New York State Senate Session - 02/26/2024

>> THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. I WOULD ASK EVERYONE PRESENT TO RISE AND RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE 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. >> RABBI MARK GETMAN TEMPLE EMANU-EL OF CANARSIE IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK WILL DELIVER TODAY'S INVOCATION. >> WE CALL ON YOUR SPIRIT TO GUIDE ALL ELECTED LEADERS IN NEW YORK STATE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO THOSE GATHE

RED HERE TODAY IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO ALL LOCAL VILLAGES, TOWNS, AND ALL OF THOSE IN ELECTED AND APPOINTED POSITIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE. INSTILL IN THEM THE INTEGRITY, EMPATHY AND REFUSAL TO IGNORE INJUSTICE, DEFINE GEORGE WASHINGTON'S WHEN HE BID HIS OFFICERS FAREWELL IN 1783 TO ESTABLISH RULE OF LAW UPON PRINCIPLES OF PRIVATE MORALITY. AND INSPIRE THEM BY THE ROOSEVELT'S PROFOUND CALL FOR ECONOMIC REFORM AND BASIC DIGNITY WHEN MASSES SOUGHT DELIVERANCE FROM POVERTY'S GRIP. EQUIP LEAD

ERS TO COMBAT WHAT THREATENS RESIDENTS' WELL-BEING OR DENIES ANYONE AN EQUAL CHANCE TO THRIVE, OBSERVE THEIR BELIEFS WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR DISCRIMINATION. WHEN SOME TURN NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS CREED OR ETHNIC ORIGIN, IGNITE AGAIN LADY LIBERTY'S LIGHT BINDING ALL HER HUNGRY AND OPPRESSED TO SHELTER HERE REGARDLESS OF IDENTITY, BACKGROUND ORIGIN. JUST AS FDR STRENGTHENED LEADERS TO OVERCOME TYRNY ABROAD, STILL RESOLVE TO DEFEAT INTOLERANCES, THREATS FROM WITHIN. HELP THEM E

NACT POLICIES AND FORGE PARTNERSHIPS ACROSS FAITHS, AND ACROSS POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS FOR ALL. WHERE RACISM STILL CAST SHADOW OVER HOPES AND ZENOPHOBIA AND ANTI-SEMITISM REARS UP TO SPREAD FEAR, COMPEL LEADERS AS ELEANOR ROOSEVELT DID TO FOLLOW THE HEART'S TRUTH AND DO WHAT YOU FEEL TO BE RIGHT FOR YOU'LL BE CRITICIZED ANY WAY. MAKE THEM TIRELESS ADVOCATES, BRIDGING DIVIDES TO AFFIRM EQUAL CLAIM TO LIFE, AND LIBERTY, YOU INTEND FOR EVERY CHILD YOU CREATED WHATEVER T

HEIR SKIN TONE OR BACKGROUND. THUS, LET FREEDOM RING FROM BUFFALO SHORES, TO STATEN ISLAND'S HEIGHTS. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND WORSHIP, FREEDOM TO WALK SAFELY UNAFRAID OF VIOLENCE. FREEDOM FROM WANT SO NONE ARE DENIED EDUCATION, SHELTER, HOUSING OR CARE. MAY ALSO AGAINST LIFT UP THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN VETERANS OF NEW YORK'S GREATEST MILITARY FORCES, POLICE FORCES, EMTs, FIREMEN, AND THOSE WHO SERVE ON THE FRONT LINES. THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED AND CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR STATE AND NATION HAZARDING THEIR

LIVES IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM. FROM PATRIOTS AT SARATOGA TO CIVIL WAR RESOLUTIONMENTS MARCHING TO SAVE THE UNION, FROM THE FIGHTING 69TH, FORGED ON MANHATTAN STREETS TO THE RAINBOW DIVISION TROOP WHAT IS VALIANTLY SPILLED THEIR BLOOD FOR HUMANITY IN WORLD WAR FROM TROOPS RUSHING WITHOUT HESITATION TO HELP ON 9/11 AND AFTER, TO NATURAL DISASTERS, IN THEIR OWN BACK YARDS, TO LEGIONS DEPLOYED NOW AROUND THE GLOBE, THE SELFLESS SERVICE ECHOS IN THESE HALLS. BLESS THEM. HEAL THEIR WOUNDS SEEN AND UNSE

EN. COMFORT THEIR FAMILIES AWAITING THE SAFE RETURN. MAY THE SACRIFICES REMIND THOSE HERE OF THE INCREDIBLE BLESSINGS THAT WE ENJOY, AND COMPEL US TO STRENGTHEN LIBERTY'S FOUNDATIONS WITH GENERATIONS OF SOLDIER, SELLERS, AIR CREWS WHO FOUGHT FIERCE BATTLES TO SECURE OUR FREEDOMS. WE ASK THAT LADY LIBERTY'S TORCH BLAZE ABRIGHT, SUMMONING OUTCAST AND PROCLAIMING DESIRE FOR JUSTICE TO DWELL IN OUR HALLS OF POWER, EVEN AS IT DOES IN HEAVEN. AS THESE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEGIN THEIR WORK TODAY AND

THIS WEEK, MAY THEY BE GUIDED BY WISDOM, COMPASSION AND A SPIRIT OF SELFLESS, PUBLIC SERVICE. HELP THEM TO PUT ASIDE DIFFERENCES AND AGENDAS TO HELP THEM TO FIND COMMON GROUND FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR STATE AND ALL OF ITS RESIDENTS. BLESS THE EFFORTS, AS THEY ALLOCATE RESOURCES, THEY DRAFT POLICIES AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT IMPACT SO MANY. AND MAY INSPIRE FOR THE GREATER GOOD MAY GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BLESS THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ITS CITIZENS AND EVERYONE ON AMEN. >> >> >> >> R

EADING OF THE JOURNAL. >> IN SENATE, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2024, THE SENATE MET PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT. THE JOURNAL OF SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2024. WAS READ AND APPROVED. ON MOTION, SENATE ADJOURNED. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE JOURNAL STANDS APPROVED AS READ. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS. MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY. MESSAGES FROM THE GOVERNOR. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES. REPORTS OF SELECT COMMITTEES. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM STATE OFFICERS. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS. SENATOR GIANARIS. >> MA

DAM PRESIDENT, GOOD AFTERNOON. AMENDMENTS OFFERED TO THE FOLLOWING THIRD READING BILLS BY SENATOR THOMAS, CALENDAR 300, SENATOR FERNANDEZ, 350, SENATOR BROUK, CALENDAR 353 AND SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA, CALENDAR 368. >> >> THE BILL WILL REPLACE ON THE THIRD READING CALENDAR. >> SENATOR LANZA FOR A MOTION. >> MADAM PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF SENATOR TEDISCO PAGE 34 I OFFER THELE TING AMENDMENTS TO CALENDAR 400, 7547 AND ASK THAT SAID BILL RETAIN ITS PLACE ON THE THIRD READING. >> AMENDMENTS ARE RECEIVED AND

THE BILL WILL RETAIN ITS PLACE ON THE THIRD READING CALENDAR. SENATOR GIANARIS. >> PLEASE RECOGNIZE SENATOR MYRIE FOR AN INTRODUCTION. >> SENATOR MYRIE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT AND IN THE PAST I WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNUSUAL SUSPECT FOR THIS INTRODUCTION. ADIRONDACK PARK HERE IN THIS STATE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WE WERE ABLE AS THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS IN THE BUDGET THE TIMBUCKTU SUMMIT CLIMATE AND CAREERS INSTITUTE. WHAT THAT REPRESENTED WAS GIVING KIDS FROM NEW YORK CITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO COM

E UPSTATE, AND TO GO TO THE ADIRONDACK PARK AND SEE FUTURE CAREER PATHS IN FIGHTING CLIMATE. AND ALSO EXPERIENCE THE ADIRONDACK PARK THAT BELONGS TO THEM LIKE IT BELONGS TO EVERY SINGLE NEW YORKER SO THEY ARE UP HERE TODAY, AND SOME FROM MY DISTRICT BUT FROM ALL OVER THE CITY OF NEW YORK, HAVING BEEN ALUMS OF LAST YEAR'S PROGRAM AND THEY ARE BACK HERE TODAY ADVOCATING FOR MORE. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES THAT PROTECT OUR CLIMATE. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR CLEANER WATER FOR PROTECTI

ON OF OUR WILDERNESS AND FOR GREEN JOB CREATION. AND SO, I'M REALLY HONORED TO PRESENT AND INTRODUCE THEM IN THIS SENATE CHAMBER BECAUSE JUST LIKE THE ADIRONDACK PARK, THIS IS THEIR HOUSE AS WELL. SO, IF YOU COULD, MADAM PRESIDENT, EXTEND TO THEM ALL OF THE COURTESIES OF THE HOUSE AND THANK YOU ALL FOR MAKING THE TRIP UP TODAY. >> TO OUR GUEST, I WELCOME YOU ON BEHALF OF SENATE. WE EXTEND TO YOU PRIVILEGES AND COURTESIES OF THIS HOUSE. PLEASE RISE AND BE RECOGNIZED. >> >> SENATOR GIANARIS. >> IN

CONNECTION UP WOULD YOU PLEASE RECOGNIZE SENATOR HOYLMAN-SIGAL FOR AN INTRODUCTION. >> I'M HERE TO ANNOUNCE A VERY SPECIAL GUEST ON MY RIGHT FROM MY DISTRICT, MANHATTAN'S WEST SIDE, Dr. SEAN DECATUR. HE WAS SELECTED IN DECEMBER OF 2022 TO SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. HE MADE HISTORY AS THE MUSEUM'S FIRST BLACK LEADER. SINCE THIS LEGISLATURE INCORPORATED IT, IN 1869, THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY HAS BEEN ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S MOST CELEBRATED INSTITUTIONS, A C

ULTURAL ICON, AND A SOURCE OF FOND CHILDHOOD AND SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, ADULT MEMORIES. THE MUSEUM AVERAGES ALMOST 5 MILLION VISITORS ANNUALLY. MANY OF WHOM COME FROM A BROAD AND I IMAGINE SOME OF OUR GUESTS IN THE GALLERY TODAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS WELL. THIS YEAR, PRESIDENT DECATUR SAW OPENING THE NEW GUILDER CENTER FOR SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND INNOVATION. AND ARCHITECTURALLY STUNNING NEW WING, MADAM PRESIDENT, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN, WHOSE ATRIUM RECALLS A GRANITE CANYON CLIFF FACE. THE WING IS BOTH

SPECTACULAR AND FUNCTIONAL, HOUSING AND INSECTARIUM, BUTT IRFLY CONSERVATORY. NEW CLASSROOM, LABORATORY AND A THEATRE. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE NEW GUILDER CENTER HAS WELCOMED 500,000 NEW CONSTITUENTS OF MINE. IN THE FORM OF TRINIDADIAN LEAF CUTTER. QUITE A SIGHT TO BEHOLD. PRESIDENT DECATUR WAS NORTHERN CLEVELAND AND SPENT MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE WORKING IN EDUCATION. AFTER GETTING HIS DOCTORATE IN STANFORD, EVERYBODY? NUMEROUS ACADEMIC ROLES AT MOUNT HOLYOKE AND PRESIDENT OF COLLEGE OHIO. LET

MEED AD AND CLOSE ON THIS. LAST OCTOBER, THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM BEGAN TO OVERHAUL ITS STEWARDSHIP OF A VERY DIFFICULT AND THORNY ISSUE. THE MUSEUM HAS FORMERLY HELD 12,000 HUMAN REMAINS IN ITS COLLECTION. IT HAS REMOVED ALL OF THOSE HUMAN REMAINS ON PUBLIC DISPLAY. THIS DECISION FOLLOWED A RECOGNITION OF THESE REMAINS DEEPLY TROUBLED HISTORY. SOME OF THE BONES BELONGED TO A ENSLAVED NEW YORKERS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. MANY WERE ACQUIRED TO SEVEN YOU GENSIST RESEARCH AGENDAS SO I WANT TO COMM

END Dr. DECATUR FOR HIS FORESIGHT AND VISION IN LEADING THE MUSEUM AS WELL AS WELCOMING HIM TO THE SENATE FLOOR. AND I URGE YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, AS WE SAY, TO EXTEND HIM EVERY PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE. THANK YOU. >> Dr. DECATUR, I WELCOME YOU ON BEHALF OF THE SENATE. WE EXTEND TO YOU PRIVILEGES AND COURTESIES OF THIS HOUSE. PLEASE RISE AND BE RECOGNIZED. [ APPLAUSE ] >> SENATOR GIANARIS. >> CAN WE TAKE UP PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1642 BY SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA, AND READ THE TITLE AND RECOGNIZE SE

NATOR SEPÚLVEDA. >> SECRETARY WILL READ. >> RESOLUTION 1642 BY SENATOR COMMENDING DR. RAFAEL A. LANTIGUA FOR HIS EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO MEDICINE AND COMMUNITY SERVICE IN NEW YORK STATE >> ACHIEVEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK. AND TODAY, I AM EXTREMELY HONOREDs TO PRESENT TO US A GREAT AMERICAN, A GREAT FIGURE HERE IN NEW YORK STATE AND NEW YORK CITY, Dr. DR. RAFAEL A. LANTIGUA. HIS CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE PROFOUNDLY IMPACTED NEW YORK AND BEYOND Dr. LANTIGU

