[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We're one week away from the April 1st deadline for the New York State budget, when all the spending plans for the year and a whole lot more are set in a big negotiation between Governor Hochul and the legislature, also Democratic Party controlled. There's a lot on the table this year, like a school cell phone ban, a public mask ban, keeping the subway system repaired, not to mention the actual budget and how much federal funding is at risk under the new Trump administration. To talk about where things stand and the chances of an on time April 1st budget, I'm joined by Jimmy Vielkind, New York State issues reporter for WNYC, who also writes the Substack Notes from Jimmy newsletter. Hey, Jimmy, welcome back to the show.

Jimmy Vielkind: Hi. Morning, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Let's go through some of what you've written are the main areas that they have to hash out and issues, starting with the most recent addition to the list, Governor Hochul's call for a ban on masking in public. This is aimed at people breaking laws and avoiding identification by wearing the masks in that context, even though others could wear masks for health or religious reasons. I guess the devil's in the details. How to precisely target the law's reach. Are they leaving it up to the police to decide when speech during a protest becomes threatening, for example?

Jimmy Vielkind: We really don't know exactly what they're talking about. Governor Hochul raised this privately with lawmakers last week. This was first reported by Jon Campbell and I on gothamist.com, but she didn't give many specifics. When pressed about the issue, she said that she supported a bill by Assemblymember Jeff Dinowitz of the Bronx and State Senator James Skoufis of the Hudson Valley. They have a piece of legislation which would create the crime of "masked harassment" and that would make it a crime to wear a mask for the "primary purpose of menacing" or causing harm or perceived harm based on somebody's identity, et cetera. This is tough, Brian, because as you said, at what point does chanting outside for Brian Lehrer for president become a normal First Amendment demonstration? When you say Lehrer or we all go to hell, at what point does it become menacing? At what point do you cross the line? What lawmakers are really struggling with is how to craft precise language that would, on the one hand, give flexibility, but on the other, make it so that law enforcement personnel have pretty clear guidelines as to when they can arrest and charge someone for wearing a mask, as opposed to just having the right to wear a mask at a demonstration or some other time.

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to have to tell my imaginary supporters to tone it down. Has the governor proposed specific language?

Jimmy Vielkind: Not that we have seen. Actually, yesterday the governor had an event at Albany. I went with a medical mask on my face and asked, "Do I intend to harass you?" I was trying to prove the point that, how could you know? How could you look at somebody wearing a mask and discern their intent? We're waiting to see that. The governor promised that there would be specific criteria lined out in any legislation, but from the best of my reporting, there has not been language on the table that has been presented to state lawmakers. That's a necessary part of the back and forth to get this done. Certainly, there's nothing that the public has seen at this point.

Brian Lehrer: Sometimes this is described as Hochul wants a subway mask ban. Still, every time I ride the subway, I see a few people wearing masks, presumably for health reasons, and I wonder if that's being threatened at all by this.

Jimmy Vielkind: The governor has said that she would make clear exceptions for health purposes and for religious purposes, which would theoretically encompass something like people celebrating Halloween or Purim, but again, if you're wearing a medical mask, are you automatically wearing it for health reasons? When do you cross the line into committing an offense? If you are wearing a mask because you're up to no good, can you look at an officer and just say, "I'm concerned about my health," and then theoretically escape any consequence?

Brian Lehrer: Let's go on to the next thing that's not actually a budget measure in this budget. The school cell phone ban. I take it the governor wants a more stringent law and the legislators are for leaving more up to the districts.

Jimmy Vielkind: That's right. Governor Hochul has for several months wanted a "bell to bell" ban. That would mean you go into the school, your phone either goes into a locker or a pouch, where it's out of sight, it's out of mind, you don't get to use it while you're walking between classes, while you're having lunch, while you're at a free period, while you're in the bathroom. We have more than 600 school districts in the state of New York, of course, the largest district being New York City, and different districts and different individual schools have come up with their own policies over the past several months and years.

