Sen. George Borrello

Criticized the bill as a corrective action for Office of Cannabis Management failures and cited New York Times reporting on marijuana's harms to youth. Expressed concern about cannabis proliferation and impaired driving becoming the leading cause of accidents.

He argued the bill is premature given federal action by the Trump administration and RFK Jr., and that a national standard would be more effective and efficient. He contended the three-year implementation timeline is not urgent and that the bill is burdensome, noting consumers in border areas can purchase products in neighboring states anyway.

Opposed the bill despite supporting revenue assistance for struggling not-for-profits, citing lack of adequate protections and controls, particularly regarding minors. Criticized the State's failure to negotiate a fair compact with the Seneca Nation as a broader context for his opposition.

Expressed fundamental opposition to government involvement in end-of-life decisions and raised specific concerns about chain of custody of lethal drugs, lack of oversight after prescription, inability to verify the intended recipient actually took the medication, risks to vulnerable populations including those with developmental disabilities, and the unreliability of six-month prognosis predictions (citing 20 percent accuracy rate). Argued the bill creates a slippery slope toward euthanasia and abandons safeguards by not requiring administration in controlled medical settings.

Disputed claims that renewable energy is cheaper than traditional sources, arguing that power purchase agreements and subsidies prove wind and solar require financial support to compete.

He objected to what he characterized as selective concern about violence and declined to be lectured about the issue, voting against the bill.

Argued that New York has saturated the gaming market and that even small additions like bell jar machines represent 'death by a thousand cuts' to state revenue and harm the Seneca Nation. Questioned whether electronic dispensers still fall under the broad definition of slot machines in the Seneca compact.

The loan is a high-interest "payday loan" that will burden a poor, majority-minority city with average household income of $49,000 that just endured an 84 percent property tax increase. The city has failed to meet Fiscal Recovery Act requirements and comptroller demands; a control board would enable lower-rate bonding. The loan will cost $1.5 million annually in principal and interest while withholding $1.5 million in AIM aid, likely worsening the city's financial crisis without addressing underlying accountability issues.

Western New York heavily relies on natural gas for affordable, reliable heating. The bill ignores the state's insufficient electrical grid capacity, threatens good-paying union jobs, adds $14,000-$17,000 costs to new homebuilders in upstate New York, and undermines affordable housing goals. Natural gas proved critical during the December 2022 Buffalo snowstorm.

The bill's vague language would eliminate opportunities for employers to invest in training for people who cannot afford it themselves, such as 16-year-old lifeguards or truck drivers needing CDL licenses. Existing labor laws already protect against employer abuse.

Argued the bill is hypocritical because it mandates disclosure of price increases from private sources but prohibits disclosure of increases caused by government regulations, and noted New York's tendency to overregulate increases costs.

Criticized the bill as wasteful, noting it creates a commission to study whether to create a study on public banks. He also objected to the absence of Republican appointments on the commission.

Argued the bill unfairly burdens nursing homes, which are already underfunded with low Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates and high regulations. Questioned why responsibility should shift to nursing homes rather than funeral homes already trained and equipped for body handling. Raised practical concerns about implementation in dense urban areas like Manhattan.

Argued the bill creates an illogical distinction between fresh-made and prepackaged items, since consumers can ask about ingredients at the counter in both cases. Expressed concern about legal liability for small businesses and questioned whether the requirement meaningfully improves safety. Noted that people with allergies are typically conscientious about asking and that larger food processors are better equipped to comply.

The bill is overly complex and creates unnecessary hoops for farmers and municipalities to jump through. The 51 percent sourcing standard is too low and could benefit large national distributors over 100 percent New York-based farms. Municipalities lack expertise to evaluate environmental and social equity standards. The existing Farm-to-School program is underutilized due to complexity; this bill should simply allow government agencies to pay more for New York-grown food without additional criteria.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Argued the bill is fraught with conflicts of interest by placing a paid faculty member on community college boards of trustees and encouraged the Governor to veto if it reaches her desk.

Argued that New York's workers' compensation insurance is the most expensive in the nation and that this bill would shift costs from the federal government to state taxpayers, making an already expensive system worse.

Argued the bill incentivizes wind and solar sprawl that destroys the natural environment while producing minimal energy and few permanent jobs. Criticized the property tax reduction as unnecessary giveaways that deprive communities of needed revenue.

Opposed the bill as ineffective and un-American, arguing that products can still be purchased online and shipped to consumers' homes, and that the ban would only result in products being imported from other states.

