General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., March 27, 2013
And to think that I was gonna cut back on covering the legislative beat. Whatever was I thinking? Every day, huge stories, two of ’em yesterday:
1. State Senate votes to repeal Delaware’s death penalty statute.
By now, the story has been told elsewhere on this blog. 11-10 passage, here’s the roll call. A big shout-out to State Senator Cathy Cloutier. I hope that she finds that voting one’s conscience can be liberating. Also to Senate Minority Leader Gary Simpson and Ernie Lopez. For that matter, to all 11. We needed all of you. And, to Karen Peterson, I don’t know what to say other than I wish there were at least 10 more like you in the Senate.
By now, you also know that an amendment passed that will keep Delaware’s current 17 death row inhabitants subject to the death penalty. I know that the amendment was needed to pass the bill. I get that. However, not being a lawyer, I have one or two questions of law for those of you who are. By keeping these 17 people, and only these 17 people, subject to the death penalty, haven’t you made this in essence a ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in the legal sense? No one coming after them will be subject to this penalty, should SB 19 be signed into law. Plus, the punishment won’t just be unusual, it will be non-existent.
Don’t get me wrong, I strongly support SB 19, and I understand the political need for the amendment. Just trying to understand the legal implications that it could create.
2. The Obama-ization of the House Democratic Caucus appears complete.
Yesterday afternoon, I get this press release from them:
DOVER – After months of meetings and hours of public testimony, House Democratic leaders announced several amendments Tuesday that they will add to legislation requiring background checks for virtually all gun sales.
The amendments to House Bill 35 are a direct result of lead sponsor House Majority Leader Rep. Valerie Longhurst meeting with officials from the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the National Rifle Association’s local affiliate, numerous phone calls and e-mails from constituents and from nearly three hours of public testimony in which 75 residents and advocates spoke about the measure.
“There is a belief that we are not speaking to or listening to the concerns that gun owners have. That is absolutely not the case,” said Rep. Longhurst, D-Bear. “We have met with the NRA multiple times. They raised several concerns and brought several amendments, and we are incorporating some into the legislation.
“We also heard several legitimate concerns from residents during last week’s hearing, specifically about selling to licensed collectors and prohibiting the state from registering firearms, and we drafted additional amendments based on that testimony. That is what the public process does – it allows residents to voice their support and concerns about legislation, and we ultimately can craft a stronger bill that is fair to all Delawareans.”
HB 35 would require that a background check be performed in connection with the sale or transfer of any firearm, regardless of whether the transaction involves a licensed dealer. Supporters are incorporating several suggestions offered by the NRA and through public testimony into HB 35, including:
- Explicitly providing that the state shall not establish a system of firearm registration;
- Exempting from the background check requirement persons who have a valid concealed carry permit;
- Reducing the maximum fee a dealer can charge for a background check from $50 to $30;
- Providing that transfer records cannot be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act;
- Defining “transfer” to clarify that handing over a firearm for repair, certain short-term loans and transfers upon death of the owner are not transfers requiring background checks;
- Prohibiting fees when a repaired firearm is returned to its owner, or to return a firearm to its owner when a person fails a background check during a private sale;
- Allowing persons with “bona fide” religious objections to photo IDs to undergo fingerprint background checks through the State Bureau of Identification, addressing concerns voiced by the Amish community;
- Exempting sales of curios and relics to licensed collectors, which was a concern raised during last week’s hearing;
- Providing due process for firearms dealers.
“This shows that we have listened to the NRA’s and gun-rights advocates’ concerns, and where there is agreement, we are making those changes,” Rep. Longhurst said. “The question now is whether the NRA will join us in supporting this common-sense measure to help keep firearms out the hands of people who should not have them, or if they will simply stand in the way of taking reasonable action.”
HB 35 is scheduled for a floor vote in the House on Thursday. The amendments are expected to be filed by Wednesday to allow the public time to review them.
