New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I ask everyone to please rise and set the pledge of allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. In the absence of the clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: or prayer.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Reading of the journal. Consent it Sunday, 01/11/2026 to send an episode to adjournment. The journal of Saturday, 01/10/2026 was read and approved. I'll motion to send it adjourn.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Without objection, the journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions, messages from the assembly. Secretary will read.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Messages from the governor.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: This is from the governor. Reports of standing committees, reports of select committees, communications and reports from state officers, motions, and resolutions. Senator Gionnaires.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Good afternoon, mister president. We're going to begin by calling two, committees back to back. First, there'll be an immediate meeting of the elections committee in Room 332 and that will be followed immediately thereafter by a meeting of the rules committee in the same room.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: There will be an immediate meeting of the elections committee in Room 332 followed by a meeting of the rules committee in Room 332. The senate will stand at ease. The senate will stand at ease.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Senator Generis. Mister president, there's a report of the rules committee at the desk. Please take that up.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: The secretary will read. Senator Stewart Cousins from the committee on rules reports the following bills. Senate print three twenty four by senator Gynoros, enactment in the election law. Senate print five sixty eight by senator May, enactment in the election law. Senate print ten thirty five by senator Myer, enactment in the election law. Senate print ten thirty six by Senator Myerie, enactment in the election law. Senate print ten eighty five by Senator Stewart Cousins, enactment in the election law. Senate print eighty six zero four by Senator Scufus, enactment in the election law. Senate print eighty six forty six a by Senator Gonzalez, enactment in the election law. Senate print eighty seven fifty two by senator Scarcello Spanton, enactment of labor law. Senate print eighty seven fifty three by senator Ramos, enactment of public authorities law. Senate print eighty seven fifty four by senator Kavanaugh, enactment of chapter law of 2025. Senate print eighty seven fifty five by Senator Rivera, enactment of public health law. Senate print eighty seven fifty six by Senator Rivera, enact to amend the chapter of the laws of 2025. Senate print eighty seven fifty seven by Senator Fernandez, enactment of health law. Senate print 8,761 by Senator Comrie, enactment in the real property accident proceedings law. Senate print 8,762 by Senator Hinchy, enactment in the criminal procedure law. Senate print 8,764 by Senator Hinchy, enactment in the public service law. Senate print eighty seven sixty seven by Senator Serrano, an action in the parks, recreation, and soil preservation law. Senate print eighty seven sixty eight by Senator Bailey, an action in the real property law. Senate print eighty seven seventy two by Senator Bailey, an action in the insurance law. Senate Senate Print eighty seven seventy four by Senator Ramos, an action from the labor law. Senate Print eighty seven seventy eight by Senator Brisport, an action from the social services law. Senate Print eighty seven eighty one by Senator Weber, an action to amend the chapter of the law of 2025. Senate print eighty seven eighty two by senator Martinez, enactment of real property tax law. Senate print eighty seven eighty three by senator Harcom, enactment the chapter of the laws of 2025. Senate print eighty seven eighty seven by senator Adabo, enactment of racing, pari mutuel raiding, and breeding law. Senate print 8,790 by Senator Scarcella Spanton, enactment of real property tax law. Senate print 8,795 by Senator Comery, enactment of workers compensation law. Senate print 8,798 by Senator Kruger, enactment of domestic relations law. Senate print 8,800 by Senator Bailey, enactment of the insurance law. Senate print 8,802 by Senator Claire, enactment of public health law. Senate print 8,803 by Senator Dabo, enactment of the real property tax law. Senate print 8,804 by Senator Rivera, enactment of public health law. Senate print eighty eight zero six by senator Mayor, enactment of public health law. Senate print eighty eight zero seven by senator Krueger, enactment of the insurance law. Senate print eighty eight ten by senator Comrie, enactment of vehicle and traffic law. Senate print eighty eight twelve by senator Krueger, enactment of chapter of the law 2025. Senate Print eighty eight fourteen by Senator Fahey, enactment of public health law. Senate Print eighty eight eighteen by Senator May, enactment of state finance law. Senate Print eighty eight twenty by Senator Ryan, enactment of public service law. Senate Print eighty eight twenty one by Senator Sutton, enactment of the administrative code of the city Of New York. Senate print eighty eight twenty two by senator May, enactment of the labor law. Senate print eighty eight twenty three by senator Hardrum, enactment of the environmental conservation law. Senate print eighty eight twenty four by senator Fahey, enactment of the general business law. Senate print eighty eight twenty five by senator Salazar, enactment of the correction law. Senate print eighty eight twenty seven by senator Gounardis, natural in the chapter of the law of 2025. Senate print eighty eight thirty one by senator Gonzalez, natural in the state technology law. Senate print eighty eight thirty two by senator Kavanaugh, a natural in the environmental conservation law. Senate print eighty eight thirty four by senator Baskin, enactment of Indian law. Senate print eighty eight thirty five by senator Rivera, enactment of public health law. All those report to read the third reading.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Move to accept the report of the rules committee.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: The report of the rules committee, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The report of the rules committee is accepted. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: At this time, let's take

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: up the supplemental calendar. Please. The secretary will read.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number one, senate print 03/24 by senator Gionaris, enactment in election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Aside. Lay Lay it aside.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number calendar number two, senate print five sixty eight by senator May, an action in the election law.

[Senator Andrew Lanza]: Lay it aside.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number three, senate print ten thirty five by senator Myer, enactment in the election law.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number four, senate print ten thirty six by senator Myer, enactment in the election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number five, senate print ten eighty five by senator Stewart Cousins, an act to amend the election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: You say lay it I didn't hear you. Lay it aside. Aside. No. Relax. Oh, you didn't say we didn't hear you. I didn't hear you.

[Senator Andrew Lanza]: Section. Read the

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section five, this action took effect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR's Cooper, or Swillcuttons White.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Ayes, 59.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number six, senate print eighty six zero four by senator Scoopers, enactment in the election law.

