New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, please call the house to order.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The house will come to order. Good afternoon, colleagues. Wonderful to see you all today. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of Allegiance. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Wednesday, June 3. Miss Pepestones.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Wednesday, June 3, and that the same should stand approved.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Without objections, I'll order.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you so much. Colleagues and guests that are in the chambers with us today, I'd like to share a quote with you. This one is from former president John F Kennedy. His words for us today, changes the law of life and those who look only to the past or the present are certainly going to miss the future. Again, these words from former president John f Kennedy. Madam speaker, members have on their desk a main calendar. And before any housekeeping or introductions, we're gonna take up calling for committees to meet. Ways and Means is meeting right now. Upon their completion, we'll call for rules. These committees are going to produce in a calendar which we are going to take up today. We're going to begin our work on the floor today by taking up the following bills on consent: Rules report number 130 by mister Magnarelli, rules report 148 by miss Simon, rules report 167 by miss Champlain Waterman, and rules report three twenty one by miss Tapia, calendar 84 by mister McDonnell. We're going to start to consent on page 12 with rules report four forty, and we're going to go right through to rules report four fifty. And then we're going to move to rules report four fifty eight through four sixty eight. In addition, we're gonna be taking up rules report four sixty nine by mister Hasty. We will then take up the following bills on debate. Rules report by mister Cunningham, three eighty nine. Rules report four sixty eight by miss Barrett. Calendar 04/23 by miss Clark. There may be a need for additional floor activity, madam speaker. If that is the case, we will announce at that time. However, that's a general outline. We've already called ways and means that we won't need to go there. We'll wait until they're finished their work and we'll call rules. So in the meantime, I'd imagine we'll go right to the list that I gave you for

[Speaker 2]: Like the housekeeping introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: The housekeeping and introductions.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. We have no housekeeping this morning. We have an introduction by mister Santa Barbara.

[Angelo Santabarbara, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Arise today to introduce distinguished guests from Union College in the city of Schenectady, an institution that has a long tradition of academic excellence, leadership, and athletic achievement. Joining us today is Monja Wagner, a junior goaltender for the Union College Women's Ice Hockey team. Earlier this year, she represented Switzerland at the twenty twenty six Winter Olympic Games in Milan, Cortina, becoming the first player in Union College women women's hockey history to earn a spot on the Olympic roster. She helped team Switzerland earn a bronze medal, an extraordinary accomplishment that brought pride not only to her country, but also to the Union College community and the entire city of Schenectady. Also joining us is Sarah D'Silva, a fellow goaltender for the Union College Women's Ice Hockey team. She's a sophomore student athlete. Sarah exemplifies the dedication, discipline, and teamwork that's required to compete at the collegiate level while also pursuing her academic success. I'm also pleased to welcome head coach Tony Macy. Coach Macy has played an important role in building the strength of the Union College Women's Hockey program, helping student athletes develop their skills, achieve success on the ice, and represent their institution with pride and integrity. Together, these guests represent the very best of college athletics. Their accomplishments remind us that success is built through hard work, perseverance, teamwork, and a commitment to excellence. Madam speaker, if you would please welcome our guests to the chamber and extend to them all the cordialities of the house.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Of course. On behalf of mister Santa Barbara, the speaker and all members, welcome to our wonderful young people from Union College, from the women's ice hockey team. We welcome you to the chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Coach and players, congratulations to you on your successful endeavors, especially being able to go to the Olympics. That's something special. We see your medal, so congratulations on all your successes. Really, it's just wonderful to be able to amplify on an international stage folks from right here in our local area. So thank you so very much for joining us today and best wishes for your future endeavors. Thank you so much. Miss Chandler Waterman for the purpose of an introduction.

[Monique Chandler-Waterman, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today with immense pride to introduce my fellow sorority sister, Sophony Pierre Mitchell. She is the president of Theta Gamma Sigma Capital District Local Chapter Sigma Gamma Rho sorority. She was humbly served as president in the role since 2024 and was a centennial initiative of the chapter in spring twenty twenty two. Recently, I passed a resolution to commemorate November 12 at Sigma Gamma Rho Day in the state of New York. Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority Incorporated is a non profit international collegial organization founded in 1922 at Butler University in Indiana by seven woman educators. We are a group of college educated women dedicated to uplifting communities through international advocacy and education. Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority lives by a powerful model, greater service, greater progress. As the mission is as clear as it's vital to enhance the quality of life for women and their families. This moment is particularly meaningful for me. As many of you know, I also am incredibly proud to stand before you as a member of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority Inc. I have seen firsthand dedication, the brilliance of the greater service that these women pour into the state, and I will say every single day. Dedication into sisterhood scholarship and service, Theta Gamma Sigma oversees annual national events like Operation Big Book Bag Giveaways and the annual youth symposium, offering an annual book leadership scholarship to black and brown high school students in the capital region. As a proud graduate of University Buffalo, Stephanie has spent the past six years in public service with the executive chapter and now serves as a manager to the office of the chair at the New York State Workers' Compensation Board under leadership of Sorrel Freda D. Foster. She and the Sorrels of New York State express gratitude to add a new Sigma alumni chapter under my my bachelor's Francis Bates as we do swim 1922. I would like to extend the cordialities of the floor. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Yes. On behalf of miss Chandler Waterman, miss Romero, the speaker, and all members, welcome miss Mitchell to the assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. It's always wonderful to see sisters in service here in our assembly chamber. Greater service, greater progress, exemplifies everything Sigma Gamma Rho does every single day. We hope you enjoy our proceedings again and thank you so very much for joining us.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, could you please call the rules committee to the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Rules committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Rules committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. Page three, rules report one thirty. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one zero four one five a, rules report number one thirty, mister Magnarelli, an act to amend the public service law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty eight. Nays, zero. The bill

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: is passed. Page four, rules report one forty eight. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Senate number nine nine zero seven rules report number one forty eight. Senator Botchner, an act to amend the real property actions and proceedings law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty eight. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page four, rules report one sixty seven. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11385 a, rules report number 167, committee on rules, miss Chandler Waterman. An act to amend chapter one ninety two of the laws of 2011.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Chandler Waterman, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill has advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty nine. Nays, zero. The bill is passed.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Page nine, rules report three twenty one. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 1057, rules report number three twenty one, Mistapia, an act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Mistapia, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty nine. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 24, calendar number 84. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 2321 a, calendar number 84, mister McDonald. An act to amend the public officer's law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty. Nays, zero. The bill is passed.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On consent, page 12, rules report four forty. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one five five zero, rules report four forty, committee on rules, mister Rivera, an act to amend the judiciary law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number one one five five seven, rules report number four four one, committee on rules, miss Walker. Enact to amend the election law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 675D, rules report number 442. Miss Cruz, an act to amend the civil rights law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 212, excuse me, two one two one a, rules report 443. Miss Walker, enact to amend the election law. Bill is laid aside. Assembly number 3954 b, rules report number four four four, mister Raga, an act to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 5404 c, rules report number four four five, mister Stern, an act to amend the general municipal law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty three. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 5846 b, rules report number 447, mister Gibbs, enact enact to amend the election law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 10050 a, rules report number 450, miss Shimsky, enact to amend the transportation law. This bill is laid aside. Assembly number 11538, rules report number 458, miss Lee, an act to amend the military law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty three. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11539, rules report number 459, committee on rules, mister Alvarez. An act to amend the education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect 07/01/2026.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty three. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 115400, rules report number 460. Committee on rules, mister Powers, enact to amend the alcoholic beverage control law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty two. Nays, one. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11547, rules report number 462, committee on rules, miss People Stokes, an act to amend the state finance law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty four. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one five five five rules report four sixty four committee on rules, miss Feffer Omato, an act to amend the general municipal law on the retirement and social security law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect 07/01/2026.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty four. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 11556, rules report four sixty five, committee on rules, mister Conrad, an act in relation to directing the New York State Energy and Development Authority to establish pilot programs.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Conrad, to explain his vote.

[Bill Conrad, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanna say thank you to the staff, the speaker, and all the supporters of this. This was a labor of love. We want to pursue, I think, the third rail of energy efficiency and conservation of energy, and I think this ground up approach will make that happen. I look forward to the governor signing this bill and for our local municipalities to participate in a weatherization program. Thank you. I will be voting in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Conrad in the affirmative. Miss Pupil Stokes to explain her vote.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you very much, madam speaker, for

[Speaker 2]: the

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: opportunity to explain my vote. I really just rise to commend the sponsor of this legislation. You know, there is a community of people that he represents and that I represent who are all divided over these issues of energy efficiency and weatherization, etcetera, etcetera. But he's found a way to offer something to the constituency that will be of value to them. So I wanna congratulate him on this bill, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to vote in favor of it.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Pupilstowson, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty four. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one five five eight rules report four sixty six. Committee on rules, mister Kim. An act to amend chapter seven zero four of the laws of 1991.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 134. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number one hundred fifteen fifty nine, rules report four sixty seven, committee on rules, Mr. Pretlow, an act to amend the New York State Medical Care Facilities Finance Agency Act.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty four. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11560, rules report four sixty eight, committee on rules, miss Barrett, Enact to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one five six one, rules report four sixty nine, committee on rules, mister Hasty. Enact to amend chapter seven forty seven of the laws of 2023.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This bill is laid aside. Page 17, rules report four sixty nine, clerical Reid.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11,561, Rules Report four sixty nine, Committee on Rules, Mr. Hasty. An act to amend Chapter seven forty seven of the laws of 2023.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote's been requested, miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The republican conference will be in the negative, generally speaking, on this bill, but if there are exceptions, they may be noted now at members' desks. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, the majority conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Speaker, thank you. Briefly to explain my vote, as it says, this is there's a lot of technical corrections to the bill, and we understand this happens on a regular basis every year when we have to do some cleanup. So those are just some little things but they do have the tax increases there' something which we expressed some concern about before and because those tax increases are still part of this budget and part of this extender I' be voting in negative and I would expect our side will be voting in the negatives also but I understand this is more of a technical cleanup bill but I think just to get on the record because of the tax increases which we' been continually outspoken against and will continue to do so in the future, we will continue our opposition to this piece of legislation. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Palmisano in the negative. Mister Gibbs, to explain his vote.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to explain my vote. East Harlem deserves investment, not abandonment. For too long, communities like East Harlem have had to live with vacant lots and store development projects. Extending these credits helps attract investments, create jobs and move long delayed projects forward while ensuring environmental cleanup is completely properly done. And for that, I vote in affirmative, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gibson, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 96. Nays, 38.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 10, rules report three eighty nine. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Senate thirteen twenty seven a, rules report three eighty nine. Senator Parker, enact to amend the public service law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Colleagues, we're on debate. Mister Cunningham.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. This legislation will establish minimum payment standards for utility payment plans. It includes directing the public service commission to establish minimum standard agreements and determining reasonable pricing for pricing plans.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gray.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: For mister Gray, the sponsor

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: will yield.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister Cunningham. Good morning.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Good morning, sir.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Is it morning?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Good afternoon.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Excuse me. Good afternoon. So first thing, there are existing programs out there for deferred payment agreements. What is this bill doing that doesn't already exist in either the I think it's the home energy plan or the PSC rules?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Thank you for the question. This bill creates minimum standards that are directed by our Public Service Commission. Currently, many utility companies can direct their own kind of payment plans. We want to make sure that it's standardized across all utilities for consumers, particularly at a time where utility costs are pretty high across the state. I think you would agree.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. And so are we only talking about the past due balances and what about the current and ongoing charges that a consumer is incurring?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's currently for past due balances, sir. But if the rates increase or if their balance increases, they can roll that into it at a reasonable time.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, does the consumer have to maintain current balances and have to pay current balances along with the arrears?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Yes. Most payment plans currently and this would actually fold into that is allow you to continue to pay that amount in addition if that rate goes up or any additional charges are incurred, they would roll that into potentially an eighteen month agreement.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: It's it's eighteen months agreement?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: No. Just throwing out a number of eighteen months. But generally speaking, whatever the agreement was, whether it's twelve months, eighteen months, or twenty four, you would see that increase in the rate.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So they have to make concurrent payments. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding that correctly.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: They would make they would make the minimum payment.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: And they have to make concurrent monthly current payments?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: That is correct, sir.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So you have a reasonable standard, reasonableness standard in there that that is in the existing requirements right now? What is reasonable capture in this bill? The current standards are covering.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: The reason will be determined by the Public Service Commission. We're directing them to come up with what reasonable looks like.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. But the Public Service Commission already has a program. Is that correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: There are a few programs that exist. Reasonable means ability to pay if circumstances have changed income for the household and whether or not they defaulted on similar agreements in the past.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So any of these programs, this program here, does it have a term attached to it? Or what are we doing here? How long can people go on paying $10 a month?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's agreed upon by the utility company and the consumer.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, the reasonableness and everything is left up to the utilities. Is that correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Reasonable is determined by PSC and the language in the bill.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Do we know how much the unrecovered cost in this program will shift like certain financing costs State. On to current ratepayers, nonparticipating customers?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Not relevant to that particular question is not relevant to this bill because it's based on what the person is owed to pay, not based on any terms described before.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: I want to turn to section 2E. It says in the event rate changes are approved by the commission becomes effective or in the event supply portion of the customers bill will be 20% or higher than the supply cost over two consecutive billing cycles.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: So if the rates go up or the supply cost goes up, you can actually roll that into the current plan.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. It doesn't talk about utilization. So, you could have your supply costs go up in a number of different ways. It could be a unit charge. It could be a utilization charge. Bills currently work

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: is usage tracking, bill generation and then the invoices generated. So you would still have that utility cost or what utility the usage was for the month included in that bill. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. Sure. Part of the billing already includes utility usage cost. So, you would see that in the bill already is what I'm saying.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Right. Okay. So you are yes. Utilization, but you don't determine

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: I can't hear him.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Hold on. I gotta adjust my hearing aids. I got them all the way up. I'm doing the best I okay. So you don't determine whether it's unit cost or utilization. Is that correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: This is based on supply cost.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Right.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Supply cost change Which are a lot of different mechanisms. A couple of different ways they change.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's actually the commodity cost.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: That's supply cost.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. It changes two different ways. Either it's going to go up over your previous two months by the fact that you're utilizing more or the unit cost is up.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: So again, just to be clear, the cost of the agreement is based on what is already charged. If supply cost, anything changes, they can roll that into the agreement currently.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Right, if supply cost changes.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: If it does change, they can roll that into the billing, yes. So the bill could potentially go up, but that would happen after that supply cost incurred and documents to the consumer.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Right. But I'm asking how do you determine supply cost going up? That's what I'm asking.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's it's on the bill as far as I know. Okay. The utility bill.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Unit or the customer supply cost may go up if they're utilizing if somebody turns their thermostat up to 80 degrees, their supply cost is gonna go up.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's it's just on a bill. Not my bill, your utility bill.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: I I under yes. I understand that, mister Cunningham. I'm trying to get out how we determine what the increase in supply cost means. There's a way of determining it. It's going to go up two different ways. It's going to go up unit or it's going to go up utilization. Unit price, we saw both. We saw both this winter.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: So both the supply and usage go into the bill. This bill is just talking about the commodity cost itself. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Do we know what the impact is of prolonged arrears on both the consumer and I mean prolonged arrears on the consumer and on the utility?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: This is designed to get people out of arrears, get their bills paid up. These are folks who are willing to make the payments, they just don't have the amount that is owed at the time and want to roll that into a reasonable payment plan so they can make payments.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: And but we have no term on that. Is that correct? There's no term.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's it's that is correct.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Term is determined by the utility.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. They must stay current on their current on their ongoing balances.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: That's absolutely correct. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So the PSC already has programs. Would it be more appropriate for the PSC to just tailor their programs to meet the requirements in this bill that are already existing?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: So this is a minimum. It's setting the floor for what those arrangements could look like.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Setting the floor for the current PSC plans?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: For the for the current payment plans. Correct.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. What is the floor currently? What's what's the floor currently? The floor in this one is?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Currently, challenge that we're having with our utilities companies is that it varies from utility company, utility company. This would actually set a minimum standard across all utility companies so that customers have that assurance and that protection.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Have you is there any incentive in here for customers not to go into arrears or does this encourage would this by chance encourage people?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: I think this is encouraging people to work with the utility companies to find a reasonable rate they can afford to pay so that utility companies can approve the cost but those customers can keep their utilities on and continue to make payments.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. We're just talking about the past due balances and they have certain requirements where they have meet in order to be able to write?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: They would have to meet requirements and once those requirements are met, they would enrolled into the program, correct. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: And so we don't know the impact that this is going to pose on the utilities. Is that correct? Which would ultimately be so if we're driving finance costs with utilities because they're not recovering some of their costs right now, they are prolonging some of their costs so it is increasing their financing costs, that is recoverable in rate cases. That correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: I think the impact will be felt by people actually going to pay their utility bills. That is the impact. The impact is people positively paying their bills and making sure those bills are paid to the utility companies.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you very much, mister Cunningham.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Appreciate it.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister Gray. Yep.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes. Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Absolutely.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yield.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Mister Cunningham. Good aft

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Good afternoon, sir.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Good afternoon. I lose track of time.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: I'm Yes, sir.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: First, I understand what you are trying to do. Appreciate the intention. It's just obviously we have some questions and concerns and hopefully as we move forward in this process we can address those concerns. So, as you said, well right now the PSC, they also offer the current law, offer residential customers payment plans, correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: There are, yes. That's correct.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And the PSC governs that process to make sure they're following all the proper protocols to ensure that process works, correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And if the PSC deemed it we need to make changes to this program right now, they could do that on their own through communication with like maybe like interveners like Paul with the utilities to kind of put in plan a place that would work. They could do that right now if they wanted to correct?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: They certainly can but this body can also do the same through a legislative process.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Sure. And so, this bill guarantees a floor of $10 a month. Is that right?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: No. It guarantees a minimum standard that will be determined by the PSC. Again, right now to your point, there are about seven utility companies across the state. They all don't have a minimum standard. This would create one minimum standard for them to operate and have governed by.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And where is the Just so I know the $10 come from in the bill. The

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: bill states it could be as low as 10. It doesn't have to be 10.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Could be as low as 10. So, the PSC would determine how low that payment is?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: The PSC would determine that.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, does that have to take into account arrears when they make that?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: It's taken into effect arrears and their current balance. And that person's ability to pay based on life circumstances whether that be income, whether that be loss income or other expenses and obligations.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Is there a concern that you know for example say and I don't know how this would come about but let's say for example someone has a $10 minimum that's provided to them but they owe a couple thousand dollars in arrears and that will build up over time, how do they get out of those arrears and ultimately won't? Isn't there going to be a possible cost shift to other residential rate payers who aren't in these plans who are in arrears?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: No, that wouldn't affect other rate payers that aren't a party agreement. Obviously that would be a conversation of what that person's ability to pay is, what the arrears is and working out a reasonable timeline to get that arrears caught up so that they're fully paid off.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: So, is there a defined timeline in this bill or does the PSC have to set up a defined timeline?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: The PSC would have that determination to make that determination.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: So, they have to So, we're empowering the PSC to make this determination right now?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: We are empowering the PAC as well as utilities and customers to make that decision in consultation with each other.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And is it a concern that requiring the utilities to carry these prolonged arrears that can increase financing costs for the rate payer, the one who's in arrears, ultimately increasing unrecovered rates that would actually have to be a shift to others? You don't think that's a possible outcome of this?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: No, because the arrears currently exist. That debt already exist. So, this is trying to get them out of that arrears debt and get them caught up. The big concern for me is folks who don't have utilities that will be turned off as a result of not being able make those obligations that are too high without this minimum that they could afford to help offset that cost.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. I think I asked you but I know we said that the PSC has the authority to do this and do you think by would it be better to give them the opportunity to do this and provide them the flexibility or do you think this bill gives them all the flexibility that they need?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Are you referring to the PSC? Yes. I think this gives them the flexibility to make a determination what that minimum standard looks across all utilities.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: I think

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: my concern a lot of times, necessarily just this bill, a lot of bills that come here to try to mandate these changes to PSC where they have the ability to make those changes. I think that's where a lot of my concerns have come in on some of the bills that I've seen here before. Do you envision Could this possibly create some inequities between customers who comply with payment plans and those who might repeatedly be in default? Or being protected from termination?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: I don't believe so because again we're talking about customers who are currently in arrears whether that be arrears for $500 and you mentioned $1,000 that debt currently exists and it has not been passed on to other consumers. But it would help the customer who isn't arrears to find a floor in which they can make a predictable amount of a payment every month to get out of arrears and to move forward with their utility service and with closing out their debt.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Will there be a tracking system to this with the utilities and the PSC so they can see where these individuals are in the process? No,

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: we wouldn't create a tracking system.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Under this bill, a customer on a payment plan cannot have a service terminated except in limited circumstances. Does this effectively eliminate utility's primary school for compliance?

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Repeat

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: that question one more time just so I'm clear. Sure.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Under this bill, a customer on a payment plan cannot have a service terminated except in limited circumstances. Does this effectively eliminate the utility's primary tool to help ensure compliance because when people termination is a motivation to pay the bill. Does this view envision as jeopardizing that ability to do that or no?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: No, that doesn't. In fact, as part of the Home Energy Fair Pricing Protection Act, that would actually ensure that that doesn't happen.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And what mechanisms would remain for the utilities to address chronic non payment or repeated payment plan failures? What recourse would the utilities have in that situation?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: I would say that the PSC is going to create that scope of what that agreement looks like in terms of making sure that that individual adheres to the minimum payment that was required to get them out of arrears.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. I know this bill requires utilities to spread out cost increases if supply charges exceed 20% over two billing cycles. Who bears the financial risk of that deferral? Is that still on the ratepay themselves or the utility or spread out over?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: As far as I know, the arrears currently still stands. This is giving them an off ramp to catch up on those arrears. So those bills are still currently due. You're not adding new debt. What you're doing is you're saying that the debt that is owed, we're gonna find a minimum reasonable standard in which one can address that Particularly again given the high cost of utilities across the state.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. And then as you know, York has affordability programs like the AAP, heat back protections. What gap does this bill fill that's not already addressed under current law? It primary just to give them that It

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: gives a floor but it also gives a standard across different utilities so that it's predictable. You can't pick a utility company, but we can certainly have the PSA pick the floor in which we allow folks to get out of arrears.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Are there any concerns with this bill that could create a cross subsidization between low income and moderate income customers who do not qualify for the program?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: No, because they're paying for it. They're paying for those services.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And this bill only applies to residential customers, correct? Not commercial?

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Mr. Cunningham, I thank you for your time very much.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Thank

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: you Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes, Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the intention of the sponsor is trying to do. I know he's trying to we want to make sure we're addressing issues with arrears. I can see where he's going with this. I just think there are some technical things that were some questions that have come up that we're trying to raise that need to be examined as we move forward with this legislation, whether it gets signed into law or chapter amendments come. But ideally, I still think, and I will say, as I said often on this floor, I do believe the best place to address this is with the PSC. The PSC is working on affordability with the utilities, make sure those programs run effectively, efficiently, to make sure our rate payers are getting the benefits of those programs. But if we're going make changes, we need to make sure it's done in the proper way. And I just I always get kind of concerned when we're making these changes here from a statutory perspective. And it kind of locks them in, think instead of giving that flexibility to the PSC. But I know the sponsor says he believes that the flexibility is there, and I would take him at the word. So just because of some of the concerns and questions that I brought up, probably voted in the negative on this bill, but I certainly understand where the sponsor is going. And I thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will generally not be supporting this legislation, but if there are exceptions, members can vote differently at their desks now. Thank you.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, mister Fall. Thank you, madam speaker. The majority of conference will support this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 95. Nays, 40.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 16, rules report four sixty eight. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11560, rules report four sixty eight, committee and rules, miss Barrett, enact to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested, miss Barrett. Can we have quiet in the chamber, please? Thank you. Thank

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: you, madam speaker. An explanation. Last October, the Energy Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, held a public hearing to explore the impact and growth of data centers and how to protect ratepayers from the increased costs associated with large data centers. At the time of that hearing, there were just over 20 large load projects in the NISO interconnection queue, totaling 4,400 megawatts. Today, at our best estimate, there are 48 large load projects asking to be interconnected. At least 30 of those are data centers totaling over 11,000 megawatts. Parts of this legislation, which we are calling the Responsible Data Center Development Act, came out of that hearing. It's an omnibus bill that was developed in combination with legislation from my colleagues, Yudelka Tapia and Anna Kellis, our own sisterhood of the traveling data centers. And I thank them both for their input here. We all know that data centers are using exorbitant amount of energy. But let me use this example to make clear the scale of this energy use. As we noted, there are currently at least 30 large data centers seeking interconnection through NISO right now. Collectively, those 30 data centers would consume as much power as all of New York City. In other states, we have seen the capital and energy costs of these large centers as enormous as well. In Illinois, current customers have paid over 91% of the costs associated with new large energy users. A Bloomberg News analysis of electricity commodity prices for locations across the country found that electricity now costs as much as 267% more for a single month than it did five years ago in areas located near major data center activity. This bill is both timely and common sense. Across the state, our constituents are talking about data centers, they are worried about data centers, they are confused about data centers, and they are looking for answers about data centers. As legislators, it is our job to help our state address this issue with a measured, thoughtful and comprehensive approach to ensure the responsible operation and development of data centers to protect our natural resources and make sure that ratepayers are not being asked to unfairly subsidize the cost, the economic as well as environmental costs of this industry. So I know you're wondering how are we defining data centers. I'm gonna read this to you. The bill defines data centers as all facilities or combination of facilities under common ownership or control at the same site that receive electric gas or water service from an electric corporation, gas corporation, water works corporation, or municipality have applied or requested to receive such service or have otherwise caused an electric corporation, gas corporation, water works corporation or municipality to incur an expense in relation to provision of service pursuant to the public service law or have a peak demand of one megawatt or more that is used for computing infrastructure and this does not include manufacturing, data processing services, web hosting services not including software publishing, streaming support services, not including streaming distribution, and other related services and functions as defined by the Public Service Commission. The term data center doesn't include facilities majority owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by a public research institution, something used for research purposes. And when we talk about large data centers, we mean a data center that has a peak demand of 20 megawatts or more. This bill establishes a multipronged approach to data center oversight, including temporarily pausing the Department of Environmental Conservation's approval of new data centers for one year to examine the environmental, economic and ratepayer impacts, ensuring that data centers pay their fair share and minimizing any negative impacts to surrounding communities and utility ratepayers. More specifically, the bill establishes a one year moratorium on the DEC's approval of new large data centers of 20 megawatts or more. And while such moratorium is in place, it requires DEC, along with other state agencies, to study the impacts of data centers relating to air quality, noise pollution, energy usage, electronic waste, and other environmental and public health impacts. It requires that data centers be in a separate electric, gas, and water classification for utility service. That all costs relating to infrastructure and any increases in commodity prices attributable to data centers be paid by the data centers and not by the ratepayers. It requires that data centers adopt energy efficiency measures, utilize waste heat, and procure renewable energy. It provides that host communities receive specific benefits from data centers relating to minimizing local water pollution impacts as well as engaging in residential and community projects. And it establishes labor protection and standards for the construction of new data centers and community benefits. Ms. Barrett. Thank you for your attention.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Gray.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Good afternoon, Ms. Barrett. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. So first we'll start with the Energize New York. Are you Energize NY Development? Are you familiar with that program?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Oh, yes. The proceeding that the PSC is going through. Yes.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: It's That's

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Some months ago. Yep.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yep. 26DashDashEDash0545. And can you tell me what that proceeding is encompassing?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's it's a has the broadest authority and can do things such as requiring utilities to create new service classifications. This does does not Our bill does not conflict with the existing proceeding which started in February, believe that's what you're referring to,

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: right? Correct.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: The proceeding will offer more insights while the moratorium is actually in place on what the next steps would be. Ultimately though, we don't know how long that proceeding is going to take place and we don't believe that the legislature, since all of us are hearing from our constituents on this issue, should wash our hands of this and wait for the PSC to complete their proceeding before we address this challenging issue of our time.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Correct. So, we already have state agencies that are directing this and we're going to direct more state agencies to, including the PSC, to address this issue. The proceeding is addressing rate payer protection, economic and regulatory certainty, grid reliability, cost allocation, among other things. What is that proceeding doing that this or what is this bill doing that that proceeding is not doing? I mean, that that proceeding is exactly some of the concerns that are listed in this bill.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That may very well be the case, but this is a pause on the work and on the DEC's approval so that that can all happen while, that the proceeding and the questions can be addressed, not while work is going on immediately, but while there's a moment to take a look and have a level set of what the challenges around data centers are.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Sure. So we've established that a state agency is already doing much of what's included in this bill, Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: But not they haven't put a pause on. So, the pause is a critical

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: I'll get to that. Okay. So, let's just the nice price process for the interconnection. How long does that take?

[Speaker 2]: It varies.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's some of them have been, you know, taking several years. You know, that it's a long process.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Correct. Okay. So, we have a state agency that is looking at the data that this bill is calling for and then we have a nice process before you can even get connected, approved to get connected to the to the grid, it it's yours. Correct? Could could be yours. Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It could.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yep. Okay. So we already have the time that we need for the PSC to do their work according to that process, correct? Correct.

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: Would that be

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: a fair sorry. I was hearing

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: We have time for the PSC to finish their work in this rate case, in this case situation right here.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: This is a proactive bill that takes action and makes sure that the legislature is reflecting what we're hearing in our communities from our constituents that want, you know, they want to understand, they want to see that we have no control over how long the PSC proceeding take. We have no control over how long NISO will take to approve these interconnections. We have communities that are creating their own moratorium, moratorium. This is our opportunity as state leaders to say we want to pause, we want to make sure that we're looking at this in a way that protects rate payers which is one of our major priorities, protects the environment and looks at the economic ramifications of And

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: I would admit to you that pause is already in place because that's the nice whole process. And then following the nice whole process, we have once they once their interconnection, which looks at right

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I can't. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Could you repeat what you're saying?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Sure. So we already have a process that's identifying all the information. We have the NISO process, we know is gonna

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: be continue through

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: which will continue. Yep. And then and so that's all the projects that you have listed are all subject to that right there, that process. And then what follows the the ISO process? What follows that? Do we know in order to get the connection, actually, the physical connection to the grid, what follows that?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: What?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: The ISO, once they get approval from the ISO.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Have to interface with the utilities, they have to get approvals, I mean it's a continuing continues to be a long process.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: They have to go through the engineering process with the utility And how long does that take? How long does that take?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I have no idea. Varies. At

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: least a year. Right? At least a year. So, have minimum right now. We have a PS or nice process. It's probably minimum eighteen months and we have a utility process that is probably a year. So we have two and a half years right there. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Sounds right. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Alrighty. So we'll just move on to we've already established and I think everything that we're looking for is already being implemented. So but we'll for the sake of going through the bill, we'll continue. This bill defines data centers as a facility with a peak demand of one megawatt or more for computing, data processing, web hosting, streaming. Would the sponsor confirm one megawatt is fairly low threshold? Not what people commonly think of as a data center?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah, that is, I mean, compared certainly to the larger ones, yes. Speaking

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: of that, do we know how many different types of data centers there are?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: There are a number of different data centers. There are different parts of this bill that impact different data centers. Do you want to hear more about that?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Sure. The Go right

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: intent of the bill is to focus on the largest data centers which have been shown to use the most energy and water and contribute to most pollution. However, some elements of the bill including the impact study and energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements include medium sized data centers. A one megawatt or more energy efficiency goals are what those are impact in our bill. Five megawatt or more renewable energy standards and labor provisions are impacted and the 20 megawatt or more is the moratorium, the new rate classification and the host community benefits. So, there are different parts of this omnibus bill that impact different sized data centers.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yeah. So, there's about so there's several different data centers, a lot that are connected with economic development. You have GPU cloud providers, you have enterprise data centers, you have sovereign data centers that are associated just with an economic development facility. We have research compute facilities. We have telecom facilities, right, that this is all subject to. We have inference, AI inference nodes. We have hyperscalers.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Are you on the bill now,

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: just saying, I'm just saying with the impacts of this is wide ranging in terms of economic development in New York State. Would you agree with that statement?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No, no I don't. If this is one year and I think the projects currently underway will not be impacted. So, what's that? Yeah. That already have approval or have a permit.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: There it

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: will not be impacted.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yeah. I would say for the sake of this conversation, the one year is I would in my opinion, would say irrelevant at this point because we've already established the process to get connected and operating. That's before construction and procurement of a facility is much longer than a year.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Well, we're going to disagree about that because one year is very significant to this legislation.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So so the moratorium is the moratorium that we're talking about here is one year. Correct? And that's nothing can happen during no planning, no processing, no community engagement.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah. No. It's the the only thing that that can't happen is the DEC approval process. Other things can be developed, things conversations can be had, it's not, that's the only pause that we're bringing on here at this point.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Can they submit to the NISO for the interconnection process?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah, yes

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: they They can.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I mean, know, the number we were trying to get the current number today and you know, it's always in flux because there are different applications happening.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yep. So let's walk through the timeline that you have with that you keep speaking of, which is the one year moratorium that you have. There let's let's discuss some of the other items that you have in there. So you have the impact study, which is eighteen months.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: So I'm sorry. Couldn't hear what you just said.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: You have an impact study, which is eighteen months? Right. Okay. So we so the impact study that is already under essentially a rate case or case proceeding right now PSE, is that running concurrent to the one year moratorium?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's not. Moratorium is not the same as a rate case. That's just not accurate.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. No, I'm talking about the impact statement that you have in your bill. Impact statement is eighteen months to completion, right? And the moratorium is a year. Are they concurrent timeframes?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: They're concurrent. Okay. The so the department shall so in the section, I think it's page two, section one, says department shall not issue any permit certificate registration or other form of approval for large data center unless not less than three months before the issuance of such permit. So is that after the one year? So it adds another three months?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: So

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: it's a hearing requirement. It could happen during the moratorium or I think the eighteen months was put in there just to have some wheel room for report and for public hearing being able to make sure that all of that was able to happen.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Right. So you're talking about not issuing a permit. So it's not less than three months from the issue of permit or certificate. They have to have they have to go through a a public hearing process, registration process, and everything. Right? Public hearing requirement?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yep.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Is that after the year? So it's we're talking about fifteen months? So

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: from from the time that the the bill is signed into law from three three months forward, you would be required to have a public hearing.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Right. Is that so is that during the year moratorium they can have these public hearings?

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So we're gonna go over to section thirty one zero one zero seven. The environmental impact report. Right. Okay. So, that talks about active proposals for new data centers and projections for future growth of data centers. Is that a moving target?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No. That's a moment in time. I mean, obviously, nobody can

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Moment in time. Right. And so that's an ever changing that's a dynamic situation. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I I'm sorry. I'm losing some of your words here.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: It's That is a dynamic situation.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Dynamic? It's you know, this is, we're looking at this year as an opportunity and part of the outcome of this process may be, you know, that they want to look at other things or they see, oh, this is an area that's changing quickly or you know, think that's part of the whole idea of you know of having a plan and working on a plan like

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: that.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Right but

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: all I'm saying is that it is the consideration and it's listed throughout the bill several times about new data centers and projections for future growth of data centers. All I'm saying is that's a dynamic situation that's ever changing. You had the hearing, how many when you had the hearing October. And how many were on the docket at that point?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: You know, about 50% more.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Now, than there were back

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah, more than there

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: were So that's

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: why we're doing, that's the urgency of doing this bill right now and making it immediately go into effect because things are happening quickly.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Correct. But I'm all I'm saying is that you won't we will not we'll capture we have incomplete data. Right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Why are second 15, mister Gray?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yes, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Because we'll have a dynamic situation that's changing. So there's future growth of data centers is undefinable. Also under that section, the statewide report covering electricity use, water use, land use, pollution, electronic waste, it talks about proposed and projected data centers, which is a moving endpoint. We've discussed that. These provisions all talk about the impacts, but are we not talking about any of the economic benefits that come along with this type of development?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Absolutely, we are talking about those.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: The wires are talking to Bill about the economic, about the impacts. Okay. The positive impacts.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: My trustee team here will give us the citation in a minute.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: There's jobs associated

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Jobs, absolutely. We worked with labor to develop this.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Going to I'm interject right there.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: 36 in consultation with the Empire State Development Corporation and the authority's budget office, the amount of public funds received by data centers including in the form of state and local tax incentives, including but not limited to payment in lieu of tax arrangements, sales and tax incentives, property taxes, all very much part of the

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So that's talking about what they're going to how they're going to be incentivized. And then we're talking about measuring how they're going to be incentivized. We're still not talking about the positive benefits of that these projects can potentially bring. Right? There's construction

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: jobs Should be self inflicted.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Will say, you mentioned labor, but there's labor is opposed to this bill. Many many labor organizations are opposed to this bill. So I don't know what kind of consultation you had with them but they are opposed. There are jobs that are associated with them, there is a tax base that is associated with them, local community benefits I know it' talked about in here and somebody else will address that but that' a function commonly done by IDA' and local development agencies. But this bill really doesn't talk about any of the positive impacts of the data centers.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I disagree with you completely. I think this bill covers all of those things. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So, subsection two requires an analysis impacts on prime farmland.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Analysis what?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Impacts on farmland. Analysis of impacts on prime farm and mineral soil types. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, I can certainly appreciate that. I represent a lot of agriculture. But section nineteen-one 105 of the same bill pushes data centers toward renewable energy projects. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: There is a renewable requirement.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yes. That's insignificant, I would say. So, would the sponsor acknowledge that utility scale solar, for instance, takes up prime farm land?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I can't hear what you just said. Okay, sorry I couldn't hear your whole sentence there. But yes, intended to be on-site or power purchase agreements.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Right. So and what is like a megawatt of demand, what does that take for acreage or how many megawatts in solar?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I mean that depends and that is an issue that I think each project will figure out whether they're going to generate nearby or there's something that they have a renewable source nearby or whether they're going to be a a purchase agreement.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Right. But if we have to

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: have incremental expansion of solar projects, renewable projects for this bill, that is going to significantly

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I I think we want to see expansion of renewables. We just don't want to see them on my far on farmland. And I agree with you. I also have a lot of wonderful beautiful farms in my assembly district and that's not the only place. We have a lot of places that that could be solar projects.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, I think it's section four, the rate classifications, I think it goes through sections three, four, and five. Part four I think it is. It says sections three through five require utilities to create a separate rate class for large data centers.

[Chris Burdick, Assembly Member]: Correct? Yes.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. And so, would we say when we're talking about rate and we're talking about assigning all the incremental increases in supply cost to data centers through that process. Is that correct?

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Yes.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Right.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. But when supply prices when supply costs go up, they go up accordingly in all rate classes. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Usually.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So so when we're not necessarily going to really offset another rate class because they're all going to go up accordingly.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: They're all what? Didn't hear that.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: They're all going go up accordingly when a Well,

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: this is they will be paying the data centers, it will be paying the appropriate rates to their new rate class and that's the whole idea of creating a new rate class. It's not the same as a residential rate class or a current commercial rate class or business rate class.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Okay,

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: let's go to the renewable section. That

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: would

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: be 19 dash one zero three. So it requires data centers of five megawatts or more to procure at least 90% of electricity through renewable energy by 2000 by 2040, right?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Right. By 2040, there's an interim

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Goal too. So, would you confirm that that is in fact renewables and not zero emission?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It is the language in the bill is renewables, yes. Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So New York State, currently, its fuel mix, about 20% of it comes from nuclear power. That is a carbon free zero emission source. And as we speak, the, we're projected to increase with construction just announced by the governor by 2032 under, this mandate. Would you say that that is not available? Any of that power is not available to No.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I actually would not say that because of power purchase agreements. The power purchase agreement would allow a data center to cover all of its electricity demand with renewable energy and still be connected to the grid which provides power without interruption and can be sourced from other energy sources.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: But you're requiring a power PPA to be done Power what? PPA. Power purchase agreement. Right. You're requiring a PPA with a renewable energy source, right? So essentially, you're financing you're financing that makes renewable energy sources bankable.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That that that's actually a goal is to have more renewable energy. Yes.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: I mean, we need baseload energy. So, shouldn't we be looking at making nuclear just as bankable, financeable as renewables?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: There are a number of different ways, think, what was it, green chips that will allow these power plants to use these data centers to use nuclear power if that's connected to the grid that they're working with? So The molecules don't know exactly where they're going.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Correct. But requiring these data centers to do a they don' know where they' coming from how do we track and how they' getting their power from renewables?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It' in the contract.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: The contract. They have to guarantee renewable they have to have a power purchase agreement with renewable correct? That' the only way to track

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: it. Again

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: we' making renewables financing it' not doing anything for baseload generation which is what we need right now We need baseload not intermittent power that renewables provide. Again, they' prohibited from doing a power purchase agreement with nuclear?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No. They' not forbidden? Not at all.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Your bill says renewable. And I asked you about emission free. Zero emission.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: The power purchase agreements are separate from, I mean you could be meet your 30% renewable goals and the rest get the rest of your energy through a power purchase agreement which would you know be from whatever source the grid is getting their energy from?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. It ramps up to 90% renewables.

[Speaker 25]: Right.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, 90% renewables essentially means that you are eliminating zero emission.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: No. You're not?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No. Nothing presents prevents the data centers from using nuclear power.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So data center, when gets through this whole moratorium, they can do a power purchase agreement with a nuclear facility for all of their power. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: 30% needs to be renewables at the beginning, at the outset.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: And what's it what's it at the end?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: 90%.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Okay. So how much power are they going to be getting from what kind of power purchase agreement are they going be doing with a

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: nuclear I'm sorry?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: How much what kind of a power purchase agreement are they going to be doing with a nuclear facility?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah. And if they're if they're independently generating, it can be a 100100% nuclear. There's nothing, you know, that that cuts nuclear out of this.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So, if they're behind the meter, they can be generating so this requirement for renewables is not hard and fast? Is that what you're saying?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No, it's hard and fast. If you're involved if you're how would I characterize it?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay, so 19400.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: So here, let me explain it this way. The data centers are fuel agnostic. You can get your energy through a power purchase agreement from any kind of source.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, why do we have renewables in the bill?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Because that's a piece of it. That's not the entire energy source for them.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay. Line 23. Number three. At least 90% of electricity consumption is derived from renewable energy sources by 2040 and thereafter. That is not just inconsequential amount. Right? So we're we're essentially carving out we're essentially carving out zero emission.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: So we are incentivizing renewables, that's part of our intention, but you can have any power source that you want and that's just that percentage of it at the outset and that's it's that simple.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yeah, it's essentially, so you you said early on that it's renewable and not zero emission. So so essentially, what we're doing is we are the governor's embarking on an aggressive

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Yep.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Nuclear program, and this is walling it off. This is what? Walling it off.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: So here's how I visualize this and I'm not a money person in that broadly sense. But it's kind of like carbon offsets. You're buying the offset of using renewables and you're using what you need because of the grid that you're, what's going on at the grid that you're attaching to. But that's how, does that does that make more sense to you?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Not when you say 90% has to be renewable, but we'll we'll cover that. Other people will cover that as well, I'm sure. On the bill, Matt, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: So this this bill includes a severability clause that takes effect immediately. And I think given the fact that everything that we just walked through, whatever PSC is doing right now and what is what it takes place to get through the the timing contradiction of what it gets through the nice old process utility process the study that we're looking for is one-sided It only talks about the impacts. It doesn't talk about the benefits of the data centers could provide to the communities, could provide to the grid, can provide to adding to baseload generation. The exclusion of nuclear is clear and I think that's the intent of this bill. The farmland conflict, the unquantifiable cost, many other things that are in this bill really find it unnecessary and duplicate it of what we're already doing under energized New York and what we're trying to get accomplished with adding baseload generation to our grid.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Mr. Gray. Mr. Palmisano?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Good afternoon, Ms. Barrett. You only gave me for fifteen minutes this time. I'm going to try to go through a couple of questions and I'll speak on the bill, but I kind of wanted to focus in, zero in on the host community benefits section if we could. In terms of the community host benefits, how are these benefits that a data center must provide chosen? Were these requested by municipalities or driven by other goals?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. When you put your head down, I thought

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: it's okay.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Repeat Can that please?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes. In terms of the community host benefits, how are the benefits that a data center must provide chosen? Were these requested by municipalities or were they driven by other goals? How did they come up with these qualifications?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: So nothing in this bill prevents a host community from negotiation negotiating other benefits, any benefits in addition to the ones required in this bill. The bill also allows communities to indicate their preference of the benefits they receive based on their needs and I think this was debated extensively with our colleague last week or the week before.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I remember that too. The part about install eligible residential technologies for for host communities. So, what would those technologies have to be as part of that discussion? They would have to be those specific technologies, is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No, those are examples.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, if a municipality if a data center wanted to come into a municipality, and then they determined that the community doesn't want heat pumps, they want a road, or they're looking for a water and sewer project, the town would have that flexibility to work on any type of host agreement they want, like because a lot of times IDAs work in payment taxes and they work out packages, so that local municipality would have the ability to construct that, it wouldn't be dictated from the state on what that package would look like?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That is the intention, yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. Would you I know like when we talk about Section eight and creating this could you clarify whether the host community obligations that are included are on top of the rate classification cost or the rate classification cost part of the host community agreements or is that separate? Is that considered as part of the host community agreement or is that separate

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: and distinct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: These are separate elements of the legislation.

[Speaker 26]: My understanding.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: A of different aspects of

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: It's my favorite, the benefit fund has no stated cap on scope, cost or duration. How would that work then as far as a local municipality? Would the state tell them how much, they have to determine how much of fund would be available for these projects based on the size and scope of the project or how would that work exactly?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: You're asking about the host benefit?

