Asm. Alex Bores
Alex Bores represents AD-73, a heavily Democratic Manhattan district with a D+45 registration lean — 55,024 Democrats (59.5%) to 13,002 Republicans (14.1%) — that has returned lopsided general election margins across every cycle on record; Bores himself won in 2024 with a 46.8-point margin over Awadhesh Gupta and is rated Safe D across all modeled 2026 scenarios. The district is demographically distinctive for its high educational attainment (84.7% bachelor's degree or higher), a median household income of $177,599, and a median rent of $3,162, situating it among New York's wealthiest and most credentialed urban constituencies. First elected in 2023, Bores sponsored 94 bills in the 2025 session, with the largest concentration in General Business (18 bills), followed by Insurance, Public Health, and Tax (5 bills each), reflecting a pronounced focus on commercial regulation and emerging technology — consistent with his floor activity on AI regulation, proposition betting, and Uniform Commercial Code modernization.AI
Topic Focus AI
Topics extracted by AI from floor debate speeches, joint committee hearing transcripts, and sponsored legislation. Tag size reflects number of supporting citations.
Key Issues AI
Key issue areas derived from floor debate speeches and sponsored bill law sections.
Legislative Activity (2025–2026)
Bill sponsorship from NYS Open Legislation API. Hearing appearances from joint Senate-Assembly committee transcripts. Floor debate from official Assembly session transcripts (Granicus, 2023–present).
Bill Focus Areas 2025–2026
Grouped by law section from sponsored Assembly bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation API.
Floor Speeches: In Support (50) AI
Sponsor explained the bill requires AI companions to restrict unsafe features from minors, including those promoting self-harm, sycophancy, and emotional manipulation. Emphasized the bill does not ban products but restricts specific features, and noted the Attorney General will enforce with rulemaking on age verification methods.
Extensive debate on AI chatbot regulation focused on protecting children from harmful interactions. Sponsor Bores explained that the bill targets chatbots that simulate emotional relationships and can encourage self-harm, isolation, or dangerous behavior. Key issues discussed included: whether modern AI can be technically constrained to specified purposes; the 12-hour personal information retention limit and its application to educational tutoring; definitions of flattery and sycophancy; whether saying 'I'm happy to help' violates prohibitions on simulating human emotions; and the $25,000-per-violation penalty structure. Bores clarified that penalties are statutory maximums typically negotiated in settlements, and that the bill builds on existing 2025-26 budget guardrails by covering broader AI systems like ChatGPT and focusing specifically on child protection.
Floor Speeches: In Opposition AI
No recorded floor speeches in opposition found in our transcript archive for this member.
Electoral History AD-73
General Elections
| Year | Winner | Runner-up | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Alex Bores 73.4% (42,552) | Awadhesh Gupta 26.6% (15,414) | 46.8pts |
| 2022 | Alex Bores 73.7% (32,938) | David Casavis 26.3% (11,747) | 47.4pts |
| 2020 | Dan Quart 74.4% (45,196) | Judith Graham 25.6% (15,534) | 48.8pts |
| 2018 | Dan Quart 76.2% (36,181) | Jeff Ascherman 23.8% (11,320) | 52.4pts |
| 2016 | Dan Quart 62.7% (35,535) | Rebecca Harary 36.2% (20,538) | 26.5pts |
| 2014 | Dan Quart 67.6% (16,618) | David B. Casavis 30.5% (7,507) | 37.1pts |
| 2012 | Dan Quart 68.9% (32,153) | David B. Casavis 31.1% (14,503) | 37.8pts |
| 2011 | Dan Quart 66.5% (6,318) | Paul Niehaus 32.9% (3,129) | 33.6pts |
| 2010 | Jonathan L. Bing 65.2% (23,031) | Paul Niehaus 32.9% (11,644) | 32.3pts |
| 2008 | Jonathan L. Bing 73.8% (37,640) | David В. Casavis 26.2% (13,383) | 47.6pts |
| 2006 | Jonathan L. Bing 77.0% (26,920) | Robert Heim 23.0% (8,062) | 54.0pts |
| 2004 | Jonathan L. Bing 72.5% (38,243) | Douglas G. Winston 27.5% (14,534) | 45.0pts |
| 2002 | Jonathan L. Bing 50.6% (15,949) | Gail Hilson 48.3% (15,221) | ⚡ 2.3pts |
| 2000 | John Ravitz 53.0% (23,712) | Jerome B. K. Polansky 45.0% (20,128) | ⚡ 8.0pts |
| 1998 | John Ravitz 56.3% (19,547) | Charles M. Kinsolving, Jr. 43.7% (15,148) | 12.6pts |
| 1996 | John Ravitz 55.2% (24,680) | Jess Velona 44.2% (19,763) | 11.0pts |
Primary Elections
| Year | Winner | Runner-up | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 (Democratic) | Dan Quart 66.2% (8,672) | Cameron Alex Koffman 33.8% (4,427) | 32.4pts |
| 2018 (Independence) | Dr. Jeff Ascherman 76.9% (20) | Richard Gotfried 3.8% (1) | 73.1pts |
| 2016 (Women's Equality) | Rebecca Harary 100.0% (3) | Uncontested | — |
| 2014 (Green) | Donal Butterfield 80.0% (4) | David B. Casavis 20.0% (1) | 60.0pts |
Source: NYS Board of Elections certified results. ⚡ = margin under 10 pts. District history reflects 2022 redistricted boundaries.
Vulnerability Index AD-73
Base lean: D+53
- Limited contested election data — registration lean used as primary signal
Scenario model: ±5pt national environment shift applied to district base lean (D+53). Base lean blends voter registration (40%) with recent contested general election margins (60%), using up to the last 4 general elections with margins under 40 points. Ratings: Safe D/R = 15+ pts, Likely = 8–14 pts, Lean = 3–7 pts, Toss-up = within 2 pts (Assembly districts are smaller and more homogeneous than Senate districts, so tighter thresholds are used). Generic ballot from Silver Bulletin (Nate Silver), as of 10/21/2026. Not a prediction — reflects structural competitiveness under different cycle environments.
District 73 Profile
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2024).
Voter Registration
Demographics
Commute Mode
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2024). Race and ethnicity figures may not sum to 100% — Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity category that overlaps with racial groups.
Lobbying Activity 2023
Counts reflect bi-monthly disclosure records filed with the Ethics Commission — not individual meetings.
Top Lobbying Issues
Top Organizations Lobbying This Member
Source: NY Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government via data.ny.gov. ★ Chair = lobbying issue overlaps with a committee this member chairs. ↔ Overlap = matches committee membership or bill sponsorship focus.