Sen. Zellnor Myrie

Voted affirmatively in solidarity with SUNY Upstate but expressed disappointment that no new capital funding was provided for Downstate Medical Center despite the Governor's earlier promise of $450 million.

Voted affirmatively while voicing serious concerns about the appropriation language for reasons discussed in debate.

Explained Part L modernizes criminal statutes to address AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Stated the provision gives prosecutors tools to bring charges while allowing courts to make determinations on ambiguous cases.

Myrie emphasized the bill addresses critical utility outages affecting NYCHA residents, citing the example of Langston Hughes Houses where residents lacked gas for cooking for months and were forced to use hot plates. He noted nearly 61 current outages across NYCHA developments, some dating back to 2023, and called this a fundamental kitchen-table issue.

Called the bill a public safety measure, citing real-world examples of children dying by suicide after exposure to harmful social media content and escalating violence among youth fueled by social media conflicts.

Noted the bill adds to existing law adopted by nine other states and clarifies what 'reasonable controls' means. Argued the gun industry has opposed the legislation and that this is an attempt to adjust to realities of gun violence.

Sponsor of the bill; no substantive remarks recorded in transcript.

Celebrated the preservation of SUNY Downstate through community advocacy and the creation of a community advisory board to guide the institution's future.

Sponsor argued the bill addresses a real obesity epidemic and predatory marketing targeting vulnerable children, noting that brain development continues past age 18. The bill clarifies existing false and misleading advertising law by instructing courts to consider specific factors (A through K) when advertisements target children, and does not ban advertising generally but only false or misleading ads.

Argued the bill fulfills constitutional duty under Article 3, Section 5 by prescribing reasonable regulations for redistricting lawsuits. Cited precedent from federal Voting Rights Act (D.C. Circuit model), John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, and prior election law statutes limiting jurisdictions. Emphasized the bill develops court expertise, ensures uniformity, prevents forum shopping, and provides predictability for New Yorkers vindicating statewide electoral rights.

As sponsor, defended the changes as necessary iterations before the program's first disbursements, citing alignment with NYC's successful model and the need to demonstrate community support through higher contributor thresholds.

Sponsor emphasized that 73 percent of people with conviction records have remained crime-free for 10+ years, that the bill only affects post-sentence consequences, and that automatic sealing addresses the failure of the current application process where only 0.05 percent of eligible individuals have applied. Argued the bill is a jobs, education, and housing bill that promotes redemption.

Sponsor of the bill who emphasized that deed theft disproportionately affects Black homeowners and vulnerable communities. He stated the legislation is informed by data, victim testimony, and law enforcement input, and called for prosecution of those who steal homeowners' wealth and equity.

Argued the bill upholds the core premise that innocent people should not be incarcerated, citing New York's third-highest wrongful conviction rate and the fact that 98 percent of cases are resolved by guilty plea. Referenced the Exonerated 5 and constituent Roger Clark as examples of innocent people with no legal mechanism to prove innocence.

Sponsor of the resolution. Argued that the state constitution currently sanctions human enslavement by permitting forced labor of incarcerated individuals at exploitative wages, and that this resolution begins the necessary process to remove this vestige of slavery and allow New Yorkers to vote on its abolition.

Argued the bill protects vulnerable children from billions in targeted advertising for unhealthy foods, particularly in Black and brown communities where junk food advertising is four times more prevalent. Emphasized the bill matches FTC standards and addresses a children's health crisis, with one-third of New York children obese and increased rates of hypertension and lung disease among youth.

Sponsor argued the bill promotes voter participation and information through multiple channels. Emphasized the bill follows the successful New York City voter guide model, includes bipartisan regulatory processes for determining content, and that candidates submit sworn statements subject to criminal penalties for false information. Noted that public service announcements follow the state's normal process for health and tourism announcements.

Myrie argued the bill corrects a disparity in how mass shootings are defined and responded to, noting that communities like his district do not receive the same attention or resources when violence occurs. He stated the bill aligns state definitions with federal consensus to ensure equitable emergency response.

Sponsor argued the bill removes hurdles for victims and survivors of gun violence, domestic violence, and sexual violence seeking state compensation, particularly those from marginalized communities. Emphasized that all crime victims deserve compensation regardless of zip code or appearance.

The bill codifies existing court precedent holding that voter intention, not mere possession of multiple residencies, should determine voting eligibility. It clarifies the law for poll workers who have erroneously discarded ballots contrary to case law, including in the 22nd Congressional race where 20 ballots were eliminated despite being legally valid.

The bill creates a central repository for election data already being collected but scattered across jurisdictions, relieving local boards of elections from FOIA and litigation costs. The data would be made publicly available with a rebuttable presumption of validity, helping to identify discrimination patterns and reduce expert witness costs in election litigation.

Argued the venue restriction is not unique, noting similar structures exist in federal voting rights law for over 50 years under the Voting Rights Act. Stated the measure provides stability and predictability for constitutional challenges to election law, preventing disruption of the democratic process through last-minute litigation.