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That will be as part of the negotiation. Oh, PSC proceed The amount. Oh, the amount will be part of the PSC proceeding looking at you know from experience and looking at the citing of the center and other issues around.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: But you know are specific to that case.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I want to kind of go to a different direction. Did want to touch, I hit the community host benefit, but another area I'd rather like to focus on really with some of my time, and I know Mr. Greg talked about it, the terminology that's talking about renewable energy. And you you have those thresholds in here. 30%, one third has to be from renewable energy systems, then it gets up to 90%. Wouldn't it be better to have this language saying zero emission rather than renewable energy? Because if it's just renewable energy, that wouldn't even include nuclear, would it?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: You know, I can't disagree with you. I think that maybe that would have been better and maybe when the governor takes a look at that, she'll change it. But at the moment, this is what the bill language is. I think it's really important. If I can just say, Mr. Palmisano, you and I have had a lot of debates on energy over the last four years.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Yes, yes.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: And you always come back as you appropriately say, we should have a plan, we should be planning. This is our plan, this is taking data centers and looking at where the state should be. So, I think that's something really

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: important I to recognize about can appreciate that. I think my concern with the plan is what the message is going to send to the private sector that might want to invest in New York, but they see there's not just a one year moratorium, you have other delays because of the permitting process that could take two and a half to three years. Why would they want to come to New York and invest here when they can go to a state like Virginia that is welcoming and thriving there? So that's part of my concern about the plan we have in front of us. Amel, you can certainly comment if you want, but I can

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I think the message quite different. I think it is we are taking the time to think about and look at what the state role the state wants to play, how we're going to work with labor, and in contrast to a lot of different municipalities having Moratoria, a scattershot where people don't know what they're coming into, they will see New York State as a partner and New York State will have a plan to protect the things that are important.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. Back to the renewables, so I know you said, okay, wait, we can look at nuclear, maybe we got to change to zero emission, I understand that, but as we've discussed on the floor, as I've talked about on the floor, by 2040, we need to be net zero generation. That wasn't changed as far as the changes we made with the CLCPA. The nuclear technology is not necessarily there to get us to there. But in the meantime, we really need that natural gas because it's a bridge fuel. We don't want tear down the bridge before we build a new one. My question is based on how I'm reading this, if a data center wants to come in, are they basically limited by 2,040, they have to have renewable resources to power that operation, correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No. So, data center definition is not specific to any fuel source and it's triggered by the use of municipal or utility or municipal electric gas or water. And, if the data center does not wanna meet those criteria, they would not be required to use renewable energy.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: But if

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: they want to and they are using utility or municipal electric or water, they would be subject to the renewable usage or the purchase requirements. But nothing prevents them from using nuclear power as well. That's just not

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: So, when it says at least 90% of its electricity consumption is derived from renewable energy systems for 2040 and thereafter, You're saying that doesn't exclude natural gas from being used to power the

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It does not.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: There seems to be some question on that that I will pick up later. So on the timeline, to get back to what my colleague brought up, so we know it's a one year for the moratorium. It can be up to eighteen months on the last part of it. We're basically looking at two and a half to three years before data center could be cited here in New York State. Is that probably close and accurate?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's one year. One year is one year. There were other bills, but this is not that bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. Well, I'm just reading where it says that they have to report eighteen months, then you have the other hearings. Okay, if that's what you say, I agree. I do want to talk about if we are using renewable to power these operations, You know, if it's wind or solar. That's not going to really these technologies aren't going to work for data centers because they need to be powered 20 fourseven, right? So, it isn't really saying renewable resources unless it's nuclear, a functioning work nuclear facility that powers dispatchable base load generation 20 fourseven. When is solar really going to be even an option for these companies coming in? Are they going look at this and be kind of worried about that opportunity? So

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: to be included in this, the data centers will still be connected to the grid. Data centers able to have either on-site renewable generation or a contract which would be in the form of a power purchase agreement which we've been talking about based on the percentage of their electricity use. In other words, they would be paying for the renewable energy through these contracts, but we're not tracking each individual molecule or energy on the grid. So the sources, it's like what I was explaining to Mr. Gray, it's kind of like carbon offsets where the molecules are where the molecules are and it's the economic dynamic that we're looking at here.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And from your perspective, you don't think this policy that we have in here with renewable conflicts with what the governor announced on more nuclear expansion? You think that they go hand in hand on this issue?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I think that it certainly can.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And do you think, Ms. Barrett, we talked about this and I said this, wouldn't a better approach, we know the NISO, you know the NISOs put up the red flags about generation capacity possible challenges to the grid. Wouldn't there a better, you know, and I know there's worries about energy use from a data center and I get that, but wouldn't a better approach of a data center is going to come in, I know the governor talked about build your own power, build your own grid. And I like that concept personally, speaking for myself. But, if they're going to come in, let's say they need 500 megawatts of power.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Lost the last part of what you're

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I thought it a good question. Say this data center needs 500 megawatts of power to operate. So, they want to build their own grid, their own power. Right. So, but instead of saying, you just build what you want, the 500 megawatts, maybe have discussions with them saying, you double that capacity, so a thousand megawatts or 2,000 megawatts to help meet that shortage in the grid. Wouldn't that be a good community host type agreement we should be looking at as an option? Isn't that a feasible option rather looking at other options like through race classifications?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: There are different options these developers or the data centers can choose whichever way they'd

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: like to go. All right, Ms. Barrett, as always, I really appreciate your time. I know you put a lot of time and energy, No pun intended on this project. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes. I have some concerns about this legislation. As was discussed, I know there's a PSC proceeding going on right now. And I believe we should let that play out. Why is that proceeding important? Because you have the stakeholders at the table. You have the PSC. You have the ISO. You have the utilities. You have the data centers who are all communicating with each other to say what's the best plan moving forward. I think let the experts come up with a plan and so the legislature say no, moratorium. This is our suggestion for a plan. I mean I think the legislature could be at the table, but we should be compelling them on what they need to do. We should let the experts work that out. And I think the broader perspective of my problem is what kind of message are we sending to the business community? To me, when you hear moratorium, I think there seems to be a hostility towards data centers. We hear people saying about, what are we sending to the business community? Don't come to New York. Don't invest here. That's not going to help private sector investment right here in New York State. I'm very concerned about that, but we got states like Virginia that are growing and welcoming these businesses and bringing tax revenue, bringing good paying jobs, bringing host benefits like increased property taxes and things of that nature. That's what's happening but this is going to, I think, discourage that and I think there are other states who aren't using this are going to benefit from it. I am concerned about it and I know we've had a discussion about it. I don't think this is an all of the above approach. You look at 90% generation from renewable, I don't see how natural gas is a part of that discussion. I don't see how nuclear is a part of that discussion because right now it says renewable, and I think that's something that could be easily corrected on that point. But at the end of the day, a data center needs to operate 20 fourseven. Other operations have to operate 20 fourseven. If we're saying to them they can't use natural gas, they're not going to come here. Period. So we can do all this for none. They're not going to come here because they need reliable base flow generation. And maybe that's the ultimate goal. So they don't come here. And I just think that's problematic moving forward. And I think that's something that needs to be considered as we do

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: this

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: because I mean, look at Micron. If we told Micron they had the power, their energy demands strictly using renewable resources, they wouldn't be here. They're you you better believe they're gonna be using natural gas and a lot of it. So why is it okay for Micron to use natural gas but not data centers where this bill seems to be going in 2040? Because we still have a net generation of zero, so no natural gas generation by 2040. So I just think there's too many problems with this bill. Obviously the message it sends to the business community for investment here in New York State. Obviously, the message is sent on what type of power we need to power projects that need reliable base load generation. It seems like all the policies that come out of this house ignore that we need more reliable base load generation. Let's build on the generation we have. And that's why I believe the suggestion I think is a good idea. I'll keep talking about it. I only speak for myself. Maybe others disagree. If these companies went, and I've talked to them, so if you want to come into a community, you need 500 megawatts, you got to build out a thousand megawatts or 2,000 megawatts to meet that shortness, that gap in the grid. Because we know the gap in the grid is there. And the ISO is tallest. And we can address that. So, and again, when you talk about businesses, when they talk about energy policy, they care about two things. Is it affordable and reliable? And having to rely on wind and solar renewable energy to power your operations is gonna be a non starter for this type of business investment. So, can put the moratorium in these things are really gonna make it much more difficult. So, Madam Speaker, based on that and other issues, I'm gonna be voting in a negative on this bill and urge my colleagues to

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: do the same.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Durso.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Sure. Sponsor yields.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, miss Barrett. I appreciate it. So just to go over a couple things. There was you said there was a study portion during this moratorium. Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: A what portion?

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: A a study that's going to be done about data centers in your

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: S u d d e n, are you saying?

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Sudden, S U D D E N?

[Speaker 2]: Study, a

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: study. Oh, study session, I'm sorry. Sudden, the acoustics.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: It's a

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: study session? Yes. Yeah, that's part of the year long and that will be, have a public component and then a report or presentation. Okay,

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: and who will that study, once it's finalized, be going to?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: The public.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: How? Will that be on?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It'll be released as a report on their website.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: On the DC's website?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you. You also said when it came to timeline, this is just a moratorium for one year. But then obviously there's permitting, there's you know the DEC okaying a project. How long do you think that whole process will take if the moratorium wasn't in place?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Well, we've now been waiting for the PSC to do their proceeding and we don't have any sense of how long that's gonna be. Don't, lots of people wait for the DEC to do things and it takes a lot longer. So I mean I think our feeling is that we as legislators who represent the people at the most grassroots level of the state, that you know, that we should be stepping forward and doing something to take, to address this issue. So that's why we're doing this one year, starts immediately, pretty straight forward and a plan. We really do, we frequently talk about oh, we wish we thought about this beforehand and here we are thinking about it beforehand and starting to address it.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So we have a plan.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: As we're seeing the growth happen here.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So okay, so you're saying we have a plan. As you said This in mic

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: is plan. This taking a year for the DEC to look at and all of the these elements sort of address where the state is. Mean we could let the agencies do this but I don't know about you but I feel like I owe my constituents a hands on role. We hear from them all the time about their concerns about data centers and their concerns about what it's going to cost them as rate payers. So this is our opportunity as assembly members legislature because this is at this point a two house bill, the senate is involved as well. To say okay, this is what we want to see happen.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Understood, but as far as saying that we're taking a role in representing our our residents, I agree with you a 100%. But we're just voting on this once. After today or after the governor signs us, we we don't know what's gonna happen for the next year. We to say we're playing a role in it after we just vote on it once and and

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: But we laid out what we wanna see happen.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So that that's my question. So as you said to my colleagues, there's a plan. Right? In that plan, who developed the plan that you laid out? I mean, were we do we ask data centers what their thoughts were? Do we go to labor unions, electricians, HVAC mechanics to to come in and say, what would you like to see happen? Do who did we go to with this plan and say, this is good?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Some combination of all those things. I mean we did the hearing in last October. We heard, we got input, you know some of the labor union representatives were part of the conversation in developing this legislation. Yeah, that's been part of what, you know, I see my role as chair was to sort of collect a lot of information and help form and develop what we should be doing. I mean, again, as I said in my opening remarks, I mean, we hear constantly from people about data centers and we've been doing the due diligence and having, as you know, it's supposed to be the last day of session. So really, it's our time you know, to be able to go back home and say, yes, we are, you know, we are looking at this, we're making sure the state is committed to having a plan and go forward. So

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So you're saying that the plan was essentially developed from the public hearing and hearing everybody who came in

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: to testify?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: This bill, yes. From a lot of, yes, those.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Got it. So now in one portion of the bill, there's obviously prevailing wage language, other things where we like to call union protections. Are those on all projects or only on the larger projects? I'm not talking so much about cost. I think there's a $1,000,000 threshold, I believe, if I'm

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Five not the five megawatts.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry, ma'am? Five megawatts. So anything larger than five megawatts?

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yes. So That's Okay.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That's the threshold.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So so in your opinion, our five megawatt data centers gets over five, excuse me, data centers considered large projects?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No, I mean the large ones are the 20, but this is, these are different sort of thresholds in in the the process and they're different what we're asking for is different parts of this bill that impact different size data centers.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So it's really most of the data centers.

[Speaker 2]: It's right.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Most of the data centers are gonna have prevailing wage language because you said it's five megawatts and above. Right? And we now we do have a number of smaller data centers, but obviously, they're not gonna hit a maybe not hit a million dollar threshold. So, really, anything above five megawatts is gonna have prevailing wage language in it. Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes. Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: But now that language comes with the moratorium. So if the moratorium after a year goes away, right, let's just say, we we say, you know what? We have all the information we want. Now we're gonna leave it alone. The the bill goes away essentially. Right? Or does that prevailing wage language stay? Because if the moratorium goes away, so does the language in the bill. No.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I mean, the the plan is not is not just for the study. It's a separate rate class. That's you know that is a bill that you know that I carried. And the host community benefits and the labor protections are all different elements of this. They're not, it's not doesn't, one part doesn't go away.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So they'll be permanent?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yes. Sorry.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So those those labor protection will be permanent if and when the moratorium goes away?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes. Yes. That's the whole point. Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Got it. Alright. So now the problem I have with that, and I understand we're developing a plan, but larger data centers, right, whether you agree with data centers or not, do have a substantial amount of work that go into building. And a larger data center could have anywhere between 1,500 to 3,000 construction jobs over a three year period.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Right.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: We're now that's three years to build it, and now we're looking at let's be honest here because New York State does nothing quickly. The DC sure as hell does nothing quickly. So even if this moratorium was to end, you're still looking at by the time someone adapts a plan, goes through permitting, every at least two years. I know some people said three. I would say two. I know we keep saying it's one year. The moratorium is one year. The moratorium is one year.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right? So during that moratorium, you cannot apply for permits. Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: The the the you can apply, but DEC is not gonna act on them. So Do the you know, the steps going

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Right. So

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: up until that.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So you can apply for it. You can put all the paperwork in, but no one's gonna look at it. So after a year, if the moratoriums to go away, then those permits would start to be reviewed, which takes time. Let's call it six months. Right? Because it's not gonna happen in a week. It's a large project. And then the DC has to do their overlook on it. And then just normal permitting. I mean, I I put up a shed in my backyard. It took me three months to get a permit. And that's in a small village. Let's be honest. A a 50 watt megawatt data center is not gonna get a permit in a week and a half. So we're looking at two years, and I'm being kind. That is now

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Are you on the bill, sir, or you have a question for me?

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: No. I'm I'm I'm getting to it.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's Okay. It's fine. I You're saying all these things I don't necessarily agree with, but go ahead.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So you so my question is you don't agree with that? No. Okay. So you're you're you don't agree that this is actually stopping jobs from happening?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No. Okay. Not at all. I think the opposite. I mean it's a game plan that says, you know, we're working with you here and you know, I know that there's concern from some of the locals that this, you know this is scary, it sounds like it's a stop but it's a one year. As I said earlier, we had a bill that was discussed for three years that you know might well have been the playbook that you're suggesting but this is one year.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay, mister. And so my last question for you would be, in that vein, why does the state have to be the one to put the moratorium in and not allow local municipalities to decide what's best for their communities? Why should the state do this?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: They they this does not prevent the local municipalities from putting in a moratorium if they want, but it does it's our our approach to having a statewide look at this and like I keep saying, it's you know protect our rate payers, plan for the future, but it doesn't keep the local municipalities from doing that if that's what they want to do.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: No. I understand it doesn't stop them from putting in a moratorium, but it does stop them from putting in a data center. Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Putting a what?

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: A data center in.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It's a moratorium.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: One year for in

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: but it's a statewide essentially ban on something. It's a I'm big on I'm big on

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I'm pause. Gonna say You can say a ban.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Sure. I'll ahead. Well, a pause for one year. Right? Mhmm. I'm I'm big on local control. Me too. Once again, I'm just wondering why the state wants to tell local municipalities, counties, towns, villages of what they can and cannot do. And then I have one last question. Permits that are already in place. Right? Somebody may have applied for it already. Those are still good. Correct? That they they are not on a pause. So if a plan has been approved essentially, they're allowed to go forward with those projects currently?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes. Those are not affected by the moratorium.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you, miss Barrett, for answering my questions. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Polonia?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. We're the sponsor yield for a few quick questions.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you miss Barrett. So right now if a municipality, a village, a town, a city had already gone through its local planning and process and determined that a data center was was not right for their community, does that local town village have the ability to create a moratorium or stop a data center from coming into their town?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: If they want a data center in their community today, not once this is passed and if it's signed, right now, they have the ability to allow that to happen. Correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes. To Okay. I'm sorry. The last to do what with the the cap? I didn't

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Sorry. If they want a data center

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: in their community, they think it's

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: okay, good. So, they have the ability to accept it,

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: allow it to Got come it. Okay.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Okay. Little bit off topic because I mean I want to kind of piggyback off what my colleague, Mr. Durso said about local control. I think I heard you said you support local control, right?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I represent 28 different municipalities in my district.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Same, same. So, it's that's it's great. So, now, when we talk about local control, if a local community wants to let's say put a moratorium on solar or wind, they they can't do that right now. Correct? Because the state supersedes them there?

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: What does it do what they do? What?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, it's not what this this is the locals can do what they, you know, what they wanna do. This is not gonna impact that.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Oh, I understand that. I'm just trying I'm just trying to draw a comparison of where local control begins and ends for us here in New York State.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That's Oh, I see. Like 94 c? Is that what

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: you're Yeah. I mean, I'm just I'm trying to say, like, you know, you we support local control in some matters, but maybe not in others. That's that's really the comparison that I'm making. But, we can kind of move on from that. I represent a pretty rural community. I have a data center. Actually, of them that are coming up in my community. And, some of the jobs that are there are really good paying jobs. It's not just the construction. It's not just the the union jobs, communication workers, the electrical workers. It's, you know, the people who are actually manning these facilities. There's up to a $130,000 a year at some of these jobs. And for rural Western New York and Niagara County, that's a it's a big deal.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I I certainly understand that.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, Earl, you said we're not we're not stopping jobs. No. But we may not be stopping them in perpetuity, but we're at least gonna stop them for a year. Stop them from? Well, for putting a moratorium on data centers for coming in for being approved.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: One year.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: One year.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: And, if it's on it, if it's already in process, it's not stopping that.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Moving on a little bit, New York already has one of the most rigorous environmental review process, whether it's secret local zoning, public hearing, and permitting. So, if those safeguards are already in place, then why is a statewide moratorium necessary instead of allowing those to be protected and evaluate at that level?

[Yudelka Tapia, Assembly Member]: I'm not sure.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I guess I'm not sure what your question is.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I guess

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: what I'm saying is is is this bill an admission that our current regulatory system or framework is insufficient or is not doing its job or that our agencies that we've tasked with regulating data centers are not doing what they're supposed to be doing and have failed?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No, I mean, data centers are presenting a whole new series of challenges. Water use, which has been problematic in certain parts of the country. Obviously the cost and the energy use. These are things that we should be looking at, not that we didn't have data centers coming forward, whoops sorry, in you know, in twenty, forty, thirty, thirty, forty years ago. So, this is the time at least, maybe we should have done it sooner, but this is when we're doing it.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: I agree. And to reference one of your previous answers, you actually you mentioned rate payers, and I'm happy you did. I've heard a lot of people talk about, you know, not just holistically. I've heard a lot of people say that that data centers are a big driver of rate increases. Is the implication here that data centers are the sole culprit of why rates are going up in your state?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: This is just, I mean that, no. But this is something that could contribute in a huge way. I mean that's what we came out of the hearing that we had in October, and my own legislation on creating a new rate class was one solution to that, but of course it's not the only thing.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: And again, earlier in your debate, you referenced, I think the term was power agnostic. And if that is the case and data centers are able to create their own purchase agreements with service providers, then shouldn't we just let the market do its thing?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I mean, I think the market is going to kind of do its thing in terms of the green chips and and who people if people want to you know create their own energy sources.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Yeah, but we're interjecting ourselves in that market.

[Speaker 2]: We're not I mean, I

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: don't think we're putting our thumb on the scale particularly in not allowing the market to do its thing.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: I mean, at least for a year, we're actually just gonna get rid of the scale altogether.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's a year. Yeah.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, then there's one last thing I want to get on. The utility rate classification portion. So, this bill requires that utilities create a separate service classification. So, large users pay their fair share. If those cost causation predictions can be implemented through utility regulation, then why is a statewide moratorium necessary?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. You lost me. What? I what? So If we're creating a new rate class, why

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Like, why is

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: this like, if this can be done through through utility regulation, why are we doing it? Why is this necessary?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Because the feeling was that there were, it was important to look at this data center issue in a little more holistic way. And you know, we said we created an omnibus bill that took three different pieces of, maybe four different pieces of legislation and put it in. One of them was that, the rate classification. One of them was addressing the host benefit issues, and other one was looking at you know the renewable energy aspects, and then you know our own call to only do this for one year. So that's where the bill came from.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Well, I appreciate it. Sounds good. Thank you very much, Ms. Barrett. I appreciate your time. Madam Speaker, I'm just gonna go on

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: the bill for a bit here.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: The fundamental question here is really not whether data centers should exist everywhere. The question is, who should ultimately make that decision? And I believe that the most representative form of government is the kind where I can run into my town supervisor at a grocery store or my mayor at the coffee shop because local governments exist to precisely make those types of determinations. I I guess the question is is a is a lot in this room. What's what's the point of having a local government if Albany is ultimately going to continuously supersede what they're allowed to do in their own communities? I mean, we've seen this movie before. The New York State Office of Renewable Energy Sighting strips local zoning authorities through the Rapid Act. We see the electric school bus mandate. I mean, I have had more districts beg for an extension of a waiver or repeal, a pilot program, and we continue to ram these things through because the state apparently knows best for everybody. And we've actually made subsequent changes to it, the the school bus act. It was a a two year waiver process in last year's budget. This year, we added a a five year extension on that. And it doesn't make sense to pass bad policy with the intent of fixing it later. And that kinda gets me to the point where New York State is continuing to fall behind. Other states are not waiting. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, they're actively recruiting this type of investment to jobs in the tax base that New York is continuing to run away from. As I said earlier in my district, there's some data centers with a $130,000 a year jobs in rural West New York where that kind of salary impact makes a massive difference. It matters. It matters to people that are struggling in in in really low income areas. A moratorium, which conveniently for one year, which is after a special date in November, puts us further behind the eight ball on data centers, digital currency, blockchain, everything that a new and emerging digital economy has to offer. The fix, at least in my opinion, is pretty straightforward here. Allow local communities to decide what they want in their community. New York already has a very rigorous utility oversight that would fix a lot of these problems that I don't really think we even need to fix in the bill. And if if colleagues and and advocates are really concerned and want to address the grid strain, I got a few suggestions. We really do need to reduce our man demand, and I think that our all electrification mandates continue to put strain on the grid. I think that we need to actually get serious about investing in infrastructure and not vilify every utility company that tries to invest in the infrastructure that we're mandating that they do. I will say it till I'm blue in the face. We need to continue utilizing natural gas as a bridge technology. I I I, for the life of me, still cannot understand why this body has such an axe to grind against natural gas, but we have such a abundant amount of it throughout the state. We should not be imposing blanket moratoriums that punish every community in the state for a problem that may not be universal. We should be letting markets and local governments to drive this policy, not fear an environmental overreach from Albany.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Thank you

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Jensen?

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: I rise this afternoon in opposition to this legislation mainly because of the provision regarding the one year moratorium on the construction of new data centers in our state. I believe that New York should be leading should be leading the future, not watching it happen from the sidelines. And whether we like it or not, the global economy is becoming increasingly digital. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, cyber security, advanced manufacturing, biomedical research, financial services, logistics, and every sector of our economy now depends on data infrastructure. And data centers are not some niche industry. They're the roads and bridges and railroads and power plants of our twenty first century. They're gonna be the infrastructure in which the modern economy runs. And when we place a moratorium on that infrastructure, even if for twelve months, we are sending a message to the rest of the country and the rest of the world, build that future someplace else. Now, supporters of this legislation argue that we just need a pause. Just a pause, just a study, it's just one year. But let's be honest, in government, we all know how often just one year becomes something longer. Most importantly, investors know it, businesses know it, developers know it. In the moment New York creates uncertainty, the capital that funds that investment will move elsewhere. And when those projects move elsewhere, the capital when the projects move elsewhere, they're rarely gonna come back. Those projects go to Virginia, and Texas, and Ohio, and North Carolina, and overseas to China, and other places. The digital economy will not wait for Albany because the digital economy does not take a moratorium, it does not take a legislative recess. The globalized digital economy moves at the speed of innovation. For generations, the community I call home was one of America's greatest centers of innovation. Kodak and Xerox, Bausch and Lomb, world class research institutions with advanced manufacturing, optics, imaging, technology. But my community knows what happens when industries change. And, unfortunately, we know what happens when innovation moves elsewhere. We know what happens when policymakers fail to recognize where the economy is heading. And, because we know that history, we should be very cautious. We should be cautious about erecting any barriers to the next generation of economic development. The truth is artificial intelligence is not going to go away. Cloud computing is not gonna go away. Data storage is not gonna go away. The demand for digital infrastructure is only increasing. And data centers are expanding across our country and across the world because of the growing demand for AI and those cloud services and a digital commerce. States across the nation are debating how to accommodate that growth while balancing the very important energy environmental concerns that this bill looks to address. And the question before us is not whether or not these data centers are going to be built. The question is whether they will be built here. The question is whether the jobs will be here. The question is whether the tax base will be here. And whether the industries supporting these data centers will be here. Whether this ecosystem of technological innovation will be here. We need to ask ourselves, does New York want to simply consume the services while someone else captures that investment? You can't enjoy the benefits of something you've never planted, and you cannot harvest a crop you've never seeded. Government's job is not to stop progress. Government's job is to guide it, to shape it, to regulate it responsibly, but not to freeze it in place. Because while we're waiting for perfect certainty, the rest of

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: the world will keep

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: moving. And I understand the concerns that the sponsor and a lot of advocates for this bill bring up. Questions surrounding energy consumption and grid reliability and environmental impacts. Those are legitimate concerns. They're concerns that I and a lot of the folks that I represent have. And they deserve serious answers. And they deserve serious policy responses. But a moratorium is not a policy. As a state, we've spent years about talking we've spent years talking about becoming a hub of innovation. We do it in this chamber, in the other place down the hall, and below us in the executive chamber. We've talked about attracting technological investment. We've talked about creating good paying jobs. We've talked about retaining young talent. We've talked about competing with other states and being an economic leader. We can't stand at a ribbon cutting celebration that celebrates innovation one day and then impose moratoriums on the infrastructure supporting that innovation the next. That's not a coherent economic strategy. That sends mixed signals. And businesses notice, investors notice, and entrepreneurs notice. Start up founders notice, venture capitalists notice, the people selecting the sites notice. We should build infrastructure while we protect communities. We should attract investment while protecting ratepayers. And we should encourage innovation while maintaining environmental standards. Why would we prefer that investment go to states with weaker standards and less oversight? If our values really do matter, then our goal should be to demonstrate that growth and responsibility can be something that coexists, not to push development beyond our borders. And that's what a moratorium will do. The future will be built elsewhere while we wait for the moratorium to expire, and the question we need to answer is whether or not New York intends to help build the future or whether we are content to watch from the sidelines where other states do it. For those reasons, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Hawley?

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for just a couple of

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield Sponsor yields.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Certainly. Mister Hawley?

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: Didi, how are you? These be redundant and they may have already been covered, but is there an exclusion for projects that have already been started and are getting close to breaking ground?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: And what is that exclusion?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: If they have a permit, they can go forward.

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: And does the exclusion take effect when this bill is passed and

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: signed The into bill takes effect when it's

[Speaker 25]: signed. Apologies.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Is that I'm sorry. Did I

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: So, effective date is the signing legislation if it passed.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: If it's signed. I mean, I think the governor is going to, I mean, this is a two way agreement. So, we are on the same page as the senate. I don't know if the governor will see it exactly the same way. I hope she'll work with us to get something that you know works for everybody.

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: And out of curiosity, I'm a firm believer in local control and local direction and decision making with the folks that have as great backgrounds and information and intelligence as we do here in the New York State Assembly and in the New York State Senate. You've labeled this legislation as responsible data center development act. The inference being that it would be irresponsible if we allowed local people and local governments and EDCs and IDAs

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I to make up their

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: disagree. I don't think it does that at all. I I think that the responsibility is that the legislature is taking on this issue and taking a look at how we want the elements that we want to see happen and asking DEC to pause any approvals and look at the big picture, collect information from other states. We're not stopping the anything local governments from doing anything.

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: Okay, that the only questions I've got on the bill, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: Why thank you. Pure and simple, we have a data center that's proposed and is very close to completion through a lot of investigation and thought by the EDC and by local governments, both the towns and and the county. And I'm a firm believer as I just mentioned that local control is best and I think that this legislation is frankly irresponsible and an invasion of local control. We've done that with solar panels across the state of New York. We've taken prime farmland out of production, sacrificing green crops for green energy. And, the state has told locals that they have no control over where the solar panels are going to go. Now the state is trying to jump in and indicate, that we, they, not me, and not many of my colleagues here, that the state knows best in terms of data centers. I think that's an incorrect and a fallacy and I'm going to urge my colleagues based upon local control to oppose this legislation. Thank you so much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Molitor.

[Speaker 25]: Madam speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you. I was looking through the text of the bill and I don't know if I saw it or not, but I don't think I did. Maybe you could answer this for me. Is there a carve out in the definition of data centers to which this legislation applies for brown field sites, former industrial sites that could maybe be quickly and easily converted into data centers?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah, our focus has been on what they're doing, not where they're located. So no, we haven't, that just wasn't a focus of the bill.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. Is there a carve out for Empire AI? Yes, yes. Where is that in the bill? We'll get that for you. Sorry, I must have missed it.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah, public research institutions and I don't have my first notes, but anyway we'll get the citation for you.

[Speaker 25]: But it's for public institutions? Research institutions. Okay, so if they're building a data center that would have fit under this particular legislation or a cloud computing site, they're exempt from the moratorium?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: If they are a public research institution. Okay. It's used for research purposes, that's okay.

[Speaker 25]: Okay, is there will this legislation have any effect on any state contracts that use or purchase and use AI services or cloud computing services? No. Okay. Alright, I'm going go on the bill. Thank you, Adam Sponsor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bell.

[Speaker 25]: So, you know, I think this is a good example of, you know, what's good for me and but not for thee. You know, the state is gonna put a moratorium on data centers in places where, you know, there could be a formal industrial site that could easily be converted to a data center that local municipality could benefit from the increased tax revenue, but they're gonna be under a moratorium. Meanwhile, the state, as long as it's under an AI an empire AI project, will be able to purchase their own or create their own data center. The state will still benefit from all those companies that offer artificial intelligence and cloud computing, but they won't have to allow those companies to build data centers in their state. This is, you know, I think very problematic. You know, as as many of my colleagues have already said, but I'll repeat, I think this bill is sort of an admission that our grid capacity and capability is in serious in a seriously bad place right now. If we had, you know, a greater energy generation and better transmission lines, we would we wouldn't have to worry about the amount of energy that data centers use, and we could rely on CCRA and and local governments to decide whether a a new data center in their area would be beneficial for them. This takes away that local control as well. And I think it will also hurt our job market, business growth in the state, and block our villages, towns, and cities from taking advantage of economic opportunities to lower their property tax base. So I understand the intent of this bill. I think there are, certainly good things about it, but overall, I will not be able to support it. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Slater?

[Speaker 2]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you so much. Just a couple of clarifying questions, if I may. And forgive me if you said this earlier, may have missed it. Do we know how many data centers currently exist in New York?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: We do. Where is that number? Not specifically, but between 150 and about 500 or 600.

[Speaker 2]: Between 150 and

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That's because data centers, the definition is broadly used and they're smaller,

[Speaker 2]: you know How about like large scale data centers? We know how many

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: of Large scale?

[Speaker 2]: We have in this state right now?

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: We know that. Yeah,

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I mean the numbers that I gave you are from the queue, there were 30 in the queue, there's now little over 40. That's where we are in New York State at the moment.

[Speaker 2]: And I just, again, just, I'm trying to understand like if there's like a true like you know proliferation of of data centers that are coming through New York. Right? So we're saying that there are between one fifty and five hundred and then there's and then you talked about a queue which I wanted to get to in a second.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: Under your law, under your proposal, we just don't know how many are operating right now that would fit the large data center definition?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah. It's a good question and I know I asked it and I don't think I have got an answer. Yeah, but he wants to know. I mean, can get that information. Mean, this is about new going forward. This isn't about, but I appreciate your question because I'm always asking.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah, and again because you see, you know, I think obviously data centers were making

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: national They are proliferating. There's no question. I mean, ISO has told us that.

[Speaker 2]: Right. And so I'm just trying to quantify what we are dealing with so I can be able to articulate that back to to my constituents. Sure. You talked about the queue. So, do we know how many applications are currently pending for additional data centers? Not existing, but ones that are not currently operating?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Eighty? Forty eight, yeah. 48 large load projects.

[Speaker 2]: 48 large and then do we know just cumulatively including those that wouldn't make that definition how many there are?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: So we don't know the ones that are connected to public power and you know that we don't have that information at this point. You know to showcase the rapid growth as of the spring of twenty twenty five, NISO had over 20 load projects interconnection and we're seeing a huge increase in that number doubled at this point.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you, I appreciate that. And then interesting that you said that we don't know how many of the smaller projects have connected to public power. Is that, does that change under this proposal at all?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It could if that's something that the PSC and DEC look into which we would hope they would. I mean I think that's part of our intent here is to have the state take a look in one year, pause, take a year and look at the whole phenomenon. What's going on? What does it look like? Where are the growth? What are the areas? Where are the energy sources? All of those kinds of things. So that's what to me feels like really a great opportunity for the state to be engaged in.

[Speaker 2]: And you've said before, I think to some of my colleagues that there is some direction in what we want the state to explore and examine in this proposal, correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Speaker 2]: But the and I just wanna just go back to what we were just talking about. But the ensuring that we know the small scale connection rate is not one of those things that we've given direction on.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Wasn't that specific. Okay. Mean, it does, you know, this is, you can read the bill, it's just not that, you know, hit on this omnibus package of different aspects of it, but we didn't ask all the specific questions. I trust the NYSERDA and DEC and PSC people to figure that out and you know, when they make it public, if we haven't gotten those questions answered, you know, I think it's our opportunity to follow-up on that.

[Speaker 2]: So then, and let's explore that for a second if we can. So, when they make that public, what's the timeline on when we expect to see a report for us to review?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Within a year and eighteen months, yeah. I'm sorry? Within a year and eighteen months.

[Speaker 2]: Between twelve and a

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: half Well, a they'll finish in a year, the moratorium, and then they have an eighteen months to Eighteen

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: months. Eighteen months.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Alright, eighteen months.

[Speaker 2]: Eighteen months. I misspoke. But the moratorium only lasts twelve. There's still gonna be six months there potentially

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Right.

[Speaker 2]: Where the moratorium will be lifted and we wouldn't even have seen the report to evaluate what the next steps would be. Is that Yeah. Is that accurate?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Exactly. That is that's the idea. That's what the window is, the additional

[Speaker 2]: Is that six not problematic that there's gonna be a six month window where the moratorium won't be in place, but we'll be awaiting the report?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: They'll be working on a draft and that you know, that there will be I think opportunity for public hearing, other things. So I don't think it's you know, there should be a problem.

[Speaker 2]: Is public hearing required in your Yes. Does it dictate a number or locations of public hearings? Where they're expected Just to that's part of

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: that's what we're asking for.

[Speaker 2]: So, but potentially, we could only be looking at one public hearing for the entire state when it comes to a statewide issue like data centers.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That's possible. We've asked for five.

[Speaker 2]: We've asked for five?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Speaker 2]: Okay. But we didn't ask for like regionalization or or following the, you know, we just yesterday talked about We did. Redistricting process. We did

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: ask for that. And you know, just in my short time of working with PSC and NYSERDA as energy chair, they are very conscientious about trying to

[Speaker 2]: Okay.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Cover the state.

[Speaker 2]: Great. I'd like to dig a little deeper into this for local governments. So, this bill provides a one year moratorium hard stop,

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: correct?

[Speaker 2]: What are the municipalities of New York required to do, if anything, during that one year window?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Nothing.

[Speaker 2]: So they don't have do I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: They're not required to do anything during that time.

[Speaker 2]: Okay. So they don't have to do any of their own examination of their own utilities, of their own local zoning, or anything like that. They can just sit idle and wait for the report to come forward from the state for us then to take next steps.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Or they could keep talking to possible developers or they could you know explore what the host benefit community opportunities are. So that if one were to come to them, they would know what they would ask for. There's a lot of things they could do.

[Speaker 2]: Could they also pass, because we've just established essentially there's going to be a minimum of a six month window where the moratorium won't be in effect before the final report is provided. Are they able to then in that same timeline, are they still are they able to pass an additional moratorium locally or are they barred from doing that?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yep. They can.

[Speaker 2]: They can. And that moratorium could could be longer than the state's moratorium. Yes. Fact

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: could. It could

[Speaker 2]: be ongoing until the report is finalized. Yes. There's no prohibition. I just wanna make sure

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I understand. No prohibition. No. Okay.

[Speaker 2]: In I was reading the text and there's a couple of areas that I I just wanted to focus on and make sure I just have clarity. Things like your classification of service talks about the commission requiring each electric corporation, gas corporation, and municipality to establish and file with the commission for approval or modification and independent classification of service for large data centers. Can you explain to me what the role of a municipality would be? That

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: refers to the municipal utilities.

[Speaker 2]: Can you give me an example of municipal utility that exists?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: The Munis. What? Jamestown, The Munis, I mean there are a number of you know municipal utilities across state.

[Speaker 2]: Okay. I don't have any in my area. Don't have share the Hudson Valley. There's They none in the Hudson Valley,

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: exist.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay. And

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: probably some of our colleagues Colleagues,

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: can we please not talk over each other? Remember the stenographer is keeping a record so someone speaks, the other answers. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]: I'm sorry, miss Barrett. Now, I'm envisioning the stenographer just like hitting the keys since she can't hear either of us. We both represent the Hudson Valley. So there are no municipal utilities in the Hudson Valley at this point in time.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Correct? Correct. Okay.

[Speaker 2]: And similarly, we talked I was reading about water. There was a piece in here about water consumption. Is that correct? Yes. And so what would a municipality's role be in determining the water consumption? I'm sorry, don't have it. I can't find it right at my fingertips here. But would you be able to explain what the municipality's role would be in that instance? There is no role. The water is

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: in there because in other states that we've seen that it's had having data centers has had an adverse effect on water supply, so it's something we want to be looked at as part of this one year moratorium.

[Speaker 2]: So they could be determining what the water level is that they currently have and then depending on what the project is, they can estimate what the usage would be. Is that is that what the purpose of that exploration is?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: That's certainly not my expectation. I think it has more to do with keeping the water clean, but it's that I don't you know we don't have any any provisions for that in in the bill.

[Speaker 2]: And again, I just wanna make sure I'm clear because frankly, I spoke with nearly all my town supervisors and they did not raise an objection to this. They do not what? They didn't raise an objection to what we're discussing. Uh-huh. And I also wanna make sure that there's no trap doors for our municipalities during this time. That's why I'm just trying to explore with you what their responsibilities and obligations will be during this during this time time frame that we're discussing. And so, we've established that they could do nothing. They could pass an additional moratorium. They can continue to explore potential projects within their communities within the one year moratorium period and that from the municipality standpoint, there's really no additional burden that's being placed on them governmentally.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Speaker 2]: That's all I wanted to make sure I was clear on. Thank you very much for answering my question, miss Barrett. Certainly. Thank you, madam speaker. Mister

[Speaker 36]: Lemandez.

[John Lemondes, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a question or two?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 36]: Yes. The sponsor yields.

[John Lemondes, Assembly Member]: Thank you. One simple question. I I think I heard this, but I wanna make sure that this bill arises in its current format without knowing the full fiscal impact precisely the trade off of the economic benefit that would come from these data centers that are being delayed, correct?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: This has nothing to do with that. That's not what this bill is. There is no fiscal impact. It's going to look at those issues but there's nothing in the bill itself.

[John Lemondes, Assembly Member]: Right, I'm talking about lost opportunity. Something very different.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I don't really I mean, that's not addressed here. I'm not sure what you're what you're referring to, but if you wanna speak on it, go ahead.

[John Lemondes, Assembly Member]: I will. Thank you. Sure. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: On the bill. So

[John Lemondes, Assembly Member]: I wanna reference a meeting that I was at that's relevant to this where this was in Central New York where the three businesses that participated, all large businesses, all said they would not seek future expansion in New York State because it was too difficult. Bills like this contribute to that. The regulatory burden and the trade offs, when we delay, delay, delay, pent up economic activity seeks a landing spot someplace. And it doesn't have to come here, as has been said in spades by many of my colleagues. And so as we generate moratoriums, that economic activity will will no doubt seek other places to go. Maybe some of it will still stay. Maybe in the future, they'll come back, but it will seek other landing spots. The the beneficial multiplicative impact of that money that would be building these, employing people, the construction and trades, etcetera, etcetera, will be either completely lost or delayed going to other places. Direct and indirect benefits as well. This is very similar to I'm gonna go back to governor Cuomo in 2014 or 2015 when he's told the Remington manufacturing plant that their expansion plans should leave New York, and they did. They went to Alabama, and the governor there welcomed them with open arms. That was multiple millions of dollars of economic expansion that took flight. I don't think we're in a position as I said last night, some of you remember, we had 33 congressional seats in 1850. We've got 26 now. The policies coming out of this chamber are chasing people away in droves.

[Speaker 36]: Mister Moles. Mister Lemandis. Yes. Please relate to the bill at hand.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Yep. I am.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Thank

[John Lemondes, Assembly Member]: you. I and I will. I'll do a better job of that. Thank you, madam speaker. So the bottom line is the economic impact of large scale projects like this are are are beneficial. And there's nothing wrong with seeking the environmental impact statements and understanding what what is involved in putting that project in place. And I think we we do a pretty good job of that already. But in general, making it more difficult for more businesses to start operations hurts us overall and exacerbates the out migration as proven by our governor's statements begging people to come back. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 36]: Mister Morenollo.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Thank you. On the bill. What I find

[Speaker 36]: On the bill.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Interesting. No offense. What I find interesting is I've been here ten years. One of the the constant discussions is about the middle class, about employment, about generating of income. And what I found in that ten years is this body has found ways to pick the people's pocket. But here we have a industry that is not going away, that states are begging for it. This produces household head of household jobs, good union jobs. This produces income for communities. And the narrative that is being put out there that is scaring the general public, and it's a false narrative, they're dirty. They pollute the water. We don't have enough power. First of all, they're all circular power, water so that they're not displacing the water, number one. Number two, they're not noisy. These are not mining. These are data centers. Twenty five years ago, the city of Seattle built their own. And what they did was they leased it out to various industries as an income source. No noise. It was in a 15 story building, and they've built additional ones. But you know what is underlining this? It's the false narrative of the power in the grid. The independent system operators have shown that this state has deactivated 4.315 megawatts of power. And you know what they've added? 2.274 megawatts. They've almost they even even put back half of what they've taken out. And of their 2.274, only one one point zero approximately is solar. They can't replace it, but they won't change their mental attitude. They won't open their minds, their tunnel vision. We cannot do it with only one source of power. And what are we gonna do? We're gonna have missed opportunities as my other colleagues have stated. And why? Because if you have a developer and they wanna build a data center, they're going to another state. They're not gonna wait for a year and then eighteen months for a study to be looked at and then decided. And in the meantime, they're out out pricing the consumer with the cost of electricity trying to figure out what they can do. You cannot take power off if you can't replace it, and it's been shown they can't replace it with the focus that they have because of all the negatives, because of the fact that they're hurting union jobs. Listen to this one. There was an argument in one city council meeting in the last week and the head of the electrical union came and explained how many jobs data centers have been providing to their union electricians. How much out of household money? How much tax money is going in? And you know what? Somebody jumped up and said, yeah, but they're only temporary jobs. All labor jobs are temporary unless you're in actually in a factory. The construction industry moves from one project to another to another. They don't sit on one project forever, but that is how this country was built. And this state is on a collision course with progress. This state is on a collision course with moving forward. And whose pockets are they gonna pick next year? I don't think they can stay awake late enough at night to figure out what other sources of income. Every new bill you see, there's a penalty going to the state. Okay? They're trying to figure out every way to fund their programs. This year's budget, unsustainable. We have ways to attract it if people would just sit down and discuss. It should not

[Speaker 36]: us reminder that you're on the bill, sir.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. My time's up?

[Speaker 36]: No. That you're on this bill.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Okay. Well anything. Because of all of that, my I vote in a negative. Thank you.

[Speaker 36]: Thank you. Mister Simpson.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 36]: Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. Will the sponsor yield?

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Thank you. I want to focus on the requirements for renewable energy. You know for data centers that are five megawatts or more. Would you say that that's going to produce more demand for solar development?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: For renewables, yes.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Okay. Do you realize that each one megawatt requires approximately almost an acre of land?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: It's an ideal. There are a lot of other places that we should be including brownfields and kinds of rooftops and we also could use geothermal. Geothermal wouldn't require any acres at all.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Right, and then I'm also interested in you know, the dates. A data center would progressively require more renewable energy to meet the future deadlines, right? Future dates. Like you start out at a third

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: No, 90%. Yes.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Through 2034?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yes, it does increase.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: And it could be on-site?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Could be on-site.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: So, planning these data centers that could require large purchases of property for I'm sure that the planning of these data centers, if they were going to rely on solar, it would require the developers to look at large tracts of property that they would need to secure to meet these

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: future Doesn't have to be. Geothermal, in other parts of the country, whole buildings and stuff are run on geothermal. We have to be really building out our renewables here in the state in more innovative ways.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Well, think you've answered my questions. Want go on the bill.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Thank

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: you. Go on the bill.

[Speaker 36]: On the bill.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed here by my colleagues over the anti business aspect of data centers that shows that we have not done the job to prepare for future energy needs for this state and it' really hurting us. Especially when we include green energy policy with future development of proposed projects that in my district, because of the need for solar and the state's energy policy, we're seeing the Adirondacks, which is known for its open spaces, lack of commercial development, now open prime property for the state to invest in renewable energy. Because, obviously, in the in the more economic urban areas, there are no open spaces to locate these. My district, the number one issue I' hearing from my constituents is over the erosion of the local control with renewable energy projects where they have been left out of the conversation that's being funded by ratepayers through our policy. We heard the sponsor agree that we would need more solar generation. Doesn't necessarily have to be here in New York, but it's gonna be somewhere, I ultimately think that it's gonna lead to more pressure on the communities that I represent and in conflict for with what my constituents want. So for those reasons, I am strongly opposed to this bill.

[Speaker 36]: Mister Chilczynski, just a reminder, we're eight minutes left within debate.

[Speaker 39]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm just going to go on the bill. On

[Speaker 36]: the bill?

[Speaker 39]: Well, I fully agree that we must be cautious and thoroughly study how these large data centers impact our communities, especially when it comes to safeguarding our environment, drinking water, the energy grid. I cannot support this bill because it is packed with other excessive regulations, and I'll point some of those out right here. The timelines are completely unrealistic in this piece of legislation. The bill calls for a one year pause or moratorium on these facilities. However, the sheer amount of data, agency consultations, and reports that the bill forces the DEC to take part in will take long over a year to complete. I believe we even mentioned eighteen months. So this isn't a temporary pause. It's a bureaucratic roadblock that will freeze the development of these data centers far longer than the one year. The energy requirements don't make sense. Just like the unachievable mandates of the CLCPA, this bill demands that data centers rely almost entirely on renewable energy. The state hasn't proven our grid can handle these aggressive targets, and staggering amounts of land are required to build necessary renewable energy, solar panels, wind turbines to power such facilities. This also forces costly mandatory giveaways. The bill legally requires any data center using 20 megawatts of power or more to pay for and install green energy upgrades like solar panels, battery storage, cold climate heat pumps for the surrounding neighborhood. No major tech company is going to bring in billions of dollars of investment to New York if they are forced to take on the financial burden, retrofitting local residential housing just to open their doors in the state of New York. It also drives away good union labor jobs. Data centers bring thousands of high paying jobs of our local trades, construction workers, electricians, and engineers. While I strongly support the piece of this bill that guarantees the prevailing wage and apprenticeship programs, those protections mean absolutely nothing if the projects are never built here in New York. By packaging a sensible study with overregulation and impossible energy dictates, this bill will simply drive multibillion dollar investments into neighboring competitive states such as Ohio and Virginia. We should be able to protect our environment and our ratepayers without passing laws that intentionally destroy local jobs here in the state of New York. For that reason, I'll be voting no.