Of course, the answer is that, no, the “the NRA will (not) join us in supporting this common-sense measure to help keep firearms out the hands of people who should not have them.” It will pass anyway, but with the unnecessary emasculations frittered away by the side with the votes. Memo to Rep. Longhurst and friends, this is not me talking, this is the direct quote from Wayne LaPierre of the NRA:
“We must declare that there are no shades of gray in American freedom. It’s black and white, all or nothing.”
The NRA knows their enemy. The House Democratic Caucus apparently doesn’t. Jeez, shades of Harry Bleepin’ Reid.
Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report.
Time to see what’s happening in committees today, starting with the Senate:
The Senate is poised to push through the Governor’s revenue enhancement package, including his sop to the rich, starting with today’s meeting of the Senate Finance Committee. “Forget it, Steve, it’s Greenvilletown.”
I’m strongly in favor of lucidity, but rarely have I seen it in a bill as an admission that current language in the Delaware Code is, um, not lucid. SB 11 is in the Senate Community Affairs Committee, and here’s the synopsis:
The primary objective of this legislation is to clarify some of the existing wording of Title 29, Chapter 79A. Cemetery Registration and Distressed Cemetery Fund. The proposed legislation would make the objectives of the Cemetery Board lucid by clarifying the board’s objective, nature of board member duties, as well as the board’s powers.
Presumably, words like ‘decontextualize’ and ‘heuristic’ need not apply.
The Senate Education Committee will consider SB 27, which would “authorize the Department of Education, pending available funds, to offer competitive two year start-up grants to public schools for the purpose of developing new programs for students capable of performing accelerated academic work.” Paging Mike Matthews, Joanne Christian, and the other education experts on DL…
The Senate Executive Committee considers HB 10(Keeley), which restores voting rights to convicted felons who have paid in full their debts to society. This is the second leg of this constitutional amendment. If it passes the Senate, it becomes law.
The Senate Judiciary Committee considers two firearms-related pieces of legislation, both relating to lost or stolen firearms. SB 16(Henry) would ‘require owners of lost or stolen handguns to report such loss or theft within 48 hours of discovery. Owners may report such loss or theft to the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction, or to any State Police Troop.’ SB 18(Peterman) ‘makes clear that it is a class A misdemeanor to falsely report to a law enforcement agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen. The Act also increases the penalty for providing a false statement to law enforcement that a firearm has been lost or stolen intending to prevent, hinder or delay the investigation of any crime or offense.’ Good bills, I hope they both get reported out of committee.
And now to the House:
John Atkins is not just ‘law-abiding’, he is patriotic. How patriotic? He bravely defends the American flag against all evil interlopers with HB 44, which would ‘permit(s) a real property owner or tenant to display an American flag on a pole attached to the exterior of the property’s structure or on a flagpole located within the property’s boundaries, provided the flagpole does not exceed 25 feet in height and conforms to all setback requirements. Any and all community restrictions to the contrary will not be enforceable.
That’ll show those bleeping Commies! In today’s House House Administration Committee meeting.
We’ve previously talked about HB 23(Hudson). I would consider anything less than a unanimous vote in both houses of the General Assembly unacceptable. Excellent sunshine legislation, and most needed. In today’s House Education Committee meeting.
The General Assembly’s latest attempt to make sense of its bail enforcement statutes will be considered in today’s House Judiciary Committee meeting in the form of HS1/HB39(Keeley). The lawyers are clearly having a difficult time in getting it right, so this may not be the final version, if there ever is a final version, of this bill.
At first glance, I like HB 32(Longhurst) which, among other things, ‘updates and streamlines the State’s Oil Pollution Act by eliminating a monetary cap for liability for damages.’ However, some of the legalese gives me pause, especially when it comes to the ‘elimination of duplicative provisions’. In today’s House Natural Resources Committee meeting.
Coming tomorrow: A presumably-emasculated HB 35 on the House Agenda.
More drama, hopefully less capitulation.
Tags: Delaware death penalty repeal, El Somnambulo, gun control Delaware, lucidity, Rep. John Atkins Delaware, Sen. Cathy Cloutier Delaware, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Karen Peterson Delaware, Steve Tanzer Delaware
HB 50 (the income tax bill) is also going before the Senate Finance Committee today.
