Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debate on budget extenders, 'messages of necessity' spotlights demand for 3‑day aging and more transparency
Summary
Members debated the timing of budget bills and the repeated use of messages of necessity, with several senators urging adherence to the New York State Constitution's three‑day aging requirement and greater public review before votes.
Albany, May 5, 2025 — New York State senators debated how the Legislature handles late budget bills and the routine use of "messages of necessity," with multiple lawmakers urging that bills be allowed the constitutional three‑day "aging" period so members and the public can review them.
The discussion began during floor questions when Senator O'Mara asked whether budget bills would be available to the public and when the Legislative Retrieval System (LRS) would show updates. "When will those become publicly available?" O'Mara asked. Senator Krueger replied, "I think we're going to see budget bills very soon," but also acknowledged uncertainty and the pressure on staff.
Why it matters: Several senators tied the procedural issue to the state constitution, arguing that allowing bills only limited time for review reduces transparency and hampers legislators' ability to consult constituents. Senator Martin said, "The Constitution requires 3 days aging of bills on our desks," and urged members and the governor to honor that practice unless an emergency warrants a message of necessity.
On the floor, Senator Krueger framed the immediate problem as the Legislature's annual budget cycle and the repeated use of short‑notice extenders. "Even though I think we will also have budget bills, we will need to do some kind of extender tomorrow," she said, acknowledging extenders may be required in the short term while urging better process going forward. Other senators used Constitution Day remarks to press the point: Senator Walzick and Senator Tedisco echoed calls for transparency and warned against routine use of emergency messages when an actual emergency is not evident.
Discussion vs. decision: The floor debate recorded no new procedural rule change or enactment. Senators expressed expectations that budget bills would arrive soon and that an additional extender was likely to cover uncovered matters, but no binding change to the chamber's rules was adopted in this session. Several senators said they would vote against messages of necessity when presented, but the transcript records no formal successful motion altering the current practice.
Context and past practice: Speakers noted precedent and past efforts to limit or litigate the use of messages of necessity. Senator Krueger recalled prior legal challenges and urged consideration of a constitutional amendment as a longer‑term fix if courts decline to intervene. Senator Martin and others pointed to Article 3, Section 14 of the New York State Constitution (the "three‑day aging" provision) in arguing for more time for public review.
What remains unresolved: Senators said budget bills were expected imminently; they also acknowledged the practical pressures that lead to extenders and to messages of necessity. Several members emphasized the need to balance emergency powers with public accountability, but no legislative change was enacted during the May 5 session.
Ending: The chamber adjourned until 10 a.m. Wednesday, May 7; majority leaders signaled a lengthy session to take up budget bills the next day.