Raised extensive concerns about lack of waiting periods after prescription decision, inaccuracy of six-month prognosis predictions, absence of controlled environment requirements, no chain of custody oversight, and potential for financial coercion of family members.

The bill represents government overreach into parental responsibility and personal choice. It could generate frivolous litigation over obvious exaggerations (Lucky Charms being "magically delicious," Red Bull giving wings), and would be ineffective given the ubiquity of advertising. Sen. Borrello suggested restricting SNAP benefits to healthy foods would be a more direct and effective approach.

Argued the bill is impractical for commercial vehicles modified by multiple vendors and would unfairly hold manufacturers responsible for third-party modifications. Expressed concern it would increase costs for small businesses and aftermarket warranties, and questioned how liability would be determined in complex commercial vehicle situations.

Opposed the bill as vaguely defined and likely to enable litigation against small rural businesses that are the only service providers in their areas. He argued the bill would create incentives for 'litigation bounty hunters' to target operators like single gas stations or convenience stores, and noted that New York State itself encourages monopolies through laws governing liquor and beer distribution. He cited opposition from the Farm Bureau, bankers, and business organizations.

Argued the bill goes beyond Europe and California in stringency without proven cost-benefit analysis. Questioned how companies can develop New York-specific packaging and whether technology exists for 30% reduction goals. Noted Kraft Heinz opposition despite being 87% compliant.

The bill unfairly punishes a shrinking population of state-chartered community banks and sets a dangerous precedent by telling banks what they can invest in. Advocacy has already worked to convince federally-chartered banks to divest. Private prisons in other states have lower recidivism rates and newer facilities, and New York State—facing its own prison crisis—should not dictate prison operations to other states.

The bill allows providers to opt out of plans based on reimbursement rates, which could disrupt continuity of care for children with chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes. Without consultation with providers and insurers, the bill risks unintended consequences that undermine the state-sponsored program's effectiveness.

Argued the bill has a flaw that allows seizure of victims' firearms while releasing domestic abusers on appearance tickets. Contended that criminals should be jailed rather than released.

Questioned feasibility of electric school bus mandate in rural areas with long routes and subzero temperatures. Asked why pilot programs weren't conducted in urban, suburban and rural areas before full mandate. Expressed concern about technology that doesn't exist and mandates that cannot be met.

Acknowledged the goal of increasing poll worker compensation is laudable but opposed the bill because it comes with no funding mechanism, which would burden county boards of elections already operating on limited budgets.

Argued the bill should include a $16-22 fee per mattress like successful programs in other states, which have achieved 67% recycling rates. He expressed concern that manufacturers in his district (Serta, Jamestown Mattress) would bear unfair costs while consumers could purchase non-compliant mattresses across the border in Pennsylvania.

The bill creates inherent conflicts of interest by allowing a paid faculty member protected by union representation to participate in executive sessions discussing compensation and discipline that directly affect them. The bill lacks specific language defining recusal requirements and penalties for confidentiality breaches, and is too vague and broad.

Criticized the $100 million monthly National Guard cost as the result of the Governor's mismanagement and noted the Governor could federalize the troops to shift costs to the federal government, calling the situation egregious.

Expressed concerns about automatic Medicaid renewal, citing fraud in the system and the inability to verify over a million recipients. Argued that 44 percent of New Yorkers and 60 percent of New York City residents are on Medicaid, and questioned whether automatic renewal is the right policy path.

Argued that while the bill prevents private employers from enforcing no-rehire clauses after compensation is offered, Governor Hochul is applying the same restrictions to state, county, and local positions, creating a double standard. Contended the corrections officers were likely not in violation of the Taylor Act due to dangerous working conditions.

Argued the bill lacks adequate security measures for mobile polling sites and that the answer of using standard polling site security is insufficient for sites in RVs. Expressed concern that the bill undermines public faith in fair and secure elections and characterized it as a 'gimmick' that moves in the wrong direction.

Opposed the bill citing the 600 percent TDI premium increase as an excessive burden on small businesses, arguing it will drive employers out of New York and increase program participation in questionable ways. Contended the state is running out of revenue and cannot afford additional business mandates.

He argued the bill represents a double standard, contending the state should be equally transparent about CLCPA costs rather than requiring transparency only from private businesses. He questioned whether data on ESCO savings exists and noted the PSC already offers online comparisons.

Questioned the contradiction of mandating energy companies continue supplying fuel while fining them for doing so, and argued costs will inevitably pass to consumers. Noted state policy requires continued provision of gas and electric services for public health and welfare.

