Melanie George Shows How It’s Done
Legislating, that is. This is a case study in how a good legislator gets good (if not optimal) legislation passed.
Rep. Melanie George (D-Bear) appears to have begun the inevitable reversal of short-sighted and draconian drug laws in Delaware. Legislation requiring minimum mandatory drug sentences was bullied into law by Cultural Warrior Know-Nothings Jane Brady, Tom Sharp, Wayne Smith, and Jim Vaughn. Anyone daring to suggest that these laws went too far risked being labeled ‘soft on crime’ by the Four Demagogues of the Narcapocolypse.
Over time, even some of those who had once enthusiastically embraced harsh minimum mandatory sentences began to rethink their positions. Especially when hundreds of millions in Bond Bill $$’s went to prisons instead of to schools and transportation projects.
Still, the risk of being labeled ‘soft on crime’ has prevented any serious move towards allowing judges to do what judges are supposed to from being implemented. Until now.
Earlier this session, Rep. George introduced HB 168, which would have repealed minimum mandatory sentences, and restored sentencing decisions to the judiciary. I consider it to be the best and bravest bill introduced during this legislative session. Best, because it reversed disastrous but popular public policy, and bravest, because it lent itself to misrepresentation by opponents.
Unfortunately, it simply didn’t have the votes to pass despite bipartisan sponsorship. I thought that was the end of it.
But Rep. George persisted, and put together a working group consisting of the stakeholders in this legislation, including many who had opposed HB 168.
The result is HB 443, which, while not eliminating minimum mandatory sentencing, makes significant improvement over the current statute. It creates a “structured system of felony offenses” in place of the ridiculous current ‘one size fits all’ approach, and it “…provides that ‘mere possession’ of a drug would only be a misdemeanor”. It would also eliminate mandatory sentences for some first-time offenders. The bill also imposes harsher sanctions on narcotics traffickers.
The mere fact that HB 443 has attracted Senators Cook and Venables as co-sponsors (both were conspicuously absent on HB 168) suggests its improved chances for passage.
Rep. Melanie George worked very hard and very wisely on this bill. Rather than publicly castigate her colleagues (hey, that’s what bloggers are for) or lament her fate, she did the kind of detail work essential to find consensus on a difficult politically-charged issue. Believe me, what she did isn’t easy, and it’s something that most legislators are unable or unwilling to do.
HB 443 is a quantum improvement in public policy over the status quo. It deserves to be passed.
And Melanie George deserves appreciation for all those who believe in a system that metes out justice fairly and impartially.
Well-played, young lady.
This is a great story. What can we do to help get this passed?
Per usual, contact your Rep. and urge them to support it. My rep (B. Short) is on the bill as a sponsor. UI’s rep, Oberle, is not, which is kinda surprising. Regardless, either ask them to support it, or let ’em know that you appreciate their support.
If/when it gets to the Senate, rinse, lather, repeat.
“bravest, because it lent itself to misrepresentation by opponents.”
You’re smarter than this. It’s pretty easy to be “brave” when you’ve had a safe, cozy district carved out for you by Daddy’s pals.
“Rather than publicly castigate her colleagues…”
Yet another of your cheap shots, this one at Kowalko? Again, with her safe seat, she can afford to think long-term. If Daddy is any guide, she’ll either die in elective office or get an even better-paying, cushier job from Mark Braindead.
That district is gonna change in 2012. Districts have to become less safe when you’re in the majority, and more than 25 caucus members are clamoring for favorable lines. You can draw much safer D districts when you’re in an R majority and you’re trying to cram as many D’s into safe districts as possible in order to carve out enough districts to retain an R majority in a state trending more D.
Wasn’t thinking about Kowalko, or any particular legislator for that matter. I was referring to the quiet manner that she went about doing this. Had no idea she was even working on this at all until I opened today’s News-Journal. In fact, do you know that John Kowalko, and ONLY John Kowalko, had the class to call me when I outed myself here? I like John Kowalko, always have. Any criticism of him has been intended as constructive, regardless of how it’s been interpreted.
And, Geezer, you know damned well that I’ve been very critical of both the shenanigans that went into the drawing of her district and the Del-Tech/legislative connection.
Doesn’t change the fact that she’s a pretty effective legislator, and she’s chosen to take on some thorny issues.
“Districts have to become less safe when you’re in the majority…”
They don’t necessarily, especially for the Democrats. The GOP had the difficult juggling act of trying to create safe seats despite having a minority of registered voters. Democrats can spread things out much more easily, especially in NCCo, because of their registration advantage. I’ll wager right now that, despite all the Democratic advantages, you will not see reapportionment used to create another black-majority district. They might carve up Brandywine Hundred differently, to the detriment of Lavelle, but that will just be payback for the gerrymandering under Wayne Smith, who loved community schools but not community legislators.
Melanie’s only “problem” will be keeping her district while she looks for a bigger and better home (remember John Arnold?) And this “thorny” issue certainly won’t hurt her in her bid for a judgeship, will it?
