Asm. Matthew Slater
Matthew Slater (R-AD-94) holds a safe Republican seat in a district carrying an R+5 registration lean, where he won his most recent election in 2024 with 62.6% of the vote against Zachary C. Couzens, a margin of 25.2 points; his 2026 outlook is rated Safe R under neutral and favorable-Republican environments and Likely R even under a favorable-Democratic shift. AD-94 is a high-income, majority-homeowner suburban district with a median household income of $136,991, an 85.8% homeownership rate, and a population that is 74.5% white and 49.7% bachelor's degree or higher, with Republicans holding a 34.7% to 30.0% registration edge over Democrats. In the 2025 session Slater sponsored 94 bills, with his heaviest focus in Election law and Penal law (7 bills each), followed by Education and Executive law (6 bills each), and Tax law (5 bills). Top lobbying sectors active in his district have not been flagged in this brief, and no committee chairmanship is listed for Slater in the available record.AI
Topic Focus AI
Topics extracted by AI from joint Senate-Assembly committee hearing transcripts and floor debate. 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 (28) AI
Argued that the $20,000 exemption from 1981 is equivalent to over $60,000 in today's dollars and that the bill modernizes an outdated policy to reflect how people actually save for retirement. Emphasized that New York's high tax burden and poor affordability are driving residents to leave the state.
Expressed support for recognizing Cold War veterans who served when the nation called upon them. He noted that Cold War era veterans in his district have specifically requested this commemorative medal and that state recognition would be meaningful.
The bill was on the consent calendar. Asm. Palmesano explained his negative vote, raising concerns that the term 'public works website' is not defined in the legislation and questioning whether utilities performing excavation work would be required to pay prevailing wage for hauling, which could increase costs passed to ratepayers.
Praised the bill as a modernization and transparency measure. Confirmed understanding that the requirement applies to candidates, political committees, and independent expenditures, and that placing the disclaimer in a website header or footer would comply with the law.
Floor Speeches: In Opposition (20) AI
Criticized the legislative process, noting the bill was introduced Sunday and voted Wednesday without adequate collaboration; argued the Legislature passed direction to an agency (OCM) that did not exist when the original MRTA was enacted, raising questions about legislative foresight.
Expressed grave concerns about enforcement clarity and potential conflicts with the 100-foot rule, particularly regarding campaign-branded items. Questioned whether repealing the law without new training directives for election inspectors and volunteers would create precarious situations and ambiguity in enforcement.
Expressed concern about MTA payroll tax rate reductions in Zone 2 while expecting increased revenue; questioned how revenue increases when rates decrease for most businesses.
Bill lacks clarity on ballot types and provides no explicit security guidelines; could confuse part-time Board of Elections workers; Legislature should address security more directly rather than delegating to State Board of Elections.
Raised concerns about lack of appeal process if commissioners deny a waiver, the one-year implementation timeline that excludes current election cycles, and whether the State Board regulatory framework would provide adequate guidance on implementation and potential leave-of-absence requirements.
Electoral History AD-94
General Elections
| Year | Winner | Runner-up | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Matthew J. Slater 62.6% (46,450) | Zachary C. Couzens 37.4% (27,798) | 25.2pts |
| 2022 | Matthew J. Slater 62.7% (35,618) | Kathleen M. Valletta 37.3% (21,230) | 25.4pts |
| 2020 | Kevin Byrne 58.1% (41,681) | Stephanie J. Keegan 41.9% (30,006) | 16.2pts |
| 2018 | Kevin M. Byrne 56.0% (29,491) | Vedat Gashi 44.0% (23,162) | 12.0pts |
| 2016 | Kevin M. Byrne 61.4% (36,760) | Brian Higbie 38.6% (23,097) | 22.8pts |
| 2014 | Stephen M. Katz 53.0% (19,620) | Andrew I. Falk 47.0% (17,432) | ⚡ 6.0pts |
| 2012 | Stephen Katz 54.3% (29,578) | Andrew I. Falk 45.7% (24,903) | ⚡ 8.6pts |
| 2010 | Kenneth P. Zebrowski 57.5% (22,645) | Frank P. Sparaco 42.5% (16,750) | 15.0pts |
| 2008 | Kenneth P. Zebrowski 100.0% (43,227) | Uncontested | — |
| 2006 | Kenneth P. Zebrowski 94.4% (23,440) | Peter H. Partridge 5.6% (1,390) | 88.8pts |
| 2004 | Kenneth Zebrowski 100.0% (33,608) | Uncontested | — |
| 2002 | Alexander J. Gromack 94.7% (26,980) | Margaret M. Fitton 5.3% (1,497) | 89.4pts |
| 2000 | Nancy Calhoun 62.0% (29,897) | James A. Sollami 35.7% (17,188) | 26.3pts |
| 1998 | Nancy Calhoun 94.2% (25,187) | Michael J. Spear 5.8% (1,560) | 88.4pts |
| 1996 | Nancy Calhoun 66.5% (27,703) | Manuel Mangual 29.9% (12,442) | 36.6pts |
Primary Elections
| Year | Winner | Runner-up | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 (Republican) | Kevin M. Byrne 60.1% (2,663) | Suzanne F. McDonough 39.9% (1,766) | 20.2pts |
| 2012 (Republican) | Stephen Katz 64.3% (1,623) | Dario Gristina 35.7% (900) | 28.6pts |
| 2012 (Conservative) | Stephen Katz 80.8% (126) | Dario Gristina 18.6% (29) | 62.2pts |
| 1998 (Conservative) | Nancy Calhoun 74.1% (186) | Mervin R. Livsey 25.9% (65) | 48.2pts |
Special Elections
| Year | Winner | Runner-up | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Kenneth P. Zebrowski 75.5% (3,913) | Matthew Brennan 24.5% (1,268) | 51.0pts |
Source: NYS Board of Elections certified results. ⚡ = margin under 10 pts. District history reflects 2022 redistricted boundaries.
Vulnerability Index AD-94
Base lean: R+18
Scenario model: ±5pt national environment shift applied to district base lean (R+18). 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 5/21/2026. Not a prediction — reflects structural competitiveness under different cycle environments.
District 94 Profile
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2024).
Voter Registration
Demographics
Commute Mode
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 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
No lobbying disclosures on record for this member in the available dataset.
Source: NY Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government via data.ny.gov.