When will SB 6, in its current form that now has the governor’s support, going to be assigned to a committee and brought through the House?
Ezra, when I mentioned the governor’s ‘sop to the rich’, I was referencing HB 50.
I see it now – missed it twice, a lot happening!
The exact same Bill as SB27 (HB 46) met strong and valid opposition in the House Education Committee last week and failed to get released. I imagine that this is no more than an end run around the well thought out opposition to this bill in the House.
I will be posting a letter presented to the House Education Comm. expressing reasons to oppose this poorly thought out “competitive grant” (the rich get richer and finite money is not available for the needy think RTTT)
Here’s the letter.
Gentlemen
I am asking that you do not support the most recent bill concerning competitive grants for gifted education. Brandywine’s gifted program has undergone several manifestations over the last ten years because of the original acceptance into the program by means of a very subjective placement test. I knew quite a bit about the inadequacies of the test when I was in a daycare in Wilmington and many of my parents over the years had their children take this test.
However, this bill has several inadequacies which could result both in the same kind of issues happening on a statewide level, but also illustrates what has happened to gifted education in Delaware and why.
Rep. Scott, as an ex- school board member, I’m sure you are familiar with much of what I say.
Many years ago, when my daughter was in elementary school, gifted education through the districts was accommodated by a line item in the district budgets. Later- maybe 1998 or 2000?- this was eliminated and districts used the Academic Excellence Units to pay for their gifted teachers. (Districts were awarded excellence units based on student population and they could be used to hire teachers or turned in for “cash” allowing districts to either buy teachers for specific programs or buy a specific program.) While parents of gifted children weren’t always pleased with this, as districts prioritized their excellence units for what they considered necessary, at least there was some method for districts to afford special teachers and special programs.
However, in 2009, EVEN AS THE STATE HAS STRESSED DISTRICT FLEXIBILITY in financial matters, excellence units were eliminated from the school budgets, almost eliminating any kind of real flexibility. This has caused countless problems- evidenced most recently in the loss of reading teachers from the budget and districts inability to maintain them through EUs.
I was acutely aware of how my district used EUs as I was head of the gifted/talented program in Christina for two years- when we hired 18 certified G/T teachers and introduced the Schoolwide Enrichment Model to Delaware as the prime method for reaching talent in our schools. SEM offered services to 20% of the populations in EVERY elementary school in the district, and a six week program for all students in the building. This is a program that has been impossible to continue under the reduced funding districts currently receive.
I could go on and on about the disadvantages and fallacies of competitive grants in public education. It always hurts more than it helps. It is just wrong for children in schools where we are pledging to help ALL children, and offer ALL children an equal advantage. Most important for you as legislators to realize, however, is that it is unnecessary. Districts have been asking for, and offering, ways to fund educational needs. This bill is going to be jumped on by parents and others who feel that this will be the quick fix to solve the G/T problem, and finally get some money for their children. And parents have a justified claim- there should be money for G/T education. The bill, however, should be focused towards ALL districts, and should be addressed in Joint Finance or the Bond committee.
I have attached an article and the study behind it concerning US student test scores. As the leading members of the Education committee I hope you will read these and ask your colleagues in the education committee to do the same. It is time we stopped bashing our education system and started realizing it’s not all that bad. We do ourselves no favors- and I am speaking specifically of Delaware right now- by expressing to the world that our schools and our teachers are in such dire need of improvement. It is simply not true. We have now and we have always had great public education in Delaware. We all sent our children to these schools, didn’t we? Certainly my children are shining examples of what the Christina schools have been able to do!
The announcement this morning of Astra Zeneca moving workers out of Delaware I firmly believe highlights the problem of negative advertising on our school systems. If we insist that our district, our teachers, even our colleges need to be restructured or taken over on a continual basis- and that is exactly what has happened over the last 5 years, why would companies want to locate here? No amount of financial bribery will suffice.