Argued that the bill's burdensome and restrictive rules may cause employers to stop offering severance packages altogether, ultimately harming workers despite the bill's good intentions.

Argued the bill will reduce consumer choice, increase costs without addressing global plastic waste, and that companies will simply pull products from the New York market rather than redesign packaging. Criticized the bill as appeasing environmental radicals.

Argued the bill is a Band-Aid on a wound created by prior chamber policies, and that panic buttons will not deter the brazen shoplifting and robbery occurring in retail stores. Criticized the bill as giving false security while ignoring the real problem of emboldened criminals.

Argued that prison labor is not slavery but rather an opportunity for inmates to work during their sentences. Contended that when accounting for incarceration costs, inmates would owe money if paid minimum wage.

While voter registration is laudable, placing the administrative burden on schools is problematic. Automatic registration undermines the message of personal responsibility for newly minted adults, and there are chain-of-custody concerns about cards being manipulated before reaching the Board of Elections.

Voted against the bill.

Voted against the bill.

Opposed the bill for lacking Republican input and failing to balance public safety with environmental concerns regarding road salt impacts on inland waterways. He noted that most lakes stressed by road salt would not have Minority Conference representation.

Argues the bill is not a real solution to prescription drug affordability, noting that six other states with similar legislation remain unapproved by the federal government. Emphasizes that Canada opposes importation, with the Canadian Minister of Health stating the country will not allow its drug supply to be endangered.

Raised concerns about implementation burden on state-chartered banks, lack of clear liability protections, and the requirement for legal consultation burdening low-income account holders. Argued this is an estate planning issue, not a banking issue, and that federally chartered banks would not be affected.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

The bill is too broad and lacks proper protections needed to prevent abuse, particularly given that 10 days of voting are already available in every election.

Argued the bill compels voter registration and violates individual freedom of choice. Raised concerns about screening non-citizens at the DMV (where non-citizens can obtain licenses) and the lack of criminal penalties for failing to opt out, questioning why only DMV and Medicaid were selected rather than other government agencies.

Expressed concerns that the bill ties the hands of utility companies, may force them to move operations out of New York, and could lead to fewer call centers and jobs as companies turn to AI technology. Worried about vague language regarding emergency situations and potential interference with collective bargaining.

Argued that advocacy has proven more effective than legislation, noting Sen. Cleare's own success lobbying Citibank and Bank of America. Contended the bill unfairly restricts only state-chartered banks while federally chartered banks remain unrestricted, and that such restrictions drive state-chartered banks out of New York, harming community banking and local credit decisions.

Borrello opposed the bill, arguing that industrial wind turbines kill thousands of birds and bats daily, including American bald eagles, and that the measure is hypocritical.

Voted in opposition to the bill.

Voted in opposition to the bill.

Contended that direct contact visits enable contraband and weapons smuggling in already-violent prisons, and that the solution is for people not to commit crimes rather than to facilitate prison visits.

Argued the bill allows foreign entities unfamiliar with local landscapes to manage conservation areas and could convert economically important navigable waterways into wetlands, conflicting with public access and use.

Argued the bill amounts to 'garbage in, garbage out,' allowing shoddy work to replace good election procedures and undermining election integrity and public confidence.

Argued the bill's fire suppression requirements are unclear and impractical, noting that sprinkler systems cannot extinguish battery fires and required Ansul-type systems are prohibitively expensive. Expressed concern the measure will hurt small local businesses while larger retailers can continue selling e-bikes.

Argued the bill creates an unintended loophole allowing individuals to purchase used electric bikes, obtain free battery replacements and rebates from NYSERDA, and resell them, potentially creating a cottage industry at taxpayer expense with no spending limits.

Expressed concern that the bill does more for someone who has committed a crime than for law-abiding citizens.

Criticized the bill as hypocritical, arguing it ignores environmental destruction from rare earth metal mining for solar panels and wind turbines, which involves child labor and slave labor. Contended the U.S. could produce these materials domestically with union labor but instead imports Chinese-made panels.

He argued New York should not continue attracting undocumented immigrants by expanding benefits at taxpayer expense and noted that Medicaid recipients already overuse emergency rooms. He called for rolling back the welcome mat rather than expanding coverage.