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

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section two, this acts with respect immediately. Call the roll. Nadabo, GNR's Kruger, or Swill Cotton's wife.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Miss, explain your vote.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Thank you very much, mister president. Mister president, I love Iowa as much as the next person. But the reason why so many presidential contenders and presidents and US senators and others who want to be president talk about ethanol is because Iowa is at the front and has been at the front of the primary calendar for a long time. Their state's issues have been elevated by virtue of being at the front of the calendar. What we are proposing to do here today is the same for New York. For a very long time, almost twenty years, and for most of presidential politics here in New York, we have been at the back of the primary calendar. By the time these primaries get to New York, they are either practically done or mathematically done. What this bill would do is and how wonderful would this be? Have presidential contenders spending days and weeks here in our communities, in our senate districts, spending millions of dollars on ad buys and political organizing in our local economies, elevating our issues and speaking to our voters seeking to earn their vote. As it stands right now, the only time presidential candidates come to New York is they fly in in the morning, they go to a corporate boardroom or a Manhattan penthouse in the afternoon to raise big bucks, and they fly out to some other state by the evening. This puts us front and center with a number of other states on Super Tuesday. It makes us relevant in the nominating process and it's also important to note that here in New York, we have a a really reflective blend of urban and suburban and rural communities. And we have a a racial demographic that almost mirrors what that demographic is nationally. And so I am thankful to my colleagues who are supporting this bill. I'm thankful to the leader for helping bring this to the floor, and I look forward to this bill hopefully being enacted and several years from now, New York being relevant. Thank you.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Scufus is recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results. Ayes, 52 nay, seven. The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Say again. In relation to calendar six, voting a negative r, senators Chan, Helming, Omera, Palumbo, Walzet, Weber, and White, ayes 52,

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: nay seven. Bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number seven, senate print eighty six forty six eight by senator Gonzalez, an enactment in election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last Lay it aside. That's it. Senator Generis, that completes the reading of the supplemental calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Let's go to the controversial calendar, please.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Secretary will ring the bell. Secretary will read.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number one, senate print three twenty four by senator Gynoros, annexed in the election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walter, why do you rise?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, I hope the sponsor would yield for a couple of questions.

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

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, why is this bill needed?

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: First of all, happy New Year, senator Walchik and all my colleagues. I will point out that today is Monday, so we're slightly out of order for Walchik Wednesday. But nonetheless, we will proceed. The bill is necessary because we are attempting to curtail foreign influence from, having an impact on The US electoral process. We're at a point in time where foreign governments are known to be attempting to meddle. And certainly, the ability to influence political spending by foreign controlled or foreign influenced corporate entities is a vehicle that could be used to do that. So we are trying, as other jurisdictions have done, to rein that in.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes.

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

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Foreign nationals are already prohibited from donating to campaigns in The United States and certainly in New York, aren't they?

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Yes. That's correct.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield? Yes. How how would this legislation impact, five zero one c fours, who have international donors?

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Of the rust. First debate of the year. The bill specifies that business entities would be the ones affected, so I do not believe the c fours would be included.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. Sponsor yield. Sponsor yield.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: What is the percentage of foreign interest that would be in the business entities that are included in this legislation?

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Sen.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. Mister president, on the bill.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, what you gotta do?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: If you want to get foreign money out of New York state politics, didn't dinging a business who has 1% interest overseas or in Canada or Mexico, will really do nothing to do that. This fully partisan bill ignores the glaring loophole of dark money in our political system, and it just cuts one way to a very small group of donors. So you can slap a business with a felony for a felony charge of having a 1% interest of a foreign investor, for donating while doing nothing about the actual dark money that goes into packs and political campaigns in our campaign system. So I will be voting no. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Sanjay Nares.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: On the bill, please, mister president.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: San Gionnaires on the bill.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: I can think of no better example of the motivations of my colleagues across the aisle than at a time when foreign individuals are being prosecuted in a historically unprecedented way, when the constitution is being trampled, when American citizens are being murdered on our streets by the federal government, the one foreign entity or foreign controlled entity the Republicans want to defend are foreign corporations or foreign influence corporations. People know business is yes. There's no better distinction for how we believe government should be run and who we believe we should protect and who our colleagues across the aisle want to protect. I'll be voting yes.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section six is action to confercate the 180 day shall become a law. Call the roll. Dabo, g n r s kruger, orts who comes white. Announce the results. In relation to calendar one vote in the negative are senators Barrella, Kensington, Fitzpatrick, Chan, Helmy, Matera, O'Mara, Ort, Rhodes, Steck, Todisco, Walzwick, Webb, and White. Eyes forty six, age 13.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Bills passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number two, senate print five sixty eight by senator May, an act of any election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walter, why do you ask?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, I hope the sponsor would yield for some questions.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Rachel May]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president. Through you, mister president, what does this bill do?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president, first of all, I wanna tell senator Walcic I look forward to this discussion we have on this bill every year. I hope the assembly will pass it this time so that we can move on and debate a different bill in another year. But for now, what this bill does is allow election committees to to put in place an a a short term polling place during early voting because right now, the the early voting law requires that any early voting place be in place for ten days, for the full ten days of early voting. And what we're finding is that that doesn't give flexibility to to, the elections commissioners to find locations that might be a good location to bring the the voting to the people where the people are at different times of the week when early voting is in process. So this simply allows for short term polling places to be put in place.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Rachel May]: I will.

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

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yeah. In order to get this bill through the assembly, you'll probably need to get an assembly sponsor this session. I noticed that there isn't one in that as many times as we talk about it in this chamber, it hasn't passed over there. But I did wanna ask what types of areas are eligible or ineligible? Could a local board of elections select any area? Is there any prohibition on areas that they could select? Or what do you envision?

[Senator Rachel May]: So it through you, mister president, it is up to the boards of elections to decide what are appropriate sites and, to make sure that they are have all of the security and the the needs of any polling place. But within that, I don't believe there are restrictions on where they could put them.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I do. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So are there any requirements that a polling site be in existing locations covered by Article two sixty five of the penal law? That's our safe spaces, gun free zones, schools, etcetera.

[Senator Rachel May]: President, could you please, can my colleague please specify what exactly did you say? Could they be in those sites or not in those sites?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yeah. I'll clarify through you, mister president. So through you, I'm I'm asking specifically whether there's any designation that impacts, article two sixty five of the penal law, the safe spaces in New York law that was passed in twenty twenty two, twenty three, around there. Is there any requirement to have, polling sites in those locations?