A CELEBRATED BY THE DOMINICAN PRESIDENT, CONGRESSMAN ESPAILLAT, AND EVERY SINGLE MAYOR AND GOVERNOR THE LAST 20 YEARS HAVE ALL REACHED OUT FOR HIS WORK IN MEDICINE AND DEDICATION TO EXCELLENCE. HIS JOURNEY FROM UNIVERSITY SANTA DOMINGO TO COLOMBIA UNIVERSITY, -- TO COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HIGHLIGHT AS COMMITMENT TO ADVANCING HEALTHCARE, PARTICULARLY FOR MINORITY POPULATIONS. THROUGH HIS RESEARCH, ON THE ISSUE OF AGING AND ALZHEIMER'S AMONGS LATINOS, Dr. LANTIGUA ADDRESSED CRITICAL HEALTH DISPARITIES

ENRICHING BOTH THE MEDICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH FACILITIES AND PUBLIC HEALTH MATTERS. BEYOND HIS COMMITMENT AND HIS MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS, Dr. LANTIGUA, INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY SERVICE UNDERSCORES HIS DEEP COMMITMENT TO ADVOCACY, AND SUPPORT. RECOGNIZED BY NUMEROUS AWARD FOR SERVICE ESPECIALLY TO THE LATINO AND DOMINICAN COMMUNITY IN NEW YORK, HIS WORK REFLECTS THE PROFOUND DEDICATION TO THE BETTERMENT OF THEIR LIVES. MAKE NO DOUBT THAT Dr. LATIN GO IS A ---LANTIGUA IS A REVERED MAN IN THE LATINO

COMMUNITY FOR HIS ROLE IN HELPING SOME OF THE POOREST COMMUNITIES THAT EXIST IN NEW YORK STATE, AND THE UNITED STATES. HE IS HERE AS A HERO TO MANY HERE AND IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. IN RECOGNITION OF HIS OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS, WE NOT ONLY PRESENT RESOLUTION 1642, BUT ALSO, THE PRESTIGIOUS PRESIDENTIAL VOLUNTEER AWARD MEDAL WHICH WAS ISSUED BY PRESIDENT -- WHICH WILL BE ISSUED BY ME ON BEHALF OF Mr. BIDEN. THIS DUAL CELEBRATION AND HONOR IS FOR Dr. LANTIGUA'S EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE, AND, HIS S

IGNIFICANT ROLE AS A LEADER, AND ADVOCATE IN OUR COMMUNITY. Dr. LANTIGUA, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND A GRATEFUL NATION, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNWAVERING DEDICATION, AND IMPACTFUL WORD TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE. I AM HONORED, EXTREMELY HONORED TO PRESENT YOU WITH THIS RECOGNITION. AND A QUICK NOTE IN SPANISH: (SPEAKING SPANISH). (speaking Spanish) (speaking Spanish). THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SENATOR JACKSON ON THE RESOLUTION. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. AND I RISE IN ORDER TO CO

NGRATULATE Dr. LANTIGUA FOR HIS SERVICE, NOT ONLY IN THE WASHINGTONITES AREA BUT THE ENTIRE CITY. AND IN FACT, I HAVE LIVED IN WASHINGTON HEIGHTS EVER SINCE 1975 WHEN I GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE AND Dr. LANTIGUA HAS BEEN A PART OF BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTH AND WELLNESS. AND SO, I HAVE KNOWN HIM TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN IMPROVING THE OUTCOMES OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT NOT ONLY THAT, EXTENDING THAT TO ALL PARTS OF NEW YORK CITY. I'M HERE TO SA

Y THAT, I'M PROUD OF WHAT HE HAS DONE, I'M HAPPY THAT HE IS STILL INVOLVED IN BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER FROM THE POINT OF UNITY, AND HEALTH WISE. AND SO, I THANK MY COLLEAGUE SEPÚLVEDA FOR BRINGING HIM UP HERE TO HONOR HIM TODAY. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU. >> SENATOR CLEARE ON THE RESOLUTION. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I RISE TODAY ALSO TO THANK Dr. LANTIGUA FOR HIS WORK IN THE COMMUNITY, UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY, LONG BEFORE OTHERS WERE PAYING ATTENTION, ALL THAT HE HAS DONE FOR THE

DOMINICAN COMMUNITY AND BEING A TRUSTED VOICE AND A LEADER, NOT JUST A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BUT A LEADER, TRUE LEADER IN OUR COMMUNITY. I CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR AWARD TODAY AND THANK YOU, SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA, FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY. AND I PROUDLY VOTE AYE. >> TO Dr. LAN CONTINUEGA I WELCOME YOU ON BEHALF OF THE STATE. WE EXTEND TO YOU PRIVILEGE HIMS AND COURTESIES OF THIS HOUSE, PLEASE RISE AND BE RECOGNIZED, Dr. LANTIGUA. [ APPLAUSE ] >> THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED ON JANUARY 30. SENATOR

GIANARIS. >> PLEASE TAKE UP THE READING -- SORRY, BEFORE THAT, AT THE REQUEST OF SENATOR SEPÚLVEDA THAT RESOLUTION IS OPEN FOR CO-SPONSORSHIP. >> THE RESOLUTION IS OPEN FOR CO-SPONSORSHIP. SHOULD YOU CHOOSE NOT BE A CO-SPONSOR ON THE RESOLUTION, PLEASE NOTIFY THE DESK. SENATOR GIANARIS. >> NOW PLEASE TAKE UP THE READING OF THE CALENDAR. >> ZACK SECRETARY WILL READ. >> >> SECRETARY WILL READ. >> CALENDAR 87, SENATE PRINT 4711 BY SENATOR MARTINEZ, AN ACT TO AMEND THE VOLUNTEER FORS BENEFIT LAW. >

> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> >> SENATOR WEBB TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE. >> >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> AYES 55. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 148, SENATE PRINT 1979 BY SENATOR CLEARE, AN ACT IN RELATION TO REQUIRING THE NEW YORK STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OF OPTIMIZING KITCHEN INCUBATORS IN NEW YORK STATE. >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> THIS A

CT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> >> SENATOR CLEARE TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THE AVERAGE COST OF INSTALLING EVEN THE SIMPLEST COMMERCIAL KITCHEN CAN BE UPWARDS $20,000 WHICH IS PROHIBITIVE FOR SO MANY ENTREPRENEURS WHO HAVE A UNIQUE PRODUCT TO BRING TO THE MARKETPLACE. PARTICULARLY, THOSE IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES. IT IS PROVEN THAT SHARED COMMERCIAL KITCHENS ARE A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THIS

CHALLENGE. WE DID NOT HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH OF THEM AND ACCESS IS NOT PRIORITIZED TOES TO WHO NE TO TE WHO NEED IT THE MOST. THE PURPOSE IS AN ACTION PLAN THE TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECTS OF LOCATING SMALL KITCHEN INCUBATORS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGE CAMPUSES, AND IN PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. IN ADDITION, EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT IS CHARGED WITH FURTHER DEVELOPING COMPREHENSIVE BUSINESSES, AND ADVISORY SERVICES TO FULLY COMPLIMENT KITCHEN INCUBATOR SERVICES TO HELP TO ENSURE THAT STARTUPS INVESTIG

ATOR OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED, I BELIEVE THAT WE MUST BE SMART AND TARGET WITH OUR INVESTMENTS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THIS BILL REPRESENTS THE VERY BEST KIND OF CONCEPT. UTILIZING EXISTING COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND PROVEN SHARED RESOURCES TO FURTHER THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL. I PROUDLY VOTE AYE. THANK YOU. >> SENATOR CLEARE BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> IN RELATION TO CALENDAR CALENDAR 148, SENATORS VOTING IN NEGATIVE ARE SENATOR SKOUFIS. AYES 55,

NAYs 1. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR -- >> AYES 57, NAYs 1. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW. >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> SECTION 2, THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 180TH DAY AFTER SHALL BECOME A LAW. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> IN RELATION TO CALENDAR CALENDAR 161, SENATORS VOTING IN NEGATIVE ARE SENATORS ASHBY, BORELLO, GALLIVAN, GRIFFO, HELMING, LANZA , MATTERA, MURRAY, OBERA

CKER, ORTT, RHOADS, ROLISON, STEC, TEDISCO, WEBER AND WEIK. AYES 42, NAYs 16. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 163, SENATE PRINT 506 BY SENATOR THOMASING, AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW. >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> AYES 58. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 228, 1195 BY PERSAUD, AN ACT TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW. >> READ THE

LAST SECTION. >> THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> AYES 58. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 235, SENATE PRINT 60 BY SENATOR HARCKHAM, AN ACT IN TO CONDUCT A STUDY ON REAL PROPERTY TAX SATURATION. >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> SECTION 4, THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

>> AYES 58. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 282, SENATE PRINT 2872 BY SENATOR COMRIE, AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW. >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> SECTION 2, THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> IN RELATION TO CALENDAR CALENDAR 282, SENATORS VOTING IN NEGATIVE ARE SENATORS HELMING AND TEDISCO, AYES 56, NAYs 2. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 376, 6585 BY SENATOR STAVI

SKY, AN ACT AMENDING. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> AYES 58. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 406, SENATE PRINT 2315 BY SENATOR CLEARE, AN ACT IN RELATION TO NAMING A STATE FACILITY AFTER WILLIE MAE GOODMAN. >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> >> SENATOR BRISPORT TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> >> THANK YOU, MADAM

PRESIDENT. AND THANK YOU, SENATOR CLEARE FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL. I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR Ms. WILLIE MAE GOODMAN WHO SUCCESSFULLY FOUGHT TO PROTECT NOT ONLY HER DAUGHTER MAR GET BUT OTHERS FROM WILLOWBROOK. THERE ARE A FEW STAINS ON THE HISTORY OF OUR STATE MORE TELLING OF THE INFAMOUS WILLOWBROOK SCHOOL. DISABLED CHILDREN WERE SUBJECTED TO WRETCHED OFTEN FATAL CONDITIONS. THEY WERE TREATED AS SUB HUMAN AND POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO DISEASE FOR MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION. P

ARENTS WHO DID NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE HORRORS OF WILLOWBROOK TRUSTED AND UNKNOWINGLY THEN THEM INTO THIS NIGHTMARE. MEDICAL CON CENTER TO EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED THERE IT IS TEMPTING TO IMAGINE ONCE THE PUBLIC BEGAN LEARNING ABOUT CONDITIONS AT WILLOWBROOK IT WAS PROMPTLY BROUGHT TOONE END BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. GLEANING AND OTHER ADVOCATES WERE FIGHTING AGAINST THE STATE'S PLAN TO RETURN THEIR LOVED ONES TO WILLOWBROOK. BY 1291972 THE CONDITIONS HAD BE DOCUMENTED AND EXPOSED TO THE NA

TION BJORNALISTS AND ADVOCATE YET IT TOOK ANOTHER 15 YEARS UNTIL 1987 FOR WILLOWBROOK TO FINALLY BE SHUT DOWN. IT IS WORTH REMEMBERING THE END OF WILLOWBROOK DID NOT END THE HORRORS FACED BY DISABLED NEW YORK. THE SAME PER VASIVE DEPRIORITIZATION THAT GAVE WISE TO WILLOWBROOK ALLOWED FOR DEHUMANIZING CONDITIONS IN OTHER FACILITIES. TO THIS DAY, NEW YORK FUNDS A PRIVATE INSTITUTION THAT ACTIVELY PRACTICES ADVERSIVE CONDITIONING ON DISABLED PEOPLE DEEMED TORTURE BY THE UN. THEY HAVE DISABLED PEOPL

E FORCIBLY ATTACHED TO AN ELECTROSHOCK DEVICE NINE TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN A CATTLE PR OD AND OUR STATE IS STILL SUBSIDIZING THIS NATION. HISTORY WILL REMEMBER THE HORRORS THAT HAPPEN ON OUR WATCH AND WHAT WE DO OR FAIL TO DO ABOUT THEM. TODAY WE REMEMBER MISS WILLIE MAE GOODMAN WHO CHOSE TO ACT. THANK YOU. >> >> SENATOR BRINGS FORT BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> AYES 58. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> CALENDAR 407, SENATE PRINT 8183 SENATOR MANNION, AN ACT TO AMEND THE PAR

T Q OF THE LAWS OF 2016. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> SENATOR MARTINS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> THANK YOU MADAM PRESIDENT. I RISE TO SUPPORT THE BILL. I COMPLIMENT SENATOR MANNION ON ITS INTRODUCTION. BUT, I ALSO RISE WITH SOME CONCERNS ABOUT NOTIFICATION. I WOULD PREFER, AND I THINK WE ALL WOULD PREFER TO SEE NOTIFICATION TO EACH MEMBER IF THERE IS A FACILITY THAT'S GOING TO CLOSE IN YOUR COMMUNITY, IN YOUR DISTRICT, AND ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE TH

E FACT THERE WILL BE NOTIFICATION TO THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM, THAT THERE IS NOTIFICATION TO EMPLOYMENT THROUGH YONGE I DON'T KNOW ASKS LABOR UNIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, MYSELF, THAT IF THERE IS A FACILITY THAT'S GOING TO CLOSE IN MY DISTRICT THAT WE BE MADE AWARE AT THE SAME TIME AND SIMULTANEOUSLY SO I JUST LEAVE IT AS A SUGGESTION, MADAM PRESIDENT, AND I VOTE AYE. >> >> SENATOR MARTINS TO BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> AYES 58. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> SENATOR GIANAR

IS, THAT COMPLETES THE READING OF TODAY'S CALENDAR. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. PLEASE RECOGNIZE SENATOR COMRIE TO FOR AN INTRODUCTION DO? >> COMRIE FOR AN INTRODUCTION. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. I'M PLEASED TO JUST ANNOUNCE AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE SCOUT TROOP FROM MY DISTRICT, SCOUT TROOPS 144B, 144G AND GIRL SCOUT TROOP 4704 FROM SAINT ALBANS. THE PRESTIER THIAN CHURCH HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR MANY YEARS AND HAD MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BECOME EAGLE SCOUTS FROM THEIR T