Questioned how the state would collect from international companies unwilling to pay, whether viable alternatives to fossil fuels existed in 2000-2018, and whether the bill violates the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Argued the bill essentially punishes companies for continuing to provide necessary energy while New York remains 70% dependent on fossil fuels, and characterized it as a revenue grab to fund the CLCPA rather than genuine environmental policy.

Criticized the CDPAP single-broker model as repeating the failed NEMT program disaster, objected to removal of Comptroller oversight and state procurement law requirements, and predicted the contract was pre-determined for a specific vendor.

Characterized the migrant crisis as self-created by sanctuary policies, argued the state should not fund indefinite services without policy changes, and noted that $2.4 billion exceeds funding for roads, NYCHA repairs, and other infrastructure.

Criticized IAI provisions as insufficient to justify property improvements, noting $50,000 over 14 years amounts to an interest-free loan to tenants. Warned this will drive property owners to invest elsewhere and deteriorate housing quality.

Opposed the medical marijuana tax reduction, noting it was the only revenue-generating aspect of marijuana policy. Expressed concern that marijuana has been a net negative for the state with no end in sight to losses.

Argued provisions don't go far enough on criminal penalties, particularly for illegal cannabis sales. Questioned why people selling marijuana illegally shouldn't face jail time like those selling alcohol or cigarettes illegally.

Argued the bill contains no explicit guarantee that increased dealer reimbursements will result in higher technician wages and lacks guardrails present in other states like Illinois. Warned the bill will increase car purchase costs by approximately $1,200 per vehicle, reduce manufacturer incentives, and incentivize cross-border purchases in Pennsylvania, making New York less business-friendly.

Argued the bill incorrectly targets machines rather than the people operating them illegally, comparing it to blaming cars for crime. He contended the bill does not increase penalties for illegal operation and will not solve the problem, only restrict law-abiding citizens from legal sales and trades.

Argued the bill bans a completely different process without scientific evidence or DEC review. Noted Pennsylvania has benefited economically from natural gas extraction while New York residents are denied the opportunity. Criticized the hypocrisy of banning CO2 extraction while allowing industrial wind turbines that cause documented quality-of-life problems.

Argued the bill, while sold as leveling the playing field, would handcuff both the PSC and utilities during rate negotiations by removing their negotiating flexibility, preventing them from fairly negotiating rates on behalf of ratepayers.

The bill gives the PSC broad authority to discontinue natural gas service to meet climate goals, effectively eliminating natural gas despite claims otherwise. The 6 percent cap cannot be funded without raising costs elsewhere, and the bill prioritizes climate mandates over affordable, reliable energy. It represents government overreach that will harm New York's economy and quality of life.

Opposed the addition of a private right of action, arguing it will increase costs for businesses in an already expensive state. Also criticized the exemption of public employees while imposing requirements on private employers.

Argued the bill is too broad and vague, giving judges excessive discretion to determine violations based on subjective factors like music, celebrities, and toys. Contended the bill would effectively prevent most product advertising to avoid litigation risk and suggested more targeted approaches, such as the existing vaping device bill in the Health Committee, would be more appropriate.

The mandatory electric school bus mandate beginning in 2027 is premature and risky, with reliability issues documented in districts like Bethlehem (5 of 7 buses non-functional) and safety incidents. A pilot study across rural, urban, and suburban areas is needed before full implementation, given the estimated $20 billion cost and infrastructure challenges.

Expressed concern that the bill will reduce the number of mortgage lenders in New York State and increase borrowing costs for homebuyers, exacerbating the housing crisis and limiting access to affordable mortgages for lower-income families seeking to build generational wealth.

Invoked First Amendment right to petition government without geographic limitation. Criticized the shift from 62 counties to four blue counties as egregious and shameful, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution and represents a response to 2022 electoral losses.

Expressed concerns that the bill's language is ambiguous regarding whether property owners themselves are restricted by the prohibition, and that the rent restriction language could be misinterpreted to mean property owners can never raise rent if a keyless system is installed. Stated he previously supported the bill but would vote no due to these concerns about potential legal misinterpretation.

The bill makes only marginal improvements while increasing vagueness for property owners, pushing private landlords out of the rental business and creating a system where only the politically connected retain private property.

Noted that recent village incorporations have been almost exclusively by Jewish communities, and raising incorporation thresholds after 100 years creates an appearance of targeting, especially when combined with other legislative actions affecting religious schools and communities.

Argued the bill lacks specificity about what portable polling places would look like and how they would be secured, expressing concern about potential preferential treatment to large employers like Micron and questioning whether local boards of elections have adequate oversight mechanisms. Contended the bill undermines public confidence in election security.