[Senator Rachel May]: Three of you, mister president. My understanding is that once a location is designated as a polling site, then it, by definition, falls into that category of safe spaces.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? I do. Sponsor yields?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So as soon as the board of elections designates any particular area within their county for one of the pop up polling sites that you're, that you're suggesting here that would make it a gun free zone automatically in that location. Am I understanding you correctly? Firearms would be prohibited?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president. That is my understanding. Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I do. Sponsor yield.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Under one section, you talk about different things that the state board of elections should consider when, when an application goes in from the county, to have one of these pop up polling sites. Why would we dictate to counties something like population density? Why would that be relevant or matter in this case?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president, let me be very clear that when we're talking about population density, we're not talking about how many people live there, we're talking about how many people can be expected to be there. So for example, at a mall on the weekends, there might be a lot of people there. There there is very low population density in terms of the number of people who live there. So we're not talking about population density in the way you may be thinking, but it's more, allowing the boards of elections to bring voting to where they expect people to be, which I believe should be a a priority since we want to make it possible for as many people to vote who are eligible as possible.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And three, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I do. Sponsor yields. We've talked about this in in years past. There's nothing that prohibits a county from doing one of these polling sites for early voting, right now, is there?

[Senator Rachel May]: Three of mister president. The law currently stipulates that any early voting site has to be in, action for the full ten days of early voting. And what we know is that in many areas, it's hard to find a site that can be used for ten full days of early voting. So this would make a lot more possible places eligible that right now are just kind of impossible to use for that purpose.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? I Sponsor yield.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So early voting starts ten days out from election day. This bill allows board of elections to approve a new early voting location 14 out from that election. Is that correct? Four days before early voting starts? That's when they would be able to announce that they have an early voting site? Am I reading that proper?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president, that's correct.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: You, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? I will. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: If you're announcing that you have an early voting pop up site in a county in New York State just four days before early voting starts, wouldn't that create more confusion for voters? They generally know where their polling site is, and Board of Elections gives them notice a long time out. We've watched consolidation of polling places. People get the notices in the mail, then they they're generally upset when they lose a polling place. But couldn't this lead to a lot more confusion if people are just finding out four days prior to early voting that there's new polling sites popping out in various locations?

[Senator Rachel May]: President, I need to stress that these are additional polling sites. So these do not replace existing early voting sites. These will be additional sites. So if people have been making plans to go to the, early voting site that they had heard about earlier, they can still go there. These will make it possible for more people to access the franchise. So it's working in other states. I know Idaho and Texas had, examples of this, California and, Washington, I believe. They are, very popular, and they simply provide an additional option to the voters. They don't replace the old ones. So so confusion isn't shouldn't be a problem.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. Mister president on that bill.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walter, can I do?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: This bill, as as I read it and and read it anew each year that it comes forward, at least in this house, thank goodness not in the other, I believe will just lead to more confusion for voters. Getting to notice that new polling locations are popping out in early voting here and there in your county just four days before early voting starts doesn't seem to me like something that would increase faith that our elections are well run, stable, good, not pushing fraud out, and it will also cost money. So whether the local municipality is paying for it and putting it on the taxpayers, locally or whether the state eventually picks up the tab or any portion thereof for this. This is not something that will make it more affordable for New Yorkers and will only be making it more confusing for New York's voters. So I'll be voting no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, mister president.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section two of this action taken from the first of January. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR's Kruger or Sukhan's wife.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yeah.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: May to explain her vote.

[Senator Rachel May]: Thank you, mister president, and thank you senator Wasek for the debate. There are counties in New York state that have only one early voting place and in the case of some of our rural counties, it may be forty five minutes or an hour drive for a number of people to reach that polling place. One thing that we have seen used elsewhere in the country to address those kinds of inequities, especially when we have senior citizens, for example, who cannot get to the early voting place, is for boards of elections to figure out ways to bring the polling places to where the people are. This is a bill that simply creates more equity in terms of access to early voting, and, it can be good for rural counties. It can be good for urban areas where the early voting, places may experience long lines, and they can create some, additional locations for people to vote. But what's important to know about this bill is it is entirely voluntary on part of the elections the boards of elections. They can decide if this is a cost effective way to use their funds. Some of them probably will because it can be expensive to put a whole new, full ten day early voting site in place, but it could be a lot more cost effective to use just three days and give access to a larger number of people. So I am proud of this bill. As I said before, I hope it passes through the assembly, and we can move on and just debate another bill in a future year. I vote aye.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, Mayo be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: In relation to calendar two, vote in a negative r, senators Ashby, Barello, Kazaa Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Grifo, Helming, Lanza, Otero, Murray, Obraka, O'Mara, Ork, Palumbo, Rhodes, Rolls, and Stett, Todisco, Walter, Weber and White. Ayes, 38, and age 21.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Calendar number three, senate print ten thirty five by senator Myrie, an act of any election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walter, why do you rise?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, I hope the sponsor would yield for some questions.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes.