ROOP. THEY'VE BEEN CONTINUING TO WORK WITH YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THE GREAT SAINT ALBANS COMMUNITY. THEY ARE HERE TO TOUR THE CAPITOL TO LEARN ABOUT CIVICS AND ADVOCATE FOR THE ADIRONDACK PARK WHICH MANY OF THEM HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT. WE HAVE JULY LONDON, CHAPERONE FOR TROOP 144, GIAN FRANCO, TROOP 144, CHAPERONE AND ASSISTANT, DIANE REED, COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON,. KATHY TOMLINSON NOT HERE. BRIDGET FROM TROOP 144, HUTCHINSON FROM 4704, VANESSA WILLIAMS, GIRL SCOUT LEADER AND

CHEAP CHAPERONE AND LEROY HENDRICKS JR. AND KIMBERLY, CHAPERONE AND PARENTS AND WE HAVE SCOUTS AND I WON'T SAY ALL OF THEIR NAMES BECAUSE WE ARE ALSO PAST TIME BUT I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TO THE CAPITOL, AND THANK YOU FOR CONSISTENTLY BRINGING SCOUTS TO THE CAPITOL SO THEY CAN LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT. HOPEFULLY YOU'LL ENJOY YOUR ENTIRE VISIT HERE AND COME BACK OFTEN AND ADVOCATE FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, Mr. LEADER, THANK YOU FOR

ALLOWING ME THOUGH SAY A FEW WORDS TO INTRODUCE. IF YOU DON'T MIND, GIVE PEOPLE IN A STANDING OVATION, SO, FOR THEIR OPPORTUNITIES TO COME HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. >> >> TO OUR GUEST, I WELCOME YOU ON BEHALF OF THE SENATE. WE EXTEND TO YOU PRIVILEGES AND COURTESIES OF THIS HOUSE. PLEASE RISE AND BE RECOGNIZED. >> [ APPLAUSE ] SENATOR GIANARIS. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, THERE WILL BE AN IMMEDIATE MEETING OF THE RULES COMMITTEE IN ROOM 332. >> THERE WILL BE AN IMMEDIATE MEETING OF THE RULES COMMITTEE IN

ROOM 332. >> SENATE WILL STAND AT EASE. >> THE SENATE WILL STAND AT EASE. >> THE SENATE WILL RETURN TO ORDER. SENATOR GIANARIS. >> MADAM PRESIDENT THERE IS A REPORT OF THE RULES COMMITTEE AT THE DESK. CAN WE TAKE THAT UP, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY WILL READ. >> SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES REPORTS THE FOLLOWING BILLS, SENATE PRINT 8638 MYRIE, AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULE, 8639 REDISTRICTING BILL, AN ACT TO AMEND THE STATE LAW. >> MOVE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF

THE RULES COMMITTEE. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE RULES COMMITTEE REPORT, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED NAY. THE REPORT OF THE RULES COMMITTEE IS ACCEPTED. SENATOR GIANARIS. >> CAN WE NOW TAKE UP THE READING OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR. >> >> SECRETARY WILL READ. >> >> CALENDAR 465 SENATE PRINT 8338 BY SENATOR MYRIE, AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES. >> LAY IT ASIDE. >> >> CALENDAR 466, SENATE PRINT 8639 SENATE REDISTRICTING BILL, AN ACT TO AMEND THE STATE LAW. >> LAY IT AS

IDE. >> SENATOR GIANARIS. >> CAN WE NOW TAKE UP THE READING OF THE CONTROVERSIAL CALENDAR, BEGINNING WITH CALENDAR 466. >> SECRETARY WILL RING THE BELL. THE SECRETARY WILL READ. >> CALENDAR 466, SENATE PRINT 8639 SENATE REDISTRICTING BILL, AN ACT TO AMEND THE STATE LAW. >> >> READ THE LAST SECTION. >> SECTION 5, THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> >> SENATOR GIANARIS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> AS EVERYONE IN HERE K

NOWS, WE'RE CONSIDERING THE MAP THAT WAS SENT, THE CONGRESSIONAL MAP SENT US TO BY THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. I DO WANT TO STATE AT THE OUTSET THAT I DO APPRECIATE THE SERVICE OF THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS WHO DID THEIR BEST TO COME UP WITH THE MAP THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS BEST. UNFORTUNATELY, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. I THINK THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE MAP THAT WAS SENT TO US THAT RUN AFOUL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES THAT EXIST IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION.

MOST NOTABLY, THERE ARE A HALF A DOZEN COUNTY CUTS, PLACES WHERE COUNTIES WERE DIVIDED NEWLY IN THIS NEW MAP FROM THE EXISTING DISTRICTS. THOSE SIX COUNTIES WERE CUT 8 DIFFERENT WAYS IN ORDER TO DRAW THIS MAP. ONE OF THE ISSUES THE CONSTITUTION HIGHLIGHTS IS THAT THE MAP SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT INCUMBENTS AND I THINK THE MAP BEFORE US, THERE ARE AGAIN, NUMEROUS INSTANCES AND ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS WHERE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE MAP IS SIMPLY TO PROTECT INCUMBENTS

IN BOTH PARTIES. AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST WERE NOT PROPERLY PROTECTED IN THE DRAWING OF THE MAP THAT'S BEFORE US. SO I WILL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN THE ASSEMBLY TO COME UP WITH A BETTER PRODUCT THAT WILBERT SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE. >> TALK, MADAM PRESIDENT. >> >> SENATOR GIANARIS TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE. >> SENATOR BORELLO TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I HEAR A LO

T IN THIS HOUSE ABOUT PROTECTING DEMOCRACY, AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. AND THE REALITY IS THE PEOPLE DID SPEAK. THEY SPOKE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO ELIMINATE THIS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WAY OF DRAWING REDISTRICTING MAPS. IT WAS CREATED THE IRC WITH THAT, AND, THAT WAS THE PEOPLE SPEAKING, SAYING LET'S CHANGE THIS PROCESS. LET'S MAKE IT A MORE HONEST AND OPEN PROCESS. BUT DESPITE THAT, ONCE MY COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TOOK OVER, THEY DECIDED TO UNDERMINE THE

IRC AND STARTED TRYING TO DEFUND THE IRC AT THE BEGINNING. THEY SOUGHT TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION AGAIN TO CHANGE THE PARAMETERS, HOW THE IRC MEMBERS WERE ACTUALLY ASSIGNED AND GOING TOWARD A MORE POLITICAL BEHIND CLOSED DOORS PROCESS. CHANGING THE TWO-THIRDS VOTE TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. ALL ALONG, TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE THAT SAID, WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THIS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING. DESPITE ALL OF THAT WE DID END UP HAVING A MAP

THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY SPLIT LAST TIME AND ONCE AGAIN, WE SET A BILL TO THE GOVERNOR, ASKING THE DEMOCRATS ASKED IF WE COULD JUST DRAW THE LINES OURSELVES BECAUSE WE DON'T TRUST THE PEOPLE ON THE IRC. WE DON'T TRUST THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE, THE PEOPLE THAT SAID, THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WE WANT. WE DON'T TRUST THEM. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DO. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. SO YOU CAN SIT HERE AND POINT OUT WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT THESE MAPS BUT THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE CH

OSE. THIS IS THE OPEN TRANS PARENT PROCESS THAT THEY ASKED FOR. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO UNDERMINE THE IRC. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WHAT WERE THE RESULTS? THERE WERE TENNEN TENNESSEE MEMF THIS, TEN COMMISSIONERS. 9-1 THEY VOTED TO SUPPORT THIS MAP. 9-1. FIND TEN PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GO OUT TO DINNER AND TRY TO FIND TEN PEOPLE THAT ALL WANT TO GO TO SAME PLACE, SAME FOOD. FIND NINE OF THE TEN, THAT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO DO BUT A DIFFICULT PROCESS, 9-1 VOTED TO SUPPORT THESE MAPS. BECAUSE THE R

EALITY IS, WE DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT THE PEOPLE THINK. WE CARE WHAT THE POLITICAL OUTCOME IS AT THE END. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. IT IS TAKING IT AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE. TAKING IT AWAY THE CHOICES THEY MADE. THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOT AN EASY THING TO DO TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. BUT THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DID SO. AND CREATED THIS PROCESS. AND WE'RE ONCE AGAIN GOING TO UNDERMINE THIS PROCESS. SAY WE DON'T TRUST YOU, THE PEOPLE THAT BROUGHT US HERE, THE PEOPLE THAT

VOTE FOR US. WE DON'T TRUST YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING. WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU, WHAT YOUR WILL IS. THAT'S WRONG. THAT'S WHY I AM SUPPORTING THESE MAPS. THANK YOU. >> SENATOR BORELLO TO BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SENATOR MARTINS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, I RISE TO SUPPORT THESE MAPS. MADAM PRESIDENT, YOU MAY REMEMBER, MEMBERS OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE IN THE SENATE MAY REMEMBER BUT I SERVED ON THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION BEFORE RESIGNING TO RUN F

OR THE SENATE. AND SO I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS. AND I CALL ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US TO REMEMBER WHAT THIS PROIS ABOUT. IN CASE ANYONE HAS FORGOTTEN, MADAM PRESIDENT, THE MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION WERE APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS NOT ONLY HERE IN THE SENATE, BUT DOWN THE HALL IN THE ASSEMBLY. THE CHAIR OF THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, KEN JENKINS WAS APPOINTED BY THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THIS HOUSE. THE VICE CHAIR WAS APP

OINTED BY THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE ASSEMBLY. CHARLIE NECECHARLIE NESBITT. EACH SIDE HAS STAFF, CONSULTANTS AND DEMOGRAPHERS AND ATTORNEYS, VERSED IN FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTION LAW. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO CONSULTANTS THAT HELPED THIS DRAWING THESE MAPS. AND THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE MEMBERS OF A COMMISSION, TEN MEMBERS THAT WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A 9-1 CONSENSUS TO MOVE THESE MAP, MADAM PRESIDENT, SOMETHING THAT THIS BET -- BODY SHOULD BE CELEBRATING. AND I RISE TO THANK NOT ONLY CHAIR JENKINS BUT VICE

CHAIR NESBITT FOR THE INCREDIBLE JOB THEY DID IN BUILDING THAT CONSENSUS AROUND THESE MAPS. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THESE MAPS AND THE PROCESS THAT LED TO THESE MAPS BEING APPROVED. BECAUSE, THESE LINES AREN'T DRAWN HAPHAZARDLY. YOU DON'T HAVE TEN PEOPLE JUST SITTING AROUND A TABLE, WITH MAGIC MARKERS AND PENS TRYING TO DRAW THESE MAPS. THESE MAPS ARE DRAWN METICULOUSLY, THEY ARE DOAN DRAWN IN CONFORMANCE WITH LAW. THEY ARE DRAWN, I THINK WITH ALL OF THE BEST

INTENTIONS AND THE IDEA, THAT WE HAD NINE MEMBERS OF A TEN-MEMBER COMMISSION, CONSULTANTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, ALL SIDES OF THE AISLE, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM TH CONSERVAE PARTY ALL VOTING IN FAVOR OF THESE MAPS SHOULD TELL US SOMETHING. THEY WERE ABLE CONSENSUS ON THESE MAPS AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CELEBRATE. THE CONSTITUTION WORKED. THE PROCESS WORKED. NOW, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS IN THIS CHAMBER WHO WILL BE RUNNING FOR

OFFICE, ALREADY DECLARED FOR CONGRESS. THIS SHOULD GOOD NEWS FOR ALL OF US. YOU HAVE GOT GREAT MAPS TO RUN ON. CONGRATULATIONS. BUT MADAM PRESIDENT, WE SHOULD ALL AS A BODY UNDERSTAND, AND I HOPE WE ALL DO UNDERSTAND, THAT THIS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS, PROCESS, AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT STATE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS THAT IS ACTUALLY WORKED. AGAINST PERHAPS ALL ODDS SINCE IT IS A TEN-MEMBER BOARD. TALK ABOUT CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT W

E GOT A 9-1 RESULT. LET'S CELEBRATE THE FACT THE DEMOGRAPHERS AND CONSULTANTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT DIVIDE, CAME TOGETHER, AND THEY ALL AGREED ON THESE MAPS. MADAM PRESIDENT, FAR FROM VOTING NO, I'M GOING TO VOTE YES AND I URGE EVERYONE TO. I'LL REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT WE'VE ALL SWORN TO UPHOLD. THIS IS PART OF THAT CONSTITUTION. AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE THESE MAPS PREPARED BY NON-POLITICIANS, MADAM PRESIDENT, AND HAVE THEM SUPPLIED TO US IN A NON-PART SON WAY, WHICH HAS

BEEN DONE. THE IRC DID THEIR JOB. THEY PROVIDED MAPS WHERE THERE WAS CONSENSUS AND I URGE ALL OF US HERE IN THIS CHAMBER, TO DO OUR JOBS AS WELL AND LET'S SUPPORT THESE MAPS, MADAM PRESIDENT. AND I VOTE AYE. >> SENATOR MARTINS TO BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> IN RELATION TO CALENDAR CALENDAR 466, SENATORS VOTING IN NEGATIVE ARE SENATORS SENATORS ADA BE WORK BAILEY, BRESLIN, BRISPORT, BROUK CHU, CLEARE, CON, FERNANDEZ, SENATOR GIANARIS, GONZALEZ, HARCKHAM, HINCHEY, HOYL