Criticized the bill as transforming the program from grassroots fundraising into an incumbency welfare program that supercharges large donations with taxpayer money and raises barriers for new candidates.

Criticized offshore wind as economically inefficient and environmentally destructive, arguing it costs multiples more than onshore wind. Contended the project benefits foreign companies and involves modern slavery in rare-earth metal mining, while New York's 0.4 percent of global emissions means the state's sacrifice will have negligible climate impact.

Warned the bill will drive out private, for-profit property owners and leave only government housing like NYCHA, which he characterized as poorly run. He argued the legislation unfairly targets property owners who provide quality housing.

Argued the civil liability shield is a gift to big corporations, not small businesses, and that it removes accountability from employers. Noted he employs formerly incarcerated people but believes employers should have full knowledge of backgrounds.

Stated no one locally wants this bill and that election commissioners and local candidates oppose it. Argued local officials deserve to be heard without being overshadowed by state and federal politics, and that the bill is a solution in search of a problem.

Opposed the bill as government overreach, arguing that while bad business practice, restaurants should have the right to choose menu format and consumers can choose to patronize other establishments.

Voted against the measure

He argued the bill goes far beyond addressing tax collection issues with platforms like Airbnb and VRBO. He contended it will drive people underground by imposing excessive costs on occasional homeowners, violates property rights, and unfairly penalizes families who have owned vacation properties for generations and rely on seasonal rentals to afford property taxes.

Argued the bill lacks sufficient guardrails and would allow hotels and motels to receive perpetual taxpayer subsidies for their entire broadband bills simply by housing temporary assistance clients. Contended this diverts ConnectALL funding from rural broadband infrastructure buildout where only 65 percent of New Yorkers have high-speed access. Stated there is no way to distinguish between commercial broadband costs and costs for unhoused residents.

Opposed the measure as a departure from grassroots local poll watching, arguing it would involve paid lawyers from outside communities rather than local volunteers. Expressed concern that lawyers would be hired by outside interests to descend on polling places.

Voted in the negative on the measure.

Representing farming interests, argued the bill would force farmers to return to spraying thousands of gallons of pesticides used before neonicotinoid seeds, which is worse for the environment and human health. Questioned whether viable alternatives exist, noting diamides have not been adopted by other major agricultural states despite being available. Cited Dr. Elson Shields of Cornell predicting 40-50 percent crop yield losses from seed corn maggots without neonicotinoids. Stated the ongoing Central New York study is only in year two of three and should be completed before legislation takes effect. Expressed concern the bill reflects special interests rather than genuine agricultural concerns.

Argued that the real issue is not guns but bail reform and enforcement of illegal weapons laws. Contended that the bill is about training kids to be prepared, not practicing dying, and that the most dangerous places for children are streets and subways, not schools.

The bill accelerates the natural gas phase-out timeline beyond what climate plans require and will dismantle critical infrastructure before reliable electric alternatives exist. The cost of electrifying New York could exceed $1 trillion while renewable energy requires perpetual taxpayer subsidies, making the economics unfavorable.

Expressed concerns about enforcement clarity and how terms like "rewarding cues" and "false and misleading" would be defined in practice. While supporting the bill's intent and acknowledging the removal of private right of action, he questioned why state-level legislation was needed if FTC already regulates such advertising and suggested alternative approaches like the Double Up Food Bucks program.

Argued the bill circumvents the will of voters who rejected a similar 2021 constitutional amendment, and that mail-in early voting could overwhelm the system and prevent those who must vote by absentee from having their ballots counted, undermining election integrity.

Voted in opposition to the bill.

Opposed the bill as irresponsible, citing concerns that the Board of Elections would be required to vet candidate biographical information and that dedicating resources to advertising elections four times daily is wasteful when political advertising is already in overabundance.

The bill creates ambiguity about whether citizens can intervene as good Samaritans and may put them in criminal jeopardy. There should be a middle ground where intervention is proportionate to the threat, rather than eliminating citizen intervention for non-felonies.

Questioned whether the PSC has jurisdiction over communications companies under federal FCC authority, argued the bill solves a problem that doesn't exist, and expressed concern that mandating written agreements could expose companies to class action lawsuits and ultimately raise consumer costs through higher utility bills.

Opposed the bill as setting a dangerous precedent of imposing political views on businesses and particularly harming state-chartered community banks. Noted the bill only affects state-chartered banks, which are now a minority, and that banks can simply convert to federal charters to avoid the restriction. Argued voluntary advocacy—which Cleare herself had successfully pursued—is a stronger approach.