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

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So if you've got two elections commissioners in your county, one republican, one democrat, and they're part time. Who pays for their sixty hours of training required in this legislation?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, this bill does not impose any fiscal strains or costs on the local governments. It can be fully contained within the current budget of the state board of elections, and it additionally adds a component that allows for cost savings by way of making the training available online. That was done with intention to reduce any additional cost that might be incurred.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yes. Sponsor yields. If you're a county that has part time elections commissioners, my understanding from the answer that you just gave is that the state will reimburse the county for their travel and for the sixty hours of training required in this legislation, the state board of elections would be reimbursed in the county?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, that is not what I said. The initial cost is incurred by the state board of elections.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: What do you what do you mean by initial cost? You mean setting up the actual training program?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, the bill outlines the process by which this training would be, implemented, and it requires the state board of elections to come up with that process. The state board of elections would be administering the training, and that training would, take place online.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. The sponsor yield.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So even the 30 hours required per elections commissioner initially, that's that's an online portion as well?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, the state board of elections would determine that. And I want to be clear that the thirty hours is required just in the first six months with an appointment. There is a continuing education and training component that is required and that is just three hours every year.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And three, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: But the state board would get to determine after this legislation is passed whether that initial thirty hours is online or at the state board? Would elections commissioners have to travel to Albany, guess, what I'm asking?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through through you, mister president, that is a determination made by the state board of elections, but it is not unlike other regulations promulgated by the state board and in other spaces as it relates to poll workers, who are statutorily required to be periodically examined. The state board of elections is, welcome to collaborate with election commissioners to determine the parameters of that training.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? The sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. Sponsor yield?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So if the state board of elections determines that, they indeed want an in person training for new election commissioners within the first six months as outlined in your legislation here. Who would pick up the tab for that? Is that the counties that are picking up the tab?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president. If the state board of elections made that determination, it is our intent that they would pick up, whatever those costs would be. Thank you, mister president on the bill.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Welchuk on the bill.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Counties didn't ask for this. It's a solution in search of a problem. It's an unfunded mandate, and I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Miranda?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Just just speaking on the bill to correct the record. A few years ago, the elections committee held hearings throughout the state of New York where we heard from elections commissioners, both Republican and Democrat, who expressed to us a desire to have uniform training. New York actually stands separate from the rest of the country. 43 states across the country have a required training for our elections commissioners. There are only six, including a territory that do not. And and so I think it's important to recognize that this wasn't a top down process. In fact, it was the reverse. We went to the counties. We traveled across the state, and we heard from commissioners who said we would like to see this.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Heard, seeing and hearing none debate is closed. The secretary will ring the bell. Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section three, this action take shall take effect on the one hundred and eighty of days shall become a law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Dabo, GNR's Kruger, Ort, Swillcuttons White.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, may you explain your vote?

[Senator Rachel May]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna thank senator Myrie for this bill and the majority leader for, allowing us to vote on it today. I, I vividly remember several years ago, there was a congressional race that, took place in Central New York. Two of the counties that I represented were involved in that race, and it came down to multiple recounts and lawsuits to try to figure out who won that race. In the course of that those lawsuits, it turned out that, elections commissioners in multiple counties had made so many errors that it was almost impossible to to determine who was the winner of that race. It was almost comical except that it was so consequential, and it really foregrounded the need for elections commissioners to have standardized training and, and reliable training. So I am grateful to senator Mirey for this bill, and I hope that we are able to get it signed into law. Thank you.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator May, to be recorded

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: in the affirmative, announce the results. Relations calendar three voting in negative r. Senators Barrella, O'Meara, Walzik, and White. I ask 55 names four. Bills passed. Calendar number four, senate print ten thirty six by senator Myra, enactment in the election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Lanza, body of your eyes.

[Senator Andrew Lanza]: Mister president, I believe there's an amendment at the desk. I waive the reading of that amendment and ask that you recognize, you've guessed it, senator Walzer.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, sir. Thank you, senator Lanza. Upon review of this amendment, in accordance to rule six section four b, I rule a non germane out of order at this time.

[Senator Andrew Lanza]: Accordingly, mister president, I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that senator Walzik be heard on that appeal.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: The appeal has been made and recognized, and senator Walzik may be heard.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you, mister president, and I hope you will hear this appeal because this is an opportunity for me to explain the Germanness. The bill in chief allows people to vote at their vacation home. No doubt, the bill is aimed at increasing participation in our electoral process, but nothing encourages participation more than bettering the system to increase faith and security in our elections. When people know that their vote counts and that those who shouldn't be voting in our elections, their vote will be rejected, they will get out and vote. This is how you enfranchise voters. This is how you increase participation when people have faith in our elections here in New York State. Pew and Gallup have I mean, I hear from the across the aisle over and over again about the principles of democracy. People can directly well, I got news for you. If people could directly vote for this amendment that I offer here today, the people of The United States Of America, the people of the state of New York, the overwhelming supermajority of them support voter ID. So direct democracy, if you love it, then you love voter ID and this amendment and its germane ness to this bill. So for democracy's sake, this helpful bill will sub substitute the bill in chief and require voter ID at the polls. Hell, you can't get health care, a job, an apartment, a bottle of beer, drive a car, or get on a plane without an ID. New Yorkers expect voter ID in the state of New York, and they've called for it time and time again. So on their behalf, once again, I'm here today to stand with the 80% of New Yorkers that support voter ID, not the 20% that want to reject it here. So please support this hostile amendment. I think it's a helpful amendment. And I would say this, this amendment goes so far because I've heard some arguments out there about voter ID in the past. If you forget your ID, we have a provision for that in this bill. You can prove your residence. You can prove that you're a citizen here and that you should vote. You can vote by by affidavit ballot. You can bring additional documentation. And we even went so far in this helpful amendment to allow anyone that says that they can't afford an ID, anyone that qualifies for Medicaid in the state of New York, a free ID just so that they can participate in our democracy. So please, for their sake and their faith in our elections, vote to see this amendment through. Thank you, mister president. Thank you, senator Walzig.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I want to remind the house and all those watching that this vote is on the procedures of the house and the ruling of the chair. Those in favor of overruling the chair, please signify by saying I.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Show. Show

[Senator Andrew Lanza]: of hands.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Show of hands have been requested and so ordered. Announce the results. Aye, 22. The ruling of the chair stands, and the bill in chief is before the house. Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section three. Excuse me. The bill

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: was laid aside. Senator Walzik, why do you rise?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Well, thank you, mister president. Believe it or not, I'd like to ask a question on