There was some talk from state lawmakers to say, "In some districts, they have a policy where the kids can have their phone at lunch and it's working. So should we give flexibility to individual school leaders to build something that works for them?" Hochul, and she's backed by the powerful teachers' union, is trying to hold firm on the bell to bell idea. I've heard from some lawmakers that there will probably be some consensus here that it seems as though Hochul may get her way, but exactly how this fight resolves itself is still one of the items that is up in the air.

Brian Lehrer: Another one. Discovery laws. An example of past criminal justice reform that prosecutors say went too far. This was in that 2019 bill that's usually called the bail reform law. They're trying to get it dialed back. What's happening there and who stands where as they hash this out? Maybe you should explain briefly what discovery reform refers to.

Jimmy Vielkind: Sure. Discovery is the process by which prosecutors and law enforcement officials are required to share any information they have about a case with the defense. This, prior to that 2019 law, defense lawyers said, would sometimes happen right at the eve of trial. In this context, there was a lot more pressure on a defendant to take a deal. If you're charged with a crime and you don't know exactly what the evidence is against you, you're waiting for trial, the outcome could be particularly bad at trial, but prosecutors offer a deal where you have a relatively low sentence for just pleading guilty, there's pressure to plead guilty.

If, before you make that plea, you're able to see, "Oh, there is no video of me that shows me clearly shoplifting here, oh, the witness who the cops relied on was drunk at the time," then you might make a more fulsome legal decision. You might be more likely to go to trial. That was the idea behind these reforms to give defendants more rights to let them see the totality of the case presented against them and let it happen in a more equitable playing field. The concern was that prosecutors and police had way too much leverage.

What prosecutors say has happened in the intervening period is that a lot of cases have been dismissed because they didn't turn over every scrap of paper. They missed some kind of report, and as a result, defense attorneys moved to have a case dismissed, and it was on what prosecutors call a technicality. We've actually seen a discernible increase in the number of cases that are dismissed. I believe in Queens County last year, District Attorney Melinda Katz said 22% of cases were getting dismissed for some reason. Governor Hochul has really embraced the position of district attorneys and prosecutors in changing the standard for what needs to be turned over from things that are related to a case to things that are relevant to a case.

That would, again, give some greater discretion to prosecutors. Defense attorneys are very concerned that this change could roll back what they saw as very beneficial changes enacted in 2019. It's currently being battled out right now. We had Hochul stand with district attorneys yesterday at the state Capitol. District attorneys are standing today with Republican legislators. They're in the minority in Albany, but they are here and they are backing these changes and backing the prosecution side. There seems to be some powerful forces there, but it's one of those things where the devil is in the details and there is lots of concern among rank and file lawmakers that any change might go too far.

Brian Lehrer: Does the Queens DA, who you cited, or anyone else, make the case that some of these additional dismissals of charges because they haven't turned over evidence quickly enough to the defense, are letting dangerous people roam the streets and commit serious crimes again? Because the progressives argue that, no, these are probably the people who shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place because prosecutors and the police didn't actually have evidence against them. Is the side that wants this reform or really this rollback of the previous reform, are they making a case that more crimes are actually being committed or just that more cases are being dismissed? Because they're not the same thing.

Jimmy Vielkind: We've heard both. On the one hand, you say, yes, more cases should be dismissed because it shows that some of these cases were weak or fallacious or shouldn't have been brought at all, but on the other hand, there was a woman yesterday from the Westchester County district attorney's office. She described a domestic violence case that was on the eve of trial when the victim in that particular instance found a new voicemail from the partner who committed the alleged abuse. They found it on the eve of trial. The prosecution immediately sent it to the defense and disclosed it, but according to prosecutors, the defense was able to bring a motion to have that case dismissed because there was not strict compliance with the discovery laws, and that case was dismissed.

Now, I don't know if there was any recidivism in that particular case, but prosecutors have said that dangerous individuals are being released on what they call technicalities and they are then left to reoffend. That, in their mind, is eroding public safety.