If you weren’t thinking of Kowalko when you mentioned going to the press, who did you mean? The Republicans? They’re generally not interested in doing anything other than for show. Going to the press is the only thing they do. Whereas Kowalko has occasionally gone public when he can’t get his caucus on his side. If that’s not what you meant, then accept my apology.
anybody wanty to add substance to the discussion?
what about Delaware Drug Laws are “Draconian”?
are there really man-mins for users or is that just what dealers claim to be on thier first bust?
Is ten grams of coke in your pocket a typical friday night or are you a dealer?
what is wrong with man-mins for dealers?
What I meant was, that in my time in the General Assembly, it’s rare when a major legislative issue doesn’t have support enough to bring it to the floor, but a legislator can quietly work behind the scenes to cobble together such a strong alternative. It has been done, but I doubt that more than 10 of the current 62 legislators, to be generous, have the wherewithal to do it. Especially when it’s an issue not being driven by the Governor’s office.
As to the black majority district issue, there’s a certain irony there. Based on population, you can (and I think, should) craft a black majority district in the greater Dover area. There was at least one reapportionment draft plan back in 2001 that would have done exactly that. The irony is that it might well work to the detriment of Rep. Don Blakey, an African-American Republican. I DO think that there will be one less D district in Wilmington as well. Combining the Wilmington portions of both the Brady and Keeley districts would ensure that there would be no further loss of minority representation in the General Assembly.
As to reapportionment, both the Middletown area and Sussex County are again most likely to be where population growth might require adjustments. I think it’s pretty likely that there will be some RD consolidation in the northwestern part of NCC, which is the R’s remaining stronghold. I would also hope that reapportionment would lead to at least one less district in Western Sussex, where Wayne Smith was able to eke out another district using the plus/minus 5% formula.
“what is wrong with man-mins for dealers?”
It’s not a deterrent, and therefore adds lots of bodies to prison populations without curbing drug sales. Show me a city or state in which drug sales have slowed because “all” of the dealers have been locked away and you’d have an argument to support the position. Instead we have an issue on which rock-headed politicians — as many of them Democrats as Republicans, and Tom Sharp the worst of the lot — postured to look tough.
anybody wanty to add substance to the discussion?
OK Ishmael I would love to.
what about Delaware Drug Laws are “Draconian”?
Delaware Drug laws are among the harshest in the Nation approaching the New York “Rockefeller Laws” which are undergoing change.
are there really man-mins for users or is that just what dealers claim to be on thier first bust?
Your Statement/Question makes no sense. There are Minimums for certain forms of posession.
Is ten grams of coke in your pocket a typical friday night or are you a dealer?
Again you ask for substancce but make little logical sense.
what is wrong with man-mins for dealers?
What is a “dealer” and what is a low level supplier?
Most low level suppliers are doing so to support their own addiction and would benefit as would society from treatment.
Currently the Dept of Corrections is housing hundrds of low level drug offenders sentenced under current man min laws at $35,000 per year each. These offenders can be treated at a one time cost of $15,000 and put back in society to pay ther fines and taxes and become productive members of society.
Rep George has it right.
JP
you started out so hopefully, but then nothing.
10 grams of coke is the threshold for the man-min (3yrs)
having never been a drug user, I am inclined to accept the State’s postion that anyone with 10+ grams is planning to sell rather than use… but I am open to contrary evidence.
The suggestion that some dealers consume their own product does not make me more sympathetic.
“what is wrong with man-mins for dealers?”
The cops, and ass munch prosecutors try and make all busts look like the perp is a dealer or distributor.
Draconian drug laws peddled by irresponsible politicians are why we are the most incarcerated of nations.
While Americans are 5% of the world’s population, we account for nearly 25% of the world’s prisoners.
Land of the Free. Not really.
Ms. George should be supported and commended for this bill.
So deal with my explanation, Ish. Explain why locking up so many dealers has not spelled the end of dealing.
same reason locking up car thiefs doesn’t end car theft
or locking up rapist doesn’t end rape
or murders doesn’t end murder.
speeding tickets don’t stop all speeding, but they get the rest of us to pay a little more attention to the posted limit.
so FBH, your saying 10 grams is just a fun friday night and not evidence of intent to distribute?
Rape and murder don’t have economic incentives. Car thefts do, but the prisons aren’t full of car thieves, nor are we giving them mandatory 10-year sentences. Speeding tickets stop almost no speeding. And every one of those crimes has an unwilling victim, unlike drug sales.
Getting the idea yet? Your lock-’em-up philosophy is financially unsustainable. Guess it’s worth it for you to come off as a tough guy, though, eh?
Ishmael, mandatory sentencing has lowered other crimes but not dealing and using. As for 10 grams that is not dealing very much if at all. Do you buy groceries every meal? Why would you assume that some druggie wouldn’t buy their weeks worth of drugs when they get paid? I do not have a great deal of sympathy for people who would take that kind of risk, but they are drug heads. If they had sense, they wouldn’t be. The question is why should I support them at the cost of 90k and not make me one bit safer.
If I am going to pay for them then rehab is cheaper. I really am not coming from a poor drug user point of view. I am just looking at does it work to keep us safer or not? Is it cost effective or not? Does it help rehabilitation or not? The answer seems to be not.