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: this bill. I was not certain. Alright. Are are you asking to sponsor to yield? I would. Will the sponsor yield? Gladly. Spons yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. I appreciate it. So not every New Yorker can afford a through you, mister president. Not every New Yorker can afford a vacation home. Why allow a special voting privilege to benefit the most wealthy New Yorkers?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president. Luckily, this bill, does not apply to only New Yorkers that can afford a second home, but applies to college students who attend college all over the state. And luckily, this bill is not the creation of a new right, but the codification of case law from the past forty years. Court of appeals has already said that what matters in these cases is the voters intent, and their ability to be connected to the place that they choose to register at. This bill is seeking to clarify that, make that clear in statute so that we're not spending money on litigation, that we're not challenging in a case where it should be clear where the voter has chosen a state. We have had elections in this state that have been decided by fewer than 100 votes. And in those elections, most recently in 2020, the an election for congress was decided by 109 votes. It took many many many days for us to finally conclude the result of that election because there was litigation around things that had been made clear in case law but were not clear in our statutes. That is what we're trying to do today.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? The sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I I hear your rebuttal on college students, and you do mention student lives while attending a college or university. But also very specifically in this bill, you outline including a second or vacation home. So I would say again, why is that included in your legislation today? Why would we want New Yorkers to be voting at their second or their vacation home?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: For you, mister president, the courts have determined that what is significant in deciding where the registration will be valid is the voters intent. There's some other factors that are laid out, continuity, connection, and if the voter has intended, to have that be the place of registration, that is what the courts respect. We, the legislature, think the courts are right. We should respect where the voter intends to register.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you, mister president, on the bill.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walzik, on the bill.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: The intent is written right into the bill. It's called a vacation home. The intent is vacation, not home. They have home and vacation home. You're supposed to vote where your home is, where you live. This is an added benefit for the wealthiest New Yorkers and we know the reason why it's being done. This bill would allow New Yorkers to if they have a full time resident in residence in New York City and a home in the Adirondacks where I represent, This would allow them to vote in one election in New York City and then, you know, their intent, even a vacation home intent, to vote in another election. Let's say you vote in a primary in New York City and then you vote in the general election because your intent is to have some continuous connection to that community. And I can tell you, as representing the Adirondacks in a lot of vacation homes, that intent is easily established. There are there are families that live in New York City, New Jersey that have a long standing history of having vacation homes, a direct tie to that community. They come back year after year after year, easily would pass the smell test under this legislation, but they should be voting where they live, where their home is, not where their vacation home is. And for that reason, mister president, I'll be voting no and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, senator Walzik.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The secretary will ring the bell. Read it last night.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Section three. This action took effect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNRS Kruger, or Swill Cuttons White. Announce the results. In relation to calendar for voting in negative r senators, Ashby, Barello, Kensetha, Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallip, Grifle, Helman, Lanza, Meterra, Murray, Obrak, O'Mara, Ort Palumbo, Rhodes, Rawlins, Scarcella Spanton, Steck, Tedisco, Wallsack, Weber, and White. Ayes, 37, age 22. Those passed. Calendar number seven, senate print eighty six forty six a by senator Gonzalez, enactment of the election law.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Wawczyk, good to see you again.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I'm back, mister president, with the sponsor yield. Senator Gonzalez, I see you.

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Sponsor yields. Thank you.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, when was this bill introduced?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, this bill was introduced within the last week.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, if the sponsor would continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I do. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And when did this bill pass committee?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, the bill passed through committee today.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Spons yield. And was that committee agenda posted last night?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, as is normal practice on the first day of real business, our committee agendas were posted, and they were shared with the minority central staff, I believe, yesterday.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yesterday. Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. So will this bill allow poll, worker or, poll yeah. Will this allow bill allow poll workers to sue voters? Is that what your intent is here?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Mister president, this bill is an incredibly important one because we've seen an increase in threats of violence against election officers, not necessarily just by voters, but by the broader public. And what this bill does is create a private right of action for election officers who have been threatened, to bring forth that claim. And, of course, it does a couple of other key things including allowing them to protect their addresses and their personal identifying information.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: So, and and it's a new bill to me. Obviously, the committee agenda posted yesterday late yesterday is when I received it. So I haven't had a lot of time to receive feedback on it. But my read is that if, if a poll worker who is elections official at a poll site feels that the a voter that comes in is hostile, is threatening, is maybe very frustrated, they can then have a private right of action. They can sue if they feel intimidated by that voter that comes into the polling site. Is that right?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, that is correct.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