[Speaker 36]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 36]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will not be supporting this legislation. If there are exceptions, members may vote differently at their desks now. Thank you.

[Speaker 36]: Mister Fall?

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Speaker 36]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Gallagher to explain her vote.

[Emily Gallagher, Assembly Member]: Thank you, speaker. I rise today in support of this important bill. The rapid rise of data centers has been driven by the onslaught of artificial intelligence. These data centers like the AI technology they power are being adopted so quickly that we are at the risk of being overrun by them before we have even had a chance to fully understand what it is we're giving away. But there are some pieces we know for sure. Data centers hog local energy and water, raising utility bills and depleting our precious resources. They create air, noise, light pollution and unceasing vibrations making local communities sicker and less comfortable. In an existential moment when we must urgently reduce our energy consumption and transition to renewables as quickly as possible, they ensure that we are consuming exponentially more energy every year, fueling our addiction to fossil fuels. It should not come as a surprise that the tech and fossil fuel oligarchs are both benefiting from this same broken system. The oligarchs want us to believe that the unfettered adoption of AI and data centers that power it are natural and inevitable. That New Yorkers have to just accept water and energy shortages as as the cost of progress. They want us to believe that job loss caused by AI will be painful, but it is just another natural cost of capitalism which we must not question. I firmly reject these notions and I am immensely proud that today, as a legislative body, we reject them too. I'm heartened today to vote for this omnibus bill which will put some sensible restrictions in place so that our regulations can catch up with the adoption of technology. So that we have time to think about how we can protect people over the profits of a handful of billionaires. This bill won't do everything. I wish the moratorium were longer than a year. I wish renewable energy goals were stronger and sooner. But this bill grapples with what many of the threats presented by data centers and because

[Speaker 36]: of I vote that yes. I vote Thank you. Mister Burdick.

[Chris Burdick, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to explain my vote. I commend the sponsor for this thoughtful approach to data center development. As she said, this legislation calls for a one year pause. The bill, which excludes data centers requiring less than 20 megawatts, provides a smart plan that uses the pause intelligently and collaboratively. The establishment of an independent service classification for large data centers is essential to ensure that ordinary ratepayers aren't subsidizing large data centers. And it makes great sense to set energy efficiency goals and to set labor standards. I wish to note that with all due respect to some in the minority, I find it puzzling to hear some waxing eloquent on the love for local control. It's curious that I wasn't hearing that love for local control when I offered legislation to provide local control to prohibit the application of pesticides in reservoir stems and water courses connected to public water supplies. Seems that some certain local control is loved, other local control isn't. This bill is leading wisely into the future by providing a framework which brings together all stakeholders for the orderly development of data centers in our state. This bill is good for the New York economy while protecting ratepayers. I am voting in favor of this bill. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Burdick in the affirmative. Mister Gray to explain his vote.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. So first, let me begin by recognizing the intent behind this bill. No one in this chamber wants reckless growth. The questions around energy, water, and all the other concerns are fair questions that deserve real answers. But the moratorium is not an answer. It is a sign that's hung on the front door of New York that says we're out to lunch for a year. Pauses every region of New York state that is working to attract investment and put people back to work. Right now, we have trade labor unions ready to build and ready to employ their members. The moratorium tells them no wait. It tells the companies looking at New York that they're welcome. Matt has been pulled back from the front door. That is a chilling message. And once it goes out, the investment goes with it. It does not sit around and wait for us to figure this out. It goes somewhere else where somebody has already done just that. This bill also leans on renewable energy requirement at the very moment that these projects need firm dispatchable baseload power. If we are serious about reliable power for new large loads, the conversation should be having is about supporting construction of baseload generation and that includes nuclear. That is the honest path for both reliability and affordability. Pointing these projects towards requirements that the grid cannot even meet doesn't make us greener and makes us slower. And the fact that we're not flying blind, the Public Service Commission is already studying the exact issue and its impacts. The expertise we are asking for already lives within the process that we operate in. We do not need a moratorium to learn what the agency is charged with that is already working on in the middle of examining it. I also remind this body of the basic reality of what's on the ground. The work of the ISO and the utilities to study and connect a project of this size takes longer than the timeline that this bill dictates. The market has already has its own pause built in. We do not need to legislate one over the top of the very agencies we charge for carrying this work out. Madam Speaker, data centers are something that we are not distinct or exotic. Every part of our everyday life in New Yorkers, we use data centers. Every one of us

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister gray. How do you

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: vote in the negative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister gray in the negative. Mister b pen to explain his vote.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As they say, all politics is local. So I respect and I understand the concerns of my colleagues, but this is a real issue that faces my community. I've heard from hundreds of residents through emails, rallies, town board hearings, and even from my town board members. And each one of them were asking for New York State to act on a moratorium for data centers. So with that, I am proud to vote in the affirmative on behalf of my residents. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Biepman in the affirmative, miss Clark to explain her vote.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise explain my vote on this very important bill and I want to thank the sponsor and all who sort of contributed to this final product in what we're passing today. You know, we constantly hear from constituents who are concerned, communities who are concerned, but also municipalities. And the reality is what often stops progress is not having answers to questions. What we are trying to do is say, let's not not a moratorium, not end or say never again, but say let's take a pause so that we can answer people's questions. We have the tools now. We understand what is needed in a community. What is needed? What happens not just at the electric rate that that company is charged, but what happens when their their pull from the grid throws everyone in the community into higher prices? We need answers to those questions before anyone is going to be able to be successful in building these in our communities. It is not just the people demanding answers, it is our municipalities who are begging for help so that they have the toolkit to do what they need to do if this is truly the progress we want to make here in our state. I commend the sponsor, I am proud to support this bill and vote in the affirmative. And I hope everyone understands that the quicker we can get to how we do something, the quicker we can get to doing it. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Clark in the affirmative. Miss Tapia to explain her vote.

[Yudelka Tapia, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Responsible Data Center Development Act, and I commend the sponsor of the bill. The growth of data centers across our state and the country are putting an enormous strain on our energy. And right now, when a massive data center moves into a community, neighbors do not have a say. According to the NYISO 2025 power trends report, data centers electricity demand could increase the load of our grid by two by up to 4,000 megawatts by 2030. To put that in perspective, that is roughly equivalent of the total electricity consumption of every household in the state of New York. This bill is a responsible answer to that challenge. It enacts a temporary one year moratorium while we study the real impacts of data center development of our commune on our communities. It ensures these facilities pay their fair share of utility costs instead of passing them on rate payers. And it protects the workers who bill them with prevailing wage standards. I am also so proud that my bill eight ninety two ninety seven was included in this legislation. It ensured that anytime a large data center is built or expanded, the community where it operates receives concrete benefits, including utility bill credits for local residents and investments in clean energy technology. We do this with other industries.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, miss require Tafia. The Gallupia to

[Yudelka Tapia, Assembly Member]: invest affordable.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: How do you vote miss Tafia?

[Yudelka Tapia, Assembly Member]: I'll go hiring. Yes. I'm voting.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Tafia in the affirmative. Miss Walsh to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So to me, I'm having a difficult time with this vote and I just wanted to explain why and kind of where I'm coming out on this. I think when I toured the ISO last fall and I heard about the number of data centers that were already here and the number of data centers that were kind of in a queue to be approved and then learning about what the ISO had said about our grid, you know, I was really concerned about that. I think that, but I think our grid is already messed up as it is. It is. I think that in a way I feel like data centers are kind of getting vilified for a larger problem that needs to be examined in terms of, you know, the unreliability of our grid. I also am coming at this as somebody that has served on a town board of a of a larger small town and also has been a town attorney for a very small town. Thank goodness for the Association of Towns and the Association of Counties. Even a small town understands how to enact its own moratorium. It's made pretty simple in a way by the Department of State. There are forms that are available. We did that, the small town that I represented, we did that for solar when big solar arrays were starting to arrive. So think that there's a way that the localities can handle it. But I do think that we need to take a holistic look at the things that are really overburdening our grid moving forward. I just don't think that this bill does it for me. And I think for right now anyway, despite, you know, letters asking for the moratorium from my constituents, I will be voting no in this instance. So thank you madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Ms. Walsh. To the negative Ms. Bailey to explain her vote.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. And although this legislation is being characterized as a one year moratorium on data centers, in my mind, it goes further than that. And really, the devil's in the detail. And when you look in the detail, one of my biggest concerns is it's establishing renewable energy requirements and thresholds that could potentially shape how these facilities operate in the future. And my concern is that we already have seen what happens when the state sets aggressive energy goals and then fast tracks that implementation. We live it every day in the 133rd Assembly District with the creation of ORAs. And time and time again, local communities have found their voices diminished as we continue to advance its priorities on energy policies. So before we create mandates tied to data center development, we should be asking what those requirements ultimately mean for our local municipalities, the taxpayers, the land use decisions, the infrastructure. But what also troubles me is the timeline that's established in this bill. The moratorium would last for one year. However, the information from the reporting would not be available for up to eighteen months. So if the purpose is to pause the development until we have the facts, the report should be available before the moratorium expires, not after. You know, I struggle with this vote personally myself. If it was, you know, when we're looking at a straight moratorium on the data centers, but the devil really is in the detail in affixing those renewable energy aggressive renewable energy thresholds in the language of this bill, I cannot support that. Thank

[Jessica González-Rojas, Assembly Member]: you, miss Bailey.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: How do you vote?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: No. Miss Bailey in the negative, mister Blumenkrantz to explain his vote.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today with some concern. Well, I understand that the conversation surrounding data centers generally and nationally does create some pause and hesitation especially in a state like New York. The data center conversation on Long Island in New York is very different. Where it exists in heavily populated areas with high energy costs, usually they exist there because they have to. Because of latency issues, because of many different reasons that that the centers would need to be localized with endpoint users. When it comes to the industry as a whole, I look back to what we've done with the crypto mining space, the jobs we left on the table, the jobs we simply moved across the border, the tax dollars we left on the table. And seeing another industry come and go, seeing another opportunity come and go in New York seems like business as usual for this house. So I'll be voting in the negative, and I do support some level of guardrails and and continuing the conversation, but I don't think that this bill is the solution. I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Bloomberg Crantz in the negative. Miss Strathza to explain her vote. Thank

[Speaker 43]: you madam speaker. Every technology has the potential to do good when it's used properly. But this aggressive push for generative AI is being led by corporations like Meta, Google and Amazon and it is designed to consolidate corporate power and displace workers. And to do this at the cost of immense energy consumption and disruptions caused by these large data centers needed to provide the computing power. One project in Utah, for example, is estimated to have the footprint of around 2,000 Walmart stores. So the regulations that we are voting on today are the first necessary steps toward reining in the intentions of these corporations and to make sure we protect rate payers and also we give state the time that is needed to decide how we are going to tackle with the data centers that are coming in. I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Tratza. In the affirmative, Mr. Keith Brown to explain his vote.

[Keith P. Brown, Assembly Member]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my vote. I feel constrained about this bill but ultimately I feel that this bill risks putting New York at a competitive disadvantage in one of the fastest growing industries in the world. Artificial intelligence and cloud computing depend on data centers. And a one year moratorium sends a message that New York, that this state is closed for business just as other states around the country are competing to attract these investments. Data centers bring billions of dollars in private investment, construction jobs, and long term tax revenue. Instead of creating clear rules and allowing projects to proceed, this bill freezes development for a year. Businesses making site selection decisions often move quickly. If New York pauses projects, companies may choose states such as Texas, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania instead of New York. Once those investments leave, they may never return, leaving New York in the dust. I fear we're gonna turn New York into another rust belt state. Rather than a blanket moratorium, we should require stronger reporting environmental standards and community protections while allowing projects to continue. A pause creates uncertainty for investors, utilities, local governments and workers. AI and cloud infrastructure becoming as important as roads, railways and power plants. And if New York limits data center growth, it could lose opportunities in advanced manufacturing research and technology development. The state should lead in responsible development, not delay development altogether. We used to be the empire state at one point in time. A one year moratorium is the wrong solution. New York should regulate, improve data center development, and leave it up to local municipalities who are better equipped to handle it and not stop its development. Thank you. I'll be voting in the negative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Keith Brown in the negative, mister Cashman to explain his vote.

[Speaker 45]: Madam speaker, to explain my vote. And I'll start off by saying I'm gonna vote in the affirmative. But I wanna provide some perspective. For a number of years, served as an officer for the New York State Association of Towns working with colleagues from the 933 towns around the state. And one of the things that I learned very quickly was problems transcend municipal boundaries. And many of our small businesses and our farmers and our families are concerned about the electric rates. With these data centers, they're going to put strain on the electrification of the state, and the prices are going to go up for these individuals. That's the first concern that people have. So that's why we're looking at it with a much wider aperture. The second thing is the impact on infrastructure. Many municipalities, like mine, the town of Plattsburgh, has a shared regional water supply. We actually provide water to two other municipalities. So when you're looking at the new infrastructure that's needed for these facilities, you have to be looking at it through, again, a much wider aperture. If something is in a moratorium in one municipality, but creates strain across the municipal boundaries, it creates a new pressure point. The final component to this, and I would agree with my colleagues from the environmental standpoint. We must be looking at how to protect the environment. I myself differ from some of my colleagues. I believe that we do need to have a mixed energy economy. Being in the North Country, I do support the need to emphasize tapping into natural gas where is appropriate. However, however, what we should also be doing is leveraging the best technology of tomorrow with the technologies that are emerging at the same moment. So having some of these goals and objectives with thermal energy is completely a responsible approach to move forward. With that, I yield my time and I also vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Cashman in the affirmative, mister Jacobson to explain his vote.

[Speaker 46]: Thank you, madam speaker. The data center one year moratorium gives us a chance to catch our breath so we can establish the proper guardrails to protect us against the excesses of data centers. I'm particularly excited about the provisions in the bill that will prohibit the increased utility infrastructure costs due to these data centers from being passed along to residential customers so that the additional costs will be paid by those that are building or benefiting from the data centers? I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Jacobs, sending the affirmative Mr. Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This conversation has reminded me of a hearing I attended with my colleague on energy, and I'd asked a question to a former PSC commissioner when we see how people always complain about utility companies raising the rates, but when the PSC had approved a $43,000,000,000 in future rate payer increases that pay for green energy mandates, I said it's like no one is paying attention. He said to me some of people are paying attention and who is paying attention? The site selectors. The businesses are paying attention. The businesses are seeing what we're doing with this vote today about putting up a moratorium. This does not send the right message to the business community. We already have one of the worst business climates in the country. We already have one of the least competitiveness ratings in the country. Our taxes are high some of the highest in the country. Our regulations are some of the most costly in the country. Our energy costs are 70% higher than the national average. This all of this does not add up to an incentive to wanna invest in New York State. And my colleague said this is gonna help save ratepayers money. No, it's not. Nothing we've done in this chamber over the past several years have done anything to save ratepayers money. It's only cost them more money because of this hostility towards natural gas. Despite the fact that 60% of our generation or 60% of the universe heat your homes with natural gas, 40% of our generation comes from natural gas. And we got this march to full electrification which does nothing to ensure reliability, affordability, feasibility. It's just not working. This jeopardizes this. I just think it says the wrong message across the board. It's all part of a plan to really dismantle the infrastructure system we have in place. We need to build out our infrastructure. We need dispatchable baseload generation. Natural gas nuclear is dispatchable base load generation. This does nothing. They don't want either of them as part of this plan. That's problematic. We can do a better job. There's a lot more we have to do on this. But for that reason and others, I'm gonna be voting in negative on this bill. Thank you,

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: mister Palmisano in the negative. Mister Otis, explain his vote.

[Steve Otis, Assembly Member]: Thank you. On the bill, this legislation is really sourced by the experience in other states who have been taken over by data centers and the impact on residential utility rates in a way that is very damaging. New York State is a pro technology state. A lot of our economic growth is in the technology sector. But we need more time to figure out where this kind of activity is going to fit in our utility rate system, our energy use system, how we're gonna protect not just residential rate payers, but the impact of data centers is gonna have a negative impact in some areas of the state on energy capacity for other kinds of businesses. We need time to figure it out. This is a wise time to take a pause. But people are gonna come to New York. The technology companies are gonna come to New York. We also have to say to the data center world and the brilliant people that figure out all this stuff, can you find a less energy intensive way to perform these functions to store and reuse data? Can you do it in a way where you're not polluting our water, warming up our water? Lots of tests. Other states are regretting they didn't ask these questions. We'll ask these questions and then move forward in a united way. I vote aye.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Otis in the affirmative, mister Zuccaro to explain his vote.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill before us today is one that proposes a one year moratorium on utility rate increases. And this legislation is particularly crucial for families that I represent in The Bronx and across New York who are facing rising living causes. And by halting utility rates and increasing this for one year, we provide essential relief to households struggling to make ends meet. Many families are already forced to choose between keeping their homes warm or putting food on the table. And this moratorium alleviates that burden, allowing for constituents to become and breathe a little bit more easier. And this bill also provides and prioritizes vulnerable communities, recognizing that low income households and communities of color have been disproportionately affected by these rising costs, and this bill is a step forward towards equity and energy access. The bill also emphasizes investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs ensuring that our transition to clean energy benefits everyone, particularly those who have historically faced environmental injustices. And I wanna thank the sponsor and all those who worked together to get us to this moment, because together, we can continue to support our communities while paving the way for a sustainable energy future. And with that, madam speaker, I proudly vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Zuccaro in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one zero two. Nays, 39.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 40, calendar four twenty three. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Okay, I must go about to Assembly number 10,025, calendar four twenty three, Ms. Clark, an act to amend the social services law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Clark, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Miss Clark.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Hi. Thank you, madam chair or madam speaker. This legislation updates social service law to align the supervision requirements that are currently in child care centers to those in family and family based child care providing settings.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Great. Thank you. So we debated this bill last year.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: And the governor vetoed it.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So I

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: guess my first question is what was your understanding of the governor's veto message? What were her concerns?

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Yeah. So there were some emergency concerns. We've actually had many meetings and many conversations since then with the governor's team and the governor's floor because we believe that some of those concerns that were outlined in that veto message are actually addressed, you know, that the bill is not putting anyone in jeopardy because of all the other safety requirements that are put into the regs when caring for children in family based settings.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Is it, so based on the meetings, the meetings that you had were you know like with the 2nd Floor after the veto to just kind of say

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Yeah, what productive, trying to understand because as we know not only does this you know align our ratios between two different child care providing settings, but it also would if done create thousands of child care slots immediately because it would lower the ratio level at the eighteen months from 24. And so it would help alleviate some of our child care struggles that we're having in terms of availability for spots. So we've in all of that context and looking at other regs, we've had a lot of conversations. I hope they're productive and you know I hope we can continue to work with the Governor to make this a reality.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Yes, so we know that certainly creating better and more affordable and more plentiful childcare has been a big issue for the governor. So I mean do you think that if the bill passes and arrives at her desk this year, do you expect a veto again or do you have you received any assurances that it won't be vetoed this time?

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: I have no assurances. I have a lot

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: of hope. Death and taxes. That's the only thing we So know about,

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: I hope we've, you know, done our part to really make sure that the other other regs that are out there by OCFS have really addressed ensuring that every provider does monthly, you know, fire drills, has evacuation plans, change it, you know, based on children, children with disabilities, ratios, whatever it may be, that's already covered in the regs. We're not going to make we're not going let any provider setting be dangerous or unsafe for kids.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Right. Yeah. It did well, the way I read it was that the governor raised said the bill raised serious concerns about the ability to safely evacuate from a home based setting during a fire or other emergency. So in other words, so big picture, what we're doing here with this bill is we're saying that previously, well under current law, the social services law says that you need a certain caregiver to child ratio and that ratio changes under current law when the child hits two? Two years old?

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Hits two. In family based providers. Center based providers, it's 18.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Right. That that had already changed for the like a day care center that's outside the home. Yep. That had already dropped from two years to eighteen months. And what you're hoping to do with this bill, if I'm understanding it right, is to align the rules that we already have in place for the out of the home child care and and make it apply also across the board to the home itself, right?

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Yeah. And we're the only there was only one other state that has ratios and age similar to us. 48 other states either have higher ratios at 18 or just change the ratios completely. So we have seen it implemented in family based providers in 48 other states with what ratios we're looking at done well and safely.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: I guess one of the questions that I it was sort of discussed really in in terms of the governor's veto as well is kind of what are the structural or operational differences between child care centers and home based programs? And what I'm hearing you say is there really isn't any base because we've got regulations across the board that affect both kinds of The

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: point is both all settings have to have evacuation plans. If you can't evacuate children safely, then you can't do this. You were not going meet the other regs to be able to have a child child care child care in your home or in a center based provider. Whether it's stairs or whatever it may be, those are in center based as much as they are you know in home based providers.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Is there any concern regarding just enforcement and oversight when you change the Could that potentially place additional pressure on regulatory agencies to monitor compliance and ensure that safety standards are being maintained?

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: It doesn't change that. They are already under thorough thoroughly looked at and and OCFS is currently regulating that at a at a very high level, it doesn't change that. And we know because they do it already, because they are under this regulatory framework that is very thorough already, we know that they are going to have to meet a basic safety plan if they are going to do this.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay, fair enough. And then, oh I was going to ask you something else and now it's going out of my head here. I lost it. So there you go. That happens sometimes.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: It's my lucky dad.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Especially working like the hours we've been working the last few days. But thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, very briefly on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: So this is a bill that really last year we all supported it. It was unanimous. So not to belabor the point, but I thought it was worth at least a short conversation to discuss, you know, what the governor's rationale was for vetoing it last year. And I tend to agree with what the sponsor is saying, is that across setting we have sets of regulations that ensure for compliance monitoring for evacuation plans, for various things that must be observed in order to protect and ensure children's safety, which is our primary concern. There is an argument to be made that when you're talking about an 18 old and a 24 old, this entire age group are very busy little people that are running around and can get bumps and can get into different scrapes and potentially dangerous situations. So there's an argument to be made that by reducing the caregiver to child ratio from the 18 to the two years, there's a potential that there may be a little bit less supervision for the children. And I would never want us and our desire to create more childcare slots in any way impact adversely, and I'm sure the sponsor would agree with this as well, would never want this to adversely impact a child's safety because child safety is paramount. But I do think that by making this change, which we've already made with out of the home child care centers, by bringing that in parity to the in the home, I think that we could have a beneficial impact of increasing the number of slots of children that could be served in at home programs while at the same time not meaningfully impacting a child's safety. So I will again this year be supporting this bill and I thank the sponsor for answering my questions and we'll see what the governor decides to do with it this year. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the January thing.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty one. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Miss Lunsford.

[Jen Lunsford, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. At this time, I would like to advance the a calendar and take that up immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On miss Lunsford's motion, the a calendar is advanced. On consent, the a calendar page three rules report four seventy. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number sixteen seventy b rules report four seventy. Miss Rosenthal enact him in the correction law in the executive law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Rosenthal, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number twenty five thirty five, rules report four seventy one, miss Pollan, enact to amend the general municipal law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Pollan, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty one. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 20 631, rules report four seventy two, mister Syedj, enact to amend the real property tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect January 1.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty one. Nose, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 3226 a, rules report four seventy three, miss Gonzales Rojas, enact to amend the civil practice law, end rules.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Gonzales Rojas, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the January day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Gonzalez Rojas to explain her vote.

[Jessica González-Rojas, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in strong support of the ceasing repeated and egregious extremely egregious predatory behavior act or CREEP for short. Too many New Yorkers are living in fear, being stalked, harassed, and threatened, often by people they are not related to and have never had an intimate relationship with. Yet under our current laws, unless someone fits into a narrow category of relationship, the only real option for protection is to call the police or pursue a criminal process that is unacceptable. This bill offers something deeply important, a civil pathway to safety. It gives survivors control and access to an order of protection without forcing them into a criminal legal system that they may not trust, may not feel safe engaging with, or simply do not want to rely upon. And let us be clear, stalking today does not only happen in person. It happens online through cyberstalking, deepfakes, location tracking, harassment across social media, and the spread of intimate images. Our laws must catch up to the realities of the digital age. The Creep Act is thoughtful, balanced, and rooted in due process. It creates a civil remedy, not automatic criminalization, while ensuring protections remain in place for those who need it most. I want to thank my senate sponsor, Andrew Gennardis, for his steadfast partnership and leadership in advancing this critical legislation. I want to thank the countless advocates, survivors, and organizations. And a special thank you to CA Goldberg whose partnership, expertise, and relentless advocacy on behalf of survivors have been instrumental in shaping this bill and pushing for protections that reflect the realities people face today. Every New Yorker deserves the right to live free from fear and harassment. I will be voting in the affirmative and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you for

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: your miss Gonzalez Rojas and the affirmative miss Bailey to explain her vote.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in favor of this piece of legislation and I thank the sponsor for bringing it forward because protecting victims and ensuring timely access to orders of protection must remain a priority. At the same time, I'm hopeful that a future chapter amendment can address a small but important technical issue within the bill. As currently written, certain enforcement responsibilities are assigned to the clerk of the court. In supreme court proceedings, that role is typically performed by the county clerk who may not be the individual with the direct information necessary to ensure orders are promptly transmitted or provided to the appropriate parties. A simple change from clerk of the court to court would help eliminate potential confusion and reduce the risks of delaying and getting critical protections in place for victims. I also have a concern regarding the filing fees. Current statutory requirements generally require fees to be paid through the clerk's office. In 2023, the legislature recognized a similar concern and created an exemption for another type of order of protection petition. And I am hopeful that we could pursue a similar exemption here. While a fee waiver application does exist, experience has shown that these processes can sometimes be cumbersome and create unintended barriers. And I would never want to see a victim delay or forgo seeking measures necessary for their safety because of paperwork requirements or uncertainties surrounding the filing fees. For those reasons, I support the legislation while also advocating for these practical improvements to ensure the law's work is intended and provides a stronger possible protection for our victims. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Bailey, the affirmative mister Tanousas to explain his vote.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I stand today strongly in favor of this piece of legislation. In my time as an attorney and prosecutor, I saw many instances where there were patterns of harassment and or stalking. For one reason or another, a criminal order protection could not be received perhaps because maybe there was an issue with a criminal case. And also, there was no actual relationship between the parties, which means they wouldn't be able to go to family court. So this is a very important piece of legislation. I think it will solve many issues for victims across the state, and I am proud to be here today voting in favor of this. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Tanousas. And the affirmative, miss Walsh to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So just so that we have a full record to consider here, I wanted to just at least express, you know, we've opted not to debate this bill today, but I think in fairness, we should talk about some concerns that have been raised by some individuals within the court system that are worried about some of the unintended consequences of the bill. And that would be primarily a very lengthy memo that was submitted in opposition. One of the things it points out is that the legislation could allow those already seeking orders of protection in criminal courts to initiate parallel proceedings in civil supreme court which could create duplicate proceedings and unnecessarily burden the courts. I don't know if that's something that could be corrected through a chapter amendment of some kind, but I personally did not see it as enough of a reason to oppose or fully debate the bill. I'm happy to support it. I do think that that when behavior when stalking behavior doesn't quite rise to the level yet of harassment and it certainly hasn't reached the level of assault, but it's nonetheless something that needs to be addressed. I'm glad that this will be available to victims of this very creepy behavior. So I hope that any imperfections can be corrected in a chapter, but I will be supporting it today. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Ms. Walsh and the affirmative. Mr. Keith Brown takes the to

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: his vote.

[Keith P. Brown, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to rise to speak briefly about it and thank the sponsor for this bill. You know, this is a public safety measure because we have a mental health crisis in our state. And there was a terrible case on Long Island that was just publicized in Newsday where a woman very simply posted something on Marketplace. And she had been stalked tremendously by an individual that needed help. And he needed to get psychiatric help. And then there's myself, who I inherited someone who had a mental illness problem from my predecessor in the assembly. And I have had very difficult time with the current system trying to get even though we got an order protection, it didn't stick. And I have spoken to our local police department ad nauseam and also the local court system about doing something to make sure that this person doesn't create a a threat to myself, my family, my staff, or herself. And and I wish her nothing but the best of luck to get the help that she needs. But this bill, quite frankly, is spot on because it will help this individual get the psychiatric treatment that that person needs. So thank you very much for the sponsor, and thank you, Senator, for sponsoring this in the senate. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Brown in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number thirty five eighteen a, rules report four seventy four, miss Bishot Hermelin, an act to amend the executive law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Bishot Hermelin, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty nine. Nays, one.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 4134 a, rules report four seventy five, mister Sturpey, an act to amend the executive law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Sturpey, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill has advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take it back to immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'll be supporting this bill. I think that it will help. What this bill does is it will offer up to a sixty day grace period rather than the current thirty for MWBE applicants those seeking certification to cure any defects that are in their certification applications. So I mean I think that I've heard anecdotally of applicants who don't even really receive a notice that they've been denied or that they have problems with their application until that thirty day period has basically elapsed. So I think an additional time will be beneficial. I think that the MWBE system overall needs a lot of work, but because we have to vote on these things one bill at a time, I think that this is a helpful thing. So I thank the sponsor and I vote yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Walsh in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 140 nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 4 619 b, rules report four seventy six, miss Solage, enact amend the tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Jensen to explain his vote.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. To explain my vote, I rise in support of this legislation. I believe it's a very important piece of legislation to streamline the way New York regulates vapor products and vaping purchases in stores by moving taxing authority from the Department of Health to the Department of Tax and Finance. We can ensure new york state is effectively managing the excise tax on these products as well as ensuring that new york can better regulate how these products are being sold and that products being sold on the illicit marketplace and those importing illegal vapes into our state can be more tightly prosecuted. Additionally, by having a system that mimics the method that's used in Connecticut, we can ensure that while New York's tax collection on vape products has decreased by 35%, we can keep the tax revenue steady to ensure that the revenue from these taxes can go to support measures that help to increase public health outcomes. With that I will be voting in the affirmative. Thank you Madam Speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you Mr. Jensen in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty five. Nays, five.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 5,000, rules report four seventy seven, mister Bronson, enact to amend the labor law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Mr. Bronson, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number five thousand one nineteen B, rules report four seventy eight. Mr. Anderson, enact to amend the general business law and the state finance law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 5443B, rules report four seventy nine, Ms. Chandler Waterman, enact to amend the executive law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Chandler Waterman, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect on the one hundred and twentieth day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Chandler Waterman to explain her vote.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Thank you, madam

[Monique Chandler-Waterman, Assembly Member]: speaker. Today, as we kick off June as gun violence awareness month, I am happy that we are finally prioritizing survivors by expanding office of victim services. No matter why someone's life has been lost or the victim of the crime, their family, their children, their loved ones should not have to suffer by being rejected for victim services because they have been seen to contribute to their death. This bill will remove Contratory language where the loved ones, the families are supported and not being retraumatized by being rejected. And if they need to do crowdfunding, GoFundMe, they still would be able to get victim services. This is a step. This is historical. This is a big deal as our survivors came yesterday for a kickoff for a press conference. They told a story from Buffalo, from the top shooting that didn't get any services. They talked about from Downstate to Upstate. This is a way to really prioritize survivors and say, you matter, your voice matter. I'm sorry that this has happened to you, and that's we a real way to celebrate the gun violence awareness month is to make sure we prioritize our survivors. And this bill right here will do that. So I appreciate our colleagues today to be able to be in support of this. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Chandler Waterman in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 140. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number fifty five seventy seven b, rules report four eighty, mister Miller, an act to amend the tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section. Oops. On a motion by mister Miller, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one fifteen. Nays, 25.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 5655, rules report four eighty one, miss Barrett, an act to amend the private housing finance law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 5881 b, rules report four eighty two, miss Zinnemann, an act to amend the amend the real property law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 140 nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 5882C, rules report four eighty three, Mr. McDonald, An act to amend the public health law and the insurance law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister McDonald, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number sixty seven thirty two, rules report four eighty four, mister Gibbs. An act to amend the correction law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 6949B, rules report four eighty five, Ms. Kasay, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number seventy three fifty three b, rules report four eighty six, mister R. Carroll, an act to amend the education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number seventy six zero three b, rules report four eighty seven, mister Hevesy, an act to amend the social services law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the 100 day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker, to explain my vote. So this bill, is interesting to me. It, amends the social services law by expanding the powers and duties of the Council on Children and Families with respect to children with complex behavioral health and service needs. Basically my understanding is that the Council on Children and Families up till now has been, had like a largely an advisory role. And what this bill is going to do is it's going to be tasking the Council on Children and Families with a whole lot of additional responsibilities. It's establishing it to, I don't know, like it's going to have them reporting things. It's significantly expanding their role. They're going have direct operational authority over service determinations and interagency dispute resolution. It imposes mandatory timelines. It goes on and on. I mean I hope that they're going to be okay with this. I'm sure that they are. If the sponsor has brought the bill forward, I'm sure he's discussed it with them. It's a big change though and I really hope it works out. I do think that there is this is an important role for somebody to have. So I look forward to seeing what they're gonna be able to do and I'm very happy to support it today. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh and the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Noes, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number seventy eight thirty three a, rules report four eighty eight, miss Lovenberg, an act to amend the social services law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the March day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh to explain her vote. I please

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: You all are gonna be so sick of hearing from me, but I really have to speak on this bill as well. I'm I was delighted to see it. You all know because I probably talk too much about it, but I I've worked before with CPS, and CPS caseworkers have to go into people's homes at all times of the night, at all times of the day. These are homes where they're not super happy to see CPS knocking at their door. It could be very, very unsafe. There are also public health nurses and other individuals that are working where they have to come into direct contact into people's homes and it can be a very unsafe situation. And because of staffing shortages, it used to be that you could pair up and go to a home and back each other up, but you can't do that a lot of times anymore because of staffing. So you've got individuals going out. I mean, so the idea that I know it's going be a cost and I really hope that maybe the state can help out with the cost in the future for local governments. But I just had to vote in the affirmative because I just think that this is important to help protect safety for the individuals that are doing this really difficult and sometimes very dangerous work. So I'm very happy to vote in the affirmative and I thank the sponsor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Ms. Walsh in the affirmative. Ms. Levenberg to explain her vote.

[Speaker 51]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my I vote and I thank my colleague for pointing out what some of the reasons are for why it is so important to pass this bill. This bill actually came out of the death of one of my constituents who was a social worker and went to knocked on the wrong door. And as a result, she lost her life. Maria Cotto, she was an amazing person and this really evolved out of conversations with labor about what we could do to support those of those workers who do have to go out in the middle of the night and knock on doors without without protection. This is not actually a very expensive piece of equipment. It's one that can be shared when people need to go door to door and that's why it doesn't actually carry fiscal impact because we do not believe it has much of an expense at all. So again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this and we hope that it will help eliminate any future danger for those who do have to go out into the night. And I thank all those who helped us get this over the finish line. I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Levenberg in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 7890 a, rules report four eighty nine, mister Friend. An act to amend chapter four twelve of the laws of 1990.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Friend, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nose, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 8216 a, rules report four ninety, mister Wright. Enact to amend the elder law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Wright, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number eighty two ninety four rules report four ninety one, miss Septimo, an act to amend the executive law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Septimo, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the two hundred

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: and seventieth day. The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 8322 a, rules report four ninety two, miss Feferamoto, an act to amend the retirement and social security law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Pfeffer Omada, the senate bill is due for the house. The senate bill is advanced. Home roll message at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number eighty three thirty four b, rules report four ninety three, mister De Stefano, an act in relation to authorizing the assessor of the town of Brookhaven, County Of Suffolk to file an application for real property tax exemption.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Noes, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 8434, rules report four ninety four, miss Callis, an act to amend the mental hygiene law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss Kellis, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker, my colleagues. I just wanna say thank you to a couple I know very well, Joe and Elisa Toby of Corning, New York. Tragically, the Toby has lost her son, Matt, to suicide. They shared their story of how he asked for help, couldn't receive it, really how our state failed him. But they took that tragedy and wanted to help other families so they have to experience the same thing. They brought this bill to our attention a few years ago it got passed the governor vetoed it they continued their push last year joe came up and testified before the mental health budget committee shared passionately convincingly about why we need to make change This bill will this council will create a comprehensive plan to make the changes necessary because we know the rate of suicide in our rural counties is much higher than it is in our metropolitan area. This council will work to address those barriers, those obstacles to access care. It will work to identify best practices, solutions, and resources to help families who are asking for help, just like your son, Matt, asked for help. Hopefully, with this council, hopefully this year, the governor will sign it, and we can have this collaborative approach to help those families across our state, particularly in our rural areas, which again we know have a higher rate. I again want to say thank you so much to the Tobia family for taking your tragedy and trying to make things better for other families. So, thank you, Madam Speaker. I vote in affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Mr. Palmisano in affirmative. Mr. Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to associate myself with mister Pomisano's remarks. I've known Tobias for a long time. It's something that, you know, the entire Steuben County Delegation's very positive on and passionate about. I wanna thank miss Kellis for carrying the bill, Chairwoman Simon for moving the bill. Mr. Blankenbush originally carried a version of this and former member Gunther carried it and got it passed to the assembly when she was chair of mental health. So, is an example of, at least on the legislative side, great bipartisanship. People working together to move a bill forward. It's passed through the senate, I believe four times. This will be the second time in the assembly And I very strongly urge the governor to not veto this bill again, to sign this bill. And again, my heart goes out to the Tobia family.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Sempolinsky in the affirmative, are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes one forty, nays zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 8484 a rules report four ninety five, mister Stern, an act to amend the Veterans Services Law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number eighty five sixty nine rules report four ninety six, mister Braunstein, an act to repeal subdivision six of section 51 of the public authorities law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Braunstein, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nose, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number nine zero zero seven a, rules report four ninety seven, mister Marnello, an act in relation to authorizing the town of Niagara to alienate and discontinue the use of certain park lands.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Maranello, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Home roll message is at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Moranalo to explain his vote.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Thank you. Would the chair grant me a moment of personal privilege, please?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: To explain your vote, sir?

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: No. To say goodbye to everybody.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: I think you'll have an opportunity to do that tomorrow, sir.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Okay, thank you. I won't be here tomorrow but thank you. So I want to explain my vote. Thank you everybody.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Mr. Moreno. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 138. Nay, two.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 9537B, rules report four ninety eight, Mr. Simone, an act to amend the education law. On

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: a motion by mister Simone, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect December 1.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gandolfo to explain his vote.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. This is a new version of the bill that we voted on last year that was subsequently vetoed by the governor. This bill does address some of the concerns that were raised in debate, more specifically the involvement of the local school board that is elected by the people of those school districts, which is a step in the right direction. However, some of the language contained in the bill, I feel is too broad. It does prescribe very particular and narrow guidelines on the process that school board can implement in their own district. And at the end of the day, any appeal of the decision of the school board gets kicked up to Albany to the commissioner, which I feel does not adequately protect local control and the local voice of parents and school districts. So I'm encouraged that this did move in a little bit of a better direction. I don't think it's quite there yet, and for that reason, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gandolfo in the negative. Ms. Glick to explain her vote.

[Speaker 52]: Briefly to explain my vote, I want to thank the sponsor for making every effort to accommodate even some, I would say unreasonable requests. There have been organized efforts to remove literature from libraries, school libraries, and people can take a look at what their kids are reading and say, I'd rather you didn't. But denying other people's children the right to read everything that should be available to them. And the list of banned books is pretty shocking in this country. That doesn't lead down a good path as we if anybody still knows history, that is not a good thing. Information that is in books should not be restricted. So I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Glick in the affirmative. Mr. Durso to explain his vote.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. Again, as my colleague said, this is a bill that we debated pretty heavily last year, and I do appreciate the sponsor making some amendments to quell some of our concerns. But I still do have concerns in regards to the school board and anybody can appeal their decision, which as my colleague said, would automatically get kicked up to Albany with the Department of Education chair, I believe, making the final decision. Once again, keeping that control with the local school boards who know their district the best is what we asked for, didn't get. So until that happens, I'll be in the negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Durso, on the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty three. Nays, 17. The

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one zero zero two Rules Report four ninety nine, Ms. Romero, enact to amend the criminal procedure law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Romero, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. This bill is laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one zero zero six six a, rules report 500. Mister Magnarelli, an act in relation to establishing a comprehensive study examining highway safety standards.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Mister Magnarelli, the Senate bill is before the House. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take it back to immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Miss People Stokes?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, would you please withdraw the roll call?

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: The clerk will

[Speaker 25]: withdraw the roll.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will withdraw the roll.

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: And then read the last section.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: Will The record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nose, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10143, rules report five zero one, miss Davila, an act establishing a fiscal cliff task force to conduct a study.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by Ms. Davila, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number 10171 a, rules report five zero two, mister Durso, enact to amend the highway law and chapter three ninety eight of the laws of 2025.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Durso, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take it back to immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero. The bill has passed. Assembly number 10194 a, rules report five zero three, missus People Stokes, enact to amend the highway law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Read the last section. On a motion by miss People Stokes, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: The satchel, take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10299 b, rules report five zero four, miss Tapia, enact to amend the tax law and the public health law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Tapia, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the 100 day.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Mister Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Right now in New York, we have 8,000 New Yorkers waiting for an organ transplant. Nearly 800 have been waiting for more than five years. The registration rate nationally is sixty four percent. New York is at fifty two percent. Sadly, last year, we lost nearly three hundred men, women, and children waiting for a lifesaving organ transplant. We have the third highest need for organs but one of the worst donation registries in the country. But probably the most important statistic we should all remember, one person who donates at the time of their death can save up to eight lives and impact the lives of seventy five others. I've often said we can and must do better. My colleagues, this legislation sponsored by our colleague, Tapia, is doing much, much better. Thank you Ms. Tapia for sponsoring this legislation. In my opinion, this is a game changer. I've often said the more we ask new yorkers remove barriers remove obstacles get that question in front of them do you want to be an organ donor they are going to say yes. So we got to continue to do that. Let's continue to do more. Let's continue to do better, and let's get this passed, and let's get this order to finish line, and let's have I know last year, this bill was vetoed. I know some changes have been made to make it better. Hopefully, the governor will sign this legislation this year. And when she does that, we are gonna save many, many more lives in New York state with this legislation because we're gonna get this question in front of millions of New Yorkers, and that's a good thing. So I'm proud to support this legislation. I'm proud to cosponsor this legislation, and thank the sponsor again for your leadership on this. Thank you, madam speaker. I vote yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Mister Palmisano, how do you vote? Okay. In the affirmative. In the affirmative, mister Palmisano. Mister Smallen?

[Speaker 54]: Yeah. Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to explain my vote. This legislation is absolutely critical to the donate life program in New York state. We can do so much better. We can encourage so many more people to give the gift of life to ensure that lifesaving organ donation transplants make it through the system. New York has fallen behind our fellow states around this country, and it's time now for state government to do its share to make sure that people are given the opportunity to freely donate

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: when

[Speaker 54]: they when their lives end unexpectedly, and to make sure that those who are awaiting organ donation transplants get the organ that will save their lives. This is very personal for me. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. I urge the governor to sign it and get it done so people can do so on their income tax filings. As a cosponsor of this bill, I proudly vote yes. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Mister Smolin in the affirmative. Miss Tapia?

[Yudelka Tapia, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in support of the doorways to donation act, legislation that would allow New Yorkers to register as organ donors directly through their personal income tax filings. Every year, thousands of New Yorkers are waiting for a lifesaving organ transplant. New York has already created multiple pathways to register as a donor through driver's license transactions, voter registration, health exchange enrollment, and financial aid applications. This bill adds one more doorway tax filing season, when millions of New Yorkers are already engaging with the state. This bill has the potential to expand the registry by thousands in the coming years. Michigan, Wisconsin, and California have already done this successfully. It is time for New York to follow. I wanna thank all my colleagues for their support, for being there for this because,

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: I mean, this is personal to me too.

