Former President Trump’s indictment and arraignment renewed interest in New York’s prohibition on televising state court proceedings. But it also drew a spotlight on an annual Albany affliction: using the annual state budget process to cram through major policy change.

Section 52 of the state’s Civil Rights Law forbids televising court proceedings where witnesses are compelled to testify. Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal introduced a bill this session to allow audio-visual coverage of judicial proceedings.

But rather than go through any sort of committee process, the senator told Politico he is hopeful they could adopt his bill as part of the state budget.

But according to Hoylman-Sigal, his bill has no fiscal implications, meaning there’s no reason for including it in the opaque process under which the governor, Assembly speaker, and Senate majority leader negotiate the state budget. Legislators missing their pay checks while the budget is delayed should push to strip out the straight-up policy issues—like bail reform—allegedly holding it up. Instead, certain legislators from the Assembly and the Senate want to see things like “good cause” eviction in the final deal.

Hoylman-Sigal’s bill can stand on its own and pass through the regular legislative process. A bill to promote transparency in the courts ought to be debated transparently in the Legislature.

Legislators have introduced versions of the Hoylman-Sigal bill since at least 2011, though all died in committee. There must have been a reason. Those opposed can offer their reasons New York should be one of only two states and the District of Columbia that forbid televising trial court proceedings.

The Fund for Modern Courts published a report last year on cameras in trial courtrooms. It classified jurisdictions as open (audiovisual coverage is presumed), open with some restrictions (court approval), open with more restrictions (court approval plus participant consent or precluded by a participant’s objection) and closed (New York).

The Hoylman-Sigal bill would make New York an open jurisdiction, meaning a judge could restrict audiovisual coverage only for good cause. The senator wants the Governor, Senate Majority Leader, and Assembly Speaker to decide for everyone. After all, it’s not like the Legislature’s going to hold up the state budget over the issue.

Cameras in courtrooms is a matter worth debate. But that debate should not be restricted to two women and a man in a room.