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

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would you would you talk through some of the the scenarios here with me? If someone feels that they are being disenfranchised in the polling place, that they should in fact be registered to vote or that there's a confusion with registration or sometimes we even see names that are very similar when a poll worker is pulling up their names, and they're hostile and and frustrated in that case. And they would like to record that or they ask the poll worker, you know, what is their name. Your goal here is to allow if that poll worker feels threatened by that interaction, that poll worker can then take the voter to court and sue them. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, it is our position that the very same protections that exist for voters through the Voting Rights Act should be extended to election officers. While the my colleague across the aisle is, bringing up certain scenarios that could potentially happen, it would ultimately be for the courts to decide if the instance was indeed intimidation. According to the bill, we define, intimidation as a person uses or threatens to use any force, violence, restraint, abduction, or duress, or inflicts or threatens to inflict any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or in any other manner participate practices intimidation that ultimately prevents the election officer from conducting their duties. So again, under that definition, the court will have to decide if what instances fall within that.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: The sponsor yields. But as as far as suing a voter that comes into the polling place, that intimidation, at least the the means to bring forward a lawsuit against that voter that came into the polling place. That would be if the poll worker feels they've been intimidated in any way. Am I understanding that right?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: President, it would be incumbent on an election officer to choose to bring forward a claim in court. Certainly that is a, I cannot speak to the feelings around that choice. But we do know that these are real cases that have happened according to a national survey, conducted in 2024 by the Brennan Center for Justice. More than one third of local election workers reported threats and harassment. Nearly 70% of those polled said that there, that the danger has increased since 2020. So certainly, there have been election officers who have felt this, harassment and experienced threats and certainly a need for this bill in New York.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Three, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. So section two sixty five point o one dash e of the penal law prohibits firearms at polling sites as I mentioned earlier in in debate today. You mentioned firearms here. What is the what is the change to statute?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, that is correct. Much of this is covered under penal law. But what's added to the bill are two key things. One, a presumption that if someone is breaking that penal code that you mentioned and bringing a gun to a poll site, that they have an intent to intimidate. In addition, we have included an exemption for police officers and law enforcement because certainly we understand that when they have firearms, that is with the intent to protect, us in our elections.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And three, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: The sponsor yields. So it's already a crime to bring a a firearm to a polling site in our current statute, but this would allow poll workers to sue the person that has already committed that crime if they bring it to a polling site now on on top of being charged criminally, that poll workers would also be able to sue them. Is am I understanding that correctly?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, it is correct that there would be a criminal proceeding If one of the election officers feels that they have been targeted, and intimidated, they can also bring this civil offense to court. It is very normal, I will say, to have multiple offenses prosecuted at the same time. So ultimately, it gives multiple pathways for justice, and shows our election officers that they can that they have agency to protect themselves in these situations.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: The sponsor yields. So poll workers have to be residents of the county in which they're doing their poll work. Is that correct?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: The president, I'm going to take one moment to Certainly wanna be exact when using language around the hiring requirements for poll workers, and so we can certainly follow-up on an answer to make sure you get the exact language involving that. Yeah.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields? Yeah.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I I believe they do, have to be a county in which they're an election official. They certainly have to be a registered voter in the state of New York. How will poll inspectors and elections inspectors validate the registration and residency given the the new protections of restricted personal information that you've included in this bill?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, I wanna clarify a few things. First, in the bill, it is it is true that we have created a definition for what is personal and sensitive information for election workers. If they feel that they have been a target of threats and harassment, they can apply to be part of the state's address confidentiality program. To do that, they have to submit a form and they have to, of course, affirm that they have been under threat. It is optional. It would be incumbent on that, you know, potential poll worker to do that, or they would have to be a poll worker at that point. I do not believe this would preclude them from submitting their address when applying for a job to be a poll worker.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I do. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Well, part of the job of elections inspectors is to go into poll sites, And if there's anything that is amiss, they're there to ask questions, which could be perceived as intimidating and end up in a lawsuit based on your legislation. But my question specifically is how will those elections inspectors or poll watchers be able to get that data if you're restricting that data in this proposed legislation?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, this bill does not make that information a secret. Of course, I described one process by which someone could seek to have their address become confidential. But ultimately, what we've done is create a, new crime for an address, for example, being shared publicly online with the intent to intimidate an election officer. So whereas for normal operations, again, that information isn't a secret and certainly could be verified, we have in this bill been very intentional about carving out a scenario where that information and that private information, as we've defined according to the bill, is publicly shared with, again, the intent to make that election officer feel unsafe. And I would like to reiterate that this has happened across the country with increasing frequency in the last six years.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: You, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: do. Sponsor yields?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yeah. I don't I don't disagree with the in intent to make a safer poll site for the poll workers that do that job. I love my local poll workers, and I know New York voters appreciate seeing them when they show up to the site. My concerns here are really on transparency. So if the public is guarded from the address of poll workers, but the poll workers are required to be residents of that county, then how can the public in our open and fair election system ensure and validate that poll workers are actually residents of that county if their addresses are shielded?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I would like to ask for some clarity on this question. Are you, colleague insinuating that voters should be going into poll sites in this scenario and asking for the addresses of the poll workers?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Sir, could you clarify the question?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Yeah.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yeah. Through you, mister president. I'm suggesting that somebody should, and I'm asking you who that somebody should be and who that somebody with this new legislation will be. Who will validate that that poll workers are actually residents of the county in which they're working the polls.

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Through you, mister president, many of the poll workers are also voters, and so their address is, of course, verified by the state. You've also described, of course, that there are other officers and officials whose job it is to ensure that a poll site is working as it should, and that includes, of course, that the appropriate staff are there, and that those staff have been hired appropriately. We this bill impacts none of that. Although I am I am certainly very curious about the notion that voters, should be going to ask for addresses and be curious if my colleague, does that normally when he votes?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Is this a scenario that's come up?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I I would Yeah.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I would yield. So just just just for a second. Senator Gonzalez, are you asking senator Walzik

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: to yield or clarify? Would love to understand better what this question is. Yes.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: So senator Walzig, do you yield to a question from senator Gonzalez? Sure. Senator Walzig yield. Senator Gonzalez, restate your question, please.

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I guess I'm curious if the question is if the public should be verifying that the poll workers are employees and their employment information. And if that is a it'd be helpful to know if there was a real concrete scenario in which this has happened and certainly, how it's related to this bill text.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yeah. I would answer, mister president. The the public wants transparency in their elections. They wanna understand that this is a good system that they trust, that everyone is following the rules. We've got poll watchers, and we've got elections inspectors for very good reason. There are good government groups that give overwatch and look at things because there's been a distrust in our electoral system. So to guard more information from the public and say we're just gonna close the book and then to slap on if anybody feels intimidated in this polling site because you've asked them a question, you will get sued. We will take you to court for intimidating a poll worker. I think that gives a lot of pause for public that cares about the openness and transparency of our electoral process.

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Yeah. Three, mister president, I do want to clarify a few things because I believe the bill is being mischaracterized based on the assessment, of my colleague. This bill does not get in the way, again, of election inspectors doing their, job or doing their due diligence. This bill does not actually make the, personally identifiable information of all election officers a secret. It does, however, give election officers who have experienced intimidation an ability to bring that to court and for the court to determine if that is true. So this bill is specific to not necessarily going up to a poll worker and asking if they're meant to be there. This bill is specific to whether there are threats of physical violence. It is specific to if information has been shared online with the intent to bring harm to that election officer, and it, of course, creates a standard around both of those. But again, that is that is to say none of that makes those addresses private, and it is in again, it's specifically for folks who have experience as election officers specifically. They can submit to the state to be part of the state confidentiality program, but it is certainly not the case that every poll worker is doing that.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Okay. Through you, mister president, the sponsor yield.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: I do. Sponsor yield? Sponsor yield.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Alright. So my understanding now is that if an elections inspector asks a poll worker for ID, that would not be an intimidation. That would be fully within their job.