[Yudelka Tapia, Assembly Member]: And I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Miss Tapia and the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero. The bill is passed. Assembly number one zero three zero three, rules report five zero five, Ms. Restel, an act in relation to authorizing Janae Gasparini Gasparini to take the competitive civil service examination.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Schrestha, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. The home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10379C, rules report five zero six. Mister Borres, enact to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Borres, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced, and the bill has been laid aside.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one zero three nine eight, rules report five zero seven, miss Kaye, enact to amend the retirement and social security law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Kaye, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. Read read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take it back to immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk the clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nose, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10422, rules report five zero eight, mister Braunstein, enact to amend the public service law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Braunstein, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the January day.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one zero seven three three a, rules report five zero nine, mister Rivera, an act authorizing the commissioner of general services to transfer and convey certain state lands.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Rivera, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10753 a, rules report five ten, miss Pollan, an an act to amend the education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Pollan, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one zero eight two three a, rules report five eleven, miss an act to amend the education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by Miss Solage, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10867 a, rules report five twelve, miss Levenberg, an act to amend the village law and the public officer's law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Levenburg, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10921 a, rules report five thirteen, mister Stern, an act to amend the general municipal law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect December 1.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 1 zero nine four one, rules report five fourteen. Miss Demar, an act in relation to authorizing John Rafferty to take the competitive civil service examination.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The home rule's at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the result.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nose, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11024, rules report five fifteen. Miss Simon, enact to amend the mental hygiene law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Simon, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take it

[Speaker 26]: back to immediately. The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Noes, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has now passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one zero five six a, rules report five sixteen, mister Angelino, an act in relation to authorizing the village of New Berlin to alienate and discontinue the use of certain park lands. On

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: a motion by mister Angelino, the senate bill is before the house, the senate bill is advanced, and there's a home rule message at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take it back to immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty eight. Nays, two.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is now passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one zero seven six a, rules report five seventeen, mister O'Farrow. Enact to amend the highway law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister O'Farrow, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Noes, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is now passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11077 a, rule rules report five eighteen, mister Burrows, enact to amend the highway law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take it back to immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11128, road report five nineteen, mister Ecas, Enact to amend the vehicle in traffic law and the public officers law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Ikus, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. The home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Any other votes out there? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty five. Nays, 15.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11131, rules report five twenty, mister Ikus, enact to amend the vehicle in traffic law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Ikus, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty six. Nays, 14.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill has passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one two four seven a, rules report five twenty one, mister Santa Barbara, an act to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the public officers law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Santa Barbara, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. There's also a home rule message at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty six. Nays, 14.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 1 one two eight four, rules report five twenty two, committee on rules, mister Berger, an act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Berger, the senate bill is before the house and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11337, rules report five twenty three, committee on rules, miss Kellis, an act authorizing the county of Cortland to transfer ownership of Lanier Park to Lime Hollow Nature Center Incorporated.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Kellis, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. There's also a home rule message at the desk. Please read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11357 a, rules report five twenty four, committee on rules, miss Romero, An act to authorize the South End Children's Cafe to file file an application for retroactive real property tax exemption.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Romero, the senate bill is before the house and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11453, rules report five twenty five. Committee on rules, miss Lunsford. Enact to amend the tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by miss Lunsford, the senate bill is before the the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty nine. Nays, one.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: This bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one four seven nine, rules report five twenty six, committee on rules, mister Pretlow. Enact him in the vehicle in traffic law and the public officer's law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: On a motion by mister Pretlow, the senate bill is before the house, and the senate bill has advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. Please read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Speaker 26]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty seven. Nays, 13.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 11533, rules report five twenty seven. Committee on rules, Ms. Schimsky. An act authorizing the town of Greenberg County of Westchester to alienate and discontinue the use of certain parkland.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Home rule messages at the desk. Read the last on a motion by miss Schimsky. The senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty nine. Nays, 11.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one five five two, rules report five twenty eight, committee on rules, mister Stern. An act to amend the tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Home rule message is at the desk. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one thirty four. Nays, six. Bill has passed. Assembly number one one five six nine, rules report five twenty nine, committee on rules, mister Della Santos, an act to amend the social services law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Della Santos, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the re announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Miss People Stokes, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to interrupt our proceedings for the purposes of introducing a guest of mine from the great city of Buffalo. She

[Speaker 25]: is

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: a former staffer here with me in Albany, and she is right now the majority leader of the city council in the great city of Buffalo. Her name is Leah Halton Pope. So would you please welcome my council member to the chambers and offer her the cordialities of the house?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Of course. On behalf of miss People Stokes, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our very distinguished guest to the assembly chamber, the honorable miss Leah Pope, the majority leader of the Buffalo City Council, to our assembly chamber, extending to you, ma'am, the privileges of the floor. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. We thank you for joining us today and in the future. Thank you so very much for seeing you here today. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, if we can now turn our attention to page 12, rules report four forty. This one is by mister Rivera.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. We are going to be on debate. Colleagues

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Why, please?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the main calendar. Page 12, rules report four forty. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 1111550. Rules report four forty. Committee on rules, mister Rivera. An act to amend the judiciary law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Rivera.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. Before us is a bill that we passed last year at the end of session with some amendments that we can discuss shortly.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Long and

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: short of it is the state constitution empowers the legislature to adjust judicial districts including increasing or decreasing their number and altering their composition once every ten years. And this allows for the reapportionment of justices within these altered districts specifically to the fourth judicial department.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Jensen.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the esteemed gentleman from the city of Buffalo yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: For this esteemed gentleman, sure.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: You're very kind, Mr. Sponsor. It's deja vu all over again. I think it was the same time of night where we did this dance last year. You mentioned in your explanation that this version of the legislation we have before us today does differ from the version that was passed and vetoed by the governor. What are the changes between the previous version and this version?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure, I appreciate it. The primary change is in last year's version we created districts solely encompassing the counties of Monroe, Onondaga and Erie and sort of created an additional district with all the remaining counties. What we've done is that larger county, larger geographically, we've divided into two. We think that it will be easier administratively to manage this way and this is also coming from ongoing conversations that we had, post passage of last year's bill with the unified court system.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: What was the reasoning behind changing the makeup of the proposed judicial districts this year as opposed to last year? Why did we choose to make the three urban counties, primarily urban counties with large metro areas stand alone judicial districts and rather than creating one giant JD that was chosen to separate it into two, three separate smaller JD's with more rural based counties.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, part of that is feedback that we got from the Office of Court Administration. Geographically, the district is pretty large. You and I come from Western New York where we're used to the hall between Albany to where we are, but this district would be tough and we think that including the conversation, it's actually improved it. I think OCA is going to feel better about it. I mean they've provided a letter of support and it's clear in their take that you know administratively they're going to be able to move on this in a more seamless way.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Was and you mentioned that the OCA does support this version of the legislation and I saw the memo you referenced. And I think in the memo they did provide a fiscal impact over the next fiscal year and the following fiscal year. In the recently enacted budget, was there any allocation for some of the cost the OCA referenced they would need to set up any new operational responsibilities for the three new judicial districts?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure, sure. So in this fiscal year, there will be no impact. The changes of this bill make it so that in 2027 those that are seeking office will run on new lines but those new offices won't be sworn in, those new judges won't be sworn in until 2028 So there's no fiscal burden this year on this. We anticipate a modest cost into the next fiscal year.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Okay. And I know much like the version we saw last year, this legislation in the bill tax does assign the judges from the Supreme Court judges from the current JDs. It reallocates them to their new respective JDs whether they're staying in their assigned JD that they're in now or to one of the three proposed new JDs. What was the logic behind choosing which judges would go to which judicial district in the text of the legislation?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, yeah. I would say if I can narrow it down to three factors, though there was certainly a lot of conversations. I would say, you know, number one, we took into account keeping appellate judges together. So that's one. Second, feedback from OCA, from administrative judges voicing their sort of thoughts on it and OCA certainly communicating that to us and in some scenarios seniority was taken into account too. But just like in any redistricting where we're gonna make this sort of change, know, well I guess I'll preface before I even say that. The key to remember is that every one of these judges, their terms are not affected by this. There is no relocation necessary. Nobody's gonna have to suddenly run next year because of these changes. So, you know, and on top of it, remember the OCA has all kinds of latitude and appointing and moving judges where they need to move them. So, yes, in the bill it lays out what judges are gonna go to what district, but know that in the end OCA has a lot of space to determine perhaps by case load or whatever measure if judges need to be moved from one area to another.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: And I do remember from our conversation last year that you know as you just mentioned and as we talked about last year that a judge could be elected out of Richmond County and live in Staten Island but be assigned to a JD up in the North Country. You know, even though they're elected out of a JD, they are statewide officers to that respect. So I know we talked about and you referenced it in your explanation, we talked about it quite a bit last year that we were doing this because the state constitution gives us the power every ten years to adjust judicial districts, whether it's to move counties or create new judicial districts. What's the reasoning for doing it now?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: It's a great question.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say, you know, this conversation for me began two years ago when I originally proposed legislation that was originally in my scenario solely for Erie County in the judicial district. Simultaneously there was another member you might be hearing from shortly that was also proposing something similar in his district. And you know, I think there was a clear conclusion. These districts have not been touched in a very, very long time. We believe that these lines have existed for a hundred and seventy five years without ever being adjusted despite drastic population differences as you could imagine from the mid eighteen hundred's to today. And I you know I really say to that you know it's not about doing it now versus you know tomorrow, it's really why haven't we done this sooner. And there's really no reason why we would want to kick the can anymore knowing that population and density and communities and frankly every way we live lives is drastically different from when this was originally done many many many years ago. Know as the letter states from OCM they think that you know these lines are go back to the establishment of this system which goes back to 1847 and I started to shame on us for not doing it sooner.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Okay. I do recall from last year, right from the beginning of our conversation, one of the big drivers of last year's bill was something that you had identified out of Erie County but identified out of Onondaga and Monroe and that there was a lack of diversity on the bench. And I haven't heard you reference that as part of the reasoning for doing it today. Has that the need for this to happen because of that diversity on the bench no longer become a compelling reason to adjust the judicial districts in in Western in Central New York?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I would say the largest argument that we have on this is like I said, know these lines have existed for one hundred and seventy five years and the nature of anything existing that long means that it doesn't reflect the community that it is in the now. I would say that because of that we don't have role representation the way we should in the judiciary and I'd say there's a lack of diversity in all kinds of measures in the judiciary but that is what happens when things are left to be left the same for such a long period of time.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Alright. In understanding, to presume that this year, as you said, this is more based on the need to right size the judicial districts based on population, hence why the three metropolitan Upstate counties are receiving their own JD. Would that be an accurate assessment of kind of what we talked about up until this point in tonight's conversation?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say there's a clear need for change in addressing what we should have been doing for a very long time. The last time we've touched districts at all in the New York State goes back to 2007, and before that, quite a while. But in our region, where we are, like I said, 1847, and there's no no reason not to pursue it now.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: So, we saw that, and I'll use the seventh J. D. Where where I call home. We've seen Monroe be separated from the rest of the counties within the in the Finger Lakes region. And it does have, Monroe does have an outsized population as compared to those other surrounding counties. And I think you can make the same assessment for Erie and Onondaga. So we've seen that in that respect. How come we didn't extend that same idea to the other judicial districts across the state? I know if you look at the 9th Judicial District, you have Westchester County, Putnam, Duchess, Orange, and Rockland all within that same JD. Where you have Westchester is a prominent metropolitan community. They have Yonkers, is the third largest city in the state. And that has an outsized population as compared to the other four counties in that judicial district. Why didn't we look at the 9th Judicial District, and also make the same reflective change we're seeing in Central, Western, and the Finger Lakes?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I would say you know this has been a conversation that we've now gone on for two years and in that process, know there's certainly been a lot of conversations with a lot of stakeholders. During that process, truthfully no other region has you know, sought sought that sort of direction?

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Well, I do know there, one of our members in our conference does have a bill that would do that, so I know you referenced another colleague who had a similar bill. So we did include one other bill, but yet did not choose to incorporate all the proposals to do that in this legislation.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I wasn't aware.

[Keith P. Brown, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Maybe next year. Moving on, and I'm not a lawyer, I'm gonna ask this question and wait for everybody who does have a law degree in the room to clear at

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: me. That makes

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: a Probably

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: some who are surrounding sitting around you at the moment. But do you have any concerns that the changes in these JDs and the makeup of all the judicial districts in New York present a challenge or a problem to the idea of one person, one vote and could potentially be a violation of the equal protection clause?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I don't think that. I would say two reasons why I don't think that. Number one, I kind of doubt that the unified court system would issue a letter of support if they thought that was a possibility. But additionally, I'd say the uniqueness about judicial redistricting and the way that we do it in New York State is comparatively to other redistricting is that in a redistricting in districts like ours or the Senate, know, those districts can be cut up in so many different ways, but the way that judicial redistricting works for I'm sorry, the way redistricting works for judicial districts is that entire counties have to be kept whole. So it's not as if you could dissect it a bunch of different ways. It's based on the population and it's based on entire counties. So no, I don't believe

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: that's

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: And the once again, I'm not a once again, not being a lawyer, also not a state constitutional scholar.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Makes it most of us.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Nice that we're the ones doing this. Isn't there a clause, I think it's in our constitution or it's in existing state law that the approximate amount of people per justice in each judicial district has to be approximately 50,000 people?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct. Correct. Well, to be clear, it's 50 for every 50,000 people, there is one seat. There's There's one judge. Yes.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Yes. So having said that, when you look at the way in which these judicial districts that we're talking about today have been divided up, do you see a problem that in the 7th Judicial District as proposed in this legislation that contains Livingston, Wayne, Seneca, Yates, Ontario, Steuben, and Kegelooga County, they have a population of 493,995 New Yorkers. They're assigned seven justices of the Supreme Court, which means that approximately every 70,570 New Yorkers have one judge. Whereas in Erie County, with 954,236 people, they have 19 judges and each person has approximately one judge for every 50,222 people. Do you see any issue with a discrepancy of close to 20,000 New Yorkers per judge between those two judicial districts?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say given the nature of how counties are never gonna have the same population across the board, it's a little apples and oranges. I would also say you know when we did Richmond County, it was only about 2,000 fewer people than the 7th Judicial District that we're proposing. That had four ninety five and this has four ninety three. So, it's consistent with what was passed in 2007 as well. And, if that stood, then this should stay.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, there's no concern that not just within these six JDs that are being affected in this legislation, but all across New York State judicial districts. There is tremendous deviation and no standard deviation between New Yorkers per judge on the low end to the high end.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Like I said, if if the unified court system believes that this is appropriate and after a lot of conversation, it it seems to be fine with them. I'm I'm confident in in their support as well.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Alright. One other thing we touched on last year, the judicial districts are not the only thing that are affected by you very much, mister Rivera. I appreciate your answers. Thank you, madam. No. Thank

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: you. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yes of course.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Sponsor yields. Great, thank you. So I have a series of questions, we'll see how many I get through in fifteen minutes and then we'll see where we're at. But I guess I want to start with the concept of the process that was followed and the transparency of the process that was followed and getting us where we're here right now. How many public hearings were held on this legislation?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No public hearings. Pardon? No public hearings.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: No public hearings. Okay. Was this bill ever brought before the judiciary committee for discussion or for debate?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Oh, I would say no. No.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: I think it was just brought to ways and means, wasn't it?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, would say we passed this bill last June and you know it was reintroduced this week and here's where we are.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: And here we are. Okay. Were there any stakeholder meetings held with members at the bench or bar associations or the general public at all?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Oh, would say we've had a lot of conversations with bar associations. I've gotten letters of support from bar associations. There's been conversations with OCA, arguably one of largest stakeholders. So, yeah, there's been a lot of conversations about it.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. So, have the bar associations in Onondaga, Monroe, or Erie weighed in?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Not that I'm well, if they have, I'm I'm unaware. I've received support letters from bars associations within those counties but not those bar associations.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay, alright. Because when I'm looking at my information that I've been provided, the only real letter of support that I've received is the one from the unified court system. Don't have anything else other than that. We've asked but Gotcha. Okay. And we might as well talk about that while I've got it in front of me. You were asked I think by the previous speaker about cost estimates and you I'm reading the memorandum in support from Unified Court System, but they don't contain any estimates as to cost. But that being said, our staff reached out to OCA and asked them for some kind of an estimate as far as what this would cost and what we were told you said I think I'd debate that it was a modest cost is how you termed it. Okay. What I've learned through our staff is that in 2028, the estimate is $3,600,000 and then in 2029, 14,200,000. And the opinion that was expressed to me, which I have no reason to doubt and actually kind of kind of makes sense to me, is that it it probably is going to be quite a bit higher in terms of staffing up salaries, furnishings, space for, you know, the chambers and I I don't know if there's gonna be a need for courtroom space. I'm just not familiar with what you've got out there. But it's probably quite a bit higher than that. Was is that like a surprising figure? Is when you said that it was a modest cost, is that what you were thinking?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, certainly. I mean, the office of court administration manages a $4,500,000,000 budget every year. So if that number of 3,600,000 is the number for the fiscal year 2028, I find that modest in comparison to the $4,500,000,000 budget that they oversee.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Right, yeah, that's true. I think it was up like 8% this year. Yeah, anyway, I wonder what it will be next year. Who knows, right? Was there any population study done regarding these affected judicial districts?

[Speaker 25]: Population study? Population study?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No, no. Mean the math of the 50,000 per seat I guess is considered, but other than that, no.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. It was interesting because I was just I happen to be I mean, God knows we've been busy doing other things, but I happen to see that there were some new population numbers that were coming out about, you know, where in the state we're losing population, where we're gaining population. Where I live in Saratoga County, we actually are one of the outliers. We're gaining population, but I think out in your neck of the woods, there's been a population loss. Did that factor in at all into the way that the lines were drawn?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No, no. Truthfully no. I mean, was, like I said, the only metric for determining how many judges in the district and size of the district to an extent were the 50,000 resident rule.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Which is in the state constitution.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Yeah, yeah.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I mean, like I've said before, know, if we're concerned about like what the population should show, as I said before, the last time these lines were reviewed, we're talking about you know 1847 and certainly population has drastically changed since then. The numbers that we use to determine the 50,000 is the 2020 census obviously

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: but yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Right and and kind of going along with that was Lat four involved in these new redistricting maps for the judicial districts? No. Or the independent redistricting commission? No. Or any bipartisan redistricting entity? No. Okay. Alright. Was OCA, I know that they support this legislation but were they and I apologize if you've already answered this, but were they consulted, were they actively involved in this process?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, mean I would say there was conversations that took place last year prior to the bill's passage last June. I would say after its passage, there was more conversations that led to what we did with the district that I mentioned before where we had a very large district with quite a bit of counties and we sort of split it in two. That was a recommendation by OCA.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. And was the New York State Supreme Court Judges Association consulted during the drafting or revision of the bill?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Oh, I've had multiple conversations with the association.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Alright. But have they issued any kind of formal position or letter regarding the legislation?

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Nope.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Alright, but it's your understanding that they support it?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Oh, I wouldn't speak for them. Yes, if they were sort of consulted, I'd certainly met with them here and had other conversations. Yeah, yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Alright. Just hang on one second. Just check my time here. So how many currently sitting supreme court justices will be reassigned as a result of this legislation?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Oh, I mean the breakdown of what judges are going to what districts are in the bill, I don't have the number off the top of my head of which ones are going where but

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: you know. The total number though, do you know the total number that is I going to be don't need to know the where.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No, yeah. No, I don't.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay, alright. What criteria were used to determine how judges would be reassigned into the newly created judicial districts?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I mentioned before, I mean the real considerations that were taken into account were you know feedback from OCA, ensuring that appellate judges were kept together in the same district and then seniority was also considered as well.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Could you just confirm the party enrollment breakdown of the judges that were reassigned into the new judicial districts?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Truthfully, am clueless on it. I don't know. I don't know the affiliation of any of the judges.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Alright. When does the bill go into effect?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure. So it would go into effect for the election cycle that is in 2027, but the actual districts themselves will be formalized in 2028. So those that are running, you know, the petitions will be passed out next February for the judicial convention. Those will be for the new district lines that will take into effect 01/01/2028. Okay, alright.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: So I want to talk a little bit about what's going to happen to existing cases when the bill goes into effect. Does the case move to the new judicial district? You know, because well, in other words, will it follow with the judge? Will the judge be taking his or her caseload that they have existing with them into the new JD or will it go back on the wheel?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: How's that going

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: to work?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure. I mean the bill does not contemplate particular caseloads or where cases are. That's up to, you know, the presiding judge of that region and know OCA's management so.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: OCA will figure it out you think?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Well, the presiding judge will do what they do in any other scenario.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Yeah, because I mean I would think with when you have a judge, there's a certain efficiency with keeping a matter with the judge that has been working with it. Sure. Because there are motions, there are decisions that may have been issued, there have been a lot of things. That will be interesting to see how that gets handled. But that's not part of this legislation, that's just something that I was considering in terms of just the logistics of how this is going to work. Okay. Will the new districts have part rules? What happens if the judicial district has different part rules from the district that the case was originally commenced in?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That's up to the presiding judge, the administrative judge. That's that's up to the, you know, the folks that are there now.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Were the judges themselves consulted about being in a new judicial district?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Nobody put out a survey and said do you feel like moving? Do you want some new chambers?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Do you

[Speaker 25]: want maybe a whole new caseload? Better parking spot?

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: No,

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: no. Yeah, we'll get you a good parking spot. What about the existing terms for the judges? Are they affected at all?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: The terms themselves are not affected at all.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: I didn't think so. Okay. It possible though that voters in one county voted for a judge who would no longer be their elected official when this bill takes effect?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That's the consequence of any redistricting truthfully. So, you know, in a scenario where, I'll just use my judicial district for example, the current eighth, if a voter voted for a judge that lives in Erie County, they still will be seen by Erie County judges. So, that's in that respect, it's not different. But you know, when we discuss redistricting, we run into that scenario, but you know, there's elections that will happen every year for for different judicial spots and that's how it is.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: I mean some some people are concerned that that really disenfranchised the the voters that supported that particular judge. They wanted that judge to be their judge and now that judge will not be their judge in some instances.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: But it doesn't affect their term?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: No, it doesn't affect their term. Just potentially impacts the voters, you know? Yeah. But anyway, okay. Previously, when this was debated last year, it was interesting to me that as I looked at the memorandum of support, you know, that accompanied the legislation

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: That the sponsor's memo like, the justification last year that was discussed and got we discussed it quite a bit, think, as we debated the bill was diversity. It was but the bill is substantially similar to last year, but why is there no mention of diversity this year in the sponsor's memo where there was in last year's?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, mean I think that that point was debated well last year and I think that you know as we continue in our conversations we're accomplishing the same thing. I'd say you know when I have conversations with folks that live in other parts of the state that are not represented by you know folks from their community, it is consistent across the department.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I mean

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I spent a lot of time in Cattaraugus County and I have family in Niagara County and I'm in Chautauqua County occasionally and you know the likelihood in its current form that someone from Cattaraugus County is actually elected to the judiciary given that Erie County being part of the judicial district prevents that county from really moving up in the world. You know if I asked a resident of Kent County would you rather have a higher probability of being seen by somebody from Kent County or would you rather still be lumped in with Erie County, I'd imagine they'd want a higher probability of being seen by somebody from Kent County. So I think we're accomplishing something for rural communities, all the more so with the amendment that we've made and

[Keith P. Brown, Assembly Member]: you know

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: that's why I think that more people have conveyed positive feedback on this over last years.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay, I mean do you think that there's more positive feedback because there's no longer a stated justification being given that diversity is the underlying reason for the change?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I don't think that's why. I think it's because you know we listened and we addressed the concerns of other parts of the state. Know, making Monroe and Onondaga and Erie their own judicial districts because they're the population centers in that region makes sense. You know, the letter clearly says from from OCA by separating urban areas from rural ones, the bill will enhance the administration of the courts because urban and rural courts pose different administrative challenges. Additionally, by replacing three existing judicial districts with six, the legislation places the election of judges more closely to into the hands of the people those judges serve.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: You know,

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: it's true you know urban center regions move and dictate and operate differently from rural areas and I'm happy that we're able to accommodate both interests in this.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Yeah, and again, I'm just circling back in my mind to the earlier point that we were talking about whether the case loads are going to follow the judges or not. I mean, you've got to wonder if you are in a rural area and the judge that you had your case with is moving to a more urban area, and I might totally have this backwards, I don't know, but whatever the situation is, it could result in that litigant having to, you know, travel to the the new location in order to follow that judge.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I would say technically that could happen today. I mean OCA can move a judge from one region to another this bill. Think that's that situation that you're proposing, it could happen today anyways. But I have confidence in the administration of our AJs and our presiding judges to work that out.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Well thank you very much for answering my questions. I'm sure that our colleagues have other questions to ask as well. So I'll give them a chance. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Lunsford.

[Jen Lunsford, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Jen Lunsford, Assembly Member]: I just wanted to rise in support of this piece of legislation because I think it is far overdue. Throughout my legal career, I had the opportunity to practice law in dozens and dozens of our counties. I think at last count I was over 45 of our counties. I visited many of our county seats, seen many of our rural courthouses. And I know how different it can be to practice law in those counties and to seek justice in those counties. I believe that this redistricting will, as the sponsor mentioned, create an opportunity for people to have judges who are more likely to live in their communities, to have grown up in their communities, and to have a greater appreciation for the particulars of the people that they are serving. I think the closer judges are to the people that they see, the better the administration of justice. And when people know their judges have an understanding, mean, I even in the simplest of cases, if you have a car accident and a judge regularly traverses that route, I think they have a better understanding of that case. Over and over, I have seen, as someone who hails from Monroe County but has practiced law in Steuben or in I've I've gone as far down as Cattaraugus. I've been in Wyoming County. I've been in Painted Post. I have seen judges who come from my area who are traveling from Rochester down five counties because that's where they got stuck. And I'll say, all due respect to some of our judges, what tends to happen is our less experienced judges tend to get put in rural counties. I've watched it happen. And I think that more experienced attorneys from the area will be more likely to seek office if they know that they are going to have an opportunity to serve in the counties that they're from. This is going to create a better bench. It's going to create a better set of candidates. I think it's going to create more justice for people, particularly in our rural communities. This is a net positive. I'm really excited that we're doing this. I think the changes this year have really met some of the concerns that I'd heard from OCA over the course of last year with just, frankly, administrative issues related to HR and payroll and things that are challenging for people. I'd heard from court officers truly was stopped in a church parking lot one time by a rural court officer who was concerned about how this would affect him. The changes that we've made to the bill this year address his concerns. This is a well crafted bill. It's been well argued by my colleague here. And I am extremely grateful that this is going to be happening for the people of Western And Central New York. Thank you very much and I look forward to voting in the affirmative. Thank

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: you. Mister Sumpulinski?

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Speaker, would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: I thank the sponsor for yielding. So in response to the floor leaders questions, you'd indicated that there had not been any public hearings. We didn't go through regular order with the judiciary committee. We've had a whole year. So last year, this was dropped at the end of session, at the last minute. And this year, it was dropped at the end of session, at the last minute. If there was a year of time in between, why wouldn't we take advantage of that time to have some sort of public hearing or go through the proper procedure of going through the judiciary committee?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah. I would say, in the case of last year, you know, there's sort of something to be said around the way that it kind of came up suddenly. But, given the fact that we debated this and had such a long conversation on it, and engaged with so many, engaged with OCA as much as we did, and it had been out there for a year. Mean, think there's been a lot of eyes on this. I'd also say, you know, we have a responsibility that the state constitution gives us in this house to do this, And, there's no reason to sort of see that responsibility to anyone else. I think the biggest complaint that people will have is why did we wait a hundred and seventy five years to do it above all other things. So, I guess that's my take.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, I'll get to the hundred and seventy five years in a minute. I am also a little confused about the dramatic change in rationale. And the previous questioners asked about this, but I wanted to discuss it because it was so dramatic. Everything in sponsor memo last year was about diversity and that's completely disappeared. How can you have a very similar bill one year apart and be doing it for two completely different reasons?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I think it's a mischaracterization. Say we're doing it for two different reasons. I mean, I would say, we knew then last year that it had been over a century since we had done this. And I'm sure I brought that up in the conversation. Yep. But I'd also say, with the amendment that we've made this year, it clearly is taking into account all types of communities. Not just folks that live in urban counties, but really the interest of folks in rural counties. So I think diversity can be defined in all ways and you know this is a big state that looks different from one corner to another but in the end of the day you know we're all under the same court system. I'm looking forward to a day where I could look at people that I know in Cattaraugus County or Niagara County and say, you now have a higher chance of electing someone from your County and that's what this does.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, I represent Cattaraugus County. I do. We discussed Allegheny County I think last year.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure, sure.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: And I think your colleague mentioned Steuben County a second ago. So, we'll get to that in a second.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: We are reassigning judges, I just wanted to clarify, we are neither creating nor destroying judges. They're just being shifted around.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct. No new judge ships are being created.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So, we've mentioned a few times here. You've mentioned a few times and I know it was mentioned in the OCA memo. And, I do appreciate you providing that. You provided that to me yesterday. Thank you very much. I was very courteous.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Of course.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: That these lines have been in place since 1847. And, you've said that's a reason that all of a sudden now in 2026, we have to change things. My my opinion on that was be sort of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If we've had the same geographic configuration since 1847, what's the need to change that configuration?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say it's severely broke. And, maybe that's sort of the foundational, know, different take you and I will have. I think it's very broken. I think that the fact that we've elected so many judges from such few counties is a reflection of it being broken. Mean, I said it last year, we haven't elected a judge in Allegheny County since the early 80s. That's because this district was lumped in with Erie County, an almost million person county and the majority of judges reside in Erie County, They don't know Allegheny County. They don't know Wyoming County. And, now we give them an opportunity to be represented by folks in their neck of the woods.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, it's a beautiful place. I hope they come down and they're always welcome.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Yeah.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Sure. But, I view it a little different. I view having not repeated changes to judicial districts as a source of stability. We this chamber dropped an atom bomb yesterday on the congressional lines and the state legislative lines. The judiciary is supposed to be a source of stability for our system of of government. So knowing over time how you're going to be allocated and who you're gonna be with for judicial purposes isn't stability a positive thing for our government? Isn't it a source of credibility for the judiciary?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I think what you're calling stability, I would call antiquated approach. Okay. So, would say that you know, we look at these lines, you know there's a reason why assembly lines have to be reviewed. There's a reason why senate lines have to be reviewed. There's a reason why congressional lines have to be reviewed. And you know the constitution is clear. We should be doing this more often. We haven't done it in quite some time and we haven't done it in our neck of the woods since practically forever. And there's really no reason not to pursue this now. We can't as and you know, next year the population is only gonna look more like this year.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: So, know, difference I

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: would say, with all respect is those other lines, the legislative lines, you have to make them equal because the idea is you represent the same number of people that I do. Sure. And that's less of a factor of judiciary. And also, if the concern is well, the population is much bigger than eighteen forty seven, which I concede, although it's been declining recently. Isn't that just a reason to add more judges as opposed to change the district lines?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would make the argument if we would simply have added twenty, thirty, 40 more judges in the current makeup, we would just be reproducing the same results.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So if

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: we were

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: to add 20 more judges, we'd have that much more in the big urban counties and not in the rural counties.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So my concern is what might be going on here is while we can talk about rural representation anytime a, let's say a partisan gerrymander is drawn, certain areas that are represented by the minority party, they yeah. They get crammed together and they get an overwhelmingly large number of people in the minority party. And, the reason I'm concerned this would have the effect of partisan gerrymander. I'll give you some numbers and see how I react to them. The district I'm most familiar with is the 7th, that's where I live. I live in Steuben County. Currently, the 7th Judicial District has 20 judges and is represented by 16 republican judges and four democrat judges. Now, that judicial district will be split between of those 20 judges, seven will go with the rural areas. Presumably, they would be represented by republicans. And, 13 would go with Monroe County. So you would presumably be going from 16 Republican judges representing that full area to seven Republican judges. They would just happen to be rural Republicans as opposed to suburban or urban republicans.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: So, it'll

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: be a net gain of nine just in that district for the democratic party.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah. I mean, I suppose what I would say is when looking at these lines and looking at this issue, I never looked at the affiliation of judge a versus judge b. And like I said, barely, I don't, I know a handful of judges in county that I live in, but don't know any of them anywhere else and I'm happy that that stood that way because it allowed me to think sort of separate from all that. I mean what you're pursuing in the conversation is like the difference between D's and R's when in reality that's not what we're called to do. We're called to review these lines ideally every ten years and take into account I believe the interest and the commonalities within those areas. So, know, I think that there's a legitimate argument to be made that the interest of folks who live in urban counties are unique and the interest of folks that live in rural counties is unique and I think we're accomplishing, you know, addressing those concerns. The affiliations of judges is you know, I think to me in this conversation inconsequential especially when you consider how many judges are cross endorsed anyways. So you know

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, I would just say just for the record, that's much more common in the age judicial district.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: It's very rare

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: in the seventh Perhaps. Judicial

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: But you know, I now can look at those counties that you know we're talking about. Livingston and Steuben and Yates. And know now they have a much higher probability of being The residents there have a much higher probability of being seen by someone from their counties. And I think frankly anybody that's looking to have a fair day in court, they're not thinking about whether the judge is a D or an R or what you know what how you know what where their background is. Like the idea I'd imagine that somebody that knows their community, knows their neighborhood and I think that's what this accomplishes.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay. Well, I'm

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: gonna go on the bill. Thank the sponsor for answering On my

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: the bill.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So, as was sort of alluded to, I'm from a rural area. I represent a rural area. I'm proud to represent a rural area and yeah, there you might end up with more rural judges. I'm not concerned about parochial political interests. I'm concerned about the health of the system and the broad fairness of the system. And I think stability in the judicial system is a good thing. I'm be certainly open if we have a problem to adding more judges, but to me, this is very obvious that this is a partisan gerrymander designed to grab more judges for the democratic party overall. And therefore, just like I was against partisan gerrymandering yesterday with the other bill, I'm against partisan gerrymandering today, and I'll be voting no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Clark.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: So I too wanna join my, I guess, Finger Lakes Region colleague, initially judicial district seven, soon to be split. In a couple different points of why I really just want to commend the sponsor for doing this, for making the change, the changes that brought us to this point in this year with a lot more support from our courts, and I think in other ways also making this a much more simpler or more efficient process in terms of the changes that have to be made within the court system. I was just trying to recall in my head the last time a state Supreme Court Justice was elected not from Monroe County. I can't think of one in all eight counties that are currently in the district. And so I do think as someone who in previous careers, not as an attorney, but doing other statewide activities, having spent time driving across many, many, many, many counties in our state, think that you know, this is actually the un gerrymandering of the district. This in one hundred and twenty years is actually saying we recognize the population shifts, we recognize how much of the internal knowledge that judges bring with them, their lived experiences, the communities they grew up in, how important that is in shaping the justice that folks get in those places. So I actually think this is doing the actual reverse of anything that's been mentioned around gerrymandering in terms of making sure that opportunities are there to elect people from the communities in which they serve or live. And I would, you know, when it comes to stability or change, it hasn't happened often, but it has happened in the last fifty years that there has been two changes to the to the districts, and one was creating the twelfth and one was creating the thirteenth judicial districts. And I would argue that neither of them would complain or think that this somehow created such an uproar. I would say if you went to both those communities now, I think they would be very happy that those changes were made and that they are where they are with their own judicial districts being able to elect people from their communities in a way that makes justice better served. So I'm just really proud of the changes that were made and the listening that happened to make sure that this was doing the things we wanted to accomplish, which was creating judicial districts that are very that very much reflect the communities and the changes that have been made, the changes in population and all the different things over the last hundred plus years. I too question why it has not been done sooner. For those who are saying why now, I think the time is beyond when we should have done it. So thank you to the sponsor for bringing this forward today and you have my full support.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Molotar?

[Speaker 25]: Madam speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Certainly.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, Mr. Rivera. So I just want to first talk about the judicial assignments. Something you said before about how this could really benefit rural communities. So in your bill, there will be a new sixteenth, which is Erie County, right? It's one county? Correct. And there will be 19 seats in that county, right? Correct. And so in the next election for all 19 of those seats, those judges There's a guarantee that the people running for those seats will be from Erie County, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Well not necessarily and that's not even the case now. I mean hypothetically you could run-in a different part of the

[Speaker 25]: state, that's how these, this is how it's always been. Oh yeah, so maybe guarantee is too strong.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Speaker 25]: But it's much more likely, right, that's what we're talking about here. That the next time those 19 seats become available, the people of Erie County will be able to choose a lawyer from Erie County for those those seats, right? Yes. Now the new eighth is seven counties and so you're still gonna have for those nine seats that remain in those seven counties, it's gonna be nine seats. There's gonna be an election in all seven of those counties for those nine seats. So it's those counties are all competing against each other to elect somebody for one of those nine seats, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: But, they're doing that now within the current eight judicial districts. Exactly. But, now they have a higher probability because Erie County is a million person county almost, and majority of those counties are substantially smaller.

[Speaker 25]: Right. But, in the current eighth, you had Erie County with everyone else. Correct. And now, you won't have that, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct. Okay.

[Speaker 25]: I would like to talk about some of the practical application of this particular bill. Right now in the eighth, which encompasses all of the counties that we are talking about, there are administrative judges. You have the criminal court judge who oversees all the criminal courts, and you have a surrogate court judge who oversees all the surrogate parts, and family court, and there's that sort of leadership mentorship role. How will that change if this bill becomes law? Will the new eighth have its own administrative structure? Or will it still get sort of administered by the sixteenth because it's in the area?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I mean, in the end of the day, that's up to the court system, but I'd imagine that, yeah, I'd imagine that the court system would appoint from among that new district a new head judge. Okay, so

[Speaker 25]: you'd have potentially a new administrative structure within the new districts as contemplated.

[Speaker 39]: Yeah, I'd imagine, yeah.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Speaker 25]: Now, we've discussed before that just because you're elected, know let's say Chautauqua County elects a judge in the new 8th District. There's no guarantee that that judge will actually sit in Chautauqua County because OCA has the ability to move judges really anywhere across the state, right? True.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yep, that's no different.

[Speaker 25]: That's no different, that's what the law is right now. Sure. So you know just because just because a county maybe will now have as you have said, a little bit of a better chance to elect somebody from their county doesn't necessarily follow that that person will be overseeing cases from that county, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Well, we give OCA the latitude to kind of make the sort of decisions and administrative choices that they make. All we can do is do the best that we can to try to make it more representative of communities and that's what I think this accomplish What OCA does in its administration of the courts is up to OCA. Would you agree with me though that, and I don't wanna quibble about this, but

[Speaker 25]: I think it's a fair point. Would you agree with me though that if the concern was you know we wanted to increase rural representation, that we would maybe put some restrictions on where OCA can move judges and why they should, you know, can move them?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say if that's of interest to this body, then that's a separate piece of legislation that somebody might want to pursue, but it's not contemplated in this bill.

[Speaker 25]: Fair enough. I knew you were going to answer that way, but that's okay. Now some of the expenses that we've been, maybe we haven't really got into. Let's say you're one of the counties in the new eighth that has never had a Supreme Court judge sitting in your county. You said that part of the modest expense could be creating a new courthouse, not a new courthouse, maybe a new court office and providing staff technology and supplies to that particular area, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure, yes.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. So these new judicial districts, when your conversations with OCA, these new judicial districts will be properly funded you believe?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 25]: And just so that I know that you and I know this, but just for the record, the reason why there's 19 judges in Erie County and there would be nine, I should say seats in the eighth is because the Supreme Court designation has to follow with the population, right? So, the higher your population, the more judges are assigned to your area. Is that right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. And would you contemplate that if this bill becomes law, that if there were, let's say, an issue in the new eighth, maybe a judge was incapacitated for whatever reason and there was no judge, no other judge in the eighth to be able to fill in for that judge who was incapacitated, that OCA would very easily be able to still assign a judge from maybe the sixteenth or somewhere else to that area in order to fulfill

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: that OCA has that discretion today with or without this bill and this wouldn't change it.

[Speaker 25]: Right. And the staff, let's say if you're a stenographer who currently works in the eighth and you're assigned to Chautauqua County, for example, under this bill, would you still remain in the eighth because you're a current employee of the eighth, or would you become an employee of the sixteenth?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That's a fair question. It is addressed in OCA statement. They say in their words, this legislation ensures that no employees lose their seniority rights. All of the specialty courts will be able to continue operating and there will be no adverse impact on case processing.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. So that's the way I interpret that is that it's they're sort of gonna have to go employee by employee and say, hey, do you wanna go to the eighth do you want to stay in the eighth or do you want to go to the sixteenth and maybe and they have to go by their collective bargaining agreements and seniority? Is that That's

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: how it

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: would be, mean that's what OCA would have to manage.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. Yep. So it is potentially possible that let's say there's an employee in the sixteenth. Well, you got an employee in Erie County right now, let's say a stenographer, and an employee in Chautauqua County who's also a stenographer, but the employee in Erie County, let's say has more seniority and this bill becomes law, the employee in Erie County could say, I want to go to the eighth because I have more seniority, and the employee in the eighth would have to maybe go elsewhere?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That's a reflection of the collective bargaining agreement within that union and OCA's sort of space as the sort of agency. That's one off where somebody sits is something that's managed by OCA and not what we're doing.

[Speaker 25]: Right. That's kind of what I'm saying is that OCA would have to make that determination based upon what you said from the OCA memo, all seniority and contractual rights will be preserved, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That would be the case today. If we had somebody that was in Erie County and was considering relocating to Monroe County, that's a separate judicial district, know, where they are in seniority, and what their bargaining agreement says, and what OCA does, that's all the same.

[Speaker 25]: Well, yeah, is the same, there's a little bit of a difference. Mean, right now, the two stenographers that I'm talking about in my hypothetical example, they're there physically. There hasn't been any sort of change, like there hasn't been like some open seat that's come available for them. But with this new law, and you have all these new districts, it's like sort of resetting things for people. Like they have to make decisions where they want to go and how they want to do it. And I understand preserving all their contractual rights and seniority rights and all of that, but potentially this bill could cause employees to make decisions like say saying hey something new has happened here, I get to make a choice. And then OCA has got to figure that out, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I'd also say the flip side of that is, and it's I think a beneficial idea and that is we're creating new positions in these areas, especially in the rural areas where they didn't exist before. There's again a higher probability of people that live in those areas having a shorter commute. So it cuts both ways.

[Speaker 25]: But the living in that area is not prioritized. What is prioritized is seniority and contractual rights. So that's where the issue, right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I guess just sort of defer again to my point before like those sort of conversations are handled within the office of court administration and the bargaining unit and that doesn't change with this bill. Okay.

[Speaker 25]: I guess my last question, I don't fully understand this, but you'll you have have nine seats in the new eighth. Will after if this bill becomes law, will OCA be able to move those seats anywhere within the new eighth? In other words, could they say, you know, we're going to take a seat from Cattaraugus County and a seat from Allegheny County and we're going to move it to Niagara County have four seats there.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Again, there's no difference in how that is today. I mean, in the current eight judicial district that has Erie and all of the neighboring counties, that, there's no difference in what could happen today with, so there's no change.

[Speaker 25]: Right. That's the way it is right now in the eighth is Yeah. You know, the eighth could say, we're gonna take seats from all the surrounding counties or all the counties around Erie County and put all the judges in Buffalo. They could do that if they wanted.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Right? That's all the CA's discretion.

[Speaker 25]: Right. They have to keep them within the district, the seats themselves, but they can move them to all to one major metropolitan area. They can move them wherever, truthfully. Yeah. Well they can move, they can send judges wherever but the seats themselves have to yeah. Right, right. Yeah. Okay. Okay, thank you Mr. Rivera. I'm gonna go on

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: the bill.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: For sure.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Speaker 25]: You know I do understand some of the reasoning for this bill and I do get that we haven't changed things in one hundred and seventy five years or whatever, but am not quite sure that the reason for this the sort of like hand to rural counties is what is this bill is actually about. If OCA already has the power to consolidate seats into metropolitan area and they already have the power to move elected judges any to anywhere in the state, then there's no guarantee that, you know, a small rural county is gonna get the judge that they elected. What is going to happen though with this bill, and I mentioned this before last year, is that you are going to separate major metropolitan areas from rural areas unnecessarily. You know, many of my friends in the judicial system in Chautauqua County started off in Buffalo. There was a job opening that, you know, in one of our courts, they came down to Chautauqua County. They fell in love with Chautauqua County. They decided to stay there and raise their family. And it was because, you know, they didn't necessarily apply to live in Chautauqua County, but they were assigned there. So I think this is really gonna upset the apple cart for a lot of employees of the eighth judicial district in the unified court system. You know, I'm sure there are other reasons why this bill is being advanced right now this year, this time of the year. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Bronson.