Criticized the $229 billion budget ($627 million per day) as wasteful, noting one in three New Yorkers on Medicaid, inability to fund school lunches for all children, and theft of county funds that will force property tax increases. Called the budget 'shameful' and voted no.

Opposed the wind and solar provisions as 'crony capitalist' projects benefiting China, and criticized the rejection of permanent sales tax authority for local governments, forcing them to repeatedly seek renewal from Albany.

Criticized the failure to advance ABC law reforms and the continued burden on small hospitality businesses. Expressed frustration that despite a $229 billion budget, the SLA remains understaffed and unable to process licenses efficiently, calling it 'disgraceful.'

The bill represents government overreach that would burden an already overburdened DEC and restrict farmers and local governments from basic activities like flood mitigation by regulating dry ditches.

Opposed the bill, arguing the 16-month pilot program had insufficient time to prove effectiveness and that the Restaurant Association was excluded from the legislative process despite being involved in the original program. Contended that removing the 25-mile radius requirement would force restaurants to pay for long-distance hauling by diesel trucks, creating environmental and financial burdens rather than savings.

Criticized the repeated extenders and the inclusion of policy in the budget, arguing that hiding policy in budget documents undermines transparency and public faith in government. He expressed concern for vulnerable populations waiting for critical funding.

Criticized the repeated short-term extenders as destabilizing for schools and employees, and argued the budget process should be reformed to remove policy from appropriations bills. Questioned whether the Legislature could negotiate longer extenders and expressed frustration with the late budget timeline.

Criticized the rushed process and lack of transparency, arguing the bill should have been given the full three-day review period. Expressed concern that the Governor is using the chief judge nomination as leverage in budget negotiations, warning this could result in an activist judge rather than a good jurist.

Called the bill egregious for opening a $12 billion line of credit without knowing what it will be spent on, while ignoring an $11 billion line of credit opened for businesses. Argued the state cannot justify additional borrowing when it has not addressed existing debt burdens on employers.

Expressed concern that the bill would enable con artists and unrelated third parties to charge fees to settle small estates, exploiting vulnerable families who cannot afford such fees. Compared it to existing scams targeting small estate holders.

Questioned why New York City was being excluded when conditions had not changed since last year's passage, suggesting the exclusion was politically motivated. Criticized the bill's vague "just relief" language as potentially allowing unlimited judicial discretion, including possible monetary damages and attorney's fees, and argued the state has unfairly burdened property owners through years of eviction moratoriums.

Expressed concern that reducing public hearings to one meeting could allow the conservation goal to shift toward funding green energy projects that clear-cut forests, contrary to the original intent. Sought assurance that land acquisition would remain focused on pure conservation rather than renewable energy installations.

Expressed concern about lack of clarity regarding whether respite care and rehabilitation admissions would be prohibited during the 90-day closure period. Argued that prohibiting new admissions could cause premature layoffs, reduce income for struggling facilities, and limit care options in rural areas like his district. Stated the bill should ensure the closure process is as minimally disruptive as possible.

The bill creates fertile ground for frivolous lawsuits and class actions based on technical violations like late notices. This will raise costs and limit consumer choice, ultimately reducing mortgage availability and harming the ability of New Yorkers to achieve homeownership, contradicting the stated goal of consumer protection.

Characterized the bill as an unfunded mandate on local boards of elections that already operate on limited budgets. Noted that local commissioners are working to find efficient delivery methods and questioned why the state should impose staffing requirements without providing funding.

Expressed concern that the bill lacks funding to implement, noting that unfunded mandates are crippling to small communities and county governments. He called for adequate funding to support legislative initiatives.

Based on county government experience, unfunded mandates are rarely offset by state funding. In Chautauqua County, 85 cents of every property tax dollar went to unfunded mandates, and in Erie County all property tax revenue goes to Medicaid. The state should find funding before imposing new mandates on counties.

Raised extensive security concerns about portable/mobile polling stations compared to traditional secure locations like schools. Questioned how the state would verify voter eligibility at temporary sites, particularly near state borders, and expressed concern about lack of specific guardrails in the legislation regarding hours of operation and security protocols.

Argued the Legislature already creates frivolous lawsuits through private rights of action in other legislation, so the stated purpose is inconsistent. Contended the bill is really about stopping constitutional challenges to election laws rather than reducing frivolous litigation.