MAN-SIGAL, JACKSON, KAVANAUGH, KENNEDY, KRUEGER LIU, MANNION, MARTINEZ, MAY, MAYER, MYRIE, RAMOS, RIVERA, RYAN, SAL SATALIA LASER, SERRANO, SKOUFIS STARK VOICE SKI, STEWART-COUSINS, THOMAS, AND WEBB. AYES 17, NAYs 40. >> THE BILL IS DEFEATED. SENATOR GIANARIS. >> LET'S MOVE ON TO CALENDAR 465, PLEASE. >> SECRETARIED BY READ. >> CALENDAR 465, 8638 BY SENATOR MYRIE, AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES. >> >> SENATOR LANZA, WHY DO YOU RISE? >> MADAM PRESIDENT, WOULD THE SPONSOR YIELD T

O SOME QUESTIONS? >> IN FACT, WILL THE SPONSOR OFFER AN EXPLANATION OF THE BILL. >> DOES THE SPONSOR YIELD OR OFFER AN EXPLANATION. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YES, AND YES. WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION ITSELF. ARTICLE 3 SECTION 5. STARTS AN APPORTIONMENT BY THE LEGISLATURE CORR OTHER BODY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT, AT THE SUIT OF ANY CITIZEN, UNDER SUCH REASONABLE REGULATIONS AS THE LEGISLATURE MAY PRESCRIBE. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY. W

E'RE PRESCRIBING A REGULATION FOR THESE TYPES OF LAWSUITS, EXACTLY AS PRESCRIBED BY THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION. BUT WE ARE ALSO COME PORTING WITH PRECEDENT IN THE LAW ALREADY. AND THE JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT, WE LIMIT WHERE CERTAIN SUITS CAN BE BROUGHT IN A SIMILAR FASHION AND THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT, WHERE IF YOU WANTED TO CHALLENGE YOUR DESIGNATION AS A PRE-CLEARANCE JURISDICTION, YOU COULDN'T GO NO ANY COURT, YOU HAVE TO GO ONE COURT WERE WASHINGTON, D.C. CIR

CUIT AND THAT WAS TO DEVELOP EXPERTISE, IN THAT COURT, AND FOR THERE TO BE UNITY IN HOW THESE TOPICS WERE ADDRESSED. ADDITIONALLY, LAST YEAR, WE PASSED -- AND WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, A LAW THAT WOULD LIMIT CHALLENGES TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ELECTION LAWS, IN A SIMILAR FASHION IN CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS. SO THIS IS AN ATTEMPT FOR US TO FULFILL OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, AND TO BRING SOME CLARITY TO THE PROCESS WHEN BRINGING LAWSUITS. >> DOES THE SPONSOR YIELD? >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> TH

ROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO, IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT ARTICLE 3 SECTION 5 WHEN IT SPEAKS TO REASONABLE MANNER, INCLUDES LIMITING TO ONLY FOUR COURTS IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR CHALLENGES TO POLITICAL ELECTORAL MAPS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS MY CONTENTION THIS IS A WHOLLY CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF OUR POWER. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO THE SPONSOR, SO YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO AMEN

D THE CONSTITUTION, YOU BELIEVE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT'S RIGHT. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WOULD THE SPONSOR AGREE THAT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO POLITICAL DISTRICT MAPS INVOKE CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE CASE DEPENDING I THINK IT IS VERY FACT DEPENDENT ON WHETHER THEY IMPLICATE CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

, BUT, AS I HAVE MENTIONED, I BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL AS OUR CURRENT STATUTES ON THE BOOKS LIMITING JURISDICTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CHALLENGES, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF HAVING COURTS DEVELOP EXPERTISE AND ALLOWS AS MUCH ACCESS TO THE COURTS AS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE TIME SENSITIVE NATURE OF THESE PARTICULAR CHALLENGES. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY. W

OULD YOU AGREE THAT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO POLITICAL DISTRICT MAPS INVOKE CIVIL RIGHTS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THEY MAY. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT CERTAINLY THE SPONSOR WOULD AGREE THAT LEGAL CHALLENGES TO POLITICAL DISTRICT MAPS INVOKE VOTING RIGHTS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THEY MAY. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM

PRESIDENT, COULD THE SPONSOR TELL US WHAT WE ALL MEAN WHEN WE SPEAK COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN THE CONTEXT OF DISTRICT MAPS? >> >> THANK YOU FOR PATIENCE, SENATOR LANSA I THINK IT IS A MIX -- SENATOR LANSA I THINK IT IS A MIX OF PART OF THE COURT DETERMINING WHAT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST ARE, BUT ALSO, THE DATA THAT IS COLLECTED, ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMICS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT UNFAMILIAR IN THE POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL SPACE, BUT IF IT -- I THINK I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GO, SENATOR LANZA.

AND HAVING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST THAT CERTAINLY IS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF A PARTICULAR COURT. AND WHAT WE ARE PRESCRIBING HERE IS NOT SHUTTING OUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO HAVE THAT COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BE HEARD OR BE LITIGATED, BUT RATHER, TO BRING SOME UNIFORM TOY UNIFORMITY SO E MADE AS EXPEDITIOUS AS POSSIBLE. >>LE WITH. >>LE WITH. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> WILL THE SPONSOR AGREE A COURT IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, MIGHT HAVE A BETTER IDEA ABOUT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST WIT

HIN THAT COUNTY THAN LET'S SAY, NEW YORK COUNTY COURTS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT MAY BE THE CASE. BUT AS I MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS, AND IT IS THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO GROUND THIS DEBATE IN THAT, THE VOTER RIGHTS ACT PASSED IN THE LATE '60s AND EARLY '70s, SPECIFICALLY BY REGULATION AND BY STATUTE REQUIRED THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF CHALLENGES GO SPECIFICALLY TO ONE COURT, NO MATTER WHERE IN THE COUNTRY THAT CHALLENGE WAS COMING FROM. AND WHAT UNDERGUARDS THAT PRINCIPLE IS THAT

CERTAIN COURTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO HEAR MATTERS EVEN IF IT IS OUTSIDE OF THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL TYPICAL GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION, AND IN THIS CASE, AS YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING, IMPLICATIONS ON VOTING RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS, ET CETERA, I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR NEW YORKERS TO HAVE THE COMFORT AND THE PREDICTABILITY TO KNOW THAT SHOULD THEY WANT TO CHALLENGE REDISTRICTING STATEWIDE APPORTIONMENT THAT THEY HAVE SPECIFIC PLACES TO GO AND THAT THOSE SPECIFIC PLACES DEVELOP THE E

XPERTISE TO DEAL WITH THESE MATTERS IN A TIMELY FASHION. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, COULD THE SPONSOR REMIND US HOW MANY COUNTIES THERE ARE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, 62, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, IF THIS BECOMES LAW, A PERSON IN THE STATE

OF NEW YORK WHO WISHES TO CHALLENGE DISTRICT MAPS WOULD BE RELEGATED TO BRINGING THAT ACTION IN ONLY FOUR OF THE 62 COUNTIES IN NEW YORK, IS THAT TRUE? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD BE TRUE. DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY LIVE. ALL FOUR WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE TO THEM. IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHICH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THEY LIVE IN. >> APOLOGIZE. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS MINDING THAT THE FIRST DRAFT OF

-- MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FIRST DRAFT ALLOWED FOR ONLY ONE COUNTY, ALBANY COUNTY, IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WHY DOES THIS SECOND ITERATION EXPAND FROM THAT ONE COUNTY TO NOW FOUR COUNTIES? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT COMPORTS WITH WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE LAW IN THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT AS WELL AS LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR. AND SO IN AN EFFORT TO BE UNIFORM

IN OUR APPROACH TO THESE TYPES OF ISSUES, WE DECIDED TO EXPAND IT. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WHERE IN THE JOHN R. LEWIS ACT DOES IT SAY THAT SUCH ACTIONS CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT IN ALBANY, WESTCHESTER, NEW YORK AND ERIE COUNTY? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I DON'T HAVE THE SECTIONS IN FRONT OF ME. BUT IT IS SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO PRE-CLEARANCE AS WAS THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN FUNNELING CHALLENGES

TO PRE-CLEARANCE JURISDICTION DESIGNATION TO ONE COURT IN THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT HERE IN NEW YORK, IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE YOUR PRE-CLEARANCE DESIGNATION, YOU HAVE TO BRING IT IN THESE COURTS IN SIMILAR FASHION. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD -- >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION A MOMENT AGO. WHY THESE FOUR COUNTIES? >> >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, AT THE RISK OF

REPEATING MYSELF, IT COMPORTS WITH WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS IN SEVERAL OTHER ELECTION LAW CASES. >> >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY DID THE FIRST VERSION ONLY INCLUDE ALBANY? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS LIKE EVERY OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT GOES THROUGH CHANGES THAT WAS THE SAME PROCESS HERE. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >>

YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I THOUGHT THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A PROCESS BUT THAT IT WAS MANDATED BY THE JOHN R. LEWIS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, RESPECTFULLY, IT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I HAVE BEEN SAYING REPEATEDLY, THAT THIS MATCHES THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT BOTH IN THE JOHN R. LEWIS ACT, AND THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR, AND, RELATIVE TO THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT. I DID NOT SAY THAT THEY MATCHED EXACTLY BUT THE PRINCIPLE GUIDING

IT WERE SIMILAR TO ALL OF THOSE CASES. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE JOHN R. LEWIS ACT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY SELECT ALBANY, WESTCHESTER, NEW YORK, AND ERIE COUNTY? OR DOES IT? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT DOES IN THE PRE-CLEARANCE CONTEXT, JUST TO BE CLEAR. THE SAM EXACT COUNTIES, BUT ONLY IN SO FAR AS YOU'RE CHALLENGING YOUR DESIGNATION AS A PRE-CLEARANCE JURISDICTION. >> WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO THIS LEGISLATION WOULD EXPAND ASPECTS OF THE JOHN R. LEWIS ACT TO A WHOLLY NEW AREA? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT WOULD NOT. MOST OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE IT IS A SEPARATE BILL BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT, THE TEETH OF THAT, THE FOCUS OF THAT IS PRE-CLEARANCE, AND, LOCAL ELECTORAL ACTIONS, BUT IT VERY OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT INCLUDE STATEWIDE APPORTIONMENT O

R REDISTRICTING WHEREAS THIS IMPLICATES STATEWIDE APPORTIONMENT AS THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR, THAT IMPLICATED STATEWIDE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SPECIFIC ELECTION LAWS. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IF YOU KNOW, SENATOR MYRIE, CAN YOU REMIND THIS BODY HOW MANY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS THERE ARE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I HOPE THAT I DON'T EMBARRASS MY LAW SCHOOL PROFESSORS H

ERE. FOUR DEPARTMENTS. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE 13 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS THAT NEW YORK STATE IS DIVIDED INTO. AND MY QUESTION CONCERNS THAT. WHY NOT, AND I'LL GET TO THE RATIONALE BEFORE DOING THIS BUT THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WHY NOT IF WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT IT TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF COURTS, WHY NOT USE WHAT IS ALREADY BEFORE US, IN NEW YORK STATE, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE 13 JUDICI

AL DISTRICTS, WHY NOT IF WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT IT, LIMIT IT TO 13 AND NOT FOUR? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO I THINK FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE, IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THESE WILL BE CHALLENGED. THEY WILL BE APPEALED. THE LAWSUITS THAT IS, THEY WILL BE APPEALED. SO THEY ARE GOING TO END UP IN THE APPELLATE COURTS ANYWAYS SO I THINK THAT IT, FOR PURPOSES OF EFFICIENCY, IT MAKES SENSE TO GO DIRECTLY TO THAT APPELLATE COURT. I WOULD ALSO POINT AGAIN TO THE FEDERAL ANALOG HERE, THAT IT WOU

LD HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY EASY FOR THE FEDERAL APPARATUS TO SAY, BRING THE CHALLENGES WHEREVER YOU LIVE. AND WHEREVER THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE IN YOUR JURISDICTION. BUT, THEY DID NOT. AND THEY DID THAT FOR A SPECIFIC REASON. I THINK IT IS THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ABIDE BY HERE, AND THAT IS, TO MAKE THIS AS SIMPLE AND CLEAN FOR NEW YORKERS TRYING TO VIN DAY CAUGHT THEIR RIDES iRIGHTS IN THIS SPACE AS POSSIBLE AND TO ALSO DEVELOP SOME EXPERTISE ON THE APPELLATE LEVEL ON THESE PARTICULA

R ISSUES. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> SENATOR MYRIE, STAYING WITH THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS WE HAVE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY FAMILIAR. WITH I'M VERY PROUD OF ONE OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE IN THIS BODY IS THE CREATION OF THE 13TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHICH EMBODYS STATEN ISLAND. REALLY CHANGED THINGS FOR THE BETTER. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE RATIONALE, OR THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING 13 JUDIC

IAL DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE, IS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE WHO SEEK JUSTICE IN OUR COURTS, THAT THEY APPEAR BEFORE JUSTICES THAT THEY ELECTED? >> FORGIVE ME, MADAM PRESIDENT. REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> SO WOULD THE SPONSOR, THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, AGREE THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING 13 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE WHO FIND THEMSELVES IN A COURTROOM, WHO SEEK JUSTICE, THAT THEY ARE BEFORE JUSTICES THAT ARE FROM WITHIN THEIR