[Speaker 55]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Speaker 55]: I want to start by thanking the speaker, the sponsor, and staff who have made the adjustments to this bill over last year's bill. I'm strongly in support of this legislation, will create new judicial districts for Monroe County, Onondaga, and Erie Counties. This is a reform that is constitutionally grounded, historically precedented, administratively sound, and long, long overdue. As OCA said in their memo support, this legislation will ensure that the election of judges is more closely in the hands of the people those judges will serve. It's been over a hundred years since we've changed these judicial districts,

[Speaker 25]: yet we're

[Speaker 55]: allowed constitutionally to change them every ten years. It's time for us to make the change because our communities have indeed changed. Redrawing of lines last happened in 2007, and that related to the judicial district for Staten Island, which at the time was grouped with the district with Brooklyn. At that time, an argument was made that because Brooklyn had six times the population of Staten Island, it resulted in Brooklyn electing all of the Supreme Court judges. The same principle happens here, where judges are not elected from those who they will serve mostly. It was also stated at the time, and I couldn't agree more because the situation applies today. Constituents deserve homegrown judges, jurists who know their community, who come from their community, who would be accountable to their community. That's what this legislation is about. As labor chair, I also want to address the practical question that matters most to those who work in our courts. That is that they, those workers, will not be disrupted nor will the operations of the court be disrupted. OCA submitted the the memorandum in support of this legislation and they pointed out that there will be no adverse impact on case processing, all specialty courts will continue to operate, and the legislation continues to have the protection of employee seniority rights. Employees will not be disrupted by this piece of legislation. It is important that OCA is supporting this legislation because that is the body that will administer these judicial district as they are under the current judicial districts. For the constitutional integrity of this reform, for the administrative soundness of this reform, for the confirmation by OCA that this is the right thing to do, and for the precedence set by the Staten Island example, and all mostly of all, that because it will be the people closest to these judges who will be selecting these judges. For all those reasons, I look forward to voting in the affirmative affirmative, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Bologna.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. Sponsor yields.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much, John. I gotta tell you if this is the last time we get to debate. I know. We've known each other for a long time. Yes,

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: we have.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Yeah. It's I thank you very much, and it's been a pleasure serving with you, my friend.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, I want to touch on something that a few of my colleagues have, and I just kind of want to circle back to it for a second. Last year's memo, as we discussed, stated that the the bill's goal was to address the lack of diversity amongst judges in Western New York, specifically Erie, Monroe, and Onondaga Counties. They had very few justices from communities of color. Is that still the goal of the bill?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say the goal of the bill is to address the diversity across the district, or I would say across the department, but that also surpasses you know sort of the diversity that you're probably alluding to. It really has to do with the interest of folks that live in every kind of county in the fourth department. I'd say this bill does a better job of addressing the diverse natures of our counties. You know OCA said it clearly themselves in their letter, you know, by separating urban areas from rural ones, the bill will enhance the administration of the courts because urban and rural courts pose different administrative challenges. Additionally, by replacing three judicial districts with six, the legislation places the election of judges more closely in the hands of people those judges serve. I think we are gonna make it so that if you live in Herkimer or Lewis or Oneida or Oswego, you have a better chance of being seen by a judge from your county And no matter what, that's always a good thing.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So what you're saying is the diversity the racial diversity was removed intentionally. So can you tell us why the legislature's concerned about racial diversity amongst judges, which was strong enough to pass both houses last year, is no longer stated in the sponsored memo this year?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I'd say the commitment to investing in diverse community is ever present in this house. I don't think that that's questionable. I would say that, you know, as we amended the bill, we're taking into account, you know, those interests and many more. And I'm happy with the product that we have in front of us.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, I guess I just wanna I'm gonna refer to a debate our debate last year where you said, and I quote, in the new maps, there's a higher probability that individuals reside in those counties are gonna find themselves in front of a judge that is from their community. We're focusing now on the sort of ethical racial part ethic sorry. Ethnic and racial part of it. Is that still accurate? Do you still, like do you still believe that? Is that still the intent of this legislation?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say statistically that's still going to be the truth. It's clear that Monroe, Onondaga and Erie are make up the majority of the of the ethnic diversity in the region, But I'd also say, you know, the interest of those communities should be heard just as much as the interest of folks that live in Allegheny and Steuben and Livingston. I'm happy that this accomplishes all those things.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, in the sponsor's memo this year, the reason for the reorganization are, quote, population changes in Western New York. So, can you tell us what specific population changes occurred that weren't present when the district lines were last drawn?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: From 1847, the difference in population? Yeah, sure. I'd imagine they're starkly different than what they were in 1847. You know, the Titanic has sunk. We landed on the moon. A million things have happened in that period of time. And I am confident that the way that the world looked like then looks very different in every measurable way. That's fair enough.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: But, so the bill does create three new judicial districts, correct? Correct. Okay. Separate district offices, separate administrative structures, separate election infrastructure. Can you and I know we talked a little bit about this earlier, but can we just talk about the the costs of what that is and what we're anticipating that being annually? Yeah, so I would

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: say this year there is no fiscal impact because the changes don't take place in this fiscal year. I would say in the following fiscal year, we've estimated at $3,600,000 and that you know that those costs include additional staff, you know district offices, salary and fringe for said staff, you know real estate costs. What OCA requires to administer the system that they're tasked to administering?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, gonna shift to a constitutional portion here now. Cases brought in what is currently the 8th Judicial District, including election law and constitutional challenges, would be drawn from a wheel consisting exclusively of judges elected in Erie County should this go into effect?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say any cases brought in Erie County, if this moves forward, will be seen by Erie County judges.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Okay. So have we considered how that impacts the composition of panels in high stakes political cases? I mean, we've we've kind of done this in years past where we where certain cases are only allowed to be seen in certain counties. I mean, we can surmise as to the reasons for for that. But, you know, do you have any concerns of of the political bias? Guess I would come in.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I alluded to earlier, know, I you know when reviewing these judge placements and how it was all lining up, I was absolutely truly unaware of what affiliations were of what judges. I would say, know, given and I'd additionally say that given OCA's latitude on where they can move judges anyways, that's not as much of a concern because it could look different purely by OCA's determination anyways.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: I would agree with that assessment a little bit, but again, we do a lot of things in this chamber that that strike at the the heart of the impartial judiciary. So I I have a little little hard time following down that path, but I I do appreciate it. So the constitution allows for the legislature to redraw district lines once every ten years. This bill would redraw them again just eighteen years after 2007 and then redo it again in 2027. Is that do I have that right or no?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: The last time was '20 the 02/2007.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: 2007. But this didn't change.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct? Our in our region, did not change. It solely was for Richmond County.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, what I'm gonna do is I'm just gonna go back to one of my my earlier questions. When I said, what specific demographics or or or census criteria has changed since 2007 to make this monumental change?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Can you

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: point to specific date on guess, you asking like why didn't we change it in 2007 when we redid Richmond County?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: You'd have to ask the members of this body in 2007 why they did what they did. Predates you and I, so I can't speak

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: to it.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: But to my my friend mister Sempolinsky's point, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Is there has there been such a monumental shift from 2007 to today that and and if there is, can you please point to that statistical data points and those census points? And and can you provide some type of demographic changes that would prompt this kind of a piece of legislation?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I guess I can't. I disagree with the sentiment that it's not broke. I think it's very broke. I think that we should be embarrassed that we haven't looked at our lines for the region that we live in in over a century. I think that if your argument is since population doesn't look that different from a couple years ago, why have why are we doing this now? I would say the measure of a couple years ago doesn't totally make sense because really the question is why is it that this was unchanged from 1847 and we're now in 2026? So, I would say there is deep urgency why we should pursue this. I think it's truly not reflective of the communities that we live in in every measurable way. Especially, we consider how population numbers in and of themselves have drastically different over the century and a half. I mean there's no argument to be made to push this another year knowing how long it's been in its current state.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: That's that's fair enough. Mister Rivera, thank you very

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: much for your time. Thank you, sir.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Madam speaker, gonna go on the bill real quick.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, we accept in this body that there's gerrymandering legislative districts for partisan advantages is wrong. Well, it's a thought we did until last night, but this bill applies the same logic to the judiciary. Carving up urban democratic strongholds into stand alone judicial districts is wrong. It's guaranteeing that election law challenges and constitutional cases in Erie County will be cited by judges who ran on the democratic ticket in Erie County. We really should not be tolerating that kind of engineering in the legislative context, and also, in the context of what we've voted on in the past twenty four hours, and are going to be voting on the next twenty four hours. We really shouldn't tolerate that at all, especially in this body. The sponsor's memo says population changes in West New York justify redistricting, but the current district lines were drawn before 2007. No census changed since then, plausibly requires isolating exactly three counties. And that the sponsor's own prior memo identified as majority and minority. As a population were concerned, a neutral demographer could draw these lines. No neutral demographer would draw them this way. So this chamber passed the bill last year. The senate passed it. The governor pocket vetoed it. We haven't heard what her objections were necessarily, and we haven't fixed whatever was wrong. So we're running it back and hoping she signs it. This isn't legislation. This is hoping. So with that, I'll be a negative on this one.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a couple of questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Sponsor yields. Thank you. Mister Rivera, this particular legislation only focuses on one sector sponsor of the judicial population in the state of New York. Is that right?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct. The fourth department. Yep.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Just state supreme court judges.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: So it's not gonna impact a a court of appeals. It's not gonna impact claim court of claims and anything else like that?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No county court, no city court, no town court, no family court. No.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: And this is something that hasn't changed in over a hundred years?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Well, you know what? Thank you very much. I wanna go on

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: the I

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: do appreciate the work

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: you put

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: out on this bill. This is more important than most people think. And I realize that there are some people who really would like to get stay stay stuck in a diversity position, but I don't wanna stay stay stuck there because this doesn't always have to be about diversity. However, you should always wanna think about that because if you're not thinking about an inclusive process of diversity, then you're not gonna get to the right place where you need to be with the law. Now I understand that there are some municipalities within the county of Erie where I live that you don't even have to have a law degree to be a judge. Is that correct? And so I'm really kinda hoping that those folks who do not have law degrees do not have access to an opportunity to be a state supreme court justice. I should have asked that question to you, mister Rivera, but perhaps you could answer that later because I'm not sure. I know I've heard some very questionable decisions that were made not by a person who's been to law school, but by somebody who happens to be appointed as a judge in one of the communities that in and around Buffalo. So I do have some concerns about that. But I think right now at at this point, in this day, in 2026, there is no reason why we should look for the same demographics to represent our judicial population that we did a hundred years ago. Things change, and we should actually wanna change with them. And to be honest, I'm I'm a little offended that people are looking for why did you have diversity last year and you didn't have diversity this year. Maybe it's because at the national level, people are storming on diversity so hard, you wanna step away from that and get to the real place where we need to be. And that's how do you get a judge that can speak to my needs just like he can speak to yours without using my name. That's kinda sad that we're in this position in this country, but here's where we are. And thank you, mister Rivera, for stepping up to the plate to say we're this is where we are, Here's where we need to be, and here's the goal line to get there. So thank you very much for reintroducing this legislation, and I I hope that this one doesn't get the veto pen this time because it's fair, it's just, and I think it's gonna make for better communities all the way around. So thank you for your efforts on this, and I do look forward to supporting it.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Paul Massano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister Rivera. I kinda wanna actually, last year during this debate, my my predecessor who sat here, our now leader, mister Ra engaged you in a dialogue and a discussion knowing you know, the judicial districts has other impacts, in particularly our board of regents.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Right now, we have 17 board of regents, 13 of them, one for each judicial district. How do we address that issue? Do you have any plans to address that issue?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, you know, with the addition of new judicial districts, I mean there will be no more additional Board of Regents slots. So there should be three new Board of Regents positions created. And given the fact though, the New

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: York State Board of Regents is not just a statutory authority, it's a constitutional authority, wouldn't that because now we're going have to you're saying we're going have to change the numbers. I mean, obviously, going for 17 members, if we go three thirteen per what we have now, and then it would be 16 plus four, so we're going go from seventeen twenty. It's not just statutory change, it's really isn't it a constitutional change that's going be required because it's a constitutional authority. Isn't that something that's going to have to be addressed and won't that take time and until we are able to fix that, won't we be in violation of constitution? I'm not a lawyer, I'm just asking questions.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I join you in not being a lawyer. I would say, know, there's clear time on this. You know, the actual elections that are affected by this take place in 2027. The actual districts themselves don't exist till 2028. So, is sufficient time between now and then to manage this. Would say, you know, my interpretation is that it speaks to the amount of Regents being equal to the amount of judicial districts. Therefore, three new regions position should be open and between now and 2028, I'm confident that this body who appoints said regions will figure that out.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: But again, guess going back to the point, if it's a constitutional authority, not just a statutory authority, an education body, wouldn't this require constitutional change, let alone just a statutory change? And if that's the case, for it to be a constitutional change, we would have to vote this year and then vote in the next concurrent legislation to make that effective for 2028, just like you want to do with the congressional districts?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: It's our interpretation that it's

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: not a constitutional change.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. Have you had any conversation with the SED about this? I mean at all? Nope. No? I mean given the fact that this came up on the discussion last year, given the fact that we knew this put this in conflict with the Board of Regents, and that now you're moving forward with it again, wouldn't it have been a wise idea to have a conversation with the state education department

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I guess I wouldn't use the word conflict, that's not the case. I would say as I mentioned before, if this were to pass and sign by the end of the year, we still have all of 2027 to figure that matter out and work out the timing of it. So, I'm I'm not concerned at all.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And, I know you said it's your interpretation this doesn't require constitutional, but what if your interpretation is wrong? It's happened before. I'm sure it has. I'm sure it's happened to all of us in some way. My concern is, if you're just going based on what your interpretation is saying that it doesn't need the constitutional change, just the statutory change, if you're wrong, then we miss that opportunity. The only way we can change the constitution, as you know, is we have to pass it into concurrent legislatures, this would be the first one. Then we have to do it because if we can't, if we don't do it this year, say we find out next year it's not, we can't be done. Someone challenges and say we're violating the constitution. Then we'd have to pass it in '27 or '28, then again in '29 or '30. Then we're behind, then we have a problem, then there is a problem Which is kind of where I'm going with this question. Why didn't we have this conversation with SCD, with the lawyers on all parties to see is this a constitutional concern? Because just saying it's our interpretation, I'd rather have some firm ground to stand on that given this because this could be very problematic.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I know there's a question in there. Guess I would

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: stick Let to the me rephrase it. If it's ruled, it requires a constitutional change and we follow the direction that you're heading in now that we have enough time and we could just do it statutory. If it's determined, no, this does require a constitutional change and then we're in the next year. Then we have a big problem because we're in violation of the constitution, and then we then we do run out of time because then we're getting into '29 or '30 before it becomes effective. True?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I I guess you're describing a hypothetical situation that we just don't agree on the premise of. We don't

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I believe I understand don't agree with me. I know you're

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: saying it's hypothetical, but it

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: is a possibility, correct? Anything is a possibility. Can you say emphatically it won't happen? I'm not a lawyer, I sound like one on TV I guess. I mean, if it's a possibility, should we be concerned about it

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: and address I just don't believe it to be a possibility. We don't believe it's a constitutional issue.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I know you guys have made it very clear, don't believe it is, but my concern is what if it is? It is a possibility, it could be a possibility. There's no certainty there, and we might have had some certainty if there were some conversations with the state education department, if there were some conversations maybe with the governor's office to get some interpretation on this, maybe that's something she might take into consideration in considering this bill and hopefully beetles it, in my opinion. I'm just talking about one point of it. I don't like the other parts of it either, but that's neither here nor there. But I just think, So, you're saying from your perspective, we could take action sometime next year and just add three board of regents through the statute. Is that what your understanding is? No, I

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: mean, this body elects regents just about every year and in 2028, we will elect three more.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I understand that. And the same thing, same term, five year term?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah. That's unaffected. Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And, again, you're just going to hold to the point that this doesn't require any type of constitutional change and this is just a statutory change from your perspective and that you're just going to move forward and say that we can just do it, that we can just appoint them, is that what you're saying?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That's, yes.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Mr. Rivera, thank you for your time. Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I appreciate the discussion. Really wanted to get this point on the record. My colleague, my predecessor, our leader asked this question. I thought it was a really good question to ask and to reinforce. And the thing I'm just finding puzzling and troubling is, we knew this question came up last year, and we asked the question, should there be some conversations with FCD? There were none. And I know, I understand the interpretation from your side is this doesn't impact the constitution. It doesn't require a constitutional change. Again, I'm not a constitutional, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a constitutional expert. I'm not a legal expert. But, if it's something that could happen, if it's something that could be a problem, should we make sure we're dotting the I's and crossing the T's in the timeframe we need to dot the I's and cross the T's? Because the problem is if some were to challenge this from a constitutional perspective and we don't have any action taken this year, our only right of recourse then is to pass it in the 2728 term and then again in the 2930 term. And then we're behind the eight ball as far as that's concerned. Now maybe it could just be as easy as just appointing more regents. Maybe that's the case. If it is, then I'll say you're right. But my concern is the possibility. My concern is that there could be a challenge to this because it says the Board of Regents is a constitutional authority, not just a statutory authority, and that constitutional authority is formed and directed and dictated by the language of the constitution. Again, I'm not sure what the constitution says, but if it says one per district or if specifically it 13 judicial districts and you have that, we could run into problems. And I think that's just part of the problem with this bill. I mean, I think the other part of it is what's going on in the political side of it, just like when we talked about on the redistricting amendment we did the other day or last night. It's just very concerning, very problematic from my perspective. I do appreciate the conversation with the sponsor on the issue I was bringing up but the broader view on top of that I just think is more problematic and for that and many other reasons I will be voting in the negative on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Rivera, thank you, Madam Speaker. You.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Bailey.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Thank you very much, mister Rivera. And last year, I think you and I had quite a conversation in and around how the the judges were were chosen for each judicial district. I'm not gonna go specifically in that direction, but more so maybe the number of justices per district. As we heard earlier tonight, you know, the one judge per 50,000 individuals. So when we're looking at I'm gonna take the seventh JD specifically. I can speak to that pretty fluently. We're right now looking at seven justices with the proposal that is before us. That would be about 70,570 the population per justice. How did we come up with seven justices in that district and left 14 in the new 15th District, which would be Monroe County, where that's looking at per judge 54,246 individuals. Yeah,

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say given the nature of how this redistricting has to happen where entire counties have to be kept intact, there is gonna be this sort of deviation because no county has the same population and there's no way of dividing a county like in the case of our districts where we all relatively represent the same amount of people because we have to keep counties intact, this is going to be sort of part of it.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Okay. So we're keeping counties intact. That's not in question. But if we added if we took and we placed eight justices in the 7th Judicial District as it's presented and maybe went to 13 in Monroe County, were just chipped in the population per justice. We're not changing the county lines. So I guess my question is, how did we come up with the number of justices per district if if that 50,000

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Sure.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Was not there in place?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I I would say this bill began last year where we were designating Monroe, Onondaga, and Erie County as their own stand alone districts. From there, obviously we've amended it to include changes including to the county or the district that you're mentioning. And those were done with a lot of conversation with OCA and the approval, know, as they've mentioned in their letter of this district and its layout. So, you know, conversations with OCA was a big factor.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Okay. So let me ask a question and it was mentioned I believe earlier that there are that this is impacting supreme court justices across, you know, across these districts.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Court of

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: claims judges are often acting supreme court judges. Has that been taken into account based on where some of these court of claims justices are sitting currently right now which might be in part of these districts?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No, but the reason you wouldn't is because that's up to OCA to administer. If a certain judge is in a certain place today, they might not necessarily be there tomorrow. The constitution is specific to what we're doing which is the actual seats themselves. What OCA does in its administration shouldn't be taken into effect in this because that's not based on population, but what this is. And you know, that's unchanged in this. OCA can manage it in whatever way it wants of where it places court of claims judges.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Thank you. So oftentimes court of claims judges are placed in areas based on caseload, to help with caseload. And if memory serves me right, I think we had three appointed court of claims justices last year that went into the current 7th And 8th District combined. So was that taken into account at all as to where these these justices may sit when we came up with the number? I'm just trying to figure Yeah. Out why we're looking at, you know, upwards of 20,000 additional individuals per judge in the proposed seventh j d versus, you know, take the the sixteenth district proposed in Erie County that has 50,000?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, would say caseloads are not taken into account with this because that's a highly variable number that can move pretty easily. Then I'd also refer to OCA's letter. It's clear that they say that there will be no adverse impact on case processing. So, they're taking into account on their end if they're making the statement that this is not going to adverse caseload then I would take their word on it.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Okay. And I guess one of my concerns in maybe this was or was not, maybe you can share this with me if it was thought through. I just look at the seventh j d as it's proposed. So it's the it's the rural communities outside of Monroe County as to what it's currently, you know, what it is. You have have Livingston, Wayne, Seneca, Yates, Ontario, Steuben, and Cugo. And we're looking at one judge per 70,000 plus individuals in that district. Obviously, there's going to be a larger area when we're looking, you know, square mileage commute potentially. Will that disenfranchise any of those folks in the rural communities now potentially?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say no. It gives them a higher probability of being seen in their counties because now Monroe County is not part of their judicial district.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: I see that a little bit different but okay. Because currently, when you're looking at, you know, the Monroe County and the 20 judges that or not Monroe County, but the seventh JD with the 20 judges that we currently have right now in the 7th Judicial District, you know, those judges are being, you know, placed in all of these counties as it is anyways. So I just I guess my my question would be, I'm still hung up on that 70,000 and how we got there when we really should be looking at a number that's 50,000, and just moving one judge from one area to another, one judicial district to another, would help even out some of those those population counts, which I believe, I mean, OCA obviously would be able to do that. So if they're listening, I hope that's taken into account when we're looking at it. But those were my questions and I do appreciate you very much for answering them. And madam speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: I you know, last year I had concerns and we're not gonna dwell on the debates that we had last year in and around this, but it actually had to do with the square miles that were being looked at when we when we came up with some of the judicial districts. You know, taking out the the three cities, in essence, out of out of the the current 5th, 7th, And 8th Judicial District, You know, it is what it is. I just find it very interesting that the 7th Judicial District, as it's proposed tonight, the population per justice is looking at about 70,571. The 8th Judicial District is looking at 67,009 in population. The 5th Judicial District is looking at 61,455 individuals per justice. We then go to the 15th District in Monroe County, looking at 54,246 individuals. The 14th District Of Onondaga, looking at 52,946. And then looking at the 16th District in Erie County at 50,223. So my concern is about the number of justices that are being assigned to the populations in these counties and in these districts as presented to us. And I really hope that, you know, OCA can take a look at that and maybe we can shift some of those numbers. Or we look at those court of claims justices that have been assigned to help with caseload to ensure that, you know, there aren't some unintended consequences based off of this move. And therefore, Madam Speaker, I will not be able to support this piece of legislation as presented tonight. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In case anybody was saying, hey. Wait a minute. She already spoke. I did I'm exercising the option of a second 15 just to and I ask this would the sponsor please yield

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: for

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: one Yes. Of

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Of course. Sponsor Yale.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you so much. So I I just wanted to clarify a little bit of what was said earlier about the board of regents. Yeah. My colleague to the back of me had asked questions about that. So currently, there are 13 members on the Board of Regents for the 13 JDs and I believe that you had mentioned that with the addition of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth newly created JDs that we would need three more members of the Board of Regents, is that right?

[Speaker 25]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. Will any of the five year terms be affected for the existing 13 members of the Board of Regents? No. Okay. When will the additional three Board of Regents members be added?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: 2028.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: 2028? Okay. And was the state education department consulted when drafting this piece of legislation because of the impacts that this will have on them?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No. I mean, the language sort of defaults. It says, you know, where there are judicial districts, there has to be an equivalent number of of seats, and, you know, more seats will be created. And like I said before, all of 2027 is ahead of us and really the remainder of 2026 to to sort of have those conversations. But I have confidence in this body in 2028 that they're gonna be able to to, you know, elect Okay. More more regents.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: And then just following up on an earlier line of questioning, we were talking a little bit about the judges that are going to need to be moving. Now I understand that I think salary wise or even staff salary wise and benefits, it's not gonna change because you're not adding judges. And I'm assuming that you wouldn't be adding staff, but I don't know that. But you had kinda said that that would be handled, you know, by the administratively and all that stuff. But do you happen to know, out of the judges that are going to be moving, will there be a need to locate, fit up and furnish and whatnot the the additional additional chambers or how will that work? Do you know?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I I would say there's certainly gonna be cost associated with this. When we create new you know, new spaces, there there's certainly gonna be a cost to it. You Like we said, we projected it in fiscal year twenty eight to be 3,600,000. You know, I would say that's inclusive of you know potential additional staff, know office space, real estate costs. But I'd also say there's collaboration that exists in every county really between OCA and local county governments and that's going to be you know worked out as OCA does today.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Okay. I think that now I have all of my questions answered and I would like to please go on the bell. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bell. Thank you. So I just wanted to a number of us have asked questions tonight and for my part, I just wanted to kind of recap what we heard during the debate and then I have a few other things to say. So in terms of I asked how many public hearings were held on this legislation. Zero was the answer. Was this bill ever brought before the judiciary committee for discussion or debate? No. Can the sponsor confirm whether any stakeholder meetings were held with members of the bench, bar associations, the general public? That there were conversations there were conversations that were had. There was no population study. Lat four wasn't used. Independent Redistricting Commission, IRC, no, they weren't used. Any bipartisan redistricting entity, no, they weren't used in the development of the redrawing of these maps. We've already kind of talked about what the fiscal impact is even though there wasn't a fiscal note that was really attached to the legislation. We've kind of sussed that out with OCA a little bit. I personally this is my editorial, but I personally think it's probably a little bit more expensive because usually things are in terms of cost of these things, but we'll see. And although there were it was alluded to that there were conversations with other associations and community organizations, specifically the Bar Association of Onondaga, Monroe and Erie did not weigh in. That was the answer that was given. This bill we know has been introduced in the last week of session. We know that there was no fiscal impact statement that was included. As far as when I asked the sponsor whether he could confirm the party enrollment breakdown of the judges reassigned into the new districts, he said that he didn't. He no idea that he had never thought of it. And I just think that, you know, madam speaker, I think that every time that we alter the structure of our judiciary, we really should do it only when there is clear evidence that the benefits outweigh the costs and consequences. Today, we're being asked to create three new judicial districts in the Fourth Department, yet we have not been provided with a compelling showing that this major reorganization is necessary, that it will improve the administration of justice or that it represents the best use of taxpayer resources. Reorganizing judicial districts is not a minor technical change. It affects court administration, judicial elections, staffing and long term costs. Before we redraw the judicial map, we should have clear data, broad stakeholder consensus and confidence that the change will meaningfully improve access to justice and court efficiency. Good government requires more than good intentions. It requires careful justification. When questions remain about necessity, cost and impact, the prudent course is not to rush forward. The prudent course is to pause, to gather the evidence and to ensure that we are solving a real problem rather than creating new ones. I think that this bill would consolidate the handling of election law cases into more favorable Democratic controlled jurisdictions. I think that this proposal follows a series of actions taken by the majority recently to influence redistricting last night, judicial assignments and control over election related rulings. And I do not believe that this bill builds trust in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. And I think instead that it really politicizes the courts even further. So for all of those reasons and the reasons mentioned by so many of my colleagues, I will be voting in the negative, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. On motion by mister Rivera, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party vote's been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. The republican conference will be not supporting this legislation, but if there are any exceptions, members may vote differently now at their desks. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Peebles Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of progressive legislation. However, there may be a few that would desire to be an exception, and they should feel free to do it so at their seats. Thank

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: you. Clerk will record the vote. Mister Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Are we voting no? This has been a frustrating couple days because and we've only got three branches of government. We blew up one yesterday with a legislative redistricting. A lot of talk about what that was about, and it'll net probably four or more rational seats for one particular political party. We're gonna blow up judicial branch here. There's a lot of talk about what that's about, but it'll net couple dozen seats for that same political party. And, you know, it's it's frustrating because when we start messing with our institutions like this for particular short term gain, parochial interest, political interest. It hurts everyone in the long run regardless of our political affiliation. I think districts that have been in place, judicial district stability from 1847 is a good thing. And, whether someone's political party has most of the seats or not. So, we really all know what this is all about. I won't be part of it. I'm for preserving our institutions. I'm for preserving our three branches of government. And hopefully, we won't make drastic changes to the executive tomorrow. I vote no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Sempolinsky in the negative. Mister Rivera to explain his vote.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. I just wanna thank those of my colleagues that have been supportive of this, an issue that's been close to to my heart for the last few years. The fact that we're able to address the long standing issues in the in in our region, it means a lot that we're able to tackle this. I wanna thank the folks here and and the staff that that allowed it to all to happen and and personally thank everyone here. This is most likely my last bill debate as a member of this house and I just want to thank everybody for your support over the years and certainly to the speaker. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you Mr. Rivera, Mr. Bolonia to explain his vote.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Really, my my colleague, mister Sempolinsky, said it perfectly in the past couple seconds here. But one thing that he didn't say was that he actually stands to benefit from this piece of legislation more than anybody in this room. And when the guy who probably stands to gain the most power, most benefit from a piece of legislation tells everyone how bad of an idea this is, I'm gonna listen to that guy. So with that, I am gonna be voting no emphatically on this piece of legislation.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Dripalonia in the negative, miss Bailey, to explain her vote.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Thank you, madam speaker. I just I just have to reiterate again, hoping that someone other than just my mother is watching us tonight when I explain my vote here. And it and it really does have to do with the number of justices assigned to each judicial district based off of the population and what we should be looking at. The math is not mathing. I hope OCA is listening, and I hope that they assign an additional justice to the proposed seventh JD here. It really, you know, every day I stand on this floor, I talk about rural Upstate New York. That is who I represent, and here again I just feel it's another piece where, you know, we're missing that. So I hope someone's listening and I hope that, you know, we can look at the numbers and even if we move one out of the proposed, I don't have my glasses on, fourteenth j d, I think it might be, into the seventh j d, you know, I I would be appreciative. But until I I just can't support this bill, and I will be voting no. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Bailey, in the negative. Mister Moreno to explain his vote.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Thank you. I vote no on this bill, but I'm a little suspect. It was either last year or the year before they made a change on where you can bring certain election challenges. And isn't it coincidental that one was Erie County and one was Monroe County? And now they move to make them separate judicial districts, which those two counties have a majority of one party of registration. I just find these actions as suspect with, because of those reasons I vote no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Moreno on the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the revoke. Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 95. Nays, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker and colleagues, if we can now turn our attention to rules report four forty seven by mister Gibbs, followed by rules report three forty seven by miss Lucas, followed by Rules Report four ninety nine by Ms. Romero, Rules Report two thirty nine by Ms. Rosenthal, and calendar number March by Ms. Kay. In that order, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Page 14, rules report four forty seven. Clerk will

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: read. Assembly number five eight four six b, rules report number four four seven, mister Gibbs. An act to amend the election law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Gibbs, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Mister Gibbs.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: you, madam speaker. Bear with me one second. The purpose of this bill is to extend the time frame of voting in the event of a disruption at a poll site. Under current law, if there is a disruption at a polling place that prevents individuals from voting, the only remedy is a court order to extend time which is not always immediate or an additional day of voting in the case of a natural disaster or other emergencies. Most often, voting time is lost and never made up. This bill would address this by creating an automatic extension of voting time if there is a disruption for more than one hour at a polling place. In addition, this bill would create a communication process for boards of elections to inform the public, candidates, and committees on the ballot, and local news medias and civic organizations.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Slater.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I would be on it, member Smith.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yield.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you very much, mister Gibbs. It's a good looking tie you got there.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Oh, thank you. I think I took from your closet. You probably did. Last session.

[Speaker 2]: I just wanted to if we could just walk through the legislation here. I appreciate the explanation. And you did say that courts are able to currently under the law extend time if there's a disruption present.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: The courts were able to extend the time? Yes.

[Speaker 2]: Is there evidence that courts are routinely denying relief when legitimate voting disruptions occur?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Not that I know of, no.

[Stephen Hawley, Assembly Member]: Quiet, please.

[Speaker 2]: So if the courts aren't really we're not seeing this proliferation of denial, what specific pro problem is the current process in this bill attempting to solve that can't already be addressed through judicial intervention or the existing law?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, that's an amazing question, then, miss Slater. In 2022, during early voting for the general election, a bomb threat was called into the main early voting site in my district, the Jackie Robinson Educational Complex. It took over two hours before NYPD allowed people back in to actually start voting. This was done on the last day of early voting in what was considered a competitive governor's race. This legislation would establish a set standard for local bipartisan election officials just to extend the time for voting at impact in polling places when the disruption to voting lasts more than one hour.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. That that sounds really horrific and I and I really feel horrible that your constituents had to go through that. I'm glad no one was hurt and obviously that it wasn't in fact significant or serious situation. Did anybody in that situation go to the court to ask for an extension?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. They didn't know how to.

[Speaker 2]: So the court didn't deny an extension in that case. There was just no application by either a voter or the board of elections to extend because of that particular circumstance.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm quite sure. This is the first time it happened in our district. So my constituents, voters probably didn't even understood that they had the opportunity to go to court to extend the time. This legislation will give them that opportunity without going through all the harassment of going back and forth to court, which could be troublesome, timesome, and so on.

[Speaker 2]: But in this case, there was no application and their court didn't deny. That's my

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: There was no application with no court process, and that was later.

[Speaker 2]: If current law already allows courts election officials and the governor to address these types of election disruptions because I believe the governor can also order these types of actions. Why is an entirely new automatic extension framework necessary?

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Sure. I

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: don't believe the order I'm the governor can order these extensions, member Slade.

[Speaker 2]: But the court can? Yes. But the court can. Is it correct that under this bill, if a disruption exceeds one hour, voting must be automatically extended?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, yes. If if it exceeds one hour, that's what the bill was does.

[Speaker 2]: What discretion remains for local boards of elections once that one hour threshold has been reached?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Repeat that question for me. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]: What does the local board of elections have discretion once the one hour threshold has been reached?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Once this bill is passed, they will. Right.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Once the bill once

[Speaker 2]: the bill has once the bill is passed.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, to answer your question, no. They don't.

[Speaker 2]: Can commissioners determine under your bill? Can commissioners determine that despite this a disruption The council voters still had a meaningful opportunity to vote during the remainder of the day?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. I was distracted. Please repeat the questions.

[Speaker 2]: Under your proposal, can commissioners, local board of election commissioners determine that despite a disruption, voters still had a meaningful opportunity to vote during the remainder of the day?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. No.

[Speaker 2]: And does the bill assume that every disruption lasting more than one hour requires the same remedy regardless of the circumstance?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Correct. That's correct. Correct.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: It does.

[Speaker 2]: It does. Currently, if I just wanna make sure I understand. When you go into a at least when I go into my polling places. Oftentimes there's more than one machine in that polling place. Certainly. So, is this specifically related to the actual polling location or is it also encompassing polling machines?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It could be either.

[Speaker 2]: So it could be both a polling it could be a machine breakdown or a disruption or inability to enter a polling place.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. I think the machine right there on the board.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Should take that. It's

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Well,

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: they want me to read you what the definition of disruption is, but I'm a say that, you know, in the polling site, if there's a broken polling if there's a broken poll in the polling site, one of elections do have commissioners who was then sending out another commissioner to just look at or shut their site down. That's not considered disruption in this legislation.

[Speaker 2]: So it's not considered disruption. Under the definition, it talks about to be unable to vote for a period of time exceeding one hour, obstruction or interruption. So I guess the question that I'm trying to ask is, is an interruption also regarding the machines?

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Vote.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Yeah. Can be if you

[Speaker 2]: But now my my follow-up to that is don't the the board of elections currently have processes in place so that when there is a machine breakdown, there is a backup option for voters to continue to cast their ballots?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Yes. But this only applies if a repair or substitution to a vote machine or system cannot be made. Emergency ballots may not be given out during the repair or the substitution. So if a machine goes down, you can't use a plan b option. If the machine goes down, you can't use a plan b option. It doesn't. No. No.

[Speaker 2]: It does your bill doesn't speak to that or you're not allowed to do that under the current law?

[Speaker 25]: Right.

[Speaker 55]: So, I'm gonna read

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: the description of disruption. Disruption additional time for vote in publicity of remedy in the event that early voting or election day voting at one or more polling places is disrupted prior to the close of polls of any day of election for duration exceeding one hour, the board of elections, that day of election to account for the last the lost time voters of all such impacted election districts. So pretty much for the purpose of this Yeah. That's the definition. Yeah. Alright. Yeah. So the yeah. If the machine go down, they do authorize them to change the machine. So

[Speaker 2]: if a machine goes down, you're off the board of elections commissioners would then be able to decide themselves if do they have the flexibility to say that there even though there was a plan b machine or they were able to collect affidavits that they're still have to are they mandated to extend even that in that situation when ballots were still being able to be cast?

[Speaker 25]: There's no voting going on in the election district. Period. Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I mean, there's no voting going on, period. If there's a disruption, it's shut down, period. Okay. There's no ballot being cast. There's no ballot being collected.

[Speaker 2]: So, basically, again, so we're really just talking about the extremes of if a tree falls and blocks the entrance way of a polling place or like that terrible situation you were describing about describing in your district. But if if ballots are still able to be cast, then that does not meet the standards of the definition.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, I think if a tree is blocking the polling site, it's preventing from voters from coming in to vote. That's considered disruption. Right. So at that point, the polling site will be shut down until the tree is removed. Right. And then the commissioners would deem the polling site safe to continue voting or to resume voting.

[Speaker 2]: Right. I just wanna make sure that we're clear for our county board of elections that in those instances because that happens. Machines go down.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: All the

[Speaker 2]: But they do have backup plans. They do have other machines available. So as long as someone is able to enter safely into a polling place and cast a ballot.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Speaker 2]: Even if a machine goes down, this wouldn't that machine going down would not qualify under disruption. I just wanna make sure we're perfectly clear about this. Right. Not necessarily. No. Who decides not necessarily? Commissioners. So both commissioners would have to agree that there was a disruption on as defined in the law if it extends more than an hour. So if a machine goes down for forty five minutes, it doesn't meet the criteria. If a machine is down for ninety minutes because you have to cross a county or go from one side of the city to the other or whatever the problem might be, then the board of elections commissioners may agree that the machine going down because I understand what you're trying to say on the physical aspect of of ingress and egress of a polling place. I understand that completely. But I'm trying to just make sure that we're clear in the law that you're proposing that it doesn't also apply to the machine itself. So if a machine goes down for an hour and a half, the board of elections commissioners could then determine that an additional time is needed to be added on at that particular polling place.

[Speaker 25]: Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: If the voters can't vote, that's a disruption. But also you alluded earlier that at your polling site, there's multiple polls there. Right? Multiple voting polls there.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: So, one go down, you use another or the third.

[Speaker 2]: Right. And I just that's a 100%. That's what I wanna make sure that if there are other opportunities, again, whether it's using another election districts polling machine that is in the same polling place or again voting via affidavit that that does not trigger the disruption definition. That's fine. We can

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, no mistake, I'm not one of these professional politicians, but I do understand that if you're assigned to a vote at one polling place, you got to vote at that polling place. There's no going back and forth, right? That's why this bill, if there's a disruption, allow them to shut down and then recoup that time opposed to sending voters to another district to vote in another voting place.

[Speaker 2]: And again, I understand what you're trying to achieve here. I think we just wanna make sure we're clear on what some of the practicality, practical pieces of this is. If the commissioners disagree about when a disruption began, does the bill default to the time the first report was received by the board? Yes. And what happens if a disruption actually began well before it was reported? So if a disruption began at you know ten but they didn't get the call until 10:45 because they were trying to deal with it, When does the clock start?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: It's

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: it's all a discrepancy. They can start earlier. They can recoup the time or go back time the time started and the time is reported.

[Speaker 2]: So what happens if if a constituent or even listen. Even an elections poll worker calls and reports an issue and the board of election commissioners investigate it and they disagree with the facts that are presented to them? What happens in that case?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: The law. The law provides that. The law kicks in.

[Speaker 2]: And it says what?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It says simple. The commissioners have to act and then extend that time, recoup that time unless it's the next day.

[Speaker 2]: But if the commissioners don't agree with the premise that was presented to them, then the then they just would not extend the extra time. Correct?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: You know, that'd be breaking the law. They have to comply. You know, it's the law.

[Speaker 2]: But if the I understand what you're but if the if if you and I are the elections commissioners and we both go, no. We don't we don't buy this. Are we required as the board even for the board of elections commissioner, we're saying, we don't think this is actually what happened. Are we still required to add additional time? Or do we have the authority to say we're gonna continue to operate as is?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: If voting was stopped, if voting was disrupted, yes. You would have to return that time. You have to give that time back.

[Speaker 2]: And how do they verify that it indeed in fact was disrupted? How do I know that it's not just a disgruntled citizen who's calling and saying, I I've been waiting for the last hour to cast my vote. What happens if they're not telling the truth?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Such as life. We had a bomb threat, and there wasn't a bomb at the school, but yet our voters was disrupted for two hours while the NYPD searched for a bomb.

[Speaker 2]: But but the NYPD who

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. Constituent who said, hey. I don't want the governor to win. There's a bomb in the school.

[Speaker 2]: Right. But in that case, you had the NYPD actually there. I'm saying, like, if one person just calls and said that I haven't been able to cast my vote for an hour and ten minutes, are we required to act on that one report?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: If a vote is going on, no. It's not a disruption if a is going on. But if there's a disruption, if there's a big argument, a fight, and the commissioner deem, hey. It's unsafe. He or she will shut it down.

[Speaker 2]: Could polling places across New York close at different times on election day under this legislation?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. Repeat that again. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]: Could polling places across New York close at different times on election day? Yes. Is statewide uniformity and polling hours an important election administration principle? Definitely

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: not more than this. No.

[Speaker 2]: So could one polling place remain open until 10PM while another closes at nine?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes. That's what this bill provides, especially if you have to recoup that time.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: You can have your second, mister Slater.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you, madam speaker. Could a polling place remain open even later depending on the length of the disruption?

[Angelo Santabarbara, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Speaker 2]: What happens to the staff? What happens to your poll

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: workers

[Speaker 2]: who are there starting they they report at 05:00 in the morning.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: That's the board of elections. So they may be recouped with overtime pay. That's the board of elections.

[Speaker 2]: Is the board of elections authorized to pay overtime? Yes.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: They can split shifts.

[Speaker 2]: Yes. They can but what happens if they don't if they don't have enough people? We were struggling right now with election workers. So if an if you don't have enough people to split shifts and you're in there at 5AM and then there's a disruption and the board of election commissioners tell you, hey. Your shift now is gonna end at ten, eleven at night. What reprieve do we provide for the election workers?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. I mean, if he was online at nine vote and there's disruption, you have to honor that. You have they have to stay and honor those voters, those constituents who's coming out to vote.

[Speaker 2]: Has New York previously authorized polling places within the same election to close at different times?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. I'm not sure of that.

[Speaker 2]: And so and so we we really do have a hard stop to ensure accuracy of votes so that all pencils and votes are down at a specific time on election day.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Is an emergency situation, mister Slater.

[Speaker 2]: And I understand that. But is there not an impact that could happen if we staggered closing times, especially in regards to public confidence in in our elections? People hate the fact they have to wait as long as they do as it is with a 09:00 closing and now we're gonna tell them that they gotta wait even longer for those results?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: You know, voting matters. The impact would be voters didn't vote. That would be a horrible impact.

[Speaker 2]: And I agree. I'm not disagreeing with you. But I I think that there's questions about staggering these election polling places potentially and having them close at different times. On page three, lines one through four, is it correct that ballots that are cast during an extended voting period may not be segregated from other ballots? Yes. If a court later determines that an extension was improperly granted, how would those ballots be identified?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: That's a good question. It happen. Wouldn't happen. I couldn't tell you who you voted for a week. They wouldn't go back to find out what happened.

[Speaker 2]: Wouldn't that skew the potentially results of the election if a if a judge says that those ballots that were cast after 09:00 because of an extension that should not have been granted and now we can't find those ballots, how do we rectify that?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: That that can't be the core of the remedy. Look, if there was a disruption at the polling site and we shut the polling site down, this bill simply says we're gonna recoup that time. So, you know, again, that's the remedy to recoup the time we shut the polling down. So, like you said, if we shut it down at 08:50 and then we reopened it at 10:00, It's the time.

[Speaker 2]: I understand but we're all and and I and again I I understand what you're what you're saying but if that gets challenged in court for improperly extending those hours, are we not because of the fact that we're not separating the ballots, are we not preventing meaningful judicial review of the extension decision?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Members later, this bill protects the voters. The court don't have the authority to throw out votes.

[Speaker 2]: Sorry. Well, that's for the courts to decide though.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Right?

[Speaker 2]: If the extension itself is challenged, how would a court?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: We need to decide. That's why we're here. We're here to decide that. That's what this bill is going to decide.

[Speaker 2]: If it gets challenged in court, if there's a situation that gets challenged in court, I don't think that they're gonna be asking us here to to make that decision. If the extension itself is challenged I'm sorry?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Respectfully, every law can be challenged in court.

[Speaker 2]: I hope many of them that get passed here do. If the extension itself is challenged, how would a court fashion a remedy once all ballots have been mixed together?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. That happened before the extension.

[Speaker 2]: No. If if if the extension is challenged and you mix all the ballots, how do you remedy that once all the ballots have been mixed together?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Who's challenging an extension?

[Speaker 2]: Well, what happens if I don't believe that an extension should have been provided? And I go to a court, I go to a judge, and I challenge the extension in court. And a judge agrees and says, no. You're right. There was voting going on and they should not have been given the extension. But you already commingled all the ballots together so you can't then extricate the ballots that were cast beyond the time that the court believes should have been cast. This

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: is before the fact then, miss Lader.

[Speaker 2]: Well, I think when you're dealing with election law, you also have to think after the fact because all these laws that we're passing have a real life impact and especially when it comes to making sure that we have a process that people can have trust in. And I understand what you're trying to accomplish but these are the nuances of the election law that we have to make sure that we're really ironing out. Has a fiscal analysis been completed regarding the additional staffing and operational costs this bill may impose?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. Again, that's a board of election issue.

[Speaker 2]: And so, we have not reached out to the board of elections whether on county level or even the state board of elections to figure out if there's going to be a fiscal impact here?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: This is a merger situation. We don't think it's going to happen all the time, God willing. Thank God there wasn't a bomb in Jackie Robinson educational complex.

[Speaker 2]: Thank God is right.

[Speaker 25]: Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: But you know what? Those two hours the cops investigated, voters lost those two hours of voting.

[Speaker 2]: I just wanna go back to our inspection workers again. Is there a limit on how many hours an inspection worker can work at a pole?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Give me a second, Mike.

[Speaker 2]: No. And so again, if there's a three hour two hour disruption, polls open at six, we're going to eleven.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Yeah. If it's early voting could be potentially the next day. I recall when I was a young struggling kid, I look these election day jobs you know and I would stay there twelve hours because I know they would pay handsomely on overtime. And most of the time, they will provide a car ride home.

[Speaker 2]: But respectfully, there's also poll workers who aren't who aren't young, who aren't younger kids. And they're just doing their part to support our institutions and to do their role to make sure that we have a working democracy. And so if you're asking someone who's not a young kid trying to make a few extra bucks to stay that extra time, I just I just have a concern with that.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: But Well, as a district leader, you know my responsibility was to make sure that our seniors who were working in Poland at night did receive car fares or car stipends. I So think board of elections are very mindful when it comes to seniors or adults working late night shifts.

[Speaker 2]: I agree.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I think

[Speaker 2]: they do their I best to agree. I think they do their best to accommodate. Does this bill provide any additional funding for counties that may be needed to implement these new mandates?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No.

[Speaker 2]: And I just wanna make sure that all my questions were answered. Mister Gibbs, thank you very much for answering my questions.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: This is late.

[Speaker 2]: Madam speaker, on the bill, if I may.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Speaker 2]: Well, I agree with mister Gibbs that every every voter deserves an opportunity cast a ballot, and every legitimate disruption at a polling place deserves an appropriate remedy. But the question before us today is not whether election disruption should be addressed. The question is whether this bill improves upon the system that we already have. Under current law, when a significant disruption occurs, courts can act. Existing remedies are already available and can be tailored to the facts of a particular situation. This bill replaces that system with an automatic extension framework that raises more questions than it answers. If voting is interrupted for more than one hour, voting must automatically be extended. Polling places throughout New York could potentially close at different times on the same election day. One location could close at 9PM, another at 10PM, and another even later. That would be a dramatic departure from the uniform administration of elections that voters have come to expect, and frankly, trust. This bill also creates factual disputes that are difficult to resolve. When exactly did the disruption begin? When did the disruption end? What happens when election inspectors, voters, and commissioners disagree? Rather than relying on a neutral court to determine those facts, this legislation creates an automatic process that may generate additional confusion and litigation. Perhaps most concerning is the language regarding the ballots cast during an extended voting period. This bill specifically prohibits those ballots from being segregated from all other ballots. If a court later determines that an extension was improperly granted, how can meaningful judicial review occur if those ballots can't even be identified? We should not be creating a system where courts are unable to effectively review election procedures after the fact. Also concerned about the practical impact on county boards of elections, particularly our smaller counties and all of our election workers that we continue to rely on. Additional staffing, additional public notice requirements, additional reporting requirements, and potentially extended voting hours all carry costs and administrative burdens that are not addressed in this legislation. At its core, this bill appears to be a solution in search of a problem. The examples cited involve situations where existing legal remedies were already available, yet instead of strengthening those tools, this bill creates a new and complicated framework that risks inconsistent application across our state. I say it all the time when we talk about election law, and I'll keep saying it with every bill that we discuss for the next thirty six hours or however much time we're here. Election laws need to be clear. They should be uniform. They should inspire confidence. Unfortunately, this legislation creates uncertainty where certainty is needed the most. And for all those reasons, madam speaker, I will be voting in the negative and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Chang.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: will the sponsor yield? Yes.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Hey, mister Chang. I'm honored. How are doing?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much, mister

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Chang. Thank

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: you. Thank you.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: When you wrote this bill, have you consulted the board of election operations?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. I did not.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: I'm a thirty year experience of poll site coordinator.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Thank you for your service.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Thank you. And I've done about a dozen different pulse sites. Even during 09:11 as a as an emergency, I experienced that what disruption is all about.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: So Quite sure you saw

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: wrote this law hasn't been already addressed. Post sites don't need power. Everything can be done by affidavit.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I disagree, I'm a member of the chain. Post sites need all the power. This is where our democracy lies. This is where the vote go. We need power. We have to protect our votes. No. No. This is what the bill is. It protects

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: the vote.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: I'm talking about electrical power.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Oh, electrical power.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Electrical power.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Was a time

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I didn't hear electrical.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. There was a time that we had spring mechanic machines that don't require any power. It it needs muscle power.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Oh, there you go. There you go. Thank you.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Now, in disruptions because why these disruptions are or exist because it's public safety determined by the cop inside the post site and determined by the post site coordinator or who runs that. Those are two people determined if the emergency does exist for for public safety, then a police officer takes over.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: That's not always the case. But, let's talk hypothetical for You a said in 911, you was at the Yes.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Was at Post Site 911.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: What happened at 911?

