Gaveled in 3:16 PM · Albany, New York · 2025–26 session
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
January 13, 2025
3:16 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JAMAAL T. BAILEY, Acting President
ALEJANDRA N. PAULINO, ESQ., Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G SACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY: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.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY:In Senate, Friday, January 10, 2025, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Thursday, January 9, 2025, was read and approved. On motion, the Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Good afternoon, Mr. President.
On behalf of Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, I hand up the following committee assignments of the Majority Conference and ask that it be filed with the Journal.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The handup is received and shall be filed in the Journal.
SENATOR GIANARIS:On behalf of Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, in consultation with Senator Ortt, I hand up the following committee and conference assignments of the Minority Conference and ask that that also be filed in the Journal.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The handup is received and shall be filed in the Journal.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Please call on Senator Salazar for an introduction.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Salazar for the purposes of an introduction.
SENATOR SALAZAR:Thank you, Mr. President.
The A24 film Sing Sing, starring Colman Domingo, tells a story of the real life program Rehabilitation through the Arts, or RTA, a New York-based organization whose mission is to help people in prison develop critical life skills through theater and the arts, modeling an approach to the criminal legal system based on human dignity rather than on punishment.
RTA demonstrates that an approach that centers human dignity and rehabilitation is more effective in our society than one based on retribution. While the national average recidivism rate is far too high in this country at 60 percent of individuals returning to prison after incarceration, the recidivism rate among RTA members is less than 3 percent, a small fraction of that, demonstrating the remarkable positive impact of the RTA program.
The film highlights the transformative impact of educational and artistic programs as tools for change inside jails and prisons, a theme that aligns with the much-needed expansion of programs like RTA in New York's prisons.
I would be remiss if I didn't take this moment to bring attention to the recent brutal lynching by corrections staff of a man named Robert Brooks, a man who was killed while incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility. I bring this up now because acknowledging the impact of this film, Sing Sing, is an opportunity to highlight our commitment to taking bold steps together to end the existing culture of violence and impunity in our state prisons and to enact effective measures to bring accountability and justice for the longstanding pattern of violations of human rights of those incarcerated in New York.
RTA's approach and success are evidence that the system does not have to be this way. The Sing Sing film demonstrates that a better approach to criminal justice is possible. The film takes place and was filmed in part at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, and most of the film's cast is composed of formerly incarcerated actors, including those who were members of the RTA program during the time in which they were incarcerated at Sing Sing.
Present today with us in the gallery are the interim executive director of RTA, the director of programs and operations, the RTA board chair and an RTA board member, as well as four of the actors from the film Sing Sing by A24 Films. Thank you for sharing your extraordinary and valuable work with us.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Salazar.
To our guests, we welcome you on behalf of the Senate. We extend to you all of the privileges and courtesies of this house.
Please rise and be recognized.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, there is a concurrent resolution at the desk. I ask that the title be read only and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senate Resolution Number 9, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing to implement, pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Public Officers Law, a system of video conferencing to conduct meetings.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The resolution is adopted.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:There will be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:There will be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
SENATOR GIANARIS:The Senate stands at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 3:22 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 3:37 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Senate will return to order.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:There's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk.
Please take that up.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Senator Stewart-Cousins, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bills:
Senate Print 88, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 324, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 569, by Senator May, an act to amend Election Law;
Senate Print 735, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law;
Senate Print 736, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Executive Law;
Senate Print 737, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 738, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 739, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the Labor Law;
Senate Print 740, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the Labor Law;
Senate Print 741, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law;
Senate Print 742, by Senator Addabbo, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
Senate Print 743, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Penal Law;
Senate Print 744, by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, an act to amend the Penal Law;
Senate Print 745, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 746, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 747, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Education Law;
Senate Print 748, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 749, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Executive Law;
Senate Print 750, by Senator Felder, an act to amend the Social Services Law;
Senate Print 751, by Senator Sepúlveda, an act to amend the Real Property Law;
Senate Print 752, by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 753, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Business Law;
Senate Print 754, by Senator Martinez, an act to amend the Transportation Law;
Senate Print 755, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law;
Senate Print 756, by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
Senate Print 757, by Senator Brouk, an act to amend the Social Services Law;
Senate Print 758, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 759, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
Senate Print 760, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
Senate Print 761, by Senator Ortt, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 763, by Senator Kavanagh, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 764, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Correction Law;
Senate Print 765, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 766, by Senator Parker, an act to amend the Social Services Law;
Senate Print 767, by Senator Comrie, an act to amend the Banking Law;
Senate Print 768, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Correction Law;
Senate Print 769, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2024;
Senate Print 770, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Executive Law;
Senate Print 771, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
Senate Print 772, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2024;
Senate Print 773, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
Senate Print 774, by Senator Stavisky, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
Senate Print 775, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Education Law;
Senate Print 776, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 777, by Senator Fernandez, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 778, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 779, by Senator Comrie, an act to amend the Executive Law;
Senate Print 780, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law;
Senate Print 781, by Senator Palumbo, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law;
Senate Print 782, by Senator Palumbo, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law;
Senate Print 783, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the General Municipal Law;
Senate Print 784, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Social Services Law;
Senate Print 785, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Penal Law;
Senate Print 786, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 787, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Public Authorities Law;
Senate Print 788, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 789, by Senator Brisport, an act to amend the Family Court Act;
Senate Print 790, by Senator Scarcella-Spanton, an act to amend the Veterans' Services Law;
Senate Print 791, by Senator Fernandez, an act to amend the Veterans' Services Law;
Senate Print 792, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the Labor Law;
Senate Print 793, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law;
Senate Print 794, by Senator May, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law;
Senate Print 795, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law;
Senate Print 796, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Elder Law;
Senate Print 797, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 798, by Senator Sean Ryan, an act to amend the Economic Development Law;
Senate Print 799, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 800, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 801, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Energy Law;
Senate Print 802, by Senator Brouk, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 803, by Senator Palumbo, an act to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2024;
Senate Print 804, by Senator Comrie, an act to amend the General Business Law;
Senate Print 805, by Senator Bailey, an act to amend the Executive Law;
Senate Print 806, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Social Services Law;
Senate Print 807, by Senator May, an act to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2024;
Senate Print 808, by Senator Ramos, an act to amend the Labor Law;
Senate Print 809, by Senator Persaud, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 810, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 811, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Executive Law;
Senate Print 812, by Senator Sanders, an act to amend the Banking Law;
Senate Print 813, by Senator Webb, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 814, by Senator Rivera, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
Senate Print 815, by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, an act to amend the Family Court Act;
Senate Print 816, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Tax Law;
Senate Print 817, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Tax Law;
Senate Print 818, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Cannabis Law;
Senate Print 819, by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, an act to amend the Family Court Act;
Senate Print 820, by Senator Hinchey, an act to amend the Real Property Law and the Tax Law;
Senate Print 821, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law;
Senate Print 822, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the State Technology Law;
Senate Print 823, by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, an act to amend the Labor Law;
Senate Print 824, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
Senate Print 1030, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 1035, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 1036, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 1085, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 1087, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Election Law;
Senate Print 1356, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Election Law.
All bills reported direct to third reading.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Move to accept the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:All in favor of accepting the report of the Rules Committee please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Rules Committee report is accepted.
