ALBANY – The Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing Wednesday

morning to examine the constitutionally established qualifications of Assemblymember-

elect Lester Chang. Chair Charles Lavine and Assembly Members Kenneth Zebrowski,

David Weprin, Edward Braunstein, Philip Steck, Rebecca Seawright, Latoya Joyner,

Thomas Abinanti, Latrice Monique Walker, Catalina Cruz, Karen McMahon, Marcela

Mitaynes, Jenifer Rajkumar, Michael Tannousis, Michael Norris, Mary Beth Walsh,

Marjorie Byrnes, Keith Brown, and Andrew Goodell were in attendance.

At the start of proceedings, Chair Lavine announced Assemblymember Tannousis as

the Minority’s ranking committee member.

Chair Lavine said his office sent a letter to Chang specifically requesting documentation

that would verify a “bona fide electoral residence” in Kings County dating back to

November 7, 2021, exactly one year before the November 2022 general election. The

relevant documentation was due to the committee no later than December 12, 2022 and

a subpoena for such materials was served on December 13. The Chair said the

committee officially received 35 documents the night before the Wednesday hearing.

Chair Lavine stated that neither the leadership of the Assembly nor the members of the

committee had made any prejudgment on Chang’s requirements to serve.

Ranker Tannousis clarified that the issue in question pertained solely to electoral

residency. The law, said the Ranker, was clear that the burden of proof in this matter

rested with the special counsel, Stanley Schlein, and not on Chang himself. Tannousis

described the standard for establishing electoral residency as ”objective intent coupled

with presence,” adding that it was “clear” that Chang intended to reside in Brooklyn and

not in Manhattan. “Mr. Chang was duly elected by the residents of the 49th Assembly

District,” said the Ranker, “and he is here because those residents have spoken.”

Throughout proceedings, Chair Lavine reiterated that only Lester Chang was testifying

under oath, which he swore before the committee prior to his personal testimony. 

The Constitutional Issue

“The sole question before this committee,” stated Chair Lavine, “is whether Lester

Chang is eligible to serve as an Assemblymember pursuant to the New York State

Constitution.”

Outlining the purpose of the day’s inquiry, Chair Lavine quoted Section 7 of Article III of

the New York State Constitution which provides that “if elected a Senator or member of

Assembly at the first election next ensuing after a readjustment or alteration of the

Senate or Assembly districts becomes effective, a person, to be eligible to serve as

such, must have been a resident of the county in which the Senate or Assembly district

is contained for the twelve months immediately preceding his or her election.” Chair

Lavine further pointed to Section 9 of Article III of the State Constitution which stated

that each house, Senate and Assembly, “be the judge of the elections, returns and

qualifications of its own members.”

Goodell expressed skepticism that Section 9 of Article III applied to Chang as the

committee members assembled that day were not members of the same body that will

be inaugurated with Chang in the New Year. He pointed to outgoing committee member

Abinanti, who did not win reelection this past November, as an example of Chang not

being judged by his colleagues as the state Constitution outlined.

Both Chair Lavine and special counsel Stanley Schlein specified that this proceeding fell

under the purview of the Assembly and the Assembly alone and had not been initiated

“by either a voter objector or an aggrieved opposition candidate.”

Ranker Tannousis and a number of other members of the Minority said any issue with

Chang’s residence should have been taken up by his electoral opponent before the

general election, specifically following the petitioning period. Hugh H. Mo, counsel for

Lester Chang, agreed with the Ranker’s sentiments, asking why the question of Chang’s

residency has been raised only after his victory had been certified by the Board of

Elections (BOE). Mo stated his belief that the issue should be adjudicated not by the

Assembly but in a court of law. Mo said the only reason the Legislature is questioning

Chang’s residency is because he defeated a Democratic incumbent .

On multiple occasions, Schlein explained that the state Constitution required the

election of an individual before the Assembly can examine the member’;s qualifications.

“This is not an Election Law proceeding,” said the counsel, “it is a constitutional

proceeding.”