Brian Lehrer: If you're just joining us, we're talking with our Albany issues reporter, Jimmy Vielkind, about the many issues that are in play this week right now as the New York State legislature and Governor Hochul crash toward the April 1st budget deadline for this year. It's always April 1st. The fiscal year starts April 1st at the state level in New York. It starts October 1st at the federal level. That's why that big budget with all the possible cuts to Medicaid and everything is really going to be debated later in the year. It happens this time of year for the New York State budget because April 1st starts the fiscal year, but as you're hearing, there are many non budgetary issues, more issue related issues being debated for bills related to those issues in the budget as well.

We're going to go on to another one here in a second, but I want to invite you in if you have any questions or comments, a little bit of lobbying welcome here through Jimmy Vielkind because probably some legislators are listening when Jimmy is on. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. All right, next non budgetary issue in this budget. Governor Hochul has echoed Mayor Adams in wanting to make it easier to involuntarily confine people for mental health treatment. Instead of having to be a threat to someone and have that documented, it would be enough if they aren't able to take care of themselves. Is that it? As measured by whom?

Jimmy Vielkind: That's essentially it. Right now police officials across New York have the ability to take someone for mental health treatment if they demonstrate behavior that is of harm to self and/or others. Someone who threatens suicide, someone who threatens violence against another person, they can be forcibly taken for mental health treatment. They can be taken to a hospital by police. This standard would apply to an individual who is perhaps moaning, perhaps seems disheveled, does not appear to be taking care of their personal hygiene, who's in a public place, maybe sleeping in a public place or on a subway train.

This change in standard, Governor Hochul argues, would allow for law enforcement officers to take someone for that treatment against their will. It's a gray area of the law as to whether this is already allowed. Brian, maybe you and listeners remember that Mayor Adams has leaned on an interpretation of the existing law and has asked for more stringent enforcement and a more stringent practice of bringing people off the streets, relying on existing law. This is kind of an interesting debate on a number of levels. On the merits, I think it's fascinating because you have people speaking about individuals' rights versus whether it's more compassionate to take a person who does not appear to be caring for themselves and getting them to treatment.

Then the larger practical aspects of this debate are, once a person is taken to the hospital and hospitalized, they will be stabilized in that hospital. They will not necessarily be put into a place where they can function independently, where they can live on their own. The people arguing against this proposal say that it's essentially a band-aid that does not deal with the underlying problem. They say that you need to invest in long-term services like supportive housing in order to really tackle this problem from its root.

As they hold that position, they say that this focus on the involuntary commitment standard is really a canard. It's really just a thing that sucks up the attention, makes it sound like people are doing something about the problems and about the negative perceptions that come with street homelessness without actually substantively tackling the problem. This is one where there was pushback from some prominent legislators, and I'm not quite sure how it's going to shake out in the context of these budget negotiations or whether it will be dropped from the budget legislation and perhaps considered later this year before state lawmakers adjourn for the summer.

Brian Lehrer: Some people are calling in and texting in on some of the bills that we've been discussing. Definitely some reaction to the mask ban and definitely some confusion as to what it would actually cover if it passes. One listener writes, an important distinction between the Dinowitz bill, that's the bill in the state legislature, and the Nassau County mask ban for health exceptions. The Dinowitz language includes protecting the health of the wearer and the public, which is accurate, regarding how masks work in public health applications. The Nassau county language, a more conservative bill, only includes language for protecting the health of the user while wearing a mask.

I don't know if you think that's a meaningful distinction, but another listener writes, seems like a possible solution for the mask rule is, if someone commits a crime while wearing a mask, there are additional penalties. Does the language go beyond that, or is that a good way to sum up what they're actually looking to do, what Hochul is actually looking to do? If someone commits a crime while wearing a mask or commits harassment, however defined, then there are additional penalties. If somebody is behaving fine while wearing a mask, then no problem.