Senator Gianaris.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Please take up the supplemental calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 1, Senate Print 88, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 2, Senate Print 324, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 3, Senate Print 569, by Senator May, an act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 4, Senate Print 1030, by Senator Gonzalez, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 5, Senate Print 1035, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 5, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Walczyk and Weber.
Ayes, 58. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 6, Senate Print 1036, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 7, Senate Print 1085, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 8, Senate Print 1087, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 9, Senate Print 1356, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Election Law and the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR LANZA:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Lay it aside.
Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of today's supplemental calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Let's take up the controversial calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The Secretary will ring the bell.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 1, Senate Print 88, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Borrello, why do you rise?
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Mr. President. Welcome back.
Would the sponsor yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor will yield.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Through you, Mr. President. So I'm curious, when you're deciding on which interactions with government that you're going to automatically register someone to vote, how did you choose the DMV -- driver's licenses -- and Medicaid?
SENATOR GIANARIS:My understanding is that those are the two agencies that would most readily have citizenship information available to them.
And I know that you are very anxious not to register noncitizens, so we picked the ones that could do the best job of that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So they have citizenship information. But yet aren't noncitizens allowed to actually participate in both of those programs?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Right. But the agencies will be responsible for ensuring that only the applicants that have confirmed and proven citizenship information will be transmitted to the Board of Elections.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So if that's the case, then there's information that cannot be shared on citizenship with like the Board of Elections. So how is that going to transfer to ensure that those folks are actually properly vetted and, if they do not remove themselves by opting out, they're actually -- actually are rightfully removed?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I'm not sure I understand your question.
I think the agencies are entirely responsible for making sure that no information is transmitted to the Board of Elections unless the agency is in possession of citizenship information for that applicant.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So what resources have we given them to ensure that that happens? You know, we're talking about now tasking them with something they haven't done before. What resources are we giving them to ensure that they actually are doing that? And is there any, you know, I guess repercussion if they don't do it?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, the effective date of this bill is three years into the future, and so I'm happy to talk with you in March of this year and March of next year and March of the year after that to support an increased budget for these agencies to implement this.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President --
SENATOR GIANARIS:If you'll support that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:We'll see.
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So you're saying that we've got time to figure it out, but we haven't actually outlined anything in this legislation that ensures that it happens.
SENATOR GIANARIS:The legislation provides for rulemaking authority for each of these agencies so that they will set up the proper structure that they need to implement this properly.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So in the case of driver's licenses, 16- and 17-year-olds can get them. What are we -- is there anything in place to ensure that those folks are not registering to vote -- automatically registered to vote?
SENATOR GIANARIS:As you probably know, those individuals can be pre-registered under current law. And so if someone presents at the DMV in that age group, they will be transmitted to the Board of Elections for preregistration.
But the DMV has their age data, just like it has the citizenship data, so they will be responsible for making sure that only the correct people are sent to the Board of Elections.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So I'm curious. So we are looking at this as an opportunity to register everybody that interacts with them. But there are other agencies. Would there be a problem with someone who's, you know, getting a pistol permit or a hunting license or a fishing license? Why wouldn't we automatically register those folks to vote?
SENATOR GIANARIS:We're not trying to register everyone that interacts with the agencies; we trying to register everyone who is an eligible voter that interacts with these agencies.
And to your question, those other agencies do not have citizenship data as readily available as the two in this legislation would have.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So -- but isn't it true, though, that ultimately it falls onto the board of elections at the local level to ensure that this is -- that these folks are properly being opted out?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I believe the way the bill works is it routes the data through the state board and then down to the relevant county.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So the first point of contact we're going at the local level for the DMV or for Medicaid benefits. Then we're going to go to the state committee and then back to the local committee. And we're expecting all of that information on citizenship to follow and to ensure that those folks are properly opted out.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, I mean the information doesn't have to follow at the first point of transmission to the state board, anyone that's transmitted is a citizen. And the DMV knows that. And so at that point nothing needs to follow them. They are -- the only people that are -- whose information is being sent to the state board are citizens.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So at this point I think we're saying that we've gotten all these extra days of voting, we've got people that can register very easily, they can request online. So why do we really need this? What -- at what point are we saying that we absolutely have to do this and put I guess the security of our elections at risk? What's the need?
SENATOR GIANARIS:First of all, you're welcome, because we did all those things over your objection.
But second of all, all the things you mentioned make it easier for people to vote who are registered to vote. There are up to 2 million people in our state who are eligible voters who are not yet registered. And so this is an effort to increase the voter rolls and make more -- allow more people to vote who actually are eligible to vote.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:We're not allowing them to vote, we're compelling them to register. I think that's an important difference. If someone chooses not to do so, we're compelling them to do so. Where else do we compel someone to register for something?
SENATOR GIANARIS:That's an absurd characterization. You put an obstacle in someone's path and then say if you remove the obstacle, you're compelling them to take the step to jump over the hurdle that you put in their place? Why do people need to register at all? If we know that they're eligible to vote, why are you going to make someone jump through a hoop to actually cast their vote? Who are you to tell them they have to jump through several hurdles in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote, the most important right they have?
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:So following that logic, then, why should we compel someone to register to own a gun? You're just saying it's a constitutional right. What obstacle did we put in place? They have the ability to go out and register. What is the obstacle we put in their place?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, obviously there's an administrative obstacle you are putting in someone's place when they have to go to a board of elections or fill out a form or what have you -- that if they wake up on one Election Day and they're an eligible voter and they meet all the criteria of voting and they haven't taken the time to do that and they want to go vote, they should be able to do that.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Well, again, so there's an administrative obstacle to exercising your Second Amendment right. Does that same logic follow?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No, because guns are inherently more dangerous than filling out a piece of paper with your preference on who you want to represent you.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BORRELLO:I didn't know there was a dangerousness standard to exercising your constitutional rights.
But with that being said, I don't understand an obstacle, an administrative obstacle. We do a lot of things that we make sure people have to be registered for, like drive a car. There's an administrative obstacle to driving a car. Should we remove that administrative obstacle -- you should be able to wake up one morning and decide, Today is the day I'm going to drive, and just go do it?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Because in order to drive you need to be trained and tested in the fact that you can operate a two-ton vehicle. Okay? And there's certain things we have to do for everyone's protection to make sure you can exercise that right responsibly.
We don't have that for voting. People who are adult age, are citizens of this country, are eligible to vote. We don't -- thank God we've moved away from the world where we test people before they can vote, or we put up all sorts of barriers to it. Maybe you want to go back to that, Senator Borrello. I certainly don't.
But for all the other examples you're mentioning, these are things that we need to make sure people can exercise those rights responsibly.
And so yes, you have to jump through some hurdles to own a gun. You have to jump through some hurdles to drive a car. Because if you don't know how to do that correctly, you're going to kill people.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Borrello on the bill.
SENATOR BORRELLO:Thank you, Senator Gianaris. The first debate of the year is always the most fun, so ...
You know, it's interesting that we heard a lot this -- recently in this election from the people of New York State. We heard a lot about what was really concerning them: Affordability, crime, this rampant, out-of-control migrant crisis. So we're coming back here with no solutions for them, no answers. So instead we're going to create a crisis that doesn't exist -- access to being able to vote. I have yet to see a voter that's been disenfranchised say "I tried to vote, I wanted to vote, I couldn't vote." You haven't presented that person yet to us. But yet here we are, manufacturing a whole host of crises, when it comes to voting in elections, to solve today.