COMMUNITY, THAT WERE ELECTED BY THAT COMMUNITY, IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I DON'T DISAGREE. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. I THINK THERE IS A NOTABLE DIFFERENCE HERE THOUGH. WE TALK ABOUT REDISTRICTING AND CERTAINLY, STATEWIDE APPORTIONMENT, WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE CORNER OF STATE AFFECTS EVERY OTHER CORNER. THIS IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF LITIGATION THAT IN OTHER CONTEXTS, REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, SETTING ASIDE THE ENTIRE COURT CALENDAR. IT REQUIRES PUSHING IT UP TO THE TOP OF T

HE COURT'S BUSINESS, AND WHY IS THAT? IT IS BECAUSE WE PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION WHEN IT IMPLICATES STATEWIDE ELECTORAL RIGHTS AND PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO EXER SIZE E. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. IT IS TO, WHEN IT IMPLICATES STATEWIDE APPORTIONMENT AND WHERE ONE CHANGE HERE, IF THAT'S A CHANGE OVER THERE, I THINK THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS BE THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO AS MY COLLEAGUE KNOWS, AS AN ATTORNEY, THERE ARE VERY FEW SIMPLE MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE OUR COURTS IN STATE OF NEW YORK. IN FACT, I WOULD ARGUE, THERE ARE MANY WHICH ARE FAR MORE COMPLEX AND COMPLICATED THAN THE ISSUE BEFORE US. SO, IS IT THE -- AND THOSE ARE HANDLED ON A DAILY BASIS, QUITE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY, THROUGHOUT NEW YORK STATE. THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IS IT THE SPONSOR'S CONTENTION THAT JUSTICES

IN ONONDAGA, DELAWARE, STEUBEN, ALLEGHENY, CLINTON, FRANKLIN, ESSEX, THAT JUSTICES THERE DUALLY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES LACK THE ABILITY TO HAVE AN EXPERTISE ON MATTERS SUCH AS THESE WHEN THEY COME BEFORE THEIR COURT? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT'S NOT AT ALL MY IMPLICATION. I'M SURE ALL OF THEM ARE VERY FINE JURISTS AND, HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO GET THERE, AND ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THE PEOPLE ELECTED THEM TO DO. I WOULD RETURN BACK TO THE PRECEDENT THAT IS ALREA

DY IN OUR LAWS, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS MEANT TO OFFEND JUDGES THAT ARE NOT IN THAT PARTICULAR JURISDICTION. BUT, IT IS AS I HAVE MENTIONED, TO BUILD SOME UNITY AND CONSISTENCY IN THE PROCESS, SUCH THAT, NO PLAINTIFF, REGARDLESS OF PARTY OR PARTICULAR INTEREST, CAN GAME THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO GET A MORE FAVORABLE OUTCOME. HERE EVERYONE GETS TO PLAY BY THE SAME RULES, AND I THINK IT INTRODUCES SOME CONSISTENCY INTO THE PROCESS SHOULD YOU WANT TO VINDICATE YOUR RIGHTS IN LITIGATION. >> WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'M GLAD MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED REGARDLESS OF PARTY. IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT EACH COUNTY ARE PLACES WHERE THE JUDGES ARE ELECTED OVERWHELMINGLY AS DEMOCRATS? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, ALL OF THE JUDGES IN ALL OF THE JURISDICTIONS THAT YOU MENTIONED, I WOULDN'T CAST ANY ASPERSION ON ANY OF THE JUDGES ELECTED IN ANY OF THESE COUNTIES WHO HAVE GONE TH

ROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS THE JUSTICES THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU'RE CASTING ASPERSIONS BUT I WOULD ASK WHY NOT A SINGLE COUNTY WHICH IS THAT IS REPUBLICAN IN TERMS OF THE ELECTION OF JUSTICES, WHY NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE IS INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF PLACES WHERE A PARTY WHO FEELS AGGRIEVED AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED, CAN GO? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THE

COUNTIES SELECTED HERE AGAIN, MATCH WHAT HAS BEEN SELECTED IN THE PAST AND THIS IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO ANY PARTICULAR ACTION BUT THESE ARE ALSO POPULATION CENTERS WITHIN THOSE DEPARTMENTS AND I WOULD NOTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF, THE APPELLATE PANELS THAT MAKE UP THE INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BEFORE, COME FROM ALL OVER. AND AREN'T NECESSARILY FROM THAT PARTICULAR COUNTY. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT,

IF IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO LIMIT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO ONLY FOUR COUNTIES, THESE TYPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES, BASED ON THE NOTION THAT WE NEED COURTS THAT COULD DEVELOP EXPERTISE TO HANDLE SUCH CHALLENGES, WHY NOT DO THE SAME WHEN IT COMES TO, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO THIS, IN FACT I WOULD OPPOSE IT. DO THE SAME WHEN IT COMES TO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WAS GOING TO ASK MY FRIEND TO FURTHER CLARIFY. >> THROUGH YOU, M

ADAM PRESIDENT, SO, IF THE RATIONALE FOR DOING THIS IS THAT, THESE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES THAT WOULD INVARIABLY BE BROUGHT, ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT THE 13 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS ARE NOT UP TO THE JOB. THE 62 COUNTIES ARE NOT UP TO THE JOB. ONLY ALBANY COUNTY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK COUNTY, ERIE COUNTY JUDGES ARE UP TO THE JOB. BECAUSE WE NEED JUSTICES THAT CAN HAVE A SPECIAL EX-EXPERTISE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WON'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHY NOT APPLY THE SAME THERE? >> THROUG

H YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK MY COLLEAGUE'S QUARREL IS NOT WITH THIS BILL, BUT WITH OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AT LARGE. WE HAVE SPECIALTY COURTS IN THIS SYSTEM. IN FACT, NEW YORK COUNTY, THERE IS A WHOLE COMMERCIAL PART AS YOU KNOW, SENATOR LANZA. BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF THE WORLD AND IT MAKES SENSE TO DEVELOP THAT TYPE OF EXPERTISE AND HAVE THAT BE DONE IN THAT PARTICULAR COURT. I WOULD NEVER PITNEY OF OUR RIGHTS AGAINST EACH OTHER, FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH A

MENDMENT. BUT, OUR PRECEDENTER DENSE HASPE DIFFERENT SENSITIVITYS TO BOTH SOMETIMES BECAUSE BUT THE COLLECTIVE. AND HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR DEMOCRACY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. ONE THAT IMPACTS NOT JUST THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT INHERENTLY IMPACTS COMMUNITIES AT LARGE AND THAT'S WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO INTRODUCE, I THINK, SOME UNITY AND PREDICT ABILITY INTO THAT SYSTEM AND WHY THAT IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN PERHAPS SOME OTHER POTENTIAL INFRINGEMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. >> WILL

THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF PRESS, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE AND WE KNOW THE REST, ARE AS FUNDAMENTAL AS ANY RIGHT BEING DISCUSSED HERE. SO I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT BUT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT SOMEHOW WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, WE MYSTERIOUSLY NEED A SPECIALIZATION THAT ONLY CAN EXIST IN FOUR COUNTIES THAT HAPPEN TO BE

OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRAT COUNTIES. AND SO I WOULD ASK THIS: THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT,. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> SO, THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WHAT IS BEING ARGUED HERE IS, THAT THESE FOUR COUNTIES NEED TO BE THE ONLY PLACES WHERE YOU CAN BRING THIS ACTION BECAUSE THEY EITHER HAVE OR WILL DEVELOP AN EXPERTISE IN THESE MATTERS. WHICH BY THE WAY, THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THESE MATTERS COME UP EVERY TEN Y

EARS OR SO. SOMETIMES MORE THAN ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS. SO WHEN THESE MATTERS COME BEFORE ALBANY COUNTY, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK COUNTY, ERIE COUNTY, THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT. THEY ARE IN NO BETTER POSITION OR WORSE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. BY THIS TIME THEY DEVELOP THIS EXPERTISE, IT WILL NOT BE NEEDED FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS. AND SO IF ALBANY COUNTY, CAN GET UP TO SPEED, THIS YEAR, THIS MONTH, MAYBE THIS WEEK, IF THEY GET UP TO SPEED, SO CAN EVERY OTHER COUNTY IN STATE OF

NEW YORK. SO AGAIN, THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, CAN THE SPONSOR TELL US WHY ONLY FOUR COUNTIES IN NEW YORK ARE UP TO THE JOB? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK, WELL, WHAT MY COLLEAGUE IS SUGGESTING IS THAT THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS TO CABIN ALL CONVERSATION AND LITIGATION FOR SOME NEFARIOUS PURPOSE BUT WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO HE IT RATE IS THAT THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON APPROACH. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THIS BODY, AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY OUR PARTNERS ON THE FEDERA

L LEVEL AS WELL. AND THAT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW, IS ALSO PRESENT. AND SO I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT OUR INTENT ON THIS BILL. ONE, IT IS TO AS THE CONSTITUTION IN STATE CONSTITUTION OUTLINES, TO PROMULGATE, PRESCRIBE A REASONABLE REGULATION FOR LAWSUITS. THAT IS CLEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXERCISE TODAY AND IN OUR JUDGMENT, IN THE LEGISLATURE'S JUDGMENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR FRAMEWORK AS USED IN THE PAST, AND USED IN OTHER AREAS, WILL

PROVIDE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE LAWSUITS TO PROCEED IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR MOST NEW YORKERS. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, JUST VERY QUICKLY, I HAVE LISTENED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW ABOUT THE MANY THINGS THAT WERE DONE IN THIS BODY AND BY THIS LEGISLATURE THAT WERE SO WRONG THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THINGS THAT WERE DONE IN THE PAST ARE NECESSARILY PROLOGU

E OR A GUIDE TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE HERE. AND THE POINT REMAINS THAT THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. THIS IS A BILL OF FIRST IMPRESSION IF YOU WILL. AND SO THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I JUST RETURNED TO THE QUESTION. IS IT THE SPONSOR'S CONTENTION THAT JUDGES IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, ARE UNABLE TO DEVELOP THE SAME EXPERTISE THAN JUDGES THAT SIT IN ALBANY COUNTY? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'M FROM KINGS COUNTY. I HAPPEN TO THINK IT IS ONE OF THE BETTER COUNTIES IN THE STATE. BUT IT IS NOT ONE OF

THE COUNTIES SELECTED IN THIS BILL. I DO NOT FEEL AFFRONTED, OFFENDED, I DON'T THINK THAT THE JUDGES IN KINGS COUNTY ARE NOT CAPABLE OR SMART ENOUGH TO HANDLE THIS. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT, AS I BELIEVE THE BEST SOLUTION TO WHAT IS POTENTIALLY A FORUM-SHOPPING PROBLEM. SO I HEAR MY COLLEAGUE IN SAYING THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER CAPABLE JURISTS ACROSS THE STATE TO HANDLE THIS. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT WE HAVE MADE A POLICY CHOICE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS

, NOT JUST THINGS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THAT PASSED AS PROLOGUE BUT THE LAW, IT IS ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW. AND IT IS A PRINCIPLE THAT'S BEEN UPHELD ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THE FORUM SHOPPING, BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN STATUTORY MANDATORY FORUM SHOPPING. AND IN FACT THE SHOPPING IS DONE. YOU HAVE MADE YOUR PURCHASE. YOU SELECTED FOUR COUN

TIES. THE REST BE DAMNED. AND THAT IS MY OBJECTION TO THIS LEGISLATION. THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YOU LIVE IN BROOKLYN, I LIVE IN STATEN ISLAND. A COUPLE OF MILES FROM NEW YORK COUNTY. IT MIGHT BE FINE FOR YOU AND FINE FOR ME. BUT IF YOU LIVE IF FRANKLIN COUNTY, AND YOU'RE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, AND YOU SEEK REDRESS, IN OUR COURTS, YOU HAVE GO MORE THAN 150 MILES TO FIND THAT JUSTICE. SO WHY DOES THE SPONSOR BELIEVE THAT THAT IS OKAY? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I B

ELIEVE THAT IT IS OKAY FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT I HAVE OUTLINED IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT, THAT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AS WELL. AND WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN WHERE OTHER COURTS THAT ARE ACROSS THE STATE, ARE VERY FAR FROM VOTERS WHO ARE ALSO TRYING TO VINDICATE THEIR RIGHTS AND WHO ALSO HAD TO TRAVEL 100 OR SO MILES. WE'RE HOPING THAT ONCE THIS IS PASSED AND HOPEFULLY SIGNED INTO LAW, THAT VOTERS NOW WILL KNOW THAT THERE ARE ONLY FOUR PLACES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO, SHOULD

YOU WANT TO DO THIS, AND IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING SPRUNG ON YOU AS A VOTER AS SOME, YOU KNOW, A NON-SPECIFIED COURT IN THE STATE. THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PREDICTABLE ABILITY IN KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE YOU GO AND HOPEFULLY HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PLAN TO VINDICATE YOUR RIGHTS. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS BECOMES LAW, THEY ARE GOING TO KNOW IT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LIKE IT. AND IT DOESN'T MEAN TH

AT IT IS RIGHT. I JUST KEEP COMING BACK TO THAT PERSON WHO LIVES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STATE. CORTLAND COUNTY. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED. AND THEY HAVE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET TO 150 MILES TO A COURT WHEN THERE IS PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD COURTHOUSE WITH PRETTY GOOD JUDGES THAT THEY ELECTED THAT COME FROM THEIR COMMUNITY, A COUPLE OF MINUTES AWAY. AND SO THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK THE SPONSOR, DON'T YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THAT WE HA

VE IN THIS COUNTRY? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY IS VIOLATIVE OF OUR DUE PROCESS LAWS BECAUSE YOU STILL DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VINDICATE YOUR RIGHTS. WE ARE JUST AS WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW, AND WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, ARE FOCUSING WHERE THAT VINDICATION CAN TAKE PLACE. BUT THIS IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OR AN ERADICATION OF YOUR ABILITY TO VI