We need to give our schools what they say they need and start telling the world how great they are. The statistics are there. Please read the reports. For far too long leadership has been relying on insufficient and skewed data. The truth is that top students do well, and poor students are improving faster than those in other countries (and the US enrolls and tests a much higher percentage of children in poverty than most other countries in the PISA). Reading is competitive word-wide. Math in the US is competitive with math in European countries and while it is doesn’t equal Korea, the emphasis on language literacy in the US puts it at a natural linguistic disadvantage with Asian languages.
While we should always work to improve, we should be proud of our academic accomplishments (compare Nobel Prizes) not by continuing the failed practice of competitive grants but by providing districts with a solid financial structure to do the job they know how to do.
Thank you for reading this. I know it is long- but you guys are among the elite readers in the world!
Connie Merlet
14 Kells Ave
Newark DE 19711
302-737-2396
Representative Longhurst continues to disappoint. Anyone know a good candidate in her district?
She’s vulnerable, all right. A ‘name on the ballot’ got 42% in 2012 with no money.
If someone with some name recognition and $$’s takes her on in a primary, she could lose. There would likely be people in her own caucus helping her opponent.
She’s made a lot of enemies in Dover and beyond, mainly b/c she treats people like shit.
Why are you treating executions of murderers as a litmus test? Can reasonable Democrats, even liberals, not support capital punishment?
No.
The only argument that I’ve heard for the death penalty that hasn’t been debunked (like deterrence, bargaining tool in plea negotiations, or cost effectiveness) is some variation of revenge or just punishment. If you’ve heard any others, I’d be glad to talk about them with you. Our justice system is not meant to be a vehicle for blood feuds and angry vengeance.
Beyond that, support for capital punishment shows a great deal of faith in our neighbors as a jury to correctly identify perpetrators. Which would be very poorly placed confidence, as by some estimates, they get it wrong 10,000 times every year (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm). Even if you just reduce that to cases when they’ve recommended death, and then that sentence has also been carried out, more than 36 people have been unjustly murdered by a jury of their peers (http://web.archive.org/web/20100627053204/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/Executinginnocent/). Practically 1 every single year. Stop and consider that there is no reason whatsoever that you should feel exempt from this. There is every chance that one day, you might be the person that the justice system completely and utterly fails. I don’t see any way that we can fix this error rate, so I also don’t believe such a serious and permanent option should be on the table. The life we save might be yours.
So, no, I don’t think that supporting the state-sanctioned murder of citizens can be called reasonable. You might hold some liberal views, but I don’t think I could take anyone seriously who both supports capital punishment and identifies as a liberal. All kinds of people call themselves Democrats, but reasonable? No. Not reasonable.
SW, it is A litmus test, not THE litmus test.
What worries me is that Sen. Poore sought and received the endorsement of PDD, and received all sorts of support, both monetary and volunteer. She presented herself as a progressive.
You are right that one vote does not change that.
However, I AM concerned that she listens too much to the Bethany Hall-Longs of the senate. Hall-Long represents a Newark/south of Newark district, yet all too often votes her Millsboro roots (born and raised, related to Uncle Thurm) than progressive principles.
For me, I want to see that trend stopped ASAP. Otherwise, we may have yet another D in a strongly-D district who is not as progressive as her district.
Again, the death penalty dies in the House Judiciary Committee (no pun intended). Your thought?
Looking at the House Judiciary Committee membership, I think it would be more likely to get through there than any other likely committee assignment. Even if Walker and Mitchell don’t vote it out, it would have the votes, I think. Also, keep in mind that someone voting to release the bill for floor consideration is not the same as supporting the bill on the floor.
El, Walker will be influenced by Longhurst, Poore, BHL, Carson and Q. Johnson. She will not be the stand out in that region. Her husband is also law enforcement. Mitchell, retired NCC cop and past state FOP Chairman. Smyk, retired DSP and former Troopers union President. Paradee, conservative district west of Dover. Speigelman and Wilson, two conservative pro death penalty Republicans. I understand they can vote it out of committee and vote NO on the bill but not on a bill of this importance without the police groups slamming them. I just don’t see it. Do you?