Now, most of these bills -- all of these bills we've seen before. So we've yet to actually address the real reasons that New Yorkers sent us back to Albany: Affordability, rampant crime, the fact that people don't feel safe, the fact that most New Yorkers believe this state is headed in the wrong direction and don't believe that this body has done anything about it.
So today we're going to tell people that, guess what, even if you don't want to register to vote, we're going to register you to vote. We're that -- it's that important to us, so we're going to compel you to be registered to vote.
And then we're going to say, Oh, you know what, don't worry, it will get figured out. The agencies that are involved, the bureaucracy, they'll make sure those folks are citizens. We know that for sure.
The bottom line is the most important thing is not that everybody votes. The most important thing is that people believe that our elections are secure, that their vote is counted, and their elections are fair. And this undermines that, undermines people's confidence that our elections are fair and secure. That is the foundation of our democracy, and that's why this is a bad idea.
So I will continue to vote no on this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Borrello.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:If the sponsor would yield for a question, or a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
So, Senator, could you tell us how we will know that the Department of Motor Vehicles or, you know, Medicaid -- what processes they have in place to ensure that only the information that they are transmitting to the Board of Elections includes citizens?
SENATOR GIANARIS:They are in possession of this information, and they will set up a structure and rules to make sure that people who are not eligible won't get passed along.
But if I may ask you a question as well, Senator Martins. What protections do we have in place to make sure a noncitizen doesn't walk into the Board of Elections today and fill out a form and register to vote?
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you. I'm not aware of any, Senator.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Right. Exactly.
SENATOR MARTINS:And so I am skeptical -- Mr. President, through you, if I can continue to -- if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will Senator Gianaris continue to yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Gianaris continues to yield.
SENATOR MARTINS:So that's exactly the point. And I think we shouldn't question that. We should actually highlight that point.
So my question is, is there a process in place where we, as we're being asked to vote today, know that the Department of Motor Vehicles can verify the information that they have to ensure that they are U.S. citizens?
For example -- if you'll forgive me, I'll ask a two-part question -- will they be cooperating with the federal government in terms of accessing records to determine whether or not these individuals are in fact citizens?
SENATOR GIANARIS:The Department of Motor Vehicles we already entrust to handle and process this information. If someone goes in to get a REAL ID or the type of driver's license that only citizens can have, we trust the DMV to receive that information from the applicant and to process it accordingly.
Now, that has to do with whether someone can get on a certain domestic flight, for example. You can't get on a plane, at some point later this year, without a particular type of driver's license from the DMV, which they receive this information, process it accordingly, and give out the ID. So we trust them to do that.
But somehow you don't want to trust them to do the same thing for registering people to vote when our exis -- this is tighter than anything in our existing system. Because right now anybody can walk into the Board of Elections and on their word, register to vote. The board doesn't ask for citizenship data. Okay? The DMV actually has that data, so you have some assurance that the administrative employee who's dealing with this at least knows this person is eligible to vote.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Excuse me. Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you.
And Senator, just for the sake of clarity in the record, is it your position as the sponsor that the default from either one of these agencies, or any of these agencies, if they can't definitively determine that the person is a U.S. citizen, will be that they will not refer that person to the Board of Elections? Is that your sense as the sponsor of this bill?
SENATOR GIANARIS:It's explicitly in the legislation.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Martins.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 7. This act shall take effect January 1, 2028.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 1, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 40. Nays, 21.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 2, Senate Print 324, by Senator Gianaris, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes, I would.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Senator.
The bill uses the word "knowingly" in terms of implying -- or applying liability on a campaign, elected official, committee, if they knowingly solicit, accept or receive contributions. What does that mean to you, that word "knowingly"? Do they actually have to know, or should they know? What's that standard to you?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I think that's the standard usage of the word that we see in so many of our laws, where someone needs to have the intent to commit the crime they're accused of.
SENATOR MARTINS:Okay. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So if there's a donation from a corporation that has an owner with more than 1 percent, and they make a contribution to a candidate and the candidate accepts it and does not know that that corporation does not have more than 1 percent of its ownership in a foreign person, then there would be no liability. Is that the point?
SENATOR GIANARIS:There would be no liability on the recipient of the contribution. There would be liability on the part of the contributor, because they of course would know how much of their company is owned by a foreign entity or not.
And there's a requirement for an attestation by the contributor that they would sign saying, you know, my entity does not have more than 1 percent foreign ownership.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So on the issue of that attestation, there is a requirement that it be signed by I believe the president or CEO of the company, on behalf of the company, to certify that it does not infringe on the particulars of your bill.
If that attestation is not filed, on whom is the liability placed?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I don't think it would be a permissible contribution if the attestation is missing.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And if it's not a permissible contribution, does that impose liability on the recipient of that for not having received the certification?
SENATOR GIANARIS:I suppose that would be something that the Board of Elections enforcement team can indicate to the -- the way they even do now, if you're missing a particular data point about, say, attribution of contributions from a partnership, which we're required to do now. And if you don't do that, the Board of Elections flags it and says, you know, either come up with the answer or give the contribution back. I would suspect that's how it would be handled.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So the alternative would be, if I understand correctly, that the Board of Elections would flag it and the individual would be asked to either show the certification or return the funds.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Correct.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Under this bill you use the word "foreigner." Does that include a resident alien here in the United States?
SENATOR GIANARIS:No, it does not.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So if there's a company that's owned by U.S. citizens or resident aliens and 1 percent of that company happens to be owned by someone outside the country -- whomever it happens to be -- but 99 percent of the company is owned by people who live here, either as citizens or resident aliens, that company, under this bill, would not be able to make a contribution either to a local race -- village, town, county -- or to state races if this bill were to pass.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Correct.
Now, those 99 percent of people can contribute individually. Nothing's stopping them from doing that. But not under the corporate entity.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:I think you'd agree with me that a corporation has always been considered a person or an entity unto itself and so has certain rights with regard to the First Amendment and the ability to actually express their First Amendment rights when it comes to things like supporting certain candidates.
So are you saying that that corporation, if they have 1 percent of the corporation be owned by outside entities or a foreigner, would no longer have that right to express itself?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Well, first of all, I don't agree that it was always the case that corporations were considered persons. That was the case since the Citizens United decision, which was one of the more horrible decisions the Supreme Court has made. But be that as it may.
Yes, my -- what I am suggesting to you is that a corporation that is 1 percent or more under the influence of a foreign entity should not be involved in our political process.
Now, mind you, there's already a ban on foreign entities spending on political campaigns in the United States. A big loophole is that a foreign entity can do so in a corporate name if it has significant influence over the corporation. That's what we're trying to close here.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And is it then your position that a 1 percent ownership in a corporation or an entity is enough of an influence over that entity where it should prevent the entity from actually contributing?
Is the 1 -- 1 percent is enough to sway you that it would unduly influence an election, is that it?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes. Do you know how much 1 percent of Amazon, for example, is worth? It's a lot of money.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So let's not talk about Amazon. I know there's a history with you, Senator Gianaris, and Amazon.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MARTINS:So we'll talk about -- we can talk about other entities --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:I'd like us to remain germane to the content of the bill, Senator Martins. Thank you.