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Okay. Well, one thing is it took about an hour for the whole system to close out. We got to work from headquarters, everything closes down, everything. So, they rescheduled that I think three weeks later.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Oh, three weeks later.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Three weeks later. And the vote was all canceled out and they redid it again during 09:11. That I was Tragedy.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It was a tragedy. I was a disaster. Actually,

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: was down in Chinatown less than a mile away of World Trade Center. I saw it when it came down.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: And I had white dust on on my clothes too.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: And I'm glad you're here to talk about it today, member Yes.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: But there are other emergencies and and I heard from other post sites flooding in a basement. Now that becomes a hazard if you have flooding and what they did was they issue emergency ballot, affidavit on the spot. So you don't need to have the machine, just have a pencil and paper and envelope and fill that out and that will be counted as a ballot even though manually but it has been done.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Remember Chang, this bill will not preclude any other remedies. That's a great remedy. But any disruption this bill addresses whether it's a flood, a fire, fight, a threat, a bomb, a terrorist

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Certainly.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: And sorry. Not be

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: That's determined by the police officer on the ground or or the official border election to determine to make sure the site is safe for continual operations.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I don't think NYPD can predict what's gonna happen No. During the day. And I don't think they have the authority to shut down a polling site or an election site. Again, it's up to the commissioners. This bill simply addresses and says, hey, if there's a disruption, whether it may be, we will give the voters an opportunity to come back when the polling site is safe to pass their vote. We want to protect the vote. The vote got you here today, member Jane.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Certainly. Because the board of election already solved that problem. As long you are in within that poll site at 09:00, even though there's 20,000,000 people in that poll site, they won't get the chance to vote even after 09:00 as long you are in that poll site. Are you know about that?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: But you're talking about curfew. Right now, we're talking about extension. So, of course, if you're inside the polling site before 09:00, you can stay in it till 10:00 to vote if that's how long the line is. But, there's a disruption when they say, hey, you cannot vote anymore because there's a disruption, like I e a bomb threat, maybe a fire next door, maybe a flood. Well, that's the plane hitting another tower. That's a disruption. And we're simply saying in this bill that the voters deserve an opportunity to get those two or three hours that was disrupted back to vote. Voting is important. Let's protect the power to vote.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: That's why you need to consult It's a board of election operation. They have a contingent emergency to address those issues. I went through it myself for thirty years. I've seen it. Because even for myself, I always protect the voters to come in to vote. The problem is not that many people come in to vote as what, you know, the turnout unfortunately is not as robust as other states in New York City. But, I always in my best interest when I run that poll site is to make sure everyone gets in on that site by 09:00. And if they're in by 09:00, it could be 20,000,000 people in that poll. I make sure that it will stay operation even past midnight because they have that right to vote. So I thank you

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: for protecting our democracy. Were you a commissioner?

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: No. I'm not a commissioner.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Oh, so how could you do all the things you said you were just doing? Only the commissioner have the power to do everything you just said that you were doing. Only the commissioner that power to do that.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Is a is a board of commissions in there.

[Matthew Simpson, Assembly Member]: Uh-huh.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: And and you always get the instructions from headquarters.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Oh.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: You don't make that decision yourself.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: He was instructed. Okay. There's always instructions.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: There's always instructions. And and there's a a 100 page manual on what what happens to the site. Know? Have you read that?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Colleagues. Colleagues. Firstly, we need to not talk over each other. And secondly, we need to be speaking on the bill.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: It's Okay.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: This is fascinating stuff listening to your histories. That's great, but we need to be speaking on the bill, please. Thank you.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: So does the does does the bill also account for emergency ballot?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Does it count for emergency ballot? Emergency ballot. What about emergency ballot, member Chang? I'm sorry. I'm confused.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Emergency ballot is is once they verify the voter is can be voted, you get a ballot, paper ballot, and an envelope. You fill everything out, seal it, and it's good.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Usually, that happens when they can't find your name at the polling site. They give you that ballot, put it in the envelope, and then when

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: they find your name,

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: they submit that ballot, the vote when they find

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: the ballot. And they'll be counted it's normally it's normal operations. They will account for that at the board of election at the end of the day. It's called affidavit ballot.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Member Chang, this is for disruptions. Yeah. But I do enjoy the dialogue.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Now, when you say early vote, this bill also includes regular election day and also as well as early voting.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Is that correct?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Any day you can vote.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Okay. So even for early voting, if if they're you know, you have nine days of early voting. If they can't miss in one day,

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: they can reschedule for the next day. Isn't it? Member Chang, I created this bill because in my district, there was a bomb threat. And as a result for three hours, two and a half hours technically, the polling sites were shut down. Certainly. I heard from my constituents who was very very disappointed because they could not vote because of a bogus bomb threat simply because someone didn't like governor Hochul. And as a result 70 maybe 80 constituents could not vote that day.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: You mean at that at that night time they are unable to open up before 09:00 closing?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: There was no law that said they could do that you know.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: So was emergency ballot was issued to them?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. Can you

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: repeat Emergency ballot. There is a procedure for emergency ballot to give in to these voters. No.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: They weren't given out. They didn't have an opportunity to receive emergency ballot because they were kicked out of the polling site. Like if someone say there's a bomb, Wayne will take all of us out. Well, that's what happened at the polling site there. They kicked everybody out. They didn't get an opportunity to receive emergency ballot. And in fact, they didn't even come back to get emergency ballot. So somewhere the procedure wasn't followed. That's that's what it sounds like. Well, this bill addresses that for all emergencies, all disruptions, voters will have an opportunity to come back to the poll to recast their vote if they are disrupted.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Well, they do have an opportunity for affidavit ballot. They have an opportunity to do that. So I'm not even To

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: your case, I mean, yeah.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: I mean, that's that's a backup plan. And you don't really need electrical power to to to count for votes. Paper ballot.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It's not about electrical power, member Jane, and I think this is a redundant, this argument. Simply, this bill simply says if there's a disruption, whether it's emergency, we are gonna recoup those two, three hours that the disruption caused and give those voters an opportunity to vote whether they Republican, Democrat, Independent, or so on. They have an opportunity to come back and cast their vote. That's important. Now imagine you going to a polling site, you walk seven blocks and you get to this polling site and you see the police and all these bomb dogs out there and they say, hey mister change, you can't vote right now because we got to take care of the bomb. Now you're to sit there for two three hours, 09:00, 10:00 they close the polling site, it won't allow you to vote. You're be disgruntled like my constituents. They weren't disgruntled because they could not vote because of a bogus bomb threat.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Well, I I I understand this concern and there is contingent procedures in board of elections for that. If if it's physically there there is a again, like flooding in in in the facilities and unable to operate, They always have alternatives. They always have some van. They always have some off-site to administer the vote.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, know, in your thirty years experience, member Chang, I know you know that you cannot give a voter, a constituent, an affidavit out in the street.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: No. No. It's not.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: You cannot do that.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: But it could be another polling site.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Down the polling site. You're out in the street. You as a former commissioner, whatever your role was respectfully at the board of elections coordinator go out in the street and say, hey, mister voter. Don't leave. Take the affidavit and vote in the street. You can't do that.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: No. It doesn't. It doesn't operate that

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Bill says, hey. Let them come back into the building and let them vote simply.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: The board of election operations always care about chain of custody, so there will always be alternative.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry. Repeat that. I'm sorry. Certainly.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: The board of election people always take series of chain of custody to make sure all the information are stayed. If there was an emergency in that site that had to be closed down because of public safety, okay, there is alternative by the board of election operation, either redirect to another poll site or there might be a temporary poll site vehicles out there. But and even if the poll site is reopened, as long as they're there before 09:00

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Are you on a bill member chain? Because this is dialogue. I'm Okay. We just going back.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Alright. So so the question is is is have you considered on on early voting that could be another schedule instead of just extended hours during early voting, you get nine days of early voting?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. We could consider that as the bill says. The bill gives you an opportunity to come back whether it's early vote and late vote and it gives you an opportunity to recoup those hours you lost during a disruption.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: That means you can come

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: back then for the next day. No. Not the next day. No. Not everyone could come back the next day. Not everyone could come back in the next hour. Some people would be discouraged. Some people have to walk seven eight blocks and you said seniors, Remember, Slater said something about protecting seniors. Some seniors walk six seven blocks just to cast their vote. So, imagine an 85 year old woman walked into the polling site with her walker and she gets there and say, hey ma'am, you can't vote today because there's a disruption here. Now she have to walk seven nights with her walker and she's discouraged. She's not walking back and she's not going sit around and wait three hours till they open the polling site again. This bill gives her the opportunity to come back later on and cast a vote safely?

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Yes, they can if they open up the polls site deemed safe by both poll site coordinators and the police if it's deemed safe. If it's not deemed safe, then the board of election have to create an alternative, Isn't it?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Is that a question or are we still dialoguing?

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Yeah. That's Can

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: you repeat the question? Because I thought we

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: were talking.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: So if the poll site is deemed safe and reopened and a person is as long as before 09:00, do you think they need an extension?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Simple. If there's a hour disruption, there should be an hour tapped on at the end.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: I understand. Okay. Under bill

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam Chang.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank much.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Thank you. Yes. Interesting dialogue, but I think this bill, it's a it needs to be scrubbed. It needs to be thought out. It needs to work with the border of election operation. There are contingency based on my experience at thirty years as coordinator with a dozen different sites and even down at 09:11 that time when it went down. So from my personal experience now, New York City may not be may be different in a rural or suburban because they may not have that robust support, but in New York City, there is contingency to make sure that the people gets to vote on time. Now if it's during election day, because it's by law, it's 06:00 to 09:00, that's structured by law. It can't change. But as long as person can be in that site by 09:00, you can still vote. And even though you're still waiting on line at 10:00 or 12:00 at midnight, you can still vote as long you're in that site. And even though you're outside, as long as the police knows that you're waiting in line, you're still eligible to vote. So I think this law itself is a little bit it's not defined as disruption, but there are ways that Board of Election has solved. In this case, I would vote negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Durso.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Certainly for a member

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: of the Sponsor yields.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister Gibbs. I'm probably gonna ask you some questions that may have been asked already, but I just wanna kinda simplify it for myself.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: You're a member of jury, you can do what you want.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, sir. So as you said, this is for a disruption. So let's just say it's the first day of early voting

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: And there's a disruption and the polling site is closed. It has to be closed. Correct? No. You cannot walk in to vote.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: That that would be the disruption

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: For the definition of this bill. One second.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: If the polling place was closed. Yeah.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So you you cannot vote. The the the polling site is closed.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: That no voting is going on. Correct? So there's a disruption. They're gonna shut that site down. Right. No voting going on.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right. And that's my question. It must be the sorry. Yes. No. No. That's perfect. I just the site is shut down. Nobody could vote. Let's say it's for two hours. Yeah. Right? That two hours have to be tacked on to that same day. Right? The extension of that day. Correct? If the polls close at nine or 06:00 because it's early voting, if it closes at six, it's gotta be extended to eight. Right? Whatever the amount of time it's closed for, it has to be extended that same day. Generally, yes. You say generally. What does that mean?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Well,

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It could be possible situations where, you know, it's early voting. You could do it the next day, but the cutoff is on election day. You can't vote at the election day.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So my question is then, why would it not be extended that day if the if the concern, right, is people were not able to vote that day, but let's say there's another eight days of early voting, why would you why would we extend the hours the next day when it seems like the bill wants it to extend it that day? The next day, it's open for eight, ten, twelve hours.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Well, generally, it'd be the same thing administratively and practical and practical.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: But they can extend it the next step.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: They they can.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: In certain situations, they can. And who would make that determination?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Commissioners. Commissioners.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Commissioners. Okay. So the language in the bill says that essentially I'm terrible at math, so just give me just hear

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: me out for second. Both.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Let's say if if if voting is open for a hundred hours during that week, you have to get a hundred hours of voting in regardless of what day it is. Is that a better way to say it? So if it's closed for two hours this day, you you have to get it in somewhere along the lines. Does it have to be the next day? Could it be three days later they have to add those two hours on?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Generally, it's the same day. Right? So, let's say hypothetically, the disruption happened at 11AM. Right. And it lasted three hours. Right. My math is not as good as yours. Mine

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: obviously is not good.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm about to pull out my calculator right now. Okay. So, from 11AM to 2PM, let's say that's three hours. Correct? Right. Now the post site is open. Right. You resume voting. Once NYPD and the commissioners deemed the site to be safe, you resume voting. Right. Voters have an opportunity to come in and cast a vote in a safe site.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right. Which we want. And I I I don't disagree with that at all. My question is, those three hours have to be made up. Is there a part of this bill that says they have to be made up that day, or it just has to be made up at some time within that ten days of voting?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Right. The vote is the same day, but it's extenuating circumstances where it may go over till the next day on early voting.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So I could see it maybe going to the next day. But, technically, the way you're saying it to me, I'm just understanding, it doesn't have to be the next day. If they lose three hours and it's early voting is on a Monday, right, it gets shut down Monday for three hours, technically, the commissioners could say, we're gonna leave the early voting site open on Thursday for an extra three hours.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No. The default should be the same day, you know. And again, and especially if the disruption happened early, say morning time, afternoon, you know, the default should be the same day. Why carry on until the next day when you can actually

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I would agree. I I I'm actually I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering why the legislation doesn't specifically say the next day or that day because, technically, it could be does it? It does

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: say that.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: I'm sorry.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Perfect.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It does say that. What does it say?

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: It has to be the next day? I'm just trying to get it for clarification.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: I'm not

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: page two. We're trying to locate the paragraph.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: No problem. Take your time.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Okay. Great. Bear with me. My glasses a little foggy.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Yes, sir. Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: The scheduled time frame for voting shall be then be adjusted accordingly for each such polling place and extended on that day of election or if extended the time frame for voting at such polling places on that day of election will be administratively impracticable. Such additional time for voting should be scheduled on the next day for voting or a successive day for voting in the same polling place.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So I take it as that as that day or the next?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Or the next phase two. Right. That's that's the

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: way I'm. That we all agree. Right? That that's that's all says. Everybody's shaking their head.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm gonna

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: assume. Yes.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: The next day. But the default is that day.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Of course. Right. But it could be the next day, not three days later.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It can be technically be the next day, but the default is that day. Perfect.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister Gibbs. That's that was one of my questions. My next question is when we talk about it has to be that polling site. Correct? So in other words, if that polling site just for clarification, I assume it is. If if the polling site on on the Corner Of Van Buren Street, just for all that's where I grew up, is closed, right, that you can't open a different polling site for another three hours the next day. It has to be that site.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes. The floor. Okay. Yes. Yes. Perfect.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Now one thing I wanna go back to just just as just as a moment of clarity. When you spoke about You talk about It's okay. Let him talk. It's fine. When when you when you talked about poll workers staying past time that they're being paid for, they don't get paid by the hour. Correct? They get paid by a shift, I believe. Yeah. They already might

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Is

[Speaker 2]: stay late. Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: They may have to stay late for the line, but, yes, they

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: get paid by the shift.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Is do poll workers get paid overtime?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: That's outside of the scope of the bill.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Well, I I understand it's outside the scope of the bill, but we're making the board of of elections not making and rightfully so. Giving people

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: the chance nothing would

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: be Excuse me. Shouldn't we know if they are allowed to pay overtime? Because I I know for sure they can't force them to stay. Right? I know nobody in here wants to force someone to stay at

[Brian A. Cunningham, Assembly Member]: work.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I believe we passed bills to to not do that. No. So, no forced overtime.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Look. That's up to the board of election. This is for emergencies only. Agreed. Bob willing, it don't happen all the time.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Agreed. So, let's just say, worst case scenario, the poll workers do not want to stay. Right? And let's say polling closes at nine and they have to stay at eleven and they say, I don't wanna stay. Is that another disruption?

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yeah. They agree to be poll workers. They don't

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: get to just leave. They can. They're they they agree to be poll workers from five in the morning till the time the polls close. There is nothing that says that they have to stay in. Told Five in the morning

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: until the polls close. Yes. Dick, that's the answer right there. Till the polls close. It could be 9PM, 11PM. I work polling sites at 12:30AM.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Sure. For for the people that were already there. Right? So once you're online, right, and poll close at nine, right, you're allowed to vote. But now we're asking them the polling stays open till eleven. It's not about who's there. It's about anybody could come in, which we want. Right? Yeah. I'm just concerned about how they get paid. That is my question. I worry about, as as you've all heard me say, the worker. And there is no provision in this bill to take care of the worker, which some of them are are young, mister Gibbs. As you said, you you look forward to working there and and making some of that money. We also have senior citizens that listen. If you told my grandmother who worked Paul's, you have to stay, she would tell you what to do with that. So what let's be honest. I'm I'm just I'm being serious.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Yes, sir.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: What is the remedy then in that case if we don't have enough poll workers? Thank you for

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: breaking them in not, Levi.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I got Yeah.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Mean, it my comfortability gets me in trouble in these chains.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: That's okay. I'll get myself

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: in trouble today. Excuse me.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Sure. You

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: know, and I've been through this too before. Know, there's a long wait. Look, you gotta wait. There's a line. You have to wait. That's the process. You know?

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you, mister Gibbs. I appreciate you answering my questions.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: It's been amazing. Thank you, mister.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested, miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. The republican conference will generally not be supporting this legislation, but if members do wish to support it, they can do so now by voting at their desks. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Anderson to explain his vote.

[Speaker 56]: Thank you. Thank you, madam speaker. The constitution of the state of New York charges the legislature with establishing election procedures and this piece of legislation authored by my colleague fulfills that responsibility by creating a clear remedy when access to voting is interrupted. Actually if you look at article two section eight of election administration, the constitution expressly contemplates legislative regulation of election boards and election administration and the bill gives the boards a uniform process to follow during disruption. I think that's important because disruptions happen all the time. I remember a few years ago there was a disruption at one of my poll sites in the Rockaways and I think that just making sure that the poll workers, the board administrators and all of the relevant staffers have a uniform protocol to follow is going to be key and important when these emergencies do come up. They are very far and few between and we want to just make sure that those processes and procedures are there. I thank my colleague for and his team for working on this piece of legislation, and I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Anderson in the affirmative. Mister Gibbs, to explain his vote.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Madam speaker, I rise to explain my vote. In 2022, in my district, in my polling site, Jackie Robinson Educational Complex, we had a disruption in voting. We had a bogus phone call saying there was a bomb threat simply because a young man did not like governor Kathy Hochul. As a result, two, three hours of voting was taken away from our constituents, many of whom were seniors and did not get an opportunity to vote that year and was very excuse me, was very disappointed. This bill is just an opportunity to right a wrong, to tell the seniors who went to vote that day that we haven't forgotten about you and we're working very hard here in Albany to secure your vote and make sure that you have an opportunity not only to vote but vote safely. I want to thank the questions from my colleagues on the other aisle and I want to thank my staff for putting this legislation together for me. I'm voting and affirming this matter speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gibson, the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 96. Nays, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 10. Rules report three forty seven. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 8192c, rules report three forty seven. Miss Lucas, enact to amend the education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Lucas.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Good evening to everyone. This bill would require museums that display works of art and artifacts or arts and artifacts that were created using metal materials that were used in the exchange of enslaved human captives during the Transatlantic slave period to prominently display such information on a sign or a placard.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Lucas, will you yield?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Absolutely.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor you. Yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: I appreciate that. So I was doing a little research on this and this looks very similar to a bill we passed a couple years ago related to holocaust era art that was seized by the Nazis. So it's very similar in the framework here. So my question starts with almost the first line of the bill. Does every museum which has on display identical works of art, it goes on. Every museum, does that apply does that apply to public museums, private museums? Is it possible to apply that requirement to a private museum?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: So, even a private museum would have to display the placard outlined?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. Does the state have the authority to force a private museum to do that?

[Speaker 2]: Yes.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: It's consistent with the authority that they have when displaying materials and artwork from the holocaust.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And now my next question is how I guess, how is it enforced? Is there any kind of task force that goes around and observes what's on display in museums that could potentially fit the definition in the bill, then would they request or tell the museum that they have to display?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: I'm sorry. That was a lot. Can you just I'll

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: dial it

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: back. How how is this I guess administered? Is there any state task force or agency that would go around to museums and find artifacts or pieces of art that fit the description? And then they would, I guess, tell the museum that they have to put the placard up?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: It would be the arts and

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: historic preservation.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: It would it would ultimately be the arts and historic preservation agency that oversees this. But there are also organizations out there that already have a list of some of the artifacts that are stolen and of course we can't know everything. Right. Yeah.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Now, who determines the I guess historical timelines, the change of possession, whether something was seized involuntarily or purchased through legal means? How is that determined and who would make the final determination if there's a dispute?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: We we kind of listed it during the time period in the bill Mhmm. Which includes the Transatlantic slave periods Mhmm. From roughly 1500 to 1877.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. So,

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: what Does

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: that answer your question?

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Not exactly. I'll rephrase it because I'm I'm giving you a lot of words in the questions. My brain is kind of foggy so I don't even know half of what I'm saying right now, miss Lucas.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Okay.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Say a museum is told that you have to display this placard and they disagree with the assessment or maybe the curator of the museum says, we don't believe it fits the criteria. The the the donor who gave us this piece of art doesn't think it was seized involuntarily. How would that dispute be resolved?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Well, we're kinda not going on people's opinions or thoughts. There is historic facts that are attached to these artifacts. Like we know the Benin bronzes, there's a history on that. Museums are designed in there to preserve history. And they have people that work there that are experts in this. So I would imagine that they would do their due diligence when someone comes to them and says yay or nay. Whether we say, hey, you know what? Put this on or somebody says it shouldn't be on. It is their responsibility to do their due diligence.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And I guess now that I'm reading the bill again, the word identifiable is there. So, identifiable would I guess mean something of pretty, guess, in the world of museums, a widely recognized piece of art or artifacts. So, would probably make it a little easier for them to

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: It could be widely recognized or not. Okay. It could be something in there that just really connects to the history of what was stolen or taken or forcibly taken or however you want to describe it, but it it the true history of it would need to be told.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And, I think my final question to clarify here, there's the the piece about metals used in exchange and if that is used in other art or can you provide an example of a metal that might show up in another artifact or some kind of art that would fall under this definition?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Sure. As I mentioned before, the Benin bronzes were crafted with a metal material traded from Europe to Benin in exchange for enslaved human captives. So, that would be a more popular example.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And, final question, if a museum is not in compliance, is there

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: any

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: penalty levied against them?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: We haven't put anything within the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: But, that's a great idea.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Maybe we'll see a chapter, Amanda. But thank you, miss Lucas. I appreciate you clarifying those questions for me. Thank you for the questions. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Lucas on the bill.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Thank you, madam speaker on the bill. I rise in support of my bill, eight A8192c. Museums play a vital role in preserving history and educating the public. But education is only meaningful when it includes the full truth. Throughout the Transatlantic slave trade and the domestic slave trade, countless cultural artifacts, works of art and valuable materials were taken through theft, seizure, forced sale and other involuntary means. Many of these items remain on display today, often without any acknowledgement of how they were acquired. This bill simply requires museums to provide signage identifying artifacts that are known to have been stolen or created using materials exchanged for enslaved human captives. It does not remove these items from public view. Instead, it provides visitors with important historical context. By telling the complete story behind these objects, we honor individuals and communities whose labor, culture and heritage were exploited. Transparency strengthens education and acknowledging difficult truths helps us better understand our shared history. And let me emphasize, we have a shared history. I respectfully ask for your support of A8192c and I want to also thank my colleague who did the bill in which we mimicked this after. And I hope I can say his name, Chuck Levine. Thank you. Madam Speaker. Read

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: The clerk will record the vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Mister Levine, to explain his vote.

[Speaker 57]: First, I wanna I wanna commend commend and thank the sponsor because I have a similar it was a bill. It's now a law that requires that material stolen or procured by the Nazis or their allies during the Second World War bear this similar placard. We are here because of American democracy, and it is our obligation to preserve American democracy. And we have we're doing that at a time when there are really, really disgusting attempts to whitewash American history. Every great nation has its strengths. Every great and complex nation has its faults. But if we don't recognize those strengths and we don't recognize those faults, then we severely impair the ability of our children and our grandchildren to preserve our democracy. I'm very happy to vote in favor of this measure. And again, I commend the sponsor.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Mister Levine in the affirmative.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Are there any other votes?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty one. Nays, zero.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: The bill is passed. On the a calendar, page nine, rules report four ninety nine. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Senate eight eighty nine forty four, rules report four ninety nine, senator Mari, enactment of criminal procedure law. An

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: explanation has been requested, miss Romero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill modifies various sections of the criminal procedure law to allow flexibility in our plea bargaining system, if and only if the judge, the district attorney, and the defense attorney all agree, and if the prosecutor and judge are of the opinion that the plea and sentence are in the interest of justice, then this law that we will hopefully pass today will allow the defendant to enter into a plea bargain with a sentence that is below the statutory minimum for that charge.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, miss Romero. Mister Molotar.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. Sponsor yields.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, Ms. Romero. So I want to go through the practical application of your bill. So it's my understanding that in New York State we have plea restrictions, meaning someone is charged by indictment after a grand jury with certain offenses, the court is restricted from accepting a reduced plea based upon our laws. Is that correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. And so, for example, the first two sections of your bill on page one would allow the court and the prosecution if they both agree, they have to both agree, if they both agree, it would allow them to basically waive that law and would allow them to accept a plea reduction that is less than what the statute set is requires, is that correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Well not always. It doesn't always have to be necessarily a plea reduction. It could it could be a plea to the charge. It could it could also be a plea reduction. But the point is that it would be a plea bargain if the judge, district attorney and defendant all agree. And there are interests of justice standards that are agreed upon and the district attorney and judge all agree are met, if and only if all of those conditions are existing, then there would be the possibility of a sentence that is below the statutory required.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. So let's use an example. Let's say someone is charged with an a one drug felony for possessing eight ounces of fentanyl. And they're indicted by a grand jury and the top charge is an a one felony criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. Under the current law that we have, the lowest plea that the court could accept on that charge would be a class b felony, which is a one step reduction, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. The the prosecution could say I'd like to offer something less, but my hands are tied because of the statute and the court would say, yeah, we can't I can't accept anything less than a b felony on this charge. Is that correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Can you go a one to a two? I believe you can go a one to a two. I'm just checking with counsel, but the point of your question is plea bargaining, can you get a reduced charge?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes. And what was the second part of your question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Sorry. And

[Speaker 25]: that's as low as you can go? Under the current law?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: You can go one step down, correct. So, is it A one to A two or is it A to B?

[Speaker 25]: Let's make it easy. And If it's an A two, you could go to a B, is that right? Sure.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Okay. For the hypothetical we're in.

[Speaker 2]: But

[Speaker 25]: let's say maybe the defendant in that particular case agreed to testify, give information to the police, and testify against some other individuals and maybe cooperate in a major narcotics investigation. And maybe also the defense attorney during the course of the plea negotiations was sharing some information about how this person got swept up into drug trafficking. Maybe there was a little bit of coercion involved. Maybe the person had a very terrible upbringing and maybe was maybe forced into the situation in some capacity, maybe had some mental limitations. Even though the defense attorney was bringing up all of that and even if the prosecutor wanted to offer something less than that B felony, and even if the court wanted to accept something less than that B felony, the current law prevents them from doing so. Is that correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Correct. The plea bargaining restrictions are extremely strict and that one can only go one less, correct?

[Speaker 25]: Right. And that's for some circumstances, right? Like a class b drug felony can go two steps down to a class d. You know, class b violent felony can go down to a class d violent felony. Class C violent felony can go down to a Class D violent. It's not always a one step, but there are very strict plea reductions under the criminal procedure laws as exists right now. Is that correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Correct, once indicted, there are very strict, if following the criminal procedure law, there are very strict plea bargaining restrictions, yes. Hypothetically, one could dismiss the indictment, it's it's not common, and frankly, in many jurisdictions, not not.

[Speaker 25]: So that was something I was gonna ask. In some in some courts, this does happen where a prosecutor will charge a number of charges including some lesser offenses and where they feel like they can't get that plea reduction, they'll dismiss the top charge so that they can accept something less. You are right, probably doesn't happen a whole lot, but that is something that can happen, isn't that right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 25]: Okay.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes.

[Speaker 25]: Now looking at page two of your bill, This does something a little bit different. So in this section, well first I should probably start by saying we have sentence enhancement categories in New York State. So if you're a prior, if you have a prior felony within ten years, you can be sentenced as a second felony offender. Just as an example, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Do you want me to go through them for you?

[Speaker 25]: I don't know if we wanna bore everybody here. Oh,

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: I'm happy to but

[Speaker 25]: Go ahead. Okay.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: So, under CPL 400, there is the second felony offender or predicate felon 400.21. Second violent felony offender, 400.15, which means you have a current violent felony charge, and there's a prior violent felony charge, or a persistent violent felony offender, meaning you have two or more prior violent felonies, and you are currently charged with a violent felony.

[Speaker 25]: Right.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: And, those are the ones that are also as mentioned in the bill. And, those are all aggravating factors that increase your sentencing exposure, the prior criminal history.

[Speaker 25]: Right. So, God bless you. So if you're a second felony offender, a second felony drug offender, or a second violent felony offender, and the court finds that you are one of those three, then what would happen is your minimum sentence would actually increase. It's mandatory minimum increase. Is that right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes, in addition to the aforementioned parts that I put on under CPL 400, yes.

[Speaker 25]: Right. And if you're found to be a persistent violent felony offender, that means that you have three or more, well you have two or more prior violent felonies within the last ten years and

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: what's that? Excluding prison time, but

[Speaker 25]: Excluding prison time, yes. But that's a mandatory a level sentence. So the same sentence that you could get for murder, life imprisonment, you could get if you satisfy the persistent violent felony categories, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: And, what that means for people watching is that you have life on the back end.

[Speaker 25]: Right, life on the back end. It's an indeterminate sentence, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 25]: So, this section would permit the court to accept a plea and if the people, the prosecutor requires it, well I have to, I confess this is a little bit confusing this section. So it's my understanding that this section allows the court and the prosecution to agree basically to sentence someone outside without designating them one of those categories, one or more of those categories, is that correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: The prosecution and the judge.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: The judge.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Very important factor in this in this bill is that you need all parties to agree to this this agreed upon plea bargain, yes.

[Speaker 25]: Right. And the thing that, and I talked to you about this before, the thing that I find a little bit confusing is that under the section the court can take a plea and then before sentence, the prosecution can say, I think the defendant is a second violent felony offender and I want the defendant to be sentenced as such and if the defendant doesn't agree to that, the defendant can withdraw their plea. Is that right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: So what is contemplated in that section of the law is that in plea bargaining, when the defense occasionally does not agree to a sentence, the defendant always preserves the right to withdraw their plea bargain. This is including in this language that if the defense does not agree to that enhancement as a part of the plea bargain, that the defendant is able to withdraw their plea if DA makes it a part of their plea bargain. As created in the due process, like if they don't want this very special and unique sentence, then the defendant can withdraw the plea to this very special and intense plea bargain and try you know, their mandatory sentence. They don't they won't get this beautiful special unique sentence.

[Speaker 25]: They can try what is contemplated under law. Would you agree with me that the the best practice in this scenario would be for everyone, the prosecution, the judge, and the defendant to agree prior to the plea what the you know, whether they're going to apply for the the felony enhancement or the sentence enhancement category. I mean, wouldn't wouldn't that be best practice instead of taking a plea, then the prosecution says well I think they're a second violent felony offender, and then having to withdraw the plea. Probably best practice would be they do it before they take the plea, wouldn't it?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Undoubtedly. However, the language as codified in this law is a reassurance or a reaffirmation that the defense retains the right to withdraw their plea if they don't agree with that additional requirement as the DA must require as a part of the plea bargain. Right. As defendants do retain that right to withdraw their plea if they don't agree with plea bargains. I think we can all agree though that the defendant would want to enter into this unique special plea bargain we are creating here, but if they do not want the special plea bargain, they do not have to take it.

[Speaker 25]: And I just want, like I just wanted to be clear for the record that you know, they do things out of order here and they do every and all three parties do this, well both parties in the court do this at the time of the plea, it's not gonna it's not gonna upset the apple cart, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: It would be best for the court and probably for all parties if they organized this on the record, did it beforehand and ensured that all parties were aware of it, I agree. But of course the defendant always retains the right to withdraw the plea if they don't agree or don't feel like it's right for them. But I understand where you're coming from.

[Speaker 25]: I agree. Thank you. Now, it's my understanding that the District Attorney's Association supports this bill. Is that right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes, in addition to OCA, Bureau Institute, Center for Community Alternatives and Legal Aid.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. And I know that there are a couple of organizations that are also in support of this bill and feel as

[Speaker 26]: if it

[Speaker 25]: is an important step towards the Marvin Mayfield act which I haven't read that act but it's my understanding that the Marvin Mayfield Act would eliminate mandatory minimums across the board. Do you agree with those organizations that have provided support memos? I'll take my second 15. Thank you.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: You're on your second 15, sir.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you. Would you agree that this is a step or is this something completely different from that?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: I believe that this bill is helpful for judicial economy. My reason for supporting this bill is that frankly, as I was a public defender, I engaged in plea bargaining and engaged frankly in long expensive intense emotional trials that were costly to the court and engaged in long intense sentences with my client that I don't believe were helpful. I'll give you an example, Mark Torra. Stage four lung cancer over the age of 65. He had two prior home burglaries attenuated from over thirty years ago. He had a bad time. He fell on hard times. He was using drugs when he was younger and did undoubtedly commit those burglary in the second degrees. He came to me much later in life but undoubtedly had a relapse. The district attorney's office indicted him on a burg second but it was much later later later in his life. They were bound by the mandatory sentencing and that he was a mandatory violent persistent. Meaning that they had to have life on the back end for this man that had stage four lung cancer. They had to offer him life on the back end plea bargaining offer and my client said, screw it. We'll take it to trial. I said, Mark, you have lung cancer. This isn't a good idea. Maybe we can get you the best possible offer at the lowest end of the plea bargaining and he said I'm not going down without a fight. Undoubtedly he was convicted because we knew that he committed that Berks second and what I wanted for him was something maybe more empathetic, maybe more something that would be more helpful for him that could actually get him access to treatment and help and something that could get him assistance for his drug treatment. We ended up taking a two and a half long week trial as well. That's just one example that I wish I was able to use something like this that the judge and the DA both also said, my hands are literally tied. I cannot offer anything else. I said, okay. To answer your question more directly, the point of this bill is that judges and district attorneys want more flexibility. Do I think that this is gonna help millions of people? No. Do I help think this even this is even gonna help thousands of people? No. I think that this is gonna help a small percentage of people in cases where the judge and the DA and the defense attorney obviously agree and it will help

[Speaker 26]: it will do a little bit of good.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: I do not think it's gonna open the floodgates. I do not think that this is gonna be a bill that like radically changes the system, but it will allow for some positivity in cases where where there is like a literal interest of justice opportunity, where judges and DA's want to do some good for a client that makes sense. And I hope that answers your question in a way that is like gives you where I'm coming from with my experience. And I think that I'm not trying to open the flood gates, I'm trying to help a very small percentage of people which would only make sense if the judge and the DA agree.

[Speaker 25]: Do you think that because you know we have 62 district attorneys and they all sort of operate a little bit differently. Do you think that there could be maybe an uneven application of this law across the state where you know some DAs who maybe feel that the interest of justice is a much broader sort of concept, will be more likely to offer a plea reduction from a violent felony or a major drug case than some other DA's who maybe think the interest of justice is a much more narrower scope and will never offer it.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yeah, I can't answer that because it's gonna be on a case by case basis. It's gonna be carefully and thoughtfully used.

[Speaker 25]: And it's my understanding that both the prosecution and the court have to agree, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. So just because the DA wants to offer maybe a particular plea reduction, a judge in that case could say, I'm not going to agree to that, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes. And I can just say from my personal experience as a mitigation attorney in my county that I've I've come with mitigation many times to the court saying that, you know, my client should be offered the x y z and I've had the district attorney be on my side fully on board to the court and the judge has said absolutely not. I've had the court be on my side and we've presented it to the DA and the DA had said absolutely not. So it's it's from personal experience, it's very challenging to get all parties to agree to a mitigation type situation. It happens and when it does, it's beautiful but like I said, I do think that this will be a narrowly tailored and thoughtful opportunity for the court.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, Ms. Romero for answering my questions. I'm gonna go on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you. I put my microphone down. So, you know, I've been a defense lawyer and I've been a prosecutor and from my personal experience, every case is unique. The defendant is a unique person, unique individual. The witnesses are all unique. The evidence is unique. And sometimes in the midst of a case, something happens and you need both as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer and even a judge, you need the flexibility to achieve a just result. A just result isn't always, you know, sorry, the law says you have to go to prison for a long period of time. Because we're talking about an individual person. And I think the built in protection in this particular bill is that the prosecutor and the court have to agree to this plea reduction. It's not just one one side. So I think there are a lot of benefits to this bill. On the flip side, I am concerned about the lack of maybe sort of a uniform application of our mandatory sentencing guidelines in New York. You know, there's a reason why we have sentence categories like second felony offender, second violent felony offender, second drug offender, and a persistent violent felony offender. It's because what this legislature has said in the past is if you continue to commit crimes, if you continue to ignore the laws of society and hurt people, you should be in prison for longer periods of time for the protection of society and, hopefully, that you can rehabilitate. So some people, I think, and, you know, maybe I'm a little bit I haven't quite made up my mind on this particular bill, but I think some people will be very uncomfortable with the court and the prosecution being able to deviate from those mandatory sentence enhancement categories. You know, it's not always the case that judges and prosecutors apply the law as evenly and as they probably should. And depending on where you live in the state and, you know, what kind of DA you have, you could see maybe, you know, maybe this could open the floodgates, I'll say it, and essentially eliminate mandatory sentences on on violent felony crimes. And in other parts of the state, this won't get used at all. So, we don't know. We just don't know. So I'd like to thank the sponsor for answering my questions, and we'll see how I vote. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Taneusis.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Sponsor yields.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: So Ms. Romero, I'm not going to be as extensive as Mr. Molitor was, but just wanted to ask just a few questions. So obviously this bill would apply only to post indictment cases, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Okay. So this would not apply to cases Can that are I

[Speaker 26]: actually correct?

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Yes, of course.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: mean, you can enter into a plea bargain at any time.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Right.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: And you will and thank you for giving me the ability to correct myself. So, you can enter into this plea bargain at any time, and you are able to do it pre indictment as well obviously. Right. And one is still open and exposed to the CPL 400 intensity even pre indictment.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Correct. So you are obviously you know, I'm sure across the state people you know plea bargain on felonies and SCIs for example. But in regards to this bill, this bill would apply after an indictment is had on the particular case, right?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: No. You can enter into you can enter into a plea bargain and this plea bargain opportunity would be able would be open to oh sorry, actually

[Speaker 26]: you're right.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Okay. Thanks.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: I just I just wanna clarify for the public.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: Never mind.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: No. It's okay. It's late so I understand. And just to be sure, right now, if this bill were not to be enacted, okay, the prosecutor obviously would have to if if the prosecutor wanted to, for example, dismiss the top count in an indictment, for example, that prosecutor would have to make an application to the court and convince the court to dismiss that top count for the purposes of disposition.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Can you repeat? Sorry. Was just thinking about post indictment plea bargaining.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Sure. No problem. So

[Keith P. Brown, Assembly Member]: the the way that the law

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: is right now and the way that the potential practice is right now is if a defense counsel and a prosecutor got into an agreement as to a plea bargain and the top count for example of an indictment had to be dismissed, the prosecutor would make an application to the court to seek the court's permission to dismiss the top count on that indictment for the purposes of that disposition,

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yeah.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Okay. And the court of course would potentially grant that application given what the prosecutor says is the reason for that dismissal, correct? Okay. Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are you cross examining me? Sorry, yes.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Yes, okay. Yes. Now, we mentioned predicate felons for example and I know it's late at night and we do have some people hopefully in the general public that are watching this that are knowing that we're working at 10:00 at night. But if you could just what is a predicate felon?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: So, a predicate felon means you've been convicted of a felony within the past ten years and that also timeline means that you're taking out prison time as well.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: And of course, if you could just tell us the public what is a violent predicate felon?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: A violent predicate felon means that that is a violent felony.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Got it. So, that felony within the last ten years is a violent felony. And of course there's different sentencing guidelines because of your history, right?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Okay. And of course the reason why introducing this bill is because of that history there's a certain sentencing that you're bound by because of that indictment, right? Correct. Yes. Thank you very much on the bill. Sure.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Madam Speaker, I have there's no question in my mind that the sponsor's intention here, and I'm sure the senate sponsor as well, is very well intentioned because they are looking to streamline plea bargains that occur in courts across our state every single day. However, there is a reason why there are certain sentencing guidelines in this state. Why the defendant's criminal history matters when these plea bargains are being negotiated across the state. There is something that occurs to a case once a person's case goes before a grand jury and there is an indictment brought forth by a grand jury in the county where that potential alleged crime has occurred. The way that it works now is that in order to plea bargain down an indictment, the prosecutor, the district attorney, the one that actually sought the indictment would have to get permission from the court to dismiss the top count, for example, or two counts or three counts on the indictment, and seek the court's permission to get that count dismissed in order to move forward on a plea bargain. Although this law before us, the prosecutor would have to consent as well as a defense attorney, I feel that this law potentially will not give the correct responsibility to that prosecutor to actually out lay out there to the court the reason for that dismissal and the reason why those charges need to be dismissed. I've said this many times in this chamber that the prosecutor has a duty not just to the general public, not just to the victim of a crime, but the prosecutor has a duty to the defendant. They have a duty to ensure that the defendant's rights are not violated. And the prosecutor being the one that has the duty to actually seek that indictment in that grand jury, it is the prosecutor's responsibility to outline why those counts should be dismissed on that indictment. Because the prosecutor should be accountable to the general public and to that victim. And I feel that this bill potentially takes that responsibility a little bit away from that prosecutor and just makes it okay for him, for that, for he or she to consent along with the defense counsel and the court. It may be helpful in certain cases, but I feel that it diminishes the role of that prosecutor as to what their role actually is in the criminal justice process. The unfortunate part is that the actions of this legislature, the past few years, have not exactly led to the confidence of many people around the state that they have the public safety of the general public and victims in mind. So there are people in this state that worry that if we pass this law and now make it easier to dismiss certain counts of an indictment just by consent, that we may be coming here during the next few years and maybe even taking away that consent of the prosecutor, making it even easier. So I put various things on the record. As I said, I am pretty sure very sure that the sponsor's intentions are well and why she's pushing forward this piece of legislation. But given all the reasons I have put on the record now, I vote no on this bill and I encourage all my colleagues to do so. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Morenollo.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Thank you. Will the sponsor yield for a couple questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes, judge.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Would it be a fair statement to say charges can be brought either by indictment before a complaint or can be just a regular charge. Talking about like an In general? Indictment but there had been no underlying charge before the indictment. Correct. Okay. Are you familiar with judicial diversion?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes, judge.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Judicial diversion, if I'm correct, would be where depending on the charge and there are certain categories that would qualify for it, would allow an agreement between a defendant, a defense attorney, the district attorney and the court to perform certain functions in exchange for a reduction in charges. Would that be correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes. Okay.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: So let's take a indictment. Let's start with the indictment where an indictment comes out and there is a minimum decrease in the, in the plea bargain from an indictment, but it still has a minimum mandatory to it. K? And the defendant qualifies for judicial diversion, goes through all of the processes, and he's accepted. Okay? Are you with me on that so far?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes. Now

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: if the defendant performs all of the functions of the requirements, the agreement would be that he gets sentenced to the agreed upon sentence. Would that be correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Are you speaking about the bill or a a different judicial diversion hypothetical?

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: No. No. I'm just talking about moving into where this could apply.

[Speaker 26]: Okay. Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah. Yes.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: So he completes the process and they still have to put incarcerate him based upon the agreement on the minimum mandatory. Correct? Right, judge. So if that the court feels that that defendant has not only completed all of the requirements but has gone above and beyond, without this, that court would still be restricted to incarcerate that person. Am I correct?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Under essentially, under mandatory minimums, yes. But what's special here is that these are really unique and intense

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: I'm not finished.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Oh, okay. I I wasn't sure you want me to answer

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: your Let me finish.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Okay.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: So now the court is sitting there with a dilemma that they have someone who's overproduced on their rehabilitation, gotten a degree, gotten married, has children. Because that the rehabilitation, because of the courts, may have been two or three years, And it could take that long sometimes. Would you agree with that?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: If not longer, yes.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Would you agree that this can be then utilized in that position?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Yes, judge. And I think that this could be used in rehabilitative courts, that this could be used in mitigation courts, this type of plea bargain in the same exact way that you're referencing that the interest of justice type standard could be created in a mitigation type court where people could prove their ability to show exceptional circumstances. And if I may, the interest of justice standard as codified in this language is nature and circumstance of the criminal conduct, available evidence as available to all parties, the history and character of the defendant that would obviously be put onto the record by the defense, and as I mentioned many times, but it bears repeating, that the prosecutor and judge must both be of the opinion that the plea and the sentence are both of the interest of justice in order for this plea bargain and sentence to go forward in order for anyone to go underneath the statutory minimum, which are all of those things must be met, each of them individually.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: Thank you. I I thank the sponsor for the for answering my questions on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Angelo J. Morinello, Assembly Member]: The reason I was going there is I'm gonna give you practical experience. When I was a judge, I used to do much judicial diversion. I had a defendant. I'll never forget this one. And then we could only plea make the agreement. He did qualify for judicial diversion. His crimes qualified for it, and there's a category. And my very first speech on this floor was supporting our majority leader's addition of crimes to that because I understood the concept and I supported it. But in this situation, this individual and we needed the ability to have him know he still could go to prison. Even if he did a good job. Well, he did an exceptional job. He got a college degree, never missed one of his treatment program appointments, never showed dirty for drugs when we tested him in court. He got married, got a degree, got a job, and his wife got pregnant. He finished the program. I was saddled with putting him in jail for two years, and I couldn't do it. I got called on the carpet by the administrative judge for the criminal courts, and I still refused. I argued and argued. Finally brought the DA in, had him want look. And I convinced the DA to allow the charge to be withdrawn, take a plea to a lesser charge. We were able to give him a conditional discharge. He has gone on with his life, and he's very successful. The reason I'm bringing this up is you need a hammer sometimes to get their attention. But this bill, should it become law, would have alleviated a lot of what had to go through my getting called on the carpet and that we might have been able to resolve this in a much more civil manner. From practical experience, I don't see this as a step towards avoiding or eliminating minimum mandatories. What I see it as is a way that we can keep minimum mandatories but have an escape hatch if we need it. And remember, one of the things we always argue in this chamber is judicial discretion. And we argue and I've argued against taking it away. This continues judicial discretion. You need the prosecutor and the defense attorney. With that being said, I will support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same because of the practical experience I've been able to put on the record. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party votes been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So while I expect a variety of votes on this matter, the Republican conference will generally be opposing the bill. But there like I said, if there are exceptions, people are certainly free to cast those now at their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Miss Romero to explain her vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I believe in small incremental change. This bill will not help millions or maybe even thousands of people, but for the defendants that are involved in these plea bargains, maybe the hundreds of people, we will have done a little bit of good today. I'm proud to support this bill. I wanna thank Alana, the speaker, Jen Ashley, Judge Zayas, also the two cool girls that are behind me that are now maybe somewhere else. Also, OCA, Vera, the Center for Community Alternatives and the District Attorney's Association of New York, all organizations that for a very unique moment have all come together to be on this bill and agree that it's a step forward for the criminal legal system. With that, I vote in the affirmative and I'm very appreciative of everyone that helps us get here. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Romero in the affirmative. Mr. Molotore to explain his vote.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you Madam Speaker, I made a decision finally. So if you're a DA who abuses this escape hatch and lets everyone get a plea deal, then you're responsible to the voters that elected you. If you're a judge who abuses this and lets, you know, people get plea deals that shouldn't, you're responsible to the people that elected you. But I think it's just unfair that we should treat individual defendants according to their individual circumstances. So I'll be voting yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Molotow on the negative. Oh. Mr. Molotow, affirmative. Who do we got? Mister Otis to explain his vote.