Those are your 6 NO votes to kill it in committee.
There are five certain, or near certain, yes votes. Mitchell, Walker and Paradee would ALL have to vote no. I think Mitchell is the most likely yes. Yes, he had a law enforcement background, but he is also someone who was almost elected speaker with the support of progressives. Paradee’s district, as Paradee himself will tell you, is a lot less conservative than one would think, and includes a lot of people who have moved here from states like New Jersey. And Walker has displayed more independence than you’ve given her credit for.
You’re right, it’s by no means a slam-dunk, but you’re way overstating the case that the bill is DOA. Let’s keep in mind that, unless the calendar has not been updated, a distinct possibility when dealing with Legislative Council, the bill hasn’t officially been assigned to committee yet, and there are other possibilities than Judiciary. It’s up to the Speaker.
In the 21st century with the forensic science we have and DNA testing there is no reasonable excuse to do away with the death penalty. If someone takes a human life, any human life other than self defense they should be put to death period.
HB35 should have had an amendment to include current active and reserve military personnel. Most of these citizens undergo more background checks, security clearances then any other citizen does including law enforcement officers.
No one cares Billy boy- no one
Remember DNA WAS NIT AVAILABLE 25 years ago- so your day all those people triaed and convicted and sentenced to death should have been executed
Now look- progress in science gave us a tool we didn’t have not could have thought of 20 years ago
What tools will we have in 35 more years?
Short- sighted – put your bifocals back on
DNA profiling was developed in 1984 by British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffreys, and first used in forensic science to convict Colin Pitchfork in the 1988 Enderby murders case. So doing the math DNA profiling WAS AVAILABLE 29 YEARS AGO AND IT WAS USED 25 YEARS AGO TO CONVICT A MURDERER.
The vast majority of murder cases don’t involve DNA. Even in the few cases where DNA is available, mistakes can still be made. The DNA evidence that eventually cleared Kirk Bloodsworth was thought to have been destroyed. Eventually, it was found in a paper bag in the judge’s chambers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Bloodsworth
Humans are far from perfect and a criminal justice system dependent on human judges, prosecutors, defenders, witnesses, experts, and juries is going to make mistakes. We can’t undo a mistaken execution.
El, you’re badly mistaken if you even think there’s even a remote chance that Mitchell votes to release this bill from committee. As past state president of the FOP there’s no way he will vote against the heavy police lobby on this bill. Zero chance.
You’ve asked and I’ve answered the same question twice. We disagree. Move on.
Hey there…
Last week I spoke against HB 46 in its present form. Aside from myself, a majority of the legislators on the House Education Committee also voiced concerns regarding this bill and made those concerns known. That bill was tabled and it’s reappeared in the form of SB 27.
I’ve noticed that some of my suggestions have been added to this new bill. I’m still hesitant to throw my support behind it because too many of our high-needs, Title I schools will likely fall by the wayside. There needs to be a specific mechanism of outreach to the high-poverty schools to engage them in these programs.
As it stands now, schools GENERALLY receive the same number of educators/funding based on unit counts. Too many of our Title I have forego their Gifted and Talented programming because they have to have more reading specialists to remedy the lower reading abilities at these schools. Schools with higher poverty/Title I schools have more need for reading specialists, so principals staff their schools as such and gifted and talented gets thrown to the side. I do not fault principals for this. They are doing WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE to get their kids up to grade level in reading.
I am still troubled by the phrase “competitive grant.” I’ve been told I should stop comparing this to Race to the Top, which has been an almost complete mess in our public schools. I will continue making the comparison. I realize there is language in the bill now which speaks to sustainability. That’s good, but we really need to talk about how we can add this type of funding as a line-item in the budget. Fat chance of that happening anytime soon with Gov. Markell at the helm.
I echo John Kowalko’s sentiments above. I’m leery about SB 27. It’s a better version of HB 46, but it still leaves more questions than answers.
Mike – Have you found the budget sequester hitting Title I ? Even though Federal spending in schools is minimal, reading specialists seem like they would be on the front lines of that.