SENATOR MARTINS:I apologize, Mr. President.
Let's talk about -- let's talk about our more common corporations in our state, what we commonly refer to as mom-and-pop shops in our communities for whatever it happens to be -- they can be, you know, a local deli, it could be a bodega, it could be a construction company. Are you suggesting that that 1 percent has enough influence in those local entities that would have an interest, for example, in supporting different candidates in their community, that that's enough of a concern for you that you would put this prohibition?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
SENATOR MARTINS:Okay.
Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would yield for just one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR GIANARIS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:If the sponsor would relay, for example, if you're aware of any instance in which 1 percent of a company certainly can exert some control over the company, whether its board of directors or any of its voting authority or direction of the company -- in the normal course of business, where 1 percent becomes a threshold that would be frankly viable in New York State or any other circumstance or example that you can show where 1 percent made that much of -- made a difference.
SENATOR GIANARIS:You're thinking of an example where maybe the entity doesn't want to do something and the 1 percent would not be able to overrule them.
But imagine a scenario where you're a company, there's a part owner of your company -- so I imagine you want to stay on good terms with the investors and owners in your company -- and that person says, Hey, I know I'm from -- whatever country, but I'm trying to exert influence over this elected official. Could you make a contribution? Because I can't do it. Can you make a contribution in our company's name to this individual for me?
Assuming it's permitted, which it is currently, why would the owner say no? So yes, I think a 1 percent investor would have that level of influence over a company's owner.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins on the bill.
SENATOR MARTINS:You know, the idea that someone's going to ask someone else to make a contribution on that person's behalf when they know that they cannot make that contribution can be a reality even today. Even today, someone can. And if they are and if they do, they should be held accountable for that.
The idea that we take a lawfully created entity where the vast majority of the entity, 99 percent of that entity is U.S. citizens or U.S. resident aliens, people who work hard in their local communities -- and, regardless of the circumstance, somebody happens to have an ownership interest who is a foreigner.
I'll give you an example. When you come in and you get your resident alien card as a process eventually to becoming a citizen -- not everyone, Mr. President, becomes a citizen of the United States. They choose to keep their resident alien card, and often they go back to their country of origin or they leave the United States and therefore they lose their resident alien status and they become a foreigner.
So while they're here in this country as a resident alien, they are here, they have strong roots in the community. They may have passed on their company or their corporation or whatever the entity is to their family and to their children. And they go back and they keep a piece for themselves, but by keeping a piece for themselves, that corporation or that entity can no longer make a contribution.
And I have to question why, under these circumstances, are we handcuffing entire sections or groups of entities that would otherwise have a valid cause to be involved? Our corporations, our partnerships, our LLCs are extensions of our communities and our business leaders. That's how they choose to do business.
Now, we can turn around and decide we do not want any more contributions from any corporations, any LLCs or anything other than a resident alien or a citizen, someone who's here. Get rid of all these corporations and get beyond this. But that's not what the sponsor is asking us to do.
We're creating a fiction and we're creating a fiction at the expense, Mr. President, of every candidate for elected office in this state, be they a local mayor, be they a supervisor, a council member, member of a county -- or whether it's us here in the State Legislature.
Because I'm not so sure about what "knowingly" means when there's a provision there that says that you can get an attestation and you have a responsibility to get an attestation in order to show and prove that that company doesn't have 1 percent of its ownership by a foreign national.
So maybe all of us, when we get a donation -- if we can -- need to return it or go get that attestation. But remember, folks, it's an E felony. The fine is $10,000 plus return of the contribution, personally.
I think we've reached certain levels, Mr. President, where we should speak plainly. And if it's the sponsor's intention to remove corporations from the political process, then that's the bill that we should be debating here on the floor today and not hide it under some pretense of percentages that put an undue burden not only on each and every one of the candidates in our state, but on the corporations and entities themselves.
I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Martins.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed.
The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 6. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 2, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Helming, Martins, Mattera, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 45. Nays, 16.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 3, Senate Print 569, by Senator May, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk, welcome back. Why do you rise?
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'm hoping Senator May will yield for some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you. Through you, Mr. President.
In addition to no-excuse absentee, two weeks of early voting, why do we need consolidated voting centers on Election Day when all of the community polling locations are already open for the community members where they live?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator, and welcome back.
So this is about Election Day voting. It's about using the polling books that we have, the electronic poll books that we have that allow for flexibility. Any voter can show up at a site during early voting and if they live in the county, they can have the appropriate ballot pointed out for them for their address so that they can vote for the candidates that they're eligible to vote for.
This extends this to Election Day, when vote centers can be created where anyone in the county or anyone in a municipality can show up and they don't have to go to the assigned polling place that they have traditionally gone to.
The reason why this is helpful is that it creates an additional option, but it also allows for some consolidation. So we found in Cayuga County, which I represent, they have been trying this out. They put a polling place at a mall that was centrally located, and over the course of the election, 20 percent of all the ballots cast in Cayuga County were cast at that location. Over time, it should enable them to consolidate some of the other polling places.
I will say in Indiana, where more than half of the counties use a vote center model, the -- I have a quote from the Indiana Secretary of State saying: "Vote centers add convenience for voters, save counties money, and can increase voter turnout."
So those are the key reasons why I am excited that this bill is on the agenda today.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:If Cayuga County already has this in practice, why do we require legislation statewide to do it here today?
SENATOR MAY:It is possible to do this now, but many counties have been reluctant to try because it wasn't specifically in the law and it required a dispensation from the Board of Elections.
This puts it in the law so that the commissioners from all the counties will know that this is an option that is available to them.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Did the Cayuga County Legislature pass a resolution supporting their board of elections having a vote center on Election Day?
SENATOR MAY:I believe so, yes, both two years ago and this year.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Has the New York State Association of Counties requested this legislation?
SENATOR MAY:Not that I'm aware of. Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:In addition to Cayuga County already having this in practice, have you received resolutions from any other county in the State of New York, of our 62, requesting this legislation?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, I am not aware of that. But I believe there is one other location in this state that has specifically wanted to do this.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Would you be willing to share the other location with this body?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, I would if I knew what it was, but I don't have it on the top of my tongue.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Since Cayuga County requested this of their board of elections and already has it in practice, does this legislation also require a validation by county legislatures before their board of elections would seek a new way to do elections on Election Day with voting centers?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, no. This would allow the county board of elections to make this decision.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So if Cayuga County in their experiment, if their legislature decides that this wasn't going the way that they wanted it to or was more expensive or more confusing for their board of elections but their board of elections has decided to carry forward with this proposal, if your bill is enacted, could Cayuga County continue to do so without the approval of their legislature?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, I am not certain of the answer to that question. I do know that they -- that boards of elections, county boards of elections, have to go through the State Board of Elections too and get permission there. So there is a process.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:When we're talking about the locations for -- where you mentioned a shopping mall -- when we're talking about the locations, what will the State Board of Elections require of counties that are applying for this?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, the bill says that the State Board of Elections shall promulgate rules and regulations establishing the approval process.
