General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Wed., June 16, 2010
If you’re getting this report on your Delaware Liberal I-Phone app, you’ll want to pull over onto the shoulder before reading this. The Delaware State Senate voted yesterday to ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. This is a signature accomplishment for this General Assembly and the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Darryl Scott and Sen. Brian Bushweller. Verizon’s opposition to this has been relentless and, up until now, successful. Rep. Joe Miro deserves special mention for having led the lonely fight for several legislative sessions. It often takes many years to overcome corporate and institutional resistance, and that is what has happened here. While a pro-forma House vote is still required, it will happen. Sen. Booth’s ‘killer amendment’, which would have made cellphone use a secondary offense, was overwhelmingly rejected, 3 Yes and 18 Nays. 18 senators voted ‘yes’ on final passage, a resounding rejection of Verizon’s tactics. I’m guessing the three ‘no’s’ were Booth, Bonini and Simpson, just because I can.
All in all, yesterday was a very good day in Dover, IMHO. HB 443(George), which significantly reforms Delaware’s minimum mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses, passed the House. This is an essential reversal of disastrous public policy. The Neanderthals who either voted ‘No’ or ‘Not Voting’: Atkins, Bennett, Briggs King, Carey, Carson, Cathcart, Hocker, Walls, Wilson.
HB 420, which eliminates ‘post-claim underwriting’, unanimously passed in the House. So did HB 41, which enumerates residents’ rights in community-based mental health facilities.
In the Senate, one of Sen. McDowell’s Green Energy bills, endorsed by Tommywonk, passed with one ‘No’ vote. I’m guessing that, in keeping with his desperate cries for attention, Bonini was that vote. I’ve decided that, from here on in, since the Senate doesn’t deign to put roll calls online, I’m within my parameters as a blogger and (let’s face it) performance artist to simply guess on votes like these. Increases the Fun Factor pour moi. And, I hope, pour vous.
While both houses hold committee meetings today, the Senate has an agenda with at least a couple of interesting bills. SB 275(Marshall) revisits a formula that has been implemented for day cares, and which he proposes to utilize for health care. The service letter concept was adopted following the the tragic death of a child at the hands of a day care provider who had a history of abuse. The provider, however, moved from job to job before actually getting fired for abusive conduct towards children. SB 275 would “…require doctors applying for licensure or relicensure to present service letters from health care facilities through which they have had direct access to patients, or admitting or staff privileges, attesting to their good character. The letters would contain information, if it exists, about any reasonably substantiated incidents involving violence, threats of violence, abuse or neglect toward any other person, including any disciplinary action taken as a result of such conduct.” In the aftermath of the Bradley disaster, this seems like a rational way to help smoke out perennially-dangerous health care providers whose conduct may fall just short of criminality or, as in the case of Bradley, who manage to stay one step ahead of the law.
SB 267(McDowell), also Tommywonk-endorsed, is on the Agenda.
Lotsa stuff in committees today. Highlights in the Senate:
Rep. Keeley’s bill barring prisoners from being counted for reapportionment purposes at their ‘current’ addresses is in the Senate Admin. Services/Elections Committee.
HB 198(Rep. D. E. Williams), which helps pave the way for a national popular vote means of electing the President, is in the Senate Executive Committee.
Several of the bills in the ‘Bradley’ package will be considered in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.
The following committees will meet, but have not bothered to post agendas: Children, Youth & Families (McDowell); Community/County Affairs (Hall-Long); Energy & Transit (McDowell); Finance (Cook); Labor & Industrial Relations (Marshall); Revenue & Taxation (Marshall). So. Out of 13 scheduled committee meetings in the Senate today, only seven have posted agendas. Is there one Senator of either party willing to come over here and explain how this is open government and how this secrecy (and/or incompetence) is good for the public? Anyone?