NDICATE THOSE RIGHTS. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, AND I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. I KNOW HOW MY COLLEAGUE WILL ANSWER IT. AND SO IT IS MORE RHETORICAL THAN NOT. BUT WOULD IT BE OKAY FOR A PERSON WHO LIVES IN NEW YORK CITY, WHO IS VOTING RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED, THEY ARE A CITIZEN, REGISTERED AND THEY LIVE WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND SHOW UP TO THE POLLING PLACE AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY ARE TOLD TO GO H

OME. YOU CAN'T VOTE. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU LOOK. IF THAT HAPPENS, DOES THE SPONSOR BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY, CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, THAT THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO GO -- WHICH ONE HAVEN'T I SPOKE ABOUT. SENECA COUNTY. WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT TO THE SPONSOR, WOULD IT BE CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS, WOULD IT BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONSTITUTION, THAT SUCH A PERSON WOULD NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET TO SENECA COUNTY, IN ORDER TO FIND JUSTICE? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT W

OULD NOT BE OKAY AND THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT PROCESS. IF SOMEONE HAS HAD THAT EXACT TYPE HYPOTHETICAL HAPPEN, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO TO A COURT WHERE SOMEWHERE FAR, BUT WE HAVE PROCESSES ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THEM TO HAVE THOSE RIGHTS HOPEFULLY VINDICATED LOCALLY. THAT IS A DIFFERENT, THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL INFRINGEMENT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REFERENCES IN ARTICLE 3 SECTION 5, ABOUT APPORTIONMENT AND STATEWIDE APPORTIONMENT AND THAT IMPACT THAT HAS NOT JUST TO THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER BU

T TO VOTERS AT LARGE. >> SENATOR LANZA BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND OF THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE PASSED THE 30-MINUTE MARK. >> >> LET HIM FINISH HIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. >> JUST REMINDING HIM. >> JUST A COUPLE MORE. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO AS I SUSPECTED BECAUSE I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE, HE AGREED THAT IT IS NOT ALL RIGHT. BUT IT IS NOT DIFFERENT. IT IS NOT DIFFERENT. IN FACT, IT'S THE SAME THING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VIRTUALLY

THE SAME RIGHTS. THE RIGHT TO VOTE. WE ALL AGREE UNLAWFUL GERRYMANDERING VIOLATES A PERSON'S RIGHTS WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTORAL PROCESS. AND SO I WILL JUST MAKE THE POINT THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, IF THAT IS NOT ALL RIGHT, THEN CLEARLY THIS ISN'T EITHER. AND THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, AND I KNOW I HAVE BEEN BEATING AROUND THIS ONE FOR A WHILE. IS IT THE SPONSOR'S CONTENTION THAT JUDGES IN THE OTHER COUNTIES COULD NOT DO THE JOB? AND IF NOT, THEN WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE ALLOWED TO DO THE JOB

THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO? >> s TO NOT MY CONTENTION AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT EVERY JURIST THAT PUTS ON THE ROBES AND SERVES THE PUBLIC IN THAT WAY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER THIS BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WE CAN'T GET AROUND THE CLEAR RATIONALE. IT IS IN THE SPONSOR'S JUSTIFICATION MEMO. CLEARLY, WHAT IS BEING ALLEGED HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE

SENATE, IS THAT JUDGES IN THE OTHER COUNTIES CAN'T DO THE JOB. THAT THIS REQUIRE AS SPECIAL EXPERTISE, THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN FOUR COUNTIES IN NEW YORK THAT HAPPEN TO BE DEMOCRATIC-ELECTED COUNTIES, AND THAT ONLY THEY CAN DEVELOP AN EXPERTISE THAT NEEDED TODAY AND NOT AGAIN FOR TEN YEARS, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND I HAVE TRIED TO GO THROUGH HYPOTHETICALS AND EXAMPLES OF TO DEMONSTRATE WHY THAT IS SO WRONG. WHY THAT IS SO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WHY THAT IS SO VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THAT

WE TAKE I THINK TOO MUCH FOR GRANTED IN THIS STATE. YOU KNOW, I JUST -- THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT, SO WE TALK ABOUT EXPERTISE. I LOOK AT SENECA COUNTY -- SOME OF THESE COUNTIES AND LIKE NEW YORK COUNTY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY HAVEN'T QUITE DEVELOPED AN EX-EXPERTISE WHEN IT COMES TO KEEPING THE STREETS SAFE. IT IS MY PERSPECTIVE. AND I LOOK OUT THE WINDOW FROM STATEN ISLAND AND I DON'T SEE SHAH BUT I SEE NEW YORK COUNTY. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A LACKING OF E

XPERTISE. MAYBE IT IS SOMETHING ELSE. YES, FAR TOO LONG FOR THAT. SO WHY NOT IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED, WHY NOT SAY, ANYONE ARRESTED FOR COMMITTING A CRIME, ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME, WHY NOT SAY, LET'S HAVE THEM ALL PROSECUTED. I THINK WE DO A FINE JOB ON STATEN ISLAND. I THINK WE HAVE A GREAT EX EX-EXPERTISE THERE. WE'RE WE'RE VERY EFFICIENT AND WHY NOT DO THAT IT WAY. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S HYPOTHETICALS. HYPOTHETICALS NOT RELATED TO VOTING RIGHTS OR APP

ORTIONMENT. BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT IN KIND, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE IN OUR LAWS, IN WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS DONE ON THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT, ON REQUIRING THAT THE DC CIRCUIT BE THE PLACE WHERE THOSE CHALLENGES TAKE PLACE. I THINK THAT IT'S IN LINE WITH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE MENTIONED, BOTH OUR STATUTES AND OUR PRECEDENT AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THANK YOU. ON THE BILL QUICKLY. >>

SENATOR LANZA ON THE BILL. >> FIRST I WANT TO THANK MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE FOR THE DISCUSSION. HE OBVIOUSLY COMES FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE HERE AND HAVE OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS LEGISLATION. BUT I ALWAYS ENJOY SPEAKING TO AND DISCUSSING THESE MATTERS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS WITH MY GOOD FRIEND SENATOR MYRIE. MADAM PRESIDENT, I OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE CONTRARY TO WHAT MY GOOD FRIEND JUST SAID, THIS IS NOT DIFFERENT. THIS AFTERNOON ALL OF THE O

THER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT WE'RE AFFORDED HERE IN NEW YORK, IN NEW YORK. IT IS NOT DIFFERENT. I AGREE WITH HIM WHEN HE SAID, THESE MAPS AND THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THEM STRIKE AT THE HEART OF OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR DEMOCRACY AND WHAT IS JUST AND WHAT IS NOT. AND SO TO ALL OF THE OTHER PROTECTIONS IN OUR CONSTITUTION. NO LESS, NO MORE. FIRST AMENDMENT AND BEYOND. AND IT JUST SEEMS SUSPICIOUS, TO THOSE OF US IN THE POLITICAL WORLD, THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE, THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THA

T HAS REPERCUSSIONS WITH RESPECT TO NOT ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE PEOPLE IN NEW YORK, THEIR RIGHTS AND VOTING RIGHTS, BUT ALSO, INVOLVES THE RIGHTS OF THE ELECTED. AND WHO IS IN POWER AND NOT. AND THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN IT OVERFLOWS INTO THAT ARENA, WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHO IS GOING TO WIN AN ELECTION AND WHO IS GOING TO LOSE AN ELECTION, NOW WE NEED SPECIAL COURTS. WE DON'T LIKE WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST TIME AROUND. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS ONE OF THE COURTS. DIFFERENT COMPOSITION. I WON'

T GET INTO THAT. BUT IT IS NOT DIFFERENT, MADAM PRESIDENT. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND WE HAVE 13 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN NEW YORK, FOR A REASON. IT IS ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT WE BELIEVE IN AMERICA, THAT WHEN WE BRING A GRIEVANCE BEFORE A COURT, THAT IT IS GOING TO BE A COURT FAMILIAR WITH US. WITH OUR COMMUNITY. THAT IT IS GOING TO BE A COURT THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THAT VERY SAME COMMUNITY. AND THIS JUST THROWS THAT OUT THE WINDOW. I BE

LIEVE THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT. AND I REALLY WISH MY COLLEAGUES WOULD RETHINK THE IDEA THAT ONLY JUSTICES IN THESE FOUR COUNTIES SOMEHOW KNOW THE LAW, BETTER THAN ANY OF THE JUSTICES IN EVERY OTHER COUNTY. IT IS ABSURD. REALLY IS. MADAM PRESIDENT, I WILL BE VOTING NO WHEN THE TIME COMES. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR BORELLO. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. ON THE BILL. >> SENATOR BORELLO ON THE BILL. >> YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SENATOR LANZA SUMMED IT UP NICELY ABOUT THE CO

NSTITUTIONAL ISSUE HERE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT REALLY IS WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHICH SUPERCEDES THE STATE CONSTITUTION. THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION YOUR GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO LIMITATION ON THAT. THERE IS NO CONVENIENT PLACE TO GO. EXPERTISE, NO EXPERTISE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION YOUR GOVERNMENT. IT IS IN DICTATORSHIPS WHERE YOU'RE LIGHT LIMITED AS TO WHERE YOU CAN GO. THAT IS NOT T

HIS AREA. YOU KNOW, IT IS FUNNY ABOUT THIS IS THAT WHAT WE DO HERE MOST OFTEN, IN THIS CHAMBER, IS PROVIDE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO PETITION THEIR GOVERNMENT. HOW MANY BILLS HAVE WE VOTED ON THAT INCLUDE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION? A LOT OF THEM. WE'RE LOOKING AT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO PETITION THE COURT. EASIER TO BRING LAWSUITS. BUT NOT TODAY. TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM 62 COUNTIES TO FOUR. ALL OF WHICH JUST HAPPENED TO BE BLUE COUNTIES. THAT'S EGREGIOUS, IT IS BOSOMED IT IS ALSO SHAME

FUL. >> IT IS BOLD, IT IS ALSO SHAMEFUL. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? BECAUSE MAYBE YOU GOT SPANKED A BIT IN 2022. AND YOU DON'T LIKE THAT. SO WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME. I GET IT, YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT TO DO SO. BUT NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. NOT SO EGREGIOUS THAT THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE WILL BE LIMITED AS TO WHERE THEY CAN RECEIVE JUSTICE. I HEAR A LOT ABOUT JUSTICE FROM MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. I

WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE GET JUSTICE. EVERY PERSON GETS JUSTICE. BUT NOT TODAY. TODAY ONLY FOUR PLACES YOU CAN GET JUSTICE IN NEW YORK STATE. THAT'S WRONG. AND I'M VOTING NO. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR STEC. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. WOULD THE SPONSOR PLEASE RISE. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THROUGH YOU, DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, PREVIOUSLY ON DEBATE THAT YOU SAID YOU WERE FROM KINGS COUNTY AND AS THE

SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, YOU WERE NORTH OFFENDED THAT KINGS COUNTY WAS NOT ONE OF THE EVEN USE, THE FOUR VENUES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT I SAID PGH >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I HEARD KINGS. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, MY SENATE DISTRICT IS IN THE NORTH COUNTRY AS YOU KNOW, CLINTON, FRANKLIN, ST. LAWRENCE, ESSEX, WARN, WASHINGTON COUNTY.

I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THE PEOPLE OF THOSE SIX COUNTIES WILL BE OFFENDED. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE TO DRIVE FOUR AND A HALF HOURS FOR SOME OF THEM TO GET TO ALBANY. ELECTRIC VEHICLE IN THE WINTER THAT COULD BE A DAUNTING TASK BUT THAT'S A LITTLE TANGENTIAL. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS GOES AND FILES A CASE, ATTEMPTS TO FILE A CASE IN THEIR HOME SUPREME COURT, CONCERNING MAPS. DOES THE COURT JUST THROW IT OUT? WHAT'S THE PROCESS WHEN THEY WALK IN TO FRANKLIN COUNTY OR TO

CLINTON COUNTY AND SAY, I WANT TO CHALLENGE THESE MAPS THAT AFFECT MY LINES? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WHAT I BELIEVE WOULD HAPPEN THERE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE, WHOMEVER THAT MIGHT BE, WOULD MOVE TO DISMISS IT BECAUSE IT IS IN THE IMPROPER VENUE. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THANK YOU, THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, SO SEVERAL TIMES IN PREVIOUS DEBATE, YOU CITED AND USED THE WORD PRECEDENCE. AND YOU POINTED IT OUT, PREC

EDENCE OF THE DISTRICT OF THE DC CIRCUIT COURT. PRECEDENCE OF THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF LAST YEAR. THE DC CIRCUIT COURT, THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THAT IS IT IS NOT PART OF MY STATE. THE DISTRICT OF WHAT DO YOU MEAN IS INDEPENDENT OF THE 50 STATES AND HAS A SPECIAL STATUS AS A NEUTRAL GROUND. IT WAS DONE SO INTENTIONALLY. AND, THAT IS WHY IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER SOME OF THESE VOTING RIGHTS CHALLENGES SO MY QUESTION IS, DOES NEW YORK STATE HAVE A SIMILAR KIND OF NO MANS LAND THAT'

S BEEN CARVED THOUGHT WOULD BE AKIN TO A DC CIRCUIT COURT? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THESE DO NOT HAVE THE DC SICK IT IN NEW YORK STATE. >> OKAY, WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THANK YOU. SO, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE DC CIRCUIT COURT IS A SPECIAL CREATURE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FALL UNDER, HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT THAT ANY OF THE 50 STATES THAT IT SERVES IN THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDE

NT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> YOU MENTIONED AGAIN AS PRECEDENCE, THE JOHN R. LOUIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT LAST YEAR IN 2023, CORRECT? >> 22. >> 2022. >> ALL RIGHT. AND, MADAM PRESIDENT, WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> WERE YOU THE SPONSOR OF THAT LEGISLATION? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WAS. >> ALL RIGHT, THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, WILL THE SPONSO

R YIELD. >> YES. >> NOW, THIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT THAT WE TOOK UP IN 2022, THE REDISTRICTING AND THOSE COURT CASES WERE, I MEAN, THE MAPS AND THE SPECIAL MASTER AND THE APPELLATE PROCESS OF THE STEUBEN COUNTY CASE THAT ALREADY OCCURRED BEFORE WE VOTED ON THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT, CORRECT? >> >> MADAM PRESIDENT, I WAS JUST TRYING TO RECALL THE TIME LINE THERE BUT I WOULD NOTE AGAIN THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT DOES NOT AND DID NOT DEAL WITH STATEWIDE DERESTRICTING OR APPORTIONMENT

WHEREAS THIS BILL DOES. >> BUT ELECTION LAW, IT DEALS WITH ELECTION LAW. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YES, IT DOES. >MADAM PRESIDENT,WILL THE SPONS. >> YES. >> IF I COULD BE MORE CLEAR BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT DEALT WITH WHAT JURISDICTIONS, SIMILAR TO THIS ISSUE, DEALT WITH WHAT JURISDICTIONS AND WHAT COUNTIES, SUPREME COURTS, COULD HEAR ELECTION LAW CASES? >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, NOT EXACTLY. THIS IS WHAT I WAS TR

UEING TO CLARIFY WITH SENATOR LANZA EARLIER. ONLY IN THE PRE-CLEARANCE CONTEXT. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> BACK TO THE TIME LINE THOUGH WE DID VOTE ON THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AFTER THE MAPS WERE THROWN OUT. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, YES. >> THANK YOU. MADAM PRESIDENT WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT'S EITHER VERY COINCIDENTAL OR WOULD IT BE SUSPICIOUS TO T

HINK THAT IN 2022, IN DEALING WITH OTHER ELECTION LAW CASES, AND ESTABLISHING FOUR JURISDICTIONS, BLUE JURISDICTION COUNTIES, SUPREME COURTS, DEALING WITH ELECTION LAW CASES, THAT WAS VOTED ON DEBATED AND VOTED ON IN THIS CHAMBER AFTER, AFTER THE REDISTRICTING MAPS WERE THROWN OUT, BUT ADMITTED THAT IT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE JURISDICTIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WITH THE MAPS, THAT THAT WAS LEGISLATION THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO CREATE A PRECEDENT SO THESE MAPS, THAT WE COULD BE TALKING

ABOUT TODAY'S LEGISLATION AND YOU CAN POINT THAT AS WE SET PRECEDENT BUT WE SET PRECEDENT AND WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS THEN. DO YOU FOLLOW WHAT I'M SAYING. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK THAT I'M FOLLOWING AND I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE IMPLYING IS THAT WE PASSED THE JOHN R. LEWIS RITE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AS A POLITICAL SCHEME TO SET UP PRECEDENT IN RESPONSE TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED YOU AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THIS EXCHANGE, THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN 2020 AND WE'VE B

EEN WORKING ON THAT BILL FOR YEARS AND IT JUST HAPPENED TO PASS AFTER THE MAPS WERE STRUCK DOWN. >> MADAM PRESIDENT, WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. THROUGH YOU SO AGAIN, IT WAS AMENDED AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED AGAIN. IT COULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO ANTICIPATE, WE HAVE A MAP ISSUE HERE, THAT'S ALSO ELECTION LAW STUFF, WHY DON'T WE INCLUDE IT, AND WHY WEREN'T THE MAPS INCLUDED IN THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS A

CT. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE ASKING WHY THE JOHN R. LEWIS -- >> BOTH, WHY THE TWO SEPARATE. >> BECAUSE ONE WAS NOT DEALING WITH MAPS AT ALL. AND THIS IS DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH MAPS. THE JOHN R. LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ACT VINDICATES A NUMBER OF VOTING RIGHTS NOT JUST IN THE REDISTRICTING CONTEXT ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES IT MIGHT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL, AS IT PERTAINS TO AT LARGE DISTRICTS VERSUS NOT HAVE LARGE DISTRICTS BUT THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH STATEWIDE APPORTION

MENT, AND IT WAS NEVER, NEVER TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, MY INTENT OR ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO VOTED TO SUPPORT THAT BILL, TO SUPPORT IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. THIS WAS TO PROTECT THE VOTING RIGHTS OF NEW YORKERS, WHO HAD THUS FAR HAD NOT THIS THEM PROPERLY PROTECTED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL PROTECTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STRONGER SECTION 5 IN THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS WANT, WE FOUND IT APPROPRIATE TO COME UP WITH A NEW YORK VERSION OF THAT. THAT IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH VOTING RIGHTS ACTS, N

OT JUST IN THIS STATE, NOT JUST THE FEDERAL ONE BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DO NOT FOCUS ON MAPS OR REDISTRICTING WHEREAS THIS, THIS SPECIFICALLY IS ADDRESSING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT A PRIVATE CITIZEN HAS, AND THE LEGISLATURE'S RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS AROUND HOW TO VINDICATE THAT RIGHT. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD. >> YES. >> THE SPONSOR YIELDS. >> EARLIER TODAY, IN FACT THE BILL IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THIS TWO-BILL SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR,

PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THROWING OUT THE MAPS THAT WERE JUST PROVIDED IN A 9-1 VOTE BY THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IS THAT THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THESE MAPS AND THE PEOPLE THAT DREW AND APPROVED THESE MAPS, NOT BEING THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFIC INS AND OUTS, DEMOGRAPHICS AND OF COMMUNITIES, AND THAT THEY THOUGHT, AND I'M PARAPHRASING ANOTHER MEMBER, BUT, THAT THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION DIDN'T FACTOR IN VERY LOCAL FACTORS IN THE MAPS. BILL THOUGH, HOWEVER, AG

AIN, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE SOMEBODY IN NORTH COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T LIKE THE WAY THE NORTH COUNTRY IS DIVID UP. SENATOR WALCZYK AND I SPLIT ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY AND THE INDEPENDENT -- INDEPENDENT MASTER THAT DREW THE SENATE LINE, DREW IT RIGHT BETWEEN THE TOWNS OF CLIFTON AND -- FIND ANYONE THAT LIVES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THOSE TOWNS KNOW THAT AND THEY ARE VIEWED AS ONE COMMUNITY. CLIFTON AND FINE, THE BUZZ THAT THEY SHOULD BE ONE TOWN. THAT WAS AN ANOMALY THAT, I WOULDN'T EXPECT SOMEBODY FROM PREVIPRES

ENCE VAN I CAN'T TO KN. HOW WITH WE GETTING BETTER TREATMENT? LET'S SIZE THAT WAS AN ISSUE IN ST. LAWRENCE AND SOMEONE THAT LIVED IN CLIFTON AND FINE AND WANTED TO BRING AN ACTION ON THE MAPS AND INSTEAD OF GOING TO ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY SUPREME COURT, THAT PERSON HAS TO DRIVE FOUR AND A HALF, HOW PERHAPS THROUGH THE SNOW, IN THE WINTER, WE ELECTRIC VEHICLE, MAYBE HE MAKES AND IT MAYBE HE DOESN'T. AND TO GET TO ALBANY. HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE JUSTIFICATION IN THE PREVIOUS BILL, ABOUT RE

JECTING THE MAPS? >> >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M FOLLOWING ENTIRELY ON THE CONNECTION TO THE PREVIOUS BILL BUT I THINK ON SUBSTANCE OF WHAT YOU'RE COMMUNICATING AND WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR VOTER IS GOING TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE VINDICATED IN FRONT OF SOMEONE WHO IS AS MY COLLEAGUE REFERENCED KNOWS THEM, KNOWS THE COMMUNITY, IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE YOU GO TO THE ST. LAWRENCE SUPREME COURT AND THEY APPEALED. WHERE WOULD THEY HAVE TO GO? THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO A

LBANY. THESE ARE AS YOU KNOW, AND AS YOU'LL OF US IN THIS CHAMBER KNOW, THESE ISSUES ARE ALMOST CERTAIN TO BE APPEALED AND WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY END UP IN THE APPELLATE COURT. SO, WHY NOT ON THE FIRST INSTANCE, ALLOW FOR IT TO BE IN THE APPELLATE COURT FOR PEOPLE IN TO GOP THE EXPERTISE FOR EVERYONE TO BE AWARE OF THE THAT GOING INTO THE LITIGATION, SUCH THAT IF THERE ARE HARDSHIPS WITH TRAVELING, WHICH I EMPATHIZE WITH. OR ANY OTHER OBSTACLES TO THEM BEING ABLE TO GET TO THE COURTHOUSE, THAT YO

U CAN PLAN FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHERE THE SUITS WILL BE BROUGHT. >> WILL THE SPONSOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE MORE. >> YES. >> OKAY, YOU KNOW, I'M CERTAINLY I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS IS GOING TO SAY, HEY, I WANT TO GO INTO THE COURT OVER WHICH I HAVE A VOTE OF WHO SITS IN THAT SUPREME COURT, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE'S VOTE. IS IT A COINCIDENCE, I THINK IT IS A COINCIDENCE. I THINK IT IS INTERESTING THAT A TWO-BILL SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR, TODAY, THIS AND THEIR MAPS ARE THE TWO BILLS ON

THE SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER ONE WAS TO REJECT THE 9-1 SENATE MAPS. I MEAN, THIS SEEMS LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF THE ANTICIPATORY DEFENSIVE LEGISLATION. >> THROUGH YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS BILL IS AN ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE PREDICTABILITY INTO THE SYSTEM. TO HAVE COURTS DEVELOP AN EXPERTISE, AND, TO ALLOW FOR INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE THEIR RIGHTS VINDICATED IN THE WAY THAT A SIMILAR, TO THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND TO THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESI

DENT. ON THE BILL. >> >> THANK YOU, SENATOR MYRIE. APPRECIATE IT. LOOK, WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO. THE JUDGE IN STEUBEN COUNTY THREW OUT THE MAPS IN HIS DECISION, HIS DECISION WAS SO WELL WRITTEN, ALLOW ME TO BE A LITTLE CYNICAL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT OUR JUDICIARY HAS ANY POLITICAL LEANINGS. BUT A JUDGE IN STEUBEN COUNTY, NOT ONE TO THE FOUR COUNTIES THAT WOULD BE AFFORDED THE ABILITY TO HEAR THESE KIND OF CASES IN THE FUTURE, WROTE A DECISION THAT WAS SO BULLET PROOF, THAT THE COUR

T OF APPEALS HAD TO AGREE WITH HIM, THAT THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD TO AGREE FIRST AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEVEN JUSTICES ALL APPOINTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS, THEY COULDN'T THROW IT OUT. AND SO NUMBER ONE, THERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF NOT ONE OF OUR EXPERTS IN ONE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN JURISDICTIONS WAS ABLE TO WRITE A CASE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS COULDN'T OVERTURN. UNTIL SOME GYMNASTIC AS COUPLE OF YEARS LATER. YOU KNOW, THIS JUST -- AS A NON-ATTORNEY, LISTENING TO THIS AND WATCHING THIS, THI

S JUST SMELLS TO ME THAT THE MAJORITY IS EXPECTING A COURT CHALLENGE, BECAUSE IT JUST THREW OUT A 9-1 RECOMMENDED MAP FROM AN INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, THEIR WORK PRODUCT LARGELY MIRRORS WHAT AN OUTSIDER DREW LAST YEAR. YOU ALL APPOINT PEND TO THAT, WE APPOINTED PEOPLE TO THAT AND IT WAS 9-1EN THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY AND CONCERN CONSERVATIVE PARTY AND DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN APPOINTED MEMBERS, NINE OUT OF TEN OF THEM AGREED ON THAT. AND THE MAJORITY CAN DIDN'T LIKE IT FOR WHATEVER

REASON. AND THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE. I THINK I KNOW THE REASONS BUT I'LL SPARE THE CHAMBER TALKING TOO MUCH POLITICS. BUT, SO NOW WE HAVE PICKED FOUR DEMOCRATIC JURISDICTIONS, DARK, DARK, DARK BLUE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT STEUBEN INDEPENDENT I'LL LOOK AT THIS, WRITE AND IT AGAIN, WAS I POLITICAL? I DON'T KNOW. HE HAD SEVEN DEMOCRATIC IN THE MAJORITY AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH HIM. THIS SMELLS LIKE VENUE SHOPPING. WE'RE GOING TO PREEMPTIVELY DECIDE WHO GETS THE FIRST BITE AT THE

APPLE BECAUSE AGAIN, NOT AN ATTORNEY BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT FIRST CASE, THAT FIRST DECISION, THAT IS THE ONE THAT'S REALLY HARD. YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE A REASON TO DEPART FROM THAT. AND, SO, AGAIN, I FIRMLY BELIEVE LIKE I DID WITH WHAT WE DID TWO YEARS AGO WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND SELECTING FOUR VENUES THEN, THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. >> THANK YOU. SENATOR TEDISCO ON THE BILL. >> >> ON THE BILL. MADAM PRESIDENT, WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DISC