So that is for the State Board of Elections to decide.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Well, what is the State Board of Elections approval requirements? Are we handing any of them down through here, or is it just between county and local board of elections and the State of New York state board to figure out without the input of this body?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. This is left up to the discretion of the State Board of Elections.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So I know that most county boards of elections are set up -- well, we've had early voting for a while now in New York State, so they're set up with these consolidated voting sites already. We've got laws on the books, and they do this. You're carrying this over to Election Day.
Most of my experience is that -- and we've got some specific rules about where those sites are going to be placed in the county. The county boards of elections have already resourced for those locations. They require either a printer ready to go to produce ballots in order for people from any electoral district in the county to vote appropriately with who's on their ballot, or they would require -- and in early voting it's easy to resource these things because the board of elections already has access to all of the ballots across the county. They haven't yet dispersed them out to their electoral districts.
How, in county boards of elections -- maybe you can tell us in Cayuga County. Did they have to order extra ballots to have on-site at their voting center? Or do they have a printer on-site? And if you'd share what the cost of that printer might be for a county.
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. My understanding is that they had a printer. And I do not know the cost of that, but I do know that as this kind of model can allow for consolidation of polling places, that will save money to counties.
I will also say that I have voted for years at a polling site that is already consolidated in the sense that there are -- several election districts vote at that same site. And printing of the ballots with a -- using an electronic poll book and printing the ballots has immensely sped up the process of being able to vote at that site.
So this is also something that I think could bring benefits to the voters in terms of the speed and convenience of casting their ballot.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:I've always enjoyed voting at my local one, you know, and I like to when I can. Last year I didn't have the opportunity to vote, I voted absentee last year. But I love to get in there and see the faces. You get to know the poll workers pretty well. And that adds an extra layer of security. They know your face. They know your name. They expect you back every election.
We also have poll watchers and some rules about poll watchers in the State of New York. When you're consolidating everyone in a county onto one voting center on Election Day -- that I imagine would be pretty busy -- how does the oversight work in poll watching work in a scenario like that?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. We're not talking about consolidating everyone into one polling site. But we are allowing anyone in the county to go to this one polling site and cast their ballot at that site.
Which if you've forgotten where your polling site is -- I know one of the issues that local boards of elections have been contending with is a lot of the traditional sites where people have voted in the past, like schools, it's become much more difficult to secure those locations. And so at least in Syracuse, I'm aware that my polling location now has changed every year or two for quite a few years. And so it's confusing to the voters. They don't always know for sure where their polling site is.
But if they know there is a location in the county or in the municipality where they -- where anyone in that municipality can vote, then they -- whatever uncertainty they might have about where to vote is resolved for them. That makes it easier for them.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So could somebody perceivably vote twice if the system isn't communicating -- I know that the elections don't stop -- if you're out in an electoral district in your local community and their computer goes down for whatever reason, they have backup so that they can continue to count votes.
Could someone perceivably vote in a consolidated voting center that you're proposing here in this bill and then vote in their local polling place as well?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, no. Because the electronic poll books prevent that.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:How did you come up with the 90 days to apply to the State Board of Elections in order to have a completely new polling site available in the county?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. That was a length of time that gives the Board of Elections time to assess the plan.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Was that feedback from the State Board of Elections or from local boards of elections?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President, I don't know the answer to that question.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Have the -- and the elections commissioners I believe are actually going to be here this week. Has the Election Commissioners Association explained how this might delay accurate electoral district counting on Election Night?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. I believe they are supportive of this, and there is no expectation that this would delay counting of ballots.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAY:I would.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Why would a county -- and I know you said consolidation of polling places a couple of times. Why would a county be motivated to shift time and resources from their community polling sites onto a voting center?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. I'll take my answer away from the county level and talk about the City of Auburn, which is also in my district, which has gone to I believe four voting sites on Election Day. And it has proven to be very popular, and it has not hurt turnout in any way, but it has saved money and created much more clarity for the voters.
And I'm sure there are some voters who miss their traditional neighborhood polling place, but it is working really well and it's taking the technology that we now have that is allowing for this to happen and really using it in the best and most efficient way you could use it.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Is the City of Auburn pretty balanced in its demographics, Republican and Democrat enrollees?
SENATOR MAY:Through you, Mr. President. The City of Auburn is somewhat on the Democratic side, but the county is a very red county.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk on the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Well, I don't have much more to say than the sponsor has already said about this. It's to favor Democratic voting areas and to consolidate polling places. That's what this bill is for.
It's not to make it easier to vote. You already have polling places on Election Day in your community. This is about creating an additional polling place in an urbanized area and pushing as many people towards it as you can.
She admitted by her own example that that bill will favor a Democratic area in a Republican county. Consolidation of polling places: The sponsor said it out loud. This is not about making it easier to vote. It's about consolidating polling sites from rural to urban sites and advantaging people who live and work in cities over people who -- men and women and blue-collar women who live in cities and work in rural areas.
So with that, I will be voting no and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Walczyk.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, the debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator May to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAY:Thank you, Mr. President.
And thank you, Senator Walczyk, for the debate but not for putting words in my mouth.
The state of Indiana, famous extreme left-wing state; the state of Utah also, and many other states, both red and blue, use vote centers and have used them for a long time as a way to make voting, as I said, as the Indiana Secretary of State says, to add convenience for voters, save counties money, and increase voter turnout.
This is not about privileging one party over another, and certainly not in Cayuga County, which is a heavily Republican county. And the legislature under Republican leadership, as well as under Democratic leadership, has endorsed vote centers there.
So to put words in my mouth and suggest that this is somehow a partisan ploy to make it only possible for Democrats to vote is really insulting.
I have to say vote centers are efficient and they are smart. And that's the reason why I am excited to vote yes on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar 3, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Gallivan, Griffo, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, Ortt, Rhoads, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Also Senators Tedisco, Chan and O'Mara. Also Senator Martins.
Ayes, 45. Nays, 16.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 6, Senate Print 1036, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Murray, why do you rise?
SENATOR MURRAY:Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Senator.
Through you, Mr. President. Let's start with a basic question and that is why is there a need for this bill, and how will it change the current law?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, this bill codifies a couple of court cases, both from the New York State Court of Appeals and from some of our appellate courts, to clarify in the law that a voter's intent and their connection to the home is what determines their voter registration.
What we have seen in some election litigation is the challenging of residencies despite the case law supporting this. And this bill is an attempt to put it in statute.
SENATOR MURRAY:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
So the "Purpose" on the bill, it says: "This bill provides that a voter may register to vote at any residence to which the voter maintains a continuous connection with an intent to return."
So I'd like to start with the first part, the continuous connection. What does continuous connection mean? What qualifies as a continuous connection?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. In Willkie vs. Board of Elections -- this is from the Third Department -- the court said that at minimum, weekend and country homes established a continuous connection.
The Court of Appeals has said that the crucial determination for election residency purposes is that the individual must manifest an intent coupled with physical presence. And the courts have interpreted that to, at minimum, meet a requirement that someone be present at least for two days of the week via a weekend home.
SENATOR MURRAY:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:So it sounds like -- and I'm not here to interpret what the court was saying myself, but it sounds like what they're saying is a two-day stay would take the place of a five-day stay or a week-long stay. So they're basically saying that a part-time would supersede your full-time residence where you live.
