can anyone answer that question? Where are the barriers? What's preventing -- whether it's 500,000 or 2 million New Yorkers, what's preventing them from walking into the board of elections? What's preventing them from going online to fill a voter registration form? What's preventing them from going to the post office to fill out a registration form and submitting it? Nothing. Nothing at all. But what this bill does is remove barriers from noncitizens to be able to go and vote. In fact, it actually encourages the process of noncitizens being able to go in and register to vote, because it will actually eliminate the presumption of liability from them falsely registering to vote through this either Motor Voter process or through the process of the Department of Social Services in one of your local municipalities, through Medicaid, through any one of the number of opportunities that are now provided, as in through NYCHA. Now we're taking the responsibility for making that determination away from the trained professionals at the Board of Elections, and we're handing it out to untrained administrative agencies, like those responsible for administering Medicaid -- 150,000 non-New Yorkers receiving Medicaid benefits. The Empire Center did a study. We have 8.5 million Medicaid recipients here in the State of New York, though the Empire Center found that only 5 million are financially eligible. The same individuals who allowed 3.5 million people to sign up for Medicaid -- by far the single greatest expense, $120 billion, that we have in our New York State budget -- the same people who are allowing that kind of fraud will now be responsible for determining who's a citizen and who's not, for the purpose of registering to vote. This is an invitation to create a fraud factory. And for that reason I will leave it to the administrative professionals in our boards of elections, and I will vote no on this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator Rhoads to be recorded in the negative. Senator Martins to explain his vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we talk about, in broad terms, both sides of the aisle, disenfranchisement, requiring proof, hurdles to people voting. But it is our responsibility to make sure that everyone who casts a vote has a right to vote. This is as important as anything else that we do, to ensure that those who would take advantage of the system are prevented from doing so and that we have means of doing just that. The law is pretty clear here in New York that someone can be criminally charged for voting if they know that they should not have voted. "Knowingly" is the standard in our statutes. It's Elections Law 17-132. So it's clearly more than coincidence that the sponsor decided to put that into this bill to remove the knowingly and allow for that process, because it's not that person's fault. It couldn't be. It has to be someone else's fault if someone who shouldn't be voting is allowed to vote. Now, let's talk about access to voting. Here's a person who's registering a car or obtaining a license at DMV, and they can't walk into a board of elections or hop online to register to vote? Let's stop for a second. No one's being disenfranchised, no one's been asked not to vote, no one is being prevented, there are no hurdles being placed here. What we're trying to do here -- clearly on this side, and perhaps not as much on that side -- is prevent people being given the opportunity to vote who shouldn't be voting. And if there's one right that we have as citizens of this country, it's the right to vote and to protect the democracy. We should protect that right, and not default to allowing anyone to vote who's not a citizen. Mr. President, I vote no.
Senator Martins to be recorded in the negative. Senator Murray to explain his vote.
Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we keep having these bills back and forth talking about making it easier for people to vote. You know, I did -- one time during a debate, I did an actual side-by-side comparison of registering your vehicle or registering to vote. It's about four or five times harder to register your vehicle at the DMV, by the way, than it is to register to vote. Registering to vote is probably the most simple interaction you will ever have with government. It's such a simple, simple process. Then we argue back-and-forth about is there fraud. One side says no, there's no fraud. The other, yes, there is fraud. And yet there's a simple way to solve that problem. A way that more than 80 percent of the country agrees with. And we have that solution in the form of an amendment: To simply show photo ID. And yet this body and the other side of the aisle will do anything, anything but let that happen. It does have to make you wonder why. I vote no, Mr. President.
Senator Murray to be recorded in the negative. Senator Skoufis to close.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to opine on a subject that's been harped on quite a bit here, which is trust in our electoral system. In 2022, the State of Florida -- population about 23 million people -- you may remember, with much fanfare, established a new office for election crimes and security. Governor DeSantis at the podium, banging the podium about undocumented people, hordes of undocumented people voting in their elections. People voting twice, like they're running to some coat closet after voting once, putting on a fake mustache to vote a second time. Lots of fanfare. Several election cycles later, several years later, 25 people, in a state of 23 million, were charged and convicted with election-related crimes by this office. After they spent over $10 million, by the way. Do the per-charge cost on that one for taxpayers in the State of Florida. And just as we heard in 2022, in Florida and around the country in other states, and just as we heard on this floor, these conspiracy theories are advanced in the name of creating better trust. It's preposterous. I don't recall seeing -- and I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong. Senator Gianaris talked about the big lie from President Trump. In addition to what he shared, we literally had fake electoral slates in countries -- in states around this country, slates of fake electoral voters, in an attempt to steal a national presidential election. But we'd rather talk about conspiracies. Senator Rhoads mentioned -- he referenced a think tank, policy experts, as it relates to Medicaid enrollment. There's a reason why we didn't hear a single reference to any think tank or policy expert who has weighed in on how many undocumented people vote in our states or in our country's elections: Because it's near zero. I thank the sponsor for this bill. This, unlike what we heard from the other side, actually would elicit trust in our elections. We have very different perspectives -- Senator Martins is right, we have very different perspectives on these issues. We heard from the other side what they think elicits trust in our elections. We believe we elicit trust by getting more people to vote. I vote yes.
Senator Skoufis to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.
In relation to Calendar 839, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 38. Nays, 22.
The bill is passed. Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's calendar.
Back to motions for a moment. On behalf of Senator Harckham, on page 44 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 975, Senate Print 4903A, and ask that said bill retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading. Senator Gianaris.
Is there any further business at the desk?
There is no further business at the desk.
I move to adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 12th, at 3:00 p.m.
On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 12th, at 3:00 p.m. (Whereupon, at 6:03 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)