Jimmy Vielkind: Well, Governor Hochul and others would argue that the goal is to prevent the harassment. It's to prevent the actual crime. In doing so, you are inherently criminalizing the act of wearing a mask, provided that you can legally establish some kind of intent to commit another unlawful act, be it harassment, be it robbery, be it campaigning for Brian Lehrer for president, which I believe is still legal, but that could get changed in the budget as well.

Brian Lehrer: It should be outlawed.

Jimmy Vielkind: It's possible that they would go that route. That is roughly how the hate crime statutes work in New York State, that you commit an offense, but if you are found to have done so in a way that is targeted in a hateful manner, I'm not saying the correct legal standard, I'm sorry, but it's essentially an added layer of penalty or charge if that can be established.

Brian Lehrer: Right.

Jimmy Vielkind: That is not so far what lawmakers are considering, because, again, their goal is to have a deterrent effect and to prevent the underlying crime from being committed.

Brian Lehrer: It remains vague, if I'm understanding your description right, when just demonstrating, being a protester, becomes a crime if you're wearing a mask.

Jimmy Vielkind: Well, State Senator James Skoufis and I spoke about this last week, and he was very clear. If you are lawfully demonstrating and you're wearing a mask, God bless, do whatever you want. Courts have, in the United States, established an anonymous right to protest. In the same way that you have an anonymous right to speak online, you have the right to speak outside at a demonstration while concealing your identity, but then the question becomes, what is a peaceful protest and what is menacing? What is considering danger against or inciting danger against another's?

Does saying from the river to the sea constitute a proactive statement or does it constitute a threat to the nation of Israel? I think you'll have a lot of listeners with very different opinions about something like that. Of course, this is a very ripe issue currently in the public discussion. I think that no matter what happens, and this is one of the arguments against these mask restrictions, you are inherently going to have a subjective standard which will then fall to law enforcement officials to enforce and-- I

Brian Lehrer: Individual police officers.

Jimmy Vielkind: Precisely. Exactly how that works out, when it will be wielded strictly, when it will be wielded laxly, we don't know. Many people see the potential for big problems.

Brian Lehrer: James in Woodhaven is calling in on the proposal for discovery reform that is making it easier to go to trial without turning over as much evidence by the prosecution to the defense. James, you're on WNYC. Hello.

James: Hi, good morning. I'm not sure I got the whole conversation, but I was just curious regarding the prosecutors. Katz said that 22% of the cases are being dismissed. Some people are saying it's because they were frivolous in the first place, but what about the prosecutors and how they're behaving and what they're doing? Are they unprepared? Why? These people are usually very, very smart. When you go to a court, you're going to be ready, cross your Ts, dot your Is, and have everything you need so no one can spring anything on you. Why is it happening so frequently? Why do they seem unprepared? Why do they want a rule change to take away a right? Is it because they're not doing their job thoroughly?

Brian Lehrer: James, thank you very much. Jimmy, I don't know if you can answer that, but how would law enforcement answer that?

Jimmy Vielkind: That is a very great point, James, that you bring up. One of the problems is the question of time and the question of who necessarily has the material. In this instance, a prosecutor has the requirement to disclose all the material, but do they have it from the police department? Do they have everything that would be related to a case that the police have? Do they have perhaps disciplinary records regarding some of the officers involved in arrest that may be related to the charge? The way the standard is written now, it is argued, is far too broad and it leaves an opening for someone to make an argument for dismissal. It's not that prosecutors can't be prepared, it's that they can't be so comprehensively prepared on such a tight time frame, and that that is what they argue is leading to some of these dismissals.

Brian Lehrer: Thanks for your call, James. We've spoken for almost the entire length of this segment about the budget deadline coming next week, April 1st, about non budgetary items. Let's spend at least a little bit of time on the actual budget, all 250 billion or so dollars of it for the next fiscal year. Something that you've written isn't covered, is what happens when and if the Trump administration cuts the amount that states receive from the federal government, and that certainly could happen when they do the federal budget before their fiscal year starts in October. You wrote they're whistling past the graveyard. How much money can you tell is at stake at the federal level with all these DOGE cuts and everything else?