[Steve Otis, Assembly Member]: I'll be voting aye, but I just wanted to compliment the sponsor and all of the colleagues who debated on this issue. This was a intelligent legal discussion. It was not a political discussion. And I think for all attorneys in the room, I think we need to put in for CLE credit for being here for that debate. Congratulations to all of you for really a very good dialogue. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Otis in the affirmative, mister Gibbs to explain his vote.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to explain my vote. Listening to judge Maranello just a little while ago, I thought about my experiences. It's no secret that I'm New York's first formerly incarcerated New York State Legislature, the country's second. And in my experience with the law and being arrested and accepting the plea bargain, I wasn't given an option. The judge understood my case, the district attorney understood my case and it seemed like the legal aid attorney understood my case but they couldn't come to an agreement on the charge. Though self defense, they all agreed that you know a young black man with a legal aid will not receive a self defense charge and instead they gave me manslaughter b with the promise that I would serve three years. In expediency and in fear, I accepted that plea bargain. A10024 recognizes that justice is not a one size fit all. It allowed judges and prosecutors inappropriate cases to consider the full circumstances of a person's conduct and background and reach a resolution that serves fairness, accountability, and the interest of justice. This gives the court the flexibility. This bill helps avoid outcomes caused by rigid plea rules. It allows prosecutors and judges to resolve unique cases more fairly. It recognizes that not every case fits neatly in its legal box. So in closing, I'm saying I'm affirmative on this bill and I wanna encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Let's make justice fearful.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gibson, the affirmative, mister Tannouces to explain his vote.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank the sponsor and my colleagues. I think it was a pretty very good discussion here today. And I know, obviously, I have some colleagues that will that, will be, voting yes on this bill. I just felt it necessary to explain why I am voting no on this. On its face, I would say yes, this bill could be a tool to be utilized to actually dispose of cases in the interest of justice. Everything of course in the criminal justice system, as I've always stated from the very beginning, needs to be treated on a case by case basis. However, the reason I am voting no is because I believe that there are certain responsibilities in the different roles involving the criminal justice system. The prosecutor has certain responsibilities. Defense counsel has certain responsibilities. The judge has certain responsibilities. I think the greatest responsibilities in that is the actual district attorney's position. And I believe that there shouldn't be a law passed to put to basically take that district attorney off the hook in terms of having to explain themselves as to why certain charges should be dismissed. And I believe that that district attorney has a responsibility to the public, to the victim, and to the defendant. While I understand the many yes votes that I see here today, I myself, given my own personal beliefs, will be in the negative. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Tanusis in the negative, mister Sayej, to explain his vote.

[Nader J. Sayegh, Assembly Member]: Play my vote, listening to both sides, and being an attorney myself, very often when there's a criminal case, the expectation is there's equity in the law and it protects every individual by the same rules and procedures. But we all know that in anything, when we set policy and rules, there's always best practices, but one size does not fit all. And very often, we've dealt with cases where the judge and the prosecutor both agree that there's special circumstances where the law forbids them from making a decision that they feel is more fair and more just. So for that reason, allowing that discretion, we all speak about allowing the court to have discretion. This is a case that allows discretion in special cases, and that's why I'm in support of this legislation.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Sajid, affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 105. Nays, 36.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed on the main calendar. Page six, rules report two thirty nine. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number ten thousand three and fifty seven, rules report two thirty nine, Ms. Rosenthal. An act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Rosenthal. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosenthal.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: This

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: bill provides comprehensive health data privacy protections for individuals regarding their regulated health data and provides for the rights of consumers and responsibility of processors regarding regulated health data.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Blummergrantz.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Miss Rosenthal.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Mister Blumikratz.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: This isn't the first time we've debated this bill. We've seen it already. Can you tell us a little bit about the changes you've made since the governor's veto message regarding the maybe the definition surrounding what is and is not considered health data?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: One sec. Here. So generally, the defense definition of regulated entity and regulated health information were amended. There is a new verification process. It eliminates the twenty four hour waiting period that we spoke a lot about last year. And there are additional exemptions for federal law. Basically,

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: those are the ones.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, when you talk about a regulated entity, section four, this means that an entity that controls the processing of regulated health information of an individual who is a New York resident or b, is physically present in New York while that individual is in New York or c, is seeking to receive services in New York if the entity is located in New York. So what does physically present mean in this current definition? Does the company have to be physically present? Does just the individual?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: The individual is physically present in New York.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So let's say I'm wearing an Oura ring and I don't have the tracking for geolocation on and I live in Ohio and I travel to Buffalo to get some food, would Aura for that specific customer then be violating the law even though they don't know where the customer is because they are receiving health information under this law and they're not a New York resident.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: You say you're not a New York resident?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: They're not a New

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: York resident. No.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Okay. You are in New York.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: They drove into New York for the day.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: For

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: the for the time that you are physically present in New York, you're subject to New York's laws.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So, I'm Aura, right? They make those rings that track my heartbeat which would be considered a vital Which I

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: don't use but some Or

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: an Apple Watch. Yeah. Let's say I don't have geolocation options on my Apple Watch, but I am receiving my heartbeat. How is Apple supposed to know where I am and how are they supposed to know that they are no longer in compliance with the law?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: If you if you do not have your geolocation tracking on, then you've opted out of them tracking you.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: I have, but I am I'm still opted in to under this definition, sensitive health data because I'm receiving information about my heartbeat. So I just wanna know how compliance is supposed to work for a company like that. Right? Because they don't know where I am, but they do know that they would be out of compliance if they served a New York or a non New York president in New York.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: You have to write it. So they they wouldn't be able to process that information unless it were strictly necessary. Okay.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So you utilize this term strictly necessary. Most privacy laws use reasonably necessary as a standard. Why don't you choose the far more restrictive strictly necessary standard? And can you define what strictly necessary means within the definition of this bill? Strictly

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: necessary means, for example, if you wish to purchase let's see some weight loss medication and it would be sent to you. Strictly necessary would be your name, your address, anything necessary for them to process it and send you the product.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay. So that brings me to maybe some examples you could help me with because this law is pretty confusing especially for maybe some of those who have to comply. A retailer's algorithm notices a shopper buying prenatal vitamins and starts showing baby ads. Is that retailer now processing the regulated health information? And if yes, has the bill just made all of Target's entire recommendation engine illegal without having that separate authorization for the user?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I mean, yes, that would be

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: helpful But

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: the way a place like Target, Target labels what category the product is in. So that would necessarily be, you know, a health and wellness whereas your candy bar would not be.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Well, the reason I asked this question is because section eleven twenty two b 13, you state that and I find this pretty sweeping and and and still pretty concerning. Any data that's derived or extrapolated from non health information by algorithms or machine learning. So with that definitional inclusion within the bill, I find that you you sweep into other categories of non health data that may potentially touch health data. Which is why virtually every industry that this may touch is still pretty concerned about the language. First

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: of all, the Washington state law has comparable language and there hasn't been any trouble for the industry to comply.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So is your language parallel to Washington State law?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: It is it is very very similar and has the same effects basically.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: It's yeah.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: What is that? In the context of that same the inference clause that I I I recently brought up a search engine. Right?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: A what?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: If I

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: go into a search engine and I type in knee pain, has the act of

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: You type in

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Knee pain. Like, my

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: knee hurts. Knee pain.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Why does my knee hurt?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Knee pain. Okay.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Has the act of returning the results of a search engine? Is that using curated regulated health information? And if so, is it the website's obligation to report and ask for permission or is it the search engines or is it both? Will I have to go through the process of clicking through an acceptance when I Google it because it's health information now and then when I go to the website?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: I

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: mean, they're not processing that information or selling it then it's irrelevant.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Well, if I go on Google and I input information, they they would fundamentally be processing it. Right?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Processing is first is strictly necessary information. So you're just looking for information but not to obtain a service.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay. So given that, if I am going to a grocery store and I am part of a grocery store loyalty program that's now covered under this, what happens? Walk me through it. So do I need 12 font authorization forms at every checkout point or every time I purchase something?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: It depends on what you are purchasing.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So, is the grocer going to have to look at what I am purchasing to determine whether or not I have to comply with the law?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Well, I mean generally the grocer It depends. Are you talking about like the neighborhood bodega? They're really not in the business of using your information. But in general

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Let's say I'm going to Stop

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: and Shop.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Sorry?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Let's say I'm going to something like Stop and Shop. Mhmm. I go into Stop and Shop, I go to buy my groceries, I also happen to buy some prenatal vitamins. They're going to have to disclose to me that they may be utilizing HealthEta or no longer utilize HealthEta?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Why?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: So what does that mean?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: So, that can be reasonably linked to your health, they would need to get consent.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So when would they need to get consent? If when I'm purchasing if I'm at Stop and Shop and I go to the counter When

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: you make the purchase.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Who when they scan the item now, it's like.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Uh-huh.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: When you're over 18, you're like, now you need to consent to you know, you're 18. It'd be the same thing with help data if I'm purchasing something that could be considered sensitive.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Hold on one sec. He's not to sell anything strictly necessary to They do not need to consent to sell something strictly necessary to sell you that product because you're asking for that product. Okay. So you are asking for that product. So, you know, your your consent, it is strictly necessary.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: And I see how the application consent. I see how the application can apply online. Right? Because it's easier to collect information that way. But on the fly in a grocery store, if they are tracking what you're purchasing over time for loyalty program purposes, not necessarily for the purposes you may be looking to catch all here. They'd still have to fall into the compliance realm, wouldn't they? There'd still have to be an acceptance of the use of the information when you go to purchase something and I just, you know, when you're at a grocery store, I'm not necessarily sure how that was going work. I do have an I do want to

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: If they're selling your information, would not be allowed, if they're selling it, that's something different. If they need it just to they don't need consent to sell you prenatal vitamins, what's necessary for the transaction is perhaps your credit card or you want to get bonus points, your loyalty card. If you want to repurpose that information in ways that benefit the grocer and not you and that you would not expect, they would have to get consent.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Can you tell me how your bill affects the use of data for r and d purposes? So, not necessarily selling it but utilizing it for the use So, of research and

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: if it's disaggregated, so you you know, perhaps there's a profile of female age 35 lives in a city or whatever, know if it doesn't if you can't read it and identify it as Joe Joanne, then it's fine. But

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: dissimilar to HIPAA because this goes further as to what may be qualified versus the federal regulations. Correct?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Yeah. But it's it's it's different than HIPAA.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: It is. So going back to just some of my examples because I'd love to understand who is and is not strictly necessary to comply. So if I go into an app in my phone looking for a map to get directions to what turns out to be a clinic, is the navigation company

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Wait. Turns turns out to be

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Yes. Sorry. It's just a little loud. It turns out to be a clinic. So if I use a map to go to a clinic Uh-huh. Now they understand in my search history, they have me going to a clinic, maybe even regularly, they they can see that information. They use it for traffic data, not necessarily health purposes.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Right.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Would they still be caught in the regulatory

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: They're they're not using it for health purposes? You're just going to a parking lot? You're

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Well, you're putting the input is a piece of what you consider within your definitions health information

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Uh-huh.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Traveling to and from a clinic. Would that be caught within the definitions here?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I mean, you going to the clinic or were you just parking there?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: I put in my phone, I'm going to a dermatology clinic. I put in the actual name of the clinic.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: So that could be reasonably linkable to your health information?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So when I do that, does Waze then let's say I'm using Waze or Google Maps, do I have to understand what I'm consenting to each and every time I put in that address? Is it something when I sign up for the app they have to do? How does that framework look for your everyday user?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Well, when you sign up for the app.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So never again after that, they just have to do it once.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Once a year?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Every year, every twelve months.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Good.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So, I'm curious how this affects the small business that might have or utilize this information. Let's say I'm a small business but I utilize something like Stripe or Square for payment processing. Am I on

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Blummercrantz, are you taking your second?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Yeah. I'll take my second.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Okay. Go ahead.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Am I on the hook for liability if that health data is utilized one way or the other? Or is Stripe or another payment processing company that I'm utilizing is a small business on the hook? Who has to pay for the compliance metrics that are gonna be necessary here now?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Well, in in other states, there are there are measures that companies will be occurring some cost to comp you know, there would be some compliance costs.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: What about a landlord? If they receive a request from a tenant for disability accommodations, landlords trying to understand the metrics surrounding what they need to do in their buildings, they own multiple buildings, is keeping that file on the record conceivably considered sensitive health data under the catch all definitions you have in the bill?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I mean, the landlord is not selling or using your health data?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: They could potentially be utilizing that data for

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: For what?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Non health purposes, understanding how they can better serve the building when it comes to treating individuals with disabilities more fairly. Mean But they are collecting the data nonetheless which would be caught and encompassed within the bill.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I think that's a little far fetched.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: It happens. It was one of what where

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: And I

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: thought landlords collect information.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I didn't realize they do that too.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I have never ascribed that kind of action to a landlord. I know about other things that they do that perhaps are unsavory, but I never heard that they're gonna capture, you know, you're disabled and what are you gonna what are they gonna do with that? So I think that's a far fetched example.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: It depends on the accommodation you receive, but I understand that. Again, I'm looking at the most farfetched because the definitions are so broadly reaching and

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Well, you know, I must say that in the event that a company is really perplexed or confused, that's why we have an attorney general who can answer those kinds of thorny questions.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Has the attorney general's office since the passage the last time and this time said they're prepared subscribe to each and every single business that may be willing to Yes.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: And and there is no private right of action here which we did have, so we do have to rely on the attorney general. So they're well aware that it would fall under their ages.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So, under this bill, violations can result in penalties of up to 15,000 per violation or 20 percent of revenue received in New York. How could these violations arise from a single database containing thousands of customers? Or is it, you know, that if there was a single breach, how would that work? What does that what does that metric look like?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Can you repeat the the beginning part? Because I didn't hear it.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Just how the how the violation system is supposed to work, especially for businesses that might not be operating with level of sophistication of, say, an Amazon.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: No. More than 15. Okay. So Per violation per violation, which

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: is how they would get.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Okay. So the the penalties are no more than $15,000 per violation.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Or 20% of revenue No. In New York? No. That's not currently included in the

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: bill? No. Is Ali watching? No. But I have answers

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: to that. Did he have a follow-up

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: question? Is there a single organization representing New York businesses that currently supports this bill in its current form?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I don't know. I don't I don't know that you know, that's something you could find out. I have. I do okay. Good. I don't know.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Well, I ask because you have companies in areas and sectors, credit card, you have businesses and coalitions in multiple different spaces that you wouldn't think would be interested or concerned with the catch all of the language here who are. Do you feel like your bill is creating a serious regulatory burden and do you have an estimated cost to consumer or business on how to comply with this regulatory framework?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Absolutely. Absolutely not. As much as we in New York State like to break ground and be the first, Washington State has successfully implemented this. They do have a private right of action. There have been none. And this bill is interoperative with other states' privacy laws and our child data requires similar provisions that are protective of a child's personal data. So I think they are used to complying and it's not anything really new or revolutionary.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, going on into compliance a little bit more. A customer demands deletion of all regulated health information but the company is required by tax law or by a litigation hold or insurance regulation to keep the underlying record. The bill does exempt the deletion necessary to comply with legal obligations, but who decides what's necessary? And will the company receive a penalty either way or would they have to ask for compliance from the AG's office?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I mean, again, the AG would be the best source of guidance. And and they will be providing rules and regulations that may be helpful in complying with the law.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Under your definitions in this bill, is there any data held by any modern business that an algorithm couldn't conceivably link to health data? Health inference here, under your definition of health inference?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: I mean, I

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: I'm just trying to see because it seems like this starts as a health bill and ends as a data regulation.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: No. It's actually companies that are pulling your data and inferring certain health conditions. It's the companies themselves that are doing this. So that they can use the information, sell the information, market to you. And for example, and this happened in 2012, Target interpreted somebody buying lotion fragrance free that the purchaser was pregnant started sending ads for baby products. This is something that the person had not told their family, their friends and their parent saw the ads for baby products. So this is Target inferring from the purchase a health condition.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So, but where I'm concerned about innovation in this bill too because where it starts that way, it does devolve. You have within the inference clause and the r and d exclusion, you sort of say two things that are contradictory. Say, it says it can quote improve a product. Improving a product is allowed and then in the research and development, it is excluded. So you can't use the data for research and development to improve it, but you are allowed to use it for improvements without complying. So which which is it? If I'm using it for improvements but I don't call it r and d, it wouldn't qualify or it would? It seems like there's a bit

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: of It has to be de identified for r and d purposes.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: But not for innovation purposes. So improving a product is allowed. So I can use that non de identified data to improve my product.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: Yes. Yes.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: But I can't use it as a form of research or development for product improvement.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: You know, if that's an area of concern, we can have the AG clarify.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: I

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: really think that it'd be great to get that clarity here on the record too, but I understand that they'll be definitely working on on some of the the kinks in this.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: I think that's all my questions for today from you, Thank miss you. Thank you so much on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill. Everyone

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: agrees that sensitive health information should be protected. The question is whether we should pass a bill so broad that governor Hochul has vetoed a nearly identical version because of the scope and concerns on clarity. This legislation goes far beyond protecting medical records. It regulates information that might merely allow a health condition to be inferred. Not diagnosed, not treated, not recorded by a doctor, but inferred. As a result, businesses across New York will be forced to guess what data is covered and what isn't. They'll be forced to hire lawyers and interpret vague definitions or navigate one of the most restrictive policy frameworks in the nation. Hospitals have concerns. Banks have concerns. Credit cards and credit unions have concerns. Technology companies have concerns, and small businesses have concerns. Whenever one your bill affects is very concerned about its passage and implementation, it's reason to pause and second guess whether or we're getting it right on the first or second try. New Yorkers deserve privacy protections that are clear, that are targeted, and that don't get in the way of daily life, and don't make products inherently more expensive to meet regulatory frameworks. What they do deserve is not having another Albany mandate built on ambiguity, uncertainty, and unintended consequences. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the January.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The republican conference will generally be not in favor of this legislation. But if there are exceptions, members should vote now at their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this bill. For those that would like to be an exception, they can do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Otis to explain his vote.

[Steve Otis, Assembly Member]: Briefly, I'd like to compliment the sponsor on the bill. The number one value that we should be backing up in legislation like this is the right of an individual to have, if it is their choice, their health care information kept private in a world where none of what we do is really protected or unavailable to anybody that goes online, anybody that accesses information in a variety of ways. It's important that we protect the individual who makes the decision. Note that this bill leaves the decision with the individual. That's where the decision should be. My compliments to the sponsor, and I'm hopeful that this bill will pass both houses and be signed into law. I vote aye.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Otis in the affirmative. Ms. Rosenthal to explain her vote.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assembly Member]: To explain my vote. New Yorkers are using health apps, devices, and other digital platforms each and every day to monitor and log their health status. From step counters to period trackers to mental health journals, businesses are gathering our private information each and every day. What most New Yorkers and most people don't realize is that none of this information is protected by HIPAA. We've seen attacks on reproductive rights and so many other privacy concerns. We in New York State need to institute some protections now more than ever. And the New York Health Information Privacy Act will ensure we have strong protections and that our data will not be weaponized against us, sold to the highest bidder and will be protected because it is after all our data. Companies want to make money off it but we need to give them permission to use it for research, for development, but not to sell. And it's up to us whether they have access to use it for their own profits. I would like to thank the many advocates who have worked on this bill, especially Baum from NCLU. I'd like to thank the AG's team for their perseverance. And of course, I'd like to thank the Assembly Program and Council, Emily and her team, and my legislative director, Nick Giles, and of course everyone who supports this because they understand that our data belongs to us. I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Rosenthal in the affirmative.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: I wanna reveal you myself. Thanks.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So I I agree with the sponsor that every New Yorker really does deserve strong protections for their health information. The question I keep coming back to though is whether this bill really strikes the right balance between protecting privacy and preserving innovation, research, healthcare options and economic growth. I think that this bill really does impose broad and very uncertain requirements on entities far beyond traditional healthcare providers. It creates substantial compliance burdens and risks that are unintended consequences for consumers, for researchers and businesses alike. Before creating an expansive new regulatory regime, we really should ensure that the problem has been clearly identified, the cost fully understood, and the definition is sufficiently precise. So because I don't believe it does strike that appropriate balance, I respectfully vote no. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh, the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Aye. It's 96. Nay, it's 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 37, calendar number three seventy six. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10207 a, rules report calendar three seventy six, Ms. Kay, an act to amend the real property tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty one. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm continue more work on the main calendar on debate starting with the rules report three fifty one on page 10 by miss Torres. Rules report four forty one on page 12 by miss Walker followed by rules report four forty three on page 13 by miss Walker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. On debate, page 10, rules report three fifty one. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 9349B, Rules Report three fifty one, Ms. Torres. An act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Torres.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Speaker, this bill is a targeted prohibition on a harmful market behavior known as surveillance pricing. This practice is at the core of our affordability crisis and it causes harm to consumers and the marketplace by creating a fog of pricing that prevent that prevents consumers from comparison shopping, creates unfair situations where two individuals receive different prices for the same goods or services and overall leads to higher prices in the marketplace.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Durso.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Speaker. Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Will the

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Thank you, miss Torres. So just in your explanation there, you said surveillance pricing is what again in your definition?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So well, I can read you the definition in the bill.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: What you but what you just explained in your explanation

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: You said surveillance pricing is essentially

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: when when a company, corporation, an entity uses your personal data which can be for example your zip code, your browsing habits, you know, all kinds of information that is collected on you to set a price.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So to set a price?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mhmm.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So in other words, just use an example off of what you just said and then I'll I'll just because that's I just wanna ask a question for clarification. By using a ZIP code, for example. Right? So in other words, if my ZIP code is which it is, it's 11762, I can't be offered a different price than the person in the zip code next to me. Correct?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yes. Potentially. Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. But I can't be offered a different price, but I can be offered discounts?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yes. So the bill so the bill goes into discounts. Okay. So the bill goes into discounts and we define bonafide discounts which are legitimate discounts that are not based on any piece of personal data that includes things that we go into detail on the bill but things like coupons and retention offers and these sorts of things that are generally available in the market. We also define what is called a bonafide custom discount and that is a discount based on personal data in certain circumstances. For example, loyalty programs, hotel programs, membership programs, you are certain member of a particular group like a veteran, like a senior, etcetera and also discounts based on your purchase history with a particular retailer.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Understood. Now how would those particular retailers or how are they allowed to track your history buying at that store or restaurant or hotel? What can they use to track that?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So they can use pretty much whatever data is available to them on the internet that they collect on us. So they you know this there's often examples when you're searching for a flight. If you're searching for good or service and companies can combine different pieces of your data profile to

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: set a

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: price for you that is different from a price that someone else receives.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So so those companies are allowed to use your personal data in certain circumstances?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Well, right now they're using our personal data to set prices Correct. In many different ways. What this bill does is it prohibits surveillance pricing, so it prohibits the ability for an entity or a service provider to set a price using your personal data. So, personal date so a a price should be set based on supply, demand, what the market can bear, not your personal data. That's what this bill is all about.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Understood. So, in other words, you cannot I cannot have a different price for a good than you based on like I said, if I walked into a store and I'm carrying an expensive bag or I have expensive shoes, right, they can't look at me and say, that guy's essentially got money. Right? I'm gonna charge him more, but my colleague in front me is wearing sweatpants and they say he might not have enough. Sorry. So they're gonna charge him a lesser amount. That's what you mean by

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: That that's essentially the the spirit of the bill. Understood. And discounts and discounts are allowed they are allowed. Bona fide discounts are allowed. Legitimate discounts are allowed. Custom discounts, as I said, bonafide custom discounts, they are allowed as well based on personal data in particular circumstance.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: And okay. So that's what I I wanna drill down on at this second. You just said we can't price people if you walk into a store or a restaurant or anything like that because of an algorithm surveillance of that person and using their personal data. But we can in certain circumstances. What are those certain circumstances that you can use personal data to give someone a discount?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Okay. So, I'm gonna run through them when you can use personal data. We go through them in the bill. The first is loyalty programs, membership programs. For example, Hilton Honors, you're a Hilton Honors person. You can use personal data to set discounts on that. Group discounts for veterans, you're in a special class of consumers, you can get discounts there. You have to voluntarily provide that information in order to get said discount. And most times if you're you know, you go to Applebee's and you get the veterans discount, sometimes they'll ask you for you know a military ID. And then purchase history because that purchase history is the relationship that you've developed with the retailer. So they can offer, so for example, I think we talked about this in committee.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: We did, yes.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: When you know you go to a store often and they've collected data on your preferences. They can offer you let's say it's at a grocery store. You buy a certain seltzer. They can offer you chips with the seltzer at a discount. They can offer you a a premium brand of seltzer because they know you like seltzer.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Understood. So At a discount. Right. So they can offer me that that discount because I'm essentially a frequent customer there.

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: Mhmm.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right? So I could go in and because they essentially have my data, right, they can

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: offer purchase history.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Which is my data.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right? Because they're they're obviously keeping track of what I purchase.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right? So what I'm what I'm trying to understand is you're saying that they could use personal data in certain circumstances, but not in others. And I just wanna ask

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Oh, you understand? Okay. Got it.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Got it.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Yeah. And that and that's what one of my questions is because, again, you're saying that they're allowed to because the way I read this, and and that's why I'm asking, I could be wrong, was that you cannot collect people's personal data and give them a price because of their personal data. Yes. My shopping history is my personal data. So they can offer me a discount on a certain seltzer because they know exactly what seltzer I'm drinking. Right? But my friend in front of me, and I hate them. I'm just gonna be using him a lot as an example. If he's online behind me, does he have to receive the same discount even though right? So if I'm in front of him and I get lemon seltzer for $7 a case, and then he goes up and it's 9.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Mhmm.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right? Are we now in violation of that law because I got the discount and he's not?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Well, that so the thing about your your purchasing history is that's unique to you. So, you get unique discounts based on your purchase history based on that relationship, that consumer to business relationship that you have developed. That's based on your purchase history. He might have a different purchase history. That's the that's the relationship he's developed between the consumer and the business.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So can he bring a private right of action based on this bill stating that he did not receive he's paying more than me. Right? He's right on

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: the a discount.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: He's getting a discount.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: No. No. He's not gonna get the discount because

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Oh, no. Who someone's getting a discount. Right.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I'm paying $7 for the case. He's paying 9. Mhmm. Can he file a private right of action because he's not getting a discount, but I am?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: No. There's no language on private right of action in this bill. This bill does not include There's no language? Private right of action in this bill. In the b print, there is no private right

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: of action.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So the attorney general could not is is not gonna be instituting fines or anybody that

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: She can she she has enforcement and authority, but she does not have a private right of

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: action. There is no prior private right of action in this legislation whatsoever?

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So to backtrack on that, under the general business law now, right, to my understanding, any business entity that sets up the price of a specific good or service using personalized algorithmic pricing and directly or indirectly, advertisers, promotes, labels, or publishes a statement, display, image, offer, announcement personalized algorithm pricing to a consumer using his or her personal data must provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure stating that the price for such goods and services was set by an algorithmic using your personal data. That is and I'm sorry. It's okay. I actually didn't realize it was so long. That is the current general business law. Now, will this new law if it goes into effect, will it change that?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yes. Because that was a disclosure, so he passed that in the budget last year. It's a disclosure. So retailers, companies online have to disclose that when they're using an algorithm, using a personal data Mhmm. To set prices. So you see that on different retailers online. I see it. Now it's no longer a disclosure. Now surveillance pricing with this bill, so when we pass it, it's a ban. It's a prohibition on surveillance pricing.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: But see, just use those words again. I again, I'm just wanna be consistent. You said personal death.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right? So is that only online is what you mean by it? Or are you meaning it any store, restaurant, chain restaurant, you know, drugstore, anything like that. They cannot use personal data to set a price for you.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Most of these occurrences occur online because that's the the mass amount of how it's how corporations collect our personal data when we're exchanging it online. Okay. So, it the practice happens mostly online. It doesn't happen really in in brick and mortar stores.

[Speaker 25]: Okay. And and But for example, I'll give you an example.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Sure. Please.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: You know,

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: I'll give you one example is, you know, like Target. Target has a mobile app. Target, can buy online and there's also a you know, you can go to a physical store. Right? And so, know, one example of surveillance pricing that happened I think fairly recently was you had a customer that had the mobile app, looked at it a product on the mobile app and then kind of drove a little bit closer to a target, went to the target parking lot and the price went up. That's an example.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Because they're using your your location

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Right.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: To figure out, okay, they're close to Target. They're actually gonna buy the good.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: And I'm fine with And and and and and I think I stated that during committee

[Reading/Desk Clerk (Roll and Motions)]: Mhmm.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I don't want anybody to pay more because an algorithm picks up that maybe I have or look like I have money or anything like that. But what I am concerned with is the language in the bill when it comes to, as we keep saying, personal data, right, and bonafide discounts. So going back to bonafide discounts, and we're gonna get into the online portion of it and some other concerns I have. But the bonafide discount, right, again, explain to me what a bonafide discount is when it comes to a brick and mortar store.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Sure. So, a bonafide discount is a discount that is generally available to the public. One that is not based on personal data at It's not based on personal data. So, let's say it's like two for one, you bring a friend, you refer all kinds of promotions and and we list a couple in the bill. Let me see where we see

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: it. Really?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah. I see it. Okay. So you know based on things like bulk purchases and subscriptions, end of season sales, flash sales, early bird sales, inventory based sales, all of that is available and nothing has changed with regards to discounts. They're called bonafide discounts because they're general discounts that are available in the market.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: They're available to everyone? Everyone. Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So let's just say I go to a specific hardware store. I try not to use names of stores. I don't like to give anybody advertising. But because I frequently shop there or I haven't been there in a long time, and they say, hey. We haven't seen you in six months. Here's a $25 gift card or discount. Right? And, again, my next door neighbor who has never shopped there does not get that. And are they allowed to give me that discount?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yes. They are. Attention. That's a we miss you. Come back discount. Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Now in the previous version, right, we had this discussion. There seemed to be a little confusion on maybe if that was allowed. Do you think that the b print has now changed that?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: It is. We've clarified that. Yes. We've clarified that in the b print.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: So I'm gonna focus a little bit on more of the online portion of this because you're saying this seems to be a online issue

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: mostly. Largely.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So still it still remains the same as they you cannot be offered discounts using personal data. Correct? Mhmm. And now Well,

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: you you can be offered a discount. Like, you're you're still gonna be able to have all of your discounts. And even we have exceptions. Like, I wouldn't even call them exceptions. They're bonafide custom discounts. They're defined as discounts that use your personal data in particular situations and the reason why they're there is because we've met with so many industry leaders, so many members of the business community who said it's important to have these discounts. We agree and we included it in the bill.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So there's a big online shopping platform that's out there. Again, not using names. But I regularly get if I go on to that website, things will pop up on it, you know, saying these sneakers are for sale or these are at, you know, the it's now personalizing that sale to me and it also knows what I've shopped for. Is that not allowed anymore through this piece of legislation?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So, I wanna just take a step back and talk about the online marketplace a little bit. So, I think I know perhaps who you're referring to.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Probably all do. I'm just not

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: saying Okay. Your

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: That's fine. So, that's an online marketplace, right? And there's independent third party retailers on that site. You're allowed to offer discounts. If you're a retailer on that site for example, you can get or you can offer a discount to a consumer that's that's personalized based on purchasing history for example. Let's say that the larger retailer however, what they cannot do is they cannot cross reference the data from the other smaller retailers to set prices or discounts for you because that's an abuse of the data. And and I'll and I'll tell you a little about a little bit about why we care about that and about why that's important because you have a lot of small businesses that operate on these sites and then you have

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: a Sir, large you take a second.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry ma'am.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: You're taking your second.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Oh, please. Yeah. If I may.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: And then you have a large online marketplace that collects all of this data on you. All of this data on you. And they use that data to set prices, they use that data also to offer you a customized discount and perhaps they don't offer someone else a customized discount based on personal data when you didn't shop at at the retailer.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Right. And not that I'm sticking up for them at all. But as you just said, the third party, which is usually that smaller entity that's selling it through the larger entity, the third party is allowed to offer you that discount.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: But the bigger company is not allowed.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: They can they can offer you the discounts related to how they operate as a marketplace. So for example, let's say the marketplace does direct delivery service or they do a direct service for you. They can offer that to you Right. But they can't use the personal data to offer you a special discount or you to steer you to certain retailers. That's what they can't do. That's the whole idea of surveillance pricing. That's that's why it's a problem.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So they're saying you can't use my personal debt to to so if there's two separate retailers on that using that platform Mhmm. You can't direct me to one in particular one.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: And not the and not the other because of the data that the online marketplace has. Because it it's also it's also a competition issue. Right? Because an online marketplace might wanna direct you to a particular retailer and not another one and that hurts small businesses that are on the broader online marketplace.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. So just a couple more questions, miss Torres. What evidence currently other than, like you said, an example that you'd given before, demonstrates that surveillance pricing is a widespread problem?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Sure. I'm gonna give you a couple.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Sure.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So in 2025, there was an interim study done by the Federal Trade Commission that found that several existing clients of surveillance pricing solutions including large retailers, a significant number of stores including grocery stores, apparel retailers, health and beauty retailers, home goods, furnishing stores, building and hardware stores, travel and financial service firms and general merchandise retailers participate and use the tools of surveillance pricing if you will.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Understood. So just for clarity, when it comes to discounts, is this only this is really for every business. Correct? I know there are certain when it comes to insurance, right, we talked about banking institutions. That's federally regulated to a degree. Right? So Yeah. This doesn't affect that. What about when it comes to higher education institutions, colleges? Right? So if a college, as many kids now, are are getting set for college. Right? And they're essentially shopping around. Right? And a college uses your data. Right? In other words, whether it's online presence, whether it is any information about you. Right? To offer you a scholarship. Right? Would this affect that ability for the colleges to give you any type of discount, any type of different price than it would give it to me than my friend here sitting in front of me.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: No. This this does not affect

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: I know.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Grants, scholarships, financial financial aid. It does not. It does not. And and that's something that's come up in conversation and in the rules and regulations that will be promulgated, you know, a hundred and eighty days after this goes into effect, it's gonna be laid out because that's a concern that came up. This is not the intention of the bill. It does not touch that issue.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I understand it's not the intention, but it will not affect that.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: It will not affect.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: Okay. Thank you, miss Torres. No more questions. I

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: appreciate it. How

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: many times?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Bologna.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. Madam speaker, would the sponsor yield for a few quick questions.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Ms. Torres. Some of the questions I have are going to be regards to the financial service industry and banking specifically, which I believe was added in the B print version of this bill. Is an accurate statement? Yeah. Okay. So, what specific documented examples of surveillance pricing by a New York State chartered bank prompted banks to be added to the bill? So,

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: the banks in conversations that we've had with the banking industry, they have told us that they do not participate in surveillance pricing And because they do not participate in surveillance pricing, we didn't think they needed a carve out or exemption.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Okay. So there's not an example of something where someone brought an actual specific case of of an incident or a an occurrence of trouble with surveillance pricing with banks in New York. That has not happened. Right?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Well, mean, what I'll say is there are in I would say, you know, like the fintech world Mhmm. The banking world. There's lots of examples where you have retailers that use or that offer credit cards, that offer banking tools that you know potentially could be participating in this. But what I will say is that we spoken to the banking industry and they say they do not do this.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Alright. So, if we can't identify a record of abuse in the financial services or banking industry, then what specific banking problem are we actually trying to solve by adding them to the legislation?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: They're not no. They're not they're not included. There's there there's a carve out for them essentially here. Okay.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So, would you agree that banks are regulated by federal banking regulators and the Department of Financial Services?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Sorry. Say that say that again?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Banks are already regulated by the federal banking regulators and Department of Financial Services in New York

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: State. Right? Yes. Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So Sorry. And forgive me. Yeah. Fine.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: It's eleven something. So I I get it. So what regulatory gaps exist that these regulators have failed to address?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: I guess this bill doesn't capture banks. It's not it's not capturing banks.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Okay. Okay. Thank you very much and Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Norber.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Thank you, madam. Sponsor yield.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yield. Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Thank you very much. Thank you, miss Torres. Just few questions regarding how this would apply to platforms such as Google and Facebook and because many businesses these days are implementing the platforms themselves on Facebook, Instagram, Google, which enable them and allow them to pinpoint specific behaviors that that anybody has while searching on Instagram or Google. And there is no way to really disable these features if they want to advertise on these platforms. And these days, everybody, every organization and business is utilizing these tools.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: So I

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: just wanted to see

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: How it

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: How could this be avoided in terms of surveillance pricing when that's pretty much what it's all about?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah. I mean, if if Google and and I think some of the other online services you mentioned, if they're setting prices for things, this this affects them. So if they are setting a price for a service, then this would impact them. They're an entity setting a a price.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: So this would impact to the this would impact the the business that's utilizing tools?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Google as a business. Google as an entity.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Could they could they be actually receive could they receive a a violation?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Or Potentially, if they're setting a price Just

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: because they're using Google?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: No. No. No. Because if as an entity, if they're a they're a business, they're a corporation. And so if they are if Google is selling me a service, Google sells service Gmail.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: All that sell ads.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah. It yes. They sell And so if they're selling things to a consumer.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Right.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: And they're using surveillance pricing as we've defined it here and there's a violation, yes.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: The whole thing is a violation. That's what I'm trying to get at.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: No. No. It is.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Because Okay. Because if let's say a person is searching on the web apartments and then somebody wants to sell to them roofing services or moving services or whatever it might be. I mean, isn't that a form of surveillance pricing just because they're searching for an apartment?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Well, if you're mean

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: because that's personal

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Marketing is not really addressed Marketing is not addressed in this bill, if that's what you're referring to. Marketing, advertising

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Marketing. Yeah. If a person if we're gonna look at a person's personal information

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Is behavior on the web considered to be part of that personal information?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: A personal data, yes. But we're talking about pricing here. So like you could search online, that is free. Like you can go online and and search online. But if if the entity as a business is setting a price, then, yes, this is not a a big broad data privacy bill. Like, this is not I mean, if if if that answers your question, this is about pricing.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: So if, let's say, in the example, I wanna a person is be is searching on the web, Versace, Cartier, things like that, and I wanna sell and my business is gonna sell to him a thousand dollar necklace. Okay. Would that be considered to be a problem? Surveillance pricing?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Bailey']: No. I don't

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: I mean, companies companies can and do monitor your browsing habits. So it wouldn't be I mean, you couldn't, like, put a violation on on the Internet. But if a company if someone if a company bought your data, we don't have a data broker bill. We don't have like a, you know

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Well, no.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Prohibition on on

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: somebody advertise that.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Data. I

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: wanna find all the people that are looking on the on the web for Versace.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: And we can take up a bill like that.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: No. But address that. I thought that's

[Presiding Officer (Acting Chair)]: Price based on

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah. They just you you can't set a price based on that.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: So a month later, I'm not selling that necklace the way I would like to sell it, and now I decided to sell for a $100. Mhmm. And to say to a different market, a different geographic market. Mhmm. Would that

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: be If it's not based on personal data, you can. If it's not based on someone's personal data, you haven't personalized the price for an individual, then you're able to to adjust the price

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: of the algorithms work right now on Instagram and Google is only according to personal data. So they really see everything.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: They know exactly how to find these specific types of consumers.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: So it's just the way the Yeah. Mean, would is built

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: in terms

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: of those two.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: If they are engaging in surveillance pricing and selling you products or services based on surveillance pricing, then yes, they would be in violation.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Corporation would be

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: The corporation would entity. Be

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Okay. Because I think there's an issue could be an issue here in terms of the way these systems are enabled. The tools that that they want us to use, the businesses to use Mhmm. Are already are already embedded with surveillance pricing.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: So Mhmm. I'm just not sure how this bill could maybe could be fixed in that way because that's my opinion. I if somebody does wanna get into trouble, if right now I'm gonna Google is selling me these these tools and they will. Mhmm. And then the state comes back and says, you're not allowed to do exactly what Google's advert is letting you do, then that's my whole concern.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: I mean,

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: I think it you know, definitely when the bill hopefully comes into effect, there'll be rules and regulations that the AG will develop and I hope that we'll be able to address some of this. But I just want entities and and service providers. So I I'm thinking of this as as Google and and Instagram as as entities and service providers providing a

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: But am I allowed to change my price from time to time for that for for whatever I'm selling?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: If it's I mean, dynamic pricing, yes. Like, this doesn't address dynamic pricing. You can change a price based on supply demand and what the market can bear. Yes. But based on personal data, what this bill says is no. You can't use personal data to change to change price.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Okay. So if I wanted to change my price and do this in a way that doesn't make creating violations for myself, how would I do that? On my platform, on my website, on my app?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: You know, based on prior purchase history, based on just not not in use of personal not in use of personal data. Just based on supply, demand, and inventory conditions, and and the things that we have historically set prices on

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Okay.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: As businesses and and corporations.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Okay. Thank you very much.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: Thank you.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: No more questions.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. We'll sponsor you for a few questions.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The sponsor you? Yes. Sponsor Hey Mr.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Stores, how are you tonight?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Good, as great as can be.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I know.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: It's early.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: It's early, right? It sure is. I don't have lot of questions, I just want to go over a couple of things and more of my time talking on the bill. But I did want to ask you, when I was listening to debates, think most of my colleagues covered most of the questions. You had mentioned that this legislation does not capture banks, is that correct?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Yeah, the so the and forgive me because You're fine. The intent is not to capture banks because they don't engage they told us that they don't engage in surveillance pricing, they're not they're not included. I think you're talking about the GBL.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yeah, because the original version

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Yeah.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: They had the exemption in, but this

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: one Yeah. What's in there now is there was a FCRA, the Federal Credit Reporting Act because for example, if you take out a loan, mortgage or what have you, you have to provide or use personal data as part of that because for function of credit score.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Right, but just for the record, you did remove the GLBA, right?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Correct.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And what we're hearing from obviously the banking industry who have expressed opposition is that that should go hand in hand with the federal credit FCRA. So you removed it, I think that's some concerns from that perspective.

[Scott A. Gray, Assembly Member]: Just want

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: to speak on the bill. Just want to get that clarified. I could, you. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes, I appreciate the questions from my colleagues. I think they covered most of the questions. To me, this is more about more misplaced priorities. At a time when our families are struggling in the midst of an affordability crisis, now is not the time to institute an outright prohibition on certain price discounts, coupons, and promotions, and this would at least exacerbate the affordability challenges facing our New York families rather than providing meaningful solutions. And rather than discouraging businesses from using a customer's personal identifiable information to increase the price of goods, this legislation would actually limit popular discounts and promotions in New York State. When we talk about some of the programs, discounts that you know, that have families that benefited from these programs, some of the ones that I have a list of here, what programs are at risk, the just for you personalized savings programs, personalized lightning deals, personalized restaurant promotions, we miss you, win you back offers, possible hotel loyalty programs, browse abandonment offers, rewards program challenges at different industries, like shelving labels, savings, milestone life events, birthday promotions, things of that nature, even military seniors. And although they say there's exemptions for this, have some of these you have to actually apply for and qualify for. This legislation, and I understand the intent of it, not questioning the intent of the sponsor, but has a host of opposition from a number of different groups. Even recently this week, independent colleges and universities came out expressing their concern that they could face significant legal and operational uncertainty regarding their ability to administer financial aid programs to help students afford college. That's a concern. The hospitality and tourism industry have expressed concerns. The New York State Bankers Association expressed concerns relative to the removal of this one provision that they believe should be in there and for whatever reason it was removed in this print and that should go hand in hand along with the FCRA. The financial technology association has expressed concern, a host of other issues. Our small business community, the NFIB says this is something that would impose a comprehensive ban on pricing practices and they will no longer be able to offer targeted promotions, loyalty programs, and personalized savings options to help New York households manage their budgets effectively. The food industry alliance says this potential ban will further increase the cost of groceries and prohibit the ability for retail food stores to offer discounts, rewards, programs, coupons. The retail council says this is outright prohibition on certain price discounts, coupons and promotions will exacerbate the affordability changes facing New Yorkers. One industry after another, again I understand the intention of what the sponsor is trying to do, but now is not the time to take away the opportunity for families to save money in the midst of an affordability crisis and a quality of life crisis that's going on here in New York. For those reasons and many other, what kind of points my my colleagues brought up, I'm gonna be voting in a negative on this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Zuccaro?

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: On the bill, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: So today, I rise not just as a legislator, but I rise as a father. Like parents across New York, I know what it means to sit at a kitchen table and to make tough choices. I know what it means to stretch a paycheck as many of us has learned over the last couple of weeks. I know what it is to compare prices and to ask whether there's enough left at the end of the month for groceries, school supplies, transportation, and the little moments that our children deserve. And every parent knows that calculation. Every working family knows that calculation. And when New Yorkers make those decisions, they deserve one simple thing. A fair price. Not a manipulated price. Not a secret price. A fair price. But today, powerful corporations are using personal information in ways most consumers never see and never consent to. They track our online behavior. They collect our data. They analyze our habits, and they feed that information into algorithms designed to answer one simple question. How much more can we charge this person? Think about that. Two people sitting side by side looking at the same product, the same flight, the same hotel room, the same sporting event ticket, yet one pays more than the other. Not because of supply and demand, not because of market competition, but because an algorithm has decided that they can afford to pay more. Colleagues, that is not transparency. That is not fairness. That is not free market. That is digital discrimination. And what makes it even worse is that consumers consumers often don't even know that this is happening. The decision is hidden. The process is hidden. The price is hidden. Meanwhile, working families are oftentimes left paying the bill. In The Bronx, I represent hardworking people who do everything they can. They wake up every single morning. They work long arm hours. They care for their families. They contribute to their communities. They play by the rules. But oftentimes they feel like the rules are written for, they're not written for them. They feel like the deck is constantly stacked against them. And when companies use personal data to quietly charge more people, that feeling isn't paranoia. It's reality. Technology should make life better, and artificial intelligence should empower consumers, not exploit them. Innovation should create opportunity, not create new ways to squeeze working families. If a company wants to compete, let it compete by offering a better product, a better service, a better price. Not by spying on consumers and charging them whatever the computer predicts they will tolerate. And at a time when families across New York are struggling with the cost of housing, groceries, transportation, childcare, we cannot allow hidden algorithms to make life more expensive. And what this bill does today is it draws a very clear line. It says, your personal data should not be used against you. It says that your privacy should not be a profit center, and that your wallet should not be target of a secret algorithm. And so today, madam speaker, we send a clear message that in New York, fairness matters. That in New York, transparency matters. That in New York, consumers matter. And I wanna content I wanna commend the bill sponsor for bringing this important legislation forward. A mom and a colleague like many of you all who understand what this reality is like for the people that you serve in your communities. And so today, I stand in full support of this bill and of this legislation because I stand for New York families, and I stand for transparency. And as a father, and as a representative of the Bronx and someone who believes that all New Yorkers deserve a fair shake. And so, madam speaker, with that, I yield my time, and I I proudly vote, in favor of this bill, and I look forward to its passage. Thank you so much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Torres?

