Asm. Joseph Sempolinski

The bill enables state-level loyalty tests that remove voters for disagreeing with party positions. It centralizes power from local county leadership to the state level, and voters should have the right to enroll in any party regardless of whether they agree with all party positions—diversity of thought is healthy for democracy.

Opposed on constitutional principle, arguing the Legislature should write clear laws rather than directing judges how to interpret them. Cited Article 3, Section 1 of the New York Constitution vesting legislative power in the Legislature.

Current law appropriately trusts primary voters to make decisions about judicial candidates; the bill would instead give party leadership gatekeeping power, effectively trusting party bosses more than the voting public.

As a county party chairman, argued the bill would worsen politicalization of the judiciary. Contended the judiciary is fundamentally different from legislative and executive positions and should remain depoliticized. Expressed preference for trusting voters over party leadership to decide candidates.

Expressed concerns about the rapid timeline for implementation, the undefined security tool requirement and its potential costs to counties, and preference for a 2026 effective date to allow boards of elections adequate planning time.

Raised concerns about the rapid timeline for implementation, the undefined security tool requirement and its potential costs to counties, and preference for a 2026 effective date to allow boards of elections to plan in advance.

Opposed the bill due to a $125 million increase in expenditure with unclear funding sources. Noted the sponsor's memo states total cost is to be determined and expressed concern that bonding is indicated as preferred but not determinative, leaving uncertainty about State and local liability.

Opposed the bill due to a $125 million increase in expenditure with unclear funding responsibility; noted the sponsor's memo states total cost is 'to be determined' and expressed concern about who would ultimately be on the hook for the costs.

Opposed the bill due to a $125 million increase in expenditure with unclear funding responsibility; noted the sponsor's memo states total cost is 'to be determined' and expressed concern about who would ultimately bear the cost.

Opposed the bill as a one-size-fits-all approach that solves a problem specific to New York City or Monroe County but creates unnecessary burden on hospitals in rural counties like Allegany, Cattaraugus, and Steuben where language diversity is minimal.

Opposed the $111 million in film tax credits as misaligned priorities, arguing the state should prioritize meaningful wages for care workers for vulnerable populations over funding for Hollywood film production.

Opposed the $100 million film tax credit expansion, arguing the $111 million revenue reduction should prioritize wages for direct care workers serving vulnerable populations over Hollywood productions.

Opposed the bill, arguing that $111 million in film tax credits represents misaligned priorities compared to meaningful wages for those caring for developmentally-disabled and mentally-challenged populations.

Opposed the bill, arguing the $111 million cost of film tax credits and production initiatives represents misplaced priorities when direct care workers for vulnerable populations lack adequate wages.

Opposed the $111 million in film tax credits as misaligned priorities, arguing that budgeting reflects values and priorities, and that funding art films should not take precedence over meaningful wages for those caring for vulnerable populations including the developmentally disabled and mentally ill.

Opposed $100 million film tax credit expansion, arguing the $111 million revenue reduction should prioritize wages for developmentally disabled care workers over Hollywood art films.

Acknowledged the bill addresses a legitimate problem with construction workers moving between employers, but expressed concern that the language allows workers to immediately access benefits after unpaid leave with a new employer even if they've never worked for that employer, contrary to the principle that some work should be required before benefits vest.