USSION AND DEBATE ON THIS FLOOR. AND RIGHTFULLY SO BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ALL OF US, BOTH AFFILIATIONS, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN. AS IT RELATES TO DIVERSITY AND EQUITY. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY WITH THIS BILL, AND I PRESUME IT IS GOING TO PASS BECAUSE NOTHING COMES ON TO THIS FLOOR THAT DOESN'T PASS WITH THE MAJORITY THAT WE HAVE ASSUMER MAJORITY. , A, SUPER MAJORITY. IT STRIKES OF I HAD TO CRISIS, NOT ONLY FOR A POLITICAL AFFILIATION BUT GEOGRAPHIC HYPOCRISY. HERE WE ARE, WE TALK ABOUT DIVERSITY AND

EQUITY. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DISAGREEMENTS, IMPORTANT DISAGREEMENTS ON ELECTION LAW, FAIR ELECTIONS, FAIR ELECTION DISTRICTS, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE DIVERSITY OR EQUITY. WE WANT TO HAVE FOUR COUNTIES, OF THE 62, WHO ARE CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATIC JUDGES, DEMOCRATIC COURTS, DEMOCRATIC JUDICIARYS, AND WE WANT TO FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THE OTHER AFFILIATIONS AND ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTIES, AND IN THAT INSTANCE, WE DON'T NEED DIVERSITY AND WE DON'T NEED EQUITY IT SEEMS HERE. AND THAT KIND OF STRIKES ME OF

HYPOCRISY. IF YOU REALLY WANT DIVERSITY SPECKITY, Y -- DIVERSITYSPECKITS THE STATE BUT NOT SO MUCH IN THIS. IT SEEMS THAT SUPER MAJORITY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU. YOU WANT TO DO THE REDISTRICTING OVER AGAIN, THE ONE THAT WAS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE SPONSOR SAYS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO STOP JUDGE SHOPPING FOR JUDGES IN JUDICIARYS. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE IF THIS BILL PASSES, JUDICIARY AND JUDGE IN COURT SHOPPING. THIS IS ONE-STOP SHOPPING. YOU'LL BE ALL DONE FOR THE REST OF OUR LIV L

IVES AND SO WILL THE 19.5 PEOPLE IN NEW YORK STATE WHO WANT TO SUPPORT DIVERSITY AND EQUITY. BECAUSE, THERE WILL BE NO DIVERSITY AND NO EQUITY AS IT RELATES TO CONCERNS ABOUT ELECTION LAW. YOU GO TO FOUR COUNTIES, ONE AFFILIATION OF THE REGIONS THAT YOU PICK OF THE STATE, AND A GROCERY STORE THEY HAVE PACKERS. ALL OF THE PACKERS WILL BE PACKING -- ON BEHALF OF YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE AND THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR. SO WHEN WE SCREAM OUT HERE AND WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, ALL OF OUR DIVERSITY, ALL OF

THAT EQUITY AND THE WHOLE VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS, NOT SO MUCH WITH SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS GIVING THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE THE 19.5 MILLION PEOPLE, FAIR ELECTIONS, FAIR DECISIONS ABOUT ELECTION LAW AND ELECTION DISTRICTS. I MEAN, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF THINGS TO DO TO WIN ELECTIONS. TO CHEAT WITH OUR JUDICIARY IS NOT ONE OF THE BEST THINGS. DOESN'T DO JUSTICE OF THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT YOU TOOK, OF ASKING YOUR CONSTITUENTS IN TELLING THEM WE'RE NOT ONLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE'RE SENATOR

S AND ASSEMBLY PEOPLE, WE'RE REPRESENTATIVES. WE HEARD WHAT YOU SAID WITH THAT AMENDMENT. A NON-BIPARTISAN COMMISSION, FIVE DEMOCRATS AND FIVE REPUBLICANS. AND DID NOT WORK SO WELL FOR YOU. SO NOW YOU CHANGED THE COURTS, THE COMMISSION CAME BACK BIPARTISAN, 97% OF THE APPOINTED INDIVIDUAL WHO CAME AND MADE THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS LAST TIME CAME OUT OF THIS COMMISSION, WHICH YOUR CONSTITUENTS VOTED FOR ACROSS THE STATE AND MINE DID. SO WHEN YOU STAND UP AND TALK ABOUT DIVERSITY AND EQUITY, I

THINK YOUR CONSTITUENTS ARE WATCHING YOU NOW AND SAYING, UH, NOT SO MUCH. BUT THE HYPOCRISY WILL BE SEEN AFTER THIS BILL PASSES AND WE PL LEAVE THIS CAPITOL TONIGHT. >> ANY OR SENATORS WISHING TO BE HEARD? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, THE DEBATE IS CLOSED. SECRETARY WILL RING THE BELL. READ THE LAST SECTION. >> SECTION 3, THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. >> CALL THE ROLL. >> ADDABBO, GIANARIS, KRUEGER, ORTT, STEWART-COUSINS, WEIK. >> SENATOR RBI TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> JUST A FEW QUICK POINTS

. ABOUT ERIE COUNTY. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT ERIE COUNTY IN THIS DEBATE. I HEARD ERIE COUNTY REFERRED TO AS COSMOPOLITAN. WE THINK HIGHLY OF OURSELVES IN ERIE COUNTY BUT WE DO NOT SELF DESCRIBE AS COSMOPOLITAN. I HAVE ALSO HEARD ERIE COUNTY REFERRED TO AS A BLUE COUNTY. I WISH THAT IT WAS A BLUE COUNTY. IT IS A PURPLE COUNTY. WE HAVE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS WE HAVE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS AND WE GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN COUNTY EXECUTIVE, COMPTROLLER, SHERIFF AND DA, BETWEEN REPUBLICAN AND DEMOC

RATS. SO, FAR FROM THE BLUE COUNTY. BUT WE SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT ERIE COUNTY SITS IN EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THAT COMPRISEST PRICES 8 COUNTIES THE SIZE OF RHODE ISLAND. SO WHEN PEOPLE SEE A JUDGE IN ERIE COUNTY, YOU'RE SEEING A JUDGE WHO WAS ELECTED BY VOTERS OF 8 COUNTIES, AND THE JUDGE COULD COME FROM ANY OF THOSE 8 COUNTIES. COUNTIES THAT I MIGHT MIND YOU ARE FAR LESS COSMOPOLITAN THAN ERIE COUNTY MIGHT BE ACCUSED OF BEING. AND WE SHOULD ALSO NOTE IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ONCE AGAIN T

HE SIZE OF RHODE ISLAND. THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PART AND IF YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL LITIGATION, IN ANY OF THE AREAS THE SIZE OF RHODE ISLAND, YOU HAVE TO GO TO ERIE COUNTY TO HAVE THAT CASE HEARD. SO, IT IS A QUITE COMMON PRACTICE TO HAVE LITIGANTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS JUDICIAL DISTRICTS HAVE TO GO ONE AREA TO HAVE A CASE HEARD. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. JUST A SMALL CLARIFICATION OF THE PURPLE ERIE COUNTY. >> SENATOR RYAN TO BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SENATOR SKOUFIS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> THA

NK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM PRESIDENT. AND I CERTAINLY RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. AND I WILL BE VOTING FOR IT. BUT I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO AN IDENTICAL ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD ON A COMPARABLE BILL LAST YEAR WHICH IS, THIS HYPOTHETICAL THAT I THINK IN THIS CASE, FOLKS IN CORTLAND COUNTY OR HERKIMER COUNTY WILL HAVE TO DRIVE 150 MILES, IT ABRIDGES THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, TAKING AWAY THE COURT OF JURISDICTION IN THEIR AREA. AND AGAIN, IF WE'RE BEING HONEST HERE, OR BEING TRANS PARENT, WE ALL KNOW

IN THIS CHAMBER HOW THESE LAWSUITS WORK. AND IN THE PAST TWO YEARS WE'VE HAD TWO REDISTRICTING LAWSUITS. WE'VE HAD ONE FROM THEIR SIDE MORE RECENTLY WE'VE HAD THE, HAS AND RIDER LAWSUIT ORIGINALLY. AND, I ASSURE YOU, Mr. HARKINRIDER DID NOT OPEN UP THE NEW YORK POST ONE MORNING, SAW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND SAID, I NEED TO FILE A LAWSUIT AND RAN DOWN THE STREET TO THE NEAREST LAWYER AND THEN RAN DOWN THE STREET AGAIN TO THE NEAREST STATE SUPREME COURT TO FILE THAT LAWSUIT. AND SIMILARLY, Mr. OFMAN

DID AN OP HE ED ON THE NEW YORK TIMES AND DO THE SAME THING IN ALBANY COUNTY. WHAT HAPPENS IS PETER OFFICIALS, THEY REVERSER. REENGINEER THESE THINGS ANDLOOK. I GUARANTEE THAT YOU NEITHER Mr. , HAS SEASON RIDER OR HOFFMAN SPENT A SINGLE DAY COURT EITHER FILING THE LAWSUIT OR SITTING THROUGH ANY OF THE HEARINGS. AND SO THIS SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE ABRIDGING ANYONE'S RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO HOP DOWN THE STREET AND FILE A REDISTRICTING LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK STATE, IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW,

IS QUITE FRANKLY, LAUGHABLE. I VOTE AYE. >> SENATOR SKOUFIS TO BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SENATOR RHOADS TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM PRESIDENT. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE LECTURE, EQUAL JUSTICE MEANS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING DENIED. BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY HAVING TO TRAVEL FOUR AND HALF HOURS TO GET TO THE SAME COURTHOUSE, THAT SOMEONE LIVES TEN MINUTES AWAY FROM, THAT IS NOT EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE. THE REASON WHY WE HAVE

SUPREME COURTS IN EVERY COUNTY IS SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO TRAVEL TOO FAR TO GET EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DENIED HERE. AND THE RATIONALE THAT SOMEHOW WE'RE TRYING TO INTRODUCE PREDICTABILITY INTO THE SYSTEM IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR DENYING EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE. WHO ARE WE TRYING TO SEEK PREDICTABILITY FOR? IT IS NOT FOR THE PUBLIC. IT IS FOR THE POLITICIANS. AND IF YOU LOOK STEVEN YOU'RES THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN, THE PREDICTABILITY THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR

IS PREDICTABILITY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. SO THAT YOU'RE SURE WHEN THERE IS A CASE IN ONE OF YOUR FOUR PRE-SELECTED VENUES, YOU KNOW THE OUTCOME. THAT'S WRONG. IT IS WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND YOU KNOW IT. SO I PROUDLY VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE, MADAM PRESIDENT. I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO SO. >> SEN.>> SENATOR RODES TO BE RD IN THE NEGATIVE. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR MYRIE FOR INTRO INTRODUCING THIS BILL AND YOUR MASTERFUL DEBATE WHEN YOU PRACTICE IN CERTAIN COURTS, THERE'

S CERTAIN PARTS THAT YOU GO TO. THERE IS A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PART. THERE IS A COURT OF SMALL CLAIMS FOR CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNTS WITH UNDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT. WE SHOULD NOT ELIMINATE THAT CIVIL COURT ANOTHER AMOUNT. WE SHOULDN'T ELIMINATE THAT THERE IS A SPECIALIZATION IN THE AREAS OF LAW THAT WE NEED THAT WE REQUIRE THAT WE HAVE, AND THIS IS ALONG THOSE SAME SAME LINES. I SEE NO CONCERNS, I SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS THERE IS NO DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, WITHIN SAYING EVERY COURT SHOULD BE -- W

E CAN GO DOWN THE BLOCK TO CRIMINAL COURT. WE CAN'T HAVE EVERY COURT IN ONE COURT BUILDING EVEN WITHIN THE SAME JURISDICTION IN THE SAME COUNTY. I THINK THIS PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY TO MODERNIZE WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO AND MAKING THINGS QUITE FRANKLY, AS SENATOR MYRIE PUT IT IN HIS DEBATE, BEING MORE RESPONSIVE IN BEING MORE SPECIALIZED IN A VERY SPECIALIZED AREA OF LAW. WE ALL KNOW IF YOU HAVE A WILL AND TRUST THAT YOU NEED TO DO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CALL 1-800 PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY. YO

U GO TO A WILLS AND TRUSTS ATTORNEY. WE NEED TO DO THE SAME THING AND I PROUDLY VOTE AYE ON THIS, MADAM PRESIDENT. >> SENATOR BAILEY TO BE RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SENATOR STEC TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE. >> EXTREMELY BRIEFLY, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO MY COLLEAGUE FOR CALLING YOUR COUNTY COSMOPOLITAN. [ LAUGHTER ] >> THANK YOU, SENATOR STEC. SENATOR STEC TO BE RECORDED IN THE NEGATIVE. ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS. >> IN RELATION TO CALENDAR CALENDAR 465, SENATORS VOTING IN NEGATIVE ARE SENATORS ASHBY, BOREL

LO, GALLIVAN, GRIFFO, HELMING, LANZA, MARTINS , MATTERA, MURRAY, OBERACKER, ORTT, RHOADS, ROLISON, SCARCELLA-SPANTON, STEC, TEDISCO, WEBER AND SENATOR WEIK. AYES 39, NAYs 18. >> THE BILL IS PASSED. >> SENATOR GIANARIS. >> THAT COMPLETES THE READING OF THE CONTROVERSIAL CALENDAR. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS AT THE DESK? >> THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS AT THE DESK. >> I WANT TO REMIND THE MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY CONFERENCE TO NOT DRIFT TOO FAR AWAY. IN CASE WE NEED YOU BACK BUT WITH THAT, I M

OVE TO ADJOURN UNTIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27 AT 3:00 P.M. >> >> ON MOTION, THE SENATE STANDS ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23 AT 3:00 P.M.