Is that -- would that be accurate?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, I don't think that's accurate. I think what the court meant to underscore is that it is the voter's intent. So if it's the voter's intent that they be registered to vote at a place where they only spend two days a week, the court will uplift that intent over where they may be staying on other days of the week.
SENATOR MURRAY:Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you.
So if I could get a little scenario and give it to you, I'd like your take on this particular scenario. So you have someone that resides in, say, Nassau County. Their kids go to school in Nassau County, their spouse is on the school board in Nassau County, they're a volunteer firefighter in the Nassau County. But they own a vacation home out in the Hamptons, out in Suffolk County.
Despite the fact that they have so much continuous connection right there, they could actually ask that the -- Suffolk County, where they own a home but they don't actually live, that could then be where they will vote. Is that -- is that -- would that be accurate?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, if that is their intent, that's correct.
SENATOR MURRAY:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:So in that scenario, they change their voting and they say, I want to vote in Suffolk County instead of Nassau, despite the fact that my spouse is on the school board.
Now, the school board election's earlier in the year. Would it be possible for this person to vote in the school board election for their spouse in Nassau County, change their residency through this bill, and in the general election in November vote at their Hamptons home in Nassau in a completely -- or Suffolk County in a completely different election? Would that be possible under this law?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, I'm not sure I'm following the entirety of that hypothetical. But if they are meeting every Election Law requirement for voter registration and it is their intent to mark the Suffolk County residence as where they would like to be registered, then that, according to the case law and when this bill becomes law, would be permissible.
SENATOR MURRAY:Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MURRAY:So I'll kind of reaffirm that scenario through the Election Law.
So Election Law -- we'll take this past year, 2024. In 2024, we had quite a few different elections at different times of the year. Most village elections are in March. The presidential primary was in April. School district budget and board member elections were in May. Congressional state primary elections were in June, and then the general election in November. And then of course after that we have our fire commissioners and their budget in December.
So following the scenario I just gave you, if I'm understanding you correctly, if we pass this bill, it's signed into law, someone can vote in the village or even a school district budget and board election in -- say in May. If they meet the deadline, which according to what I got from the Board of Elections, for the general November election on November 5th, their change of address would have to be done on October 21st and voter registration deadline on October 26th.
So they could, likely, make that change -- vote in the school board for their spouse, vote in the other local elections in Nassau County. But as long as they meet that deadline, they can now switch and vote in elections completely outside of where they voted in every other election that year.
Is that correct?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. First, I appreciate the hypothetical on how many elections there are. This conference has supported the consolidation of those in even years that caused a lot of consternation last session.
But that aside, yes, if they have met the requirements and it is their intent to be registered and consider the Suffolk County or Nassau County as their primary residence, that would be permissible.
SENATOR MURRAY:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Murray on the bill.
SENATOR MURRAY:And thank you, Senator Myrie.
So actually that wasn't really much of a hypothetical, because if I remember correctly, all over social media last year you saw a lot of people that lived in the city that were urging their friends, Change your registration, go to the Hudson Valley where there were close races, go out to Suffolk County, where there -- according to them, there was a close Senate race in the 1st Senate District. But my good friend Senator Palumbo made that not so close, so ...
But they were trying to urge everyone to go and go where there were competitive races. I've got to tell you, just -- I mean, this just feels bad. You know, we live in a country where we have this privilege to elect our local leaders. We have a representative government. And what that means is we're voting for the people that represent us. But not just us; they're representing our families, our neighbors, our communities where we live. They will be making decisions -- or I should say we are making decisions that will directly affect their life.
But through this bill, we're making a mockery of that. We're saying, do the ones that work for you until maybe you don't have a competitive race in the State Senate race. So let's jump out and go somewhere else -- if you are, by the way, lucky enough to own a second home.
You know, I think everyone here has acknowledged we're in the middle of a housing crisis. It's pretty expensive. Nobody can afford to buy a home. Nobody can afford to live in New York. Except who? The wealthy.
I do find it ironic that for years, all my years in government it was that side of the aisle blaming this side of the aisle for looking out for the wealthy: You only give tax breaks to the wealthy. You only passed this to benefit the wealthy.
Well, let me tell you something. The poor, the working class, they are not benefiting from this bill. They don't have multiple homes all across the state where they can pick and choose, where they take advantage of the very privilege we have of voting for who will represent them.
The wealthy do. That alone should be a reason -- the fact that we're leaving out most people, not letting them participate in this, that alone should be a reason for voting no.
But I'm voting no because, as I said, this stinks. This isn't what our elections are about. So for many reasons, but especially that -- it's making a mockery of our voting rights -- I'll be voting no.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Murray.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Senator Martins, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Thank you, Senator Myrie.
Under this bill, Senator, would a person be able to register to vote in more than one place in New York State?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, no. That is currently against the law. This bill does not touch that.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:Through this bill, if someone registers to vote in one community for one election, can they then change their registration to another home to allow them to vote in another community for the following election, and so on?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, the current law prevents double registration. You can only be registered to one residence at a time. And this bill would not impact that.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So just taking on some of the examples that were given earlier, if someone does have a home in one location, they can vote there. Clearly, they can register -- their family is there, they live there. But if they happen to have a second home somewhere else, they can register there, frankly eliminate their first registration and register in that second place for that election as long as they have a nexus to that location, isn't that correct?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, it's not just nexus. That's a legal turn of phrase. It is, according to the courts, an intent to return and remain and a physical presence.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So if they have that intent, Senator, and then they exercise that vote in that other location, would this bill then allow them to have a separate intent and return to the original location and register to vote again if they do in fact meet the requirements and demonstrate that subjective intent?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. If I'm understanding the question correctly, the voter is allowed to change their intent. They cannot hold multiple registrations at multiple residencies. It has to be one at a time. But they are allowed to register at different residencies if that is what they intend to do.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:And, Senator, if you could just elaborate on how that intent would be demonstrated.
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. The courts have said that the crucial determination is the purpose of -- the individual must manifest an intent coupled with a physical presence. And in the Court of Appeals case it also mentions that it has to be a significant and continuing attachment to that residence.
I'll also point out, because my colleague Senator Murray communicated that this was a bill with the intention to only benefit affluent New Yorkers. But the bill says in line 6 that it includes college students, giving them the ability to have their college residences count for voter registration.
We're very proud of our higher education institutions that welcome people of all incomes, young people of all backgrounds. And for a long time litigation has forced these college students out of those voter registrations, their ballots have been challenged. And this is one way for us to communicate that we do support our young people engaging in their democracy.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MARTINS:So under this bill, Senator, a college student who is in a university college setting for a few months would be able to register there and have an impact on a local mayoral election, for a village or town council race or supervisor race, even though their only connection to that community is through that institution of higher learning and they don't have any roots there, thereby -- well, first of all, is that correct?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President, I would disagree with the premise that college students don't have roots in the place that they go to college.
But yes, they are allowed to register and use that as their voter registration residency.
SENATOR MARTINS:Mr. President, on the bill.
Thank you, Senator Myrie.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Martins on the bill.
SENATOR MARTINS:Where do I start?
Look, we all know what the problems are with this bill. Voting for local elections is critically important. It's an obligation. You know, as a former mayor of a village -- and those of us who have served on a local level in the past, we understand what it's like to grow up in a community, care for the community, understand who your neighbors are, and protect that community.