Let’s head over to the House, which has always been much better about these sorts of things. Highlights in the House:
Not sure I like this one in the House Greed Is Good Committee: HB 453(B. Short) would ‘update the provisions of the Delaware Insurance Code governing the conversion of a mutual insurer to a stock insurer. It is intended that new Chapter [49A] will facilitate the recapitalization of the insurance industry nationally by establishing a proven method of capital formation for insurance companies that elect to domicile in Delaware.’ Hmmm, doesn’t moving from a mutual insurer to a stock insurer tend to benefit stockholders at the expense of policyholders? After all, one way to recapitalize is to take in premiums and not pay out any claims. Stockholders love that. Policyholders? Not so much.
The House Education Committee considers legislation to reorganize the deck chairs on the Early Education Titanic in order to seek more federal funds. Sorry to sound so skeptical, but the principal reason we sent our kids to private school was the never-ending reorganizing in public education. It was kinda like “Wake me up when you stop experimenting”. Experimentation continues. Hopefully for the better but my kids are almost ready for college now.
The House Energy Committee will consider the practice of smart metering. As Rep. Kowalko has pointed out, the only people currently coming out of this looking smart are the bean counters at Delmarva. Consumers save energy, but Delmarva reaps the financial reward. IMHO, it’s hard to choose between Delmarva and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Delaware when it comes to “Most Deserving of Being Tried Under the Federal RICO Statutes”.
The House Health & Human Development Committee considers several more bills from the ‘Bradley package’ today.
Yet another bill to add more state troopers, this time with a ‘Special Fund’. Oh, and the special fund creates incentives for state troopers to stop yet more people since that’s how the positions will be funded. Sponsored, of course, by a former cop. In the former cop’s Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee. Oh, and another bill giving police chiefs more due process than you or I would ever get. Once again sponsored by a former cop.
Although, come to think of it, I’d be OK with the ‘Special Fund’ coming out of fines for hands-on cellphone use while driving. I’m all for that incentive.
OK, I haven’t been paying close enough attention, probably from all those sampling-runs I’ve been making since the glorious passage days ago. Mitchell’s a former cop?
To put it mildly:
http://legis.delaware.gov/Legislature.nsf/52087754ec8b9261852569c10055df42/2f059e17d4eab8d7852569d800535dfa?OpenDocument&TableRow=1.5.3#1.5.
A survey of 800 Delaware voters conducted on December 21-22, 2008 showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 79% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 71% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 77% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 69% among men.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#DE_2008DEC
Bulo, you’re the one with direct leg-hall experience, so maybe you can give an experienced answer (or get someone who can) to my question on another thread. All opinions about the guy aside, I am curious as to what would make a bill appear on the web site (I guess that is the same as making it official). Thanks, and a sample-cup of cheer (no, not drug-test sample) to you.
Once the bill is introduced by the sponsor, it appears online at the legislative website. It’s that simple. As of whenever you looked, Bonini had not introduced the bill. No skulduggery on anybody’s part except Bonini.
Eh, this compact even if voted on is unconstitutional anyway. One law suit and it gets thrown out. Definitely by Article 1 sec. 10, and maybe even by the 14th amendment if the electoral vote of a state goes against the majority of that state. 14th is a stretch though. Would have to prove that the state infringed on the liberties of a person.
The compact is not at all unconstitutional. The constitution specifically and intentionally gave each state legislature full authority over how to allot that state’s Electoral College votes. The National Popular Vote would simply be another method of allotting them- neither the “winner take all” nor district by district methods of allotment were in the constitution either.
That is all well and fine, but the way this legislation works, it is to make a deal with other states. Basically, if our state majority votes for party A, but all other states in the compact vote for party B, we must vote party B. It’s not maybe vote party B. Now while Article 2 does allow a state to vote how they want, Article 1 sec. 10 does not allow “interstate compacts” without a vote by congress.
The reason this would fall under article 1 sec. 10 is because it takes the states choice out of it, especially within six months of a presidential election.
The question now becomes, which article has higher precedence.
Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
The U.S. Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power—much less federal supremacy—in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
Interstate compacts are legally enforceable on the states because the U.S. Constitution requires a state to honor all commitments that it makes in an interstate compact. The Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”