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Mister president, I do not have the full list of responsibilities of election inspectors in front of me, so give me one moment. Through you, mister president, I want to be clear that asking for identification is not an instance of intimidation under the language of this bill. When it comes to voting, certainly it is not required, to carry out that civic duty. And ultimately, if there was a lawsuit brought to court, it would be for the judge, to decide if there was additional details to that case that would somehow take that question being asked and make it an instant of instance of intimidation and harassment. So without those additional details, certainly could not, you know, it would be litigated and and I'm not able to use hypotheticals to define what is happening in this bill.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: Mhmm. You're

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: the president with the sponsor yield.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. So you can see a scenario from your answer that you just gave where an elections inspector, it's their job to make sure that everything is good in the polling site, asks a poll worker for identification to prove that they should be a poll worker within that municipality or within that county and then gets sued for intimidation and it would just be up to the courts?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Mister president, it we can spend the entire evening coming up with hypothetical situations. What this bill ultimately does is allow for election officers to bring their raise their issues in court and again for a real legal proceeding to happen with that is informed by all the details of a situation. Certainly, you know, there is a universe of hypotheticals that could happen, but I just want to be clear that is not we are not, determining the outcomes of those cases in this bill. We are certainly allowing those cases though to be brought forward.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I'll belabor that point. Through you, mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. So we just passed a bill that we continually passed in this chamber for early voting sites that can pop up around a county or a municipality. During early voting, the sponsor in the past has mentioned shopping malls and Walmart parking lots or even large businesses in an area where population density may make sense for County Board of Elections to have one of those pop up polling sites, which would once it's a polling site, it would be subjected to the sensitive areas legislation prohibiting firearms. We talked about this a little bit earlier in our debate. So if your bill becomes law and that bill becomes law, someone am I understanding this correctly? If you popped up a polling site in a shopping plaza parking lot, someone could actually be sued for carrying a firearm in that shopping plaza parking lot? If a poll worker or any elections official feels intimidated that there's a firearm in that parking lot?

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: The president, the language describes intent, which is a very normal thing for the courts to again decide. I could imagine a situation where someone's walking to their car and there is clearly no intent. But if the person is at the portable polling place and they are actively, harassing, other voters or election officers, then there could be a case that their intent was to bring a firearm to that polling site and then, of course, harass and intimidate.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you, senator Walzik.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other senators wishing to be heard, seeing, and hearing? None. Debate is closed. Secretary, ring the bell.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: Read the last. Section nine is action to the effect of the 188 after the Shah become a law. Call the roll. Dabo, genomes, Krueger, or Sukhan's wife. Senator Skufis to explain his vote.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Thank you very much, mister president. There's a lot of q and a there, obviously, but I think one of the most important questions that was not asked was why is this bill needed? When did this all start really happening? It started happening six years ago. Well, five years and three months ago. Prior to that, people went and voted. They got their sticker. They went back home. They watched the election results, and they accepted whether their candidate won or lost. BOE workers weren't assaulted. Election inspectors didn't have their lives threatened, their families' lives threatened. This started because we had a sitting president, an outgoing president. Lots been talked about trust in elections. This started because the most powerful individual in the world became a sore loser and determined he was gonna tell all of his supporters the election was stolen. And who steals elections? The people administering the elections. That's why this bill's needed. If not for that, this bill would not be needed. We would not be talking about this. In Maricopa County in Arizona, after the election, the BOE workers had to be sent to undisclosed locations. That's not happenstance. That happened for a reason. So when you talk about people wanting a voting system they can trust, that was almost verbatim, what we just heard from our colleague across the aisle. That has nothing to do with vacation homes, nothing to do with these other things we're talking about. The reason why some people don't trust electoral outcomes is because of that election and what transpired after it. There's no one who's casting a vote at a polling place than going to the bathroom and putting on a fake mustache to cast a second vote. That stuff doesn't happen. There aren't millions of people here illegally casting votes. You talk about trust? You get trust back in our election system by standing up and denouncing those lies. In the meantime, we have to protect our workers who are administering these elections and facing these lies and facing the threats that come from them. I vote yes.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Scoopers, to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Gonzalez, to explain her vote.

[Senator Kristen Gonzalez]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna thank, the leader and certainly my conference, for their support in this bill. There are 40 states that have similar legislation that have felt the need in the last, especially five going on six years, to protect their election officers. Because of the increase in threats I mentioned earlier, we have seen a wave of retirements and election officers resigning from their positions. And we wanna make it clear here in New York that if you want to be a part of our democratic process, that we have your back. That you should not come to work and feel that your life will be threatened, that those around you will be targeted. And in this digital age where we have social media, it is important to meet the moment and create a standard for how that information is distributed online. And that is exactly what this bill does. I am so proud that we are showing election officers that we care about their safety, but I echo my colleague's sentiment that it is a true sign of the times that we need bills like this in the first place. So I look forward based on the robust debate from this chamber to really engage in what it means to combat misinformation, to what it means to combat hate, what it means to make sure our elections are truly protected and all New Yorkers can vote freely and fairly. So thank you, mister president. And again, I wanna thank the leader, for this election package today. It is significantly important in this moment. Thank you.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Gonzalez, to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Barello has to explain this vote.

[Senator George Borrello]: You know, I wasn't looking to go down this road today, but here we are. You know, a recent poll showed that one in four people that are self identified liberals believe that it's okay to use violence to justify a political cause. One in four people that are willing to tell a stranger on the phone that they are willing to commit acts of violence to support their political cause. So don't sit here and preach to me about what's going on when one in four people, self identified liberal, think it's okay to commit acts of violence. And we've seen those acts of violence. We see them every day on TV. I will not be lectured to about this. This is about doing the right thing at the right time. It has nothing to do with grandstanding. I'm voting no. Thank you.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Barell to be recorded in the negative. Senator Walczyk to explain his vote.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Appreciate the, well, I don't really appreciate the history lesson from my colleague across the aisle. I think it was a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who called the president of The United States an illegitimate president based on the results of an election by the American people. So I think it cuts both ways, and that's dishonest. I would love to see better policy in New York state that doesn't have New Yorkers questioning our elections. That's why I debated that bill and that bill and that bill and that bill. New Yorkers aren't standing up and saying, we need a bunch of changes to election law every ten minutes in every new legislative session, and we need a elections committee meeting announcement on a Sunday night for a Monday debate in the New York State Senate to just jam it right through. We gotta get that elections policy right in on the first day with a bunch of stuff that makes it much more confusing and only causes voters to ask a lot more questions about the process. I certainly have a lot more questions about the process after today. And if these bills become law, we'll have many more. That's not how you build faith in our elections. So I would ask you to take a look in the mirror and lead on this issue. Thank you, mister president. I vote no.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walzik, to be recorded in the negative. Senator Rhoads, please send Senator Faheed to explain her vote.