The idea that we would allow for thousands of individuals who come in for a couple of months at a time and somehow say that they have the same care, concern for that community as the people who live there every day, raise their family there every day, protect the schools, pay for the streets, is lost on me, frankly. It really is.
I understand how important it is for local communities to have an identity and make those decisions for themselves. But I would ask everyone in the chamber to understand what it is that we are doing and will be doing to our local communities and how it will impact decisions in those communities going forward.
Everyone has a right to an opinion, we all know that. You exercise that right by voting where you live. And with all due respect, where you live is not where you happen to live in a dorm for a couple of months. It's where you grow up, it's where you have your roots, it's where you raise your family, and it's where you make a difference in your communities.
In addition, this idea, based on a Court of Appeals decision and interpretation of a Court of Appeals decision that I can take a resident, say, of the Village of Westbury who can vote in that local election and then leave, go out east or go upstate and vote in another local election there because they happen to have a house there and impact elections along the way, based on their subjective intent regardless of the criteria.
Folks, we are turning this on its head. This isn't what this is supposed to be. And the idea that we are going to allow people to manipulate this system beyond its core, local people voting in local elections for people they trust and the leadership that they want -- frankly, I think it's wrong.
Mr. President, I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Martins.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is -- Senator Tedisco, are you going to explain your vote or are you looking to ask the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR TEDISCO:For a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Tedisco, why do you rise? To ask the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR TEDISCO:Will the Senator yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Just a -- Senator, I'm a little confused about continuous connection. Is there a timetable for a continuous connection of days or weeks or months that you have to spend when you eliminate one registration, then go and move, reregister and vote in another facility you own?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. As I was explaining to your colleague Senator Murray when he asked a similar question, the courts have determined that it is the voter's intent to return and to maintain connection. At minimum, weekend and country homes satisfied that continuous connection purpose, and that is what the courts have used to interpret litigation around ballots and election residency.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Would the Senator yield for another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MYRIE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR TEDISCO:So I live in a home with my family, and I have another house. I don't go there for four years, but every fourth year I come there for a weekend. I reregister and then I vote for the president in that particular -- is that a reoccurring connection?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. If I'm understanding this hypothetical correctly, you change your voter registration every four years, is that correct?
SENATOR TEDISCO:Right.
SENATOR MYRIE:And it is your intent that that be your primary residence for purposes of voting, correct?
SENATOR TEDISCO:You only come there for a weekend, though. You go back for another four years at your other house, then you come back again for a weekend and you vote for the president at this particular facility.
Is that a reoccurring connection?
SENATOR MYRIE:Through you, Mr. President. Under the current case law, that is permissible and that is what this bill would codify.
SENATOR TEDISCO:Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Tedisco.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 6, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 39. Nays, 22.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 8, Senate Print 1087, by Senator Mayer, an act to amend the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?
SENATOR WALCZYK:I'd like to go on the bill, and then I'll be asking the sponsor to yield for some questions, if that's all right.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk on the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So Hamilton County in New York State has a little over 5100 residents. In the 2024 presidential election, 3,442 ballots were cast, which is a pretty high propensity. They have 4,600 registered voters, and of those registered voters, 838 of them are registered Democrats.
This bill requires each board outside the city -- that's a board of elections -- outside of the City of New York shall consist of two election commissioners who shall be full-time employees of such board, except that the county legislative body of a county having a population of more than 120,000 may, by local law, increase the number of such commissioners to four, to be appointed as provided by this title. Obviously that piece is not relevant to a county of 5,000.
Each of the major political parties shall be eligible to recommend appointment of an equal number of commissioners.
Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Wonderful to speak with you again. We haven't talked about this bill in two years.
But through you, Mr. President, what is the genesis of this bill? Could you give me a refresher?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes, through you, Mr. President. Welcome back, Senator Walczyk.
Several years ago when Senator Myrie was the chair of the Senate Elections Committee, he held a series of hearings around the state with the full membership of the committee, which was composed of both Democrats and Republicans. They made recommendations. And on page -- my page is cut off. I believe it's 24, on reforms at local boards of elections outside New York City they recommended -- I would add, on a bipartisan basis -- that commissioners serve in a full-time capacity. That was the original genesis of the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Two years ago I asked if the New York State Association of Counties supported this bill. Do you have a memo of support from the Association of Counties?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Mr. President, I'm not aware of that.
I would note that the 2024 legislative agenda of NYSECA, which is the bipartisan group of state election commissioners, clearly says that they have this bill on their agenda, and they note, in parentheses, bipartisan support.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Have any county legislators or boards of supervisors of our 62 counties requested this by passing a resolution?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Mr. President, I'm not aware they have. And I'm not aware they've opposed it.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Is this an unfunded mandate?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Mr. President. This would be a requirement of counties outside New York City to have two full-time commissioners in order to ensure that there's not a conflict of interest in the need for outside income.
Last year Senator Walczyk wasn't here and, although this bill did not pass both houses, it did pass the Senate. And in our enacted budget we included 5 million in funding for local boards of elections outside the City of New York. I'm confident that we will make every effort to ensure that there's adequate resources to do this.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Of that 5 million, has any of that been specifically directed to this cause, to hiring full-time commissioners?
SENATOR MAYER:Well, through you, Mr. President, this bill did not pass in the Assembly, so this bill is not yet enacted. And that's why we're considering it here today.
SENATOR WALCZYK:And through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:How much does a full-time commissioner have to be paid?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Mr. President. I think it would depend, obviously, on the income and economics of the particular county in which the commissioners are located.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So would that be up to the county government to determine what the salaries would be for the full-time commissioners that are mandated in this legislation?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Mr. President, it's not described in the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Will the sponsor yield?
SENATOR MAYER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR WALCZYK:What about health insurance or New York State retirement?
SENATOR MAYER:Through you, Mr. President, they're not referenced.
The point is these are full-time employees and they would not have the need to have secondary employment.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Walczyk on the bill.
SENATOR WALCZYK:So we've talked in the past about a commission on unfunded mandates. It hasn't borne a whole lot of fruit when we talk about that. It would be really nice to have someone in government overseeing all of these mandates that either get funded for a short time and become unfunded over time or are just straight unfunded mandates from the get-go.
Here's how it works if $5 million is set aside to pay for an elections commissioner. And let me just repeat those numbers. In Hamilton County, New York, you're talking about 4,600 registered voters. You would have a full-time Democratic elections commissioner, salaried with benefits, for 838 registered Democrats in that county.
They could do a house call to every single one of those individuals, meet every single one of them face-to-face. I don't know what else they would be doing all year, because for a county like Hamilton there simply is not enough work to justify a full-time position in the board of elections. Which is why, for counties like Hamilton, these mandates are not smart.
In the short term you may negotiate for $5 million in the budget, but how do unfunded mandates happen to our towns, our counties, our villages? We usually throw a little bit of -- not always, but we usually throw a little bit of money up-front and we say, Don't worry, we're going to pay for it. And then eventually the state runs into financial problems -- I wonder how that happens -- and all of a sudden we can't pay for those things that we've mandated anymore. We push that onto the local taxpayers. So that will be the direction that this thing ends up anyways.
