Sen. Alexis Weik

Voted against the bill, noting the budget was due April 1st and criticizing the lack of table targets, characterizing the delay as evidence of inefficiency from single-party control.

Voted against the bill.

Voted against the bill.

Noted the budget lacks a gas tax holiday despite rising prices and fails to address energy relief or fraud prevention. Criticized the budget as mismanaged special-interest funding without meeting basic needs.

Mandatory medicine assumes a one-size-fits-all approach that does not exist in medical practice. Vaccination decisions should be made between doctors and patients or parents, not mandated by government.

Preventing healthcare workers from accessing complete patient information violates the principle of 'First, do no harm' and constitutes harm to the patient.

She criticized the bill's vague definition of intent and intimidation, arguing it oppresses voters by creating fear of civil suits for speaking at polling places, and suggested existing law enforcement powers are sufficient.

Voted in the negative on the bill.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Opposed Part LL, citing letter from Nassau University Medical Center Medical Board opposing state takeover and emphasizing the hospital's critical role as only safety-net hospital in Nassau County.

Opposed the extender, arguing that the quarter-trillion-dollar budget requires serious negotiation and that stalling without table targets is irresponsible. Criticized the use of national issues as an excuse for delay and emphasized that school districts need information from Albany to finalize their own budgets.

Characterized the bill as unnecessary business regulation imposing additional costs on companies that have already invested in biometric security measures.

Weik stated the bill encourages behavior that could put bystanders, victims, alleged offenders, and law enforcement in harm's way, and disregards the safety of law enforcement.

Voted against the measure.

Voted in opposition to the measure.

Voted no, stating that no one is excited about the bill and that settling for a 'less crappy version' is not acceptable when vital services requested by constituents are not addressed.

Opposed giving $2.4 billion to illegal migrants when schools are laying off teachers, characterizing it as irresponsible spending without accountability.

Stated the bill does not do nearly enough to protect communities or law enforcement, and voted in the negative.

Stated that the two-week delay has created chaos for schools, with 8-9 districts in his region facing millions in cuts and teacher layoffs. Indicated this would be his last vote for an extender.

Argued that the proposed amendment was germane because it addresses school closings during disaster emergencies and would prevent students from being displaced to house migrants. Contended that educating children should be a top priority and students should not miss school days for housing purposes.

Weik argued the bill does not address buyer needs and adds unnecessary fees and bureaucratic layers during an already expensive car-buying market. He contended brokers should face the same regulations as real estate agents since they operate similarly, and voted in the negative.

Questioned whether the bill excludes working parents on night shifts, such as nurses, police officers, and factory workers, who need daytime childcare to sleep. Noted that while the bill offers flexibility for school attendance, it does not address shift workers' needs.

Stated the bill would eliminate important protections against theft and fraud, and that removing photo requirements would cause insurance rates to spike and fraud to increase.

She argued the 10-year and 350,000-mile standards don't align logically, noting stretch limousines are typically low-mileage vehicles used for weddings and proms. She cited feedback from the Long Island Limousine Association and local businesses, including a 25-year-old company with a 2008 limo having only 85,000 miles, and expressed concern the bill lacks specific safety requirements beyond age/mileage thresholds.

Raised concerns about advertising costs, consistency of locations between elections, and noted that critical details about in-kind donations, conflict of interest protections, and operational guidelines are not included in the bill itself but would be left to State Board of Elections regulations.

Raised concerns about oversight mechanisms and bipartisan data collection, questioning what authority would ensure the institute operates in a nonpartisan manner given that the State Board of Elections has no authority over SUNY and CUNY.