[Senator Nathalia Fernandez]: Thank you. Thank you, mister president. Appreciate this opportunity. I believe this country one of the, fundamental principles that this country is based on is the power to govern, which is derived from people and that right to cast a vote. I wanna commend the sponsor on this bill because I do think it's important for far too many Americans have suffered, many decades ago. And then six years ago, it seems as if we have started this intimidation practices again, and we are seeing an increase in those intimidations and threats. Times have changed. This use of by our president and others using violent language to condemn Americans and to condemn, our elections, at times questioning them, which has again culminated in the attack on January 2021. We have since seen election commissioners, officials, public servants who are regularly facing threats. Threats to their to their work, to their family, and to more. The stats have been rather astounding. And I do think as long as we are going to see this type of debate where we are demonizing workers, demonizing other Americans, we do need to stand up. We do need to call this out. And again, whether it is misinformation or rhetoric, coming from the highest levels, highest offices, we've got to protect our elections, protect our civil servants, and I'm proud to vote in the affirmative.

[Senator Rachel May]: Thank you.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Faheed to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Rhodes now to explain this vote.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: Thank you, mister president. I find it odd that we're, we're talking about intimidation of workers, particularly from the party that, continues to demonize law enforcement, continues to demonize immigration and custom enforcement, continues to demonize correction officers in the state of New York, which has happened on a regular basis, not only outside of this chamber, but even inside of this chamber by members from the, from my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. We all wanna protect our election workers, but the one thing, even today, the one thing that voters agree on is the fact that the one thing would that would secure integrity in our elections is voter identification. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle unanimously voted against an amendment that would have provided voter ID something that 80% of New Yorkers have asked for to secure election integrity in their minds, assuaging their fears. And what we have in this particular bill and the reason that I'm voting against it, mister president, is the fact that not that we don't wanna protect election workers, but that you have created an open ended definition of intimidation, which is going to lead to a flood potentially of litigation, putting people who are simply doing their jobs like poll workers and election inspectors, potentially at risk of having to be dragged into court for some simple questioning or asking somebody for their identification or simply asking that if they believe that a voter, for example, may not be registered, they believe that there is some process as part of their job that they're supposed to challenge as an election inspector. If the poll worker feels intimidated by that, now will be dragged into court, forced to actually hire counsel, and forced to defend themselves in a lengthy civil court proceeding, facing potential, punitive damages. That's why I'll be voting no, mister president.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Rhoads will be recorded in the negative. Senator Steck to explain this vote. You know, I

[Senator Dan Stec]: wish that I thought there was some sincerity that I heard today about worrying about our protecting our government officials. I wanna know where that mindset was last year. Numerous occasions throughout the entire session, a lot of us, myself include myself, especially, begged for a little concern for our government officials that work in our prison systems. Where's the concern for their safety? Now we're provide provisions in this law to protect government officials' identity and conceal them and worry about their privacy. Somehow, I know that we're gonna be talking about other government officials in the very near future and about their identities and about protecting their rights and their safety and their privacy. And I'm wondering how that discussion is gonna go, but I think I know. I'm sorry. Hollow at best, hypocritical probably more accurate. I'm voting no.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Stack to be recorded in the negative. Senator White to explain her vote.

[Senator Alexis Weik]: You know, today, I have heard a very shortsighted recollection of history only going back six years as if this country has never ever and, witnessed intimidation in the polling place or people who are very, very divided. I'm sure during the Vietnam era, we had that at the polling places all the time and and counting back even further in history. So to say it only goes back six years is very, very shortsighted. This bill has a very vague definition of intent and intimidation, and its primary focus is on bringing about civil action at the polling place, which in itself is intimidating to pollers, to to voters going to a polling place, knowing that if they open their mouth and they spark some kind of argument, they are then able to become victims of a civil suit. This bill does nothing but create more regulations, it oppresses voters, and there is a simple solution. You can simply bring law enforcement in and to to make sure that we're using already existing power of law enforcement to safeguard those individuals. And for these reasons, I'm voting no.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator White to record in the negative. Senator Generis to close.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Thank you, mister president. I wasn't going to speak on this, but now I feel like I must. I heard some of my colleagues across the aisle talk about, God knows where the information's from, free speech, you can say what you want, that 25% of self identified certain ideology supports violence. I think that's nonsense. But also I will not sit here and listen to that kind of talk when I didn't hear anything. Not that I did not hear anything, but the people on the other side of the aisle and those they support pardoned dozens of people who committed actual violence in the Capitol Building, not unlike the one we're sitting in. So please, give it a rest when you're talking about who supports political violence. Nobody on the other side is letting people off the hook for that kind of violence after they've been convicted. So give me a large break about who supports violence and who doesn't, and which people in power are sanctioning violence and which are not. And as for another piece of carping that I heard during this discussion in terms of when bills are taken up and when they're not, I think I remind my colleagues often, you want to control the agenda here? Go win the elections. But you don't, because the people of this state are expressing themselves every two years, they'll do so again. And what they've done is elected a historically large majority on this side of the aisle precisely so we can make a decision about which bills will pass, when they will pass, and why they will pass. So vote no as you're entitled to. This bill will pass, I'm sure, as it should, and we'll continue governing the way we see fit. Thank you, mister president. I vote aye.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Generis, it will recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Reading Clerk)]: The malicious calendar seven voted in a negative are senators Barello, Kensetha, Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallatin, Grifle, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Murray, Obraka, O'Mara, Ort, Colombo, Rhodes, Stet, Todisco, Walzet, Webb,

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: and White. Ayes, 40 nays, 19. Bills pass. Senator Generis, that completes the reading of today's controversial calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Mister president, on behalf of Majority Leader Stewart Cousins, I hand up the following committee assignments for the majority conference, ask that they be filed in the journal.

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: The hand up is received and shall be filed in the journal.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Is there any further business at the desk?

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: There is no further business at the desk.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: I move to adjourn till tomorrow, Tuesday, January 14 at 11AM. On motion to send

[Acting President (Presiding Officer)]: the same adjourn until Tuesday, January 14 at 11AM.