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Torres']: So, I just wanted to one, just correct one thing for the record because I know we were talking about banks and banking. Banks are technically covered but they are exempted for credit related decisions and they've told us again and again that they do not practice surveillance pricing. So I wanted to make that clear for the record and then I wanted to talk a little bit about why why did this bill. Surveillance pricing represents a fundamental shift in how prices are set. Behind our screens, corporations quietly collect treasure troves of our data, our personal data from our mouse clicks and browser history to our zip code and even when we are getting our next paycheck. Companies are tracking our behaviors online and building specific consumer profiles on us to infer our quote unquote price sensitivity including the highest price we are willing to pay for a given product or service. Companies will call this personalized pricing which can suggest that there's a type of value within this pricing for the consumer. But the reality is that we as consumers, we as New Yorkers have no idea what a true price is anymore because I can get a different price compared to my neighbor for the very same product or service. It might be because I shopped right before getting my paycheck and the retailer knows I have more money to spend. It might be because of desperation, because corporations that use surveillance pricing prey on our desperation including lack of time to comparison shop like when we need to take an emergency trip or buy medicine for our sick children. Because under surveillance pricing, the reality is that if you really want or need something and a seller knows it, with surveillance pricing you will likely pay more for it. Most policy makers will call that exploitation but corporations will call it revenue generation or efficiency. This is all because our data has value and in today's digital commerce world, it is available to them in limitless ways that they can use to impact pricing. This also means that some consumers may get discounts, some may not and some may be charged a higher price without anyone knowing it. Many, many corporations are using software pricing tools and pricing consultants to determine price sensitivity to optimize prices accordingly. And time and time again, these tools are mentioned on investor and earning calls as ways to maximize profits for corporations by finding the maximum price consumers are willing to pay. This is simply not how our economy should work. Advancements in technology can absolutely bring innovation to our lives but when it comes to pricing and affordability, the practice of surveillance pricing is exploitation, plain and simple. New Yorkers shouldn't be put in a position where we have to decide between affording our groceries and protecting our privacy. You shouldn't have to constantly clear your cookies to get a lower price. You shouldn't have to sign up for subscriptions and memberships offering a quote unquote discount in exchange for full access to every personal data point in your life. Shopping online shouldn't feel like a bait and switch. We need this ban on surveillance pricing because our screens are not public storefronts. New Yorkers should not be spied on or ripped off. They deserve fair pricing. They should have the ability to compare and to find the best deal and feel secure in knowing that the price they see is legitimate and the price that is offered to other consumers. This legislation recognizes that personal data should not be used as a tool to extract the highest price possible from each individual consumer. It promotes transparency, it safeguards privacy and it ensures that technological innovation works for people rather than against them. This legislation also helps to level the playing field for small businesses because larger corporations and online marketplaces have the ability to collect vast amounts of data and buy sophisticated pricing tools that facilitate this practice, but most small businesses do not. Banning surveillance pricing promotes fair competition in the marketplace. And a last word on discounts, this bill preserves the ability to for businesses offer a wide array of discounts including personalized savings, retention offers and even discounts based on purchase history. But it does not allow unfair pricing based on personal data. Finally, I just wanna thank a lot of people who are part of this. I wanna thank the speaker and his team. I wanna thank senator May on the senate side for this for for carrying this in the senate. I wanna thank our tremendous attorney general, Tish James and her entire team, Chair Rozic. I want to thank Program and Counsel and very large coalition that we worked with including AARP, New York, UFCW, RWDSU, the American Economic Liberties Project, Zephyr Teach Out, Groundwork Collaborative, eleven ninety nine, CSEA, AFL CIO, DC thirty seven, the NAACP, Consumer Reports, the Small Business Majority, the Community Service Society and many, many more. And I also want to thank everyone who's here with me including my chief of staff, Ram Datsingh. With that, I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the January.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party votes been requested. Mister Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this bill. However, there may be exceptions and those individuals can vote yes at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The the majority conference will be in the affirmative on this piece of legislation. For those that would like to be an exception, they can make that exception at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Bologna to explain his vote.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. You explain my vote. I'm voting no on this legislation because I do not believe we've adequately addressed significant ambiguities in the bill before us. During debate, the sponsor suggested that the legislation does not affect banks or financial service industry. Respectfully, I disagree. The language before us does not clearly support that conclusion. In fact, I continue to question why the exemption for entities regard regulated under the GLBA were removed in the first place. More importantly, this debate highlights a broader problem. It's not enough for members to stand up and tell us that what the bill intended to do. It's our responsibility to write legislation that clearly states what it does. Intent is not law. Statutory language is law. There are too many gray areas in the bill, too many unanswered questions about the scope, and too much uncertainty about who may ultimately be affected. I'm particularly troubled by the rationale that we should pass a bill now and fix any deficiencies in future chapters. That's not a responsible way to legislate. We should solve major questions before enactment, not after. When regulated entities face uncertainty regarding their legal obligations or potential liability, they respond conservatively. In the financial sector, that can mean tightening lending standards or reducing access to credit. And the people most affected are often not those with great resources, but first time homebuyers, young families, working class New Yorkers, and borrowers with limited credit histories. And what brings me back to the question I have repeatedly asked throughout the debate is what specific problem in the banking or financial service industry were we trying to solve with this bill? And I still have yet to get a good answer on that. For that reason, I cannot support the legislation before us. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Polonian, the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 96. Nays, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 12, rules report four forty one. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one five five seven, rules report number four forty one. Committee on rules, miss Walker. Enact to amend the election law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested, miss Walker. One moment, please, miss Walker. On a motion by miss Walker, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested, miss Walker.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I thought you were gonna say read the last section, madam speaker. This bill would authorize the legislature to determine the form in which a statewide proposed constitutional amendment is submitted to the people of the state of New York on the ballot. It also requires that such proposals are presented in the clearest language and with the most accurate descriptions. This is critical given the gravity of a constitutional amendment. It is a moment that should be treated with the sanctity and clarity it deserves, and it is a rare opportunity for voters to have a direct voice in state policy. As my brother would say, straight talk leads to straight understanding. Clear language is the best pathway to understanding, and we cannot accurately engage the sentiment of the electorate on a proposed amendment if they cannot understand it. The legislature would be required to use best efforts to comply with the plain language requirements and best efforts to score no more than an eighth grade reading level. The bill preserves the plain language standard which is already part of the law. That means the proposed amendments will use concise language no more than that's it.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Sampolinsky.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, first, chairwoman, I wanna wish you good morning because we are past midnight. So bear with me if I'm a little punchy. So the way that I'm gonna walk through what it does, what I think has not changed and then what I think has changed and this maybe ask you to clarify some things if that's alright.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: My understanding is that this calls on the legislature to produce the form and abstract of any concurrent resolutions that are constitutional amendments. Can you sort of describe to us what those would be? What is the form? What is the abstract?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Form shall include a descriptive title of up to 15 words, a summary of the text ballot proposal of up to 30 words in plain language that describes a change in policy to be adopted and not the legal mechanism.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: And am I correct that under this proposal, the form and abstract could either be included in the constitutional amendment when it's passed or it could be its own separate concurrent resolution as long as it's passed a certain amount of time, I believe, one hundred and twenty days prior to the general election which a particular constitutional amendment is considered.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Okay. So there's some flexibility there in timing on when the legislature would produce this particular information.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes. Okay.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Now, a lot of the things that didn't change or are similar to or, you know, the same as current election law are the provisions regarding the type of language. Is that correct?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That's correct. The plain language requirement, which requires that the language be easily comprehended and concise, No more than one passive sentence, no use of semicolons, and utilize multiple sentences as necessary, and no double negatives remains.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: And am I correct that those rules are already included in election law in section four dash one zero eight, to which this, law, adds a new subdivision. So it's referring back to previous subdivisions in section four dash one zero eight and there really aren't any changes as far as what plain language means. You're using the same plain language rules that the board of elections is compelled to use under current statute.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I believe that's a correct assumption. Yes.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Thank you, chairman. And the level of vocabulary and sophistication of the language currently would be at the eighth grade standard and under this bill would also be at the eighth grade standard. Is that correct?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Okay. And the effective date of this would be effectively immediately. So anything that would pass in the current session, know, maybe perhaps amendments that will pass later today or maybe maybe amendments we passed yesterday, those would this would apply to those. Right?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That is correct. Okay.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So that's wanna go over those are a lot of things that that didn't change. Now, what does change, am I correct that prior to the passage of this potential law, the board of elections is mandated to produce the form and abstract for constitutional amendments. That is our current process and and my understanding long standing process.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That is correct. You said that the board of elections would be the focal promulgate the language.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Right. Prior to this, under current law.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That's correct. Yeah. And there is also a place for the office of the attorney general to weigh in on that as well. And so this bill actually makes that requirement a little more concise.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: It actually you anticipate that was one of my next questions. So the AG would hold a similar role to what she does now as far as advising this process?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Not necessarily.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Not necessarily. Okay. So it's sort of mandated that she does now. If it goes to the legislature, she doesn't it's not a requirement that she advises. It's not like she has to submit an opinion prior to the passage of constitutional amendment. There's no requirement for her action like that in this.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: In this, no.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Okay. And my understanding of the role of the BOE, should this pass would be they cannot make any amendment or alteration to the language that would be produced by the legislature. However, they would still determine the order in which propositions are placed on the ballot. Is that correct?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Okay. So why is this change needed now?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, one of the goals that we mentioned is about making the the process just more clear and more concise. This provides the legislature with an option to draft the plain language that will appear on the ballot for voters. You know there's an age old adage that says sometimes the people who are closest to the problem are also closest to the solution. And since the legislature will be drafting the statutory amendment, then it will be easier for the legislative intent to be able to be realized in a ballot question. It would avoid a lot of confusion with a number of different authors lending to the ballot question and what it may look like as in the past. And section one of article 19 of the state constitution places a duty on the legislature to submit a proposed statement amendment to the people for approval. And so this bill is not inconsistent with that requirement and with that intent that the legislature approve such amendments.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So, we went through. There isn't really a lot of changes to you know the level of language. It's eighth grade. There aren't changes to what plain language means. And you had indicated at the outset during your explanation that the hope was to make things clearer. I understand what you're saying as far as you know legislative intent, but we're not changing the words that you're allowed to use or the format of those words. It's just who's writing them is different. So I don't understand why it would make it clearer for the electorate if we wrote it as compared to the BOE, if the rules that we have to follow as far as difficulty and how plain it is are exactly the same.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, the there is already a constitutional duty for the legislature to make amendments to the constitution. And so quite frankly, it follows a pretty decent path that the folk who would be writing such language should be the people who would be involved in preparing the actual amendment in the first place. In addition to that, it still sets clear readability standards. It would also reduce a lot of last minute lawsuits, procedural confusion, and basically it creates clarity and not controversy. And so we want to just ensure again that the people who were the closest to recognizing that a constitutional amendment was necessary are also the folk who are explaining it to the people, so that there is no confusion at the ballot.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: What is the partisan makeup of the board of elections?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: It's bipartisan.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Right. That that's my understanding. So it's equal representation on the board of elections between the two major parties that being the two parties that received the most votes on their party line in the most recent gubernatorial election. They each have half control of the board of elections. That's my understanding. Is that also your understanding?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes, sir. It is.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Okay. What's the makeup of the New York state legislature?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: It's bipartisan.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, I I agree because you know we're in two different political parties. But I would say it may not be equally bipartisan as the board of elections which is mandated to have equal representation from each of the two major political parties. Obviously

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, I I guess it depends on what you mean equal. We generally have equal constituencies

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Oh, that's in number. That's true. What I'm saying is the board of elections is mandated by statute to have equal control between the two political parties and the New York state legislature is super majoritarian. One particular political party. So one might feel as I do that you're taking this from a truly statutorily bipartisan body and handing it to a partisan body?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, not necessarily. The legislature has the option that they may choose to exercise or not. And if they don't exercise it, then the board of elections, which is again another bipartisan body, may be able to draft the language.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So just so just to clarify that, there is not a mandate that the legislature act, they have the option to act and they could kick it back to the old process if they wished?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Okay. Now I would imagine for the more controversial, the more important referendum, the legislature might be more likely to act and that those would be the ones that we would be the most concerned about partisan bias leaking into the process.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment. Okay. I just think that the legislature has the option to elect to and the purposes is will be about being clear and being concise and ensuring that the legislative intent of the statutory amendment is communicated to the people of the state of New York in a way that is understandable, readable, and is plain language.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: How does a constitutional amendment get on the ballot?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: A constitutional amendment gets on the ballot by being voted in this house in two consecutive sessions terms, legislatures, and then there'll be a ballot question on

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: the ballot. My understanding. So for something to be on the ballot, it has to have passed both houses of the legislature twice effectively by that process. So therefore, we know that whatever the majority in the legislature is is by definition in favor of the amendment. Otherwise, it wouldn't be on the ballot. So therefore, by definition, the legislature is biased in favor of the amendment.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I can't necessarily say I agree with that. Well, if they But you are safe to make that interpretation.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, my my point is that if they weren't favor of the amendment, the amendment wouldn't be offered because we're the ones offering the amendment.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I don't think that's the part that I disagree with. You know, we're having a lot of conversation about one party, other party, this party, that party. The goal of this legislation is not to advance any campaigns, it's not to advance any particular political party. This is about having a clear and readable and concise and understandable piece of information which will be on the ballot that the people will have a voice in how our constitution is made.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Let's let's imagine, heaven forbid, that the legislature which as I said will love whatever referendums on the ballot produces something that is biased toward the proposal. What would be the recourse to prevent that bias from leaking into the ballot?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, there is a standard that was presented in a case. The case is Fernandez versus the board of elections. I am looking for the language as it relates to that standard. And when challenging a ballot proposition, the petitioner must show that the language on the ballot is not misleading, nor ambiguous, nor illegal, and that is consistent with existing law. So the language is not, you know, the whomever is the drafter does not have unfettered opportunity to be able to just write, you know, whatever it is that they choose to write without the necessary checks and balances of the judiciary.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So chairwoman, would be adjudicated through the courts. There's no sort of review by the board of elections or any other body that's baked into your statute. You would have to go and sue basically.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: And people have exercised that right. Alright.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: Well, chairwoman, I appreciate you answering my questions at this early or late, however you wanna look at it, hour. I'm gonna go on the bill.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: So I I do have some very grave concerns about this piece of legislation. I'm gonna be voting against it. And, as I laid out in my questioning and I appreciate the chairwoman being so gracious to answer my questions. We have a process that is working.

[Eddie Gibbs, Assembly Member]: I'm gonna You want

[Joseph M. Sempolinski, Assembly Member]: go to Yeah. We have a process that is working. It has been long standing. It inherently forces by statute the description of a constitutional amendment to a truly perfectly bipartisan organization. And I think that's appropriate because it's important that the people, if we're going to as we discussed last night, trust the people to make the changes to the constitution. They have to be presented a fair objective description of what they may be signing up for or what they may be declining to sign up for. And we all know that there is one party that has dominant control of this chamber, the chamber down the hall, and we would be handing this grave responsibility over to a very partisan by definition, extraordinarily political body. And the immediate temptation would be to produce a biased description. And as I said, we would know they would have that temptation because they would have been the ones that just voted for the proposition to put it on the ballot multiple times. And so they're gonna want to convince people to vote for it. And certainly, I think people should be able to campaign for or against any proposition that's on the ballot. We heard last night people are getting ready to campaign for or against the proposition that'll potentially be on the ballot in 2027 that we passed last night, but it shouldn't be done on the ballot. That should be unbiased. That should be fair. It should not be political. It should not be driven for partisan purposes. And and I'm concerned obviously about the timing. We had a very controversial constitutional amendment that we did last night. I I hear rumors we may do another one before we're done. And so, to now change the process, I think is is extraordinarily problematic. I think it will lead to bias. I think it is once again as we've been doing this week, injecting partisanship where partisanship should not be, undermining our institutions. We have a process that works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And just as I have said over the last couple days, stop messing with the constitution. Let's not mess with the process by which the people, the sovereign people of the state of New York will be determining whether to change their constitution. This is partisanship in the process that we simply do not need and can't afford if we're going to have a healthy democracy in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Bologna.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a quick question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. So, you familiar with the term like when we talk about polling or asking questions? Are you familiar with the term framing?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes. Okay.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Would you agree that

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Like you're about to frame your question?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Possibly. Uh-huh. The day is young. So would you agree though that depending on how I could be asking the same question, but depending on how I ask that question is gonna prompt a different response from the respondent.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: You wanna give me an example of that?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: I would love to. I'd love to. I actually have a couple right here. So, let's say let's talk about hamburgers. I'm actually kinda hungry. Let's talk about hamburgers for a second. So, option one is, would you like a juicy flame grilled hamburger with fresh toppings?

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No. Okay. Would you like

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: to eat processed remains of slaughtered cows served on bread? Same hamburger?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: No. And, I am from South Carolina. So.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: My wife is also from South Carolina. We're vinegar based what if I use vinegar based barbecue? There we go. We could use slaughtered pork. But, my point is, is that we're still talking about the same product. We're still talking about the same thing. But, the way that that question is framed prompts a different response from who's receiving the question. Would work with me on

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: that one?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I can work with you on that.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: Alright. Thank you very much. You know what? That's all I needed. I'm gonna go on the bill. Thank you so much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bell.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Consist of fate I've ever had. Thank you.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: That's what I'm here for. So I want to start with something simple demonstration, and this is beyond hamburgers. But, you know, if two pollsters show up at your door and one says, do you support allowing the legislature to provide voters with a clear plain language explanation of a proposed constitutional amendments? And the second one asks, do you support allowing politicians who wrote the amendment, voted for the amendment, and directly benefit from the amendment's passage to also write the description of that amendment for the voters, which do you think that the voters are going to go with? The same question, the same underlying policy, two completely different answers because the framing determines the response. And every political consultant and every pollster in this state knows that. And yet with this bill, we're handing the majority party the pen. And and, really, the super majority party the Penn. That's what this bill does. It's stripped of its jurisdiction memo. It removes the authority to draft ballot proposition language from the state board of elections, a statutory, equally bipartisan body, structurally designed by law to have equal representation from both parties, and it gives that authority to this legislature. A legislature that, at this moment, is one of the most lopsided partisan bodies in the history of the state. So let me be precise about the current law because the sponsor's memo kinda glosses right over it. Right now, the board of elections drafts ballot summary. The attorney general advises the public comments, and the final language is certified and transmitted. That's the process. There's multiple eyes on it. There's a public record, and the board is required, required by statute, to use plain language in eighth grade leading reading level, the same standard that this bill claims to impose on the legislature. So I ask again, what what problem is being solved here? And the answer, if we're being honest, is not a readability problem. It is a it's a problem of control. Because

[Speaker 56]: look at what's happening

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: in this building right now. Look at the context in which this bill is being rushed to the floor while we're simultaneously advancing a redistricting amendment that would allow this legislature to draw its own congressional lines. Every majority could every major good government organization in the state, Citizens Union, NIPRID, League of Women Voters, Reinvent Albany has come out and said exactly what this is. A power grab dressed up as a procedural reform. They said it plainly. This bill is purpose built to benefit the expected 2027 redistricting amendment. It exists so that when this amendment goes to the voters, the majority gets to write the question. And this bill makes

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: it Miss Walker, why do you rise?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Would mister Bologna like to answer a few questions?

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: No. I'm just gonna keep going on the bill if that's alright. Okay. Thank you so much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: He does not yield.

[Michael J. Norris, Assembly Member]: So this bill makes it almost explicit. It carves out prior session, the twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four session from its reach, but it applies immediately to this session forward. There's a reason for that timing. There's a reason a specific amendment they have in mind. This is not a general election reform. This is a precision instrument. Now I wanna talk about the Board of Elections for a moment because I think it's worth understanding what we are dismantling and why it was built the way it was. The board is bipartisan by design, not by accident, by design. The entire architecture of the institution reflects a foundational understanding that elections and the processes surrounding elections must not be controlled by either party, but both equally at the same time. This is not a republican idea or a democrat idea. This is a an idea of democracy. You separate the players from the referees. You build structural independence into the process so that no single faction can tilt the table. This bill quite literally eliminates that. It says the legislature, which is to say right now, democratic majority, will write the ballot question. And then it says that the board of elections must transmit that language without amendment or alteration. That's not a check. That's a rubber stamp with a government seal on it. This bill does include one supposed guardrail. The legislature shall use, quote, best efforts. Best efforts. Real legal definition there. To write neutral plain language. So I want everyone in this chamber to sit with that phrase for a moment, best efforts. It's not an enforceable legal standard. It is the sorry. It is the legislative equivalent of a pinky promise. So if the majority writes a summary that is incomplete, strategically favorable, or subtly misleading, who corrects it? Well, the board can't touch it. The attorney general's role's advisory, there's no mechanism. There's no remedy. The voter gets what the majority decides, the voter gets, and that's the end of it. I've been thinking about this institution a lot over the past twenty four hours, and I've been thinking a lot about my kids, to be honest with you, because I missed I missed the hell out of them, which I know is a sentiment that many of us share given how much time you've been away from our houses. But I keep coming back to what we are modeling and what we're building and what we're leaving behind specifically. I said yesterday that this body has taken a machete to the New York State constitution in the span of twenty four hours, and I really do mean that. But we're not just passing bad policy. We're systematically closing off the avenues through which the opposition could ever be effective. We're redrawing lines so that the maps favor one party. Now we're writing ballot question so that the language favors one party. And we're doing it all while talking about clarity and good governance and protecting voters. I wanna say something about how democracies end because it's usually democratic. It is not a single villain. It is not a single moment. It's not a single law. It's a series of incremental moves, and this is one of a series of those moves in the past thirty six to forty eight hours that I fear are gonna continue. As I said yesterday, the constitution was not written to protect us from our enemies. It was written to protect us from ourselves. From the very human tendency of people who have power believe so completely in their own righteousness, they stop questioning their own actions. I'm not questioning the motives of anyone who votes for this bill. I'm just questioning the system that this bill creates. A system where one party proposes, one party approves, and one party writes the descriptions, and the voters are left to decide based on that information that was crafted by the people who need a specific answer. That's not democracy, folks. That's the theater of democracy. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Slater.

[Speaker 2]: Well, good morning, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you very much. I appreciate the debate that we've had so far on this. Happy Friday by the way. It is officially Friday. I wanted to, if we could, talk a little bit about some more details here. Under the current law, who's responsible for preparing the ballot abstract and form submission today?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Who is responsible for submitting it to whom?

[Speaker 2]: Who is responsible for preparing the abstract and form of submission today?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Oh, today, the board of elections.

[Speaker 2]: The board of elections. And you told my colleague that the board of elections is a bipart bipartisan body.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I did. I also told him that I didn't want slaughtered meat.

[Speaker 2]: You did say that. Well, he didn't offer you fries. There's a difference if you would have asked for fries. I think we all would have said Have you identified any instance where the board of elections was incapable of performing its responsibility that it currently has?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: You mean in this instance or ever?

[Speaker 2]: Well, we're trying to make a change and I'm and I I guess the the assumption is that the board of elections, if you're wanting to make the change, is that the board of elections cannot perform its duty. So my question is has there been an instance where the board of elections has not been able to either prepare the ballot abstract or form of submission?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: So this provides an option to the legislature to write the question, the abstract It and or the does not eliminate this opportunity in totality from the board of elections to be able to perform that act. And quite frankly, the board of elections still has the opportunity to provide language as it relates to proposals, propositions, and referendums.

[Speaker 2]: Right. In the in the language, it's a may versus shall. It says that the legislature may rather than shall. So there is still is the opportunity. We'll get that I'll get there in a second because I have some questions about that as well. Would the board of elections be able to revise or modify the language if the legislature chooses to if this bill is passed, if the legislature chooses to authorize to execute its authority, would the board of elections be able to make any revisions or modifications to the language that the legislature provides it?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: No.

[Speaker 2]: On lines twenty and twenty one, it requires the board to transmit the legislature's language without amendment all or alteration. So under this bill, the legislature drafts the amendment, drafts the abstract, drafts the form of submission, and the board is just required to transmit that language without any alteration or modification despite its history of being able to do so.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes. In the event that the legislature elects to exercise its option.

[Speaker 2]: Understood. The bill references the automated readability index. Is that a publicly available tool?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: It's a formula and if mister Goodell was here, he would be able to recite that formula verbatim.

[Michael Durso, Assembly Member]: I'm But I sure

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: encourage you to read the previous debate of 06/08/2023 on this issue.

[Speaker 2]: Okay. But my question remains, is this a publicly available tool?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, let's make it public. Again, I defer to you to mister Goodell's statement where he very eloquently laid out the formula.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: So anybody can use it? Anyone can use it.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you. So could the state board of elections actually use the tool that's cited in your legislation?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes. They can. Can the state board of election use the tool?

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. That was my question. Can the state board of elections utilize the ARI? Yes. And the law already dictates today it already dictates, if I heard you correctly with my colleague earlier, the level by which we currently have the abstract and form submission written. There's a level, a reading level.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: There's a yes. Yes. Eighth grade.

[Speaker 2]: So, if the board could use that tool, why aren't we simply just directing the board to apply that exact standard if they if you're wanting to use it

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: here? That's not how the

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: tool works.

[Speaker 2]: It's not how the tool works.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: The automated readability index score shall be calculated according to the following formula. I wish I had a chalkboard. Divide the number of characters excluding spaces by the number of words and multiply that number by 4.71. B, divide the number of words by the number of sentences and multiply that number by point five. Add the results of paragraphs A and B of this subdivision and D, subtract 21.43 from the result of paragraph c of this paragraph and round to the nearest whole number.

[Speaker 2]: So, board of elections can apply that today?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: The board of elections has applied that.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Oh, it has? Yes.

[Speaker 2]: So then why are we if the if readability is the objective, why is there a transfer of authority necessary?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: There is not a transfer of authority. There is an additional option. It's just more tools in the toolbox, sir.

[Speaker 2]: Who within the legislature is gonna determine whether the a the ARI standard has been satisfied? Are we gonna ask mister Vannell to run the numbers every time? That's a joke. Who's gonna be in the legislature? Who's gonna determine whether that standard's been utilized?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: It's an evaluation.

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: Performing

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Now that this is on the record, it's open to anyone and everyone to perform the calculation.

[Speaker 2]: So there's nobody specifically tasked with performing that specific calculation in the legislature?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Will be conducted, sir. Is there a particular individual that the bill points to?

[Speaker 2]: I'm just curious if there's gonna be a public disclosure that the a r the ARI score is acceptable.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: They can, just as Ms. Victoria Fernandez did, offer the court to decide whether or not best efforts were utilized in order to meet the ARI scores in compliance with the law.

[Speaker 2]: So then just to make sure I'm clear, we as a legislature may exercise our ability to write these abstracts and form submissions, but the only way that we're not going to verify or disclose to the public that it meets the ARI score unless they bring a court order or perform the calculation themselves.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: It can be discussed in the chamber, but quite frankly, I believe that this is a very eloquently written decision which lays out the dynamics as it relates to best efforts on the automated readability index as well as providing a framework by how to determine what is plain language. Is it easily comprehended? Is it concise? And does it it shall not contain more than one passive sentence and not use semicolons or multiple sentences as necessary. In addition to that, you can also question as was indicated by Mr. Bologna, if the question was hamburger or slaughtered meat, the the court to make a determination as to whether or not it was misleading, ambiguous, illegal or inconsistent with the law.

[Speaker 2]: Is there any bipartisan approval requirement if the legislature exercises its authority in this case?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: No. Most

[Speaker 2]: members of both political parties agree to the ballot language before it's proposed?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, they will agree to the amendment. Not necessarily. They have the option to if they chose to.

[Speaker 2]: But before it's presented to the if the legislature, were to exercise that authority, there's no bipartisan collaboration or requirement before that language is provided to the voters?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: There's no requirement. No. Understood.

[Speaker 2]: The bill allows the board of elections to assign a ballot order number. Correct? They still have that authority. That's one of the tasks that's that that they're giving. Yes. So we trust the board to administer statewide elections and assign and assign those ballot order numbers.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Speaker 2]: Madam chair, thank you very much for answering my questions. I think I'm just gonna use my remaining time to go on the bill if I can. Mister speaker.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: On the bill.

[Speaker 2]: Mister speaker, no one is arguing against plain language. No one's arguing against no one is arguing that constitutional amendments should be difficult to understand. And I think we've demonstrated today that they in fact the board of elections has done a pretty good job making sure that they are at a sufficient reading level. And every member of this chamber should want voters to receive clear and accurate information before casting their ballot. But I'm left with a simple question. If readability is the goal, why not direct the bipartisan state board of elections to use very same readability standards that is cited in the bill. The sponsor has acknowledged that the ARI is available. She actually recited the formula to us which was great. Brought me back to high school math. The sponsor has acknowledged that the board of elections could apply it and has acknowledged that the board already performs its function today. Yet instead of proving the improving the existing process, this bill transfers authority from the board of elections to the legislature itself. By the way, to the legislature itself when politically advantageous. Under current law, the legislature proposes constitutional amendments, and the board of elections prepares the the explanation language. Under this bill, the legislature drafts the amendment, drafts the abstract, drafts the form of submission, and the board is required to transmit that language without alteration or modification. That's not simply a readability reform. That's a transfer of authority. And what safeguards are added in exchange, there's no independent verification. There's no bipartisan approval requirement. There's no meaningful check on how that language is ultimately crafted. A time when New Yorkers are already questioning whether too much power is being concentrated in too few hands, this legislation moves in the wrong direction. The people of New York deserve confidence that constitutional amendments are explained through an independent and trusted process not by the very political body seeking their approval. That's why many New Yorkers will view this proposal not as plain as a plain language bill but as yet another attempt to consolidate authority within the legislature. The answer to public skepticism is not more control. The answer is more transparency, more independence, and more public trust. For those reasons, I cannot support this bill. I would encourage my colleagues to reject it as well. I vote no. Thank you very much, mister speaker.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Mister Ari Brown.

[Ari Brown, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister speaker. On the bill.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: On the bill.

[Ari Brown, Assembly Member]: At first glance, this legislation seems harmless. I mean, who would be against clear ballot language? Who could be against helping voters better understand constitutional amendments? But that's not the real question before us today. The real question is quite simple. Who should write the language that voters see when they enter the voting booth? Under current law, that responsibility rests with an independent entity. This bill transfers that authority to the legislature itself. The very body proposing the constitutional amendment, We are told this is merely an administrative change. I disagree. You know, words matter. Every political consultant, pollster, advertiser, and campaign professional in America or in the world for that matter understands that words matter. The entire advertising industry exists because words matter. If words didn't matter, did not influence outcomes, there'd be no reason for this bill. We have seen this throughout American political history. The inflation reduction act was presented to the public as legislation focused on reducing inflation, but years later, many Americans view it primarily as climate energy and a tax bill. The no child left behind bill sounded like a promise that every child would succeed. The actual debate became centered on federal mandates, testing requirements, and Washington's role in local education. Heck, The US Patriot Act sounded like a vote on patriotism. The real debate involved surveillance powers, privacy rights, and governmental authority. This bill asks New Yorkers to trust politicians with the power to write the description of their own proposals. If a voter spends thirty seconds just reading a ballot description and never reads the constitutional amendment itself, then the person writing those few sentences holds enormous influence over the outcome. That is exactly why independent review matters. If a constitutional amendment is good policy, it should stand on its own merits. It should not require politicians to control the wording presented to voters. Government should not be in the business of writing its own sales brochure. The people deserve an independent explanation, not a politically crafted one. And for that reason, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you, mister speaker.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Mister Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes, madam speaker. Well, the sponsor yield for some questions.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Miss Walker, will you yield?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes, mister speaker.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: The sponsor yield.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Walker. How are you today?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Good morning. I just heard the most amazing quote. The board of elections is bipartisan not nonpartisan.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: I would agree with that. Well, that note though, it's bipartisan. They both the republican and democrat, the way it works now, they have to agree on the language that's gonna go before the voters. Correct?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: They have.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: That's how it works now. Until I Correct.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Until I

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: then and you from your position, I heard you say, well, the legislature writes the law so we're closer to it so we know best how to portray that message to the voters. Is that an accurate statement? Possibly?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I Well, one of the things I said was that there's old adage which says that if you're closer to the problem, you're closer to the solution. Right. But what I One of the What I also indicated was that the importance of legislative intent to be able to be communicated by the authors of the actual amendment.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Sure. And if the legislature wants to when we pass a law, certainly there's nothing stopping the legislature from conveying to the board of elections. This is what we want to see happen, but they still the decision would rest with the board of elections, right?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: This you mean in the present way?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Oh yeah, mean because you said the legislature has the ability to express their intent. So the way the system is working now, there's nothing stopping either the democrats or republicans for conveying what they believe the process, what should be said in the language now. They can convey that message but ultimately Yes

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: and quite frankly that happens because there is also a third arm where the office of the Attorney General also made recommendations and ironically in the last iteration of a statutory amendment, the Equal Rights Act, the Board of Election wholly ignored the office of the attorney general's suggestions.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Okay. Now, when we say about writing the laws, being closer to it, like the legislature, we write we passed tons of bills that the governor signs it will become law. Now do we pass the regulations that implement these laws? Doesn't that usually the regulations fall to departments or agencies who take the law that we passed and then they work, the experts within those agencies, put in place the regulations. Isn't that accurate statement?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Couldn't you make the same argument here that we're writing the law, then we give it to the experts at the board of election who are experts in that. They make the interpretation and then they put the language together to convey to the voters with input from the legislature because nothing is precluding us to provide input from the legislature. So why tell me why that's not working. Just don't understand how that's not working. It's been going on for how many years?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I don't believe anyone said that it's not working. I think one of the things that I did communicate was that we put more tools in the toolbox as opposed to taking wholly, taking it away from the board of elections. The legislature only has the option to exercise its right to write the question. It's not a requirement that the legislature does so.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: So are you saying that once this passes, this body won't a 100% write the language that's gonna go before the voters in 2020 '27?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Whether it's a 100% or 50%, I can't speak to that. But what I can say is they don't have to exercise that right if they don't want to. It's discretionary.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Sure. It's discretionary. That language, with the board of elections, again, they have to agree on it. That goes back and forth and they work together to approve the language. Now with this, with the legislature, who approves the language? Just the legislature?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Jonathan D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: So they would basically be is it fair

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: to say it'd be the because it's concurrent resolution for the senate and some of it, would that be fair to say that the speaker and the majority leader of the senate would basically sign off on the language?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: So the minority leader of the senate and the assembly would not have any input or sign off on that language.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That It's the legislature. So quite frankly, it's all of the bells and whistles that

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: make Are the

[Speaker 25]: public saying here?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: We're in the legislature. You're saying here that the minority leader of the assembly and the minority leader of the senate will be a part of those discussions to sign off and agree to that language? Is that what you're

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: What I am saying is that the bill does not specifically lay out any particular position for whom will be the author. It says the legislature. It it it makes up all of the body politic of the legislature.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: And I say you're saying this is probably being done in good faith. Right? All this is done. So, in the interest of good faith, wouldn't wouldn't it be maybe good for you to agree to say, we're gonna let the minority leader of the assembly and the minority leader of the senate participate in crafting that language in a bipartisan fashion just like the board of elections does because the legislature is closer to it. So, we're going let them participate and sign off on the language. Wouldn't that be a good way to show good faith to the voters?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Let me see if I can find good faith in here because I think the the only term that I was able to find is best efforts. And this is not it's not necessarily about the convenience of the legislature. This bill is for the opportunity for the voters Sure. To be able to have clear and concise and plain language to be able to understand the contents of the statutory amendment?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Sure. So let's let's just say let's just say for our mistakes, you don't include the minority leader of our assembly, the minority leader in the senate, the discussions between the majorities, and you wanna put language clear language, you could probably write something like this, and this would be okay. Right? The protect democracy, justice, and fairness redistricting act. You could do something like that and then put that on the ballot with the with the redistricting amendment we passed yesterday. You could do that if you wanted to, correct? You could put that clear language on the ballot with that initiative if that's what you chose to do,

[Speaker 25]: right? I

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: think that's a hypothetical. It's Well, but

[Speaker 2]: that

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: respective. It's Hypothetical but possible, right? You could do that if you chose to do that, right?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I I am not necessarily answering questions about what is going to go on to a question as it relates to statutory amendment which took place here. This bill just deals with the authorization of the legislature to determine the form in which the constitutional amendment is submitted to the people.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Alright, I heard when you were talking about this, you made some comments that you said, we believe this process, letting it change in the language would make this process more clear, more precise, right? Correct. So you said more clear, more precise, and more political, right?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I did not say more political.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Oh, I thought I heard you say that. Maybe I don't think I have to hear you say that. I'm just joking but that's alright. It is more political but that's okay. That's new. I digress. You also said this creates clarity and is non controversial. Right? Was that your word?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I did say clarity. I don't remember saying non controversial. I did what I did say

[Unidentified Assembly Member 'Ms. Lucas']: was that procedural there

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: safeguards in the courts that will protect language from being misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with the law and if the courts find that the ballot language is not is you know, violates one of those four tenants then the the language will be struck.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Alright. And that would take a a court challenge to do that. Correct?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Jake Blumencranz, Assembly Member]: Alright.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Swach, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. I appreciate you letting me banter with you a little bit on this. Madam, Mr.

[Unidentified Assembly Member (Tech Policy Q&A)]: Speaker, on

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: the bill.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I know the hour is late, early, whatever you want to look at it. As we talked about with the redistricting committee yesterday, this all goes hand in hand, all germane together. You heard a lot about protecting democracy, preserving democracy, trusting the voters, faith in the voters, all in the interest. So, ultimately, you will have the ability to draw the congressional lines. I said, in my opinion, it was a political hit job. It's a political power grab. And just when you don't think it could get any worse, in the internet, as we remove the language, which basically took away not allowing for favorable or non favorable lines for one party or not, or one candidate or not, basically to allow jurymandering. And then when you just think it can't get worse, what we have here now basically removes a practice that has been in effect for well over a hundred years of bipartisanship. Yes, not nonpartisanship, but bipartisanship. And what does that bipartisanship ensure? It ensures that both sides come together. They might not agree on a 100% of what it says, but they come together to work out the language that they put before the voters. I think the voters have trust in that concept. What they don't have trust in is to say that one party who controls the whole operation up here has all the say in that process. I don't see how you could say that. And even the existing process we do have has input from the attorney general who is currently a democrat by the way, most often has been a democrat. So you still have that type of if you look at that, it still leans democrat from that perspective. I mean you can you can say this is about clarity, you can say this is about being more precise, but it's really more political. And when we talk about this being an eighth grade reading level, the thing about it is even

[Speaker 56]: it

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assembly Member]: goes beyond the eighth grade reading level, because even an eighth grader with their knowledge and their IQ can understand what this body is doing here tonight, can understand what this body did here last night. They will understand what you did here tonight. What you did here last night isn't fair. It isn't right. It's dishonest. It's very, very wrong. Very, very wrong very, very sad, and very, very shameful. And I'll go back to what I said that I heard you saying, oh, we trust the voters. We have faith in the voters. The problem is the voters don't trust us. And when you lose the trust of the voters, how can they have confidence in any action they were taking up here? How can they have confidence in the work we're doing here is in their best interest? Because the work we are doing on this bill right now is certainly not in the best interest of the voters. The work we did on that redistricting amendment which totally counters what they asked for what they voted for not once in 2014 to create the district independent redistricting commission, but again in 2021 rejecting your ability and your attempt to overturn that commission and what they voted for. Time and time again, the voters have told us, and you wonder why they don't trust us. And what do we do over and over again? What do what does the spy do? You do an end run around them. You say, I know better. We know best. All for the simple purposes of one thing, political power. And like I said, even an eighth grader knows that is wrong, that is not fair, it's dishonest, it's very sad and very very shameful. So mister speaker, my colleagues, I am definitely voting no on this piece of legislation before us and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, mister speaker. Thank you, my colleagues.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Thank you. Mister Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, mister speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for a few questions?

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Miss Walker, will you yield?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Yes, mister speaker.

[John Zaccaro Jr., Assembly Member]: Sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: I appreciate that. So, looking at this bill, the only two requirements I see that the legislature would have to fulfill when drafting the ballot question language is that it would have to be in plain language and at the eighth grade reading level as determined by the formula. Is that correct?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: That's correct.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: So

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: And oh, I'm sorry. Also, don't forget the best efforts requirement.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: And the best efforts are required for what? The for the plain language and

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Best efforts for the reading level.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, I don't if those are the only two requirements I see here, if a voter, a New Yorker felt that the language was misleading, how could they challenge that based on the grounds that it doesn't accurately portray what the question before them is?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: They can bring a case if at the Albany Supreme Court Of The State Of New York, Albany County Supreme Court of the

[Didi Barrett, Assembly Member]: state of New York.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. But the only two requirements that the legislature must fulfill is that it's in plain language and readable. So let's say we're doing new redistricting maps and the legislature decides to put the question as, do you want to adopt the most fair, best, impartial maps of all time? And a voter might say, oh, that seems not like objective language. That might be subjective and they want to bring an action. Is it my understanding that they can only bring an action if the language wasn't plain and if it didn't comply with the eighth grade reading level?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: There are other requirements also. There are requirements that were put in place by the interpretation of the law as it relates to being misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with the law. But this particular bill deals with plain language and readability, best efforts.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: And the interpret the interpretation of what law as in those other requirements?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: I'm sorry, what was your question?

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: The other requirements, before you mentioned also procedural safeguards, I don't see them referenced in this bill. So where might we find any provision that the ballot question is objective and not misleading?

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Well, that was the finding in the Fernandez case. But I can also state that also in the law, the form shall include a descriptive title of up to 15 words, a summary of the text ballot proposal of up to 30 words in plain language that describes the change in policy to be adopted and not the legal mechanism, as well as state of what a yes or no vote means in up to 30 words in plain language that identifies the practical outcome of each election result and not the legal mechanism.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And that is that was the determination in the Fernandez case that you referenced or is that

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: No. That's in the bill. Section four.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Section four of the bill.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Four oh, four four four zero eight. Sorry. Four one zero eight.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. Now, are there any I still don't see anything that says it can't be misleading. I just see plain language and reading level. So, concern is we I think I heard you reference that, you know, a New Yorker can sue bring it to court. My concern is that the only thing they could challenge is the plainness of the language and not necessarily the veracity. I guess it's not a question. So, I will go on this bill.

[Latrice M. Walker, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Madam speaker, not to drone in on the points that were made by my colleagues, but my concern is that when we're changing this, the only requirements really are is that the language plain and understandable at an eighth grade reading level. We've seen there could be examples of ballot questions. For example, there could be a redistricting ballot question that says, should these new congressional districts be adopted to restore fairness? That's an example that was in Virginia. That could be an example here. But what is fairness when you're talking about redistricting? If there was an objective standard of fairness, we wouldn't have had a four hour debate on the constitutional amendment last night that was all based around fairness. So we're putting questions to the voters and allowing only the legislature, the party in power to write those questions. I don't know. Maybe I am cynical after the procedures of this house over the last few days, but I don't exactly trust us to put something that accurately portrays what we're doing, especially when it couldn't even be admitted what we were doing last night and why we were doing it. So for those reasons, madam speaker, I will be voting no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: you. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party vote has been requested. Mister Gandolfo?

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this legislation. However, if there are the unlikely exceptions, they may do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber. Thank

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: you. The clerk will record the vote. Miss Lunsford to explain her vote.

[Jen Lunsford, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The plain language requirements that we previously passed in this house were passed in 2023. The first opportunity for the board of elections to bipartisanly write language related to a constitutional amendment was in 2024 when we passed the Equal Rights Amendment language. Not only did they fail spectacularly in drafting something that was at an appropriate reading level and which met all the requirements, they were sued in the Fernandez case, which then supplemented their language with equally bad language, both of which were at a grade 13 reading level. At this point, I would prefer an actual eighth grader write this language since the BOE can't seem to do it. I kinda don't care who does it. As long as it's written in language people can understand. Every single time I had to talk about that provision, I had to defend why it was written like that. I spent more time talking about prop one than I did myself that year when I was running for office. I vote in the affirmative because I'd like New Yorkers to be able to understand what they're voting for. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Lunsford in the affirmative. Mister Chang, to explain his vote.

[Lester Chang, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm kinda cynical. I wonder who's gonna write the amendment. Probably some bunch of lawyers or some PhDs or English majors. They're not gonna write eighth grade level. And I agree with miss Lunsford. An actual eighth grader at eighth grade reading level should be writing this, but more than half of our eighth graders are reading below eighth grade reading level. That's why we're voting negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Chang in the negative. Miss Walsh, explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: Yes, so it's a quarter after one in the morning. And every day we do a quote around here, right? So my quote is, quote, no one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would only be too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves, but sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? That's from Animal Farm by George Orwell. I mean, God forbid we should not stack the deck one more time, you know. I mean let's just keep stacking it. So yeah, I am very cynical tonight. And what really makes me unhappy is that I know that at some point tomorrow when we finally pull the plug on all of this fun and wrap up session for this year, everyone will applaud and will there be speeches and we'll all be getting along. I'm not feeling it folks. I mean this bill, the last one, the one from last night, I mean it's just like every one is just worse than the next. And this one is really just disgusting. And and I I am a hearty no on this one. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 96. Nays, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm gonna take on these next five bills. Rules report two eighty one by miss Lapardo. Rules report two ninety nine by miss People Stokes. Calendar four seventy eight by miss Paulin, calendar one sixty three by mister Boris, and calendar four sixty by mister Simone.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Page eight rules report two eighty one. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number one one two one seven rules report two eighty one. Miss Lapardo, an act to amend the cannabis law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Lopardo, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party votes been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: The republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. Exceptions can be recorded now.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Fall. The

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: majority conference will support this bill. For those who elect to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 92. Nays, 49.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page nine, rules report two ninety nine. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 80 two 44 a, rules report two ninety nine, missus People Stokes, an act to amend the real property actions and proceedings law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss People Stokes, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party votes been requested, miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: The Republican conference will not be supporting this piece of legislation either, but if there are any yes votes, they can be recorded now.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: The majority conference will be in support of this bill. There may be some exceptions, and they could voice those opinions at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 95. Nays, 46.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 42. Calendar four seventy eight. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 10305 a, rules calendar four seventy eight, miss Pollan, an act to amend the public service law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote's been requested, miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member (Republican Conference)]: The republican conference will be in the negative on this bill. Exceptions may be recorded right now.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank Thank you, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: The dem the majority conference will be in support of this bill. For those that wanna vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, 100. Nays, 40.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 30, calendar one sixty three. Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 6540 e, calendar one sixty three, mister Boras. An act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Boras, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the January.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one forty one. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 41, calendar four sixty.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will read.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Assembly number 8043 c, calendar four sixty, mister Simone, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Simone, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day.

[Journal/Reading Clerk (Votes Recorder)]: Clerk will record the vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assistant Reading Clerk, New York State Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty nine. Nays, 13.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Madam speaker, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: No housekeeping. No resolutions, mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assembly Member (Majority Conference)]: Madam speaker, I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene on Friday, June 5 at 10AM, tomorrow being a session day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: 10AM tomorrow on mister Falls' motion, the house stands adjourned.