Mo said he was “troubled” by the Constitution’s permitting of the day’s proceedings,

again insisting it should be handled in a court of law rather than by members of the

Assembly. He said regardless of what was outlined in the state Constitution, the

electorate had spoken and should be the final word on the matter. “Are we going to

allow the public be damned?” Mo asked. Raising his voice, he asked why it was so

important Chang, a member of the Assembly minority, should be removed in the face of

the Democrats’ legislative supermajority. ”He won,”; proclaimed Mo. “Let him go!”

History and Precedent

Calling the proceedings “unprecedented,” Mo addressed a long history of anti-Chinese

sentiment and discrimination in the United States generally and New York State

specifically. Mo detailed an event from January 7, 1920, when Assembly Speaker

Thaddeus C. Sweet barred five elected socialists from taking their seats on the basis

that their ideology was against the state’s best interests. Mo declared the day’s hearing

sought to achieve the same end as Sweet’s 1920 maneuver: the disenfranchisement of

voters who cast their votes for the candidates of their choosing. “We are making history

today and we should be mindful of history,” said Mo. ”Let’s not repeat the sorted history

of 100 years ago.”

Lester Chang’s Testimony

“I am a product of Brooklyn,” Chang declared. “I lived there for at least one year before

being elected by the people.” Describing his life as the fulfillment of his parents’ vision of

the American Dream, Chang detailed his life growing up in Brooklyn in the same house

he currently lives in. He testified that he had attended Brooklyn schools from elementary

through college and discussed his 24-year service with the Navy during which he was

deployed to Afghanistan. Chang further testified on his 30 years working as a New York

City poll worker saying, “I cherish the opportunity to be involved in the most sacred right

of an American, which is the right to vote.”

Chang, whose father died when he was eight years old, said he moved back to his

family home in Midwood, Brooklyn in order to care for his mother, currently suffering

from dementia, and his legally blind uncle. He said he originally moved to Manhattan in

1993 and officially began the process of leaving the borough for Brooklyn following the

death of his wife from cancer in 2019. Chang noted that even while living in Manhattan

he maintained a room in Midwood where he still kept belongings and received mail. “I

never actually left Brooklyn entirely,” he said, “I am a Brooklynite.”

Chang said he had received no residence challenges during the petitioning period in

March of 2022 or during the process of substituting him as a candidate on the ballot.

Nor was the issue of his residency raised during the entire campaign, Chang went on,

and the BOE certified his victory the day after the 2022 election. “I hereby state and I

swear to you,” Chang emphasized for the Committee, “that I have been and continue to

be a legal resident of Brooklyn from November 2, 2021 throughout now.” He said the

documents submitted by his team more than affirm his legal residence in the

49th District.

Mo presented multiple affidavits, submitted as Exhibits 4-9, from Chang’s neighbors

attesting that he regularly resides in his Brooklyn residence as well as a pair of affidavits

from Republican Party campaign officials, Exhibits 3 and 35, which referenced Chang’s

previous residence in Manhattan but affirmed he had since relocated to Brooklyn.

Two Residences and Rent Control

“No one is questioning whether a person is entitled to maintain multiple residences,”

explained special counsel Schlein, “It is the question of which one the person selected

by objective evidence, documentation, and testimony that is reflected clear and

unequivocally as his voter address.”

In an emotional moment, Mo declared ”home is where the heart is.” Schlein would

respond that while that might be true in sentiment the case law disagreed. “You just

can’t have a New York state of mind and say .'I’m a New Yorker,” said the special

counsel, “You have to have documentation and evidence in real terms of that intent.”

Ranker Tannousis challenged this view, reminding Schlein the burden of proof rests

with the special counsel and not with Chang.