Jimmy Vielkind: Well, Brian, you did mention right now the big global number put on the table by Governor Hochul is $252 billion. That's almost a quarter trillion dollars. Inevitably, that's going to rise at least slightly over the course of these negotiations. So I suspect that whatever budget is adopted will be somewhere in the range of $253 billion to $255 billion. Of that chunk of money, the state is assuming $93 billion will come from the federal government. That's almost 40% of all the funds expended in New York come from the federal government.

The lion's share of that is the Medicaid program. Medicaid, of course, provides health insurance for low income and disabled New Yorkers. It has always been, since it was established during the Great Society era, a jointly administered state federal program where the state and feds roughly split the cost. If there were to be changes like a proposal to turn Medicaid funding into a block grant, it could have massive effects on a major governmental expenditure in New York that serves, I believe, about nine million people every year.

Brian Lehrer: We hear all the time, if this is really going to affect New York State, and we've already done a few segments on what the possible Medicaid cuts are going to look like. One of the ways is that they'll cut the federal share of Medicaid, which is generally 50/50. Right? The states pay 50%, the federal government pays 50%.

Jimmy Vielkind: That's right.

Brian Lehrer: New York has a very generous Medicaid program, a lot more benefits and coverage generally than a lot of other states have because that's determined state by state. So the feds are obligated to match what the state is spending on that. One of the things that's going to be debated in the next few months in Congress is whether to cut the federal share and make states pick up more of whatever they deem should be covered by Medicaid. Because New York has a generous Medicaid program, the implications for here are massive, right?

Jimmy Vielkind: That's absolutely right. It's difficult to talk about this because it's easy to say that it's so much money, it's so much money. It's more money per patient than any other state, including California, the other big blue state with the big blue budget, but then you're saying, "Well, what benefits do you want to cut? Do you want to take away dental care?" That is something that is an optional Medicaid benefit that New York has decided that it covers, but that other states do not. Is that what you want to do by reducing the program? Do you want to take away transportation to medical services appointments, which is a key benefit for people who are disabled or have mobility issues? Is that really what you're talking about?

Then the other thing is that this is just such a big program that there is fat, there is some level of fraud and abuse. We know this. New York has a dedicated Medicaid inspector general that every year finds instances of inappropriate documentation and inappropriate billing. It's a massive program. There are lots of things to cut, but I think what people need to understand when they talk about reductions on the federal share or reductions of-- that it's not necessarily dollars, but services. I think it becomes a much trickier conversation to have as a government official when you're not talking about a couple of decimal points, but you're talking about things that, again, impact millions of New Yorkers.

Brian Lehrer: Well put. Last thing. We hear all the time that New York sends more money to Washington in federal taxes than it gets back in federal spending. Is it an option, even potentially, for the state to just keep its money, or do the federal taxes New Yorkers pay get routed through the state in any way?

Jimmy Vielkind: I know that when I pay my taxes, I send a return to the IRS and hopefully they send me a check back, but this year I think I might have to send them a check. In that regard, income tax is directly collected by the federal government, but there are other exchanges of money that are a little bit trickier. There was a piece of legislation and a proposal that was unveiled this week at the state Capitol kind of making this argument, that New York can do things to frustrate the Trump administration. I will say that, at least for now, it is not at the top of consideration and it is not something that either Governor Hochul or leaders of the legislature have embraced or taken up as part of serious conversations, but 2025 has been an interesting year, Brian, and I wouldn't put it past anybody to do anything in the coming weeks, months, and seems years.

Brian Lehrer: Our Albany issues reporter, Jimmy Vielkind with the understatement of the year, 2025 has been an interesting year so far, and we leave it there with one week to go before the usual deadline. Sometimes they're late, but April 1st is the deadline for passing all these bills. Stay tuned to WNYC and read Gothamist for more on how this comes out. Thanks, Jimmy.

Jimmy Vielkind: Thanks for having me, Brian. Always a pleasure to be with you and your listeners.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.