And let's just say if -- in Hamilton County's case, let's say we continued to -- in a commitment and we made it in the State Constitution that we will absolutely fund these full-time commissioners for Hamilton County and those 838 Democrats will have one full-time staffer in Hamilton County working around the clock for them. Let's say we enshrined that in law.
That means -- Hamilton County has never requested this, doesn't need it, doesn't want it. That means that taxpayers from Syracuse or Westchester or somewhere else in the State of New York are putting into that $5 million pot in order to pay for a full-time commissioner for 838 Democrats in Hamilton County.
It doesn't make any sense. Whether the mandate is funded or unfunded, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Walczyk.
Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Mayer to explain her vote.
SENATOR MAYER:Thank you, Mr. President.
And thank you, Senator Walczyk, for expressing your view so strongly.
One thing I have to point out, there's nothing about the fact that there's only 838 Democratic -- enrolled Democratic voters in Hamilton County that means they don't deserve a full-time commissioner who doesn't have a second job. Same for the Republican enrolled voters in Hamilton County. There's nothing unique about being voters in a rural and small-populated county that means they don't deserve the full attention of an election commissioner.
This is the basis of our democracy. Their vote, one of the 838 Democratic voters, counts as much as a voter from Brooklyn, Bronx or Yonkers, and they are entitled to the full devotion of the election commissioners, both Democratic and Republican, who have a full-time job making sure that the elections are conducted in a responsible way and do not have a conflict of interest.
There's nothing unique about a rural voter that makes them less entitled to the full attention of an election commissioner.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Mayer to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Helming to explain her vote.
SENATOR HELMING:Thank you, Mr. President.
Before us today there are a number of elections bills, but what's missing is a voter ID bill. Various polls show that Americans strongly support requiring a photo ID to vote. The Pew Research Center shows 81 percent of Americans favor requiring people to show government-issued voter identification to vote.
The Gallup Poll released in October of 2024 shows 84 percent of Americans support requiring a photo ID to vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Helming, does -- does your -- is your -- are your comments related to Senator Mayer's bill?
SENATOR HELMING:They absolutely are. I'm getting there. Within my two minutes.
Thirty-six states require some sort of ID to vote, including the two states that were mentioned as the gold standard, if you will, for the establishment of county polling places -- Indiana and Utah.
People of all ages, including young people, are used to carrying and showing an ID. We all know about all the purchases that require an ID to make. You have to have an ID to cash a check, to access medical care, to travel, to register for classes, and a whole lot more.
I cosponsor a bill that Senator Ortt carries that would require voters to present a valid photo ID. This bill eliminates financial barriers to whose who need help getting an ID. This package of election bills ignores what the majority of people want: Voters to show identification prior to voting.
For this reason --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Helming, how does -- how do your comments relate to the bill at hand?
(Overtalk.)
SENATOR HELMING:-- the bill before us is an unfunded mandate.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Helming, you have mentioned other bills in the package --
SENATOR HELMING:I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Please keep your comments related to the bill.
SENATOR HELMING:And I just mentioned that this bill is an unfunded mandate --
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Lanza --
SENATOR HELMING:-- and for that reason I will be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Please explain your vote in relation to the bill that is before the house. It is clearly delineated in the Senate rules. Nothing you indicated, Senator Helming, with all due respect, had anything to do with Senator Mayer's bill.
Senator Lanza.
SENATOR LANZA:Mr. President, what I would add is that each of us, when we vote either in the affirmative or negative, we have our own unique reasons for doing so.
And for Senator Helming, if the reason why she's voting against this bill is because it doesn't include something or because it includes something that she doesn't believe belongs there, it's within her prerogative and every member's prerogative to explain their vote in the way they see fit.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Lanza, as you know, we're just trying to keep the order of the house.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 8, those Senators voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik.
Ayes, 39. Nays, 22.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 9, Senate Print 1356, by Senator Skoufis, an act to amend the Election Law and the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Senator Lanza, why do you rise?
SENATOR LANZA: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, who is wasting no time to be heard.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Lanza.
Upon review of this amendment, in accordance with Rule 6, Section 4B, I unfortunately rule it nongermane and out of order at this time.
SENATOR LANZA:Accordingly, Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that Senator Walczyk indeed be recognized.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The appeal has been made and recognized, and Senator Walczyk may be heard.
SENATOR WALCZYK:Mr. President, it's not the first time that we've disagreed on the germaneness, and I hope to sway my colleagues and maybe even you.
This bill-in-chief amends Election Law in relation to joining a multistate voter maintenance organization.
Now, there is nothing that would serve us better than having accurate data to be able to give to that multistate voter maintenance organization or organizations to be able to work with other states.
And as my colleague recently pointed out, 36 states have taken up a voter ID law because they're taking their voter data very seriously. A Gallup Poll -- so I offer this amendment because a Gallup Poll showed that 84 percent of Americans support voter ID. That includes 67 percent of registered Democrats and 84 percent of registered independent voters.
Some of those states include states like red states Texas and Florida; some of them blue states like Washington and Connecticut; or purple states, if you love to color states, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Georgia, which has some of the strictest voter ID laws.
But I know that these are all red, white and blue states because in the United States of America, people believe in enfranchisement. They want their vote to count. They want their elections secure. They're asking overwhelmingly for voter ID.
This bill is -- not only is my amendment germane, but overwhelmingly New Yorkers want voter ID laws on the books in New York State. And I challenge my colleagues to accept this amendment, because some of the things that have been thrown out there as reasons why we can't do voter ID, even though 84 percent of American voters support it, are because it will, you know, suppress some of the vote.
Well, 36 other states have done it. None of the results show that the vote was suppressed in those states.
Or it's disenfranchisement. Actually, when people have the confidence that their vote is going to count and when voters have the confidence that these elections are secure, you do nothing but increase the confidence to get out there and vote. And that's what the results have shown.
This isn't me making it up. I know we're the first -- in New York State we're the first. We get out there and do things -- we're either the first or the last. We get out there and we do things before all of the other states do them.
So we pontificate about how these election laws are going to change things. And we guess and we strategize, and then we debate them, sometimes in committees. Sometimes the committee meetings are canceled so we just debate them in this chamber.
But here we don't have to guess. Thirty-six states have them on the books. Voter ID is working in 36 states. Democrats, Republicans, independents, registered voters across America love voter ID. And your Election Day package today missed it.
So on the last bill, I've offered this very -- they call it a hostile amendment, Mr. President, but I would call this a very helpful amendment. Please pass voter ID. Vote on the germaneness of this bill. Let's get it done. The people want it. It's the right way to secure our elections.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Thank you, Senator Walczyk.
I want to remind the house that this 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.")
SENATOR LANZA:Show of hands.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:A show of hands has been requested and so ordered.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 22.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The ruling of the chair stands, and the bill-in-chief is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 5. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:The bill is passed.
Senator Gianaris, that completes the reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Is there any further business at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:There is no further business at the desk.
SENATOR GIANARIS:I move to adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 14th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT BAILEY:On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, January 14th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:11 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)
Highest impact first.
Make Polluters Pay for Adaptation
Automatic Voter Registration Expansion
Ban Foreign Corporate Election Spending
Require EV Chargers in Parking
Reduce Workplace Injuries
Regulate Short-Term Rentals
Regulate Model Management Companies
Ban Voter Deception and Suppression