During questioning by Schlein, Chang admitted his Manhattan address was rent

controlled and maintained that he continued to make monthly rent payments on the

Cleveland Place residence. Zebrowski would follow up by asking if Chang is aware the

law mandates that a rent controlled apartment be limited to an individual’s primary

residence, adding it appeared to him Chang was either violating the constitutional

election laws or state rent laws. Responding to questioning from Mitaynes, Chang

revealed he has had the lease on his Manhattan apartment since 1993 but that it is

currently unoccupied. Walker then pointed out that rent law dictates a rent controlled

apartment must be occupied and cannot be left empty. Chang asked when he said this

to which, after a brief moment of confusion, Walker reminded him he had only just

stated this before the committee. Chang said that was correct and confirmed no one

was living in the apartment. Walker asked if Chang was aware this would exclude the

Manhattan residence from rent control provisions. No answer followed. Chang’s team

pointed to case law which have previously ruled there is no requirement that a person’s

rent controlled address also be the individual’s rent stabilized residence as well as state

law that allows individuals to vote from a second home.

Voting and Campaign Records

Evidence submitted by special counsel Schlein as Exhibit D were compromised of a

number of certified BOE documents. Among these were a two-page documents

breaking down Chang’s voting record which, Schlein explained, demonstrated Chang

had voted in New York County in 31 out of 33 elections, specifically listing an address in

Manhattan’s Cleveland Place as his residence. Schlein said the only two elections in

which Chang voted outside of Manhattan were the 2022 Republican Primary and the

2022 General Election , both in which Chang himself was a candidate. Further

documents presented by Schlein as part of Exhibit D revealed Chang’;s registration as a

Republican candidate for New York City’s 1st Council District which again listed

Cleveland Place as his home address. Shlein noted that this document was dated from

March of 2021 and thus preceded window in which Chang was constitutionally required

to reside in Kings County but nonetheless called it “of significance, indicating Mr.

Chang’s adherence to , and desire to be a representative of, the County of New York.”;

A third set of documents detailed Chang’s registration and enrollment history which

demonstrated a listing of Cleveland Place as his residence dating back to 1994. Among

these was a document signed by Chang transferring his registration from New York

County to Kings County filed with the BOE February 2022, three months after the

November 7th deadline.

Questioning Chang, Schlein asked about his voting records demonstrating a consistent

history of voting in Manhattan’s New York County as late as the 2021 General Election.

Chang responded by saying “I was registered to vote in Manhattan so I voted in

Manhattan, but my physical intent was in Brooklyn.” Schlein pointed out that Chang did

not change his voter registration until early 2022 to which Chang responded he waited

so long merely “out of convenience.”

Evidence submitted by special counsel Schlein as Exhibit E contained BOE payroll

records showing Chang’s varying roles in numerous elections, work that occurred solely

in Manhattan’s New York County. Schlein noted these records show Chang’s continued

work in New York County elections into 2022. All payments for such services, explained

Schlein, had been sent to Chang’s residence at Cleveland Place. When asked about

this under questioning from Schlein, Chang said “It’s just work” and insisted it had no

bearing on his residence. Norris asked Schlein if he was correct in understanding that a

New York City poll worker could operate anywhere in the city as long as they live in any

of the five boroughs. Schlein said that was correct.

Evidence submitted by special counsel Schlein as Exhibit K revealed a donation made

by Chang to the Zeldin for New York campaign on November 29, 2021 in which the

member-elect listed his residence as Cleveland Place, Manhattan.

During his testimony, Chang explained that his records are unclear due to the busy

nature of the time, both in his life and in the world in general. He said he had voted early

in Manhattan in October of 2021 because he was consistently on call with the Naval

Reserves to assist with COVID-19 efforts but nonetheless attested he was eligible to

vote in Brooklyn should he have chosen to do so.

The Final Report

Chair Lavine said that outside special would ultimately produce a report that will assist

the incoming Legislature in its final determination of Chang’;s eligibility to serve. To that

end, said the Chair, the committee assembled Wednesday would not make any official

determination itself.

On multiple occasions, Chair Lavine explained the final report issued as a result of the

day’s proceedings would include ”a brief statement by any member or members of the

committee.” Mo asked the Chair if he would permitted to submit a report of his own

findings to the committee. Chair Lavine said such a report would be most welcome.